| Resentine for Minister 2016 |
|
Well, the vote literally couldn't happen earlier. There was a coup going on.
I need to understand, other than keeping Belschaft disenfranchised and ensuring he couldn't run for any office, why it was inappropriate to overturn his security threat designation during elections. Did his running or voting in a Cabinet election somehow represent a security threat to the South Pacific? Or some other kind of threat, perhaps to individuals? I'm not getting it. (02-15-2016, 12:13 PM)Cormac Wrote: Well, the vote literally couldn't happen earlier. There was a coup going on. Actually, It could've happened earlier. The Coup ended on the 2nd and we didn't have the discussion on Bel until the 11th. It could've happened earlier, but it didn't and I don't know why. I regrettably lack psychic powers, so, not much I can do there. I'm not gonna say it's Tsu's fault or anyone else's for not having the conversation earlier, but, it could've happened. I know there was talk of it for a while before it was even brought to the Assembly, so, maybe someone else could've brought it there. And like I said, I felt everybody involved in the Assembly Conversation was emotionally charged and not thinking clearly because of the timing. Elections create bad feelings, and those got released like a runaway train in that discussion. If I'm wrong and all the same people vote the same way the second time around, then I'd be wrong and ready to admit that. I stand by my decision though. But, until then, I stand by my decision. Like I said, I voted not because I consider him a security threat, but, I questioned the emotional competence of the region, including myself, to properly make that decision at this time.
An eye for an eye just makes the whole world go blind.
~Mahatma Gandhi
So you voted to continue marking someone as a security threat even though you don't consider him a security threat? Why should voters endorse that misuse of a security threat designation by electing you to the Cabinet?
Do you have any idea whose idea it was for Farengeto to run for Minister of Foreign Affairs?
(02-15-2016, 12:09 PM)Resentine Wrote:(02-15-2016, 07:48 AM)Drugged Monkeys Wrote: Would you care to explain to the citizens of TSP why you changed your vote in regards to Belschaft's Security Threat Removal?(02-15-2016, 08:52 AM)Cormac Wrote: Additionally, Resentine, should this matter end up before the Cabinet, should we expect that your vote will remain against overturning Belschaft's security threat designation, if elected Minister of the Army? Thanks for your reply! Please do not think that I am in any way attacking your choice of vote. I was just looking for clarification for the future. Thanks again, and good luck with your campaign. Semi-Unretired
(02-15-2016, 12:34 PM)Cormac Wrote: So you voted to continue marking someone as a security threat even though you don't consider him a security threat? Why should voters endorse that misuse of a security threat designation by electing you to the Cabinet?Yes, I did. I'm not going to argue whether it was Misuse or not, because that isn't my place as a General or as potential MoA. But, it was not a decision made lightly, and I did not do so without talking to people on either side of the vote. If you disagree with it, you're welcome to, but, I've never considered such heavy options without weighing them. Like I said, it was not an easy decision to make, but, I stand by it nonetheless. As a leader, you need to have faith in your decisions, even if they're wrong. I have faith in mine. (02-15-2016, 12:34 PM)Cormac Wrote: Do you have any idea whose idea it was for Farengeto to run for Minister of Foreign Affairs?Yes, I do know. I nominated him, and he accepted. While I understand that my nominations are certainly a question of my character, I don't see how it's relevant to this campaign.
An eye for an eye just makes the whole world go blind.
~Mahatma Gandhi (02-15-2016, 01:40 PM)Resentine Wrote: Yes, I did. I'm not going to argue whether it was Misuse or not, because that isn't my place as a General or as potential MoA. But, it was not a decision made lightly, and I did not do so without talking to people on either side of the vote. If you disagree with it, you're welcome to, but, I've never considered such heavy options without weighing them. Like I said, it was not an easy decision to make, but, I stand by it nonetheless. As a leader, you need to have faith in your decisions, even if they're wrong. I have faith in mine. This isn't really a subjective issue. Security threat designations are supposed to be for security threats. If you don't consider someone a security threat, you aren't supposed to vote to place a security threat designation on them, or to continue a security threat designation against them. It's that simple. (02-15-2016, 01:40 PM)Resentine Wrote:(02-15-2016, 12:34 PM)Cormac Wrote: Do you have any idea whose idea it was for Farengeto to run for Minister of Foreign Affairs?Yes, I do know. I nominated him, and he accepted. While I understand that my nominations are certainly a question of my character, I don't see how it's relevant to this campaign. I'm not talking about your nomination. Were you not in fact involved in the group of players scheming to ensure they won the Minister of Foreign Affairs election, and did you not in fact suggest Farengeto run for that office as part of that group? Corruption is always relevant to a campaign for the Cabinet.
I am a little bit taken-back to be fair. Despite the fact that you didn't think Bel was a security threat you voted so that he would remain viewed as a security threat. That logic doesn't really add up, you've effectively dined someone the chance to stand and vote in this election despite the fact that they have done a great service to region recently and even further back.
Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member Former Minister of Regional Affairs Former High Court Justice
(02-15-2016, 02:14 PM)Punchwood Wrote: I am a little bit taken-back to be fair. Despite the fact that you didn't think Bel was a security threat you voted so that he would remain viewed as a security threat. That logic doesn't really add up, you've effectively dined someone the chance to stand and vote in this election despite the fact that they have done a great service to region recently and even further back. Removing Belschaft's security threat status would not have allowed him to run in the elections. The High Court ruled that he would not be eligible for nominations by the time the nominating period ended. He would have been able to vote, though, yes. (02-15-2016, 01:55 PM)Cormac Wrote: This isn't really a subjective issue. Security threat designations are supposed to be for security threats. If you don't consider someone a security threat, you aren't supposed to vote to place a security threat designation on them, or to continue a security threat designation against them. It's that simple.I stated my reasons. If you don't agree, that's fine. I honestly am OK that you have a different opinion than me. I have the right to vote on how I feel about a situation just as much as anyone else. (02-15-2016, 01:55 PM)Cormac Wrote: I'm not talking about your nomination. Were you not in fact involved in the group of players scheming to ensure they won the Minister of Foreign Affairs election, and did you not in fact suggest Farengeto run for that office as part of that group?No. There is not a "group". I approached Faren about it, and he said yes. No one else was involved in his nomination.
An eye for an eye just makes the whole world go blind.
~Mahatma Gandhi (02-15-2016, 02:14 PM)Punchwood Wrote: I am a little bit taken-back to be fair. Despite the fact that you didn't think Bel was a security threat you voted so that he would remain viewed as a security threat. That logic doesn't really add up, you've effectively dined someone the chance to stand and vote in this election despite the fact that they have done a great service to region recently and even further back. It is fair that you're taken aback. I can't judge you for my choices.
An eye for an eye just makes the whole world go blind.
~Mahatma Gandhi |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
RP-Government Information
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |