Options

US Immigration Policy - ICE still the worst, acting in open defiance of orders given.

11415171920100

Posts

  • Options
    NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    What is the problem solvers caucus?

  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    What is the problem solvers caucus?

    Rebranded blue dogs, mostly.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    What is the problem solvers caucus?

    Rebranded blue dogs, mostly.

    With an extra layer of sketchy anonymous funding by billionaires via the No Label parent group.

  • Options
    NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    So the large majority of lawmakers in my government are either for or entirely complicit in funding concentration camps for children?

  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    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.

  • Options
    autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    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

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • Options
    SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    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.

  • Options
    PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    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.

  • Options
    MeeqeMeeqe Lord of the pants most fancy Someplace amazingRegistered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    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.


  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    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.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    Meeqe wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    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.

    Sleep on
  • Options
    SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    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.

  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    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.

  • Options
    BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    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?

  • Options
    NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    edited July 2019
    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?

    Nobeard on
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2019
    BSoB wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    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.

    But I don't buy that Pelosi is actually stupid.

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    Sleep wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    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?)

    Commander Zoom on
  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    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.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    BSoB wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    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
  • Options
    MeeqeMeeqe Lord of the pants most fancy Someplace amazingRegistered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    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.

  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    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?

  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    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.

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

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    I think this was posted here before at some point, but I'm posting it again: https://www.lightsforliberty.org/localevents

    Candlelight vigil/protest Friday night; lots of local events.

  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    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

  • Options
    PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    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.”

  • Options
    Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    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.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    “Kids and their music”

    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

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    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.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    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.

  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    None of the people they voted $4.6B to help keep locked up are going to get vacations.

  • Options
    OneAngryPossumOneAngryPossum Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    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.

  • Options
    Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister It Gets Worse before it gets any better.Registered User regular
    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...

  • Options
    AimAim Registered User regular
    The main thing I get from this is I really want McConnel gone. Time for another donation.

  • Options
    ThawmusThawmus +Jackface Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    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.

    Twitch: Thawmus83
  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    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.

    They're not wrong to be pissed.

  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    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.

    They're not wrong to be pissed.

    The entire party decided that. Again, literally only FOUR house dems against.

  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    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.

    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.

  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Again, the 4 votes were against the original House bill.

  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Again, the 4 votes were against the original House bill.

    And the original house bill didn't do what Henroid was asking for.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    shryke on
This discussion has been closed.