NSG Senate Lobby (OLD THREAD, DO NOT POST)

by **Cosara** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:09 pm

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Cosara wrote:It's the best title we have come up with.

The "Tisroc" title seems too ceremonial and too dicey.

The Position of Tisroc is largley ceremonial (with certain powers and responsibilities)

by **Chestaan** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:09 pm

Why a monarch? Why not a President who is elected every five years? Not like the US president, but a ceremonial president like Ireland's president?

by **Geilinor** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:09 pm

Instead of an elected monarch, why don't we just have a president as head of state? The president would have the same role, just not as grand and expensive.

by **Cosara** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:09 pm

Chestaan wrote:Why a monarch? Why not a President who is elected every five years? Not like the US president, but a ceremonial president like Ireland's president?

Five years? Dear god!

by **Old Tyrannia** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:10 pm

Chestaan wrote:Why a monarch? Why not a President who is elected every five years? Not like the US president, but a ceremonial president like Ireland's president?

We've already agreed on a monarchical system.

by **The IASM** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:10 pm

Old Tyrannia wrote:
Soldati senza confini wrote:
The "Tisroc" title seems too ceremonial and too dicey.

Monarchy is supposed to be ceremonial.

I honestly prefer [insert adjective depending on rule style] Sovereign. Anyway one is not amused and also.

by **The Realm of God** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:11 pm

Chestaan wrote:Why a monarch? Why not a President who is elected every five years? Not like the US president, but a ceremonial president like Ireland's president?

Presidents do not bring in tourism, nor do presidents have palaces, a president meets with business and lobby groups which puts business in government a king is paid by the state.

Plus President is a very dull title.

by **Cosara** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:11 pm

Here's how it's looking:

Head of State: Tisroc
Head of Government: Consul
Legislature: Senate

by **Old Tyrannia** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:12 pm

The IASM wrote:
Old Tyrannia wrote:Monarchy is supposed to be ceremonial.

I honestly prefer [insert adjective depending on rule style] Sovereign.

Just go with it, man. If you like we could make the full ceremonial title His Majesty the Tisroc, Enlightened Sovereign of [NATION].

by **Cosara** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:13 pm

The Realm of God wrote:
Chestaan wrote:Why a monarch? Why not a President who is elected every five years? Not like the US president, but a ceremonial president like Ireland's president?

Presidents do not bring in tourism, nor do presidents have palaces, a president meets with business and lobby groups which puts business in government a king is paid by the state.

Plus President is a very dull title.

Presidents don't live in Palaces?

by **Of the Free Socialist Territories** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:13 pm

The Realm of God wrote:
Chestaan wrote:Why a monarch? Why not a President who is elected every five years? Not like the US president, but a ceremonial president like Ireland's president?

Presidents do not bring in tourism, nor do presidents have palaces, a president meets with business and lobby groups which puts business in government a king is paid by the state.

Plus President is a very dull title.

So, you want to elect someone who lives in palaces built with taxpayers' money and pay them with further taxpayers' money in the hope that tourism revenues go up?

by **Soldati Senza Confini** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:15 pm

Urumgard wrote:The best title you've come up with is from the Narnia books?

Apparently now Narnia is a legitimate government structure.

by **The IASM** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:15 pm

Palaces you say?

by **Cosara** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:16 pm

The IASM wrote:Palaces you say?

Just look at the Moscow Kremlin (Residence of the President of Russia)

by **Chestaan** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:17 pm

Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:
The Realm of God wrote:
Presidents do not bring in tourism, nor do presidents have palaces, a president meets with business and lobby groups which puts business in government a king is paid by the state.

Plus President is a very dull title.

So, you want to elect someone who lives in palaces built with taxpayers' money and pay them with further taxpayers' money in the hope that tourism revenues go up?

This. I will oppose any and all attempts to create a monarchy, constitutional or not. It is also worth noting that one of the major reasons that monarchs such as the Queen of England bring in so many tourists is because of the rich history of the monarchy in Britain. We won't have any historical value in our monarchy.

by **Silent Majority** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:17 pm

Old Tyrannia wrote:
Chestaan wrote:Why a monarch? Why not a President who is elected every five years? Not like the US president, but a ceremonial president like Ireland's president?

We've already agreed on a monarchical system.

Well I sure as hell didn't

by **Old Tyrannia** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:17 pm

Cosara wrote:
The IASM wrote:Palaces you say?

Just look at the Moscow Kremlin (Residence of the President of Russia)

... Originally built for the Tsar of Russia.

by **Cosara** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:18 pm

Silent Majority wrote:
Old Tyrannia wrote:We've already agreed on a monarchical system.

Well I sure as hell didn't

Most of us do (Plus, we aren't going to have a President serve for FIVE YEARS!)

by **Cosara** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:18 pm

Old Tyrannia wrote:
Cosara wrote:Just look at the Moscow Kremlin (Residence of the President of Russia)

... Originally built for the Tsar of Russia.

You said Presidents don't live in Palaces. I pointed you to one that does.

by **The Realm of God** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:19 pm

Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:
The Realm of God wrote:
Presidents do not bring in tourism, nor do presidents have palaces, a president meets with business and lobby groups which puts business in government a king is paid by the state.

Plus President is a very dull title.

So, you want to elect someone who lives in palaces built with taxpayers' money and pay them with further taxpayers' money in the hope that tourism revenues go up?

A Meritocratic Monarch also means that the most qualified individual gets Executive Power rather than the most popular. Since we would need a palace even if we had a president then I don't see why having a palace is an arguement against Monarchy.

by **The IASM** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:19 pm

Silent Majority wrote:
Old Tyrannia wrote:We've already agreed on a monarchical system.

Well I sure as hell didn't

Be silent as a book which is very.

by **Old Tyrannia** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:19 pm

Cosara wrote:
Silent Majority wrote:
Well I sure as hell didn't

Most of us do (Plus, we aren't going to have a President serve for FIVE YEARS!)

Face it, if the Senate lasts till Christmas it'll be a bloody miracle.

by **Chestaan** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:19 pm

Cosara wrote:
Silent Majority wrote:
Well I sure as hell didn't

Most of us do (Plus, we aren't going to have a President serve for FIVE YEARS!)

What's the point in having a King be elected? That pretty much makes him not a monarch, but a president. Also I was referring to five years real time, so a much shorter NS period.

by **The IASM** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:20 pm

Well so was this…

by **The IASM** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:20 pm

Chestaan wrote:
Cosara wrote:Most of us do (Plus, we aren't going to have a President serve for FIVE YEARS!)

What's the point in having a King be elected? That pretty much makes him not a monarch, but a president. Also I was referring to five years real time, so a much shorter NS period.

He will be elected for life in a meritocratic fashion.

NSG Senate Lobby (OLD THREAD, DO NOT POST)

Who is online