Vote Free Democrat for the 57th Cosa. Miestra Schiva for Seneschal.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I was happy to see that we may have left the whole bitter and nasty fight behind, actually, when the FDT approved their four-point platform in the most recent convention, when you said that the issue just wasn't that pressing when compared to the continued existence of the country.

Which part of the platform are you reading? Our platform reads:

MONARCHIST/REPUBLICAN COMPROMISE. Free Democrats include both monarchists and republicans, but we all put liberty and democracy first in Talossa. We will offer our support to a Talossan Head of State who is continually active, puts the interests of the Nation above defending their own interests and prestige, and acts as the servant rather than the owner of the State. We support Organic structures which ensure that our Head of State operates in this way.

It does not say "the issue is not pressing when compared to the continued existence of the country." It says we put liberty and democracy first in Talossa. It also calls for an active head of state, and not one who hasn't even logged into Wittenberg in 31 days and doesn't respond to emails from his own Secretary of State.

It was Miestra herself who explicitly said she didn't think the problem was that pressing right now, when compared to the continued existence of the country. Again, I am very happy to provide evidence of this. It was only a couple of months ago.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I also have a reputation for being pretty rigorously truthful for a reason...

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I also have a reputation for being pretty rigorously truthful for a reason...

Well, allergies can do that. But I promise that, in contrast, I'm very comfortable with the truth. That's why, during the last election, when I warned about our activity crisis and you declared that I was just making it up and "gaslighting," I was still saying the same thing the next week (when you made a speech about how we were having a crisis of activity).

[Ian Plätschisch]

The LCC never supported "eliminating the Monarchy." I know you think that subjecting the Monarch to a vote of approval every so often makes it not a Monarchy, but pretending like that's the only way to define it, or even the most common way, is confusing at best (and untruthful at worst).

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The LCC never supported "eliminating the Monarchy." I know you think that subjecting the Monarch to a vote of approval every so often makes it not a Monarchy, but pretending like that's the only way to define it, or even the most common way, is confusing at best (and untruthful at worst).

I strongly disagree. Obviously we've disagreed about this for a while, but I think that the proposal would have effectively eliminated the monarchy and instituted a presidency. For most people, if you tell them about an office that is regularly elected every 7 years by popular majority, that doesn't indicate a monarchy. I know that technically it can be, and that there have been a number of elective monarchies in history, but I think it's just not being straightforward to pretend that we wouldn't be fundamentally changing the very nature of the office and making it more like what most people would consider a presidency. I think that by acknowledging this where more effectively communicating the scope of the change. A partisan king, and possibly the permanent end of the institution (since most likely no one's going to get elected).

I mean, technically, we can have an office that is elected every 20 minutes and is tasked with catching stray dogs, and that could also still be called a monarchy. But that technical truth would also kind of hide the actual nature of the office, too, wouldn't it?

I think that one of the most interesting things about our country is that it's a monarchy where the monarch actually has some degree of personal power. It's not the only thing, but it's an important thing. And we shouldn't be ditching important things when we're worried about our very survival.