AOC doesn't know the difference between "surge" and "insurgent".

[Greenbeard]

1. It really should be called Pelosicare. It had failed to pass and she picked it up and dragged it over the finish line. I don't give her much credit for much, being barely coherent, but she did get the ACA pushed through.

Why don’t they call free COVID testing, treatment, and vaccination Pelosi-care, anyway?

 

[Ouroboros]

The quote in question is not ambiguous. It’s a pretty articulately explained position. You disagree with it, and that’s okay. Or you sincerely think “surge” comes from insurgent.

Not an answer to the question at hand. Nobody put the word in her mouth. What did she mean by it?

 

[Ouroboros]

Biden’s policy seems to be to follow the law. Don’t like law, change it.
And I dealt with women running from Central America who were raped in their journey, and Haitians and Cubans who had to deal with leaky boats. (You think Jews fleeing the Holocaust weren’t ever abused or exploited.) In my work with refugees, I met and dealt with people well treated by smugglers and people abused by smugglers. Blame immoral smugglers, not Biden for the fence incident. Would you praise Biden if smugglers gave food and water and ladders to migrants?

Biden’s responsible if his political rhetoric encouraged desperate people to pay smugglers to ply their trade. To be sure, after Trump reduced the surges during his term, it’s likely that smugglers were looking for a new angle to assure customers of results. Hence, an unprecedented surge of minors.

Biden had a lot of rhetoric accusing Trump of cruelty. But does anyone remember him claiming that Trump broke established law on immigration and asylum seekers?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Not an answer to the question at hand. Nobody put the word in her mouth. What did she mean by it?

You keep conflating “surge” with “insurgent”. I still am unclear as to why that’s her problem? It’s not my or anyone else’s job to help you land a joke that’s a self-own.

 

[Nickyjo]

Biden’s responsible if his political rhetoric encouraged desperate people to pay smugglers to ply their trade. To be sure, after Trump reduced the surges during his term, it’s likely that smugglers were looking for a new angle to assure customers of results. Hence, an unprecedented surge of minors.

Biden had a lot of rhetoric accusing Trump of cruelty. But does anyone remember him claiming that Trump broke established law on immigration and asylum seekers?

To answer your last question, if Biden didn’t claim it, he should have. Trump indeed broke established law, and suggested worse. And there have been surges of migrants under both Trump and Obama before them. Trump’s message: don’t come, we will break the law and rules of common decency in dealing with you. Biden’s message; don’t come, we will abide by the law and rules of common decency in dealing with you.

 

[mrjurrs]

You and AOC wrongly claimed that surge is a military word. I showed that it is not. There is not much more I can do for you.

"In the context of the Iraq War, the surge refers to United States President George W. ... Bush ordered the deployment of more than 20,000 soldiers into Iraq (five additional brigades), and sent the majority of them into Baghdad."

Try again?

 

[Fishking]

"In the context of the Iraq War, the surge refers to United States President George W. ... Bush ordered the deployment of more than 20,000 soldiers into Iraq (five additional brigades), and sent the majority of them into Baghdad."

Try again?

1. There are lots of words used in the military. Does that make them military words? Are electricians militaristic when they talk about power surges?
2. The surge was regarding our troops, not insurgents. So even in your flawed example has AOC getting it backwards.

 

[mrjurrs]

1. There are lots of words used in the military. Does that make them military words? Are electricians militaristic when they talk about power surges?
2. The surge was regarding our troops, not insurgents. So even in your flawed example has AOC getting it backwards.

Can't anyone read around here? Representative Ocasio-Cortez said, " “Anyone who’s using the term ‘surge’ around you consciously is trying to invoke a militaristic frame. And that’s a problem because this is not a surge — these are children. They are not insurgents, and we are not being invaded. Which, by the way, is a white supremacist idea, philosophy. The idea that if an ‘other’ is coming in the population that this is an invasion of who we are.”

Please explain how that quote fits with your #2 sentence?

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

For all those who keep salivating over me: Sorry little boys, I prefer men.

 

[vesper]

Biden’s responsible if his political rhetoric encouraged desperate people to pay smugglers to ply their trade. To be sure, after Trump reduced the surges during his term, it’s likely that smugglers were looking for a new angle to assure customers of results. Hence, an unprecedented surge of minors.

Biden had a lot of rhetoric accusing Trump of cruelty. But does anyone remember him claiming that Trump broke established law on immigration and asylum seekers?

Biden's immigration policies have been a huge stimulus for drug cartels and coyotes while placing financial burdens on the states as they ship thousands of illegals to a city near you.

AOC is a barely literate moron. She is an embarrassment yet who seems to have support among those who appear to be even dumber.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Biden's immigration policies have been a huge stimulus for drug cartels and coyotes while placing financial burdens on the states as they ship thousands of illegals to a city near you.

AOC is a barely literate moron. She is an embarrassment yet who seems to have support among those who appear to be even dumber.

just for you, comment #184

 

[Fishking]

Can't anyone read around here? Representative Ocasio-Cortez said, " “Anyone who’s using the term ‘surge’ around you consciously is trying to invoke a militaristic frame. And that’s a problem because this is not a surge — these are children. They are not insurgents, and we are not being invaded. Which, by the way, is a white supremacist idea, philosophy. The idea that if an ‘other’ is coming in the population that this is an invasion of who we are.”

Please explain how that quote fits with your #2 sentence?

What you quoted already explains it. There is no "insurgent" aspect. No one is saying it but her. She said it directly after saying "it's not a surge-they are children. They are not insurgents," obviously she's the only one linking the two. I think pointed out your example was talking about our troop surge, if we going to use the shitty reasoning that surge is especially military related. It was not use for insurgents.

Ya'll are just making shit up and hoping it sticks.

 

[Nickyjo]

What amazes me is that we are presented as citizens or residents of the US with a problem affecting our country and at least three other countries in the hemisphere, coming to us after decades troubles in the region that US foreign policy played a heavy role in, in the drug trade, in war and in murder of innocents, and we are discussing syntax. AOC's words were not acceptable to some. Big deal. I did some homework. See definitions if "surge" and "insurgent" below. There is some relationship between the two in English. "Insurgentum" and "surgere" in Latin are apparently related words. Her statements are defensible. Big deal.

What seems obvious is that AOC is responding to years of hostile and demeaning rhetoric towards immigrants and migrants during the Trump years. We just got rid of a president who talked about immigrants "infesting" us, who proposed ignoring law and treaty, and we are quibbling over her words with 8 pages of comments? Quibble over the issue.

surge: "a sudden powerful forward or upward movement, especially by a crowd or by a natural force such as the waves or tide"

insurgent: "one who rises in revolt" against a government or its laws, 1745, from Latin insurgentem (nominative insurgens), present participle of insurgere "rise up, lift oneself; rise against; stand high, gather force," from in- "against," or here perhaps merely intensive, + surgere "to rise" (see surge (n.)).

 

[dixon01767]

Pro-tip: if you want to gaslight people about what someone else said, don't actually quote what they said.

It's ****ing obvious what she's saying: that the GOP is calling it a surge and that this is perfectly in line with their overall approach to painting people who present at the border to seek asylum as US law allows as "criminal invaders" or the like.

So in the debates Biden was signaling that we wanted the "criminal invaders" to come the the US when he said, "I would in fact make sure that there is immediately a surge to the border. They deserve to be heard. That's who we are. " ?

 

[Ouroboros]

You keep conflating “surge” with “insurgent”. I still am unclear as to why that’s her problem? It’s not my or anyone else’s job to help you land a joke that’s a self-own.

You keep avoiding the question and I'll keep asking: in what context does AOC use the word?

 

[Ouroboros]

To answer your last question, if Biden didn’t claim it, he should have. Trump indeed broke established law, and suggested worse. And there have been surges of migrants under both Trump and Obama before them. Trump’s message: don’t come, we will break the law and rules of common decency in dealing with you. Biden’s message; don’t come, we will abide by the law and rules of common decency in dealing with you.

What law or rules do you believe Trump broke, specifically?

 

[Nickyjo]

What law or rules do you believe Trump broke, specifically?

The US Refugee Act of 1980, the US ratified Convention and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, and the Convention Against Torture. To be fair, he may have been checked by the courts or be checked upon further appeal and by more knowledgeable people in his administration, and his intentions to break the law may have ended at just that.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

You keep avoiding the question and I'll keep asking: in what context does AOC use the word?

I didn’t avoid anything, even once. If you want to keep harping on the fact that you think “surge” comes from “insurgent”, I’m here for it.

 

[Ouroboros]

The US Refugee Act of 1980, the US ratified Convention and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, and the Convention Against Torture. To be fair, he may have been checked by the courts or be checked upon further appeal and by more knowledgeable people in his administration, and his intentions to break the law may have ended at just that.

The US Refugee Act of 1980, the US ratified Convention and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, and the Convention Against Torture. To be fair, he may have been checked by the courts or be checked upon further appeal and by more knowledgeable people in his administration, and his intentions to break the law may have ended at just that.

So are you counting his alleged intentions to violate the law as actual violations? So far even Biden has managed to sell the American people on that notion, though not for lack of trying.

Both extreme liberals and extreme conservatives show a marked tendency to enshrine laws as religious precepts, as long as they're laws a given group agrees with. If not, they're "bad laws." The simple truth is that all laws exist in a constant state of re-negotiation. I've seen allegations that Trump attempted to modify aspects of immigration law for his political ends, just as Biden is doing now. Modifying, however, is not breaking; modifying is a process of re-negotiation that takes place through legal re-interpretation.

I looked up the usual online source for the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and found this definition of torture:

"For the purpose of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."

Note first that the convention focuses on torture for the purpose of obtaining information or confessions, punishing the subject for crimes, or intimidation. Note second the final sentence:

"It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."

If you're holding up the Convention as a model of probity, then you need to make clear what form of extra-legal torture you think Trump committed. not just, say, spout the usual "kids in cages" routine. Especially not now that Biden has done his own caging.

 

[Ouroboros]

I didn’t avoid anything, even once. If you want to keep harping on the fact that you think “surge” comes from “insurgent”, I’m here for it.

What did AOC mean by "insurgent," if she's not claiming it's somehow associated with "surge?"

I know you'll never answer, but it's funny to see how you flail to turn AOC's mistake against other posters.

 

[Bodi]

Pro-tip: if you want to gaslight people about what someone else said, don't actually quote what they said.

It's ****ing obvious what she's saying: that the GOP is calling it a surge and that this is perfectly in line with their overall approach to painting people who present at the border to seek asylum as US law allows as "criminal invaders" or the like.

Now whether you agree with that or not is one thing. But why try to idiotically gaslight people into thinking she was saying something else, @Fishking? Just wanna stir the pot? Or did you genuinely not understand what she said? It's pretty straight-forward.

But they are criminal invaders... they are invading a land illegally. No passports. No border checks. No legal entry.

No other country just allows people to enter their country in this manner... why should the USA?

 

[Nickyjo]

So are you counting his alleged intentions to violate the law as actual violations? So far even Biden has managed to sell the American people on that notion, though not for lack of trying.
++ As I said, I don't know if his attempts to violate the law were overturned, moot point now. So for example, Trump moved to decline asylum people fleeing drug gang violence, a violation of the Refugee Act. I don't know if he ever did so before he was stopped by the courts or if it came to that.
Both extreme liberals and extreme conservatives show a marked tendency to enshrine laws as religious precepts, as long as they're laws a given group agrees with. If not, they're "bad laws." The simple truth is that all laws exist in a constant state of re-negotiation. I've seen allegations that Trump attempted to modify aspects of immigration law for his political ends, just as Biden is doing now. Modifying, however, is not breaking; modifying is a process of re-negotiation that takes place through legal re-interpretation.
++ As to "modification" of laws, you have to distinguish between what is within a president's discretion in immigration, e.g., Carter's allowing Mariel Cubans to come to the US en masse, or ICE under Trump allowing into the US people who meet a minimal standard for asylum, from what is mandatory, e.g., allowing someone to apply for asylum "irrespective of status," i.e., whether they are here on a visa, at a port of entry, here illegally, etc.

I looked up the usual online source for the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and found this definition of torture:

"For the purpose of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."

Note first that the convention focuses on torture for the purpose of obtaining information or confessions, punishing the subject for crimes, or intimidation. Note second the final sentence:

"It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."
++ Sorry, I didn't explain clearly. I didn't bring up the Convention Against Torture to make the case against "kids in cages." But that ratified treaty includes what is called a "non-refoulement" provision, the prohibition against returning someone to a country where they might be tortured. It is similar somewhat to the non-refoulement prohibition in the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

If you're holding up the Convention as a model of probity, then you need to make clear what form of extra-legal torture you think Trump committed. not just, say, spout the usual "kids in cages" routine. Especially not now that Biden has done his own caging.

I don't think Trump has committed any torture that I am aware of, but for the record, he advocated "torture worse than waterboarding" for terrorist suspects as well as war crimes by his call to "take out their families." Bottom line on The Donald: I think he is sort of a vicious idiot on human rights issues. (Having Stephen Miller, a non-idiot vicious person advising him didn't help.) Trump is probably ignorant of many US human rights obligations and probably wouldn't care if informed. He also doesn't think things through, though that is not an earth-shaking observation on my part. For example, if given the chance, I would ask if his "take out their families" wish would include pregnant family members, thus contradicting his alleged pro-life stance.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

What did AOC mean by "insurgent," if she's not claiming it's somehow associated with "surge?"

I know you'll never answer, but it's funny to see how you flail to turn AOC's mistake against other posters.

It’s funnier to keep watching you admit you think the two words are connected.

 

[Nickyjo]

It’s funnier to keep watching you admit you think the two words are connected.

I checked dictionaries. They are.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't think Trump has committed any torture that I am aware of, but for the record, he advocated "torture worse than waterboarding" for terrorist suspects as well as war crimes by his call to "take out their families." Bottom line on The Donald: I think he is sort of a vicious idiot on human rights issues. (Having Stephen Miller, a non-idiot vicious person advising him didn't help.) Trump is probably ignorant of many US human rights obligations and probably wouldn't care if informed. He also doesn't think things through, though that is not an earth-shaking observation on my part. For example, if given the chance, I would ask if his "take out their families" wish would include pregnant family members, thus contradicting his alleged pro-life stance.

Whatever failings Trump has— and I have never claimed he didn’t have such— they don’t exist as a simple inversion of “human rights,” an inversion that makes Liberals feel good about being stalwart champions of decency. Border security had become lax before Trump’s tenure, though Obama was barely ever tasked with being mean to illegals and asylum seekers. Trump inherited a terrible situation brought on by the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court, which wouldn’t allow adult non-citizens to be sequestered with their children. The Liberal solution to this problem was to return to catch and release, and Trump refused to do this. Now the border problem has become a crisis, and all so Liberals can pretend to be noble at the expense of Covid stricken working class citizens.