Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you for the video. This really helps explain how his thinking leads to the presidential candidacy, and why it is the most natural consequence of Andrew moving from business to VFA. Every step of the way he saw the problems in the system he sought to solve with his next move.
It also shows that this guy could have been very rich had he chosen to make profit his priority. Yet, he remains a capitalist in a capitalistic society and some people left of Bernie are comfortable with neither the man nor the system. This is an understatement, of course. They want both wiped out and they don't even hide it, over at DSA and Jacobin. In the meantime, while they are warming up to dismantle the entire system, they would nominate themselves sole distributors of other people's money. Since they never made any themselves, of course, their distribution stinks to high heaven, always has.
Then towards the right of center, another legion seems very solidary with poor billionaires. Scratch the surface and see is an utter lack of solidarity towards fellow people. If anyone wants to scare them, just scream socialism because they aren't really good with definitions.
Last edited by switchtoecig; 09-20-2019 at 05:13 AM..
I don't know if that defines capitalism per se but Henry Ford thought that paying his workers enough to buy his automobiles was a sound business model, back in the day.
I appreciate your answer, thank you. Nice to see one of Yang's supporters (I assume?) actually answer a question instead of running from it.
I get what you are saying and I do remember reading about it before, however I think that was a different time and situation. Yang currently stating what he did has a tone of the whole Democratic Socialism sound/feel to it to me, almost like the whole "living wage" position that I just cant get behind.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,592,007 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
I don't know if that defines capitalism per se but Henry Ford thought that paying his workers enough to buy his automobiles was a sound business model, back in the day.
I appreciate your answer, thank you. Nice to see one of Yang's supporters (I assume?) actually answer a question instead of running from it.
I get what you are saying and I do remember reading about it before, however I think that was a different time and situation. Yang currently stating what he did has a tone of the whole Democratic Socialism sound/feel to it to me, almost like the whole "living wage" position that I just cant get behind.
Right, well AmeriCorps is a government program that was founded during the JFK administration. Its an arm to the ones that FDR (conserv corp) did in providing government jobs (peace corp) but on the u.s. side of things. I was a VISTA once ... and they pay a volunteer a living wage ...
It was asked of Yang, why not do something similar or expand. The answer was simple, not every one wants to work for the government (it's, imo, socialism that spurs all employment government based) and two, expansion of those programs does not give a people a choice, in that they either volunteer for the living wage opportunity or they don't work. (i have a whole other issue with gov based volunteer stipend getting jobs, I won't disclose here)
The $1,000.00 a month gives people a choice and to get that, they have to opt out of all other assistance and opt into receive their freedom dividend.
In the 20's aka, the Roaring 20s, we were producing our butts off and America was doing so well, that it blows economist minds and they study it as to how we ended up in the Great Depression ... (from Ford to the 30's stock crash) But I have to say, that before the Great Depression, the people knew little of their government and what they did, other than where the Post Office was located and how to buy postal stamps.
Now we have a government all up in our business regulating every thing from what kind of soda one drinks to what types of underwear we can buy ...(maybe extreme analogy but you get my point)
There have been several more interviews over the past few days and this is the one which covers most new points. Among them is the question of a businessman in the WH. Other than that - Yang talks about what his presidency means for retiring people, communities of color, his take on racial slurs hurled recently to him and Asian Americans, how media have treated him these past months etc.
About this last one - most people would be fuming by now, and angry with the media if they were Yang - I haven't seen anyone so downplayed, omitted, and ignored by MSNBC, NBC and CNN, not to mention late-night talk show hosts - although these seem to be slowly starting to come around. Yang, however, has consistently taken the diplomatic and positive approach - like, oh, they probably didn't know what to do with me, but now they are changing. I admire and slightly envy such patience. And it works, he is winning media ppl one by one, as seen here.
Andrew Yang Speaks at the Youth Voice Forum Town Hall in Des Moines, Iowa | September 22nd 2019 https://youtu.be/1wgHzb8Eu9o
Thanks, BornInTheSprings.
Looking at Yang's policies, I have found one I disagree with - lowering the voting age to 16. I won't use that tired tide pod example, because it is not an argument but an anecdote.
There always will be young people that age who are interested and relatively knowledgable in politics and to them I would like to apologize.
There are also many more 18+ who are very low information and-or disinterested in politics. From this perspective, it is unfair to deny the former group voting rights automatically given to the latter.
There is also this argument that young people have a naturally bigger stake in the future than team 70+. All these arguments given by Yang are valid.
However:
Although I am pro curriculum that teaches young people about politics in general and although it is good to organize meetings of youth with politicians - with optional attendance, of course, and definitely outside the school premises - I believe that daily politics does not belong to any classroom, schoolyard or even staffroom anywhere. It gets difficult even without that, especially at tumultuous times.
Generally, most workplaces insist on no politics on their premises. That's reasonable both for businesses and schools.
I know a lot of young ppl who held radical views in their young years. Later in life, not only did they change their views to more moderate, but they also seem to be deeply ashamed of what they used to think. Or laughing at the naivete of it. I wouldn't burden young people with the responsibility of having an informed political opinion at an age when you are naturally attracted to anything that is out of the ordinary, against the world of adults just for the sake of it, which is, more often than not, the main criteria in that age bracket.
Yang says the earlier you include young people in politics, the more of them will be interested in it and become a lifelong voter. I beg to disagree with this, too.
Beside a minuscule group of young ppl who are intelligent and well-read and genuinely interested in politics, there is a somewhat larger group of youngsters susceptible to manipulation and acquiring radical ideas for the heck of it. The rest is the majority, that is normally absolutely not into the whole thing. Pushing politics towards tham can only have a counter effect.
Yang should reconsider this. Actually, he shouldn't listen to me, except in this one thing: gather a group of teachers from the whole of US - organize a video conference or something like that - let them be all with minimum 10 yrs of experience or so, from different schools, cover different demographics, different income bracket zips, anyway, make it a representative sample. And ask them for their opinion on this. Then decide. Why did I say teachers. Well, if you are introducing a measure that will affect a large group of people, then you should talk to experts who have observed the behavior of a large number of individuals from that group.
Last edited by switchtoecig; 09-23-2019 at 06:09 AM..
Heres some interesting info from the Emerson poll. Yang seems to have considerably more dedicated support than other candidates, especially Harris, Buttigieg and Warren
diving deeper into numbers, this is how it looks like
Several conclusions
Although not as big in absolute numbers, Yangs support is formidable. Which makes sense, whoever hears one or two Yangs long-form interviews seems to get hooked on the guy and his ideas.
His campaign has been going nowhere but up, since its beginning.
On the other hand, candidates like Buttigieg and Harris, who are in the same tier, have no serious meat in their programs. You can't really say what they stand for. Also, many voters are at least partially aware that what they stand for is subject to change, and the change may well depend on the factors completely outside their voting base and its interests.
Not to mention that much of Biden's support is based solely on his name recognition, which, as the campaign progresses has been going down.
All candidates with less than half of definite voters will continue to lose support most of which will go to Yang.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
