Quote:
Originally Posted by marketsmart
the president can go to war without congress's consent..
so, i guess that throws your argument out the window about blaming the democrats...
|
when your opponent is arguing a minor technical distinction, it is often useful to recheck their own sources. and to point out that their minor distinction is minor.
such arguments depend on you accepting the technicality or declining to do the work of factchecking. in this case your opponent deliberately took true partial data and attempted to represent it as whole data, a common rhetorical trick.
Quote:
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/his...s/partydiv.htm
Note: From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans -- but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session.
|
asking them to restate the crux of their argument is also useful. often they can't, because they are trying to distract from core issues with technicalities which may or may not be relevant.
in this case the really relevant factor is how the votes turned out, not the party distrubution, which was 50/50 +/-1 during those two years.
one would have to pick characteristic pieces of legislation and look at the vote distribution. The current mandated bush tax bill increase ruckus is about a bill that passed with 58 votes at the beginning of that period - clearly some dems crossed the line, something that dems are known to do, rare for republicans.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...1&vote =00170
Quote:
Vote Number: 170 Vote Date: May 26, 2001, 11:25 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Conference Report Agreed to
Measure Number: H.R. 1836 (Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 )
Measure Title: A bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 104 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002.
Vote Counts: YEAs 58
NAYs 33
Present 2
Not Voting 7
|
it will be interesting to see what a more deadlocked congress produces this next two years.