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.
I disagree.
But, accepting for the sake of argument that option was off the table, others - outside the legislative process, but within the political one - have been suggested in this thread.
I think part of the problem in this discussion is that one side is like, “there’s no way to close these camps through usual methods” and that may be true as far as it goes, but arguably if nothing else thus far into the Trump admin, concentration camps should be a “this is not business as usual” moment. Democrats should walk out of Congress and refuse to pass anything. They should go lead mass marches on the camps to demand their closing. They should, in other words, find a way to break through the fog of manipulation that encourages us to accept the unacceptable.
The most frustrating thing about Democrats is not that they sometimes play the game poorly, or even that they cave sometimes; it’s that they can’t seem to treat this situation (the admin as a whole, the camps in particular) as a true emergency, one which requires action beyond passing bills which will never get through the Senate (or worse, in this case, passing bills that will).
Trump is definitely worse, but he's mostly taking the mask off of America's policies and making them even uglier. They were already very ugly though. Both sides are not the same, but democrats, outside a few outliers (Bernie, Aoc, a few others) are not paragons of freedom and liberty. They are still power hungry politician that mostly try to please their donors, but they are socially more progressive.
This used to end up being used to simply change up the face of the country a bit while the gift of the military industrial complex underneath went on in the background, mostly unchanged, and foreign policy also stayed the same, and also immigration policy basically meandered around a pretty right wing point
It feels like Democrats are basically trying to still play that game, while the Republicans obviously have noticed that they can just have it all if they rile up the people, forgetting, or ignoring, that the monsters they create that way will end up smashing their nice grift system, because they're true believers
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.
I disagree.
But, accepting for the sake of argument that option was off the table, others - outside the legislative process, but within the political one - have been suggested in this thread.
The blue dogs and problem solvers, along with the republicans, controlled enough of the votes on the floor that trying to bring a debate to the floor to pass something else would have failed.
I think part of the problem in this discussion is that one side is like, “there’s no way to close these camps through usual methods” and that may be true as far as it goes, but arguably if nothing else thus far into the Trump admin, concentration camps should be a “this is not business as usual” moment. Democrats should walk out of Congress and refuse to pass anything. They should go lead mass marches on the camps to demand their closing. They should, in other words, find a way to break through the fog of manipulation that encourages us to accept the unacceptable.
The most frustrating thing about Democrats is not that they sometimes play the game poorly, or even that they cave sometimes; it’s that they can’t seem to treat this situation (the admin as a whole, the camps in particular) as a true emergency, one which requires action beyond passing bills which will never get through the Senate (or worse, in this case, passing bills that will).
Trump is definitely worse, but he's mostly taking the mask off of America's policies and making them even uglier. They were already very ugly though. Both sides are not the same, but democrats, outside a few outliers (Bernie, Aoc, a few others) are not paragons of freedom and liberty. They are still power hungry politician that mostly try to please their donors, but they are socially more progressive.
This used to end up being used to simply change up the face of the country a bit while the gift of the military industrial complex underneath went on in the background, mostly unchanged, and foreign policy also stayed the same, and also immigration policy basically meandered around a pretty right wing point
It feels like Democrats are basically trying to still play that game, while the Republicans obviously have noticed that they can just have it all if they rile up the people, forgetting, or ignoring, that the monsters they create that way will end up smashing their nice grift system, because they're true believers
It's also playing very poorly with the younger generations, who the Democrats need to convert into voters.
+13
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
So the large majority of lawmakers in my government are either for or entirely complicit in funding concentration camps for children?
Pretty much. Both parties voted overwhelming not only to continue this shit, but to give it more money without oversight, then Den leadership publicly castigated the few members of their party willing to say no.
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.
I disagree.
But, accepting for the sake of argument that option was off the table, others - outside the legislative process, but within the political one - have been suggested in this thread.
The blue dogs and problem solvers, along with the republicans, controlled enough of the votes on the floor that trying to bring a debate to the floor to pass something else would have failed.
Can't pass something if it doesn't get brought to the floor. Which is a power Pelosi has and she didn't use.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So the large majority of lawmakers in my government are either for or entirely complicit in funding concentration camps for children?
Pretty much. Both parties voted overwhelming not only to continue this shit, but to give it more money without oversight, then Den leadership publicly castigated the few members of their party willing to say no.
Again, no thats not what happened
The 95 members that voted against the senate bill have not been castigated in any way.
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.
I disagree.
But, accepting for the sake of argument that option was off the table, others - outside the legislative process, but within the political one - have been suggested in this thread.
The blue dogs and problem solvers, along with the republicans, controlled enough of the votes on the floor that trying to bring a debate to the floor to pass something else would have failed.
Can't pass something if it doesn't get brought to the floor. Which is a power Pelosi has and she didn't use.
She was literally told that it wouldn't pass if she brought it to the floor.
Activism is part of politics. It's all well and good to say that we need to exist in some realpolitik, pragmatic, platonic ideal of what Congresspeople ought to be doing, but how many of the people who voted to give billions -- billions! -- of dollars to the people perpetrating crimes against humanity have actually been to these camps, much less organized protests, documented and reported atrocities, hit the pavement and raise awareness/get locals involved, etc.? Yes, a lot of these camps are in places that aren't in districts personal to these congresspeople, but if an issue demands national attention the way fucking concentration camps do, they should be bringing politics to the people, not vice versa.
But it turns out almost all the work on the ground is being done by local activists and not people with any real power. The excuse that there's nothing these politicians can do but sit in their air conditioned offices and chambers and wail about how they don't have the votes to shut these down is not one I'm willing to accept. Being a senator or representative is more than giving some pretty speeches on C-SPAN that nobody watches and voting yes/no based on what you think will get you elected again next time you're up. Politics is more than that. Pretending like they don't have the power to shape public perception or drive populist action against heinous crimes perpetrated on American soil is an impotent argument. Almost nobody has more power than these people, and with few exceptions, they don't seem to be interested in flexing it.
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.
I disagree.
But, accepting for the sake of argument that option was off the table, others - outside the legislative process, but within the political one - have been suggested in this thread.
The blue dogs and problem solvers, along with the republicans, controlled enough of the votes on the floor that trying to bring a debate to the floor to pass something else would have failed.
Can't pass something if it doesn't get brought to the floor. Which is a power Pelosi has and she didn't use.
She was literally told that it wouldn't pass if she brought it to the floor.
What? who told her that?
Isn't it her job to know what will pass and what won't?
Assuming that Pelosi could materially prevent a vote on the bill after it came back from the Senate, what pressure could any caucus or blue dogs or whatever group put on Pelosi to hold the vote? Why would they want to?
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.
I disagree.
But, accepting for the sake of argument that option was off the table, others - outside the legislative process, but within the political one - have been suggested in this thread.
The blue dogs and problem solvers, along with the republicans, controlled enough of the votes on the floor that trying to bring a debate to the floor to pass something else would have failed.
Can't pass something if it doesn't get brought to the floor. Which is a power Pelosi has and she didn't use.
She was literally told that it wouldn't pass if she brought it to the floor.
What? who told her that?
Isn't it her job to know what will pass and what won't?
Yeah if this is actually the case my opinion of her will be even lower than it was.
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.
I disagree.
But, accepting for the sake of argument that option was off the table, others - outside the legislative process, but within the political one - have been suggested in this thread.
The blue dogs and problem solvers, along with the republicans, controlled enough of the votes on the floor that trying to bring a debate to the floor to pass something else would have failed.
Can't pass something if it doesn't get brought to the floor. Which is a power Pelosi has and she didn't use.
She was literally told that it wouldn't pass if she brought it to the floor.
No, you're getting mixed up. Preacher means she could have not put the bill the Senate rewrote up for a vote on the House floor. (Right?)
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.
I disagree.
But, accepting for the sake of argument that option was off the table, others - outside the legislative process, but within the political one - have been suggested in this thread.
The blue dogs and problem solvers, along with the republicans, controlled enough of the votes on the floor that trying to bring a debate to the floor to pass something else would have failed.
Can't pass something if it doesn't get brought to the floor. Which is a power Pelosi has and she didn't use.
She was literally told that it wouldn't pass if she brought it to the floor.
Not what I was saying. She didn't have to bring the senate bill to the floor but she did.
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.
I disagree.
But, accepting for the sake of argument that option was off the table, others - outside the legislative process, but within the political one - have been suggested in this thread.
The blue dogs and problem solvers, along with the republicans, controlled enough of the votes on the floor that trying to bring a debate to the floor to pass something else would have failed.
Can't pass something if it doesn't get brought to the floor. Which is a power Pelosi has and she didn't use.
She was literally told that it wouldn't pass if she brought it to the floor.
What? who told her that?
Isn't it her job to know what will pass and what won't?
Yes. And that's how she knew this time. It's her job to count votes and see what is passable. Sometimes to twist arms and get more votes if that's possible. Other times to realise it's not and try and make the best of what votes there are.
AFAIK after the Senate Dems caved, the moderates in the House said they were going to back the Senate bill and not fight for the House version. And afaik that was enough votes to kill it.
At that point I believe the only way to keep pushing the argument is Pelosi can just not bring it up for a vote and the whole thing dies.
shryke on
+6
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
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.
I disagree.
But, accepting for the sake of argument that option was off the table, others - outside the legislative process, but within the political one - have been suggested in this thread.
The blue dogs and problem solvers, along with the republicans, controlled enough of the votes on the floor that trying to bring a debate to the floor to pass something else would have failed.
Can't pass something if it doesn't get brought to the floor. Which is a power Pelosi has and she didn't use.
She was literally told that it wouldn't pass if she brought it to the floor.
Ah, so it's not Den congressional leadership at fault, its the party's Congress critters overall.
Not nearly as compelling of an argument supporting the Dems as you might think.
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.
I disagree.
But, accepting for the sake of argument that option was off the table, others - outside the legislative process, but within the political one - have been suggested in this thread.
The blue dogs and problem solvers, along with the republicans, controlled enough of the votes on the floor that trying to bring a debate to the floor to pass something else would have failed.
Can't pass something if it doesn't get brought to the floor. Which is a power Pelosi has and she didn't use.
She was literally told that it wouldn't pass if she brought it to the floor.
What? who told her that?
Isn't it her job to know what will pass and what won't?
Yes. And that's how she knew this time. After the Senate Dems caved, the moderates in the House said they were going to back the Senate bill and not fight for the House version. And afaik that was enough votes to kill it.
At that point I believe the only way to keep pushing the argument is Pelosi can just not bring it up for a vote and the whole thing dies.
Ayup. And while she's (not) doing that, she goes to the media to explain why, to take control of the message. Are you saying that she couldn't do that?
It's the rock argument that just irks me "We're not gutless we're incompetent" ok that's a good message to inspire hope.
Meanwhile AOC is out actually visiting the concentration camps to see them firsthand and getting lol millennial'd for it
This is how the head of the Democratic House characterized this:
“All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” Ms. Pelosi told Ms. Dowd in an interview published over the weekend by The Times. “But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people, and that’s how many votes they got.”
I keep trying to find the official name of the bill (and falling short), but one thread I keep picking up from all these articles is the finger pointing between the House and Senate Dems.
House Dems are pissed that the Senate effectively tossed them under the bus, but Senate Dems are saying the House took too long on pushing their bill to the Senate.
But that’s the thing I’m wondering about; where did this arbitrary time limit come from? Why did the Senate Dems feel the need to rush to vote for McConnell’s bill and why couldn’t they wait?
The answer is that there was no time limit because it was arbitrary. McConnell timed the vote for when multiple Senate Dems were campaigning for 2020 and the ones present voted just to get it out of the way so they could go on their 10 day Independence Day break without having to worry about the politics of child prisons!
Once it was sent back to the House with provisions stripped, Pelosi brought it to a vote almost immediately.
It was a combination of incompetence and laziness on Schumer’s part, followed by more incompetence and laziness on Pelosi’s part.
The bill passed 305-102, but the breakdown was GOP 176-7 vs Dem 129-95. Pelosi split her own party on this.
I hope that 10 day break was worth it.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Maybe if some of these Boomer politicians went out to the camps and saw them for themselves they would not be so quick to rubber stamp a check to the Nazis
It's the rock argument that just irks me "We're not gutless we're incompetent" ok that's a good message to inspire hope.
Meanwhile AOC is out actually visiting the concentration camps to see them firsthand and getting lol millennial'd for it
This is how the head of the Democratic House characterized this:
“All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” Ms. Pelosi told Ms. Dowd in an interview published over the weekend by The Times. “But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people, and that’s how many votes they got.”
No, that's how she characterised the vote on the initial House bill. Where only 4 Dems voted against it.
I keep trying to find the official name of the bill (and falling short), but one thread I keep picking up from all these articles is the finger pointing between the House and Senate Dems.
House Dems are pissed that the Senate effectively tossed them under the bus, but Senate Dems are saying the House took too long on pushing their bill to the Senate.
But that’s the thing I’m wondering about; where did this arbitrary time limit come from? Why did the Senate Dems feel the need to rush to vote for McConnell’s bill and why couldn’t they wait?
The answer is that there was no time limit because it was arbitrary. McConnell timed the vote for when multiple Senate Dems were campaigning for 2020 and the ones present voted just to get it out of the way so they could go on their 10 day Independence Day break without having to worry about the politics of child prisons!
Once it was sent back to the House with provisions stripped, Pelosi brought it to a vote almost immediately.
It was a combination of incompetence and laziness on Schumer’s part, followed by more incompetence and laziness on Pelosi’s part.
The bill passed 305-102, but the breakdown was GOP 176-7 vs Dem 129-95. Pelosi split her own party on this.
I hope that 10 day break was worth it.
Yes. One of the big reasons the Senate may have caved is quite literally that they wanted to go home for vacation.
I keep trying to find the official name of the bill (and falling short), but one thread I keep picking up from all these articles is the finger pointing between the House and Senate Dems.
House Dems are pissed that the Senate effectively tossed them under the bus, but Senate Dems are saying the House took too long on pushing their bill to the Senate.
But that’s the thing I’m wondering about; where did this arbitrary time limit come from? Why did the Senate Dems feel the need to rush to vote for McConnell’s bill and why couldn’t they wait?
The answer is that there was no time limit because it was arbitrary. McConnell timed the vote for when multiple Senate Dems were campaigning for 2020 and the ones present voted just to get it out of the way so they could go on their 10 day Independence Day break without having to worry about the politics of child prisons!
Once it was sent back to the House with provisions stripped, Pelosi brought it to a vote almost immediately.
It was a combination of incompetence and laziness on Schumer’s part, followed by more incompetence and laziness on Pelosi’s part.
The bill passed 305-102, but the breakdown was GOP 176-7 vs Dem 129-95. Pelosi split her own party on this.
I hope that 10 day break was worth it.
Yes. One of the big reasons the Senate may have caved is quite literally that they wanted to go home for vacation.
It’s also potentially related to the House’s decision to move forward with the Senate bill - if nothing was done before everybody left town, it could have been weeks or months before anything was done at all. Not stating for the moment whether this was the right call (the camps will be a mark of shame on our country for years and years to come regardless), but if people in the House felt that doing something was better than nothing, or feared weeks of coverage over their refusal to provide funding, I can understand why they might go with the Senate bill.
As an aside, I got a GOP mailer the weekend after the vote attributing blame to Democrats for failing to provide funding and forcing horrible conditions on children at the border. That messaging was already in the works, to the extent that influences any political calculation.
+1
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
You know it is almost as if the ruling class really only cares about maintaining their wealth and power and the status quo is really the only thing they have...
I keep trying to find the official name of the bill (and falling short), but one thread I keep picking up from all these articles is the finger pointing between the House and Senate Dems.
House Dems are pissed that the Senate effectively tossed them under the bus, but Senate Dems are saying the House took too long on pushing their bill to the Senate.
But that’s the thing I’m wondering about; where did this arbitrary time limit come from? Why did the Senate Dems feel the need to rush to vote for McConnell’s bill and why couldn’t they wait?
The answer is that there was no time limit because it was arbitrary. McConnell timed the vote for when multiple Senate Dems were campaigning for 2020 and the ones present voted just to get it out of the way so they could go on their 10 day Independence Day break without having to worry about the politics of child prisons!
Once it was sent back to the House with provisions stripped, Pelosi brought it to a vote almost immediately.
It was a combination of incompetence and laziness on Schumer’s part, followed by more incompetence and laziness on Pelosi’s part.
The bill passed 305-102, but the breakdown was GOP 176-7 vs Dem 129-95. Pelosi split her own party on this.
I hope that 10 day break was worth it.
Yes. One of the big reasons the Senate may have caved is quite literally that they wanted to go home for vacation.
From my understanding, and what's probably worse, some of them caved quickly because they wanted the issue settled before they were out shaking hands again on the campaign trail.
I'm glad most of the front-runners weren't in on that shit.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
All I can add is the following.
In a two-party system it kinda makes sense for some issues to become extreme differences in views. In this case, the Republicans want to imprison children and treat them like shit to the point of death, so the Democratic party should be into the idea of getting those kids free ASAP and into better care.
When the leadership of the opposition party however decides, hey, babysteps or it's not so critical to intervene in hard/fast, then... people are going to be pissed.
In a two-party system it kinda makes sense for some issues to become extreme differences in views. In this case, the Republicans want to imprison children and treat them like shit to the point of death, so the Democratic party should be into the idea of getting those kids free ASAP and into better care.
When the leadership of the opposition party however decides, hey, babysteps or it's not so critical to intervene in hard/fast, then... people are going to be pissed.
They're not wrong to be pissed.
The entire party decided that. Again, literally only FOUR house dems against.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
In a two-party system it kinda makes sense for some issues to become extreme differences in views. In this case, the Republicans want to imprison children and treat them like shit to the point of death, so the Democratic party should be into the idea of getting those kids free ASAP and into better care.
When the leadership of the opposition party however decides, hey, babysteps or it's not so critical to intervene in hard/fast, then... people are going to be pissed.
They're not wrong to be pissed.
The entire party decided that. Again, literally only FOUR house dems against.
Well then the party has a pretty huge goddamn problem on its hands.
+18
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Again, the 4 votes were against the original House bill.
In a two-party system it kinda makes sense for some issues to become extreme differences in views. In this case, the Republicans want to imprison children and treat them like shit to the point of death, so the Democratic party should be into the idea of getting those kids free ASAP and into better care.
When the leadership of the opposition party however decides, hey, babysteps or it's not so critical to intervene in hard/fast, then... people are going to be pissed.
They're not wrong to be pissed.
The entire party decided that. Again, literally only FOUR house dems against.
No. Only 4 Democrats voted against the House bill that was funding + conditions. 95 Democrats in the House and 6+abstains in the Senate were against the final bill.
First the House bill of funding + conditions passes with All Democrats but 4 voting Yes and All Republicans + 4 Democrats voting against.
Then it went to the Senate where they stripped all the conditions out. That bill passes 84-8, with 6 Democrats/2 Republicans against and 7 Democrats/1 Republican abstaining (basically all the Democrats on the campaign trail).
Then the Senate bill came back to the House where it passed 305-102, with 129 Democrats/176 Republicans Yes and 95 Democrats/7 Republicans No.
The split was actually like 60/40 among Democrats in the House.
Posts
Rebranded blue dogs, mostly.
With an extra layer of sketchy anonymous funding by billionaires via the No Label parent group.
I disagree.
But, accepting for the sake of argument that option was off the table, others - outside the legislative process, but within the political one - have been suggested in this thread.
Trump is definitely worse, but he's mostly taking the mask off of America's policies and making them even uglier. They were already very ugly though. Both sides are not the same, but democrats, outside a few outliers (Bernie, Aoc, a few others) are not paragons of freedom and liberty. They are still power hungry politician that mostly try to please their donors, but they are socially more progressive.
This used to end up being used to simply change up the face of the country a bit while the gift of the military industrial complex underneath went on in the background, mostly unchanged, and foreign policy also stayed the same, and also immigration policy basically meandered around a pretty right wing point
It feels like Democrats are basically trying to still play that game, while the Republicans obviously have noticed that they can just have it all if they rile up the people, forgetting, or ignoring, that the monsters they create that way will end up smashing their nice grift system, because they're true believers
The blue dogs and problem solvers, along with the republicans, controlled enough of the votes on the floor that trying to bring a debate to the floor to pass something else would have failed.
It's also playing very poorly with the younger generations, who the Democrats need to convert into voters.
Pretty much. Both parties voted overwhelming not only to continue this shit, but to give it more money without oversight, then Den leadership publicly castigated the few members of their party willing to say no.
Can't pass something if it doesn't get brought to the floor. Which is a power Pelosi has and she didn't use.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Again, no thats not what happened
The 95 members that voted against the senate bill have not been castigated in any way.
She was literally told that it wouldn't pass if she brought it to the floor.
But it turns out almost all the work on the ground is being done by local activists and not people with any real power. The excuse that there's nothing these politicians can do but sit in their air conditioned offices and chambers and wail about how they don't have the votes to shut these down is not one I'm willing to accept. Being a senator or representative is more than giving some pretty speeches on C-SPAN that nobody watches and voting yes/no based on what you think will get you elected again next time you're up. Politics is more than that. Pretending like they don't have the power to shape public perception or drive populist action against heinous crimes perpetrated on American soil is an impotent argument. Almost nobody has more power than these people, and with few exceptions, they don't seem to be interested in flexing it.
What? who told her that?
Isn't it her job to know what will pass and what won't?
Yeah if this is actually the case my opinion of her will be even lower than it was.
But I don't buy that Pelosi is actually stupid.
No, you're getting mixed up. Preacher means she could have not put the bill the Senate rewrote up for a vote on the House floor. (Right?)
Not what I was saying. She didn't have to bring the senate bill to the floor but she did.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yes. And that's how she knew this time. It's her job to count votes and see what is passable. Sometimes to twist arms and get more votes if that's possible. Other times to realise it's not and try and make the best of what votes there are.
AFAIK after the Senate Dems caved, the moderates in the House said they were going to back the Senate bill and not fight for the House version. And afaik that was enough votes to kill it.
At that point I believe the only way to keep pushing the argument is Pelosi can just not bring it up for a vote and the whole thing dies.
Ah, so it's not Den congressional leadership at fault, its the party's Congress critters overall.
Not nearly as compelling of an argument supporting the Dems as you might think.
Ayup. And while she's (not) doing that, she goes to the media to explain why, to take control of the message. Are you saying that she couldn't do that?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Candlelight vigil/protest Friday night; lots of local events.
Meanwhile AOC is out actually visiting the concentration camps to see them firsthand and getting lol millennial'd for it
This is how the head of the Democratic House characterized this:
House Dems are pissed that the Senate effectively tossed them under the bus, but Senate Dems are saying the House took too long on pushing their bill to the Senate.
But that’s the thing I’m wondering about; where did this arbitrary time limit come from? Why did the Senate Dems feel the need to rush to vote for McConnell’s bill and why couldn’t they wait?
The answer is that there was no time limit because it was arbitrary. McConnell timed the vote for when multiple Senate Dems were campaigning for 2020 and the ones present voted just to get it out of the way so they could go on their 10 day Independence Day break without having to worry about the politics of child prisons!
Once it was sent back to the House with provisions stripped, Pelosi brought it to a vote almost immediately.
It was a combination of incompetence and laziness on Schumer’s part, followed by more incompetence and laziness on Pelosi’s part.
The bill passed 305-102, but the breakdown was GOP 176-7 vs Dem 129-95. Pelosi split her own party on this.
I hope that 10 day break was worth it.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Maybe if some of these Boomer politicians went out to the camps and saw them for themselves they would not be so quick to rubber stamp a check to the Nazis
No, that's how she characterised the vote on the initial House bill. Where only 4 Dems voted against it.
Yes. One of the big reasons the Senate may have caved is quite literally that they wanted to go home for vacation.
It’s also potentially related to the House’s decision to move forward with the Senate bill - if nothing was done before everybody left town, it could have been weeks or months before anything was done at all. Not stating for the moment whether this was the right call (the camps will be a mark of shame on our country for years and years to come regardless), but if people in the House felt that doing something was better than nothing, or feared weeks of coverage over their refusal to provide funding, I can understand why they might go with the Senate bill.
As an aside, I got a GOP mailer the weekend after the vote attributing blame to Democrats for failing to provide funding and forcing horrible conditions on children at the border. That messaging was already in the works, to the extent that influences any political calculation.
From my understanding, and what's probably worse, some of them caved quickly because they wanted the issue settled before they were out shaking hands again on the campaign trail.
I'm glad most of the front-runners weren't in on that shit.
In a two-party system it kinda makes sense for some issues to become extreme differences in views. In this case, the Republicans want to imprison children and treat them like shit to the point of death, so the Democratic party should be into the idea of getting those kids free ASAP and into better care.
When the leadership of the opposition party however decides, hey, babysteps or it's not so critical to intervene in hard/fast, then... people are going to be pissed.
They're not wrong to be pissed.
The entire party decided that. Again, literally only FOUR house dems against.
And the original house bill didn't do what Henroid was asking for.
No. Only 4 Democrats voted against the House bill that was funding + conditions. 95 Democrats in the House and 6+abstains in the Senate were against the final bill.
First the House bill of funding + conditions passes with All Democrats but 4 voting Yes and All Republicans + 4 Democrats voting against.
Then it went to the Senate where they stripped all the conditions out. That bill passes 84-8, with 6 Democrats/2 Republicans against and 7 Democrats/1 Republican abstaining (basically all the Democrats on the campaign trail).
Then the Senate bill came back to the House where it passed 305-102, with 129 Democrats/176 Republicans Yes and 95 Democrats/7 Republicans No.
The split was actually like 60/40 among Democrats in the House.