New Democratic Party [NSG Senate | HQ]

[Lamaredia]

Must be honest, I completely disagree with that definition of family...

Neither do I. It should be changed to two or more IMO.

[Battlion]

Everyone be calm etc, now I must admit that whilst overall I would rather not be in a Coalition with some on the far-left I feel that the Progress Coalition's policies are mostly sound and like Brit I will probably vote against some of the policies that I dislike.

I unlike him, will compromise my beliefs however also like him I support the idea of a centrist coalition focused solely on the middle ground but unlike Brit I'd prefer we expand that to include some just on the left of us as well and exclude the socially conservative parties.

I support the NDP and I support Divair's decision to keep us in the Progress Coalition however I do not support a 5-man council making big party decisions so may I ask the leadership that in the future big party issues should not be put to the 5-man council but to the whole party-base to decide.

I'm sure that the party as a whole would agree with the decision, but I cannot agree with how it came about...

[Next Washington]

Must be honest, I completely disagree with that definition of family...

Neither do I. It should be changed to two or more IMO.

two or more? why?

... i mean why should one child not count? you're degrading one-child families... and government's duty is to grabt everyone the same rights...

and what's "imo"???

[Lamaredia]

Neither do I. It should be changed to two or more IMO.

two or more? why?

... i mean why should one child not count? you're degrading one-child families... and government's duty is to grabt everyone the same rights...

and what's "imo"???

I meant two or more parents.

IMO means "In My Opinion"

[Lamaredia]

Should we start with the coalition vote or is the old vote about the policy not done?

[Next Washington]

two or more? why?

... i mean why should one child not count? you're degrading one-child families... and government's duty is to grabt everyone the same rights...

and what's "imo"???

I meant two or more parents.

IMO means "In My Opinion"

two or more parents??? why? which child has 3 parents?

[Lamaredia]

I meant two or more parents.

IMO means "In My Opinion"

two or more parents??? why? which child has 3 parents?

Have you ever heard of Mormons (or other cultures that allows multiple wives/husbands)?

[Next Washington]

two or more parents??? why? which child has 3 parents?

Have you ever heard of Mormons (or other cultures that allows multiple wives/husbands)?

i heard of them, and yes, aurentina allows multiple husbands/wives, but i don't see a reason why all of them should receive 5% more free days from the employers... i mean normal families (two parents) also can raise their child(ren) as team... they don't necesarily need a third, forth or fifth "uncle" or "aunt"

[Lamaredia]

Have you ever heard of Mormons (or other cultures that allows multiple wives/husbands)?

i heard of them, and yes, aurentina allows multiple husbands/wives, but i don't see a reason why all of them should receive 5% more free days from the employers... i mean normal families (two parents) also can raise their child(ren) as team... they don't necesarily need a third, forth or fifth "uncle" or "aunt"

So we should exclude their tradition just because of that?

[Next Washington]

i heard of them, and yes, aurentina allows multiple husbands/wives, but i don't see a reason why all of them should receive 5% more free days from the employers... i mean normal families (two parents) also can raise their child(ren) as team... they don't necesarily need a third, forth or fifth "uncle" or "aunt"

So we should exclude their tradition just because of that?

i don't mean we should discriminate them, i mean we should not desciminate the >99% of other people who care abould their child(ren) in pairs...

[Lamaredia]

So we should exclude their tradition just because of that?

i don't mean we should discriminate them, i mean we should not desciminate the >99% of other people who care abould their child(ren) in pairs...

How are we discriminating towards the other parents? If all parents get what the bill says they'll get (even polygamous couples) then there is no discrimination.

EDIT: Several polygamous couples consider the child to be the child of all of them, even though it's only two of them that conceived it. You are trying to make it so that some of the parents have less time to be with the child than others, which is discrimination.

[FreeOlesia]

I've noticed you are having a small discussion about Brittano and other party members vocal opposition to the Progress Coalition. I have decided to compile a list of every single time Brittano mentioned leaving the Progress Coalition or made comments that could've harmed the relationship between the NDP and the ProgCoa.

I'd personally prefer just an NDP, NCP, SLP and RefP coalition...

Honestly, he wants to see the destruction of the far-left and the rise of the fascists on the right.

I want to see both the far left and far right isolated. That includes you, that includes fascists. I don't want to see communists and socialists in government, I don't want to see fascists in government. How is that prevented? A coalition that does not include communists, socialists and fascists.

Just because I don't like you it doesn't mean you have to lie.

Centrist Coalition: 208
Remaining Left: 114
Remaining Right: 49

You will still hold a super majority.

Or the NDP can lead the way in isolating the far left and far right by opening talks with those on the centre-right regarding a new centrist coalition. I understand why Maklohi is opposed to it, but I think the rest of the NDP oppose it because they think that they will be the only left wingers in a centrist coalition. They are right, but there are more in the NDP than there are in RefP, NCP, LFP, LCP, SLP, CDP and CMP added together.

Does it matter who runs it? As long as this coalition has any parties further left of the NDP in, I will dislike it.

I don't hate the NDP, although I dislike some of their membership, but I do hate this coalition.

Brit: "A Centrist Coalition 'Possible"

Senator James Brit, the replacement for Guy Britanno in representing Enschëede, has spoken out saying that a coalition that will isolate the far left and far right is still "possible" and that history will not be repeated.

When a last centrist coalition was tried, during Ivan Sallustro's term as president, the idea failed about the candidate for Prime Minister, John Geil, failed to win a confirmation vote. This went on to cause two coalitions, each for the right and left wings.

This means that if either coalition gains a place in government, the chances of an extremist party becoming a member of the government is incredibly high. Senator James Brit said that the New Democratic Party should "lead the way" by withdrawing its membership of the Progress Coalition and starting negotiations with other parties such as the Reform Party.

When questioned whether this would lead to a mainly right wing coalition, with the New Democratic Party being the only party left of centre, Senator Brit replied be saying "well yes, but a coalition consisting of the Reform, Libertarian Freedom, National Centre, Social Liberal, Christian Democratic, New Democratic, Classical Monarchist and Libertarian Capitalist parties would mean that there would a total of 94 right wing senators, with 110 being on the left. This would mean a balanced and centrist coalition would be possible, and the people preventing it are those in the NDP who continue to seek membership in the Progress Coalition" which has caused a conversation between the Chairman of the Progress Coalition and Senior Member of the NDP, Wulukono Maklohi Porunalakai, and Senator Brit, which has said to have led to nothing.

I presume I'm the only member of the party opposed to our membership of the Progress Coalition?

I think that a centrist coalition would have enough membership to succeed where the last one attempted failed. I'd rather see a centrist coalition in power than a fully left or fully right one. I want the far left and far right isolated, and so a centrist coalition seems like the only option. To hell with loyalty in my opinion, when did that ever stop the former president?

EDIT:

I personally would like to see a coalition of this:

NDP
CDP
NCP
RefP
CMP
LFP
LCP
NLP

You complain about us being rude, and instead of asking him to rephrase it you say that?

As for the centrist coalition, why not? That way, you keep the far left and far right out of government, get into government and give the Aurentine people what they really deserve, a coalition without extremists.

A centrist coalition was tried before, and it failed because it didn't have enough members. With the Libertarians, New Democrats and the National Coalition (apart from the ANP) you have an effective coalition.

[Next Washington]

i don't mean we should discriminate them, i mean we should not desciminate the >99% of other people who care abould their child(ren) in pairs...

How are we discriminating towards the other parents? If all parents get what the bill says they'll get (even polygamous couples) then there is no discrimination.

EDIT: Several polygamous couples consider the child to be the child of all of them, even though it's only two of them that conceived it. You are trying to make it so that some of the parents have less time to be with the child than others, which is discrimination.

we discriminate other parents as polygam parents would all be granted 5% more free days from work, although every normal, non-polygam couple, also manages to raise one or more child(ren)

[Lamaredia]

How are we discriminating towards the other parents? If all parents get what the bill says they'll get (even polygamous couples) then there is no discrimination.

EDIT: Several polygamous couples consider the child to be the child of all of them, even though it's only two of them that conceived it. You are trying to make it so that some of the parents have less time to be with the child than others, which is discrimination.

we discriminate other parents as polygam parents would all be granted 5% more free days from work, although every normal, non-polygam couple, also manages to raise one or more child(ren)

That's not discrimination towards monogamous couples. It's equality. It's not that they can't manage to raise the child(ren) with just two parents, it's that they consider all of the parts to be the parents. They all want to spend time with the child. You are actively discriminating towards polygamous couples.

[Maklohi Vai]

Everyone be calm etc, now I must admit that whilst overall I would rather not be in a Coalition with some on the far-left I feel that the Progress Coalition's policies are mostly sound and like Brit I will probably vote against some of the policies that I dislike.

I unlike him, will compromise my beliefs however also like him I support the idea of a centrist coalition focused solely on the middle ground but unlike Brit I'd prefer we expand that to include some just on the left of us as well and exclude the socially conservative parties.

I support the NDP and I support Divair's decision to keep us in the Progress Coalition however I do not support a 5-man council making big party decisions so may I ask the leadership that in the future big party issues should not be put to the 5-man council but to the whole party-base to decide.

I'm sure that the party as a whole would agree with the decision, but I cannot agree with how it came about...

The reason we went to the council is because it was not a pressing issue and had no obvious minority of significant size. Obviously, if this became a serious issue then we would have a party vote.

Also, New Washington, we don't add bills to the HoF unless they've been passed.

[Next Washington]

we discriminate other parents as polygam parents would all be granted 5% more free days from work, although every normal, non-polygam couple, also manages to raise one or more child(ren)

That's not discrimination towards monogamous couples. It's equality. It's not that they can't manage to raise the child(ren) with just two parents, it's that they consider all of the parts to be the parents. They all want to spend time with the child. You are actively discriminating towards polygamous couples.

every normal child has one two parents. let's say it also has some uncles, aumts and grandparents (in polygamy the other "parents" would be in these positions). a child does not need daily visits from these persons. they visit the child maaybe after work, on their free days or on weekends. so "parents" in polygamies would have plenty of time as they are all living very close together.
also why are you now talking about time?
my only point is i don't want every "parent" to get more free days, as this could be abised and heavily hit the economy...

[Next Washington]

Also, New Washington, we don't add bills to the HoF unless they've been passed.

well, that's what i thought anyways...

[Lamaredia]

That's not discrimination towards monogamous couples. It's equality. It's not that they can't manage to raise the child(ren) with just two parents, it's that they consider all of the parts to be the parents. They all want to spend time with the child. You are actively discriminating towards polygamous couples.

every normal child has one two parents. let's say it also has some uncles, aumts and grandparents (in polygamy the other "parents" would be in these positions). a child does not need daily visits from these persons. they visit the child maaybe after work, on their free days or on weekends. so "parents" in polygamies would have plenty of time as they are all living very close together.
also why are you now talking about time?
my only point is i don't want every "parent" to get more free days, as this could be abised and heavily hit the economy...

There's a difference. The uncles and other relatives aren't considered to be parents to the child by neither them nor the parents. That's how it is in many polygamous couples.

[Next Washington]

every normal child has one two parents. let's say it also has some uncles, aumts and grandparents (in polygamy the other "parents" would be in these positions). a child does not need daily visits from these persons. they visit the child maaybe after work, on their free days or on weekends. so "parents" in polygamies would have plenty of time as they are all living very close together.
also why are you now talking about time?
my only point is i don't want every "parent" to get more free days, as this could be abised and heavily hit the economy...

There's a difference. The uncles and other relatives aren't considered to be parents to the child by neither them nor the parents. That's how it is in many polygamous couples.

i am talking about natural parents. the child is either a result of sexual interaction between the parents or adoption when there is no possibility the parents can "make" a child themselves

[Neo Rome Republic]

Everyone be calm etc, now I must admit that whilst overall I would rather not be in a Coalition with some on the far-left I feel that the Progress Coalition's policies are mostly sound and like Brit I will probably vote against some of the policies that I dislike.

I unlike him, will compromise my beliefs however also like him I support the idea of a centrist coalition focused solely on the middle ground but unlike Brit I'd prefer we expand that to include some just on the left of us as well and exclude the socially conservative parties.

I support the NDP and I support Divair's decision to keep us in the Progress Coalition however I do not support a 5-man council making big party decisions so may I ask the leadership that in the future big party issues should not be put to the 5-man council but to the whole party-base to decide.

I'm sure that the party as a whole would agree with the decision, but I cannot agree with how it came about...

Why give up a coalition where we possess ideological dominance, for a coalition where more compromise would be involved, seems like a bad tradeoff.

[Jerusalemian]

Everyone be calm etc, now I must admit that whilst overall I would rather not be in a Coalition with some on the far-left I feel that the Progress Coalition's policies are mostly sound and like Brit I will probably vote against some of the policies that I dislike.

I unlike him, will compromise my beliefs however also like him I support the idea of a centrist coalition focused solely on the middle ground but unlike Brit I'd prefer we expand that to include some just on the left of us as well and exclude the socially conservative parties.

I support the NDP and I support Divair's decision to keep us in the Progress Coalition however I do not support a 5-man council making big party decisions so may I ask the leadership that in the future big party issues should not be put to the 5-man council but to the whole party-base to decide.

I'm sure that the party as a whole would agree with the decision, but I cannot agree with how it came about...

Why give up a coalition where we possess ideological dominance, for a coalition where more compromise would be involved, seems like a bad tradeoff.

^

[Lamaredia]

There's a difference. The uncles and other relatives aren't considered to be parents to the child by neither them nor the parents. That's how it is in many polygamous couples.

i am talking about natural parents. the child is either a result of sexual interaction between the parents or adoption when there is no possibility the parents can "make" a child themselves

So? In polygamous families all the parents are counted as natural parents. They don't see the difference, because there is none. You are actually trying to discriminate against them.

[Costa Alegria]

Everyone be calm etc, now I must admit that whilst overall I would rather not be in a Coalition with some on the far-left I feel that the Progress Coalition's policies are mostly sound and like Brit I will probably vote against some of the policies that I dislike.

I unlike him, will compromise my beliefs however also like him I support the idea of a centrist coalition focused solely on the middle ground but unlike Brit I'd prefer we expand that to include some just on the left of us as well and exclude the socially conservative parties.

I support the NDP and I support Divair's decision to keep us in the Progress Coalition however I do not support a 5-man council making big party decisions so may I ask the leadership that in the future big party issues should not be put to the 5-man council but to the whole party-base to decide.

I'm sure that the party as a whole would agree with the decision, but I cannot agree with how it came about...

Why give up a coalition where we possess ideological dominance, for a coalition where more compromise would be involved, seems like a bad tradeoff.

Indeed. Giving away what we have for an ideological circle jerk to appease one person is pointless and idiotic.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Why give up a coalition where we possess ideological dominance, for a coalition where more compromise would be involved, seems like a bad tradeoff.

Indeed. Giving away what we have for an ideological circle jerk to appease one person is pointless and idiotic.

Maybe he wants the centrist coalition, out of a Conservative bias.

[Bering]

Indeed. Giving away what we have for an ideological circle jerk to appease one person is pointless and idiotic.

Maybe he wants the centrist coalition, out of a Conservative bias.

He's obviously a sleeper agent for the Extreme Moderates