The Nihilistic view wrote:Old Tyrannia wrote:Sir, are you suggesting that the NFC break its electoral pact with the CMP, effectively, expel the CMP from the Coalition?
That is totally out of line. Irredento had his reasons for his long absence, and responsibly resigned from his posts before leaving. Since returning he has been more than sufficiently active. Maryginia is indeed generally quite active, and I do believe Irredento's comments were unfair although I believe they were prompted by misconception rather than any ill will. However the fact is he has been absent for the last 36 hours in which nominations for the chairman's position have taken place, and President Schmidt specifically asked us to select a Prime Minister as quickly as possible. I have only done so through the established protocol for choosing new leaders of the Party.
You assume that Irredento has not voted yet because he does not plan to. I am sure he will do so in good time, especially as I now request as Lord President that he does so.
However, I suggest that since the CMP has been promised the Premiership by the President, in the event that Irredento fails to be confirmed by the Senate as Prime Minister I should be second choice, since I am clearly active and cannot be accused of wasting any time in voting for Tom Schmidt as President. And if I become Prime Minister, I assure you I will not look kindly on anyone who rejected my CMP compatriot.
That is a total strawmaning of my point. I never said anywhere that it should not be a CMP candidate, but that it should not be a candidate that has not voted yet has been online and failed to vote yet expects and has had the time to argue a case to be your PM candidate.
And so you would think that would make him understanding to those who have not been online for a mere two day's wouldn't you? But it seem's not. If you believe it unfair, why not raise it at the time?
Again, if we dispense with the straw for a minute, I don't believe those failing to get out and vote should get a seat. Though threatening those how take a principled stand does not really indicate to me that you are the right candidate for PM in that event. But your party has several others who either have voted or have not been online that would make much better Pm's, people that don't silence opposition with threats. You know making threats on a misrepresentation of another's position is never a good idea.
As you say, you were promised the PM position but as you also know you were promised this in return for your votes. If' you fill you positions with people who did not vote, clearly you would not be fully holding up your side of the coalition agreement.
I suggest you stop rocking the boat lad.









