Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Life got busy. I'm not working on anything currently, but I'll throw my support behind anything that restores the region's republican, anti-communist traditions.
The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
What are your thoughts on political secession? Do you support it in principle? Does it depend on circumstances? What would your thoughts be if, for example, a state began to push for secession from the Union?
Rateria
I believe in correcting the narrative about the Republicans' role in the civil rights movement, but why does this falsehood persist that Martin Luther King Jr. was somehow Republican or conservative? I've seen that pop up a few times and sorry, but it's not true.
For most of his career he was a nonpartisan civil rights campaigner, supporting the desegregation efforts of Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson, while criticizing each when he felt they weren't serving the cause. He did privately admit to friends, though, that he voted for Adlai Stevenson, Kennedy and Johnson - all Democrats. Ironically, Dr. King became a vocal proponent of the welfare state as means of black liberation later in the 1960s, criticizing the War on Poverty for not going far enough! He also spoke fondly of socialism at times. At the same time, he was a proud gun owner and promoter of arms as a means of self-defense. He also rejected much of what is viewed today as 'black culture', believing that to gain the respect of "the white man", black people must talk and act respectably.
I'd say he was one of the greatest Americans to ever live, and maybe there's an argument that he'd fall more on the conservative side today because of his egalitarian views on race and culture (as opposed to the left's new embrace of segregation, victimhood and intersectionality), but I don't see any good in distorting his awfully wrong views on economics. Not to blame King himself, but the kind of thinking that went behind the 'Poor People's Campaign' and the 'War on Poverty' actually did more to destroy black families and communities than segregation ever did.
Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria
The Supreme Court ruled secession to be unconstitutional in the 1800s, but I feel there's always been an implied power to secede that's embedded in our founding. Secession birthed the nation in the Revolutionary War, so why wouldn't states have the right today to secede if the federal government became tyrannical and abandoned its constitutional duties?
Yes, I'd support it in principle, but I don't think we are at the point where it is necessary or desirable for any state right now. Even under the Bush and Obama presidencies, which were not exactly good for liberty, states had tremendous flexibility to buck the administration's policies. It's hard to tell at what point secession would become a serious political option, but I'd imagine if a socialist demagogue like Sanders or Cortes took power, that would necessitate action. Gun confiscation and nationalization programs would essentially kill what makes America special. Hopefully, though, the courts and Congress would act as a firewall against any of that from actually happening.
The New United States, Rateria
silence, boomer
Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria, Jadentopian Order
Boomers: "Hey, let's be the worst generation in American history."
Millennials: "Hold my avacado toast."
avacado toast is ruining my social security check
Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria
That is certainly the case. For one, the Constitution never restricts the states' ability to secede; all rights not given to the federal government in the Constitution (including secession) are reserved to the states and to the people according to the 10th Amendment. Additionally, there were several states (including New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia) that very explicitly reserved the right of secession in their ordinances ratifying the Constitution.
The Virginia ratification document, for example, states:
"[We] do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will..."
I'd agree with you that secession should not be the immediate answer to every question, but I do generally support secessionism in principle. If one people are oppressed by another, then they are often justified in seceding; the most immediate, modern examples to come to mind are Catalonia and Kurdistan. It's usually better for two peoples to live under their own, separate states than fight for control over a unitary state.
Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria
I was speaking specifically to the example of the US, but I certainly agree with you on secession as a universal principle. Along with those two examples, there are dozens of states in Africa that would have a much more peaceful existence if they were broken up to reflect their true ethno-cultural divisions.
Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria
During the Vietnam era, to publish state secrets was an act of patriotism to the media. Today, to leak state secrets is to be a "Russian agent" and "not a journalist."
The press is no longer a check on government overreach and misconduct. The media, for the most part, is concerned with discrediting those that oppose the deep state; Trump, Assange, etc. If you're not for endless war and unaccountable, omnipotent government, then you're simply a Russian agent.
Pevvania, Skaveria, Jadentopian Order
Hello all! We have a new poll in Zentari! Come and vote now!
https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=140902
The New United States, Rateria
I once respected the left for their opposition to the warfare state and support for civil liberties. It's very clear now that these positions were vapid, reactionary and unprincipled. One of the more sane guys from the Young Turks said in a Joe Rogan interview that many on the left are actually attacking Trump from the right by castigating his efforts at peace with North Korea and Russia, which is just insane. The Democratic Party mainstream and their media cronies have revealed themselves as unabashed supporters of permanent war and suppression of civil liberties. There are of course a few left-of-center folks out there who are exceptions to this rule, like the commendable Glenn Greenwald, but people on the left with actual principles are few and far between.
Look at the unbridled panic from the left when Trump announced he was pulling out of Syria. I thought they were supposed to be the peaceniks? This is a man who can make the left say up is down and night is day - a truly remarkable ability indeed. We need Trump to come out in favor of cancer - we'll have a cure in two years just to stick it to the Orange Man!
The New United States
I think it's a little more complicated than that, but for the most part I'd say you're quite right - Democratic politicians indeed used waning public interest in the War on Terror to discredit the Bush administration, and now these same politicians are indeed trying to discredit the Trump administration for seeking a peaceful solution to the conflicts that followed it. I'd only be insulting your intelligence if I were to insinuate that this isn't duplicitous or hypocritical on their part whatsoever.
But in my opinion - which I presume I have in common with many in the political center - modern war should be declared as sparingly as is possible, but waged as pragmatically as is conscionable. The United States has a fearsome capacity for asymmetrical warfare, but it has been marred by a tendency to leave conflict before it has been won (sometimes in a worse position than when we started). It comes as no surprise to me that liberals are skeptical of reports that ISIS has been destroyed; if they've been paying any attention to the mistakes their activism has wrought, they know what follows premature declarations of victory in (and the removal of US troops from) the Middle East. While it is possible that opposition to peace with Syria, North Korea, and Russia comes mostly out of spite for Trump, it seems to me that the Democratic Party has rather recently touched upon a truth that the Republican Party has known for decades: that lasting peace can only be negotiated from a position of strength. I commend the President for holding an olive branch where his predecessors have held a loaded gun, but I'm not convinced that he possesses the wisdom or the reputation to enforce a lasting peace - or even that his notions of peace are devised in accordance with the best interests of the American people. I hope that I'm wrong.
Rateria, Jadentopian Order, Highway Eighty-Eight
We should have no interest in a lasting peace in the region. What's it to us if they destroy each other? We need to look out for ourselves, and our own problems in our own backyard, I'd love to see a massive relocation on troops from the middle East to militarize our southern border.
With geopolitics being as labyrinthine as they are, it might be difficult to see that many of the United States' interests (particularly those involving the maintenance of our military's historically-unprecedented logistical advantages) involve regions, nations, and conflicts far beyond our borders. Whatever short-term benefits a mass destabilization of the Middle East might bring us would be drastically undercut by the hindrances to our ability to mobilize or quarter troops in the region, the potential emergence of new powers, or opportunism on the part of existing ones - especially if Israel were to be compromised (seeing as it is our military's door not only to the Middle East, but to North Africa, Asia Minor, and the Mediterranean as well) or if another state were to consequently develop a nuclear weapons program.
As important as it is to hunt down nonexistent migrant caravans and implicitly threaten the Mexican government with annihilation for no good reason, I feel I should point out that the Posse Comitatus and Insurrection Acts prohibit us from deploying federal troops within our own borders without the approval of Congress unless the President declares martial law (which would carry a great deal of negative connotations here at home and raise the eyebrows of politicians the world over). Exempted from this prohibition are the National Guard and Coast Guard, not to mention law enforcement; to wit, if there is a problem at our southern border, we already have the right men on it.
Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight
Speaking of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, it seems President Trump has vetoed a resolution to disentangle our military from the civil war in Yemen, accusing Congress of trying to weaken his Constitutional authority.
The New United States, Jadentopian Order
I don't suggest we hunt down any caravans, and I don't particularly care if our military presence threatens the Mexican government. Maybe they need a little threatening so they'll stop letting illegals use their country as a highway to the United States. I wasn't aware it was illegal to deploy troops in our borders without congressional approval though. I doubt that'd pass. We could use mercs. Blackwater is always looking for another contract. Speaking of which, why don't we just hire mercs to eliminate the cartels? Obviously we ask for permission from the host countries first, but I doubt they'd mind a little help getting rid of those psychotic gangs.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
This morning, right as I was about to begin an essay that's due tonight, my bathroom flooded and filled the whole hallway with water. I guess this is karma for procrastination?
Pevvania, Rateria
Dr. King was a "moderately" progressive Republican in the 1950s-1960s (and a pro-union member of the GOP) when one could find everything from small government Classical Liberals to Progressive (New Thought/Fabian) Socialists in both parties. People were were less likely to vote party than we are tody. Like nearly all GOP did, and do, he rejected the debunked "scientific" Social Darwinist claim that some races were inherently inferior genetically and thus morally. This was still culturally adhered to in the Democrat Party in general. For the "religious" Christian of which Dr. King professed, the view held near unanimously by American republicans "little r," and most of the GOP, that all races are brothers one of another as one Human race whom should be judged on character and virtue not the genetics, melanin content of the epidermis, or by heredity and anthropological assumptions. Some areas (whether State, Country or Municipality) still held to Classical Liberal American Liberty stronger in the Democrat Party than the Grand Old Party and vice-versa. With the fomenting of the Cultural Revolution and in the 1968 Democratic National Convention it was clear that the vehicle for Socialists to use to fundamentally transform America would be concentrated with the Young Democrats in the Democrat Party, and indirectly through the GOP with the Rockefeller/Establishmentarian/Corporatist "Republicans."
The pre-Cultural Revolution United States (especially 1950s America and earlier) was a very different place. Compared to today, the size and scope of American government was so small as to be a Libertarian wonderland in comparison. The problem with civil rights infringement in the early 60s was the abhorrent "Separate but Equal" Supreme Court decision that allowed the Democrat Party to pass all of the Jim Crow laws that oppressed Blacks in DC, and the South, and had opposed every Civil Rights legislation from the Civil War up to the CRA of 1964 which came to support it because it (uncharacteristic of CR legislation in the past) finally gave an excuse for the Federal Government the power to directly control private individuals' domestic businesses and companies.
Pro-Socialists who only had impactful control in our institutons of higher learning, and general sway in the AP and UPI, still believed in the moral superiority of their abomination because in spite of the failure of every other form of Socialism to date (Nazism, Syndicalism and Fascism in Europe, and nearly every non-religious Commune ever tried in the US except for a few who were able to monetize their communal lifestyle); Maoist Communism, the spread of it throughout Southeast Asia such as Vietnam and Cambodia), and Khrustev's "reforms" of Soviet Union would most assuredly lead the way to show that theirs was a better world than the old dead white men who believed in that Gawd-awful system of individual self-government under the Christian principles of Western Civ developed in Northern European Anglo-American Classical Liberalism that treats the state as public service to be brokered, accepted or rejected as needed depending on the the Man in proportion to the level that he was unable or unwilling to responsibly govern himself.
The pressure to admix a little bit of Socialism in the American Experiment of limited government was encouraged in both parties. Mr. King was a deeply flawed man with several good and strong traits who was (as we all are) a product of his times who was trying to find his way. In spite of his many flaws, he is an exemplar for us to not so easily discard the Christian/Classical Liberal concept of the brotherhood of man for the Marxist dialectic of race and class envy which Socialism must have in order to thrive.
I apologize that this is far from succinct.
Rateria
No argument there!
I don't think it's quite correct to say we have much "capacity for asymmetrical warfare." Traditionally, military analysts have characterized America's capacity for asymmetrical warfare as woefully inadequate.
https://warontherocks.com/2015/06/bad-guys-know-what-works-asymmetric-warfare-and-the-third-offset/
After all, most American military doctrine and tech for the last half century was focused on confronting big powers (ie the Soviets) in conventional warfare, not confronting an insurgency in low-intensity warfare. American air-power was largely designed to destroy Soviet tank lines, not to strike a few Pashtuns in a cave. American armor was designed for high-intensity engagements with conventional forces, not for fighting guerrillas intermingled with civilians.
Our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq has, more or less, been the equivalent of taking a jack-hammer to a field of mud. Sure, a jack-hammer would make quick work of concrete, but put it to work on some mud and you'll bog yourself down and before you know it the mud will fill back in as if you were never there. It's no wonder we completely dismantled the Iraqi state and wiped out its conventional forces in a month, yet got slogged down fighting thugs for nearly a decade before leaving. No wonder we overthrew the Taliban government in less than two months, yet the Taliban insurgents still control over a third of the country after American involvement for nearly eighteen years. We've sunk billions upon billions of dollars and countless American lives into fighting an ineffective war that we simply do not know how to fight.
There are only three ways our involvement in Afghanistan will end:
1) Stay there literally forever,
2) Unilaterally pull out, a la Iraq 2011, let the Taliban militarily seize control in less than a year, lose all leverage we have in the country, and leave our former Afghan partners to the wolves,
or,
3) Negotiate a settlement with the Taliban that allows them some recognition in Afghanistan, while preventing international terrorists the launching pad that they had there prior to the invasion
President Trump has very wisely chosen the last option, the only realistic and positive way in which the war can possibly end.
And, of course, both Iraq and Syria have marginalized the Islamic State to the point that there is no need for us to be there. The Kurds and the government in Syria are strong enough at this point that the likelihood of ISIS regaining any power is practically non-existent. The discontent of the Sunnis in Iraq towards the cruelty of the Maliki government prior to ISIS' taking of Mosul, which fueled support for ISIS considerably, is largely dissipated and overshadowed by the infinitely worse brutality of ISIS. What popular appeal they had is gone completely, and they never would have become the power they were without it. Their attractiveness to foreign radicals, largely having to do with their dramatic rise to power and seemingly messianic conquests, is gone with their utter defeat by the infidels. Any attempt to stay in Syria is, in my mind, either just bad reasoning or simply an excuse for military adventurism.
I think we probably all agree that finding peace in the Korean peninsula is important, and I agree with you that we need to negotiate from a position of strength. I have faith that Trump is doing just that. :)
Rateria
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ann-coulter-says-shed-consider-vote-for-bernie-sanders
I don't have much respect for Ann Coulter - she's always seemed a bit kooky and unserious to me - but this is an all-time low. She'd vote for Bernie Sanders because President Trump isn't tough enough on immigration? :/
Pevvania, Republic Of Minerva
Who gives a damn about the Middle East, especially Israel? Why do we need to quarter troops there?
New poll in Zentari, come and vote!
https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=141270
The New United States, Rateria
Did anyone catch the Slavoj Zizek, Jordan Peterson debate? I thought it was a great conversation. Peterson thought the debate was going to be more contentious than it turned out to be, so his opening remarks about Marxism were too aggressive and made him look like an ass somewhat. Zizek didn't defend Marxism as much as attack the flaws of Capitalism. Which, Peterson has a history of admitting are present. So the two had more of a discussion than a debate. Peterson even saying that Zizek was a "weird Marxist to talk to."
Towards the end, Zizek questioned Peterson's claim of the existence of "Post-Modern Neo-Marxists" and tasked him to name some. Peterson, didn't name any spacific people, but referred to a statistic that 25% of college professors are openly Marxist. Peterson's critics called the debate Zizek unmasking Peterson as an intellectual fraud, but the rest of the people seem to think the two would make good friends.
It seems like Jordan prepared for a much more aggressive debate than the one that was had, and didn't expect Slavoj to be as reasonable or even as friendly as he was. Slavaj even complimented Jordan's use of the word "grace" as a comparison to true happiness.
Not too surprising, Bernie Sanders did come out in favor of restricting immigration.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/08/bernie-sanders-open-borders-1261392
The New United States
I view it as hyperbole. Regardless, Ann Coulter seems more of an anti-intellectual (the bane of Americana) grasping for a sense of frame than anything else. While she speaks in "conservatistic" Antebellum Americanist sentiments more often than not, she doesn't seem to consistently or principally be trying to conserve Classical Liberalism in anything but its most anomalous form. She also seems like a "leader" searching for a community to lead ala Obama or Hilary.
Jadentopian Order
I listened to it, couldn't get into it. The sound man needs to be sent to a re-education camp. It made it very difficult to listen to.
Peterson defined Marxism according to Marx, well and good. Zizak doesn't seem to be a Marxist, but a very confused Social Constructionist emerging from a Marxist (post-Marxist?) environment, but dangerously close enough. Neither defined what they meant by nor whose definition of Capitalism (the original Marxist straw man, the American redefinition equating it with ethical free enterprise free from fraud and coercion, or the Regulated to Death Fabian Socialist/Keynesian Mercantilist Corporatist Banksterism of Bush, Romney, Obama and Clinton?)
Zizak failed to define happiness positively. Neither defined Happiness as the satisfaction from the self-governing excercise of one's life, liberty and property in communion with one another as a free people in a free society referenced in the Declaration of Independence) but Jordan did a good job as to define it as a byproduct in an Essentialist psychoanalytical way. Thankfully both rejected the indolent warm fuzzies felt from getting one's jollies as happiness.
Jordan Peterson's is refreshing, but listening to Zizaks anti-ideologue ideologue/Deconstructionist ranting was too much. Construing Trump as post-modern was laughable on its face. Zizak seems to be a victim of his own Hegelian madness. This was not a debate nor much of a conversation as much as it was a meeting of the minds somewhat talking past each other.
No, you're wrong Colonel Sanders!
The New United States
"Please keep the Internationale in your thoughts and prayers." how did I not see this until now.
Narland, The New United States, Rateria
New poll in Zentari, come and vote!
https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=142076
The New United States, Rateria
Yes because Trump is a well-known advocate of soft immigration policies
Narland, The New United States
She's probably pissed that he hasn't built the wall yet.
Miencraft, Pevvania, Narland
A " big be-yue-tiful wall with one be-yue-tiful gate" and stopping all immigration until the fubarred snafu of the Globulist political/bureaucrat class' immigration impolicy can be made sense of and soundly rectified apparently isn't good enough for Anne Coulter. Perhaps she is afeared that Trump with loose his battle with the Deep State and their Swamp Creatures on this issue. The Swamp (statism/tyranny/despotism) has been with us always, and very few have been able to drain it and tame it.
A flatmate (Star Wars fan) listening to Mazie Hirono's calumnious prattle against Wm Barr on TV during the Senate Hearing said in a Darth Vader voice, "The Swamp is strong with this one."
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
If this is ratified Im just letting anyone in power know Id like to be Court Justice
Rateria, The New Icelandic Commonwealth, West Smolcasm, Highway Eighty-Eight
Yes see, the people love and support me.
Rateria, The New Icelandic Commonwealth, Highway Eighty-Eight
<3
Rateria
ThE WoRlD AsSeMbLy CoMpLiAnCe CoMmIsSiOn HaS sEnT YoU A TeLeGrAm
Miencraft, Rateria
The second republic CTE'd
Rateria
Even Lib loves me, this is shocking.
Rateria
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
In my opinion, having the republic nations as archives is nice.
The United States Of Patriots
Oh come on you know I always have
Rateria, Jadentopian Order
Still need the archives though
I also don't recognize the 3rd republic as really existing, unless we are trying to outpace France I don't see any reason to count it
Libertatem > the French
Rateria, Jadentopian Order, Highway Eighty-Eight
I mean, isn't that a given?
Rateria
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Windows update murdered the last vestiges of NS++ on my end, so I can't really watch over the archives anymore.
I'll see if I can actually remember how to get into them so someone else can have them.
I had this thought occur to me late last night. I was running through a debate in my head with a Marxist.
Let's say a nation implements full communism. Every resource is allocated to everybody's needs. Now let's assume that everybody's needs are met. The utopia has arrived. The regime then starts to produce excess. Seeing as though this is hypothetically curruption free, this excess would distributed evenly to every citizen.
There are two people: one is frugal, he saves all his excess, while another uses all of his immediately. The man who saves his excess eventually saves enough to trade for something else of value. He buys the labor of the second man, after that man has completed his daily state labor. He builds some means of production, this man can now produce things.
Hypothetically, if the communist utopia came to fruition, could not some form of capitalism emerge on top of that system? After all, if you trace all of the first man's assets back to their origin, he was given no more than anyone else, which undermines the marxist supposition that private property is inherently theft.
What I've gleaned from this is: no matter what type of society it is, if excess is produced, capitalism is inevitable.
Pevvania, Rateria
"[Trump is] a president who is allergic to the large-scale use of military power... [he] appears to be more cautious than his hawkish national security adviser, John Bolton, who last year asked the Pentagon for options against Iran."
Wow, it's so refreshing to have a president whose first instincts aren't bomb, attack, invade, destroy. America's foreign adventures in the 21st Century have been a disaster, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and many other places.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-faces-growing-foreign-policy-tests-11557443965
Skaveria
Post self-deleted by Skaveria.
*Libertarianism*
..............
*Populist Anti-Interventionism*
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
*Leftism*
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
But if all needs are met, what becomes of the excess? Are extra crops left to rot? Are recreational items even produced? The state hoards them just in case a time should arise where all needs aren't being met, leaving the population perpetually in a state of "barely surviving" despite surplus?
Occasionally I need to reaffirm my disdain for Communism, this works wonders.
Rateria, West Smolcasm
Hot take - I think Ron Paul would've had a better chance of beating Obama than Romney. Republican voters in 2012 valued a candidate that could beat Obama more than anything else, even more than being the most conservative, so they picked the safest, most milquetoast, white bread candidate imaginable. The result was a dry and joyless campaign that failed to activate the conservative base (9 million evangelicals stayed home on election day), leading to a considerable victory for Obama.
Ron Paul, who already had tremendous crossover appeal and unprecedented support from millennials, could have captured some of the lightning in a bottle Trump (and arguably Bernie, too) were able to harness in 2016. People forget that there was a significant minority in the progressive base that was unhappy with Obama's corporatist economic policies - Bernie even considered a primary challenge. Ron Paul could have attracted voters like this if the GOP establishment hadn't rigged the nomination against him.
This goes to show that perhaps the safe, centrist candidate is not a sure bet. Perhaps we should be happy Biden is leading the polls - the left are already beginning to see how "progressive" he really is (not very).
Narland, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, West Smolcasm
At some point the regime would have shot the would-be capitalist.
Rateria
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
i want to be a judge and the people want me to be one
Rateria, The New Icelandic Commonwealth, West Smolcasm
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Ron Paul was the only GOP candidate in the final phase that could have beaten Obama, but the GOP RNC and the Establishment would not have it. Even after Ron Paul won the Iowa Straw Poll, the National News Media, the RNC hid the fact from him (Ron Paul) and the American people for almost two years. "We have a new top tier..." (and Paul isn't going to be allowed to claim the GOP Candidacy). Romney and Clinton are different wings of the same corrupt Statist bird. I find it quite ironic that a very similar tactic was used and succeeded four years later with the DNC against Sanders; and how truly complacent against actual injustice Americans have become. Is it any surprise that the Deep State is in continuance doing everything this side of a hot civil war to stop or detour the current President from any Disestablishment policy?
Pevvania, Rateria
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
I'm certainly not. A boring, bland, liberal, but fair president would be far better than the president we have now... but if such a candidate has little to no chance of beating the incumbent in the polls, why bother? I'm eagerly anticipating the day Biden gracefully bows out of the race so that someone more capable of beating Trump will win the Democratic nomination.
The failure seems not to be within the government itself but the establishments around which politicians vie for power. The RNC and DNC will do everything in their power to prevent a candidate they don't like from winning their party's nomination - not to mention keep third parties out of their debates and altogether as irrelevant as they possibly can. It's a travesty of justice that these committees continue to dictate electoral policy when the interests of both are so grossly divorced from those of the American people.
As long as I don't have to do anything - but can choose to actually be productive if I so desire - I'm game.
Pevvania, Rateria
I sent an amendment proposal in discord
Rateria
Problem: Narland has a cat that likes to sleep curled on my 3-edged support pillow, and I do not like animals sleeping on my stuff -- especially on my pillow/bed/keyboard etc.
Solution: Buy a fairly expensive 3 edged snug cat bed found on sale at 60% off for cat to sleep placed on night stand.
Result: The cat prefers to sleep in the 17 cent snug cardboard box that the cat bed came in (left on the other nightstand) rather than the cat bed itself...
Rateria, Jadentopian Order
Anybody ever think to themself:
"What if I'm wrong about everything?"
"What if my ideology is wrong and I'm the bad guy?"
"Is there something crucial I've overlooked in my opponent's position that changes everything, even something that they themselves have overlooked and they're only right by happenstance?"
"Do I believe what I believe with the proper motivations or am I subconsciously self-motivated in my beliefs or just right by happenstance myself?"
Rateria, West Smolcasm
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Yep. Once I woke up and realized I was my own evil twin (as is everyone else is theirs) it helped everything else fall into place.
***Addenda: I did not mean this sarcastically. Existential inquiry such that you posted helped when accounting for the discrepancy of human thought and action between my lofty expectations and the ugly truth about the human condition wherein I found myself having to strive to veracity, righteousness (rightness), and objectivity. Learning to question (continuously) is part of the well-examined life. Coming to terms with treating others as I myself desire to be treated (because other sapients are seats of conscience of their own person no different than me) was hard won and comes to be a life-long practice.
Rateria, West Smolcasm
Yes, it's always good to question/challenge your own beliefs.
Rateria, West Smolcasm
Sure, what positions are available?
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
I'm interested in Third Consul
My amendment would create a supreme court of 3 justices basically
The New Icelandic Commonwealth, West Smolcasm
Yes but don't we need to elect the consuls first in order to amend the constitution?
Post self-deleted by Venomringo.
Constantly. I can't even be confident that the most recent time I thought any of these things will have been the last.
I'd like to be the Second Consul. Without getting into specifics, let's just say I have ample experience in both foreign and military affairs.
Correct
The New Icelandic Commonwealth
Yes I was just raising awareness as I would prefer to be on a supreme court than be the sole judge
Rateria, The New Icelandic Commonwealth, West Smolcasm
You may not like it, but my new flag is exactly what this worlds needs. #SocialismdestroyedFRFR
Another Lib nation
While it does seem a rather tall order for a population of our size, I can see the wisdom in establishing a supreme court so that justice isn't meted out (and, therefore, capable of being corrupted by) a single official. I would support such an amendment if elected to the Consulate.
what a neck and neck election
I decided to not revive Boes Othan and made another nation, because yeah.
Rateria
I would as well, if elected to the third Consulate.
West Smolcasm
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Can I run for 8th Consul. We don't need 4-7.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
As my first act as third consul I'd like to make this the requirement for citizenship. Along with stripping down to your skivvies at the Libertarian convention and avowing the destruction of all roads.
Rateria
I see it as not only a safeguard from the rule of one person, but also an incentive to grow the region again.
The whole song and dance is nice but if no one else is running we should just skip the elections so we can get right into it. I can write an amendment that makes unopposed elections skip the 3 day thing when everyone is in office. Yeah, I support the constitution, but in this case were just wasting time for the hell of it.
West Smolcasm
I agree, we should just get on with it, unless anyone wants to announce their candidacy now?
Rateria, Jadentopian Order
As Justice of Libertatem, I promise to do nothing besides read the law, because thats exactly what I should do. I also wont be the only justice for very long, So choose me.
Miencraft, Rateria, West Smolcasm
If that wasnt enough, I look great in robes.
West Smolcasm
After a long hiatus, I am running for office (any office). My major issues are population growth and potentially bringing back the war on authoritarianism. I now believe we may have the numbers and communication to do it, but we'll see.
Pevvania, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Jadentopian Order, West Smolcasm, Kongeriget Island
I am voting for Merv
Rateria, West Smolcasm
Thanks Jaden!
For those unfamiliar with my past accomplishments: I was the one who lead a 50 person raid on "CAPS," a communist region that was somewhat equivalent to our "REATO." I also sought alliances with many diverse regions including some anarcho-communist regions and even slavic nationalist regions.
I also managed to condemn North Korea for about a week, hence my WA authorship badge. That was funny.
Pevvania, Rateria, West Smolcasm, Kongeriget Island
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.