SPC for Senate: Part X

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The Senate's been rather dull lately, filled with a bunch of "me too" establishment figures. Your return to the Senate could be just what we need.

How many votes did you miss again in the last five? two?

Yes, as I just said, it's gotten way too dull in there...

My vote wouldn't have made a difference either way.

Right now there aren't enough good senators for me to bother pushing forth with my legislative agenda. After the way my last bill got distorted and watered-down, the incentive isn't there.

With more independent-minded people like SPC in the Senate, Senators willing to buck the establishment trend, the Senate can made into something other than the boring country club it is right now.

[Hash]

Will you introduce 5,000 new pieces of legislation as soon as you get sworn in?

[SPC]

Will you introduce 5,000 new pieces of legislation as soon as you get sworn in?

What I proposed in my last session were not "new" pieces of legislation, they were bills to get rid of old pieces of legislation. And if I am elected, I do plan to take a look at old laws and see which ones deserve to be repealed.

[Hash]

Maybe it'd be easier and faster for the others if you just introduced legislation repealing all organs of the state.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Senate's been rather dull lately, filled with a bunch of "me too" establishment figures. Your return to the Senate could be just what we need.

How many votes did you miss again in the last five? two?

Yes, as I just said, it's gotten way too dull in there...

My vote wouldn't have made a difference either way.

Right now there aren't enough good senators for me to bother pushing forth with my legislative agenda. After the way my last bill got distorted and watered-down, the incentive isn't there.

With more independent-minded people like SPC in the Senate, Senators willing to buck the establishment trend, the Senate can made into something other than the boring country club it is right now.

Excuses, excuses.

When I joined the Senate, I was alone except for Jedi and sometimes Tmth on most issues of the day. I could have voted nay on everything and watch the Far leftist Senators in cahoots with President Leif pass a their "socialist" adjenda by 8-2 votes (ie the Health Care law), or I could raise hell about a select few certain provisions of a bill while insisting I supported and finally voting for the underlying bill, once amended. I did the later and acheived far more then a fellow Senator, RowanBrandon did taking the previous approach of voting no on everything. You could atleast put forth the effort like he did, so that these bills aren't listed as being unaminous when it isn't had you bothered to vote.

START VOTING OR SUFFER MY WRATH!!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Libertas, you do realize SPC has already been a Senator and Lt. Governor? He is part of the establishment, and so are you. You're no better than me!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Libertas, you do realize SPC has already been a Senator and Lt. Governor? He is part of the establishment, and so are you. You're no better than me!

Pwnage

[Badger]

The Senate's been rather dull lately, filled with a bunch of "me too" establishment figures. Your return to the Senate could be just what we need.

How many votes did you miss again in the last five? two?

Yes, as I just said, it's gotten way too dull in there...

My vote wouldn't have made a difference either way.

Right now there aren't enough good senators for me to bother pushing forth with my legislative agenda. After the way my last bill got distorted and watered-down, the incentive isn't there.

With more independent-minded people like SPC in the Senate, Senators willing to buck the establishment trend, the Senate can made into something other than the boring country club it is right now.

If you truly feel that way you should do both yourself and your constituents a favor and resign. Immediately.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Libertas, you do realize SPC has already been a Senator and Lt. Governor? He is part of the establishment, and so are you. You're no better than me!

Pwnage

Er, no, I am familiar with SPC's history and with his record as Senator, and he and I are both proof that it is possible to hold office without becoming part of the establishment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Libertas, you do realize SPC has already been a Senator and Lt. Governor? He is part of the establishment, and so are you. You're no better than me!

Pwnage

Er, no, I am familiar with SPC's history and with his record as Senator, and he and I are both proof that it is possible to hold office without becoming part of the establishment.

SPC was a founding member of the RPP, and despite his abandoning us, he is still held in high regard among RPPers. You can't get more "establishment" then that.

You are part of the Populares "establishment", Libby. Welcome to the club. "You can check out anytime you wish, but you may never leave, Welcome to the Atlasian Establishment!! Such a lovely place, such a lovely place"

lol, The Eagles rock!!!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You can have this back SPC: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=59079.1665


It's on the verge of Chapter 7

[Purple State]

Libertas, you do realize SPC has already been a Senator and Lt. Governor? He is part of the establishment, and so are you. You're no better than me!

Pwnage

Er, no, I am familiar with SPC's history and with his record as Senator, and he and I are both proof that it is possible to hold office without becoming part of the establishment.

It's amusing to see the whole anti-establishment environment in the US "spill over" into Atlasia.

At the end of the day, there has been very little actual anti-establishment efforts in Atlasia in recent memory. The closest anything came to a substantive movement was Hamilton and the ARC, but once Hamilton was banned and the party converted (under extreme pressure from average Atlasians) into the Populares it essentially "bowed to" the establishment and became part of the system.

Now, we have had independent actors that bucked the system (see SPC), but full-fledged movements have been hard to come by and even harder to sustain. We should remember that the JCP and RPP were both "anti-establishment" too before they grew into dominant establishment forces.

And Senator Libertas, despite your colorful rhetoric, your efforts in the Senate have not been anti-establishment by any objective (or subjective) measure.

[SPC]

Now, we have had independent actors that bucked the system (see SPC, not his most recent venture in the Senate but the one before that)

Huh? IIRC, I only served one term in the Senate?

[Purple State]

Now, we have had independent actors that bucked the system (see SPC, not his most recent venture in the Senate but the one before that)

Huh? IIRC, I only served one term in the Senate?

Hmm, wonder why that blended with something else. In that case, I shall edit that post to correct that.

[SPC]

I could have voted nay on everything and watch the Far leftist Senators in cahoots with President Leif pass a their "socialist" adjenda by 8-2 votes (ie the Health Care law), or I could raise hell about a select few certain provisions of a bill while insisting I supported and finally voting for the underlying bill, once amended.

One question I have for my opponent is that why would his opposition in the Senate even care whether their bill passed by 8-2 or 9-1? While the Senator insists that his vote for the stimulus saved the bill from including more atrocious elements, what was to prevent the said bill from being passed anyway without his adjustments. Either there were other Senators among those 8 who concured with his adjustments, and thus his "holding out" wasn't needed, or the opposition in the Senate didn't realize that they didn't need nine votes to have cloture. Either way, there's nothing preventing a Senator from having his cake and eating it too.

I might also remind the voters of the IDS that the Senator doesn't always achieve his desired goals from his "compromises", but that doesn't prevent the Senator from voting for the legislation anyway. For example, my opponent rightfully objected to raising the estate tax, but he voted for the legislation that enacted the tax hike. Additionally, Senator Yankee himself proposed a "national oil extraction tax". Senator Yankee also voted for Marokai Blue's bill to ban smoking on private property over a veto, while I unsuccessfully fought to overturn it in court.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Vote SPC: He supports the right of smokers to give children respiratory problems.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Vote SPC: He supports the right of smokers to give children respiratory problems.

     Every good thing can be spun to look bad. Case in point: the quoted post.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Vote SPC: He supports the right of smokers to give children respiratory problems.

     Every good thing can be spun to look bad. Case in point: the quoted post.

Please explain how overturning a smoking ban is a good thing. Not in terms of libertarian buzzwords (I know about personal and business freedom, blah blah), explain how it's better for society for second hand smoke to be everywhere.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Vote SPC: He supports the right of smokers to give children respiratory problems.

     Every good thing can be spun to look bad. Case in point: the quoted post.

Please explain how overturning a smoking ban is a good thing. Not in terms of libertarian buzzwords (I know about personal and business freedom, blah blah), explain how it's better for society for second hand smoke to be everywhere.

     It is difficult to explain such a thing to one who explicitly rejects the value of freedom.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Vote SPC: He supports the right of smokers to give children respiratory problems.

     Every good thing can be spun to look bad. Case in point: the quoted post.

Please explain how overturning a smoking ban is a good thing. Not in terms of libertarian buzzwords (I know about personal and business freedom, blah blah), explain how it's better for society for second hand smoke to be everywhere.

     It is difficult to explain such a thing to one who explicitly rejects the value of freedom.

And evidently difficult to understand for someone who places idealistic values of "freedom" above what is an empirical success and observably better for all of society's health.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Vote SPC: He supports the right of smokers to give children respiratory problems.

     Every good thing can be spun to look bad. Case in point: the quoted post.

Please explain how overturning a smoking ban is a good thing. Not in terms of libertarian buzzwords (I know about personal and business freedom, blah blah), explain how it's better for society for second hand smoke to be everywhere.

     It is difficult to explain such a thing to one who explicitly rejects the value of freedom.

And evidently difficult to understand for someone who places idealistic values of "freedom" above what is an empirical success and observably better for all of society's health.

     Then perhaps we should agree to disagree.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You can't agree to disagree when the argument is literally idealism vs. empirical success.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     When one believes that an ideal is sufficiently attractive to trump the alternatives, issues can arise. If fascist policies were empirically shown to be the most successful at achieving the goals that you consider important, I highly doubt you would run out & become a fascist.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I could have voted nay on everything and watch the Far leftist Senators in cahoots with President Leif pass a their "socialist" adjenda by 8-2 votes (ie the Health Care law), or I could raise hell about a select few certain provisions of a bill while insisting I supported and finally voting for the underlying bill, once amended.

One question I have for my opponent is that why would his opposition in the Senate even care whether their bill passed by 8-2 or 9-1? While the Senator insists that his vote for the stimulus saved the bill from including more atrocious elements, what was to prevent the said bill from being passed anyway without his adjustments. Either there were other Senators among those 8 who concured with his adjustments, and thus his "holding out" wasn't needed, or the opposition in the Senate didn't realize that they didn't need nine votes to have cloture. Either way, there's nothing preventing a Senator from having his cake and eating it too.

I might also remind the voters of the IDS that the Senator doesn't always achieve his desired goals from his "compromises", but that doesn't prevent the Senator from voting for the legislation anyway. For example, my opponent rightfully objected to raising the estate tax, but he voted for the legislation that enacted the tax hike. Additionally, Senator Yankee himself proposed a "national oil extraction tax". Senator Yankee also voted for Marokai Blue's bill to ban smoking on private property over a veto, while I unsuccessfully fought to overturn it in court.

I objected to the funding method but not the overall bill itself. I felt however after the devate that there wasn't a better method of funding it and even if there were, it would never pass via amendment. So I voted for the bill with the estate tax.

The oil extraction tax was to fund a bill to improve rapid response to oil spills. So you now favor deficit spending?

Smoking is in my opinion an active effort to committ Suicide. Second hand smoke is therefore an attempt to murder people around the smoker. As such, I felt that the bill is in the spirit of protecting the right to life (first one mentioned in the Declaration of Independence) of those non-smokers who are forced to inhale that garbage.

[Vepres]

Vote SPC: He supports the right of smokers to give children respiratory problems.

     Every good thing can be spun to look bad. Case in point: the quoted post.

Please explain how overturning a smoking ban is a good thing. Not in terms of libertarian buzzwords (I know about personal and business freedom, blah blah), explain how it's better for society for second hand smoke to be everywhere.

You know, there actually is a libertarian argument to make for a public smoking ban. Second hand smoke harms the health of others, thus it harms their right to life, which justifies government intervention.