Can one of her suporters tell me, what is this???

[heaven05]

[BSdetect]

1. Probably refers to actual criminals being deported?

[heaven05]

9. maybe, yet

leave the interpretation of what MIGHT be meant, wide open. Scary.

[Demit]

49. I had no problem understanding what she meant.

I didn't see any hidden meaning, or anything that could be construed as ominous or "scary."

[J_William_Ryan]

51. Agreed

ICE has only been around since 2003.

Get rid of ICE, demilitarize immigration control, reestablish INS.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

53. DHS was created during 2 wars, its time to disband the whole dept.

ICE being a redundant branch, like a few others.

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. "Maybe"? She embedded the tweet she replied to - it's about a literal Nazi

No, she didn't "leave the interpretation open" in any way. You had to cut off the tweet to make it look like that.

Scary.

[disillusioned73]

106. Bingo..

this was a good one...

Link to tweet

[Wwcd]

2. Kinda like playing both side-ism?

Once again we wait for others to arrive & explain what was really intended, because....

[heaven05]

5. yeah exactly, 'others'

who will show up, I'm sure.

[Cal Carpenter]

56. ICE didn't even exist until 2003. Deportation did.

This isn't both-side-ism.

One can be adamantly anti-ICE (in fact, DU was pretty much anti-everything in the Homeland Security Act back in the day...) and still recognize that there is a time and place for deportations.

ICE is a terrible organization. And an unnecessary one.

Nitpicking everything AOC says with no regard to the truth of the actual issues at hand is disingenuous at best.

[Wwcd]

57. Whyy do her supporters have to explain so many of her statements?

She perhaps needs to stop with the one line statements and simply make it clear as to her opinions.

Seriously, these oopsies are occurring damn near everytime she speaks publicly.
We ALL see it.
And that is why we question her credibility.

Don't even say its not true.
This has become a habit of hers & as much as some would like to hear her elaborate further, we get a big fat huh?

I'm certainly not the 1st to make this point.

Some are looking for substance behind a popular one line statement from AOC herself, , rather than wait for pundits & fans to define the meaning behind her words

That is a fair expectation of a public servant.
She needs to work on finishing the sentence rather than leaving it to interpretation.

Quite finished with this subject today

[Cal Carpenter]

58. TBH, I'm not even a supporter

Just someone who doesn't knee-jerk about everything she says.

Perhaps if her detractors need explanations of every sentence she speaks, the problem lies with them? Just a thought.

[Wwcd]

59. Haaahaaa.. ok. Those 'detractors' include everyone who has to stand & wait for an explaination, &

That includes the Press the voters & those who stand & wonder who she is & would like to hear what she has to say now that she's grabbed National attention.

All these interested people are not 'detractors' they are voters & care about who 's putting themselves up as saviors of public policy.

The repetition with which she must be explained, after the fact, is the problem. It has happened quite often.
Not those who question what she meant this time.

Perhaps her handlers should do better in how they coach her & introduce her to the national stage on policy.

Don't even label all who question her words as "detractors". That is dismissing legitimate speech & prevents further dialigue from being held with the politician herself.

She was put on the national stage. The public has a right to question.
Its that simple.

[mythology]

90. I know little about her and I found the comment easy enough to read

But there is a contingent here that blindly attacks anything she says no matter how foolish they look doing so.

[Ms. Toad]

111. No one, with a basic knowledge of US history on immigation

needs to stand and waight for an explanation.

ICE is a recent invention (2003, to be precise). Deportation has been for centuries (since 1798, to be precise). Why on earth would anyone - other than someone looking to pick a fight - assume that abolishing a 2003 agency would abolish a practice that predated it by two centuries.

(Not a supporter of hers, FWIW. Just interested in integrity in political conversations.)

[Humanist_Activist]

69. No explanation is needed except for those who are being disingenuous to attack the Dem candidate. nt

[qazplm135]

82. I'm not a huge fan of hers

but not sure what the confusion is. She's pretty clearly saying deportation is a necessary action in some cases, but what ICE is doing is a host of highly unnecessary to downright cruel actions.

Deport illegal immigrants who are serious criminals. Everyone else, find a pathway to citizenship.

Pretty easy distinction. Getting rid of ICE doesn't mean getting rid of deportations for undocumented immigrants who commit serious crimes.

[WhiteTara]

86. What is her sin here? Tweets by nature

are one line statements.

You think she is a fraud?

I think she is a young woman who is trying to do good and has a tremendous chance to succeed. I hope she does. If she fails and loses her race, a strong Democratic seat will be filled by a republicon, and who wants that. I hope we all get in her corner and cheer her on and if you think she needs some advice, go to her twitter account and tell her. Simple really.

[Autumn]

87. The only sin here is one of omission. The OP left out part of the tweet

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211037751#post62

It's becoming a habit by some who don't care for AOC.

[melman]

93. 'Quite finished with this subject'

Apparently so.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

112. Nyuk nyuk.

[GeorgeGist]

3. Not difficult...

Google it if you're really don't know.

[H2O Man]

6. "

[heaven05]

7. yeah, sure

I'm asking HERE!!!! You google it. You don't surprise or cause me any consternation. You google it and get on with the explanation(s).

[H2O Man]

15. It is said that

minds with very little to compare, find very little to understand. Do you actually believe that deportation did not -- or can not -- exist without ICE?

[lunasun]

32. + + really .. ICE is not that old of an agency and deportation was taking place long before ICE

I think it is a clear statement to separate her ICE issues from those who will decry she is against any deportation of anyone or that she is for open borders
This is republican wishes that ICE can hide under "it's the only way" mantras

[H2O Man]

43. Exactly right.

Thank you for that.

I should note that it was my buddy Rubin Carter who said the bit about "minds with little to compare." We were discussing his thoughts about many of the people in New Jersey's prisons, and how they tend to cycle between confinement and temporary release. It's something that can be compared to today's political scene ….it's bad enough that republicans' minds are confined to a gloomy pit of ignorance. Sad to see Democrats incarcerating their minds, and openly attacking our party's candidates on this forum.

[pecosbob]

73. Sad, indeed

[George II]

66. ICE was created in 2003. Deportation existed prior to 2003.

[H2O Man]

68. Right.

[lapucelle]

80. It sounds as if she is OK with continuing general deportation policies,

but wants a different method of implementing them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

88. She was replying to a specific challenge about the deportation of an actual Nazi

see reply #62. Context is everything.

[lapucelle]

89. How does that context change an interpretation that

It sounds as if she is OK with continuing general deportation policies, but wants a different method of implementing them.

I would hope that deporting known war criminals is part of our general deportation policy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. because deporting a Nazi over war crimes is not "general deportation policies"

but a very specific case about major crimes in another country. The vast majority of deportations are not for serious crime recognised by the whole world for which they are expected to stand trial.

[lapucelle]

97. The federal statute lists such cases as within "GENERAL CLASSES OF DEPORTABLE ALIENS".

INA: ACT 237 - GENERAL CLASSES OF DEPORTABLE ALIENS
Sec. 237 1/ [8 U.S.C. 1227]

(D) 8c/ PARTICIPATED IN NAZI PERSECUTION, GENOCIDE, OR THE COMMISSION OF ANY ACT OF TORTURE OR EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLING.-Any alien described in 8c/ clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section 212(a)(3)(E) is deportable.

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-5684.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. Do you understand what "within" means? That's it's different from "is identical to"? (nt)

[lapucelle]

99. Wait...what? What are you talking about?

Where are you pulling the terms "within" and "identical to" from?

Here's what I said:

It sounds as if she is OK with continuing general deportation policies, but wants a different method of implementing them.

Here's what the statute says:

GENERAL CLASSES OF DEPORTABLE ALIENS

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. "within" comes from your own reply title #97. I don't think you understand how to use it

because you seems to think that if one thing is within a class, then it can stand for that class generally.

For instance, if person A thinks it's OK to imprison murderers, you shouldn't then generalise and claim "person A is OK with general US imprisonment policies".

See?

[lapucelle]

101. So your is your argument that AOC is not OK with the general classes of deportable aliens

as delineated in the statute?

Nazi war criminals are within those general classes named in the statute. What is your quibble with the word "within"? Do you prefer "among"?

within (preposition)
- inside (something).
- inside the range of an area or boundary.
- inside the range of a specified action or perception.
- not further off than (used with distances).
- occurring inside a particular period of time.
- inside the bounds set by a concept, argument, etc..

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. I'm saying it's wrong to generalise from "deporting a Nazi is OK" or

"it's sometimes OK to deport some individuals" (because the subject was the deportation of one individual) to "she is OK with continuing general deportation policies".

Since you can't grasp it when applied to murderers, we'll try another:

You think Trump should be convicted. Do you think all living US presidents and ex-presidents should be convicted?

[lapucelle]

103. So your argument is that AOC is not or may not be

"OK with continuing general deportation policies" ?

I understand both the policy and the statute, and I take AOC at her literal words:

"It does not mean abolish deportation".

I'm genuinely sorry if you're confused, which you genuinely seem to be concerning the close reading of statutory law. Nazi war criminals fall within the range of deportable criminals who fall within the range of deportable persons. Visualization using a Venn diagram might help.

[muriel_volestrangler]

104. She may or may not be, and you can't decide from her tweet.

I'm not confused at all. I didn't bring up the close reading of statutory law, and neither did AOC (or even the conservative she was replying to) - you did. Your problem seems to be with basic logic, set theory, and how to argue. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

Yes, I suggest you do think about Venn diagrams in the future, if that would help you. Then you wouldn't think that a fact (or opinion) about a subset must apply to an entire set. I've given you 2 more examples - can you understand yet?

[lapucelle]

107. I don't use Wiki articles as a reference for logic and rhetoric;

nor do I allow my students to do so. For the past 40 years my recommendation for beginners has been Irving Copi's excellent primer in formal and informal logic, as well as Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student for guidelines in writing long papers with rigor and cogency .

So your final argument appears to be that AOC

is, may possibly be, or is not in favor of general deportation policy

based on her tweeted assertion that abolishing ICE does not mean abolishing deportation. Hopefully she will clarify her position at some point in the future.

[lapucelle]

109. Your original quibble concerned the word "within"

which you seemed to misinterpret as meaning "identical to" (see the fallacy of equivocation). Of course I know what the word "within" means! I even defined it for those who clearly don't. ("Identical to" seems to be a bit of a stretch.)

The recommendation to visualize using a Venn diagram concerned your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "within". Finally, the only extant error in set theory arose from your confusing my use of an adjective with a your own use of a verb. Alas, it was a second error in equivocation.

Is it an unreasonable inference to conclude that someone who claims that

Abolish ICE does not mean abolish deportation

is also

OK with continuing general deportation policies ?

Perhaps it would be helpful if AOC clarify and detail her position for those who are unsure of the reasonability of the inference. (And lest you quibble with my verb usage, the present subjunctive was an editorial choice.)

[joshcryer]

4. Just dialing it back.

Copy testers had to have realized "abolish ice" was a really dumb motto.

[NurseJackie]

8. It's a losing issue. If you're explaining, you're losing.

#AbolishICE means...

It's a losing issue. If you're explaining, you're losing. It's a short-sighted and emotionally driven mistake.

All I'm saying is that this is the type of thing that often happens when someone who doesn't know how to swim jumps into the deep end before they're ready.

[Wwcd]

11. Get the spin out there for Name Recognition & others will explain what was actually said

I'm seeing a pattern here.

Proof that you don't really have to know a lot about governance nor its process to be a star.
"MONEY & MEDIA" he said.

That's how we got Trump afterall. Just repeat the popular trending meme & others will set the spin for ya.
wow.
What a business!
Whatever keeps the Name trending!

Where's TAD?
We've seen this show before..how'd it end again?
Oh ya...

[heaven05]

14. exactly

precisely the strategy. Money and media appearances, while offering nothing new or original from what the Democratic Party has for decades, fought the RW about. It's pretty obvious what's trying to be done here. Well, I've been studying this faction since the 70's. Not much has changed. Voting records and proposals of policies and programs of original content and creation of people in our Party and associating themselves with our Party is all I am going on.

[brooklynite]

10. Are you asserting that anyone who crosses the border should be allowed to stay?

[heaven05]

13. No

no, no, no, no no, no no, but yes if they are escaping, rape, murder, fear of exposure because they disagree with fascists like we have here and are there. What are you looking for? Spell it out. I ASKED A QUESTION. What is this?????? This from a minor leader of a minor faction of our big tent Democratic Party. This FACTION led by an Independent who never shows loyalty to our Party and has always has been clear on that point of never wanting anything to do with Democrats, until our apparatus is needed for some non-original political scheme from that FACTION.

What are you looking for? You can have it.

[Wwcd]

30. + a million.. Smack dab Spot on.

[brooklynite]

40. The criticism seems to be that AOC clarified that removing ICE didn't mean ending deportation...

...which is a perfectly appropriate legal position, if you don’t believe that all deportations are wrong.

[uponit7771]

38. If they're doing so legally hell yes they deserve to stay !!!

[demmiblue]

12. ICE is relativity new.

Like she stated, abolishing ICE doesn't mean abolishing deportations. It has evolved, since its inception in 2003/Trumpian influence, into the horror show we are seeing everyday.

EDIT: I prefer Kamala Harris' approach (however, I'm not going to jump all over AOC or other Dems' asses... they are Dems, and we need to stop these constant attempts to divide):

These Democrats want to abolish ICE

...

"I think there's no question that we've got to critically re-examine ICE and its role and the way that it is being administered and the work it is doing," she told MSNBC. "And we need to probably think about starting from scratch."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/02/politics/abolish-ice-democrats-list/index.html

[heaven05]

19. I am not trying to divide

I am asking a question of the meaning of this 'progressive' in saying this, with absolutism. I am tired of the divisiveness and sowing of confusion and lies from factions within our Party also. We need to be unified, but our Party also must be wary of unnecessary factional sowing of confusions, again and again, lies about our Party and direction which has stood the test of time and withstood a very recent foreign attack on our influence as a major Party fighting fascists and undercover agents of RW influence.

IDEALOGICAL intent ALWAYS BEARS WATCHING, RW or alleged LW or do you disagree? I have been watching the ebb and flow of certain factions within our Party since the 70's. I will say out loud, a socialist-democrat has offered me or shown me nothing of substance or original thinking since my original appraisal of them while in college in the 70's. We have always fought for policies and programs that they usually co-opt as theirs. They may be small d democrats, no problem, they just need to vote and work WITH US for ALL legally elected candidates of our Party for local and national office. That it. Like it or not.

ICE is an important subject. This Gestapo group must be nipped in the bud. But leaving open the interpretation of the "deportation meme" above is a serious mistake and worries me.

[demmiblue]

23. Lol. n/t

[heaven05]

36. yeah

me too at a lot of the pretzel bending.

[Kaleva]

16. ICE was formed in 2003. We've been deporting people like war criminals long before that.

A couple of notable people who were deported before the formation of ICE are:

Lucky Luiano - an Italian-American mobster and crime boss.

Fritz Julius Kuhn - leader of the German American Bund, an American Nazi organization.

[gratuitous]

17. "It does not mean abolish deportation."

Well, the initial word, "It" refers back to the first part of the post, "Abolish ICE."

"does not mean" is a continuation of the first part, in which Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez contrasts what she's about to say with what she said before. Just so you don't lose track, what she said before was that by abolishing ICE, she would like there not to be a government agency that incarcerates children (those are minors, people who haven't turned 18 years old yet) and sexually assaults women (which can mean any action against a woman on a spectrum of assaultive behaviors having to do with forcible contact). "With impunity" means without consequence or punishment.

Back to the statement. By "does not mean" is followed by "abolish deportation." So she is saying that whereas she wants to do away with a government agency that incarcerates children and sexually assaults women with impunity (see previous paragraph for explanation of those terms), she does not mean that she wants to abolish deportation. That probably refers to the legal framework for an immigration policy that includes deportation of certain individuals for failing to follow the statutes for legally immigrating to the United States. That would include due process, including a hearing, submission of evidence and testimony, and a ruling according to the law by a judge or magistrate.

We good? Or is there something else you don't understand or that you would like to read into it?

[heaven05]

21. Well, I hope

she can read your explanation, somewhere.

[gratuitous]

24. It's simple, plain English

An explanation is hardly required.

[heaven05]

25. I DID NOT read

anything into her statement. I responded to her words, not yours, just what she wrote. I hope she meant what your convoluted explanation described. Which I doubt.

[gratuitous]

28. I never said you did read something into her statement

But it sure sounds to me like you would like to.

As for the why of abolishing ICE, Atrios has a link to a story about their cruelties:

Abolish ICE

I don't think these monstrous practices are defensible. Your opinion may differ.

[KG]

18. I lulz'd

[Kaleva]

20. Gretchen Whitmer, Dem candidate for gov of Michigan, is also being attacked on the ICE issue

Repubs in this state are attacking Gretchen Whitmer for this. Here is an example (emphasis mine):

"“From Abdul El-Sayed standing with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in Michigan to Gretchen Whitmer’s call for abolishing ICE, Michigan Democrats are fully embracing the radical agenda of the far left. It’s gotten to a point where you have to wonder if whoever comes out of the Michigan Democrat gubernatorial primary will even stand a chance in November after all of this pushing to the far left.” –RNC Spokesperson Michael Joyce"

https://gop.com/michigan-yikes/

[heaven05]

31. RW BS

I met her and conversed with her. She unlike others will be able to withstand the RW bullshit and will be our next Governor. She has the experience to sidestep and relagate RW BS to the trash bin. If we come out to vote and not sit out whining, we will win. That's all I know.

[Kaleva]

33. Your OP makes it look like you are pushing RW talking points then.

[Downtown Hound]

22. It means there are some people that will still be deported even without ICE

As is the practice of just about every nation on Earth since the dawn of nations.

There is your very simple answer to a very easy question. Enjoy!

[heaven05]

26. Simple for sure.

Only criminals need deportation. Nationals security threats need deportation and have been since the beginning of the "dawn of nations". Not children or adults seeking safety and asylum from murder, rape and chaos. Hows that?

[Downtown Hound]

46. Fine.

[flibbitygiblets]

27. I guess she could have clarified further "...deportation (of actual criminals)".

But it doesn't matter IMO. Anyone who doesn't get what she meant, doesn't WANT to get it. As someone said earlier, if you're explaining, you're losing.

[heaven05]

44. Someone said both-sideism

seems a proper interpretation of what she wrote. I agree.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. Why are you desperately looking for a way to attack a Democratic candidate?

It's a straightforward statement that you'd have thought the whole of DU would agree with. But you're "only asking questions". Your then decide you're safe enough to accuse her of "both-sideism". Which is a complete load of unmitigated bullshit.

I need to repeat this, since you're not getting it:

SHE IS A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE

Do not attack her.

I'd have thought that baseless attacks on women Democratic candidates (from New York state, to boot) would have left DU after the terms everyone signed up to in 2016. Sadly, no.

[HopeAgain]

29. I honestly don't understand what you are asking.

We should never deport anyone? Just another shot at a candidate that makes you nervous?

[heaven05]

34. not nervous

just understand what and where and who. I am careful whom I trust. Intra-party and definitely Inter-party. Been around long enough to be wary of words or omission of words or adding words where unnecessary. Anyone who takes the words of ANY politician, doctor, lawyer, at face value like I questioned above, just doesn't have the analytical know-how to discern. That's my take.

[Kaleva]

35. "Can one of her suporters tell me,"???? As a Dem nominee, we ALL support her.

[heaven05]

41. good

that's what we are supposed to do. Yet I can't question??? Because.....???

[Kaleva]

48. As the TOS is clear that we support all Dem candiates, and AOC is one, it makes no sense...

to phrase a question like "Can one of her suporters tell me....???" because you, and everyone else here, are also supposed to be a supporter of hers.

Unless one isn't what they claim to be. Then the wording of the title would make sense.

[Demit]

50. Maybe you shouldn't have indicated that you are not one of her supporters?

[lunasun]

37. No rec

[FSogol]

54. That's fine, but why start a thread attempting to misconstrue what she means?

[Lee-Lee]

39. Does she even realize it's CPB and not ICE that is separating families?

[Kaleva]

45. Depends. CPB operates within a 100 miles of the border.

ICE supposedly has jurisdiction with the interior.

Families rounded up by ICE are transferred to CPB facilities.

[Jake Stern]

60. The Consumer Protection Bureau is separating families?

Wow Mulvaney really has changed it's mission.

[haele]

47. I would suggest she would use a different argument than "abolish deportations".

The issue with ICE is in that it has become a symbol of the blatant disregard for professionalism, the law, and civilian rights under the law that has taken over the civilian policing departments, including border security under the umbrella of "Homeland Security".

Abolish ICE does not mean getting rid of Border Security and allowing uncontrolled passage and immigration. Abolish ICE means the country must root out unprofessional and unconstitutional behavior in the Border security departments. They aren't little private armies, even if some of the undocumented immigration is due to criminal activity. Just because some few are coming across or overstaying their visas for criminal intent doesn't mean all that cross or overstay visas are criminals.

Border Patrol personnel must be professional, treating all situations dealing with people individually with appropriate level of action - and not an indulgence in some person or group's juvenile need to dominate others or otherwise play Cowboy.

I hate to say this, but policing is a public service job, similar to teaching or infrastructure maintenance - or governance. It's important in that it should keep things running and civilized, but it's not really a "special" talent for someone in that other than to do it (and the other public service jobs) properly, the person can't be fearful, a bully, or a cynically selfish slacker looking for the next short cut while getting paid.

Haele

[vi5]

52. "One of her supporters" She is the Democratic candidate.

There should be no differentiation according to the rules of DU.

Also, by previous standards of who is allowed and not allowed to be criticized, are these "attacks" on AOC both sexist AND racist? Or just one or the other.

Asking for a friend.

[pecosbob]

74. Indeed...as the Democratic candidate, we should ALL be supporters

[maxrandb]

55. Don't Care

Not wasting my time trying to "parse" statements from Democrats at this point. Only one question needs to be asked this November, and that is:

Will electing this person help the Democrats take back the House or Senate?

If the answer is, "Yes"

Pull the "effing" lever.

We have a criminal enterprise in the White House that would make Al Capone blush, a Retrumplican Party that is up to it's neck in Russian money, collusion, white supremacy, racism, hatred and authoritarianism...much more important, obviously, that we concern ourselves with a tweet from a first time Dem candidate in a safe blue seat.



I swear, we make it so fucking easy for Putin

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. In context, because heaven05 hid that from everyone on DU:

Link to tweet

(Katie Pavlich, conservative commentator: . @Ocasio2018 wants to abolish ICE. Today ICE deported an actual Nazi from her congressional district in Queens.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, our candidate, in reply:

#AbolishICE means not having an agency that incarcerates children and sexually assaults women with impunity.

It does not mean abolish deportation.

Also, I have no problem saying white supremacy has no place in this country.

It’s the GOP that struggles to say that.)

So, given those 2 tweets, who else still claims to have "questions"?

[jalan48]

64. Interesting. AOC seems to be threatening to some on here. I wonder why?

[Autumn]

70. Interesting how that was left out. Gives clear insight to an agenda.

Thanks for revealing that part.

[JackInGreen]

79. That certainly makes the OP

Look like a lawn land mine

[demmiblue]

85. Thanks, muriel_volestrangler.

Amazing the lengths some will go to.

[Autumn]

75. It's not a reading comprehension problem. It's an agenda

[Marrah_Goodman]

67. It is sad to see hit pieces on progressives on this site

(Before someone says something about my post count, I joined in 2004 under the name Marrah_g. After a long break I came back and couldn't remember what email address I used way back then, so I made a new account.)

This isn't a primary season, throwing virtual crap at other progressives makes NO sense. We have an enemy. He sits in the WH. Isn't that enough?

[QC]

71. Good to see you!

[Marrah_Goodman]

72. Thanks Q!

[beachbum bob]

76. Who cares?

[empedocles]

77. November is more important than these type agendas

[JackInGreen]

78. You couldn't have the decency

To post the whole tweet.

Bad form,but great if you want to juggle grenades at the family meal table.

[klook]

81. I thought we were all her supporters

now that she's the Democratic nominee.

Silly me -- this is disproven on an hourly basis on DU.

[Blue_true]

83. It refers to people that committ actual crimes being deported.

Not law abiding people that have been here working and paying taxes and have US born kids who know nowhere else.

[borgesian]

84. She was responding to this tweet...

Link to tweet

Apparently, AOC supports deporting actual nazis. I agree with her stance on this issue.

[BlueTsunami2018]

91. There actually ARE people who need to be deported.

I see nothing wrong with the message. Abolishing ICE doesn’t mean abolishing border security or its functions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

96. You seem smugly pleased with the shit your disingenous OP stirred up

No, we will continue the tell that "support shit" to you. Because:

Don't bash Democratic public figures
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).
Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources
Do not post right-wing talking points or smears. Do not post content sourced from right-wing publications, authors, or pundits. Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website.
Why we have this rule: News media and the Internet are already awash with conservative propagandists attacking our candidates and our values -- we're not interested in providing them with another outlet. We understand that many of our members might hold some conservative viewpoints on isolated issues, but nobody here should be parroting hateful garbage from the RNC, the NRA, or the Family Research Council. Forum members should expect that the only time they'll have to read a right-wing smear or an article from Breitbart is when someone is pointing and laughing at it.

Don't keep fighting the last Democratic presidential primary
Regardless of whether you supported a winning candidate or a losing candidate, do not prolong the agony of the last Democratic presidential primary by continuing to pick fights, place blame, tear down former primary candidates, bait former supporters, or do anything else to pour salt on old wounds.
Why we have this rule: Most of our members want this to be forward-looking, friendly community that is focused on creating a better future for our country. Continuing to rehash old fights that have already been resolved is divisive and counter-productive.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[Cha]

110. You should check yourself before you

lob personal attacks at other members.

[Renew Deal]

105. The problem isn't the name on the department. It's the behavior.

So Abolish ICE is overly simplistic and not practical if another agency with a different name is doing the same thing.