Office of Northeast Member of Assembly Senator Libertas!

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Thank you for all of your support.

Unfortunately, as I said, it is an uphill battle against a Senate dominated by reactionary voices.

In addition, the incoming president and vice president, already obstructionist before even taking office, have made it clear that they are mere tools of big business and the military-industrial complex. I fear this is going to be a dark time to be an Atlasian, unless you're the CEO of WalMart or Boeing.

I forgot how you could take support and misconstrue it with lies and insincerity.

Rather than acting like an incessantly spiteful boor, why not attempt reasonable debate on legitimate issues for a change? It may make your uphill battles less steep, rather than more.

Being deliberately disingenuous now, Mr. President-elect? You know very well that is not the bill I am referring to.


You already fired the first shots of obstructionism when you falsely claimed my proposal to give the Atlasian people the right to decide whether to commit to a war of aggression would be "dangerous for our armed forces" and a "dangerous impediment to legal actions by the Atlasian military".

[Purple State]

Thank you for all of your support.

Unfortunately, as I said, it is an uphill battle against a Senate dominated by reactionary voices.

In addition, the incoming president and vice president, already obstructionist before even taking office, have made it clear that they are mere tools of big business and the military-industrial complex. I fear this is going to be a dark time to be an Atlasian, unless you're the CEO of WalMart or Boeing.

I forgot how you could take support and misconstrue it with lies and insincerity.

Rather than acting like an incessantly spiteful boor, why not attempt reasonable debate on legitimate issues for a change? It may make your uphill battles less steep, rather than more.

Being deliberately disingenuous now, Mr. President-elect? You know very well that is not the bill I am referring to.


You already fired the first shots of obstructionism when you falsely claimed my proposal to give the Atlasian people the right to decide whether to commit to a war of aggression would be "dangerous for our armed forces" and a "dangerous impediment to legal actions by the Atlasian military".

If you believe that I (or anyone else) am obstructing something, say what it is. Speaking in generalities will, of course, leave room for disingenuous retorts.

You are taking things a little too personally here. I voice opposition to one of your proposals and suddenly I am obstructionist? I was simply pointing out that I also support some of your efforts (in fact, I have voiced support for two of your proposals already).

I think you will find it much easier to pass the less controversial things if you work with, not against, your fellow senators and my incoming administration on the more controversial things. But simply going guns-a-blazin' over one disagreement will prove counterproductive, I assure you.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I was worried there for minute. Now I can rest easy knowing PS has found a replacement to serve has his foil now that Marokai has moved on to bigger and better things.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Thank you for all of your support.

Unfortunately, as I said, it is an uphill battle against a Senate dominated by reactionary voices.

In addition, the incoming president and vice president, already obstructionist before even taking office, have made it clear that they are mere tools of big business and the military-industrial complex. I fear this is going to be a dark time to be an Atlasian, unless you're the CEO of WalMart or Boeing.

I forgot how you could take support and misconstrue it with lies and insincerity.

Rather than acting like an incessantly spiteful boor, why not attempt reasonable debate on legitimate issues for a change? It may make your uphill battles less steep, rather than more.

Being deliberately disingenuous now, Mr. President-elect? You know very well that is not the bill I am referring to.


You already fired the first shots of obstructionism when you falsely claimed my proposal to give the Atlasian people the right to decide whether to commit to a war of aggression would be "dangerous for our armed forces" and a "dangerous impediment to legal actions by the Atlasian military".

If you believe that I (or anyone else) am obstructing something, say what it is. Speaking in generalities will, of course, leave room for disingenuous retorts.

You are taking things a little too personally here. I voice opposition to one of your proposals and suddenly I am obstructionist? I was simply pointing out that I also support some of your efforts (in fact, I have voiced support for two of your proposals already).

Before you've even taken office, your administration has been fighting against 75% of my proposed legislation. Your vice president in particular has been responsible for creating an environment of negativity on the Senate floor.

So yes, it sure seems like obstructionism rooted in a personal vendetta against me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that a threat?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Before you've even taken office, your administration has been fighting against 75% of my proposed legislation. Your vice president in particular has been responsible for creating an environment of negativity on the Senate floor.

So yes, it sure seems like obstructionism rooted in a personal vendetta against me.

Out of the things I saw of yours on the Senate floor, I commented on two, the Break the Chains bill, and the Fusion Voting bill. In the Fusion Voting thread, I said I opposed it because it seemed like a way to tilt the voting system in favor of something and I didn't like how it allowed party members to shove members aside by removing their party label when running for office, and it surprised me that you, champion of individual liberties as you are, seem to be spearheading such a bill.

In the Break The Chains thread however, I support the intent of the bill. This has been the most mindblowing thing; I am not disagreeing with what you're trying to do, simply how you're trying to do it, and both I and Badger have attempted to explain this to you in verbose and calm ways as to display how this hurts small businesses and doesn't burden big businesses enough.

In the Ludlow Amendment thread, I haven't said a word, though I support badger's efforts at toning it down, and for your other piece on the Senate floor, the state-moves Amendment, I have supported it during referendum, voting in favor of it and supporting similar efforts all throughout the Presidential Election campaign.

If supporting certain things, offering ideas on how to fix other things, and personally believing something is the wrong approach, is your definition of some form of systematic pattern of obstructionism, then you are being difficult on purpose. You have refused to think that any of us are offering legitimate ideas or commentary and refuse to think we could ever possibly genuinely disagree with something without being 'tools' or 'reactionaries.'

It's stunning to me that anyone could support your antics here because even though some of your legislation is decent, you refuse to kindly and substantively engage any of your criticism. You have been casting the worst possible light on these debates and I sincerely hope that you will change your approach.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that a threat?
[/quote]

Oh come on, dude. You are obviously being obtuse at this point. Your pointless dramatics are becoming absurd.

Your attitude, definitely, is getting you absolutely nowhere, because even though I enjoy picking fights once in awhile to get something passed, I always have the substance to back it up, and I don't pointless and absurdly throw around outrageously inaccurate names for people that make no sense. Anyone with half a brain knows I'm not a 'reactionary tool of big business' considering my history, and Purple State is a far cry away from a 'tool of the military industrial complex.'

You are just trying to start fights.

[Purple State]

Thank you for all of your support.

Unfortunately, as I said, it is an uphill battle against a Senate dominated by reactionary voices.

In addition, the incoming president and vice president, already obstructionist before even taking office, have made it clear that they are mere tools of big business and the military-industrial complex. I fear this is going to be a dark time to be an Atlasian, unless you're the CEO of WalMart or Boeing.

I forgot how you could take support and misconstrue it with lies and insincerity.

Rather than acting like an incessantly spiteful boor, why not attempt reasonable debate on legitimate issues for a change? It may make your uphill battles less steep, rather than more.

Being deliberately disingenuous now, Mr. President-elect? You know very well that is not the bill I am referring to.


You already fired the first shots of obstructionism when you falsely claimed my proposal to give the Atlasian people the right to decide whether to commit to a war of aggression would be "dangerous for our armed forces" and a "dangerous impediment to legal actions by the Atlasian military".

If you believe that I (or anyone else) am obstructing something, say what it is. Speaking in generalities will, of course, leave room for disingenuous retorts.

You are taking things a little too personally here. I voice opposition to one of your proposals and suddenly I am obstructionist? I was simply pointing out that I also support some of your efforts (in fact, I have voiced support for two of your proposals already).

Before you've even taken office, your administration has been fighting against 75% of my proposed legislation. Your vice president in particular has been responsible for creating an environment of negativity on the Senate floor.

So yes, it sure seems like obstructionism rooted in a personal vendetta against me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that a threat?

Let's not get carried away in hyperbole. I support the Intra Regional Mobility Amendment and the Fusion Ballot Reform Act and have stated as much. Your Break the Chains Act is good, but could use some modifying on technical points and the debate in that thread with Marokai is a healthy one to have. And I oppose the Ludlow Amendment. That is my administration's official position. So I oppose 25%, not 75%, of your current proposals and I'm willing to work to find a compromise to the Ludlow Amendment.

You are picking fights for no reason and taking a "with me 100% of the time or against me 100% of the time." I'm not threatening you; I'm giving you the cold, hard truth. If you actively seek to alienate people, go right ahead, but that will inevitably hurt your agenda.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Thank you for all of your support.

Unfortunately, as I said, it is an uphill battle against a Senate dominated by reactionary voices.

In addition, the incoming president and vice president, already obstructionist before even taking office, have made it clear that they are mere tools of big business and the military-industrial complex. I fear this is going to be a dark time to be an Atlasian, unless you're the CEO of WalMart or Boeing.

I forgot how you could take support and misconstrue it with lies and insincerity.

Rather than acting like an incessantly spiteful boor, why not attempt reasonable debate on legitimate issues for a change? It may make your uphill battles less steep, rather than more.

Being deliberately disingenuous now, Mr. President-elect? You know very well that is not the bill I am referring to.


You already fired the first shots of obstructionism when you falsely claimed my proposal to give the Atlasian people the right to decide whether to commit to a war of aggression would be "dangerous for our armed forces" and a "dangerous impediment to legal actions by the Atlasian military".

If you believe that I (or anyone else) am obstructing something, say what it is. Speaking in generalities will, of course, leave room for disingenuous retorts.

You are taking things a little too personally here. I voice opposition to one of your proposals and suddenly I am obstructionist? I was simply pointing out that I also support some of your efforts (in fact, I have voiced support for two of your proposals already).

Before you've even taken office, your administration has been fighting against 75% of my proposed legislation. Your vice president in particular has been responsible for creating an environment of negativity on the Senate floor.

So yes, it sure seems like obstructionism rooted in a personal vendetta against me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that a threat?

Let's not get carried away in hyperbole. I support the Intra Regional Mobility Amendment and the Fusion Ballot Reform Act and have stated as much. Your Break the Chains Act is good, but could use some modifying on technical points and the debate in that thread with Marokai is a healthy one to have. And I oppose the Ludlow Amendment. That is my administration's official position. So I oppose 25%, not 75%, of your current proposals and I'm willing to work to find a compromise to the Ludlow Amendment.

You are picking fights for no reason and taking a "with me 100% of the time or against me 100% of the time." I'm not threatening you; I'm giving you the cold, hard truth. If you actively seek to alienate people, go right ahead, but that will inevitably hurt your agenda.

Marokai Blue opposed the Fusion Ballot Reform Act, and he fired the first salvo in that thread by attacking me rather than sticking to the legislation.

I'm not a big fan of this proposal.

Yes, currently endorsement votes are practically useless, but this proposal will do absolutely nothing to solve the obligation people feel to endorse people regardless of whether or not they support them or not.

But my biggest concern is that this just institutionalizes zombie-ism. Active voters and even semi-informed voters will make their own decisions and know who the popular and well informed candidates are. They can make decisions themselves without having bright flashing letters (figure of speech, gentlemen) right next to the name blinking "ENDORSED BY: ____" or distorting the party tags by putting several party abbreviations by each other.

The absolute last thing I want is to put on the election rules a provision that basically endorses a follow-the-herd mentality for uninformed or zombie voters.

Also, "parties will be able to prohibit members from running as their official party candidate"? Libertas talks alot about opposing these establishment, but this proposal reeks in it's entirety of an attempt to sway uninformed voters with additional labels and attempts at keeping 'undesirables' off the ballot. Individuals should be able to run with whatever party label they feel like.

This bill: Ugh. Libertas definitely is waging an establishment vs. the individual battle here, but he's on the wrong side fo' sho'.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I was actually more surprised than interested in attacking you. Seemed like the definition of an "establishment" party-big-wig bill IMO.

(And fyi, I did explain my reasons about the bill there perfectly fine, since you're acting as if I didn't address the legislation at all.)

[Purple State]

That's all well and good, but if it passes I'm the one with the pen. The buck stops with me and when I voice an opinion that becomes the opinion of my administration, whether I say it first or last.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why do you have so many reports and warnings? Do you not feel that your inability to control yourself, and possibility that you could be banned at any moment, hinders your work as a Senator in Atlasia?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why do you have so many reports and warnings? Do you not feel that your inability to control yourself, and possibility that you could be banned at any moment, hinders your work as a Senator in Atlasia?

No, I rightfully feel that that has nothing to do with my work as a Senator.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So how do you conduct business with all the secret FBI bugs and electronic surveillance in this office?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Here is an update on the status of the legislation mentioned earlier:

• Intra Regional Mobility Amendment: This proposal passed the requirements in the Senate and then went on to be ratified by every region except the Pacific. Fortunately, only 3/4 of the regions are required for passage.
• Fusion Ballot Reform Act: This bill has passed the Senate and is waiting for the president's signature, and I do believe it will be signed.
• Break the Chains Act: This bill is unfortunately probably going to be watered-down and amended into oblivion. There is a terrible, terrible amendment being voted on now that will completely destroy it. The amendment will likely pass, and I will certainly vote NAY on what will be an unrecognizable final bill. I do wish they'd change the name, at least.
• Ludlow Amendment: Some compromises unfortunately had to be made to earn the support of some of my JCP colleagues, however this amendment has passed the Senate with 7 votes. It passed with the unanimous support of the Populares and JCP delegations. Both RPP senators abstained, while the lone DA senator was the sole Nay vote.  It will go to the regions shortly, I expect.

[Barnes]

Aye

I had you down as voting "Nay" for Ben, Libertas. Why the change of heart?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Excellent work so far, Senator.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Another update on the legislation:

• Intra Regional Mobility Amendment: This amendment passed the Senate and was ratified by every region except the Pacific. It is now part of the Constitution.
• Fusion Ballot Reform Act: This bill has passed the Senate and was signed by the president. I got the signing pen.
• Break the Chains Act: This bill was amended a lot and passed over my objections. It's been sent back to the Senate by the president with new proposed amendments, however. Will keep you posted.
• Ludlow Amendment: This amendment passed the Senate and then went to the regions. It passed in 3/5 regions (all except the Mideast and Southeast), but unfortunately the requirement for ratification is 3/4 of the regions. It's been defeated by the pro-war establishment - for now.

In the meantime, I have also founded the Peace Caucus which will from now on provide an organized movement to advocate for pro-peace policies. We have not given up.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Aye

I had you down as voting "Nay" for Ben, Libertas. Why the change of heart?

I had some concerns about benconstine's ideological positions, and I still do. He said he would allow room for dissenting views. The jury is still out as to whether he was a good appointee for the job after all.

As for the other nominees, I didn't have much problem with Meeker for SoFE and Ebowed for supreme court justice.

Winston Disraeli's Maoism was a concern, however he assured me as SoIA he would not implement Maoist policies. Al as GM I'm still unsure of, but we'll wait and see...

I've voted Aye on all of the appointees thus far.

[Barnes]

Aye

I had you down as voting "Nay" for Ben, Libertas. Why the change of heart?

I had some concerns about benconstine's ideological positions, and I still do. He said he would allow room for dissenting views. The jury is still out as to whether he was a good appointee for the job after all.

As for the other nominees, I didn't have much problem with Meeker for SoFE and Ebowed for supreme court justice.

Winston Disraeli's Maoism was a concern, however he assured me as SoIA he would not implement Maoist policies. Al as GM I'm still unsure of, but we'll wait and see...

I've voted Aye on all of the appointees thus far.

I forgot about this question. Anyway, thanks for answering!

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

And by the way, just a few remarks about the Ludlow Amendment.

It was an amendment primarily designed with the intent of reducing the risk of unnecessary aggressive war, yes. I intend to continue to advocate for pro-peace policies in the Senate. But it also had a game reform side.

It would have added something new and unique for us all to vote on. Atlasia is still an election game; it's supposed to be fun and give us lots of new choices, not be static. New ideas should be welcomed, not shunned.

But no, right away we had reactionary fools shrieking "OMG NATIONAL DEFENSE!!!11 The terrists will get us!!111!" I wouldn't be surprised if a certain individual really did believe his life was at stake if this passed.

The whole campaign against it was just so freaking stupid.

I hope the naysayers realize how foolish you all looked.

To those who supported this amendment, I thank you. I'm not going to give up and neither should you.

That is all.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

My fellow Atlasians,

Today I wish to kick off my re-election campaign, in which I will ask for the chance to serve you for another term as a Senator of Atlasia.

Atlasians from all regions and of all party affiliations are once again invited to bring questions or comments here to what will serve as my impromptu campaign HQ.

As Senator, I oversaw the passage of all four pieces of my legislative programme, as I've discussed in more detail in previous posts here. Two have become law, and the third is likely to do so as well. I have worked with members of all parties to come up with the best possible solutions on these and on other issues we face in the Senate.

Once again, I'd love to answer any questions or comments you might have about my record in the Senate or anything else that might help you to decide whether I am worthy of your support in this month's election.

Thank You,
Senator Libertas

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Endorsed.

[Free Palestine]

Endorsed, yo.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Endorsed!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

highest non RPP pref, man.

[SvenssonRS]

As little as we like each other, you're a damn good Senator. Endorsed.