March referendum

[West_Midlander]

It's a shame there hasn't been public debate on a serious constitutional change, thank you Poirot for your posts.

I would like to redouble these sentiments.

To give more details about it. This version of the proposed amendment was introduced very late in the last senate session with no debate at all. The vote on this was basically being rushed so this could pass in the lameduck session.

There were 24 hrs for objections to the amendment and no one did. Any Laborite Senator could have if they were active enough to do so. The vote passed 13-3 on cross-partisan lines.

[West_Midlander]

It's a shame there hasn't been public debate on a serious constitutional change, thank you Poirot for your posts.

I would like to redouble these sentiments.

To give more details about it. This version of the proposed amendment was introduced very late in the last senate session with no debate at all. The vote on this was basically being rushed so this could pass in the lameduck session.

There were 24 hrs for objections to the amendment and no one did. Any Laborite Senator could have if they were active enough to do so. The vote passed 13-3 on cross-partisan lines.

Well, nothing that I said was false. There was no debate at all and this was basically rushed in a lameduck session.

What an utter lie. The thread was 8 pages. It was debated at length.

[West_Midlander]

It's a shame there hasn't been public debate on a serious constitutional change, thank you Poirot for your posts.

I would like to redouble these sentiments.

To give more details about it. This version of the proposed amendment was introduced very late in the last senate session with no debate at all. The vote on this was basically being rushed so this could pass in the lameduck session.

There were 24 hrs for objections to the amendment and no one did. Any Laborite Senator could have if they were active enough to do so. The vote passed 13-3 on cross-partisan lines.

Well, nothing that I said was false. There was no debate at all and this was basically rushed in a lameduck session.

What an utter lie. The thread was 8 pages. It was debated at length.

Not the final version of the bill. Blackraisin proposed an amendment that completely reshaped what was previously written. And then there was no discussion about it and just a final vote just before the end of the session.

No objection to an amendment often means that the majority of the Senate is in favor and it did receive a 13-3 vote in favor. Unless you believe I should object to every single Laborite amendment even if it's something popular across the board because it needs to be debated to death even if there's a big consensus?

If the amendment was so bad why did so many vote for the final bill? Why did no Laborite Senator object?

[West_Midlander]

It's a shame there hasn't been public debate on a serious constitutional change, thank you Poirot for your posts.

I would like to redouble these sentiments.

To give more details about it. This version of the proposed amendment was introduced very late in the last senate session with no debate at all. The vote on this was basically being rushed so this could pass in the lameduck session.

There were 24 hrs for objections to the amendment and no one did. Any Laborite Senator could have if they were active enough to do so. The vote passed 13-3 on cross-partisan lines.

Well, nothing that I said was false. There was no debate at all and this was basically rushed in a lameduck session.

What an utter lie. The thread was 8 pages. It was debated at length.

Not the final version of the bill. Blackraisin proposed an amendment that completely reshaped what was previously written. And then there was no discussion about it and just a final vote just before the end of the session.

No objection to an amendment often means that the majority of the Senate is in favor and it did receive a 13-3 vote in favor. Unless you believe I should object to every single Laborite amendment even if it's something popular across the board because it needs to be debated to death even if there's a big consensus?

If the amendment was so bad why did so many vote for the final bill? Why did no Laborite Senator object?

Also, without an objection, the amendment would take effect in 24 hours. The Senate isn't always drowning in debate every single 24 hours.

My point is it was intentionnally rushed so this could pass in the previous session. It's easy to have unanimous consent when most senators (INCLUDING MY OWN PARTY) aren't being active.

Why did Labor run such inactive would-be Senators in the December election then?

[West_Midlander]

Also, with 16/18 Senators (89% of Senators) voting on the final bill the claim of an inactive Senate as a whole, across party lines, is pretty inaccurate. And 2 Labor Senators did show to vote against the bill. Only two Senators did not vote.

[West_Midlander]

Also, with 16/18 Senators (89% of Senators) voting on the final bill the claim of an inactive Senate as a whole, across party lines, is pretty inaccurate.

Well it is. You can vote because someone told you to vote that way without having to read the bill at all.

How do you explain the difference between the vote in the senate and the amendment going down in flames in the two regions then?

Labor is GOTVing against the amendment and telling voters how to vote (against it), which is something you supposedly don't like. Or are you really going to try to claim that isn't the case?

[West_Midlander]

Also, with 16/18 Senators (89% of Senators) voting on the final bill the claim of an inactive Senate as a whole, across party lines, is pretty inaccurate.

Well it is. You can vote because someone told you to vote that way without having to read the bill at all.

How do you explain the difference between the vote in the senate and the amendment going down in flames in the two regions then?

Labor is GOTVing against the amendment and telling voters how to vote (against it), which is something you supposedly don't like. Or are you really going to try to claim that isn't the case?

Welcome to the Labor Party, uh, *checks notes* Christian Man, AGA, and Cokeland Saxton!

So Labor didn't GOTV against the amendment? What a complete lie. Good to know Labor's still lying to the public.

[West_Midlander]

Also, with 16/18 Senators (89% of Senators) voting on the final bill the claim of an inactive Senate as a whole, across party lines, is pretty inaccurate.

Well it is. You can vote because someone told you to vote that way without having to read the bill at all.

How do you explain the difference between the vote in the senate and the amendment going down in flames in the two regions then?

Labor is GOTVing against the amendment and telling voters how to vote (against it), which is something you supposedly don't like. Or are you really going to try to claim that isn't the case?

Welcome to the Labor Party, uh, *checks notes* Christian Man, AGA, and Cokeland Saxton!

So Labor didn't GOTV against the amendment? What a complete lie. Good to know Labor's still lying to the public.

Of course we GOTV'd against this abomination of an amendment. Sorry you lack basic reading comprehension there.

There's only one little group of people who supported that garbage by any measurement approaching unanimity. Even a third or more of both conservatives at-large and/or Federalists opposed it (which shows you how horrid, toxic and dumb this amendment was in the first place).

If you want to make the argument that ~35% of right-of-center Atlasians went against such garbage because Labor gave them marching orders, then you're free to do so - but it'll either further lower your perceived intelligence among everybody who knows better, or make your own party seem incredibly effete to those who don't. I don't recommend either course of action, personally!

Ultimately, 70% of voters who mattered rejected this cancer. That includes many conservatives. Labor helped pad the margins and ensure its defeat, but such a dumb idea was never going to pass when even 53% of non-Laborites opposed it as well!

It's not a good look to suggest that you're the smartest person in the room as you and your partisans often do. Typically, it's the most objectively ignorant who think they're the smartest, and people know just how much they don't know the more they actually do know. To be clear, the latter example is not meant as a suggestion of my intelligence (or lack thereof) which I am not commenting on whatsoever.

Your comments and those of Devout Centrist also reinforce voters' preexisting views of your party as ungracious in victory.

[West_Midlander]

Also, with 16/18 Senators (89% of Senators) voting on the final bill the claim of an inactive Senate as a whole, across party lines, is pretty inaccurate.

Well it is. You can vote because someone told you to vote that way without having to read the bill at all.

How do you explain the difference between the vote in the senate and the amendment going down in flames in the two regions then?

Labor is GOTVing against the amendment and telling voters how to vote (against it), which is something you supposedly don't like. Or are you really going to try to claim that isn't the case?

Welcome to the Labor Party, uh, *checks notes* Christian Man, AGA, and Cokeland Saxton!

So Labor didn't GOTV against the amendment? What a complete lie. Good to know Labor's still lying to the public.

Of course we GOTV'd against this abomination of an amendment. Sorry you lack basic reading comprehension there.

There's only one little group of people who supported that garbage by any measurement approaching unanimity. Even a third or more of both conservatives at-large and/or Federalists opposed it (which shows you how horrid, toxic and dumb this amendment was in the first place).

If you want to make the argument that ~35% of right-of-center Atlasians went against such garbage because Labor gave them marching orders, then you're free to do so - but it'll either further lower your perceived intelligence among everybody who knows better, or make your own party seem incredibly effete to those who don't. I don't recommend either course of action, personally!

Ultimately, 70% of voters who mattered rejected this cancer. That includes many conservatives. Labor helped pad the margins and ensure its defeat, but such a dumb idea was never going to pass when even 53% of non-Laborites opposed it as well!

It's not a good look to suggest that you're the smartest person in the room as you and your partisans often do. Typically, it's the most objectively ignorant who think they're the smartest, and people know just how much they don't know the more they actually do know. To be clear, the latter example is not meant as a suggestion of my intelligence (or lack thereof) which I am not commenting on whatsoever.

Your comments and those of Devout Centrist also reinforce voters' preexisting views of your party as ungracious in victory.

You personally just want to argue and hate on Labor no matter what, lol. You've shown this both on the forum and in Discord for ages. Stop trying to turn it into some philosophical quandary. There've been 100 just like you before and - inshallah - 100 more to come.

And oh no: I guess after 11 years of people being mad at us for simply existing, subsquently winning and ultimately bucking their blind hatred of us (because, almost always in the context of this game, we are both better and smarter than most), the comments in this thread from DC & I will finally be what takes us down for good! #AbandonAllHope #LieborIsDiebor

This just proves my point. It might help to try to be humble at least once. Unabashed holier-than-thou positioning and "I'm so smart" is a sign of real insecurity. Being humble once in a while isn't a sign of weakness. It's just a sign of being down to earth. Again, to be clear, I'm not talking about myself at all (i.e., not saying I am better or worse than anyone else at this; this is just some insight).

And to be clear, I oppose Labor because the leadership has been, and is, toxic and extremely authoritarian in how they interact with the game and other players. The party's leaders have always been so vitriolic as long as I've been in the game and it's just tiring. As a final note, I used to like you, when I was in Labor, but it soon became clear that you utterly despise anyone not in Labor, but there's nothing I can say to encourage you to curb that. (Though I would stop very short of saying I hate you, or anyone else here; I'm more neutral toward you, especially outside of the game context).

[West_Midlander]

Also, with 16/18 Senators (89% of Senators) voting on the final bill the claim of an inactive Senate as a whole, across party lines, is pretty inaccurate.

Well it is. You can vote because someone told you to vote that way without having to read the bill at all.

How do you explain the difference between the vote in the senate and the amendment going down in flames in the two regions then?

Labor is GOTVing against the amendment and telling voters how to vote (against it), which is something you supposedly don't like. Or are you really going to try to claim that isn't the case?

Welcome to the Labor Party, uh, *checks notes* Christian Man, AGA, and Cokeland Saxton!

So Labor didn't GOTV against the amendment? What a complete lie. Good to know Labor's still lying to the public.

Of course we GOTV'd against this abomination of an amendment. Sorry you lack basic reading comprehension there.

There's only one little group of people who supported that garbage by any measurement approaching unanimity. Even a third or more of both conservatives at-large and/or Federalists opposed it (which shows you how horrid, toxic and dumb this amendment was in the first place).

If you want to make the argument that ~35% of right-of-center Atlasians went against such garbage because Labor gave them marching orders, then you're free to do so - but it'll either further lower your perceived intelligence among everybody who knows better, or make your own party seem incredibly effete to those who don't. I don't recommend either course of action, personally!

Ultimately, 70% of voters who mattered rejected this cancer. That includes many conservatives. Labor helped pad the margins and ensure its defeat, but such a dumb idea was never going to pass when even 53% of non-Laborites opposed it as well!

It's not a good look to suggest that you're the smartest person in the room as you and your partisans often do. Typically, it's the most objectively ignorant who think they're the smartest, and people know just how much they don't know the more they actually do know. To be clear, the latter example is not meant as a suggestion of my intelligence (or lack thereof) which I am not commenting on whatsoever.

Your comments and those of Devout Centrist also reinforce voters' preexisting views of your party as ungracious in victory.

You personally just want to argue and hate on Labor no matter what, lol. You've shown this both on the forum and in Discord for ages. Stop trying to turn it into some philosophical quandary. There've been 100 just like you before and - inshallah - 100 more to come.

And oh no: I guess after 11 years of people being mad at us for simply existing, subsquently winning and ultimately bucking their blind hatred of us (because, almost always in the context of this game, we are both better and smarter than most), the comments in this thread from DC & I will finally be what takes us down for good! #AbandonAllHope #LieborIsDiebor

This just proves my point. It might help to try to be humble at least once. Unabashed holier-than-thou positioning and "I'm so smart" is a sign of real insecurity. Being humble once in a while isn't a sign of weakness. It's just a sign of being down to earth. Again, to be clear, I'm not talking about myself at all (i.e., not saying I am better or worse than anyone else at this; this is just some insight).

You're not making a point we haven't been making for a decade. We treat our people well and crush our enemies. And contrary to what you might think, we don't think everyone who isn't Labor is an enemy. That term has and always has had a very defined and concrete meaning for us that requires action on their part proactively. And building a Fantasyland dynasty doesn't involve being humble, just in case you're wondering!

And you've had a problem with Labor ever since it elected you Southern Governor - and for whatever reason - you decided to immediately do multiple really dumb things to cater exclusively to the right, followed by someone sending you a PM asking why are were doing such - to which you flew off the handle, left the party and accused people of bullying you or whatever, lol.

But your story is not unique. Virtually every left-of-center person with an axe to grind against Labor who has been in the game for a couple of years or more has the same backstory: someone who used us to achieve their own personal endeavors, took advantage of our voters and infrastructure, was perfectly happy to participate in everything we do that makes the aforementioned possible, and then only after achieving such or being done with their personal ambitions, betrayed us and suddenly decided "oh Labor is bad [?]" (whether it be because "they're bored" or just hate when anyone expects equivalent commitment). It's really sad and laughable. We reward consistency and loyalty, and in exchange - all too often - our reward is betrayal via hypocrisy.

I was being offered to be Labor General Secretary around the time I left the party, and I could have risen in the ranks if I just toed the party line, so I obviously didn't leave the party to gain anything, and I won't apologize for being a Governor for all of my constituents, and not just Laborite Southerners.

Furthermore, your assertions in bold are just false. If you're referring to DFW messaging me, I just took his comments (asking me to be an Indy instead of leaving the party) into account but didn't change my mind about joining the Feds because of them. IIRC, you're getting the timeline of events wrong, or you're misrepresenting what happened on purpose because it's easier to lie than to confront the political opposition as anything else than supposedly unreasonable.

And tbf, you can be politically successful without being personally vitriolic. Success doesn't mandate being toxic. Cao proved just that when he won his two terms as President. Also, why would this (center-leftists leaving Labor) keep happening, as you so often mention, if Labor doesn't have a toxicity problem? Are people just eager to cast the party which elected them and which could re-elect them to the wayside for chaos' sake? This wasn't true in my case and this isn't the case for others. It's a pretty ridiculous worldview to suggest that "everyone opposed to me is irrational."

[West_Midlander]

Fair enough. Cao as an example was just meant to show that you don't have to be toxic to win, although being toxic works, I suppose.

In closing, I don't think it's quite accurate to imply that everyone who turned against Labor was equally as toxic as the leadership. It's overly reductionist to imply that anyone opposed to you must be a hypocrite.

It's also very possible that many who leave Labor would rather lose or be in a minor party than stand for more politically successful toxicity. The goal of a third party, also, is to be the kingmakers, if not to become a top-two party. For the past few years, this has been the case in Atlasia; furthermore, you didn't deride the DA, for example, but only when they were working with y'all. If you have critiques of them now as a supposed vanity project of the party's leadership then the same critiques, which I don't agree with, you were willing to ignore then, unless your statements now are only made out of political convenience.

The same is also true of Peace. Peace allied to Labor is A-OK but independent Peace is a vanity project which will inevitably fall apart in your estimation.