Glad you put those in scare quotes because that is pretty weak. Of the five supporters, two are British and one Venezuelan micro celebrity.
He probably should have shut up but given that he didn’t, he would have been better off not trying to walk it back. His base would likely have preferred he be isolationist and not bash a nominally “socialist” government.
Does that make you special? Still believing the Bernie Bro conspiracy theories about the DNC?
Bernie Sanders’ foreign policy experience is limited to ordering Belgian waffles at the International House of Pancakes.
So like why not Andrew Yang and his “Freedom Dividend”-branded U.B.I.??
I’m serious; I’d have thought “Bernie Bros” would more readily flock to Andrew 'cause he’s all about tech, numbers, and data – and “free money” to the tune of $1K/mo. for life…plus legal weed and mass weed pardons…
Just curious. Really. I’m surprised UBI doesn’t seem to have gotten exponentially more traction (and thus Andrew’s campaign) yet, early though it be.
Could you point to some place that UBI has been a roaring success?
Well, not to get into theology and semantics but that’s what I’d meant by “Scientism” as opposed to “Science.”
Oh, I absolutely agree – this is what “BigT” suggested earlier, above…very reasonable. And I don’t worry about GMOs myself but I do like the idea of a vocal opposition keeping the food industry honest, so to speak!
Yeah I wish the law didn’t have to be so literal-minded; Sweden and Switzerland are jailing and prosecuting, respectively, people who went to fight (as in, against) ISIS…due to violating neutrality!
Yeah, for a situation like this I would probably agree with mandatory inoculations.
Well, why not Andrew Yang, self-proclaimed “numbers guy” who “loves math” and “loves data”??
Not trying to hijack the thread, of course – but he seems like the most scientific-minded person (given the math-love).
Still, I do believe Scientism is a real thing. I’d rather err on the side of said scientism, yes, but I’d much also prefer having some “powerful-enough” opposition, if possible (that is, if it doesn’t involve destroying advanced civilization!)…
Yeah, I was shocked he waded into this…whatever could have been the gain???
I’m almost as shocked as when Obama did them Flint water stunts – what the hell was there to gain there by pretending to drink when it was so obvious that he only wetted his lips for a second??? And he did this twice on two separate occasions for the cameras!!
What’s the cost-benefit analyses here???
Oh come on…might as well have quipped back in MLK, Jr.'s days about where integration’s been a roaring success…for any controversial re-do of the social contract it’s always been possible to fail…
So giving you a thousand bucks a month is similar to stopping government sanctioned racial discrimination.
Uh, yes…?
Both were complete re-imagining of how society works…
If you disagree with UBI in general or Andrew’s specific implementation of it, that’s one thing – but simply to say the equivalent of “it’s never been done before” on its own is not a rebuttal…
See the other thread you brought this up in (and while neither here nor there I see clear gulping in any case) and my post here.
As to Yang. I don’t especially care if someone self-declares as a numbers guy. Science is much more than numbers and explaining science is lots more than numbers. Listened to a bit of him. UNimpressed. For communicating science and what it means in context the best of the current lot may be Mayor Pete. But he is not prepared to be president (let alone win a nomination or general election) in so many other ways and this is far from my only box that I want checked.
I’m sorry, kid, but no they are not fucking similar. One is a moral issue, ie it’s immoral to have government sanctioned racial discrimination. The other is a possible solution to certain economic problems like labor mobility and an overly complex benefits regime.
Yes, thanks for that – I’d gotta stop with this habit of typing stream-of-consciousness…!
Well, yes, clearly you’re unimpressed but I’m curious why…or let me put it another way: what’s “the absolute minimum” you can tolerate in a candidate to vote for him or her?
Not trying to convert you; I’m trying to understand mindsets…mostly the Bernie “die-hards” (I mean I can guess but I’d rather hear it directly) but since we’re conversing, you in particular as well.
Me, I really don’t care about marijuana legalization (in fact, I’m against it) but the U.B.I. is an absolute for me. It’s so imaginative and I know it would actually benefit me directly as opposed to anything else which would be much more indirect and much more limited…
And I’m sorry – but not everyone gives a shit about your p.c. shit, yeah?
This is exactly the problem with p.c. culture – can’t even have a fuckin’ conversation without someone making a big show of things.
You know exactly what I mean but you wanna deliberately miss the forest for the trees (“what! Men and women are not the same!! We’re not all the same!!!”) so you can posture and showboat. Alright, well take your bow and cakewalk outta here now…
Everybody else, the question was and remains, why are “Bernie Bros” not sufficiently attracted to Yang’s Freedom Dividend UBI. I’ve come across some “Marxist” critique of it (I don’t mean “Marxist” as a pejorative at all) it so I’m wondering if maybe that’s a widespread thing or whatever (like maybe Bernie People just feel loyalty to Bernie).
We don’t have to discuss this at all if it’s somehow inappropriate for a Bernie thread (or whatever; I don’t know). Thanks for listening.
PC? I’m merely not an outright racist and figure a good government shouldn’t be either. I am not remotely a SJW so save that shit for some other internet argument.
Would Yang’s "freedom dividend " replace unemployment benefits? Would it surprise you to know unemployment insurance is often higher than a grand a month?
Yeah, you’re not an SJW, you just play one on the internet.
Keep throwing around the race card…it’s not working. No one gives a shit. Even you, obviously.
No, I’ve been on NYS UI; it’s $1,704/mo. at the highest rate.
Yang’s UBI is opt-in, voluntary. He even encourages the rich not to take it. Anyone who’s getting more than $1K/mo. from some combination of the 126 welfare programs in existence can keep their existing arrangement.
The beauty of UBI is that it has nothing to do with unemployment. It’s just there…just for being an adult citizen.
I discussed Yang’s ideas now in his thread. So why his ideas leave me unimpressed I’ll leave to that location.
More broadly:
I want a president who I believe has the skills for the office with a vision for the future that I can sign on to.
Healthcare - a path towards universal coverage. My preference is Medicare expansion and strengthening of Obamacare but I would not cross off someone saying Medicare for all, even as I think it is not realistic.
Taking Climate Change seriously and respecting science. I can accept a variety of approaches.
Taking rapidly divergent wealth inequality seriously as wealth means power. That includes a strong safety net but the net alone is not enough. Have some plan to address the hollowing out of the middle.
Having some appreciation for institutional factors that compound the impacts of wealth inequality on various subpopulations.
Some reason to think they understand international affairs.
Being able to run a team of people well.
Being able to communicate clearly and convincingly without simplistic superficial “answers”. I understand the need for simple messaging to sell though.
Not hateful.
That help?
You can’t possibly be serious. I am not, nor do I play the part, of an SJW. I merely disagreed that a civil rights campaign is similar to some edgy untested benefits program. I didn’t throw any race card. That’s lunacy.
Sounds really stupid, frankly. Istm that your “research” has mainly consisted of “yay, free money!”
One thing to keep in mind as we post, here and elsewhere, is that there are people who are paid to spread dissension and ill-feeling and disinformation. (As well as people who do it for free, out of ideological fervor or mental illness.)
Politico just published a big article that’s well worth a look:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/20/2020-candidates-social-media-attack-1176018
As always when this topic comes up, it’s worth noting that no claim that the SDMB is a primary target is being made. However, spreading ill-will and encouraging resentment and division are skills, and people do need to learn them somewhere. A medium-sized message board is useful for that purpose.
That’s not to say anything about any particular poster, of course. Any one individual could be picking fights for reasons of their own that have no connection with 2020, or with organized efforts to influence the 2020 election.
Getting people likely to vote for a Democrat to feel angry and irritated and targeted, and, therefore, more likely to withdraw from politics—and voting!—altogether, is always considered a worthy use of time for pro-authoritarians, of course.
OH.
I also want a D candidate that I feel has the best chance of beating Trump.
For me that means specifically looking at someone who I think will do well in that “Northern Path” (several ways to do well) and who can help further build competitiveness (and help down ticket even in a loss) across swingy and even somewhat Red states that they do not need to win.
It also means one who is not overly divisive of the various portions of the base.
Checking … yes we are in Sanders’ thread. How does he stack up on my metrics?
Not so sure he has the skills or temperament for the office. To detail, I do not see him building the coalitions of support to get things done and I see no evidence of him as an effective manager of a team (there have been credible allegations that he’s a horrible boss).
I can accept his position on healthcare even if I do not see it as pragmatic and is having the perfect be the enemy of the good. He at least mouths the words right on climate change. Obviously he takes wealth inequality seriously. But he really has no clue about the institutional impacts that hit some worse than others. I think he is clueless on international issues but not someone who is likely to hire good advisors and to listen to them. His answers in general are overly simplistic which sell well but annoy me.
I think he’d have tantrums being attacked by Trump and has never had to really weather that sort of a negative campaign targeted at him to any significant degree. On one hand at least he might play well in the Northern Path states but that is more than offset by how divisive of a figure he is and that his Black turnout will likely be off to levels going back to before Kerry. His thread has lots of activity precisely because he is so polarizing within the party. He also will not help down ticket elsewhere much or build for the future.
Over Trump he gets my support. Over any other choice in the primary field, no. I hope he exits quickly and supports whoever does win hard.