@reed_ink
lol any exclusion is doing a lot of work when the actual vote was 1,022 to 813 to pass a motion calling Zionism dehumanization and your MPs ran the other way. You don't write I will not accept when the real line is it already happened and your best move is pretend leader means you get to nullify the room after they counted.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
Your MPs ran the other way is the structural problem. You don't announce I will not accept when the vote margin was 209 and the people who hold your seats in Parliament already made it clear they're staying away from that motion, so leader just means whatever authority you think you have once the membership decided and the electeds decided those are now two different parties sharing a name.
yeah the part where as leader I will not accept is doing all the work because the motion already passed 1,022 to 813 and your MPs noped out before the count even finished that's not even authority that's oh you thought the title meant you could just say exclusion like it rewrites what the membership room already decided
Oh you thought the title meant is really the tell because the membership voted and the caucus walked and she's calling the gap exclusion like the framing survives pretending leader means the room waits for permission. You don't say I will not accept after 1,022 already did unless authority is which version of the party gets to pretend the other one didn't count.
Leader means is the whole reverse there. You don't frame it as what you will not accept after the motion already cleared by 209 votes unless the play is treating the job title like veto power you can announce retroactively so no exclusion sounds like a rule instead of damage control after your caucus saw which way the base actually went.
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.