"What did I say? Nothing. As Le Bélvèdere is connected to my party, you may make that connection, but I said these words as much as you spread the rumour that the Black Regent has been killed. Still, as you mention me, I am going to react.
“Senor Faixon is dead wrong when he said that I was responsible for the rumor that Regent Joan was killed. It was a wayward editor at El Cid who wrote that, and the error has been corrected. He has been disciplined accordingly. As the paper is unofficially tied to the party, the party takes responsibility for letting the editor publish those words. But that is a minor issue. Let’s move on to more pressing concerns.
You seem to have entirely missed the article's point, which is regrettable. Your entire debate was completely useless. Everyone just mentioned his point of view, and in the end, you both agreed that you have different opinions and that these opinions will not change. How can that be called an agreement? The only agreement you seem to have is the one with Alejandría about refusing to be called five-year-olds. Which is just what those children would say too if somebody would question their behaviour afterwards.
“See? Senor Faixon believes that the only ‘useful’ debate is one in which somebody dominates their opponent, as he clearly wants to do to me. Why can’t he just admit that two parties can’t just get along? We put forth our policies to each other. We provided evidence and analysis to back them up. We criticized each other’s standpoints. But in the end, both of us acknowledged each other’s platforms and respectfully concluded the debate. That constitutes an agreement, and agreement to disagree. Our goal was not to dominate each other, it’s to debate policy and see if there’s anything we misunderstood or need to fix. Both of us found several key issues that we pledged to bring up after the close of the election. That is surely an agreement, and the level of respect in this debate implies that there will likely be bipartisan support for legislation between our two parties after the end of the election. Meanwhile, Senor Faixon just wants to criticize and insult both sides. He says that squabbling five-year-olds will refuse to change their behavior when somebody else questions it, but that is exactly what he is doing with himself.
And you wish not to include the Fénix in any coalition because 'we refuse to work with our classmates'? Might I remind you that we were perfectly willing to do so and have done so very successfully in the past, just that the use of underhanded tactics and catastrophical misnegotiations had forced my hand in ending that cooperation? Because a Fénix doesn't sell his ideals as easily as a Fraternidad devoid of a spine does, ever willing to please everybody even when it is impossible.
“I would also like to remind Senor Faixon that it was his party’s disastrous policies which caused their membership in our coalition to be terminated. His members tried pushing economic deregulation and a pacifist military policy, which both clashed with our general policies. They threatened our work with other parties. The Fenix have taken every opportunity to push their agenda using our party’s influence. Villahermosa sympathized with the Fenix’s pacifist agenda, and look what that caused us! We were willing to work with the Fenix. We wanted to be on good terms with other parties. But they had to abuse our partnership for their own ends. So we terminated the partnership. It had become impossible.
Then the next part Leon has entirely missed, hostility. The article clearly states a difference between personal and political hostility. Although I am sure my presence here is a personal offense for some of those present", Faixòn looks in the direction of D'Garcia and Silva, "for my part I can safely say that any disagreement only plays on a political level. Disagreements that can be solved in peaceful interaction. The article doesn't even speak of your childish debate with Alejandría when speaking of hostility. Silva and Medrano are a far better example. These men do not only have different political views, but one can't stay in a room with the other without a hateful look. This is what the article spoke of. Such personal differences are far harder to overcome and more than just an obstacle.
“Senor Faixon claims that any disagreement between him and other politicians is only on a personal level. Yet he does mention that his presence is a personal offense for some, implying there is personal hostility between him and others. Furthermore, throughout this entire speech he has not brought up one point against the Fraternidad’s policies or for the Fenix’s policies. What does this show? Faixon may not think he personally disagrees with others, but he does. His actions speak louder than his words. He attacks Senor Medrano as a hypocritical industrialist. He personally attacks Senor de Silva and Senor D’Garcia. He attacks everybody who is not on his team.
Finally, if you had opened your eyes and ears for a moment, you would have noticed that the Fénix is perhaps the only party to have presented every aspect of its agenda, while it has been your party which engaged in your petty skirmishes with these neo-conservatives and the so-called social-liberals. Besides, 'getting into power' sounds much more like something you aim to do. The Fénix wishes to grant liberties - which means less power.
“If Senor Faixon had bothered to listen to our speeches, he would’ve found that the Fraternidad has presented every part of its platform multiple times, including new policy additions. We even debated the merits of each policy. The Fenix, however, have not bothered to do much besides give platitudes like ‘more freedoms and liberties’ and generalize about economic deregulations. And he blames the Fraternidad for ‘petty skirmishes’ when he personally attacks both said ‘neo-conservatives’ and ‘social-liberals’ without providing an alternative path. We have no need to get into power, because we already are in power. We just want the chance to continue implementing the policies we promised the people. The Fenix wish to grant liberties. But we wish to protect them. And for that we need regulations. Anarchy is complete freedom, but it is definitely not an ideal outcome, because we would lose our civilization in the process.
Did I say finally? Because I have one more thing to say. You always strive to have the last word. All has been said, yet you have to set the finishing statement. There have been multiple examples of this in the past, and I entirely expect you to do so again - or at least, until I said you would. Rest assured, you will have your wish - whatever you have to say, I won't answer. Everyone who heard this and knows me a bit has enough information to form his own opinion on that matter, without the need for me to take them by the hand some more. This is also a part of freedom."
“If he doesn’t want to continue this conversation, that is fine with me. Let everybody know that the Fenix are unwilling to work with their fellow parties, that they are only concerned about increasing their own power, contrary to what they tell their voters. And yes, we all have the freedom to agree to disagree. And I will do that here. If he doesn’t want to talk, let him. If he disagrees with what I say, let him. But the respect goes both ways. And I hope that Hispanians understand that. Respect each other, and we can rise above anything.
“Thank you all! Vote Fraternidad! Libertad, Igualdad, Fraternidad!”