Let’s play a game /mlpol/. We create a parliament and create board rules and make other things regarding the board.
>How does it work.
Step one, we need some political parties. For a party to exist you need to write up a party manifesto make a logo and chose a color. The manifesto must also state where you lie on political issues, this can be super broad or very specific, but the more people that understand what you stand for the easier it'll be to get anons to vote for your party. It also might be helpful to name/tripfag if you create a party. Here an example:
Party Party Not a real party as of now
Manifesto:
1. /mlpol/ is a fun board.
2. /mlpol/ is a nice board.
3. Being no fun will not be allowed. If you are not fun, you'll be BANNED!
4. If you’re a commie you’re not fun.
5. On Sunday you need to post horse pussy at least once or you’re not being fun.
Stance on issues is conservative center left. Distributism is good if effective. But destroying traditions is no fun!
Ect
As soon as we get two parties up and running the two parties will get one seat each seat and all parties that join will also get two seats. There is a 10-party cap so that we don't have a terribly large amount of anons making parties that are very similar.
After the parties are formed we can get to the meat of it which is anons voting. The votes here will work differently. Say which party you want to join and the party will be given an extra seat. Your vote can also be used to remove a seat from a political party. Everyone including party founders get three votes with their ID for max chaos. The game will continue till we reach 23, and as soon as its hit voting is over.
Once voting is over we can go full LARP and each party leader, or the person who made the party and wrote the manifesto, will chose anons who loyally voted for him to become members of parliament. Here we will draft legislation and make arbitrary rules based on the manifesto. All which will be non-binding unless, say the mods for whatever reason don't veto it when it leaves the lower house of parliament.
SO LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
/go/ - Golden Oaks
Thread Repository
File (): 182018BAC77046BEDFE1FE71DDBBDECC-1242510.png (1.2 MB, 2222x2222, mlpol parlment with seats.png)
491 replies and 167 files omitted.
>>3140
I think we decided on proportionate representation as well so there should be no problem with additional parties.
I think we decided on proportionate representation as well so there should be no problem with additional parties.
>>3142
Joking.
>>3135
The First Bank of the US was used in order to stabilise the nations credit post-war, albeit I don't agree with the privatised aspect, but it didn't necessarily function as a national bank does today. The debt issued couldn't exceed capitalisation and was funded by tax to a degree. Checking the stockholder's; which would be the problem; but it turns out foreign stockholders had no vote for the private company. I suppose there can be scrutiny towards whoever held stock as a citizen of the US, however this had to be documented as malevolent for me to call it evil. In the end, after expiring the bank's stocks were sold and there was no debt incurred by it. As for conspiracy, I'm not a believer. Hamilton's proposal did some good as a stepping stone like a national mint. I believe the old opposition was mostly derived from the role of the federal state, unlike the reasons why it is scrutinised today.
Joking.
>>3135
The First Bank of the US was used in order to stabilise the nations credit post-war, albeit I don't agree with the privatised aspect, but it didn't necessarily function as a national bank does today. The debt issued couldn't exceed capitalisation and was funded by tax to a degree. Checking the stockholder's; which would be the problem; but it turns out foreign stockholders had no vote for the private company. I suppose there can be scrutiny towards whoever held stock as a citizen of the US, however this had to be documented as malevolent for me to call it evil. In the end, after expiring the bank's stocks were sold and there was no debt incurred by it. As for conspiracy, I'm not a believer. Hamilton's proposal did some good as a stepping stone like a national mint. I believe the old opposition was mostly derived from the role of the federal state, unlike the reasons why it is scrutinised today.
>>3143
Regardless, people view Hamilton as the origin of the US debt crisis and the origin for the idea of the Federal Reserve, and some hate him on the same level as Wilson for giving the Federal Reserve the power to order the mint to print money.
Personally, I'm against any and all privatization of the financial services, and I view said privatization as the reason for many of our financial ills because the bankers and stockbrokers only hold loyalty to money: not to the nation, its people, or the world at large, and that their deviancy has led to several generations of Americans who believe that money comes out of thin air and that it's fine to take out ungodly amounts of loans that banks honestly don't have the actual money to pay out.
Sorry if this post is loaded with ranting. I just really, really hate private banks.
Regardless, people view Hamilton as the origin of the US debt crisis and the origin for the idea of the Federal Reserve, and some hate him on the same level as Wilson for giving the Federal Reserve the power to order the mint to print money.
Personally, I'm against any and all privatization of the financial services, and I view said privatization as the reason for many of our financial ills because the bankers and stockbrokers only hold loyalty to money: not to the nation, its people, or the world at large, and that their deviancy has led to several generations of Americans who believe that money comes out of thin air and that it's fine to take out ungodly amounts of loans that banks honestly don't have the actual money to pay out.
Sorry if this post is loaded with ranting. I just really, really hate private banks.
>>3145
What is your view on currency in general? Is it controlled by billionaires and the stock market and we should move to something else? Or is it ok but these banks are a problem. It’s a bit off topic, but I’m curious.
What is your view on currency in general? Is it controlled by billionaires and the stock market and we should move to something else? Or is it ok but these banks are a problem. It’s a bit off topic, but I’m curious.
>>3145
>1
I wouldn't necessarily contribute those issues to him at all. His presidency didn't significantly cause expansive debt (kind of opposite), US national debts incurred after were repaid, the US has had time since to solve the "debt crisis", the first real surplus was during Clinton's era, and so the US is tackling the issue all wrong. Austerity hasn't done anything, but actually run budget deficits, so it leads me to believe its only goal is market fundamentalism.
The Federal Reserve has made many mistakes, and I would suggest a better national bank not headed by Wall Street Tycoons. Also, the Federal Reserve doesn't order the mint to make money. Banks create money:
www.monetary.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf
"Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money."
I agree with the second point, besides how money is created out of thin air. It is, so the issue is reigning in banks. My hopeful solution to this is cutting out the middle men with Central Bank Digital Currency:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_Digital_Currency
Which allows complete and efficient monetary control unlike today.
>1
I wouldn't necessarily contribute those issues to him at all. His presidency didn't significantly cause expansive debt (kind of opposite), US national debts incurred after were repaid, the US has had time since to solve the "debt crisis", the first real surplus was during Clinton's era, and so the US is tackling the issue all wrong. Austerity hasn't done anything, but actually run budget deficits, so it leads me to believe its only goal is market fundamentalism.
The Federal Reserve has made many mistakes, and I would suggest a better national bank not headed by Wall Street Tycoons. Also, the Federal Reserve doesn't order the mint to make money. Banks create money:
www.monetary.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf
"Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money."
I agree with the second point, besides how money is created out of thin air. It is, so the issue is reigning in banks. My hopeful solution to this is cutting out the middle men with Central Bank Digital Currency:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_Digital_Currency
Which allows complete and efficient monetary control unlike today.
>>3146
>What is your view on currency in general?
Sparta was right, gold and silver currency should be banned, if you must do business do it in Iron obols, or it's equivalent in this day and age, guns and ammo.
>What is your view on currency in general?
Sparta was right, gold and silver currency should be banned, if you must do business do it in Iron obols, or it's equivalent in this day and age, guns and ammo.
>>3148
Sounds good to me. Good old barter. It’s hard for the government and billionaires to mess with exchange of goods on such a simple level. Plus it’s hard to tax.
Sounds good to me. Good old barter. It’s hard for the government and billionaires to mess with exchange of goods on such a simple level. Plus it’s hard to tax.
>>3146
I believe the idea behind currency is overall a good thing. However:
1. I believe the issuing of currency is one of the basic rights of all sovereign nations, and that no private organization has the right to create legal tender on behalf of a nation, whether it was given permission or not. The central government should control the national bank and the ordering of new currency only.
2. Using oil to back the dollar is one of the most self-destructive things that we have ever done. Same goes for silver and gold, and the double standard. We need to back our currencies behind something that is both universally held as being valuable, and isn't prone to rarity, localization, or simply just running out.
>>3147
Forgive me for my ignorance. Economics has never been my strong suit.
This digital currency sounds good on paper, but I'm a bit concerned that, in our digital age, where the people in charge are so technologically inept that they still think that "password" is a good password, that it will remain secure for long.
Now that I think on it, though, money isn't secure as it is, so It might be a moot point.
I believe the idea behind currency is overall a good thing. However:
1. I believe the issuing of currency is one of the basic rights of all sovereign nations, and that no private organization has the right to create legal tender on behalf of a nation, whether it was given permission or not. The central government should control the national bank and the ordering of new currency only.
2. Using oil to back the dollar is one of the most self-destructive things that we have ever done. Same goes for silver and gold, and the double standard. We need to back our currencies behind something that is both universally held as being valuable, and isn't prone to rarity, localization, or simply just running out.
>>3147
Forgive me for my ignorance. Economics has never been my strong suit.
This digital currency sounds good on paper, but I'm a bit concerned that, in our digital age, where the people in charge are so technologically inept that they still think that "password" is a good password, that it will remain secure for long.
Now that I think on it, though, money isn't secure as it is, so It might be a moot point.
>>3150
I don't expect it to fully replace paper fiat, however it should transcend all the barriers of money exchange digitally, make money more accessible (so it's destroyed less), and importantly make banking accessible to all without the fears of fractional reserve banking. Which it will compete against. Each person will be entitled a national banking account. If someone literally can't remember a password, they shouldn't have a banking account in the first place (maybe they're mentally retarded.)
I don't expect it to fully replace paper fiat, however it should transcend all the barriers of money exchange digitally, make money more accessible (so it's destroyed less), and importantly make banking accessible to all without the fears of fractional reserve banking. Which it will compete against. Each person will be entitled a national banking account. If someone literally can't remember a password, they shouldn't have a banking account in the first place (maybe they're mentally retarded.)
>>3150
Although our economy is backed by oil, the dollar is technically put in place by the power of the government. It prints it and says it’s money, but it’s just paper. The reason it has worth is because we agree we can use it. The economy used to judge the overall worth of the paper is based in oil exchange now though. So that is a major problem.
And yeah, I don’t trust digital currency from both a logical stance and religiously. You want to go from being able to physically hold your money to institutions promising you got it in their system. Just be a good goy or we will not only shut you down, but your money too.
Then there is Revelation 13:17
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Now, how can people be denied any trade if there was still a physical currency of some sort? Seems like digital currency may be the future, but not necessarily the best one.
>>3151
And you just proved my point. Available to all (that obey) and are entitled to it for being a good goy. Be careful Epona worshipper, you may fall into a jewish trap with centralized digital currency.
Although our economy is backed by oil, the dollar is technically put in place by the power of the government. It prints it and says it’s money, but it’s just paper. The reason it has worth is because we agree we can use it. The economy used to judge the overall worth of the paper is based in oil exchange now though. So that is a major problem.
And yeah, I don’t trust digital currency from both a logical stance and religiously. You want to go from being able to physically hold your money to institutions promising you got it in their system. Just be a good goy or we will not only shut you down, but your money too.
Then there is Revelation 13:17
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Now, how can people be denied any trade if there was still a physical currency of some sort? Seems like digital currency may be the future, but not necessarily the best one.
>>3151
And you just proved my point. Available to all (that obey) and are entitled to it for being a good goy. Be careful Epona worshipper, you may fall into a jewish trap with centralized digital currency.
>>3152
I don't understand. Either the US or Canadian government is already in full sovereign control of its currency. How is making its control more efficient Jewry? In fact, debt jubilees can efficiently be carried out this way to save governments of their private debt crises.
I don't understand. Either the US or Canadian government is already in full sovereign control of its currency. How is making its control more efficient Jewry? In fact, debt jubilees can efficiently be carried out this way to save governments of their private debt crises.
>>3154
Is the government being usurped by jews? If yes, then more control over who gets access to the only way to exchange goods is more than enough cause for concern. If not, then one day the jew will work his way into the system. It’s just a matter of time.
Is the government being usurped by jews? If yes, then more control over who gets access to the only way to exchange goods is more than enough cause for concern. If not, then one day the jew will work his way into the system. It’s just a matter of time.
File (): 7F4073EB4699322C77BF19E30FE27E36-28858.png (28.2 KB, 914x913, 1507052574728.png)
>>3157
That's why you expel the Jews. Supposedly the Jews already control everything, states and markets. It's hard to pick out good ideas if everything is foiled by Jews, so I will set to remove them and then implementation comes.
That's why you expel the Jews. Supposedly the Jews already control everything, states and markets. It's hard to pick out good ideas if everything is foiled by Jews, so I will set to remove them and then implementation comes.
>>3159
That would definitely be nice. I see a problem though. Moving toward this goal prematurely, aka: before the (((problem))) is removed, then we will see the prophecy fulfilled. And seeing how the pieces are in place for such a system, the jews won’t be removed before they try and set the system up.
Not to mention the other parts of the prophecy about how the Antichrist comes to save the jew from the nations of the world, then controls them and all... but that is for another thread I believe.
That would definitely be nice. I see a problem though. Moving toward this goal prematurely, aka: before the (((problem))) is removed, then we will see the prophecy fulfilled. And seeing how the pieces are in place for such a system, the jews won’t be removed before they try and set the system up.
Not to mention the other parts of the prophecy about how the Antichrist comes to save the jew from the nations of the world, then controls them and all... but that is for another thread I believe.
File (): 7D7AAB314ADE635B47B4B137A2575C24-272769.png (266.4 KB, 980x742, 1491052771719.png)
>>3160
Alright, alright. It's been interesting. I often don't get to talk about heterodox economic thinking.
Alright, alright. It's been interesting. I often don't get to talk about heterodox economic thinking.
>>3163
I like it too. Anytime you want to continue, I would be glad to, but I just think we shouldn’t spam this thread. We kind of got off track from parliament.
I like it too. Anytime you want to continue, I would be glad to, but I just think we shouldn’t spam this thread. We kind of got off track from parliament.
>>3150
>We need to back our currencies behind something that is both universally held as being valuable, and isn't prone to rarity, localization, or simply just running out.
Violence. Violence is the best backing for any currency.
>We need to back our currencies behind something that is both universally held as being valuable, and isn't prone to rarity, localization, or simply just running out.
Violence. Violence is the best backing for any currency.
>>3165
Hi. Welcome to McDonald’s. You want a burger with fries and a soft drink? Ok. Come inside. That will be 2 broken bones, a concussion, and a black eye. Thank you and have a nice trip to the hospital today.
Hi. Welcome to McDonald’s. You want a burger with fries and a soft drink? Ok. Come inside. That will be 2 broken bones, a concussion, and a black eye. Thank you and have a nice trip to the hospital today.
>>3166
and of course a gold backed currency requires actually handing over bricks of shiny yellow metal.
and of course a gold backed currency requires actually handing over bricks of shiny yellow metal.
Few overall points from your best allies.
>It's just a game.
We won't probably have any impact on the whole site, if you want somethign to change you don't need to go through that whole parliment thing, just make your own thread, contact mods etc. so instead let's focus on having some fun with our LARP.
>Add some (((diversity))) *rubs hands*
I understand that everyone wants to be in party that aligns with their views, it's great and all, but then we end with 10 vaguely right-wing parties and threads full of people arguing that their right-wing brand is better than other right-wing brands.
We don't need any parliment or elections for that, we can do it in any other thread.
It would be better to focus on having fun, LARPing as politicians and shit like that.
If all parties have just some minor differences but in the end are pretty close and agree on many issues then where's some conflict? If all parties can be in one coalition then there is really no point in having so many of them.
This whole idea has big potentiall, you can have soiboi party, feminist party, anarchists, gommies, niggnogs, or caricatural /nu/pol party with wehraboos, skinheads and being triggered at everything. We just need some people other than me willing to do it.
I also warn you, if you kill my joos, they will rise 10 times stronger.
>It's just a game.
We won't probably have any impact on the whole site, if you want somethign to change you don't need to go through that whole parliment thing, just make your own thread, contact mods etc. so instead let's focus on having some fun with our LARP.
>Add some (((diversity))) *rubs hands*
I understand that everyone wants to be in party that aligns with their views, it's great and all, but then we end with 10 vaguely right-wing parties and threads full of people arguing that their right-wing brand is better than other right-wing brands.
We don't need any parliment or elections for that, we can do it in any other thread.
It would be better to focus on having fun, LARPing as politicians and shit like that.
If all parties have just some minor differences but in the end are pretty close and agree on many issues then where's some conflict? If all parties can be in one coalition then there is really no point in having so many of them.
This whole idea has big potentiall, you can have soiboi party, feminist party, anarchists, gommies, niggnogs, or caricatural /nu/pol party with wehraboos, skinheads and being triggered at everything. We just need some people other than me willing to do it.
I also warn you, if you kill my joos, they will rise 10 times stronger.
>>3170
I see your point, but no one wants the wrath of the community to destroy their party in one fell swoop by setting up a leftist party. It’s that survival instinct at work, I suppose, that keeps people from making a party that’s people here will hate.
I see your point, but no one wants the wrath of the community to destroy their party in one fell swoop by setting up a leftist party. It’s that survival instinct at work, I suppose, that keeps people from making a party that’s people here will hate.
The Honey Nut Cheerios Party is very pro business, only intervening in cases where the health and safety of the nation is at risk. There will be little regulation aside from that for the greater health of the nation.
We are also pro military, as we wish to protect ourselves from threats at home and abroad, and to make sure the rest of the world gets a good breakfast!
Education will be well funded, after all, a well informed citizen is a healthy citizen!
The rights of the people will be kept dear, as we don't want to restrict their freedoms, as long as it's not hurting anyone.
Aside from that, our only policies are those that achieve our stated goals!
We are also pro military, as we wish to protect ourselves from threats at home and abroad, and to make sure the rest of the world gets a good breakfast!
Education will be well funded, after all, a well informed citizen is a healthy citizen!
The rights of the people will be kept dear, as we don't want to restrict their freedoms, as long as it's not hurting anyone.
Aside from that, our only policies are those that achieve our stated goals!
>>3173
Jews are a threat to the health of everyone. They will compromise both the health and safety of everyone by having any power in the government and business, and therefore, will not be allowed to be a citizen or live in our nation.
Jews are a threat to the health of everyone. They will compromise both the health and safety of everyone by having any power in the government and business, and therefore, will not be allowed to be a citizen or live in our nation.
File (): 4260358A17CB49664C3CF2F8A17D8565-307250.jpg (300.0 KB, 1536x1022, EwFedLeslieFaire.jpg)
>>3123
>>3125
>>3134
I don't appreciate this slander. One non-leading member stepped out of line and agreed with (((them))) and you accuse us of being corrupted. We're in full support of physical removal by private activism.
Anyway, this is going off topic. We need to establish election reform. Rather than debate endlessly about details we ought to establish a set of general principles and work from there.
I propose:
1) Electorate based on districts set within a map of Equestria;
2) Weekly or fortnightly voting with votes cast in one district not applicable to another;
3) Seats that allow every party member a voice (despite the harm it has caused me), yet is more flexible than a pure headcount;
4) Standing coalitions
5) A Head of Parliament whose primary purpose is to convene and adjourn sessions and to update the map.
The last is most important. Without even such a ceremonial role we have already been reduced to bickering about unrelated topics.
>>3125
>>3134
I don't appreciate this slander. One non-leading member stepped out of line and agreed with (((them))) and you accuse us of being corrupted. We're in full support of physical removal by private activism.
Anyway, this is going off topic. We need to establish election reform. Rather than debate endlessly about details we ought to establish a set of general principles and work from there.
I propose:
1) Electorate based on districts set within a map of Equestria;
2) Weekly or fortnightly voting with votes cast in one district not applicable to another;
3) Seats that allow every party member a voice (despite the harm it has caused me), yet is more flexible than a pure headcount;
4) Standing coalitions
5) A Head of Parliament whose primary purpose is to convene and adjourn sessions and to update the map.
The last is most important. Without even such a ceremonial role we have already been reduced to bickering about unrelated topics.
>>3176
Also, a formal PFP announcement.
If Ancap-anon's inactivity if he does not reply to this message in 24 hours I shall reassume direct control as Party President.
Also, a formal PFP announcement.
If Ancap-anon's inactivity if he does not reply to this message in 24 hours I shall reassume direct control as Party President.
File (): 927BE2E4125AC35224BA10CFA323896B-591137.png (577.3 KB, 1024x1024, 1516340385530.png)
>>3176
Oh look another one that's pro federalism. Not surprised though. I will not support any plan that divides the board. Your other proposals are made with good intent but I cannot support any system that'll decentralize our vote into arbitrary districts that mean nothing to the members of /mlpol/. As soon as this proposal inevitably fails I will create my own bill for election reform that'll truly fix /mlpol/'s election problems.
Oh look another one that's pro federalism. Not surprised though. I will not support any plan that divides the board. Your other proposals are made with good intent but I cannot support any system that'll decentralize our vote into arbitrary districts that mean nothing to the members of /mlpol/. As soon as this proposal inevitably fails I will create my own bill for election reform that'll truly fix /mlpol/'s election problems.
>>3178
I've seen your views on the electoral reform, and as a member of the SDWHP I would throw my support behind you.
I've seen your views on the electoral reform, and as a member of the SDWHP I would throw my support behind you.
>>3178
I would have normally agreed with you should this political system actually have power. But this is simply a game where a single unified state simply limits the potential of interesting debates and situations for the parties do deal with. I support districts.
Now if the districts agree to merge at a later date there is nothing to stop them from doing so. That can be a major campaigning platform, showing how the districts are failing and need to converge, should that be the case.
I would have normally agreed with you should this political system actually have power. But this is simply a game where a single unified state simply limits the potential of interesting debates and situations for the parties do deal with. I support districts.
Now if the districts agree to merge at a later date there is nothing to stop them from doing so. That can be a major campaigning platform, showing how the districts are failing and need to converge, should that be the case.
File (): FDDB2C46418B3D6CEECFE4C5513F62AD-170096.png (166.1 KB, 1275x1080, 1508215494379.png)
>>2738
I present to /mlpol/ the April First Party's election reform rule change bill.
1. Voting will take place in a new thread every Sunday.
2. In order for your vote to be counted you need to type V in the subject line.
3. Every anon will have 2 votes he can use to vote separately for a party and 1 against.
4. When an anon votes he must cast all his ballets at once or forfeit his ability to cast it for others latter.
5. Unlimited amounts of parties can enter into the election but they must have 3 separate anons other then the party founder state that the party should be allowed into the general election.
6. Make the total number of seats in the parliament at 27 instead of 23.
7. Make the parliament a percentage proportional representation system.
I present to /mlpol/ the April First Party's election reform rule change bill.
1. Voting will take place in a new thread every Sunday.
2. In order for your vote to be counted you need to type V in the subject line.
3. Every anon will have 2 votes he can use to vote separately for a party and 1 against.
4. When an anon votes he must cast all his ballets at once or forfeit his ability to cast it for others latter.
5. Unlimited amounts of parties can enter into the election but they must have 3 separate anons other then the party founder state that the party should be allowed into the general election.
6. Make the total number of seats in the parliament at 27 instead of 23.
7. Make the parliament a percentage proportional representation system.
>>3183
There's parts of this I dislike, the reduction and limitation on votes and the difficulty of starting new parties for instance, but that's the price paid for not making my own proposal. Hopefully this can be further amended someday to adress those issues, but seeing as we are on the eve of the weekend and we need a solution now;
The Stern Disappointment With Hitler Party seconds this proposal.
There's parts of this I dislike, the reduction and limitation on votes and the difficulty of starting new parties for instance, but that's the price paid for not making my own proposal. Hopefully this can be further amended someday to adress those issues, but seeing as we are on the eve of the weekend and we need a solution now;
The Stern Disappointment With Hitler Party seconds this proposal.
File (): 82B6147E08DCE1F557DD7E59722C4254-112113.jpg (109.5 KB, 400x602, destroy this mad brute.jpg)
>>3183
i have a question by saying "they must have 3 separate anons other than the parties founder state the party should be allowed into the general election" dose this mean they need at least 3 votes from other anons? if so this will effectively destroy small parties other than this i support it
i have a question by saying "they must have 3 separate anons other than the parties founder state the party should be allowed into the general election" dose this mean they need at least 3 votes from other anons? if so this will effectively destroy small parties other than this i support it
>>3185
No it means that you must have a unique platform that'll make others want to allow your party to exist.
In all of our cases we'd only need to have 3 separate anons respond to our restated manifestos and claim they'd be interested in voting for our parties. It does not mean they'd have to, but only that they'd like to see your party participate in the election.
No it means that you must have a unique platform that'll make others want to allow your party to exist.
In all of our cases we'd only need to have 3 separate anons respond to our restated manifestos and claim they'd be interested in voting for our parties. It does not mean they'd have to, but only that they'd like to see your party participate in the election.
>>3185
It's worded to imply the creation of new parties anon. You're weird monarchy thing should be fine, unless you're voted out of existence like those NazBols.
It's worded to imply the creation of new parties anon. You're weird monarchy thing should be fine, unless you're voted out of existence like those NazBols.
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-50] [51-100] [101-150] [151-200] [201-250] [251-300] [301-350] [351-400] [401-450] [451-500] [501-541] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
541 replies | 175 files | 63 UUIDs | Page 1