Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

US Immigration Policy - Travel advisory: don't go to the South if you're Hispanic/Latino

145791054

Posts

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 8
    Preacher wrote: »
    I mean Pelosi for years has had this image of a vote bender in the caucus and then with this recent fold I call bullshit. Honestly the dem congressional leadership betrayed the country and should be tossed on their ass and new leadership appointed.

    The Senate caved. The bill passed 84-8. That gives Pelosi very little leverage over the moderates in the House.

    shryke on
    MarathonFencingsax
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I mean Pelosi for years has had this image of a vote bender in the caucus and then with this recent fold I call bullshit. Honestly the dem congressional leadership betrayed the country and should be tossed on their ass and new leadership appointed.

    The Senate caved. The bill passed 84-8. That gives Pelosi very little leverage over the moderates in the House.

    I'm well past caring why dem leadership keeps failing. Tired of their horseshit excuses and their "slow down hold on slow down". This vote is emblematic of a problem in america and the gutless whining Pelosi is doing to maureen fucking dowd of all people is a good example of why she should go.

    We have people in concentration camps, we have children suffering and dying, and the dem leadership is offering fucking thoughts and prayers and all the money it can approve to the people doing the killing. That's a fucking problem for me.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    DarkPrimusElvenshaeIncenjucarXaquinMorganVPhillishereCommander ZoomYamiB.DunderShadowhopemrondeauZonugalShadowfireBloodsheedMegaMekBlackDragon480DoctorArchAridholA Dabble Of TheloniusMild ConfusionCaedwyrLadaijdarksunBullheadElldrenShortyVeagleFuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudKayne Red Robenever dieStabbity StyleEmerlmaster999FencingsaxdavidsdurionsMaclayJaysonFourTicaldfjamMaijinamurojoshofalltradesDee KaeKamarAegisHappy Little Machinedispatch.oMan in the MistsHacksawKoopahTroopahMagellMr RayNitsuaFANTOMASKristmas Kthulhu
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited July 8
    shryke wrote: »
    See my previous posts on this thread for all the things they could have done other than going on record as supporting this, by voting for it.

    I mean, isn't that what we're constantly saying we need to do to the Republicans? Get them on record, "make them own it"? Well, now there are a whole bunch of D names on that record, in the wrong column.

    It all depends what you think they are "making them own" though. Because there's a bunch of stuff in the bill for funding various things it may not look good to vote against.

    Which is the core issue here it seems. The moderates did not want to be seen creating gridlock in Congress or refusing to fund aid money for the border or the like.

    Then get out there, take control of the messaging, and make it clear that's not actually what they were being asked / allowed / forced to vote on. Make it clear "this is a shit bill to fund concentration camps and I refuse to vote for it."

    No, you won't reach the folks who only watch FOX, but they weren't going to listen to you anyway. You can reach everyone else, and IMO the counter message (per above) is not hard to frame or understand.

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    PreacherMorganVBloodsheedBlackDragon480DarkPrimusAridholElvenshaeDunderCaedwyrBullheadkimeEmerlmaster999FencingsaxJaysonFourjoshofalltradesMan in the MistsMagellNitsuaKristmas Kthulhu
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 8
    shryke wrote: »
    See my previous posts on this thread for all the things they could have done other than going on record as supporting this, by voting for it.

    I mean, isn't that what we're constantly saying we need to do to the Republicans? Get them on record, "make them own it"? Well, now there are a whole bunch of D names on that record, in the wrong column.

    It all depends what you think they are "making them own" though. Because there's a bunch of stuff in the bill for funding various things it may not look good to vote against.

    Which is the core issue here it seems. The moderates did not want to be seen creating gridlock in Congress or refusing to fund aid money for the border or the like.

    Then get out there, take control of the messaging, and make it clear that's not actually what they were being asked / allowed / forced to vote on. Make it clear "this is a shit bill to fund concentration camps and I refuse to vote for it."

    No, you won't reach the folks who only watch FOX, but they weren't going to listen to you anyway. You can reach everyone else, and IMO the counter message (per above) is not hard to frame or understand.

    That's why, if you can suppress your gag reflex enough, you should read that Dowd piece. Because it's clear that's the what Pelosi wants to talk about. That the GOP is the one running these camps and doesn't even want to allow any sort of basic funding controls to make sure that this bill improves the conditions. And given that it's really obvious how badly they've failed at defining the debate over this bill in those terms.

    But even your framing here misses what is going on because the argument was more over how to fund these concentration camps to try and make the conditions slightly more humane and add some small amount of oversight. Those were the provisions that the Senate and then the House moderates caved on when McConnell refused to include them. That's what was being voted on. And that's a lot less stark framing of the issue.

    shryke on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I mean Pelosi for years has had this image of a vote bender in the caucus and then with this recent fold I call bullshit. Honestly the dem congressional leadership betrayed the country and should be tossed on their ass and new leadership appointed.

    The Senate caved. The bill passed 84-8. That gives Pelosi very little leverage over the moderates in the House.

    I'm well past caring why dem leadership keeps failing. Tired of their horseshit excuses and their "slow down hold on slow down". This vote is emblematic of a problem in america and the gutless whining Pelosi is doing to maureen fucking dowd of all people is a good example of why she should go.

    We have people in concentration camps, we have children suffering and dying, and the dem leadership is offering fucking thoughts and prayers and all the money it can approve to the people doing the killing. That's a fucking problem for me.

    And this vote was not about that issue. This was not a vote for or against concentration camps. That vote was back in 2016 when Trump won and will only come up again for a vote in 2020. This was basically status quo or better funded concentration camps plus some other funding. Pelosi and the House tried to get provisions for funding of specific things in there, the Senate killed that. If this bill didn't pass, there's still the same concentration camps for kids going on that there were a month ago.

    Like, we can talk about the complete failure to control the narrative around the bill but fundamentally that's about all that's up for grabs here. Democrats can't solve this problem right now. Not because of lack of will but because they lost too many elections.

    SleepGnome-InterruptusJebus314
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    That still doesn’t explain why Pelosi saw fit to call out those 4 specific congresspeople for ‘using the twitters’

    If it’s Trumps fault, or the Senate’s fault, or whatever reason is being used to explain why Democratic leadership has no agency or should not be held accountable for their words and actions today, why make it a point to call out those four and painting them as immature and incompetent?

    kimeElvenshaeCaedwyrBlackDragon480jdarksunbrynhrtmnAridholEncBullheadMaijinamurojoshofalltradesMan in the Mists
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    "well, the bill will pass thanks to moderate Dems caving, but if the rest of the party takes a stand here the media narrative will just be Dems in Disarray, I guess we'll vote for this bill and hope nobody notices"

    later:

    "Speaker Pelosi, four prominent young Dems are yelling at you for voting for this bill. Are Dems in Disarray?"

    brilliant strategy, greatest speaker in our lifetime

    ACsTqqK.jpg
    IncenjucarPreacherElvenshaeCaedwyrBlackDragon480jdarksunFencingsaxAridholJaysonFourAbsoluteZeroMegaMekTicaldfjamBullheadMaijinamurojoshofalltradesA Dabble Of TheloniusKraintDarkPrimusautono-wally, erotibot300Man in the MistsBandableMagellTransporter
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 8
    Javen wrote: »
    That still doesn’t explain why Pelosi saw fit to call out those 4 specific congresspeople for ‘using the twitters’

    If it’s Trumps fault, or the Senate’s fault, or whatever reason is being used to explain why Democratic leadership has no agency or should not be held accountable for their words and actions today, why make it a point to call out those four and painting them as immature and incompetent?

    Because they are the ones getting a lot of press attention criticizing Pelosi and leadership in general for the whole bill. It's a thing that is happening in the news and she commented on it. She also said a lot of other things but, again, Democrats in Disarray is the press's favourite framing so they pulled that one quote and ran with it.

    This is all the most insider baseball of DC shit and all the people being quoted here and reporting on it are eyes glued to that kind of shit.

    shryke on
    Gnome-InterruptusFencingsax
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Honestly, those four almost never criticize Pelosi, at least publicly. Outside of this bill.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    shrykePreacherElvenshaeYamiB.ThawmusElldrenjdarksunbrynhrtmnFencingsaxAridholJaysonFourEncBullheadKamarautono-wally, erotibot300ShadowhopeMan in the MistsMagell
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    shryke wrote: »
    But even your framing here misses what is going on because the argument was more over how to fund these concentration camps to try and make the conditions slightly more humane and add some small amount of oversight. Those were the provisions that the Senate and then the House moderates caved on when McConnell refused to include them. That's what was being voted on. And that's a lot less stark framing of the issue.

    This implies that Pelosi thinks some combination of the following:

    1. The camps are inhumane because of lack of funding.
    2. The Senate will act in good faith by mandating approved spending will go towards making them more humane.
    3. If mandated by the Senate, funds will actually go towards making the camps more humane.


    I think she bungled this, but I don't think she's THAT much of a sucker.

    ElvenshaeFencingsaxautono-wally, erotibot300
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Honestly, those four almost never criticize Pelosi, at least publicly. Outside of this bill.

    Despite all the stories and twitter arguments and whatever, the new bunch of young congresspeople are very good at what they do. They control the media narrative well, they have a better grasp of the kind of people they are dealing with (both in the media and in the republican party) then the older members and they aren't stupid enough to refuse to work with the system to get shit done. As far as anything I've read they've generally had a good working relationship with Pelosi and the rest of leadership.

    Gnome-InterruptusElvenshaeFencingsaxMegaMekElldrenMan in the MistsMagell
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Doc wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    But even your framing here misses what is going on because the argument was more over how to fund these concentration camps to try and make the conditions slightly more humane and add some small amount of oversight. Those were the provisions that the Senate and then the House moderates caved on when McConnell refused to include them. That's what was being voted on. And that's a lot less stark framing of the issue.

    This implies that Pelosi thinks some combination of the following:

    1. The camps are inhumane because of lack of funding.
    2. The Senate will act in good faith by mandating approved spending will go towards making them more humane.
    3. If mandated by the Senate, funds will actually go towards making the camps more humane.


    I think she bungled this, but I don't think she's THAT much of a sucker.

    She thinks the camps are inhumane.
    She thinks more funding can help improve conditions.
    She inserted provisions into the House version of the bill to make sure new funding went towards those goals.
    This sets them up for a fight with McConnell in conference.
    That, as far as I can figure out, was the plan.

    Then the Senate Dems caved on her. (Some articles had rumours that she was pissed right the fuck off at Schumer for this.)
    And then it didn't matter what she thought because the fight was lost. Basically the entire Democratic Senate Caucus voted for the bill. That's the whole ballgame right there.

    SleepGnome-InterruptusFencingsaxLabel
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    But even your framing here misses what is going on because the argument was more over how to fund these concentration camps to try and make the conditions slightly more humane and add some small amount of oversight. Those were the provisions that the Senate and then the House moderates caved on when McConnell refused to include them. That's what was being voted on. And that's a lot less stark framing of the issue.

    This implies that Pelosi thinks some combination of the following:

    1. The camps are inhumane because of lack of funding.
    2. The Senate will act in good faith by mandating approved spending will go towards making them more humane.
    3. If mandated by the Senate, funds will actually go towards making the camps more humane.


    I think she bungled this, but I don't think she's THAT much of a sucker.

    She thinks the camps are inhumane.
    She thinks more funding can help improve conditions.
    She inserted provisions into the House version of the bill to make sure new funding went towards those goals.
    This sets them up for a fight with McConnell in conference.
    That, as far as I can figure out, was the plan.

    Then the Senate Dems caved on her. (Some articles had rumours that she was pissed right the fuck off at Schumer for this.)
    And then it didn't matter what she thought because the fight was lost. Basically the entire Democratic Senate Caucus voted for the bill. That's the whole ballgame right there.

    But after that, why vote for the bill? The only reason that I can see is to avoid splitting the party over the camps, except that that’s happened anyways.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
    Commander ZoomElvenshaeCaedwyrBlackDragon480PreacherdiscriderdavidsdurionsFencingsaxAridholJaysonFourMegaMekjoshofalltradesKamardispatch.oMan in the MistsMagell
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited July 8
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    See my previous posts on this thread for all the things they could have done other than going on record as supporting this, by voting for it.

    I mean, isn't that what we're constantly saying we need to do to the Republicans? Get them on record, "make them own it"? Well, now there are a whole bunch of D names on that record, in the wrong column.

    It all depends what you think they are "making them own" though. Because there's a bunch of stuff in the bill for funding various things it may not look good to vote against.

    Which is the core issue here it seems. The moderates did not want to be seen creating gridlock in Congress or refusing to fund aid money for the border or the like.

    Then get out there, take control of the messaging, and make it clear that's not actually what they were being asked / allowed / forced to vote on. Make it clear "this is a shit bill to fund concentration camps and I refuse to vote for it."

    No, you won't reach the folks who only watch FOX, but they weren't going to listen to you anyway. You can reach everyone else, and IMO the counter message (per above) is not hard to frame or understand.

    That's why, if you can suppress your gag reflex enough, you should read that Dowd piece. Because it's clear that's the what Pelosi wants to talk about. That the GOP is the one running these camps and doesn't even want to allow any sort of basic funding controls to make sure that this bill improves the conditions. And given that it's really obvious how badly they've failed at defining the debate over this bill in those terms.

    But even your framing here misses what is going on because the argument was more over how to fund these concentration camps to try and make the conditions slightly more humane and add some small amount of oversight. Those were the provisions that the Senate and then the House moderates caved on when McConnell refused to include them. That's what was being voted on. And that's a lot less stark framing of the issue.

    The time to do all of the above talking and justifying, to the media and the public, was before, or rather instead of, voting for the damned thing.

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    ElvenshaeYamiB.CaedwyrBloodsheedFencingsaxMorganVMan in the Mists
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    edited July 8
    It’s beyond idiotic to think that any funding from this 4.6 billion will go to making the children more comfortable.

    1. The cruelty is the point.
    2. If the funding was gonna be used to protect the kids, then why write that out of the bill?
    3. The cruelty is the point!

    They caved on changing the language in a promise from Mike Pence. If a Trump promise is worth less that wet fart in a rain storm, then Pence is worth less than that.

    It’s bullshit, Pelosi knows it’s bullshit, but is pissed that she’s getting called out on it like she rightfully should be. Schumer is just feckless.

    Edit: To clarify, Pelosi is rightfully being called out for funding concentration camps, not that she’s in the right for being pissed.

    Mild Confusion on
    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    Commander ZoomBlackDragon480Emerlmaster999ElvenshaeXaquinjdarksunShortykimeYamiB.brynhrtmnFencingsaxAridholLovelyMaclayDuke 2.0JaysonFourIncenjucarMegaMekTicaldfjamBullheadElldrenMaijinamurojoshofalltradesDee KaeKamarDarkPrimusautono-wally, erotibot300Happy Little MachineMan in the MistsHacksawKristmas Kthulhu
  • CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    The international community is paying attention as well:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/geneva-bachelet-us-migrants-1.5203545
    UN human rights chief Michelle Bachelet is "appalled" at the conditions in which the United States is keeping detained migrants and refugees, including children, her office said in a statement on Monday.

    "As a pediatrician, but also as a mother and a former head of state, I am deeply shocked that children are forced to sleep on the floor in overcrowded facilities, without access to adequate health care or food, and with poor sanitation conditions," the statement quoted Bachelet as saying.

    ...

    Last week the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general published photos of migrant-holding centres in Texas' Rio Grande Valley crammed with twice as many people as they were meant to hold.

    "In most of these cases, the migrants and refugees have embarked on perilous journeys with their children in search of protection and dignity and away from violence and hunger," Bachelet said.

    "When they finally believe they have arrived in safety, they may find themselves separated from their loved ones and locked in undignified conditions. This should never happen anywhere."

    Deprivation of liberty of adults should be a measure of last resort, and should be for the shortest period possible with legal safeguards and in conditions meeting international human rights standards, said Bachelet, the former president of Chile.

    Detaining a child for even short periods under good conditions could have a serious impact on their health and development, she added.

    "Border management … should not be based on narrow policies aimed only at detecting, detaining and expeditiously deporting irregular migrants,"she said...

    Gnome-InterruptusBlackDragon480PreacherForarFencingsaxJaysonFourIncenjucarjdarksunElvenshaeMegaMekElldrenDee KaeMillDarkPrimusRomantic UndeadRickRudeMan in the Mistsemp123Magell
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 8
    shryke wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    But even your framing here misses what is going on because the argument was more over how to fund these concentration camps to try and make the conditions slightly more humane and add some small amount of oversight. Those were the provisions that the Senate and then the House moderates caved on when McConnell refused to include them. That's what was being voted on. And that's a lot less stark framing of the issue.

    This implies that Pelosi thinks some combination of the following:

    1. The camps are inhumane because of lack of funding.
    2. The Senate will act in good faith by mandating approved spending will go towards making them more humane.
    3. If mandated by the Senate, funds will actually go towards making the camps more humane.


    I think she bungled this, but I don't think she's THAT much of a sucker.

    She thinks the camps are inhumane.
    She thinks more funding can help improve conditions.
    She inserted provisions into the House version of the bill to make sure new funding went towards those goals.
    This sets them up for a fight with McConnell in conference.
    That, as far as I can figure out, was the plan.

    Then the Senate Dems caved on her. (Some articles had rumours that she was pissed right the fuck off at Schumer for this.)
    And then it didn't matter what she thought because the fight was lost. Basically the entire Democratic Senate Caucus voted for the bill. That's the whole ballgame right there.

    I agree with this generally, but the bolded part is where I get stuck. It's not a lack of funding that is causing these conditions - "cruelty is the point" - the only way that adding funding will solve it is if you think that you can use it as a carrot to get Republicans to pass a bill with oversight. That relies on a swath of organizations from ICE to the Senate Republicans (and it turns out, Democrats) acting in good faith to support the oversight clauses, which I can't imagine she was prepared to do.

    I guess she was more willing to do that than hold up the entire process, though. There was some math there, and I'm not privy to the information she used to come to her decisions.

    It's just incredibly frustrating to see "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" playing out so obviously, and I'm at a loss for what to do about it, besides do my part to get Trump voted out in 2021.

    Doc on
    YamiB.PreacherLovelyElldrenCelestialBadgerOrcaDarkPrimusShadowhopeMan in the MistsHacksaw
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    It’s beyond idiotic to think that any funding from this 4.6 billion will go to making the children more comfortable.

    1. The cruelty is the point.
    2. If the funding was gonna be used to protect the kids, then why write that out of the bill?
    3. The cruelty is the point!

    They caved on changing the language in a promise from Mike Pence. If a Trump promise is worth less that wet fart in a rain storm, then Pence is worth less than that.

    It’s bullshit, Pelosi knows it’s bullshit, but is pissed that she’s getting called out on it like she rightfully should be. Schumer is just feckless.

    Edit: To clarify, Pelosi is rightfully being called out for funding concentration camps, not that she’s in the right for being pissed.

    If the cruelty is the point, then this bill is irrelevant. Complaining that they are funding concentration camps is pretty weak when the other option is less funded concentration camps. And they didn't have the funding before, so it's not like it made a difference in what they did. Because, as you say, the cruelty is the point. And cruelty is free.

  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    It’s beyond idiotic to think that any funding from this 4.6 billion will go to making the children more comfortable.

    1. The cruelty is the point.
    2. If the funding was gonna be used to protect the kids, then why write that out of the bill?
    3. The cruelty is the point!

    They caved on changing the language in a promise from Mike Pence. If a Trump promise is worth less that wet fart in a rain storm, then Pence is worth less than that.

    It’s bullshit, Pelosi knows it’s bullshit, but is pissed that she’s getting called out on it like she rightfully should be. Schumer is just feckless.

    Edit: To clarify, Pelosi is rightfully being called out for funding concentration camps, not that she’s in the right for being pissed.

    If the cruelty is the point, then this bill is irrelevant. Complaining that they are funding concentration camps is pretty weak when the other option is less funded concentration camps. And they didn't have the funding before, so it's not like it made a difference in what they did. Because, as you say, the cruelty is the point. And cruelty is free.

    Oh, well if it’s irrelevant, then why not just give them another 4.6 billion then?

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    Commander ZoomAridholPreacherLovelyStabbity StyleIncenjucarElvenshaekimeMegaMekBullheadSolarBloodsheedShadowhopeMan in the MistsMagell
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    It’s beyond idiotic to think that any funding from this 4.6 billion will go to making the children more comfortable.

    1. The cruelty is the point.
    2. If the funding was gonna be used to protect the kids, then why write that out of the bill?
    3. The cruelty is the point!

    They caved on changing the language in a promise from Mike Pence. If a Trump promise is worth less that wet fart in a rain storm, then Pence is worth less than that.

    It’s bullshit, Pelosi knows it’s bullshit, but is pissed that she’s getting called out on it like she rightfully should be. Schumer is just feckless.

    Edit: To clarify, Pelosi is rightfully being called out for funding concentration camps, not that she’s in the right for being pissed.

    If the cruelty is the point, then this bill is irrelevant. Complaining that they are funding concentration camps is pretty weak when the other option is less funded concentration camps. And they didn't have the funding before, so it's not like it made a difference in what they did. Because, as you say, the cruelty is the point. And cruelty is free.

    Expanding the camps isn't though.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    YamiB.ElldrenKristmas Kthulhu
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    But even your framing here misses what is going on because the argument was more over how to fund these concentration camps to try and make the conditions slightly more humane and add some small amount of oversight. Those were the provisions that the Senate and then the House moderates caved on when McConnell refused to include them. That's what was being voted on. And that's a lot less stark framing of the issue.

    This implies that Pelosi thinks some combination of the following:

    1. The camps are inhumane because of lack of funding.
    2. The Senate will act in good faith by mandating approved spending will go towards making them more humane.
    3. If mandated by the Senate, funds will actually go towards making the camps more humane.


    I think she bungled this, but I don't think she's THAT much of a sucker.

    She thinks the camps are inhumane.
    She thinks more funding can help improve conditions.
    She inserted provisions into the House version of the bill to make sure new funding went towards those goals.
    This sets them up for a fight with McConnell in conference.
    That, as far as I can figure out, was the plan.

    Then the Senate Dems caved on her. (Some articles had rumours that she was pissed right the fuck off at Schumer for this.)
    And then it didn't matter what she thought because the fight was lost. Basically the entire Democratic Senate Caucus voted for the bill. That's the whole ballgame right there.

    But after that, why vote for the bill? The only reason that I can see is to avoid splitting the party over the camps, except that that’s happened anyways.

    Yes, presumably the idea was to avoid splitting the caucus and insulate their members from attacks for "not funding the border" or whatever.

    This seems to have failed completely because the press loves them a democratic party infighting story and because the dominant framing emerging around the bill within the democratic base builds itself around the idea that this was a vote on whether or not there would be concentration camps.

    SleepGnome-InterruptusArbitraryDescriptorElldrenMan in the Mists
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 8
    shryke wrote: »
    It’s beyond idiotic to think that any funding from this 4.6 billion will go to making the children more comfortable.

    1. The cruelty is the point.
    2. If the funding was gonna be used to protect the kids, then why write that out of the bill?
    3. The cruelty is the point!

    They caved on changing the language in a promise from Mike Pence. If a Trump promise is worth less that wet fart in a rain storm, then Pence is worth less than that.

    It’s bullshit, Pelosi knows it’s bullshit, but is pissed that she’s getting called out on it like she rightfully should be. Schumer is just feckless.

    Edit: To clarify, Pelosi is rightfully being called out for funding concentration camps, not that she’s in the right for being pissed.

    If the cruelty is the point, then this bill is irrelevant. Complaining that they are funding concentration camps is pretty weak when the other option is less funded concentration camps. And they didn't have the funding before, so it's not like it made a difference in what they did. Because, as you say, the cruelty is the point. And cruelty is free.

    Expanding the camps isn't though.

    They do not seem to have been dissuaded by that up to this point. Like, more funding makes it easier but I don't see why anyone would think the Trump Admin would just decide to stop this because they ran out of money or something. The people crossing the border aren't gonna stop and the Trump Admin is not gonna get anymore ok with these people being in the US so it strikes me that the only way this goes, funding or no funding, is more people in camps.

    shryke on
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    But even your framing here misses what is going on because the argument was more over how to fund these concentration camps to try and make the conditions slightly more humane and add some small amount of oversight. Those were the provisions that the Senate and then the House moderates caved on when McConnell refused to include them. That's what was being voted on. And that's a lot less stark framing of the issue.

    This implies that Pelosi thinks some combination of the following:

    1. The camps are inhumane because of lack of funding.
    2. The Senate will act in good faith by mandating approved spending will go towards making them more humane.
    3. If mandated by the Senate, funds will actually go towards making the camps more humane.


    I think she bungled this, but I don't think she's THAT much of a sucker.

    She thinks the camps are inhumane.
    She thinks more funding can help improve conditions.
    She inserted provisions into the House version of the bill to make sure new funding went towards those goals.
    This sets them up for a fight with McConnell in conference.
    That, as far as I can figure out, was the plan.

    Then the Senate Dems caved on her. (Some articles had rumours that she was pissed right the fuck off at Schumer for this.)
    And then it didn't matter what she thought because the fight was lost. Basically the entire Democratic Senate Caucus voted for the bill. That's the whole ballgame right there.

    But after that, why vote for the bill? The only reason that I can see is to avoid splitting the party over the camps, except that that’s happened anyways.

    Yes, presumably the idea was to avoid splitting the caucus and insulate their members from attacks for "not funding the border" or whatever.

    This seems to have failed completely because the press loves them a democratic party infighting story and because the dominant framing emerging around the bill within the democratic base builds itself around the idea that this was a vote on whether or not there would be concentration camps.

    Nobody could possibly have foreseen those things? Particularly experienced legislative leaders?

    ACsTqqK.jpg
    Commander ZoomBlackDragon480YamiB.Mild ConfusionbrynhrtmnAridholCaedwyrFencingsaxJaysonFourIncenjucarElvenshaeMegaMekBullheadjoshofalltradesBloodsheedZonugalDarkPrimusShadowhopeMan in the MistsMagellKristmas Kthulhu
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    I don't see how 'they were going to do it anyway' is a good reason to give Republicans political cover by passing the bill with bipartisan support

    It's going to be super good when the candidates try to come out against the camps, and have to contend with the fact that their own party voted to fund them.

    Commander ZoomShortyYamiB.BlackDragon480brynhrtmnCaedwyrOne Thousand CablesElvenshaeElldrennever dieSpeed RacerjoshofalltradesBloodsheedZonugalDarkPrimusMan in the MistsMagellMr RayKristmas Kthulhu
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    But even your framing here misses what is going on because the argument was more over how to fund these concentration camps to try and make the conditions slightly more humane and add some small amount of oversight. Those were the provisions that the Senate and then the House moderates caved on when McConnell refused to include them. That's what was being voted on. And that's a lot less stark framing of the issue.

    This implies that Pelosi thinks some combination of the following:

    1. The camps are inhumane because of lack of funding.
    2. The Senate will act in good faith by mandating approved spending will go towards making them more humane.
    3. If mandated by the Senate, funds will actually go towards making the camps more humane.


    I think she bungled this, but I don't think she's THAT much of a sucker.

    She thinks the camps are inhumane.
    She thinks more funding can help improve conditions.
    She inserted provisions into the House version of the bill to make sure new funding went towards those goals.
    This sets them up for a fight with McConnell in conference.
    That, as far as I can figure out, was the plan.

    Then the Senate Dems caved on her. (Some articles had rumours that she was pissed right the fuck off at Schumer for this.)
    And then it didn't matter what she thought because the fight was lost. Basically the entire Democratic Senate Caucus voted for the bill. That's the whole ballgame right there.

    But after that, why vote for the bill? The only reason that I can see is to avoid splitting the party over the camps, except that that’s happened anyways.

    Yes, presumably the idea was to avoid splitting the caucus and insulate their members from attacks for "not funding the border" or whatever.

    This seems to have failed completely because the press loves them a democratic party infighting story and because the dominant framing emerging around the bill within the democratic base builds itself around the idea that this was a vote on whether or not there would be concentration camps.

    Nobody could possibly have foreseen those things? Particularly experienced legislative leaders?

    When people talk about Pelosi being a good Speaker, they aren't talking about her being good at working the press. No one has ever credibly claimed the Democrats were good at working the press honestly. The new batch of congressfolk seem to have finally figured it out though, at least to some extent.

    I'm not sure a split caucus on record looks better though.

    FencingsaxGnome-Interruptus
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Trust me: it looks better than voting to be complicit in funding concentration camps.

    When the most charitable possible reading is that party leadership is incompetent at everything from whipping to messaging, ya done fucked up.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    BlackDragon480DoodmannMild ConfusiondavidsdurionsAridholLovelyStabbity StyleIncenjucarElvenshaekimeTicaldfjamBullheadElldrenjoshofalltradesBloodsheedmrondeauZonugalautono-wally, erotibot300ShadowhopeMan in the MistsMagellKristmas Kthulhu
  • MadicanMadican No face Registered User regular
    Democrats control the house. Republicans control the Senate. There is absolutely no reason for Democrats to not bounce back anything and everything vile to force the Senate into owning their garbage.

    All this talk about how Pelosi had no choice because Senate Democrats turned traitor is bullshit. She didn't even bother trying to fight and when people rightfully called her out on it she attacks them instead of the shitstains in the Senate

    camo_sig2.png
    PSN: AuthorFrost
    mageofstorm.png
    Commander ZoombrynhrtmnMild ConfusionAridholYamiB.CaedwyrKayne Red RobePreacherXaquinNobodyJaysonFourBlackDragon480ElvenshaeEmerlmaster999jdarksunkimeiTunesIsEvilMorganVPolaritieMegaMekdiscriderTicaldfjamBullheadShadowfireElldrennever diejoshofalltradesBloodsheedmrondeauMaijinamuroZonugalKamarDarkPrimusAegisautono-wally, erotibot300ShadowhopeMan in the MistsBhowHacksawKoopahTroopahMagellMr RayKristmas Kthulhu
  • QuiotuQuiotu Registered User regular
    Javen wrote: »
    I don't see how 'they were going to do it anyway' is a good reason to give Republicans political cover by passing the bill with bipartisan support

    It's going to be super good when the candidates try to come out against the camps, and have to contend with the fact that their own party voted to fund them.

    I see it as politics in general, which is terrible horrific bullshit to use kids in camps as political fodder... but it's the Republicans doing this and not the Democrats. The message boiled down to 'give us more money to house the migrants, or we run out of money and you can watch them starve to death'. You're basically getting mad at the group who decided to give up the money rather that shoot what's effectively hundreds of thousands of hostages.

    This is not a situation the Democrats are going to be able to improve on until the 2020 elections. The best they can do is what's already happening, the investigations, the hearings, and the court cases. Shit, anyone paying mild attention to the situation knows it's the GOP and Trump's doing, and apparently some of us are getting mad that the Democrats didn't kill immigrant prisoners in order to try and make the GOP look worse.

    How goddamn petty.

    wbee62u815wj.png
    shrykeJebus314
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Madican wrote: »
    Democrats control the house. Republicans control the Senate. There is absolutely no reason for Democrats to not bounce back anything and everything vile to force the Senate into owning their garbage.

    All this talk about how Pelosi had no choice because Senate Democrats turned traitor is bullshit. She didn't even bother trying to fight and when people rightfully called her out on it she attacks them instead of the shitstains in the Senate

    She can't credibly bounce it back to the Senate when most of her party there is backing the bill. Senate Democrats are still Democrats. That's why House Dems then caved too. Because once the vote came in, they knew Pelosi had way less leverage on them.

    SleepMild ConfusionGnome-InterruptusLabel
  • MadicanMadican No face Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Madican wrote: »
    Democrats control the house. Republicans control the Senate. There is absolutely no reason for Democrats to not bounce back anything and everything vile to force the Senate into owning their garbage.

    All this talk about how Pelosi had no choice because Senate Democrats turned traitor is bullshit. She didn't even bother trying to fight and when people rightfully called her out on it she attacks them instead of the shitstains in the Senate

    She can't credibly bounce it back to the Senate when most of her party there is backing the bill. Senate Democrats are still Democrats. That's why House Dems then caved too. Because once the vote came in, they knew Pelosi had way less leverage on them.

    Yes she can. She just chose not to in an attempt to save political face. She put her own status and power over doing the right thing and that tells me everything about her

    camo_sig2.png
    PSN: AuthorFrost
    mageofstorm.png
    PreacherKayne Red RobeYamiB.AridholCaedwyrElvenshaejdarksunMegaMekBullheadBloodsheedautono-wally, erotibot300Man in the MistsMagell
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    She can be good at her job while fucking up at a crucial moment. No one claimed she is perfect. This was a blunder, though.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    Marathon
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Quiotu wrote: »
    apparently some of us are getting mad that the Democrats didn't kill immigrant prisoners in order to try and make the GOP look worse.

    How goddamn petty.

    I submit that this framing is bullshit and I refuse to accept it, which is also IMO what Pelosi should have done.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    Mild ConfusionMadicanenlightenedbumKayne Red RobeYamiB.AridholTetraNitroCubaneCaedwyrJaysonFourBlackDragon480ElvenshaejdarksunkimeDunderCaptain InertiaFencingsaxTicaldfjamBullheadnever diejoshofalltradesDee KaeBloodsheedMaijinamuroZonugalKamarDarkPrimusViktor Waltersautono-wally, erotibot300ShadowhopeMan in the MistsHacksawMagellMr RayFANTOMASKristmas Kthulhu
  • CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Madican wrote: »
    Democrats control the house. Republicans control the Senate. There is absolutely no reason for Democrats to not bounce back anything and everything vile to force the Senate into owning their garbage.

    All this talk about how Pelosi had no choice because Senate Democrats turned traitor is bullshit. She didn't even bother trying to fight and when people rightfully called her out on it she attacks them instead of the shitstains in the Senate

    She can't credibly bounce it back to the Senate when most of her party there is backing the bill. Senate Democrats are still Democrats. That's why House Dems then caved too. Because once the vote came in, they knew Pelosi had way less leverage on them.

    Party over country? Party over ethics? That does seem to be the point you are arguing that Pelosi felt she was forced to take.

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    The camps are going to exist until we get rid of republican control of the federal government. They aren't gonna reduce population in the camps due to lack of funds, they will just let the conditions deteriorate further.

    shrykeGnome-InterruptusFencingsaxAim
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Pelosi feeling its more important to put the young progressives in their place than do anything about children dying on the boarder is all I need to know about what she's going to do in the future.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    ElvenshaekimeDunderMegaMekTicaldfjamGaddezSpeed RacerBloodsheedZonugalKamarAegisdispatch.oMan in the MistsbrynhrtmnBandableMagellKristmas Kthulhu
  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    See my previous posts on this thread for all the things they could have done other than going on record as supporting this, by voting for it.

    I mean, isn't that what we're constantly saying we need to do to the Republicans? Get them on record, "make them own it"? Well, now there are a whole bunch of D names on that record, in the wrong column.

    It all depends what you think they are "making them own" though. Because there's a bunch of stuff in the bill for funding various things it may not look good to vote against.

    Which is the core issue here it seems. The moderates did not want to be seen creating gridlock in Congress or refusing to fund aid money for the border or the like.

    So basically the republicans held funding hostage (remind anyone of something?) in order to keep the concentration camps running and the moderates caved.

    Maybe it's not directly Pelosi's fault, but "close the concentration camps" should be an easy sell. This is a genuine instance of stupid "political calculus" fucking people over.

    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
    Commander ZoomPreacherCaedwyrElvenshaeGaddezMan in the Mists
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    If she's just going to do whatever the fuck the Senate Dem's do then what's the point of her chamber at all?
    Just hang a "do whatever" sign on the door and let the senate run shit.

    Shit like this is why people stay home and play xbox instead of voting.

    XaquinPreacherYamiB.CaedwyrShortyBlackDragon480ElvenshaejdarksunkimeTicaldfjamdiscriderBullheadSpeed RacerJaysonFourBloodsheedMaijinamuroZonugalKamarMan in the MistsbrynhrtmnMagellNitsua
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    The camps are going to exist until we get rid of republican control of the federal government. They aren't gonna reduce population in the camps due to lack of funds, they will just let the conditions deteriorate further.

    They are going to do that with increased funds too.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    PreacherCommander ZoomAstaerethMadicanElvenshaeDrovekjdarksunMegaMekFencingsaxStabbity StyleElldrenJaysonFourBloodsheedMan in the MistsMagellKristmas Kthulhu
  • MadicanMadican No face Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    The camps are going to exist until we get rid of republican control of the federal government. They aren't gonna reduce population in the camps due to lack of funds, they will just let the conditions deteriorate further.

    Then let the Republicans vote to give them those funds, not have the Democrats willingly step into the role of appeasing the fucking Nazis

    camo_sig2.png
    PSN: AuthorFrost
    mageofstorm.png
    AridholXaquinPreacherCommander ZoomYamiB.CaedwyrElvenshaeEmerlmaster999DrovekMorganVMild ConfusionFencingsaxTicaldfjamBullheadJaysonFourjoshofalltradesBloodsheedZonugalKamarMan in the MistsMagellKristmas Kthulhu
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    See my previous posts on this thread for all the things they could have done other than going on record as supporting this, by voting for it.

    I mean, isn't that what we're constantly saying we need to do to the Republicans? Get them on record, "make them own it"? Well, now there are a whole bunch of D names on that record, in the wrong column.

    It all depends what you think they are "making them own" though. Because there's a bunch of stuff in the bill for funding various things it may not look good to vote against.

    Which is the core issue here it seems. The moderates did not want to be seen creating gridlock in Congress or refusing to fund aid money for the border or the like.

    So basically the republicans held funding hostage (remind anyone of something?) in order to keep the concentration camps running and the moderates caved.

    Maybe it's not directly Pelosi's fault, but "close the concentration camps" should be an easy sell. This is a genuine instance of stupid "political calculus" fucking people over.

    But "Close the concentration camps" isn't even close to being an option right now because republicans control the federal government and will actively oppose that option.

Sign In or Register to comment.