Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 04:25:38 PMThe extent to which Mic'haglh is not seen as a separate entity to myself is regrettable, and something we've been trying to counteract, but it seems that that can't happen until I leave Talossa altogether :D

Now, that's a little exaggerated. I mean, there are several Talossans who are out of politics and still in Talossa. Maybe a handful more than just technically!

But I do expect it is likely that as long as you're a vocal participant in politics, whatever party you're aligned with will tend to be seen as your party. I'll note that historically it never really mattered who was ex officio leader of the Progressive Conservatives or the RUMP, either. Even macronational politics have a tendency to get personalized around forceful or charismatic figures; Talossa doesn't have the mass to counteract that much.

You guys have espoused a number of goals, and almost all of them are about changing the laws.  I highlighted one of them: getting rid of the Senäts as we know it, in order to make it an advisory body that can delay legislation or request revisions from the Cosa.  I highlighted that one in our last mailer because I think it'd be a serious mistake and that voters hate the idea.  But there's others: shrinking the Cosa down more, creating a new bureau for worldbuilding, making more micronational connections, changing the laws about the CRL, supporting the Democracy Act, and asking the Chancery what changes should be made to Wittenberg. 

I don't even disagree with some of these.  (Although I will say that I do not think it's appropriate for the Chancery to be the deciding agency on what the future of our message board or website should look like -- they should be consulted, but we're a democracy, and the elected government should set policy).  But five out of seven of them are about changing the laws.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a focus on legislation, especially since it's almost always been your own passion, Miestra.  And there's nothing wrong with having those as goals... changing the law was one of our own premiere goals in the last election!  You should own it and be proud, in my opinion.

By the way, I told Mic'haglh this but he may not have seen my message: the video he shared in your last mailer was marked private, so I don't think anyone can watch it.

Stage 9  »  La Vila Joiosa/Villajoyosa  ›  Alto de Aitana. Costa Blanca
It was a weird day as the race to win the vuelta basically started anew, after Pogacar abandoned and Mas took over the red jersey. Instantly we went from one possible winner to at least six. And we immediately got a mountain stage with an uphill finish to test out the new contenders.

There was more bad news along the way as Groves (PTM) abandoned the race after his crash yesterday and Torres (MMM) also abandoned for reasons I don't know. Terrible news for the Menceis as Torres was basically the only rider they had left with any sort of standing in GC. After a very similar strategy got them the win last edition, the Menceis may well end up last this time.

Before we got to the final we started with a breakaway, which included Zana (CFA), Sivakov (MMM), Vermaerke (MMM), Camprubi (CHX), Paret-Peintre (CHX), Armirail (REX/CJO) and Calzoni (BDC). For a while it look like some of them might have a chance at a stagewin, but they were all caught on the final climb and from then it was up to the GC contenders.

New red jersey wearer Mas (REX/VFL/BDC/MAN) proved why he now gets to wear the red jersey with Pogacar gone by winning the stage, followed immediately by Onley (CHX/BDC/PTM/DED). Roglic (VFL/CJO/PTM) followed not far behind. Gall (CJO) came in fourth, followed by Christian Rodriguez (REX/VFL/DED), Skjelmose (GHS/CFA) and Widar (GHS/BDC). Carapaz (GHS/REX) disappointed again by coming 9th, but the biggest disappointment was Kuss (REX/CJO/PTM), who finished 11th, 1 minute 44 seconds behind Mas and dropped 3 places in GC. Also in the top 20: Omzrel (BDC/PTM) 15th, Zana 17th and Sivakov 20th.

The win by Mas and strong performances by Onley, Widar and Omzrel meant that BdC win the stage and further extend their lead. After the Pogacar dropout, there was a good chance today Naziun Cjovani would emerge as the favourites heading into week 2, with a full team including 3 of the new GC top 4, but that didn't happen yet. Instead the Kuss loss in GC meant they lost ground to BdC in both the stage and potential end-of-tour points. Els Talossaes Rexhital did manage to leave last place behind, handing over the red lantern to Dirnalaiset Mortescu, appropriately enough.

Standings after stage 9:

Pos	±		Team	Pts Ove	Pts Today
1st	(=)		Cézembre Caçeirs dals Mailintzarăs (BDC)	4233	+655
2nd	(=)		Gordon Hiatus Support Team (GHS)	3527	+335
3rd	(+2)		Velociposse Florencia (VFL)	3249	+595
4th	(-1)		The Manilows (MAN)	3248	+291
5th	(+1)		Port Maxhestic AC (PTM)	3141	+506
6th	(-2)		Cyclohexane (CHX)	3077	+282
7th	(=)		Naziun Cjovani (CJO)	2995	+482
8th	(=)		Maritiimi-Maxhestic Mençeis (MMM)	2538	+66
9th	(+2)		Els Talossaes Rexhital (REX)	2417	+581
10th	(-1)		Cézembre Fieschā (CFA)	2292	+174
11th	(-1)		Dirnalaiset Mortescu (DED)	2265	+342

New General Classification top 15:
1. Mas (REX/VFL/BDC/MAN)
2. Roglic (VFL/CJO/PTM) +1'18"
3. Gall (CJO) +1'39"
4. Onley (CHX/BDC/PTM/DED) +2'20"
5. Carapaz (GHS/REX) +3'26"
6. Skjelmose (GHS/CFA) +3'55"
7. Kuss (REX/CJO/PTM) + 4'09"

10. Omzrel (BDC/PTM) +8'05"

12. Widar (GHS/BDC) + 9'34"
13. Christian Rodriguez (REX/VFL/DED) + 9'42"
14. Martin (CFA) +12'58"

Tomorrow: the first rest day. After a tumultuous week (and stage 8 in particular) the remaining riders may well need it.

(For those who haven't done so yet, a good opportunity to vote on the General Election and the Talossan Music Top 20.)

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 09:24:06 AMOur party is overwhelmingly focused on building things and offering new programs, and the URL is focused on changing laws.

And that would be why you headlined your last mailer with a constitutional scare story?* No doubt because "building things and offering new programs" doesn't excite your core vote (whom I think Glüc characterized accurately).

Honestly, I'm disappointed that the tone got dragged down so close to the finish line.

Quote from: Tierçéu Rôibeardescù on Today at 11:52:43 AMAs no back up has come forward at this time, I will reluctantly take on the responsibility of taking up stewardship of this application, but due to breath of the piece and the relatively shallow knolage of international politics outside of talossa itself, i requests a extended period to review it. I appreciate your patience as I work through it. International political theory demands a meticulous, highly focused evaluation, and I prefer not to rush the process when my attention is divided. I will begin marking your paper just as soon as I can dedicate the proper time and analytical depth to it.

I appreciate your taking on this responsibility and the seriousness you are applying to it, Madam President. I'll check back in a month just to see how things are going (not to rush or as a deadline but to see what your initial thoughts are.)

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on Today at 10:35:52 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 09:24:06 AMI think you might be conflating two things. There's a difference between criticizing policies or ideas, and attacking people personally. We see some of that in this election, too, because the main criticism that I've seen of the Progs is noting how dominant I am when it comes to government activity.

It may be difficult to tell the difference between valid criticism of your government's record and personal attack when the line between individual and Government has been allowed to blur so much, but I can assure you, this is the former.

I was saying was that I didn't think that you guys had been engaging in a lot of nasty personal attacks this time around, for which I was grateful.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on Today at 10:35:52 AMthe contrary, we've said very explicitly that the few and modest objectives your party is offering are generally acceptable, but that if one wants something a bit more forward-thinking, the URL is the correct choice. If we're offering any big criticism of these objectives, what we're noting is that the shift in tone between your previous platform of promising the world and this platform is the implicit recognition that last time, you bit off more than you could chew, and failed to deliver.

We've accomplished some pretty huge things this term, and I'm glad we have even more to go, plus some new ideas to keep moving things forward. I think we have just a different approach to governance (and campaigning), though.

As no back up has come forward at this time, I will reluctantly take on the responsibility of taking up stewardship of this application, but due to breath of the piece and the relatively shallow knolage of international politics outside of talossa itself, i requests a extended period to review it. I appreciate your patience as I work through it. International political theory demands a meticulous, highly focused evaluation, and I prefer not to rush the process when my attention is divided. I will begin marking your paper just as soon as I can dedicate the proper time and analytical depth to it.

Sent out: Aug 15, 2026, 11:15 AM TDT / 4:15 PM UTC
Submitted by: Alexandreu Davinescu on behalf of the Progressive Alliance
Count: 2 of 2 allowed

---

<PROG logo>

As the election winds to a close, we want to ask you one more time to help us keep things moving and to help us save the Senäts. This storied institution is in danger, since our main opposition has vowed to destroy it and turn it into a powerless advisory committee.

Vote Progressive & Save the Senäts!

Yes, we plan to have real physical embassies, beautiful paper maps, and a new approach to our national website. But we also want to fight to preserve what's already been built. We don't subscribe to the philosophy that you cannot move forward unless you burn the past down -- we want to hold on the achievements of the past.

Click here to vote on the database:
https://database.talossa.com/elections/august-2026-elections

or click here to vote on Wittenberg:
https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=5436.msg44709#msg44709

For more about our platform:
https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=5411.0

Final reminders going out by email right now, as well as the second PROG mailer. Two days and six hours left to vote.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 09:24:06 AMI think you might be conflating two things. There's a difference between criticizing policies or ideas, and attacking people personally. We see some of that in this election, too, because the main criticism that I've seen of the Progs is noting how dominant I am when it comes to government activity.

It may be difficult to tell the difference between valid criticism of your government's record and personal attack when the line between individual and Government has been allowed to blur so much, but I can assure you, this is the former.

When you are in government and are running for re-election, one thing you must address, in addition to things like ideology and future plans, is past performance. Some governments likely find this quite easy; this government will have a harder time of it:

- Formation reliant on a politically extreme party, producing a narrow and often-unstable majority;
- Intentional exclusion of skilled and cooperative administrators on the basis of personal spite;
- Employment of individuals rightly condemned for sexual harrassment;
- Failure to deliver on multiple self-imposed goals related to immigration, culture, etc. (see point #2 for a major cause);
- Abuse and improper politicization of non-partisan institutions, including the CRL process and claiming Government credit for work of the Royal Civil Service;
- We can now add to the list "overzealous attempts to prosecute someone who does not actually exist".

I do not envy the Sisyphean task before you.

QuoteBut that's different than saying that it would be a bad idea to establish physical embassies, or that it's unrealistic, or that people would hate it. That would be focusing on our policies and challenging them.

On the contrary, we've said very explicitly that the few and modest objectives your party is offering are generally acceptable, but that if one wants something a bit more forward-thinking, the URL is the correct choice. If we're offering any big criticism of these objectives, what we're noting is that the shift in tone between your previous platform of promising the world and this platform is the implicit recognition that last time, you bit off more than you could chew, and failed to deliver.