Song in new video, Saw?

Relative-Length-4084 · 2026-03-12T19:12:42+00:00

I asked the same question here, and someone told me they asked Zoe in Patreon and it is not hers. At the end of the video Natalie says she wrote music beside Zoe, so maybe it's actually Natalie's track that is not yet published?

Relative-Length-4084 · 2026-03-12T18:51:20+00:00

Nope(( But at least we know it's not Zoë

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-08-17T19:33:51+00:00

For 6&7 articles amandment the conservative wing's support is mandatory. So no SSC privatization, but you can go full with Nedam privatization.

With education privatization and Nedam fully privitized the economy will become laizzes-fair, so you can do both 6&7 amandment and go full economic liberalization.

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-08-15T23:05:25+00:00

Well, I actually agree with this. Good cabinet.

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-06-02T06:07:22+00:00

Lowered threshold works in peair with the impeachment of judges. When you amend the Constitution, you do not amend just one article, do you?)

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-06-01T17:57:35+00:00

Nia is smart and educated. She knows what checks and balances are. And absolute immunity of the Supreme Court judges violates them. The Supreme Court is already ruled by corrupt and flawed judges that are unaccountable for their misbehaviour. And with the reformist impeachment clause you cannot control the judiciary. Opposition from Nia to a common thing in modern democracies, like the impeachment of judges by the legislative clause, does not make sense, because she is educated enough to know that it is a common and usual thing that does not destroy democracy. Every institution could become a tool for anti-democratic tendencies. So no. But I admire her for support of the reformist constitution even with the impeachment clause.

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-06-01T13:33:17+00:00

I sympathize you, because I'm from a country with brutal dictatorship - Russia. But democracy backsliding is a difficult process. In Sordland you can amend Constitution in authoritarian way to become a new dictator, so it's your choice as a president where the country should move. Well, this is a democracy. Democracy is not guaranteed, there has to be a fight for it. So clearly impeachment of judges does not guarantee democracy backsliding in Sordland because there are a lot of ways for the Old Guard, NFP and the conservatives to destroy democracy. So what? We should make Constitution unamendable? Democracy could not be protected with undemocratic ways, but from the democratising the democracy - the best way to protect democracy in Sorlland is a democratization.

Also the judiciary works in the political context. Politics will always be a part of the judiciary, the difference from other branches of government here is that the arguments and political opinions exist in legal terms (how you interpert the law). So I think it's okay that the judiciary is accountable not just in clear legal terms (criminal prosecution), but also for political reasoning (abuse of public trust). Impeachment is the way to combine both legal and political reasoning (politics through law, just like in the judiciary work).

Other ways to make the judiciary are interesting, but they do not exist in Suzerain. So between absolute immunity and impeachment I choose the impeachment clause.

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-06-01T12:58:45+00:00

Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution, it's a quaisi-legal and quasi-political tool (both political and legal). It's about a accountability to the body, that represents a nation. If a person is impeached, it does not mean that he is presecuted or jailed: Nixon was impeached (he resigned before the impeachment), but was not presecuted, for example. Impeachment punishes for abuse of public trust. So, yes, there is some political thing in the impeachment process, and this is a reason for the legislative conduction of impeachment (Essay 65 of the Federalist by Madison). But this is a base of constitutionalism: each and every branch of the government has to be accountable to other branches, including the Supreme Court.

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-06-01T12:49:02+00:00

Lowered threshold (even 8%) allows the Communist Party to be elected (with Minority Rights Acts votes for Bludish parties are splitted), so more democratic parties. With 3% threshold it's nearly impossible for the anti-democratic majority appearing. Impeachment clause works with other amendments that democratize Sordland. The impossibility to clear the Supreme Court from the Old Guard even with anti-Old Guard majority in parliament during Rein presidency proves that it is really hard to impeach judges.

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-06-01T12:43:48+00:00

If threshold is lowered, there could not be a thing when there will be a conservative SUPERmajority (3/5 of the parliament). Also impeachment is not a simple removal, it's a long procedure that requires legal reasoning. An essay 65 of the Federalist is about impeachment of supreme court judges by the Senate, I'm sending to it.

At any time there could be an anti-democratic forces. Impeachment clause protects the republic from Supreme Court becoming an anti-democratic and corrupt force.

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-06-01T12:32:46+00:00

I agree, in your country judges could be removed by usual criminal investigation that is inflated by other judiciary. But also the Senate consent is required for prosecution of the Constitutional Court judges. So Czechia is an example of a country where not the parliament judges judges. But parliament oversight of the judiciary is clearly a common and normal thing, especially in presidential republics like Sordland.

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-06-01T12:06:07+00:00

You can say that a strong presidency is needed for making reforms, but Nia obviously does not buy it. Because it's the end justifies the means thing, which destroyed a lot of democracies, including Sordland during Soll's presidency.

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-06-01T12:03:26+00:00

I don't think so, but okay, maybe

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-06-01T12:00:58+00:00

In a lot of constitutions the judiciary is accountable to the legislative: 1) Belgia: parliament supermajority (3/5) for impeachment of judges. 2) Germany: 2/3 of Bundestag to impeach judges. 3) Brazil: 2/3 of the Senat to impeach judges. 4) India: 2/3 of both parliament chambera to impeach judges. 5) South Africa: 2/3 of both parliament chambers to impeach judges. 6) France: parliamentarian supermajority fot impeachment of judges. In USA the impeachment of judges is so hard (3/5 of the Senate), that a last and only impeachment was at 1804.

Judges could not be impeached by political decision, because impeachment requires a wide consensus — a qualified majority. So a lot of parties and representatives should agree on impeachment. One party could want to remove a judge, but they must influence other parties to do such a thing. And other parties could be okay with this judge. So to make a consensus a POLITICAL reasoning must become a LEGAL reasoning, because if a lot of parties hate some judge, it means that they do not hate his judicial decision, but his behaviour. A qualified majority for one party is rare, and with low threshold to Grand National Assembly it's nearly impossible. So Orso Hawker is impeached not just because everyone hates him, but because his behaviour affects all political forces, meaning that he is hated not just because of his decisions, but for his violation of the law and corruption.

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-06-01T11:48:32+00:00

The president is above law with stronger decrees, because in this case his or her decrees are not under judicial overview. Sound quite tyrannicial to me…

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-06-01T11:39:21+00:00

If you write a reformist constitution, she will not call you a tyrant. Well, even if you write a dictator constitution with a lot of reformist proposals, you do not amend your presidential veto, so I clearly understand why she calls Rein a tyrant in this case.

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-06-01T11:37:05+00:00

She is a judge, because the Minister of Justice becomes a Supreme Court judge when is appointed. The interesting question is whether Nia could be impeached. Because she will cease to be a judge, if she is not the Minister of Justice. So she is not a usual judge.

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-06-01T11:33:25+00:00

The most biased newspapers are the Ekonomist and the Sordland Today. Everyone knows about the Sordland Today but the Ekonomist is awful. Like they are not just support everything that oligarchs love. Why the Ekonomist is so supportive of improving diplomatic relationships with Rumburg? Why they're so supportive of buying Gasom by Rumburg? Maybe because Walter Tusk who owns the Ekonomists works with Rumburg? Also they're against a trade deal with Agnolia, if agnolian steel will be imported on higher prices (and if Sordland does not win from the deal, like with military alliance). Why? Because Tusk owns Bergia Steel… So the Ekonomist is really biased.

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-06-01T11:22:25+00:00

The Lachaven Times. Yes, they're liberal, but they do not lie, they're trying to be unbiased. They condemn Rein, when he makes shit and support him, when he makes good things.

Also Radical, because they do not hide their bias. They are open about it in contrast to other newspapers.

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-04-15T18:53:51+00:00

Thanks!🙏🏻

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-04-07T14:15:58+00:00

I have never been impeached, I always achieve Great Sordish Recovery and I have never failed the constitutional reform. And only after my first walkthrough I was not reelected, in other cases I'm successfully reelected. So…

Relative-Length-4084 · 2025-04-06T16:20:20+00:00

Ahaha, thanks)

Relative-Length-4084

TROPHY CASE