Oh, it's just those silly Texans again.

[Animal]

i guess you could argue that since they were debating back and forth from January to June of 2009 about Al Franken, that the super majority was not over a year. but it certainly wasn't 72 calendar days.

[Reservoir Dog]

No. They didn't.

They had the House and 60 senate seats, Rick.

They had a supermajority for 72 days, Forrest.

72 working days while the Senate was in session. Which was actually over a year. It ended in February 2010.

No. The Senate was in session for a total of 191 days that year.

The Super majority ended on February 4, 2010 when Scott Brown was elected. If you think that's wrong, then tell me when it ended.

It ended when a Dem senator became incapacitated, a new senate seat was created, and Ted Kennedy died in August.

[Biker]

Fact remains, they did nothing. Not a thing when they had a golden opp to do so

[saltydog]

[saltydog]

[Animal]

It ended when a Dem senator became incapacitated, a new senate seat was created, and Ted Kennedy died in August.

wow, you are really trying too hard.


February 4, 2010: Republican Scott Brown's election to the Senate ended the Democratic super-majority. That was the seat that kennedy had when he died that wasn't filled until February 2010.

and a new senate seat wasn't created. a new senate delegate (non voting) was created for the Mariana Islands. You are simply wrong here and you should admit it.

[Reservoir Dog]

It ended when a Dem senator became incapacitated, a new senate seat was created, and Ted Kennedy died in August.

wow, you are really trying too hard.


February 4, 2010: Republican Scott Brown's election to the Senate ended the Democratic super-majority. That was the seat that kennedy had when he died that wasn't filled until February 2010.

and a new senate seat wasn't created. a new senate delegate (non voting) was created for the Mariana Islands. You are simply wrong here and you should admit it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_Uni ... s_Congress
https://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/t ... Fr8snbMLIU
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunkin ... _b_1929869
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sho ... msna200211
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/3 ... ermajority
https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/new ... 985146007/
https://kurious.io/c/obama-supermajority/
https://www.politicususa.com/2012/10/24 ... years.html

[Biker]

Rick loves dying on Mt Tedious

[Burn1dwn]

This is an article written by Malcolm Gladwell 8 years ago about school shootings. I remember reading a different version of it in one of his books. It involves nuance, so it may be ill-fitted for some of our members.

https://www.newyorker.com/ ...

Damn. Good read. The Granovetterian model is a cool way to try and quantify something that seems incalculable but school shootings definitely seem to be getting easier for the "next guy" overall.

[Animal]

It ended when a Dem senator became incapacitated, a new senate seat was created, and Ted Kennedy died in August.

wow, you are really trying too hard.


February 4, 2010: Republican Scott Brown's election to the Senate ended the Democratic super-majority. That was the seat that kennedy had when he died that wasn't filled until February 2010.

and a new senate seat wasn't created. a new senate delegate (non voting) was created for the Mariana Islands. You are simply wrong here and you should admit it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_Uni ... s_Congress
https://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/t ... Fr8snbMLIU
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunkin ... _b_1929869
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sho ... msna200211
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/3 ... ermajority
https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/new ... 985146007/
https://kurious.io/c/obama-supermajority/
https://www.politicususa.com/2012/10/24 ... years.html

there is nothing in there that disproves anything. Let's just use the first one you posted because its simple and not a one sided slant to the facts.

This is your link from above:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_Uni ... s_Congress

And these are screen shots from your link:





The argument here isn't how they wasted their use of that time, its whether the time existed in the first place. which it did.

[saltydog]

It ended when a Dem senator became incapacitated, a new senate seat was created, and Ted Kennedy died in August.

wow, you are really trying too hard.


February 4, 2010: Republican Scott Brown's election to the Senate ended the Democratic super-majority. That was the seat that kennedy had when he died that wasn't filled until February 2010.

and a new senate seat wasn't created. a new senate delegate (non voting) was created for the Mariana Islands. You are simply wrong here and you should admit it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_Uni ... s_Congress
https://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/t ... Fr8snbMLIU
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunkin ... _b_1929869
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sho ... msna200211
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/3 ... ermajority
https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/new ... 985146007/
https://kurious.io/c/obama-supermajority/
https://www.politicususa.com/2012/10/24 ... years.html

there is nothing in there that disproves anything. Let's just use the first one you posted because its simple and not a one sided slant to the facts.

This is your link from above:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_Uni ... s_Congress

And these are screen shots from your link:





The argument here isn't how they wasted their use of that time, its whether the time existed in the first place. which it did.

What a useful argument, while people continue to be killed on a daily basis.

[Biker]

[Reservoir Dog]

The argument here isn't how they wasted their use of that time, its whether the time existed in the first place. which it did.

Yes, it existed. I've already said that. (try paying attention)
The Dems didn't have a Supermajority when Obama took office. The Dems didn't have 60 seats until Franken was seated in July 2009. But even then, there were 2 Dems who were busy dying, so the Dems had 60 seats but only 58 votes. It was a Supermajority in name only.
After Kennedy died his seat was taken by Kirk so the Dems had 60 seats but only 59 votes. Again, a Supermajority in name only.
Robert Byrd died. (Dem)
The "Supermajority" was lost when Brown was seated in Jan.2010.

The Dems had a Supermajority for 72 Senate working days out of 191 days the Senate was in session. Not a year and a half. Not 2 years. 72 days.

Here's the timeline:

In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama's presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.

In April 2009, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy ailing, there were still "only" 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.

In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber down to 57.

In July 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated after a lengthy recount/legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were unavailable for votes.

In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.

In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled Kennedy's vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60, though Byrd's health continued to deteriorate.

In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk, bringing the Democratic caucus back to 59 again.

In June 2010, Byrd died, and the Democratic caucus fell to 58, where it stood until the midterms.

[saltydog]

72 days.

I'm sure that was plenty of time to orchestrate quality gun control.

[Biker]

72 days.

I'm sure that was plenty of time to orchestrate quality gun control.

If the weapons ban was so great, why did the Democrats allow it to sunset?

[Reservoir Dog]

72 days.

I'm sure that was plenty of time to orchestrate quality gun control.

If the weapons ban was so great, why did the Democrats allow it to sunset?

The Republicans blocked it.

[Biker]

72 days.

I'm sure that was plenty of time to orchestrate quality gun control.

If the weapons ban was so great, why did the Democrats allow it to sunset?

The Republicans blocked it.

Except during the first of the Obama Admin

[Biker]

72 days.

I'm sure that was plenty of time to orchestrate quality gun control.

Shit has been rushed through in much, much less time, emoSalty

[saltydog]

72 days.

I'm sure that was plenty of time to orchestrate quality gun control.

Shit has been rushed through in much, much less time, emoSalty

I'm sure it has. Do you think a re-boot of gun control laws were a priority over the Affordable Care Act?

[Biker]

72 days.

I'm sure that was plenty of time to orchestrate quality gun control.

Shit has been rushed through in much, much less time, emoSalty

I'm sure it has. Do you think a re-boot of gun control laws were a priority over the Affordable Care Act?

The ACA made me a boatload of money, so I'm not the person to ask. But there were 60 Dem senators with an army of staffers that couldve taken the framework from the 1994 act and put it in the committee in less than 48 hours. They didnt. Own it

[saltydog]

72 days.

I'm sure that was plenty of time to orchestrate quality gun control.

Shit has been rushed through in much, much less time, emoSalty

I'm sure it has. Do you think a re-boot of gun control laws were a priority over the Affordable Care Act?

The ACA made me a boatload of money, so I'm not the person to ask. But there were 60 Dem senators with an army of staffers that couldve taken the framework from the 1994 act and put it in the committee in less than 48 hours. They didnt. Own it

Own your pro massacre stance first.

[Biker]

I think the chart misses out on another key element. Guess what it is?

[Reservoir Dog]

72 days.

I'm sure that was plenty of time to orchestrate quality gun control.

If the weapons ban was so great, why did the Democrats allow it to sunset?

The Republicans blocked it.

Except during the first of the Obama Admin

The Republicans filibustered 40+ times during Obama's first year in office.

Keep trying, Forrest.

[Biker]

72 days.

I'm sure that was plenty of time to orchestrate quality gun control.

If the weapons ban was so great, why did the Democrats allow it to sunset?

The Republicans blocked it.

Except during the first of the Obama Admin

The Republicans filibustered 40+ times during Obama's first year in office.

Keep trying, Forrest.

They were filibuster proof for at least 72 days under your own admission. Keep swinging, Rick

[Reservoir Dog]

72 days.

I'm sure that was plenty of time to orchestrate quality gun control.

If the weapons ban was so great, why did the Democrats allow it to sunset?

The Republicans blocked it.

Except during the first of the Obama Admin

The Republicans filibustered 40+ times during Obama's first year in office.

Keep trying, Forrest.

They were filibuster proof for at least 72 days under your own admission. Keep swinging, Rick

The Republicans blocked the Dems attempt to extend the ban on assault weapons.
Go look it up, Forrest.

Gawd... I don't even know why I bother talking to you. You're a fucking moronic idiot.