(02-13-2017, 04:27 PM)Belschaft Wrote: No, I'm not denying that in the past I've engaged in political factionalism, nor that I've put together "blocks" of candidates. But at the same time, this time last year we all sat down and agreed to not engage in factional behaviour and try to work together for the betterment of TSP, and I've been keeping to that agreement.

My proposal is that if political horsetrading and naked factionalism is bad - and I think everyone here agrees it is bad - then we don't do it. It's that simple. Political parties keep existing, but they don't make the kind of back-room deals that they simultaneously admit is bad but defend because it's them doing it this time.

I don't get how TIL members can simultaneously condemn this kind of activity when it was a historical occurrence, but then argue for it now.

I'm not sure everyone here agrees that what you're describing as "political horsetrading and naked factionalism" -- which is an exaggeration -- is bad. It appears there are some who think this is pretty par for the course in democratic politics, and that public political parties united around public platforms and with public membership rosters are a much healthier avenue for political organization than the cloak and dagger, exclusionary avenues of the past.

The reason some people can condemn past events while not having a problem with current events is because they aren't the same. The equivalence being drawn is false. This is not the same thing as bringing in foreigners to stack an election so the Cabinet can ban one's political opponents. This is not the same thing as uniting around a clearly unqualified candidate who had demonstrated no commitment at all to this region just because he was not the other guy. This is not the same thing as the Cabinet plotting in secret to switch to a new regional forum in contravention of the Charter and then to ban regional security officials to prevent them from taking action to enforce the Charter. This is not subversion; this is politics of a completely normal nature. That's the difference, and it is not only possible, but healthy, to condemn past subversion while defending the normal political processes of today.

If the only goal of this discussion was to apply pressure to prevent the parties from agreeing to endorse candidates so early in the future, it appears that enough members of both parties have felt that pressure and won't be interested in such endorsements in the future.