Senäts SNAFU

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

We have some potential proposals being debated and voted-upon in the party, and I don't think I could speak for the party in that regard.  We chose leaders and they'll speak for us :) 

My point is a narrow one: you say you want to lower partisan tensions, but then you make a speech in which you make sweeping and wrong accusations about our entire party.  Since you're likely to be the FreeDem leader for the time to come, the tenor of your leadership and the way you interact with people ends up mattering a lot.  So if you want to build some mutual goodwill, maybe consider changing your rhetoric.  You could have made the same speech you began this with, minus the digs and jibes about the TNC.  It would have been more productive and better-received.

What he said.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

There is rhetoric on both sides and a history of mistrust. Perhaps the best step is for everyone to kinda take a breath and see if we can solve the current issues. I believe that everyone has the best interests of the kingdom at heart. We are the lucky few who share Talossa together.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

There is rhetoric on both sides and a history of mistrust. Perhaps the best step is for everyone to kinda take a breath and see if we can solve the current issues. I believe that everyone has the best interests of the kingdom at heart. We are the lucky few who share Talossa together.

Well-said!

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Okay, thanks for that. So how exactly do what you see as "sweeping and wrong accusations" make you (plural) feel? Because I can tell you how sweeping and wrong accusations about the Free Democrats make me feel, if you'd like.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I don't know that my own feelings enter into that much.  I think I have some importance within the party, and I'm certainly obnoxiously vocal, but I'm not doing the negotiating or representing us.  We have a great party leader in Therxh, and a great future Seneschal in Braneu.  And I think both of them are level-headed.  The effect on the TNC is much more going to be on the ongoing debate and discussions over the various proposals undergoing a vote.  If a proposal predicated on new partisan comity is going to succeed, it's not going to be while the leader on the other side is launching public partisan attacks.

I imagine that any criticism of the Free Democrats feels quite personal, since you personally are so strongly identified with the party.  You have referred to it as the "Miestra Schiva fan club" in the past, and so when someone says something you think is an unfair criticism, it must feel as though you yourself are being attacked.  That's unfortunate.  As you know, I think you're wonderful in many ways.  You are so passionate about what you believe, and you have such a love for your vision of Talossa.  You're also articulate and a fantastic organizer of people.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Okay, thanks for that. What I'm hearing is that you want "partisan political attacks" to no longer be a feature. What I am worried about is the lack of a firm line between that, and "legitimate criticism and robust political debate". I feel defensive and irritated, because IMHO I'm doing the latter.

By the way, when you refer to statements that I've made in the past, but were made in a different context and IMHO are no longer applicable, I also feel defensive and threatened. As I see it, the FreeDems of the 59th Cosa are far less reliant on me, partly because the new political atmosphere under TNC leadership has led to a realignment of centre-Left politics. And when given fulsome praise by someone who is by far my harshest and most cogent critic, I'm afraid I don't feel good. I feel suspicious, like I'm being manipulated.

In any case, the agreement that was brokered between me and Bråneu is supposed to *lead* to an atmosphere of less partisan distrust and anger, rather than be a reward for it? If that makes sense?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Okay, thanks for that. What I'm hearing is that you want "partisan political attacks" to no longer be a feature. What I am worried about is the lack of a firm line between that, and "legitimate criticism and robust political debate". I feel defensive and irritated, because IMHO I'm doing the latter.

There is indeed no firm line between those things.  Agreeing to reduce partisan tensions by lowering partisan attacks means that -- by definition -- you will not be able to criticize as robustly as before.  It means that the campaign will mostly be over, and there won't be much place for broadly characterizing a rival political party in critical terms.  Instead, more constructively attempting to solve specific disagreements or level specific criticisms would be the order of the day.  You could have done that in your speech which began this thread, and you'd have found a lot more success -- if you hadn't tried to announce your conclusions about the TNC's character as a party, you wouldn't have made fundamental errors about motivation about Danihel, nor would you have really upset anyone.

I mean, your sniping continued immediately.  When acknowledging your error, you made sure to include a dig about how we think "the only people in Talossa who matter [are TNC]" and that "Danihel is not actually a TNC member; [but] that the TNC were actually telling him he should just pick Carlus."  Both of those statements are taunts meant to reinforce the broad partisan attack you've been launching on the TNC for months.

You could just not do that.

This stuff just isn't symmetrical.  This isn't "both sides."  The TNC just doesn't really do that kind of thing.  Our campaign emails were not built around attacks on the FDT as a party of deceit or a similar sort of thing, and none of us have made speeches about how we're worried about how much you lie and how it's causing a problem with some situation.  When we do make criticism or attacks of that kind, it's almost always in response.

I know you might not feel that this is true, but it really is.  It's a deliberate choice that we've made and that we've discussed.

By the way, when you refer to statements that I've made in the past, but were made in a different context and IMHO are no longer applicable, I also feel defensive and threatened. As I see it, the FreeDems of the 59th Cosa are far less reliant on me, partly because the new political atmosphere under TNC leadership has led to a realignment of centre-Left politics.

From the outside, you remain almost the exclusive leader of your party.  You speak for them in private, make announcements in public, and set the priorities.  But if that changes someday, I think that will only be to the good.

And when given fulsome praise by someone who is by far my harshest and most cogent critic, I'm afraid I don't feel good. I feel suspicious, like I'm being manipulated.

I have consistently espoused this high opinion of you, in public and in private, for more than ten years.  I certainly have many criticisms and I might whine about you, but one benefit of telling the truth is that I don't have to worry about that sort of inconsistency.  I think you have a lot of great qualities.  You actually know this for a fact, because you got to read a lot of the private RUMP emails when Tim left the country.

In any case, the agreement that was brokered between me and Bråneu is supposed to *lead* to an atmosphere of less partisan distrust and anger, rather than be a reward for it? If that makes sense?

Sure, but that's going to depend on the perception that the agreement both could and would be implemented.  If I talk about how I'm going to be a vegetarian around a mouthful of steak, people might be doubtful.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Okay, thanks for that. When you talk about "the broad partisan attack you've been launching on the TNC for months" - and that's certainly true, in the context of electoral politics - how exactly do you (plural, your party) feel about that? I'm trying to get at what exactly the bad feeling on your side is.

[mximo]

Azul,

I don't really understand what's partisan about this. We are simply asking that every province should have a siting senator in order to start to vote. Once again, the matter is before the courts. It would be ill-advised to give instructions to the court. I strongly believe in the independence of the court for the sake of our institutions. I cannot see myself ordering the court to pass judgment. We must have confidence in the work of the judges. Once again, there is nothing partisan here.

I don't understand why we're making a mountain out of a molehill. We're talking about democracy and equality between provinces. It's a principle enshrined in our constitution. The vote on the issue is proceeding cordially in the Senate, and I once again ask the honorable member of the Cosa to let the Senate manage its internal affairs.

With all my respect,

Mximo Carbonèl
Senator from Florencia

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Quite aside from the "partisanship" debate, I would caution against too broad a principle that all Senators must be seated before a Mençéi can be elected. The question is, in this case: given the presumably-ongoing legal action, is the Senator from Cézembre seated, or not? Do legal challenges (absent an actual injunction) mean the vote has to be delayed?

[mximo]

Once again, it is not for the Senate to tell the court what to decide. It would also be ill-advised for us, the elected officials, to comment on a case before the courts. Once again, I respect the independence of the judiciary. However, I do note that a member from another chamber seems to want to direct the Senate proceedings. I therefore ask you once again to respect the internal decisions of the Senate and strongly advise you not to comment on a case before the courts.

Mximo Carbonèl

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Max, I have no idea what you're talking about. Unless I'm really misreading things, the matter of how the Senäts elects a Mençéi is not before the Cort. Judge Perþonest declined the application for an injunction. The question of the Maricopa tiebreaker is irrelevant to what I'm saying.

[Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu]

I would also remind my colleague from Florencia that the right of citizens to comment on the affairs of government is an important cornerstone of an open society.  D:na Miestra has every right, and perhaps also responsibility, to comment on parliamentary proceedings in a public forum.

For what its worth, I agree with her.  The idea that a Lord President cannot be elected unless all Senators are seated is a nonsense precedent, especially given that there are easy mechanisms for replacement should the balance of the body's will change upon the seating of a new individual.  Which the Justice also noted in your failed petition for injunction.

It would then be immensely easy to derail the Senats through a process of "strategic resignation."  Working under the assumption, as you and those who voted with you are stating, that the body should just... not conduct business if there is an absence.

Let us say, for example, that a Senator resigns.  According to the precedent we are setting, the Senats needs to suspend operations, as a province is going unrepresented.  An unscrupulous provincial executive waits until JUST BEFORE the power to name a replacement Senator lapses to Cunstaval/King, and names the recently resigned Senator.  Who is seated and then immediately resigns again.  There appears to be almost nothing in the law to prevent this.  Heck, with the way some of the provinces are functioning these days, the executive and senator could be the same person.  So the Senats is paralyzed for a full Cosa term in this way.  Which means no legislating can get done at all, again, all resting on the precedent that the Senats has set in this override vote.

And if you think "someone would never do that."  I have a bridge to sell you.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The idea that a Lord President cannot be elected unless all Senators are seated is a nonsense precedent

That's not the precedent.  The law says, "The Senäts shall, after every general election of a senator, choose one of its members to be the President of the Senäts" (Org.III.10).  I believe this very clearly states that the election for that office happens after any senator is elected in a general election.  It makes the most sense to interpret this as meaning that the election should wait if one of the election results is unsettled, because the general election of a senator would be pending.

Also, common sense says that electing a leader from a group of eight people probably should try to wait for everyone.  There's no reason to rush and try to get it done when there are empty seats unless you're trying to exclude someone from the vote.

It would then be immensely easy to derail the Senats through a process of "strategic resignation."  Working under the assumption, as you and those who voted with you are stating, that the body should just... not conduct business if there is an absence.

A mid-session special appointment is not a general election.

[Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu]

There's no reason to rush and try to get it done when there are empty seats unless you're trying to exclude someone from the vote.

Screw it.  I'm done.  Consider this my resignation as Senator and citizen.  Slimy insinuation like this is the most toxic part of this country.

I did the best I could run a deliberative body through a weird situation.  I'm not going to stick around to get slimed on for my troubles.  Figure it out yourselves.  Bye.

@Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB