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 mean some of that I agree with vaguely but you run into a bunch of problems IMO
1. As varied as the quality of public schooling quality is now, the quality of home-schooling will vary even more. 2. You need a parent at home. 3. You cut peer socialisation. Which given current familial arrangements is more important than ever to have. I had my brother as a youth, I had my English cousins for Christmas and 2 months in summer who were 4 and 18 months older than me respectively. My kid is 6 now and the closest person in age to him is my little sister who is 15. His mother had never even held a youngling prior to him being born. In previous eras with bigger families and also closer familial ties, more localised etc you could offset outside peer interaction with family but is that the world we live in now?
If both parents don’t have to work due to economic necessity, and the wider unit is less fragmented due to economic migration then sure maybe you can make this model work but I’m not seeing it.
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.
I wouldn't have guessed that about the schooling. Always thought it was more libertarian/hippie/anarchist or something like that. Chomsky and Gatto, among others, convinced me to be highly skeptical of the education system and envision something better.
On January 29 2020 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure if you missed it or deemed it in bad faith but my question:
On January 29 2020 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:
On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:
On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:
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?
was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration?
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like you want to ask me questions until you find a perceived inconsistency and 'gotcha' moment -- similar to the bomb question you asked before.
It is like the bomb question in that I see a contradiction which I seek to resolve. When you chose not to address the contradiction in the bomb example, Drone and explained Neb explained the nature of the argument and that politics is a lot about deciding the acceptable targets of violence.
There's no "gotcha" moment. If the contradiction is real then it should be confronted, if it is a misconception on my part and there is no contradiction then I'd appreciate an explanation to that effect. If that seems unreasonable, then at least a firm claim that it isn't a contradiction that can then reasonably be denied based on comparable support.
EDIT: Basically, I'm looking for an answer to the question+ Show Spoiler +
So school aged children (orphans especially) just shouldn't be allowed to immigrate in your view then?
itself so I can evaluate whether your position is tenable for myself.
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.
I wouldn't have guessed that about the schooling. Always thought it was more libertarian/hippie/anarchist or something like that. Chomsky and Gatto, among others, convinced me to be highly skeptical of the education system and envision something better.
On January 29 2020 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure if you missed it or deemed it in bad faith but my question:
On January 29 2020 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:
On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:
On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:
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: [quote] 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?
was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration?
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like you want to ask me questions until you find a perceived inconsistency and 'gotcha' moment -- similar to the bomb question you asked before.
It is like the bomb question in that I see a contradiction which I seek to resolve. When you chose not to address the contradiction in the bomb example, Drone and explained Neb explained the nature of the argument and that politics is a lot about deciding the acceptable targets of violence.
There's no "gotcha" moment. If the contradiction is real then it should be confronted, if it is a misconception on my part and there is no contradiction then I'd appreciate an explanation to that effect. If that seems unreasonable, then at least a firm claim that it isn't a contradiction that can then reasonably be denied based on comparable support.
Do we in this thread really even need a ‘gotcha’ question to nail Xxio on any of his views that he’s been hypothetically obfuscating?
They are pretty apparent, for what anyone may think of them or whatever.
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: [quote] 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.
I wouldn't have guessed that about the schooling. Always thought it was more libertarian/hippie/anarchist or something like that. Chomsky and Gatto, among others, convinced me to be highly skeptical of the education system and envision something better.
On January 29 2020 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure if you missed it or deemed it in bad faith but my question:
On January 29 2020 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:
On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:
On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:
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[quote]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?
was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration?
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like you want to ask me questions until you find a perceived inconsistency and 'gotcha' moment -- similar to the bomb question you asked before.
It is like the bomb question in that I see a contradiction which I seek to resolve. When you chose not to address the contradiction in the bomb example, Drone and explained Neb explained the nature of the argument and that politics is a lot about deciding the acceptable targets of violence.
There's no "gotcha" moment. If the contradiction is real then it should be confronted, if it is a misconception on my part and there is no contradiction then I'd appreciate an explanation to that effect. If that seems unreasonable, then at least a firm claim that it isn't a contradiction that can then reasonably be denied based on comparable support.
Do we in this thread really even need a ‘gotcha’ question to nail Xxio on any of his views that he’s been hypothetically obfuscating?
They are pretty apparent, for what anyone may think of them or whatever.
Typically I'd psychically tag in my anger translator Kwark here but everyone has been picking on him for it so I dunno. I just like to distill the issue when we have to deal with positions like Xxio that trigger the dogpiles. Otherwise it gets unwieldy pretty quick.
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[quote]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.
I wouldn't have guessed that about the schooling. Always thought it was more libertarian/hippie/anarchist or something like that. Chomsky and Gatto, among others, convinced me to be highly skeptical of the education system and envision something better.
On January 29 2020 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure if you missed it or deemed it in bad faith but my question:
On January 29 2020 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:
On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:
On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote: [quote]
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?
was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration?
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like you want to ask me questions until you find a perceived inconsistency and 'gotcha' moment -- similar to the bomb question you asked before.
It is like the bomb question in that I see a contradiction which I seek to resolve. When you chose not to address the contradiction in the bomb example, Drone and explained Neb explained the nature of the argument and that politics is a lot about deciding the acceptable targets of violence.
There's no "gotcha" moment. If the contradiction is real then it should be confronted, if it is a misconception on my part and there is no contradiction then I'd appreciate an explanation to that effect. If that seems unreasonable, then at least a firm claim that it isn't a contradiction that can then reasonably be denied based on comparable support.
Do we in this thread really even need a ‘gotcha’ question to nail Xxio on any of his views that he’s been hypothetically obfuscating?
They are pretty apparent, for what anyone may think of them or whatever.
Typically I'd psychically tag in my anger translator Kwark here but everyone has been picking on him for it so I dunno. I just like to distill the issue when we have to deal with positions like Xxio that trigger the dogpiles. Otherwise it gets unwieldy pretty quick.
I think some of this would be beneficial for society, but how do you get there?
The borderline economic unviability of the one parent stay at home to raise the child(ten) ideal isn’t particularly a champion cause of the wider left after all.
I wouldn’t at all describe myself as a social conservative but some of those structures have some value, just it’s rampant capitalism that’s dismantling them and nothing else.
On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote: [quote]
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.
I wouldn't have guessed that about the schooling. Always thought it was more libertarian/hippie/anarchist or something like that. Chomsky and Gatto, among others, convinced me to be highly skeptical of the education system and envision something better.
On January 29 2020 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure if you missed it or deemed it in bad faith but my question:
On January 29 2020 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:
On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote: [quote]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?
was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration?
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like you want to ask me questions until you find a perceived inconsistency and 'gotcha' moment -- similar to the bomb question you asked before.
It is like the bomb question in that I see a contradiction which I seek to resolve. When you chose not to address the contradiction in the bomb example, Drone and explained Neb explained the nature of the argument and that politics is a lot about deciding the acceptable targets of violence.
There's no "gotcha" moment. If the contradiction is real then it should be confronted, if it is a misconception on my part and there is no contradiction then I'd appreciate an explanation to that effect. If that seems unreasonable, then at least a firm claim that it isn't a contradiction that can then reasonably be denied based on comparable support.
Do we in this thread really even need a ‘gotcha’ question to nail Xxio on any of his views that he’s been hypothetically obfuscating?
They are pretty apparent, for what anyone may think of them or whatever.
Typically I'd psychically tag in my anger translator Kwark here but everyone has been picking on him for it so I dunno. I just like to distill the issue when we have to deal with positions like Xxio that trigger the dogpiles. Otherwise it gets unwieldy pretty quick.
I think some of this would be beneficial for society, but how do you get there?
The borderline economic unviability of the one parent stay at home to raise the child(ten) ideal isn’t particularly a champion cause of the wider left after all.
I wouldn’t at all describe myself as a social conservative but some of those structures have some value, just it’s rampant capitalism that’s dismantling them and nothing else.
I think even the concept of the 'nuclear family' is heavily shaped by capitalism and a more extended family model is preferable personally
On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote: [quote]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.
I wouldn't have guessed that about the schooling. Always thought it was more libertarian/hippie/anarchist or something like that. Chomsky and Gatto, among others, convinced me to be highly skeptical of the education system and envision something better.
On January 29 2020 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure if you missed it or deemed it in bad faith but my question:
On January 29 2020 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:
On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
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?
was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration?
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like you want to ask me questions until you find a perceived inconsistency and 'gotcha' moment -- similar to the bomb question you asked before.
It is like the bomb question in that I see a contradiction which I seek to resolve. When you chose not to address the contradiction in the bomb example, Drone and explained Neb explained the nature of the argument and that politics is a lot about deciding the acceptable targets of violence.
There's no "gotcha" moment. If the contradiction is real then it should be confronted, if it is a misconception on my part and there is no contradiction then I'd appreciate an explanation to that effect. If that seems unreasonable, then at least a firm claim that it isn't a contradiction that can then reasonably be denied based on comparable support.
Do we in this thread really even need a ‘gotcha’ question to nail Xxio on any of his views that he’s been hypothetically obfuscating?
They are pretty apparent, for what anyone may think of them or whatever.
Typically I'd psychically tag in my anger translator Kwark here but everyone has been picking on him for it so I dunno. I just like to distill the issue when we have to deal with positions like Xxio that trigger the dogpiles. Otherwise it gets unwieldy pretty quick.
I think some of this would be beneficial for society, but how do you get there?
The borderline economic unviability of the one parent stay at home to raise the child(ten) ideal isn’t particularly a champion cause of the wider left after all.
I wouldn’t at all describe myself as a social conservative but some of those structures have some value, just it’s rampant capitalism that’s dismantling them and nothing else.
I think even the concept of the 'nuclear family' is heavily shaped by capitalism and a more extended family model is preferable personally
You didn’t train me I was moulded in my own forge :p
Although I’ll betray my independent though by largely agreeing.
Doesn’t have to be familial mind, my formative 18 years were in genuine working class land. There was community, everyone knew each other, folks communicated, sometimes for the worse.
Moved out to the suburbs and it’s much more atomised.
As a non-nuclear parent I feel that model is overrated as an ideal, sometimes it doesn’t apply to individual circumstance. Me and the youngling’s mum went from loving each other’s company to hating each other, to being good friends and having weekly coffee chats about life and parenting, and his step-dad is a good influence on them both.
On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote: [quote]
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.
I wouldn't have guessed that about the schooling. Always thought it was more libertarian/hippie/anarchist or something like that. Chomsky and Gatto, among others, convinced me to be highly skeptical of the education system and envision something better.
On January 29 2020 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure if you missed it or deemed it in bad faith but my question:
On January 29 2020 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:
On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote: [quote]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?
was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration?
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like you want to ask me questions until you find a perceived inconsistency and 'gotcha' moment -- similar to the bomb question you asked before.
It is like the bomb question in that I see a contradiction which I seek to resolve. When you chose not to address the contradiction in the bomb example, Drone and explained Neb explained the nature of the argument and that politics is a lot about deciding the acceptable targets of violence.
There's no "gotcha" moment. If the contradiction is real then it should be confronted, if it is a misconception on my part and there is no contradiction then I'd appreciate an explanation to that effect. If that seems unreasonable, then at least a firm claim that it isn't a contradiction that can then reasonably be denied based on comparable support.
Do we in this thread really even need a ‘gotcha’ question to nail Xxio on any of his views that he’s been hypothetically obfuscating?
They are pretty apparent, for what anyone may think of them or whatever.
Typically I'd psychically tag in my anger translator Kwark here but everyone has been picking on him for it so I dunno. I just like to distill the issue when we have to deal with positions like Xxio that trigger the dogpiles. Otherwise it gets unwieldy pretty quick.
I think some of this would be beneficial for society, but how do you get there?
The borderline economic unviability of the one parent stay at home to raise the child(ten) ideal isn’t particularly a champion cause of the wider left after all.
I wouldn’t at all describe myself as a social conservative but some of those structures have some value, just it’s rampant capitalism that’s dismantling them and nothing else.
I blame the women for working in the first place(HARD sarcasm).
Both parents work now because in the overwhelming majority of cases they have to. If it was possible for the middle class to get by on one salary in 2020, why not have both work and just have a super high standard of living as compared to single worker families in the same fields? You'd end up with well off people basically sending their kids to private/charter schools as they hire the unemployed teachers, but don't want to pay enough to them to do a full person's job. Doing this would then gut the public schooling system for the poor as teachers flee for much better paying gigs with the rich kids with the exception of nurse servitude again.
Also, good luck going into an apprenticeship as a young teen and actually wanting to do that for your life. Last I heard somebody switches their major in college an average of 3 times.
On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote: [quote]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.
I wouldn't have guessed that about the schooling. Always thought it was more libertarian/hippie/anarchist or something like that. Chomsky and Gatto, among others, convinced me to be highly skeptical of the education system and envision something better.
On January 29 2020 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure if you missed it or deemed it in bad faith but my question:
On January 29 2020 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:
On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
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?
was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration?
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like you want to ask me questions until you find a perceived inconsistency and 'gotcha' moment -- similar to the bomb question you asked before.
It is like the bomb question in that I see a contradiction which I seek to resolve. When you chose not to address the contradiction in the bomb example, Drone and explained Neb explained the nature of the argument and that politics is a lot about deciding the acceptable targets of violence.
There's no "gotcha" moment. If the contradiction is real then it should be confronted, if it is a misconception on my part and there is no contradiction then I'd appreciate an explanation to that effect. If that seems unreasonable, then at least a firm claim that it isn't a contradiction that can then reasonably be denied based on comparable support.
Do we in this thread really even need a ‘gotcha’ question to nail Xxio on any of his views that he’s been hypothetically obfuscating?
They are pretty apparent, for what anyone may think of them or whatever.
Typically I'd psychically tag in my anger translator Kwark here but everyone has been picking on him for it so I dunno. I just like to distill the issue when we have to deal with positions like Xxio that trigger the dogpiles. Otherwise it gets unwieldy pretty quick.
I think some of this would be beneficial for society, but how do you get there?
The borderline economic unviability of the one parent stay at home to raise the child(ten) ideal isn’t particularly a champion cause of the wider left after all.
I wouldn’t at all describe myself as a social conservative but some of those structures have some value, just it’s rampant capitalism that’s dismantling them and nothing else.
I blame the women for working in the first place(HARD sarcasm).
Both parents work now because in the overwhelming majority of cases they have to. If it was possible for the middle class to get by on one salary in 2020, why not have both work and just have a super high standard of living as compared to single worker families in the same fields? You'd end up with well off people basically sending their kids to private/charter schools as they hire the unemployed teachers, but don't want to pay enough to them to do a full person's job. Doing this would then gut the public schooling system for the poor as teachers flee for much better paying gigs with the rich kids with the exception of nurse servitude again.
Also, good luck going into an apprenticeship as a young teen and actually wanting to do that for your life. Last I heard somebody switches their major in college an average of 3 times.
They just don’t want it enough, they’re not sure how to pull themselves up by their bootstraps (HARD sarcasm)
On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote: [quote]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.
I wouldn't have guessed that about the schooling. Always thought it was more libertarian/hippie/anarchist or something like that. Chomsky and Gatto, among others, convinced me to be highly skeptical of the education system and envision something better.
On January 29 2020 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure if you missed it or deemed it in bad faith but my question:
On January 29 2020 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:
On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
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?
was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration?
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like you want to ask me questions until you find a perceived inconsistency and 'gotcha' moment -- similar to the bomb question you asked before.
It is like the bomb question in that I see a contradiction which I seek to resolve. When you chose not to address the contradiction in the bomb example, Drone and explained Neb explained the nature of the argument and that politics is a lot about deciding the acceptable targets of violence.
There's no "gotcha" moment. If the contradiction is real then it should be confronted, if it is a misconception on my part and there is no contradiction then I'd appreciate an explanation to that effect. If that seems unreasonable, then at least a firm claim that it isn't a contradiction that can then reasonably be denied based on comparable support.
Do we in this thread really even need a ‘gotcha’ question to nail Xxio on any of his views that he’s been hypothetically obfuscating?
They are pretty apparent, for what anyone may think of them or whatever.
Typically I'd psychically tag in my anger translator Kwark here but everyone has been picking on him for it so I dunno. I just like to distill the issue when we have to deal with positions like Xxio that trigger the dogpiles. Otherwise it gets unwieldy pretty quick.
I think some of this would be beneficial for society, but how do you get there?
The borderline economic unviability of the one parent stay at home to raise the child(ten) ideal isn’t particularly a champion cause of the wider left after all.
I wouldn’t at all describe myself as a social conservative but some of those structures have some value, just it’s rampant capitalism that’s dismantling them and nothing else.
I blame the women for working in the first place(HARD sarcasm).
Both parents work now because in the overwhelming majority of cases they have to. If it was possible for the middle class to get by on one salary in 2020, why not have both work and just have a super high standard of living as compared to single worker families in the same fields? You'd end up with well off people basically sending their kids to private/charter schools as they hire the unemployed teachers, but don't want to pay enough to them to do a full person's job. Doing this would then gut the public schooling system for the poor as teachers flee for much better paying gigs with the rich kids with the exception of nurse servitude again.
Also, good luck going into an apprenticeship as a young teen and actually wanting to do that for your life. Last I heard somebody switches their major in college an average of 3 times.
On January 29 2020 10:58 Lmui wrote: So in somewhat surprising news, McConnell says he doesn't have the votes to block witnesses from appearing at the trial:
Odds are #1 on the list is Bolton with how high profile he's been the last week. My guess is the republicans are going to try and get Bolton for Hunter Biden like a bunch of people in the thread have already suggested.
If it happens its good to recognise why the Republicans would make such a trade when it looks to bad for them. Hunter giving them soundbites to play to their own constituents while pretending that Bolton never appeared. Or the 6d chess version, Bolton's supposed dirt from his book is an attempt to catch the Democrats and when he takes the stands he denies everything and clears Trump, a major blow for the Democrats.
On January 29 2020 10:58 Lmui wrote: So in somewhat surprising news, McConnell says he doesn't have the votes to block witnesses from appearing at the trial:
Odds are #1 on the list is Bolton with how high profile he's been the last week. My guess is the republicans are going to try and get Bolton for Hunter Biden like a bunch of people in the thread have already suggested.
If it happens its good to recognise why the Republicans would make such a trade when it looks to bad for them. Hunter giving them soundbites to play to their own constituents while pretending that Bolton never appeared. Or the 6d chess version, Bolton's supposed dirt from his book is an attempt to catch the Democrats and when he takes the stands he denies everything and clears Trump, a major blow for the Democrats.
The timeline is already weird and fucked up enough that this doesn't sound weird at all to me. Not that most of these clowns are even intelligent enough to do stuff like this, but anything's possible.
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?
was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration?
@Ryzel This is how I envision incorporating your critique on developing others arguments to my own interpretation of confronting contradictions within them. This better?
It’s complicated, especially analyzing my own feelings reading your reply to him and letting them simmer.
I think in order for the CP (critical pedagogy) process to work there needs to be a foundation of mutual trust (by this I mean the trust that no one is competing, we all respect each other and don’t think of each other as deplorable or irredeemable) underlying the discussions, and unfortunately for different reasons you have a harder time getting people to give you that trust, and this is an example. My initial feelings reading your response were “wow he’s accusing him of not caring about orphans, that won’t go over well”, and that may have put Xxio on the defensive. However, you also didn’t make any accusations regarding his actual feelings on the subject, and only wanted to probe his ideology further, so I don’t really fault you either. If it were me I’d take one of two options...
1) More tact to establish the trust. “I get how your views seem to make sense in that they prioritize the needs of your fellow citizens/community, but I’ve noticed an issue where according to your logic it seems that small children or even orphans who immigrate are found non-deserving and should be excluded. Is this a concern for you? If so I was curious how you would go about accommodating them, and if not then maybe we can discuss that further?”
2) Deeper dive into the underlying belief/value system. “From what I’m reading, I’m getting that you prioritize the people of the country, and that others need to prove their worthiness to be able to join this ingroup. Is that accurate? I just want to explore this value a bit further. Would the same apply to more individualized situations, like a stranger needing to prove his worth to be considered worthy of being allowed in someone else’s social circle?”
I hope my examples were able to convey what I’m trying to get across. I don’t really have a problem with your approach as is and think it would be fine if the underlying trust was there, but you’ll be fighting an uphill battle to get that established at this point. I do wish you luck though, and regardless of your success I’ll appreciate reading your thoughts
personally the statement ‘i can’t imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength’ begs the question. it’s either so generalized that it is meaningless practically, or lacking in some sorely needed nuance even given the most generous interpretation.
On January 30 2020 00:28 brian wrote: personally the statement ‘i can’t imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength’ begs the question. it’s either so generalized that it is meaningless practically, or lacking in some sorely needed nuance even given the most generous interpretation.
For me, I'm going with his exact word choice. That he can't imagine any other reason why he'd be choosing to immigrate is telling to me. It suggests a lack of appreciation for his privilege, and a lack of understanding what really drives immigration. And I would like to understand where his arguments are coming from, because I don't get the vibe that it comes from any personal experience. I have a hard time not reading it as another "the immigrants are taking our jobs" kinda thing, tbh.
All of this is beside what America is supposed to be, and its supposed melting pot, immigrant-loving philosophy. Not necessarily that I believe that we've really lived up to the ideal, but it's something that I at least was told numerous times, that that's what really makes this country great. But now it was just a poem and doesn't matter anymore, now that it's no longer convenient to believe.
Let me introduce Woody Guthrie... Apparently others forget The US is the home of the free and brave, fascist will tell me otherwise. They're shook, scared to look.
On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote: [quote]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.
I wouldn't have guessed that about the schooling. Always thought it was more libertarian/hippie/anarchist or something like that. Chomsky and Gatto, among others, convinced me to be highly skeptical of the education system and envision something better.
On January 29 2020 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure if you missed it or deemed it in bad faith but my question:
On January 29 2020 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:
On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
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?
was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration?
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like you want to ask me questions until you find a perceived inconsistency and 'gotcha' moment -- similar to the bomb question you asked before.
It is like the bomb question in that I see a contradiction which I seek to resolve. When you chose not to address the contradiction in the bomb example, Drone and explained Neb explained the nature of the argument and that politics is a lot about deciding the acceptable targets of violence.
There's no "gotcha" moment. If the contradiction is real then it should be confronted, if it is a misconception on my part and there is no contradiction then I'd appreciate an explanation to that effect. If that seems unreasonable, then at least a firm claim that it isn't a contradiction that can then reasonably be denied based on comparable support.
Do we in this thread really even need a ‘gotcha’ question to nail Xxio on any of his views that he’s been hypothetically obfuscating?
They are pretty apparent, for what anyone may think of them or whatever.
Typically I'd psychically tag in my anger translator Kwark here but everyone has been picking on him for it so I dunno. I just like to distill the issue when we have to deal with positions like Xxio that trigger the dogpiles. Otherwise it gets unwieldy pretty quick.
I think some of this would be beneficial for society, but how do you get there?
The borderline economic unviability of the one parent stay at home to raise the child(ten) ideal isn’t particularly a champion cause of the wider left after all.
I wouldn’t at all describe myself as a social conservative but some of those structures have some value, just it’s rampant capitalism that’s dismantling them and nothing else.
I blame the women for working in the first place(HARD sarcasm).
Both parents work now because in the overwhelming majority of cases they have to. If it was possible for the middle class to get by on one salary in 2020, why not have both work and just have a super high standard of living as compared to single worker families in the same fields? You'd end up with well off people basically sending their kids to private/charter schools as they hire the unemployed teachers, but don't want to pay enough to them to do a full person's job. Doing this would then gut the public schooling system for the poor as teachers flee for much better paying gigs with the rich kids with the exception of nurse servitude again.
Also, good luck going into an apprenticeship as a young teen and actually wanting to do that for your life. Last I heard somebody switches their major in college an average of 3 times.
I don't think it has anything to do with rampant capitalism. Gender equality and feminist struggle have made possible a world in which women can dream of more than cooking for their husband, be at home with the kids and socialize over tea with their girlfriends. As far as I can tell, most women work because they want to be financially independent and be more than spouses and mothers.
I work in a symphony orchestra. In 1960 there were not and had never been a woman in the band. Now they are two thirds. It's not absolute necessity because life is too hard nor rampant capitalism that pushed those women to become violinists. It's that a life at home is supremely uninspiring for most people and you can't blame them. I would shoot myself rather than spend my life depending on my partner's income and have no other function in life whatsoever than be a dad.
I can also testify that when people come back to work after their year long (yes its norway) parental leave, they are absolutely ecstatic because of how horribly boring most of them find the temporary housewife life.
Man.... Dershowitz just asserted that a quid pro quo, even if it is only partially in the public interest, is legal. He also asserted that Trump believes his own reelection is in the public interest. Ergo : it was not illegal.
I mean... WHAT ?
That video is just... Unbelievable. It's not funny, it's sad. Quoting for those who can't see the video for some reason : "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
(Unsurprisingly, this quote does NOT appear in Fox's live coverage :-))
It seems to me to be entirely inappropriate for anyone but the public to determine what the public's interest is. If you wanna get down to it, the public's interest was actually to elect Hillary. But that's just the beginning of the problems we have here.
EPT
