Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

perhaps your reflecting on the 18% racist notion and ideology.

Answer the question please, how on earth would we have a chance with the electorate being GC 80% racist, who would rather die than vote for a TC president.

Who would have ever thought that minority blacks (10%) in the USA could ever become a President despite having been slaves for few hundred years, denied their civil rights for another hundred years where segregation was the order of the day, in which the whites were the rulers. I believe you thought the same way too VP, even up to November 4th elections. Well VP, time does not stand still and people move forward with the times.

To answer your concerns in another way, I would eliminate all political parties and just create 3 main ones and let all people choose which party they want to belong to, so that we can all vote on ideology and not because the candidate is a GC or a TC. I would also go as far as saying, let each Presidential candidate only choose a running mate for the vice presidential post from the opposing ethnic group, so that there are always a TC and a GC in power simultaneously who would be elected by those from both major communities. This would go a long way to creating a political equality and a one man one vote system in a True Democracy.

We are talking GCs and TCs here, they are politically immature and would under no circumstancies come together as parties let alone vote for the other side.

This is what VP was saying about Americans and Obama:

You obviously haven't been to the USA, these people are still very racist just like the GCs and believe they are the chosen race again just like the GCs, whites may have voted for Obama but in the general election there will not be enough of them to get him in, Clinton would have been a better match for McCain, who is now guaranteed presidency.

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?p=312234

What if he is not elected? will that prove how wrong you are? that your Jack and Norry story that you have us all believe is not reality, just as you do not see the reality in the TRNC how could you, you have not even been here, but I have been to the states many times and travelled from east to west. Will you weave another one of your stories when he loses the race, maybe you'll tell us about the one about that he was not voted in because of his policies or due to the make of his suit. You vomit words that look good on paper but hold no truth or substance.

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?p=312362

Piratis,

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?p=312234
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?p=312362

Thanks for posting the links above on VP's and my positions on Obama's then upcoming Presidential elections. I just had another good read and I hope VP and other non belivers of TC's and GC's forming a life together can think their positions again.

I am yet to receive any congratulations from VP on my predictions on Obama's victory.

Perhaps he is suffering from the same effects as John McCain, who said recently since his defeat, that

"he sleeps like a baby now, in which he sleeps for 2 hours and then wakes up crying and sleeps another 2 hours and wakes up crying again".

Congratulations to those who predicted his win, lets now see how good a president he will be, as I stated before the racists in the USA have not disappeared lets all hope that no assassinations will take place.

[Viewpoint]

VP is right to think that we would never vote for a racist TC like himself. But most GCs would not have a problem at all to vote for a TC with the mentality of Kikapu.

In fact I would personally not have a problem if there would be required that at least 1 every 5 presidents is a TC, as long as the president is always elected by the Cypriot people as a whole. It is unacceptable for a leader of a country to be elected by just the 9% of the votes.

Kikapu supports you views 100% thats why you would not have a problem with him, would you vote for Bananiot is the real question?

Exactly VP. I would vote for somebody who shares my views regardless of his language, religion or ethnic background, while I would not vote for somebody who shares my language, ethnic background and religion (me and Bananiot are both atheists) if we do not share the same views.

You are voting for someone who is anti TC, a convert and is more GC than you are, he does not voice anything the TC would support and therefore is not a candidate that you could label as a typical TC as he would be someone no TC would vote for as they would not want him to represent them just as any other GC as that would place us in avery risky situation.

[Viewpoint]

perhaps your reflecting on the 18% racist notion and ideology.

Answer the question please, how on earth would we have a chance with the electorate being GC 80% racist, who would rather die than vote for a TC president.

Who would have ever thought that minority blacks (10%) in the USA could ever become a President despite having been slaves for few hundred years, denied their civil rights for another hundred years where segregation was the order of the day, in which the whites were the rulers. I believe you thought the same way too VP, even up to November 4th elections. Well VP, time does not stand still and people move forward with the times.

To answer your concerns in another way, I would eliminate all political parties and just create 3 main ones and let all people choose which party they want to belong to, so that we can all vote on ideology and not because the candidate is a GC or a TC. I would also go as far as saying, let each Presidential candidate only choose a running mate for the vice presidential post from the opposing ethnic group, so that there are always a TC and a GC in power simultaneously who would be elected by those from both major communities. This would go a long way to creating a political equality and a one man one vote system in a True Democracy.

We are talking GCs and TCs here, they are politically immature and would under no circumstancies come together as parties let alone vote for the other side.

Then I would suggest to those who do not wish to be just Cypriots and act like civilized citizens of Cyprus can choose to go and live in Turkey or Greece respectively and see how far they will get being accepted in the political systems of those countries. At some point we need to respect our Cypriotness over just being a TC or a GC. This is how things are done in civilized nations or they have wars. It is a simple choice to make. Peace or war.

The newly found we are all "Cypriots" mentality the GCs peddle is equal to assimilation for TCs, where was this ideology in 1963? It will take more than a few people to say well don't look at it like we are 2 communities we should be thinking as one, this will take lots of goodwill and time to achieve because for now neither side trusts the other and until safeguards are put in place to ensure people know where they stand and what their limits are no solution will be agreed.

You will never get a 80% GC population to vote in a TC president if it has taken the Black in the USA hundreds of years we need thousands, the GCs are the ones who have the upper hand in this issue so of course they will support this viewpoint which means no more than surrender your future into the hands of the GCs, which we will never do.

If one is from Cyprus, then that person is a Cypriot VP and no one can take that away from you, so Cypriotism is not a new concept because it comes with the territory whether you like it or not. It is no different than any other nationality. It is those who seek partition that find the word "Cypriotism" very annoying. You like to go back to 1963 as if one's Cypriotism ended for some or became more for others. Internal conflicts within one nation and it's citizens is hardly a new event, because if that was the case, we would not need a police force what so ever, because there would be no crime between our own people. If you told me there are no crimes in the north and there are no TC's or Turks as prisoners for committing crimes, then your words will have more meaning to them. The fact that the opposite is the truth, as the case is in any country, there are always going to be conflicts between all citizens and between themselves, and no matter what kinds of safeguards you ask for, it will never be enough, because countries where death penalty is the ultimate so called justice to prevent murders, the jails are full of murderers, so get with the reality of the Human Race and stop living in the Fantasy-land of the Never Never Land.

I have already told you last night. I would recommend that a GC or a TC running for President must have a running mate as a vice president from the other community. This way the TC's and GC's are voting together for the same ticket. If the President dies or is impeached while in office, then the vice president takes over as a President, then he or she will then appoint a vice president different from his or her ethnicity. This method will solve all your problems regarding the numerical imbalances between the TC's and the GC's. Let the best GC/TC team win the Presidency and the vice Presidency with the support of all Cypriots who vote for them.

This should help you get a little closer to embracing your Cypriotness just that little bit easier, if you had any desires in calling yourself a Cypriot that is.

You may have fallen for the "we are all Cypriots" line but echoed in the shadow of people who wanted to be more Greek than Cypriot only 48 years and gift our country to Greece you will have problems peddling your goods to a doubtful community who are still very cautious in believing anything the GCs put forward as this "we are all Cypriots" ideology is just a viel for assimilation. Building a people does not happen becuase you say it 100 times it takes many years of trust and belief we have never been given that opportunity and TCs have become more Turkish than Cypriots over the past 34 years which imo is a natural process considering the close ties we have with Turkey.

The idea of having mixed parties where both communities can vote for the viewpoint rather than the ethnic backround is a long way off as it would be problematic within the fusion of GC and TC political viewpoints which are to far apart, this can only develop over time and a building of trust betweeen the 2 communites, so what do we do in the meantime we need interim solutions that will help us move forward rather than dwell on a strcture which will not gain general support. There is one point I would raise in sycu a situation where mixed partied were the name of the day would we ban single ethnic backround parties? how democratic or discriminative would that be?

[Talisker]

.......TCs have become more Turkish than Cypriots over the past 34 years........

Wow, Viewpoint, I think you made a really important statement there. And a worrying one from the point of view of a non-partitioned settlement.

Would TCs prefer to regain 'Cypriotness', or are you suggesting they are heading towards extinction and complete subsumption, conscious or not, as Turks?

[Bananiot]

Here is the lousy Loukas Charalambous article for everyone to judge.

THE TWO leaders have been discussing the issue of the presidency (whether it should it be rotating) for two months now, without coming to an agreement. This is compelling proof of the ineffectiveness of the way the talks procedure is being conducted.

In an attempt to justify his proposal for the election of the president and the vice-president from the same ballot paper, President Christofias said the following in an interview in Kathimerini last Sunday:

“This promotes the unity of the state, the people and the institutions. It is a departure from the strict community and ethnic criterion and is dictated by a socioeconomic criterion.”

Political parties with the same ideology could join forces in elections to claim both the presidency and vice-presidency, he said. He did acknowledge, further down in the interview, that there was a problem and that “a way must be found to adjust the votes of the smaller community so that the bigger community does not impose its will.”

Of course the problem would be that no matter how the votes are adjusted the big community would essentially decide who would be elected as representative of the Turkish Cypriots. This is what Christofias cannot or does not want to understand.

In reality, such an arrangement would not strengthen the co-operation between the two communities within the framework of a federal administration. On the contrary, its implementation would prove a cause for bickering.

You only have to look at the numbers to understand how even a tiny percentage of Greek Cypriot votes could have a decisive influence in the election of the Turkish Cypriot representative. The voters of the Greek Cypriot community are about 500,000, while the Turkish Cypriots community’s (including the 50,000 settlers that would probably stay on after a settlement) would be in the region of 150,000.

Let’s assume there are two Turkish Cypriots standing for the post, with one receiving 82,000 votes and the other 68,000 from their community (55% and 45% of the vote respectively). As few as three per cent of the Greek Cypriot voters (15,000) could swing the result in favour of the candidate who took the smaller percentage of votes from the Turkish Cypriot community. Just think how the Turkish Cypriots would react to something like this – the Greek Cypriots essentially would be electing the representative of the Turkish Cypriots.

Christofias’ proposal is at best, absurd and it makes you wonder whether he had given it any thought before making it. Is it possible for Turkish Cypriots, who, under the 1960 constitution, had the right to choose the vice-president, to now agree that we would choose both the president and the vice-president? Does Christofias not credit them even with basic intelligence?

As regards, Christofias’ argument about encouraging the co-operation of political groupings, with similar ideological beliefs, from the two communities, he should look at the relevant provision in the Annan plan. The provision did not just encourage, but essentially forced the political parties to co-operate within the senate in the election of the members of the presidential council.

If the co-operation of the political parties was Christofias’ objective, then the best way to achieve this would have been the adoption of the above-mentioned Annan plan provision, instead of becoming lost in the impracticalities of his unfeasible proposal.

Kifeas, what have you done with your slogan about agreed partition? Have you changed your tune again, according to your prevailing mood?

[Kikapu]

VP is right to think that we would never vote for a racist TC like himself. But most GCs would not have a problem at all to vote for a TC with the mentality of Kikapu.

In fact I would personally not have a problem if there would be required that at least 1 every 5 presidents is a TC, as long as the president is always elected by the Cypriot people as a whole. It is unacceptable for a leader of a country to be elected by just the 9% of the votes.

Kikapu supports you views 100% thats why you would not have a problem with him, would you vote for Bananiot is the real question?

Exactly VP. I would vote for somebody who shares my views regardless of his language, religion or ethnic background, while I would not vote for somebody who shares my language, ethnic background and religion (me and Bananiot are both atheists) if we do not share the same views.

You are voting for someone who is anti TC, a convert and is more GC than you are, he does not voice anything the TC would support and therefore is not a candidate that you could label as a typical TC as he would be someone no TC would vote for as they would not want him to represent them just as any other GC as that would place us in avery risky situation.

No my little NeoPartitionist friend. The only reason I would get any support from any GC's or TC's will be from those who would support my ideology on True Democracy and inclusiveness of all all Cypriots as one Nation and one Citizenship and who does not support ethnic cleansing and holding onto others land with the help of a foreign army to try bring about a partition of my country. It is these reasons why I would not get your support since your ideology totally differs from mine, and are also the reasons why I would not support you and your ideology. It is that simple. It has nothing to do with who is a TC and who is a GC. To you, if one is a TC, then they must support your kind of ideology or else one is anti TC. This is nothing short of McCarthyism of the 50's in the USA, only this time is not about communism, but about Greek Cypriots. It doesn't get any worse than that VP.

[Kifeas]

Here is the lousy Loukas Charalambous article for everyone to judge.

THE TWO leaders have been discussing the issue of the presidency (whether it should it be rotating) for two months now, without coming to an agreement. This is compelling proof of the ineffectiveness of the way the talks procedure is being conducted.

In an attempt to justify his proposal for the election of the president and the vice-president from the same ballot paper, President Christofias said the following in an interview in Kathimerini last Sunday:

“This promotes the unity of the state, the people and the institutions. It is a departure from the strict community and ethnic criterion and is dictated by a socioeconomic criterion.”

Political parties with the same ideology could join forces in elections to claim both the presidency and vice-presidency, he said. He did acknowledge, further down in the interview, that there was a problem and that “a way must be found to adjust the votes of the smaller community so that the bigger community does not impose its will.”

Of course the problem would be that no matter how the votes are adjusted the big community would essentially decide who would be elected as representative of the Turkish Cypriots. This is what Christofias cannot or does not want to understand.

In reality, such an arrangement would not strengthen the co-operation between the two communities within the framework of a federal administration. On the contrary, its implementation would prove a cause for bickering.

You only have to look at the numbers to understand how even a tiny percentage of Greek Cypriot votes could have a decisive influence in the election of the Turkish Cypriot representative. The voters of the Greek Cypriot community are about 500,000, while the Turkish Cypriots community’s (including the 50,000 settlers that would probably stay on after a settlement) would be in the region of 150,000.

Let’s assume there are two Turkish Cypriots standing for the post, with one receiving 82,000 votes and the other 68,000 from their community (55% and 45% of the vote respectively). As few as three per cent of the Greek Cypriot voters (15,000) could swing the result in favour of the candidate who took the smaller percentage of votes from the Turkish Cypriot community. Just think how the Turkish Cypriots would react to something like this – the Greek Cypriots essentially would be electing the representative of the Turkish Cypriots.

Christofias’ proposal is at best, absurd and it makes you wonder whether he had given it any thought before making it. Is it possible for Turkish Cypriots, who, under the 1960 constitution, had the right to choose the vice-president, to now agree that we would choose both the president and the vice-president? Does Christofias not credit them even with basic intelligence?

As regards, Christofias’ argument about encouraging the co-operation of political groupings, with similar ideological beliefs, from the two communities, he should look at the relevant provision in the Annan plan. The provision did not just encourage, but essentially forced the political parties to co-operate within the senate in the election of the members of the presidential council.

If the co-operation of the political parties was Christofias’ objective, then the best way to achieve this would have been the adoption of the above-mentioned Annan plan provision, instead of becoming lost in the impracticalities of his unfeasible proposal.

Kifeas, what have you done with your slogan about agreed partition? Have you changed your tune again, according to your prevailing mood?

Bananiot, if we agree that the two people running together as a duo for presidency (one from each community, as president and deputy president interchangeably,) in order to become elected to the post(s) should receive at least 45% of the registered voters from each community, respectively, regardless of the collective total number of Cypriot votes, does it or does it not solve the problem that the "Loucoudin" describes above? Tell me, yes or no!

PS: If two different couples of candidates receive the minimum 45% from each community, then we can agree that the couple with the highest sum of the two percentages (from the two communal electorates,) wins the election!

[Viewpoint]

.......TCs have become more Turkish than Cypriots over the past 34 years........

Wow, Viewpoint, I think you made a really important statement there. And a worrying one from the point of view of a non-partitioned settlement.

Would TCs prefer to regain 'Cypriotness', or are you suggesting they are heading towards extinction and complete subsumption, conscious or not, as Turks?

Thank you for picking up on that point as it is very important but the reality is that Turkification is a return to our roots which is a thousand times better than being forced into a bad settlement and becoming second class citizens amongst GCs who have not exactly treated us fairly.

[Viewpoint]

VP is right to think that we would never vote for a racist TC like himself. But most GCs would not have a problem at all to vote for a TC with the mentality of Kikapu.

In fact I would personally not have a problem if there would be required that at least 1 every 5 presidents is a TC, as long as the president is always elected by the Cypriot people as a whole. It is unacceptable for a leader of a country to be elected by just the 9% of the votes.

Kikapu supports you views 100% thats why you would not have a problem with him, would you vote for Bananiot is the real question?

Exactly VP. I would vote for somebody who shares my views regardless of his language, religion or ethnic background, while I would not vote for somebody who shares my language, ethnic background and religion (me and Bananiot are both atheists) if we do not share the same views.

You are voting for someone who is anti TC, a convert and is more GC than you are, he does not voice anything the TC would support and therefore is not a candidate that you could label as a typical TC as he would be someone no TC would vote for as they would not want him to represent them just as any other GC as that would place us in avery risky situation.

No my little NeoPartitionist friend. The only reason I would get any support from any GC's or TC's will be from those who would support my ideology on True Democracy and inclusiveness of all all Cypriots as one Nation and one Citizenship and who does not support ethnic cleansing and holding onto others land with the help of a foreign army to try bring about a partition of my country. It is these reasons why I would not get your support since your ideology totally differs from mine, and are also the reasons why I would not support you and your ideology. It is that simple. It has nothing to do with who is a TC and who is a GC. To you, if one is a TC, then they must support your kind of ideology or else one is anti TC. This is nothing short of McCarthyism of the 50's in the USA, only this time is not about communism, but about Greek Cypriots. It doesn't get any worse than that VP.

So if you received 0 support from the TC community what would that indicate? you would only a representation of GCs.

[Viewpoint]

Here is the lousy Loukas Charalambous article for everyone to judge.

THE TWO leaders have been discussing the issue of the presidency (whether it should it be rotating) for two months now, without coming to an agreement. This is compelling proof of the ineffectiveness of the way the talks procedure is being conducted.

In an attempt to justify his proposal for the election of the president and the vice-president from the same ballot paper, President Christofias said the following in an interview in Kathimerini last Sunday:

“This promotes the unity of the state, the people and the institutions. It is a departure from the strict community and ethnic criterion and is dictated by a socioeconomic criterion.”

Political parties with the same ideology could join forces in elections to claim both the presidency and vice-presidency, he said. He did acknowledge, further down in the interview, that there was a problem and that “a way must be found to adjust the votes of the smaller community so that the bigger community does not impose its will.”

Of course the problem would be that no matter how the votes are adjusted the big community would essentially decide who would be elected as representative of the Turkish Cypriots. This is what Christofias cannot or does not want to understand.

In reality, such an arrangement would not strengthen the co-operation between the two communities within the framework of a federal administration. On the contrary, its implementation would prove a cause for bickering.

You only have to look at the numbers to understand how even a tiny percentage of Greek Cypriot votes could have a decisive influence in the election of the Turkish Cypriot representative. The voters of the Greek Cypriot community are about 500,000, while the Turkish Cypriots community’s (including the 50,000 settlers that would probably stay on after a settlement) would be in the region of 150,000.

Let’s assume there are two Turkish Cypriots standing for the post, with one receiving 82,000 votes and the other 68,000 from their community (55% and 45% of the vote respectively). As few as three per cent of the Greek Cypriot voters (15,000) could swing the result in favour of the candidate who took the smaller percentage of votes from the Turkish Cypriot community. Just think how the Turkish Cypriots would react to something like this – the Greek Cypriots essentially would be electing the representative of the Turkish Cypriots.

Christofias’ proposal is at best, absurd and it makes you wonder whether he had given it any thought before making it. Is it possible for Turkish Cypriots, who, under the 1960 constitution, had the right to choose the vice-president, to now agree that we would choose both the president and the vice-president? Does Christofias not credit them even with basic intelligence?

As regards, Christofias’ argument about encouraging the co-operation of political groupings, with similar ideological beliefs, from the two communities, he should look at the relevant provision in the Annan plan. The provision did not just encourage, but essentially forced the political parties to co-operate within the senate in the election of the members of the presidential council.

If the co-operation of the political parties was Christofias’ objective, then the best way to achieve this would have been the adoption of the above-mentioned Annan plan provision, instead of becoming lost in the impracticalities of his unfeasible proposal.

Kifeas, what have you done with your slogan about agreed partition? Have you changed your tune again, according to your prevailing mood?

Bananiot, if we agree that the two people running together as a duo for presidency (one from each community, as president and deputy president interchangeably,) in order to become elected to the post(s) should receive at least 45% of the registered voters from each community, respectively, regardless of the collective total number of Cypriot votes, does it or does it not solve the problem that the "Loucoudin" describes above? Tell me, yes or no!

PS: If two different couples of candidates receive the minimum 45% from each community, then we can agree that the couple with the highest sum of the two percentages (from the two communal electorates,) wins the election!

What will ensure that the post of vice president is not pacified where the chosen leader will be the only real influence on our future?