"Compromise"

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

So yeah, when I said "party leader," I meant General Davinescu, who is nominally the FDT leader.  I understand the confusion, but the pronouns should have made it clear. I wasn't referring to your later speech, but to his initial one.

Just preserving this in case AD realises how badly he shot himself in the foot and tries to delete it later  8)

[Eðo Grischun]

So yeah, when I said "party leader," I meant General Davinescu, who is nominally the FDT leader.

Just so we are clear here, you are outright saying that, in your mind, Txoteu is not the leader of the FreeDems, despite him being nominated and elected in accordance with the party constitution?  That he is in some way a sock puppet of Miestra?

Yep.  You sure are fighting from a principled position and it's nothing at all to do with your trolling obsession with Miestra.

What exactly do you get out of acting like such a lamp?

[esbornatfiglheu]

What exactly do you get out of acting like such a lamp?

I spit coffee all over my screen at this point.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Oh, my goodness.  You're right, we need to immediately change topics and start talking about this new thing.  Attention should be -- must be -- changed over to the new thing.  It would be utterly outrageous for someone to imply such a thing about another person.  This shiny object is out-of-bounds and must instantly become the new focus of attention.

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

There is no compromise.  No amount of clumsy distractions or outright insults are going to change that fact.  (I mean honestly, when clutching your pearls, couldn't you at least try to find some Horrid Offense you didn't commit yourself like last week?)

I know this is really inconvenient to discuss.  You have this whole branding campaign going on where you try to wrap the proposed presidency in flowing mantles and ermine: an answer to the monarchy question for generations!   But it's just not so.

[Eðo Grischun]

THERE IS NO PROPOSED PRESIDENCY.

STOP TALKING RUBBISH.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

FDT

We go by "FreeDems" not "FDT" That sounds like underwear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGzN5f-osUY

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Yeah, he knows that - he does it to annoy and troll. And doesn't understand how he got the name Baron von Head-The-Ball in response :)

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

What exactly do you get out of acting like such a lamp?

I spit coffee all over my screen at this point.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Yep it's just that every time I see FDT I think of Milton Berle haha.

[esbornatfiglheu]

A vote for the NPW is a vote for Milton Berle to be our new Presiking.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Oh, my goodness.  You're right, we need to immediately change topics and start talking about this new thing.  Attention should be -- must be -- changed over to the new thing.  It would be utterly outrageous for someone to imply such a thing about another person.  This shiny object is out-of-bounds and must instantly become the new focus of attention.

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

Again, preserving this before Baron von Lamp realises he's just confirmed what I said in the quote: that AD thinks that the FreeDems elected a glovepuppet as party leader, because that's what he's always done - used docile but obedient people as figureheads for his own macinations.  ;D

[Françal I. Lux]

Who is proposing a presidential system? There isn't anyone of any seriousness who has proposed a presidential system—I know because if there were a proposal I would be the FIRST to sign up.

Tar, feather and red herrings aside, the institution is broken and it needs an update. We can all spin around with baseball bats around our noses and go all dizzy all day long, NOTHING will change the fact that the monarchy as it stands cannot be allowed to remain as it is.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

This has gone way overboard. I'll just add my own two bence here unsolicited if no one minds.

As I've said before, personally, I would vote against any further encroachments on the Monarchy, as I believe proposing such legislation à propos of nothing would be a breach of the compromise and unsportsmanlike. This would hold as long as my trust, loyalty and goodwill isn't taken advantage of, for example through unprovoked malicious actions from the Throne or its supporters.

Your Lordship, you compared committing to the compromise to wedding vows earlier in this thread, if I remember correctly. If I found out my wife cheated on me, I would consider these vows null and void. Would I start cheating on my wife in return? Probably not, I figure I would much rather ask for a divorce.

Okay, let's discard that metaphor for now. If the Monarchy were involved in some scandal that I would consider in violation of the compromise, would I push for more anti-Monarchy legislation? Probably not. I would rather see him removed pursuant to Article II.4 of the Organic Law, under all the conditions and procedures that this would entail of course.

Is this unreasonable of me?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

This has gone way overboard. I'll just add my own two bence here unsolicited if no one minds.

As I've said before, personally, I would vote against any further encroachments on the Monarchy, as I believe proposing such legislation à propos of nothing would be a breach of the compromise and unsportsmanlike. This would hold as long as my trust, loyalty and goodwill isn't taken advantage of, for example through unprovoked malicious actions from the Throne or its supporters.

Your Lordship, you compared committing to the compromise to wedding vows earlier in this thread, if I remember correctly. If I found out my wife cheated on me, I would consider these vows null and void. Would I start cheating on my wife in return? Probably not, I figure I would much rather ask for a divorce.

Okay, let's discard that metaphor for now. If the Monarchy were involved in some scandal that I would consider in violation of the compromise, would I push for more anti-Monarchy legislation? Probably not. I would rather see him removed persuant Article II.4 of the Organic Law, under all the conditions and procedures that this would entail of course.

Is this unreasonable of me?

No, It's not unreasonable. If we found out that His Majesty were doing something abhorrent like serious crimes or reading the Twilight series, then certainly he should be deposed.

I would not and have not ever argued any differently. I think will be absurd to claim that any aspect of our civic institutions should be considered sacrosanct. We are a democracy.

But I will put you a counterpoint, which is to suggest that you are here making a firm claim as to your future intentions and the basic principles to which you believe you are agreeing when you support the bill. And I have noticed that other supporters of the bill have scrupulously avoided doing so. When asked about their intentions, they have even suggested it's utterly absurd to even speculate about the future in any way.

I have said before and will say again that I appreciate your good faith and the fact that you seem to honestly be supporting an overall compromise and agreement. I think it would put a lot of minds at ease if more people in your camp seemed to have the same attitude. Instead, it seems to be more of an "we'll just see what we feel like doing" approach. No one but yourself seems to consider changes to the monarchy's role in our country to be out of bounds under this agreement, so they don't seem to have really agreed to anything (except getting most of what they want now).

[Ian Plätschisch]

I must say that the pledge of "we won't make more changes to the Monarchy unless King John makes us angry again" is not very reassuring, because the FreeDems are often made angry by him (for some good reasons and some bad). Therefore it would not be hard for them to motivate taking away more powers if they were so inclined.

The proposal is meant to make it possible to remove the King without removing more of the Monarchy's powers.