If it were up to me, I’d have this anachronistic, outdated institution scraped for a fully functional unitary Republic. The fact that I am willing to embrace this compromise and stomach the idea of having to call another human being “king” and “your highness” for the sake of contentious peace should count for something.
See, here's the thing: as far as I can tell, neither you nor any other Republican actually feels bound by this. Are you saying that if your party leader Clarks a bill which would rename the king to "chief executive" or "noble leader" or "president," that you would vote "contra" on her bill? Or that you would vote "contra" on a bill which altered the king's purview over appointments?
I think out of everything I’ve experienced during my time in Talossa is the realization that AD will argue with a brick wall.
Why can’t someone’s answer be enough? To put it simply, a majority of the nation wants to compromise and move forward into a brighter day... counter to you arguing with anyone that doesn’t share your worldview. The HC will not be a shot in the dark or a historical oddity... it is an agreement between the majority of the nation that see the current system as it concerns the head of state is broken and needs revision. Like it or not... the Historic Compromise is an incredible opportunity that, unlike our current system of “absent monarch”, will allow the people of Talossa to chose their own course and THAT is what the FreeDems and the Historic Compromise is about both this election season & beyond!
If you're going to try to avoid the question, you're going to need to do better than that!
Look, I know why you guys hate this issue. This whole thing is really,
really dependent on branding. And so it's inconvenient when people ask what exactly it is that
you are compromising when it comes to your
Historic Compromise.
You can't say that you're compromising your vision for a completely Government-run honours system, because you feel free to pursue changing that whenever you please.
You can't say that you'd refuse to rename the king to a new title, because you don't feel like you might want to do that, too.
You can't say that you're bound to protect the king's role in appointments, because maybe you'll disagree with a decision of his and want to change it.
You can't say that you're determined to prevent any change in the length of the "king"s term, because maybe seven years is too long and you'll decide to make it shorter sometime during the first term or next.
You can't say that you're going to protect the royal veto, because maybe it needs to be reduced a little bit more.
Now, maybe you say that you don't want to change some or all of these things. Maybe it's dependent on the president's good behavior, and you'll keep these things if they do what you want. But that's different than a deal -- it's different than a compromise. You want to take what you want now, and maybe you'll come back for more later. This isn't a compromise, despite the spin.
