Glad that Pelosi didn't throw those kids under the bus, just so she could say that she

[ehrnst]

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2019, 10:07 PM - Edit history (3)

told Mitch to "fuck off," to the cheers of many who are craving that kind of red meat.

Especially when not only would those kids continue to suffer exactly as they are now, instead of getting resources that they would not have if we had decided to use them as political bargaining chips.

I'm sure that Mitch was licking his chops at the choices that the House had:

Scenario one - agree to the Senate compromise in order to get legislation into being that would actually get more resources to those kids, knowing that many Democrats would be wringing their hands at a "loss" and trashing Pelosi as "cowardly and incompetent" and try to weaken her as speaker by blaming her for all the ensuing self-destructive infighting.

Scenario two - Pelosi tells him to 'fuck off', and walks away from the table, pleasing many Democrats with a "win" by giving him the finger - but also giving him the golden opportunity to tell the media that when Democrats actually had the opportunity to change those kids' situation for the better, they turned it down in order to tell their base that they give him the finger, which demonstrates that Democrats didn't really didn't care about those suffering kids as anything more than a political bargaining chip and Facebook memes. He could point to Democrats as being the ones choosing to obstruct all emergency funding and actual congressional oversight, by walking away with a smug grin rather than putting the kids first.

We have the ability to deny him satisfaction in scenario one.

If anyone is laboring under the delusion that the media would have called walking away from the table with no bill anything but a 'stunning defeat for Pelosi' as well, you are sadly mistaken.

She chose the one "defeat" out of the two "defeat" scenarios that will get those kids some much needed help - the humanitarian choice, rather than unhumanitarian one.

"The children come first. At the end of the day, we have to make sure that the resources needed to protect the children are available,” she wrote. “Therefore, we will not engage in the same disrespectful behavior that the Senate did in ignoring our priorities. In order to get resources to the children fastest, we will reluctantly pass the Senate bill."

And those that want to disparage the idea that legislation will get resources to the kids as "naive" or "stupid" need to get their jones for red meat taken care of at a McDonalds....

[still_one]

1. Thank you

[mcar]

2. Where were the Senate Democrats?

Where are the Republicans? Why does Pelosi get all the blame when a compromise must be made to (checks notes) save children's lives?

[ehrnst]

3. IKR?

I have an idea why Nancy is always the punching bag, though.

I think many of us do.

[mcar]

8. What could it be?

[2naSalit]

18. They will vote when everyone is back from Miami.

That was what I heard on NPR earlier.

[Gore1FL]

19. Shhh! You are blowing the OP's narrative. nt

[ehrnst]

21. Is somebody unhappy with me?

Sounds like it...

[Gore1FL]

61. I think false narratives are create division

I think asking others questions about 2016 and then alerting on them for bringing up 2016 when they produced accurate and honest answers is simply weaponizing the DU jury system. Doing those things make DU suck. I would be unhappy with someone who makes DU suck?

Do you DU suck? If so, I am unhappy with you.

[ehrnst]

96. "Do you DU suck?"

What does that even mean? Other than you having a personal issue with my posts, and you get "unhappy" with them?

[Gore1FL]

135. Sorry, I missed the verb "Make"

Most people have the intelligence to fill in the gap. I assume you do too and are just trying to make du suck for others.

Please direct your personality towards someone else.

[ehrnst]

138. Somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed.

[Gore1FL]

140. Please stop making DU suck. nt

[ehrnst]

141. You think DU sucks?

Perhaps there is something you could yourself do that would make it suck a lot less.




It looks like you enjoy my responses, however. You keep on trying to get my attention. Sorry - I'm married.

[ehrnst]

143. It's sweet that you're still trying to get my attention by

kicking my OP. Thank you, but like I said, I'm married.

But I think that you are referring to the "ignore" feature, rather than "block."

You are attempting weaponize the jury system.

Now who's harassing who? Is it because I said I'm married?

Care to back up whatever that's supposed to mean? You attribute powers to me that I don't have. Pushing conspiracy theories isn't a good look.

[Gore1FL]

144. Bye.

[ehrnst]

145. ....

[betsuni]

4. Trump has been saying that it's in Democrats' hands. They wanted scenario two.

Yet again, automatic rage at Pelosi for doing her job.

[ehrnst]

13. Salivating for it, I imagine.

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2019, 09:19 PM - Edit history (1)

They've been pushing the message that Democrats put obstruction over actual action at the border for weeks in preparation.

Nancy didn't give them the satisfaction, and would up keeping something for the kids, but still gets bashed for "the failure" to choose the option that resulting in everyone losing, Democrats and those poor kids.

Of course, eventually, she'd be blamed by the usual suspects for "failing to do anything about the situation for those kids." And if she had refused to work with the Senate bill, it would have also been called "a stunning defeat for Pelosi." She chose the 'defeat' that would be better for the kids, even if it might be worse for her in approval ratings.

She has a spine of steel, and handles things in ways that many men, who understand only the "Shove the legislation up your ass, Mitch" alpha male, dominate everyone in the room, tell everyone who disagrees with you to go fuck themselves, authoritarian style, compromise means you're in bed with the enemy" style of leadership are utterly confused by and therefore supicious of.

Even when it works better, and gets more results, they can't see it as anything but "weakness." Why, they wonder, would anyone work behind the scenes on purpose, or choose a strategy that doesn't clearly show their achievenments and spotlight them as the one who accomplished it all? The only reason anyoe would do that, logic says, is that they couldn't do it the "right" way. They are viewed as having to "manipulate" or work for consensus only because they lacked the "strength" that cause others to submit to their directive to do things their way.

See also, Pelosi. Hillary Clinton. And on and on...

But if a woman does tout her accomplishments, and put forth directly, without apology or reservation, that she's more qualified than any man, she's a calculating, ruthlessly ambitious machine.

See also, Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, as well as certain 2016 POTUS candidates.

[betsuni]

20. Everything you wrote is true.

[StarfishSaver]

23. This is a great and completely true post.

[brer cat]

85. +++ nt

[PunkinPi]

121. Stellar post, ehrnst!

[George II]

5. Pretty much my thoughts,too. It boggles my mind that so many Democrats are upset....

....that Democrats voted for a bill that would save some children.

The choices were save some children's lives or remain pure. Humanity won.

[ehrnst]

27. Her not getting anything through the Senate would be called a "defeat" also.

There was no "win" for her.

She chose the "defeat" that has a chance of actually doing something to address and improve a situation that Democrats say is unacceptable, anyway. I definitely think that leaving it as is was the unacceptable, indecent choice.

Thank God she's not letting the "NEVER COMPROMISE FOR ANY REASON" dualistic worldview faction approval ratings keep her from making the humanitarian choice.

History will show this.

[StarfishSaver]

6. Thank you

[lapucelle]

7. She plays the long game...and needed to relieve the situation at the border.

She's a seasoned warrior.

[ehrnst]

15. The long game doesn't register with "Give me red meat RIGHT NOW" crowd

even if it does usually work out better.

By the time the results come in, someone else has usually taken/been given the credit.

Pelosi's reaction to those who were running in 2018 with the promise that they would refuse to vote for her as Speaker is so illustrative of her strength, self confidence, priorities and the long view she has.

"Just win, Baby!"

No wonder the GOP (among others) hate her so much. She doesn't have their weaknesses - the neediness for personal glory and ego stroking. She's in this for the results. She doesn't seek validation in being credited as the driver of every success, and she listens instead of just barks orders. Some just can't believe that it's possible that people defer to her judgement out of respect, so it has to be "big donors" threatening people to get in line, or her threatening their very career. They see such confidence as "blind faith" instead of an awareness of her competency, intelligence, skill and track record.

She's not seeking higher office, so she's the perfect person to be where she is. She doing what it takes to do what is right, what is progressive, to get as much accomplished as possible - she's not distracted by resume building or approval polls outside her own constituency.

I'm glad we have her where she is.

[True Blue American]

28. Maybe we need a woman Leader in the Senate?

Just sayin’.

[ehrnst]

45. I wish that some of the POTUS candidates

who are governors of red states would just run for Senate, instead of thinking that the Senate isn't interesting or prestigious enough.

They would do FAR better THERE in the SENATE.... if only because they have only a 3% chance of getting the Democratic nomination for POTUS whereas they know that they can get elected to a statewide office.



Our culture is still too misogynist to see women as competent in the Senate as men. At this point, it would be a step up to have a human leader in the Senate.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

66. even non-human, if not traitorous

"At this point, it would be a step up to have a human leader in the Senate. "

I'd settle for some mutant turtle that is not a traitor. It would be an improvement over Moscow Mitch.

[mcar]

9. BTW, even CNN's pundits paused their

Democrats in Disarray to point out that Pelosi's job is totally different from a regular MOC. She could not let her caucus leave for this break having done nothing to respond to the horrifying conditions at the border.

[ehrnst]

30. Goodness! Sacrificing a clickbait headline for actual analysis that acknowledges the horror at

at the border that would go on as it was, uninterrupted without getting this through the Senate?

Is there a full moon?

[LibFarmer]

10. Thank you for clarifying so thoughtfully

A lot of people just want to make statements at the expense of the people who suffer. Same statement was made by Democratis who voted for Jill Stein and look at suffering of poor and minorities it has brought on.

Nancy Pelosi did the right thing here and it should be seen as great legislative skill rather than a defeat.

[NYMinute]

11. K&R nt

[Cha]

12. Mahalo, ehrnst!

[True Blue American]

26. He really knows his facts

Huh, Cha? I have yet to disagree with ehrnst! !

[StarfishSaver]

32. He does indeed

[True Blue American]

35. :)

[ehrnst]

46. That means a lot, Star.

[True Blue American]

69. So very nice

To see a poster think a subject through, not listen to the hysterical, then post facts.

[ehrnst]

95. Lots of hysteria and knee jerk lashing out from many...

Being unaware that when emotional exhaustion has taken over logic, one can go into panic, fight/flight mode (hyper activating the amygdala), bypassing the frontal lobe that processes facts and reasoning, suppressing the use of logic to acquire the facts that could get one a better grasp on what is really going on, and then on in a vicious feedback loop.

When presented with facts or POV that doesn't feed their anxiety, some get very defensive at not having their anxiety validated as proportional to the situation, which they interpret as not being taken seriously, and percieve as a personal insult, when it isn't.

It's an evolutionary response to a temporary, urgent situation ("There is a tiger stalking me, I need to focus on running, not digesting, or monitoring the time of day) but it's detrimental in a non-life threatening situation, where one needs to be focused on the tasks of daily life, and the acquistion of information. It's like someone who thinks the tiger is still stalking them being angry at someone who has realized the tiger is no longer doing so and tells them calm down and please help look for food. The person who percieves that the tiger is still present is at a disadvantage in working with others who have calmed down.

[leftstreet]

14. The media is calling it a 'stunning defeat' for Pelosi

and the Democrats

[ehrnst]

16. If she had not accepted the Senate compromise, it would also have been called a 'defeat'

To see this only as a "stunning defeat" is to see this simply as a partisan legislative issue and not a humanitarian one.

It was a choice between getting those kids in danger some resources as opposed to no resources.

She chose the option that furthered the cause of those kids.

But that's doesn't make for a red meat headlines.

[True Blue American]

70. Truth!

[Midnightwalk]

124. The right answer

Is that Pelosi and the Democrats outmaneuvered mcconnell and called his bluff. The result is children will get some relief. No on believes that McConnell or the other Republicans care about the children.

[ismnotwasm]

17. Exactly and thank you.

You know, I’m not an expert in politics, but I do know the basics, at the least. We are in a terrible situation. I really have to wonder at the anti-Pelosi drumbeat.

[ehrnst]

31. Emotions are high. That shuts down the logic lobe and activates the fight or flight reaction.

Many people just don't have the energy or ability to think through the actual choices, and the actual consequences.

I remember people raging that House Democrats weren't going to impeach Kavanaugh in January.

All I could think of was, "Whild Trump is still in office, so he and McConnell can nominate their next choice in line? What are you thinking??? What next - impeach Thomas because 'it's the right thing to do" and let Trump replace him with a clone half his age?"

But they weren't thinking. They were reacting and lashing out.

This is what Trump wants. He wants us reacting and not thinking, exhausted from rage. I grew up with an abusive father, so my first response to an angry abusive man is to go stone cold calm. It's a survival reflex. It got me out of an armed carjacking with the car. It got me out of DC on 911. I am focusing on keeping that calm and to consciously resist reflexive outrage as a first response.

I won't give in. I will keep focusing on what the actual options are, and move to the one that creates the most good, even if the options are very limited. Like a first responder.

[True Blue American]

71. The important thing

To keep in mind is to get rid of Trump, McConnell, the Lindsey Graham’s in the 2020 election.

My kids told me to turn off the TV, said the younger generation does not even watch cable, they search out real news on their devices. They have no use for the MSM’s muckraking.

Know what? They are right!

[defacto7]

22. But I'd like to know exactly where these funds are going.

Are they going to give it to the private concentration camp companies? They already have money to run those camps at a profit. Fuck their profit and force them to provide humanitarian conditions at the least.

I hope we're not just dumping billions on the source of the degradation.

[ehrnst]

24. You think that emergency funding legislation that has more congressional oversight is worse than

not doing anything?

Do you think that congress gave no thought to that whatsoever? Had no remedy for that whatsoever? No provision for oversight? No negotiating skill whatsoever?

What solution would satisfy you? Seriously, what ideas do you have that would remedy all that, and not leave these kids in the same situation in the meantime?

What do you have that Mitch would have agreed to sign off on - because that's what would have to happen for it to become reality at all.

What other options are there?

[Lars39]

34. Was there anything in there for actually getting

House and Senate members into these camps? Thanks for the OP, ehrnst.

[ehrnst]

40. Pelosi got the Democratic administrative changes into the bill, according to one report

Pelosi acquiesced, conceding she needed to bring the Senate bill up for a vote, after a private conversation with Vice President Pence, who agreed to administrative changes House Democrats were seeking, according to one of Pence's aides who asked not to be named. The administration will notify Congress within 24 hours if a child dies in custody, and children will be kept at emergency facilities for no longer than 90 days.

The package provides $4.6 billion in funding, including money for the Department of Defense and Immigration and Customs Enforcement that some House Democrats opposed.

The majority of the money is humanitarian aid to be allocated to the Department of Health and Human Services for the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

Trump and Senate Republicans were not interested in negotiating, and a block of moderate House Democrats announced they would support the Senate bill, ultimately forcing the speaker's hand.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/736721020/house-passes-senate-version-of-new-funding-to-ease-border-crisis

Cue the pearl clutching that Pelosi shared a very room with Mike Pence...

[ilmare2000]

64. Not in the bill, just a promise!

That was just a verbal promise from Pence! LOL. Good luck with that!

We will all get to see what the Trump administration does with this law.

The problem here is that there was no fight at all. Nothing. Nada. Just immediate capitulation and collapse. Not even at attempt to make it look like a fight. All because of the Problem Solvers Caucus.

This just emboldens the conservative Democrats. They know they're in control now.

[ehrnst]

79. It's been made public, so there's that pressure. He's planning on running for POTUS

Last edited Fri Jun 28, 2019, 07:39 AM - Edit history (1)

he already has a PAC. If he can be shown not to keep his word, he knows that will be in every campaign ad. He has some motivation to say that he was the one who got Pelosi to agree...

It's as though some people are imagining dire situations to support their opinion that the sky is falling. People are emotionally exhausted, and I understand that, but we need to remind ourselves that fear shuts down logic, sometimes getting us stuck in a loop, perpetuating the fear and anxiety when logic isn't working to absorb the facts that things aren't as catastrophic and dire as we feel they are.

[atreides1]

114. It's been made public?

That's all you have?

Pence could promise from the top of the Washington Monument and it wouldn't matter...because what he promised wasn't in the bill...

Pence has lied before...do you really believe that just because he might want to run for President that he won't lie now?




https://www.mediaite.com/tv/jake-tapper-fact-checks-mike-pence-immigration-lie-on-the-air/

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/its-not-just-the-russia-scandal-pence-lies-about-health-care-too

http://americablog.com/2017/02/mike-pence-lied-steve-bannons-military-service.html


He can say he got Pelosi to agree which only pads his own ambitions, but Pence's word is worth spit!!!

[ehrnst]

117. You don't think that it will get into the bill. That would support your anger about this whole thing

wouldn't it?

The fact that it is now public is indeed important. If the GOP doesn't put it in, they are running afoul of the head of the Senate - Mike Pence.

I assume you will admit you are wrong should the wording be included? Or will you be disappointed?

[fishwax]

127. Pence didn't promise it would be in the bill

He just promised that the administration would follow those guidelines even though they weren't in the bill.

At least, that's my understanding of it.

[ehrnst]

128. I stand corrected. However:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell confirmed publicly that Pelosi and Pence discussed steps the administration could take to improve conditions.

So, they have publicly aknowledged this, and as far as the public is concerned, a majority of Americans are appalled about what has come out about kids at that border and in border patrol custody, as well as in shelters. Polling in April confirmed that family separation is unpopular. https://www.lawfareblog.com/new-poll-despite-partisan-divides-immigration-americans-oppose-family-separation

Pence has also recently blamed Democrats for the conditions at the border, and now there is a public record that Pelosi asked for the administrative improvements and he agreed.

If those improvements do not happem, it can be laid on him that he didn't have the authority or influence to back up his word, when the Democrats came to him with improvements.

Pence already has an election PAC, and I think he's far more aware of how he is perceived.

[Lars39]

67. I didn't see it, but it might still be in there

and just not be mentioned. At least the kids will be getting some help. I’m not understanding the strategy of the block of House Dems undermining her strategy though.

[defacto7]

62. You actually got all that from my simple question?

Take the question as it was stated. You seem to want to make it into a lot of things that aren't there. I still want the answer and it's pretty clear you don't know what it is.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

75. Look in here? Says restrictions...trump doesn't like

May veto
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/25/us/politics/border-funding-vote.html

[defacto7]

133. Thanks. I'll give it a read.

[ehrnst]

80. So you're not going to answer the questions. Got it. (nt)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

36. You are right

[ehrnst]

37. So you can't answer the question I asked either?

No surprise.

People who don't like the two options that are available sometimes think that they can simply avoid the moral and ethical implications of making a choice between the two by pretending that there was another option that had no drawbacks that was being ignored.

But I'll bite - what is that alternative option that solves all those issues?

And why do you think that congress is incapable or unwilling to take into consideration oversight of this funding?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

39. Huh? Didn't read, sorry. Stopped reading Pelosi lobbying.

Rather look at the issue itself, not the person.

[ehrnst]

42. Not sure what any of that means, but here are the questions that the person you agreed with hasn't

answered, concerning their comments on the issue that's the topic of this thread:

You think that emergency funding legislation that has more congressional oversight is worse than not doing anything?

Do you think that congress gave no thought to that whatsoever? Had no remedy for that whatsoever? No provision for oversight? No negotiating skill whatsoever?

What solution would satisfy you? Seriously, what ideas do you have that would remedy all that, and not leave these kids in the same situation in the meantime?

What do you have that Mitch would have agreed to sign off on - because that's what would have to happen for it to become reality at all.

What other options are there?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212224977#post24

Is that clearer? If you are of a mind with that poster, could you respond to my questions, since that poster seems to have left the conversation.

[defacto7]

63. I most certainly have not.

I'm watching your overreaction to my realistic and resposible question get out of hand. I didn't attack Pelosi but you certainly are attacking what I didn't say.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

74. It's really best to ignore it D7. Learned my lesson

weeks ago.

[ehrnst]

84. You sure posted on "it's" OP. If you actually wanted to ignore "it"

you could utilize the "ignore" feature.

But you haven't.

[ehrnst]

83. Where had you answered my questions when I posted the above?

Last edited Fri Jun 28, 2019, 08:06 AM - Edit history (1)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

86. Did not read

[ehrnst]

87. What are you talking about? Are you answering for DeFacto?

[defacto7]

65. I really have no idea why my question was attacked.

It's just a question. It's no disrespect to question our leaders, reps or authority. That's how we know our government is still ours. I don't think running blindly helps any of us.

[ehrnst]

92. Who attacked you?

[uponit7771]

104. +1, they confuse being a fan with being a chearleader

[ehrnst]

107. "They?" Who is they? People who don't agree with you?

[ehrnst]

106. "running blindly?" Is that another way of saying that they don't think like you?

Who attacked you?

[True Blue American]

25. I can only say Thank you

For that!

[ehrnst]

43. Thank you for the kind words...

[JoeOtterbein]

29. Re; "She chose the one "defeat" out of the two "defeat" scenarios"

So if we only have one defeat, means we only have one defeat? Or just plain defeated on properly protecting defensive children?

[ehrnst]

33. Did you notice that "defeat" is in quotes?

I posited that both of the options that Pelosi and congress had could be seen as 'defeats," depending on your idea of if a humanitarian or political gain was more of a "win." Here is the full thought for context.

If anyone is laboring under the delusion that the media would have called walking away from the table with no bill anything but a 'stunning defeat for Pelosi' as well, you are sadly mistaken.

She chose the one "defeat" out of the two "defeat" scenarios that will get those kids some much needed help - the humanitarian choice, rather than unhumanitarian one.

Is that clearer?

What does "properly protecting defensive children" mean?

If you meant to type "defensless children" can you tell me what option is available to Democrats in congress that would satisfy your definition of "properly protecting" them? What other scenario was there?

[orangecrush]

38. What color is the sky

in the world of people who view passage of a republican bill as a good thing?

[ehrnst]

41. Going to evade answering the question? Not surprised.

But I'll play the game: What color is the sky in a world where there is only black and white, and throwing the welfare and health of at risk children under the bus for political principle is preferable to getting something that will improve their situation at all?

Perhaps in that world telling the GOP to shove it is worth letting the atrocities at the border continue with no congressional oversight and no additional administrative obligations to Democrats in congress, but people known as Democrats in this world prefer a humanitarian priority. For the most part.

Maybe you can tell us what the alternative to getting Senate approval for a bill to get into law in that world is, because you avoided the question that I asked by changing the subject - maybe it stumps you? Here it is again:

If you meant to type "defensless children" can you tell me what option is available to Democrats in congress that would satisfy your definition of "properly protecting" them? What other scenario was there?

To clarify - I'm talking about scenarios possible in this world.

In that world, are there news sources that allow you to learn about what is actually going on before ranting that there is nothing going on?

CPB Custody Act: Democrats unveil bill to bolster care of migrants in Border Patrol custody

Democrats hope their latest legislative effort, which is being spearheaded by California Rep. Raul Ruiz, will help prevent more deaths. The four-term lawmaker, a former emergency physician, denounced the conditions he has witnessed in detention facilities for migrants.
..............................
If enacted, the legislation would set new minimum standards of medical procedures by Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Homeland Security agency which oversees Border Patrol agents. The agency hires medical practitioners to conduct health screening on migrants and is also responsible for transporting sick people in its custody to nearby hospitals.

Under the bill, U.S. border authorities would need to ensure that migrants in high-risk populations like pregnant women, children, the elderly and those with serious medical conditions like HIV receive a health screening within three hours of their apprehension. All other migrants would need to receive a screening within 12 hours of their detention.

The screening would include an interview with the migrant, a psychological exam and screenings for vital signs like pulse, temperature, blood pressure and oxygen levels. The proposal also demands CBP ensure an interpreter is available during screenings if needed.

Currently, detained migrants usually receive these examinations, but not necessarily in these timeframes

Border officials would also need to have a licensed emergency care professional on call in case migrants need urgent medical attention, as well as emergency transportation in detention facilities or located within 30 minutes of the detention facility.

In addition to its provisions outlining medical care standards, the bill also calls for CBP to have sufficient drinking water, food, hygiene products and working and clean bathrooms for migrants in its custody. For migrants who are 12 years or older, border officials must be able to offer a daily diet consisting of three meals that together amount to no less than 2,000 calories.

The bill prohibits CBP from separating children from their adult relatives unless there are security concerns and says unaccompanied migrant children should not be detained with adults.

Under the proposal, CBP would need to ensure that victims of assault and sexual abuse receive psychological care, and that the psychical and mental health of LGBTQ migrants is protected.

Ruiz said he's hoping the requirements in his proposal will be included in a future humanitarian funding package for the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border, where officials have been overwhelmed for months due to an unprecedented surge of migrant families from Central America. Last month, apprehensions at the southern border reached a 13-year high.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-unveil-bill-to-bolster-medical-care-of-migrants-in-border-patrol-custody/

[orangecrush]

76. Goodbye

And I do vote.

[ehrnst]

77. Leaving sure beats articulating and defending a position, doesn't it?

[JoeOtterbein]

60. If I had a Nancy clap-back thingy I would give it to you!

...sorry, I'm still looking!

[ehrnst]

78. Well, he/she has decided to cut losses and make a dash for the exit.

Probably for the best.

I'm sure they appreciated your offer.

[Skittles]

136. in the world where people twist themselves into pretzels to defend someone

[orangecrush]

137. Hi Skittles!

Thanks!

[Skittles]

139. HOWDY orangecrush!

[Ligyron]

44. Are we sure the kids are actually going to benefit from that money?

Or will they be allowed to repurpose it for more facilities to warehouse kids, enforcement actions, etc.? When can we expect to see the improvements in quality of life this money bought for those children?

Probably never I'll bet.

[BamaRefugee]

47. They won't even get a spoonful of crema on their frijoles from it...

[ehrnst]

49. You seem very sure. Do you know something that Democrats in the House and Senate don't?

Do share.

[BamaRefugee]

51. To believe it will happen is to assume that Mitch McConnell is telling the truth. And Trump.

And Pence. And all the other confirmed liars who "promised" all kinds of good things will happen, even though none of them are in the legislation.

[ehrnst]

58. And because you think this is a real thing, that means that there isn't any way that any legislation

that's passed will possibly work the way that legislation usually does.

So tell me, if passed legislation is so easily ignored and circumvented by Pence and McConnell, etc...why do they even bother blocking it? Why not just say, 'Sure, we'll pass your silly bill" then do what you say they have the power to do, then say that the Democrats fail in their legislation? Why even bother to produce a Senate version of the bill if the ability to completely block it once it's law?

Makes no sense if your claim is true, does it?

Why does DT get his panties in a wad when he doesn't get the legislation that he wants?

It makes no sense if your pronouncement is based in fact, does it?

What "good things" did those guys "promise" that are "not in the legislation?" Would someone who hasn't read the legislation have any basis for talking about that?

Should anyone take seriously someone who hasn't read the legislation, yet feels qualified to lecture people on what is and isn't in it? That's just silly, isn't it?



Did your high school have a government course?

[BamaRefugee]

68. They DIDN'T "pass your silly bill". They said "Pass OUR bill, and then, even though it's not written

into OUR bill, we'll still do all kinds of good things for you, just don't make us put it down in writing".
I took lots of government courses in school. Perhaps your school needed to have some reading comprehension courses.
This is straight out of the NYT article:
"Her retreat came after Vice President Mike Pence gave Ms. Pelosi private assurances that the administration would voluntarily abide by some of the restrictions she had sought, including notifying lawmakers within 24 hours after the death of a migrant child in government custody, and placing a 90-day time limit on children spending time in temporary intake facilities, according to a person familiar with the discussions. "
Just to clarify, if you're having trouble with it, Mike Pence said PRIVATELY and under no compulsion to have to actually abide by it: "oh don't worry, we'll take care of your check list VOLUNTARILY later, let's not make things all messy with actual legislation that we would REALLY have to carry out."

[ehrnst]

81. NYT is hardly "private," don't you think?

Why do you think that Democrats are incapable of getting that in the bill, after it's public - the NYT, even - that Pence agreed to it?

You don't seem to understand a lot about the process of legislation and the obligations of following legislation, and that lack of understanding has been replaced by some ideas that you've imagined in a state of anxiety, and are convinced they are facts.

Was there a government class at your high school?

Do you know what the "Progressive Caucus" is? 16 of them voted for the Senate bill.

[uponit7771]

101. Read all the bill, there's are few written checks in it for the white house outside of what they're

... doing now.

The CHC thinks they'll be able to put some checks in the appropriations bill in 3 months so they're not screaming right now ... whatever, not if the same people fold

This will come back to bite them like Biden's vote on busing.

[ehrnst]

105. Come back and bite who? The 16 progressive caucus members who voted yes?

Can you provide a link to the bill?

Thanks.

[uponit7771]

109. Yes, those 16 will have to explain why the voted for funds to the holding centers that are

... keeping kids in those concentration needlessly when they haven't gone through the process of reunification themselves.

Of course they wont, they're getting paid stupid money to tell kids they don't know where their parents are.

here are links to the legislation and the amendments to them

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12225654

[ehrnst]

118. That's the House bill, not the Senate bill.

That's what we're talking about....

Have you even read the bill that we are now talking about?

[uponit7771]

132. The house approved the senate bill as is, do you understand the words that are coming ...

... off the page?

thx

[sl8]

134. It's the House bill that passed Congress.The Senate amended and passed the House bill 2 days ago.

Senate vote on H.R. 3401: Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2019/s185

On edit:

House vote (June 27) on H.R. 3401:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2019/h429

[True Blue American]

72. They missed the part about

Pelosi negotiating with Pence. They put in what Nancy wanted on Administrative.

Does any one settle down long enough to think a subject through any more?

BTW, Kamala Harris is wrong on bussing. As most black or white will tell you, bussing destroyed our City School system of neighborhood schools.

We lived across the street from the High School, Elementary behind. When bussing started they poured millions into bussing children across town. Those who could afford it, sold their houses, moved to the Suburbs. The poor were left behind. And I am speaking of Black and White.

I have had many conversations with parents who said the money should have been put into poor Schools. Bussing was one of the grand ideas of Congress that failed miserably leaving the poor in the cities. Our system has never recovered.

[uponit7771]

102. Which we trust they will follow?! and no Harris was not wrong on the principle of desegregating

... America's schools.

The vote for this bill will come back to bite those who voted for it like the busing vote is biting Biden

[ehrnst]

50. You 'bet?'

Any reason to put your money on all efforts and skill that the Democrats have being TOTALLY inadequate to address this?

Some inside scoop that Democrats don't have?

What holes do you see in the legislation? I haven't seen it, so I can't really confirm what you're saying.

Do tell!

No one else that's said this has answered my questions on this - they just go quiet.

But it sounds like your prediction of doom and that anything Dems do will all just go down the toilet is actually based on something other than an opinion that anything but giving Mitch the finger is LAME and they will be proven right about their feelings toward Democratic leaders.

[StarfishSaver]

52. Do you think many people here have actually read the legislation

[ehrnst]

54. Some certainly talk like they have - they make pronouncements about how there is NOTHING

in it that will track where the money is going, that it's worse than doing nothing, that it's nothing more than a Republican bill...

Which is odd, because it was Democrats that pushed this....

But how on earth can they make those dire predictions with such self-certainty with no knowledge whatsoever is in the bill, other than Pelosi has stated that she was 'reluctantly' agreeing to it, and that she got the Democratic administrative items added in?

They wouldn't just be making the mistake believing everything they feel is fact, would they? That they could be seeking validation for hand wringing and sky is falling anxiety, you think?

[True Blue American]

73. No, and neither has the Press.

I trust Pelosi to get the best deal she could. Funny, she negotiated with Pence instead of Mitch. That old man is a dead ender, in more ways than one, corrupt to the bottom of his soul.

[uponit7771]

100. No, there's few stipulations in the bill that the Trump admin can be trusted to keep and there's

... no reason to believe they'll keep them.

[uponit7771]

103. Notice how you get more condescension than a straight answer to your question. There are a crew

... of rolleyes that are mil-spec level at distracting from straight answers to straight questions.

[ehrnst]

108. Like there are certain people who follow others around on DU

like puppies who pull at their favorite humans' pants leg to get attention.

[Vegas Roller]

48. Sadly, in some quarters, it is a sport to attack Nancy Pelosi

I feel saddened that she gets attacked here as much as on Fox News.

[uponit7771]

53. False dichotomy, there's little reason to believe the kids will not CONTINUE to suffer as they have.

[ehrnst]

55. Wrong. There's 100% reason to believe the kids WILL CONTINUE to suffer if NOTHING is done.

You prefer that option, do you? That's not a false dichotomy, Sugar. I don't think that phrase means what you think it does...

You talk like you've actually read the bill, making those dire claims. Put your money where your mouth is, now you've been told about how government contracts with NGOs DON'T work, please don't start in repeating how all this can be done with no government funding...


Please share with us the specific failures that the Democratic leaders have committed in the bill, will you? And what they should have been put in instead.

[uponit7771]

56. Giving money to Red Don is ***NOT*** doing something its rational NOT to trust Trump. I understand

... you want to minimize that by ignoring it ad nausea but its a fact like ... water being wet and Earth being round and etc etc.

We don't trust Trump

[ehrnst]

57. I think you have forgotten our previous conversation where I informed you

about your lack of understanding about how NGOs do and don't work concerning wards of the state...

Remember about how I told you about Planned Parenthood, and if it was 'Red Don' giving out the money, Planned Parenthood would get nothing.

Is it attention that you want from me now? Because you're just following me around copying and pasting the same rants about GIVING MONEY TO RED DON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111!!!!!

Are you going to call me a "sycophant for Red Don" again along with Democrats in congress and anyone who has the first clue about how contracts and federal funding works?

[uponit7771]

59. Sigh and :rolleyes:, you're back on NGO's I'm not. There's no reason to believe children will not

... continue to suffer like they have with the for profit detention centers etc.

6 months from now kids will still be dying and people who rolleyes a lot will be swearing up and down giving Red Don 5 billion was still the best move out of only 2 moves (false dichotomy) when there were tons of others that have been already outlined (the rolleyes crew will act as if no other moves have been outlined).

We'll see ... I pray I'm wrong

[ehrnst]

82. Sighs and :rolls eyes: you're back lecturing about things you don't understand

Despite all efforts to educate you on your lack of understanding, and get you up to speed on what you are ranting about, so you have less reason to rant.

It sounds like you want to be proven right, judging from your reaction when told that your anxiety is often based on a misunderstanding about about how things work, and no the sky is indeed not falling as you seem to see it...

[uponit7771]

98. "It sounds like you want to be proven right", what kind of capitulation is this E!? Whatever, if no

... babies are dying, for profit detention centers aren't keeping children needlessly for 800 a night and Red Don's concentration camps are shut down then I'll be wrong and everyone will be happy.

that's a good thing no?

tia

[ehrnst]

111. You've said that repeatedly, yet have offered nothing other than

"legislation" as an alternative... and that's what the Democrats did, and you are still wringing your hands that "worse than nothing got done!!!!!"

Do you have text or a link to this alleged alternate legislation that would be passed by the Senate?

Didn't think so.



See - I didn't hurt your feelings with that other emoji!

[uponit7771]

113. You didn't answer the question asked in my post either

[ehrnst]

120. So you don't have any actual alternative legislation that you claim could pass the Senate

And would be acceptable to you. It was just something that you imagined existed, despite any evidence, an answer you came up with on the spot to challenge my point that there were just two options, and the one not chosen was worse.

Got it.

Nice try at deflection. But I'll play your game - what question was that I didn't answer? Was is one of those rhetorical questions?

[uponit7771]

131. Still didn't answer the question

[treestar]

89. But would you be saying they did nothing if they did not do this?

[uponit7771]

97. No, if they were making the case to the American people that concentration camps were immoral

[ehrnst]

116. Again with the hand wringing for no reason...

Looking for people to support the "sky is falling" reactionism.

But I'll bite - who is the "they" that is not making the case to the American people that the treatment of these kids in detention is immoral?

Not Democrats and our leadership. You can stop obsessing about that now. Unless you want to continue to, of course.

You're welcome.

'CRUELTY IS PART OF THEIR POLICY': CONGRESSMAN BLASTS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S TREATMENT OF MIGRANT CHILDREN AS 'IMMORAL'
https://www.newsweek.com/cruelty-policy-congressman-trump-migrant-children-1445426

Democrats Confront the Horror at the Border

Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, the lone member of the Senate Appropriations Committee to vote against the funding package last week, said that while he does think that emergency funding—with strict conditions—is necessary to alleviate immediate suffering, ultimately, “Children shouldn’t be kept in any sort detention facility for any length of time.” He continued, “The administration is still embracing this basic idea of inflicting trauma on children as a strategy for deterring immigration. That is immoral, it is evil, and you see it manifest itself one time after another.

https://www.thenation.com/article/democrats-house-emergency-funding-immigration-detention/

Senators call border family separation policy 'immoral' as officials defend their actions
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-family-separations-hearing-20180731-story.html

Trump’s Immigration Policy Gets Its Moral Reckoning

“What I saw in there is inhumane,” Representative Albio Sires of New Jersey said at a subsequent news conference. “I see the politics of this administration and it turns my stomach, because I know what this country stands for. And that’s not what we are in America.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/06/trump-separate-separating-children-policy/563027/

Rep. Jeffries said: “Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions made a cold-hearted, callous and calculated decision to rip vulnerable children from the arms of their parents. This immoral policy is unacceptable, un-American and unconscionable. Republicans control the House, the Senate and the Presidency. They are solely responsible for staining our democracy and scarring children for life. The so-called President must end this policy now and stop lying to the American people.”

https://jeffries.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-jeffries-and-new-york-new-jersey-democrats-make-surprise-visit-to-to

Gillibrand criticized the Trump administration's immigration policy, particularly citing the "zero tolerance" policy that led to the separation of migrant children from their parents at the southern border. "Trump’s immigration policy is inhumane, ineffective and wrong," Gillibrand said.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/19/kirsten-gillibrand-detain-immigrants-1332891

Representative Lou Correa of California, who currently sits on the Homeland Security Committee, believes that for oversight to be successful, it must be couched in pragmatic language so that it resonates broadly with the public, even on issues as polarizing as family separation.

“You don’t separate children from their parents, that’s a given. But if we’re going to debate morality, well, the president will say that kind of policy is OK, while we say it’s immoral,” says Correa.

https://prospect.org/article/can-house-stop-trump%E2%80%99s-gross-immigration-abuse

You're welcome.

[Vinca]

88. Under the circumstances, she did the right thing.

And, once again, Mitch McConnell proves why we MUST take the Senate as well as the White House, preferably with the Turtle having lost his own election.

[treestar]

90. Yes. I bet if Scenario 2 the same people

would be blaming her for "doing nothing."

[ehrnst]

91. Yep.

She's a favorite punching bag, and I'm sure Mitch and Trump are enjoying seeing Democrats because the GOP gave Democrats in congress two options, and Pelosi would be called a "failure" if she chose either.

The centrist Democrats outnumbered the lefty candidates, so Pelosi will be trashed by the lefty wing.

I wonder if the GOP is eating buttered popcorn or unbuttered.

[sl8]

93. Text of H.R. 3401, S.Amdt.901

HTML:https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3401/text
PDF: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr3401/BILLS-116hr3401enr.pdf

Note: There are 4 versions of the bill listed. The "enrolled" version is the latest, incorporating amendments and as approved by both houses.

-------------------------------

SA 901 was passed by the Senate ~20 minutes before passing the main bill. All changes should be in the enrolled bill link above), but here is just the amendment:

Note: Amendment text is embedded in Congressional Record, you'll need to scroll to or search for "901"
TXT: https://www.congress.gov/116/crec/2019/06/26/modified/CREC-2019-06-26-pt1-PgS4580-2.htm
PDF: https://www.congress.gov/116/crec/2019/06/26/CREC-2019-06-26-pt1-PgS4580-2.pdf

Incidentally, Sen. Paul's amendment, SA 902, was defeated.

[Buckeyeblue]

94. I don't understand how this is a defeat

The Republicans have the Senate and the Presidency. She is in no position to force anything through. But she is in a position to block their shitty policies which she has done.

[uponit7771]

99. This is money handed to the Trump admin with very little stipulations, there's no reason to believe

... these funds would be used for humanitarian reasons or wont be used just to continue to run the for profit concentration camps that are needlessly keeping children from profit.

[ehrnst]

110. Can you share the text of the bill that you're referring to?

Thanks.

16 members of the progressive caucus voted yes. Perhaps you should let them know about this part of the bill as well.

[uponit7771]

112. :rolleyes: ... checks are NOT in the bill ... that's the issue !!!

There's nothing under HHS section telling.. contractors that are currently housing kids that they have a responsibility to contact parents RIGHT NOW when they see there's a way to do so.

For instance,

[ehrnst]

122. You are talking about text of a bill... and you haven't seen it?

You just started ranting.

Again.

Are you even sure which bill you're talking about? It's the Senate bill....

[uponit7771]

130. Yes I have, I even linked it to you , E ... the distraction process is beyond old

[tazkcmo]

115. There's no red meat at McDonalds.

But yeah, sometimes we eat a shit sandwich because it's the only way to take care of the children.

[Hotler]

119. I would bet that only a small amount of those funds will make it to the kids.

Most of the money will go to subcontractors for grossly over priced goods and services. It's all about money with the repugs.

[ehrnst]

123. You "bet?"

Sounds very much like the GOP when they say that they bet most food assistance is spent on candy bars or sold for cash to buy beer.

Do you think that democrats have no ability or understanding whatsoever of funding mechanisms?

Do you think that 16 members of the progressive caucus would have voted yes if that was inevitable?

[Gothmog]

125. I trust Speaker Pelosi on this issue

[fishwax]

126. I generally trust NP's leadership, but think it's unfair to characterize dem opposition

to this bill as "throw(ing) those kids under the bus" in a simple desire for red meat. I don't think it's the case that, for instance, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus doesn't care about the children on the border.

[ehrnst]

129. That was referring to many of the Democratic base, not those in congress.

There are many in the base that want Pelosi to answer to them, and don't consider any management style that isn't 'alpha male' to be satisfactory.

I hope that clarifies things.