Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
You absolutely made an accusation.
I asked you
You answered:
You can try to spin that however you like but those are your words not mine. I'm not mischaracterizing anything.
I think of the South Park episode where the kids are sent to a camp for their ADD so that they can learn to concentrate.
"Before December 2018, no children had died in CBP custody in a decade." link
Here we go again with your broad based generalizations. So now you think Trump supporters don't care about kids. This is exactly what @Joe Bryant calls you out for doing.
We mostly didn’t know about it. Trump has focused a lot of media attention to the border and we are seeing what’s going on. I think we all agree that more transparency on the issue would be preferred regardless who is in the office.
Totally agree. This is not something that just started under Trump. People have died in detention centers before Trump became President.
If the media wasn’t reporting it accurately or reflective of reality than it means we as average Americans didn’t really know about it. I had paid very little attention to anything border related until Trump rightfully made it a big issue.
When she said "Never again," what exactly was she referring to? How would a typical, non-partisan listener interpret that phrase?So if I'm following this thread accurately, we currently have two discussions going on.
In one, conservatives are attempting to argue that a poll conducted by the "Stop the AOC" PAC shows AOC with unfavorable numbers in her district
In the other, conservatives are trying to argue that AOC was out of line when she evoked WW2 concentration camps whose primary purpose was genocide (even though she didn't actually say anything about WW2 or Nazis), because the detention centers at the border are merely run of the mill internment camps where minorities only die due to neglect and children merely suffer psychological scarring attributable to Trump administration policy.
Great stuff all around.
My attention to the matter goes back to Reagan and the deals he struck which were to solve this for all time.
All due respect but you are waaaay off here, Joe.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
EO9066 is the first thing that comes to mind for me.When she said "Never again," what exactly was she referring to? How would a typical, non-partisan listener interpret that phrase?So if I'm following this thread accurately, we currently have two discussions going on.
In one, conservatives are attempting to argue that a poll conducted by the "Stop the AOC" PAC shows AOC with unfavorable numbers in her district
In the other, conservatives are trying to argue that AOC was out of line when she evoked WW2 concentration camps whose primary purpose was genocide (even though she didn't actually say anything about WW2 or Nazis), because the detention centers at the border are merely run of the mill internment camps where minorities only die due to neglect and children merely suffer psychological scarring attributable to Trump administration policy.
Great stuff all around.
Agreed on all counts. Let's get all who come and pose no threat (vast majority) processed legally and as quickly as possible. AOC throwing around these gross characterizations is not going to help that happen.
I'm not off. And none of what you wrote there changes what you said.
Concentration camps existed long before the Nazi camps. And some of the camps during WWI were pretty reasonable places. People certainly weren't dying every day in every camp. At least at first (which is kind of the point here.)
"Never again" is a reminder that Jews repeat to themselves and to the larger community to ensure that we remain vigilant and never even start down that road again. It's ingrained in us. The point of the phrase is not simply that we should never reach that destination again, it's that we should make sure we never even start down that path.
Honestly, I think AOC is setting a trap. She has to be aware how her critics will explode without even reading the article. Yet her statement is easily defensible in the context of the article. I’d like to think that the end result of this tactic will be making people more aware of the conditions on the border. But it probably won’t to any meaningful degree.
Her statement isn't defensible at all. Those migrants are coming to the US border by their own choice. There is no definition of a concentration camp (WWII or before) that jives with that simple fact.
I am 100% certain that you're off base here, and I'm sorry I'm not finding a way to make you see that. Let's try a different tack:
Don't try to backpedal this into some sort of statistical probability defense exercise.
It obvious who couldn't wait to get their licks in, and who read the article being referenced.
I feel this is an important point. The japanese camp comparisons are awful too.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/poll-aoc-unliked-untrusted-unwanted-in-her-own-ny-district
and although 10,000 doors were knocked on by two self identified "student activists" only 2,261 homes were actually surveyed representing just 21% of the 10,000. That would seem to me to be too small a sample size to draw any meaningful conclusions.
How can that be? Particularly since we keep getting told in this thread about all the publicity she is getting and is supposedly the face of the Democratic party.Question 5 asks:
and gives 3 options: Yes Pledge, No Pledge or Unsure. Pledge to oppose was not defined and respondents were not given the option to indicate they supported AOC or would vote for her in the next election, so not surprisingly 66.56% answered No Pledge or Unsure.
What on God's green earth are you talking about?
What about these polls?https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/poll-aoc-unliked-untrusted-unwanted-in-her-own-ny-district
This poll was worse than I thought. It was conducted door-to-door
We don't know what time of the day these students conducted the survey. If it was during the day when most people are at work, they might have interviewed a disproportionate number of older residents, who would tend to be more conservative.
41.73% of respondents polled in her district were unfamiliar with AOC.
Questions 3 and 4 seemed a bit biased to me as to how the questions were phrased:
Question 5 asks:
and gives 3 options: Yes Pledge, No Pledge or Unsure. Pledge to oppose was not defined and respondents were not given the option to indicate they supported AOC or would vote for her in the next election, so not surprisingly 66.56% answered No Pledge or Unsure.
Horrible poll.
It wasn't a backpedal. It was an attempt to clarify by way of example. So I'll make it more direct:
It's very odd that jonessed subtly shifted the topic from "concentration camps" to "WW2 concentration camps". Does he not know that the term had been in use long before WW2?
That doesn't matter. When most people hear the term concentration camps they think of Nazi Germany. That isn't hard to understand. She made a poor choice of words.
What should she have called them while linking the article?John Blutarsky said:
From one of the links in the article...Juxtatarot said:
This is probably the single biggest reason for the conditions being experienced. That is not what the article itself would have you believe.
That would make the "This is not hyperbole. It is he conclusion of expert analysis." part weird.
of course not. he doesn't read many of the ones he himself links to. tim has outed him several times. old hat.Juxtatarot said:
I quit this guy a LONG time ago......Cause of this kind of stuff...John Blutarsky said:
Since the motif of the day is "generalizations." I bet you are never guilty of such generalizations, are you?John Blutarsky said:
Of course she did. You know it, I know it, and she knows it.zoonation said:
Wait...What? I was under the impression that polls were awesome???? Are you saying polls can be manipulated by the questions asked or who gets asked those questions? Say it isn't so!!!squistion said:https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/poll-aoc-unliked-untrusted-unwanted-in-her-own-ny-district
This poll was worse than I thought. It was conducted door-to-door
We don't know what time of the day these students conducted the survey. If it was during the day when most people are at work, they might have interviewed a disproportionate number of older residents, who would tend to be more conservative.
41.73% of respondents polled in her district were unfamiliar with AOC.
Questions 3 and 4 seemed a bit biased to me as to how the questions were phrased:
Question 5 asks:
and gives 3 options: Yes Pledge, No Pledge or Unsure. Pledge to oppose was not defined and respondents were not given the option to indicate they supported AOC or would vote for her in the next election, so not surprisingly 66.56% answered No Pledge or Unsure.
Horrible poll.
