The shocking Wittenberg statistics of Ián Lupul

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I just don't believe he ever really has.  In part, they are godless liberals (in his mind, perhaps), but far more importantly, they represent a direct threat to how he has always wanted to do Talossa: in the direct model of Elizabeth II of England: the monarchy being a hereditary, lifetime office with the royal family being a continuity of institutional memory and wisdom.  There is no dispute Elizabeth II has been an exemplar we will not see again for many decades, if not centuries.  Not perfect in the modern sense, but exemplary nevertheless.

I'm not sure the king can be held responsible for what you imagine he's thinking.  He's never criticized you as a "godless liberal" or implied anything even remotely similar, as far as I know.  His Majesty is a politically conservative devout Orthodox Christian, but I have never seen him be anything but extremely respectful and polite of the beliefs of others -- including myself, a leader of a progressive activist group and atheist who he recently trusted to be his regent.  And I have certainly never seen him speak of you or anyone as a "threat!"  Indeed, as far as I can tell, His Majesty has made a habit of not criticizing anyone's character, even when he disagrees with them sharply.

What could Ián have done post-Reunision to have effected positive Talossan society?

No, hold on, I asked what exactly you envision "true Reunision" to be.  Obviously you have a long list of grievances, starting ten years ago.  I am aware of them.  For that matter, you recounted most of these events in the same way just a couple of weeks ago, in your "Woolley vs. the Republic" thread.  I read it with interest.  But as far as I can tell, these recent things are just your personal criticisms of His Majesty.  You might be unhappy that His Majesty declined to abdicate in favor of a presidency, for example, but what does that have to do with Reunision?

[GV]

And again, he might have a reason why he doesn't want to tell us. Say heaven forbid something has happened with his family that has taken him away from getting shouted at for doing his job? Would you demand he tell us something that private. We all have, despite non-un recognition, the right to a private and family life. Any inference in that can only be in the basis of law.

All true. 

I cannot remember off the top of my head the exact day on which I made that welfare-check phone-call with John.  One's voice is always a good indicator of overall health and in some cases, emotional state. 

When I heard John's voice that day over the phone, I perceived it as being its normal reedy-resonant self.  And yes, as I remember these things, he may have said something about work.  Perhaps many of us were too hasty in our approach.

But...  The timing relative to the July 2020 monarchial referendum which nixed the hereditary aspect...  A galaxy of miscommunication, thinking too fast, and crossed wires on the part of many Talossans regarding John's absence?  Wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened!

But...  The appointment of AD as Regent only after my welfare-check call and after two months of no Witt activity at all...

The return to activity just in time to personally veto 55RZ21, which would have made the monarchy a periodically-elected office of state...

John's past outright refusal (??) to entertain dialoguing with 'republicans' on a personal level over the past decade-and-a-half...

All of this paints a narrative the King through the years did everything in his power not only to preserve Talossa, but to preserve Talossa the way he wanted to do Talossa.

As for a difficult situation on his part outside of Talossa, had this been the case, I'm quite sure in my private back-channels with Mha, Mha would have told me in appropriately the most-oblique of terms John was not doing well in some way.

But unless I am missing something horribly, Mha to me in private channels did no such thing.

And this is the frustrating thing: John either refused or was unable to say anything in August and September 2020 to the country.  If I'm the president of, say, a PTA, and went incommunicado for two months?!  I would have been tossed out of office after two weeks.

Could John be putting the kibosh on communicating something horrible in his life?  Possibly.

But in the context of the past decade-and-a-half of dealing with him in both good and interesting aspects (mostly good), the narrative of Lupul's just being recalcitrant and having a temper-tantrum over the monarchy referendum unfortunately makes the most sense right now.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

I don't know how controversial this take is going to be, but this "culture war" will not cease until everyone who has witnessed the Schism or Reunision stops being a citizen.
This is not a demand for these people to renounce by any means, rather I cant help but feel like post-Reunision citizens just... dont care as much? Or at least I dont. And that might be for the best long-term.

[GV]

I'm not sure the king can be held responsible for what you imagine he's thinking.  He's never criticized you as a "godless liberal" or implied anything even remotely similar, as far as I know.  His Majesty is a politically conservative devout Orthodox Christian, but I have never seen him be anything but extremely respectful and polite of the beliefs of others -- including myself, a leader of a progressive activist group and atheist who he recently trusted to be his regent.  And I have certainly never seen him speak of you or anyone as a "threat!"  Indeed, as far as I can tell, His Majesty has made a habit of not criticizing anyone's character, even when he disagrees with them sharply.

What could Ián have done post-Reunision to have effected positive Talossan society?

No, hold on, I asked what exactly you envision "true Reunision" to be.  Obviously you have a long list of grievances, starting ten years ago.  I am aware of them.  For that matter, you recounted most of these events in the same way just a couple of weeks ago, in your "Woolley vs. the Republic" thread.  I read it with interest.  But as far as I can tell, these recent things are just your personal criticisms of His Majesty.  You might be unhappy that His Majesty declined to abdicate in favor of a presidency, for example, but what does that have to do with Reunision?

"I asked you what exactly you envision 'true Reunision' to be" - Thank you for reminding me of your question.  Good Lord, I am still worked up over stuff!

The Reunision I wish for is for Ián Lupul, you, and others on the modern Talossan Right to engage through back-channels a sincere 'come-to-Jesus' dialogue such Kane, Miestrâ, Anglatzarâ, and others will say in so many words something to the effect of...

We had a knock-down-drag out with John today, and I think we understand each other a little better.  We still disagree rampantly on the monarchy, but we are well-convinced John is aware of and has fessed up for his own mistakes.  But we have fessed up on our own, too.

We may never been drinking buddies with Lupul, but I think it really is water under the bridge.  As for AD vs. Schivâ, that seems to have gone the way of the Dodo, too.

Part of bringing up all this is to take as much poison-dross from future Talossan politics as possible.  We can disagree on governance and things like that, but we can also take the log out of our own eye while removing the stick out of the eyes of others - a phenomenae (cannot spell today) that does not happen enough in politics anywhere and one which voters outside of Talossa hate.

[GV]

I don't know how controversial this take is going to be, but this "culture war" will not cease until everyone who has witnessed the Schism or Reunision stops being a citizen.
This is not a demand for these people to renounce by any means, rather I cant help but feel like post-Reunision citizens just... dont care as much? Or at least I dont. And that might be for the best long-term.

Thank you, John Eiffler!  That's the sort of response he would have given.

Right on all counts!  LOL  And yes, I took your post the right way.  :-)

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

And again, he might have a reason why he doesn't want to tell us. Say heaven forbid something has happened with his family that has taken him away from getting shouted at for doing his job? Would you demand he tell us something that private. We all have, despite non-un recognition, the right to a private and family life. Any inference in that can only be in the basis of law.

All true. 

I cannot remember off the top of my head the exact day on which I made that welfare-check phone-call with John.  One's voice is always a good indicator of overall health and in some cases, emotional state. 

When I heard John's voice that day over the phone, I perceived it as being its normal reedy-resonant self.  And yes, as I remember these things, he may have said something about work.  Perhaps many of us were too hasty in our approach.

But...  The timing relative to the July 2020 monarchial referendum which nixed the hereditary aspect...  A galaxy of miscommunication, thinking too fast, and crossed wires on the part of many Talossans regarding John's absence?  Wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened!

But...  The appointment of AD as Regent only after my welfare-check call and after two months of no Witt activity at all...

The return to activity just in time to personally veto 55RZ21, which would have made the monarchy a periodically-elected office of state...

John's past outright refusal (??) to entertain dialoguing with 'republicans' on a personal level over the past decade-and-a-half...

All of this paints a narrative the King through the years did everything in his power not only to preserve Talossa, but to preserve Talossa the way he wanted to do Talossa.

As for a difficult situation on his part outside of Talossa, had this been the case, I'm quite sure in my private back-channels with Mha, Mha would have told me in appropriately the most-oblique of terms John was not doing well in some way.

But unless I am missing something horribly, Mha to me in private channels did no such thing.

And this is the frustrating thing: John either refused or was unable to say anything in August and September 2020 to the country.  If I'm the president of, say, a PTA, and went incommunicado for two months?!  I would have been tossed out of office after two weeks.

Could John be putting the kibosh on communicating something horrible in his life?  Possibly.

But in the context of the past decade-and-a-half of dealing with him in both good and interesting aspects (mostly good), the narrative of Lupul's just being recalcitrant and having a temper-tantrum over the monarchy referendum unfortunately makes the most sense right now.

And what if he didn't tell or even told MHA not to tell anyone. Private life, human rights, find some other reason. I even get being angry/worried with him not being here but he does not need to tell us why. I'm not putting him on a pedestal, all of your privacy, what you do outside talossa is your business, not mine. Also your PTA analogy is somewhat floored by the fact a deputy head of the pta would be elected alongside or the pta chair could appoint someone in there place walst they dealt with there own problems, depending on how the PTA is structured. Appointing a regent to do that is the same thing.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The Reunision I wish for is for Ián Lupul, you, and others on the modern Talossan Right to engage through back-channels a sincere 'come-to-Jesus' dialogue such Kane, Miestrâ, Anglatzarâ, and others will say in so many words something to the effect of...

We had a knock-down-drag out with John today, and I think we understand each other a little better.  We still disagree rampantly on the monarchy, but we are well-convinced John is aware of and has fessed up for his own mistakes.  But we have fessed up on our own, too.

We may never been drinking buddies with Lupul, but I think it really is water under the bridge.  As for AD vs. Schivâ, that seems to have gone the way of the Dodo, too.

Part of bringing up all this is to take as much poison-dross from future Talossan politics as possible.  We can disagree on governance and things like that, but we can also take the log out of our own eye while removing the stick out of the eyes of others - a phenomenae (cannot spell today) that does not happen enough in politics anywhere and one which voters outside of Talossa hate.

Okay, so you're kind of just using a different euphemism here, but as far as I can tell, you're saying that you want everyone to get along and be buddies? A couple of the people you mentioned are completely inactive these days, so it would seem to amount to you, me, the king, and the Seneschal being friendly and casually chatting with each other? Is that accurate? That would be "true Reunision?"

Sorry to press the point, but you've been talking about this for many years now, and I just want to really understand what you're saying.

My other interpretation is that you're saying you want everyone to acknowledge where they fell short in times past, but generally and specifically. But since that has happened repeatedly, including directly from me to you after one of these speeches, and by the king himself in more than one official speech, I don't think that's it. You want not only that, but also friendly chatting, right?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

It's probably just best to understand that (fill in the blank) is a nasty, poisonous person, motivated by wounded ego and hatreds, who is only involved in Talossa because it's somewhere they can be deeply cruel, manipulative and abusive like they can't be in real life. If we're going to keep Talossa going we just have to accept that that person will never "repent", will never start behaving like a decent person - fundamentally because they don't see Talossa as "real life" and don't see any reason to abide by generally accepted ethics and decency in Talossa - and if we can't accept, we just have to give up and let them have Talossa all to themselves. Which we won't do because we despise that person and won't let them "win" Talossa.

I think this formulation works for all of us, we just have different people in mind for fill in the blank. Every single one of us thinks their miéidă don't stink.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

It's probably just best to understand that (fill in the blank) is a nasty, poisonous person, motivated by wounded ego and hatreds, who is only involved in Talossa because it's somewhere they can be deeply cruel, manipulative and abusive like they can't be in real life. If we're going to keep Talossa going we just have to accept that that person will never "repent", will never start behaving like a decent person - fundamentally because they don't see Talossa as "real life" and don't see any reason to abide by generally accepted ethics and decency in Talossa - and if we can't accept, we just have to give up and let them have Talossa all to themselves. Which we won't do because we despise that person and won't let them "win" Talossa.

I think this formulation works for all of us, we just have different people in mind for fill in the blank. Every single one of us thinks their miéidă don't stink.

Almost none of that describes you in my mind. I admire you very much in many ways. You are passionate, deeply loyal, and seem to be a fundamentally good person. You have many flaws, but we are all flawed. I have many flaws too.

[GV]

I think this formulation works for all of us, we just have different people in mind for fill in the blank. Every single one of us thinks their miéidă don't stink.

Straight up, Miestrâ.  Straight up.

AD, to answer your previous question: I want all of those things such when the 'other side' is out of earshot, there is at least a minimum of 'Hee, hee'-trolling culture or 'They wronged us.  Ecce, passione nos!'.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I would take those kind remarks more sincerely if they weren't coming from the person who has pretty consistently accused me of ruining Talossa with my mad schemes and visions and how it would be better for everyone if I just went away.

I don't agree with Marcel that the pre-Reunision types will always despise each other. For example, the Free Democrats contain two very prominent Talossans who were leaders in the RUMP and personally antagonistic to yours truly - I refer to Justice V. Marcianüs and Dr T. Nordselva. I consider some other political opponents - Senator Plätschisch and the "Independent Monarchist" candidate, to name two - to be good friends and collaborators in Talossa.

People can embrace their opponents and even their enemies, given good faith and open communication. Succinctly, we need to show each other we are trustworthy, and that we prefer everyone having fun in Talossa to getting our own way all the time. Good faith and open communication is precisely what the Talossan Centre-Left does not think we have gotten from the King. The King's recent comments re: "the law says I can stretch things out to the last minute re: vetoes, so I will," exemplify his abandonment of good faith - as does his disappearance/reappearance, which is where we started.

To put it bluntly, the Talossan Right has to come to terms with the fact that - no matter how they spin it - if John had not disappeared for 6 months, the monarchical Status Quo would have probably won the Ranked Choice Referendum. John shot his own claims of legitimacy in the foot and lost the support of many monarchists/conservatives. If John continues to act as if he has nothing to account for, the Historic Compromise will be shoved down his throat after this election - and he won't have any chance of regaining his throne in the National Convocation, either.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I would take those kind remarks more sincerely if they weren't coming from the person who has pretty consistently accused me of ruining Talossa with my mad schemes and visions and how it would be better for everyone if I just went away.

What I said was that "it probably would be a bit helpful if you resigned and became inactive, if only because it would create a power vacuum and be disruptive (you've been in the government for like five and a half of the last six years)." 

That's maybe a painful thing to hear and probably poorly phrased, but you mostly agree with it!  That's why you're stepping down from leading your party and the Government, conducting "an experiment to see whether our party is a real social movement with its own vision for the future, and not a Miestra Schiva fan club," as you said just two days ago.  And in your party's convention speech, amidst various personal attacks on me, you said again this painful truth: "I have come to the conclusion that I have to step aside from leadership because only that will be the test of whether this is a real political party, which can keep going independent of me."

People can embrace their opponents and even their enemies, given good faith and open communication. Succinctly, we need to show each other we are trustworthy, and that we prefer everyone having fun in Talossa to getting our own way all the time. Good faith and open communication is precisely what the Talossan Centre-Left does not think we have gotten from the King. The King's recent comments re: "the law says I can stretch things out to the last minute re: vetoes, so I will," exemplify his abandonment of good faith - as does his disappearance/reappearance, which is where we started.

Respectfully, it became really hard to have open communication with you during the regency when we were discussing the community jurists appointment.  While we were discussing it in good faith and openly, you started copying snippets of what I was saying and sharing them on Facebook to try to make me look bad -- specifically trying to make it seem as though I were suggesting that Txec, our Secretary of State, were somehow corrupt or power-hungry.  (I thought that was especially wrong to do because you were so deceptive about it!  I bent over backwards in that conversation to make it crystal clear that my worries about making the SoS a judge had nothing to do with him personally!)  It wasn't the first time that you shared correspondence like that, but I had to decide that it would be the last for me.  That's why I told you that I would consider our conversations to be public ones from then on.

I know that you don't see a problem with doing that, and that's fine -- everyone approaches these things differently.  But I was badly hurt by "TalossaLeaks," when years of private correspondence were published by a former RUMP party member.  It wasn't really "my" scandal, since all it revealed was that I was consistent in public and in private.  You know how I actually feel about you, for that matter, because you got to read what I said about you privately to my friends -- about how I was glad Reunision happened and you were passionate and a great Talossan!  I don't know what you say about me in private to your buddies, but I'm sure it's rather less kind.

But the leak still hurt my feelings and I don't like that feeling of betrayal.  Like a lot of people, I let my guard down when privately chatting with people in a friendly manner.  It's hard for me to simultaneously be open and friendly while also being wary about how a sentence might look out of context.  So there's one problem for open and good faith communication, right there.

[Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM]

AD... that was my decision on the Jurists and as Miestra's acting AG, it was /my/ call. I selected whom I felt would be a good fit and as far as the good Doc is concerned, there was no better candidate. As I told you then, we all have to wear multiple hats to make things run around here and I refused to hear nonsense when it came to his appointment.

Gen. Davinescu

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

that was my decision on the Jurists and as Miestra's acting AG, it was /my/ call.

Tbf to AD, on his side of politics the leader (or King) is usually a figurehead for a backroom negotiator or "chief of staff" to make the real calls, so it's reasonable to assume that's how it works on our side too. It sadly might take you a while to establish that you're not my glovepuppet  :D