"I note that Ms Roux's question really consists of multiple, equally important parts. First of all, I think my record of being an active, involved candidate in this and past elections, and my track record in Inimicus, speaks for how active a Commissioner I would be. As for misinformation, I think you will all recall that I was subject to this by Sen. Kerstin during the last round of elections - the only thing one can do is to stay resolute, stick to the facts, and call out misinformation wherever possible. Now, the last part of your question seems most important to me, and let me be clear. Socialism does not equal terrorism. Socialism does not equal rogue-ness. To think I would consider all socialist nations rogue is folly, and is a notion you should not entertain, Ms Roux."
"My message to Europe was clear, and my definition of rogue states is not up to me, but up to member states. If two or more national governments lodge such an embargo request after, importantly, all diplomatic avenues have been explored, I think it should be possible to compel the entire region to embargo. What nations accomplish these prerequisites is not up to me, but up to member states - as Premier, I would facilitate their action. I'm unaware what the questioner is insinuating by asking what the "real purpose" of these measures is -- in my view, the only and real purpose of such a system is to topple rogue regimes however possible. There is no other purpose."
"If you'll allow me, Vicente, I will briefly question some of Mr Le Berre's points. Like him, I agree that the type of economic system a nation has does not define rogue-ness. However, I'm intrigued, given his experience in Eastern Haane, and the horrors he describes, would he have liked to see tougher action against Eastern Haane at the time this situation was ongoing? How about the USNR? During this campaign, he has advocated a lame head-in-the-sand policy towards rogue regimes, but given the experiences he has just described, would the same count for Eastern Haane?"