By the way, if I had not promised to keep quiet about the ESRP/terror deal, I would tell all, and the face of EUtopian politics would never be the same again. But I am one to keep a promise; don't criticize me for that.
I know no such thing. Are you saying that the CC is trying to fool the voters, and that the people who are allegedly in charge of the CC are not, in fact, the ones who pull the strings?Originally posted by Jools
As the leader of the Conservative Coalition I play only an organisational role. The real leader is the leader of the Free Republican Caucass and you know that.
That's a non-sequitur; if you're trying to imply anything, please have the basic courtesy to say so.Besides, you of all people should know who your party is dealing with.
With all due respect, that is a load of wombat droppings. Our negotiations with both the ESRP and the CRE have been open and above board from the beginning; both parties know where we stand - which is more than can be said of the CC. Once again, I'm mystified why it's an "explosive and polarizing move" if the RD negotiates with the CRE, but it's fine if the CC does the same thing. Sour grapes, perhaps?Your two faced negotiators have cooed in both the communists and the monarchists. Now that's an explosive and polarizing eutopian politics move.
So, what you are saying is that you don't have the complete support of your own party and that your party is hopelessly fragmented; and yet, you expect citizens to vote for you and the CC. Tell me again how a fragmented party makes for good government.Originally posted by Hajji Giray I
Maybe, but they have said that my platform is unacceptable. See how my platform and my party's are different? Wow, how exciting!
Why not, if your views and those of the NP are so incommensurable?1. No.
Too busy to make a two-minute statement? Too busy to say, for example, "I think JL was doing a good job, and perhaps we should elect him as party leader?" [OOC: not trying to exploit RL-issues here, so I won't pursue this any further, and I'll be happy to delete the above passage if you think it's inappropriate.2. I should have, but at the time I was busy with other [Real life] issues.
You could have founded a new one - it's been done before. You could have joined the LP, or the MP (which *was* emerging at this time). You could have steered the FR away from a merger with the NP. All valid options.3. Well, what party would I have joined?
So, it's all about running for office?The Moderates were not yet a party, and I could not run for any office at all as a monderate anyway.
Not really.Or maybe you want me to join the RD...
Quite honestly, I don't care one bit whether you like one another or not; that's a personal issue, and none of my concern. What concerns me is that you're cooperating politically.Mr. Langley can confess that he and I do not altogether like each other [in character, that is].
I think an emotional response would have been natural under the circumstances, yes; I'm not sure the same can be said for an obviously, err, "unstable" one. I hope I would have had enough sense not to accuse the Right of staging a coup d'etat, not to claim that our Head of Government was caving in to terrorists, and not to demand the declaration of martial law.If YOU were attacked like he was, YOU would have gone crazy for a while too.
Did I mention insanity anywhere in my previous statements?But Mr. Jools is now a perfectly normal person and must not be accused of insanity.
Ah. That makes it acceptable, yes? So if, say, an anonymous group posts fascist posters all over Eutopia, and I accuse the CC of being involved, that's okay because it's just a "matter of opinion"? If I say that the CC is solely to blame for the legislative standstill of last term, that's simply a matter of opinion? If I say that the CC is paving the way to a fascist takeover, that, too, is just an opinion? And if I say that the sun does, in fact, revolve around the Earth and that the heliocentric view is all wrong, that's perfectly alright because it's just a "matter of opinion"?That's a matter of opinion.
It also indicates your style of politics and your rhetoric; except, it doesn't."Moderate" indicates your platform.
Which links?My continued discussion of Mr. Murmurandus's lethargy and the ESRP's links to terrorism are not part of my platform.
Which falsities, precisely?Okay, maybe that is a technicality, but look at the falsities in your reply to my speech. You can weave a fabric as well as I can.
posted by Mel.
I know no such thing. Are you saying that the CC is trying to fool the voters, and that the people who are allegedly in charge of the CC are not, in fact, the ones who pull the strings?
Quite honestly, I don't care one bit whether you like one another or not; that's a personal issue, and none of my concern. What concerns me is that you're cooperating politically.
Presumably, your party constitution specifies that. No? Interesting. I pity the CC-voter who tries to figure out just who exactly is in charge of the CC; at least we seem to have established that its official leaders aren't. I can only conclude that public transparency and accountability are part of the radical Leftist creed the CC is so fond of railing against.Originally posted by Craig Ashley
No effort to fool the voters, as anyone can see. The leadership positions in the CC are purely administrative.
In other words, the CC hardly qualifies as a party: its members fundamentally disagree on policies, its leaders are mere strawmen, and its decision-making process is a disorganized mess. Yes, I can see how that would inspire confidence among the voters... My only hope is that this is not how you were planning to run the country.The true decision making happens at the caucus level, and it is obvious to all that as it currently stands, the FR caucus is the larger of the two.
Forgive me for being old-fashioned, but I was taught there is a difference between having "different viewpoints" and finding each other's positions "unacceptable" (Mr. Morgan's term, not mine). The first is a sign of diversity characteristic of any healthy party, the second makes one wonder why the individuals in question would be in the same party in the first place.Mr. Morgan and myself have personal and political differences. That is a no secret. But isn't it the idea of the party system like ours for people of different viewpoints to come together?
Would you care to identify those people?Besides your party is the one working with at best people who cling to failed and blood stained system, and at worst are violent terrorist-like revolutionaries.
Describing the Nationalists as "solidly right-wing" is perhaps a bit charitable. As to the rest: nobody can accuse any of the registered parties of plotting a coup d'etat - at least if they are even remotely interested in factual accuracy. I'll take your word for it that the Nationalists aren't planning a revolt (not that you've extended the same courtesy to other Eutopian parties), but are trying to further entrench injustice, inequality, exploitation and marginalization by other means.The Naitonalist faction is solidly right wing, but no one can accuse us of advocating the overthrow of a democraticly elected government.
Oh, stop the nitpicking! This is a presidential campaign, not the CC headquarters!Originally posted by Melanchthon
Presumably, your party constitution specifies that. No? Interesting. I pity the CC-voter who tries to figure out just who exactly is in charge of the CC; at least we seem to have established that its official leaders aren't. I can only conclude that public transparency and accountability are part of the radical Leftist creed the CC is so fond of railing against.
At any rate, one wonders whether the esteemed indivuals the CC has nominated for these elections, if elected, are the ones who will actually exercise the power the public has bestowed on them; or whether their role will be merely administrative as well, while the shots will be called by someone else behind the scenes.
In other words, the CC hardly qualifies as a party: its members fundamentally disagree on policies, its leaders are mere strawmen, and its decision-making process is a disorganized mess. Yes, I can see how that would inspire confidence among the voters... My only hope is that this is not how you were planning to run the country.
Currently I have a case being built against the ESRP. However, at the moment all the evidence is circumstantial (but rather compelling). I will wait until the evidence is solid before I present it in full to the High Court of EUtopia. [OOC: Hopefully before elections end.Would you care to identify those people?
A bit....Describing the Nationalists as "solidly right-wing" is perhaps a bit charitable.
Well, since Mr. Langley isn't running for president, I am, I'd reccomend this discussion be carried to the Nationalist Caucus of the CC or the CC itself.As to the rest: nobody can accuse any of the registered parties of plotting a coup d'etat - at least if they are even remotely interested in factual accuracy. I'll take your word for it that the Nationalists aren't planning a revolt (not that you've extended the same courtesy to other Eutopian parties), but are trying to further entrench injustice, inequality, exploitation and marginalization by other means.
So you don't care what's going on in your own party?Originally posted by Hajji Giray I
Oh, stop the nitpicking! This is a presidential campaign, not the CC headquarters!
I had no intention of further pursuing a discussion with Mr. Langley in the context of your campaign.Well, since Mr. Langley isn't running for president, I am, I'd reccomend this discussion be carried to the Nationalist Caucus of the CC or the CC itself.
Originally posted by Hajji Giray I
I thank you for your support and agree whole-heartedly on your stance with monarchy. I will bar any movement by my party to ally with any party wishing to pass rule of this nation to a single, unelected person.
Originally posted by heagarty
(Reads back letter...)(Overhears politicians outside their HQ as they head to BrewTOPIA....)They speak of CC and CRE coalitions, a national referendum and a Monarchy Commitee to work on reinstalling the Royal Family and Monarch in the country. (looks back at letter) Politicians! So much for voting today, I think I'll head to the bar instead...
OOC: What?????? No comprende!Originally posted by heagarty
IC: Well, yeah, that's the point. I thought you were promising that you wouldn't let your party do that. It doesn't mean anything to promise not to do something if there was never any possibility it might happen, it only means something if you have the opportunity but stick with your promise.
The idealist side of me says, what's right for my party may not be right for EUtopia [OOC: my ego tells me what I think is correctI really like your platform, but it seems like your party isn't very supportive of the positions you've taken.
(finishes note, more worried than before)That kind of worries me if you're expecting them to work for your agenda if you're elected.
I wasn't entirely being serious; however, I am in a quandary as to your position as MHSA. A certain anonymous person has given me pretty much the only chance I have in this race despite personal grudges, but now he requests I pay him back. I'm stuck between giving Anonymous what he has earned through hard campaigning, and giving you the MHSA for your superb skills at the job.OOC: Please don't take it personally, you have made this election much harder for me than it should be. I think my MHSA job is toast anyway, but thanks for the thought.![]()