Dishonest RUMP statement.

[Glüc da Dhi]

May 12, 2015 9:03:18 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

May 12, 2015 8:05:32 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

There's only one party that stands firm on protecting the monarchy: the RUMP.

This is not true. There are three. I suggest you change this. Otherwise you'd be deliberately proclaiming things you know are not true in your 50 word statement.

It's time to end the politics of hatred: vote for the RUMP.

How would a vote for the RUMP end the politics of hatred? What are you talking about?

May 12, 2015 9:13:51 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Actually, I think it's pretty clearly true. The RUMP has been by far the most firm, since the MRPT just recently approved a manifesto which says they are "committed to taking measures to make the Monarchy more acceptable to the Republican segment of the population if a compromise can be reached with broad support. These measures may on the long term include reducing the political powers of the Monarch and making it easier to remove a Monarch in a democratic way." Saying you want to reduce the political powers of the monarch and make it easier to dethrone the monarch is not a very strong defense... it's not any sort of defense at all. You do want to move away from monarchy somewhat less than quickly than other parties, that's true!

But really, this isn't the time or place for such a discussion. This is a pre-registration thread for the Chancery, and it would be a bad idea to clutter it up with any sort of debate on whether reducing the monarchy's power makes you a defender of the monarchy.

If you want to discuss it, maybe open a new thread, and I'd love to chat about it.

Done

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Would you mind retitling this thread? It's a little aggressive!

I think what I said makes sense, pretty much, don't you? The RUMP would like to make sure that the monarchy remains strong and independent, and opposes even further reducing the power of one of the central pillars of our modern nation. The MRPT wants to reduce the monarchy's power and make it easier to dethrone His Majesty. Seems pretty simple to me... the MRPT is pro-monarchy in the sense that it isn't a republican party, but I wouldn't say it was firm on the subject, since it's not only open to reducing the monarchy, but even advocates for it!

[Glüc da Dhi]

1. The MRPT manifesto also says: "The MRPT is fundamentally monarchist, and supports the hereditary Monarchy. " And where the RUMP always has sometimes been a bit unclear on the extent in which its MCs are committed to its platform (not sure how that will be this election), MRPT MCs do follow its platform, so thats basically a guarantee we will will protect the Monarchy. That we also want to look critical at some of the more controversial aspects of the system does not say anything about how firm we stand on protecting the Monarchy itself. Maybe you meant to say "The RUMP is the only party that is uncritical and doesnt ask questions about any aspect of the Monarchy or the current King." Monarchism is also in our statutes btw. We do not want to move away from the Monarchy at all.

2. You are still ignoring the Progressive party.

Again, change your 50 word statement. Its not fair play.

[Owen Edwards]

Alex, you are being dishonest, if only because the Progressive Party is led by an ACTUAL, macronational monarchist, and because there really isn't some "politics of hate" you're going to end. It may all be unintentional on your end; but Gluc is absolutely right to call you out on it.

[Glüc da Dhi]

May 12, 2015 9:31:26 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Would you mind retitling this thread? It's a little aggressive!

I think what I said makes sense, pretty much, don't you?

No.

The RUMP would like to make sure that the monarchy remains strong and independent, and opposes even further reducing the power of one of the central pillars of our modern nation. The MRPT wants to reduce the monarchy's power and make it easier to dethrone His Majesty. Seems pretty simple to me... the MRPT is pro-monarchy in the sense that it isn't a republican party,

No we are pro monarchy in the sense that we believe Talossa should remain a Monarchy. Seems pretty straightforward.

but I wouldn't say it was firm on the subject,

We are firm on the subject of protecting the Monarchy. Thats what my comment was about

since it's not only open to reducing the monarchy, but even advocates for it!

What does reducing the Monarchy even mean? Many countries have worked fine as a constitutional Monarchy for years without a Monarch with the same amount of political power as here. (If such systems are "reduced Monarchies", would Saudi Arabia be an "increased Monarchy" or something?)

[Lüc da Schir]

May 12, 2015 9:34:04 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

because there really isn't some "politics of hate" you're going to end.

Quite the contrary, if I may. His cartoonist harrassed Miestra and the government for months, she reacted, and he cried wolf.

He perhaps means that he's going to end the politics of hate, because he started it in the first place.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

The question I pose is, what exactly does "defending the Monarchy" look like? Keeping the status quo? Allowing the monarch to be absent from Talossa and step in only when repeatedly asked to by loyal subjects?

Does defending the monarchy take the form of "King John is right all the time no matter what?" Perhaps "defending the monarchy" means something else entirely. The Progressives and the MRPT (if I may say so) are pro-monarchy but also believe that times can change and things can go awry and when things do go awry, they should be fixed. The RUMP, at least on the surface, want to keep things exactly as they were and hide behind the Throne.

As for the "politics of hate" referenced, there is quite a lot of disdain coming from the RUMP camp. The simple fact that the RUMP ignores other political parties (i.e. the Progressives) is testament to that fact. It is disingenuous to state that the RUMP is the ONLY party that stands firm on protecting the monarchy. All we are asking is, "how far should the Monarchy be defended before it needs to be fixed?" Would the RUMP be saying the same thing if we had a different king? I think not.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Let me pause to say we are absolutely open to changing the 50-word statement, particularly if it will lead to less bad feelings. I just want to discuss this and hope you see our perspective, first.

May 12, 2015 9:33:31 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

1. The MRPT manifesto also says: "The MRPT is fundamentally monarchist, and supports the hereditary Monarchy. " And where the RUMP always has sometimes been a bit unclear on the extent in which its MCs are committed to its platform (not sure how that will be this election), MRPT MCs do follow its platform, so thats basically a guarantee we will will protect the Monarchy. That we also want to look critical at some of the more controversial aspects of the system does not say anything about how firm we stand on protecting the Monarchy itself. Maybe you meant to say "The RUMP is the only party that is uncritical and doesnt ask questions about any aspect of the Monarchy or the current King." Monarchism is also in our statutes btw. We do not want to move away from the Monarchy at all.

I admit to some confusion, since it seems like you're contradicting yourself. Your manifesto states that you want to find a middle ground between republicans and monarchists, making the monarchy "more acceptable to republicans," right? And you'll do that by "reducing the power of the monarchy."

I guess if you look at it in a binary sense, where you either want some form of monarchy or some form of republicanism, then the MRPT is just as firm a defender of the monarchy as the RUMP. But in a realistic sense, the RUMP is the foremost and proudest defender of the monarchy and its important role in the government. I'm surprised this is in dispute, since your manifesto explicitly calls for compromising with opponents of the monarchy to reduce its power.

You are welcome to disagree and campaign about how reducing the role of the monarchy in Talossa means you're the strongest defender of it, but it seems very much "fair play" for me to call the RUMP the firmest defender of the throne in the Kingdom.

May 12, 2015 9:33:31 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

2. You are still ignoring the Progressive party.

I was not aware that the PP stood against reducing the role of the monarchy in Talossa.

May 12, 2015 9:34:04 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

Alex, you are being dishonest, if only because the Progressive Party is led by an ACTUAL, macronational monarchist, and because there really isn't some "politics of hate" you're going to end. It may all be unintentional on your end; but Gluc is absolutely right to call you out on it.

While it's interesting that you're a monarchist in other political realms, I was really only concerned with Talossa, and really only taking that into account. What is the PP stance on the monarchy - do you support its current role and power in the country, or do you want to diminish it?

May 12, 2015 9:39:41 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

No we are pro monarchy in the sense that we believe Talossa should remain a Monarchy. Seems pretty straightforward.

I think this is the heart of the misunderstanding. I am looking at it like a spectrum, and from what I can see, the MRPT is far further away from supporting the monarchy than the RUMP. The RUMP believes in a strong but accountable monarch with a vital and unique role in the country, not in the gradual erosion of the institution until it is washed away. We wrote and passed a large number of Organic reforms years ago, to ensure that His Majesty was checked and balanced by other parts of the system while still being able to fulfill the role that has let the monarchy preserve Talossa in times past.

Just saying that you think there should be some form of monarchy doesn't make you a firm supporter of the institution, in my opinion. It makes you some form of monarchist, I think, but not a firm defender of His Majesty's current role.

May 12, 2015 9:39:41 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

What does reducing the Monarchy even mean? Many countries have worked fine as a constitutional Monarchy for years without a Monarch with the same amount of political power as here. (If such systems are "reduced Monarchies", would Saudi Arabia be an "increased Monarchy" or something?)

Well, several people have advocated for His Majesty to be removed of all political power and rendered a figurehead. That would be an example of reducing the monarchy's role. I think a dictatorship would be the largest role for a monarch... certainly not the RUMP's desire or intent!

[Owen Edwards]

No, Alex, it's more than interesting that I'm actually a monarchist outside Talossa; it means that monarchists in Talossa know I'm ideologically serious about monarchy, whereas someone who supports monarchy in Talossa but a presidential republic elsewhere is something of a fairweather monarchist. I don't know what your views so far as the US go are - would be very interested to hear them.

The Progressive Party has no stance on constitutional reform relating to the Monarchy, either for strengthening it or weakening it.

We look forward to the correction to your party electoral material.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

May 12, 2015 10:32:51 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

The Progressive Party has no stance on constitutional reform relating to the Monarchy, either for strengthening it or weakening it.

Okay, well, I think that settles that.

Owen, I don't really agree that someone's macronational politics really matter in Talossa, which is why I'm not also asking Gluc if he supports the monarchy in his macronation - if he's a "fair weather monarchist."

[Owen Edwards]

Feel free to ask him; if he does distinguish between the two situations (and of course he lives in a monarchy and doesn't spend much time talking about abolishing that), then he may have a cogent philosophical case.

However, I think knowing people *really* believe something - like I believe in the organized representatives of the people (ie, the government) offering humanitarian aid to the less fortunate, like I believe in nations valuing beauty and civilization - helps you trust that they'll stick for that position even when it is not convenient for them.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

You definitely have a point, but it's kind of beyond our scope here, I think. At the very least, it merits a serious conversation. If I can speak for a moment in another role, this should definitely be a topic for a newspaper like BT to cover! I personally try to keep macronational politics out of Talossa as much as possible, because while my beliefs are consistent, the tribalism of the thing can cause completely needless dissent. But reasonable people can definitely disagree.

Maybe this version of our statement would strike less discord:
There's one party that stands the most firm on protecting the monarchy: the RUMP.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

"There's one party that stands for changing absolutely nothing to do with the monarchy: the RUMP" would be a fairer interpretation.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

With a former leader of the Republic of Talossa in charge of the big ZRT-LibCon combo party, and with the PP uncommitted on the issue, and with the MRPT actively seeking to weaken the monarchy's role in the country, and a brand-new party with the same goal, it is true that I think the throne needs a strong political advocate!

[Ian Plätschisch]

We must ask ourselves whether we are loyal to the monarch as a person or to the monarchy as a concept. I have no quarrel with HM King John, but, if something were to happen and he no longer dutifully carries out his role in the Kingdom (which Dr. Nordselva seems to be concerned about), then we have to have a plan to revamp the monarchy without it withering away into a husk. Rolling back slightly on the functions of the King and making it easier to remove one Organically is how the MRPT hopes to accomplish this. If the RUMP wants to preserve the monarchy, not just a monarchy, then we should have similar views on this topic.