• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

[W:233]Live updates from Georgia

jakiejakester said:
Now that Georgia has turned Blue can Texas be far behind? 2024?
Click to expand...
It might take longer than that.

Keep in mind that one reason why Georgia turned "Blue" is because of tireless work by activists like Stacey Abrams. It takes a lot of work to overcome the built-in anti-democratic measures installed during decades of Republican control of a state.
 
That is a good point. As I stated in my post I have reservations, but I look at it from the standpoint that many would die, many would face bankruptcy during the time
needed to punish those republicans, if that day ever arrived. Remember many, in both parties, who have insurance paid for by employers do not consider insurance for others a high priority. Also keeping in mind those with preexisting conditions who could not get insurance, or if available, would be unaffordable.
 
Blue Donkey said:
You can just copy the webpage link and hope everyone has enough brain cells to figure it out.
Click to expand...
Not really a good way though, as it's a 'live-update' type thread - and it moves super fast. My audience would need me to supply the timestamp, and then they'd have to search back through the thread. There's already maybe 50 updates today, alone!
 
I very much agree, here.
CaughtInThe said:
Click to expand...

And I forget to add,

Record Dem Turnout

Dem Unity, Like Never Seen Before
 

Believe me, it gives me little satisfaction to know that my interlocutor knows little of which he speaks when it comes to the California Water Project.
 
And I respect those state's wishes.

For those that dont like their status in DC...dont live there. If it's just about representation, oh well. Otherwise they certainly seem to enjoy the same protections as other Americans.

Obviously I am not invested in this issue so there's no need for you to take more of your time to inform me. Thank you tho.
 
It appears that Ossoff had been declared the winner over Perdue and what is being shown in the numbers below, Ossoff has beaten Perdue by more than .5% negating any recount. I must admit that I was under the understanding from earlier this morning that approximately 130,000 ballots cast overseas and approximately 50,000 ballots within the state of Georgia were still needing to be counted. I'm slightly confused about calling it with 98% reporting so far. However, I still wish to congratulate Ossoff.



Ossoff scores victory over Perdue in Senate runoff - POLITICO
Ossoff, an investigative journalist and former congressional candidate, had 50.3 percent of the vote to Perdue’s 49.7 percent when The Associated Press called the race on Wednesday, with 98 percent of precincts reporting.
 
ouch said:
Ossoff, an investigative journalist and former congressional candidate, had 50.3 percent of the vote to Perdue’s 49.7 percent when The Associated Press called the race on Wednesday, with 98 percent of precincts reporting.
Click to expand...

AT 4:30 both candidates had between 50 and 51 percent with nearly all ballots counted. I can't remember the numbers after the decimals. Of course David Perdue will challenge the results.
 
jpn said:
I'd say you're overthinking it. The two independent senators caucus with the Dems. For staffing committees, they count as Dems. They sit in the Dem seats on the committees, right?

Just watch. You'll see.
Click to expand...

The question exists inherently of a balanced power sharing agreement in respect of the committees.

Committees.

It begins with the question. It ends with the answer. It doesn't drop in from the sky as a fait accompli.

The inherent question might be dismissed by a common agreement by all senators or it might be addressed in specific terms, as occurred in 2001 when the Senate divided exactly as 50-50 and as reported in the link I quote herein.

The inherent question pertains to the total number of members of each committee. Central to the question is the ratio of D : R members of each committee. The inherent question is whether chairpersons of committees need to include members of each party. That is, some committees have an R chairperson while other committees have a D chairperson. And if so, which committees specifically and in particular.

Or, alternatively and because the vp and president of the Senate shall be the D Kamala Harris, the president of the Senate may vote with the D party rules package and against the R party rules package that would give all power to the D party concerning committee chairpersons. If two differing rules packages might be offered, one by each party, which we don't know yet might occur, or not occur.

Yet because it is math, the number of members of each committee will be equal based on the equal number of members of each party in the body itself. Unless of course D party rules adopted allow for more D members of this committee while allowing for more R members of that committee....and so on. This, while possible, is unlikely to occur however.


Sens. Daschle, left, and Lott announce the power-sharing agreement

January 5, 2001

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The full Senate agreed Friday to a blueprint for floor and committee procedures intended to even the chamber's partisan playing field, which is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. The chamber's committees will now be split evenly among Democrats and Republicans -- both parties occupy 50 seats in Congress' upper chamber -- with Republicans retaining the chairmanships, but staffing and resources evenly divided.

A number of concessions needed to be made by both parties during the lengthy negotiations, members said Friday, and every possible legislative and procedural eventuality had to be considered. Among those: In the case of a tie vote in a committee, the Senate majority leader can bring the measure to the Senate floor for a full vote. This includes tie votes on any Bush Administration official up for confirmation. In the case of a tie vote on a subcommittee, the issue will be sent to the full committee. The agreement was greeted on the floor of the Senate with a level of praise and comity that belied the long, tough negotiations that brought it about.



In 2001 Bush's Dick Cheney was elected vp and ex officio president of the Senate so he would have cast the tiebreaking vote had there been a dispute between a package of D rules and a package of R rules, which there wasn't, as a mutually agreed set of Senate rules was adopted quickly on a voice vote.

So ignorance of or a summary dismissal of what the first question is and that there is a first and fundamental question that gets answered does not dismiss the fact the question exists as does its answer to include the processes that occur in between 'em.
 

The point is well taken yet it also means these myriad redneck and uniquely American 21st century fascists will act locally, to include in the states. These barbarians have become embedded in the society as a whole and in the culture; and so is Trump who is not going away either.

This point is being made that they are like the FARQ in Columbia, the Basque separatists in Spain among other rejectionist publics in various troubled states. Yet the American redneck fascists are cultists and ideological to include religion rather than essentially ethnic and sub regional who are also driven by deeply historical grievances real or imagined.

Above all they reject democracy which they detest because they can't ever prevail in a democracy.
 
Tangmo said:
The question exists inherently of a balanced power sharing agreement in respect of the committees.
Click to expand...
Uh-huh. Like I said, you're overthinking it. The Senate Democrats have the power. So they can do whatever they want. The equal sharing of committees, etc. is not found in the Constitution, nor in the law.
Senate rules are set at the beginning of each Congress. Dem's have the most votes. That's what the rules for this Congress will reflect.

The 2001 agreement was reached at a very different time, and after a presidential election in which the majority vote-getter lost in the electoral college after a strictly partisan and highly dubious Supreme Court ruling. It was reached before the Republicans employed pure power politics to steal a SC seat while jamming Federalist-approved lower court appointments through regardless of their actual qualifications.

So I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a similar power-sharing agreement this time. If the Dem's do choose to share some power, it will be in the interest of bipartisanship of a kind Republicans have trashed for a decade and more.
 

Your first line is predictable while I'm being descriptive rather than predictive or prescriptive.

I'm pointing out the factors that you either don't know, don't recognize or dismiss, or deny as you gloss over the details and specifics in respect of committee membership ratio by party.

I'm saying what they do and that we would do well ourselves not to expect or anticipate the same thing twice, especially because in 2001 Bush's Dick Cheney was vp and this time Biden's choice Harris is the people's vp.

Perhaps the strongest common theme to 2001 and 2021 is that Republicans who had control of the Senate each time lost it both times to a flat out 50-50 standoff that came down to the vp as president ex officio of the Senate as a body in their chamber. And that committees had a 50-50 ratio of D : R in 2001 to reflect the whole body party division which is consistent with how the ratio is set for committee membership by party predicated on the Senate membership by party.

In other words if the Senate is divided by party at 52-48 then that will be the membership ratio by party on most committees, as per. The normal rule for both parties as a further for instance is that the Rules Committee has a small select number of total membership while the Appropriations Committee has a swarm of hungry members who dole out the big bucks in huge dollops. That is, there are consistent exceptions to the ratio rule that is the norm.
 

I think the Merrick Garland / Amy Comey Barrett situation will influence the calculus this time around. Republicans added Barrett to the court through pure power politics ("we're in charge so we'll do whatever we want... even the exact opposite of what we said was the right thing to do 4 years ago") so I don't see Democrats being so accommodating this time around, nor should there be an expectation that they must.

My 2 cents - the Democrats should offer 90 days of good-faith bipartisan negotiation for legislation that is in the overall interest of the country. If both sides make compromises, that's great--keep it going. If their Senate counterparts start obstructing, demonizing, publicly declaring that their only policy priority is to make Biden and Harris one-termer etc. then... give it 90 days, then do what needs to be done even if it means pulling Amy Comey Barretts on each piece of legislation.
 
I'm guessing that English isn't your native language.
 
jpn said:
I'm guessing that English isn't your native language.
Click to expand...

It is indeed plus I have the bonus of knowing how the Senate functions and operates.

How many years did you work in the Congress as professional staff?

You haven't any clue of what I'm discussing. To you it's black and white and simple with your nose pressed against the window looking in, if you might be that close which you aren't.
 
Finally, some simple, straight-forward sentences instead of that stilted uber-legalistic gibberish. I knew you could do it if you tried.
So you resort to claiming a superior resume to back your claims. How disappointing.
 
jpn said:
Finally, some simple, straight-forward sentences instead of that stilted uber-legalistic gibberish. I knew you could do it if you tried.
So you resort to claiming a superior resume to back your claims. How disappointing.
Click to expand...

My posts are my resume' that confirms you haven't any clue of what goes on in Congress on a daily basis. Your vacuous arrogance seals it.
 
Tangmo said:
My posts are my resume' that confirms you haven't any clue of what goes on in Congress on a daily basis. Your vacuous arrogance seals it.
Click to expand...
"Vacuous"? Moi? You cut me to the quick.

Oh, the pain. The pain.
 
jpn said:
"Vacuous"? Moi? You cut me to the quick.

Oh, the pain. The pain.
Click to expand...

The gentleman will suspend.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The time for voting has expired. Let the record show the ayes have it. The chaplain will now thank God.
 
Tangmo said:
The gentleman will suspend.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The time for voting has expired. Let the record show the ayes have it. The chaplain will now thank God.
Click to expand...
Point of order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.