Talk Elections

Sponsor: Napoleon

What is with the bold faced font?

You are missing a forward slash in front of the "b" the second bold bracket.

Didn't we have a bill like this before? We couldn't find any evidence that HFCS was actually hazardous so we voted it down. I wanted to ban it at one point. :P

This won't do much. We should look at changing the law and subsidies so HFCS is less produced and used instead.

Can someone clarify whether there's something inherently dangerous in HFCS, or if it's a high-quantity danger?

Bgwah, fix the OP before it makes me go blind. :P

From what I've read, your body does not treat sugar any differently, whether it be cane sugar or corn syrup.

There is a legitimate scientific debate about it.

There are all kinds of studies, but nothing is concrete enough to warrant putting warning labels on foods claiming it is hazardous to your health.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with HFCS when compared to any other sugar we eat (added sweeteners, that is).

The problem is that growing corn for HFCS is inefficient and damaging to the environment as well as to farmers, whose livelihoods would be much better if they could plant more appropriate crops on their land and sell it at a fair price.

I will not support this bill, nor should any of you.

BRTD was correct in that we should target subsidies and ag policy that discourages or at least neither encourages nor discourages usage of HFCS in food products.

I've been doing a bit more reading, and I would likely not sign this Bill as it stands.

It would be shortsighted to sign a bill like this with the debate still out on whether HFCS is actually dangerous. We might as well put a warning label "sugar is dangerous for your health" on all foods if we are going to do this, and any reasonable person should know that.

I'd much rather eliminate subsidies but didn't exapect such a proposal to Garner much support.

I think subsidies were eliminated, which is why this bill failed last time. Of course, it was my bill originally so I'll still vote for it. :)

Vote for eliminating subsidies? I would not be opposed to that either. We are already inflating the price of corn as it is.

I am bringing this bill to a final vote. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

---

Aye

Nay

Aye

Doesn't go far enough, but regardless:

Aye

Nay

I seriously hope the senate doesn't pass a bill based on inconclusive scientific facts. Seriously guys. We are basically saying "I don't care if the facts don't line up with my opinion, we're going to do it anyway."

Nay

+1

Nay

Thank you all! I was getting worried for a second.

I would have vetoed it... so it' fine :P

Current tally is 3-5. I don't think Kalwejt is a Senator yet, so 5 is still a majority. This has enough votes to fail, Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

My elecion was certified and I took an oath.

So if I'm allowed, nay.

Unless the Polish have been barred from serving in the Senate, you should be legit, as long as all the votes were cast after you swore in.

With 3 ayes, 6 nays, and 1 non-voting abstention, this bill has failed.