|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 12, 2015 15:08:54 GMT -6
That last bit of nastiness wasn't very helpful, I don't think. The RUMP is indeed concerned with the monarchy as an institution (you might indeed have gathered that from the way I refer to the monarchy and not just His Majesty). While King John is a good man and a good king, I think Talossa's needs come first, before any one person (even a king). Here's a bill I wrote and worked to see passed, for example: wiki.talossa.com/The_Replacing_the_House_Law_Act_(Amendment)And of course we supported the Regency and Royal Elections Act and the No More Partial Veto Amendment and the Non-Political Monarchy Amendment. And we did all that stuff with the Royal Household and immigration and so on... The monarchy is one of the strongest supports of the Kingdom of Talossa, and I really do think it is in danger these days. The newest party, the Socialists, have declared they seek to reduce the monarchy to a figurehead. The PP does not seem to be endorsing either support or opposition to the role of the monarchy in Talossa. The MRPT wants to reduce the monarchy's role, and it seems likely they will always seek the middle ground between monarchists and republicans (that is to say, they will continue to support the slow removal of the institution of monarchy, by taking incremental steps towards the vocal republicans every term). That's not villainous or anything, but I do think it will continue to be a slow erosion. And the new conglomerate of the FDA is led by two former leaders of the Republic of Talossa who have repeatedly argued for the monarchy's end. I honestly do think that if you support the monarchy, it is important that you lend your voice to the RUMP cause of preserving it. Politics are complicated, and voters might have different issues they want to emphasize. But if you want to preserve the institution of monarchy in Talossa, you should vote for the only party that is vowing to protect its current role. |
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on May 12, 2015 15:11:40 GMT -6
Ian, I would like your post, if not for the unnecessary last sentence. We may not agree with the RUMPs position, but it is an honest position nonetheless. The campaign is already shaping up to be a particularly nasty one, let's try not to make it worse. (I know, I know, there has been worse commentary on these boards in recent weeks. I have also often said things I regret, so really this is more of a general comment to everyone that just happened to be posted after your remark.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 12, 2015 15:14:15 GMT -6
I agree, Gluc. I wonder if any of the other party leaders might be willing to get together and agree on some common idea that we will campaign with comity and our best grace this time around? If I could speak for the RUMP (and wait yes I can) we would love it if this campaign didn't sink to that sort of level. How about it - Owen, CCX, Luc, Galen? Want to get together on this?
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on May 12, 2015 15:14:37 GMT -6
The MRPT wants to reduce the monarchy's role, and it seems likely they will always seek the middle ground between monarchists and republicans (that is to say, they will continue to support the slow removal of the institution of monarchy, by taking incremental steps towards the vocal republicans every term). That's just baseless speculation. There is no evidence to support that we will not be a Monarchist party in the future. (In fact, that would require changing our statutes.) Also, we do not support the slow removal of the monarchy as an institution now, so we can't really continue to do so either. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 12, 2015 15:18:39 GMT -6
The MRPT wants to reduce the monarchy's role, and it seems likely they will always seek the middle ground between monarchists and republicans (that is to say, they will continue to support the slow removal of the institution of monarchy, by taking incremental steps towards the vocal republicans every term). That's just baseless speculation. There is no evidence to support that we will not be a Monarchist party in the future. (In fact, that would require changing our statutes.) It's not baseless, but I admit it is speculation. It just seems unlikely, given past history and the current discussions, that the MRPT is going to be a stalwart supporter of the monarchy next election, after just a few reductions in its role - that you'll draw a line in the sand. I might think that was possible if there were any specific reforms you were proposing or discrete changes, but it seems like you want to reduce the role of the monarchy as a good unto itself. Let me say, though: if I am wrong, I would love it. The monarchy needs all the defenders it can get these days, and if the MRPT commits to preserving the role of the monarchy in the Kingdom of Talossa, it can only be a good thing in my book. |
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on May 12, 2015 15:21:00 GMT -6
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. I hope you do change it. Not because I'm saying it, but because it's the right thing to do. This is what it says: "The MRPT is fundamentally monarchist, and supports the hereditary Monarchy. However, we are also 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." I don't think any of that is contradictory, or contradicts what I said. Yet, your statement says otherwise. The RUMP is certainly less flexible when it comes to the role of the monarchy in government. Thats not really being disputed. You're statement didn't say anything about the role of the Monarchy in government though. I agree that there might be some kind of spectrum. Absolute Monarchies might for example be at one end of the spectrum. That doesnt mean that there a binary perspective is completely wrong though. There is a clear difference between supporting the Monarchy or not. And like you said, we're as firmly on the side of defending the Monarchy as the RUMP in that sense. The role of Monarchy in government is not inherent to our system being a monarchy. Either way, that's not what your statement says. 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. [/quote] I disagree. PS, I notice you nowhere in this statement seem to argue that what the RUMP 50 word statement says is actually true. You are defending other statements that are not what the statement says. |
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on May 12, 2015 15:24:48 GMT -6
That's just baseless speculation. There is no evidence to support that we will not be a Monarchist party in the future. (In fact, that would require changing our statutes.) It's not baseless, but I admit it is speculation. It just seems unlikely, given past history and the current discussions, that the MRPT is going to be a stalwart supporter of the monarchy next election, after just a few reductions in its role - that you'll draw a line in the sand. I might think that was possible if there were any specific reforms you were proposing or discrete changes, but it seems like you want to reduce the role of the monarchy as a good unto itself. Let me say, though: if I am wrong, I would love it. The monarchy needs all the defenders it can get these days, and if the MRPT commits to preserving the role of the monarchy in the Kingdom of Talossa, it can only be a good thing in my book. You're basically ignoring everything I've said, but whatever. I think the manifesto and our statutes speak for itself. Anything else is just your (understandable) attempt at framing the MRPT as something it is not. |
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001 
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on May 12, 2015 15:31:20 GMT -6
That last bit of nastiness wasn't very helpful, I don't think. The RUMP is indeed concerned with the monarchy as an institution (you might indeed have gathered that from the way I refer to the monarchy and not just His Majesty). While King John is a good man and a good king, I think Talossa's needs come first, before any one person (even a king). Here's a bill I wrote and worked to see passed, for example: wiki.talossa.com/The_Replacing_the_House_Law_Act_(Amendment)And of course we supported the Regency and Royal Elections Act and the No More Partial Veto Amendment and the Non-Political Monarchy Amendment. And we did all that stuff with the Royal Household and immigration and so on... The monarchy is one of the strongest supports of the Kingdom of Talossa, and I really do think it is in danger these days. The newest party, the Socialists, have declared they seek to reduce the monarchy to a figurehead. The PP does not seem to be endorsing either support or opposition to the role of the monarchy in Talossa. The MRPT wants to reduce the monarchy's role, and it seems likely they will always seek the middle ground between monarchists and republicans (that is to say, they will continue to support the slow removal of the institution of monarchy, by taking incremental steps towards the vocal republicans every term). That's not villainous or anything, but I do think it will continue to be a slow erosion. And the new conglomerate of the FDA is led by two former leaders of the Republic of Talossa who have repeatedly argued for the monarchy's end. I honestly do think that if you support the monarchy, it is important that you lend your voice to the RUMP cause of preserving it. Politics are complicated, and voters might have different issues they want to emphasize. But if you want to preserve the institution of monarchy in Talossa, you should vote for the only party that is vowing to protect its current role.
My apologies for the last bit. I shouldn't have spoken so hastily
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on May 12, 2015 15:31:28 GMT -6
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. I guess it's slightly better as it is not objectively wrong, just debatable. I'd still think its suggests something that I disagree with though. If you really want to be safe, Id advise focusing on the RUMPs own programme rather than drawing conclusions about others, like all the other 50 word statements do, but that's not up to me at all. (I think at least one past MRPT 50 word statement also gently stung at others, but we were never as blatant about is as this one. Can you explain the end hatred part? I still don't understand how a vote for the RUMP would do any such thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 12, 2015 15:35:30 GMT -6
I hope you do change it. Not because I'm saying it, but because it's the right thing to do. I think the current statement is entirely accurate, for the reasons I've explained: the PP has no commitment regarding the role of the monarchy and the MRPT is committed to reducing the role of the monarchy. So leaving it the way it is would be just fine, and would also be the right thing to do. That said, there's no point in causing needless animosity. As I said from the beginning here, I want to have a discussion so we can see each other's point of view, but I'm open to changing it. Right now I'm thinking of this: One party stands firmest on protecting role of the monarchy in Talossa: the RUMP. But I'm still working on it. Yet, your statement says otherwise. Er... yes, because, as I said, support for the monarchy is not a binary issue. If you want a king appointed at the whim of the Ziu every term, who serves as a pure figurehead at ribbon-cuttings, you might call yourself a monarchist, but you're not as supportive of the role of the monarchy as the RUMP. Thus my statement: only the RUMP really intends to stand firm. Everyone else either has no position or wants to reduce the role of the monarchy further towards figurehead. The RUMP is certainly less flexible when it comes to the role of the monarchy in government. Thats not really being disputed. You're statement didn't say anything about the role of the Monarchy in government though. I agree that there might be some kind of spectrum. Absolute Monarchies might for example be at one end of the spectrum. That doesnt mean that there a binary perspective is completely wrong though. There is a clear difference between supporting the Monarchy or not. And like you said, we're as firmly on the side of defending the Monarchy as the RUMP in that sense. Okay, but that's not the sense I mean, and I don't actually think it's that reasonable. It's a spectrum of support by any reasonable measure. We can tell this if we look at actual potential policy proposals. If Bill A wants to make Talossa a republic, the MRPT won't support that. Neither will the PP or the RUMP. If Bill B wants to make the king a position elected every term, the RUMP won't support that. The PP might (honestly not sure). The MRPT... might? Probably not, but maybe. If Bill C wants to abolish the Ziu and make the king an absolute monarch, none of us support that. The RUMP supports the role of the monarchy in Talossa to a greater degree than any other party, and I think that's really clear. The role of Monarchy in government is not inherent to our system being a monarchy. Case in point. Voters should know that the monarchist MRPT might support eliminating the monarchy from any governmental role. I don't call that a firm support of the monarchy. But at this point, we're sort of arguing semantics... I mean, would you honestly call the MRPT a stronger supporter of the institution of the monarchy than the RUMP? Cool. Tell the voters. But my statement is a true one (albeit one I am willing to modify, for comity's sake) as far as I can see, and I think I've explained why in some depth. Reasonable people can disagree on this, but that's part of what makes politics interesting... you see support for the monarchy as a binary position, with no spectrum of support, and I see differently... and the voters decide! PS, I notice you nowhere in this statement seem to argue that what the RUMP 50 word statement says is actually true. You are defending other statements that are not what the statement says. Oh, it's entirely true, I think. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 12, 2015 15:36:25 GMT -6
That last bit of nastiness wasn't very helpful, I don't think. The RUMP is indeed concerned with the monarchy as an institution (you might indeed have gathered that from the way I refer to the monarchy and not just His Majesty). While King John is a good man and a good king, I think Talossa's needs come first, before any one person (even a king). Here's a bill I wrote and worked to see passed, for example: wiki.talossa.com/The_Replacing_the_House_Law_Act_(Amendment)And of course we supported the Regency and Royal Elections Act and the No More Partial Veto Amendment and the Non-Political Monarchy Amendment. And we did all that stuff with the Royal Household and immigration and so on... The monarchy is one of the strongest supports of the Kingdom of Talossa, and I really do think it is in danger these days. The newest party, the Socialists, have declared they seek to reduce the monarchy to a figurehead. The PP does not seem to be endorsing either support or opposition to the role of the monarchy in Talossa. The MRPT wants to reduce the monarchy's role, and it seems likely they will always seek the middle ground between monarchists and republicans (that is to say, they will continue to support the slow removal of the institution of monarchy, by taking incremental steps towards the vocal republicans every term). That's not villainous or anything, but I do think it will continue to be a slow erosion. And the new conglomerate of the FDA is led by two former leaders of the Republic of Talossa who have repeatedly argued for the monarchy's end. I honestly do think that if you support the monarchy, it is important that you lend your voice to the RUMP cause of preserving it. Politics are complicated, and voters might have different issues they want to emphasize. But if you want to preserve the institution of monarchy in Talossa, you should vote for the only party that is vowing to protect its current role.
My apologies for the last bit. I shouldn't have spoken so hastily
No worries! Happens to the best of us, and no hard feelings, truly  |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 12, 2015 15:39:56 GMT -6
I guess it's slightly better as it is not objectively wrong, just debatable. I'd still think its suggests something that I disagree with though. If you really want to be safe, Id advise focusing on the RUMPs own programme rather than drawing conclusions about others, like all the other 50 word statements do, but that's not up to me at all. (I think at least one past MRPT 50 word statement also gently stung at others, but we were never as blatant about is as this one. Thank you for the advice, but I really think it's important to draw a strong contrast here, since I think the RUMP is the strongest supporter of the institution of monarchy in the country, and I think that will appeal to voters if they know about it. We definitely do focus on our accomplishments as well, though, and we'll be explaining a lot of what we want done as the campaign wears on. Don't worry, I intend any "attacks" on other parties to be exactly the same calm and reasoned discussion as we've had here! I have no interests in nasty politics or viciousness. Can you explain the end hatred part? I still don't understand how a vote for the RUMP would do any such thing. That's a little beyond what I want to get into right today, unfortunately, after this long discussion. But if you give me a chance, I promise that I'll return and address this soon. |
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on May 12, 2015 15:42:17 GMT -6
If Bill A wants to make Talossa a republic, the MRPT won't support that. Neither will the PP or the RUMP. If Bill B wants to make the king a position elected every term, the RUMP won't support that. The PP might (honestly not sure). The MRPT... might? Probably not, but maybe. If Bill C wants to abolish the Ziu and make the king an absolute monarch, none of us support that. The RUMP supports the role of the monarchy in Talossa to a greater degree than any other party, and I think that's really clear. Come on now. Its perfectly clear that the MRPT doesnt support bill B. So basically the MRPT and RUMP are on the same page on all these bills. I just said that I don't. The question you should answer then is "Is the MRPT a firm supporter of the monarchy." Look at the manifesto and the MRPT statutes, and you see that it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 12, 2015 15:46:33 GMT -6
Come on now. Its perfectly clear that the MRPT doesnt support bill B. So basically the MRPT and RUMP are on the same page on all these bills. That's not at all clear, but it's awesome to hear. I'm really glad to hear that no MRPT legislator would support that! So we can speak in specifics, when the MRPT manifesto talks about the MRPT goal of reducing the monarchy's power and making it easier to dethrone the monarch, what did it mean? The question you should answer then is "Is the MRPT a firm supporter of the monarchy." Look at the manifesto and the MRPT statutes, and you see that it is. I think it is a supporter of the monarchy, but it is not as strong a supporter as the RUMP. And voters should know that. |
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on May 12, 2015 15:48:16 GMT -6
"The MRPT supports the hereditary Monarchy" How could that possibly not be clear?
|
|
