Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
I'm a radical leftist, it's okay. Radicalism just means that there is a lot of change that needs to happen for the political vision that you have to be implemented, there's no reason why it should be an insult. You don't meet a lot of self-described radicals because if you did, that would imply that their vision is quite common and it would follow that it's not unlikely for their vision to be implemented soon, making it by definition not that radical.
The mechanism of radicalism is to try and make it so that the beliefs in question stop being radical. It was radical to be against slavery when slavery was the norm, but now that it's not it's not radical to be against slavery. That means we won.
On January 26 2020 11:19 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On January 26 2020 09:29 ShoCkeyy wrote: The full video of Trump asking to fire the ambassador to Ukraine has been released. You can watch it at the 43 minute mark.
Currently on the move but I’ll post the video when I get a chance or if some else can post it?
It takes the guy less than a minute to convince Trump to get rid of her, just by saying she's from the Clinton administration and that the ambassador was telling people Trump would be impeached. Trump has a real tone change compared to the rest of the dinner when he says the 'get rid of her, take her out, do it' part. He does sound agitated/serious.
The Ukraine part starts few minutes earlier around 39mins. Trump seems overly surprised to hear Ukraine has oil.
The rest of the vid is kind of interesting if you want to know how a lobbyist dinner with Trump is. Lots of ass kissing and lots of bad takes.
On 8 mins where they shit on South Korea, and Trump shows he has no clue why the US is even there or what the Korea war was about.
11min he talks about the US taking in billions from the tariffs. None of the businessmen affirm him because they know it's bullshit lol
On 16mins Trump says 'WTO is a weapon to hurt the United States. And the European Union the same thing, it's a group of countries that got together to screw the United States, and they are probably worse than China'
33m30s Kanye West will pull the millennials to Trump
He makes a good point about SK. I would trade Trudeau for Trump in an instant.
Care to elaborate what point about SK you like?
I didn't hear anything exceptional. Negotiate trade in favor of U.S.A. Hints that U.S.A. military shouldn't be there. Sadly I don't think he cares about much other than short term GDP and campaign slogans. He's a bad president but the contenders are disastrous imo. Good ones blocked by MSM and the parties.
But I don’t care much about Trudeau. I do, however, care some about South Korea, and listening to that recording all I heard was some grumbling about how South Korea is ruining our steel industry (possibly with *gasp* Chinese steel) and how that’s really very ungrateful of them considering how we’re stopping North Korea from nuking them and all.
Personally I don’t understand what’s to like about that, and I’d be interested to hear what part appeals to you. The protectionism, I guess? The indignation that a state benefiting from our world policing would dare to compete with us commercially? I don’t know specifically what the “shipping Chinese steel on trains” business is about, maybe you do?
I don’t get protectionism’s appeal much honestly. The lazy argument I can make is “look at Trump’s trade war, it’s going bad for us and the stock market freaks out about it sometimes.” And I think it probably has been bad for us, but more broadly the whole premise of protectionism is “we’re going to try to set the rules of international trade to give our businesses a systemic advantage over foreign competition.” Why is that fair? If a foreign business is more efficient than ours but we manage to set the rules such that our business has an unfair advantage and runs them out of business, why is that a good outcome? If we so quickly demonstrate to other countries that we have no interest in fair dealings and will pick their pocket at first opportunity, how can we hope to maintain positive relationships with them, or expect them not to backstab us just as quickly?
Our troop presence in SK adds a twist to this. A lot of people are very critical of our wide military footprint and insistence on policing the world - I don’t like it much myself - but of all our international meddling, putting troops in South Korea to discourage North Korean aggression seems like one of the better causes we’ve taken up. North Korea invading South Korea would be a massive humanitarian catastrophe, and our troop presence meaningfully reduces the likelihood of that happening.
But it’s a bit rich for us to make all this fuss about keeping South Korea “free” and then turn around and say they don’t have the right to compete with us economically. Are they free, or aren’t they? I don’t have a bit of interest in hitting up our allies for protection money, as Trump likes to talk about, but demanding they direct their economy to grow ours rather than their own is even worse to me. Is this not extortion?
In game theory terminology, Trump’s foreign policy generally usually boils down to an “Always Forsake” policy. Shout and threaten our enemies unless they serve our interests; extort our allies out of their lunch money and threaten to sanction them or even refuse to protect them unless they pay up. It’s unabashedly immoral; but even in self-interest terms, it’s probably pretty bad policy. “Always Forsake” makes you an asshole, but also usually means nobody wants to cooperate with you so you’re ultimately worse off, too.
I wish US would stop playing world police and force/allow other countries to grow up. I don't have a problem with Trump asking for more money to cover the cost, if SK wants the US to continue as their bodyguard -- besides wishing they weren't there at all. It's reasonable to ask if it's still worth it to be there.
This is an unusually stupid take.
The reason that the US occupied Germany and Japan (and Japan's former colony SK) is not because Germany and Japan are weaklings that need the United States to protect them while they grow up, it's that they're regional powers that were denied their shot at the title in the 19th century and spent the first half of the 20th century fucking shit up.
The US isn't in these places because the US doesn't believe they can defend themselves, it's in these places because the US has seen what it looks like when they defend themselves and it didn't like it.
Said another way, if the US didn't occupy and play the big brother role post WW2, the soviets would have.
Side note - do you really need to start your reply in such a rude, condescending way? You're a mod who should be aiming to make this thread a better place, not worse. Do better.
Agreed, the drizzling of condescension is inappropriate for mods imo. Inappropriate and unwelcome for anyone to do that. Particularly so for mods
On January 29 2020 00:48 Nebuchad wrote: I'm a radical leftist, it's okay. Radicalism just means that there is a lot of change that needs to happen for the political vision that you have to be implemented, there's no reason why it should be an insult. You don't meet a lot of self-described radicals because if you did, that would imply that their vision is quite common and it would follow that it's not unlikely for their vision to be implemented soon, making it by definition not that radical.
The mechanism of radicalism is to try and make it so that the beliefs in question stop being radical. It was radical to be against slavery when slavery was the norm, but now that it's not it's not radical to be against slavery. That means we won.
It’s all relative, both temporally and geographically, the waters further being muddied by terms meaning different things to different people, bit of a minefield really!
I tend these days just to discuss things singularly and leave people to ascribe whatever label, although I guess radical left would be one I’d consider broadly accurate.
On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote: Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-with
On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote: Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular.
It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them.
Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful.
less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so....
just curious what your take is on these two points.
On January 29 2020 00:48 Nebuchad wrote: The mechanism of radicalism is to try and make it so that the beliefs in question stop being radical. It was radical to be against slavery when slavery was the norm, but now that it's not it's not radical to be against slavery. That means we won.
You live now, when it is radical to be for slavery. How can you say that you won, when you were born long after the shift happened?
On January 29 2020 00:48 Nebuchad wrote: The mechanism of radicalism is to try and make it so that the beliefs in question stop being radical. It was radical to be against slavery when slavery was the norm, but now that it's not it's not radical to be against slavery. That means we won.
You live now, when it is radical to be for slavery. How can you say that you won, when you were born long after the shift happened?
On January 29 2020 00:48 Nebuchad wrote: The mechanism of radicalism is to try and make it so that the beliefs in question stop being radical. It was radical to be against slavery when slavery was the norm, but now that it's not it's not radical to be against slavery. That means we won.
You live now, when it is radical to be for slavery. How can you say that you won, when you were born long after the shift happened?
I don't understand the question.
I'm asking if you meant that you consider yourself part of the group that won the fight about slavery. You said "we won", and I would like you to clarify what you meant by "we". Radicals in general or some specific group of radicals?
In broader sense I'm asking if you subscribe to the view that the whole history of humanity is a struggle between conservative right and progressive left.
Rattner confirms what I said before about the plan for a brokered convention if Biden can't win outright and makes clear there is a deliberate effort to stop Sanders by establishment Dems and Bloomberg is the centrist escape plan.
On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote: Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-with
On January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:
On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote: Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular.
It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them.
Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful.
less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so....
just curious what your take is on these two points.
I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different.
On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote: Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-with
On January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:
On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote: Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular.
It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them.
Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful.
less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so....
just curious what your take is on these two points.
I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different.
Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"?
On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote: Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-with
On January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:
On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote: Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular.
It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them.
Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful.
less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so....
just curious what your take is on these two points.
I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country.
I think you missed a part of the question. how would you define someone likely to require benefits (i.e. what sort of proof)? it seems to me that your bar is rather high, and rather than just not being a public charge you would prefer that the immigrant would bring some sort of surplus to the country. let me know if i'm off base with that assertion.
I wonder what your own forefathers might have to say about your take on immigration. What immediate multifaceted benefit to the country does anyone play 99.9% of residents and citizens merely pay taxes and have babies.
Do you believe the permission to enter the country a privilege? or is it part of the fundamental fabric of the country?
On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home.
Which is more disgraceful: dying in a country for lack of opportunity, or violence, or immigrating to a country with lint in your pocket out of desparation. I think the disgrace is written on their faces when they cross a desert, because we have shut the gates of entry. (im not for open borders, just trying to paint a picture ).
Is it possible that you cant imagine "immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength" because you have never been in such a position in your professional/financial/ life? (I dont want an answer on this, its your personal business, but perhaps your point of view is distorted by your own success, and maybe that is something you should examine).
Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different.
Agreed denying a green card and stripping citizenship are quite different, yet the net impact on the individual is quite equal would you agree? and if these two people are putting forth the same effort, working, yet still being unable to make ends meet, wouldn't it go directly against the first line of the constitution of this country, "we hold these truths self evident that all men are created equal" if we were to unequally treat these people?
i know its alot of questions, but i want to understand your point of view as best I can.
On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote: Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-with
On January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:
On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote: Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular.
It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them.
Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful.
less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so....
just curious what your take is on these two points.
I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different.
Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"?
I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind.
On January 29 2020 00:48 Nebuchad wrote: The mechanism of radicalism is to try and make it so that the beliefs in question stop being radical. It was radical to be against slavery when slavery was the norm, but now that it's not it's not radical to be against slavery. That means we won.
You live now, when it is radical to be for slavery. How can you say that you won, when you were born long after the shift happened?
I don't understand the question.
I'm asking if you meant that you consider yourself part of the group that won the fight about slavery. You said "we won", and I would like you to clarify what you meant by "we". Radicals in general or some specific group of radicals?
In broader sense I'm asking if you subscribe to the view that the whole history of humanity is a struggle between conservative right and progressive left.
The specific group when it comes to slavery is radical social liberalism more than radical leftism, but imo the natural/logical position of leftism is the same, so I don't think the distinction matters. I just said "we" cause I was arguing on the side of radicalism, obviously it wasn't my fight.
There is some truth to the broader view of history that you describe but it's too simplistic for me to say I subscribe to it. I think social issues and economic issues are separate, not in that they have no influence on each other but in that if you "win" in one case it doesn't follow that you win on the other. There isn't just one fight, and you might not be allied with the same people depending on the fight you're having.
The biggest problem with these sorts of descriptions of history is that they kind of assume that time has a political direction, and the more we advance in history the more we're going in that direction. I think that's silly.
I mean, honestly, I can't imagine marrying someone unless all their family members can provide an immediate and multifaceted benefit to my life. My appreciation of the family I'm building is based solely on how useful the people in it are to me. What's more, the only appropriate thing to do if my fiance were also in an abusive situation, that only I had the power to free them from, would be to abandon them and say "sorry, you're not useful to me".
On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote: Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-with
On January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:
On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote: Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular.
It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them.
Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful.
less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so....
just curious what your take is on these two points.
I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different.
Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"?
I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind.
There is a massive loss in productivity due to homeschooling, as it is inherently ineffective compared to normal schools. You picked my interest, how would this homeschooling work out? Year 1-12 and start apprenticeship stuff at year 10 or so? How will a company know whether the kid's got a decent education? Standardized tests conducted in a neutral environment?
On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote: Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-with
On January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:
On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote: Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular.
It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them.
Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful.
less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so....
just curious what your take is on these two points.
I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different.
Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"?
I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind.
So school aged children (orphans especially) just shouldn't be allowed to immigrate in your view then?
How are people supposed to homeschool their children while working two jobs so they aren’t on welfare. Public schooling with all of its flaws is one of the best things we have.
You don't have to homeschool them personally, you can hire one of those hundreds of thousands teachers who lost their jobs after the country switched to homeschooling. /s
On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote: Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-with
On January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:
On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote: Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular.
It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them.
Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful.
less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so....
just curious what your take is on these two points.
I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different.
Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"?
I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind.
Your immigration and schooling views render you a far-right reactionary, not a radical. The two terms have distinctive meanings relative to the policy area they are used to describe.
On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote: Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-with
On January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:
On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote: Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular.
It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them.
Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful.
less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so....
just curious what your take is on these two points.
I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different.
Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"?
I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind.
Okay, please explain this a bit more. It does not sound like a reasonable position to have. I am curious as to how you view a society working on only homeschooling to work.
EPT
