[Election] Can Kanselier defend his bold statements as well as he can make them?

Day 2,603, 06:10 • Published in Belgium Spain • by Chihiroh

So… CP-elections are rolling. And as you know I like to heat things up a bit.

I will adress myself to candidate Kanselier a second time. The first time was a while ago on #eBrussels IRC and basically was a loop of him throwing ad hominems at me, me calling him out on it and him chickening out as soon as I did.

So now I thought that … « Well yeah if I want to confront him again I should do so in the form of an article that will be very visible on the wake of that crucial time where he tries to get that Presidential seat he always wanted. That way I can be sure that using the same debate strategy as he did last time will not be without costs ( = votes). »

As you can see I am explaining things in a very simple way to be sure that eeeeeveryone understands what is going on here.

Yes, I am nice like that !

If you didn’t know Kanselier, he is a fairly young eCitizen that quickly got involved in ePolitics and longed for the CP-seat for a little while now. As an ePolitician (and, as Christijan whispered in my ear, apparently also a RL Politician) he certainly has proven to be very good at making bold claims and very … committed to attacking other ePoliticians he doesn’t agree with.

So I thought that, in order to improve his chances against an opponent as experienced as tommot, I could give him the opportunity to prove that he can also defend his claims as exceptionally as he can make them !

So, without further ado let me propose a little…




So here’s the thing :

In ThomasRed’ very informative article, the name of Kanselier sprung out as having accepted 4 people in eBelgium out of 4 Congressmember terms. To which Kanselier responded with arguments basically saying the following :



Well, maybe he’s right.

Maybe the system is indeed biased.

But what bothers me in this affair is this :



Or, more precisely, this part :



Kanselier is a 4-times elected Congressman, which not only means that he could let in 4 immigrants that weren’t approved by the IO (yet), but also that he had 4 months to make changes in the system he deems defective.

Yet after 4 months no changes to be seen. This implies 2 possibilities :

1. A majority of congressmen can get behind his statement, which means that change only needed a vote. As there has been no changes to the law that would mean that Kanselier didn’t do his job.

2. Kanselier is not backed by a majority of Congressmen that think there is no change to be made. Kanselier is thus obliged to follow said system by democratic principle.

In either cases it means that he disregarded guidelines approved by a democratic majority democratic majority of Congressmembers and that are valid until another democratic majority decides otherwise.

So, in effect, by claiming this




He is in fact telling us:

« F*ck democracy ! »

As he doesn’t follow rules that democracy upholds.

So my hot potatoquestion is the following :

Why should I give my vote, my democratic share of power, to someone that only accepts democracy when it goes his way, or doesn’t do his job to change it when elected ?

Sincerely,
Kanselier’s greatest fan




Let the debate begin !

Also, before commenting, know that I’ll rate the quality of your comments.

« Huh, quality ? »

May I present to you the mighty pyramid of arguments !



Also, this might help you too.