Talk:Resolution against Communist and Anarchist ideologies (666)

rakkeyal rakkeyal Idle

Resolution Against Communist and Anarchist Ideologies, (666) Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 23/04/2024 03:03

Tabled by Maria Sanz-Cortes, MGA, as a government sponsored resolution. A resolution to define an active philosophical and policy position of the government of the Kodiak Republic https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/Resolution_against_Communist_and_Anarchist_ideologies_(666) Voting set for 21 May. The Kodiak Republic Wiki Resolution against Communist and Anarchist ideologies (666) A resolution to define an active philosophical and policy position of the government of the Kodiak Republic.

The General Assembly of the Kodiak Republic, DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, “communism” as an ideology and system of organization built on the foundations of violent authoritarianism and state-controlled economic organizati... Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 23/04/2024 03:04

@Assembly Member this bill is now up for debate. @María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] you have the floor then I want to let the honorable Chief Justice @Eðward Staples 🧀 (Mengtian) to speak on the bill before we have further debate. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 23/04/2024 03:44 ((just to inform y'all i'm trying to finish a project and i'll respond once i deal with it)) Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 24/04/2024 01:34 I would like to amend this bill, we need to add a provision on Facism and define that as well J.F. Sassoon — 24/04/2024 01:34 We already have a resolution on fascism. Also, neither Maria or the Chief Justice have spoken yet. Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 24/04/2024 01:36

I'd wait on the sponsor and Chief Justice to have their parts before we have official debate. Also Rep. Fala, we already have a resolution against fascism here: https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/Resolution_against_Fascist_Ideologies_(634) The Kodiak Republic Wiki Resolution against Fascist Ideologies (634) A resolution to define an active philosophical and policy position of the government of the Kodiak Republic. Approved 5 Nov 21 - 11 Aye, 1 Nay, 1 Abstain The General Assembly of the Kodiak Republic, DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, “fascism” as an ideology built on the foundations of violent authoritarianism and police reprisal, anti... Eðward Staples 🧀 (Mengtian) — 24/04/2024 04:34 I will only note for the moment that a resolution and a law are two different things. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 24/04/2024 04:49 ((i'm ready, i'll say the starting message and u @Eðward Staples 🧀 (Mengtian) say what you wanted to say)) I bring to the Assembly this new resolution with the objective of disenfranchising the rightful government and the representatives of true Kodiakers from the Commune and similar ideologies surrounding communism and anarchism that have done too much harm to the nation these last years.

Just as the resolution against fascism due to a previous conflict caused by said ideology, communists and anarchists alike are actively fighting against our nation in order to turn it upside down and establish their own rule with brutal force, it's necessary that the government takes a stand against these harmful ideologies. Eðward Staples 🧀 (Mengtian) — 24/04/2024 04:58 Like the Resolution against Fascism, this is going to be problematic; setting up artificial definitions for current movements to be condemned is imprecise and often "more heat than light", as they say. That said, this is a resolution, and not a bill, and since no law will derive from this, it's not really the role of my office to confirm or shut down this proposal. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 24/04/2024 05:00 I think that the use of violent terms on the part of communist ideology places a good deal of stress on trope and stereotypes than the literal situation. Communist governments in places like ((Russia)) were communist in name only; in reality, their governments were authoritarian. In many existing situations of “socialist” governance ((such as the DPRK)), the actual ideological and economic stance of the government falls into fascism. If the government wishes to condemn authoritarian anarchism, they are free to do so. Condemning an economic standpoint that can be achieved by peaceful means (unlike fascism) smacks of partisanism. If the government wishes to further divide her people, this resolution is the way to go about it. Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 24/04/2024 05:29

Would you say the word “socialist” could be targeted if this resolution is passed? Braughn F. G. Kryos — 24/04/2024 05:34 Targeted? Without too strenuous of a stretch, sure. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 24/04/2024 05:35 If you believe that idea of socialism is an authoritarian regime or a violent anarchist movement, then yes. I think that should be obvious. Ecky B. Ryland [KWP] — 24/04/2024 05:42 What effect will this bill have on the KWP? Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 24/04/2024 05:43

What effect will it have to the KSA. A political party that has “Socialist” in their name. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 24/04/2024 05:45 It doesn't target the KWP itself, it targets violent communist/anarchist organizations and countries. A party should never take violent measures to impose its ideology over the rest of the people, thus as long as the KSA and KWP remain as a party loyal to the republic (even though I personally doubt it sometimes) nothing would happen to them. Ecky B. Ryland [KWP] — 24/04/2024 06:05 I wouldn't say that anarchy is an intrinsically violent ideology. There's a substantial amount of anarchists who are supporters of the peace movement. I fear that those will lose their right to free speech due to the violent nature of some anarchists. But if you were to ban an ideology because some people of that ideology are violent, you can ban most ideologies, including your own. I would like to see it explicitly stated that the peaceful communists and anarchists will not be targeted. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 24/04/2024 06:44 Why, then, the specification? If the resolution is to condemn all violent political idegological movements, why stop at "communist and anarchist"? Why not include, say, all fascist, nationalist, authoritarian, militarist, religious-law type governments and movments that make use of violence? What about democratic violence? What about anti-authoritarian violence? If the argument is "A party should never take violent measures to impose its ideology over the rest of the people", then any partisan violence should be condemned, not just communist and anarchist. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 24/04/2024 20:24 First off, it's a resolution, not a law, i'm not outlawing an idea since that's impossible.

Secod, I'm not gonna specify such a thing, since that would possibly lead to possible loopholes from violent organizations claiming that actions are only done by fringe members.

It is specified in both definition sections that violent action is a part of it. There was no "peaceful fascists" clause either. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 24/04/2024 20:27 Because it is unreasonable. I marked the left wing extremists for a reason: they're extremists. If you want to include every ideology when it could be argued that every nation with a state uses violence, prepare for isolation. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 24/04/2024 20:28 Which exactly defeats the purpose. You are stating that the government should put itself contrary to communism and anarchism because those ideologies are inherently violent when they are not. Alexander Paramount (NUP) — 24/04/2024 20:29 I mean didn’t we already ban Fascist in our resolution against Fascism? Now it’s time for violent radical leftists who are scorching our own country like the Commune doing

I could careless about peaceful Socialists, I’m more cautious about violent activists who think causing people to lose their home or bombing our politicians Braughn F. G. Kryos — 24/04/2024 20:30 If you care about only the violent ones, why does this resolution lump all of them into the same boat, as if the radical violent communists speak for everyone? The stated purpose of this legislation and the actual verbiage are at odds. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 24/04/2024 20:31 The main idea of this is to stop leftwing extremists in this time of war against a communist terroristic force. Same was done amidst the Crisis of the Darrent. J.F. Sassoon — 24/04/2024 20:31 Because communism is a dangerous ideology killing this country. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 24/04/2024 20:32 Because that's a better way to solve this issue: if violent acts are committed by a member of a communist group, the whole group shall be investigated to root out the main cause for that. This is how we fight the Commune effectively. Stopping any attempts from them to try and grow support back from other places. If, again, you want to point to all ideologies, remember that these resolutions also mean staying away from any goverment of said ideologies. We'd be left alone. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 24/04/2024 20:36 Right. A better way to solve the issue is to villainize the peaceful, law abiding communist citizens instead of being more specific. If the main idea is to stop left wing extremists, stop the left wing extremists. Don’t alienate more people. J.F. Sassoon — 24/04/2024 20:36 Communists are not citizens, they are - as they have proven themselves - in league with terrorists trying to take down this country. You yourself being amongst their ranks, clearly. If we do not crush every communist out of existence this country will fall. We must root them out, this resolution does so. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 24/04/2024 20:37 So, by nature of being socialist, I am therefore traitorous? That’s interesting. When will the warrant for my arrest be issued? Will you be arresting all of my constituents as well? Many of them are communistic ideological terms, yet have remained loyal to the republic at my insistence. They are law abiding communists; will their citizenship be revoked by the Chancellor and his goon squad? J.F. Sassoon — 24/04/2024 20:39 If they are proven to be in league with traitors and terrorists, then yes they should. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 24/04/2024 20:39 When your mask eventually falls off and outright defend the Commune instead of pussyfooting around like you love to do.

But that's besides the point. If you think peaceful communists will be persecuted and alienated for this, then they're not peaceful. J.F. Sassoon — 24/04/2024 20:39 Anyone who is proven to be in league with the Commune, regardless of who they are, should be arrested. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 24/04/2024 20:40 Yet you’ve just said that there are no communist citizens. I have already proven that many of my constituents have communistic ideologies. Are they therefore not citizens? J.F. Sassoon — 24/04/2024 20:40 Legally they are citizens, but they should not be, they should be in a cell for treason. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 24/04/2024 20:41 Well, you have that power, Mr. Chancellor María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 24/04/2024 20:41 ((errm, based?!?!)) J.F. Sassoon — 24/04/2024 20:41 ((I can arrest people?!)) Braughn F. G. Kryos — 24/04/2024 20:41 What a logical fallacy we have here! If they’re peaceful, they’re not! Braughn F. G. Kryos — 24/04/2024 20:42 ((You are literally the head of law enforcement)) Alexander Paramount (NUP) — 24/04/2024 20:42 ((SBI OPEN UP)) Braughn F. G. Kryos — 24/04/2024 20:42 ((You order around the ministry of law and order. Yes, it would make total sense for you to be able to issue orders for arrests)) ((This my comment about my arrest. Dewit)) J.F. Sassoon — 24/04/2024 20:44 The only logical fallacy is how you, someone who served in this country in a militia, are now spouting sympathies toward our enemy blatantly. You call yourself a patriot? Nonsense. Mr President, I motion to vote. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 24/04/2024 20:44 It is yours, Mr.Kryos. It is your logical fallacy that believing those who didn't commit a crime would be arrested over their belief if they don't have a connection to the Commune. Your fearmongering only helps the Commune's war and tactical efforts to disrupt the Republic. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 24/04/2024 20:59 You have entirely lost sight. The Commune is our enemy, not communism. We have loyal citizens who are communists and remain loyal, understanding that, someday, this government will peacefully enact reforms for a better country. They are not our enemies; they should be encouraged, not slandered. They are a powerful weapon against the commune, not a force for it. You would push more people into the ranks of the Commune traitors, rather than pull close all who are loyal. John Edwards [KWP] — 25/04/2024 00:59 Have the NUP forgotten the right wing extremists who threatened our nation in the not too distant past? They actually sided with invaders. There's no mention of right wing extremism in the bill. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 01:02 I suggest you look the conversation itself, since it's been mentioned on and on the fact that such a resolution for those who waged war in support of The Great North already exists. This one is for those who're allying themselves with the Commune. Alexander Paramount (NUP) — 25/04/2024 01:07 Didn’t we already have anti-right wing extremist bill as form of anti-Fascism resolution already? Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 25/04/2024 01:59 Citizens have a right to their own religion and their own political beliefs. To remove those rights is to lower ourselves. No matter the reasoning, the removal of rights is not the answer or the way forward. I will not vote in favor of this resolution, nor should any member of this chamber. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 02:07 I don't think the definition of communism is correct in this bill "Advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs" "“communism” as an ideology and system of organization built on the foundations of violent authoritarianism and state-controlled economic organization, anti-democratic one-party rule, forced economic equality, and censorship of political and civil rights with the purpose of a forced overhaul of society as a means of enshrining said system and its party;" These 2 definitions, one from the dictionary and the one from the law isn’t the same or similar The bill really is talking about Authoritarianism Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 02:25 Which again raises the issue of what does this bill actually seek to accomplish? Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 02:32 Because to me, this bill accomplishes exactly one thing: alienate our left-leaning citizenry. This does not condemn authoritarian governments. This does not create policy. This does not even target the Commune. This will and can only serve to further the deep rift between the government and the people. If you want to stop communists from flocking to the Commune, you don’t start by publicly condemning communists. Taking a second look at this bill and the @Chief Justice’s comments about this resolution not carrying the force of law, are any of the provisions within this proposal actually legal? It proscribes communism and anarchism, bans any political party with that ideology, and requires the end of any relations with foreign nations of that ideology. If this is not law, then why are these elements contained within and not removed? Only the second point, condemnation of these ideologies, can possibly hold weight within a resolution. Also, with the final point, the heck does “within two degrees” even mean? Who gets to decide that? By what scale are these degrees? Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 02:40 Setting aside the outrageousness of the bill as a concept, it is so poorly written as a resolution to warrant rejection on those grounds alone. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 03:17 Then should we take down the fascism bill? Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 04:04 The fascism bill is not the one at debate. This one is. The fitting-ness of the fascism bill should not affect, positively or negatively, the fitting-ness of this bill. Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 25/04/2024 04:05

I’d like for members to stay on the bill at hand. Thank you. J.F. Sassoon — 25/04/2024 04:05 No. But it's a fair point. If Communism is allowed surely the other end of the extreme should be allowed no? We should ban both. As both are harmful. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 04:06 There are both extreme (speaking of communism and anarchism), but that does not make them harmful by default. In many ways, given where we have come from and where we are at, my political ideology can be taken as extreme. However, since I work within the bounds of law and the systems set up by a free democracy, I am not harming anyone. I should not be banned simply for being extreme, which is exactly what this proposal would do. J.F. Sassoon — 25/04/2024 04:08 They are both threats to this nation. If the fascism resolution exists. There's no valid reason for this one not to, it is simple as really. The only "valid" reason is fellow Communists and those sympathetic trying to block it. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 04:09 Violence is the issue, not communism, not anarchism, nor fascism. I don’t care what political belief you have, as long as we are living in a free and violent-less nation. You can believe that the sky is purple and that we should all walk on our heads for all I care; as long as you are not forcing that on other people with violence, freely live your life. J.F. Sassoon — 25/04/2024 04:09 So fascism isn't an issue now? Interesting. So we should allow ALL harmful ideologies, got it. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 04:10 Are we not a free country? Is not the right of free speech protected? J.F. Sassoon — 25/04/2024 04:10 Not if it harms others or the nation, no. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 04:10 If we are so weak as a society and a government that we have to fear words alone from a few extremists, we are not much of a nation or much of a government. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 04:11 But if it does not harm others or the nation? J.F. Sassoon — 25/04/2024 04:11 Both do. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 04:12 I have hundreds of communist constituents that prove otherwise. J.F. Sassoon — 25/04/2024 04:12 They are traitors in hiding. Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 25/04/2024 04:13

Let’s stay on the bill. No need for name calling. Keep decorum. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 04:13 If you keep pushing them that way, they will have no other choice but to join the Commune. Why are you actively pushing would-be loyal citizens away? And don’t just repeat “communists are traitors”. I want actual responses. Liam Harrison [KWP] — 25/04/2024 05:36 That part is the scariest, as the KWP is just one degree of separation away from the Commune thanks to Butcher Barber. A. Jacob Sanford (NUP) — 25/04/2024 09:46 I agree that socialism, collectivization, and economic reforms are not inherently violent. It is the steps that are taken to get there. But time and time again the communists and anarchists of this nation have shown their willingness to violently oppose the government to achieve their goals. It is not just an ideological question, nor a historical question, but also a national question. A question of how long these movements, movements that tend to cause harm every time they sweep our nation, shall be tolerated. A. Jacob Sanford (NUP) — 25/04/2024 09:52 To your other point, this government is not actively trying to push citizens away. However, it is hard to put into place sweeping reforms in the midst of an all-out war! This applies especially to some demanding peace with a terrorist nation who wants nothing more than to uproot our society and economy to establish a communist dictatorship. Our people are resilient, our people are patient. These few and far between that are pushing sweeping reforms know EXACTLY what they are doing: taking advantage of one of the most trying moments in Kodiak history for personal gain and notoriety. Considering our situation, what consideration should we give to these demands? None at all, I say. Let us claim victory in this war first, then we can focus on reform, lest it be destroyed before we can do so. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 09:53 Or we make the reform now and try and end peacefully Alexander Paramount (NUP) — 25/04/2024 09:54 That doesn’t even work anymore, the Commune has shot down our attempts at negotiation so many goddamn time that trying to reform and end “peacefully” is no longer working A. Jacob Sanford (NUP) — 25/04/2024 09:54 You would rather capitulation to a hostile government than wait a few months for reform? Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 09:54 no, thats not what I said or ment A. Jacob Sanford (NUP) — 25/04/2024 09:54 "Ending peacefully" is capitulation Especially when we have the upper hand Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 09:55 By definition, it literally is not. A. Jacob Sanford (NUP) — 25/04/2024 09:55 I am not reading out of the dictionary, Mr. Kyros; but to negotiate with the commune is to capitulate to their demands Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 09:55 You make reform that the whole commune was complaining about before this crisis. Then slowly people will realise that life is getting better and the movement will get smaller People want wage increases and fair labor treatment. People don't want to be treated like slaves Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 09:57 The steps that are taken to get to socialism, collectivization, and econmic reforms are not inherently violent either, unless you would style Mr. Welch's attempt at economic reform in the way of legislation violent. The idea that socialism and communism can only be achieved by violence is a strictly reactionary system of thought. To say that it is impossible to reform the economy or promote socialism except by explicit violence is to exclude the very real possibility of doing so peacefully. We no longer allow the treatment of the working class like serfs; that is reform, legislated by this body, without the need for violence. To say "you can only achieve your goals by violence" ensures that any attempt to reform will be through violence. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 09:57 We can build a society where we have low taxes and high wages and people will be able to live there lives in peace María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 09:58 It doesn't work like that A. Jacob Sanford (NUP) — 25/04/2024 09:59 I never suggested they could not be acheived by violence. The KWP was originally (and maybe still is?) a peaceful socialist party that (maybe used to be) focused on worker reform. But the communists of our nation seem to believe in the notion that violence is the only way to acheive their goals, when they have people legislating for them in the assembly. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 09:59 If we were talking about how to reform the government and the nation in such a way as to prevent the Commune, I might agree with you. This act, however, does not say "let's wait to reform later". This act says "you, anyone who we deem to be communist, cannot legally participate or expect to be given your basic rights as citizens." María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 09:59 They've conspired, killed and gave their will for the Commune. They've crossed a line that they cannot come back from and act like nothing ever happened. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 09:59 Not every person is the same. People can be reformed Stop treating them like there animals Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 10:00 "I agree that socialism, collectivization, and economic reforms are not inherently violent. It is the steps that are taken to get there" implies that socialism, collectivization, and economic reforms are inherently violent. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 10:00 They wouldn't accept to surrender just because of some mild reform, they want a revolution. They're the most extreme of the leftist movements in Kodiak I'm not treating them like animals, I say we don't act as naive kids thinking things can be solved just as easy. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 10:01 The answer isn't killing them all Ms. Cortes María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 10:01 Did I say we should kill them all though? A. Jacob Sanford (NUP) — 25/04/2024 10:02 They have chosen to separate from our country and go to war with our government. I do not think they are animals, but they certainly seem to think we are, despite us having some of the most advanced workers protections bill in the URA. These people are not serfs. They are treated as fairly as the other citizens of our nation. They are political extremists who think violence is the best option, despite a fair and thorough electoral process to represent them. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 10:02 I said they're not gonna give themselves to us because of some work reforms. A. Jacob Sanford (NUP) — 25/04/2024 10:02 If they wanted communists in the government, they should have voted them in. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 10:02 We must make the reforms now and understand the orgeins of the commune and correct the problems in our society in order to make our country better María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 10:02 And they've committed and participated in too many crimes to go unpunished if they ever come to us Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 10:02 Madam, let us clear something up so you can stop spouting this nonesense.

No one is arguing that we should be concerned about the rights of the Commune traitors. Stop trying to make that an argument. It is not what we are arguing. By definition, this bill cannot be enforced or applied in Commune territory. We are talking about citizens, actual, loyal citizens within the republic. Being communist is not inherent support for the Commune, nor is it an indication of disloyalty by association. We, I, am tired of hearing this trope that is unhelpful for everyone, including yourself. A. Jacob Sanford (NUP) — 25/04/2024 10:03 I think they first must understand that violence is not the option they need to resort to. They are welcome to run for office, be elected, enact reforms. They just disagree with the simple principals of democracy. They are traitors to our free and fair system, not betrayed by it. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 10:03 We cannot have an informed and logical debate about the best course of action if all we hear from one side of the argument is whataboutisms and deflections. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 10:05 This is why I wrote 3 bills today A. Jacob Sanford (NUP) — 25/04/2024 10:05 I do not attempt to deflect. You cry "they only want reform" but decline to say what specifically they wish for, the same as they did before they broke away and declared full scale war. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 10:05 We must at lease listen to the other side in order to understand the problem and make changes Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 10:05 This I agree with. The Commune has chosen the way of violence, which is not the right way. They should have, as I suggested to them, arrive at their goals through the peaceful means we all love and defend. But this act only strengthens their case: "we are not seen as citizens, we are not heard, we have been silenced." A. Jacob Sanford (NUP) — 25/04/2024 10:06 They are not heard anymore because they have chosen their path of violence. They cannot make a u-turn now (and they do not wish to). What should we do but fight? Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 10:06 No, you do not attempt to deflect. It is a breath of fresh air to see a member of the government actually respond to what I have to say rather than shout about something entirely irrelevant. This moment is a thanks for that. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 10:07 Fight, yes. Ensure that anyone who happens to share their ideology shall share their fate? No. This act does not say "no, you chose wrong, you have a voice", as we should be saying. It says "you're right, you don't get a voice" María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 10:08 No one is arguing that we should be concerned about the rights of the Commune traitors. Mr. Fala certainly is arguing for that.

By definition, this bill cannot be enforced or applied in Commune territory. We are talking about citizens, actual, loyal citizens within the republic. Being communist is not inherent support for the Commune, nor is it an indication of disloyalty by association. As mentioned many times over, the VIOLENT communist organizations, groups and parties is what would be not aproved by the government if this were to pass. It would stop instigators, not strikers. It would stop terrorists, not politicians. But if you so insist that the clear line between a violent and peaceful organization is too thin for communists, then perhaps you shouldn't be too protective of them if you still consider yourself loyal to this nation.

Nobody that loves and support our nation would be threatened by this, only the traitors and murderers. Even the most loyal communist can still see the difference I'm making. A. Jacob Sanford (NUP) — 25/04/2024 10:09 With this bill, we ensure that all communists know that the consequences for their brothers' bloody actions are severe. If we do not do such a thing, we may fight violent, weaponized communism for the rest of our tenures, and our children may too. This is not merely a response to a situation of the moment, but a measure of preservation. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 10:10 Then the bill should say that. It doesn't, it simply defines communism as violent outright. This bill does not state "violent communism is bad", it states "communism is violent". Those are to very different things. A. Jacob Sanford (NUP) — 25/04/2024 10:11 ((OOC) I have to take exit from this debate as something came up but thank you for hearing my points) Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 10:13 This bill does no such thing. This bill specifically targets people's personal beliefs and says "you are not legitimate because you believe in this ideal". This is not saying "here are the consequences", it is saying "you don't get to have rights anymore". A bill that would accomplish what you have described would say "those who rise up in rebellion against our nation will be given xyz punishment". This bill says "some people who claim communism did bad things and so now everyone who is communist shall be punished". This would be like saying, "some Christian religious fanatics lynched a gay man, so now all Christians no longer get to be recognized". Using a nuke to kill an ant, flattening a city in the process. Eðward Staples 🧀 (Mengtian) — 25/04/2024 11:12 The proceedings here, in the formation of a resolution are not legal. Not illegal, simply non-legal, A law is not being considered here, but a resolution. At risk of sounding overly simplistic, a resolution is a statement of resolve, a temporary mission statement or point of clarity and perspective held by the debating body. Like all resolutions, it will speak the mind of the group for a Time and will eventually fall out of date. For that reason, i, personally, I'm not crazy about legislatures passing resolutions, as it's difficult to resolve anything terribly specific from a multi-partisan body. And, as the head of the judicial branch, a resolution is entirely irrelevant to what I am responsible for dealing with. That's why I just kind of ignored the resolution against fascism a while back, but also why I'm expressing reticence now that this even more specific at incendiary one has been put forth. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 11:14 I just find the ability for a body to say "we restrict this ideology... without making it a law" distasteful. It just feels like it opens the door to, abuse. Which, as this bill is, is just asking for abuse. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 25/04/2024 11:15 Strictly, even if this were true, that a bill may be abused is not in and of itself evidence the bill is illega its up to individuals accountable to be held responsible for their behaviour and the bill in and of itself does not make that behaviour legal Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 11:16 No, but that then brings up the question: what does the bill do anyway. Why are we wasting time on saying something of no legal or actual consequence when something of legal and actual consequence (the war) is so pressing? I get the whole "the Assembly is saying something", but, setting aside whatever it is that is supposed to mean, it doesn't really say much of anything beyond "we theoretically oppose this ideology" Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 11:24 Even then, this resolution does not, as the Chief Justice just menionted, carry the weight of law. Therefore, individuals, even those accountable, cannot be held responsible to any provisions within this bill. It does and says... nothing. With that in mind, I move to dismiss this bill from the floor and get back to the business of the Assembly: running the government, not taking theoretical ideological stances without actually acting on them. Liam Harrison [KWP] — 25/04/2024 11:43 I second the motion. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 11:47 This shall be put to vote, wether you like it or not. Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 25/04/2024 11:47

We motioning to vote? @María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 11:49 Yes. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 11:50 objection I'm afraid not all conserns have been adressed to go to vote early María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 11:53 Do you have any concerns, then? Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 11:53 The Definition of Communism needs to be changed to the correct definition Thats for one María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 11:55 The definition of an ideology won't ever be convincing for everyone, especially for such extreme ideologies. I don't believe it needs a change, it would just be a waste of time and it wouldn't change the fact some may be dissatisfied with it. Any other concerns? Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 11:57 Communism doesn't mean 1 party rule, I can tell you that It really advocates for the government to go away eventally The definition has just been clouded overtime to have authoritarian elements. Which Authoritarian elements exist on the left and the right Remember, politics is defined on not a line but a square You could be Authoriarian and on the right and beleive in 1 party rule as well Communism doesn't fit in that definition María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 11:59 In practice, all self-proclaimed communist systems didn't. As of now, the communist enemy we're facing, the Kodiak Commune, also doesn't. If you wanna complain about the definition, you're not the first one, and I've already answered to that, so stop blocking the procedure and let's end this. I'm not here for a philosophical debate about ideologies, I'm here to do my job. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 11:59 Also, on 3.

PROHIBITS political parties and political organizations founded for the advancement of communism and/or anarchism; Thats a law This is a law that is being proposed María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 12:00 I say you read the Chief Justice's statement. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 12:00 But it says prohibits meaning to keep from María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 12:01 This section was also included in the Resolution against Fascism María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 12:01 I say you read the Chief Justice's statement. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 12:01 We are motioning to dismiss the bill, as has been motioned and seconded. How that plays out is up to you. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 12:03 Remove 3. then we can go to vote I will support this bill, but remove 3 or I won't vote for it María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 12:04 ((Is it even possible that two people can just choose to dismiss a whole bill because they feel like it, even if the one who published it doesn't want to? it sounds absurd)) Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 12:04 I don't think a government can tell politcal parties what it can support and what it can not support Its up to the politcal party to decide. We are only an orgization of people who agree on shared ideas María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 12:05 I will change it, not remove it, since this is a resolution, not a law, and there probably won't be much of a change with different wording. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 12:06 Thank you, but it better not have any wording about what a political party can support and what it can not otherwise, I would support the bill thank you María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 12:07 Done shall we move to vote now? Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 12:08 So now the wording is Denounce Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 12:08 ((We can motion to put it to a vote to remove the bill from the floor, yes. A vote would presumably need to occur, but the President basically has free reign to do whatever.)) Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 12:08 But I would say Discourage María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 12:08 Image Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 12:08 I still have serious issues with the government making any sort of statement concerning an ideology. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 12:09 ((also)) Image Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 12:09 Any ideology, not just communism. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 12:10 (( @Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) fine with these changes?)) ((i really wanna go to sleep)) Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 12:12 I would also change the definition of communism and add authoritarianism and describe that as 1 party rule like you described communism earlier María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 12:12 one-party rule aready means authoritarianism Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 12:12 Use the correct definitions ((Not nessisarly, because Singapore is a 1 party state but it isn't authroitarian)) María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 12:14 ((is there really a "singapore" of some sort here to just have to change that...)) Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 12:16 ((You get the point. You can find counties all over the spectrum. You never have anything fit completely into 1 thing or another)) Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 25/04/2024 15:40

Ok give me a moment. ((It’s currently 12:40)) Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 25/04/2024 23:30

@Assembly Member once I get a moment soon, I’ll be posting vote for the bill to be tabled. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 25/04/2024 23:30 why vote for it to be removed. Why not just have a real vote and if it fails, its gone J.F. Sassoon — 25/04/2024 23:30 I motion to vote. J.F. Sassoon — 25/04/2024 23:30 I object. And I motion that we vote on this bill. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 23:33 It was motioned to table the bill first and seconded, we deal with that first then we do an actual vote Mr President R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 25/04/2024 23:34 Its simply an uncommon procedure that does nothing except pervert the course of the bill. There is no reason to "un-queue" the bill. It doesn't remove it from existence. The bill should be voted on properly María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 23:36 Indeed, it does nothing more than waste time, more people would wish to vote. Tobias Virstürm (DPPK) — 26/04/2024 00:27 To clarify, the NUP may continue to motion, however as written in the SRPGA the president must motion to vote on the resolution (sec.3.4). There was no automatic voting date set at the beginning of this proposal which means section 3.4.2 does not come into effect. Additionally, the motion to vote was never specified for date (generally assuming that the vote would be moved closer) however at the presidents discretion he can move the vote date out further. So while I don’t want to get into the weeds the president does have the power to keep this bill in queue or tabled. ((Technically just has to wait as long as no one discusses the bill for 72hours and shelves it at discretion sec.3.7.2.1)) R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 26/04/2024 00:33 ((this is so confusing living in a nation where "table" means "bring up for debate" and not "remove from debate")) Tobias Virstürm (DPPK) — 26/04/2024 00:34 ((Yeah it’s a bit backwards the correct term would be shelved)) Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 26/04/2024 00:34

Hold on, I am about to answer all the wonders R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 26/04/2024 00:35 ((motion to bin)) Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 26/04/2024 00:38 ((I motion to throw it out the window)) Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 26/04/2024 00:41

@Assembly Member After reviewing the procedures on the General Assembly, there is not a current procedure of this body that allows for a vote to "table" or remove from the queue until further notice. As much I would love to table this terribly written resolution even with good attentions, I can not allow for a vote to table if there is no procedure that allows to do so. so I reject Representative Kryos's motion to table, debate will continue. thank you. I set for voting to begin tomorrow ((April 26th)) unless there is a motion to vote now. J.F. Sassoon — 26/04/2024 00:43 I object to removing it. Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 26/04/2024 00:43

sigh Tobias Virstürm (DPPK) — 26/04/2024 00:44 @Jack Williams (DPPK) you can’t remove it, but nothing is stopping you from allowing the vote but moving the date to December 22 J.F. Sassoon — 26/04/2024 00:44 I motion that we vote on it properly instead of these childish and treacherous communists perverting God's justice. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 26/04/2024 00:44 ((Williams confirmed commie)) Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 26/04/2024 00:44 OBJECTION. This motion will stay in debate Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 26/04/2024 00:45

((I was rejecting the motion to table, not to vote.)) Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 26/04/2024 00:45

Was there a motion to vote or motion to table. I am confused at this moment Braughn F. G. Kryos — 26/04/2024 00:45 ((I motion to defenestrate)) J.F. Sassoon — 26/04/2024 00:46 ((I motion to motion the motion to motion)) Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 26/04/2024 00:46 screw your god R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 26/04/2024 00:46 just push the vote and if the assembly truly doesn't like it, it will be voted down in 72 hours without destroying the credibility of the President Braughn F. G. Kryos — 26/04/2024 00:46 The President literally just said we won’t be removing it. Clean out your ears, sir. J.F. Sassoon — 26/04/2024 00:47 Another communist, I see. Tobias Virstürm (DPPK) — 26/04/2024 00:47 Technically speaking the GA members can motion but you are the authority which decides the date of the vote, which means you can set it for 2025 if you’d like. ((I failed to write this as I didn’t plan for something like this, but also technically the president has to make the motion to vote not members of the GA)) Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 26/04/2024 00:48 I motion to delay this vote pending to the declaration to the end of the Civil war! J.F. Sassoon — 26/04/2024 00:48 I object. As this motion is frankly insane. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 26/04/2024 00:48 That we have to debate ways to technically do anything demonstrates that the President and his party seeks to pervert the course of democratic accountability Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 26/04/2024 00:48 nope, just one less bigot. Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 26/04/2024 00:49

lets keep decorum please R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 26/04/2024 00:49 the President should simply bring the vote as per usual and be done with it Tobias Virstürm (DPPK) — 26/04/2024 00:49 I’m just allowing the president to make decisions within his power. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 26/04/2024 00:49 let the house decide, no one man Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 26/04/2024 00:49

that is simply untrue Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 26/04/2024 00:49 trust me, I'm keeping it very toned down. Tobias Virstürm (DPPK) — 26/04/2024 00:51 The technicality falls to the members of the GA not the president in this matter. Ergo, you can motion, doesn’t mean it’s lawful to go to vote R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 26/04/2024 00:51 Of course its lawful, its superseded the minimum debate time María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 26/04/2024 00:52 ((I say because you would like to table it)) R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 26/04/2024 00:52 lets stop using the word table please, it hurts my head please use shelve 😦 Braughn F. G. Kryos — 26/04/2024 00:52 The President has been given the confidence of the Assembly to coordinate and order the operations. That is what the constitution says. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 26/04/2024 00:52 yes, but the assembly cannot grant him moral authority - and it is wrong to use his position to delay a vote simply because he is afraid of the result Braughn F. G. Kryos — 26/04/2024 00:53 No, but he may delay the result for any reason he deems just. If he believes that further debate is necessary, then we will debate further. Tobias Virstürm (DPPK) — 26/04/2024 00:53 The SRPGA mentions that assembly members can motion, but doesn’t necessarily mean they are allowed to motion for votes. ((Again that wasn’t planned for in the standing rules, I think it only mentions the president)) R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 26/04/2024 00:54 the standing rules are not laws, they're simply the guidelines for the President. Tobias Virstürm (DPPK) — 26/04/2024 00:54 True, I concede that R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 26/04/2024 00:55 its good to have you with us again Mr Virsturm Braughn F. G. Kryos — 26/04/2024 00:56 Which, again, leaves it up to the President to decide what does and doesn’t happen. Either way, if it helps, I recind my motion to shelve, and will not oppose a motion to vote. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 26/04/2024 00:56 You don't get to choose over the Assembly R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 26/04/2024 00:56 Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 26/04/2024 00:57 True, but considering the amount of action and debate on this bill, it isn't ready to be voted on yet Let's not be to hasty Its the president's decision Tobias Virstürm (DPPK) — 26/04/2024 01:00 Good to be back ((lots of catching up to do)) María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 26/04/2024 01:02 Then why keep up the debating phase when only a member wishes to do so, and I've already answered said concerns he has? Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 26/04/2024 01:03

Has there been amendments like Fala asked for? Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 26/04/2024 01:04 There was 1 but the definition of communism hasn't changed María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 26/04/2024 01:05 Indeed, because it's not needed Tobias Virstürm (DPPK) — 26/04/2024 01:05 I motion to amend Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 26/04/2024 01:06

I feel there is a need for further debate. I move for the debate on this legislation to be moved to May 7th. @Assembly Member Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 26/04/2024 01:06 Thank you Mr President J.F. Sassoon — 26/04/2024 01:07 I object. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 26/04/2024 01:08 Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 26/04/2024 01:09 The Republican tommorrow be like: Chaos in the assembly on Communist Resolution Braughn F. G. Kryos — 26/04/2024 01:33 I second this motion, Mr. President. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 26/04/2024 01:37 Ammend what? Braughn F. G. Kryos — 26/04/2024 02:42 The definition of “communism”, which is not in any way accurate. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 26/04/2024 02:54 Definitions of an ideology are subjective and changes depending on the person's views, can we stop arguing over this and put the resolution to vote. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 26/04/2024 03:21 This, however, is not a definition that any respectable dictionary could contain. This is a piece of libel based on fear rather than reality. It should not be included. It would be like me defining capitalism as “the violent system of cut-throat greed that works only to suppress and abuse the working class”. I might believe that capitalism does all of those things, but to submit it as a definition is not only intellectually dishonest, it intentionally alienates those who may believe in capitalism. Though, I suppose the whole purpose of giving communism a scary definition is to justify the piece of legislation in the first place. To actually accurately define communism would disarm this hit piece of its necessity. Tobias Virstürm (DPPK) — 26/04/2024 04:35 Also seems strange to want to push a subjective viewpoint. Especially when the definition can be objective. The resolution should focus on authoritarianism/totalitarianism which is addressed already in the Resolution against Fascist Ideologies, 634 Tobias Virstürm (DPPK) — 26/04/2024 04:43 If anything, the resolution should attempt to reflect that all forms of totalitarianism and authoritarianism are condemned rather than the economic principle that it’s supposedly governed by. Much like Mr. Kyros said, this seems more like a scare tactic than a resolution with any weight. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 26/04/2024 04:52 I agree with Virsturm. Communism is an economic theory and not really broad where in the case of totalitarianism and Authoritarianism, they can come in a lot of forms on the left and right. This bill should really target that in order to protect our democracy and our values A. Jacob Sanford (NUP) — 26/04/2024 11:08 @Assembly President I second the objection. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 26/04/2024 11:15 I third the objection. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 26/04/2024 11:52 Object to what? The motion the Chancellor was objecting to was dismissed by the president already. Liam Harrison [KWP] — 26/04/2024 12:36 Is the Chancellor objecting to voting on this resolution? Interesting. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 26/04/2024 12:38 no its literally right here Image Liam Harrison [KWP] — 26/04/2024 12:40 Apologies, I failed to fully read the President's most recent motion. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 27/04/2024 00:36 Will the President be answering the motion to amend made my myself and Mr. Vistürm? Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 27/04/2024 01:10

Point it out ((Sorry just now in the office)) Braughn F. G. Kryos — 27/04/2024 01:11 This one Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 27/04/2024 01:11

@Tobias Virstürm (DPPK) what are we amending on this resolution? Ecky B. Ryland [KWP] — 28/04/2024 02:51 Indeed, this bill seems more like an attack on free speech than a resolution to protect the people. Unless it undergoes extensive amendments to include all forms of authoritarianism, I will reject it. The debate has largely been focused on communism, but this resolution also targets anarchism. Anarchists are a very small minority and, as I already said, many are anti-violence. The definition is also wrong. The true definition is "a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups". There's no mention of violence here unlike the definition in the resolution. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 28/04/2024 02:54 Both can peacefully exist. Both can violently exist. This can be said for almost any form of governance. Governance, in some sense, requires violence and power. However, since we are trying to define violence as something where guns and explosives and deaths are involved, I believe that communism and anarchism should not be exclusively targeted or even defined as ideologies that involve such an act. A more appropriate resolution would be "Resolution Against Ideological Violence" J.F. Sassoon — 02/05/2024 23:40 I motion to vote Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 02/05/2024 23:42

I also object Mr. chancellor, this still needs debate. And since I believe it does, the voting is moved another two weeks down the road! J.F. Sassoon — 02/05/2024 23:42 I object. This has been debated enough, stop stalling to help your filthy Commie friends. Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 02/05/2024 23:43

That’s unfortunate María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 03/05/2024 01:17 I also object, there's been no debate for some time, and no useful debate that was involving the contents of the bill even longer. Mr. Williams, if all you wish to do as the President of the Assembly is to block the process of it, I believe you're not suited for such a position. It is a despicable act that in the middle of such an important conflict, instead of letting the Assembly decide on such matters, you decide to stop the legal procedures enshrined as the basis of our nation's democracy. A shameful act that I do not believe can be properly absolved by the people unless you yourself step down. If you don't after such actions you've taken, you're nothing more than a authoritarian bureaucrat in the side of the enemies of the Republic! Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/05/2024 02:45 Hypocritical that you speak of democracy while actively supporting a bill that would remove democratic freedoms of association and representation. Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 03/05/2024 05:15 what further debate is there to be had, Mr. Chancellor? Nobody is going to be moved one way or the other on this resolution. A vote is the only step left Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 03/05/2024 05:16

((Oh no he’s awake)) Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 03/05/2024 05:19 jazz hands María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 03/05/2024 05:57 ((go on, put to vote damn it)) J.F. Sassoon — 03/05/2024 20:37 Prohibition on Communists, whilst comprehensible given the state of the Government at the time of this resolutions introduction, will not necessarily do any good nor will it do harm. Outlawing something does not immediately get rid of it, look at Methylenedioxymethamphetamine as an example; this drug is illegal, yet one could still access it if he knew where to go. Now, of course, we have banned ideologies before - fascism - and done so with success, to my knowledge, meaning that it is entirely possible. However, this was done out of a moral necessity, fascism is a scourge upon all mankind. Communism, which I believe to be harmful, albeit not as destructive as fascism, could be equally banned.

However, I return to what I initially said, what will this do to actually hinder the commune? After all, these are traitors, do we expect them to listen to legislation? Of course not! What needs to be done, and what I shall express once the War Time Service Bill comes forth, is more dedication and manpower on the front lines - evidently lacking at present, especially during my own service. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/05/2024 20:47 I will point out that this law does not outlaw anything; it is merely an ideological statement. Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 03/05/2024 21:43 this resolution does nothing to hinder the Commune and it lowers our republic and the ideals that it is meant to stand for. All citizens have a right to practice the politics and regious beliefs that they so wish, as long as it is done peacefully. To target many who do so in order to score nothing more than an ideological win against those who don't, debases us as a people.

It is an insult to those who came before us, and it will be a shameful stain on those who come after us. We as a people are meant to be better than this. We as a people must be better than this. Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 03/05/2024 23:51

@Assembly Member someone motion, someone second. J.F. Sassoon — 03/05/2024 23:52 I'll motion to vote. Alexander Paramount (NUP) — 03/05/2024 23:52 I second this María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:52 I third this. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:52 I fourth the motion Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 03/05/2024 23:52

Terrible resolution is ready for a vote R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:53 The moderator of the chambre, ladies and gentlemen María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:54 More leftist than centrist I'd say. It's a shame. EasyPoll APP

— 03/05/2024 23:54

Question Does the Assembly approve of the following resolution?

Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain

Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓░░░░░░ [14 • 41%] 🇧 ▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░ [19 • 56%] 🇨 ░░░░░░░░░░ [1 • 3%] 34 users voted

Settings

alarm_clock: Poll already ended (10 hours ago)

spy: Anonymous Poll

one: allowed choice

lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: b3d94f17 Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 04/05/2024 00:09

@Assembly Member the time to vote is here. Please vote within the next 3 days The Public Service — Today at 09:56 @Assembly Member This resolution has not been approved by the General Assembly, and is defeated. It shall be placed into the Legislative Archive shortly.