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

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

17810121358

Posts

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 8
    Again, when the most charitable reading is "they're bad at their jobs"...

    Right?

    One side funds the torturing of children because they are evil.
    The other funds because they are incompetent, but I guess that makes it okay.

    The camps are getting funded regardless though. Again, the cruelty is the point.

    It's one side is pro-torturing children and the other side is against torturing children but is trying to decide whether it's better to try and give them funding to improve conditions in the camps or not.

    shryke on
  • XaquinXaquin regular Right behind you!Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Interviewer: Speaker Pelosi, why didn’t you allow the Senate bill to be voted on?
    Speaker Pelosi: Because language to protect children from inhumane conditions was removed. We believe that children should be protected regardless of circumstances, why would McConnell purposely remove this language?

    Parry and redirect. Seems pretty easy to me.

    Interviewer: But your own party supports this language. Why are you letting children starve in camps because of lack of funding?

    "Nancy Pelosi can't handle basic spin" isn't really the winning argument that you might think it is

    Winning in what sense? Like, has anyone claimed they were good at media spin?

    I just think y'all are just missing how this ends up playing out in the media. It's a classic Democrats In Disarray story and at best you get a he-said/she-said between the two chambers.

    you don't though since what was stripped out is in black and white.

    MegaMekFencingsaxElvenshaeCalicaYamiB.Man in the MistsMagell
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Again, when the most charitable reading is "they're bad at their jobs"...

    Right?

    One side funds the torturing of children because they are evil.
    The other funds because they are incompetent, but I guess that makes it okay.

    The camps are getting funded regardless though. Again, the cruelty is the point.

    So don’t provide funds for more cruelty.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    MegaMekElldrenCommander ZoomCaedwyrAridholQuidElvenshaejoshofalltradesFencingsaxBloodsheedBlackDragon480iTunesIsEvilmrondeauMr FuzzbuttCaptain InertiaKamarShadowfirejdarksunTofystedethTicaldfjamZonugalautono-wally, erotibot300dispatch.oHappy Little MachineBullheadYamiB.Man in the MistsEmerlmaster999KoopahTroopahMagell
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Interviewer: Speaker Pelosi, why didn’t you allow the Senate bill to be voted on?
    Speaker Pelosi: Because language to protect children from inhumane conditions was removed. We believe that children should be protected regardless of circumstances, why would McConnell purposely remove this language?

    Parry and redirect. Seems pretty easy to me.

    Interviewer: But your own party supports this language. Why are you letting children starve in camps because of lack of funding?

    "Nancy Pelosi can't handle basic spin" isn't really the winning argument that you might think it is

    Winning in what sense? Like, has anyone claimed they were good at media spin?

    I just think y'all are just missing how this ends up playing out in the media. It's a classic Democrats In Disarray story and at best you get a he-said/she-said between the two chambers.

    you don't though since what was stripped out is in black and white.

    Sure you do. McConnell says "The Democrats are for it, what's wrong with Pelosi?" and Pelosi says "McConnell is a bad person". Report the controversy!

  • NobeardNobeard regular North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    edited July 8
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Madican wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Quiotu wrote: »
    apparently some of us are getting mad that the Democrats didn't kill immigrant prisoners in order to try and make the GOP look worse.

    How goddamn petty.

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

    The camps are there, and will continue to be there. Do you think lack of funding will make them stop using the camps?

    Because have adults and children dying in their care made them stop giving a shit up until now? I don't get the end result you want here... a moral victory? It's going to be a lot harder to proclaim moral superiority when the immigrants start to die faster than before, because you won't fund their survival.

    it'd be a lot easier to believe this if the "fund their survival" part had been added in there somewhere

    It was. The Senate stripped it out.

    exactly, that's why you send it back with "put oversight back in" again and again and again

    Senate Democrats overwhelmingly voted for it already so that doesn't happen. McConnell laughs at you and the press reports on Democratic infighting between the Senate and the House killing the bill and in this case that would actually be accurate.

    so what? fuck senate dems. hang them out to dry. I'd rather that than give $texas to nazis who specifically say they will not bother to provide oversight into their concentration camps.

    Because it doesn't get you the message you want. That's why it matters.

    So this whole thing about them being complicit in funding concentration camps is the message they want?

    These old Democrats absolutely suck at actually getting the messaging they want and then turn around to yell at the younger ones when they prove they know how to actually succeed

    The message in the press is more "AOC vs Pelosi FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT" from what I've seen. They've been pushing it since she ran in the primary and they are finally really getting it for real.

    The point though was that you are thinking Pelosi kills the bill and then goes "We won't fund concentration camps!". But what imo actually happens there is Pelosi kills the bill and you get "Democratic party infighting kills border funding bill" as the headlines and no mention of the other shit.

    None of which is to say they don't suck at controlling the messaging.

    This is still the right way to go.
    The people who will believe "Democratic party infighting kills border funding bill" already think the democrats are for open borders.
    There is zero harm in that headline in terms of votes.

    The opposite is not true.

    Nah, this is not true at all imo. Plenty of democratic voters view "border security" as an important issue. It's a mistake to think that anyone who cares about this stuff must be an immovable GOP base voter.

    So you make it clear this is not about "border security", it's about concentration camps. Take control of the damn narrative!

    I feel like we're talking in circles here.

    I mean, yeah, it's about concentration camps. But it's only about how well funded you want those concentration camps to be. You are either symbolically against the camps but leaving them underfunded or are you for trying to improve conditions in them by funding those camps better. And it's also still about border security or whatever because that's what the GOP is saying every time they get in front of a camera.

    I think the framing of this issue is not as simple or as straightforward as you are thinking.

    Get out in front of the cameras too, and make your case to the people. If the framing is bad, change it. If you don't know how, find someone who does.

    Otherwise, you're stuck with choosing between the two chalices your opponent offers you (both of which are poisoned) while he jabs you with Morton's Fork. No, fuck that. If you cannot win on the ground your foe has prepared for you, don't go there; change the site and form of the engagement.

    Can't do that when the ground is the federal legislature.

    That isn't where the PR game is playedfor the most part.

    True. My point is more that the legislature is where the fight is won or lost. PR and messaging are their own game and they matter a lot, but ultimately they are there to influence what laws are made.

    Nobeard on
    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
  • XaquinXaquin regular Right behind you!Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Interviewer: Speaker Pelosi, why didn’t you allow the Senate bill to be voted on?
    Speaker Pelosi: Because language to protect children from inhumane conditions was removed. We believe that children should be protected regardless of circumstances, why would McConnell purposely remove this language?

    Parry and redirect. Seems pretty easy to me.

    Interviewer: But your own party supports this language. Why are you letting children starve in camps because of lack of funding?

    "Nancy Pelosi can't handle basic spin" isn't really the winning argument that you might think it is

    Winning in what sense? Like, has anyone claimed they were good at media spin?

    I just think y'all are just missing how this ends up playing out in the media. It's a classic Democrats In Disarray story and at best you get a he-said/she-said between the two chambers.

    you don't though since what was stripped out is in black and white.

    Sure you do. McConnell says "The Democrats are for it, what's wrong with Pelosi?" and Pelosi says "McConnell is a bad person". Report the controversy!

    Ideally pelosi would word things differently.

  • NobeardNobeard regular North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Interviewer: Speaker Pelosi, why didn’t you allow the Senate bill to be voted on?
    Speaker Pelosi: Because language to protect children from inhumane conditions was removed. We believe that children should be protected regardless of circumstances, why would McConnell purposely remove this language?

    Parry and redirect. Seems pretty easy to me.

    Interviewer: But your own party supports this language. Why are you letting children starve in camps because of lack of funding?

    "Nancy Pelosi can't handle basic spin" isn't really the winning argument that you might think it is

    Winning in what sense? Like, has anyone claimed they were good at media spin?

    I just think y'all are just missing how this ends up playing out in the media. It's a classic Democrats In Disarray story and at best you get a he-said/she-said between the two chambers.

    you don't though since what was stripped out is in black and white.

    Nah I think Stryke is right. It'll be seen as partisan bickering, one side selfishly gridlocking the government, same old same old.

    Still need to take a stand, though, messaging be damned.

    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
    shrykeGnome-Interruptus
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom regular Registered User regular
    edited July 8
    No, take a stand and have good messaging. "We're against having concentration camps" should not be hard.

    And if we can't even manage that, we might as well just throw up our hands and let the GOP officially rebrand us as the Freedom-Hating Party. Because that is the level of utter incompetence and futility you seem to be arguing we can't ever do better than.

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    XaquinElvenshaejoshofalltradesBloodsheedYamiB.Man in the MistsEmerlmaster999Magell
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Interviewer: Speaker Pelosi, why didn’t you allow the Senate bill to be voted on?
    Speaker Pelosi: Because language to protect children from inhumane conditions was removed. We believe that children should be protected regardless of circumstances, why would McConnell purposely remove this language?

    Parry and redirect. Seems pretty easy to me.

    Interviewer: But your own party supports this language. Why are you letting children starve in camps because of lack of funding?

    "Nancy Pelosi can't handle basic spin" isn't really the winning argument that you might think it is

    Winning in what sense? Like, has anyone claimed they were good at media spin?

    I just think y'all are just missing how this ends up playing out in the media. It's a classic Democrats In Disarray story and at best you get a he-said/she-said between the two chambers.

    the argument is currently about whether Pelosi is an effective leader

    one contingent is saying she is not

    you're also saying that Pelosi is bad at her job, but that's not her fault, which...doesn't seem like a productive use of anyone's time

    Tube wrote: »
    I was legit hoping that Shorty was somehow mistaken and the world wasn't that fucked
    PreacherAridholElvenshaejoshofalltradesMegaMekBloodsheedBlackDragon480Captain InertiaBullheadYamiB.Man in the MistsMagell
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    @shryke

    I’m having a hard time understanding what exactly you are arguing for.

    I don’t think you are defending the concentration camps, but it does sound like you are defending the Dem leadership.

    I also assume that you put most of the blame on Trump, ICE, and McConnell, as it should be.

    But just because 99.9% of the blame goes to them, that doesn’t make the Dems innocent either.

    If we are just looking at that 0.1% Dems side of the blame, I’d also agree that Schumer’s fecklessness is more to blame than Pelosi’s part, but again, she had other options. She was not helpless in this.

    What is your argument exactly? That we shouldn’t be so upset because Trump was gonna Trump, ICE was gonna be racist, McConnell was gonna be an asshole, Schumer was gonna be feckless, and Nancy was backed into a corner, so we should just accept the fact that we were gonna give Trump and his gestapo 4.6 billion dollars, so why are we bitching about the inevitable?

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    ForarCommander ZoomCaedwyrMorganVMegaMekKamarMan in the MistsMagell
  • SolarSolar regular Registered User regular
    edited July 8
    I feel like it should not be hard to make the political position of "under no circumstances will I fund, condone or in any way allow by any action of mine, the existence of a concentration camp" into a respectable decision that the House Dems can back as a whole.

    There is the game of politics and then there are moral event horizons. People who are prepared to support shit like those camps because it's politically expedient are called Republicans and the House Dems led by Pelosi should have absolutely said "no fucking way will I put my name to this horror"

    Solar on
    Commander ZoomElldrenElvenshaeZonugalMan in the MistsEmerlmaster999
  • NobeardNobeard regular North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    To take a step back, why and in what fashion did Senate Dems "cave"? While Pelosi is not entirely undeserving of being yelled at, seems to me that is where this particular fight was lost.

    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
    Label
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Madican wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Quiotu wrote: »
    apparently some of us are getting mad that the Democrats didn't kill immigrant prisoners in order to try and make the GOP look worse.

    How goddamn petty.

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

    The camps are there, and will continue to be there. Do you think lack of funding will make them stop using the camps?

    Because have adults and children dying in their care made them stop giving a shit up until now? I don't get the end result you want here... a moral victory? It's going to be a lot harder to proclaim moral superiority when the immigrants start to die faster than before, because you won't fund their survival.

    it'd be a lot easier to believe this if the "fund their survival" part had been added in there somewhere

    It was. The Senate stripped it out.

    exactly, that's why you send it back with "put oversight back in" again and again and again

    Senate Democrats overwhelmingly voted for it already so that doesn't happen. McConnell laughs at you and the press reports on Democratic infighting between the Senate and the House killing the bill and in this case that would actually be accurate.

    so what? fuck senate dems. hang them out to dry. I'd rather that than give $texas to nazis who specifically say they will not bother to provide oversight into their concentration camps.

    Because it doesn't get you the message you want. That's why it matters.

    So this whole thing about them being complicit in funding concentration camps is the message they want?

    These old Democrats absolutely suck at actually getting the messaging they want and then turn around to yell at the younger ones when they prove they know how to actually succeed

    The message in the press is more "AOC vs Pelosi FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT" from what I've seen. They've been pushing it since she ran in the primary and they are finally really getting it for real.

    The point though was that you are thinking Pelosi kills the bill and then goes "We won't fund concentration camps!". But what imo actually happens there is Pelosi kills the bill and you get "Democratic party infighting kills border funding bill" as the headlines and no mention of the other shit.

    None of which is to say they don't suck at controlling the messaging.

    This is still the right way to go.
    The people who will believe "Democratic party infighting kills border funding bill" already think the democrats are for open borders.
    There is zero harm in that headline in terms of votes.

    The opposite is not true.

    Nah, this is not true at all imo. Plenty of democratic voters view "border security" as an important issue. It's a mistake to think that anyone who cares about this stuff must be an immovable GOP base voter.

    Sorry late to reply here but I don't agree with this. Feels like a place where we'd be entrenched though so agree to disagree.

  • AstaerethAstaereth regular In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    If the media is going to fuck you anyway, you might as well not fund concentration camps

    Like, failing on the politics here is pretty shameful, but if you’re going to fail on the politics you might at least do the moral thing and not support a corrupt administration & party and its state-sanctioned racism

    ACsTqqK.jpg
    One Thousand CablesCommander ZoomMild ConfusionIncenjucarNobeardQuidElldrenElvenshaeMorganVEddyMaclayjoshofalltradesMegaMekBloodsheedSolarSlacker1913kimeCalicaKraintKamarTofystedethZonugaldispatch.oHappy Little MachineBullheadYamiB.Man in the MistsEmerlmaster999Kayne Red RobeKoopahTroopahBandableMagellMr Ray
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum regular Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    To take a step back, why and in what fashion did Senate Dems "cave"? While Pelosi is not entirely undeserving of being yelled at, seems to me that is where this particular fight was lost.

    Almost the entire caucus voted for the funding bill with no stipulations. Something like 35-6 in favor of the bill I think. Why they did that is to get back home for the fourth of July faster, I think.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Mild ConfusionshrykeKruiteThawmusElldrenMegaMekBlackDragon480iTunesIsEvilYamiB.Man in the Mists
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    edited July 8
    I bet there are plenty of dems out there who care about border security in the same way that there are a lot of republicans who care about small government

    which is to say that they don't actually care about it, or even know what the phrase means, or what caring about it entails, or vote for people who fight for that principle in any meaningful way

    Shorty on
    Tube wrote: »
    I was legit hoping that Shorty was somehow mistaken and the world wasn't that fucked
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Caring about border security is, at this point, about the same as economic anxiety.

    Speed RacerNobeardAridholMild ConfusionMegaMekDocStabbity StyleYamiB.Man in the MistsMagell
  • Speed RacerSpeed Racer Scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratchRegistered User regular
    there is such a thing as, you know, principles.

    i could not physically bring myself to vote "yes" on expanding concentration camp funding, regardless of the circumstances. I'm horrified and disgusted that anyone could, especially people who are ostensibly on "my side." I don't care how empty the gesture is, you do not provide even the slightest support for this. Voting against it was the bare minimum standard and most of the people who want to tell me they represent me failed to meet it.

    There just isn't a justification that makes voting "yes" on something like this morally acceptable. I don't care how it would be portrayed by the media. voting yes reveals a profound lack of moral character on your part and fills me with anger and fear that you're in a position of power in the country I live in.

    One Thousand CablesShortyCommander ZoomNobeardJaysonFourElvenshaeMaclayjoshofalltradesBloodsheedSolarKamarDarkPrimusjdarksunAegisTofystedethZonugalHappy Little MachineBullheadYamiB.Man in the MistsEmerlmaster999MagellDevlin_Dragonus
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Madican wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Quiotu wrote: »
    apparently some of us are getting mad that the Democrats didn't kill immigrant prisoners in order to try and make the GOP look worse.

    How goddamn petty.

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

    The camps are there, and will continue to be there. Do you think lack of funding will make them stop using the camps?

    Because have adults and children dying in their care made them stop giving a shit up until now? I don't get the end result you want here... a moral victory? It's going to be a lot harder to proclaim moral superiority when the immigrants start to die faster than before, because you won't fund their survival.

    it'd be a lot easier to believe this if the "fund their survival" part had been added in there somewhere

    It was. The Senate stripped it out.

    exactly, that's why you send it back with "put oversight back in" again and again and again

    Senate Democrats overwhelmingly voted for it already so that doesn't happen. McConnell laughs at you and the press reports on Democratic infighting between the Senate and the House killing the bill and in this case that would actually be accurate.

    so what? fuck senate dems. hang them out to dry. I'd rather that than give $texas to nazis who specifically say they will not bother to provide oversight into their concentration camps.

    Because it doesn't get you the message you want. That's why it matters.

    So this whole thing about them being complicit in funding concentration camps is the message they want?

    These old Democrats absolutely suck at actually getting the messaging they want and then turn around to yell at the younger ones when they prove they know how to actually succeed

    The message in the press is more "AOC vs Pelosi FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT" from what I've seen. They've been pushing it since she ran in the primary and they are finally really getting it for real.

    The point though was that you are thinking Pelosi kills the bill and then goes "We won't fund concentration camps!". But what imo actually happens there is Pelosi kills the bill and you get "Democratic party infighting kills border funding bill" as the headlines and no mention of the other shit.

    None of which is to say they don't suck at controlling the messaging.

    This is still the right way to go.
    The people who will believe "Democratic party infighting kills border funding bill" already think the democrats are for open borders.
    There is zero harm in that headline in terms of votes.

    The opposite is not true.

    Nah, this is not true at all imo. Plenty of democratic voters view "border security" as an important issue. It's a mistake to think that anyone who cares about this stuff must be an immovable GOP base voter.

    Sorry late to reply here but I don't agree with this. Feels like a place where we'd be entrenched though so agree to disagree.

    Polling shows fairly widespread concern for border security. Some recent polls even show it overtaking healthcare as the top concern for voters. And this is not exclusive to the GOP base, although more heavily concentrated there afaik.

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom regular Registered User regular
    I also want to call out and reject the assertion / assumption that "we can't ever have good messaging, because we're Democrats" as bullshit (and defeatist).

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    NobeardElvenshaeBlackDragon480Man in the Mists
  • NobeardNobeard regular North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    To take a step back, why and in what fashion did Senate Dems "cave"? While Pelosi is not entirely undeserving of being yelled at, seems to me that is where this particular fight was lost.

    Almost the entire caucus voted for the funding bill with no stipulations. Something like 35-6 in favor of the bill I think. Why they did that is to get back home for the fourth of July faster, I think.

    I have no constructive response to this.

    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
    Commander ZoomIncenjucarElvenshaeCalicaMan in the Mists
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    edited July 8
    Nobeard wrote: »
    To take a step back, why and in what fashion did Senate Dems "cave"? While Pelosi is not entirely undeserving of being yelled at, seems to me that is where this particular fight was lost.

    The House originally passed a funding bill (along party lines) that included language offering protection to the people being held in concentration camps. That bill was sent to the Senate where McConnell and the GOP stripped the language protecting them. Schumer couldn’t or wouldn’t whip his people, so McConnell’s bill with stripped language passed with bipartisan support. Pelosi wouldn’t contest it, so brought it for a vote and it passed.

    We’re pissed at Schumer and Pelosi for giving up so easily. Schumer for being feckless and Pelosi for trying to defend funding concentration camps without guarantees to protect the humans there.

    The counter argument is that not funding them would be seen as prolonging the suffering of these immigrants, so the Dems had no choice but capitulate.

    The counter-counter argument is that the suffering was going to continue regardless of funding, because the cruelty is the point regardless of funding, so the Dems should have fought.

    Mild Confusion on
    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    ElldrenCommander ZoomElvenshaeMorganVBlackDragon480TicaldfjamMan in the Mists
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA regular Registered User regular
    edited July 8
    Pelosi again:
    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the remark she recently made about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and three other freshman Democrats was a "statement of fact."

    Pelosi told The New York Times the four freshmen who voted against a border funding bill last month don't have a following. She was talking about Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley. All four voted against the bill because it did not include stronger protections for migrant children in shelters.

    Pelosi now says the four freshmen have a public following, but she was talking about their roles in Congress.

    She says, "Overwhelmingly, our caucus voted to protect the children."

    She says the four freshmen "did not, and they did not have a further following."

    Hexmage-PA on
    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    @shryke

    I’m having a hard time understanding what exactly you are arguing for.

    I don’t think you are defending the concentration camps, but it does sound like you are defending the Dem leadership.

    I also assume that you put most of the blame on Trump, ICE, and McConnell, as it should be.

    But just because 99.9% of the blame goes to them, that doesn’t make the Dems innocent either.

    If we are just looking at that 0.1% Dems side of the blame, I’d also agree that Schumer’s fecklessness is more to blame than Pelosi’s part, but again, she had other options. She was not helpless in this.

    What is your argument exactly? That we shouldn’t be so upset because Trump was gonna Trump, ICE was gonna be racist, McConnell was gonna be an asshole, Schumer was gonna be feckless, and Nancy was backed into a corner, so we should just accept the fact that we were gonna give Trump and his gestapo 4.6 billion dollars, so why are we bitching about the inevitable?

    That there is a very strange reframing of this issue as if it's pro or anti concentration camps, which is not what the vote was actually about in any way. That there is a vast underestimation of the options available to the House once the Senate fucked them. That there is far too much focus on Pelosi specifically, as evidenced by this entire thread, even before anyone bothered to post pointing that fact out so it's not just about the argument. That while Democratic leadership has been bad at shaping the media narrative there is a vast underestimation of the problems they face in doing so even if they were good at it in this situation and given the media as it exists, especially after the Senate caves.

    You know, all the things I've been saying this whole time.

    Sleep
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Madican wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Quiotu wrote: »
    apparently some of us are getting mad that the Democrats didn't kill immigrant prisoners in order to try and make the GOP look worse.

    How goddamn petty.

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

    The camps are there, and will continue to be there. Do you think lack of funding will make them stop using the camps?

    Because have adults and children dying in their care made them stop giving a shit up until now? I don't get the end result you want here... a moral victory? It's going to be a lot harder to proclaim moral superiority when the immigrants start to die faster than before, because you won't fund their survival.

    it'd be a lot easier to believe this if the "fund their survival" part had been added in there somewhere

    It was. The Senate stripped it out.

    exactly, that's why you send it back with "put oversight back in" again and again and again

    Senate Democrats overwhelmingly voted for it already so that doesn't happen. McConnell laughs at you and the press reports on Democratic infighting between the Senate and the House killing the bill and in this case that would actually be accurate.

    so what? fuck senate dems. hang them out to dry. I'd rather that than give $texas to nazis who specifically say they will not bother to provide oversight into their concentration camps.

    Because it doesn't get you the message you want. That's why it matters.

    So this whole thing about them being complicit in funding concentration camps is the message they want?

    These old Democrats absolutely suck at actually getting the messaging they want and then turn around to yell at the younger ones when they prove they know how to actually succeed

    The message in the press is more "AOC vs Pelosi FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT" from what I've seen. They've been pushing it since she ran in the primary and they are finally really getting it for real.

    The point though was that you are thinking Pelosi kills the bill and then goes "We won't fund concentration camps!". But what imo actually happens there is Pelosi kills the bill and you get "Democratic party infighting kills border funding bill" as the headlines and no mention of the other shit.

    None of which is to say they don't suck at controlling the messaging.

    This is still the right way to go.
    The people who will believe "Democratic party infighting kills border funding bill" already think the democrats are for open borders.
    There is zero harm in that headline in terms of votes.

    The opposite is not true.

    Nah, this is not true at all imo. Plenty of democratic voters view "border security" as an important issue. It's a mistake to think that anyone who cares about this stuff must be an immovable GOP base voter.

    Sorry late to reply here but I don't agree with this. Feels like a place where we'd be entrenched though so agree to disagree.

    Polling shows fairly widespread concern for border security. Some recent polls even show it overtaking healthcare as the top concern for voters. And this is not exclusive to the GOP base, although more heavily concentrated there afaik.

    "border security" is a question like "How do you feel about oxygen". Polls show 99% of human respondents care about it.
    Democrats still care about secure borders, they just don't want concentration camps. I reject the notion that the critical factor in a voter deciding to support democrats is that they kept funding concentration camps in support of "border security".
    Polling on this issue is not nuanced enough (and probably can't be) to reflect the impact of this issue.

    ElvenshaeFencingsaxMan in the Mists
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom regular Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    To take a step back, why and in what fashion did Senate Dems "cave"? While Pelosi is not entirely undeserving of being yelled at, seems to me that is where this particular fight was lost.

    Almost the entire caucus voted for the funding bill with no stipulations. Something like 35-6 in favor of the bill I think. Why they did that is to get back home for the fourth of July faster, I think.

    I have no constructive response to this.

    If that was a significant reason, or even the main one, my thoughts start with "fucking shameful" and get angrier from there.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    NobeardMorganV
  • PreacherPreacher regular Registered User regular
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Pelosi again:
    ouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the remark she recently made about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and three other freshman Democrats was a "statement of fact."

    Pelosi told The New York Times the four freshmen who voted against a border funding bill last month don't have a following. She was talking about Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley. All four voted against the bill because it did not include stronger protections for migrant children in shelters.

    Pelosi now says the four freshmen have a public following, but she was talking about their roles in Congress.

    She says, "Overwhelmingly, our caucus voted to protect the children."

    She says the four freshmen "did not, and they did not have a further following."

    Yes nancy they didn't vote to fund concentration camps, so that totally means they don't care about children. Maybe they should name one of the camps after you? You great defender of children?

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    XaquinElldrenJaysonFourNobeardElvenshaeCaedwyrIncenjucarMild ConfusionA Dabble Of TheloniusjoshofalltradesMegaMekBloodsheedSolarBlackDragon480QuidNobodyCalicaKraintKamarDarkPrimusShadowfireMillAegisTicaldfjamZonugalautono-wally, erotibot300Happy Little MachineBullheadYamiB.Man in the MistsbrynhrtmnMagell
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    edited July 8
    what bugs me about that is that if, as shryke says, the senate dems were the problem here, they're the ones she should have thrown under the bus, instead of the four Dem reps who actually took a principled stand

    and she did it with a really shitty, weaselly piece of rhetoric, too

    we were voting to "protect the children" by increasing funding to the people who are torturing and killing them, on purpose, for money, and the four members who didn't vote to do that are endangering the children

    eat me, nancy

    Shorty on
    Tube wrote: »
    I was legit hoping that Shorty was somehow mistaken and the world wasn't that fucked
    One Thousand CablesElldrenMaximumNobeardElvenshaeMorganVMild ConfusionCommander ZoomFencingsaxjoshofalltradesBloodsheedSpeed RacerBlackDragon480ForarQuidkimeAridholCalicaDarkPrimusShadowfireTofystedethZonugaldispatch.oHappy Little MachineBullheadYamiB.Man in the MistsbrynhrtmnBandable
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Again, when the most charitable reading is "they're bad at their jobs"...

    Right?

    One side funds the torturing of children because they are evil.
    The other funds because they are incompetent, but I guess that makes it okay.

    The camps are getting funded regardless though. Again, the cruelty is the point.

    So don’t provide funds for more cruelty.

    Except that's not how it works, as I pointed out in the rest of that post that you removed.
    shryke wrote: »
    It's one side is pro-torturing children and the other side is against torturing children but is trying to decide whether it's better to try and give them funding to improve conditions in the camps or not.

    Trying to frame this as pro or anti concentration camps is missing a lot of what is going on here and there is a credible argument that the best option the Democrats had here was what Pelosi tried to do, which was provide funding while attaching strings. You can't shut the camps down, so enforce oversight and better conditions via the only actual power you have in this situation. That's probably the best you can do from a practical standpoint.

    Voting for funding without strings is the wrong choice. But at the same time, once the Senate caved and voted for the bill without the strings, it was all over anyway.

  • NobeardNobeard regular North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Pelosi again:
    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the remark she recently made about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and three other freshman Democrats was a "statement of fact."

    Pelosi told The New York Times the four freshmen who voted against a border funding bill last month don't have a following. She was talking about Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley. All four voted against the bill because it did not include stronger protections for migrant children in shelters.

    Pelosi now says the four freshmen have a public following, but she was talking about their roles in Congress.

    She says, "Overwhelmingly, our caucus voted to protect the children."

    She says the four freshmen "did not, and they did not have a further following."

    I'm trying to engage this topic and not hate on Pelosi. She's not making it easy.

    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
    PreacherHenroidFencingsaxMadicanMan in the Mists
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 8
    Preacher wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Pelosi again:
    ouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the remark she recently made about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and three other freshman Democrats was a "statement of fact."

    Pelosi told The New York Times the four freshmen who voted against a border funding bill last month don't have a following. She was talking about Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley. All four voted against the bill because it did not include stronger protections for migrant children in shelters.

    Pelosi now says the four freshmen have a public following, but she was talking about their roles in Congress.

    She says, "Overwhelmingly, our caucus voted to protect the children."

    She says the four freshmen "did not, and they did not have a further following."

    Yes nancy they didn't vote to fund concentration camps, so that totally means they don't care about children. Maybe they should name one of the camps after you? You great defender of children?

    Which bill is she talking about though? The original one the House passed or the one the Senate sent back?

    shryke on
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    1) it doesn't matter.

    2) if it did, she probably should have said so. since that's her job, and all.

    Tube wrote: »
    I was legit hoping that Shorty was somehow mistaken and the world wasn't that fucked
    Commander ZoomPreacherMegaMekMan in the Mists
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom regular Registered User regular
    edited July 8
    I've defended and supported Pelosi before, in prior threads. I was very pleased with how she held the line and handled the shutdown, recognizing that if we let the administration take hostages to force capitulation, they'll do it again and again.

    And now I feel that she's thrown all that away, and it was all for nothing.

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    XaquinElldrenPreacherIncenjucarenlightenedbumMild ConfusionjoshofalltradesBlackDragon480ForariTunesIsEvilVeagleQuidnever dieAthenorkimeAridholCaptain InertiaPolaritieKamarDoctorArchShadowfireTofystedethBullheadbrynhrtmnKoopahTroopah
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Pelosi again:
    ouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the remark she recently made about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and three other freshman Democrats was a "statement of fact."

    Pelosi told The New York Times the four freshmen who voted against a border funding bill last month don't have a following. She was talking about Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley. All four voted against the bill because it did not include stronger protections for migrant children in shelters.

    Pelosi now says the four freshmen have a public following, but she was talking about their roles in Congress.

    She says, "Overwhelmingly, our caucus voted to protect the children."

    She says the four freshmen "did not, and they did not have a further following."

    Yes nancy they didn't vote to fund concentration camps, so that totally means they don't care about children. Maybe they should name one of the camps after you? You great defender of children?

    Which bill is she talking about though? The original one the House passed or the one the Senate sent back?
    Shorty wrote: »
    1) it doesn't matter.

    2) if it did, she probably should have said so. since that's her job, and all.

    It absolutely matters because the first bill that the House passed literally did have provisions to protect children and the disagreement was that they weren't strong enough afaik.

    Calica
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    @shryke

    I’m having a hard time understanding what exactly you are arguing for.

    I don’t think you are defending the concentration camps, but it does sound like you are defending the Dem leadership.

    I also assume that you put most of the blame on Trump, ICE, and McConnell, as it should be.

    But just because 99.9% of the blame goes to them, that doesn’t make the Dems innocent either.

    If we are just looking at that 0.1% Dems side of the blame, I’d also agree that Schumer’s fecklessness is more to blame than Pelosi’s part, but again, she had other options. She was not helpless in this.

    What is your argument exactly? That we shouldn’t be so upset because Trump was gonna Trump, ICE was gonna be racist, McConnell was gonna be an asshole, Schumer was gonna be feckless, and Nancy was backed into a corner, so we should just accept the fact that we were gonna give Trump and his gestapo 4.6 billion dollars, so why are we bitching about the inevitable?

    That there is a very strange reframing of this issue as if it's pro or anti concentration camps, which is not what the vote was actually about in any way. That there is a vast underestimation of the options available to the House once the Senate fucked them. That there is far too much focus on Pelosi specifically, as evidenced by this entire thread, even before anyone bothered to post pointing that fact out so it's not just about the argument. That while Democratic leadership has been bad at shaping the media narrative there is a vast underestimation of the problems they face in doing so even if they were good at it in this situation and given the media as it exists, especially after the Senate caves.

    You know, all the things I've been saying this whole time.

    I agree that what Schumer and the Senate Dems did severely fuck Pelosi. I am also majorly pissed at him.

    That said, she’s the most powerful elected Democrat in office currently and she did have more than one option. Not only did she chose not to explore the, and again it was a choice not to fight, but she’s further muddying up the argument by wasting time yelling at others for her “political calculus”.

    Her calculator is wrong.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    Commander ZoomXaquinElldrenMegaMekMorganVNobeardBlackDragon480CalicaTofystedethZonugaldiscriderMan in the Mistsbrynhrtmn
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Pelosi again:
    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the remark she recently made about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and three other freshman Democrats was a "statement of fact."

    Pelosi told The New York Times the four freshmen who voted against a border funding bill last month don't have a following. She was talking about Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley. All four voted against the bill because it did not include stronger protections for migrant children in shelters.

    Pelosi now says the four freshmen have a public following, but she was talking about their roles in Congress.

    She says, "Overwhelmingly, our caucus voted to protect the children."

    She says the four freshmen "did not, and they did not have a further following."
    This is some extreme bus throwing. She's always hated the left-wing people getting elected and has never pulled a punch to spin a situation against them. I can't wait 'til that fuckface retires.

    What Pelosi is advocating here is allowing the status quo with no specific stipulations to protect the children is better than... what exactly?

    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
    PreacherBloodsheedmrondeauSaarYamiB.Man in the Mists
  • PreacherPreacher regular Registered User regular
    I've defended and supported Pelosi before, in prior threads. I was very pleased with how she held the line and handled the shutdown, recognizing that if we let the administration take hostages to force capitulation, they'll do it again and again.

    And now I feel that she's thrown all that away, and it was all for nothing.

    This is me. I thought AOC and the freshman at the time were just not seeing the reality of things, but now it appears I was the one not seeing the reality of things, and Pelosi just lucked into the GOP being too untennable to accept the democrats giving them what they want.

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • ElvenshaeElvenshae regular Registered User regular
    And, like, apparently they had a “promise” from Pence that all of the oversight they wanted would be done anyway.

    We al know what that’s worth.

    But even given that, go out there with that message. “I have a promise from The White House and McConnel that they’d provide the requested oversight. So they have no problem with the oversight in principle, so let’s just put it back into the legislation.”

    Make the Republicans defend why they took it out if they were okay with it anyway.*

    *. They are, of course, not actually okay with oversight of their death-camps-to-be.

    omgbfz5lzi1s.png
    Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
    The Disappearance of Inigo Sharpe: Tomas à Dunsanin
    ArbitraryDescriptorMild ConfusionCommander ZoomFencingsaxForarSpeed RacerJaysonFourCalicaPolaritieMan in the Mistsbrynhrtmn
  • MeeqeMeeqe Lord of the pants most fancy Someplace amazingRegistered User regular
    I agree that Pelosi got boxed in and had shit options. She should have chosen the other one.

    I vote for the Dems to oppose this shit. If they want credit for clearing the barest minimum bar of not being monsters then they actually have to be better! This vote is right up there with the Iraq invasion vote in terms of the Dems always being fucking worthless when push comes to shove.

    I actually agree that Pelosi is taking too much heat for this though. Schumer fucked up, and hard. Last I checked the filibuster still exists and GOP doesn't have 60 to get around it. If ever there was a time and place for the Senate to actually do its job it was there.

    Comity in the face of genocide is functionally complicity. Feeling bad about what you did means exactly fuckall, and whinging that you might have had to do a hard thing when you are the only possible opposition to genocide gets no sympathy from me.

    Primary them all. My WA state Senator voted for this shit and needs to go because of it.

    I like children. Provided they go home with their parents at the end of the day.
    ElvenshaeElldrenShortyCommander ZoomFencingsaxCaedwyrMorganVNobeardBloodsheedBlackDragon480kimeKamarTofystedethZonugalBullheadMan in the Mistsbrynhrtmnemp123
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum regular Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I've defended and supported Pelosi before, in prior threads. I was very pleased with how she held the line and handled the shutdown, recognizing that if we let the administration take hostages to force capitulation, they'll do it again and again.

    And now I feel that she's thrown all that away, and it was all for nothing.

    This is me. I thought AOC and the freshman at the time were just not seeing the reality of things, but now it appears I was the one not seeing the reality of things, and Pelosi just lucked into the GOP being too untennable to accept the democrats giving them what they want.

    AOC and the lefty firebrands weren't the ones trying to block Pelosi's Speakership. That was the people Pelosi sided with when she started whipping for this.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Phoenix-DElldrenShortyFencingsaxshrykeCaedwyrBlackDragon480iTunesIsEvilCaptain InertiaKraintKamarShadowfirejdarksunYamiB.ThawmusMan in the MistsbrynhrtmnMagell
Sign In or Register to comment.