With the understanding that saying a statement twice warrants a query, partially to minimize risk of misinterpretation, partially to deny the insinuation or insinuation that others may independently make that we've gone too far to the left. While this scenario obviously did happen...we also scored a clean win in the electoral college. This leftists shift is working pretty good for us, especially given the alternatives of a nasty congressional showdown...or actually losing the election.Why do you take enough umbrage with this to keep quoting it? This is a federalist quest. If we go far enough to one side and the coalition collapses what will remain would effectively be the rump moderate face of the SPA. That would happen by trying to appease Reed after our progressive policies. The progressive policies that other members of the coalition did so reluctantly as a compromise to keep the SPA from getting bigger. Compromise involves them getting something they want too.
Because that is how quests work. If offering him a cabinet position would have not prevented it then it may as well not have been an option.
Giving him a cabinet position, or doing anything to keep them in the coalition is not mutually exclusive with campaigning in the north east or having progressive economic policies. I did not argue against those. Please read the full context of what you quoted. That part of the party was still part of the coalition and obviously not a small one to pull electoral victories. The point is that we still had a chance to keep them in.
I did not say that. It is not a false statement to say the SPA is willing to use violence for political ends. Sure they are not the same thing. Driving away more southerners from the coalition is going to put them into the AFP, which will make the civil war that much uglier in the south. Driving away more people from the coalition period by appeasing Reed is going to push even more people out of the coalition.
That is why we should take the winds out of the parties our coalition exists to oppose while preventing the coalition from collapsing.
I completely agree and that is why I have my positions. The narrower our coalition and the less we do to maintain it the worse the civil war will be.
This may be a hot take, but it is entirely possible for quests to offer options that are unlikely, suboptimal or even do not work. I believe their worst forms are called trap options and QM even lampshaded this on one of Olson's possible platforms for unions. Even solid options also have a roll of the dice-treating it as an absolute is ridiculous, just like stating how if we did so we would've gotten an EC landslide as an absolute. It is entierly possible that offering Byrd more stuff could've costed us the northern swing states-people, and especially the opposition SPA, will notice if we capitulate further and say we're gonna do progressive things yet include a conservative firebrand on top of relying on a cabinet sprinkled with some southerners.
I did not state that they were mutually exclusive with campaigning in the north east or even having progressive policies, nor did I ever insinuate you were arguing specifically against your combo. To be honest, it wasn't even clear to me you were arguing that as a course of direction. I also did not state the SPA is unwilling to use violence (and explicitly mentioned, or at least quoted QM examples of political violence while discussing their actions), or that saying "the SPA is willing to use violence for political ends is false". The fact it's not the same thing is quite relevant; it means they have a pragmatic streak, which means they may accept concessions-something quite useful in a civil war. At a minimum it may indicate they're not as thuggish or as brutal as the AFP. I am also aware that your argument is on offering concessions to the southern democrats and otherwise seeking to maintain the coalition. My core argument is that the former may not be necessary or may even be counterproductive, costing us a disproportionate amount of the progressives and potentially socialists in the party at the cost of a diminished southern democratic wing and the AFP. The latter is a nothingburger (though important one) with the devil in the details.
I don't understand why you think I'm misinterpreting you, I'm merely arguing against your argument. There was a reason your two posts were incorporated in full, sans the part where you stated you were pleased we won. Cutting up my post like that falls under Spaghetti posting, and is certainly of poor form while at the same time making it harder to fully understand what you're trying to argue or say.
Last edited: