SB 115-28 Atlasian Steel Act (Tabled)

[LAKISYLVANIA]

AN ACT
To nationalize the steel industry

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia

Section 1. Title

This legislation may be cited as the Atlasian Steel Act.

Section 2. Nationalization

1. All steel manufacturers are brought into public ownership immediately upon passage of this act and shall be placed under the control of an Atlasian Steel Authority.

2. To complete the undertaking as outlined above, the Republic of Atlasia shall establish an Atlasian Steel Authority (hereafter ASA) which shall be comprised of all former privately-held steel companies and shall hold a legal monopoly in these sectors.

3. The purpose of the aforementioned ASA shall be the economization of operations and the modernization of production methods to raise safety and efficiency standards across the country, as well as provide steel at a low cost, prevent competitive waste, and co-ordinate research and development in those sectors.

4. The government of the ASA shall be federal and cooperative. In each region will be established a regional steel authority under a board of directors composed of representatives of labor, the consumers, security, and the environment. The number of labor directors shall be four, and the number of directors for all other constituencies shall be two. Each regional authority will elect five representatives to the national board of directors. Two of the national directors elected by each regional authority shall represent labor, and one each shall represent the consumers, security, and the environment.
 
5. The labor directors shall be chosen by a vote of the steel workers; the consumer directors by a vote of the regional legislature, the security and environment directors by the regional executive at the regional level and by the president at the federal level.

6. The term of a Board director shall be four years.

7. The President shall appoint a Chair of the ASA Board of Directors who shall have no vote unless they are equally divided. The Chair shall serve a four year term.

8. All persons owning any of the aforementioned industry brought into public ownership shall be fairly compensated for the sale of said industries to the Republic of Atlasia.

Sponsor: Laki, on behalf of WD

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I'm strongly supportive of this act. We need to nationalize more industries.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I'm strongly supportive of this act. We need to nationalize more industries.

So you favor this, railroad nationalization, and as much nationalization as is possible yet you oppose lockdowns? How can you expect the government to act appropriately under the honor system when we have all seen the excesses of authoritarian states in the past and present all over the world? Division of economic and political power is what is needed to secure and protect the rights of the people. Private monopoly power and state monopoly power are twin dangers and threats to liberty.

What does nationalisation have to do with lockdowns. Both aren't even remotely linked.

Secondly, nationalization doesn't have anything to do with authoritarian states. Railroads are nationalized in Belgium and many other European nations. Are they authoritarian.

Essential industries important for the survival and welfare of our nation have to be nationalized, that includes energy, that includes public transport, that includes healthcare, education and prisons.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Look, there's nothing about nationalizing steel industry that suggest we are planning on creating a dictatorship that kills 10 million people...

If we're gonna use "red scare tactics", just remember that i'm alive and that i'm writing my free opinion from hellish Europe.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Look, there's nothing about nationalizing steel industry that suggest we are planning on creating a dictatorship that kills 10 million people...

What a dismissive point. The point is if it happened, the people would have little recourse if we realize your dream of as much nationalization as possible.

It is dismissive because I am being dismissive. I just don't participate in authoritarian / communist fearmongering, while most importantly it doesn't even have anything to do with it.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

As the author of this bill, I will respond to the neoliberal nonsense posted above shortly.

If you think opposing nationalization across the board is neoliberalism, I don't know what to tell you. This bill is opposed by Peace Party members and noted non-neoliberals Christian Man and Scott, not to mention the non-neoliberal Federalist Party Senators and Yankee.

Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers"

Ow ow ow...

1. Christian Man hasn't even stated approval or disapproval of the bill. I'm sure the senator is able to form an independent opinion without you deciding what his opinion shall be like.

2. "The Bill is opposed by Peace Party members" is objectively a wrong take. The only one who've spoken against the bill is Scott. I have spoken in favour of the bill and i'm a Peace member as well.

3. Your arguments are very neoliberal-esque. I don't care about your ideology or the ideology of others, but they are from a neoliberal perspective (even if you don't identify as such).

4. And when you suddenly talk about millions of deaths and start comparing us to USSR etc. for nationalizing steel or nationalizing railroads, than I would say that is a very dishonest way of argueing.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I'm strongly supportive of this act. We need to nationalize more industries.

So you favor this, railroad nationalization, and as much nationalization as is possible yet you oppose lockdowns? How can you expect the government to act appropriately under the honor system when we have all seen the excesses of authoritarian states in the past and present all over the world? Division of economic and political power is what is needed to secure and protect the rights of the people. Private monopoly power and state monopoly power are twin dangers and threats to liberty.

What does nationalisation have to do with lockdowns. Both aren't even remotely linked.

Secondly, nationalization doesn't have anything to do with authoritarian states. Railroads are nationalized in Belgium and many other European nations. Are they authoritarian.

Essential industries important for the survival and welfare of our nation have to be nationalized, that includes energy, that includes public transport, that includes healthcare, education and prisons.

Plain and simple. If government controls everything "essential" if democracy ends in a country the people have no immediate recourse. Decades of struggle until the state collapses under its own weight and tens of millions are dead is not a viable strategy which was of course Eastern Europe's only option in the last century. As long as it remains wholly possible for democracy and individual rights to be turned back by any government, no matter the legislative and constitutional hurdles, we cannot have full-scale nationalization. I'm not opposed to the government entering various markets to encourage competition, along with cracking down on monopolies, but the government should not have a majority or total stake in the vast majority of markets nor should it achieve such through nationalization of already private businesses. Nationalization is also fundamentally anti-Atlasian and anti-liberty since it goes against the idea of private property and the sanctity of such since the sale of private property is forced, at the government rate, under nationalization. More actors in the market, including the government in some cases, will also encourage consumer choice, competition, reduced costs, efficiency, and technological innovations. Nationalization or monopoly is like expecting one to have all the answers instead of knowing that one cannot have all the answers and that thus a team generally works better and produces a finer, more advanced product. Many items have been the creation of one but highly developed projects are group efforts. Finally, if the government, for example, cannot afford to pay at the highest private wage in an industry, at least for some workers, then ingenuity and development will suffer.

You act as you're trying to be consumer friendly but we're talking here about the "steel industry". Have you ever gone to a grocery shop or whatever shop to buy raw amounts of steel? The only consumers here are other companies specializing in manufacturing industries, among a lot of those - most, if not all - are in fact privately owned industries.

So by definition, by nationalizing steel (if we don't nationalizing manufacturing industries as well), there is no monopoly at all.

Applies to NCY's argument of "are we going to nationalize Nike etc. as well". It's not helpful if we generalize all industries, it is important to know about what kind of industry we are talking about. And no-one has said anything about nationalizing those.

I even doubt there is much of a privately owned steel industry in Atlasia, given all those jobs probably are already gone to low income countries, because they are cheaper to employ than atlasian labour forces.

The result is higher amount of unemployed people, in particular for people without high school education, higher crime rates, higher degree of homelessness, increased drug trafficking and demand, more stigmatization/hate towards immigrants and more of a strain on the national budget and in particular expenses to maintaining the welfare state.

Nationalizing our steel industry will not contribute to anything to your highly out of proportion concerns, and will revitalize our economy and increase our GDP.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

As the author of this bill, I will respond to the neoliberal nonsense posted above shortly.

If you think opposing nationalization across the board is neoliberalism, I don't know what to tell you. This bill is opposed by Peace Party members and noted non-neoliberals Christian Man and Scott, not to mention the non-neoliberal Federalist Party Senators and Yankee.

Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers"

Ow ow ow...

1. Christian Man hasn't even stated approval or disapproval of the bill. I'm sure the senator is able to form an independent opinion without you deciding what his opinion shall be like.

2. "The Bill is opposed by Peace Party members" is objectively a wrong take. The only one who've spoken against the bill is Scott. I have spoken in favour of the bill and i'm a Peace member as well.

3. Your arguments are very neoliberal-esque. I don't care about your ideology or the ideology of others, but they are from a neoliberal perspective (even if you don't identify as such).

4. And when you suddenly talk about millions of deaths and start comparing us to USSR etc. for nationalizing steel or nationalizing railroads, than I would say that is a very dishonest way of argueing.

Ignoring Christian Man's recommendations is willful ignorance and since he and Scott are both opposed at least a part of the party is opposed, nullifying your second "point" as well. Anti-communism and/or anti-nationalization is not inherently neoliberal but go on. I never suggested that deaths will come from nationalization itself, it just removes a safeguard for the people and their rights, their self-defense, etc. But if you must misrepresent my words to make yourself feel better, I can't stop you.

MB recced my post, also a Peace member. So at the very least you should say Peace is divided, not in favour of your proposal.

Secondly, a recommendation is just a recommendation. It isn't a post where one expresses their opinion. I've recced posts before not necessarily because I agree with them but for other reasons. Secondly, not everyone clicks to see what users have recommended a certain post.

This has nothing to do with "communism". Nobody called Reactionary's bills fascist too? And it is the same thing.

And yes you did mention it

Decades of struggle until the state collapses under its own weight and tens of millions are dead is not a viable strategy which was of course Eastern Europe's only option in the last century.

It was completely out of proportion to even suggest it. This is not turning or misrepresenting words, you talk about "tens of millions dead" somewhere where there is absolutely no link. It is unnecessary and laughable.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I'm strongly supportive of this act. We need to nationalize more industries.

So you favor this, railroad nationalization, and as much nationalization as is possible yet you oppose lockdowns? How can you expect the government to act appropriately under the honor system when we have all seen the excesses of authoritarian states in the past and present all over the world? Division of economic and political power is what is needed to secure and protect the rights of the people. Private monopoly power and state monopoly power are twin dangers and threats to liberty.

What does nationalisation have to do with lockdowns. Both aren't even remotely linked.

Secondly, nationalization doesn't have anything to do with authoritarian states. Railroads are nationalized in Belgium and many other European nations. Are they authoritarian.

Essential industries important for the survival and welfare of our nation have to be nationalized, that includes energy, that includes public transport, that includes healthcare, education and prisons.

Plain and simple. If government controls everything "essential" if democracy ends in a country the people have no immediate recourse. Decades of struggle until the state collapses under its own weight and tens of millions are dead is not a viable strategy which was of course Eastern Europe's only option in the last century. As long as it remains wholly possible for democracy and individual rights to be turned back by any government, no matter the legislative and constitutional hurdles, we cannot have full-scale nationalization. I'm not opposed to the government entering various markets to encourage competition, along with cracking down on monopolies, but the government should not have a majority or total stake in the vast majority of markets nor should it achieve such through nationalization of already private businesses. Nationalization is also fundamentally anti-Atlasian and anti-liberty since it goes against the idea of private property and the sanctity of such since the sale of private property is forced, at the government rate, under nationalization. More actors in the market, including the government in some cases, will also encourage consumer choice, competition, reduced costs, efficiency, and technological innovations. Nationalization or monopoly is like expecting one to have all the answers instead of knowing that one cannot have all the answers and that thus a team generally works better and produces a finer, more advanced product. Many items have been the creation of one but highly developed projects are group efforts. Finally, if the government, for example, cannot afford to pay at the highest private wage in an industry, at least for some workers, then ingenuity and development will suffer.

You act as you're trying to be consumer friendly but we're talking here about the "steel industry". Have you ever gone to a grocery shop or whatever shop to buy raw amounts of steel? The only consumers here are other companies specializing in manufacturing industries, among a lot of those - most, if not all - are in fact privately owned industries.

So by definition, by nationalizing steel (if we don't nationalizing manufacturing industries as well), there is no monopoly at all.

Applies to NCY's argument of "are we going to nationalize Nike etc. as well". It's not helpful if we generalize all industries, it is important to know about what kind of industry we are talking about. And no-one has said anything about nationalizing those.

I even doubt there is much of a privately owned steel industry in Atlasia, given all those jobs probably are already gone to low income countries, because they are cheaper to employ than atlasian labour forces.

The result is higher amount of unemployed people, in particular for people without high school education, higher crime rates, higher degree of homelessness, increased drug trafficking and demand, more stigmatization/hate towards immigrants and more of a strain on the national budget and in particular expenses to maintaining the welfare state.

Nationalizing our steel industry will not contribute to anything to your highly out of proportion concerns, and will revitalize our economy and increase our GDP.

Do you know what a monopoly is? A government monopoly in any industry reduces competition and thus efficiency and technological advancement since government wages often can't keep pace at least at the highest levels with what the private market can offer. The steel industry also is connected to many other industries so pretending that it has nothing to do with the people so it can't be a (state) monopoly is a strange argument.

It is connected to many other industries, which so far are all privatised. As i've said, you're not going to a shop to buy raw steel for yourself.

For the steel industry, there is no need for competition and more importantly there is still competition in other countries.

You all also don't seem to object privately owned monopolies.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I'm strongly supportive of this act. We need to nationalize more industries.

So you favor this, railroad nationalization, and as much nationalization as is possible yet you oppose lockdowns? How can you expect the government to act appropriately under the honor system when we have all seen the excesses of authoritarian states in the past and present all over the world? Division of economic and political power is what is needed to secure and protect the rights of the people. Private monopoly power and state monopoly power are twin dangers and threats to liberty.

What does nationalisation have to do with lockdowns. Both aren't even remotely linked.

Secondly, nationalization doesn't have anything to do with authoritarian states. Railroads are nationalized in Belgium and many other European nations. Are they authoritarian.

Essential industries important for the survival and welfare of our nation have to be nationalized, that includes energy, that includes public transport, that includes healthcare, education and prisons.

Plain and simple. If government controls everything "essential" if democracy ends in a country the people have no immediate recourse. Decades of struggle until the state collapses under its own weight and tens of millions are dead is not a viable strategy which was of course Eastern Europe's only option in the last century. As long as it remains wholly possible for democracy and individual rights to be turned back by any government, no matter the legislative and constitutional hurdles, we cannot have full-scale nationalization. I'm not opposed to the government entering various markets to encourage competition, along with cracking down on monopolies, but the government should not have a majority or total stake in the vast majority of markets nor should it achieve such through nationalization of already private businesses. Nationalization is also fundamentally anti-Atlasian and anti-liberty since it goes against the idea of private property and the sanctity of such since the sale of private property is forced, at the government rate, under nationalization. More actors in the market, including the government in some cases, will also encourage consumer choice, competition, reduced costs, efficiency, and technological innovations. Nationalization or monopoly is like expecting one to have all the answers instead of knowing that one cannot have all the answers and that thus a team generally works better and produces a finer, more advanced product. Many items have been the creation of one but highly developed projects are group efforts. Finally, if the government, for example, cannot afford to pay at the highest private wage in an industry, at least for some workers, then ingenuity and development will suffer.

You act as you're trying to be consumer friendly but we're talking here about the "steel industry". Have you ever gone to a grocery shop or whatever shop to buy raw amounts of steel? The only consumers here are other companies specializing in manufacturing industries, among a lot of those - most, if not all - are in fact privately owned industries.

So by definition, by nationalizing steel (if we don't nationalizing manufacturing industries as well), there is no monopoly at all.

Applies to NCY's argument of "are we going to nationalize Nike etc. as well". It's not helpful if we generalize all industries, it is important to know about what kind of industry we are talking about. And no-one has said anything about nationalizing those.

I even doubt there is much of a privately owned steel industry in Atlasia, given all those jobs probably are already gone to low income countries, because they are cheaper to employ than atlasian labour forces.

The result is higher amount of unemployed people, in particular for people without high school education, higher crime rates, higher degree of homelessness, increased drug trafficking and demand, more stigmatization/hate towards immigrants and more of a strain on the national budget and in particular expenses to maintaining the welfare state.

Nationalizing our steel industry will not contribute to anything to your highly out of proportion concerns, and will revitalize our economy and increase our GDP.

Do you know what a monopoly is? A government monopoly in any industry reduces competition and thus efficiency and technological advancement since government wages often can't keep pace at least at the highest levels with what the private market can offer. The steel industry also is connected to many other industries so pretending that it has nothing to do with the people so it can't be a (state) monopoly is a strange argument.

It is connected to many other industries, which so far are all privatised. As i've said, you're not going to a shop to buy raw steel for yourself.

For the steel industry, there is no need for competition and more importantly there is still competition in other countries.

You all also don't seem to object privately owned monopolies.

To suggest that I have ever supported or not opposed monopolies is total historical revisionism. To suggest that any industry, also, is "done" in terms of technological advancement so it can be nationalized doesn't make sense. Can't steel always become cheaper and stronger?

Truthful answer: "no".

There is no such thing as "eternal growth". At a certain point you're bound to hit a cap.



But as an F.Y.I. that's currently with privatisation not the case as well.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

As the author of this bill, I will respond to the neoliberal nonsense posted above shortly.

If you think opposing nationalization across the board is neoliberalism, I don't know what to tell you. This bill is opposed by Peace Party members and noted non-neoliberals Christian Man and Scott, not to mention the non-neoliberal Federalist Party Senators and Yankee.

Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers"

Refusing to acknowledge the failures of the “Free Market” and burying our heads in the sand as to its consequences is a common thread of neoliberals, yes. There’s a very simple choice before the Senate; The Status Quo, which has seen a decline in our industry, our steel jobs, and the communities which they support, or they can pursue change. The government can step in do it’s job: correct the errors and violence of the so-called Free Market, which has made the steel industry one of its many victims. I’ve heard no concrete alternative presented, rather that we shouldn’t dare to do anything to protect Atlasian industry, because that would be “radical”, “centralism”, “anti-liberty”, or “authoritarian”. This claptrap aside, one must do nothing more than ask themselves: Who do you trust to exert influence and authority over the commanding heights of the economy? The private monopoly capital bosses who are accountable to none, or the elected government of this Republic, which answers to and works for the people. This is fundamentally putting our industry in the hands of the people.

In addition, I would briefly add that nationalization of our steel is a matter of national security. We’ve just faced a great assault on our union, an attempt to destroy and usurp the constitution: War was a very real possibility. In the event that another future secessionist movement sparks violence, and attempts to leave the union do we want to leave vast quantities of Atlasian steel lying around for seizing by a rebellious government? I think not. With full control over our steel, that will not be a concern. When voting on this bill, Senators must consider how much safer this will make Atlasia.

I suppose Scott is an Ayn Rand stand-in for opposing this? Yankee has also addressed your POV but you seemingly ignore that to retread what has been already addressed and confronted.

Scott opposes it for different reasons you do. He thinks it is a bad investment and offers other solutions to solve with the problem (or promises to do so). You oppose it for different reasons, like nationalization being ethically wrong or being a stepping stone towards a dictatorship and it being bad for customers which I all have said is simply not true.

Scott supposedly is of the opinion that domestic steel is done, has failed and cannot be saved and that this is why the government cannot help revitalize the steel industry. That's a completely different reason of why he opposes it than why you do. This doesn't make him an Ayn Rand-like one.

But I would appreciate if you stop referring to Scott or the user who recced a post Christian Man in making a conclusion of how Peace Party thinks over the issue. We have 7 (officially 8 but i'm excluding R) senators.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

If Trump really wants to save American steel, he'd nationalize it

But it would solve the central problem the steel industry faces. No tariff, no matter how high, will reverse China’s domination of the steel industry and put U.S. steel companies onto long-term stable footing. Trying to fix the problem with trade policy creates needless complications and global tensions, all for the sake of a relatively small—though strategically vital—industry. Nationalization, in effect, sidesteps this problem altogether by eliminating the need to turn a profit. If Trump is committed to turning around the steel industry, nationalization is his best option.

This is, admittedly, not a free market solution—and critics, including much of Trump’s own party, will likely recoil at the notion. But the truth is that the free market has already failed the basic metals industry, failing to generate prices that reflect the true long-term social value of the industry. In fact, there’s no such thing as a free market for steel. Internationally, steel production is shot through with political interventions by foreign governments such as China. In the U.S., steel companies are stuck in a cycle of requiring more and more government protection just to buy them another few months or years. In other words, the industry is already totally dependent on the U.S. government to stay alive.

Laki,

You are pointing to a graph of steel production by country. Please stop straw-manning. It is unbecoming of a sitting Senator. Again, my point was that steel can become more technologically sophisticated likely in perpetuity, not that steel production will increase infinitely which is a bizarre suggestion.

It's extremely relevant as China's ascending to top producer of steel (not necessarily a country that has privatized the steel industry) is the main reason why Atlasian steel plummetted. You deem it off as "straw-manning". It's the very essence of this bill and the problem with the steel production.

Private industries have had the chance to proof that steel can become more technologically sophisticated. They have failed.

Refusing to nationalize the steel industry will only help China.

And helping China is much more pro-communist than nationalizing steel, especially since keeping unemployment low and keeping jobs in Atlasia would only contribute to our economy thriving.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

If Trump really wants to save American steel, he'd nationalize it

But it would solve the central problem the steel industry faces. No tariff, no matter how high, will reverse China’s domination of the steel industry and put U.S. steel companies onto long-term stable footing. Trying to fix the problem with trade policy creates needless complications and global tensions, all for the sake of a relatively small—though strategically vital—industry. Nationalization, in effect, sidesteps this problem altogether by eliminating the need to turn a profit. If Trump is committed to turning around the steel industry, nationalization is his best option.

This is, admittedly, not a free market solution—and critics, including much of Trump’s own party, will likely recoil at the notion. But the truth is that the free market has already failed the basic metals industry, failing to generate prices that reflect the true long-term social value of the industry. In fact, there’s no such thing as a free market for steel. Internationally, steel production is shot through with political interventions by foreign governments such as China. In the U.S., steel companies are stuck in a cycle of requiring more and more government protection just to buy them another few months or years. In other words, the industry is already totally dependent on the U.S. government to stay alive.

Laki,

You are pointing to a graph of steel production by country. Please stop straw-manning. It is unbecoming of a sitting Senator. Again, my point was that steel can become more technologically sophisticated likely in perpetuity, not that steel production will increase infinitely which is a bizarre suggestion.

It's extremely relevant as China's ascending to top producer of steel (not necessarily a country that has privatized the steel industry) is the main reason why Atlasian steel plummetted. You deem it off as "straw-manning". It's the very essence of this bill and the problem with the steel production.

Private industries have had the chance to proof that steel can become more technologically sophisticated. They have failed.

Refusing to nationalize the steel industry will only help China.

And helping China is much more pro-communist than nationalizing steel, especially since keeping unemployment low and keeping jobs in Atlasia would only contribute to our economy thriving.

I don't agree and what you have cited as proof it an opinion article, no?

Everything you say is an opinion as well, and an opinion I strongly disagree with, and a lot of your opinion is factually incorrect.

This opinion from the article might help you explain why i think the way i think.

And it doesn't make me a communist unless you believe Politico is a communist magazine that advocates for the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Maybe you don't see the fact that China almost has a monopoly over the global steel industry as a problem, and with it, many working class jobs disappearing to low income countries.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

24 hours to object to my amendment.

Objecting

[LAKISYLVANIA]

A vote on the UNL amendment starts. Senators, please vote aye, nay or abstain

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Nay

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Aye.

Good amendment which significantly improves the bill. Senator Utah Neolib once again proves he is one of the chamber's most level-headed.

Well i'm willing to compromise as well, esp. if senators are willing to back the compromise. I know it's going to be hard to pass the OG bill, so my compromise is, i agree to UNL's amendment, we pass it and we pass the RAILS act, as it is right now.

This would elavate concerns over state monopoly of the steel market, so I believe there should be no reason to vote against the act if UNL's amendment passes, even if I personally had rather had the original act to pass in its full form.

I hope the senate - and you as well - is willing to accept that compromise. And I hope you appreciate this move.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

May I suggest an alternative in which businesses are democratized or at least workers are allowed ownership of production? I just oppose nationalization because it can be just as destructive as privatization at least in practice.

Yes you're allowed to suggest an alternative, if you offer an amendment, i'll put it up to a vote.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Demanding additional time for the current amendment vote. I've sent PM's for people asking to vote on the amendment vote.

So don't close this yet.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Demanding additional time for the current amendment vote. I've sent PM's for people asking to vote on the amendment vote.

So don't close this yet.

I believe it should be up to the Senate leadership to close votes when they see fit, instead of recognizing the "demand(s)" of any one Senator. I also think if you wanted to whip votes against this amendment, you should have done so in a timely manner. When you were in Senate leadership, furthermore, you closed votes as soon as possible with fewer votes than we have here (14 I believe) countless times but this time you think differently since you oppose the current result of 7-6-1 in favor.

I remember 1-2 months ago that you criticized Pyro's behavior in the senate.... because he was being annoying and disrespectful, and objected to all your proxy votes or pushed to motion a vote (he was one of the first to realize that Mr. R was getting burned out).

Honestly you're becoming exactly like him at the moment and behaving unrespectful and annoying.

I call for the senate leadership to dismiss this request and give people the time to vote. Your criticism isn't consistent with fellow party member Cao's criticism (who called for longer debates) as well.

I'll work on an amendment incorporating CM's changes and excluding UNL's proposals regardless of whether this passes or not.

And I don't expect your vote, it's clear you don't want this to pass or do not want to cooperate, so i'll exclude it and take into account that you'll vote nay no matter what. I don't even need your "aye vote".

If we want to nationalize our steel industry, we should go all in for it. It really makes no sense to decide to have kids as parents if you're not fully behind that idea and if only one parent backs the idea. I believe the same thing applies to nationalizing steel, and I do not share your concerns.

And you're in the minority. And I'll do everything to undo the amendment if it passes, and pass the final bill, and incorporate feedback of people who actually genuinely care to improve the bill, and not pretend to care because they want to see it fail.

Also, it is ethically wrong to push for an amendment if you don't even intend to vote aye on the final bill, even with the amendment being passed. I'm the sponsor of the original bill, and I want the original bill to be passed, incorporating the proposed changes of Christian Man.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Motion to table the act.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Aye on CM

[LAKISYLVANIA]

More than 72 hours have passed. In accordance with the senate rules, I am closing the vote. Unless Scott overrules my decision, the amendment passes 6-4-1-7.

Well you claim to be a neutral and unpartisan PPT but you leave a bunch of other final votes open, and i've noticed that as deputy PPT you only close the votes you care about and let the other things run for infinite time.

If you close votes, than be consistent and close them all, not just close votes that you care about a certain outcome.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

More than 72 hours have passed. In accordance with the senate rules, I am closing the vote. Unless Scott overrules my decision, the amendment passes 6-4-1-7.

Well you claim to be a neutral and unpartisan PPT but you leave a bunch of other final votes open, and i've noticed that as deputy PPT you only close the votes you care about and let the other things run for infinite time.

If you close votes, than be consistent and close them all, not just close votes that you care about a certain outcome.

Prove that I use my position for my own benefit, I'd love to see you try.

Well for instance

you closed

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=548604.msg9076479#msg9076479

RAIL FAILS

while other votes were running and you didn't close those

And now you again selectively closed votes, instead of consistently closing the votes that should be closed.

That alone is proof that you're biased as PPT.

Your very hostile response that was made in a deregatory sense only strengthens this view.