Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Andrew Yang for President
#1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Yang#Policies

There never was an American politician whose views were as similar to mine. Humanity First is the most beautiful election slogan I ever heard.

I like the UBI idea or "freedom dividend" in general, but alcoholics and drug addicts should be exempt from receiving it. Same for people with a history of violent crime or support for terrorist groups, and diagnosed psychopaths.

I also like it that he has some neocon-like views on foreign policy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Yang#Policies
Yang called Iran a "destabilizing force in the region". He has backed a more aggressive policy toward Russia: "Russia is our biggest geopolitical threat, because they've been hacking our democracy successfully

He also wants to create "a department focused on regulating the addictive nature of media" - another good point.

Do you think he would be a 4T or 1T leader?
Reply
#2
(09-10-2019, 06:38 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Yang#Policies

There never was an American politician whose views were as similar to mine. Humanity First is the most beautiful election slogan I ever heard.

I like the UBI idea or "freedom dividend" in general, but alcoholics and drug addicts should be exempt from receiving it. Same for people with a history of violent crime or support for terrorist groups, and diagnosed psychopaths.

Your codicil to his dictum is good in theory but impossible in practice.  The addicted will have to be rescued by other means, or the entire idea is unworkable.

Bill the Piper Wrote:I also like it that he has some neocon-like views on foreign policy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Yang#Policies
Yang called Iran a "destabilizing force in the region". He has backed a more aggressive policy toward Russia: "Russia is our biggest geopolitical threat, because they've been hacking our democracy successfully

The problem is much larger than that, if you talk to the experts.  Here's a commentary from the NY Times that is about 95% accurate, and scary as hell.  I'm much more dove than hawk, but I have enough background in the spook word to know that this is the next wave.  Add cruise missiles that fly at hyper speed (~mach15-25 and already in the testing phase) and it gets worse.  Quantum computing may already exist, but we would never know that.

Bill the Piper Wrote:He also wants to create "a department focused on regulating the addictive nature of media" - another good point.

That's a lot tougher.  The US Constitution may stop that here, but maybe it's possible elsewhere.

Bill the Piper Wrote:Do you think he would be a 4T or 1T leader?

He sounds pretty 1T to me.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#3
(09-10-2019, 03:54 PM)David Horn Wrote: Bill the PiperDo you think he would be a 4T or 1T leader?

He sounds pretty 1T to me.

Like Eisenhower / Truman?
Reply
#4
(09-10-2019, 06:16 PM)Hintergrund Wrote:
(09-10-2019, 03:54 PM)David Horn Wrote:
Bill the Piper Wrote:Do you think he would be a 4T or 1T leader?

He sounds pretty 1T to me.

Like Eisenhower / Truman?

Ike. Truman was a war President, even though he didn't want the job.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#5
(09-10-2019, 03:54 PM)David Horn Wrote: Your codicil to his dictum is good in theory but impossible in practice.  The addicted will have to be rescued by other means, or the entire idea is unworkable.

Forced therapy appears to be only solution, since reasoning with a proper alcoholic is impossible. Again, personal freedom issues.

Quote:The US Constitution may stop that here, but maybe it's possible elsewhere.

The Constitution was an outstanding document for the 18th century, but it needs to be updated. Information can be a weapon too, and can be a drug. Modern porn is much more like cocaine than the "Satanic Verses".
Reply
#6
(09-12-2019, 03:28 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(09-10-2019, 03:54 PM)David Horn Wrote: Your codicil to his dictum is good in theory but impossible in practice.  The addicted will have to be rescued by other means, or the entire idea is unworkable.

Forced therapy appears to be only solution, since reasoning with a proper alcoholic is impossible. Again, personal freedom issues.

Yes, but it's impossible to separate the addicted from those who only use drugs and alcohol but are not problematic. Worse, there is a small subset of addicts who are fully stable and productive members of society. How do you legally deny people who fall in one of those categories, and how do you decide who does and who doesn't qualify?

Bill the Piper Wrote:
David Horn Wrote:The US Constitution may stop that here, but maybe it's possible elsewhere.

The Constitution was an outstanding document for the 18th century, but it needs to be updated. Information can be a weapon too, and can be a drug. Modern porn is much more like cocaine than the "Satanic Verses".

Unfortunately, it was designed to be extremely hard to amend, which is why we have so few amendments. Altering the 1st amendment is simply impossible.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#7
His horoscope score is so low that I cannot admit any possibility of him ever becoming president.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#8
(09-13-2019, 07:34 AM)David Horn Wrote: Yes, but it's impossible to separate the addicted from those who only use drugs and alcohol but are not problematic.  Worse, there is a small subset of addicts who are fully stable and productive members of society. How do you legally deny people who fall in one of those categories, and how do you decide who does and who doesn't qualify?
By cracking down on those who engage in dysfunctional and destructive behaviour. In case of doubt, experts should examine their social and family life. For borderline cases, coupons for food could be preferable to cash.
Reply
#9
(09-14-2019, 11:29 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(09-13-2019, 07:34 AM)David Horn Wrote: Yes, but it's impossible to separate the addicted from those who only use drugs and alcohol but are not problematic.  Worse, there is a small subset of addicts who are fully stable and productive members of society. How do you legally deny people who fall in one of those categories, and how do you decide who does and who doesn't qualify?

By cracking down on those who engage in dysfunctional and destructive behaviour. In case of doubt, experts should examine their social and family life. For borderline cases, coupons for food could be preferable to cash.

It's the same problem that occurs when benefits are means tested in elaborate ways. Sure, it can be done, but the cost to do it is so high that just handing out the candy is a lot cheaper. That's Yang's point.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#10
(09-14-2019, 06:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: His horoscope score is so low that I cannot admit any possibility of him ever becoming president.

-- he won't be Prez. 2 bad I'd like 2 get a grand every month.
Heart  Bernie/Tulsi 2020    Heart
Reply
#11
(09-14-2019, 02:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-14-2019, 11:29 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(09-13-2019, 07:34 AM)David Horn Wrote: Yes, but it's impossible to separate the addicted from those who only use drugs and alcohol but are not problematic.  Worse, there is a small subset of addicts who are fully stable and productive members of society. How do you legally deny people who fall in one of those categories, and how do you decide who does and who doesn't qualify?

By cracking down on those who engage in dysfunctional and destructive behaviour. In case of doubt, experts should examine their social and family life. For borderline cases, coupons for food could be preferable to cash.

It's the same problem that occurs when benefits are means tested in elaborate ways.  Sure, it can be done, but the cost to do it is so high that just handing out the candy is a lot cheaper.  That's Yang's point.

What about withdrawing the "candy" as a means of punishment?
Reply
#12
(09-19-2019, 04:39 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(09-14-2019, 02:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-14-2019, 11:29 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(09-13-2019, 07:34 AM)David Horn Wrote: Yes, but it's impossible to separate the addicted from those who only use drugs and alcohol but are not problematic.  Worse, there is a small subset of addicts who are fully stable and productive members of society. How do you legally deny people who fall in one of those categories, and how do you decide who does and who doesn't qualify?

By cracking down on those who engage in dysfunctional and destructive behaviour. In case of doubt, experts should examine their social and family life. For borderline cases, coupons for food could be preferable to cash.

It's the same problem that occurs when benefits are means tested in elaborate ways.  Sure, it can be done, but the cost to do it is so high that just handing out the candy is a lot cheaper.  That's Yang's point.

What about withdrawing the "candy" as a means of punishment?

Same problem.  If you plan to oversee the distribution process enough to identify bad actors, then you first have to create an oversight entity, staff it with trained personnel and actively manage the oversight as inevitable loopholes miraculously appear.  Prequalification is analogous to social services like welfare and food stamps her in the US and post-qualification, to law enforcement.  Neither is cheap.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)