The National Liberal Party HQ [NSG Senate]

[Distruzio]

Of course not. I like to get views from multiple sides. I asked you to fill me in. What, in your opinion, constitutes betrayal? Especially considering the historic ties between Britanno and Battlion. Has something gone awry there that would jeopardize the relationship between the Presidency and the NLP?

The AFA betrayal and they the insulting way he joined and them left the NLP a couple of weeks ago. The man is beyond the pale. If I never work with him again it is too soon, he has no honour when it comes to keeping one's word and I am sure you will agree that for Monarchists like ourselves honour is the highest code behavior.

Honor is, indeed, more important than practicality, I agree. So... am I to presume a synopsis of this is that you dislike the President for reconsidering his political stances? Isn't that a laudable quality?

[Lamaredia]

The AFA betrayal and they the insulting way he joined and them left the NLP a couple of weeks ago. The man is beyond the pale. If I never work with him again it is too soon, he has no honour when it comes to keeping one's word and I am sure you will agree that for Monarchists like ourselves honour is the highest code behavior.

Honor is, indeed, more important than practicality, I agree. So... am I to presume a synopsis of this is that you dislike the President for reconsidering his political stances? Isn't that a laudable quality?

^

[Belmaria]

The AFA betrayal and they the insulting way he joined and them left the NLP a couple of weeks ago. The man is beyond the pale. If I never work with him again it is too soon, he has no honour when it comes to keeping one's word and I am sure you will agree that for Monarchists like ourselves honour is the highest code behavior.

Honor is, indeed, more important than practicality, I agree. So... am I to presume a synopsis of this is that you dislike the President for reconsidering his political stances? Isn't that a laudable quality?

I don't know about the rest of the opposition, but I speak for myself when I say that I oppose the president for moral reasons. He shafted Belckonia for PM. He drafted a bill that would have cut the opposition down at our knees, then only withdrew it after considerable offense was taken to the bill by many senators. His style of leadership is also a concern of mine. He seems to favor autocracy over democracy. He has, on many occasions, bypassed or proposed to bypass the senate in order to legislate or get involved in foreign affairs. I just can't trust him.

[Distruzio]

Honor is, indeed, more important than practicality, I agree. So... am I to presume a synopsis of this is that you dislike the President for reconsidering his political stances? Isn't that a laudable quality?

I don't know about the rest of the opposition, but I speak for myself when I say that I oppose the president for moral reasons. He shafted Belckonia for PM. He drafted a bill that would have cut the opposition down at our knees, then only withdrew it after considerable offense was taken to the bill by many senators. His style of leadership is also a concern of mine. He seems to favor autocracy over democracy. He has, on many occasions, bypassed or proposed to bypass the senate in order to legislate or get involved in foreign affairs. I just can't trust him.

As one who favors autocratic governance, I cannot sympathize with you here, sir. But I think you overlook something of value in his demeanor... if the President is as autocratic and hostile to democracy as you suggest, then would it stand to reason that his rescinding his contrarian bill as a result of resistance to it suggest him to be an autocrat aware of his limits? Isn't that, also, a laudable quality?

I agree that the Bleckonia concern is distressing but I didn't have enough information to weigh in on that matter. So I erred on the side of caution.

Please... understand that I am in no way attempting to intervene on Britanno's behalf... I'm simply looking at alternative ways to view a contentious relationship that, in my opinion, threatens the livelihood and, indeed, the very lives, of so many Aurentines should the right fail to be united. Now I realize that this sort of tactic tends to cross a line into fearmongering, and I do hope to avoid that, but I would risk that statement in order to shed light on my own motivations for speaking in defense of the President - they are certainly not made to dissuade you. I make my opinion known. I do not point a finger.

I trust you can see the difference?

[Britanno]

I don't know about the rest of the opposition, but I speak for myself when I say that I oppose the president for moral reasons. He shafted Belckonia for PM. He drafted a bill that would have cut the opposition down at our knees, then only withdrew it after considerable offense was taken to the bill by many senators. His style of leadership is also a concern of mine. He seems to favor autocracy over democracy. He has, on many occasions, bypassed or proposed to bypass the senate in order to legislate or get involved in foreign affairs. I just can't trust him.

I still think the opposition should be made in that way, but I'm going to propose a bill for that when I'm in the opposition, in order to prove that I didn't just want to weaken the opposition.

Bleckonia eh? I didn't want him as my PM, but did I stick to AFA agreement and propose him? Yes. I never agreed to support him, you know that as well as I do. I gave the senate 48 hours to vote on his appointment, and a clear majority of the senate said no. So I am being democratic by appointing another one, who received the approval of much of the AFA. You want my honest opinion on why you wanted me to propose him again? Because you share very similar views with him and get on well with him. Politics is no place for friendship over business. Bleckonia was quite inactive, did not show his face to help in any negotiations and failed to gain my support. I proposed him, and he lost.

Syria, I presume that is what you're talking about? If you think I acted in a way that wasn't in the interests of the senate, then that would mean a majority of the senate supported action. Sometimes I'm wrong, but I do need showing that. During that debate I eventually agreed to not take any military action without the approval of the Security Council and then the Senate. Therefore saying what you did is ignorant and untruthful.

[Belmaria]

I don't know about the rest of the opposition, but I speak for myself when I say that I oppose the president for moral reasons. He shafted Belckonia for PM. He drafted a bill that would have cut the opposition down at our knees, then only withdrew it after considerable offense was taken to the bill by many senators. His style of leadership is also a concern of mine. He seems to favor autocracy over democracy. He has, on many occasions, bypassed or proposed to bypass the senate in order to legislate or get involved in foreign affairs. I just can't trust him.

I still think the opposition should be made in that way, but I'm going to propose a bill for that when I'm in the opposition, in order to prove that I didn't just want to weaken the opposition.

Bleckonia eh? I didn't want him as my PM, but did I stick to AFA agreement and propose him? Yes. I never agreed to support him, you know that as well as I do. I gave the senate 48 hours to vote on his appointment, and a clear majority of the senate said no. So I am being democratic by appointing another one, who received the approval of much of the AFA. You want my honest opinion on why you wanted me to propose him again? Because you share very similar views with him and get on well with him. Politics is no place for friendship over business. Bleckonia was quite inactive, did not show his face to help in any negotiations and failed to gain my support. I proposed him, and he lost.

Syria, I presume that is what you're talking about? If you think I acted in a way that wasn't in the interests of the senate, then that would mean a majority of the senate supported action. Sometimes I'm wrong, but I do need showing that. During that debate I eventually agreed to not take any military action without the approval of the Security Council and then the Senate. Therefore saying what you did is ignorant and untruthful.

You continue to play the card "I followed the agreement. I only agreed to propose him, never to vote for him" which is very sneaky. On Syria, you only retracted your position after a significant number of senators objected to it. If it weren't for major opposition action against your planned intervention in Syria, you probably would have gone ahead with it. And as for the bill you proposed which impeded the opposition, I can understand if you would support that even if in the opposition. Although I disagree with you, I cannot make a moral argument against you just because we disagree

[Britanno]

You continue to play the card "I followed the agreement. I only agreed to propose him, never to vote for him" which is very sneaky. On Syria, you only retracted your position after a significant number of senators objected to it. If it weren't for major opposition action against your planned intervention in Syria, you probably would have gone ahead with it. And as for the bill you proposed which impeded the opposition, I can understand if you would support that even if in the opposition. Although I disagree with you, I cannot make a moral argument against you just because we disagree

How is it very sneaky? Care to explain?

If there had not been a large amount of senators objecting me, then no I wouldn't. I changed my mind after I could see that over 25 senators objected to the plans, where as at first it was about 4. If only 4 people object to something I plan to do, then I will continue with it. My decision changed when lots more senators joined your cause.

[Belmaria]

You continue to play the card "I followed the agreement. I only agreed to propose him, never to vote for him" which is very sneaky. On Syria, you only retracted your position after a significant number of senators objected to it. If it weren't for major opposition action against your planned intervention in Syria, you probably would have gone ahead with it. And as for the bill you proposed which impeded the opposition, I can understand if you would support that even if in the opposition. Although I disagree with you, I cannot make a moral argument against you just because we disagree

How is it very sneaky? Care to explain?

If there had not been a large amount of senators objecting me, then no I wouldn't. I changed my mind after I could see that over 25 senators objected to the plans, where as at first it was about 4. If only 4 people object to something I plan to do, then I will continue with it. My decision changed when lots more senators joined your cause.

Why didn't you put it to a vote? I know you are not required to by law, but that kind of decision needs to be made by the entire senate, not one man.

[Lamaredia]

How is it very sneaky? Care to explain?

If there had not been a large amount of senators objecting me, then no I wouldn't. I changed my mind after I could see that over 25 senators objected to the plans, where as at first it was about 4. If only 4 people object to something I plan to do, then I will continue with it. My decision changed when lots more senators joined your cause.

Why didn't you put it to a vote? I know you are not required to by law, but that kind of decision needs to be made by the entire senate, not one man.

Because intervention was quite possibly required immediately.

And now I must tell you to take this discussion to either TG or to a new thread.

[Britanno]

Why didn't you put it to a vote? I know you are not required to by law, but that kind of decision needs to be made by the entire senate, not one man.

Now you're just not plain listening. The final decision (to have a senate vote on military intervention if the Security Council approved intervention) was not made just by me, but by every senator who debated in the lobby at that time.

[Lamaredia]

Why didn't you put it to a vote? I know you are not required to by law, but that kind of decision needs to be made by the entire senate, not one man.

Now you're just not plain listening. The final decision (to have a senate vote on military intervention if the Security Council approved intervention) was not made just by me, but by every senator who debated in the lobby at that time.

Britanno, can I ask you to make a new thread for this discussion? Or to TG him about it? I don't want this cluttering up the HQ. (But keep me posted)

[Britanno]

Now you're just not plain listening. The final decision (to have a senate vote on military intervention if the Security Council approved intervention) was not made just by me, but by every senator who debated in the lobby at that time.

Britanno, can I ask you to make a new thread for this discussion? Or to TG him about it? I don't want this cluttering up the HQ. (But keep me posted)

Sure, Belmaria, if you want to make a reply do it through a TG, thanks.

[Belmaria]

For any libertarians in the NLP planning to vote in the coming election, here is the libertarian campaign thread:
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=260508

[The Republic of Llamas]

Alright, people. This is the fifth or so time I've come back to the NSG Senate after a long period of inactivity (Yet somehow STILL have not been removed or even warned.) Every single time, I've left because I have no idea what's going on in the senate and when I ask, no one answers me. So, I have an idea for the party: A mentorship program. New members to the party can opt into an optional mentorship program where you are taught the basics of the senate, as well as party policy. Anyone else like the idea? And I'll be the first to sign up.

[Lamaredia]

Alright, people. This is the fifth or so time I've come back to the NSG Senate after a long period of inactivity (Yet somehow STILL have not been removed or even warned.) Every single time, I've left because I have no idea what's going on in the senate and when I ask, no one answers me. So, I have an idea for the party: A mentorship program. New members to the party can opt into an optional mentorship program where you are taught the basics of the senate, as well as party policy. Anyone else like the idea? And I'll be the first to sign up.

I like the idea, but when Holyhex, Rumostand AND Battlion away it's a bit hard to implement.

[Lamaredia]

Nihil, your suspension has been removed for the moment.

[The Nihilistic view]

Alright, people. This is the fifth or so time I've come back to the NSG Senate after a long period of inactivity (Yet somehow STILL have not been removed or even warned.) Every single time, I've left because I have no idea what's going on in the senate and when I ask, no one answers me. So, I have an idea for the party: A mentorship program. New members to the party can opt into an optional mentorship program where you are taught the basics of the senate, as well as party policy. Anyone else like the idea? And I'll be the first to sign up.

I like the idea, but when Holyhex, Rumostand AND Battlion away it's a bit hard to implement.

I think if they are away for much longer we should vote on a interim party leader and go from there.

[Lamaredia]

I like the idea, but when Holyhex, Rumostand AND Battlion away it's a bit hard to implement.

I think if they are away for much longer we should vote on a interim party leader and go from there.

I agree.

[Britanno]

Might I make a suggestion?

While Battlion is away you could create a new thread so the OP can be updated and also geta new chairman, seen as your current one is inactive.

[Lamaredia]

Done. I put myself as temporary chairman until we hold a vote about it.

Voilá