A Joint Statement on 55RZ21

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

The LCC has one further options that hasn't been considered.

The LCC's suggestion of a "compromise on the compromise" is well thought out and definitely worth considering if 55RZ21 can't get a 2/3 majority this time. I should warn, however, that it would need a 3/4 majority to have any effect. And the Baron Debate-Me-Bro would still be whimpering about how "this isn't a compromise", so be prepared for that.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

And the Baron Debate-Me-Bro

Good article.  It makes some good points.

Portnoy seems to have stopped attempting to draw Ocasio-Cortez into a debate and has instead decided to periodically call her "O'CRAZIO," reverting to the tactics of name-calling

And I agree with a lot of it.

Of course, most men screaming "debate me!" aren't white supremacists, and most haven't violated YouTube or Twitter terms of service. Still, a man who demands that someone debate him assumes that he is entitled to his or her — usually her — valuable time and attention; she can't possibly have more important work than engaging with an aggressive man online.

It's perfectly fine to critique men like Portnoy (who is now under investigation by the National Labor Relations Board for his tweets) without acceding to their presumptuous demands. Your critique can stand on its own, and you aren't obligated to repeat it at length in a more formal setting to give such men a chance to insult you and pepper you with bad-faith arguments in real time.

I don't believe I've ever followed anyone around on this message board, demanding that they debate me in this manner or getting huffy if they declined.  I never thought it was a matter of principle that permitted me to post on every reply, taunting about cowardice and how they absolutely had to debate me.  And I think it's possible to make reasonable and polite criticisms of someone's arguments without feeling obligated to a formal debate on their terms.  I have been fairly consistent on this point, I think.



But regardless, my point still stands: this is not a compromise.  Utterly transparent attempts to troll and insult to try to provoke a fight don't change that fact.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

The Senator from Florencia, the TNC leader, the person who posted this Joint Statement, has voted against 55RZ21.

[Françal I. Lux]

The Senator from Florencia, the TNC leader, the person who posted this Joint Statement, has voted against 55RZ21.

A feckless act of discourtesy. How utterly disappointing.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Especially incomprehensible as the Senator for Florencia quit the League of Centre Conservatives precisely because they wouldn't wholeheartedly support 55RZ21.

The only way I can parse this is: former Atatürk Senator "Guy Incognito", after his acquittal on charges of using a false name, voted against every Government bill thereafter out of sheer spite. Although I have no idea what Brenéir is spiteful towards us for.

[Ián S.G. Txaglh]

seems, i missed a serious fun here. and i still do not understand, what is the problem about. is king-for-life of any importance to the stability and life of talossa? honestly, no. is king-for-life of any importance to fundaments of talossa? again, no. king-for-life is just one possibility of many, and talossans have democratically chosen some other issue. or, did not they, did i get smth wrong?

i can imagine people living in a representative democracy to be attracted to this king-thing, allusively a symbol of stability and duration, but it is just a façade, which may hold no content but rotten one. any permanent political position without the possibility to enforce to account for actions is dangerous.

we have now in czechia the pseudo-king serving as a president, who thinks that he is special and so so important, that he ignores not only the call of reason but also laws of the country (and our constitution was written by naïve guys who never assumed this may happen one day. does it ring a bell to you, fellow talossans?). luckily, we'll get rid of him in two years in the new elections, cos he is no real king. and that's a good thing.

renewable kingship is for me enough peculiarly talossan too, plus, it satisfies my sense for fair play.

[GV]

seems, i missed a serious fun here. and i still do not understand, what is the problem about. is king-for-life of any importance to the stability and life of talossa? honestly, no. is king-for-life of any importance to fundaments of talossa? again, no. king-for-life is just one possibility of many, and talossans have democratically chosen some other issue. or, did not they, did i get smth wrong?

i can imagine people living in a representative democracy to be attracted to this king-thing, allusively a symbol of stability and duration, but it is just a façade, which may hold no content but rotten one. any permanent political position without the possibility to enforce to account for actions is dangerous.

we have now in czechia the pseudo-king serving as a president, who thinks that he is special and so so important, that he ignores not only the call of reason but also laws of the country (and our constitution was written by naïve guys who never assumed this may happen one day. does it ring a bell to you, fellow talossans?). luckily, we'll get rid of him in two years in the new elections, cos he is no real king. and that's a good thing.

renewable kingship is for me enough peculiarly talossan too, plus, it satisfies my sense for fair play.

See about joining the Free Democrats, then.  :-)

At about the time when the hereditary aspect of the monarchy was quashed in August 2020 (a year ago, believe it or not), the King disappeared from Witt for two months.

In October 2020, I made a welfare-check-phone-call and established he was not only healthy, but was also free of any crises which might have precluded him doing Talossa.  Yes, he said work was saddling him down, but from August to October 2020, he was nowhere to be found.

It was soon after my welfare-check to the King in October 2020 he appointed Alexander Davinescu as Regent.  Alexander for personal reasons was repugnant to many on the Left, and his appointment as Regent by the King was seen by many as a middle finger and an insult.

To Alexander's eternal credit, he was a very good regent: he performed his legal and ceremonial duties and maintained the high level of Talossan activity and enthusiasm he has maintained since he came to us in 2006.

There is more to tell, but this should be a good starting place.

Again, the Free Democrats are always welcoming of new people.

GV

[Ián S.G. Txaglh]

seems, i missed a serious fun here. and i still do not understand, what is the problem about. is king-for-life of any importance to the stability and life of talossa? honestly, no. is king-for-life of any importance to fundaments of talossa? again, no. king-for-life is just one possibility of many, and talossans have democratically chosen some other issue. or, did not they, did i get smth wrong?

i can imagine people living in a representative democracy to be attracted to this king-thing, allusively a symbol of stability and duration, but it is just a façade, which may hold no content but rotten one. any permanent political position without the possibility to enforce to account for actions is dangerous.

we have now in czechia the pseudo-king serving as a president, who thinks that he is special and so so important, that he ignores not only the call of reason but also laws of the country (and our constitution was written by naïve guys who never assumed this may happen one day. does it ring a bell to you, fellow talossans?). luckily, we'll get rid of him in two years in the new elections, cos he is no real king. and that's a good thing.

renewable kingship is for me enough peculiarly talossan too, plus, it satisfies my sense for fair play.

See about joining the Free Democrats, then.  :-)

meirci, meirci, graschcias, i'll stay with NPW :)

i know the story as it began, i missed the recent peak of "activity" in this matter. i was here lately like two months ago, iirc, and read all the stuff on this topic. i voted as a deputy for the respective bill. anyway, thnx for the summary, it makes it intelligible for anyone, who does not follow it word by word for the last half a year.

"storm in a teaspoon" metaphor is a common occidental cultural heritage, and it fits the situation. king became too comfortable in his position. royalists are afraid of losing their game. but is it worth having a situation in which the king may go partisan? although i am republican, i do not insist on talossa turning republic, i care about the functionality of the royal institution, an elective monarchy, even with the limited serving terms, allows to keep things going on. good king may still be a king-for-life, i do not insist on a "presidential" limited number of terms. hereditary and unlimited kingship is of no benefit for talossa. and the comment with the accelerated pace of time in talossa is also valid, one year talossa maybe a decade in real life. my two groats.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

I just give up on Talossan politics, as long as there's no way for a party to be put out of the Cosă in an election. There is just nothing to stop people making agreements and then just tearing them up without reason, logic, or explanation. You can't make multi-party deals in such circumstances and therefore doing anything "important" is impossible.

[Ián S.G. Txaglh]

... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

could you be more specific on "this bill"? am i missing some colloquial english thing, like "this bill" = "some unnamed bill"?

and i am not sitting in cosâ now ;) i always tried to get along the line, even we were frequently reminded by eiric what was part of the agreements. is it a conspiracy or just bad communication?

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

could you be more specific on "this bill"? am i missing some colloquial english thing, like "this bill" = "some unnamed bill"?

and i am not sitting in cosâ now ;) i always tried to get along the line, even we were frequently reminded by eiric what was part of the agreements. is it a conspiracy or just bad communication?

55rz1, The "talossa shall chose its king act"

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I am told by the NPW leader, Senator ESB, that he assumed his Cosa delegation would know which way to vote, considering that that was how they voted last Cosa and they'd made a public commitment, and he didn't want to be an annoying micromanager. Well.

The lesson I have learned is that you just can't trust parties to keep to commitments in Talossan politics unless there are significant penalties for non-compliance - and our electoral system means a party can stay in the Cosa forever, even if everyone else hates them for treacherous weasels, with only their own votes.

[Ián S.G. Txaglh]

... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

could you be more specific on "this bill"? am i missing some colloquial english thing, like "this bill" = "some unnamed bill"?

and i am not sitting in cosâ now ;) i always tried to get along the line, even we were frequently reminded by eiric what was part of the agreements. is it a conspiracy or just bad communication?

55rz1, The "talossa shall chose its king act"

cofusado o_O you mean 56RZ1? cos 55RZ1 was "the tidy up your STUFF act", and originally it was 55RZ21.

[Ián S.G. Txaglh]

I am told by the NPW leader, Senator ESB, that he assumed his Cosa delegation would know which way to vote, considering that that was how they voted last Cosa and they'd made a public commitment, and he didn't want to be an annoying micromanager. Well.

The lesson I have learned is that you just can't trust parties to keep to commitments in Talossan politics unless there are significant penalties for non-compliance - and our electoral system means a party can stay in the Cosa forever, even if everyone else hates them for treacherous weasels, with only their own votes.

so, bad communication it is. almost all problems can be solved when people talk. if you are unhappy with NPW voting, wouldn't it be better to speak to its representative than complain in public? i am not much of a real politician, but what i know so far, taking internal dirty laundry making into public never wins political points ;)

[anglatzara]

... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

I just give up on Talossan politics, as long as there's no way for a party to be put out of the Cosă in an election. There is just nothing to stop people making agreements and then just tearing them up without reason, logic, or explanation. You can't make multi-party deals in such circumstances and therefore doing anything "important" is impossible.

Which is why we desperately need to downsize the Cosa.

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

could you be more specific on "this bill"? am i missing some colloquial english thing, like "this bill" = "some unnamed bill"?

and i am not sitting in cosâ now ;) i always tried to get along the line, even we were frequently reminded by eiric what was part of the agreements. is it a conspiracy or just bad communication?

55rz1, The "talossa shall chose its king act"

cofusado o_O you mean 56RZ1? cos 55RZ1 was "the tidy up your STUFF act", and originally it was 55RZ21.

yes my bad

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

I just give up on Talossan politics, as long as there's no way for a party to be put out of the Cosă in an election. There is just nothing to stop people making agreements and then just tearing them up without reason, logic, or explanation. You can't make multi-party deals in such circumstances and therefore doing anything "important" is impossible.

Which is why we desperately need to downsize the Cosa.

As I've said elsewhere, one of the reason Talossa's politics are so "immobile" is that our institutions have a built-in conservative bias, made doubly strong by the Royal veto. It is a mammoth task to get anything to change if the King or conservative forces think it diminishes their power. And those conservative forces will die in a ditch over preserving a Cosa which encourages party splintering and no-one can ever be voted out because they make obstruction of the political majority into a positive good.

An alternative to a smaller Cosa would be an explicit threshold ("you must gain X number of votes to get any seats"). It would still require an OrgLaw amendment but it would put paid to the "granularity" argument. Then we could argue firmly over where political accountability is a higher good than "everyone should get to play legislator".

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

It is a mammoth task to get anything to change if the King or conservative forces think it diminishes their power. And those conservative forces will die in a ditch over preserving a Cosa which encourages party splintering and no-one can ever be voted out because they make obstruction of the political majority into a positive good.

I really don't see how one connects to the other here. If a party splinters and thereby loses support in the next election, then sure, they might not lose every last one of their seats, but they should lose a considerable number of them, right?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

It is a mammoth task to get anything to change if the King or conservative forces think it diminishes their power. And those conservative forces will die in a ditch over preserving a Cosa which encourages party splintering and no-one can ever be voted out because they make obstruction of the political majority into a positive good.

I really don't see how one connects to the other here. If a party splinters and thereby loses support in the next election, then sure, they might not lose every last one of their seats, but they should lose a considerable number of them, right?

Sorry, I may have misphrased that. I didn't mean "splintering" in the sense of "breaking up", I meant it in the sense of "encouraging large numbers of micro parties", in the way stereotypically associated with Israel and pre-1994 Italy. As you know, to get monarchy reform through we had to negotiate a deal with at least 5 parties in this Cosa, and 2 of them (in whole or part) reneged on the deal without explanation, and there's nothing we can do about it because you only need to vote for yourself to get seats.

There is a real disconnect in Talossa between those who think democracy means "the majority will should prevail, with respect for minority rights", and those who think it means a kind of eternal status quo where minorities can block any serious reform (and let's face it, a Monarchy is the ultimate minority).

[Françal I. Lux]

A smaller, more efficient Cosa would also allow for people to take on other interests in Talossa other than politics. "Not everyone gets to play legislator" is definitely a understatement given the events of recent weeks.

Our institutions are crumbling all around us while more and more people flee for the hills like we're nearing the end. Apathy has seeped in everywhere even in CURRENTLY ELECTED members of the legislature. We need to pass meaningful reforms NOW, not just half-measures—those won't cut it anymore. I swear it's like the twilight days of a great civilization around here nowadays. How many of us are left? How many more of us have to lose interest before we decide to take the hard but necessary step of making meaningful change?