EPT2020 Democratic Nominees - Page 22
| Forum Index > Closed |
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value. Rules: - Don't post meaningless one-liners. - Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate. - Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand. - Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm. This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. | ||
|
Gorgonoth
United States468 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44221 Posts
| ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
In addition his platform overall seemed way, way more thought out and down to earth than the other candidates. | ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44221 Posts
On July 04 2019 17:03 Destructicon wrote: I'm surprised to not see Andrew Yang's name in this poll and also surprised at how few are talking about him. I know the Universal Basic income idea is quite unpopular but a lot of his points seem very well thought out and, at the very least worth debating, especially in light of the fact that automation can only ever continue. In addition his platform overall seemed way, way more thought out and down to earth than the other candidates. It's not that UBI is unpopular; it's that he's not actually advocating for true UBI. He's pushing a pseudo version of UBI where instead of everyone actually receiving some free money with no strings attached (which would, in theory, greatly stimulate the economy and help out most American families with basic consumer needs like food, rent, tuition, debt, and small luxuries), there are huge issues with his plan. His proposal for fake-UBI comes at the expense of several welfare programs, so to opt-in, many families would be losing some serious support already. What that means is that the "free to use however you please" money would clearly be redirected towards those new holes (i.e., working class families aren't actually receiving *additional* money under this pseudo-UBI... they're just receiving the same amount of money from a different program, so UBI wouldn't be helping them). Not only does this not provide additional funding for many people, but it also weakens the strength of welfare programs in general (which will lead to very conservative or capitalist politicians to start removing them since some people will use UBI instead of those programs- even though many other people will still prefer the stability and consistency of those programs over opting in to UBI). Yang is absolutely not promoting a legitimate UBI plan, and to make matters worse, his singular example of UBI working in America (Alaska) is super cringeworthy. In Alaska, people have been paid approximately $1000 per year (not per month) to live there, which is far too low to be considered a basic income. Anyways, Yang has been discussed in this thread, and I like what he has to say about automation. I also like real UBI. I also like that he likes math. I don't like his false-UBI proposal, I was disappointed with him on the debate stage (I know his mic had problems), and he's polling at basically 1-3% national support. He's done. He can hang around to get his name out there, but he has no chance of becoming the Democratic nominee. On July 04 2019 22:26 JimmiC wrote: He didn't show up because the poll allowed 20 people and at the time he was not in the top 20. He has been talked about a fair bit mind you. Yeah, this was already covered on page one lol. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44221 Posts
On July 04 2019 23:43 JimmiC wrote: I think it is OK that he doesn't have a chance, he needs more time to shore up his policies and gain some support. Hopefully 4 years from now he has some interest already there and can come hard as a much better fully formed candidate. Him and few others that won't win this year are still gaining valuable experience and exposure for future campaigns. I agree; exposure, practice, and name recognition are all legitimate reasons why anyone-not-in-the-top-five might choose to still stick around (if it's financially possible). And I think that's a good move in the long run, if they're considering rerunning in 4 and 8 and 12 years from now. Across nearly all polls (both before and after the first debate), the top four candidates have been Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Harris (sometimes in varying orders), with Buttigieg occasionally peeking up. Despite there being months left, no one else has a reasonable chance of winning the 2020 Democratic primary, so if they're not playing the long game, they can pack up and go home. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On July 05 2019 09:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Indeed.I agree; exposure, practice, and name recognition are all legitimate reasons why anyone-not-in-the-top-five might choose to still stick around (if it's financially possible). And I think that's a good move in the long run, if they're considering rerunning in 4 and 8 and 12 years from now. Across nearly all polls (both before and after the first debate), the top four candidates have been Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Harris (sometimes in varying orders), with Buttigieg occasionally peeking up. Despite there being months left, no one else has a reasonable chance of winning the 2020 Democratic primary, so if they're not playing the long game, they can pack up and go home. I've been seeing a lot of people saying Beto needs to stop running for president and instead try to go up against Cornyn for the Texas senate seat that is going to be up this election. There's been a lot of concern that several strong senate candidates are basically wasting a good opportunity to stay in the senate or win senate seats from Republicans. Booker is another example. Even after a decent debate performance, he's still polling in the low single digits, and his senate seat is up for grabs in 2020 if I remember right. | ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
On July 04 2019 23:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It's not that UBI is unpopular; it's that he's not actually advocating for true UBI. He's pushing a pseudo version of UBI where instead of everyone actually receiving some free money with no strings attached (which would, in theory, greatly stimulate the economy and help out most American families with basic consumer needs like food, rent, tuition, debt, and small luxuries), there are huge issues with his plan. His proposal for fake-UBI comes at the expense of several welfare programs, so to opt-in, many families would be losing some serious support already. What that means is that the "free to use however you please" money would clearly be redirected towards those new holes (i.e., working class families aren't actually receiving *additional* money under this pseudo-UBI... they're just receiving the same amount of money from a different program, so UBI wouldn't be helping them). Not only does this not provide additional funding for many people, but it also weakens the strength of welfare programs in general (which will lead to very conservative or capitalist politicians to start removing them since some people will use UBI instead of those programs- even though many other people will still prefer the stability and consistency of those programs over opting in to UBI). I'm really curious as to why you think the bolded part is in any way true. Do you think all, or even most, working-class families receive federal aid? I'm a working-class family that is currently receiving no federal aid, for example. I would be receiving additional money, and it would be directed toward new things, not some "hole" that you claim the Freedom Dividend will create. As you said yourself, the plan is opt-in, so if anyone would be worse off (that "hole" you talked about), they would presumably not opt in. No "hole" created. Regarding the various welfare programs being weakened and attacked, the hard truth is that the US welfare system needs to be reformed. Means-testing has turned it into a poverty trap, and it needs to be replaced (in part) by a benefit program without means-testing. Yang is absolutely not promoting a legitimate UBI plan, and to make matters worse, his singular example of UBI working in America (Alaska) is super cringeworthy. In Alaska, people have been paid approximately $1000 per year (not per month) to live there, which is far too low to be considered a basic income. He cites many examples in longer talks, but uses Alaska most because most people have no clue what UBI even is. The truth is there aren't a ton of really great examples. Many countries are talking about and/or have "done a study" on UBI, but it's never really "real," in the sense that it was always temporary. Getting $1000/month for a year doesn't alleviate the worry about how one will provide for their self, because after a year they're back where they started (with more money, sure, but with an income floor of $0). Anyway, all that is to say, that while the Alaska Petroleum Fund is on a much smaller scale than what Yang proposes, it is at least an ongoing source of income from the government, not temporary and not "just a study." | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44221 Posts
On July 05 2019 10:06 Ben... wrote: Indeed. I've been seeing a lot of people saying Beto needs to stop running for president and instead try to go up against Cornyn for the Texas senate seat that is going to be up this election. There's been a lot of concern that several strong senate candidates are basically wasting a good opportunity to stay in the senate or win senate seats from Republicans. Booker is another example. Even after a decent debate performance, he's still polling in the low single digits, and his senate seat is up for grabs in 2020 if I remember right. Yup, I agree. I think Booker did pretty well on the debate stage, but his Senate seat is up and he needs to be reelected to my state of New Jersey: https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2018/11/02/cory-booker-cleared-run-president-senate-same-time/1861218002/ | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44221 Posts
On July 05 2019 11:22 Dromar wrote: I'm really curious as to why you think the bolded part is in any way true. Do you think all, or even most, working-class families receive federal aid? I'm a working-class family that is currently receiving no federal aid, for example. I would be receiving additional money, and it would be directed toward new things, not some "hole" that you claim the Freedom Dividend will create. As you said yourself, the plan is opt-in, so if anyone would be worse off (that "hole" you talked about), they would presumably not opt in. No "hole" created. Regarding the various welfare programs being weakened and attacked, the hard truth is that the US welfare system needs to be reformed. Means-testing has turned it into a poverty trap, and it needs to be replaced (in part) by a benefit program without means-testing. Not all, of course, but a substantial percentage of the poor and working classes are the ones who are most likely to be on some level of government assistance (as opposed to the middle and upper classes), right? That's an assumption I was making; I could be mistaken there, but I feel like this is mostly based around a family's socioeconomic situation. About 1/4 of Americans use Medicaid alone, not to mention the other 5 main welfare programs: "Nearly 24 percent of Americans participated in the Medicaid managed care program in 2016. [Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]" (https://www.lexingtonlaw.com/blog/finance/welfare-statistics.html). Andrew Yang's own website explains the 4 funding criteria for his UBI idea, and one of them- half a trillion dollars- comes from not funding the Americans who are already on other government assistance programs, so he's assuming that the price tag on his UBI will be much cheaper because of how many people won't be opting in: "1. Current spending. We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of Universal Basic Income because people already receiving benefits would have a choice but would be ineligible to receive the full $1,000 in addition to current benefits." https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/ The success of Andrew Yang's program relies on a series of successful criteria, one of which is the assumption that tens of millions of Americans won't be receiving the monthly UBI. I see it as a catch-22 and a misnomer: The "universal" option can succeed only if a sufficient number of Americans don't opt-in, because if everyone does opt-in, there won't be enough money to run the program. I'm fine with overhauling our welfare program, but I worry about the Americans who will switch from their current assistance to UBI, because I don't think that it'll be as simple and quick to revert back to those other assistances if the UBI collapses when any of its criteria (such as the various taxes or improved economic benefits) lag behind or don't meet the annual growth required to keep the UBI afloat. He cites many examples in longer talks, but uses Alaska most because most people have no clue what UBI even is. The truth is there aren't a ton of really great examples. Many countries are talking about and/or have "done a study" on UBI, but it's never really "real," in the sense that it was always temporary. Getting $1000/month for a year doesn't alleviate the worry about how one will provide for their self, because after a year they're back where they started (with more money, sure, but with an income floor of $0). Anyway, all that is to say, that while the Alaska Petroleum Fund is on a much smaller scale than what Yang proposes, it is at least an ongoing source of income from the government, not temporary and not "just a study." That's fair, and I agree that it's one of the best ways to show precedent when there aren't that many great examples. I just don't think it's particularly analogous in terms of financial effect. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23173 Posts
Warren and Bernie vs all on night 1 and "look at these reasonable people, racist old Biden, and some radical asshole named deblasio" on night 2. Going to be two different audiences watching imo. People watching both nights will be a sliver of the population. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23173 Posts
| ||
|
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44221 Posts
On July 24 2019 10:19 LuckyFool wrote: Looking forward to the debates next week, I hope Andrew Yang gets some more stuff in he has some really intelligent stuff to say but seemed almost disinterested to speak last month, I remember he said the format doesn't suit his style but hopefully he's had some more time to get used to it. I definitely think that a 10-person FFA doesn't suit anyone's style, unless the politician's style is for two-word superficial responses, grandstanding, and yelling chaotically. This isn't how the political stage should operate, and it's anything but a "debate". | ||
|
Bourgeois
81 Posts
On July 24 2019 10:19 LuckyFool wrote: Looking forward to the debates next week, I hope Andrew Yang gets some more stuff in he has some really intelligent stuff to say but seemed almost disinterested to speak last month, I remember he said the format doesn't suit his style but hopefully he's had some more time to get used to it. Does no-one want to mention the elephant in the room being that he is Asian and therefore will never be President? Don't forget the fact that this is a StarCraft website where the majority of posters are likely of Asian origin so everyone is circlejerking here, if you survey the general American population, he doesn't have a chance. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44221 Posts
On July 25 2019 16:16 Bourgeois wrote: Does no-one want to mention the elephant in the room being that he is Asian and therefore will never be President? Don't forget the fact that this is a StarCraft website where the majority of posters are likely of Asian origin so everyone is circlejerking here, if you survey the general American population, he doesn't have a chance. There are plenty of white men and white women polling at a similar 0-2% who are mathematically irrelevant in the Democratic primary too, so I'm not sure if a sample size of 1 Asian-American candidate is enough to make a statement like that. Also, I'd imagine that people thought that a black man or white woman could never have the most votes in a general election, until it actually happened with Obama and Hillary. | ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13974 Posts
On July 25 2019 16:16 Bourgeois wrote: Does no-one want to mention the elephant in the room being that he is Asian and therefore will never be President? Don't forget the fact that this is a StarCraft website where the majority of posters are likely of Asian origin so everyone is circlejerking here, if you survey the general American population, he doesn't have a chance. White male 50 year old truckers who voted trump 2016 are voting yang. White supremacists are voting yang | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44221 Posts
On July 26 2019 04:20 Cricketer12 wrote: White male 50 year old truckers who voted trump 2016 are voting yang. White supremacists are voting yang I've heard that as well... Any idea why? Seems weird, but maybe Yang found a way to get through to niche Trump supporters, which could be good. | ||
| ||
