Dishonest RUMP statement.

[Glüc da Dhi]

May 12, 2015 15:46:33 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

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.

Again, not what the statement says.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

...because while you support it in some unspecified way, you also want to reduce its power and make it easier to dethrone the monarch?

[Glüc da Dhi]

May 12, 2015 15:46:33 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

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?

When it says: "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." it means exactly what it says. True, it does not very specifically say what measures we will take, despite the MRPT manifesto, now and in the past, describes/has described a lot more specific policies than most other parties (particularly including the RUMP), but you can obviously also see why that is, as the intention behind this is clearly to look at various options and to reach a compromise that has broad public support, rather than commiting now to saying exactly what the entire law regarding the Monarchy should look like. The outlines are rather clear though.

[Glüc da Dhi]

May 12, 2015 15:52:23 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

...because while you support it in some unspecified way, you also want to reduce its power and make it easier to dethrone the monarch?

What unspecific way are you talking about? We support the hereditary monarchy. That means we have a King or Queen as head of state and the next King/Queen will under normal circumstances not be elected but will be whoever is the related heir of the previous one. That's what a hereditary monarchy means right?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I am honestly confused as to how we still disagree here!

The MRPT wants to take measures to make the monarchy more "acceptable" to the republicans, including reducing the political powers of the monarch and making it easier to dethrone him.

When I think "strong support of the monarchy," I definitely do not think of those two things!

[Glüc da Dhi]

May 12, 2015 15:58:21 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

I am honestly confused as to how we still disagree here!

Same here, I cannot believe you still believe the original statement is true.

I also can not believe that when the manifesto of a party 1 says A, another party would submit a 50 word statement basically saying "party 1 does not support A." (Plus some bizzare stuff about ending the politics of hatred -spread by others, presumably-)
That is, frankly, ridiculous.

The MRPT wants to take measures to make the monarchy more "acceptable" to the republicans, including reducing the political powers of the monarch and making it easier to dethrone him.

When I think "strong support of the monarchy," I definitely do not think of those two things!

Neither of these things are inherent to the Monarchy or say anything about how strong our support for the monarchy itself is, which is as strong as can be. As in, our MCs have to follow the manifesto, which is pretty clear about supporting the Monarchy.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

May 12, 2015 16:01:47 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Neither of these things are inherent to the Monarchy or say anything about how strong our support for the monarchy itself is, which is as strong as can be. As in, our MCs have to follow the manifesto, which is pretty clear about supporting the Monarchy.

I guess this is our fundamental disagreement, then.

To me, vowing to weaken the political powers of the monarch and making it easier to dethrone him is very much not strong support for the institution of the monarchy. In this, I think we'll have to let the voters decide, at this point. We'll agree to amicably disagree. I'll make the suggested change to the 50-word statement either way, though, out of a desire for a good and honest campaign.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

Sometimes supporting something does include finding compromises that might make it less of a target.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

May 12, 2015 16:39:23 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

May 12, 2015 16:01:47 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Neither of these things are inherent to the Monarchy or say anything about how strong our support for the monarchy itself is, which is as strong as can be. As in, our MCs have to follow the manifesto, which is pretty clear about supporting the Monarchy.

I guess this is our fundamental disagreement, then.

To me, vowing to weaken the political powers of the monarch and making it easier to dethrone him is very much not strong support for the institution of the monarchy. In this, I think we'll have to let the voters decide, at this point. We'll agree to amicably disagree. I'll make the suggested change to the 50-word statement either way, though, out of a desire for a good and honest campaign.

I don't believe I've seen the MRPT manifesto "vowing" to weaken the monarchy. That is at the very least a bad choice of words Sir Alexandreu. 

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Though if we want to talk about defending the Talossan monarchy, what of the longstanding Talossan tradition of adoptive monarchy as opposed to hereditary? King Robert II (Dobberpuhl) and King Florence [it is also worth noting that all Talossan monarchs have been kings regardless of gender] were both placed on the throne as opposed to merely inheriting it from their predecessor. Indeed, our current king was chosen as well.

What I find disingenuous is that the calls of "tradition! This is how Talossa is!" enshrine a very particular, very derivativist, model. They also seem to conflate supporting the current monarch with supporting the monarchy.

In all earnestness, I have Republican tendencies. However, I have Talossan tendencies that override these and would prefer a monarchy that is peculiar to our nation (an adoptive monarchy consisting solely of Kings regardless of gender) to a Republic that is a xerox of some macronation or a monarchy that is the same.

[Ian Plätschisch]

May 13, 2015 8:53:02 GMT -6 Vitxalmour Conductour said:

Sometimes supporting something does include finding compromises that might make it less of a target.

Exactly. We are the Moderates after all. None of us in the MRPT want the monarchy to go away or become a figurehead, but we have to reform it lest the plethora of republican parties all band together in dissatisfaction.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

plethora of republican parties

Excuse me, there is precisely one-half of a Republican party on the ballot paper. The "Republican Threat" is a bogeyman of the RUMP which has never existed in actuality.

[Ian Plätschisch]

By "republican" I mean "would rather have a republic with either a figurehead king or no king at all." This includes ZRT-LibCon, and TSP (though small, we don't know how many votes they will get). Though not the huge bogeyman the RUMP claims it is, it seems to me that more than half a party would rather have a republic.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Do we know yet what exactly the RUMP means when they say "end the politics of hatred"? It is still in the latest revision of their 50-word statement.

I don't quite understand how the RUMP plans to make Talossan politics less hateful, nor do I think that this is even an issue.