Óïn Ursüm
Posts: 1,032
Talossan Since: 3-10-2009
|
Post by Óïn Ursüm on Mar 19, 2012 11:09:53 GMT -6
I am seriously considering voting ZRT (or even joining up).
I agree with all points of the ZRT platform except for 7(d), because it is vague. Does "progressively reducing the influence..." mean abolishing the Royal Veto, barring the creation of new nobles, etc.?
It seems to me that one can ironically be a ZRTer and a supporter of constitutional monarchy, given that the manifesto's definition of "republicanism" seems to be "democratic reforms" which respect the position of the monarch as a symbol of national unity.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Mar 19, 2012 12:04:18 GMT -6
I did address the four subsections. To reiterate: (a) We believed (as a party) in the open ballot, and I still do; (b) though as PP leader I published a list of people we intended to appoint MCs, I do not support making that a legal requirement; (c) whilst I am sympathetic about (say) Senate and amendment reform, I think extreme caution is required, given my point made elsewhere that the system has worked admirably so far, and I say that as one often defeated legislatively by it - unless it can be proven it hinders rather than helps careful reform, we would be taking a great risk to change it, and the PP didn't propose specific reforms addressing the issue, though it understood the issue; (d) the PP was monarchist. With respect, I was merely clarifying a point which might confuse potential voters or even potential members. I understand you may not agree with the ZRT on those points though. Re Eoin: Search your feelings, you know it makes sense! On a more serious note, however, you are right. One is not required to be a staunch republican to be a member of the ZRT. We're only defenders of the ideas behind Talossan Republicanism. We even have GV (a monarchist, I believe) in our party!
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Mar 19, 2012 12:28:49 GMT -6
I did address the four subsections. To reiterate: (a) We believed (as a party) in the open ballot, and I still do; (b) though as PP leader I published a list of people we intended to appoint MCs, I do not support making that a legal requirement; (c) whilst I am sympathetic about (say) Senate and amendment reform, I think extreme caution is required, given my point made elsewhere that the system has worked admirably so far, and I say that as one often defeated legislatively by it - unless it can be proven it hinders rather than helps careful reform, we would be taking a great risk to change it, and the PP didn't propose specific reforms addressing the issue, though it understood the issue; (d) the PP was monarchist. The RUMP is 100% in agreement with all four of these positions, being still in favour (as a party) of the open ballot. On (b), specifically, while the RUMP has never yet published a pre-election slate of MC's, we would like to get to that point, believing that it would be a Good Thing to do. We, too, agree that it should perhaps not be legislatively mandated that such a thing is done by all parties, since there are far too many nooks and crannies and unexpected exigencies that could never be completely covered. Hooligan
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 19, 2012 13:26:49 GMT -6
I'm a bit confused here, can someone please define Peculiarism from a Talossan lens for me? I keep seeing this word with it being used by different people for different things, I haven't been able to figure out its definition. Im having the same problem. I think I understand the ideology and I have heard a lot about differences between peculiarist and defencist parties, but sometimes its hard for me to understand the link between the ideological background of the two parties and their actual ideas.
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Mar 19, 2012 13:33:26 GMT -6
So if Peculiarism has become a meaningless term, as you seem to believe, it is at least the most honest way of wearing the emperor's new clothes. Because most of the political categories that I mentioned above seem to indicate that we're standing on solid, comprehensible political / philosophical ground while actually we are not. Peculiarism is an embrace of the small group dynamics that mark the workings of a healthy micronation. A potential distancing from the practices of our larger brethren if need be. As for the Peculiarism of the APT and its previous incarnation... I'm not sure what it means any more. S:reu Asmour chalks all of is erratic behavior up to Peculiarism. So what does it mean anymore? Ideologically, the MRP was walking on thin ice with their reference to Peculiarism; more or less, Peculiarism was more like a brand for the hardcore Republicanism of this party. Anyway, that movement gained a lot of momentum, and even more so, it was fun. During its formative and then its oppositonal phase, it had quite an impact on the politics of the Republic. Opposition with an wink of an eye or whatever the slogan said- for the time being, all the best creative souls were in it. Then, after a surprisingly won election, the whole thing fell flat on its face, for a multitude of partly incomprehensible reasons. You're right, all attempts that were meant to bring back the passed glory failed. Kind of, it have only been empty shells. Maybe I'll regret this statement tomorrow, because it's only the annual spring depression that is dragging me down whenever the f***** pollen season begins and the meds are leaving me mentally lifeless, but anyway, I herewith withdraw myself from Talossan politics for a while. Doesn't mean that my political beliefs and preferences are gone... just my party affiliation. And no, I am not joining the ZRT, as much as the sirens may warble.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 19, 2012 13:34:20 GMT -6
I wonder why everyone is so fast to talk about mergers. I personally agree with most of the zrt program, except for two things. I am not in favour of a secret ballot, but I am not 100% sure on that one, and I have no problem with reducing the power of the monarchy, but not from a republican point of view, I am a monarchist. Also, I still feel the ZRT program is still a bit vague or at least formulated in a way many people can agree with, without actually agreeing with each other and does not cover some of the issues. The MRPT is working on coming up with the new version of our manifesto, even though the elections are still far away. When were done with that and any party (be it RUMP, CSPP, APT, ZRT, CRO, whatever) would agree with most of it (I wouldnt say 99%, because we dont tend to come up with diplomatic statements 50% of the nation can agree with, but with a clear plan, that might not be exactly the way others think, but which we are not afraid to replace with alternatives that have the same intention.)
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Mar 19, 2012 13:36:23 GMT -6
I'm a bit confused here, can someone please define Peculiarism from a Talossan lens for me? I keep seeing this word with it being used by different people for different things, I haven't been able to figure out its definition. Im having the same problem. I think I understand the ideology and I have heard a lot about differences between peculiarist and defencist parties, but sometimes its hard for me to understand the link between the ideological background of the two parties and their actual ideas. We all have the same problem, including the peculiarists I believe. But basically, I have gathered that the single unifying point is that they oppose the "we try to do things that real nations do" part and they oppose land claims. Their motto is approximately "we are a unique and peculiar thing and can do what we want without being afraid that we're not behaving like a real country". But apart from that I don't know whether they have very much in common with each other. What I have never understood is how peculiarism will distinguish us from any other web community, or a game of online Nomic, at that. When I say this there is always great tut-tutting, but never any concrete replies except that I'm being silly, fear-mongering, obtuse etc.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 19, 2012 13:38:00 GMT -6
Peculiarism is an embrace of the small group dynamics that mark the workings of a healthy micronation. A potential distancing from the practices of our larger brethren if need be. As for the Peculiarism of the APT and its previous incarnation... I'm not sure what it means any more. S:reu Asmour chalks all of is erratic behavior up to Peculiarism. So what does it mean anymore? Ideologically, the MRP was walking on thin ice with their reference to Peculiarism; more or less, Peculiarism was more like a brand for the hardcore Republicanism of this party. Anyway, that movement gained a lot of momentum, and even more so, it was fun. During its formative and then its oppositonal phase, it had quite an impact on the politics of the Republic. Opposition with an wink of an eye or whatever the slogan said- for the time being, all the best creative souls were in it. Then, after a surprisingly won election, the whole thing fell flat on its face, for a multitude of partly incomprehensible reasons. You're right, all attempts that were meant to bring back the passed glory failed. Kind of, it have only been empty shells. Maybe I'll regret this statement tomorrow, because it's only the annual spring depression that is dragging me down whenever the f***** pollen season begins and the meds are leaving me mentally lifeless, but anyway, I herewith withdraw myself from Talossan politics for a while. Doesn't mean that my political beliefs and preferences are gone... just my party affiliation. And no, I am not joining the ZRT, as much as the sirens may warble. I am saddened by this. I hope you'll reconsider. I was looking forward to an election with multiple opposition parties with different ideologies.
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Mar 19, 2012 13:39:04 GMT -6
Maybe I'll regret this statement tomorrow, because it's only the annual spring depression that is dragging me down whenever the f***** pollen season begins and the meds are leaving me mentally lifeless, but anyway, I herewith withdraw myself from Talossan politics for a while. Sorry to hear that, Deet. I hope the next stay up north will do you good. And I love the Smurf cap!
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Mar 19, 2012 13:47:54 GMT -6
And I love the Smurf cap! It's the phrygian cap of the Textorian republicanism.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 19, 2012 13:49:24 GMT -6
I did address the four subsections. To reiterate: (a) We believed (as a party) in the open ballot, and I still do; (b) though as PP leader I published a list of people we intended to appoint MCs, I do not support making that a legal requirement; (c) whilst I am sympathetic about (say) Senate and amendment reform, I think extreme caution is required, given my point made elsewhere that the system has worked admirably so far, and I say that as one often defeated legislatively by it - unless it can be proven it hinders rather than helps careful reform, we would be taking a great risk to change it, and the PP didn't propose specific reforms addressing the issue, though it understood the issue; (d) the PP was monarchist. The RUMP is 100% in agreement with all four of these positions, being still in favour (as a party) of the open ballot. On (b), specifically, while the RUMP has never yet published a pre-election slate of MC's, we would like to get to that point, believing that it would be a Good Thing to do. We, too, agree that it should perhaps not be legislatively mandated that such a thing is done by all parties, since there are far too many nooks and crannies and unexpected exigencies that could never be completely covered. Hooligan We welcome the merging of the ZRT and CSPTPT into the RUMP. Your individual uniqueness will be added to our own.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 19, 2012 13:53:45 GMT -6
Just some (extremly large, how can I change that?) graph I made. The nr of seats the RUMP since they have been the majority party x the nr of opposition parties. I know its probably not statistically significant (I havent checked) and I understand correlation does not mean causation, but still, for those who want to form one large opposition party, just for the sake of being against the government, Im not sure if it works. I come from a country with a real multiparty democracy and it seems to work, so maybe Im biased because of that, but shouldnt progressives be happy they got so much choice and know what they get when they vote, while conservatives who are internally almost as diverse as Talossa itself, will have to stuck with one party, which cant promise anything and has no clear direction, just to keep the radicals that want to destroy Talossa (that's us) out. I know the MRPT is a small party ( we were meant to be that way) and I wont rule out merging, or something in between, like cooperation around a common manifesto, or participating in the election with one list, without completely merging the actual organisation, with any party that slightly agrees with us (even the RUMP ), but it would have to be done because of very large mutual agreement on the issues, not just as a way of being against the establishment or uniting around a manifesto that does not cover a lot of subject and is vague on a lot of them, cause I would be afraid such a merger would end up like the ppt.
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Mar 19, 2012 14:06:48 GMT -6
I understand correlation does not mean causation
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 19, 2012 14:10:11 GMT -6
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Mar 19, 2012 14:12:28 GMT -6
...while conservatives who are internally almost as diverse as Talossa itself, will have to stuck with one party, which cant promise anything and has no clear direction, just to keep the radicals that want to destroy Talossa (that's us) out. I wouldn't at all describe the RUMP that way, if that is what you meant. The RUMP is not "majority for majority's sake" ("just to keep [the opposition] out"), as much as we, tongue-in-cheek, named the party "Still Fending off the Many Progressives" this term. I also would take issue with saying that the RUMP has no clear direction. Here, in fact, is our most recent platform, which indicates that we, at least, don't believe that we have nothing to promise, and that is chock full of directionish (or at least directionesque) stuff, I think, maybe. (( Hool )) P.S. I took the liberty of resizing the chart (which is way cool; thanks for doing stuff like this!); and yeah, proboards (AFAIK) doesn't have a nice way to specify client-side graphic sizing. :-(
|
|