Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Phdtobe, Mar 19, 2019.
He makes a point today:
I'd add that STEM education has something to offer every adult… as part of the liberal arts.
I am shrill for Andrew Yang. He won the last debate on CNN. It looks like in America, you can dismiss an idea by slapping a socialist label on it. As Yang said it is neither left nor right but forward. Giving people back their money seems like less government to me. Exactly, the original definition of being on the right.
Why? What is it about Yang that appeals to you? Can you make a persuasive argument for him?
The argument of this thread seems to be that Yang should appeal to Trump voters so as to wean them off "racism" and "xenophobia". Which implies that the idea of the United States controlling its own borders is "racist" and "xenophobic". Suggesting that foreigners be allowed to treat US immigration law as merely optional, while native born Americans are expected to scrupulously obey tax, environmental, labor, health and safety, criminal and civil rights laws. Unless Yang addresses that seeming contradiction in democratic party ideology (seemingly shared by all democrats), he will have trouble appealing to the "deplorables", "racists" and "xenophobes" like me.
Hard to say, though I doubt it. I didn't watch the debates and know from experience that when the media tell you who won, it's almost always spin, a reflection of the spinners' own ideologies and who they want their audience to believe just won. In real life, some voters weight composure and body language higher than policies. The voters who listen to ideas will weight particular issues more highly then other voters might weight them.
Well, if the idea is to basically destroy the market system, threatening to overturn democracy and effectively installing a government-run totalitarianism in its wake, somebody probably should say something. Yang is talking about fundamentally changing America into... something else.
History isn't a one-dimensional line with an arrowhead pointing towards towards some pre-determined destination called "progress". Humanity's only choice isn't to "advance forward" towards a utopian future or cling to the dark and hellish past. History isn't Christian eschatology rewritten, the inevitably coming Kingdom of God (except with God removed).
In real life the future holds almost infinite possibilities, a multitude of ways that things might turn out. Much of it will be fortuitous and unpredictable, but some of it we can control. Some of those futures might be wonderful and desirable, others not so much, some version of Orwell's 1984 or maybe Mad Max. So it isn't a question of whether to push "forward". Time takes care of that all by itself, at the inexorable speed of one hour per hour. The question is push forward how, towards what?
I'm reminded of Barack Obama's campaign slogan: Change!, without any explanation of what kind of change it was. Well, Donald Trump certainly represents change. (But no! That's isn't what we meant!!)
Except that in Yang's scheme, none of the proles would be earning that money by behaving in ways that are of value to other people. (Going to work, producing goods and services that other people freely choose to pay for.) Instead, their incomes would become a government entitlement regardless of how they behave. I hope that others can see how corrosive that would be to the basic psychological foundations of society.
Yang may be aware of that problem, or at least had somebody bring it to his attention. So he's reportedly proposed to replace American currency (at least for some purposes) with a digital social-credit system. The idea there seems to be that people will receive more than their allotted $1000/month if they do something of social value. Except that now it isn't countless individual people in the aggregate deciding for themselves what they personally want and are willing to pay for. Instead it's some government office full of party mandarins who decide what's good for everyone else. Assuming the democratic party is controlling those levers, we know that all manner of political activists would receive the social credits while those who disagree with them either receive nothing or receive debits.
Is that really democracy? Is it a system that he expects will win him Trump voters?? It looks like the typical democratic party promise of free stuff, directed not just at minorities but at the whole (former) Middle Class. But Trump supporters don't want America transformed into a giant public housing project, they don't want to give up their liberty and national identity in exchange for free doggie treats. They want to preserve the Middle Class, not so long ago the heart and soul of mainstream America. They want to preserve America's industrial strength, the basis of its geopolitical power. Trump voters don't all want to be forced downwards into a new teeming lower class dependent on and closely managed by the government. That's a vision that's scarily close to totalitarianism.
In American democracy, it's the people who are supposed to be sovereign. Not the State. Especially a state seemingly intent on increasing its own power as it manages America's decline to third-world status.
Stopped trying to read after this rotten phrase.
I think every country should control its border. I have zero issues against it. The new world is an interesting place. Other than natives, who were the first to arrived and claimed ownership, everyone else came from somewhere else. Our heritage in the new world is about a boat stop. It is laughable in the Caribbean about islands trying to keep out citizens from other islands travelings and migrating to other islands. I am a black person who understands white nationalism in Europe.
Trump has disappointed me because I expected more. I am one of those few blacks who don’t buy the democrat message. I am no longer a voter in Canada. Voting for me is a myth and a waste of time. Other people can do it for me if my vote has a value at a price.There should be proxy votes where someone else can vote for me.
Yang is an interesting politician. I love to listen to his ideas because he is solution-oriented. Will he be a decent president? Who knows-i doubt it-after all he is a politician.
Two mass shooting in the USA within less than 24 hours. If there is a politician who can solve this problem then I can rethink voting.
Elon Musk endorsed Andrew Yang’s ideas
Considering all of Musk's businesses rely on government largesse, and that Yang's entire platform consists of ways to make the federal government bigger, I suppose that's no surprise.
The one thing that befuddles me about Yang's UBI proposal... is that currently we are near record low unemployment. While the future may be different, there doesn't appear to be a current need to implement a UBI.
Unemployment statistics are BS, though, designed not to count people who have given up, etc.
Besides, 8.5 million Americans are on disability, it's almost a backdoor UBI in some parts of the country.
Not disagreeing, workforce engagement or participation is a far more critical figure. However, in the context of a concern over automation taking away jobs, I believe the unemployment statistic is relevant.
Apparently almost a trillion dollars is already being given Americans with strings attached. A UBI of $1000 a month with no strings attached is just under 3 trillion dollars. I will spend my $12k on education if Canada had one.
The issue is that STEM fields tend to pay significantly more, and are generally the foundation of organizations that employ the others, and we are in short supply. The argument is that if we increase those graduates, we raise the tide for everyone, like a force multiplier. That being said, everyone thinks they’re STEM now.
Separate names with a comma.