IGIT
Silver Belt
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Messages
- 10,046
- Reaction score
- 940
heyo again Lead,
sorry i missed your post.
hallelujah. i'm glad she's out, i'm glad she was humiliated.
- IGIT
Yang as a candidate has turned out to be a complete boob who can't do anything but make Asian jokes, bitch about Democrats, and say he's giving everybody money with no realistic way to pay for it. He just sucks so bad.
Sorry, if you're as dramatically unqualified as he is (less than Trump even), you have to bring something to the table. He doesn't bring anything.
I've looked over Yang's proposals actually, and no he really doesn't pay for it, and his FAQ on his website is kind of ridiculous. It's all wild speculation about resulting reductions in social programs across the board, and the VAT would be a gigantic shakeup in its own right. There's like 0.0001% of the information we would need to make such a radical jump. His track record of big proposals is not exactly spectacular either. He comes off like he might be a bit of a con man.He has detailed very clearly how UBI will be paid for, just not in the 30 seconds he's alotted during the debates.
He, along with Pete, is also the only candidate who seems to understand that taking everything seriously is how Donald got elected in the first place. Americans aren't smart. They do not think. You can't win them over by proposing policy and providing complex solutions. Donald will not be beaten by a serious person who calls him a racist. He will be beaten by someone who calls him fat and laughs at his spray tan and genereally treats him as the toothless and senile old ED ad that he is. Yang understands that Donald's entire campaign support stems from those who wish to "trigger the libs" and he simply refuses to be triggered.
Every other candidate, except for maybe Pete and Tulsi (and maaaaybe Bernie, who is just as obstinate as Donald), will spend the whole debate getting embarassed and provoked and talking about issues in ways that are far less memorable to voters than Donald's shittalking.
I've looked over Yang's proposals actually, and no he really doesn't pay for it, and his FAQ on his website is kind of ridiculous. It's all wild speculation about resulting reductions in social programs across the board, and the VAT would be a gigantic shakeup in its own right. There's like 0.0001% of the information we would need to make such a radical jump. His track record of big proposals is not exactly spectacular either. He comes off like he might be a bit of a con man.
I've looked over Yang's proposals actually, and no he really doesn't pay for it, and his FAQ on his website is kind of ridiculous. It's all wild speculation about resulting reductions in social programs across the board, and the VAT would be a gigantic shakeup in its own right. There's like 0.0001% of the information we would need to make such a radical jump. His track record of big proposals is not exactly spectacular either. He comes off like he might be a bit of a con man.
But the bigger issue for me is that I need Donald to lose and I don't think the other candidates really understand why Donald won in the first place or how to ensure it doesn't happen again. Warren is busy making policy plans, as if Hillary didn't have policy plans.
I'm familiar with his explanations but it still doesn't quite add up to me, one example being assuming the safety net will automatically get much smaller and the pressure on social services will be relieved, and I think he's just wrong about that. If he was somebody with a history of coming up with big ideas and meeting big goals (or had any government experience at all), I'd be more inclined to believe some of his claims.I've heard him explain it several times in longer interviews, including on Rogan and The View. He outlines how much the plan would cost, how much would come from funds currently used for existing welfare programs, how much would come from closing specific loopholes that allow silicon valley megacorps like Amazon and Google to pay minimal taxes, how much would come from the program itself--generated when consumers use that money in their communities--etc.
But the bigger issue for me is that I need Donald to lose and I don't think the other candidates really understand why Donald won in the first place or how to ensure it doesn't happen again. Warren is busy making policy plans, as if Hillary didn't have policy plans.
hi Leagon,
i'm thinking that the American public might give Mrs. Warren a fair hearing. she's not quite as encumbered with the same baggage that Mrs. Clinton toted into the 2016 race.
if Mrs. Warren is the one that emerges out of the primary triumphant, i'd guess that Sanders supporters are less likely to view her as the anti-Christ, you know?
- IGIT
lol @ anybody supporting Buttigieg
I'd gladly vote or Biden, Tulsi, or Warren.
I will not vote for Biden.
I'm familiar with his explanations but it still doesn't quite add up to me, one example being assuming the safety net will automatically get much smaller and the pressure on social services will be relieved, and I think he's just wrong about that. If he was somebody with a history of coming up with big ideas and meeting big goals (or had any government experience at all), I'd be more inclined to believe some of his claims.
Agreed about the most important thing being taking back the WH and if we're very lucky, the Senate. I'm willing to vote for any Democratic candidate over Trump.
IGGY,hello Anung Un Rama,
i think you probably meant Bernie, Tulsi or Warren. and you'd withhold your vote from Joe.
- IGIT
Clinton and Reagan were Governors for 8 or 10 years.Obama didn't have much experience. Clinton didn't have that much experience. Reagan didn't have much experience.
Experience is really overrated, both in terms of doing the job and electability. What experience did JFK have before he promised to put a man on the moon?
I'm worried about the debates. Donald wasn't even a somewhat serious candidate when the 2016 primaries started. He laid waste to the entire field.
I don't see Warren faring well in the debates with him. Her image is very rigid. The first time he pokes a hole in it--which he will, he does it with everyone--I worry she will deflate, politically-speaking.
I'm worried about the debates. Donald wasn't even a somewhat serious candidate when the 2016 primaries started. He laid waste to the entire field.
I don't see Warren faring well in the debates with him. Her image is very rigid. The first time he pokes a hole in it--which he will, he does it with everyone--I worry she will deflate, politically-speaking.
All of those people had experience in government (governor or senator), as well as stellar educations except for Reagan, who was nonetheless far more qualified than Yang. He's really the absolute bottom of the barrel in terms of qualifications- just a law degree, and test prep company, and numerous failed initiatives. I think he compares very unfavorably to all of them.Obama didn't have much experience. Clinton didn't have that much experience. Reagan didn't have much experience.
Experience is really overrated, both in terms of doing the job and electability. What experience did JFK have before he promised to put a man on the moon?
Clinton and Reagan were Governors for 8 or 10 years.
You can't really get better experience than that.
It’s legit lolHoly hell, if that's legit that's a great burn.
hi and well met, Leagon,
i haven't thought about the 2016 GOP primaries in a while.
*thinks*
Mr. Trump might have laid waste to the entire field because the GOP, as a party, is intellectually bankrupt - and GOP voters finally recognized this to be the case.
think about it. what did they stand for? what have they stood for since Reagan?
evangelical morality? fiscal conservatism? Mr. Trump finally exposed them for what they've been all along; frauds. that doesn't mean that the Democrats need to fight fire with fire. at least i hope it doesn't come down to that.
its depends on where the political zeitgeist is at any given time. i can't imagine a more bland candidate than Jimmy Carter. go youtube videos of the man from the 70's, you won't need your ambien tonight...but in '76, Americans were ready for just that kind of politician.
after four years of Mr. Trump, you never know what the cards would hold for Mrs. Warren.
- IGIT
Lol, you absolutely can. Secretary of State, Vice President, Senate Leader, Governor of a real state (not Arkansas) + Congressional experience are all things that many people have on their resume that are superior to just being a governor. Bill Richardson was a governor, former UN Ambassador, former Secretary of Energy and former congressman and he lost in the primaries to Obama.