[Double Standards in American Politics]

Day 534, 09:47 • Published in USA USA • by Ian John Locke IV

I have taken a nice little break from my few weeks of extreme studying to write an article, which is severely needed.

For those who have not read the article in the Top 5 about Bill Brasky being fired from his position as the head or director of the Department of Education (formerly held by Tiacha before she moved on to Chief of Staff and consequently left the game), here is a quick summary:

Bill was on IRC in a room with the president of the Federalists, Gaius Julius, and William Shafer and was "joking" (according to him) about what "something big" was. Seemingly innocent until people look into a bit of recent history. What do I mean by that?

Before the last congressional elections, Lowell Kennedy, a long standing member of the USWP, highly qualified and intelligent and a generally well-known "good guy" decided he wanted to challenge Tiacha in New Jersey. He being a party member was given preference over Tiacha, who was also very highly qualified, highly respected, and highly valued as a congress woman and Chief of Staff of the Scrabman administration. (She and I were recently married as well.)

Tiacha consequently took off on the USWP, and the Federalists without question followed suit. They, as well as other conservative parties, trolled Ananias' 52 state plan for the Congressional Elections, which was a harmless plan to challenge every state with a USWP candidate, not to take over congress. it was also meant to drum up activity in the largest party in the eWorld.

important Edit/Clarification: Tiacha (as I stated in my comment below) found out that it was not the USWP attacking her, it was Lowell attacking her based on a personal vendetta. After learning this she did her best to get the Feds to stop attacking the USWP, it has been their choice, however, to continue, against Tiacha's advice. Also, Jewitt has a point that the "52 State Plan" may have caused a great deal of this, but I was not writing this section to point a finger, merely to point out when this all started and over what.

As I said, Federalists and other Conservative party members took it upon themselves to attack the USWP as they were intimidated by the largest party's intention to challenge all of them. It also brought out an important characteristic in the Federalist ranks: entitlement.

There is no doubting that in EVERY PARTY, there are very intelligent members who are qualified for many cabinet positions as well as for congress and, dare I say it, even President of the United States. Do not think I'm saying that every member of every party is intelligent, that would be stupid of me to say, especially since there is no way that it is true.

Even after Congressional Elections the "right wing" political parties (including the Federalists) kept attacking the USWP, but more specifically, Scrabman, President of the United States.

[Now you have the shortened background...]

So when Bill Brasky was "jokingly" talking about Scrabman and his big plans with an e😜atriate and enemy of the state, as well as one of the leaders of the Federalists against Scrabman, it is obvious how that can be taken as a Cabinet member, insulting the president.

Now why is this particularly heinous? Bill was appointed to the DoE under the recommendation of Tiacha. (She later resigned as Cheif of Staff and left the game.) If a President appoints someone, regardless of whether they were recommended for the post or not, the President chose them as the best person for the job. As my fellow party member and friend Josh Frost said in his article: "Loyalty is a rare thing in this game and if the president thought enough of you to put you in a public position it should merit a certain degree of loyalty from you. This doesn’t mean that you have to agree with the president all the time" ("Demagoguery, National Security and Sour Grapes: A Political Story")

Now there is no questioning that Bill was highly qualified for the position of DoE, and that he was a good pick for the position. However, his actions, obviously made Scrabman uneasy, and the interparty tensions that already existed didn't make the situation seem any more favorable towards Bill. Whether or not Scrabman made the right choice, is not my call. In my opinion, he did nothing wrong. He acted well within his own rights as President of the United States and he did what he thought was right for his administration and the strength of his cabinet.

[Now to go on to the heart of the article]

As I said above, articles written by USWP members about the 52 state plan were "trolled" by conservative party members. I will not name names in here to try to keep this civil. USWP members did their best to respond with respect for the trolls and did their best to remain calm and level headed.

When Bill wrote his article attacking Scrabman under the guise of "searching for the truth", he did not realize that the reaction to his article would be so strong on both sides of the issue.

Many have come out calling for Scrabman's impeachment. Big surprise. It is also no surprise that 60% (an estimate) are under the level of 10, and have no clue about the requirements for impeachment.

However, when I, and other USWP members specifically pointed out flaws in commenters arguments, turned the tables, and consequently defended our friend and President, as well as party member, Scrabman, we were shouted at and degraded, insulted and called names. Likewise, in the end I got a bit heated in my own comments, frustrated by the nonsensical poetical prose of people commenting. For those offended, I apologize, but when flamed myself, one can become a bit heated when defending oneself and one's friends.

Specifically I was called a troll several times and as I consistently try to rebut arguments for impeachment and defend my long time friend, responses to my arguments are not followed through by logical and level-headed comments. Instead I get "Ian John Locke you are a troll go away" (paraphrased of course).

So many make the argument that Bill has freedom of speech, which he did, but when I express my opinion, I am oppressed by the majority of commenters on that article.

On Josh Frost's article you will see a Federalist attacking Josh. Am I surprised? No. Will he be called a troll? Most likely not. Should he? Probably not.

[Entitlement]

Although I pointed out how the Federalists feel entitled to be chosen and kept in public office, it is not restricted to their party.

In the last Congressional election I helped the AAP block a candidate they did not running for Congress under their banner. Likewise the USWP cooperated with the AAP and blocked said candidate from running under the USWP's banner. The candidate in question was Robert Bayer. A member of the SFP. On my article explaining my candidacy I was attacked because Robert deserved to be in congress. Entitlement through and through.

I was a congress member during a couple of Robert's terms, he was not active.

As I said earlier, there are plenty of people qualified for a position. Likewise, there are many more people just as equally qualified for the position you are vying for.

During Scrabman's first term, i applied for a position in public relations. I would like to believe I am qualified for a position in that kind of a department. Instead Claire Littleton was chosen as Press Secretary. Was she qualified for it? Yes. Did I complain? No. Did I feel cheated? No. Why? Because I knew Scrabman was doing what was best for his administration.

If you get turned down, do not be acrimonious, acknowledge that the better man or woman, was chosen

Why? Maybe they presented a better argument for their nomination. Maybe they were more prominent and better respected globally in the president's opinion.

Does that prevent you from shouting and throwing feces like monkeys? No. Go ahead. You'll just further preclude yourself from a nomination by that president and any of his friends in the future.

Is there a question of your competency or ability? No. Is it a question of how you presented yourself? Maybe. Who knows.

Good day to you.