Talk Elections

Sponsor: Duke

I support the bill principle, obviously, but can the sponsor, as well as the SoEA, make assurance that money won't be midirected by Libyan warlords?

Please note the final item in this bill is a reversal of the End to Imperialism Act

Hmm, apparently Gaddafi just died. Coincidence!?

Actually it's not.

The ETI Act stops funding for our combat forces and prevents the transfer of weapons... this Bill does not do either. 

I'm offering an amendment to remove all "military aid".

I would prefer we remove this as well.

Duke, do you accept the amendment as friendly?

We shouldn't be cutting military aid to the new government.  As the President, noted, prior legislation has no impact here.  I urge the Senate to pass this bill as is, or to increase the amount of aid; to do otherwise is irresponsible.

I would also like to see this question answered. :)

I want the last part removed regardless of what the ETI Act's effect is.

The bill directs aid to be given to the Libyan Government.  The money can be monitored, but only so much can be done.

I agree military aid is unnecessary. I strongly support the rest of the bill.

I will support the removal of military aid... but I really think you've got the wrong end of the stick here.

I'll accept removing military aid as friendly because I'm sure we'll vote against it anyway, but I don't think y'all are understanding its purpose. But go ahead and friendly it.

The amendment has been accepted as friendly. Senators have 24 hours to object.

I don't like the justification behind removing military aid in this bill, which on the surface seems to be a knee-jerk reflex opposition to anything remotely military, and a desire to firm up one's credentials on such matters, because god forbid our liberal and libertarian friends lose some brownie points in the club because they are out anti-militaried.

No, instead lets give them all the goodies, the aid with voter registration, the food, the infrastructure, build a nice shinning city in the middle of the desert. And when some random group of crazies rolls into town with AK-47s, RPGs, and maybe even the SAMs that disappeared recently, to which the Libyan gov't is incapable of putting up a solid defense because the citizen "armed mobs" that united to overthrow Gaddaffi have dispersed and maybe even joined the crazies, do we not share in the blame because we were ideologically prohibited from giving them the means to defend what they have gained and the other aid we have given them?

You damn well bet I object.

Thank you Senator Yankee.  It is imperative that we not remove military aid at this juncture; the NTC is a new government, one which still needs to fight for its survival.  It would be the height of irresponsibility for us to cut all military aid just because some of us have a stubborn belief that military aid is always bad.

Additionally, we should be increasing aid, not cutting it.  Some Senators are being very, very shortsighted.

Objection noted; the amendment is not accepted as friendly.

Please vote aye, nay, or abstain on the following amendment:

---

Aye

Aye

aye

NAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It does seem that some have a sort of visceral reaction to the world 'military' and don't consider the intent or the context.

Aye

This Senate has been extremely reactionary.  Not necessarily conservative, but reactionary nonetheless.

Nay

I guess we can blame George Bush for this. ;) He did basically create the next generation of militantly anti-military people in RL.

And here I was hoping office holders in Atlasia would be smarter than that.

Current tally on the amendment is 4-2.

Aye.  We shouldn't be providing military aid.  They can easily use some of their own money diverted away from areas where we are providing aid to fund their military.  We should not have their military on our hands.

Aye.

With 6 ayes, 2 nays, and 2 non-voting abstentions, the amendment has passed. Debate resumes.

What do you guys think of the following amendment?

I'm dead opposed.  It's absurd to make aid to a new nation conditional on legalizing alcohol.  Also, can we put the money cut from the military back in to something else?

no.

Why not?  Surely you aren't making a fiscal restraint argument here?

I agree, it's absurd (I assume that's the point?)
What would be reasonable is to consider if we can know that money isn't going to be diverted for something else once the Libyan government gets it.

WTF bgwah? This is basically a poison pill to ensure no aid goes to Libya at all, whether that is the intent or not. You are demanding too much of a gov't as stable as the Russian Provisional Gov't was in 1917.


It is becoming clear that that senate is dead set on condemning Libya to another brutal dictator, one who could be worse than Gaddaffi.


 

If Fake Libya wants to reject their Fake Aid instead of legalizing Fake Alcohol, then that's their problem.

Perhaps the fake Senator has had a little too much of that fake alcohol tonight. :P


In a first person shooter type game like say Call of Duty or Medal of Honor, that would be the quivalent of hitting the exit button and stepping out of the game just as it got dicey.

What the f**k....

Since when alcohol is a vague foreign policy issue?

I object this amendment.

We are now voting on the following amendment. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

---

Aye

Aye

nay

Nay

I would urge a nay on this amendment.

Aye

:P

I do find it odd that we are forcing our values on another country... I would be sure that most voting 'aye' on this wouldn't normally be in favour of that.

Nay

Indeed.  It is disturbing that some Senators are doing everything they can to defeat this bill, and severely weaken the new Libyan nation as a result.

Nay

OK, Bgwah just want to kill the bill. BRTD is, well, BRTD, but Napoleon? WTF dude?

The authoritarian culture is the cause of the authoritarian government. Libya will never be free from tyranny until their culture becomes tolerant and accepting.

You are taking this way, way, way too far.  They will never be free from tyranny if they have stability issues because we decided the ability to drink was a paramount priority of our foreign policy, over ensuring stability and the survival of the state.

It is imperative that this dangerous Amendment be defeated.

I'm sitting 100% with Ben on this one.

So, we're only allowed to "force" certain kinds of freedom upon foreign nations. Interesting.

Current tally: 3-4

They can bring about their own changes, if they consider it appropriate.

Deleted - thank you Napoleon for retracting.

Guys, if you want to piss off the Libyans over such idiotic thing (which is not only patronizing them, it's also insulting to majority of the Libyans sentiments), and produce even more anti-Atlasian sentiments in this fragile region, that's the right way.

But if you think patronizing and insulting is going to help them overcoming tyranny then you either don't know a jack about this country and very human nature, or you're fools.

A culture of tyranny will always produce tyranny.

This is not a culture of tyranny.  I find it amazing how you will condemn this country to fail, rather than let them develop on their own time.  It disturbs me how you seem to have no idea what the actual results of your crusades will be.  You have already harmed the new nation's security; now you're trying to ensure its failure.

I'm not really going to concern myself with propping up a theocracy. When your department starts sharing these concerns...well, I wont be holding my breath.

For someone who allegedly cares about freedom, you seem perfectly willing to discard any possibility of it happening.  The NTC government, the one that just won a civil war against a brutal dictator despite your attempts to prevent it from happening, needs our help.  It is counterproductive long term to condition aid at the beginning on such an insanely minor issue. 

We can work on those issues when you become rational, but I'm not holding my breath either.

How dare we offer them $100 million dollars.

:D

This is one of the most entertaining Senate debates in recent months. Very much enjoying the read, everyone!

All right, we should kick out Utah from the Union because of Mormon's anti-alcohol stance.

Alcohol is legal in Utah.

Alcohol is legal in Utah.

Forcing our values and beliefs on other countries is never a good policy. I do not believe in one size fits all. What is good for us is not good for Libya. What we need to do is help them along as best we can to ensure it becomes a stable country. Legalizing alcohol should be the furthest thing from our worries. It worries me that this senate is bickering over something like that. "Let them fail if they won't legalize alcohol!" How ridiculous does that sound?

Countries have boundaries, not beliefs. People have beliefs. And right now there are people in Libya who will never be free because they haven't made law secular. If they want to be a theocracy they can do it with Iran's help.

And so what? Did this make Mormons less anti-alcohol?

Don't you think that as this country rebuilds, they will liberalize? Or you're just willing to leave the country alone if we don't add this provision to the bill? Because I doubt they will liberalize if we just abandon them. That is the best way to ensure a radical theocracy is installed, which I think we all can agree none of us want.

Non sequitur


No, they will continue to disregard personal freedoms and avoid secularism. Yes I am. I doubt Libya will liberalize unless Libya has to. The best way to ensure a radical theocracy is installed is to allow that and support it as you and your allies are trying to now. Thank God we didn't lose this election.

Stellar logic. Haha.

I hope we vote this amendment down.

Again, you really think such patronizing approachment will help us with Libyans?

I'd like to offer another amendment:

Good god. I had no idea you favored nation building and favored patronizing other countries that don't know what is good for themselves.

I may have lost the election, but I trust Snowguy won't be as nearsighted and simple minded as you are. Think for once. Not everything is as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

Are you talking to me?

No :P

I object this amendment as well.

Aye

The current tally on the amendment is 4-4, with Snowguy & Officepark left.

Has the Amendment failed?  It's been more than 50 hours since there was any activity.

Voting on amendments lasts up to five days. So there is another day left. And presumably the VP would cast the tie-breaking vote.

The tie-breaking vote goes to the Vice President!

The voting period has officially ended. With the vote tied with four ayes and four nays, I hereby cast the tie-breaking vote: nay.

The amendment thus fails; debate resumes.

Thanks God for BK :)

I'd like to say a few words about an idea of giving Libya an aid.

Libya is not a poor country that desperately needs foreign aid, like, for example, South Sudan. It's a country with great natural resources, as well as significant financial assets, that now are unfrozen after Gaddafi's downfall.

However, Atlasia should show a good will in term of aiding for sake of future good Atlasian-Libyan relations, considering this country significance in the very significant region.

The Vice President acted in line with this administration's policy toward support for Libya.

Voting is now open on the following amendment. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

---

Aye

Nay

Nay

Aye

Nay

Just pass this bill, already. Good Lord.

Nay

Aye

This Senate seems intent on doing everything possible to destroy any hope the new Libyan nation has of survival.

"The Senate"? Collective responsibility meme was beaten to the ground by the Germans in 1940s, dude.

Some in the Senate. :P But like you, I'm at a loss for why such a miniscule amount of money and such a great deal of simple good will is a bad idea. There's really no serious issue with this bill at all. I can't remember the last time such a simple idea received such persistent opposition.

Very well, Kal, I'll rephrase.

There are certain Senators in this body who want to do everything possible to prevent the new Libya from surviving.  It's disturbing, and I applaud those who understand the implications if this legislation is defeated or substantially modified.

Nay

You're certainly not going to get me to vote aye with that attitude.

It doesn't help that he's basically right. Why the hell else would a bill about giving a nation recovering from civil war just 100 million dollars actually have seven pages of debate? I don't understand all the hand wringing from the opposition here, but I do know that practically every time Ben has come to the Senate asking for anything, several of you have laughed in his face every time.

And if you're voting based on whether or not Ben upsets you, please re-evaluate the reasons why you vote for or against legislation.

If one is attempting to get support for their bill, lashing out with hyperbole isn't going to get anyone to switch your side. I personally find the whole "you're either with us or against us" neocon mentality tired and offensive.

Marokai is right we have too much debate.

Motion to table

There is no "with us or against us" mentality here, only a "grow the f**k up" attitude. Look, you can oppose this if you want, there is no harm in being honest about your position if you oppose the notion of aid to Libya. There isn't, however, legitimate reason for this constant handwringing and amending-to-death that's going on right now aside from the fact that this fits a pattern of you and Me Too trying to hold everything up that Ben wants for foreign affairs reasons. It's 100 million dollars, dude. We're not handing them the whole piggy bank.

This immature streak this Senate has had is the worst I've ever seen in my time in Atlasia and it has got to stop. I've never seen this Senate's direction so bent out of shape by personal grudges and immature amending, and when I have, it certainly never received near-unanimous bloc voting it's gotten from you, BRTD, and Napoleon. The debate in this bill perfectly epitomizes what is wrong with this Senate.

I'm really tired of all the nastiness. Just stop, Marokai. There were no personal grudges between Senators until just now...  I was hoping you would be a positive addition to the Senate. Please don't prove me wrong.

What I want is for this Senate to do it's business genuinely and in good faith, and not prance around acting dishonestly and trying to use parliamentary stall tactics for no reason at all. This Senate has been negligent toward a whole host of issues, probably because we've been wasting time going to the mat over a 100 million dollar aid bill that someone is trying to hold up over alcohol or trying to turn it into a loan.

If you want to make this into some posturing position about how evil Marokai is at it again, running around the Senate halls with a hatchet, go ahead. But that's old. And the only time you're wasting is your own by keeping this bill on the floor a million times longer than it legitimately needed to be.

Wah wah wah

This is why I rarely post anymore.

My amendments were legitimate. I'm allowed to offer amendments to improve the quality of a bill, and there's no reason to attack me for that. Why would this be a stall tactic? My party lost a Senate seat, thus it would have been in my interest to get it out of the way quickly if what you say is true and I have some ulterior motive.

You're the one who is hurling obscenities, insulting people, and labeling people flame warriors in your what, fourth day in the Senate? Chill out... I think it's neat that you have lots of ideas even if I don't agree with them all. I've tried to avoid dissing you or accusing you of anything the past few weeks. Let's try to be more positive and not let past grudges ruin the Senate.

Of course it won't pass. You can filibuster this bill by procedural tricks like this, but you're only keeping other bills from getting their consideration by occupying this slot forever.,

Just pass it.

Oh, I have a personal appeal to both bgwah and Marokai: shut up, guys. I don't give crap about your personal animosities, neither should the Senate.

/sigh, you're right. Fine fine. I just dislike that it seems like every aspect of Atlasian politics these days is driven less by actual ideological differences and more by personal and petty grudges. It's the most immediate problem we have.

Well, by responding to everything with a great deal of emotions you're doing a hell of a job to keep it going. You know the other side will respond and so on, so on...

I made a mistake in Atlasia to respond to every crap. It didn't work.

There was nothing personal about my amendments. Nothing. I don't even know where that idea came from.

*Shrug*

Just pass the damn bill!

The vote on the current amendment fails, with three votes in favor and five votes against, as well as two non-voting abstentions.


A motion to table can only be made during a period of debate, i.e., when there's not a vote occurring. If you'd like to make a new motion to table (or if anyone has any other amendments to offer...) I'll give you 24 hours; otherwise I'll start a final vote.

Nevermind, disregard that last post. Voting on amendments only lasts five days. It failed when time elapsed on November 5, with three votes in favor and four votes against, and three non-voting abstentions.

Because voting ended at that time, Napoleon's motion to table was thus valid.

Therefore, Senators, there is now a vote to table this legislation. Voting shall last 48 hours, or until the motion has enough votes to pass or fail. For the motion to pass, two-thirds of those voting (not counting abstentions) must vote in favor. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

Sorry. :( I do want this bill to pass, but I must govern the Senate will full impartiality.

Aye

I'd desire nothing less :)  That message was for the Senate itself, not the Presiding Officer.

---

I urge the Senate to quickly dispatch the Motion to Table, and PASS THE DAMN BILL!!!  The time has come to step up and help Libya; rather than allow it to descend into chaos.

PASS THE DAMN BILL!!!

Nay

aye

Nay.

Nay

On the motion to table-

Senators in favor: Napoleon, bgwah
Senators opposed: Kalwejt, Marokai, MOPolitico
Senators yet to vote: the other four

(Note that with the current vacancy, this motion requires six votes to pass, and four votes to fail.)

Nay

With 2 ayes and 4 nays, the motion to table has failed.

---

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

Aye.

Aye

Aye

Aye

Nay

aye

Aye

This has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

Aye

With 7 ayes, 1 nay, and 1 non-voting abstention, this bill has passed and is presented to the President for his signature.

xSnowguy