Patriot Party: DabbingSanta/GregTheGreat ticket

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Federalist Party has done more for the working class of Atlasia, than Donald Trump ever lied about wanting to do only turn around and sell them out to the very establishment he vowed destroy.

Don't forget I voted for Trump in 2016 in both the primary and the general. He lost me, through his failures and corruption. I work retail making $13 an hour and nobody is going to lecture me about being anti-worker.

Donald Trump talked about re-instating Glass Steagal to reign in the big banks, I actually did it with nearly complete Federalist support when we had the majority.  

Donald Trump talked about doing infrastructure and then repeatedly failed. We passed numerous infrastructure related bills under the then Fed DFW and Fhtagn's administrations.

Donald Trump did actually manage to cut some regulations, but I will wager Federalist Mr. R was more effective at it.

Donald Trump and Republicans talked about consolidating and eliminating government agencies, nothing Trump or the Republicans have done in real life in the past thirty years of empty promises, can compare to deal I made with Scott and passed again under then Fed DFW's Presidency that reduced federal bureaucracy and duplication in health care.

Donald Trump promised to reform healthcare and he choked, outsourcing it to the Paul Ryan's of the world and the think tanks. Again working in a bipartisan fashion with Scott, we actually pulled off, minimized the federal governments footprint, helped those who needed it and brought the regions to the table

Donald Trump promised to cut the deficit, but increased it massively. Both of my Presidential administrations were net zero on the debt and we implemented and adhered to strict paygo rules while we were in the majority.  


Over the course of 2016 to 2018, the Federalist Party adapted to Trumpism by incorporating most of all of the pro-worker and economically populist as well as conservative items that Trump championed. We then proceeded to achieve and enact most of those policies, working often in a bipartisan fashion, during that period in which we controlled the Government (2017-2018 especially), while at the very same time Trump was failing abysmally to do the very same things in spite of him being Mr. "Art of the Deal".

We also did it while respecting the Constitution, the law, the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary and the rights and powers of the regions. If you truly believe that constitutionalism, legalism and separation of powers make us weak, then you are misguided. Constitutionalism, legalism and separation of powers MAKES US THE PEOPLE STRONGER by making the government weaker. Congregating power in one place makes government stronger and makes the people and the regions weaker. I want the people to be stronger.


The reason why we have spent three years in the minority since then has nothing to do with us being "anti-worker" or "fake conservatives", we are at once more populist and more conservative than Donald Trump has been. No, the reason we have been in the minority in game is precisely because of Donald Trump. Trump pushed a generation of lefties onto the forum, JK2020/Sestak recruited them all into the game and Labor has dominated the game ever since.

You look at Trump and see a champion for your side, I look at Trump and see a disaster who failed to meet his most basic promises and relies on hollow branding and marketing to keep people like you thinking he is a hero. He is every bit as corrupt and criminally so as the people he is nominally opposed to, the so called establishment.

Donald Trump is not the person who will take on the establishment anymore, Donald Trump IS THE ESTABLISHMENT.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You look at Trump and see a champion for your side, I look at Trump and see a disaster who failed to meet his most basic promises and relies on hollow branding and marketing to keep people like you thinking he is a hero. He is every bit as corrupt and criminally so as the people he is nominally opposed to, the so called establishment.

How could you say something like this and not expect to lose conservative support?  You are proving my point, Senator.  

Conservatism is not defined by love of Trump. Conservatism is an ideology, a political philosophy, a behavioral standard and a way of life. All of those come before support or devotion to any single mortal man.

For conservatism to succeed in game, it has to be self aware as to what constitutes conservatism here separate and apart from the real life demographics (Atlasia votes like New York State in real life mind you). Trumpism is a niche sure, but it is not the whole affair and success will surely depend on maintaining a degree of unity with people who cannot stand Trump, that your approach doesn't account for. There has always been a sizeable contingent of Never Trumpers, and now there is probably an even larger contingent of "Post Trumpers" (people like myself who supported Trump at one point and now want to move on).

I don't believe in cancel culture. I will never prevent you or anyone else from embracing Trump or Trumpism, but on the flip side, however I demand for myself and the others the right to speak our minds likewise.

I also don't do safe spacing. I voice my opinions, I encourage you to voice yours. But I will stand up for myself and I won't be silenced.

I have also been saying the same things about Trump for two years now, as stated in the above post about him being corrupt (I think all politicians are crooks with few exceptions) and relying on hollow marketing to maintain his support.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Conservatism is not defined by love of Trump. Conservatism is an ideology, a political philosophy, a behavioral standard and a way of life. All of those come before support or devotion to any single mortal man.

For conservatism to succeed in game, it has to be self aware as to what constitutes conservatism here separate and apart from the real life demographics (Atlasia votes like New York State in real life mind you). Trumpism is a niche sure, but it is not the whole affair and success will surely depend on maintaining a degree of unity with people who cannot stand Trump, that your approach doesn't account for. There has always been a sizeable contingent of Never Trumpers, and now there is probably an even larger contingent of "Post Trumpers" (people like myself who supported Trump at one point and now want to move on).

I don't believe in cancel culture. I will never prevent you or anyone else from embracing Trump or Trumpism, but on the flip side, however I demand for myself and the others the right to speak our minds likewise.

I also don't do safe spacing. I voice my opinions, I encourage you to voice yours. But I will stand up for myself and I won't be silenced.

I have also been saying the same things about Trump for two years now, as stated in the above post about him being corrupt (I think all politicians are crooks with few exceptions) and relying on hollow marketing to maintain his support.

I don't think we can say what works or doesn't work in Atlasia until its tried.  My ultimate goal is not to win the election outright, but to gain support on the right, energize the base, and boost turnout for conservative causes.  I feel like a segment of the community has been totally ignored for too long, and the Federalists have taken that for granted.  You cannot say with a straight face that trying to appeal to moderates is the answer after losing eight straight elections, right?  Plus, the closest elections where Federalists actually stood a chance, with LouisvilleThunder and YoungTexan, they ran pretty hard to the right compared to more moderate candidates like OSR and Joseph Cao or Federalist endorsed Peace candidates.

I respect your views on IRL politics, and you certainly have a right to say what you wish.  I am not preventing you from doing so.  While I am embracing Trumpism for my campaign I feel like we should be able to differentiate between fun in-game rhetoric and real life politics.  I support Trump right now, but I have not always held a favorable view of him.  My in-game character is for fun, because, well, this is a game, and it's supposed to be fun, right?

I know and like Young Texan, but remember that Young Texan is historically perceived as a Bush Republican, has used Bush 43 as a persona in game and has in the past promoted more moderate approaches on issues like immigration and abortion. I am probably more conservative then Young Texan on abortion and certainly more populist than him on China, trade, immigration and foreign policy. This is not to criticize him mind you, merely to state that impressions can be subject to interpretation and Young Texan was very discerning in terms of his outreach to various targeted audiences.

Likewise, Louisville Thunder had just come out of a very successful bipartisan reform effort that restructured congress and created the sub regions, which created a lot of good will among more centrist voters. He also faced the epitome of urban neoliberal in the form of Seven Eleven.  By contrast Cao faced the much more populist lefty Scott, who among other things is pro-gun in contrast to Sev. Cao also faced a centrist boycott of the Federalist Party by the DA, which was enacted in reaction to LT's actions immediately after his narrow loss in June.


Also when it comes to the very "discord disengaged voter strategy" approach you criticized the Federalists for doing in the other thread, no one utilized this approach more than Young Texan. Even to the point of making conflicting promises on more than one occasion that we have had to clean up in various ways. My desire has always been to move back towards a more engaged voter base but the exigencies of competing with the left, the constant desire of the right to abandon the forum and the big difficulty is answering what the tangible actions to actually convince people to make that shift back to the forum, is always the big stumbling block that no one can answer. It is low effort to mill around on discord threads, it requires much more effort to actually campaign on AFE board, create and maintain a newspaper thread, or run some kind of advocacy type group.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You cannot say with a straight face that trying to appeal to moderates is the answer after losing eight straight elections, right?

No, because no one action is going to account for this registration gap:

Labor 69  =  32.5%
Pax   8 =   3.77%
Revolutionary Communist 17 = 8%
Total Left 94 = 44.30%

DA 20         9%

Ind 17        8%
Others 18     8%


Feds 63  =   29.17%

44%-29%-10%-20%


There are a number of lefties among the Independents and Others, plus the present DA boycott against the Federalists. If you were to take the time to parse through indies and others, the numbers probably come out like this

51%-34%-15% or that ballpark, which is almost exactly what the At-large Senate results came out to by the way. This is why I don't think turnout mattered as much because the result so closely matched the registration situation.

What I have said for years is that you need:
1. Strong Turnout
2. Strong Recruitment to at least match the other side (there are very people joining the site at all right now)
3. A dialogue with the center that enables you get to 50% and be in the hunt so to speak.

YT was very aggressive on the outreach, maximized defections and pushed the enveloped for every vote possible, an "All of the Above" strategy. I was not directly present for YT's efforts as I was sick with Covid at the time, but I did see some of LT's. So rather than this being some kind of Goldwater or such hard line campaigns it was more of a micro-targeted approach and a more mainstream approach overall. Kind of like Glenn Youngkin more than Donald Trump.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't support national mandates but those who say "my body my choice" when it comes to COVID-19 regulations and those who oppose a national mandate as "tyrannical" are doing the same when they ban wearing masks in schools or ban all COVID regulations at the federal or state level.

^^^ This

You cannot decry mandates on the one hand and then turn around and issue mandates yourself. Either you are against government tyranny or you are for it. Just because it does what you want it to do, instead of what Labor wants doesn't change the fact that you are using the iron boot of the government to enforce your will on the people, the iron boot of the federal government on the regions and the iron boot of the executive over the other branches of the federal government.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Centralist Right Rises Again!

Colin Wixted would be proud.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

> Condemns Federalist support for neoliberals
> Celebrates the victory of a Neoliberal

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We have establishment candidates of both major parties spreading lies and misinformation about the Patriot agenda, targeting new members of my party with fake news and propaganda.  Let me clear up everything and tell you the truth, like I always do.

The projection here is off the charts.

On the subject of Lying:
You claimed exclusive credit for a victory that people in at least two other parties helped to bring about, not to mention the candidate in question.

On Hypocrisy
You backed and supported a candidate under the exact same model as that which you condemned the Federalists for doing.

You want to go beyond just removing federal mandates and want to mandate what the regions do through executive tyranny. I faced down the radical left and the centralists at least six different times in defense of the regions and won each time.

Centralism
You advocated a top down mandate on the regions of this country, which sends shivers down the spine of members of the Regionalist/Federalist movement (which has been the back bone of conservatism in Atlasia since 2008).

Executive Tyranny
You advocated an act of executive overreach in violation of the constitution and the legislative powers, which sends shivers down the spine of conservatives who remember the days of "Turno Pacific" when centralists and radical Laborites hijacked a region and "Bloody July", when the Department of Justice abused its powers to aid a communist rebellion among other things.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

> Condemns Federalist support for neoliberals
> Celebrates the victory of a Neoliberal

He helped elect a social Democrat who's probably to the left of S019.

Hilarious own goal.

There was hidden joke there hence why I capitalized in the second line and not the first to emphasize one was a name and the other an ideology. I was going to also put it in scare quotes as well but I forgot them since I was in a hurry before work.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Chaos does generate activity I suppose.

Chaos generates a short term bump in activity followed by a prolonged tail of misery, inactivity and despair.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The streets are peaceful. What "social justice madness"?

The communist party got 17% of the vote in the October elections.  Anarchist groups and secessionists like Wulfric wish to disrupt the nation's social order, regardless of your acknowledgement.

Yes, the radicals and centralists always come back to threaten the peace and stability of the region. The question is do you understand the formula to stop them and have the experience dealing with them to do so, or do you unwittingly play into their hands by legitimizing many of the tactics historically employed that group?

Also, not that I would ever expect either of our justices to sign off on a president repealing laws with executive orders, but what you are advocating for is tyranny and lawlessness.

I would argue that passing a national vaccine mandate is tyranny.  What's worse is that everyone supports it.  How I repeal the mandate when I win bigly is up for debate, but if an executive order is determined to be unconstitutional, I will seek other legal ways to get it done.

WTF are you smokin?

Vote on Final Senate Passage of the Immunization Act of 2021:

Aye (11): S019, Scott, Kuumo, Western Democrat, KoopaDaQuick, Weatherboy, FalterinArc, OBD, tack50, Pericles, discovolante
Nay (7): AGA, Old School Republican, Spark, DeadPrez, Muad'dib, Joseph Cao, North Carolina Yankee
Abstain (0)

Also lol on "whether or not I become dictator is up for debate".

Chaos does generate activity I suppose. Just keep in mind that Trumpism and Trump-like behavior will not help the right win any elections and refusing, as a new player, to learn how the game works doesn't earn you any friends or supporters.

I'm not here to make friends with the establishment.  The voters are largely not engaged with what's happening anyway, so it all comes down to first appearances and turnout drives.  I know my chances of winning outright are near zero, but I feel my candidacy can boost turnout and help conservative causes win, as what happened this week when Utah Neolib defeated S019.  Remember, federalists endorsed Utah Neolib before Greg came along, who I might add was inspired to run by my amazing new party.

You didn't give a crap about my justifications for support Cao, who is at least right of center, but you can obfuscate voting for a social Democrat after condemning us over Cao and you celebrating said Soc Dem's victory? And no "Feds supported him first" isn't going to cut it BECAUSE YOU were the one who objected to us endorsing non conservatives. You won't escape the hypocrisy charge on this.

You cannot at the same time you object to endorsing anti-Labor left on principle, celebrate the victory of anti-labor left.

I would consider listening to Yankee, though. He's seen this movie before.

no

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXIjE_gDw94

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Chaos does generate activity I suppose.

Chaos generates a short term bump in activity followed by a prolonged tail of misery, inactivity and despair.

That awkward moment when I've been the source of much chaos in Yankee's Atlasia life over the last 2ish years

at least it's not me this time?

You dealt with 2018 YT while I was with my dying mother and not available to deal with bullsh@$t, I think that is worthy of some extra patience in return.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You are aware that The South has a near blanket criminal ban on abortion after 14 weeks, and just passed a civil heartbeat ban, right? So second trimester largely cannot be aborted there.

Lincoln is somewhat pro-choice but still has a very strong 20 week ban recently upheld by SCOA, plus born-alive protections.

Not sure on the exact strength of Fremont's statute (apparently it has a 24 week ban but I haven't read it), and the Federal Government has a gentleman's agreement to not legislate on the topic and leave it to the regions, but again, at least 2 of those regions, unlike the RL US, actually do notably restrict the practice.

Yes, I am aware that it is currently characterized as a regional issue and that state level legislation regulates the legality.  However,  I still believe that it's still an issue worth addressing at the national level, given that 2nd trimester is still common in Lincoln and Fremont.  I would be willing to violate convention and encourage nation level restrictions on this issue.  

This was the game that Foucaulf tried to play in 2015 from the opposite direction.

He ran hyper anti life but pro-regionalist and tried to wedge conservatism apart in game to satisfy the wishful thinking of the AtlasforumIRC cult's quest for centralism ever after. They assumed we would second preference him and help him into the final round to beat Labor and he might have done so even.

However, we ran a devout federalist who was solidly pro-life and and solidly pro-region, and powered him into the final round. It gave labor that election, but it enabled the federalist conservative revival that would dominate the game from 2016 to 2018. Sometimes you do have to stand on principle and sacrificing one wing of the plane for the sake of the other half will just crash the plane and let the leftists and centralists laugh all the way to the bank.

I have seen it happen. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I started this campaign because I felt like the Feds were ignoring a significant portion of their base, and that this is why they keep losing.  I still believe this.

Aren't you doing the same thing though?

You have now twice said you would subordinate regionalism to other concerns. Life and personal choice are important yes, but so is resisting the slow drip of centralized power in Nyman, DC.

Aren't you doing the very same thing by essentially picking and choosing what part of the base to stick it to?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This reads as a veiled threat to boycott the Patriot Party ticket entirely, even if we are beating the Federalists (which seems rather unlikely at the moment).  Would you support President Scott over my ticket in the final round?  

If Greg the Great was on the ticket, as someone who has publicly expressed concern over growing executive power, it would be far less concerning. However, the repeated disregard for small f federalist concerns shows something of a concerning pattern.

In 2015, Labor wanted us to directly vote for them to defeat Foucaulf, but I realized that this was only going to play into the centralist cults hands. AtlasforumIRC was spreading lies about us being socialists and what not and if we directly backed Labor, they would succeed in further splintering and absorbing the right into their radicalist/centralist sponge strategy in the name of "defeating Labor uber alles".

That is why we pushed JCL so hard and got him ahead of foucaulf. I don't think many Feds second preferenced labor, though a number left it blank (foucaulf was like militantly pro-choice, surely you of all people can understand why that would be a problem for our socially conservative members), and the point was not to be seen embracing the Labor agenda, but opposing it on our terms with our philosophy of federalism at the forefront.

You would never get so lucky as for me to vote for Scott over you. That would be a gold mine and I didn't get this far by being stupid.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

IMO Cao lost since he announced his bid relatively close to election weekend and thus lost the support of DAers who had endorsed (and voted for) Scott when it was assumed that Spark would be the Federalist candidate.

Also, Scott, being pro-gun, makes him an exceptionally strong Laborite candidate and highly appealing to swing voters.*

*since while Atlasia is heavily left-wing, Atlasia is about 50/50 on guns with a sizeable pro-gun Laborite minority and likewise, there is a substantial minority of pro-life and anti-PC Laborites (at least in my opinion).

Atlasia has a different political alignment from real life, its almost like there is a sizable rural contingent that votes on issues like unions and workers rights and thus the left party has a large pro-gun and even pro-life contingent like the Democrats did 20 years ago. Perhaps this is an indicator of what a Democratic Party could be if it wasn't dominated by donors and neoliberals.  Pro-gun socialists and leftwing populists.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

IMO Cao lost since he announced his bid relatively close to election weekend and thus lost the support of DAers who had endorsed (and voted for) Scott when it was assumed that Spark would be the Federalist candidate.

Also the obvious reality is that Cao/OSR just aren't as aggressive vote hunters as YT/LT. They are more like ATlasia of yore, put yourself out there, do a little GOTV and you were competitive. Now its all about GOTV and AFE board has declined with less campaigns, less speeches, debates, etc.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

IMO Cao lost since he announced his bid relatively close to election weekend and thus lost the support of DAers who had endorsed (and voted for) Scott when it was assumed that Spark would be the Federalist candidate.

Also, Scott, being pro-gun, makes him an exceptionally strong Laborite candidate and highly appealing to swing voters.*

*since while Atlasia is heavily left-wing, Atlasia is about 50/50 on guns with a sizeable pro-gun Laborite minority and likewise, there is a substantial minority of pro-life and anti-PC Laborites (at least in my opinion).

Atlasia has a different political alignment from real life, its almost like there is a sizable rural contingent that votes on issues like unions and workers rights and thus the left party has a large pro-gun and even pro-life contingent like the Democrats did 20 years ago. Perhaps this is an indicator of what a Democratic Party could be if it wasn't dominated by donors and neoliberals.  Pro-gun socialists and leftwing populists.

The Democratic Party is not really dominated by neoliberals, at all. The misuse of the term neoliberal is something that really irks me since it's used in so many ways to discredit the successes of the Third Way Left of the 1990s and early 2000s. Anyways, putting that aside, neoliberalism at its core involves market liberalization and arose as a consequence of the excesses of Keynesian economic policy as practiced by left-wing parties (referred to in some countries as the Post War Consensus). The stereotypical neoliberals are not Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, but Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Really all use of the term does is discredit much of the progress made by the global left during the 1990s.

Who reformed welfare, unleashed a wave of outsourcing on the textile and other industries and set the stage for the Great Recession by signing two major pieces of financial deregulation in his term?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

IMO Cao lost since he announced his bid relatively close to election weekend and thus lost the support of DAers who had endorsed (and voted for) Scott when it was assumed that Spark would be the Federalist candidate.

Also, Scott, being pro-gun, makes him an exceptionally strong Laborite candidate and highly appealing to swing voters.*

*since while Atlasia is heavily left-wing, Atlasia is about 50/50 on guns with a sizeable pro-gun Laborite minority and likewise, there is a substantial minority of pro-life and anti-PC Laborites (at least in my opinion).

Atlasia has a different political alignment from real life, its almost like there is a sizable rural contingent that votes on issues like unions and workers rights and thus the left party has a large pro-gun and even pro-life contingent like the Democrats did 20 years ago. Perhaps this is an indicator of what a Democratic Party could be if it wasn't dominated by donors and neoliberals.  Pro-gun socialists and leftwing populists.

The Democratic Party is not really dominated by neoliberals, at all. The misuse of the term neoliberal is something that really irks me since it's used in so many ways to discredit the successes of the Third Way Left of the 1990s and early 2000s. Anyways, putting that aside, neoliberalism at its core involves market liberalization and arose as a consequence of the excesses of Keynesian economic policy as practiced by left-wing parties (referred to in some countries as the Post War Consensus). The stereotypical neoliberals are not Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, but Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Really all use of the term does is discredit much of the progress made by the global left during the 1990s.

Who reformed welfare, unleashed a wave of outsourcing on the textile and other industries and set the stage for the Great Recession by signing two major pieces of financial deregulation in his term?

Well I believe we need to look back at before the 1994 Republican Revolution, when frankly the Republican Revolution forced Clinton's hands on many of these issues. His 1994 budget, while yes cutting spending, did implement sizable tax increases. To the degree that the left did practice neoliberalism, which okay maybe Clinton did, but really none of the other Third Way leaders (Blair, Schroder, etc.) did, it was a different type than the right practiced. Sure Clinton did not raise taxes back to their pre-Reagan levels of 70%, because the party was of course different, and sure it had to concede some matters on economics to the right given the clear failure of the Keynesian Consensus, but overall, this is a pretty reductive view of the left of the 1990s. On the point of outsourcing, that was basically inevitable as globalization increased and fighting it was a fools errand. When you're forced to concede some of your economic policy since it clearly failed, you'd rather not swim against the current, so that's the first thing you'll concede. Anyways blaming the Global Financial Crisis simply on the repeal of Glass Steagall is not exactly the best reasoning. The legislation had already become significantly weak by the time of its repeal, so it would've done little to stop the risky lending that would balloon during the first half of the 2000s. On the topic of the GFC, we should note that America was far from the only place with let's say not-ideal economic factors, as we of course saw with the Southern Europe disaster. Lastly, the market does ebb and flow, and expecting housing prices to rise forever, especially in the context of all of these risky loans, is just unrealistic. Maybe both parties share blame, maybe the market cycle shares blame, maybe it's a mix, but one thing is for sure, there were far more factors than the repeal of Glass-Steagall that contributed to the GFC.

It wasn't just Glass Steagal, it was also the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which legalized many of the same classes of derivatives that were at the heart of the meltdown. Clinton also pushed irresponsible lending as did Bush who followed him, but the housing market's impact on the rest of the economy was only made possible thanks to the exposure to mortgage backed securities and the proliferation of these in the early to mid 2000s, thanks to the deregulation signed by Clinton in the 1990s.

 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

IMO Cao lost since he announced his bid relatively close to election weekend and thus lost the support of DAers who had endorsed (and voted for) Scott when it was assumed that Spark would be the Federalist candidate.

Also, Scott, being pro-gun, makes him an exceptionally strong Laborite candidate and highly appealing to swing voters.*

*since while Atlasia is heavily left-wing, Atlasia is about 50/50 on guns with a sizeable pro-gun Laborite minority and likewise, there is a substantial minority of pro-life and anti-PC Laborites (at least in my opinion).

Atlasia has a different political alignment from real life, its almost like there is a sizable rural contingent that votes on issues like unions and workers rights and thus the left party has a large pro-gun and even pro-life contingent like the Democrats did 20 years ago. Perhaps this is an indicator of what a Democratic Party could be if it wasn't dominated by donors and neoliberals.  Pro-gun socialists and leftwing populists.

Atlasia has a ton of things, but I don't think "a sizable rural contingent" is one of them

"Almost like" serves a purpose in there Tack. As in a bunch of decidedly non-rural people who are registered in Western states and embrace certain rural populist issues.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will step in to say that from a purely strategic perspective I think this running mate selection is probably the first major misstep you’ve made. At the moment your biggest weakness is that you’re completely unknown on the forum; mostly just active on discord and haven’t really done anything even on this board before this; thus it’s harder for people to take you as a serious actor. I will credit you for working to break this perception with sustained activity on the board since you founded this party.

However an ideal choice for both the running mate here and also for a general partner in running this party would ideally be someone who has a lot of credibility to on-forum conservatives and is seen as at least a semi-serious forum user. Instead this pick does the opposite. I’d think again about this if I were you.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing where you’re able to take this.

I appreciate the analysis.  I had numerous people in mind for VP, including a Federalist candidate from a recent presidential election, but everyone I approached expressed zero interest.  FDB was the first person to be interested in running.  I think there's fear about upsetting the establishment and how that could damage their future political aspirations.  Yankee and the old players still have a lot of influence on the game.  While two outsides might seem like a bit much, it does send a strong message to the establishment that there's big discontent about how things are being run around here.

Maybe they are concerned about your centralist statements.

Also I run an open leadership team. Fhtagn was my Vice Chair and YT/LT were outsiders in 2018. Then YT became my co chair for a while and LT has been my Vice Chair since early 2020.

The barrier is activity and competence. Anyone who is interested can become part of Fed leadership. If you had come up to me a month ago and said "hey there are problems here that need to be addressed" and offered to put in the effort you could easily be fed leadership today . I got more open positions then the real life American economy right now.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also the Atlasian right is rather tight nit. I have known fhtagn, R for four years. Most every conservative in this game was recruited by Justice PiT or by someone he recruited.

That is why you are going to struggle with an anti Yankee narrative built on mischaracterizations. It isn't fear, I don't operate based on fear and have routine been assailed by Adam for being too easy going on people. It's more that this place is like a bar where everybody knows your name.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

-   I do not support federalism.  We need some form of intervention and power at the federal level to introduce meaningful policy change.  Supporting conservativism but believing that state level governments should have total control does little for those living under Labor rule.

> Says he doesn't support Federalism
> Procedes to decry Regionalism instead

Federalism /= Regionalism in all circumstances, though historically the Regional and Federalist Movements have been closely alligned.

For example, secessionist movements are an example of hyper regionalism, federalism opposes secessionism but also opposes the hyper centralism that leads people to seek secession in many cases. Federalism is precisely about balancing powers between the regional and central authorities.

Endorsing Centralism "for the sake of those living under Labor rule" is a license for labor to centralize authority under the same vein and since they have the muscle (and historically have had the muscle excepting the period of 2016-2018, to dominate the Presidency), you will get centralism yes, but with Laborism being the philosophy backed up by Nyman's brute force.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mostly based

I'd prioritize different issues (immigration, trade, and guns)

Feel free to shoot me a message with ideas.  I am open to adding positions on the platform, especially from fellow party members.

May I say, as LT's running mate back in June, that there was no fraud in that election. Sev won fairly and I want no part in any "big lie" redux.

LT did not refuse to concede the election for no reason.  The moderator in question who invalidated the votes was a Labor supporter. It should have been pursued, but the weak Federalist party did not want to back him up.  He is welcome to join the Patriots if he wants!  With better election laws, there will be zero election fraud.  Every vote should count.

No moderator invalidated your vote. Peebs invalidated your vote on the grounds that you posted twice in the voting booth, contrary to the election laws. This was evidence by the fact that the deleted vote was visible in the recycled posts board.   

I had a strict no deletion/editing policy in the voting booth until after certification from the time I became Board Moderator, this actually annoyed Virginia and others who like for reported posts to be acted on as soon as possible.

Whatever you may think of me, don't think for a minute that I had a hand in "invalidating your vote". You did that to yourself.

Virginia has since removed the ability to delete posts in the voting booth sub board, so what happened to you can never happen again, because you physically cannot delete your own vote.

Now the only area where people can screw themselves over and others in the process is via editing too late (20 minutes or afterwards).  

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mostly based

I'd prioritize different issues (immigration, trade, and guns)

Feel free to shoot me a message with ideas.  I am open to adding positions on the platform, especially from fellow party members.

May I say, as LT's running mate back in June, that there was no fraud in that election. Sev won fairly and I want no part in any "big lie" redux.

LT did not refuse to concede the election for no reason.  The moderator in question who invalidated the votes was a Labor supporter. It should have been pursued, but the weak Federalist party did not want to back him up.  He is welcome to join the Patriots if he wants!  With better election laws, there will be zero election fraud.  Every vote should count.

No moderator invalidated your vote. Peebs invalidated your vote on the grounds that you posted twice in the voting booth, contrary to the election laws. This was evidence by the fact that the deleted vote was visible in the recycled posts board.   

I had a strict no deletion/editing policy in the voting booth until after certification from the time I became Board Moderator, this actually annoyed Virginia and others who like for reported posts to be acted on as soon as possible.

Whatever you may think of me, don't think for a minute that I had a hand in "invalidating your vote". You did that to yourself.

Virginia has since removed the ability to delete posts in the voting booth sub board, so what happened to you can never happen again, because you physically cannot delete your own vote.

Now the only area where people can screw themselves over and others in the process is via editing too late (20 minutes or afterwards). 

You can't even edit your ballot after that period anymore (obviously exempting you as mod). So actually the only way to invalidate your vote is to post in a voting booth twice.

There is no reason to change the election laws in any significant way. We just need good-faith attempts at making our voting intentions clear and good-faith interpretation of those ballots. But yes, problems we've had in the past are less likely to occur today.

I know you've felt differently but I don't believe there is any appetite for restricting ballots in any way such as those that contain personal attacks or comments. Though it should be discouraged so that people will air their grievances in AFE.

"Felt differently" what does this last paragraph even refer to?