Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Andrew Yang is running for president.
#1
This guy is very smart. And decent. He's analysed a lot of data and addresses inevitable trends.
You can see him on Rogan's podcast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8

If that's too much to slog through because of time constraints, I'll attempt to elucidate a few of his salient points.

But really, it almost takes 2 hours. He goes deep.

This is what we've been waiting for, imho.
Reply
#2
If that's what you've been waiting for, you're looking in the wrong place.

Yes, his doctrine looks great, but he has zero public recognition and will be trying to scrape by on scraps of the far left.

Just further splits the field, if you ask me.

I bet Trump had a good laugh.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#3
Not a surprising reaction.

He's got some time.
Reply
#4
(02-12-2019, 05:47 PM)stanky Wrote:  Not a surprising reaction.

He's got some time.

Mate, I hate to burst your bubble, but you gave Jill Stein a chance about six weeks before the election and she polled all of 1%.

At a time when you have absolute proof that public recognition is a prime reason for people to vote, you can't seriously think a complete unknown will make any waves, far less win anything.

Most of his chosen party will be against him, because they know UBI is poison to Americans. It would be sold as Communism, and even Eric Trump would beat Yang.

What you need is to get behind either Kamala Harris. She's the best of an average bunch, but seems to me to be the most likely to be able to win.

Biden, Sanders, Warren or O'Rourke would be a disaster.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#5
We've got some stray pollies we could send you. Just say the word. They'll line up with any Party who'll have 'em.
Reply
#6
T.A., I did not give Jill Stein a chance.

What I gave her, with my vote, was a tiny boost to the credibility of third parties.

Being as I live in Kentucky, I knew before hand that Trump was the man here. I knew that even if I had voted for Hillary, it wouldn't matter.
Not to mention that I found her repugnant.

You do me a disservice if you think I had high hopes on a Stein victory.

What I had high hopes about was a Sander's victory. That was crushed. Not by Putin, btw...by the DNC and the corporate media.

Putin didn't get Trump elected. The sponsors of the msm did that.

As per the logic of Yang, and his odds, keep in mind, the dem field is crowded, with no obvious front runner.

He's already achieved credibility. He also has some money. And a keen grasp of technology.

Basic Universal Income, which he has re-named as the "Freedom Dividend", is approached more like we're all stockholders in the businesses that we've financed over the years. Hence, not so much a handout to the needy.

What matters more, is that he is willing to address the obvious:
In the U.S., 58% of our jobs are threatened by automation.
It's not the immigrants that are taking our jobs; it's the robots. Automation.
This isn't sci-fi...it's very well along.

Good bye, truck drivers. Better learn code.

Of course, that is also a farce. If automation puts you out of work, even if you could go back to school and learn coding, how many jobs are available in that field?

Yang also addresses the reality of a college degree, and its cost...and the fantasy that keeps so many of our brightest young folk under a yolk of inescapable debt.

Americans, don't listen to T.A. or Di on this. They can't even vote here.

Just check it out.

We're doomed regardless.
Hence, nay-sayers have the same pathetic influence as yay-sayers...probably none.

Keep that in mind.

What's the up-side of T.A. being correct?
What's the downside of me being correct?

Frankly, I vote stanky on this.
Reply
#7
(02-13-2019, 10:48 AM)stanky Wrote:  T.A., I did not give Jill Stein a chance.

Could've fooled me:

(08-07-2016, 06:09 PM)stanky Wrote:  Now that we've forgiven me, dig Jill Stein.

Sure, laugh at me, but i saw something today that was brilliant, on a political chess board.

If she can get to 15% in polls, she'll be in the debates.
If she gets to the debates, she will absolutely crush.

As soon as bernie enorsed hillary, Stein got a huge boost; even a touch of big media coverage. This could keep coming. Fast.
Because her (Bernie's) people, get their news on-line.

If you haven't seen her, she looks perfect. She's a medical doctor; baggage-free. She's very smart; even on stage.

Here's the move i think she's working:
Voting age students in debt.

There's 50 million of them.
The promise of their debts being forgiven could be very potent.



She could happen. She only needs more disgruntled college grads on board. Said cross-section of America is very savvy with web communication. They have time.

If she's in the debates, she will win.

(02-13-2019, 10:48 AM)stanky Wrote:  What matters more, is that he is willing to address the obvious:
In the U.S., 58% of our jobs are threatened by automation.

I've explained time and time again why that's complete nonsense.

Glad to so again if you feel the need for facts & figures. It's not even possible, let alone likely.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#8
Yes, please explain how automation; designed to replace workers, won't do that.

It's a good thing, btw.

Kamala Harris? Christ, that's dark.

There's a new flavor emerging. Ideas are being floated as main-stream that, before Trump, were considered taboo.

Will things change? Probably not. They could get considerably worse.

Could things change for the better? Sure.
Reply
#9
Caught the first hour so far, thanks stanks. Nice to see somebody talking about these things thoughtfully. I'd vote for him.
Ask not what is the problem but, rather, where is the lesion.
Reply
#10
(02-14-2019, 10:55 AM)stanky Wrote:  Yes, please explain how automation; designed to replace workers, won't do that.

Most jobs that can be automated already are.

The problem with automation is that it needs to relate to very specific tasks and the cost is prohibitive. Every tiny new task requires a whole new program. Apple has an enormous crew producing one phone, which is identical to the previous phone, but with some improvements. That's the level of input you'd need to get a robot cleaner to fold the washing.

There's so much hokum told about automation - surprisingly led by a bunch of accountants - that a lot of people genuinely think there's a chance they will lose their jobs.

https://phys.org/news/2015-08-threat-robots-automation-jobs-overstated.html

(02-14-2019, 10:55 AM)stanky Wrote:  Will things change? Probably not. They could get considerably worse.

Could things change for the better? Sure.

The Dems will pick someone who looks liberal by comparison to Trump, which means they'll be well right of NZ/Aus/Can governments.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)