Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Dave wrote:I can't remember if you lead the anarchists or not, but if the THP does turn out to be what Clausewitz fears, and I don't think they will, why wouldn't you endorse removing them?

I don't see any good reason why we should endorse removing them let alone allying with the right-wing parties to do so.

There is no good reason to do so at present, and I oppose efforts to do so. I said if they turn out to be the horrible party some people think.

In particular there is a large gap in the centre-left to left, as the SLD was forced to move to the centre as further to the left there is only the SN-RF lunatics.

I think this is spot-on, but the THP doesn't do what I'm looking for. The SN will suffice for the present.

As said before, we will bend over backwards for votes at this point given the amount of threats we're getting before anything has actually happened. So what are you looking for?

I said if they turn out to be the horrible party some people think.

If the bourgeoisie considers them to be horrible, then there would only be more reason for the SN-RF to support them.

What could possibly be so horrible about THP that would concern us? Most of you guys already consider us to be a walking abomination.

At present the party looks fairly, ah, I don't know how to put it - over-the-top? Manipulative? Elitist? Inflammatory? Pandering? It is really nothing really too concrete besides a general impression I am getting, mostly from the beginning of the first post. It almost seems like a front organization designed to steal people from centrist parties for an undetermined purpose. As an example, choosing Sephardi's particular post as the statement for the CA is not what I would call a proper representation.

Nevertheless, I am pretty sure RF-SN will never vote to censure the party (and deal with even more rightists) and I highly doubt the center-to-right parties will enforce strict party discipline. I feel your party of malcontents is fairly safe.

FallenRaptor wrote:If the bourgeoisie considers them to be horrible, then there would only be more reason for the SN-RF to support them.

What could possibly be so horrible about THP that would concern us?

This has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. There are fears, which I feel are unfounded, that the THP's sole desire is to obstruct everything. If that were the case, and I stress again that I don't believe it is, then I don't see why the SN-RF would not join with their adversaries across the aisle.

The first post should have been removed but the time limit expired and I was stuck with the inbetween version of the party when it had all of 3 votes and didn't look like it would amount to anything but an annoyance.
Here is how I intend to run the party
viewtopic.php?p=1872565#p1872565

as for this thread it is more along the lines of being extremely annoyed at having had my own thread invaded and having to defend the right of my party to exists to people who had no business making those accusation that I created this.

Isn't this party nothing more than a motley crew of independents, then?

More or less, with more emphasis on stopping the centre right coalition passing anything exceedingly stupid than anything else. We also have vague ideas about humanism and being nice to other people but that's as far as I would like the platform to go. But also stopping the extreme left from doing something daft like legalizing nuclear weapons for militias.

I like your flexible platform, Falx.

Looking forward to working with you in parliament.

Not voting? That's a shame

Too vague for me. It is extremely hard to support a party when one doesn't know, for example, whether it will end up on the communist, socialist, liberal, libertarian, or fascist side of the economic spectrum (kind of a big deal). I feel abandoning my current party for this as-yet-undetermined party would dilute its power, which I do not want to see.

The party will always oppose those who are in power and 2/3 majority with out current member list would have to be something like "should we have clean drinking water" and even that one would probably generate a bit of a debate. But it does lean slightly to the left and anti-authoritarian since I'm the one who's tried to get people on board and people largely joined because I asked them to join, meaning I though they might actually vote for THP rather than anyone else.

Strict party discipline?

Only if the majority of the party votes for something, since we're grown this big I think we might vote to add a "vote your conscience" option if it the vote for a parliamentary vote is around 55%. That said dissent is most certainly welcome and priority will always be given to people who feel strongly about something.