AOC's latest

[ScottF]

I vacillate between pure appreciation of AOC's ability to exploit social media better than any other democrat, and amused disgust on many of her actual comments. A lot of her "hot takes" make me feel like I'm laughing at a fart joke; kind of gross but also funny.

Her latest on US concentration camps is another example of masterful nonsense. Doesn't even matter what logic/illogic is involved, she's owning the moment time after time. Reminds me of a certain orange someone. Except that almost all of her "thoughts" stop working after 280 characters. She'd be quickly eviscerated in any kind of protracted defense of them.

My question: as hot as she's burning right now, is there a line she could cross that even her media defenders would have to denounce? Normally comparing things to the holocaust either directly or by association is a recipe for media doom. With her current darling status, it all seems good.

[D.W.]

is there a line she could cross that even her media defenders would have to denounce?

It sure as *censored* isn't calling out our government for interning families. 

This narrative is not one placed on them by her or the democrats or liberals.  It was a mantle taken up by Trump to provoke a response with one group.  Just so happens there are others who also react. 

As others out there in social media have been pointing out.  It's not the first time we've gotten frightened and detained population groups.

I'm sure there are things she could say to turn her "media defenders" against her, but criticizing villains when they are sneering twirling their mustaches seems a safe play...  from a cynical media gamesmanship perspective.   

[Wayward Son]

And isn't it fun how Republicans go and redefine terms (like "concentration camps"), then criticize Democrats for not using it the way they want them to?

I guess they are just the Humpty-Dumpty party.   

[Seriati]

I guess you're right we shouldn't be detaining families, just automatically deporting them. 

[NobleHunter]

I guess you're right we shouldn't be detaining families, just automatically deporting them.

That would interfere with the "deterrence through inhumanity" policy goal.

[ScottF]

Trying to understand why nobody called/defended it as a concentration camp back in 2014 when it was first put in place.

Back then it was pleasantly named Fort Sill, but in reality was literally an ex Japanese internment camp. Immigrant kids were locked up for months. What's changed?

[Wayward Son]

Volume.  Lack of discrimination of who is sent there.  And a President that indicated that maybe not treating immigrants well might discourage them from coming in the first place.

[Crunch]

Hillary didn’t win. If she had, the left would not give a single *censored* about this. Just like they did under Obama. It’s faux outrage.

[Wayward Son]

Yeah, yeah.  She would've eaten their bodies and sacrificed them to Satan, too.

Let's deal with what is actual, not "how it could've been worse if Hillary had won." 

[Crunch]

It wouldn’t have been worse. It would have been exactly the same as it was before  2016. You didn’t care then. You wouldn’t care now if Hillary had one. You’d have just gone along as before. We all know this, it’s not some deep insight. You care as much about these people now as you did on 2015 - not at all unless you can use them to score political points.

[Wayward Son]

And similarly, being a Trump supporter, like Trump you'd rather see them all dead.  Am I right?

Don't tell me what I would or wouldn't do.  Regardless of what you think you know, you know bumpkis.  Saying stuff like that just shows your ignorance, bigotry and foolishness.

And don't talk to me about using immigrants to score political points, when your Trump is using them as the basis of his campaign.  Like you care who uses them for political points. 

[TheDeamon]

And similarly, being a Trump supporter, like Trump you'd rather see them all dead.  Am I right?

Citation needed, I doubt Trump wants them dead. What he wants is for them to not be in our country due to illegal entry.

Don't tell me what I would or wouldn't do.  Regardless of what you think you know, you know bumpkis.  Saying stuff like that just shows your ignorance, bigotry and foolishness.

Same can be said for you.

And don't talk to me about using immigrants to score political points, when your Trump is using them as the basis of his campaign.  Like you care who uses them for political points. 

It certainly is effective. As recently as 6 months ago we had a press that was so indifferent on this issue that they were actively denying there were any problems with regards to immigrants crossing our Southern Border, no problems what so ever, and Trump was blowing things out of proportion to generate a crises which didn't exist.

Trump backed down, and now here we are, 6 months later, and the media is generating a crises involved the same issue, over things which have been going on since Obama was in Office.

[ScottF]

Concentration camps and selective outrage aside, it's an objective fact that AOC is the woke voice of the dems right now. If I'm her handler I'm guiding her to keep things limited to tweets, selfie video narrations, and small friendly crowds until she has a few more years of seasoning.

[Seriati]

Maybe I missed, where in the actual concentration camps people were free to leave and return to their homes, or to a neighboring country at will.

[ScottF]

You also missed the part where people are flying from Angola to Brazil, then traveling north through Central America and Mexico to get in line for a concentration camp.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/record-number-of-african-migrants-coming-to-mexican-border

[Wayward Son]

And similarly, being a Trump supporter, like Trump you'd rather see them all dead.  Am I right?

Citation needed, I doubt Trump wants them dead. What he wants is for them to not be in our country due to illegal entry.

I'm sure he'd rather kill them all by peaceful means.

Actually, what I'm doing is looking ahead to the end game.  Trump once said he hoped that his cruel treatment of immigrants would dissuade them from trying to come here.  But if people are coming here to escape grinding poverty and threats to their lives, what would it take to dissuade them?  Basically, a greater threat to their lives that the one they are facing at home or elsewhere.  A silly wall you can scale with a ladder certainly won't do the trick.

So if Trump really wants to stop people from trying to immigrate to this country, he will have to provide a deadlier threat than what they face at home.  He will have to try to kill them.  And to be effective, he will have to kill some of them to prove it to the rest.

Of course, I mainly said that to yank Crunch's chain. As my mom used to say, "What you shout to the forest, the forest will echo."

Don't tell me what I would or wouldn't do.  Regardless of what you think you know, you know bumpkis.  Saying stuff like that just shows your ignorance, bigotry and foolishness.

Same can be said for you.

Oh, I'm sure I do sometimes.  Feel free to correct me and educate me.  Explain to me how I'm wrong.  I would love to hear it.

But don't expect me to treat Crunch any better than he treat me.

And don't talk to me about using immigrants to score political points, when your Trump is using them as the basis of his campaign.  Like you care who uses them for political points. 

It certainly is effective. As recently as 6 months ago we had a press that was so indifferent on this issue that they were actively denying there were any problems with regards to immigrants crossing our Southern Border, no problems what so ever, and Trump was blowing things out of proportion to generate a crises which didn't exist.

Trump backed down, and now here we are, 6 months later, and the media is generating a crises involved the same issue, over things which have been going on since Obama was in Office.

Well, six months ago there were far fewer immigrants trying to cross the border.  But despite Trump's policies, there has been a great increase recently.  So, yes, the media is covering it, and the Trump Administration's response to it, as they would for any President.

But don't forget that Trump calls illegal immigrants murders, rapists and such.  That he equates illegal immigrants with gang members.  You can't deny that he uses immigrants--or actually, the fear of immigrants--to score political points.  So the last thing a Republican should do is criticize a Democrat for using immigrants "to score political points." 

[Crunch]

The ICE detention centers were operational during the Obama Administration. Please quote just one of the  posts you made about how awful they were then so we can see your consistency.

[D.W.]

Please quote just one of the  posts you made about how awful they were then so we can see your consistency.

I for one, wasn't aware of them.  I mean.  I knew ICE was out there.  I knew intellectually that they detained people as part of their work... 

But it's not like Republicans/conservatives were out there shining a light on the injustice of it all... 

Does the Democrat/liberal aligned media outlets shine a light more reliably when it's politically convenient?  Duh... 

I don't know if it's a partisan trait, but just because something "wrong" has been around for awhile, doesn't mean it should stay around now that people are paying attention.

(Unless you are a giant cross on public land.  Then I guess grandfathering in is cool?) 

[Fenring]

D.W., the argument in this particular case isn't whataboutism in the form of "well they did it too". The argument seems rather to be that the claim being made is that Trump initiated a program of concentration camps, which if they did exist prior to him is a flatly false claim. The argument that he increased the amount of detention would be a red herring on the subject of whether he introduced such measures for the first time. I haven't researched these things so I don't know, but that appears to be what Crunch is saying in this case.

[D.W.]

I also don't know to what extent he expanded (or worsened) this policy.  My rebuttle, in so far as I have one, is that Trump himself, not Democratic outrage (mock or undeserved or otherwise) is causing the increased attention.

His policy is to make asylum seeking and immigration as scary and unappealing as possible as a means of deterrence.  I think it's fair to say this was NOT a policy objective of the previous administration. 

When someone wants to put on a scary face, they are a lot more likely to do scary things...  The rhetoric alone is likely to encourage or attract people who agree with that rhetoric and may take things just that small step further than is legal or is "official policy". 

So ya, I get wanting to paint the democrats and Obama as "also bad..." on this to mitigate what should be universal condemnation.  Good luck with pushing that narrative.  Who knows.  Those who want to believe Trump is God's gift to America have swallowed crazier *censored*.

Both sides approach useless in solving our flawed immigration system and border security.  My belief is that neither side wants to solve it and when you play political football long enough, people get injured.

[Fenring]

Maybe the idea is that Congress won't act until enough attention is put there, and until it's made clear how bad it looks?

[D.W.]

If that was somehow the outcome, we would owe Trump a thank you for being the villain we needed at the time.   

I don't know what else could force Congress to act.  Though I am a fan of the TV series Designated Survivor...

[TheDeamon]

Maybe the idea is that Congress won't act until enough attention is put there, and until it's made clear how bad it looks?

I think Lincoln has a quote about the best way to ensure change in regards to bad law is to enforce it strictly, rather than try to ignore it.

But that would mean a Republican is comparable to Lincoln, can't have that. Isn't the current meme that the Republicans are supposed to be the antithesis of Lincoln?

[Seriati]

Actually, what I'm doing is looking ahead to the end game.  Trump once said he hoped that his cruel treatment of immigrants would dissuade them from trying to come here.  But if people are coming here to escape grinding poverty and threats to their lives, what would it take to dissuade them?

We could always do what's worked before and elect a Democratic President to put in place job killing regulations and higher taxes.

Seriously, how on earth do you guys keep straight faces when you seem to simultaneously believe that Trump is Hitler, yet people are literally volunteering to go to his "concentration camps" because of the economy his governing?  Once again, everyone else in the world is better able to see what's really going on in America than the Americans that are too caught up in trying to "win" to acknowledge reality.

The people coming in are economic migrants, not people fleeing oppression.  That's why more and more international people are joining the parade. 

Our system, what a joke, our deliberate lack of a system to control immigration literally gives people two choices.  Apply legally, and if you're young, maybe before you retire you may get to punch your ticket to leave your entire life behind and come to America, or two, walk into America and within months be living in America with no prospect you'll be forced to leave for years - at the earliest - and probably never if you manage to parent a child.  What a sensible system we have.

And why do we have "detention camps"?  Oh yeah, because Congress steadfastly refuses to authorize any spending to actually relieve the human suffering, because pictures of the human suffering are politically potent and useful to their desires.   So forgive me if I don't buy the Trump is evil meme, from the same people who say absolutely nothing as their Congress people refuse to lift a single finger to help those people because it might give Trump some credit.

You have no morality on your side if you refuse to deal with the border.

[Crunch]

Please quote just one of the  posts you made about how awful they were then so we can see your consistency.

I for one, wasn't aware of them.  I mean.  I knew ICE was out there.  I knew intellectually that they detained people as part of their work... 

There was an article in the NYT about it. More than a few of the pictures you’re supposed to get outraged about now came from that article. Maybe you weren’t aware of it but a great many were. This was during an administration “without even a hint of scandal” but now the exact same thing is concentration camps.

But it's not like Republicans/conservatives were out there shining a light on the injustice of it all... 

Nor are they now. They are talking about the crisis that the massive uptick in illegal border crossings is causing and have been for some time. Not that there is an injustice in detaining those engaging in criminal activity.

I don't know if it's a partisan trait, but just because something "wrong" has been around for awhile, doesn't mean it should stay around now that people are paying attention.

You mean now that the left is pretending they care. Given the level of coverage and concern during the Obama Administration it’s pretty safe to say you would have remained completely unaware of this crisis if Hillary had won. The media and liberals would continue to cover it up as they had been doing for Obama - there’s no reason we should expect that to have changed.

(Unless you are a giant cross on public land.  Then I guess grandfathering in is cool?) 

Freedom of religion is a right. Immigration is not and illegally crossing the border is a crime. I’m sure you see the difference.

[TheDrake]

There are a lot of rights. The right to due process is one of those. So is the banning of cruel and unusual punishment. It seems like those would be factors when deciding to cage people up for months in squalid conditions.

[Crunch]

There are a lot of rights. The right to due process is one of those. So is the banning of cruel and unusual punishment. It seems like those would be factors when deciding to cage people up for months in squalid conditions.

Supporting illegal activity is such a strange thing among the left.

[ScottF]

Not if the perpetrators are viewed as oppressed, then it’s extremely normal and should be expected. Conservative leaning people are necessary to make sure that hierarchies actually function, so things get done. Liberal leaning people are necessary to prevent those hierarchies from becoming tyrannical and oppressive.

It’s the reason why the liberal/conservative dichotomy exists- and why they will never be in perfect balance/agreement.

[TheDrake]

There are a lot of rights. The right to due process is one of those. So is the banning of cruel and unusual punishment. It seems like those would be factors when deciding to cage people up for months in squalid conditions.

Supporting illegal activity is such a strange thing among the left.

Funny, I could say the same thing about trumpians. Like supporting hatch act violations, supporting arapiao's violation of court orders, supporting the idea of receiving political help from foreign nationals.

[D.W.]

You mean now that the left is pretending they care.

In case you were unaware, there is more than a small divide between the voters who belong to “the left” and the policy makers who belong to “the left”.  I’m not one to defend bad policy just because “my guy” or gall is at the wheel. 

Maybe you weren’t aware of it but a great many were.

Yet here we are…  That’s kinda my point.  Are there some hypocrites on the left who did know, and suddenly decided jadedly to employ it as a cudgel to score points?  Sure, but for the most part, this flew under the radar.

I guess what bothers me is not the pointing out that it was policy under Obama.  It’s that it is being used as an excuse to continue it.  On top of that, it’s being used and highlighted (by both sides) as either a soap box issue (the left) or to terrorize potential immigrants (the right).  I don’t deny that detention may be necessary in some cases or that these people are breaking the law.  I’m probably much more a hardass for legal immigration than most on the left, but the current policy seems to be scare tactics first, nationalist propaganda second, then law enforcement.  And that is partly or largely by design, not a perception to be laid at the feat of the 'fake news media enemy of the people'…

Freedom of religion is a right.

Was just tossing in a quick side topic / current affair.  Cross memorial, tax payer funded upkeep on public land.  SC case.  Had nothing to do with this topic really.  Has nothing to do with freedom of religion either, but whatever. 

[TheDeamon]

I guess what bothers me is not the pointing out that it was policy under Obama.  It’s that it is being used as an excuse to continue it.  On top of that, it’s being used and highlighted (by both sides) as either a soap box issue (the left) or to terrorize potential immigrants (the right).  I don’t deny that detention may be necessary in some cases or that these people are breaking the law.  I’m probably much more a hardass for legal immigration than most on the left, but the current policy seems to be scare tactics first, nationalist propaganda second, then law enforcement.  And that is partly or largely by design, not a perception to be laid at the feat of the fake news media enemy of the people…

Well, even more news on that one if you bother to look.

Trump's initial funding proposals regarding to border situation?

He wanted to fund expanded/improved detention facilities. Democrats are allegedly the ones who had most of that funding removed as part of the compromise deal they made in February.

So this isn't entirely Trump's doing. "Conditions are bad at the detention facilities, Trump's evil" "Yeah, and Trump tried to fund improvements to those facilities, and Democrats blocked it. Almost like they wanted to point to bad conditions at them at some later time..."

[D.W.]

That wouldn't shock me.  Everyone's willing to use these people.  It's why this issue refuses to be resolved.  Would be nice if we didn't have to kill or abuse people to hype up our respective voting blocks.   

[TheDrake]

There are a lot of rights. The right to due process is one of those. So is the banning of cruel and unusual punishment. It seems like those would be factors when deciding to cage people up for months in squalid conditions.

Supporting illegal activity is such a strange thing among the left.

Also, in what world does wanting Constitutional rights to be upheld in the treatment of people who have broken the law equate to supporting their illegal activity? Maybe you'd like to propose that we tar and feather the illegal immigrants as well, or put them in the stocks? I know there is a small group of Breitbart commenters that think they should be murdered by random citizens, so that's some nice respect for the law right there.

[Crunch]

I'd like illegal aliens deported. That's perfectly constitutional, legal in every way, and morally correct. Detaining them until they can be processed and returned has to happen or they simply disappear and at the volume it's happening is very difficult to manage when Democrats refused to recognize the scale of the crisis and still refuse to support the proper legal recourse for entering illegally.

You were ok with this under Obama.

[NobleHunter]

Not that you care, but government activity can't be described as constitutionally correct without describing how that activity is authorized and carried out.

[TheDrake]

You were ok with this under Obama.

I'm not sure how you would know how I felt about immigration policy under Obama. I was unhappy with the state of immigration under Obama. Unhappy about the number of asylum applications rejected, unhappy with the low number of refugees admitted, and unhappy that sanctuary cities weren't doing enough to harbor illegals. I won't rest until illegals can stuff the ballot boxes, take all our jobs, get public assistance, make gang warfare ubiquitous, and flood the country with narcotics.

[Seriati]

Funny, I could say the same thing about trumpians. Like supporting hatch act violations,...

I don't think Conway's violations are legitimate.  Under the interpretation that they seem to be applying, she'd not be entitled to exercise her own free speech rights.  I note too, virtually the entire left engages in Hatch Act violations under the standard applied to Conway, any time they get a chance to talk about Trump.

...supporting arapiao's violation of court orders,...

The court issued an illegal order, and then held him in contempt for violating it (as they couldn't have prosecuted him under the illegal order itself).

We send soldiers to prison for complying with illegal orders, why should I not support a Sheriff who refuses an illegal order of a court?

...supporting the idea of receiving political help from foreign nationals.

I'm totally opposed to the DNC having paid a foreign spy to obtain help from Russian nationals, or of the DNC having sent staff to try and obtain materials from the Ukrainian government for political purposes.  Is that what you meant?

Otherwise here's a great piece by Hans von Spakovsky who's a former commission of the FEC - you know the people charged with actually enforcing the election laws - that explains in quite some detail some of the points of nonsense that's being sold.  I'll give you a spoiler, it's not illegal to accept information or even public support from a foreign national.  https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/hans-von-spakovsky-sorry-media-talking-to-foreigners-does-not-violate-federal-campaign-laws

I know when facts get in the way of a pet theory by the left, it's still all about the evil Trumpians, but I can't even begin to process the whining about the mote in Trump's eye while there's a 2x4 in the DNC's.

[DJQuag]

You were ok with this under Obama.

I'm not sure how you would know how I felt about immigration policy under Obama. I was unhappy with the state of immigration under Obama. Unhappy about the number of asylum applications rejected, unhappy with the low number of refugees admitted, and unhappy that sanctuary cities weren't doing enough to harbor illegals. I won't rest until illegals can stuff the ballot boxes, take all our jobs, get public assistance, make gang warfare ubiquitous, and flood the country with narcotics.

Finally one of us has the courage to admit to our true goals.

Thank you comrade.

[Seriati]

Also, in what world does wanting Constitutional rights to be upheld in the treatment of people who have broken the law equate to supporting their illegal activity?

Do you even know what you're talking about?  There's nothing unConstitutional about deporting someone.  Even someone that claims asylum could be deported to Mexico (if they sign the agreement) or after an evidentiary determination.  It's not the Constitution that's created the road block here it's judicial activism.

There's also absolutely nothing unConstritutional about detaining illegal aliens pending the resolution of their claims.  The "release" policy is only in place because the Congress refuses to put enough money into the situation to support the actual amount of illegal aliens crossing the border.

Maybe you'd like to propose that we tar and feather the illegal immigrants as well, or put them in the stocks?

Nope, just deport them, ideally with 90 days of first entry, and 30 days' or less for repeat offenders.  There's no legitimate reason to oppose that.

I know there is a small group of Breitbart commenters that think they should be murdered by random citizens, so that's some nice respect for the law right there.

I know there's some random people that go by the name TheDrake that believe that all Trumpians should be murdered by random citizens, so that's some nice respect for the law right there.

[Crunch]

You were ok with this under Obama.

I'm not sure how you would know how I felt about immigration policy under Obama. I was unhappy with the state of immigration under Obama. Unhappy about the number of asylum applications rejected, unhappy with the low number of refugees admitted, and unhappy that sanctuary cities weren't doing enough to harbor illegals. I won't rest until illegals can stuff the ballot boxes, take all our jobs, get public assistance, make gang warfare ubiquitous, and flood the country with narcotics.

Finally one of us has the courage to admit to our true goals.

Thank you comrade.

I’m impressed he did it.

[TheDrake]

The condition of holding facilities is very much a Constitutional question.

If you respect the law, you accept that judges have the power to interpret legal questions, and if you want to fight that you appeal it - not unilaterally ignore it. If you lose all your appeals, you do what the court ordered.

Hatch act applies to federal employees. Which federal employee on the left did you think violated the Hatch act.

The OSC said Sebelius violated the Hatch Act “when she made extemporaneous partisan remarks in a speech delivered in her official capacity” in 2012. Sebelius was the keynote speaker at the Human Rights Campaign gala in North Carolina, during which she told the crowd to vote against a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Sebelius also told the crowd that “it’s hugely important to make sure that we reelect the president and elect a Democratic governor.”

“These statements were made in Secretary Sebelius’ official capacity and therefore violated the Hatch Act’s prohibition against using official authority or influence to affect the results of an election,” the OSC said.

So they were held accountable for their transgressions, at least in that one case. I don't recall that advisors or cabinet members were regularly advocating political action.

[TheDrake]

Since last week, as anger boiled over conditions at migrant detention facilities, Fabian has emerged as one of the most recognizable faces among the hundreds of mostly anonymous foot soldiers in the Trump administration tasked with confronting the humanitarian crisis at the border. Her role: arguing that U.S. Customs and Border Protection detention facilities satisfy the legal requirement of being “safe and sanitary” for children — in the face of alarming reports from attorneys and advocates who argue that they do not.

Fabian went to court last week to appeal a 2017 ruling finding that Obama-era conditions were deplorable, in violation of a 1997 consent decree requiring conditions remain “safe and sanitary." She argued that, because the 1997 agreement did not explicitly require “toothbrushes,” “soap,” “towels” or “sleep” for children, the government shouldn’t be found to be in violation of the “safe and sanitary” requirement for not providing those things.

Obama did it, but its still wrong

Seriously, the government is making the argument that safe & sanitary doesn't include soap. The Flores agreement was reached as a settlement in 1987, and specifically deals with unaccompanied minors.

Notably, in times of emergency or an influx of immigrants, the government has some leeway in the amount of time a child may be detained. The expanded definition of influx as 130 or more minors could be applied to large arrivals of unaccompanied minors and may impact facility standards and oversight. Because many of the current detention facilities do not comply with the standards in the Flores settlement, the government must release children within 20 days, sometimes to a sponsor in the community or an alternative-to-detention program.

The Board of Immigration Appeals has stated that "[a]n alien generally ... should not be detained or required to post bond except on a finding that he is a threat to the national security ... or that he is a poor bail risk." Matter of Patel, 15 1. & N. Dec. 666 (1976); cf. INS v. National Center for Immigrants' Rights, Inc. (NCIR), 502 U. S. 183 (1991) (upholding INS regulation imposing conditions upon release).

[D.W.]

the "poor bail risk" is probably the snag.  Depending on who you ask, that could be every one of them.