The Andrew Yang Presidential Campaign thread

[iiandyiiii]

@DavidChou

I don’t see how you make that argument, since clearly all the preceding “experience in public policy and politics” is what got Trump elected!!

That’s not what I said – I said “being president”, not being elected president. Trump has been truly incompetent and awful at being president, and a big chunk of that awfulness is due to his lack of experience in public policy and politics in general. While Yang would probably be a lot better than Trump, his lack of experience would probably cause very significant problems in a wide variety of areas were he elected, just as it has Trump.

So would you support Andrew on the ideas alone? Is your fear simply that he’ll get chewed up by the opposition (D & R both) like Obama??

I might support his ideas, and if I liked them, I’d advocate that those ideas be put into place. But I think lacking any political experience is such a huge negative in terms of the actual day-to-day job of being president, I’d be very unlikely to support Yang over most of the other candidates who have several years of elected experience in state/federal office.

Does holding an Economics degree from Brown, a JD from Columbia Law where he learned about taxes and loopholes and edited the law review, starting up a successful company that he sold for millions, then starting up a successful non-profit dedicated to entrepreneurship where he saw the innards of our tech apocalypse not qualify as “experience” better than pandering to fickle voters and activist-agitators???

Not in terms of the actual job of being president, IMO. “Being a smart guy” is not even close to enough to be a good president, IMO.

Who do you currently prefer (say, Top Two) and why?
Much obliged!

I’m leaning towards Amy Klobuchar, but I’m not even close to a final decision yet. At this point I believe she might have the best combination of electability, good ideas, and valuable experience. But I might change my mind.

[Ryan_Liam]

@CarnalK

And has it occurred to you that maybe a whole lot of people don’t have that much potential and all UBI will do for them is free them from the labor market? I mean seriously, what treasure to humanity do you think await when people have a free grand per month?

That’s the point, UBI is premised on the fact the need for labour will shrink due to ever increasing automation, and the inability to train or re-skill all those people thrown out of a job who are middle aged or from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Also, yeah there will be people who will do nothing, but people do that already on welfare, but you know what? That’s a small percentage of recipients, and alot of people would put time and effort into enhancing their local communities and family lives.

And you clearly don’t get how idiotic it is to think that’s equivalent to a raise or bonus. A $12k raise is not going to give you $12k for the rest of your damn life after retirement.

You don’t get it after you are 64, but you’d of known that because you bothered to read his policy proposals, right?

As for your scoffing at the opt-in, it’s in relation to either being a recipient of welfare or UBI, you can have one but not the other.

[aesop]

@Ryan_Liam

That’s the point, UBI is premised on the fact the need for labour will shrink due to ever increasing automation, and the inability to train or re-skill all those people thrown out of a job who are middle aged or from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Also, yeah there will be people who will do nothing, but people do that already on welfare, but you know what? That’s a small percentage of recipients, and alot of people would put time and effort into enhancing their local communities and family lives.

You don’t get it after you are 64, but you’d of known that because you bothered to read his policy proposals, right?

As for your scoffing at the opt-in, it’s in relation to either being a recipient of welfare or UBI, you can have one but not the other.

Yang’s original formation capped UBI at age 64 but he has changed that. Now there is no upper age limit. Shrewd move on his part not to alienate one of the largest and most reliable voting blocks in the country!

And for all the naysayers, he does a pretty good job of explaining how UBI will supplant a lot of current programs with VAT used to make up the balance of funds needed. We’re already spending most of this money. It’s not about topping up existing welfare programs but replacing them where it makes sense. Think of how much admin could be eliminated if we did away with the majority of welfare programs and just handed people cash to spend as they see fit.

[DavidChou]

@iiandyiiii

That’s not what I said – I said “being president”, not being elected president.

Yeah, no, I meant that all that preceding experience has lead to Trump, so, so much for experience!

IOW, all that experience lead to the disasters that lead to Trump. Yeah sure they “did some good” and “did the best they could” but the bottom line is that the economics and racial politicking (and I know these aren’t solely the Presidents’ fault) got so screwed up that we would up with Trump.

@iiandyiiii

While Yang would probably be a lot better than Trump, his lack of experience would probably cause very significant problems in a wide variety of areas were he elected, just as it has Trump.

So this is what I’d actually like to discuss and was doing research on…can you detail what or how exactly you believe Andrew could fuck things up (and which things)??

@iiandyiiii

I might support his ideas, and if I liked them, I’d advocate that those ideas be put into place. But I think lacking any political experience is such a huge negative in terms of the actual day-to-day job of being president, I’d be very unlikely to support Yang over most of the other candidates who have several years of elected experience in state/federal office.

So you’re not even gonna look a platform – there must be political experience before proceeding??

Interesting…you don’t work in H.R. by any chance, do you?

In addition to my initial statements on political experience, I’d like to respectfully remind you that the Framers of the Constitution specifically left out any such requirement for the Office of President. That’s really important, I think, because it provides for the chance to radically rethinking of what politics ought to be concerned about.

@iiandyiiii

I’m leaning towards Amy Klobuchar, but I’m not even close to a final decision yet. At this point I believe she might have the best combination of electability, good ideas, and valuable experience. But I might change my mind.

Thanks – if you’d like to discuss her further, I’d love to hear it at https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=871453 (because moderator hijacking, as you know)!

[DavidChou]

@Ryan_Liam

You don’t get it after you are 64, but you’d of known that because you bothered to read his policy proposals, right?

So part of the reason I’ve been doing research and found this place is 'cause some of his proposals are currently vague or even contradictory, one example of the former being whether UBI would be paid to eligible citizens residing overseas, especially if indefinitely or permanently, and one example of the latter being this issue of age eligibility: Andrew’s own site contains a discrepancy!!

His about-me page (“Andrew’s Story”) still lists this number of 64 but the about-UBI pGE (“What Is UBI?”) simply states “over 18” (under the “Who would get…” heading). I e-mailed about this over the weekend but the copy remains discrepant as ever.

I’d bet “over 18” and not only until 64 because there’s a recent video of him talking to Iowans at a cafe where he specifically stated that his policy’s been updated to lifetime eligibility (over 18) due to feedback. However, the Guardian profile of him dated just yesterday still contains that “until 64” nonsense!

So I don’t know if Andrew’s staff is too busy or don’t care or what but, yeah, I wish he would speak to the various nuances more. Like it was only with yesterday’s Fox News interview that I learned that his Freedom Dividend would not be taxed – but still would be counted as income during annual filing and thus possibly push one into a higher bracket.

I’d love to compile an Andrew Yang UBI Fact Sheet at some point but it’s weird one doesn’t already exist dealing pretty basic nuances like those!

[iiandyiiii]

@DavidChou

Yeah, no, I meant that all that preceding experience has lead to Trump, so, so much for experience!

IOW, all that experience lead to the disasters that lead to Trump. Yeah sure they “did some good” and “did the best they could” but the bottom line is that the economics and racial politicking (and I know these aren’t solely the Presidents’ fault) got so screwed up that we would up with Trump.

If you’re saying that having experienced public servants in the White House caused Trump to be elected, then that’s a pretty nonsensical assertion, IMO. The ones responsible for Trump’s election are those that supported and voted for him, and to a lesser extent, those that didn’t vote.

So this is what I’d actually like to discuss and was doing research on…can you detail what or how exactly you believe Andrew could fuck things up (and which things)??

By not understanding the many complexities of how government functions. Which is one of the major ways Trump is failing. If you don’t understand how relevant experience can be beneficial in an extremely complex organization like the US government, than I’m not sure how to explain it to you.

So you’re not even gonna look a platform – there must be political experience before proceeding??

Interesting…you don’t work in H.R. by any chance, do you?

In addition to my initial statements on political experience, I’d like to respectfully remind you that the Framers of the Constitution specifically left out any such requirement for the Office of President. That’s really important, I think, because it provides for the chance to radically rethinking of what politics ought to be concerned about.

I’ll look at his platform, but his lack of relevant experience is such a huge negative IMO that there’s unlikely to be anything in his platform that could make up for it as compared to most other Democrats with experience.

[DavidChou]

@aesop

Yang’s original formation capped UBI at age 64 but he has changed that. Now there is no upper age limit. Shrewd move on his part not to alienate one of the largest and most reliable voting blocks in the country!

And for all the naysayers, he does a pretty good job of explaining how UBI will supplant a lot of current programs with VAT used to make up the balance of funds needed. We’re already spending most of this money. It’s not about topping up existing welfare programs but replacing them where it makes sense. Think of how much admin could be eliminated if we did away with the majority of welfare programs and just handed people cash to spend as they see fit.

Yeah, so that’s another thing: I get the sense that Andrew, in fighting for name recognition, doesn’t want to get too detailed right now for fear that it’ll turn off different demographics unnecessarily…for example:

Tech VAT (he should really call it a Tech VAT instead of just VAT which makes it sound like we will all pay more taxes on every purchase) – what else would be taxed besides robo-truck mileage and Google searches? Presumably automated phone attendants?? How about today’s automated checkout registers? Future sex dolls???

Freedom Dividend (it’s such a great name): would it be paid to expats, temporary or permanent? Now that ex-prisoners are starting to get the right to vote, what will happen to Andrew’s statement that current prisoners would forfeit their monthly UBI while incarcerated?? Also, many are incarcerated due to not being able to afford bail, even though they haven’t yet had a trial – what about them? Will their UBI also be forfeited, or applied to their commissary, or left in the bank account until possible conviction??

Now I don’t fault him for not having such details available, exactly – I just wish that they were.

[Bone]

@DavidChou

Inflationary pressure will be non-existent to negligible and temporary because consumables markets are very mature (i.e., highly efficient). This means that toilet paper, smartphones, clothing, software, etc. are easily scaled up to meet even massively increased demand, and it’s these kinds of things that will wind up being bought.

Price sensitivity and competition will also keep down inflation because people will still want the most bang for their bucks and businesses will still need to compete for those dollars.

Everyone’s incomes are rising at the same exact rate – $1K/mo. – so this should further keep a lid on inflation because people are richer than themselves, not each other, so it’s not like someone’s gonna buy up all the toilet paper in town or whatever.

All of this makes me think you don’t understand what inflation actually is. In what way will giving people $12K/year not cause inflation…price sensitivity and competition? That makes zero sense. It’s like asking about monetary policy and getting a response that says brown bears are plentiful in Alaska.

@DavidChou

You do realize that Andrew graduated from Brown University with an economics degree, right? And is a successful entrepreneur so he knows business basics, at least?? And graduated from Columbia Law School, where he was an editor on the law review and learned corporate law – so he definitely knows tax loopholes.

This is word salad. Because he was an editor on the law review, he definitely knows tax loopholes? Wut? Even if this were true, you’ve done nothing to show how it’s relevant in any way. But it’s not true. Neither is this:

@DavidChou

They don’t pay taxes as it is.

That’s not true either. Some companies with 0 or negative net income will pay no income tax, but that’s not the same thing, and people don’t need to go to Brown University to know that paying income tax only on income is a pretty straightforward concept - it’s actually in the name.

@DavidChou

A Tech VAT is directly tied to data such as robo-truck miles and Google searches. Corporate executives can’t hide those because then they’d have to say that business went down on their watch!

More word salad. You say a “tech VAT” and then talk as if it would apply to Google searches. Unless you’re using these terms in some non-standard way, this makes zero sense. Feel free to diagram out how a VAT would apply to a google search.

@DavidChou

This guy can really win. …

Andrew Yang will not win. He *can *win, in the same way the molecules in my hand can align and allow me to phase through my table.

[aesop]

@iiandyiiii

If you’re saying that having experienced public servants in the White House caused Trump to be elected, then that’s a pretty nonsensical assertion, IMO. The ones responsible for Trump’s election are those that supported and voted for him, and to a lesser extent, those that didn’t vote.

By not understanding the many complexities of how government functions. Which is one of the major ways Trump is failing. If you don’t understand how relevant experience can be beneficial in an extremely complex organization like the US government, than I’m not sure how to explain it to you.

I’ll look at his platform, but his lack of relevant experience is such a huge negative IMO that there’s unlikely to be anything in his platform that could make up for it as compared to most other Democrats with experience.

I disagree that a person needs extensive government experience to be president. A competent senior executive from a major firm or a senior military commander ought to have a pretty good idea of what to expect, even if the scale is vastly larger. What they would lack, however, is an instant political network. Washington doesn’t warm up quickly to outsiders as Trump has seen. Trump is having his ass handed to him not only because he’s an incompetent executive but because he’s too arrogant to acknowledge he doesn’t know how to work the system. Not the administrative system, the political system. My guess is Trump despises McConnell just as much as he does Pelosi. And that the feelings are mutual. If Yang can acknowledge he needs the Democrat machine to implement his agenda, and can cozy up to them in a meaningful way, he ought to be successful.

I would hasten to add that senators and representatives have less executive experience than a CEO, so that’s not what gives them an inside track. It’s their connection to the Washington political machine.

[aesop]

@Bone

Andrew Yang will not win. He *can *win, in the same way the molecules in my hand can align and allow me to phase through my table.

About this time in the last presidential election cycle a lot of people made a very similar prediction about a fellow named Trump. You may have heard of him…

[DavidChou]

@iiandyiiii

If you’re saying that having experienced public servants in the White House caused Trump to be elected, then that’s a pretty nonsensical assertion, IMO.

Okay, so maybe you’re not aware of this but Trump is a symptom, not a cause…focusing on Trump is to miss the forest for the trees.

@iiandyiiii

The ones responsible for Trump’s election are those that supported and voted for him, and to a lesser extent, those that didn’t vote.

Well, “weather is not climate”…that’s what I’m saying.

@iiandyiiii

By not understanding the many complexities of how government functions.

AI researchers used to think that AI can be achieved by feeding the computer lots and lots of data, all kinds of information about “life, the universe, and everything.”

The prime hallmark of intelligence, these scientists eventually realized after decades of trial and error, is that it is fungible – quickly sizing up the situation and adapting as necessary to accomplish goals.

This is the key which is allowing for the AI that Andrew’s warning us has been disrupting the economy all along and will continue to do so exponentially. Exactly no candidate sees this, never mind understand it…or deal with it.

That is the greatest national security threat of all!

But to a career politician “checking boxes” and “punching tickets” it’s incomprehensible.

“To a hammer every problem looks like a nail.”

Or, “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.”

You won’t get different results doing the same thing over and over again.

@iiandyiiii

Which is one of the major ways Trump is failing.

Trump is not interested in governing. At all.

It’s like when the laws of physics break down at the center of a black hole…you’re actually not going to get any useful information referring to Trump.

Again, “weather is not climate”…I sincerely believe you’re missing the forest for one weird plastic orange tree planted by some pranksters.

@iiandyiiii

If you don’t understand how relevant experience can be beneficial in an extremely complex organization like the US government, than I’m not sure how to explain it to you.

So here’s the thing. Every President has acknowledged ex post facto that literally nothing prepared them for the office.

So that’s the first truth to realize. That it’s an illusion, a false idol, “experience.”

The legacy of their policies have lead to Trump.

You think the Civil War really started in 1861??

Now why is it that software can perform better than human masters of the same tasks now??

It’s not “experience.”

This is Andrew’s key insight into the tech apocalypse upon us.

@iiandyiiii

I’ll look at his platform, but his lack of relevant experience is such a huge negative IMO that there’s unlikely to be anything in his platform that could make up for it as compared to most other Democrats with experience.

Thanks for conversing with me on this! I hope to see you at the “candidate comparison thread” to talk about Amy K.

[DavidChou]

@aesop

About this time in the last presidential election cycle a lot of people made a very similar prediction about a fellow named Trump. You may have heard of him…

We’re being trolled. Yes, by the forum moderator.

I’m only wondering what the connection is between Carnalk and Bone.

[iiandyiiii]

@DavidChou

Okay, so maybe you’re not aware of this but Trump is a symptom, not a cause…focusing on Trump is to miss the forest for the trees.

Yes, Trump is a symptom – the fix for the Trump symptom is to replace Trump. The larger problem – a combination of various forms of bigotry (and tolerance for bigotry), pseudoscience, corruption and moneyed influence, corporate oligarchy, etc – should be dealt with by robust progressive policies, including reforming money’s influence in politics; fighting bigotry in insitutions, politics, society, and culture; improving the education system; higher wages; universal health care; labor rights; etc. IMO, an experienced and skilled progressive politician is more likely to make this happen than a very smart guy with zero experience in politics.

AI researchers used to think that AI can be achieved by feeding the computer lots and lots of data, all kinds of information about “life, the universe, and everything.”

The prime hallmark of intelligence, these scientists eventually realized after decades of trial and error, is that it is fungible – quickly sizing up the situation and adapting as necessary to accomplish goals.

This is the key which is allowing for the AI that Andrew’s warning us has been disrupting the economy all along and will continue to do so exponentially. Exactly no candidate sees this, never mind understand it…or deal with it.

That is the greatest national security threat of all!

But to a career politician “checking boxes” and “punching tickets” it’s incomprehensible.

“To a hammer every problem looks like a nail.”

Or, “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.”

You won’t get different results doing the same thing over and over again.

This sounds like buzzword gibberish designed to make us think Yang is the only person who can accomplish this. Which sounds very similar to what Trump and his supporters said when criticized for his lack of political experience.

I don’t buy it.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@DavidChou

We’re being trolled. Yes, by the forum moderator.

I’m only wondering what the connection is between Carnalk and Bone.

That’s a warning. It is against the rules to refer to another poster as a troll, much less saying such of a moderator.

In addition, DavidChou, we have rules here at the SDMB. Despite being asked to read them and abide by them you have consistently failed to do so. Keep this up and your stay here will be short.

I realize you may think that this is some form of persecution due to your support of Andrew Yang and UBI. It is not. We’ve found over time that - should we wish to have adult conversations - random insults and ad hominems do not allow for such. Therefore we try to keep the sort of normal Internet behavior at a minimum.

One more and you’ll be suspended for a period of time. I hope that’s clear.

[DavidChou]

[quote=“Jonathan_Chance, post:174, topic:829555”]

That’s a warning. It is against the rules to refer to another poster as a troll, much less saying such of a moderator.

In addition, DavidChou, we have rules here at the SDMB. Despite being asked to read them and abide by them you have consistently failed to do so. Keep this up and your stay here will be short.

I realize you may think that this is some form of persecution due to your support of Andrew Yang and UBI. It is not. We’ve found over time that - should we wish to have adult conversations - random insults and ad hominems do not allow for such. Therefore we try to keep the sort of normal Internet behavior at a minimum.

I don’t have a persecution complex…where did you get that from?

I’ll depart voluntarily; I was just doing research when I came upon this place. But what I see here is a lot of ad hominen-by-proxy* so…yeah, I knew there was a reason why I never bothered with politics. Too many contrived Zeno’s Paradox games.

• Most notably, implying I’m a racist is okay – just don’t do it directly by plainly saying that I am. Or is “racist” not an insult whereas “troll” is?

[CarnalK]

@DavidChou

!
So I don’t know if Andrew’s staff is too busy or don’t care or what but, yeah, I wish he would speak to the various nuances more. Like it was only with yesterday’s Fox News interview that I learned that his Freedom Dividend would not be taxed – but still would be counted as income during annual filing and thus possibly push one into a higher bracket.

That’s not how tax brackets work. For purposes of calculating your taxes, your income is broken up into sections, ie brackets, and a different percentage is applied to each section. eg your first $10k is taxed at say 10%, then $10k-20k at 20% and so on. In this example, if you earned $15k then you’d owe 10k@10%($1000)+5k@20%($1000)=$2000. If $5k “would not be taxed – but still would be counted as income during annual filing” then you’d only have to pay taxes in the lower bracket.

[aesop]

@iiandyiiii

Yes, Trump is a symptom – the fix for the Trump symptom is to replace Trump. The larger problem – a combination of various forms of bigotry (and tolerance for bigotry), pseudoscience, corruption and moneyed influence, corporate oligarchy, etc – should be dealt with by robust progressive policies, including reforming money’s influence in politics; fighting bigotry in insitutions, politics, society, and culture; improving the education system; higher wages; universal health care; labor rights; etc. IMO, an experienced and skilled progressive politician is more likely to make this happen than a very smart guy with zero experience in politics.

I admire your optimism and I share your sensibilities. And I still think Yang can surround himself with progressives to deliver his agenda. That’s what good CEOs do, they delegate. I don’t find it hard to imagine a President Yang with Bernie Sanders as health czar and Elizabeth Warren as campaign finance reform czar and Kamala Harris as attorney general and etc. Pick your favourite progressives.

It’s also notable that Yang is quite up front about the fact he is less concerned about winning the presidency than he is about solving problems. Career politicians don’t have that kind of dispassionate viewpoint. They owe a debt of fealty to their party that does not encumber someone like Yang, who is running as a Democrat specifically because his odds are better that way than if he runs as a third-party candidate.

[iiandyiiii]

@aesop

I admire your optimism and I share your sensibilities. And I still think Yang can surround himself with progressives to deliver his agenda. That’s what good CEOs do, they delegate. I don’t find it hard to imagine a President Yang with Bernie Sanders as health czar and Elizabeth Warren as campaign finance reform czar and Kamala Harris as attorney general and etc. Pick your favourite progressives.

This sounds like the argument of Trump and his supporters. I’m unconvinced.

It’s also notable that Yang is quite up front about the fact he is less concerned about winning the presidency than he is about solving problems. Career politicians don’t have that kind of dispassionate viewpoint. They owe a debt of fealty to their party that does not encumber someone like Yang, who is running as a Democrat specifically because his odds are better that way than if he runs as a third-party candidate.

I have no problem that he’s running for the party nomination (unlike my problem with those like Howard Shultz who want to run 3rd party). I’m saying that he’s unlikely to earn my support, based on his lack of experience. It’s possible, but nothing he’s said or done so far comes close to what it would take.

[aesop]

@iiandyiiii

This sounds like the argument of Trump and his supporters. I’m unconvinced.

Trump’s style is to wing it and use force of personality to achieve his agenda; when he can be bothered to engage at all, that is. Yang has a data-driven approach. The two couldn’t be more different in their management methods.

@iiandyiiii

I have no problem that he’s running for the party nomination (unlike my problem with those like Howard Shultz who want to run 3rd party). I’m saying that he’s unlikely to earn my support, based on his lack of experience. It’s possible, but nothing he’s said or done so far comes close to what it would take.

And this sounds like the unconvincing “he’s not qualified” argument from earlier in the thread. No one running has held a job anything like the presidency. Senator doesn’t come close. Governor is a little closer but still miles away. Out of curiosity, would you be willing to share whom you consider to have the “right” experience?

[iiandyiiii]

@aesop

Trump’s style is to wing it and use force of personality to achieve his agenda; when he can be bothered to engage at all, that is. Yang has a data-driven approach. The two couldn’t be more different in their management methods.

I’d vastly prefer Yang to Trump, but I’m unconvinced that Yang is a better choice than the other D candidates. Just saying some variation of “he’d be a great manager and decision maker!” over and over again won’t cut it. For me to consider such an inexperienced candidate for president, they would have to show me some sort of absolutely incredible ability to lead and build consensus, in addition to great ideas. Just being a smart guy and a good businessman isn’t close to good enough. And I don’t buy that being separated from politics is an asset when it comes to the very complicated position of president.

And this sounds like the unconvincing “he’s not qualified” argument from earlier in the thread. No one running has held a job anything like the presidency. Senator doesn’t come close. Governor is a little closer but still miles away. Out of curiosity, would you be willing to share whom you consider to have the “right” experience?

Most of the declared candidates so far have enough public policy and politics experience that I’ll strongly consider them. From my reading of history, we’ve had several senators and governors who have turned out to be good presidents (and bad ones too). Being successfully elected senator or governor, especially from a state that’s not hard red or blue, demonstrates some ability to navigate political environments and build political consensus.

All I’m saying is that such a candidate has a very high bar to clear to gain my support. That’s my prerogative, and nothing I’ve seen in this thread comes anywhere close to meeting that bar. Maybe Yang will impress me in the debates. We’ll see.

Another consideration – putting a sane and reasonable politician in the WH is my highest priority. Without very strong evidence that an inexperienced candidate like Yang would have a better chance to win in the general than the other candidates, I’m much more inclined to go with the type of candidates that have won in the past – generally, senators and governors. I’m not willing to throw the dice if there are less uncertain options available.