Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 03-13-2019, 10:57 AM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Saying a VAT will make Google pay its fair share is a lie, not a point of view.
What makes you think it is a lie?
  #302  
Old 03-13-2019, 11:24 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,866
Because, as no doubt Yang with his BA in economics knows, a VAT has nothing to do with profits. Google would only pay VAT on its purchases which will be either written down or passed on to the consumer. VAT on Google products will be paid directly by the consumer.
  #303  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:30 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,866
Just to be clear:

Let's say Google is selling birdhouses. You walk in and buy a $50 birdhouse, the cash register rings up at $55. So you have just paid $5 in VAT and Google owes that to the government. But Google bought $10 worth of wood to build it and so gave $11 to their wood supplier, cost + VAT. At the end of the year they get to subtract what they paid in VAT from what they collected and only owe the government $4 VAT on that purchase. Thus, the entire tax is on the end user.
  #304  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:40 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by aesop View Post
You didn’t answer my question from before. What else could he do to convince you he’s serious? And kindly stop using your opinion as the metric for what qualifies as serious. Objectively speaking, what makes any candidate a serious one?

My response to your question, above, is if a man spends 18 months of his life campaigning for president (not just saying that he is but putting in the long hours and the hard miles) but doesn’t attract the attention of pundits because they view his ideas as too far outside the mainstream, that in no way detracts from the seriousness of his effort.

And lo, in the 19th month he has sprang fully clad in seriousness upon the pundit conscious. Mirabile dictu!

Or perhaps he was serious all along and now he’s getting more notice. Which is entirely different.




Now you’re just being disingenuous. You know I used Trump to make a point, not to liken Yang to him. A campaign presents a point of view and attempts to influence people to support it. Pick any plank in any platform and the party on the other side will scream that it distorts the truth. You know, the way you are with VAT/UBI.
What counts as serious?

Sorry you don’t like my answer. I don’t care at all if a person thinks they are serious about running if they have no chance of winning. And I do not think that Yang is serious about thinking he has a chance at doing anything more than possibly getting his ideas discussed.

So serious to me is measured by polling or having some (yup in my opinion, just like being serious is yours) path to winning. That can be having a current position that has a track record of leading to a nomination (which includes generals as well as various elected positions) or enough money that they can buy attention, or enough celebrity that they will get it.

No not disingenuous. Yang is selling bills of goods like Trump does. Worse because he is smart enough to know he is saying things that are false. You endorse that behavior.

I have heard here that he is using the regressive distribution to sell giving money to those who need it. My impression increasingly is that the goal is the regressive distribution and undercutting safety nets with the verbiage otherwise to sell a few progressives on it. YMMV.
__________________
Oy.

Last edited by DSeid; 03-13-2019 at 01:41 PM.
  #305  
Old 03-13-2019, 04:32 PM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Because, as no doubt Yang with his BA in economics knows, a VAT has nothing to do with profits. Google would only pay VAT on its purchases which will be either written down or passed on to the consumer. VAT on Google products will be paid directly by the consumer.

I was hoping you would clarify this in a subsequent post because it didn’t make a lot of sense to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Just to be clear:

Let's say Google is selling birdhouses. You walk in and buy a $50 birdhouse, the cash register rings up at $55. So you have just paid $5 in VAT and Google owes that to the government. But Google bought $10 worth of wood to build it and so gave $11 to their wood supplier, cost + VAT. At the end of the year they get to subtract what they paid in VAT from what they collected and only owe the government $4 VAT on that purchase. Thus, the entire tax is on the end user.

Sorry, friend, that was not the clarification I was hoping for. Your point seems to be that the end user pays a higher price at the end due to VAT. You are right. That is true. That’s how it is in the U.K., the end price is 20% higher than it would be without a VAT. No argument. The tax was actually collected at each point along the value chain but the end user pays more than he would with no VAT, no question.

The tradeoff for VAT and those higher prices is free healthcare for everybody. Does that put it into context for you? The pizza at the restaurant that used to cost £10 now costs £12. But if you get run over by a bus on the way home from the restaurant, your hospital stay, your doctor consultations and your medicine are free. In the US the pizza at the restaurant costs $10 and you only pay 50 cents in sales tax, but after the bus accident you owe $250,000 for the hospital stay.

I don’t know the details of Yang's VAT proposal but in the U.K. VAT is not applied to all goods and services and not applied uniformly to those that are in scope. Most groceries, all children’s clothing and a lot of other things are exempt from VAT. Many other things have sharply reduced VAT - like 5% vs. the standard 20%. VAT is more heavily weighted on discretionary than nondiscretionary spending. So the idea that the poor are disproportionately impacted is quite overstated. A lot of their spending is exactly what it would be without a VAT. And everybody gets free healthcare.

Substitute UBI for free healthcare and that’s what Andrew Yang is proposing to do. That is the scale of the benefit he hopes to bring to the US. (And he’s also proposing Medicare for All, but let’s not confuse the issue.) Your pizza down at the restaurant that used to cost $10 is now going to cost $11. In exchange you get $1,000 per month. As long as you spend less than $10,000 per month, you’re going to have some UBI money left over.

As for how we get a Google to pay for it? It depends on what’s in scope. I am speculating here, ok? I would expect as a minimum they would have to pay VAT on all physical plant & equipment purchases and refreshes, any time they make a substantial business investment, build and equip a data centre, cloud computing, AI, automation bots, outsourcing of services, etc. I’m not up on how their ad revenue model works but if VAT applies there it will be captured as well. In re: their data centres - if Uber is renting computing resources from Google they will pay VAT. Same with Amazon, Facebook, Apple and on down the tech giant line. There are lots of potential places to take a tax bite from revenue generating behemoths that currently pay far less tax on a % basis than you or I. Yes, there are many details to be worked out, and many successful implementations of VAT around the globe to learn from.
  #306  
Old 03-13-2019, 04:44 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,866
Dude, I live in Canada. We had universal healthcare before we instituted our VAT (called Goods and Services Tax).

And you are quite clearly and verbosely dodging the point. You asked me how it was a lie and I told you.

Yang's estimate of $800B in tax revenue implies a VAT that doesn't exempt household staples like in the UK and Canada.

As my birdhouse example inferred, VAT taxes on Google ads would be paid by advertisers, not Google.

Last edited by CarnalK; 03-13-2019 at 04:46 PM.
  #307  
Old 03-13-2019, 04:53 PM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Dude, I live in Canada. We had universal healthcare before we instituted our VAT (called Goods and Services Tax).

And you are quite clearly and verbosely dodging the point. You asked me how it was a lie and I told you.

Yang's estimate of $800B in tax revenue implies a VAT that doesn't exempt household staples like in the UK and Canada.

As my birdhouse example implied, VAT taxes on Google ads would be paid by advertisers, not Google.

I thought I pointed out a few examples of tax opportunities at Google and the tech industry. Perhaps you missed them? Also, I missed the place where he said household staples are included in VAT. Can you point it out?
  #308  
Old 03-13-2019, 05:07 PM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
What counts as serious?

Sorry you don’t like my answer. I don’t care at all if a person thinks they are serious about running if they have no chance of winning. And I do not think that Yang is serious about thinking he has a chance at doing anything more than possibly getting his ideas discussed.

So serious to me is measured by polling or having some (yup in my opinion, just like being serious is yours) path to winning. That can be having a current position that has a track record of leading to a nomination (which includes generals as well as various elected positions) or enough money that they can buy attention, or enough celebrity that they will get it.

No not disingenuous. Yang is selling bills of goods like Trump does. Worse because he is smart enough to know he is saying things that are false. You endorse that behavior.

I have heard here that he is using the regressive distribution to sell giving money to those who need it. My impression increasingly is that the goal is the regressive distribution and undercutting safety nets with the verbiage otherwise to sell a few progressives on it. YMMV.

Yep, you’re onto him. You’ve uncovered Yang's nefarious plan to give everyone $1,000 per month to enjoy a better life. You win this round, DSeid, but he’ll be back, and then you’ll see!!

Also, I may be misreading you, but despite what you wrote, you don’t sound the least bit sorry. You wouldn’t be stating things that are false, would you? Because you strike me as someone smart enough to know when he is saying things that are false. And I know you don’t condone such behaviour.

I think we’re done here. Good luck to your candidate, may we get a D in the White House and peace be with you.
  #309  
Old 03-13-2019, 05:13 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,866
You asked me how "a VAT will make Google pay its fair share" was a lie. I told you how Google wouldn't pay extra taxes with a VAT.

Back a few pages DSeid noted that a CBO study concluded that a 5% VAT, that did not exempt food, would yield $252B. I extrapolate from there that his $800B would also require not exempting food.
  #310  
Old 03-13-2019, 05:16 PM
aesop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You asked me how "a VAT will make Google pay its fair share" was a lie. I told you how Google wouldn't pay extra taxes with a VAT.

Back a few pages DSeid noted that a CBO study concluded that a 5% VAT, that did not exempt food, would yield $252B. I extrapolate from there that his $800B would also require not exempting food.

Your extrapolation skills are surpassed only by your skill at elucidating how VAT works.

We, too, are done. Peace.
  #311  
Old 03-13-2019, 05:26 PM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,265
Reading through (part of) this very long thread confirms my belief that Andrew Yang is the Ron Paul of the 2020 Democratic primaries—loved, even venerated, by a few, and ignored by the many.

Either Yang or Tulsi Gabbard, anyway.
  #312  
Old 03-13-2019, 05:29 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,522
And peace to you as well!
  #313  
Old 03-13-2019, 05:32 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,866
I explained the VAT pretty well I thought. Here's another source if you need it explained differently:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/valueaddedtax.asp
  #314  
Old 03-14-2019, 07:23 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,825
I don't like Yang's main platform item, but I do like the man. I would certainly support him over Donald Trump without reservation.
  #315  
Old 03-14-2019, 08:33 AM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,086
Another Nate Silver tweet:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate Silver
Yang and Buttigieg getting roughly as much Google search traffic as alleged "frontrunners" Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders over the past 24 hours.
which is retweeted by Philip K. Howard who adds:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip K. Howard
.@AndrewYangVFA is an original thinker, and understands that fixing Washington requires structural changes, not just new leaders.
There's a change.org petition someone started to get Yang a CNN town hall. Someone else on twitter wrote a tweet to Jim Acosta. He claims to have heard from him, but so far, no proof. It might be a joke account. It would be nice to see Yang in a CNN town hall to compare with the others though.

I'm enjoying the energy going on there and some of it is pretty funny. I'm not sure if that's good or bad at this point. Here's a tweet about robots in Walmart. Just after I wrote that, I stumbled on some really gross inappropriate stuff in those threads. Will they have to clean that stuff up? I don't know. I'm not a big Twitter follower.

The NY Times has a blurb on him. I wondered why he was on the bottom. It's alphabetical. Then I wondered why it was so tangential. But they all are.

Quote:
ANDREW YANG - The entrepreneur launched his long-shot candidacy back in November 2017 around a single issue: the future of work in a post-industrial society and the threat that automation will eliminate millions of jobs. To deal with that challenge, Yang has proposed a Universal Basic Income of $1,000 a month for every American over the age of 18. Yang, 44, has no experience in politics and ran a series of startups before launching a nonprofit that helps aspiring entrepreneurs create jobs.
Vice has a piece that was described as positive. It didn't seem all that positive to me.

Quote:
Yang’s platform has its critics, even among progressives. UBI is apparently too out-there for Bernie Sanders, who tends to hem and haw when asked whether he supports it. And while Hillary Clinton flirted with the idea, she ultimately considered it economically infeasible. No other candidate for 2020 has embraced UBI, though many Democrats back a plan to give cash to working-class families. Some leftists have argued that a jobs guarantee—like the one contained in the Green New Deal—is preferable to giving people money for nothing. But Yang worries that creating “a new underclass of government employees who are doing make-work” could be, at worst, “a dystopian nightmare.” Chabot, like Yang, is worried about the proliferation of “bullshit jobs.” And Almaz Zelleke, a political science professor at NYU Shanghai, said that the effects of a jobs guarantee wouldn’t be as sweeping as for UBI.
I'd like to see more discussion from the Progressives about how guaranteed jobs compares to UBI.

Vox has a pretty negative article about Yang. Ezra Klein questioned Yang's UBI plan in his interview linked in the beginning of this thread. This article adds to the negativity. They got most of their points from "Jeremiah Johnson, host of The Neoliberal Podcast and a Yang skeptic" Oddly, Ezra Klein mentioned in the interview that his wife was writing a book on UBI. Her book makes UBI sound like a panacea.

Give People Money: How a Universal Basic Income Would End Poverty, Revolutionize Work, and Remake the World by Annie Lowrey (Ezra Klein's wife)

Even Yang isn't that positive on it. He admits that it's just a start to deal with the structural problems in the economy.
  #316  
Old 03-14-2019, 08:37 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,825
UBI is a fine idea as a replacement for the welfare state. As an add-on it's just silly. Jobs guarantee is an even better replacement for the welfare state.
  #317  
Old 03-15-2019, 01:45 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,058
Well, a Monmouth University poll from earlier this month has him at 1%, beating out Gillebrand and Inslee, among others. This could be just the break the Yang campaign has been waiting for!
  #318  
Old 03-15-2019, 06:21 AM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,086
Yang had a satire piece done on him on Trevor Noah. (starts at minute 8:20) It's a mocking piece, but Yang seems pretty pleased with his participation in it.

It reminds me of a gif someone put up about him laughing at the YangGang memes. Andrew catches up on Yang Gang memes from here.

More silliness. Youtube of Yang on Fung Bros' channel. He's eating Taiwanese food and playing basketball. He speaks about UBI while eating and playing basketball back in Nov. 2018.


Some positive tweets.

Peter Daou, former Clinton and Kerry advisor on digital media

Quote:
I haven't backed any candidate this cycle yet, there are so many good ones. Though I'll repeat: @AndrewYangVFA deserves a more serious look. If I'm not mistaken, he's the only one advocating a #UniversalBasicIncome and talking in great depth about economic displacement.
Eric Weinstein, managing director at Thiel Capital

Quote:
“This economy is making liars of us all.”

My model of the universal corruption of our institutional experts via “Embedded Growth Obligations” (or E.G.O.s) is finally getting a political hearing. This, after decades of being ignored.

Thanks to Andrew Yang for taking a risk.
Somewhat related, a Vox piece on the debate on the future of work and what will happen in the robot economy. The economists say that in the past, work has always reinvented itself when one industry went obsolete, so there's no reason to think that this time will be different. The economists and futurist/tech people disagree on that. Some tech people think that this is different, that the pace grows exponentially. The economists counter that if that were the case, the productivity gains should be evident in the data, and it's not. What is evident in the data is that wealth inequality has widened immensely. Both sides agree that something needs to be done about that, and the government has the power to do it.

I'm not sure I understand the productivity argument. If robots are taking human jobs, 1 robot replaces multiple human jobs. If 1 robot replaced 1 human, then maybe productivity would be evident. But like Yang notes in his human-centered capitalism model, is that measuring the right side of that equation?
  #319  
Old 03-15-2019, 08:35 AM
Monocracy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 545
PredictIt finally put Yang on their Democratic Nomination market a couple days ago. He debuted at about 10 cents! I thought it was just his hardcore supporters driving the price up at the "IPO", but he has kept that price point since then. He's currently ranked 5th among the nominees.

Do the gamblers on PredictIt know something we don't, or is he ridiculously overpriced?
  #320  
Old 03-15-2019, 08:38 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
UBI is a fine idea as a replacement for the welfare state. ...
I'm not getting why you don't like the way he's doing it.

He is proposing doing that as much as is reasonably possible in that the total of benefits plus "freedom dividend" will equal the UBI with the presumption that many will take it all as "freedom dividend" - leading to a dramatic contraction of the welfare state. (And that includes benefits that most of the lower half currently get.) That dramatic contraction of the welfare state, from food stamps to disability and much more, is a key aspect of his plan.

The plan also creates substantial new (regressive) taxes on those who currently receive benefits and are in the lower income brackets.

I would have thought this would be something you would have liked Addie.
  #321  
Old 03-15-2019, 10:07 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,825
I do like UBI as a future solution to structural unemployment caused by automation. That being said, I do like Andrew Yang.

As for his chances, we're in a new age that was hinted at as early as the 2012 elections when Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann rose to the top of the polls briefly and Ben Carson's brief run at the top in 2016, that social media can turn unknowns into top tier contenders. It's just a matter of whether they can handle the limelight once they get there. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if a good debate performance made Yang or Buttigieg contenders.

Last edited by adaher; 03-15-2019 at 10:09 PM.
  #322  
Old 03-16-2019, 06:13 AM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monocracy View Post
Do the gamblers on PredictIt know something we don't, or is he ridiculously overpriced?
Another betting place has him ranked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Yang tweet
Apparently I am the 8th most likely person to be the next President of the United States https://m.sfgate.com/politics/articl...-13686865.phpm … tell my wife.
Quote:
The biggest mover in recent weeks has been entrepreneur Andrew Yang, a lesser-known candidate in the Democratic primaries who is proposing a universal basic income of $1,000 for every American adult. Yang was not even on the leaderboard until this week, and now has +3000 odds of becoming the next president of the United States.
sfgate

Nice article in the Washington Post. Andrew Yang is running for president. Haven’t heard of him? You will soon. Someone did some nice research for that article. Most of the media I've linked in this thread are linked in that article, including the Fung Bros. interview. It's a pretty comprehensive condensed view of the recent events with the campaign.

Nice crowd at a San Francisco rally, estimated to be about a thousand people. At the Yang Rally in San Francisco!!! #yangGang is out! Over 1K people!!

An interview
[youtube] at a yacht club in Iowa city. In this, he says he's for the spirit of $15/hr min. wage, but he says that there are small businesses that wouldn't hire someone if they raised the min. wage, and some places would automate faster. I don't know if I buy this. He says that he's more for the freedom dividend, and after it's implemented, he would support the states to increase the minimum wage if they chose. His answer about universal health care was odd. His website says he's for Medicare for all or another universal health care. In this, he says he's for a public option with a copay so the hypochondriacs don't abuse it. That's a weird reason to make everyone have copays.

One of the Progressives on youtube is disappointed that Yang is not following the college tuition for all platform. He says that a college education is a good in itself regardless of whether it helps people get a job. I'm conflicted about it. Having an educated population has always been a goal. But education is getting more narrowly defined, and higher education is getting to be more of a status symbol than a sign that the people are getting more ready to tackle society's bigger problems.

There is an OP with a letter supposedly posted by Yang. I don't know the usernames, so I don't know if it's legit. It looks legit. In the letter, he says that someone proposed that he think about legalizing opiates. He says that he researched it, and is now leaning toward legalizing them to help people get the treatment that they need. He didn't commit to anything. He was just sharing thoughts, it looked like. He talks about his busy week in Iowa and his upcoming rally in SF.

Quote:
This week helped. We had events across the state in Mason City, Waukon, Cedar Falls, Waterloo, Boone, Clive, Des Moines, Marshalltown, Cedar Rapids, and Iowa City. The crowds were a lot bigger than they were the last time I was in the state:
Things are still moving at a really rapid pace with his campaign.
  #323  
Old 03-16-2019, 10:52 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 8,312
Pardon if I sound like a broken record, but since we're talking about predictit and betting markets, I don't think Yang can win, but I think Yang can absolutely influence the democratic debate. I think that his potential contribution is that he can maybe get independent voters to stop obsessing over immigration and focusing more on automation. It's displacement that represents the greatest threat to the so-called 'white working class' - the 40 and 50-something WWC to be more specific.
  #324  
Old 03-16-2019, 11:56 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo View Post
Things are still moving at a really rapid pace with his campaign.
Might I suggest that it feels that way to you because you seem to be following it at a very granular level. You're reporting here when someone starts a thread on reddit or a betting site adds him. These are not campaign events.
  #325  
Old 03-17-2019, 07:24 AM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Might I suggest that it feels that way to you because you seem to be following it at a very granular level. You're reporting here when someone starts a thread on reddit or a betting site adds him. These are not campaign events.
Yes, and it's relative. I've been watching Yang's campaign since last year. Last year, it wasn't moving very much. Compared to that, it's moving rapidly. Compared to Bernie Sanders' campaign getting 1M volunteers within days, there's no comparison.

I watched AOC's campaign before people were paying attention too. When no one was paying attention, it moved very slowly. But it was still fun to watch.
  #326  
Old 03-17-2019, 10:14 AM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Might I suggest that it feels that way to you because you seem to be following it at a very granular level. You're reporting here when someone starts a thread on reddit or a betting site adds him. These are not campaign events.
Yes, and it has the feel of something organized--as if a group of Yang supporters out there has a twitter feed or subreddit or email list or some such which gives specific recommendations to followers to make the candidate appear to be catching fire. "If you have a few spare minutes, google Yang a dozen times--every google attempt adds to the buzz." "Hey, howzabout tweeting MSNBC and telling them that they really need to start talking about Yang--here are some quick talking points, and here's where you send it." "Spread the word on social media that CNN's dropping the ball by not giving Yang equal time." I mentioned the similarity to Ron Paul earlier--his campaign did the same kind of stuff, though lower tech (writing letters to newspaper editors, etc.).

My favorite example of this was in the runup to 2016, when fivethirtyeight introduced their endorsement tracker. I used to read the comments, the more fool me, but hey...anyway, every couple of days early in the process you'd get a Sanders supporter pointing out that the site was unfairly downgrading Bernie, that he actually had a TON of endorsements, and then would proceed to list a bunch of state legislators, nearly all from New Hampshire and Vermont. Someone would then point out that fivethirtyeight was excluding state legislative endorsements, you didn;t even have to read the fine print for that, it was right there in the explanation of what they were doing; and then a day or two later you'd get another commenter with the same basic complaint and the identical list. It was very clear that some group was orchestrating the complaints. Not exactly subtle, but oh well.
  #327  
Old Yesterday, 09:33 AM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 208
Andrew Yang = John Connors

Note to Andrew Yang: If you see Arnold Schwarzenegger, run.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017