|
Post by terrus on Jun 29, 2014 11:36:00 GMT -5
It appears I did my math wrong. Getting a majority will require us to get another seven independents on top of those we've already gotten, and those backing Muhlenberg. I'm asking how we can do it, but it seems unlikely we'll succeed.
Looks like we're in the minority, folks.
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 29, 2014 14:15:37 GMT -5
We might still be able to pull it off, actually. We've got six indies going for us right now.
There are four Southern indies willing to join us if we do the following (which I think is reasonable): 1. Enact and enforce a Fugitive Slave Act; 2. Elect a Southerner as Senate President Pro Tempore; 3. Not increase general tariffs; and 4. Support Kentucky statehood.
The three remaining independents are under Litchfield's control (they include him). I've PMd him to see what he needs to support us.
|
|
|
Post by Addie on Jun 29, 2014 15:52:20 GMT -5
I think that's definitely doable for us to support. As long as it's "general" tariffs and not "specific" tariffs.
|
|
|
Post by Magenta on Jun 29, 2014 16:22:51 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm wary of the tariffs promise myself. We are going to need some way to fund this government and I am loathe to implement any internal taxation or tariffs.
Honestly, while one must always strive for victory, our defeat in holding the Speakership may ultimately lead to the other parties demonstrating the folly of both the National Democrats and the Republicans. Certainly, any inherit contradictions between the two will be exposed in due time. If they do avoid any splits, I suspect that the voters of the National Democrats will ultimately be disgusted and vote Federalist in the next elections. As the Republicans seem to be heading for one of their own to hold the speakership, should they put some bills repealing the Debt or Bank bills, the Democrats will ultimately be forced to betray their voters or the Republicans be shown as unable to lead.
|
|
|
Post by Felledor on Jul 1, 2014 2:26:45 GMT -5
The Vote's closed. Muhlenburg was re-elected and is waiting on you to name a candidate for Deputy Speaker
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jul 1, 2014 9:03:14 GMT -5
Congratulations, folks. We won re-election. I know there was a little debate at the end there about it, but as it ends out, the Republicans did not even have a unified candidate. So let's count this as a victory.
I'd like to volunteer to be Deputy Speaker. I don't think there'll be the same "bribery" claim as if I'd become Speaker, and I'm very active here, so I should be able to do a very good job.
|
|
|
Post by Addie on Jul 1, 2014 9:24:35 GMT -5
I'd support Terrus. Deputy Speaker is a position that needs activity and a keen eye to not make the same fuckups that Hughes did moving (really, a ridiculously small number) bills around.
|
|
|
Post by Addie on Jul 1, 2014 10:45:58 GMT -5
I move to name Jack Terrus the Deputy Speaker by unanimous consent.
|
|
|
Post by John Key on Jul 1, 2014 10:57:43 GMT -5
The motion to name Jack Terrus as Deputy Speaker has been raised and unanimous consent has been asked thereof. Are there any objections?
(24 Hours)
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jul 1, 2014 15:55:29 GMT -5
We also need to pick a President Pro Tempore, along with a House Majority Leader. Anyone interested in HML?
The PPT needs to be a Southerner. I'd suggest Pierce Butler -- he's definitely the most well-known Southern Federalist.
|
|
|
Post by Antoine Desrochers on Jul 1, 2014 16:12:37 GMT -5
I am interested in HML
|
|
|
Post by Legion on Jul 1, 2014 16:17:04 GMT -5
I am also interested in HML.
|
|
|
Post by Magenta on Jul 1, 2014 18:34:40 GMT -5
No objections to the motion for unanimous consent. I also agree on the matter of needing someone from the South, or at least, not the Northeast alone.
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jul 4, 2014 7:32:52 GMT -5
Seeing no objection, I think we can all agree that Pierce Butler is the PPT. Will someone let Tedder know?
Beaumont, could you sponsor a fugitive slave act?
|
|