Entrepreneur Andrew Yang, a Big Supporter Of Universal Basic Income, is Running For President (techcrunch.com) 465
In a recently published podcast, Andrew Yang, tech entrepreneur and founder of Venture for America, said he is vying for the Democratic party nomination to run for President of the United States. From a report: Yang outlines his radical policy agenda, which focuses on Universal Basic Income and includes a "freedom dividend." He talks about the very real and immediate threat of artificial intelligence, how new technologies are erasing millions of jobs before our eyes, and why we need to put humanity first. He also addresses "the big four" and what he plans to do about Amazon.
During the interview, Yang called out governments inability to address large scale problems and the challenges that technology is creating in modern American society. "I believe that we need to start owning these realities [of automation and artificial intelligence taking away jobs] and these challenges as a people, as a country, and as a society, and start being honest. I'm running for president to solve the big problems and to show that these things are not beyond us," Yang says. Yang's own plan to address the increasing power tech companies are wielding in the world involves something called a "freedom dividend", which would paid for by a value-added tax. The revenue from that tax (levied on "gains from the big four") would be redistributed via the "freedom dividend" to citizens, Yang says.
During the interview, Yang called out governments inability to address large scale problems and the challenges that technology is creating in modern American society. "I believe that we need to start owning these realities [of automation and artificial intelligence taking away jobs] and these challenges as a people, as a country, and as a society, and start being honest. I'm running for president to solve the big problems and to show that these things are not beyond us," Yang says. Yang's own plan to address the increasing power tech companies are wielding in the world involves something called a "freedom dividend", which would paid for by a value-added tax. The revenue from that tax (levied on "gains from the big four") would be redistributed via the "freedom dividend" to citizens, Yang says.
UBI, it's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
We either plan for it now or start buying pitchforks and torches. And oiling up the guillotines because we _will_ eat the rich.
Re:UBI, it's about time (Score:4, Funny)
We either plan for it now or start buying pitchforks and torches. And oiling up the guillotines because we _will_ eat the rich.
I believe that Bender Bending Rodriguez said it best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
AI and robotics is not going to cause mass unemployment for at least a couple of decades I estimate.....
Something to look towards and plan for the potentiality, but we're not even CLOSE yet, no need to jump headlong into socialism at this point in time.
Re:UBI, it's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
no need to jump headlong into socialism at this point in time.
Why not? People living in social democracies tend to have a high standard of living and a high level of happiness.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1) standard of living has been proven to be nearly irrelevant to happiness, once ones basic needs have been met, 'precieved' differences in wealth tend to have a much higher effect on happiness then actual wealth.
2) your second statement is only true if you cherry pick your dataset. if you include all socialist republics , russia, china, cuba, etc what you are saying is decidedly not true or at best uprovable.
3) Sense of purpose and a feeling of community ( aka contentedness) are much more important to
Re:UBI, it's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
1) standard of living has been proven to be nearly irrelevant to happiness,
Good job I listed them as separate points then, isn't it!
2) your second statement is only true if you cherry pick your dataset. if you include all socialist republics , russia, china, cuba, etc what you are saying is decidedly not true or at best uprovable.
Well, yes, if you cherry-pick social democracies to include things which are decidedly democracies then you can indeed prove that people living somewhere might not be happy.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know why GP mentioned social republics when it was social democracies that was mentioned higher. :shrug:
Re: (Score:3)
Re:UBI, it's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny. You know what they call software automation here where I work?
'Robotics'.
Yes. Explicitly.
And AI will be the tech that will allow it to flourish. I expect to see a lot of jobs missing over the next 10 years. But to be honest, I've seen a lot of jobs gone missing over the past 10 years, it just happened that these went missing due to economic pressures indirectly related to 'automation'. Like recessions, improved management, reduced demand via improvements in everything.
Such changes come from ti
Re:UBI, it's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but if you have your way, you'll find out quickly that to someone, somewhere, *you* are the rich.
Re: UBI, it's about time (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: UBI, it's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving people handouts never fixes anything, it just makes things worse, fix the goddamned economy so people can earn a decent living instead!
Well at some point you are going to find out that is has to be this way. That are start limiting births with mandatory birth control. At some point its going to become clear, there is no fixing the economy for this kind of issue. There simply isn't enough jobs out there and as technology advances jobs are going to become a ever shrinking resource.
Of course you can also just let people starve in the streets. Look how well that worked for the French at one time.
Irony (Score:2, Funny)
Wouldn't it be ironic that all those people Slashdotters usually look down on...people who work with their hands, the earth, and livestock, are suddenly the only ones that can feed and raise a family?
Meanwhile, erstwhile Slashdot posters are sit in front of their dark screens wishing they could post some snark about how they've been screwed by automation, the Rich, or both.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know why someone would mod this as funny. How many people here actually knows what goes into running a modern farm? It is not the typical redneck on a tractor stereotype that so many think it is. A modern farm is a complex system as anything else in the modern world. You don't just toss a handful of seeds out and hope something grows.
Most farmers that I know, and I know several, have advanced degrees, some of them more than one. That farmer out here, and those that work with their hands a
Re: (Score:3)
There are plenty of jobs out there. If I had enough money I could keep at least one person in meaningful full time employment doing things that are neither easily automated, harmful, degrading, or bad for the environment.
Unemployment is never caused by automation. It is always caused by those wishing they could have goods or services not having sufficient funds to afford it. And since we are unlikely to run out of trees to make bills out of, any demand shortage caused by lack of money can be easily fixed.
Un
Re: UBI, it's about time (Score:5, Interesting)
Unemployment is never caused by automation
I like trains. I've been watching a lot of documentaries on trains lately. Did you know that before the 1950's over 1/5 of the blue collar labor in the United States was by the railroad. It takes about 125 people to maintain and run a steam locomotive.
You know what happened after 1950? The railroad had a massive layoff. It only takes about 24 people to run a diesel-electric locomotive. So you can say that in the 1950 a shit load of people lost their jobs due to efficiency and automation on trains.
Do you know they are working on a cabbage picking robot? It and others like it will completely eliminate the need for a migrant labor force in the United States.
So, you can't tell me that jobs are not lost to automation. That has actually been the way since the dawn of time as technology gets better. The donkey lost his job at the mill wheel because of the water wheel.
Currently, there maybe plenty of jobs out there. But that isn't the way it will always be. As technology advances robots and automation will take more and more jobs. Retraining is a option for some but it will not always be that way.
An its the very marketing forces that people like to praise for creating current jobs, now, that will make this happen. So unless we are blown back into the stone age, this will happen.
Re: UBI, it's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
You completely fail to comprehend that if the direct job losses weren't greater than the indirect gains there'd be no cost savings from automation, and therefore it wouldn't happen.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it doesn't and you look stupid when you say things like that
You should probably read up on a subject before you open your yap on something you clearly know nothing about. Might want to bone up on reading comprehension too. You know, before you make yourself look stupid.
I said run AND maintain. Those mid-century steam trains where huge. The Union Pacific Big Boy was a 4-8-8-4 and was a 135 feet long. When one of those, or other trains like it where taken off the main line for inspection and maintenance it could easy take 125 men or more to accomplish this ta
Re: (Score:2)
Truly the solution can only be new opportunities for the displaced workers.
All that requires is that those who can create are allowed to do so. It has happened before.
Re:UBI, it's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
But look at what happened to those who did the purging in all three cases: the early revolutionaries are the victims of the second purge, as punishment for their revolutionary excess.
Re:UBI, it's about time (Score:4, Informative)
Huh. I was taught it was the instigators of the revolution, themselves, the most violent and cruel, and most motivated, that formed the 'second wave', having used the first wave to break down the previous structures.
But I was taught that in the 70s, from facts.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
NOT.
WORK.
Re:UBI, it's about time (Score:4, Funny)
Wait, are you saying UBI will not work, or that once UBI is in place you will not work?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
oooohhh. All caps and bolded. You must be right! That is how I always recognize the best arguments, bolded and all caps, with exclamation marks (/sarcasm)
When 95% of the jobs are gone, either we all starve, yes even you Ayn Randians, or we yank back wealth from rent-seeking leeches. Violence will be the preferred method of the masses so the wealthy should start planning on UBI if they don't want themselves and their progeny oiling our guillotines.
Re: (Score:3)
When 95% of the jobs are gone
You're a complete wingnut. You must be upset over the aluminum tarriff, it'll make your hats so much more expensive for you.
Re: UBI, it's about time (Score:3)
You won't eat the rich (Score:3)
Violence isn't going to work anymore. If you want freedom you have to take care of your working class _before_ they turn to a militant strong man. So far we are not doing a good job of that [google.com]. Hopefully next election we turn things around and at least run somebody like this Andrew fellow who appears to belong to the populist left.
End the Draft (Score:5, Interesting)
At one time every able bodied man was supposed to turn out for the defense of the village whenever the feudal lord ordered it. We then evolved into professional volunteer armies and today the concept of the draft has gone away.
Similarly in the future people will work if they want to not because they have been drafted to. Today everyone has to work or starve - there is no real choice.
With an UBI, work becomes a choice and the workers will be much more professional as they would have CHOSEN to work rather than forced to.
Re: (Score:2)
You have nothing worth clawing back moron. The difference between you and a homeless person is less than a minor round-off error for the wealthy. That is also the value they attach to your life.
You are the scum and your high-capacity magazine may help you take your family out of their misery if you don't decide to go hunting the wealthy along with the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make sense to me. I would think since it replaces social security, it continues for life. Also a minor's parent's should get a significant increase to be able to care for their under-18 children.
Too Early (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't deny that one day UBI might be feasible, and even necessary but it's just too soon and too radical, especially for the US. He's not going to get his party's nomination, and if he does, it's 4 more years of Trump.
Re:Too Early (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, lets call a spade a spade here... he is asking for socialism. His platform is "democracy is dead." People need to get comfortable saying that, because that's what it is... if you are for UBI, you are a socialist. ;)
Please learn what socailism is [Re:Too Early] (Score:2)
Look, lets call a spade a spade here... he is asking for socialism.
No. Socialism is defined as worker ownership of the means of production (that is, the factories). We usually think of state socialism: state ownership of the means of production (where the state claims to be operating on behalf of the workers.)
Unless he is advocating worker (or state) ownership fo the means of production, it's not socialism.
His platform is "democracy is dead." People need to get comfortable saying that, because that's what it is... if you are for UBI, you are a socialist. ;)
Democracy is a political system and socialism is an economic system. But, no. If you are for the state ownership of the means of production you are a socialist. If y
Re: (Score:2)
You define Marxism. There are in fact, other schools of socialism. Granting 99% of socialists are fucking Marxists of one sort or another.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, lets call a spade a spade here... he is asking for socialism.
Yes?
His platform is "democracy is dead."
what's that got to do with democracy being dead?
if you are for UBI, you are a socialist. ;)
You say that like it's a bad thing. Meanwhile people living in social democracies enjoy a high standard of living and general happiness.
Re: (Score:2)
My religion tells me that I should be a communist. I'm actually not calling socialism a bad thing, I'm just saying people need to evaluate their professed values and square them with the government we choose and the actions we outwardly do. I honestly believe that any system of government would work if men's hearts were pure, but none of them work because of the evils we allow to permeate our hearts (I'm looking at you greed).
Also good call about the democracy thing... I misspoke, and should have said cap
Re: (Score:2)
'A socialist'/'bad at math and can't see past the end of own nose'
Same thing. Your not disagreeing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too Early (Score:4, Insightful)
"About half the people in this country make more than they need"
That you seem to not see the evil in this is what worries me. 'more than they need' is easily defined into 'more than me'. And then, of course, it will be taken if we allow it.
How about you go out and get what you need on your own? K, thanks, bi.
Re: (Score:2)
Before you could even come close do enacting some type of VAT like that, you'd have to:
1. Entirely remove, and BAN from existence by law, the current income tax we have now.
2. You'd have to also get rid of all state and local taxes...and the Feds can't dictate that type of policy directly to the states, so, guessing that wouldn't fly.
To get something like that through, you'd have to make it the ONLY tax
Re:Too Early (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm good with that. I'm a socialist. That is miles and miles better than sociopathic conservative corporatist.
Yeah, the US as the new Venezuela.
Sounds positively delightful as it's worked out so well for Venezuelans.
UBI avoids the pitfalls of the old Soviet quip "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us." by eliminating the "..we pretend to work" bit.
Brilliant.
Strat
Re:Too Early (Score:5, Insightful)
It's working well for Norway, Sweden, Germany, Italy, France, basically all of the EU.
I don't understand how my fellow USians are so angrily entrenched in a system that serves only the wealthy and where a serious illness can result in poverty and destitution for generations.
Strat, what is wrong with a society that provides for all? It is possible but the anger, jealousy, and racism aren't allowing it to happen. Why shouldn't we start by reducing the work-week to 30 hours? Where is it written that we _have_to_ work 40 hours? Why not 10? Productivity increases should have been distributed equally but sadly they accrued to the wealthy only. If productivity doubled, in a fair world, we'd all reduce our work hours in half. What is wrong with that in your view?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't deny that one day UBI might be feasible, and even necessary but it's just too soon
What's too soon? 3-5 years from now, when this guy would be able to start working on it? What will unemployment look like then? And how long would it take to implement something like UBI? Years, most likely, from when it gets introduced. Will 6-8 years from now still be too soon? That probably depends on how fast you believe automation and AI/machine learning/other job-impacting tech will advance. If it's quite slow, maybe that time frame is too quick. I guess we've got a couple of years to see what happens
Re: Too Early (Score:2)
The problem is not in feasibility. UBI essentially has been created in top socialist countries in nostalgic hey day of Cold War.
The problem is not in inequality, the problem is in equality.
Everybody knows how bad equality was in that Soviet block and how it eventually led to economic bankruptcy of USSR. It created atmosphere of laziness and absence of hope.
That's why you NEED inequality. A member of the strata should be afraid to fall to the lower level of it and he should hope to get to the higher level.
Th
Re: (Score:2)
He will be offering a solution to the poor people unlike hillary did, If well marketed enough, might just work.
Unless of course he falls for the social justice meme and starts to spout a lot of racial charged shit.
Exactly. (Score:3)
governments inability to address large scale problems
And what makes him think 'government' would perform any differently with him behind the wheel?? GTFOH (i.e. never mind; I don't want to know).
Pat Paulsen (Score:2)
He supports single payer health care (Score:3)
I'd rather see him stumping on Medicare for All than basic income though.
Re: (Score:2)
""Free money for all" does get you the vote from those people."
Unless they happen to have a very basic understanding of economics. If printing a ton of fiat and handing it out to the population worked then the US Gov't would've been doing it for the past 100 years.
Re: (Score:2)
If printing a ton of fiat and handing it out to the population worked then the US Gov't would've been doing it for the past 100 years.
Funny you should mention 100 years. 100 years ago the world was still infested with the gold bug. Only in the thirties did economists begin to gain a basic understanding of what money is.
To this day, a majority of economists still believe that it is possible for every nation in the world to have a balanced budget while overall world economy is expanding. Most politicians believe that a prudent nation should run a trade surplus. They don't appear to understand that for every nation with a surplus, there's a
Re: (Score:2)
Standard hospital systems regularly kill people. Our modern medical system is a minefield. Is the VA demonstrably worse than average?
I like his optimism ... (Score:4, Funny)
Promising Free Shit (Score:3, Insightful)
Promising free shit to the young, stupid, and lazy worked out so great for Bernie, didn't it?
These people should first worry about the DNC existing long enough to put forth a candidate in 2020. It's a bit premature to be hobbling together a hollow platform that will only get you Bernied.
Beyond that, why are you planning for action in 2020 when you'll be up against an incumbent POTUS? (For all of you who can't fathom Trump being reelected - Bush Jr. was reviled and won reelection, and the popular vote, easily. This happened because he was the incumbent and people fear change. The DNC put forth a bland turkey-burger candidate knowing they didn't want to waste any real effort against an incumbent. And of course, Obama sat and watched as the economy burned and our rights were stripped away and the surveillance state grew. He, too, won reelection handily.)
You save your plays until 2024 unless you want to tip your hand and risk being scooped. It might make sense to throw your hat into the ring in 2020 and get your name out there, but you do NOT put your platform out there. It'll just have 4 extra years to be dismantled, attacked, made irrelevant, or copied.
Re:Promising Free Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Promising free shit to the young, stupid, and lazy worked out so great for Bernie, didn't it?
These people should first worry about the DNC existing long enough to put forth a candidate in 2020.
Uh, wait. The DNC is who screwed Sanders. Promising people free shit worked out great, except that it didn't jibe with the DNC's mission of sucking corporate cock. It worked out so well for Sanders that he actually attracted voters who eventually went on to vote for Trump specifically because they couldn't vote for Sanders.
It's a bit premature to be hobbling together a hollow platform that will only get you Bernied.
It's a big jerkoff waste of time if he doesn't have a strategy for making the DNC do the will of Democratic voters, but I don't think premature is the right word.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, wait. The DNC is who screwed Sanders. Promising people free shit worked out great, except that it didn't jibe with the DNC's mission of sucking corporate cock. It worked out so well for Sanders that he actually attracted voters who eventually went on to vote for Trump specifically because they couldn't vote for Sanders.
I never got that. "We don't like the way the DNC sucks corporate cock, so we'll skip the middle man and do it ourselves". Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Electile
ok, as much as that hurts, it's pretty damn funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Promising to spend their tax dollars on free college education instead of stupid wars in the Middle East worked out so great for Bernie, didn't it?
FTFW. Bernie is still the most popular elected politician in the country -- a fact even Fox News agrees with [businessinsider.com].
Re: (Score:2)
>"FTFW. Bernie is still the most popular elected politician in the country -- a fact even Fox News agrees with [businessinsider.com]."
Why would that surprise anyone? When around HALF the country is taking/drawing some type of government handout, and HALF the country also pays ZERO income tax, of course people are going to vote for anything that gets them more "free" stuff from those who work hard AND pay lots of taxes. It is a major conflict of interest of the highest order.
https://www.forbes.com/sites [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You save your plays until 2024 unless you want to tip your hand and risk being scooped. It might make sense to throw your hat into the ring in 2020 and get your name out there, but you do NOT put your platform out there. It'll just have 4 extra years to be dismantled, attacked, made irrelevant, or copied.
That depends on your ultimate endgame. If the founders of Whole Foods were looking to get rich off people who were willing to buy all-natural, non-GMO snake oil, then yeah, the fact that most supermarkets increased their organic / non-GMO / lower-salt-and-sweetener options is a bad thing. If the founders were trying to help kick-start the improvement of the quality of groceries for everyone, then having a number of such products available everywhere is a positive change. Likewise, if a more popular DNC cand
which problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
UBI is the most blatant example among many proposals that is very clearly a taking of $ from the highest earners, and giving it to the lowest earners. How else could it work? If you have a closed system where the income distribution is even linear up the scale, the only way UBI works is if the top subsidize the bottom. So it's a different form of progressive tax.
However, in this case, instead of subsidizing the means to be productive and earn a living, you simply give the people cash and assume they'll work it out for themselves. (For those imagining we would keep the social services, get real -- would we really give them cash *and* the social services too? Isn't UBI envisioned as a way to reduce social services? If social services worked, why do UBI?)
Anyway, aside from the possibility somehow that corporations are the ones taxed and not individuals -- the long term question is: what kind of society does this produce, if brought to its conclusion? Some kind of Star Trek utopia where everyone's free to pursue higher, loftier goals for humanity? Or, more realistically, some kind of even more unbalanced state where the very few people at the top produce wealth, the middle class is hollowed out, and the lowest earners don't have to work? Has anyone studied the incentives that this produces, and whether it makes our society better?
I think that is lacking in these idealized proposals.
Re: (Score:2)
I view UBI as just another fad in the recent trend of America's liberal thinking
Remember those good old fads like separating kings from their crown? Sometimes a few inches lower? It was real popular in it's day. But to an extent, limiting the power of monarchies and dictators is STILL in fashion. The political climate in China is concerning to nearly everyone.
Or how about that crazy fad where we nationalize retirement savings and have welfare programs? Now universally popular, but... again... they're still around.
If you want to call them fads, whatever floats your goat, but they
Re: (Score:2)
Oh man, sorry for missing this one. I'm off my game apparently.
the only way UBI works is if the top subsidize the bottom. So it's a different form of progressive tax.
That is LITERALLY the definition of a progressive tax structure. It would certainly be paid through a progressive tax structure... just like we have now.
Re:which problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Prospered? Are you joking? FDR's policies only worsened the Great Depression. It took a world war to end it.
Re: (Score:2)
Federal tax receipts are way up [truthfulpolitics.com], when you adjust for inflation. For example, back in the 1950s when we still had those 94% top tax rates (and the last time the US ran an actual, real surplus - meaning it did not have to borrow money [treasurydirect.gov]), the Federal Government took in about 25% of what it does today. We had half the number of people back then - around 150 million. Meaning that, today - adjusted for inflation and population growth - the Federal Government receives nearly twice the taxes than it did back wit
Our Representative Democracy is the issue.. (Score:2)
Because we elect representatives and the representatives are bought and paid for by corporations and the rich, things will never be fair. We will never see a UBI because that will never be allowed to come to a vote.
Instead of being a representative democracy, we should change over to a direct democracy. Let the people individually vote on dreamers, gun control, environmental issues, drug laws, ... You'll quickly find that things would change, some for the worst, but more for the best. The rich would hav
Re: (Score:2)
How can you possibly hold that level of pessimism in the first paragraph simultaneously with the optimism of the second?
That sort of change would take a constitutional amendment of EPIC proportions fundamentally changing our government. Or a rebellion. Are you rebel scum?
make your choice (Score:5, Interesting)
The California solution. Or problem. (Score:5, Funny)
OK, talking to a true-blue Californian Democrat:
The Californian says, "We have it figured out. We get UBI, we do not have to work anymore!"
And I ask, "But who is going to do all the needed work?"
"Ah, simple," says he. "The illegal immigrants!"
"But they don't pay taxes!"
Then, with a quick wink he says "We are still working on that minor problem!"
Re: (Score:2)
The entertainment of the 2020 Democrat primaries is going to be a lot more interesting than even the Republican 2016 primaries were.
Who will win? Old traditional Democrats or one of the new variety of young Leftists?
It's going to be a joke like the 2016 primaries were- and probably end up with some ridiculous extremist winning the nomination. UBI guy, Bernie Sanders, Kanye West, Oprah Winfrey? Can we not have a decent level headed somewhat moderate person please? Why are all the names being put forwards either extremists or just plain bonkers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we not have a decent level headed somewhat moderate person please?
If America wanted a centrist, it would have elected Clinton. That's not what America wants. Why can't you see that? It's as plain as day. America would rather have a pussy-grabbing steak salesman than a centrist.
Re: Oh boy (Score:3, Informative)
If America wanted an establishment whore, it would have elected Clinton. Instead it elected Trump and got one anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
You really bumped your head hard if you call Hillary a centerist... Think about that for a few minutes until the birds stop flying around your head..
Re: (Score:2)
You really bumped your head hard if you call Hillary a centerist... Think about that for a few minutes until the birds stop flying around your head..
The Democratic party is a centrist party, it does not represent the will of the actual left in this country. It proved that when it refused to let Sanders win the nomination for Democratic candidate for president. Clinton's position is precisely aligned with the Democratic party. She literally could not be any more centrist. She has always supported defense contractors, she has entirely given up on single payer health care since taking campaign contributions from Big Pharma, and she can and will do nothing
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely!!!
Much better alternative to a leftist that wants larger government that is even more intrusive into our private lives, and would like to curtail some amendments more than others.
In a freakin' heartbeat brother.
I'd vote for a small soapdish with no personality, than a leftist like Sanders, or worse.
If you could go back to JFK type democrat...perhaps that might be more palatable
Re: (Score:2)
Indiana was not going to re-elect Pence as governor. Indi-frekin-ana. If they don't want him, no one does.
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary is probably the most centrist presidential candidate from the main parties that the USA ever had.
She would have been a foreign policy hawk, like most of the Republican party wants, and her economic policy would certainly have been more right-wing than Obama (and he is not exactly screaming for the socialist stuff like protection of steel workers). Her staff appointments would reflect orthodox business leader thinking.
The only thing slightly left wing about her is her support for Obamacare. She would
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a born-and-raised American citizen, was not Republican OR Democrat in November 2016, and I didn't want EITHER ONE OF THEM; what does that make me, you drunk sonofabitch?
Either someone who wanted to vote for Sanders, or a statistical outlier whose influence on the election was negligible and can be ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot to add all-caps. How are people going to know you are right if you don't put them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are all the names being put in clickbait social media posts either extremists or just plain bonkers.
FTFY. You won't hear about the more boring candidates on social media.
Re: (Score:2)
...Can we not have a decent level headed somewhat moderate person please? Why are all the names being put forwards either extremists or just plain bonkers.
It worked for the GOP.
Re: (Score:2)
It's "woe", moran!
Re: (Score:2)
I agree! I'm with Sanders!
Re: (Score:2)
If they don't they have no chance. Let's not pretend the voters have any say in the matter.
Re:Wish he'd campaign on an independent ticket... (Score:5, Interesting)
At this point in USA history it is really time to make a stand towards eliminating our party system. The easiest way to do that is get a few big players campaigning on independent tickets, or small third parties with the goal of gaining the 5-10 percent for national recognition and then start winning overall elections once the big parties have begun faltering.
Until that happens we will see the same mess repeating that has been for the past 200+ years of American History.
Yeah, it's sad that so many of the founding fathers had the right idea (that political parties were a bad idea), and now we have an institutionalized system that pretty much guarantees an ongoing 2 party system.
I've always liked the idea that one of the houses (probably representatives) be taken over by a Sortocracy (aka lottocracy) , like was in place in Athens and many other Greek city states. Basically, the idea is that representatives are chosen at random from a pool of eligible citizens. Yeah, you get a few crack-pots in that way, but there are many benefits.
1) It is a TRUE representation of the population. It's not a polarized system like you get with voting. Anyone can put their name forwards. The house represents the people.
2) You don't have to be wealthy to rule. You don't have to be rich enough to go for years without working in order to fund a campaign.
3) You don't have to have the backing of a party. You are allowed to have your own ideas and thoughts.
4) You don't have any exposure to lobbyists. Lobbyists are powerless to influence you.
5) Representatives do what they think is right, not what they think will get them elected (goes back to point 1).
It's the best way to get a truly representative body and not the polar ends of the spectrum that you end up with with party elected politics.
You're giving the founders too much credit (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
1) It is a TRUE representation of the population. It's not a polarized system like you get with voting. Anyone can put their name forwards. The house represents the people.
If it is opt-in, then only those who can afford being away from their job for 1-6 years (depending on how it is implemented) will opt-in. Biasing the pool. If it is not opt-in, those who cannot afford such a breach in their employment history will refuse to answer when selected.
One would be paid whilst serving the nation by the nation. The same as what happens today. Congressmen receive a salary once they're elected.
2) You don't have to be wealthy to rule. You don't have to be rich enough to go for years without working in order to fund a campaign.
But you either have to be able to afford the time not at your job, or not have a job to miss out on anyway. Either way, bad representation.
Not all...see above point.
3) You don't have to have the backing of a party. You are allowed to have your own ideas and thoughts.
Until it comes to actually trying to get anything done. This will result in a perpetual deadlock, only interrupted when a skilled liar pushes an action.
There wouldn't necessarily be ANY parties in the sorti-elected government. They might separate themselves into groups once elected, or associate with parties. Compare it to today though where as many as 10%-50% of people prefer a third party to the main party (depending on who you believe)... What % of senators are third-party or in either house? Very few. You need the backing of one of two main parties to win an election- even though a significant portion of the country identify with neither party.
4) You don't have any exposure to lobbyists. Lobbyists are powerless to influence you.
HAHAHAHAHA! They'll be the ones offering catering services at the votes!
They can't fund the election of the representatives because the representatives don't have any election costs. All they could possibly do is bribe the representatives (which is already illegal) and would result in crippling fines on the lobbyists and expulsion/jail time for the reps and lobbyists offering the bribes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I note that Mr. Trump is even older at 71. If he does another term he would be 78 by the end*. After having Mr. Reagan spend most his second term incapable because of age related illness, I would think the people of the US would not be keen on having another Alzheimer's sufferer in the highest office in the land.
Who knows though, you guys did reelect that odd Mr. Bush II.
* Feel free to check my
Re:Hope he can outbid Hillary (Score:5, Insightful)
She only knows how to do one thing, but somebody needs to explain the situation to her. She put Trump in office...that's how bad at politics she is.
Re: (Score:2)
How much does the US army, navy and airforce waste every year? You think that is sustainable? Are you really that stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe Gary whatzisname (Johnson?) had multiple articles about him during the last election season, so odds are pretty good, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't remember a SINGLE slashdot article about Ron Paul. No sirree. (Although that might be due to heavy drinking)