Classical Monarchist Party Headquarters [NSG Senate]

[Distruzio]

Just a quick question, do you think that I am ready to attempt to become the President?

I don't know you well enough, Senator. So I'd have to learn more. Before I offer tacit support of a man, I must know the man.

[Distruzio]

There are a few interested senators but traditionally we're a monarchist Party. The Head of State, we believe, should be a monarch. So we, in general, support either the recognition of one of the royal houses as wielding a legitimate claim to the throne or the embrace of the Queen of the United Kingdom.

We shall not succumb to the laughable "imperialism" of the Pseudo-Britannian Empire that managed to lose its possessions only now existing as a petty liberal egalitarian commonwealth.

OOC: Who officially makes up Aurentine history? Because as far as I know, Aurentine never had a monarchy, it was a republic since the gods of Forum 7 danced it into existence.

Petty, liberal, and egalitarian? Agreed, Senator. However, the light of her past still shines brightly enough to warrant, at the very least, a fond glance in her direction from time to time. Does it not?

OOC: No clue.

[Distruzio]

According to the official history we just became independent from the UK.

What era? From the mention of "Queen Elizabeth" I take it's 21st century, if so then no, we will resist joining their liberal commonwealth at all costs and form our own Empire with our own monarch. If it were the colonial era with the mighty British Empire then I would've reconsidered.

There is some merit in that milieu, I'll agree with you there. But, there is something to be said about allying ourselves with the Crown on our own terms.

Bare in mind, however, that I'm not suggesting that is my chosen path for Aurentinia. A monarch rules as a reflection of the sovereignty of God, in my mind. His reign is legitimated by the will of the people. To reject him is not to reject God but, on the contrary, to reject his claim to Gods reflection. After all, not every man is as humble as he pretends to be.

There are few in Aurintinia who can legitimately lay claim to that reflection, I think. Were they to announce a desire.... I could stand behind them as well as kneel before them. Until they do, however, I'm prepared to acknowledge the Queen for what she is - a legitimate reflection of God's sovereignty. Perhaps not ideal.... but legitimate.

[Distruzio]

My good Senator, After some time I have realized you are right, My proposal in addition to being vanguard-esque would in theory, possibly promote liberty if done right, if done wrong, security, however, In practice, would only promote security, and as such I Withdraw my proposal.

This is good news, my friend. Now... we need a drink!

[Rumostan]

Just a quick question, do you think that I am ready to attempt to become the President?

I don't know you well enough, Senator. So I'd have to learn more. Before I offer tacit support of a man, I must know the man.

Ok, well if no one in the party wants to do it then I am willing to.

[Distruzio]

I don't know you well enough, Senator. So I'd have to learn more. Before I offer tacit support of a man, I must know the man.

Ok, well if no one in the party wants to do it then I am willing to.

On what grounds, Senator? What do you believe justifies this claim of yours?

[Rumostan]

Ok, well if no one in the party wants to do it then I am willing to.

On what grounds, Senator? What do you believe justifies this claim of yours?

Pardon? What you have just said makes me think that you believe that I am wrong in some way.

[Distruzio]

On what grounds, Senator? What do you believe justifies this claim of yours?

Pardon? What you have just said makes me think that you believe that I am wrong in some way.

well, you aren't the right man for the job until I know more about you so... I suppose that I am saying that. It just isn't in a derogatory manner. It's curiosity.

I'm an anti-democratist, Senator. Although I recognize a republic as, relatively, more moral than a democracy, democratic institutions (such as a presidency) give me pause. I view them with skepticism. I do not vote in the Senate except where Party whips are decreed as a matter of principle.

So I ask you to explain who you are so that I might set aside my skepticism.

[Rumostan]

Pardon? What you have just said makes me think that you believe that I am wrong in some way.

well, you aren't the right man for the job until I know more about you so... I suppose that I am saying that. It just isn't in a derogatory manner. It's curiosity.

I'm an anti-democratist, Senator. Although I recognize a republic as, relatively, more moral than a democracy, democratic institutions (such as a presidency) give me pause. I view them with skepticism. I do not vote in the Senate except where Party whips are decreed as a matter of principle.

So I ask you to explain who you are so that I might set aside my skepticism.

Well, I am a conservative person, I am not part of the Liberal Caucus and will never be. I believe that the only way that we can further our ambitions is to have a monarchist as the President. Only then can we truly begin to further the monarchist cause in Aurentia and then, hopefully, have a monarch in the future.

Do you have any other questions?

[Distruzio]

well, you aren't the right man for the job until I know more about you so... I suppose that I am saying that. It just isn't in a derogatory manner. It's curiosity.

I'm an anti-democratist, Senator. Although I recognize a republic as, relatively, more moral than a democracy, democratic institutions (such as a presidency) give me pause. I view them with skepticism. I do not vote in the Senate except where Party whips are decreed as a matter of principle.

So I ask you to explain who you are so that I might set aside my skepticism.

Well, I am a conservative person, I am not part of the Liberal Caucus and will never be. I believe that the only way that we can further our ambitions is to have a monarchist as the President. Only then can we truly begin to further the monarchist cause in Aurentia and then, hopefully, have a monarch in the future.

Do you have any other questions?

Certainly... what is conservatism to you?

Are you conciliatory to our cousins on the left? If so, then to what extent? What are you willing to compromise on?

What direction do you lean regarding the monarchist dilemma? An Aurentine or reassociation with the Commonwealth?

[Galactic Britannia]

What era? From the mention of "Queen Elizabeth" I take it's 21st century, if so then no, we will resist joining their liberal commonwealth at all costs and form our own Empire with our own monarch. If it were the colonial era with the mighty British Empire then I would've reconsidered.

There is some merit in that milieu, I'll agree with you there. But, there is something to be said about allying ourselves with the Crown on our own terms.

Bare in mind, however, that I'm not suggesting that is my chosen path for Aurentinia. A monarch rules as a reflection of the sovereignty of God, in my mind. His reign is legitimated by the will of the people. To reject him is not to reject God but, on the contrary, to reject his claim to Gods reflection. After all, not every man is as humble as he pretends to be.

There are few in Aurintinia who can legitimately lay claim to that reflection, I think. Were they to announce a desire.... I could stand behind them as well as kneel before them. Until they do, however, I'm prepared to acknowledge the Queen for what she is - a legitimate reflection of God's sovereignty. Perhaps not ideal.... but legitimate.

If you want to fool yourself into thinking St. Darwin was wrong and that you oldtypes are the chosen people then fine. We gain our legitimacy through might not through superstition. Even we; Galactic Britannia, do not think so proudly despite our might as it gives us incentive to build more defences and more weapons against potential threats from the edges of our universe.

This infant nation, the Aurentine republic, will not join in the ranks of foolish egalitarians like Canada nor the African states that loss their glory when they withdrew during the time the Pseudo-Britannians were at their height.
Aurentinia is still in transition, it is in fact still in many ways like Pesudo-Britannia due to its democracy, to get rid of democracy is to be even more independent from the Queen's rule which was this nation's goal.

OOC: So what was it like before British colonisation??

[Distruzio]

There is some merit in that milieu, I'll agree with you there. But, there is something to be said about allying ourselves with the Crown on our own terms.

Bare in mind, however, that I'm not suggesting that is my chosen path for Aurentinia. A monarch rules as a reflection of the sovereignty of God, in my mind. His reign is legitimated by the will of the people. To reject him is not to reject God but, on the contrary, to reject his claim to Gods reflection. After all, not every man is as humble as he pretends to be.

There are few in Aurintinia who can legitimately lay claim to that reflection, I think. Were they to announce a desire.... I could stand behind them as well as kneel before them. Until they do, however, I'm prepared to acknowledge the Queen for what she is - a legitimate reflection of God's sovereignty. Perhaps not ideal.... but legitimate.

If you want to fool yourself into thinking St. Darwin was wrong and that you oldtypes are the chosen people then fine. We gain our legitimacy through might not through superstition. Even we; Galactic Britannia, do not think so proudly despite our might as it gives us incentive to build more defences and more weapons against potential threats from the edges of our universe.

This infant nation, the Aurentine republic, will not join in the ranks of foolish egalitarians like Canada nor the African states that loss their glory when they withdrew during the time the Pseudo-Britannians were at their height.
Aurentinia is still in transition, it is in fact still in many ways like Pesudo-Britannia due to its democracy, to get rid of democracy is to be even more independent from the Queen's rule which was this nation's goal.

OOC: So what was it like before British colonisation??

OOC: Um... in this roleplay we are individuals rping as individual senators. Not as our nations. That doesn't mean, of course, that the senator you RP shouldn't reflect your nations political position. It just means that you're a single person rather than an entire nation. Also, we're RPing Aurentinia as a nation existing alongside the real nations of Earth.

IC: I wonder, Senator, how you support monarchy from an atheistic perspective? I'm merely curious. Not at all interested in "converting" you.

[Rumostan]

Well, I am a conservative person, I am not part of the Liberal Caucus and will never be. I believe that the only way that we can further our ambitions is to have a monarchist as the President. Only then can we truly begin to further the monarchist cause in Aurentia and then, hopefully, have a monarch in the future.

Do you have any other questions?

Certainly... what is conservatism to you?

Are you conciliatory to our cousins on the left? If so, then to what extent? What are you willing to compromise on?

What direction do you lean regarding the monarchist dilemma? An Aurentine or reassociation with the Commonwealth?

Sorry for not responding quickly.

Conservatism to me is the protection of our morals and values which we hold dear. These include a belief in some sort of deity and a liking of traditional hierarchies. I also believe in economic Conservatism and I would probably attempt to base my policies on the Thatcherite model. Conseratism to me is also the traditional family values and the traditional working ways, I know that there will never (or most certainly not in my lifetime) be complete equality so we must have hierachies in buisness and also a working class, middle class and upper class. Conservatism isn't about protecting some of the laws that might have been seen as archaic as I would not want homosexuals to be executed or women to have no rights. So, conservatism to me is not as much about the oppression of certain people but the way to bring our society back together again, both socially and economically.

I am not one to oppress, I would be tolerant to an extent towards our liberal cousins, especially the ones in our party but I would stop them, or attempt to stop them, if I thought that their liberalisation was going to affect Aurentia negatively. I would listen to both sides of the political spectrum and all parties, unless I felt at it was needed, I would not impede on one party whilst letting another speak.

I would probably be willing to compromise on abortion, but not if the person had just decided that they didn't want children and thought that it was a quick, fix solution to one unprotected night but I would agree that if a person had been raped or could not physically look after or carry the child without endangering their health then, they should be allowed to terminate.

I would defiantly not compromise on gay marriage or drugs as I think that they are both wrong (drugs more though) and I do think that capital punishment should be legalised again.

I would want to reassociate ourselves with the Commonwealth as it was only recently, that we lost our British monarch. But if we had to and the Commonwealth was not in Aurentias best interests then I would seriously consider leaving and creating our own monarchy.

If we did become a Kingdom then of course I would resign as soon as possible after the monarch comes to the throne.

[Maryginia]

Keep in Mind Liberalism and Progressivism are not the same thing, Please citw, where I have shown to be Progressive, or at least you thought I was.

Your willingness to devolve into protest against the Mafia and your general libertarian views leave a treacherous taste. I shudder to consider your views on marriage, theology, and abortion.

You ask my positions, I find abortion, morally repugnant , However, I cannot condone the use of coercion that is banning it, However, I would support something similar to Distruzio's belief of "Evictionism" On Marriage, Well my group's interpretation of my religion, Does not forbid Homosexual Marriage, I am a conservative Jew, So I don't care if two people of the Same Sex get married, and on Theology, by theology, I assume you mean religion in general, Correct me if I'm wrong, But I'm a conservative Jew.

[Distruzio]

Your willingness to devolve into protest against the Mafia and your general libertarian views leave a treacherous taste. I shudder to consider your views on marriage, theology, and abortion.

You ask my positions, I find abortion, morally repugnant , However, I cannot condone the use of coercion that is banning it, However, I would support something similar to Distruzio's belief of "Evictionism" On Marriage, Well my group's interpretation of my religion, Does not forbid Homosexual Marriage, I am a conservative Jew, So I don't care if two people of the Same Sex get married, and on Theology, by theology, I assume you mean religion in general, Correct me if I'm wrong, But I'm a conservative Jew.

Please allow me to intercede here and explain evictionism for our friends.

If we consider the pro-choice crowd position on a fetus the we must acknowledge that they view the fetus as an intruder (for whatever reason they use to justify it). We, correctly, view it as a human being. However, we, likewise, cannot deny that the pro-life position does, indeed, jeopardize the privacy and sovereignty of the woman forced to carry a fetus to term - an intruder from her perspective. Thus an objective dilemma is present.

Does an individual propose support for murder of a possible person?

Does an individual propose support for the restriction of individual rights?

There is, gentlemen, a third option available. One that satisfies the dilemma present in choosing either pro-choice or pro-life positions. It is called, evictionism.

Right now, with a properly financed medical facility, infants born prematurely (before the 37-week gestation period is complete) can be saved up to 128 days early.

I am libertarian. I do recognize that a woman is made in the image of God just as I am. Therefore she has every right to bodily sovereignty as I do. But, so too, does the infant possess a right to life based upon that same sovereignty. Thus it is my belief that a diminishing percentage opportunity for survival (from near 100% at 37 weeks gestation to a lesser degree the earlier the child is born) is better than a 0% survival opportunity for the aborted infant. It is my position that, while premature infants are born with a diminishing opportunity for survival (relative to a term infant), medical science is progressing in a way that better facilitates a greater degree of survival for those born prematurely. I postulate that evictionism - the forced premature birth of an undesired fetus from a pregnant woman - both recognize the womans right of sovereignty and the infants right to life.

No, the science isn't perfect just yet. Yes, there are great dangers present to infants born prematurely. The pro-choice crowd will be just as dissatisfied with my position at first as the pro-life crowd. But technology exists for a reason, gentlemen. To better facilitate the livelihood of human beings. Medical science can and will only get better. With each new breakthrough premature infants can be born and survive earlier and earlier. With each new breakthrough women can be freed of the invader in their body earlier and earlier.

So I am not a pro-lifer. Nor am I a pro-choicer. I am evictionist.

I oppose abortion as murder. I oppose anti-abortion laws as tyranny. I am evictionist.

This is my position on abortion.

[Maryginia]

You ask my positions, I find abortion, morally repugnant , However, I cannot condone the use of coercion that is banning it, However, I would support something similar to Distruzio's belief of "Evictionism" On Marriage, Well my group's interpretation of my religion, Does not forbid Homosexual Marriage, I am a conservative Jew, So I don't care if two people of the Same Sex get married, and on Theology, by theology, I assume you mean religion in general, Correct me if I'm wrong, But I'm a conservative Jew.

Please allow me to intercede here and explain evictionism for our friends.

If we consider the pro-choice crowd position on a fetus the we must acknowledge that they view the fetus as an intruder (for whatever reason they use to justify it). We, correctly, view it as a human being. However, we, likewise, cannot deny that the pro-life position does, indeed, jeopardize the privacy and sovereignty of the woman forced to carry a fetus to term - an intruder from her perspective. Thus an objective dilemma is present.

Does an individual propose support for murder of a possible person?

Does an individual propose support for the restriction of individual rights?

There is, gentlemen, a third option available. One that satisfies the dilemma present in choosing either pro-choice or pro-life positions. It is called, evictionism.

Right now, with a properly financed medical facility, infants born prematurely (before the 37-week gestation period is complete) can be saved up to 128 days early.

I am libertarian. I do recognize that a woman is made in the image of God just as I am. Therefore she has every right to bodily sovereignty as I do. But, so too, does the infant possess a right to life based upon that same sovereignty. Thus it is my belief that a diminishing percentage opportunity for survival (from near 100% at 37 weeks gestation to a lesser degree the earlier the child is born) is better than a 0% survival opportunity for the aborted infant. It is my position that, while premature infants are born with a diminishing opportunity for survival (relative to a term infant), medical science is progressing in a way that better facilitates a greater degree of survival for those born prematurely. I postulate that evictionism - the forced premature birth of an undesired fetus from a pregnant woman - both recognize the womans right of sovereignty and the infants right to life.

No, the science isn't perfect just yet. Yes, there are great dangers present to infants born prematurely. The pro-choice crowd will be just as dissatisfied with my position at first as the pro-life crowd. But technology exists for a reason, gentlemen. To better facilitate the livelihood of human beings. Medical science can and will only get better. With each new breakthrough premature infants can be born and survive earlier and earlier. With each new breakthrough women can be freed of the invader in their body earlier and earlier.

So I am not a pro-lifer. Nor am I a pro-choicer. I am evictionist.

I oppose abortion as murder. I oppose anti-abortion laws as tyranny. I am evictionist.

This is my position on abortion.

Thank you my good friend, my only difference between your opinion and mine is That I would Favor it to be at a later initial date than you, later than four months early, for those reasons You have stated.

OOC: In addition, A personal Bias reflects my opinion of the date of it, as I was born Four months early and while I have no defects, I was on Oxygen for the first year of my life, in speech therapy for the first 3 and occupational therapy for the first 14.

[Maryginia]

You ask my positions, I find abortion, morally repugnant , However, I cannot condone the use of coercion that is banning it, However, I would support something similar to Distruzio's belief of "Evictionism" On Marriage, Well my group's interpretation of my religion, Does not forbid Homosexual Marriage, I am a conservative Jew, So I don't care if two people of the Same Sex get married, and on Theology, by theology, I assume you mean religion in general, Correct me if I'm wrong, But I'm a conservative Jew.

Please allow me to intercede here and explain evictionism for our friends.

If we consider the pro-choice crowd position on a fetus the we must acknowledge that they view the fetus as an intruder (for whatever reason they use to justify it). We, correctly, view it as a human being. However, we, likewise, cannot deny that the pro-life position does, indeed, jeopardize the privacy and sovereignty of the woman forced to carry a fetus to term - an intruder from her perspective. Thus an objective dilemma is present.

Does an individual propose support for murder of a possible person?

Does an individual propose support for the restriction of individual rights?

There is, gentlemen, a third option available. One that satisfies the dilemma present in choosing either pro-choice or pro-life positions. It is called, evictionism.

Right now, with a properly financed medical facility, infants born prematurely (before the 37-week gestation period is complete) can be saved up to 128 days early.

I am libertarian. I do recognize that a woman is made in the image of God just as I am. Therefore she has every right to bodily sovereignty as I do. But, so too, does the infant possess a right to life based upon that same sovereignty. Thus it is my belief that a diminishing percentage opportunity for survival (from near 100% at 37 weeks gestation to a lesser degree the earlier the child is born) is better than a 0% survival opportunity for the aborted infant. It is my position that, while premature infants are born with a diminishing opportunity for survival (relative to a term infant), medical science is progressing in a way that better facilitates a greater degree of survival for those born prematurely. I postulate that evictionism - the forced premature birth of an undesired fetus from a pregnant woman - both recognize the womans right of sovereignty and the infants right to life.

No, the science isn't perfect just yet. Yes, there are great dangers present to infants born prematurely. The pro-choice crowd will be just as dissatisfied with my position at first as the pro-life crowd. But technology exists for a reason, gentlemen. To better facilitate the livelihood of human beings. Medical science can and will only get better. With each new breakthrough premature infants can be born and survive earlier and earlier. With each new breakthrough women can be freed of the invader in their body earlier and earlier.

So I am not a pro-lifer. Nor am I a pro-choicer. I am evictionist.

I oppose abortion as murder. I oppose anti-abortion laws as tyranny. I am evictionist.

This is my position on abortion.

Thank you my good friend, my only difference between your opinion and mine is That I would Favor it to be at a later initial date than you, later than four months early, for those reasons You have stated. I clarify this, should any Senator ask how my opinion differs from your on this, As I said similar.

OOC: In addition, A personal Bias reflects my opinion of the date of it, as I was born Four months early and while I have no defects, I was on Oxygen for the first year of my life, in speech therapy for the first 3 and occupational therapy for the first 14.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

There are a few interested senators but traditionally we're a monarchist Party. The Head of State, we believe, should be a monarch. So we, in general, support either the recognition of one of the royal houses as wielding a legitimate claim to the throne or the embrace of the Queen of the United Kingdom.

We shall not succumb to the laughable "imperialism" of the Pseudo-Britannian Empire that managed to lose its possessions only now existing as a petty liberal egalitarian commonwealth.

OOC: Who officially makes up Aurentine history? Because as far as I know, Aurentine never had a monarchy, it was a republic since the gods of Forum 7 danced it into existence.

Glasgow writes the history, and wow, you are remarkably uniformed. Aurentina has definitely had a monarchy. A German one, to be specific. Not to mentio when we became a possession of the Scottish and then British crown.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

For reference: The History of Aurentina.

[Welsh Cowboy]

Hello CMP,

As you may or may not know, I used to do a show called Powerbrokers. I've decided to start a new one, which has yet to be named at this moment. I'd like to ask that the CMP provide a response to the question listed below. Please, if you would, have one member send it to me via TG. I'd appreciate it. I'll do my best to get it on the show, but please note that I'll try to both represent the political spectrum and keep the responses to a reasonable number.

Thanks so much!

Q: What healthcare system should Aurentina adopt? Do you support universal free healthcare or government-controlled healthcare?

[Rumostan]

So, am I an acceptable candidate?

[Diopolis]

Since there are two senators(Rumostan and Longueville) interested in being the CMP presidential candidate, we will hold a primary, starting tomorrow. Also, what did I miss in the past two days.

Hello CMP,

As you may or may not know, I used to do a show called Powerbrokers. I've decided to start a new one, which has yet to be named at this moment. I'd like to ask that the CMP provide a response to the question listed below. Please, if you would, have one member send it to me via TG. I'd appreciate it. I'll do my best to get it on the show, but please note that I'll try to both represent the political spectrum and keep the responses to a reasonable number.

Thanks so much!

Q: What healthcare system should Aurentina adopt? Do you support universal free healthcare or government-controlled healthcare?

We have no party position on healthcare, however I am personally in favor of universal healthcare.

[Rumostan]

Since there are two senators(Rumostan and Longueville) interested in being the CMP presidential candidate, we will hold a primary, starting tomorrow. Also, what did I miss in the past two days.

Hello CMP,

As you may or may not know, I used to do a show called Powerbrokers. I've decided to start a new one, which has yet to be named at this moment. I'd like to ask that the CMP provide a response to the question listed below. Please, if you would, have one member send it to me via TG. I'd appreciate it. I'll do my best to get it on the show, but please note that I'll try to both represent the political spectrum and keep the responses to a reasonable number.

Thanks so much!

Q: What healthcare system should Aurentina adopt? Do you support universal free healthcare or government-controlled healthcare?

We have no party position on healthcare, however I am personally in favor of universal healthcare.

I would just like to say that I am interested in holding the Presidential debate which means that if push comes to shove, I will withdraw my application to be the candidate for our party.

[Mediciano]

Since there are two senators(Rumostan and Longueville) interested in being the CMP presidential candidate, we will hold a primary, starting tomorrow. Also, what did I miss in the past two days.

We have no party position on healthcare, however I am personally in favor of universal healthcare.

I would just like to say that I am interested in holding the Presidential debate which means that if push comes to shove, I will withdraw my application to be the candidate for our party.

If Senator Johnson withdraws from the primary, I would like to apply in his place.

[Distruzio]

So, am I an acceptable candidate?

As far as I am concerned you are. You espouse a conservative syncretism that is quite refreshing. Too many of our conservative cousins abroad use their perspectives to justify reactionary policies and positions that mirror their progressivist counterparts. You suggest positions that hint at conservatism being a garment that protects rather than a glue that binds. That's rather pleasant.

Your willingness to admit concessions on certain contentious issues while insisting on a rigid stance on others, however, is a bit contradictory. For instance, possessing a willingness to consider policy recommendations from contrarian parties altogether dismissive of conservatism for the good of Aurentinia is admirable, I admit. But why does this inclination to hold the good of the nation preeminent only include issues you do not "think are wrong?" This will be the thread that your opponents in the election would be wise to tug at. A candidate without a cohesive and inclusionary position can be exploited and defeated.

I do enjoy this conversation, I hope you realize. I like to get to know party members better.