Baracka Flocka Flame
Coast to Coast
Why aren’t they trying to marginalize my man yang. Having him talk about circumcisions and shyt.
Andrew Yang (Former 2020 Presidential Candidate): What's his future? #YangGang :lupe:
- Thread starter Shogun
- Start date
Reagan too. He was a distant third in 1968 and then just barely lost to Ford in 1976 before finally breaking through in 1980.
And George H.W. Bush as well. He went up against Reagan in 1980, beat him in Iowa but lost most of the following states and eventually dropped out of the race in May, then became his running mate and won the presidency himself in 1988.
I agree with the people who say that a lot of candidates could be criticized for a lot of ideas.
But that was a really necessary piece. Some of those ideas Yang has aren't just bad, they're dangerously bad, and they indicate a thought process that could go south in a lot of other ways too. There was Peter Thiel-type stuff in there, the sort of assumptions that tech and a business mindset are going to solve everything with a blindness to how tech and business mindsets are making the world worse at this very moment.
I hope Yang gets airtime so that certain good ideas of his (like UBI) become more and more mainstreamed. But I don't want him in the presidency. He's not just not ready, that piece exposed to me that he has a way of thinking quite incompatible with the direction I think the world needs to go.
storyteller
Veteran
Got heads dismissing legitimate critiques as bias without bothering to reflect or attempt to refute what's being said (let's be honest because the critiques are pretty clear and accurate). Yang's ability to recognize and diagnose problems with our society is good, his solutions aren't particularly impressive and in some cases flat out bad.
I feel like a lot of this criticism is the result of Yang's saying too much. There's a reasons why the career politicians give vague non-answers to most questions, and I think this kind of response is it. All the criticisms are valid, but to say he's dangerous or somehow acting in bad faith seems to be hyperbolic. Of the other front runners I haven't heard them say a single thing about automation. That, to me, is dangerous
Got heads dismissing legitimate critiques as bias without bothering to reflect or attempt to refute what's being said (let's be honest because the critiques are pretty clear and accurate). Yang's ability to recognize and diagnose problems with our society is good, his solutions aren't particularly impressive and in some cases flat out bad.
(admittedly, they may have positions on automation that I've missed)
storyteller
Veteran
I feel like a lot of this criticism is the result of Yang's saying too much. There's a reasons why the career politicians give vague non-answers to most questions, and I think this kind of response is it. All the criticisms are valid, but to say he's dangerous or somehow acting in bad faith seems to be hyperbolic. Of the other front runners I haven't heard them say a single thing about automation. That, to me, is dangerous
I don't think he's acting in bad faith. Dangerous is probably hyperbole. But his platform and even his UBI model looks like fool's gold to me. Him being just as fooled by shoddy versions of good ideas as anyone else. I do appreciate his recognition of problems, I think that's valuable especially on a debate stage...but his ideas on how to resolve those issues look like a fail to me and not because they're too left or radical. Because they're not cohesive and there's a lot of libertarian babble mixed in.
Copy Ninja
Superstar
MIKE SPLEAN
Superstar
Yang needs more clout
afterlife2009
Superstar
are ***** pepe the frog types trolling yang or is Yang trolling ***** pepes
Seems to be a mix of both
They keep posting pics of his logo with a pink hat and the campaign put out a notice saying please don't post those memes, use our blue colors
coupercoli
Pro
Yang does not think tech and business are gonna “sort themselves out”, he’s saying the opposite of that. Putting him in the same category as Thiel is intellectually dishonest and inserting his name next to Yang is low hanging fruit.
To call yang’s policies dangerously bad is utterly ridiculous. Take the podcaster who wrote the article with a grain of salt like you would any writer.
I feel like a lot of this criticism is the result of Yang's saying too much. There's a reasons why the career politicians give vague non-answers to most questions, and I think this kind of response is it. All the criticisms are valid, but to say he's dangerous or somehow acting in bad faith seems to be hyperbolic. Of the other front runners I haven't heard them say a single thing about automation. That, to me, is dangerous
Calling his policies dangerous is a complete headscratcher. It sounds like a buzz phrase created by DNC establishment or the media bc they wanna push mainstream, popular dem candidates like o’rourke, Harris or Biden.
I didn't say that he thinks tech and business are going to sort themselves out, not only was that wrong but it was strange for you to put that like in quotes like those were my words. I said that he thinks a tech and business mindset are going to solve everything. You just did exactly what you were trying to accuse me of doing.
These are the sorts of things I was pulling that from:
That to me shows a mindset of "the business world knows the right way to be doing things and we should be replacing a lot of human jobs with tech." Things like turning government functions over to AI, turning psychological interventions over to AI, using geoengineering to solve climate change rather than addressing resource use...those aren't just wrong to me, those suggest to me that he's internalized some really bad ideas from the tech sector.
So then I look at his resume, see he bounced from corporate law to celebrity philanthropy to test prep to startup incubation...that's not alleviating any fears. That all revolves around the same network of ideas that I distrust.
From what I've read I think that Andrew Yang is great at identifying the problems in our society. I agree with him almost across the board on what the issues are. But answers like those lead me to believe that he is overly trustful of the ability of technology and the business mindset to solve those problems.
I admit I probably overstated my case earlier, fueled by the cherry-picking nature of the review I had just read. When I expand more broadly the bad ideas tend to be side-by-side with good ones. But I still have concerns over the similarities in the nature of those bad ideas.