I'm glad to hear this. Having written him off as a single issue candidate, I was presently surprised when I heard him on Useful Idiots with Katie Halper and Matt Taibbi. I don't think he's gonna...
I don't think he's gonna win and I'm still ride or die for Bernie. But the things he has to say deserve national platform. His simple truth that we need name and recognize the Fourth Industrial Revolution prompts us to recon with yet another hard truth. Automation and AI are going to have profound effects on our economic reality and that is going to effect our political reality.
There's a point where he correlates Rust Belt swing states in the 2016 election with loss of middle class manufacturing jobs. No doubt Trump rallied the worst impulses in the American psyche in his rise to power. But the power of the economic narrative of the Make America Great Again platform is hard to deny.
Hopefully the Democrats run their economic populist in the general and super delegates fuck off for as long as possible.
I have the same perspective. Yang's ideas aren't perfect IMO, but at least he recognizes that there's a problem people are looking for serious solutions to, not just papering over the issues like...
I have the same perspective. Yang's ideas aren't perfect IMO, but at least he recognizes that there's a problem people are looking for serious solutions to, not just papering over the issues like Pete "I trust you to (get swindled by corporations) figure out your own healthcare" Buttigieg. Yang seems like a sincere candidate who's running to enact policies he actually believes in.
I did not know that, thanks. On the one hand, I appreciate that hes not taking outside money (yet - I assume he'll take them at some point. You don't become a billionaire by putting your money on...
I did not know that, thanks.
On the one hand, I appreciate that hes not taking outside money (yet - I assume he'll take them at some point. You don't become a billionaire by putting your money on the line. You let someone else take the risk). At the same time, a billionaire president is the last thing we need now. He's just going to keep the money at the top. I'm guessing the only reason he decided to run is because he and other rich folks are scared that Sanders or Warren will tax the hell out of them.
As for the debates themselves, I won't consider him a serious contender for my vote if he isn't on stage with everyone else answering the same questions. Not attending the debate works out well for him. He can just sit back and let other people answer the tough questions while he runs TV ads.
I have serious reservations about people who just buy their way onto the stage. That's skipping the process of meeting the American people on the campaign trail and doing the hard work of talking...
I have serious reservations about people who just buy their way onto the stage. That's skipping the process of meeting the American people on the campaign trail and doing the hard work of talking to them, listening to their concerns, and improving your platform to meet their needs. There's something very, very wrong if certain people of means can simply skip that process with eight figure advertising buys.
When the stakes are that high, no regulation will prevent widespread corruption. The only solution is prohibiting private donations altogether. After the primaries, every candidate with an X...
When the stakes are that high, no regulation will prevent widespread corruption. The only solution is prohibiting private donations altogether.
After the primaries, every candidate with an X number of supporters would get exactly the same amount, which would be paid through taxes. A fixed amount to be divided among them.
As a side note, I have a friend who works in political campaigns, and he thinks political advertising should be completely banned. That’s the opinion of a guy who earns a lot of money doing just that.
Yang's proposal is democracy dollars. Saves us the trouble of trying to ban dark money, since that's impossible. It doesn't matter what the law is, that money will find its way in one way or...
The only solution is prohibiting private donations altogether.
Yang's proposal is democracy dollars. Saves us the trouble of trying to ban dark money, since that's impossible. It doesn't matter what the law is, that money will find its way in one way or another, always has and always will. Making that source of money into a pathetic pile of chump change compared to what the voters have to give solves the problem in perpetuity. It realigns incentives to put money and voters on the same side. Then you hit the dark money with whatever reasonable bans and reforms may work and let the people powered money take over.
I always get a good laugh at the 'get money out of politics' crowd. Strikes me as rather naive about the history of governments and corruption and markets. Putting so much more money in that it dilutes the corrupt money into insignificance seems a lot smarter to me, and it's a hell of a lot more fair to the candidates at every level of government.
Yang's Democracy dollars seems like a good idea, but I am left wondering where is the money to back the voucher's given to every american coming from? edit: not an American, just find American...
Yang's Democracy dollars seems like a good idea, but I am left wondering where is the money to back the voucher's given to every american coming from?
edit: not an American, just find American politics interesting :)
It's coming from our taxes. That does sting a bit, around thirty billion dollars each election cycle - however, in the grand scheme of the federal budget it's a handful of nickles and a small...
It's coming from our taxes. That does sting a bit, around thirty billion dollars each election cycle - however, in the grand scheme of the federal budget it's a handful of nickles and a small price to pay to secure elections against financial interference. We've tried just about everything else to keep the dark money at bay but it just comes back again, and usually worse. Citizens United and the SuperPACs were the coup de grace where it won out over the people.
When it's pitched as the government giving everyone back a hundred of their own tax dollars earmarked exclusively for political donations people don't mind so much. This means the voters have almost ten times as much money to give to candidates as the entire dark money and lobbyist cash pool combined. There's just no way for even gargantuan international corporations to compete with that without bankrupting themselves. The upside of this is that no politician will ever need or bother to talk to a rich person or a corporation to get money from them again.
I also like the idea that people make the choice who to support. I'm hoping it has a democratizing effect on the races, since candidates don't have to be chosen by elites to have a chance, and so much money should mean even more candidates can run and all be effective at the same time. This has big implications for downballot races in state and local governments as well, it's not just about the federal government. It also energizes alternative parties because now members of those parties have the resources to make them competitive.
It may come from taxes, but when you consider the gains to democracy and the good of common folk it is actually much cheaper. I also don't know Yang's proposal but in my mind something like that...
It's coming from our taxes
It may come from taxes, but when you consider the gains to democracy and the good of common folk it is actually much cheaper. I also don't know Yang's proposal but in my mind something like that should have a hard cap that is much inferior to what is currently spent in political campaigns - not only in the US but in most large countries.
I also think wealthy individuals should be prohibited from using their own resources to influence the electoral process. And if it is actually impossible to enforce this, then they should be...
I also think wealthy individuals should be prohibited from using their own resources to influence the electoral process. And if it is actually impossible to enforce this, then they should be simply prohibited to run. This may sound too radical, but there are literally millions of competent people that are not billionaires. I think this would be a plus for most democracies.
It's theoretically doable, but the Supreme Court would strike anything effective down as an infringement on free speech. If you really want to cut off the influence of money in politics, your best...
When the stakes are that high, no regulation will prevent widespread corruption. The only solution is prohibiting private donations altogether.
It's theoretically doable, but the Supreme Court would strike anything effective down as an infringement on free speech. If you really want to cut off the influence of money in politics, your best bet is to actively restrict what kinds of contexts people are permitted to exercise political speech in. The candidates aren't the issue, it's the dark money PACs and non-profits that spend money on candidates and campaings without technically coordinating with the campaigns in any way that's provable in court. You would basically need to ban issue-advocacy ads from broadcast and mainstream internet advertizing.
Honestly I think the only way forward is to get aggressive about enforcing tax-exempt status on anyone engaging in political speech. Including churches and "good" organizations like voting rights and planned parenthood.
It's probably a smart move to avoid it politically TBH. Bernie and Warren would have pantsed him on a national stage. The only reason they don't wreck Steyer harder is because they've got bigger...
It's probably a smart move to avoid it politically TBH. Bernie and Warren would have pantsed him on a national stage. The only reason they don't wreck Steyer harder is because they've got bigger fish to fry with Pete and Biden and nobody knows who Steyer is. But with Bloomberg they couldn't have asked for a more perfect strawman to tear into.
Steyer is downright embarassing though. His platform on reform basically reads like a syllabus for a political science course on bad ideas that sound good if you've never actually studied political science in any capacity before.
thought Bloomberg isn't shy to mention him in their article https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-11-20/robots-replacing-human-workers-isn-t-supported-by-data :)
So with Gabbard walking whether or not she qualifies for the debate, Yang is the sole person on the chopping block who is getting in, and totes has a chance... I guess...
So with Gabbard walking whether or not she qualifies for the debate, Yang is the sole person on the chopping block who is getting in, and totes has a chance... I guess...
I'm glad to hear this. Having written him off as a single issue candidate, I was presently surprised when I heard him on Useful Idiots with Katie Halper and Matt Taibbi.
I don't think he's gonna win and I'm still ride or die for Bernie. But the things he has to say deserve national platform. His simple truth that we need name and recognize the Fourth Industrial Revolution prompts us to recon with yet another hard truth. Automation and AI are going to have profound effects on our economic reality and that is going to effect our political reality.
There's a point where he correlates Rust Belt swing states in the 2016 election with loss of middle class manufacturing jobs. No doubt Trump rallied the worst impulses in the American psyche in his rise to power. But the power of the economic narrative of the Make America Great Again platform is hard to deny.
Hopefully the Democrats run their economic populist in the general and super delegates fuck off for as long as possible.
I have the same perspective. Yang's ideas aren't perfect IMO, but at least he recognizes that there's a problem people are looking for serious solutions to, not just papering over the issues like Pete "I trust you to (get swindled by corporations) figure out your own healthcare" Buttigieg. Yang seems like a sincere candidate who's running to enact policies he actually believes in.
Certainly a mouthful but it really gets at the issues beind why he's Mayo Pete.
Interesting that Bloomberg isn’t mentioned at all in the article.
You may have already known this, but he's not taking donations, so he can't qualify (and doesn't seem to care).
I did not know that, thanks.
On the one hand, I appreciate that hes not taking outside money (yet - I assume he'll take them at some point. You don't become a billionaire by putting your money on the line. You let someone else take the risk). At the same time, a billionaire president is the last thing we need now. He's just going to keep the money at the top. I'm guessing the only reason he decided to run is because he and other rich folks are scared that Sanders or Warren will tax the hell out of them.
As for the debates themselves, I won't consider him a serious contender for my vote if he isn't on stage with everyone else answering the same questions. Not attending the debate works out well for him. He can just sit back and let other people answer the tough questions while he runs TV ads.
I have serious reservations about people who just buy their way onto the stage. That's skipping the process of meeting the American people on the campaign trail and doing the hard work of talking to them, listening to their concerns, and improving your platform to meet their needs. There's something very, very wrong if certain people of means can simply skip that process with eight figure advertising buys.
I completely agree.
We really need some campaign finance reform in the United States.
When the stakes are that high, no regulation will prevent widespread corruption. The only solution is prohibiting private donations altogether.
After the primaries, every candidate with an X number of supporters would get exactly the same amount, which would be paid through taxes. A fixed amount to be divided among them.
As a side note, I have a friend who works in political campaigns, and he thinks political advertising should be completely banned. That’s the opinion of a guy who earns a lot of money doing just that.
Yang's proposal is democracy dollars. Saves us the trouble of trying to ban dark money, since that's impossible. It doesn't matter what the law is, that money will find its way in one way or another, always has and always will. Making that source of money into a pathetic pile of chump change compared to what the voters have to give solves the problem in perpetuity. It realigns incentives to put money and voters on the same side. Then you hit the dark money with whatever reasonable bans and reforms may work and let the people powered money take over.
I always get a good laugh at the 'get money out of politics' crowd. Strikes me as rather naive about the history of governments and corruption and markets. Putting so much more money in that it dilutes the corrupt money into insignificance seems a lot smarter to me, and it's a hell of a lot more fair to the candidates at every level of government.
Yang's Democracy dollars seems like a good idea, but I am left wondering where is the money to back the voucher's given to every american coming from?
edit: not an American, just find American politics interesting :)
It's coming from our taxes. That does sting a bit, around thirty billion dollars each election cycle - however, in the grand scheme of the federal budget it's a handful of nickles and a small price to pay to secure elections against financial interference. We've tried just about everything else to keep the dark money at bay but it just comes back again, and usually worse. Citizens United and the SuperPACs were the coup de grace where it won out over the people.
When it's pitched as the government giving everyone back a hundred of their own tax dollars earmarked exclusively for political donations people don't mind so much. This means the voters have almost ten times as much money to give to candidates as the entire dark money and lobbyist cash pool combined. There's just no way for even gargantuan international corporations to compete with that without bankrupting themselves. The upside of this is that no politician will ever need or bother to talk to a rich person or a corporation to get money from them again.
I also like the idea that people make the choice who to support. I'm hoping it has a democratizing effect on the races, since candidates don't have to be chosen by elites to have a chance, and so much money should mean even more candidates can run and all be effective at the same time. This has big implications for downballot races in state and local governments as well, it's not just about the federal government. It also energizes alternative parties because now members of those parties have the resources to make them competitive.
It may come from taxes, but when you consider the gains to democracy and the good of common folk it is actually much cheaper. I also don't know Yang's proposal but in my mind something like that should have a hard cap that is much inferior to what is currently spent in political campaigns - not only in the US but in most large countries.
I agree that banning all campaign finance would be great. We need to take money out of politics.
I also think wealthy individuals should be prohibited from using their own resources to influence the electoral process. And if it is actually impossible to enforce this, then they should be simply prohibited to run. This may sound too radical, but there are literally millions of competent people that are not billionaires. I think this would be a plus for most democracies.
It's theoretically doable, but the Supreme Court would strike anything effective down as an infringement on free speech. If you really want to cut off the influence of money in politics, your best bet is to actively restrict what kinds of contexts people are permitted to exercise political speech in. The candidates aren't the issue, it's the dark money PACs and non-profits that spend money on candidates and campaings without technically coordinating with the campaigns in any way that's provable in court. You would basically need to ban issue-advocacy ads from broadcast and mainstream internet advertizing.
Honestly I think the only way forward is to get aggressive about enforcing tax-exempt status on anyone engaging in political speech. Including churches and "good" organizations like voting rights and planned parenthood.
It's probably a smart move to avoid it politically TBH. Bernie and Warren would have pantsed him on a national stage. The only reason they don't wreck Steyer harder is because they've got bigger fish to fry with Pete and Biden and nobody knows who Steyer is. But with Bloomberg they couldn't have asked for a more perfect strawman to tear into.
Steyer is downright embarassing though. His platform on reform basically reads like a syllabus for a political science course on bad ideas that sound good if you've never actually studied political science in any capacity before.
thought Bloomberg isn't shy to mention him in their article https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-11-20/robots-replacing-human-workers-isn-t-supported-by-data :)
So with Gabbard walking whether or not she qualifies for the debate, Yang is the sole person on the chopping block who is getting in, and totes has a chance... I guess...
Great! msnbc is so ass backwards for denying him coverage