Also it should be noted more than 4 people voted against the senate bill that had no protections in it, and pelosi hasn't talked shit about them. The 4 she's talking about voted no to the bill with protections attached before the senate stripped them out.
Well they voted against the bill because it was still giving money to ICE. It was a principled stand, so I can see why it confused Pelosi into attacking her own caucus members for not being sufficiently happy she folded to the GOP.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Shryke, are you actually for shutting these camps down? I am asking because every response you've given is "No, we cant do that so we might as well keep the camps open"
What question is next here "When did you stop beating your wife"? What is this garbage?
Every response of mine has been "you can't shut down the camps". Which is true. It's not "you might as well keep the camps open", it's "you can't not keep them open, it is not within the power of the Democratic party or non-political-party actors to do that".
Just in general if the executive is just gonna ignore Congressional orders, the scope of what Congress can do on this issue is pretty limited. And none of it is actually enough to solve the problem.
What is this garbage where people are angry about funding concentration camps and your response is
So "we said it wouldn't work" is all well and good but it doesn't actually offer an alternative that does.
Yeah, everyone kept saying blindly funding concentration camps wouldn't work to stop concentration camps because it obviously wouldn't and is morally abhorrent. And for some reason this is what perturbs you.
One can be perturbed by more then one thing at once, as noted above. So outright statements that people are pro-concentration-camps is still garbage with zero excuses for it.
It doesn't take a genius to note that the executive will almost certainly try and get around any restrictions you place on funding or just outright ignore them. But you try anyway. Because there's basically no other options for trying to do something about the conditions in the camps. So "we told you they wouldn't listen" is not really much of a argument against trying.
It is when you give them even more money, especially while people like yourself go "Well what else could they have done?"
Not given more money to concentration camps, Shryke. That's what.
Except this is entirely wrong. I didn't say "What else could they do but vote for the version of the bill without protections". I said "the House had basically no realistic options once the Senate caved". You are trying to pull quotes out of context to build your little strawman.
The thing that should have happened is that the Senate should have not fucking caved and then you push for the House bill and get what you can. That's the other thing you can do. You know, like I've said on this very page.
Not passing the bill is entirely realistic. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate's vote. The House can refuse, the House can take its point to every microphone it can find and put pressure on their colleagues in the Senate. "We're not denying funding. We're denying funding without any oversight. That is our job, and we'll be damned if we're going to give it up." It's really that simple.
Pelosi has said before that AOC's outspoken, progressive positions will make it harder for Democrats to win less Democratic-leaning districts. AOC becoming the face of the party nationally threatens the ability of Democrats to pick up seats in districts less progressive than her own (most of them).
The Senate Democrats aren't generating press coverage so she doesn't care.
I don't think Pelosi is willing to die on any policy hill because it's all for nothing if they lose the House.
The politicians I'm most disappointed in are supposed progressive governors like Newsom. He could say something, at the very least.
Shryke, are you actually for shutting these camps down? I am asking because every response you've given is "No, we cant do that so we might as well keep the camps open"
What question is next here "When did you stop beating your wife"? What is this garbage?
Every response of mine has been "you can't shut down the camps". Which is true. It's not "you might as well keep the camps open", it's "you can't not keep them open, it is not within the power of the Democratic party or non-political-party actors to do that".
Just in general if the executive is just gonna ignore Congressional orders, the scope of what Congress can do on this issue is pretty limited. And none of it is actually enough to solve the problem.
What is this garbage where people are angry about funding concentration camps and your response is
So "we said it wouldn't work" is all well and good but it doesn't actually offer an alternative that does.
Yeah, everyone kept saying blindly funding concentration camps wouldn't work to stop concentration camps because it obviously wouldn't and is morally abhorrent. And for some reason this is what perturbs you.
One can be perturbed by more then one thing at once, as noted above. So outright statements that people are pro-concentration-camps is still garbage with zero excuses for it.
It doesn't take a genius to note that the executive will almost certainly try and get around any restrictions you place on funding or just outright ignore them. But you try anyway. Because there's basically no other options for trying to do something about the conditions in the camps. So "we told you they wouldn't listen" is not really much of a argument against trying.
It is when you give them even more money, especially while people like yourself go "Well what else could they have done?"
Not given more money to concentration camps, Shryke. That's what.
Except this is entirely wrong. I didn't say "What else could they do but vote for the version of the bill without protections". I said "the House had basically no realistic options once the Senate caved". You are trying to pull quotes out of context to build your little strawman.
The thing that should have happened is that the Senate should have not fucking caved and then you push for the House bill and get what you can. That's the other thing you can do. You know, like I've said on this very page.
Not passing the bill is entirely realistic. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate's vote. The House can refuse, the House can take its point to every microphone it can find and put pressure on their colleagues in the Senate. "We're not denying funding. We're denying funding without any oversight. That is our job, and we'll be damned if we're going to give it up." It's really that simple.
Except your own party already overwhelmingly supports the bill, given the votes in the Senate. It makes the position untenable for the House.
Pelosi has said before that AOC's outspoken, progressive positions will make it harder for Democrats to win less Democratic-leaning districts. AOC becoming the face of the party nationally threatens the ability of Democrats to pick up seats in districts less progressive than her own (most of them).
The Senate Democrats aren't generating press coverage so she doesn't care.
I don't think Pelosi is willing to die on any policy hill because it's all for nothing if they lose the House.
This is the same consultant driven having no actual values will win us elections bullshit that has lost a ton of elections.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
As long as the Democrats are reliant on white moderates, the United States will be a country of white nationalism. That's as plain as it gets. To argue for that moderate vote is to argue for this state.
Also, to respond to the general theme of "be mad at Republicans who are thrusting Morton's Fork at Dems", I can be mad at more than one group of people. I have plenty of outrage to go around. It's not helpful to tell people that they can only be upset at the evil group but not the incompetent one.
I get why this is such a circular argument. People defending Democrats on this aren't wrong that there is nothing they can do directly, through legislature, to close down the camps. On the flip side, people who are mad at them aren't wrong that they could be doing more, while also not doing things that make things worse.
Yes, I am more angry with Republicans than Democrats. However! They did really step in it this time, and I'm not super interested in hearing excuses for that, particularly when they actively attack the few Democrats that will end up being on the right side of history.
The thing about "be mad about republicans!" is that there's no argument that we should be mad at republicans. There's communal agreement there, so there's nothing to post. What there isn't agreement on is the democrats, and so of course that generates the discussion.
Shryke, are you actually for shutting these camps down? I am asking because every response you've given is "No, we cant do that so we might as well keep the camps open"
What question is next here "When did you stop beating your wife"? What is this garbage?
Every response of mine has been "you can't shut down the camps". Which is true. It's not "you might as well keep the camps open", it's "you can't not keep them open, it is not within the power of the Democratic party or non-political-party actors to do that".
Just in general if the executive is just gonna ignore Congressional orders, the scope of what Congress can do on this issue is pretty limited. And none of it is actually enough to solve the problem.
What is this garbage where people are angry about funding concentration camps and your response is
So "we said it wouldn't work" is all well and good but it doesn't actually offer an alternative that does.
Yeah, everyone kept saying blindly funding concentration camps wouldn't work to stop concentration camps because it obviously wouldn't and is morally abhorrent. And for some reason this is what perturbs you.
One can be perturbed by more then one thing at once, as noted above. So outright statements that people are pro-concentration-camps is still garbage with zero excuses for it.
It doesn't take a genius to note that the executive will almost certainly try and get around any restrictions you place on funding or just outright ignore them. But you try anyway. Because there's basically no other options for trying to do something about the conditions in the camps. So "we told you they wouldn't listen" is not really much of a argument against trying.
It is when you give them even more money, especially while people like yourself go "Well what else could they have done?"
Not given more money to concentration camps, Shryke. That's what.
We're seeing what happens when a political party slashed off its activist arm and just become a bunch of middle class bureaucrats. The GOP didn't do this, and they literally have brownshirts on the streets wearing their flag.
And while I know the forum doesn't believe in being a center of promoting direct action for practical and understandable reasons, the extent to which moderates here pretend those options don't even exist is pretty amazing.
Shryke, are you actually for shutting these camps down? I am asking because every response you've given is "No, we cant do that so we might as well keep the camps open"
What question is next here "When did you stop beating your wife"? What is this garbage?
Every response of mine has been "you can't shut down the camps". Which is true. It's not "you might as well keep the camps open", it's "you can't not keep them open, it is not within the power of the Democratic party or non-political-party actors to do that".
Just in general if the executive is just gonna ignore Congressional orders, the scope of what Congress can do on this issue is pretty limited. And none of it is actually enough to solve the problem.
What is this garbage where people are angry about funding concentration camps and your response is
So "we said it wouldn't work" is all well and good but it doesn't actually offer an alternative that does.
Yeah, everyone kept saying blindly funding concentration camps wouldn't work to stop concentration camps because it obviously wouldn't and is morally abhorrent. And for some reason this is what perturbs you.
One can be perturbed by more then one thing at once, as noted above. So outright statements that people are pro-concentration-camps is still garbage with zero excuses for it.
It doesn't take a genius to note that the executive will almost certainly try and get around any restrictions you place on funding or just outright ignore them. But you try anyway. Because there's basically no other options for trying to do something about the conditions in the camps. So "we told you they wouldn't listen" is not really much of a argument against trying.
It is when you give them even more money, especially while people like yourself go "Well what else could they have done?"
Not given more money to concentration camps, Shryke. That's what.
Except this is entirely wrong. I didn't say "What else could they do but vote for the version of the bill without protections". I said "the House had basically no realistic options once the Senate caved". You are trying to pull quotes out of context to build your little strawman.
The thing that should have happened is that the Senate should have not fucking caved and then you push for the House bill and get what you can. That's the other thing you can do. You know, like I've said on this very page.
Not passing the bill is entirely realistic. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate's vote. The House can refuse, the House can take its point to every microphone it can find and put pressure on their colleagues in the Senate. "We're not denying funding. We're denying funding without any oversight. That is our job, and we'll be damned if we're going to give it up." It's really that simple.
Except your own party already overwhelmingly supports the bill, given the votes in the Senate. It makes the position untenable for the House.
We're back to "don't try". It passed with a big number, so don't try. I gotcha now.
Yes, the Senate passed the bill overwhelmingly. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate with regard to passing legislation that comes from it. The position is not untenable. The House has just as much goddamned power, with regard to moving legislation, as the Senate does. The House can say "no, we won't do this. Here is why. I assume our Senate colleagues will take a second look because this is unacceptable. We assume our colleagues in the Senate don't want to strip the legislative branch of our oversight abilities, and that this was a mistake." The House can put just as much fucking pressure right back on the Senate.
Shryke, are you actually for shutting these camps down? I am asking because every response you've given is "No, we cant do that so we might as well keep the camps open"
What question is next here "When did you stop beating your wife"? What is this garbage?
Every response of mine has been "you can't shut down the camps". Which is true. It's not "you might as well keep the camps open", it's "you can't not keep them open, it is not within the power of the Democratic party or non-political-party actors to do that".
Just in general if the executive is just gonna ignore Congressional orders, the scope of what Congress can do on this issue is pretty limited. And none of it is actually enough to solve the problem.
What is this garbage where people are angry about funding concentration camps and your response is
So "we said it wouldn't work" is all well and good but it doesn't actually offer an alternative that does.
Yeah, everyone kept saying blindly funding concentration camps wouldn't work to stop concentration camps because it obviously wouldn't and is morally abhorrent. And for some reason this is what perturbs you.
One can be perturbed by more then one thing at once, as noted above. So outright statements that people are pro-concentration-camps is still garbage with zero excuses for it.
It doesn't take a genius to note that the executive will almost certainly try and get around any restrictions you place on funding or just outright ignore them. But you try anyway. Because there's basically no other options for trying to do something about the conditions in the camps. So "we told you they wouldn't listen" is not really much of a argument against trying.
It is when you give them even more money, especially while people like yourself go "Well what else could they have done?"
Not given more money to concentration camps, Shryke. That's what.
Except this is entirely wrong. I didn't say "What else could they do but vote for the version of the bill without protections". I said "the House had basically no realistic options once the Senate caved". You are trying to pull quotes out of context to build your little strawman.
The thing that should have happened is that the Senate should have not fucking caved and then you push for the House bill and get what you can. That's the other thing you can do. You know, like I've said on this very page.
Not passing the bill is entirely realistic. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate's vote. The House can refuse, the House can take its point to every microphone it can find and put pressure on their colleagues in the Senate. "We're not denying funding. We're denying funding without any oversight. That is our job, and we'll be damned if we're going to give it up." It's really that simple.
Except your own party already overwhelmingly supports the bill, given the votes in the Senate. It makes the position untenable for the House.
If your party makes the position of "fuck concentration camps" untenable, then you need to step up and tell the party to go fuck itself.
Pelosi has said before that AOC's outspoken, progressive positions will make it harder for Democrats to win less Democratic-leaning districts. AOC becoming the face of the party nationally threatens the ability of Democrats to pick up seats in districts less progressive than her own (most of them).
I didn't think about this. Progressives make-up only a small portion of the Democratic electorate, with most people only caring about issues that directly impact themselves or people they are close to (the Hidden Tribes study even found that large numbers of Democratic voters outside of Progressives think the Left has become too politically correct).
Maybe AOC's prominence will help shift Democratic voters further Left, but the alternative is frightening...
Hexmage-PA on
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Can’t Pelosi pull a McConnell and simply refuse to put a bill up for a vote?
Shryke, are you actually for shutting these camps down? I am asking because every response you've given is "No, we cant do that so we might as well keep the camps open"
What question is next here "When did you stop beating your wife"? What is this garbage?
Every response of mine has been "you can't shut down the camps". Which is true. It's not "you might as well keep the camps open", it's "you can't not keep them open, it is not within the power of the Democratic party or non-political-party actors to do that".
Just in general if the executive is just gonna ignore Congressional orders, the scope of what Congress can do on this issue is pretty limited. And none of it is actually enough to solve the problem.
What is this garbage where people are angry about funding concentration camps and your response is
So "we said it wouldn't work" is all well and good but it doesn't actually offer an alternative that does.
Yeah, everyone kept saying blindly funding concentration camps wouldn't work to stop concentration camps because it obviously wouldn't and is morally abhorrent. And for some reason this is what perturbs you.
One can be perturbed by more then one thing at once, as noted above. So outright statements that people are pro-concentration-camps is still garbage with zero excuses for it.
It doesn't take a genius to note that the executive will almost certainly try and get around any restrictions you place on funding or just outright ignore them. But you try anyway. Because there's basically no other options for trying to do something about the conditions in the camps. So "we told you they wouldn't listen" is not really much of a argument against trying.
It is when you give them even more money, especially while people like yourself go "Well what else could they have done?"
Not given more money to concentration camps, Shryke. That's what.
Except this is entirely wrong. I didn't say "What else could they do but vote for the version of the bill without protections". I said "the House had basically no realistic options once the Senate caved". You are trying to pull quotes out of context to build your little strawman.
The thing that should have happened is that the Senate should have not fucking caved and then you push for the House bill and get what you can. That's the other thing you can do. You know, like I've said on this very page.
Not passing the bill is entirely realistic. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate's vote. The House can refuse, the House can take its point to every microphone it can find and put pressure on their colleagues in the Senate. "We're not denying funding. We're denying funding without any oversight. That is our job, and we'll be damned if we're going to give it up." It's really that simple.
Except your own party already overwhelmingly supports the bill, given the votes in the Senate. It makes the position untenable for the House.
We're back to "don't try". It passed with a big number, so don't try. I gotcha now.
Yes, the Senate passed the bill overwhelmingly. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate with regard to passing legislation that comes from it. The position is not untenable. The House has just as much goddamned power, with regard to moving legislation, as the Senate does. The House can say "no, we won't do this. Here is why. I assume our Senate colleagues will take a second look because this is unacceptable. We assume our colleagues in the Senate don't want to strip the legislative branch of our oversight abilities, and that this was a mistake." The House can put just as much fucking pressure right back on the Senate.
The House does not have as much power here because their own party is now on the other side of the issue. That puts them in a very weak position. This is why getting your whole party on one side matters.
Pelosi has said before that AOC's outspoken, progressive positions will make it harder for Democrats to win less Democratic-leaning districts. AOC becoming the face of the party nationally threatens the ability of Democrats to pick up seats in districts less progressive than her own (most of them).
I didn't think about this. Progressives make-up only a small portion of the Democratic electorate, with most people only caring about issues that directly impact themselves or people they are close to (the Hidden Tribes study even found that large numbers of Democratic voters outside of Progressives think the Left has become too politically correct).
Maybe AOC's prominence will help shift Democratic voters further Left, but the alternative is frightening...
Honestly this kind of calculus is why the democrats are supporting concentration camps and its infuriating. "Well we can't ignore the racists and hate mongers who might vote democrat if we offer them a fig leaf". Working out great guys!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Pelosi has said before that AOC's outspoken, progressive positions will make it harder for Democrats to win less Democratic-leaning districts. AOC becoming the face of the party nationally threatens the ability of Democrats to pick up seats in districts less progressive than her own (most of them).
I didn't think about this. Progressives make-up only a small portion of the Democratic electorate, with most people only caring about issues that directly impact themselves or people they are close to (the Hidden Tribes study even found that large numbers of Democratic voters outside of Progressives think the Left has become too politically correct).
Maybe AOC's prominence will help shift Democratic voters further Left, but the alternative is frightening...
If we get past the convenient labels, "progressive" just means urban and liberal. People in New York and California - and most urban centers - must conform to the desires of the majority of white folks in Southern, Midwest, and Rust Belt states, even when those white folks decide to put people the children of people who are sometimes literally their relatives in cages in the desert and rape them?
Yeah, that's a system of government that's going to prosper under the challenges of climate change. Should Cortez just tell her constituents to start tatttooing themselves now for easier collection if the white majority so decides?
As long as the Democrats are reliant on white moderates, the United States will be a country of white nationalism. That's as plain as it gets. To argue for that moderate vote is to argue for this state.
Well, the thing is that most Progressives actually ARE white (and also make over $100,000 a year). Only 8% of Progressives are African-American, for example.
The hypothesis behind this is that well-off people either become Conservative to deny their privilege or become Progressive because they recognize it and don't have many problems of their own to worry about.
I don't think it has to be "people with AOC's policy position." I do think it has to be people with AOC's moral clarity. Or Warren/Bernie or even a centrist who defends their positions on the merits.
But the point is they have to stand for shit. Politically speaking that's what being "genuine" means. I contend that there are a significant number of independent voters who will vote for a fascist or a socialist and not see that as a contradiction if the opponent is someone who appears to be poll tested and willing to say anything to get elected.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+16
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Pelosi has said before that AOC's outspoken, progressive positions will make it harder for Democrats to win less Democratic-leaning districts. AOC becoming the face of the party nationally threatens the ability of Democrats to pick up seats in districts less progressive than her own (most of them).
I didn't think about this. Progressives make-up only a small portion of the Democratic electorate, with most people only caring about issues that directly impact themselves or people they are close to (the Hidden Tribes study even found that large numbers of Democratic voters outside of Progressives think the Left has become too politically correct).
Maybe AOC's prominence will help shift Democratic voters further Left, but the alternative is frightening...
Democratic voters are pretty progressive on the issues. The majority of the country is in favor of universal health care, gun control, higher taxes on the wealthy, minimum wage increases, etc. There’s a consistent disconnect between the policy people like and the way the GOP has worked to tarnish the brand of the party that wants to enact that policy. That’s literally what’s happening with AOC—most of her positions are quite popular, but Fox News is dedicated to making sure conservative voters think of her as “just too far left,” the way I will sometimes irrationally throw away delicious milk because I fear it’s too close to the sell-by date even though it’s obviously not spoiled yet.
AOC says sensible things in a frank and appealing way; downplaying or attacking her because you’re afraid moderates will consider her too extreme is, in fact, buying into that framework and therefore self-fulfilling the prophecy.
Pelosi has said before that AOC's outspoken, progressive positions will make it harder for Democrats to win less Democratic-leaning districts. AOC becoming the face of the party nationally threatens the ability of Democrats to pick up seats in districts less progressive than her own (most of them).
I didn't think about this. Progressives make-up only a small portion of the Democratic electorate, with most people only caring about issues that directly impact themselves or people they are close to (the Hidden Tribes study even found that large numbers of Democratic voters outside of Progressives think the Left has become too politically correct).
Maybe AOC's prominence will help shift Democratic voters further Left, but the alternative is frightening...
This is basically the fear that probably flipped the Senate and the moderates in the House.
It's true that Democrats do need a lot of voters from more moderate districts and demographics to win (because of how the setup of the system skews against left-wing politics in general) but it's honestly not all that likely that that this kind of appeasement actually works in getting those votes. The 2018 election I think does a good job of demonstrating how you can pull a lot of these voters just with a good message on the kinds of things you want to accomplish. Have a goddamn position. No one respects the running away from taking a firm position crap.
DC strategists though are stupid and a lot of congresspeople are cowardly on this front.
shryke on
+4
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
Stop shy of accusing other forumers in this thread of supporting concentration camps.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
The "moderate" Dems in the senate should not have caved. Failing that, house Dems should have made a theatrical "stand against evil" moment, even though that won't actually change situations for the kids. Pelosi should definitely not spite the 4 high profile dems and their supporters who made that theatrical stand.
Why? Because if people perceive, rightly or wrongly, that there are no legal and lawful means to rescue children from concentration camps, then they may decide to take matters into their own hands. That's bad times for everyone, especially the children themselves.
Shryke, are you actually for shutting these camps down? I am asking because every response you've given is "No, we cant do that so we might as well keep the camps open"
What question is next here "When did you stop beating your wife"? What is this garbage?
Every response of mine has been "you can't shut down the camps". Which is true. It's not "you might as well keep the camps open", it's "you can't not keep them open, it is not within the power of the Democratic party or non-political-party actors to do that".
Just in general if the executive is just gonna ignore Congressional orders, the scope of what Congress can do on this issue is pretty limited. And none of it is actually enough to solve the problem.
What is this garbage where people are angry about funding concentration camps and your response is
So "we said it wouldn't work" is all well and good but it doesn't actually offer an alternative that does.
Yeah, everyone kept saying blindly funding concentration camps wouldn't work to stop concentration camps because it obviously wouldn't and is morally abhorrent. And for some reason this is what perturbs you.
One can be perturbed by more then one thing at once, as noted above. So outright statements that people are pro-concentration-camps is still garbage with zero excuses for it.
It doesn't take a genius to note that the executive will almost certainly try and get around any restrictions you place on funding or just outright ignore them. But you try anyway. Because there's basically no other options for trying to do something about the conditions in the camps. So "we told you they wouldn't listen" is not really much of a argument against trying.
It is when you give them even more money, especially while people like yourself go "Well what else could they have done?"
Not given more money to concentration camps, Shryke. That's what.
We're seeing what happens when a political party slashed off its activist arm and just become a bunch of middle class bureaucrats. The GOP didn't do this, and they literally have brownshirts on the streets wearing their flag.
And while I know the forum doesn't believe in being a center of promoting direct action for practical and understandable reasons, the extent to which moderate here pretend those options don't even exist is pretty amazing.
I agree but it's not like 90s Democrats weren't extremely middle class white hegemonic bureaucrats who did mass incarceration and very regressive immigration laws nor is it not like 00 Democrats weren't extremely middle class white hegemonic bureaucrats who voted for a war in Iraq and looked the other way re: regressive immigration laws nor did 8 years of Obama's tenure ever order anyone in the DOJ still fighting the Flores case that was started 20 years prior to cease appealing and fighting against reasonable measures for foreign children held in detention camps.
Shryke, are you actually for shutting these camps down? I am asking because every response you've given is "No, we cant do that so we might as well keep the camps open"
What question is next here "When did you stop beating your wife"? What is this garbage?
Every response of mine has been "you can't shut down the camps". Which is true. It's not "you might as well keep the camps open", it's "you can't not keep them open, it is not within the power of the Democratic party or non-political-party actors to do that".
Just in general if the executive is just gonna ignore Congressional orders, the scope of what Congress can do on this issue is pretty limited. And none of it is actually enough to solve the problem.
What is this garbage where people are angry about funding concentration camps and your response is
So "we said it wouldn't work" is all well and good but it doesn't actually offer an alternative that does.
Yeah, everyone kept saying blindly funding concentration camps wouldn't work to stop concentration camps because it obviously wouldn't and is morally abhorrent. And for some reason this is what perturbs you.
One can be perturbed by more then one thing at once, as noted above. So outright statements that people are pro-concentration-camps is still garbage with zero excuses for it.
It doesn't take a genius to note that the executive will almost certainly try and get around any restrictions you place on funding or just outright ignore them. But you try anyway. Because there's basically no other options for trying to do something about the conditions in the camps. So "we told you they wouldn't listen" is not really much of a argument against trying.
It is when you give them even more money, especially while people like yourself go "Well what else could they have done?"
Not given more money to concentration camps, Shryke. That's what.
Except this is entirely wrong. I didn't say "What else could they do but vote for the version of the bill without protections". I said "the House had basically no realistic options once the Senate caved". You are trying to pull quotes out of context to build your little strawman.
The thing that should have happened is that the Senate should have not fucking caved and then you push for the House bill and get what you can. That's the other thing you can do. You know, like I've said on this very page.
Not passing the bill is entirely realistic. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate's vote. The House can refuse, the House can take its point to every microphone it can find and put pressure on their colleagues in the Senate. "We're not denying funding. We're denying funding without any oversight. That is our job, and we'll be damned if we're going to give it up." It's really that simple.
Except your own party already overwhelmingly supports the bill, given the votes in the Senate. It makes the position untenable for the House.
We're back to "don't try". It passed with a big number, so don't try. I gotcha now.
Yes, the Senate passed the bill overwhelmingly. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate with regard to passing legislation that comes from it. The position is not untenable. The House has just as much goddamned power, with regard to moving legislation, as the Senate does. The House can say "no, we won't do this. Here is why. I assume our Senate colleagues will take a second look because this is unacceptable. We assume our colleagues in the Senate don't want to strip the legislative branch of our oversight abilities, and that this was a mistake." The House can put just as much fucking pressure right back on the Senate.
The House does not have as much power here because their own party is now on the other side of the issue. That puts them in a very weak position. This is why getting your whole party on one side matters.
Remind me how many votes the House lost to pass legislation in their own chamber when the Senate passed the bill. I'm having trouble with the math. The only way their position is actually weaker is if they actually lost votes.
If you want to argue "well the Blue Dog caucus plus the Republicans means the bill would have passed" then make that argument, and show the numbers. Though even in that scenario the Speaker is not, to my knowledge, required to bring the bill to the floor to a vote in the chamber she controls.
The actual argument being put forth here is "but the narrative". Fortunately, the great thing about narratives is that they aren't set in stone. "Don't try, 'cause The Narrative" is what you're repeating over and over, all the while telling us you're not. It's exhausting. I'm sure it's equally exhausting having people point it out.
Shryke, are you actually for shutting these camps down? I am asking because every response you've given is "No, we cant do that so we might as well keep the camps open"
What question is next here "When did you stop beating your wife"? What is this garbage?
Every response of mine has been "you can't shut down the camps". Which is true. It's not "you might as well keep the camps open", it's "you can't not keep them open, it is not within the power of the Democratic party or non-political-party actors to do that".
Just in general if the executive is just gonna ignore Congressional orders, the scope of what Congress can do on this issue is pretty limited. And none of it is actually enough to solve the problem.
What is this garbage where people are angry about funding concentration camps and your response is
So "we said it wouldn't work" is all well and good but it doesn't actually offer an alternative that does.
Yeah, everyone kept saying blindly funding concentration camps wouldn't work to stop concentration camps because it obviously wouldn't and is morally abhorrent. And for some reason this is what perturbs you.
One can be perturbed by more then one thing at once, as noted above. So outright statements that people are pro-concentration-camps is still garbage with zero excuses for it.
It doesn't take a genius to note that the executive will almost certainly try and get around any restrictions you place on funding or just outright ignore them. But you try anyway. Because there's basically no other options for trying to do something about the conditions in the camps. So "we told you they wouldn't listen" is not really much of a argument against trying.
It is when you give them even more money, especially while people like yourself go "Well what else could they have done?"
Not given more money to concentration camps, Shryke. That's what.
We're seeing what happens when a political party slashed off its activist arm and just become a bunch of middle class bureaucrats. The GOP didn't do this, and they literally have brownshirts on the streets wearing their flag.
And while I know the forum doesn't believe in being a center of promoting direct action for practical and understandable reasons, the extent to which moderate here pretend those options don't even exist is pretty amazing.
I agree but it's not like 90s Democrats weren't extremely middle class white hegemonic bureaucrats who did mass incarceration and very regressive immigration laws nor is it not like 00 Democrats weren't extremely middle class white hegemonic bureaucrats who voted for a war in Iraq and looked the other way re: regressive immigration laws nor did 8 years of Obama's tenure ever order anyone in the DOJ still fighting the Flores case that was started 20 years prior to cease appealing and fighting against reasonable measures for foreign children held in detention camps.
Oh, I agree. I think the main thing that's changed in modern politics is that the minorities that got thrown to the wolves were given video cameras in their phones and social media. Back in the 90s, we had Haitian refugee camps with similar conditions under Clinton (this was even the basis for an X-Files episode!) but we didn't have crowds of protestors keeping the eyes of the world on them.
Things are much worse now, but part of that is because the moderates Democrats who supported those camps don't quite grasp that the GOP is scaling up their version of them to industrial levels.
Shryke, are you actually for shutting these camps down? I am asking because every response you've given is "No, we cant do that so we might as well keep the camps open"
What question is next here "When did you stop beating your wife"? What is this garbage?
Every response of mine has been "you can't shut down the camps". Which is true. It's not "you might as well keep the camps open", it's "you can't not keep them open, it is not within the power of the Democratic party or non-political-party actors to do that".
Just in general if the executive is just gonna ignore Congressional orders, the scope of what Congress can do on this issue is pretty limited. And none of it is actually enough to solve the problem.
What is this garbage where people are angry about funding concentration camps and your response is
So "we said it wouldn't work" is all well and good but it doesn't actually offer an alternative that does.
Yeah, everyone kept saying blindly funding concentration camps wouldn't work to stop concentration camps because it obviously wouldn't and is morally abhorrent. And for some reason this is what perturbs you.
One can be perturbed by more then one thing at once, as noted above. So outright statements that people are pro-concentration-camps is still garbage with zero excuses for it.
It doesn't take a genius to note that the executive will almost certainly try and get around any restrictions you place on funding or just outright ignore them. But you try anyway. Because there's basically no other options for trying to do something about the conditions in the camps. So "we told you they wouldn't listen" is not really much of a argument against trying.
It is when you give them even more money, especially while people like yourself go "Well what else could they have done?"
Not given more money to concentration camps, Shryke. That's what.
Except this is entirely wrong. I didn't say "What else could they do but vote for the version of the bill without protections". I said "the House had basically no realistic options once the Senate caved". You are trying to pull quotes out of context to build your little strawman.
The thing that should have happened is that the Senate should have not fucking caved and then you push for the House bill and get what you can. That's the other thing you can do. You know, like I've said on this very page.
Not passing the bill is entirely realistic. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate's vote. The House can refuse, the House can take its point to every microphone it can find and put pressure on their colleagues in the Senate. "We're not denying funding. We're denying funding without any oversight. That is our job, and we'll be damned if we're going to give it up." It's really that simple.
Except your own party already overwhelmingly supports the bill, given the votes in the Senate. It makes the position untenable for the House.
We're back to "don't try". It passed with a big number, so don't try. I gotcha now.
Yes, the Senate passed the bill overwhelmingly. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate with regard to passing legislation that comes from it. The position is not untenable. The House has just as much goddamned power, with regard to moving legislation, as the Senate does. The House can say "no, we won't do this. Here is why. I assume our Senate colleagues will take a second look because this is unacceptable. We assume our colleagues in the Senate don't want to strip the legislative branch of our oversight abilities, and that this was a mistake." The House can put just as much fucking pressure right back on the Senate.
The House does not have as much power here because their own party is now on the other side of the issue. That puts them in a very weak position. This is why getting your whole party on one side matters.
Remind me how many votes the House lost to pass legislation in their own chamber when the Senate passed the bill. I'm having trouble with the math. The only way their position is actually weaker is if they actually lost votes.
If you want to argue "well the Blue Dog caucus plus the Republicans means the bill would have passed" then make that argument, and show the numbers. Though even in that scenario the Speaker is not, to my knowledge, required to bring the bill to the floor to a vote in the chamber she controls.
The actual argument being put forth here is "but the narrative". Fortunately, the great thing about narratives is that they aren't set in stone. "Don't try, 'cause The Narrative" is what you're repeating over and over, all the while telling us you're not. It's exhausting. I'm sure it's equally exhausting having people point it out.
The actual argument is that politics involves actual politics. There are Democrats and Republicans in both houses of congress. It's the same party over both bodies and so they have influence over one another. And "the narrative" does matter. McConnell has a bill in his hand with bipartisan support, giving him by far the stronger hand in any negotiations here.
No matter how many times you wanna say "well, technically the House can vote however it wants" it doesn't change the reality of how a legislative system works. The party system and media and public perception matter. And the House Democrats have nothing to work with in this situation.
The "moderate" Dems in the senate should not have caved. Failing that, house Dems should have made a theatrical "stand against evil" moment, even though that won't actually change situations for the kids. Pelosi should definitely not spite the 4 high profile dems and their supporters who made that theatrical stand.
Why? Because if people perceive, rightly or wrongly, that there are no legal and lawful means to rescue children from concentration camps, then they may decide to take matters into their own hands. That's bad times for everyone, especially the children themselves.
Except, again, that's not at all what's happened here and ita a narrative that folks are trying to build to wedge apart the party.
First the house made a bill that increased funding and also attempted to put in protections for the children. All but 4 voted for it.
Then the senate stripped those protections out and the senate dems caved (mine were of course fine), and sent a bill back to the house.
Then a bunch more than 4 house members voted against it. A bunch of democrats did vote against funding without attached protections. Just not enough of them.
Pelosi has said before that AOC's outspoken, progressive positions will make it harder for Democrats to win less Democratic-leaning districts. AOC becoming the face of the party nationally threatens the ability of Democrats to pick up seats in districts less progressive than her own (most of them).
The Senate Democrats aren't generating press coverage so she doesn't care.
I don't think Pelosi is willing to die on any policy hill because it's all for nothing if they lose the House.
The politicians I'm most disappointed in are supposed progressive governors like Newsom. He could say something, at the very least.
I believe that she believes it.
I also believe that she believes that it is better strategy to try and convert older white moderates such as herself than it is to try and activate more of the left. Which would certainly explain her strategies since retaking the Speakership, but not an ethos I think will bear out in the long run.
Shryke, are you actually for shutting these camps down? I am asking because every response you've given is "No, we cant do that so we might as well keep the camps open"
What question is next here "When did you stop beating your wife"? What is this garbage?
Every response of mine has been "you can't shut down the camps". Which is true. It's not "you might as well keep the camps open", it's "you can't not keep them open, it is not within the power of the Democratic party or non-political-party actors to do that".
Just in general if the executive is just gonna ignore Congressional orders, the scope of what Congress can do on this issue is pretty limited. And none of it is actually enough to solve the problem.
What is this garbage where people are angry about funding concentration camps and your response is
So "we said it wouldn't work" is all well and good but it doesn't actually offer an alternative that does.
Yeah, everyone kept saying blindly funding concentration camps wouldn't work to stop concentration camps because it obviously wouldn't and is morally abhorrent. And for some reason this is what perturbs you.
One can be perturbed by more then one thing at once, as noted above. So outright statements that people are pro-concentration-camps is still garbage with zero excuses for it.
It doesn't take a genius to note that the executive will almost certainly try and get around any restrictions you place on funding or just outright ignore them. But you try anyway. Because there's basically no other options for trying to do something about the conditions in the camps. So "we told you they wouldn't listen" is not really much of a argument against trying.
It is when you give them even more money, especially while people like yourself go "Well what else could they have done?"
Not given more money to concentration camps, Shryke. That's what.
Except this is entirely wrong. I didn't say "What else could they do but vote for the version of the bill without protections". I said "the House had basically no realistic options once the Senate caved". You are trying to pull quotes out of context to build your little strawman.
The thing that should have happened is that the Senate should have not fucking caved and then you push for the House bill and get what you can. That's the other thing you can do. You know, like I've said on this very page.
Not passing the bill is entirely realistic. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate's vote. The House can refuse, the House can take its point to every microphone it can find and put pressure on their colleagues in the Senate. "We're not denying funding. We're denying funding without any oversight. That is our job, and we'll be damned if we're going to give it up." It's really that simple.
Except your own party already overwhelmingly supports the bill, given the votes in the Senate. It makes the position untenable for the House.
We're back to "don't try". It passed with a big number, so don't try. I gotcha now.
Yes, the Senate passed the bill overwhelmingly. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate with regard to passing legislation that comes from it. The position is not untenable. The House has just as much goddamned power, with regard to moving legislation, as the Senate does. The House can say "no, we won't do this. Here is why. I assume our Senate colleagues will take a second look because this is unacceptable. We assume our colleagues in the Senate don't want to strip the legislative branch of our oversight abilities, and that this was a mistake." The House can put just as much fucking pressure right back on the Senate.
The House does not have as much power here because their own party is now on the other side of the issue. That puts them in a very weak position. This is why getting your whole party on one side matters.
Remind me how many votes the House lost to pass legislation in their own chamber when the Senate passed the bill. I'm having trouble with the math. The only way their position is actually weaker is if they actually lost votes.
If you want to argue "well the Blue Dog caucus plus the Republicans means the bill would have passed" then make that argument, and show the numbers. Though even in that scenario the Speaker is not, to my knowledge, required to bring the bill to the floor to a vote in the chamber she controls.
The actual argument being put forth here is "but the narrative". Fortunately, the great thing about narratives is that they aren't set in stone. "Don't try, 'cause The Narrative" is what you're repeating over and over, all the while telling us you're not. It's exhausting. I'm sure it's equally exhausting having people point it out.
The actual argument is that politics involves actual politics. There are Democrats and Republicans in both houses of congress. It's the same party over both bodies and so they have influence over one another. And "the narrative" does matter. McConnell has a bill in his hand with bipartisan support, giving him by far the stronger hand in any negotiations here.
No matter how many times you wanna say "well, technically the House can vote however it wants" it doesn't change the reality of how a legislative system works. The party system and media and public perception matter. And the House Democrats have nothing to work with in this situation.
Well nothing other than "kids in cages", "detainees being denied soap, toothpaste, and blankets, and this Admin sending lawyers to go to bat for that, which by the way is worse treatment than we're required to give enemy combatants and worse than fuckin' Somali pirates treatment of their prisoners", "detainees being told to drink out of toilets", "reports of sexual assault", "detainees dying in our custody due to lack of care", and "some treatment reminiscent of Abu Ghraib (the parading a guy around made to wear a 'I like men' sign)". Sure, other than things like that the House has no arguments with with which to apply political pressure on their colleagues in the other body and in the media.
The "moderate" Dems in the senate should not have caved. Failing that, house Dems should have made a theatrical "stand against evil" moment, even though that won't actually change situations for the kids. Pelosi should definitely not spite the 4 high profile dems and their supporters who made that theatrical stand.
Why? Because if people perceive, rightly or wrongly, that there are no legal and lawful means to rescue children from concentration camps, then they may decide to take matters into their own hands. That's bad times for everyone, especially the children themselves.
Except, again, that's not at all what's happened here and ita a narrative that folks are trying to build to wedge apart the party.
First the house made a bill that increased funding and also attempted to put in protections for the children. All but 4 voted for it.
Then the senate stripped those protections out and the senate dems caved (mine were of course fine), and sent a bill back to the house.
Then a bunch more than 4 house members voted against it. A bunch of democrats did vote against funding without attached protections. Just not enough of them.
I mean fine, but I don't actually care. If supporting the version of the bill with oversight in it was so important to Pelosi, she shouldn't have immediately caved when it came back to her without that in it.
Shryke, are you actually for shutting these camps down? I am asking because every response you've given is "No, we cant do that so we might as well keep the camps open"
What question is next here "When did you stop beating your wife"? What is this garbage?
Every response of mine has been "you can't shut down the camps". Which is true. It's not "you might as well keep the camps open", it's "you can't not keep them open, it is not within the power of the Democratic party or non-political-party actors to do that".
Just in general if the executive is just gonna ignore Congressional orders, the scope of what Congress can do on this issue is pretty limited. And none of it is actually enough to solve the problem.
What is this garbage where people are angry about funding concentration camps and your response is
So "we said it wouldn't work" is all well and good but it doesn't actually offer an alternative that does.
Yeah, everyone kept saying blindly funding concentration camps wouldn't work to stop concentration camps because it obviously wouldn't and is morally abhorrent. And for some reason this is what perturbs you.
One can be perturbed by more then one thing at once, as noted above. So outright statements that people are pro-concentration-camps is still garbage with zero excuses for it.
It doesn't take a genius to note that the executive will almost certainly try and get around any restrictions you place on funding or just outright ignore them. But you try anyway. Because there's basically no other options for trying to do something about the conditions in the camps. So "we told you they wouldn't listen" is not really much of a argument against trying.
It is when you give them even more money, especially while people like yourself go "Well what else could they have done?"
Not given more money to concentration camps, Shryke. That's what.
Except this is entirely wrong. I didn't say "What else could they do but vote for the version of the bill without protections". I said "the House had basically no realistic options once the Senate caved". You are trying to pull quotes out of context to build your little strawman.
The thing that should have happened is that the Senate should have not fucking caved and then you push for the House bill and get what you can. That's the other thing you can do. You know, like I've said on this very page.
Not passing the bill is entirely realistic. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate's vote. The House can refuse, the House can take its point to every microphone it can find and put pressure on their colleagues in the Senate. "We're not denying funding. We're denying funding without any oversight. That is our job, and we'll be damned if we're going to give it up." It's really that simple.
Except your own party already overwhelmingly supports the bill, given the votes in the Senate. It makes the position untenable for the House.
We're back to "don't try". It passed with a big number, so don't try. I gotcha now.
Yes, the Senate passed the bill overwhelmingly. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate with regard to passing legislation that comes from it. The position is not untenable. The House has just as much goddamned power, with regard to moving legislation, as the Senate does. The House can say "no, we won't do this. Here is why. I assume our Senate colleagues will take a second look because this is unacceptable. We assume our colleagues in the Senate don't want to strip the legislative branch of our oversight abilities, and that this was a mistake." The House can put just as much fucking pressure right back on the Senate.
The House does not have as much power here because their own party is now on the other side of the issue. That puts them in a very weak position. This is why getting your whole party on one side matters.
Remind me how many votes the House lost to pass legislation in their own chamber when the Senate passed the bill. I'm having trouble with the math. The only way their position is actually weaker is if they actually lost votes.
If you want to argue "well the Blue Dog caucus plus the Republicans means the bill would have passed" then make that argument, and show the numbers. Though even in that scenario the Speaker is not, to my knowledge, required to bring the bill to the floor to a vote in the chamber she controls.
The actual argument being put forth here is "but the narrative". Fortunately, the great thing about narratives is that they aren't set in stone. "Don't try, 'cause The Narrative" is what you're repeating over and over, all the while telling us you're not. It's exhausting. I'm sure it's equally exhausting having people point it out.
The actual argument is that politics involves actual politics. There are Democrats and Republicans in both houses of congress. It's the same party over both bodies and so they have influence over one another. And "the narrative" does matter. McConnell has a bill in his hand with bipartisan support, giving him by far the stronger hand in any negotiations here.
No matter how many times you wanna say "well, technically the House can vote however it wants" it doesn't change the reality of how a legislative system works. The party system and media and public perception matter. And the House Democrats have nothing to work with in this situation.
Well nothing other than "kids in cages", "detainees being denied soap, toothpaste, and blankets, and this Admin sending lawyers to go to bat for that, which by the way is worse treatment than we're required to give enemy combatants and worse than fuckin' Somali pirates treatment of their prisoners", "detainees being told to drink out of toilets", "reports of sexual assault", "detainees dying in our custody due to lack of care", and "some treatment reminiscent of Abu Ghraib (the parading a guy around made to wear a 'I like men' sign)". Sure, other than things like that the House has no arguments with with which to apply political pressure on their colleagues in the other body and in the media.
Voting against this bill would solve none of that. Again, whether or not the camps should exist was not on the table.
And hell, the original House bill was basically the only thing trying (vainly and not all that well) to address those issues.
+2
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Shryke, are you actually for shutting these camps down? I am asking because every response you've given is "No, we cant do that so we might as well keep the camps open"
What question is next here "When did you stop beating your wife"? What is this garbage?
Every response of mine has been "you can't shut down the camps". Which is true. It's not "you might as well keep the camps open", it's "you can't not keep them open, it is not within the power of the Democratic party or non-political-party actors to do that".
Just in general if the executive is just gonna ignore Congressional orders, the scope of what Congress can do on this issue is pretty limited. And none of it is actually enough to solve the problem.
What is this garbage where people are angry about funding concentration camps and your response is
So "we said it wouldn't work" is all well and good but it doesn't actually offer an alternative that does.
Yeah, everyone kept saying blindly funding concentration camps wouldn't work to stop concentration camps because it obviously wouldn't and is morally abhorrent. And for some reason this is what perturbs you.
One can be perturbed by more then one thing at once, as noted above. So outright statements that people are pro-concentration-camps is still garbage with zero excuses for it.
It doesn't take a genius to note that the executive will almost certainly try and get around any restrictions you place on funding or just outright ignore them. But you try anyway. Because there's basically no other options for trying to do something about the conditions in the camps. So "we told you they wouldn't listen" is not really much of a argument against trying.
It is when you give them even more money, especially while people like yourself go "Well what else could they have done?"
Not given more money to concentration camps, Shryke. That's what.
Except this is entirely wrong. I didn't say "What else could they do but vote for the version of the bill without protections". I said "the House had basically no realistic options once the Senate caved". You are trying to pull quotes out of context to build your little strawman.
The thing that should have happened is that the Senate should have not fucking caved and then you push for the House bill and get what you can. That's the other thing you can do. You know, like I've said on this very page.
Not passing the bill is entirely realistic. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate's vote. The House can refuse, the House can take its point to every microphone it can find and put pressure on their colleagues in the Senate. "We're not denying funding. We're denying funding without any oversight. That is our job, and we'll be damned if we're going to give it up." It's really that simple.
Except your own party already overwhelmingly supports the bill, given the votes in the Senate. It makes the position untenable for the House.
We're back to "don't try". It passed with a big number, so don't try. I gotcha now.
Yes, the Senate passed the bill overwhelmingly. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate with regard to passing legislation that comes from it. The position is not untenable. The House has just as much goddamned power, with regard to moving legislation, as the Senate does. The House can say "no, we won't do this. Here is why. I assume our Senate colleagues will take a second look because this is unacceptable. We assume our colleagues in the Senate don't want to strip the legislative branch of our oversight abilities, and that this was a mistake." The House can put just as much fucking pressure right back on the Senate.
The House does not have as much power here because their own party is now on the other side of the issue. That puts them in a very weak position. This is why getting your whole party on one side matters.
Remind me how many votes the House lost to pass legislation in their own chamber when the Senate passed the bill. I'm having trouble with the math. The only way their position is actually weaker is if they actually lost votes.
If you want to argue "well the Blue Dog caucus plus the Republicans means the bill would have passed" then make that argument, and show the numbers. Though even in that scenario the Speaker is not, to my knowledge, required to bring the bill to the floor to a vote in the chamber she controls.
The actual argument being put forth here is "but the narrative". Fortunately, the great thing about narratives is that they aren't set in stone. "Don't try, 'cause The Narrative" is what you're repeating over and over, all the while telling us you're not. It's exhausting. I'm sure it's equally exhausting having people point it out.
The actual argument is that politics involves actual politics. There are Democrats and Republicans in both houses of congress. It's the same party over both bodies and so they have influence over one another. And "the narrative" does matter. McConnell has a bill in his hand with bipartisan support, giving him by far the stronger hand in any negotiations here.
No matter how many times you wanna say "well, technically the House can vote however it wants" it doesn't change the reality of how a legislative system works. The party system and media and public perception matter. And the House Democrats have nothing to work with in this situation.
Well nothing other than "kids in cages", "detainees being denied soap, toothpaste, and blankets, and this Admin sending lawyers to go to bat for that, which by the way is worse treatment than we're required to give enemy combatants and worse than fuckin' Somali pirates treatment of their prisoners", "detainees being told to drink out of toilets", "reports of sexual assault", "detainees dying in our custody due to lack of care", and "some treatment reminiscent of Abu Ghraib (the parading a guy around made to wear a 'I like men' sign)". Sure, other than things like that the House has no arguments with with which to apply political pressure on their colleagues in the other body and in the media.
Voting against this bill would solve none of that. Again, whether or not the camps should exist was not on the table.
And hell, the original House bill was basically the only thing trying (vainly and not all that well) to address those issues.
Eating a ham sandwich won’t close these camps either, Shryke, but sometimes you’re just hungry
“Whether these camps should exist was not on the table” then Dems should have flipped the table and made it the issue
Pelosi could have said “Senate Republicans stripped basic protections for children out of this bill, revealing that they only care about funding a cruel, racist organization that is abusing kids on our border. I’m not sending this funding bill to the floor. Instead I’m sending this Close the Camps Now bill and Mitch McConnell can fucking choke on it. Nothing will pass through this chamber unless it’s this bill, period.”
At the end of the day, the House passed a version of the bill they (giving them the benefit of the doubt) didn't want. They made a concession. In politics, concessions are typically made to get something in return.
How did the passing of this bill benefit the House Democrats who, according to them, aren't in favor of the camps, but voted for it anyway? What's the angle that makes this worth it?
The "moderate" Dems in the senate should not have caved. Failing that, house Dems should have made a theatrical "stand against evil" moment, even though that won't actually change situations for the kids. Pelosi should definitely not spite the 4 high profile dems and their supporters who made that theatrical stand.
Why? Because if people perceive, rightly or wrongly, that there are no legal and lawful means to rescue children from concentration camps, then they may decide to take matters into their own hands. That's bad times for everyone, especially the children themselves.
Except, again, that's not at all what's happened here and ita a narrative that folks are trying to build to wedge apart the party.
First the house made a bill that increased funding and also attempted to put in protections for the children. All but 4 voted for it.
Then the senate stripped those protections out and the senate dems caved (mine were of course fine), and sent a bill back to the house.
Then a bunch more than 4 house members voted against it. A bunch of democrats did vote against funding without attached protections. Just not enough of them.
Ahh, I see. I misunderstood that part.
Doesn't actually make the situation any better. Senate Dems are still cowards (for once I think that term is appropriate), Pelosi still doesn't get it.
Shryke, are you actually for shutting these camps down? I am asking because every response you've given is "No, we cant do that so we might as well keep the camps open"
What question is next here "When did you stop beating your wife"? What is this garbage?
Every response of mine has been "you can't shut down the camps". Which is true. It's not "you might as well keep the camps open", it's "you can't not keep them open, it is not within the power of the Democratic party or non-political-party actors to do that".
Just in general if the executive is just gonna ignore Congressional orders, the scope of what Congress can do on this issue is pretty limited. And none of it is actually enough to solve the problem.
What is this garbage where people are angry about funding concentration camps and your response is
So "we said it wouldn't work" is all well and good but it doesn't actually offer an alternative that does.
Yeah, everyone kept saying blindly funding concentration camps wouldn't work to stop concentration camps because it obviously wouldn't and is morally abhorrent. And for some reason this is what perturbs you.
One can be perturbed by more then one thing at once, as noted above. So outright statements that people are pro-concentration-camps is still garbage with zero excuses for it.
It doesn't take a genius to note that the executive will almost certainly try and get around any restrictions you place on funding or just outright ignore them. But you try anyway. Because there's basically no other options for trying to do something about the conditions in the camps. So "we told you they wouldn't listen" is not really much of a argument against trying.
It is when you give them even more money, especially while people like yourself go "Well what else could they have done?"
Not given more money to concentration camps, Shryke. That's what.
Except this is entirely wrong. I didn't say "What else could they do but vote for the version of the bill without protections". I said "the House had basically no realistic options once the Senate caved". You are trying to pull quotes out of context to build your little strawman.
The thing that should have happened is that the Senate should have not fucking caved and then you push for the House bill and get what you can. That's the other thing you can do. You know, like I've said on this very page.
Not passing the bill is entirely realistic. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate's vote. The House can refuse, the House can take its point to every microphone it can find and put pressure on their colleagues in the Senate. "We're not denying funding. We're denying funding without any oversight. That is our job, and we'll be damned if we're going to give it up." It's really that simple.
Except your own party already overwhelmingly supports the bill, given the votes in the Senate. It makes the position untenable for the House.
We're back to "don't try". It passed with a big number, so don't try. I gotcha now.
Yes, the Senate passed the bill overwhelmingly. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate with regard to passing legislation that comes from it. The position is not untenable. The House has just as much goddamned power, with regard to moving legislation, as the Senate does. The House can say "no, we won't do this. Here is why. I assume our Senate colleagues will take a second look because this is unacceptable. We assume our colleagues in the Senate don't want to strip the legislative branch of our oversight abilities, and that this was a mistake." The House can put just as much fucking pressure right back on the Senate.
The House does not have as much power here because their own party is now on the other side of the issue. That puts them in a very weak position. This is why getting your whole party on one side matters.
Remind me how many votes the House lost to pass legislation in their own chamber when the Senate passed the bill. I'm having trouble with the math. The only way their position is actually weaker is if they actually lost votes.
If you want to argue "well the Blue Dog caucus plus the Republicans means the bill would have passed" then make that argument, and show the numbers. Though even in that scenario the Speaker is not, to my knowledge, required to bring the bill to the floor to a vote in the chamber she controls.
The actual argument being put forth here is "but the narrative". Fortunately, the great thing about narratives is that they aren't set in stone. "Don't try, 'cause The Narrative" is what you're repeating over and over, all the while telling us you're not. It's exhausting. I'm sure it's equally exhausting having people point it out.
The actual argument is that politics involves actual politics. There are Democrats and Republicans in both houses of congress. It's the same party over both bodies and so they have influence over one another. And "the narrative" does matter. McConnell has a bill in his hand with bipartisan support, giving him by far the stronger hand in any negotiations here.
No matter how many times you wanna say "well, technically the House can vote however it wants" it doesn't change the reality of how a legislative system works. The party system and media and public perception matter. And the House Democrats have nothing to work with in this situation.
Well nothing other than "kids in cages", "detainees being denied soap, toothpaste, and blankets, and this Admin sending lawyers to go to bat for that, which by the way is worse treatment than we're required to give enemy combatants and worse than fuckin' Somali pirates treatment of their prisoners", "detainees being told to drink out of toilets", "reports of sexual assault", "detainees dying in our custody due to lack of care", and "some treatment reminiscent of Abu Ghraib (the parading a guy around made to wear a 'I like men' sign)". Sure, other than things like that the House has no arguments with with which to apply political pressure on their colleagues in the other body and in the media.
Voting against this bill would solve none of that. Again, whether or not the camps should exist was not on the table.
And hell, the original House bill was basically the only thing trying (vainly and not all that well) to address those issues.
What? I didn't say anything about the camps not existing.
Yes, the oversight measures in the original House bill are what I'm arguing that the House should have fought for in rejecting the bill the Senate sent them. My plan is that they attempt to get them re-added by way of using the horrible shit that's happening in the camps that I laid out as a way of weighting the narrative in their favor so that they can get them re-added.
On June 10th, 1940, the combined houses of the parliament in France voted to end the 3rd Republic, to give Phillippe Petain dictatorial powers that would ultimately replace "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" with "Travail, famille, patrie." The majorities in the houses were massive: of the 649 people voting, 569 voted in favor of fascism. 80 people voted in against the measure. History remembers them as the Vichy 80: even though they knew that they would lose the vote, even with the Nazis literally in Paris and in control of France, they voted against a measure that they knew was wrong. Additionally, another 27 people missed the vote because they refused to serve in the Vichy government at all and fled the country; the Massilia absentees are also considered heroes.
The 569 people who voted against democracy 79 years ago today are not favorably remembered by history.
Neither will any of the democrats who voted for giving more money to put kids in cages.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Shryke, are you actually for shutting these camps down? I am asking because every response you've given is "No, we cant do that so we might as well keep the camps open"
What question is next here "When did you stop beating your wife"? What is this garbage?
Every response of mine has been "you can't shut down the camps". Which is true. It's not "you might as well keep the camps open", it's "you can't not keep them open, it is not within the power of the Democratic party or non-political-party actors to do that".
Just in general if the executive is just gonna ignore Congressional orders, the scope of what Congress can do on this issue is pretty limited. And none of it is actually enough to solve the problem.
What is this garbage where people are angry about funding concentration camps and your response is
So "we said it wouldn't work" is all well and good but it doesn't actually offer an alternative that does.
Yeah, everyone kept saying blindly funding concentration camps wouldn't work to stop concentration camps because it obviously wouldn't and is morally abhorrent. And for some reason this is what perturbs you.
One can be perturbed by more then one thing at once, as noted above. So outright statements that people are pro-concentration-camps is still garbage with zero excuses for it.
It doesn't take a genius to note that the executive will almost certainly try and get around any restrictions you place on funding or just outright ignore them. But you try anyway. Because there's basically no other options for trying to do something about the conditions in the camps. So "we told you they wouldn't listen" is not really much of a argument against trying.
It is when you give them even more money, especially while people like yourself go "Well what else could they have done?"
Not given more money to concentration camps, Shryke. That's what.
Except this is entirely wrong. I didn't say "What else could they do but vote for the version of the bill without protections". I said "the House had basically no realistic options once the Senate caved". You are trying to pull quotes out of context to build your little strawman.
The thing that should have happened is that the Senate should have not fucking caved and then you push for the House bill and get what you can. That's the other thing you can do. You know, like I've said on this very page.
Not passing the bill is entirely realistic. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate's vote. The House can refuse, the House can take its point to every microphone it can find and put pressure on their colleagues in the Senate. "We're not denying funding. We're denying funding without any oversight. That is our job, and we'll be damned if we're going to give it up." It's really that simple.
Except your own party already overwhelmingly supports the bill, given the votes in the Senate. It makes the position untenable for the House.
We're back to "don't try". It passed with a big number, so don't try. I gotcha now.
Yes, the Senate passed the bill overwhelmingly. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate with regard to passing legislation that comes from it. The position is not untenable. The House has just as much goddamned power, with regard to moving legislation, as the Senate does. The House can say "no, we won't do this. Here is why. I assume our Senate colleagues will take a second look because this is unacceptable. We assume our colleagues in the Senate don't want to strip the legislative branch of our oversight abilities, and that this was a mistake." The House can put just as much fucking pressure right back on the Senate.
The House does not have as much power here because their own party is now on the other side of the issue. That puts them in a very weak position. This is why getting your whole party on one side matters.
Remind me how many votes the House lost to pass legislation in their own chamber when the Senate passed the bill. I'm having trouble with the math. The only way their position is actually weaker is if they actually lost votes.
If you want to argue "well the Blue Dog caucus plus the Republicans means the bill would have passed" then make that argument, and show the numbers. Though even in that scenario the Speaker is not, to my knowledge, required to bring the bill to the floor to a vote in the chamber she controls.
The actual argument being put forth here is "but the narrative". Fortunately, the great thing about narratives is that they aren't set in stone. "Don't try, 'cause The Narrative" is what you're repeating over and over, all the while telling us you're not. It's exhausting. I'm sure it's equally exhausting having people point it out.
The actual argument is that politics involves actual politics. There are Democrats and Republicans in both houses of congress. It's the same party over both bodies and so they have influence over one another. And "the narrative" does matter. McConnell has a bill in his hand with bipartisan support, giving him by far the stronger hand in any negotiations here.
No matter how many times you wanna say "well, technically the House can vote however it wants" it doesn't change the reality of how a legislative system works. The party system and media and public perception matter. And the House Democrats have nothing to work with in this situation.
Well nothing other than "kids in cages", "detainees being denied soap, toothpaste, and blankets, and this Admin sending lawyers to go to bat for that, which by the way is worse treatment than we're required to give enemy combatants and worse than fuckin' Somali pirates treatment of their prisoners", "detainees being told to drink out of toilets", "reports of sexual assault", "detainees dying in our custody due to lack of care", and "some treatment reminiscent of Abu Ghraib (the parading a guy around made to wear a 'I like men' sign)". Sure, other than things like that the House has no arguments with with which to apply political pressure on their colleagues in the other body and in the media.
Voting against this bill would solve none of that. Again, whether or not the camps should exist was not on the table.
And hell, the original House bill was basically the only thing trying (vainly and not all that well) to address those issues.
What? I didn't say anything about the camps not existing.
Yes, the oversight measures in the original House bill are what I'm arguing that the House should have fought for in rejecting the bill the Senate sent them. My plan is that they attempt to get them re-added by way of using the horrible shit that's happening in the camps that I laid out as a way of weighting the narrative in their favor so that they can get them re-added.
Yup. They couldn't even stand up for that. This was an unconditional surrender.
The FY2020 DHS appropriation bill is in the pipe. It has some provisions regarding immigrant detention, such as the creation of an ombudsman, ending family detention by end of 2019, etc. I haven't read the whole thing.
Fighting like hell over that bill is probably the calculus.
My understanding of Senate Dems is that they voted for the bill because they were concerned their constituents would view them as abandoning the kids. If that is the case, then that is abject incompetence on the part of the Dem party in messaging. It is also genuine cowardice.
After that, house Dems could have straight up stopped the bill because they have a majority. They did not, for reasons I'm not entirely certain of. I do not know of any incentive or pressure to cave to.
The rot with our immigration is more than just ICE is the problem. It's primarily an all LEO issue, like this article notes king county sheriffs continued working with ICE even when it was against the law in the county to do so.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
My understanding of Senate Dems is that they voted for the bill because they were concerned their constituents would view them as abandoning the kids. If that is the case, then that is abject incompetence on the part of the Dem party in messaging. It is also genuine cowardice.
After that, house Dems could have straight up stopped the bill because they have a majority. They did not, for reasons I'm not entirely certain of. I do not know of any incentive or pressure to cave to.
Do I have this about right?
Bluedogs and the problem solvers caucus forced Pelosi's hand and made it so she couldn't try to counter again with a bill that re added the protections.
Posts
Well they voted against the bill because it was still giving money to ICE. It was a principled stand, so I can see why it confused Pelosi into attacking her own caucus members for not being sufficiently happy she folded to the GOP.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Not passing the bill is entirely realistic. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate's vote. The House can refuse, the House can take its point to every microphone it can find and put pressure on their colleagues in the Senate. "We're not denying funding. We're denying funding without any oversight. That is our job, and we'll be damned if we're going to give it up." It's really that simple.
The Senate Democrats aren't generating press coverage so she doesn't care.
I don't think Pelosi is willing to die on any policy hill because it's all for nothing if they lose the House.
The politicians I'm most disappointed in are supposed progressive governors like Newsom. He could say something, at the very least.
Except your own party already overwhelmingly supports the bill, given the votes in the Senate. It makes the position untenable for the House.
This is the same consultant driven having no actual values will win us elections bullshit that has lost a ton of elections.
The thing about "be mad about republicans!" is that there's no argument that we should be mad at republicans. There's communal agreement there, so there's nothing to post. What there isn't agreement on is the democrats, and so of course that generates the discussion.
We're seeing what happens when a political party slashed off its activist arm and just become a bunch of middle class bureaucrats. The GOP didn't do this, and they literally have brownshirts on the streets wearing their flag.
And while I know the forum doesn't believe in being a center of promoting direct action for practical and understandable reasons, the extent to which moderates here pretend those options don't even exist is pretty amazing.
We're back to "don't try". It passed with a big number, so don't try. I gotcha now.
Yes, the Senate passed the bill overwhelmingly. The House is in no way beholden to the Senate with regard to passing legislation that comes from it. The position is not untenable. The House has just as much goddamned power, with regard to moving legislation, as the Senate does. The House can say "no, we won't do this. Here is why. I assume our Senate colleagues will take a second look because this is unacceptable. We assume our colleagues in the Senate don't want to strip the legislative branch of our oversight abilities, and that this was a mistake." The House can put just as much fucking pressure right back on the Senate.
If your party makes the position of "fuck concentration camps" untenable, then you need to step up and tell the party to go fuck itself.
I didn't think about this. Progressives make-up only a small portion of the Democratic electorate, with most people only caring about issues that directly impact themselves or people they are close to (the Hidden Tribes study even found that large numbers of Democratic voters outside of Progressives think the Left has become too politically correct).
Maybe AOC's prominence will help shift Democratic voters further Left, but the alternative is frightening...
The House does not have as much power here because their own party is now on the other side of the issue. That puts them in a very weak position. This is why getting your whole party on one side matters.
Honestly this kind of calculus is why the democrats are supporting concentration camps and its infuriating. "Well we can't ignore the racists and hate mongers who might vote democrat if we offer them a fig leaf". Working out great guys!
pleasepaypreacher.net
If we get past the convenient labels, "progressive" just means urban and liberal. People in New York and California - and most urban centers - must conform to the desires of the majority of white folks in Southern, Midwest, and Rust Belt states, even when those white folks decide to put people the children of people who are sometimes literally their relatives in cages in the desert and rape them?
Yeah, that's a system of government that's going to prosper under the challenges of climate change. Should Cortez just tell her constituents to start tatttooing themselves now for easier collection if the white majority so decides?
YES
Well, the thing is that most Progressives actually ARE white (and also make over $100,000 a year). Only 8% of Progressives are African-American, for example.
The hypothesis behind this is that well-off people either become Conservative to deny their privilege or become Progressive because they recognize it and don't have many problems of their own to worry about.
But the point is they have to stand for shit. Politically speaking that's what being "genuine" means. I contend that there are a significant number of independent voters who will vote for a fascist or a socialist and not see that as a contradiction if the opponent is someone who appears to be poll tested and willing to say anything to get elected.
Democratic voters are pretty progressive on the issues. The majority of the country is in favor of universal health care, gun control, higher taxes on the wealthy, minimum wage increases, etc. There’s a consistent disconnect between the policy people like and the way the GOP has worked to tarnish the brand of the party that wants to enact that policy. That’s literally what’s happening with AOC—most of her positions are quite popular, but Fox News is dedicated to making sure conservative voters think of her as “just too far left,” the way I will sometimes irrationally throw away delicious milk because I fear it’s too close to the sell-by date even though it’s obviously not spoiled yet.
AOC says sensible things in a frank and appealing way; downplaying or attacking her because you’re afraid moderates will consider her too extreme is, in fact, buying into that framework and therefore self-fulfilling the prophecy.
This is basically the fear that probably flipped the Senate and the moderates in the House.
It's true that Democrats do need a lot of voters from more moderate districts and demographics to win (because of how the setup of the system skews against left-wing politics in general) but it's honestly not all that likely that that this kind of appeasement actually works in getting those votes. The 2018 election I think does a good job of demonstrating how you can pull a lot of these voters just with a good message on the kinds of things you want to accomplish. Have a goddamn position. No one respects the running away from taking a firm position crap.
DC strategists though are stupid and a lot of congresspeople are cowardly on this front.
Why? Because if people perceive, rightly or wrongly, that there are no legal and lawful means to rescue children from concentration camps, then they may decide to take matters into their own hands. That's bad times for everyone, especially the children themselves.
Remind me how many votes the House lost to pass legislation in their own chamber when the Senate passed the bill. I'm having trouble with the math. The only way their position is actually weaker is if they actually lost votes.
If you want to argue "well the Blue Dog caucus plus the Republicans means the bill would have passed" then make that argument, and show the numbers. Though even in that scenario the Speaker is not, to my knowledge, required to bring the bill to the floor to a vote in the chamber she controls.
The actual argument being put forth here is "but the narrative". Fortunately, the great thing about narratives is that they aren't set in stone. "Don't try, 'cause The Narrative" is what you're repeating over and over, all the while telling us you're not. It's exhausting. I'm sure it's equally exhausting having people point it out.
Oh, I agree. I think the main thing that's changed in modern politics is that the minorities that got thrown to the wolves were given video cameras in their phones and social media. Back in the 90s, we had Haitian refugee camps with similar conditions under Clinton (this was even the basis for an X-Files episode!) but we didn't have crowds of protestors keeping the eyes of the world on them.
Things are much worse now, but part of that is because the moderates Democrats who supported those camps don't quite grasp that the GOP is scaling up their version of them to industrial levels.
The actual argument is that politics involves actual politics. There are Democrats and Republicans in both houses of congress. It's the same party over both bodies and so they have influence over one another. And "the narrative" does matter. McConnell has a bill in his hand with bipartisan support, giving him by far the stronger hand in any negotiations here.
No matter how many times you wanna say "well, technically the House can vote however it wants" it doesn't change the reality of how a legislative system works. The party system and media and public perception matter. And the House Democrats have nothing to work with in this situation.
Except, again, that's not at all what's happened here and ita a narrative that folks are trying to build to wedge apart the party.
First the house made a bill that increased funding and also attempted to put in protections for the children. All but 4 voted for it.
Then the senate stripped those protections out and the senate dems caved (mine were of course fine), and sent a bill back to the house.
Then a bunch more than 4 house members voted against it. A bunch of democrats did vote against funding without attached protections. Just not enough of them.
I believe that she believes it.
I also believe that she believes that it is better strategy to try and convert older white moderates such as herself than it is to try and activate more of the left. Which would certainly explain her strategies since retaking the Speakership, but not an ethos I think will bear out in the long run.
Well nothing other than "kids in cages", "detainees being denied soap, toothpaste, and blankets, and this Admin sending lawyers to go to bat for that, which by the way is worse treatment than we're required to give enemy combatants and worse than fuckin' Somali pirates treatment of their prisoners", "detainees being told to drink out of toilets", "reports of sexual assault", "detainees dying in our custody due to lack of care", and "some treatment reminiscent of Abu Ghraib (the parading a guy around made to wear a 'I like men' sign)". Sure, other than things like that the House has no arguments with with which to apply political pressure on their colleagues in the other body and in the media.
I mean fine, but I don't actually care. If supporting the version of the bill with oversight in it was so important to Pelosi, she shouldn't have immediately caved when it came back to her without that in it.
Voting against this bill would solve none of that. Again, whether or not the camps should exist was not on the table.
And hell, the original House bill was basically the only thing trying (vainly and not all that well) to address those issues.
Eating a ham sandwich won’t close these camps either, Shryke, but sometimes you’re just hungry
“Whether these camps should exist was not on the table” then Dems should have flipped the table and made it the issue
Pelosi could have said “Senate Republicans stripped basic protections for children out of this bill, revealing that they only care about funding a cruel, racist organization that is abusing kids on our border. I’m not sending this funding bill to the floor. Instead I’m sending this Close the Camps Now bill and Mitch McConnell can fucking choke on it. Nothing will pass through this chamber unless it’s this bill, period.”
How did the passing of this bill benefit the House Democrats who, according to them, aren't in favor of the camps, but voted for it anyway? What's the angle that makes this worth it?
Ahh, I see. I misunderstood that part.
Doesn't actually make the situation any better. Senate Dems are still cowards (for once I think that term is appropriate), Pelosi still doesn't get it.
What? I didn't say anything about the camps not existing.
Yes, the oversight measures in the original House bill are what I'm arguing that the House should have fought for in rejecting the bill the Senate sent them. My plan is that they attempt to get them re-added by way of using the horrible shit that's happening in the camps that I laid out as a way of weighting the narrative in their favor so that they can get them re-added.
On June 10th, 1940, the combined houses of the parliament in France voted to end the 3rd Republic, to give Phillippe Petain dictatorial powers that would ultimately replace "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" with "Travail, famille, patrie." The majorities in the houses were massive: of the 649 people voting, 569 voted in favor of fascism. 80 people voted in against the measure. History remembers them as the Vichy 80: even though they knew that they would lose the vote, even with the Nazis literally in Paris and in control of France, they voted against a measure that they knew was wrong. Additionally, another 27 people missed the vote because they refused to serve in the Vichy government at all and fled the country; the Massilia absentees are also considered heroes.
The 569 people who voted against democracy 79 years ago today are not favorably remembered by history.
Neither will any of the democrats who voted for giving more money to put kids in cages.
Yup. They couldn't even stand up for that. This was an unconditional surrender.
Fighting like hell over that bill is probably the calculus.
After that, house Dems could have straight up stopped the bill because they have a majority. They did not, for reasons I'm not entirely certain of. I do not know of any incentive or pressure to cave to.
Do I have this about right?
The rot with our immigration is more than just ICE is the problem. It's primarily an all LEO issue, like this article notes king county sheriffs continued working with ICE even when it was against the law in the county to do so.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Bluedogs and the problem solvers caucus forced Pelosi's hand and made it so she couldn't try to counter again with a bill that re added the protections.