Talk Elections

Sponsor: Rep. Classic Conservative (F-TX)

personally i'm not a fan of sucking up to dictatorships, but ymmv i guess.

Smart idea, I'd also add Hamas, Hezbuallah, and Al Quida.

Well Gentlemen, since we are run by US law that means according from my knowledge that Hamas, Hizbollah and Al-Qaeda are already designated terrorist organizations while The Muslim Brotherhood is not.

This bill, Ms. Evergreen is not meant to suck up to the tyrannical dictatorships of Russia and Saudi Arabia, rather it is to say we stand in solidarity with the working people and minorities of Egypt and other countries in North Africa after the countless terrorist attacks, hate crimes and human tragedies committed by the Muslim Brotherhood over the few years in which they controlled the state of Egypt.

I was just trying to cover my bases on that Classic. Pm me Classic because I have a proposal I want you to co-sponsor

Any thoughts from any of our other congresscritters?

I am of course appalled by the actions of this group but, I am quite reluctant to designate all MB nations and all of their supporters under this wide brush. I feel we could lose our place at the bargaining table and further damage the people this bill is said to protect. I would be in support of part three, as long as it focuses solely on the organization and its development and not on humanitarian causes to nations that may have supporters of it as leaders.

There are NO nations under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood. It has already been banned by a large portion of Sunni States including their former stronghold of Egypt. This bill also focuses solely on the leaders and terrorists who go under the banner of this organization not under the general public who may just have membership in this organization. Let's face it we shouldn't be funding any foreign organization at all when we have a horrible budget situation right now.

We're not funding the Muslim Brotherhood to my knowledge Representative

the working people of egypt, mr. conservative, elected the muslim brotherhood to power in their most recent democratic elections, in case you haven't forgotten. and it is arguable whether their actions have caused more harm than the preceding or succeeding regimes.

and this bill is not only morally unsound, but also strategically unsound, as it would inevitably stir up more anti-atlasian sentiment among the people of the middle east.

And the people revolted, Ms. Evergreen and his government was removed from office and this organization was banned.

that's an outright propagandistic description of events.

This is a great bill.

I motion for a final vote.

I believe that there is still debate going on, and I am reluctant to move to a final vote already.

There hasn't been any debate on this issue in almost two days. We have to get moving, Mr. Speaker. We are not going to be a lame duck congress. The people elected us to do our job let's do it and then move on to other important issues including Zika, Tax Reform, Regulatory Reform, Criminal Justice Reform, Blood Donation and Foreign Affairs.

I'll extend debate for an additional 24 hours. After that, we will move to a final vote if there are no objections.

For all Representatives it's worth noting that the Muslim Brotherhood is actually not classed as a terrorist group by several important groups  Including the ADL  (http://archive.adl.org/terrorism/symbols/muslim_brotherhood_1.html)

The Muslim Brotherhood are an awful group who promote a backwards ideology that counters Atlasia's proud values- however this debate isn't on whether we agree. It's whether our two chambers believe they're a terrorist group.

I've yet to see any evidence

"The Muslim Brotherhood no longer openly conducts terrorist operations; it is primarily a political organization that supports terrorism and terrorist causes. Many of its members, however, have engaged in terrorist activities and the group has spawned numerous terrorist groups, such as Hamas and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
2002: Suspected in suicide bombing in Grozny.
1979:   Suspected in attacking Syrian military academy in Aleppo. 50 Syrian artillery cadets killed"

While the MB, does not still carry out terror attacks they are supporting terrorism both financially and through it membership. We should not allow financiers of terrorism still allow to operate and act freely while giving money and support to groups that kill Atlasians and innocent civilians across the Middle East. And the last actual terror attack was just 13 or 14 years ago.

Even though it was on the ADL page the only reference I can find to the 2002 attack is the Russians claiming that there were Arab links to the Chechnya bombing

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/12/28/chechnya.toll/

If we're having to go back to terrorist attacks in 1979, then well we're going to be outlawing a lot of groups

So? What does it matter whether or not the group was elected to office? I would hardly consider a functioning democracy one that elects groups committed to extreme fundamentalism to the point of wanting to blow countries off the map and exterminate groups of people. The fact that such groups win elections in some places, is not a mark of legitimacy on said groups, but in fact is an exemplary reason why democracy depends on strong education and a substantially more secular world view (at least to the point of not wanting to "Vote" a disliked group out of existence)".

Whether or not the Muslim Brotherhood wins an election is irrelevant. Hamas has won elections in the Palestinian terrorities and that doesn't make them any less of a terrorist group. The key here is the outlook of the Muslim Brotherhood and the tactices they are employing to bring it about.

because the reaganite/kissingerite tradition of deposing democracies we don't like has yielded absolutely terrible results in the past, maybe…?

this bill would give us more irans, not fewer.

As it appears that the 24-hour extension has now passed, Representatives have 72 hours to vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN on this bill.

neigh

Aye

Aye

After much contemplation, I believe that I cannot vote for this bill in its current form.

Those are different situations. An election that elects a terrorist group is not a democracy.

that's a questionable assertion. and i'm sure the same argument was made about, e.g., chile – that an election that elects communists is not a democracy.

Just because someone makes the same arguement for the wrong reasons, doesn't make it it incorrect for me to make it for the right reasons.

This bill has enough votes to pass. Representatives have 24 hours to change their votes, if they wish.

Alright, this bill has passed.

Bump.


I'm unsure if this is my responsibility (if not I apologize to the Speaker), but it's been a while since the President offered a redraft of this particular bill and it originated in the House. The President has offered the following presidential redraft:

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. We will have a period of debate lasting 72-hours barring any objections.

Seeing as how there has been no debate and no objections, we will now move to a 72-hour final vote on the redraft.

certainly better than the previous turd, although putting c.c. on the committee is lol

abstain

Then putting Blair is lol, because he's partisan towards the other side.

---

AYE

The redraft passes with, uh, two AYES and one abstention.

The Conference Committee has voted to pass the Senate version:

Representatives have 72 hours to vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.

What happens at the end of the investigation?  Does it come back before the Congress for a vote?

I believe it goes to the President

Not at all. This committee will just provide the results of the investigation to Congress. If Congress still wants to pass this bill, it can be reintroduced and will go through the same channels as it did before.

ok thanks tmth

I abstain.

Alright, I guess this passes with one AYE and two abstentions.

Aye