Post by Glüc da Dhi on Sept 29, 2017 5:17:43 GMT -6
Also posted this on facebook, but might cause more discussion here.
Azul Talossans,
you may have received a RUMP email lamenting some MRPT MCs for agreeing to a non-binding refendum to get an impression of how much support for the Monarchy still existed. They also complained about bills being proposed, some of which the MRPT opposed, but some of which we supported.
What the RUMP doesn't tell you is that when this non binding referendum happened, the MRPT and even the HAT party were active on witt discussing. I remember tense debate with Republican Freedems, and even while I don't agree with them on the monarchy issue, I very much respect that they went on witt to defend their vision for Talossa. The RUMP was mostly absent from this public debate.
The MRPT submitted a 50 word statement outlining its position on the monarchy. The RUMP was absent from the ballot.
And it's hard to tell how much get out the vote both parties did, but the fact that many MRPT core members showed up and many RUMP core member did not might give you an impression of which party really stood up for the monarchy when it matters, like the RUMP claims it did.
As for the 11 bills mentioned, what the RUMP mail doesn't say is that some of these include measures to make the monarchy more accountable or to make sure the King doesn't have an absolute veto right on amendments. The RUMP opposed these, but will not making these reforms really increase support for the Monarchy? I doubt it.
The MRPT critically looks at our institutions and wants to improve them when possible, but when it really matters, we stand for our ideas. Other parties can learn from that.
MRPTRUMPmonarchist.png (14.67 KB)
Azul Talossans,
you may have received a RUMP email lamenting some MRPT MCs for agreeing to a non-binding refendum to get an impression of how much support for the Monarchy still existed. They also complained about bills being proposed, some of which the MRPT opposed, but some of which we supported.
What the RUMP doesn't tell you is that when this non binding referendum happened, the MRPT and even the HAT party were active on witt discussing. I remember tense debate with Republican Freedems, and even while I don't agree with them on the monarchy issue, I very much respect that they went on witt to defend their vision for Talossa. The RUMP was mostly absent from this public debate.
The MRPT submitted a 50 word statement outlining its position on the monarchy. The RUMP was absent from the ballot.
And it's hard to tell how much get out the vote both parties did, but the fact that many MRPT core members showed up and many RUMP core member did not might give you an impression of which party really stood up for the monarchy when it matters, like the RUMP claims it did.
As for the 11 bills mentioned, what the RUMP mail doesn't say is that some of these include measures to make the monarchy more accountable or to make sure the King doesn't have an absolute veto right on amendments. The RUMP opposed these, but will not making these reforms really increase support for the Monarchy? I doubt it.
The MRPT critically looks at our institutions and wants to improve them when possible, but when it really matters, we stand for our ideas. Other parties can learn from that.
MRPTRUMPmonarchist.png (14.67 KB)