Yang for Prez

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Let’s get clarity on this “mostly” thing first.

Also, for 6 or the years, the Republicans never had a majority in the Senate. All 8 years, the repulicans never had a filabuster proof majority. If the Republicans did not have actual control then they mostly had democrat control in my opinion. If you can not get your agenda through then you don't really have control.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Also, for 6 or the years, the Republicans never had a majority in the Senate. All 8 years, the repulicans never had a filabuster proof majority. If the Republicans did not have actual control then they mostly had democrat control in my opinion. If you can not get your agenda through then you don't really have control.

It’s called a stalemate. Gridlock. It’s not control.

Contrast 2016-18 where Rs had both houses but not filibuster proof majority. They managed to get a lot done, because they did have control.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

It’s called a stalemate. Gridlock. It’s not control.

Contrast 2016-18 where Rs had both houses but not filibuster proof majority. They managed to get a lot done, because they did have control.

The things they did get done is because they changed the rule of engagement on proceedings. Mostly on judges.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Also, for 6 or the years, the Republicans never had a majority in the Senate. All 8 years, the repulicans never had a filabuster proof majority. If the Republicans did not have actual control then they mostly had democrat control in my opinion. If you can not get your agenda through then you don't really have control.

You have it reversed - gop had majority 6 of the 8 years. And it looks like neither party has had 60 since the late 70s.

Originally Posted by pesos

You have it reversed - gop had majority 6 of the 8 years. And it looks like neither party has had 60 since the late 70s.

SENATE-
Republican Control Jan-June 2001
Democrat Control July 2001-December 2002 Republican Jefferies swapped and started to caucus with the Democrats
Republican Control Jan- 2003- Dec. 2006
Democrat Control January 2007-2008

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

If the Republicans did not have actual control then they mostly had democrat control in my opinion.

You say that a small republican majority is not “actual control” - and yet somehow a democratic minority equates to control lol. Interesting (one-sided) logic.

Originally Posted by pesos

You say that a small republican majority is not “actual control” - and yet somehow a democratic minority equates to control lol. Interesting (one-sided) logic.

Let's go with this. If you are facing an army that had the numbers and had offensive capabilities and your side was able to hold them off from going where they were trying to go. What would you say about the defenders? Would you say they controlled the situation? Lost ground? What would the narrative be? By definition the defense (minority party) is at a disadvantage. They have zero power on what gets brought up for vote. If your position not of power and you don't let the powerful get what they want, you by definition are exercising some sort of control.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Let's go with this. If you are facing an army that had the numbers and had offensive capabilities and your side was able to hold them off from going where they were trying to go. What would you say about the defenders? Would you say they controlled the situation? Lost ground? What would the narrative be? By definition the defense (minority party) is at a disadvantage. They have zero power on what gets brought up for vote. If your position not of power and you don't let the powerful get what they want, you by definition are exercising some sort of control.

I see that you edited your original reply (I assume it's because you realized the denial was absurd since your statement is still up above for anyone to read).

What you wrote was "If the Republicans did not have actual control then they mostly had democrat control in my opinion."

Anyone with half a brain can see how one-sided that is, because you are only giving this flim flam minority control business to the democrats - you aren't counting it when the republicans are in the minority and doing the obstructing.

Originally Posted by pesos

I see that you edited your original reply (I assume it's because you realized the denial was absurd since your statement is still up above for anyone to read).

What you wrote was "If the Republicans did not have actual control then they mostly had democrat control in my opinion."

Anyone with half a brain can see how one-sided that is, because you are only giving this flim flam minority control business to the democrats - you aren't counting it when the republicans are in the minority and doing the obstructing.

Actually if you read above, I included democrats. At the end of the day, you are not countering what I wrote now are you?