Tense Conflict Outshone By Compromise

Am I the only one missing some sound arguments on whether or not this Administration is in real need of a Minister of Media? Europeia has free press AND PhDre, why is there a need for a Minister of Media?
"The Government doesn't communicate enough", "The President could use a Press Secretary", "We expect the Government to tell us what it is up to, the press are here to keep them accountable" - these are all sentiments we have seen loudly and firmly expressed in the past several terms. This is a response to that, one I know Sopo has tried to convince previous Governments to use. Now it's his Government, so I'm sure he'll be proving its usefulness via demonstration.
 
...But the Senate could easily fix it...
Which was my opinion, though it seemed an unnecessary thing to make an enemy over.
It's just that I feel this is the kind of thing the Senate should handle.
We did handle it. We are handling it. We were given an executive order which was incomplete, and due to a judicial ruling on the nature of the executive order veto has caused a mess which the Senate now must clean up, despite our best efforts to ensure legislative responsibility.

Sometimes the manner in which things are done is as important as the end result, and we took umbrage to the manner in which this executive order was handled, and to the mess we were concerned that could occur (and ultimately did).
 
For a statement of pure fact, or pure law at least, we should note that the withdrawal of the EO due to umbrage at, uh, its manner of execution, actually caused a bigger problem relative to the problem that the EO itself would have caused.

No problem from the beginning would have been better, but trading one problem for a bigger one is certainly worse.
 
For a statement of pure fact, or pure law at least, we should note that the withdrawal of the EO due to umbrage at, uh, its manner of execution, actually caused a bigger problem relative to the problem that the EO itself would have caused.

No problem from the beginning would have been better, but trading one problem for a bigger one is certainly worse.
 
For a statement of pure fact, or pure law at least, we should note that the withdrawal of the EO due to umbrage at, uh, its manner of execution, actually caused a bigger problem relative to the problem that the EO itself would have caused.

No problem from the beginning would have been better, but trading one problem for a bigger one is certainly worse.
I disagree with your interpretation of the law, in this case. The amendment was spent from the moment it was posted; the legal issues came with it. The veto/withdrawal had no effect on EO 70 because of the ruling. We didn't trade anything, it was simply impossible for the Senate to act quickly enough to prevent the issue (but we damn well tried). We've got the issue well in hand now, and we're on the way to fixing it.
 
Ah, an interesting discussion.

See, whether or not you agree with what the Senate is doing now as the People's Loyal Opposition, you've got to admit, its keeping things interesting.
 
Ah, an interesting discussion.

See, whether or not you agree with what the Senate is doing now as the People's Loyal Opposition, you've got to admit, its keeping things interesting.
Whether or not it's practical and sustainable in the long-term is the real issue here.
 
Back
Top