131–140 of 184 posts
Yang supporters believe expats should also get the freedom dividend. It would be funny if yang just declares a United States of earth and distributes the freedom dividend to every human on the entire planet...
Yang supporters believe expats should also get the freedom dividend. It would be funny if yang just declares a United States of earth and distributes the freedom dividend to every human on the entire planet...
Not really. Yang is unequivocal that expats should not receive the dividend while they are abroad. And they deserve their part given we tax them as if they were present.
What is the moral basis for this? Pretty much every other U.S. right and rule is grounded on U.S. citizenship, not where you're currently residing. Basing rights on where you live (rather than citizenship) also leads to some weird results. If you deny expats some right because they don't live in the country, then shouldn't you grant non-citizens who are indeed living in the country those same rights? After all, the standard is where you live rather than citizenship.
Yang supporters believe expats should also get the freedom dividend. It would be funny if yang just declares a United States of earth and distributes the freedom dividend to every human on the entire planet...
Well, this is what Trump believes. A solid 30% of the U.S. stock market is owned by foreigners, and so when U.S. corporations used their Trump tax break to increase their market value, 30% of that effectively gave foreigners a bump.
His tax plan effectively increased taxes in expensive "blue" states and gave that money to foreign investors.
I encountered this myself after responding to someone's comment about the Universal Basic Income (UBI) concept, and got spammed with negative replies. I figured it was just ardent supporters, bots make sense though given the speed of the responses. Sadly, I think this may be the new normal of politics in the 2020s.
> after responding to someone's comment about the Universal Basic Income (UBI) concept, and got spammed with negative replies. I figured it was just ardent supporters, bots make sense though given the speed of the responses. Ardent non-supporter of UBI here! Not a bot!! The nefarious issue with UBI is that it threatens our existing social safety nets. The social goal is not to give everyone a single basic income, it'…
I like the idea of ending the current welfare system because it makes the recipient feel 'less' because they're on 'state assistance' vs everyone gets 3k/month + 500 per dependent per month.
We'd need a different tax system though, and need maybe VAT to offset it a little. It would move everyone above poverty though so pretty much everyone could afford at least some level of taxes. It would also give job mobility and more ability to negotiate wages. Some would choose to stay home and join esports leagues, or start an arts career or go back to school, or start a business. Meaning less people would be required by labor, meaning supply/demand would be in worker's favor -- which would drive up wages.
I think there's definitely a place for UBI on the table, AS LONG as single-payer and free college ALSO exist - -and college debt forgiveness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In fact a quick check on twitteraudit.com Yang: 95%; 1,061,978 Real 48,878 Fake Bernie: 69%; 7,052,953 Real 3,124,469 Fake Warren: 84%; 2,966,118 Real 560,776 Fake Buttigieg: 93%; 1,481,598 Real 102,999 Fake Biden: 84%; 3,375,998 Real 619,266 Fake Trump: 79%; 56,463,132 Real 14,292,673 Fake
Bernie and warren have multiple official accounts. At least two I know of for each. @berniesanders: 69% | 7,052,953 Real | 3,124,469 Fake @sensanders: 74% | 6,480,666 Real | 2,171,758 Fake @senwarren: 68% | 3,668,103 Real | 1,694,620 Fake @ewarren: 84% | 2,966,118 Real | 560,776 Fake So cumulatively the scores are more like: Bernie: 71% Total non-fake followers: 8,237,392 Warren: 79% Total non-fake followers: 4,939,6…
If we trust twitter audit over her (which tbf I don't see any good reason to trust one over another) then her piece seems at best naive and at worse a hit piece.
Knowing Yang Gang, and knowing that there's a lot of people turning from Trump (they literally pride themselves on it [0,1,2,3,4], I can go on pretty easily with a lot like [2]), it makes me inclined to believe that the analysis is naive (I'm hesitant to call this a hit piece) because she mentioned the suspicion of MAGA and YG. MAGA and YG connections makes a lot of sense if you just checked out the subreddit for ten minutes.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/YangForPresidentHQ/comments/et3v4z/...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/YangForPresidentHQ/comments/et24dh/...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/YangForPresidentHQ/comments/ekhp4o/...
[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/YangForPresidentHQ/comments/epq2dd/...
[4] https://www.reddit.com/r/YangForPresidentHQ/comments/cn5vsl/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> after responding to someone's comment about the Universal Basic Income (UBI) concept, and got spammed with negative replies. I figured it was just ardent supporters, bots make sense though given the speed of the responses. Ardent non-supporter of UBI here! Not a bot!! The nefarious issue with UBI is that it threatens our existing social safety nets. The social goal is not to give everyone a single basic income, it'…
Bernie supporter here AND UBI supporter, (not Yang's version per se though). I support a bigger more expansive UBI that would basically cover all food, housing, and major monthly expenses. We still need education/healthcare though as Bernie suggests. Which is why I support him. I like the idea of ending the current welfare system because it makes the recipient feel 'less' because they're on 'state assistance' vs ever…
I agree that those basics that make up common humanity should be covered. But I differ on how to get there. UBI means writing a check to someone, and letting them spend it how they wish. They can spend it on food and healthcare, their startup, or alcohol and gambling.
But if the purpose is to set a minimum level human decency (food, housing, healthcare), then we should provide that level of decency, rather than writing a check and hoping people will use it wisely. If an entrepreneur takes their UBI check and rather than buying healthcare, puts it into a startup that eventually becomes big, that may be a better result for the overall economy, but we've still failed that person in providing a minimum level of humanity.
The moral purpose behind UBI is not to just write checks, it's to allow humans to retain their humanity. Providing solid public schools, healthcare, and basic housing better provide that minimum level of dignity than sending a person a check.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I had the same experience with Hillary, yet I still voted for her (not as enthusiastically as I'd have liked) because I don't want to let a bunch of jerks make my mind up for me.
Well, w/ Hillary she herself was toxic/evil. Her people were icing on the cake. If nobody existed but a Yang Gang member and Bernie - could they really admit he wasn't authentic and wanted to make the world better? Is he corrupt? Is he in this for himself? To enrich his businesses per se? Sell more books? Has he changed his message to win? Or is he consistent? I mean look at the candidate. Sure the community can get…
Serious question, why is this a metric?
Changing your mind should be a good thing. I find this odd coming from a tech and more science oriented website. I'm not saying that we should just encourage people to change on a whim but changing positions because 1) you're presented with new evidence and/or 2) the people you are representing have changed positions, this should be respected. There's a difference between changing positions and feigning belief. It is especially bad if you feign a position and work against that position (I can respect you if you even if disagree with a position but work for it because your constituents hold said belief). #1 is obvious why it is good (because we're human and fuck up). #2 is good because you're adapting to what those that you represent believe.
I for one DO NOT want a president that is going to double down on bad beliefs and not change beliefs as either culture changes (e.g. Obama changed positions with gay marriage as the US culture changed) or because they are presented with new evidence. These things should be regarded as a good trait.
tldr: why is consistency such a highly regarded metric?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously a dark horse Democratic candidate would claim MAGA support, that's a tactic to present as "electable".
Sure but in this case it’s his adherents who are claiming to be right leaning and former MAGA supporters. It doesn’t look good to Democrats to see memes for Yang or back to Trump so I cannot be cynical here. edit: Because it's a bad look with Democrats to have a lot of right leaning support I take the MAGA supporters at their word. Particularly because I'm a Yang supporter and became politically disengaged after supp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, w/ Hillary she herself was toxic/evil. Her people were icing on the cake. If nobody existed but a Yang Gang member and Bernie - could they really admit he wasn't authentic and wanted to make the world better? Is he corrupt? Is he in this for himself? To enrich his businesses per se? Sell more books? Has he changed his message to win? Or is he consistent? I mean look at the candidate. Sure the community can get…
> Has he changed his message to win? Or is he consistent? Serious question, why is this a metric? Changing your mind should be a good thing. I find this odd coming from a tech and more science oriented website. I'm not saying that we should just encourage people to change on a whim but changing positions because 1) you're presented with new evidence and/or 2) the people you are representing have changed positions, th…
It's not about consistency, it's about being right consistently. Unfortunately, most decisions whether made by an individual, CEO, or politician have to be made with imperfect information. The data just isn't there to do a full analysis. In data's absence, when you need to make a decision, you rely on instinct and foundational principles.
Of course, when the data becomes available you can adjust, as anyone should. But when you have good enough instincts or principles, you can operate effectively without good data, and that makes for a good leader.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure but in this case it’s his adherents who are claiming to be right leaning and former MAGA supporters. It doesn’t look good to Democrats to see memes for Yang or back to Trump so I cannot be cynical here. edit: Because it's a bad look with Democrats to have a lot of right leaning support I take the MAGA supporters at their word. Particularly because I'm a Yang supporter and became politically disengaged after supp…
Just an FYI, a lot of people that voted Trump in 2016 were big Bernie supporters. I personally know quite a few people that made this switch. Is it a surprise that the same thing is happening again?
Unfortunately I think I'm being mis-read and unfortunately I am blind to why. ...it happens