The Republican Party Headquarters Thread (No Dems Allowed!!)

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Don't vote for me for Speaker PB, the time-frame just doesn't work for me as I leave each day at 6 EST

Indeed, this was why we didn't push for Heins previously. I can be on during the night to deal with things if the need arises.

[jeheinz72]

Heh, are you honest too Pass?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Don't vote for me for Speaker PB, the time-frame just doesn't work for me as I leave each day at 6 EST

Actually, that's President that the time-frame doesn't work for. Speaker brings up new bills -- President signs or vetos at night.

[jeheinz72]

True, I guess it doesn't really matter now that we have a Pres.

Still, I don't need to be speaker, and since we're likely looking at a 9-9 split anyhow for a not-all-that-important spot, we're fine as it, IMO.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Heh, are you honest too Pass?

No -- I guess I can also make sure someone else doesn't get elected.

[Passacaglia]

heinz, what made you vote mccollins today?

[jeheinz72]

As lame as it sounds, overall vibe from him. He was big time causing a lot of the party vs party dissention and in general I think he's steering some bad Dem decisions while barely if at all working to find wolves. The vote was just the capper.

I'm open to moving to PF, I've had suspicions on both, and was actually just going to publicly ask Dems to chime in.

[Passacaglia]

What the hell, was Lathum's statement that convincing for you guys?

[jeheinz72]

Yeah, Lathum's statement meant nil to me.

I actually wish I hadn't voted yet when I brought up that district win condition thing.

Given that run, I'm worried of a PF & PB wolf duo.

[Passacaglia]

You're not worried about the pile-ons by illinifan and RendeR?

[jeheinz72]

RendeR no, I lean towards trust on him.

Illini like I said I have zero feel on. It's the quick 2nd and 3rd votes which I think were aimed at repeating an EF-situation, and illini may be the result. But no, I"m not thrilled about his vote

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

RendeR no, I lean towards trust on him.

Illini like I said I have zero feel on. It's the quick 2nd and 3rd votes which I think were aimed at repeating an EF-situation, and illini may be the result. But no, I"m not thrilled about his vote

I guess I can't shake the idea that one of those two was voting that way, with the intent of using the argument, "hey, a Democrat said he trusted PF, so I voted for the other guy!" -- but dude, then that Democrat is Lathum...red flags.

[jeheinz72]

Yeah, to me, if anything Lathum's support is more of a condemnation. I haven't said more on it mainly because I want to stay on point today. I really think we've got a 50/50 shot at the wolf here.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

You're not worried about the pile-ons by illinifan and RendeR?

I've actually been suspicious of McC the entire game, I've noted previously that I was watching him based on the perception of his posts. I don't tend to trust either packer or McC, so I went with my strongest instinct.

And didn't Lathum vote for Packer? thereby saying he trusts McC? If so thats another reason to vote McC, because anyone Lathum trusts is probably not what they seem

[RendeR]

Lathum suggested we all vote for Packer if we vote Dem, which also made me feel better about the McC vote.

[Passacaglia]

No, Lathum voted for heinz -- he did say he trusts PF far more (when it was 3-0), then said that if Democrats are going to vote for one of their own, it should be PF (when it was 5-1)

[RendeR]

Yup, I went back and noticed that.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Lathum suggested we all vote for Packer if we vote Dem, which also made me feel better about the McC vote.

I guess you get it both ways, then. The people who trust Lathum will buy that you voted for mccollins because Lathum trusts PF more. And the people who don't trust Lathum will agree with your vote, since Lathum suggested that people vote for PF, and you're going against that.

[jeheinz72]

Yeah, wait, which horse is Lathum backing here?

[RendeR]

The RendeR Active Reversion Act (RARA)

Such is the need to maintain security and confidence in the good nature of our Congreesional members, We hereby revoke, unmake and strike down the Cunning Wolf Clause previously set into law by a Wolf party Rider.

[RendeR]

Just got an answer to my earlier question
The wolves canot put forth the same clause in a rider as a law that already exists, so they cannot simply attach a cunning clause to this bill, they could put some other clause in however.

[RendeR]

No sense in leaving a cunning wolf running loose now is there?

[jeheinz72]

Well my worries are

A) It won't get past the court

B) I'd rather do that for the Brutal. The CUnning has essentially cast enough doubt just by existing

[RendeR]

I just got the word from Olie directly


we can pass bills striking down previous legislation.

[RendeR]

yes but the brutal can be caught by a scan, the cunnning cannot, get rid of the cunning and they can get caught a lot easier, it ups the percentage that we hit one on a scan.

[RendeR]

They can try to attach a rider to get it back obviously, but this at least gives us something very POSITIVE politically to put forth.

[RendeR]

Tomorrow they can put a rider in for cunning again, not today since the cunning law is curerntly in place.

[Passacaglia]

According to CR, though, we'd have to strike down the entire bill.

[jeheinz72]

So we'd have to lose whatever the cunning was tied to?

[RendeR]

Basically, to paraphrase Olie's response, "we will be putting forth a Bill to void the current law that exists" so we're not doing anything unconstitutional, we're simply amending legislation WE put into action to begin with.

So we shouldn't have any issue with the courts.

[Passacaglia]

Was it the brutal clause that they added to a bill, and that was the only thing kept on the bill? Maybe we can try that.

[RendeR]

Thats not the feel I got from my PM, but I'll ask for clarification.

[RendeR]

Ok, pm sent, awaiting confirmation of what I think is our ticket to starting to hurt the wolf party.

[Passacaglia]

Well, I just posted my reply in the main thread, so look there for it!

[RendeR]

I really do not think we should deal with the brutal clause first. being able to find the wolves is the key here, not worrying about losing someone good in a lynch. a 1-1 trade on a lynch is acceptable.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Well, I just posted my reply in the main thread, so look there for it!

Reply to what????

[Passacaglia]

We can repeal the bill that had the brutal clause tacked on to it, according to CR. The problem is that the wolves can add a rider to THAT bill. But not a brutal, since they can only add one of each type.

[jeheinz72]

So yeah, let's just do the one that was the rider by itself

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I really do not think we should deal with the brutal clause first. being able to find the wolves is the key here, not worrying about losing someone good in a lynch. a 1-1 trade on a lynch is acceptable.

But if we repeal the cunning, we lose whatever law that was attached to. Repealing the brutal can be done at no cost to us.

[RendeR]

I'm really confused as to why you would post that openly in the main thread??

[RendeR]

Then by what you were told we can't really do it at all, since al their clauses are attached to bills we wanted passed.

[RendeR]

This game sucks

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I'm really confused as to why you would post that openly in the main thread??

It was an accident.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Then by what you were told we can't really do it at all, since al their clauses are attached to bills we wanted passed.

No, the bill we passed yesterday is our only counterexample. This morning, the Supreme Court overturned the part of the bill that we passed, but allowed the wolf rider. Yes, the Supreme Court is apparently stocked with wolves.

[jeheinz72]

Ok, I'm outta here in 15, we going to try and overturn that brutal rider?

[RendeR]

Go for it, write something to wipe out the brutal bill, I'll go on it, it should be popular and therefore, fail.

[Passacaglia]

I asked CR for permission to post our bill.Heinz or Tyrith will probably have to confirm that that's what we want.

[illinifan999]

When you think about it, the Supreme Court gave precedent to use knocking out one part of a bill since they did the same thing.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

When you think about it, the Supreme Court gave precedent to use knocking out one part of a bill since they did the same thing.

Check the main thread. I meant to post it here, but it's there on accident. CR said only the Supreme Court can knock out part of a bill.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Check the main thread. I meant to post it here, but it's there on accident. CR said only the Supreme Court can knock out part of a bill.

Yeah, I know just kinda defeats the purpose of trying to simulate a Supreme Court.