Cody Seb Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Omaha, Nebraska Voter turnout was already high early in the morning as the question of joining the Mississippi Confederation was brought to a vote. Standard Vinilandese voting procedures are being followed during the plebiscite, asking the citizens of Kansas and Nebraska if they want to join the Confederacy as territories. The turnout is expected to be above 90% of the voting population for what promises to be a turning point in the region. Kansas and Nebraska have been in and out of protectorate status several times and the real question is, can they find a lasting home in the Confederacy. Pre-vote polls show the people seem to think so. As far as statehood, Confederacy officials have gone on record to say that statehood for the two potential territories is the ultimate goal, but the two regions must become territories first. Omaha area news will be keeping a tight report throughout the voting process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Seb Posted July 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Omaha, Nebraska The polls have closed for the day and counting has commenced. As it stands, a large majority of Nebraska voters have voted in favor, while in Kansas things are a bit closer but still favorable for annexation. If trends continue, both states will be open for annexation, however Kansas is still far too close to call and nothing can be certain on Nebraska. The percentages show almost 100% of the rural and small town populations of the two regions voting for annexation, while urban areas are more split, with the notable exceptions of Omaha and Kansas City West. Also, it would seem middle aged voters and younger voters tend to vote for annexation while the older voters are generally more towards staying in the protectorate. President Perdue has made arrangements to give a speeches in Lincoln and Lawrence Kansas on the campuses of the Universities of Nebraska and Kansas if the votes should prove to be affirmative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDCJT Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 New England shall watch this closely, but we will back up our ally on this if the people wish to join the Confederacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Seb Posted July 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) Omaha, Nebraska The results are in and it seems both Kansas and Nebraska have voted in favor of joining the Confederacy. Both have beaten the 80% voter requirement, which should leave most doubters without argument. Standard Confederacy procedure dictates that any new lands annexed must be a territory for at least 5 years, even if they immediately meet statehood requirements. This is so that the new citizens can become acclimated to Confederate culture and vice versa. Territories differ only in that the Governor is selected by the Central Government rather by popular vote. The Governor still must meet the standards of the Governor position, including being of the Territory/State. As promised, President Perdue made his first speech at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, the Territorial Capital. Lincoln, Nebraska A smiling President Sonny Perdue stood behind a podium adorned with the Flag of Nebraska, behind him the Flag of the Confederacy. A large audience had gathered, including college students, new citizens and press. "People of Nebraska, let me now greet you as countrymen! I assure you, you have vested your trust in the right place. A vote for joining the Confederacy is a vote for liberating yourself! Here in the Confederacy, a state or territory decides its own destiny. Your internal policies will not be run by the Central Government, will not be run by states with larger populations. No, you will still have full control over your own selves. We will however, provide you with protection. We will make sure that all your needs are met. We are here to provide for you and your security, so that you may live out your lives as you see fit, doing our part to reduce your domestic worry. To help foster this, my first policy will be to instate an immigration control. Now, this may seem unfair on some levels, but let me explain. We feel that it would be beneficial for the new Territories of Nebraska and Kansas to uphold and establish their independent cultures here in the Confederacy, so let me give you the details. People wishing to immigrate to the territories will have to pass a standard immigration test. If they pass and are shown to have potential for positivity within the territories, they will be allowed to move. However, citizens of the territories may come and go as they please. Citizens already a part of the Confederation will be allowed to visit, but may not make a residence unless they pass the immigration test. This will last for approximately two years or until we feel it is no longer needed, whichever comes sooner. It is our full hope that the culture of Nebraska stays hearty and healthy, while diffusing and accepting the Confederacy national culture. Welcome to the Mississippi Confederation!" At the conclusion of his speech, applause rang out. The citizens were indeed very, very happy. Edited July 23, 2009 by Cody Seb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDCJT Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 We congratulates Nebraska, Kansas, and the Confederacy on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Xaristan is displeased with further expansion by existing countries in the Americas. We see this as a disturbing trend, one we hope does not continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDCJT Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Xaristan is displeased with further expansion by existing countries in the Americas. We see this as a disturbing trend, one we hope does not continue. OOC: Expansion is fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 OOC: Expansion is fun. OOC: As someone who has always advocated leaving land open for new players... not in my eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V The King Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) Xaristan is displeased with further expansion by existing countries in the Americas. We see this as a disturbing trend, one we hope does not continue. "Viniland has closely observed the voting process, and noted it was as clean as it could have been - the results are not surprising either - the people of those states have long yearned for a definitive home at least, after being ditched in and out by other nations; joining a nation that shares similar cultural ties to theirs. It is good to be a Vinilandese protectorate, but nothing in the world can replace being together with their own and achieve an unique identity. Xaristan does not need to worry - we are experience and can distinguished justified, deserving expansionism from unwarranted annexations." EDIT: OOC: That land has been open since Sargun left the Americas, and there's still a LOT of land open under my and Mudd's protection. It's nice to leave land for new players, but it's not so nice to let it rot while no one is willing to take it up, Edited July 23, 2009 by V The King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 "Viniland has closely observed the voting process, and noted it was as clean as it could have been - the results are not surprising either - the people of those states have long yearned for a definitive home at least, after being ditched in and out by other nations; joining a nation that shares similar cultural ties to theirs. It is good to be a Vinilandese protectorate, but nothing in the world can replace being together with their own and achieve an unique identity. Xaristan does not need to worry - we are experience and can distinguished justified, deserving expansionism from unwarranted annexations." EDIT: OOC: That land has been open since Sargun left the Americas, and there's still a LOT of land open under my and Mudd's protection. It's nice to leave land for new players, but it's not so nice to let it rot while no one is willing to take it up, OOC: Who's leaving it to rot? It's just there. Yeah, there's a lot of land left but most of it is frozen tundra up in Canada... who wants that? lol. He kind of took the best that was left to offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Seb Posted July 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 OOC: Who's leaving it to rot? It's just there. Yeah, there's a lot of land left but most of it is frozen tundra up in Canada... who wants that? lol. He kind of took the best that was left to offer. OOC: There's still a lot of good land, there's still Quebec, parts of the Maritime Provinces, the Dakotas, Iowa and Minnesota, Oklahoma, I'm assuming Texas will be open soon, so this really isn't a problem. I took a fraction of a protectorate that no one has even asked about in the map thread thus far. I understand your position and respect it and I know I can't be viewed as objective because I'm the benefactor, but there are reasons that it was acceptable for me to take two states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 OOC: There's still a lot of good land, there's still Quebec, parts of the Maritime Provinces, the Dakotas, Iowa and Minnesota, Oklahoma, I'm assuming Texas will be open soon, so this really isn't a problem. I took a fraction of a protectorate that no one has even asked about in the map thread thus far. I understand your position and respect it and I know I can't be viewed as objective because I'm the benefactor, but there are reasons that it was acceptable for me to take two states. OOC: My protest stands. I don't care the reason. I've always protested and always will. Look at my track record. I've always reduced my lands, given land away, or kept protectorates rather than expanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Seb Posted July 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 OOC: My protest stands. I don't care the reason. I've always protested and always will. Look at my track record. I've always reduced my lands, given land away, or kept protectorates rather than expanding. OOC: And I'm not faulting you for that, it's a good policy, but there's no IC reason for me to not expand there, and there's not much of an OOC one in my eyes. Would you be at least appeased for me to say you're a better man for your standpoint, but not everyone falls into or sees it that way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 OOC: And I'm not faulting you for that, it's a good policy, but there's no IC reason for me to not expand there, and there's not much of an OOC one in my eyes. Would you be at least appeased for me to say you're a better man for your standpoint, but not everyone falls into or sees it that way? OOC: lol, no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Seb Posted July 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 OOC: look, I'm not sure what you want me to say to that, but I was trying to be as respectful as I could. If that's where you want to take this argument, then I won't follow. I wasn't just saying stupid nonsense. So I respectfully disagree with your standpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 OOC: look, I'm not sure what you want me to say to that, but I was trying to be as respectful as I could. If that's where you want to take this argument, then I won't follow. I wasn't just saying stupid nonsense. So I respectfully disagree with your standpoint. OOC: I don't want you to say anything to that. I never have. I disagree with your policy. Actions will be taken IC concerning it. Consider yourself forewarned. I'm not really sure what else you expected me to say to you trying to, basically, toss a meaningless compliment my way over a policy you disagree with. Every time you'll get a "lol, no" to that. And as for your policy, I disrespectfully disagree. It's a !@#$ policy, and I'll continue to say so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Seb Posted July 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 OOC: I don't want you to say anything to that. I never have. I disagree with your policy. Actions will be taken IC concerning it. Consider yourself forewarned. I'm not really sure what else you expected me to say to you trying to, basically, toss a meaningless compliment my way over a policy you disagree with. Every time you'll get a "lol, no" to that. And as for your policy, I disrespectfully disagree. It's a !@#$ policy, and I'll continue to say so. OOC: All I was trying to do was make myself clear that I'm not trying to be a jerk about this situation. Honestly its pretty ridiculous. It was V's protectorate, he can do with it as he pleases and you have no reason to come in and say it's not alright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 OOC: All I was trying to do was make myself clear that I'm not trying to be a jerk about this situation. Honestly its pretty ridiculous. It was V's protectorate, he can do with it as he pleases and you have no reason to come in and say it's not alright. OOC: I have every reason to come in and say it's not alright. That's my IC stance. It always has been. What's not alright is you !@#$%*ing and moaning because someone is questioning something you did and trying to stifle my RP. I didn't say you couldn't, I said I didn't agree. Now, seriously, shut the $%&@ up and let it continue. My nation can say whatever it wants to your nation. Not everyone is always going to agree with what you do. If that shatters some shred of self esteem that you still hold, tough !@#$. This is the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkantos Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 OOC: I have every reason to come in and say it's not alright. That's my IC stance. It always has been. What's not alright is you !@#$%*ing and moaning because someone is questioning something you did and trying to stifle my RP. I didn't say you couldn't, I said I didn't agree. Now, seriously, shut the $%&@ up and let it continue. My nation can say whatever it wants to your nation. Not everyone is always going to agree with what you do. If that shatters some shred of self esteem that you still hold, tough !@#$. This is the internet. OOC: God, Pravus, he's saying that he doesn't want to argue over it. He's trying being nice, and you're being an $@! over it. So accept it, and move on. IC: Aiginor congradulates Mississippi on this peaceful expansion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V The King Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 OOC: Christ Pravus, way to cause a storm on a teacup. It'd be cool if both of you responded IC, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 "Viniland has closely observed the voting process, and noted it was as clean as it could have been - the results are not surprising either - the people of those states have long yearned for a definitive home at least, after being ditched in and out by other nations; joining a nation that shares similar cultural ties to theirs. It is good to be a Vinilandese protectorate, but nothing in the world can replace being together with their own and achieve an unique identity. Xaristan does not need to worry - we are experience and can distinguished justified, deserving expansionism from unwarranted annexations." EDIT: OOC: That land has been open since Sargun left the Americas, and there's still a LOT of land open under my and Mudd's protection. It's nice to leave land for new players, but it's not so nice to let it rot while no one is willing to take it up, "Expansionism in and of itself is a bad thing, no matter how "justified and deserving" one may see it. Would we have been "justified and deserving" in annexing the former UAS lands? Certainly. But we did not. Nations should keep to their own borders and toss away these dreams of more land and domination. It only causes more problems once war rolls around." OOC: Christ Pravus, way to cause a storm on a teacup. It'd be cool if both of you responded IC, too. OOC: I had responded completely IC, he's the one who started the OOC BS. You want someone to blame, blame him. He needs to get some tougher skin and quit crying when someone doesn't agree with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 "Expansionism in and of itself is a bad thing, no matter how "justified and deserving" one may see it. Would we have been "justified and deserving" in annexing the former UAS lands? Certainly. But we did not. Nations should keep to their own borders and toss away these dreams of more land and domination. It only causes more problems once war rolls around."OOC: I had responded completely IC, he's the one who started the OOC BS. You want someone to blame, blame him. He needs to get some tougher skin and quit crying when someone doesn't agree with him. OOC: Not saying I agree, not saying I disagree, but he WAS saying he didn;t want to argue. Although admittedly he did start it...he needs to recognize the difference between IC and OOC. Still, he offered to end it, and then you cursed at him again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Seb Posted July 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 "Expansionism in and of itself is a bad thing, no matter how "justified and deserving" one may see it. Would we have been "justified and deserving" in annexing the former UAS lands? Certainly. But we did not. Nations should keep to their own borders and toss away these dreams of more land and domination. It only causes more problems once war rolls around."OOC: I had responded completely IC, he's the one who started the OOC BS. You want someone to blame, blame him. He needs to get some tougher skin and quit crying when someone doesn't agree with him. OOC: Yes, I'll admit I started OOC, but I didn't want to start THAT kind of OOC. However, you're right, time for IC. And no, I don't mean that aggressively. IC: "Your opinions on expansionism are your own. In this instance, a plebiscite of the local population was run jointly by Vinilandese and Confederate authorities. You admit that you would have been justified and deserving in annexing former UAS lands. The very definition of that phrase means the opposite of your argument, but I do understand what you are saying. Now, our government is a Confederacy. We did not take these territories through war, we did not take them through force. They voted for themselves to join our Confederacy. We are not aiming to dominate the lands as we've already tried to make clear. Each state takes care of itself and its own laws, they just vest trust in our central government to provide for their security and their needs. We believe that our government style is one with the least aims of domination of new lands, since our nation is more like an alliance of states than a fully fledged republic. Also, although I'm not sure you'll believe me but I'm giving you my word, we do not have dreams of expansion. You will not see us wage wars of expansion or continue to annex territories. Obviously this is not wanted by our neighbors and this is not wanted by ourselves. It is not our wish to spread ourselves thin or strain our domestic friendliness." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDCJT Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 "Expansionism in and of itself is a bad thing, no matter how "justified and deserving" one may see it. Would we have been "justified and deserving" in annexing the former UAS lands? Certainly. But we did not. Nations should keep to their own borders and toss away these dreams of more land and domination. It only causes more problems once war rolls around." Hm, so expansionism in and of itself is a bad thing, no matter how "justified and deserving", even if the people in a specific area wanted to join a specific nation? You would have a valid point if the Confederacy aggressively and forcibly took over the region - which they certainly didn't. 'Expansionism', in our opinion, may be "justified and deserving" if the people chose to join a nation that had similiar cultural ties with. It would not be "justified and deserving" if the people were forced to join a nation against their will - which is certainly not the case here. This is our two cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkantos Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Hm, so expansionism in and of itself is a bad thing, no matter how "justified and deserving", even if the people in a specific area wanted to join a specific nation? You would have a valid point if the Confederacy aggressively and forcibly took over the region - which they certainly didn't. 'Expansionism', in our opinion, may be "justified and deserving" if the people chose to join a nation that had similiar cultural ties with. It would not be "justified and deserving" if the people were forced to join a nation against their will - which is certainly not the case here. This is our two cents. When you yourself have annexed Pennsylvania and New Jersey? You hypocrite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.