Andrew Yang: the fascist future of the Democratic Party


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

Want to know what the future of the Democratic Party will be? You need only take a look at the stated presidential goals of Andrew Yang.

Yang’s proposals in the first two stories would violate the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, having government impose its will on both free speech and religion. His proposal in the third story would bankrupt the nation while imposing back-breaking taxes on everyone. The result would be Soviet- and Venezuelan-style socialism/communism. And anyone with even the slightest education can imagine where that will get us.

The fourth story illustrates his uneducated narcissism. He fears that automation and robots are going to put people out of work forever, and wants to use the power of government to fix this danger.

Even if he is right about the dangers of automation, however, what makes him think he is so smart that he has the slightest idea what to do? He doesn’t. No single human ever does on problems of this complexity. Instead, the free market usually answers the problem quite effectively. Remember Aesop’s fable about necessity being the mother of invention?

If automation kills some jobs, others will pop up to replace them. This is what happened in the 1960s and 1970s when the first wave of panic occurred over automation. Then there were numerous articles about how automation was going to put everyone out of work. It never happened, and it won’t happen in the future.

Yang will probably not be the Democratic Party candidate for president. Still, his stance and nonchalant willingness to violate the Constitution to impose his will on others is very typical of most young Democrats. This is where that party is heading, even as it embraces bigotry and anti-Semitism, while working to corrupt the election process.

Yang is typical of the young Democratic Party. That future should send chills up the spine of every free American. As I’ve said repeatedly, they’re coming for you next.

Share

53 comments

  • foxbat

    I listened to his interview with Rogen. His ideas sounded like a college student after smoking a doobie.

  • Cotour

    In there idealistic and really naive in many, many cases these younger Democrats attempt to reinvent and “improve” what is and they see as being a problem. And that problem in there opinion is the Constitution as it was written by the people who wrote it.

    Luckily in there desperation to improve what for the most part needs no improvement they are all attempting to out tap dance each other by offering their crazier and ever crazier reinterpretations of how people in America should, or more correctly must live.

    IMO regarding at least the next election the Democrats are essentially lost and are in some form of reorganization chaos, what will emerge from the other end is not knowable. Will it be the new American Democrat Communist party? Who knows but what I see at this moment in time is just a whole lot of crazy, and from what I can tell by the people who surround me who call themselves Democrats they see it to and are not happy.

    Most of these Democrats I think have grown up on too much Star Trek and other fictional versions of life and living and have not really paid attention to and understand the real world and from where we actually come. And of course they have been the subjects of the 60’s radical Marxist’s and Liberal’s in our education system for the last 50 years which does not help things. And of course we now also have the more refined and now respectable community organizer types formalized by the likes of Saul Alinski and of course his most famous adherent, Barack Obama. But still the average every day Democrat sees the crazy.

    So I do not see the Democrats prevailing in this political cycle, they are literally too crazy, but what will the next cycle bring? That might be the more concerning question and cycle to be watching for.

    And lets define their craziness: They propose for 16 year olds to vote (anything for more votes), the Democrat leadership (not the everyday Democrat in the country) talk about third trimester abortion and post birth abortion as is if it were like blowing their nose, They see no problem in 500 to 600 thousand illegals flooding into the country EVERY YEAR, its just not an issue, they want illegals to vote, they want illegals to have licenses to drive, they are very concerned about cow flatulence, they see “Climate change” (when has the climate not changed? What a dodge of a term) as presenting a 12 year time line before the earth is catastrophically and irreversibly destroyed (Really), the last time I checked the earth has been here for about 4 billion years (I thought we were suppose to be under 20 feet of water by now as per Al Gore), they want to make healthcare a right, they want to make income a right, I could go on.

    My point? They are coming across as being desperate and nuts, and who is going to save them? Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden? Really? An old white cracker Commie and an old white cracker jackass and gaff machine? A 40 year old who stands on tables and who has to apologize for his writings in his youth where he proposes the running over of children and the scrubbing of his nether regions (This Beto is an empty shell, he is faking the whole thing, a nobody going nowhere. The more and closer you look the less that is apparent). Is the Albino ice queen Gillibrand with the high pitched voice going to lead the way? No. I suspect they will choose to have Kamala somewhere in the mix in the end because they might see her as an Obama clone, but she is not. Obama is a once in a lifetime man and moment.

    All of the Democrats so far that have dared to announce for president are all like half scissors, useless and are going nowhere. Put them on a stage with Trump. Put them on a stage with Trump after the indictments………. of Comey, McCabe, Stzock, Brennen and of course Ma Barker and her gal pal Huma. Put them on a stage with Trump after the Mueller report to the Attorney General is released (Who here thinks Bill Barr took the job to cover up what the DOJ and the FBI did against the country? Or did he take the job because of the desperate need the country and the Constitution had for him to straighten things out? Stay tuned for that answer)

    Democrats in 2020 have a bunch of problems, and they are calling them candidates.

  • Jeremy Tunnell

    I found this post highly disappointing.

    I don’t believe you accurately represented his views. For example, in the same article you link, he states that he would not support a ban on circumcision…that he’s only in favor of educating the public on the practice.

    If “educating the public” is your idea of fascism, I submit the word has lost all meaning.

  • a bee ee?

    Just because automation has “always” replaced obsolescent jobs with new ones doesn’t mean that process will continue forever. Remember “past performance . . . ” and all that.

    Instead we should prepare for the future by encouraging people to get more income from returns on capital and less on labor in order to reduce the supply of labor to levels consistent with future demand. All savings and investment should be exempt from income tax, as should income from capital sources. Labor income should be taxed at high rates in order to encourage individuals to save and reduce their labor effort with the goal of leaving the labor force entirely.

    Other than that, Yang is batshit crazy.

  • Jeremy Tunnell: In my life I cannot count the number of times Democrats like Yang have complained about something, said that they “really” only wanted to educate us, and then once they got power proceeded to try to use the force of law to impose their “education,” by banning what they did not like.

    Yang’s overall positions clearly show him to be someone eager to use power to tell people what to do. If you trust him, you are setting yourself up for some very bad times.

  • I should also add that there was a reason I linked to four different articles. I wanted to illustrate the pattern behind Yang’s positions.

    I will probably start doing similar posts for all the Democratic candidates. They all exhibit this narcissist hunger for control over other people’s lives. Yang was posted first simply because he provided a good illustration.

    I should note that this pattern is also seen with many Republicans as well. Anyone who wants to become a politician by his or her DNA is almost always going to be narcissist. The key is whether they appear to relish power, or do things that devolve power back to the people.

    You can’t trust any of them. You simply have to demand the latter, and throw them out when they do the former. Our problem today is that too many people are credulous and willing to give these thugs the benefit of the doubt, something none of them ever deserve.

  • Apeon

    Just what we need——someone telling us what we should do with our private parts——-if he gets close enough to me he will find out just how much business her has to do with my business.

  • Jeremy Tunnell

    Robert, I’m a lifelong Republican and Trump voter. As of right now, i’m voting Yang in 2020.

    I’ve been watching Yang for a month or so and I have gone through his policy positions and watched most of his interviews on youtube. Yang is what Trump should have been.

    What I see is an entrepreneur who knows how the economy works, what it means to run a business, why entrepreneurship is failing, and who has a very plausible theory of the above.

    From what i’ve been able to gather, he’s a libertarian who has tacked left to be competitive in the Democratic primaries.

    His suggestion of UBI is so close to Friedman’s Negative Income Tax as to be relatively indistinguishable. He calls it capitalism without a zero dollar starting point, and I agree with him. Capitalism is struggling and needs an update for the 21st century. As I sit here at my computer I just made $10k trading cryptocurrencies while my sister works long days as a cashier making $10/hour. Inequality has become perverse, and it’s resulted in a capitalism I don’t like anymore. I want people to work hard and be successful, but I don’t want them to be on the edge of disaster even if they do work hard.

    I’m fairly comfortable claiming that I know more about him than you do, and my gut feeling on this post is that you’ve built a straw man of his positions. He is quite openly against identity politics. It’s a breath of fresh air in the rest of the Democratic field, and I think it’s unfair to call out the dumb remark at that asian conference.

    On the last item, as someone who has cofounded a large tech company, I’m telling you that the automation and robots that are coming are vastly different than in the past. Truckers will lose their jobs en-masse in less than a decade. Making fun of “the robots” is a non-serious response to a serious problem.

    I would make the argument that he’s closer to where the Republican Party should be in 2020.

    Regardless, it’s been fascinating watching how he’s being covered in the conservative media.

  • wayne

    Foxbat-
    I’d second that observation.

    Jeremy–
    Trying to figure out, from where you come!
    What kind of Republican are you? (or, a better question– if Trump had not run, which Republican would you have supported?)
    I’ve been a capital “L” Libertarian and a small “l” libertarian– Yang is neither. If you actually voted Trump, why would you bail on him and support Yang?
    Even the very wise, occasionally make errors, and Friedman’s negative income tax, was his big mistake. It requires you enslave me, to provide freebies to people who would otherwise work. Bad Idea, all around. He’s a totalitarian Statist at heart.
    So, you like to gamble on made-up, 110% fiat “currencies?” I suggest you drop your sister a few $K and relieve her suffering.
    “Capitalism” isn’t struggling, although it’s been under assault for 100++ years. Why don’t we allow everyone to participate in free-market activities without the heavy hand of the Federal Government around our necks 24/7/365?
    What is your stance on the 16th and 17th Amendments?

  • Cotour

    Jeremy Tunnell:

    Why would you endeavor to vote for someone who especially in this atmosphere where it is unlikely that a Democrat will win because they are *ALL* seen as pie in the sky crazy and trade a known quantity like Trump? Even if Trump is not exactly what you want or personally like, you must admit he is a vast improvement over any and most all other modern presidents.

    Yang, just like “Beto” and the rest are ALL unknown quantities regarding what it is that you claim to value, they are all saying what ever needed to get on the score board and most have not much in the way of accomplishments. Why trade a known valuable quantity for an unknown shot in the dark who is most likely a “New age” Leftist front man?

    PS: As soon as he identifies as a “Libertarian” or one of his opponents identifies him as one in a national election he is done. Libertarianism, which is generally associated as being a Conservative belief system is a personal philosophy and not a national platform to win a presidential election, especially when being considered by Democrats.

    Please enumerate why you are not happy with Trump and his administration. Its actions and not rhetoric that count, and the Democrats are full of rhetoric of mostly the bovine kind.

  • I probably should keep my mouth shut, but this is problematic in a couple of ways unrelated to Mr. Yang:

    1. This is the way SJWs work. Find a “villain” and label all his view evil. Then use guilt by association to villainize anyone who subscribes to any single one of the labeled views. That’s how I got labeled an anti-vaxxer. I’m not opposed to vaccination, per se, just government coerced vaccination. If you think the government has a right to force you to take a vaccine, then what’s to stop the same government from one day forcing you to treat brain cancer with digderidoo music? Common sense? Good luck with that!

    2. Infant genital mutilation is not protected religious behavior. Or if it is, then shouldn’t suttee (ritual burning of widows on funeral pyres) be similarly protected? It’s a Hindu rite that was suppressed by the British Raj (famous anecdote available). Most people oppose female genital mutilation, so do you believe its only male genital mutilation that’s a constitutional right? What about non-religious circumcission? That started as a fad! Or do you think it’s just like vaccination, and can be forced on you by the government? Imagine that.

    I realize those arguments could be dismissed as reductio ad absurdum. But think about it. Because they’re not.

  • wayne

    Cotour–
    I’d quibble with you over libertarianism, but no matter.
    I remain highly confused over the Yang supporters…

    Off thread— just watched the video of the Trump rally in Lima, Ohio. I’d score it as being one of his Top 20 that I’ve seen. Tight, focused, and with just enough off-scripting to make it entertaining. (and I have watched like’ 95% of all his long form presentations.)
    Further off-thread; Trump will be at the Van Andel Arena in Grand Rapids, Mi. March 28th. (Tickets are gone already)

    A blast from the past–
    Donald Trump/Mike Pence
    Final Rally 12:30AM election day 2016
    Grand Rapids, Michigan.
    https://youtu.be/b-cE8JXmGh8?t=1760

  • Cotour

    Male circumcision which is the removal of “extra” protective skin from around the penis is not technically genital mutilation, it is done primarily today for health reasons and does not hamper sexual performance as does female genital mutilation.

    To surgically remove the clitoris is to attempt remove and control the ability for females to enjoy sex. Two very different things that are in some instances like this being interpreted as equal and the same. They are not.

  • Cotour

    Trump is at his best when at the podium at those rallies, no one better. Reagan might have been a bit more formal and structured and brilliant in his own way, but Trump is a master in his own unique way. None, and I mean none of the Democrats announced or that I know about can stand toe to toe with him.

    And that is their biggest problem.

    The cream rises.

    The Democrats have no cream, they are all fat free and inauthentic because of it.

  • wayne

    Mark Levin Show:
    Victor Davis Hanson: The Case For Trump
    March 7, 2019
    https://youtu.be/vvSADI5p0sI
    15:50

  • wayne

    Murray Rothbard:
    Six Stages of the Libertarian Movement
    1982
    https://youtu.be/QWxYC4H0VWo
    1:01:42

  • William Barton: Don’t get lost amid the trees. I was focused on the forest. I wanted to illustrate the pattern of thinking of modern Democrats: “We know best. We want power to fix the world. Trust us with that power.”

    The individual issues can certainly be debated. The point here however is that the goal of the modern Democratic Party is not really to fix any of these issues, but to use them to obtain power. In fact, they really don’t give a hoot about these issues.

    It is this unstated and very dangerous motive that people must start to recognize.

  • eddie willers

    I’ll just say this about circumcision.

    I had it done shorty after birth and I couldn’t walk for a year!

  • Andi

    Just in case anyone has any doubts about what Yang has in store for us if he gets any power…

    “Democratic 2020 Candidate Wants Government-Sponsored ‘Social Credit’ System Comparable To China’s”

    https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/17/andrew-yang-2020-social-credit/

    (not sure how to insert links here)

  • Andi: Ooo, thank you for this story. I had forgotten Yang’s proposal from November. Further confirms my impression of him.

  • This is how I usually get into trouble, but…

    Coture, you couldn’t be more wrong. Non-religious circumcission was introduce to the Anglosphere in the late 19th century as a deterrent to masturbation (in other words, a very similar reason why some cultures perform FGM). You can look this up; it’s not a secret. With the evolution of greater sexual permissiveness, the “health benefit” was changed to hygiene, as if we might cut off children’s external ears so they won’t have to wash behind them. Later reasons, mostly in the past 20 years, involve HIV, HPV, and the like, but those special problems don’t involve male infants, who can’t get erections and so can neither participate as the active partner in anal sex, nor in the “dry sex” preferences of equatorial Africa (where the only established health benefit to cicumcission is shown). And, of course, modern medicine has antibiotics for UTIs, a vaccine for HPV and is on the verge of a cure for AIDS (thus HIV). And we in the West have a concept called informed consent, which is why we’re not still sterilizing the mentalliy handicapped, and which by law cannot be given by one day old infant boys. And that’s not even addressing the ridiculous notion of “extra skin.” The clitoris of a tiny baby girl is extra skin too, by that standard.

    Robert, I understood your point. I just wanted to say that in addition to not missing the forest for the trees, we have to be careful not to miss the trees for the forest. The authors of the Constitution weren’t perfect, as we all known. The original document permitted slavery because slave owners wanted the status quo ante, or they would not ratify. Also, they lived a hundred years before non-religious circumcission came into vogue. In the final analysis, so long as we in the West permit infant circumcission, we don’t occupy the moral high ground when it comes to FGM.

  • Jeremy Tunnell

    That article at the daily caller about Yang’s “social credit” system is so misleading i’d call it fake news.

    Yang’s proposal has nothing to do with China’s proposal.

    If I didn’t know any better, I’d say the commenters here are complicit in a campaign to spread fake news about democrats.

  • Btw, for anyone who wants a good laugh, there’s a Medieval rabbinical document called “Christian Penis is Better than Jewish Penis” which debates the secondary merits of circumcission. The learned rabbi concludes that Christian women are meek and submissive because they’ve never had orgasms, and this because uncircumcised Christian men are all premature ejaculators. Thus, the supposed uppity behavior of Jewish women is blamed on male circumcission. And because nothing ever really changes, there’s an episode of “Married with Children” that says much the same thing!

  • Cotour

    William Barton:

    We will have to disagree here.

    There is zero analogy between a male circumcision and the removal of “extra” skin that protects the more sensitive parts of a male and a full female circumcision which REMOVES the sensitive parts of a female.

    Zero.

    Your attempt at explaining the practice is to accept and endorse it IMO.

  • Here’s a link to an excerpt. Note that it says the exact opposite of what I posted. No idea where I read the version I remember (possible senility involved), which more closely follows modern theories about that matter. But it does make the point, and is funny.

    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/org/Medieval/www/src/contributed/diva@cutlass.aug5.com/penis.html

  • Cotour, that is nonsense, an attempt to reverse the field and claim I said the exact opposite. Saying that I endorse FGM is an offensive and transparent lie. Typical InterDweeb. And you still couldn’t be more wrong. Done now. Sorry Robert. I knew I should have kept my mouth shut.

  • Jeremy Tunnell: I note that you ignored the reasonable questions asked of you by Cotour and Wayne. I wonder why.

  • Cotour

    Mr. Barton, I do not write nonsense, and why are you apologizing? I stand by my observations and statement.

    “We will have to disagree here.

    There is zero analogy between a male circumcision and the removal of “extra” skin that protects the more sensitive parts of a male and a full female circumcision which REMOVES the sensitive parts of a female.

    Zero.”

    Does it really matter where it comes from? The practice is barbaric as it relates to full female circumcision.

    Wiki: “Psychological effects, sexual function According to a 2015 systematic review there is little high-quality information available on the psychological effects of FGM. Several small studies have concluded that women with FGM suffer from anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Feelings of shame and betrayal can develop when women leave the culture that practises FGM and learn that their condition is not the norm, but within the practising culture they may view their FGM with pride, because for them it signifies beauty, respect for tradition, chastity and hygiene. Studies on sexual function have also been small.[60] A 2013 meta-analysis of 15 studies involving 12,671 women from seven countries concluded that women with FGM were twice as likely to report no sexual desire and 52 percent more likely to report dyspareunia (painful sexual intercourse). One third reported reduced sexual feelings.”

  • Cotour

    Andrew Yang in his own words related to his version of “social credits”.

    https://youtu.be/7Ti9az7GrxA

    It seems he apparently sees his version of social credits is a form of currency to provide a value to those who find themselves out of work due to the progress of AI technology by people voluntarily providing their services to their neighbors.

    And this form of currency would be administered by the government, very much like the Chinese system which is well under way and a subject that I have posted on here several times in the past. Oh that slippery slope is always on the horizon.

    Yang bases his intentions to solve this problem that is not here yet on the proposal that truck drivers and others will be loosing their jobs due to AI drivers taking their jobs. I personally see full on AI driving as an albatross of sorts. Either their are people driving or their are robots driving and never shall the two drive on the same streets at the same time.

    I posted this before on the subject of the Chinese social credit system that is underway right now in China, it is chilling. So why choose to go in this direction?

    https://youtu.be/Dkw15LkZ_Kw

  • Edward

    Jeremy Tunnell
    You wrote: “As I sit here at my computer I just made $10k trading cryptocurrencies while my sister works long days as a cashier making $10/hour.

    Good for your sister, bad for you. Your sister is productive, you are not. Indeed, someone worked hard to make the $10K that you are richer for no work at all. Your method of income is the zero sum version, someone wins and someone loses, but your sister’s version of income provides a service that improves the lives of her employer and his customers — she provides an amount of prosperity that you do not; there is no zero sum for your sister’s efforts, everyone is better off, and everyone wins.

    You are the very problem of income inequality, because you added nothing to the economy while enriching yourself, but your sister did add to the economy and to other people’s lives.

    Capitalism is not sitting at your computer trading currencies, it is the generation of goods and services. You provide neither, but your sister provides a service for her employer and his customers.

    Greedy, a desire for unearned benefits, does not describe your sister, as she is willing to work for her living. It does describe you, because you are not willing to do the work, nor are you providing funding for the creation of goods or services, which is what makes capitalism capitalism. You are not participating in the economy, nor are you a capitalist.

    That someone like you favors Yang is an argument for me to not favor him.

    Robert wrote: “The point here however is that the goal of the modern Democratic Party is not really to fix any of these issues, but to use them to obtain power. In fact, they really don’t give a hoot about these issues.

    I agree. Racism and racial equality are a big issue for Democrats, but after half a century, they still have not worked for a solution or equality but continue to complain that the problem still exists. According to them, even after a black president we are a country worse off, racially, than we were fifty years ago. Yang’s proposed universal income will not do anything to reduce racism, either. It will only give unearned money to people, similar to the way Jeremy Tunnell gets his unearned money. Once again, a zero sum situation, one in which one person loses in order for another to win. No wonder Jeremy favors Yang and his ideas.

    My point being that Democrats do not supply solutions, they only say that they will. Watch their behavior with global warming: they talk up a storm (pun intended), but continue to use powered transportation, powered utilities at home and at work, and purchase items that were made and transported using power. They are just as much a part of the problem that they claim exists, but they are not part of the solution that they advocate.

  • Cotour

    Excellent comment.

  • Jeremy T

    Hey Edward, I always know when it’s time to exit stage left when someone starts personally attacking me.

    Frankly, you don’t know a thing about me.

    Yeah, I made a bunch of money trading cryptocurrency, but I also made a bunch of money cofounding a large company which provides value and employment to many people. I cofounded this company while being so poor that I qualified for government assistance and turned it down. I also developed serious health problems as a direct result of founding this company that bother me still today.

    So I think I earned a few things, thanks.

    I’ve been on the right my whole life and I’ve never felt what it was like to be attacked from the right like I regularly put up with from SJWs.

    But now I know. You are a toxic right wing version of an SJW.

    Personal attacks, smears, misinformation, and dogma that must not be disagreed with. That’s what i’m seeing in this thread.

    I don’t know what reasonable questions I failed to answer, but frankly I don’t care anymore.

    Good day to you all.

  • Edward

    I’ve been on the right my whole life and I’ve never felt what it was like to be attacked from the right like I regularly put up with from SJWs.

    Mighty thin skin, for someone who put up with regular attacks. Which must have been harsher, as mine are softballs.

    What questions did you fail to answer? They were amazingly easy to find. Here are waynes:
    What kind of Republican are you? (or, a better question– if Trump had not run, which Republican would you have supported?)
    Why don’t we allow everyone to participate in free-market activities without the heavy hand of the Federal Government around our necks 24/7/365?
    What is your stance on the 16th and 17th Amendments?

    From Cotour:
    Why would you endeavor to vote for someone who especially in this atmosphere where it is unlikely that a Democrat will win because they are *ALL* seen as pie in the sky crazy and trade a known quantity like Trump?
    Why trade a known valuable quantity [Trump] for an unknown shot in the dark who is most likely a “New age” Leftist front man?

    Oh, but you are gone, so you still cannot answer.

  • Cotour

    How is it that grown men are so delicate?

    It never fails to amaze me.

  • wayne

    16th and 17th Amendments?

  • Edward

    Jeremy T,
    You may think that I attacked you harshly, describing you as greedy being the only one I can find, because not participating in the economy and not being a capitalist aren’t serious attacks. I have been called racist and fascist and a couple of other -ists. I even was recently called “a toxic right wing version of an SJW [Social Justice Warrior]” by someone who knows nothing about me. But I don’t feel the need to crawl back into bed and pet a cat until it is safe for delicate snowflakes to come out again.

    Surprisingly, you chose to brag about your unearned income inequality rather than your earned income inequality. You seem to have gotten frustrated only when you discovered that you can’t defend your support for the guy who wants to take money that I earned (some of which earned as a capitalist in savings accounts or as investments in productive corporations) in order to give it to someone who neither earned nor deserves it.

    Income inequality is not the problem, deserved income is. If you earn more than your sister by founding a company, then that is deserved income inequality. If you earn more than her by trading cryptocurrencies, that is not. If you don’t work to earn it or assist someone else in working for it, then it is hardly a deserved income. It is like the story of the Little Red Hen, teaching children the virtues of work ethic and personal initiative: https://www.enchantedlearning.com/stories/fairytale/littleredhen/story/

    Just who is it that deserves the rewards for the work performed?

  • Wayne and cotour: Please, list the questions again, in a short quick list. I want to illustrate something, and I think this will be an opportunity to do so.

  • Cotour

    Jeremy Tunnell:

    1. “Why would you endeavor to vote for someone who especially in this atmosphere where it is unlikely that a Democrat will win because they are *ALL* seen as pie in the sky crazy and trade a known quantity like Trump? ”

    2. “Please enumerate why you are not happy with Trump and his administration? Its actions and not rhetoric that count, and the Democrats are full of rhetoric of mostly the bovine kind.”

  • wayne

    –what type of Republican would you characterize yourself as?
    –if Trump was not on the ticket in 2016, who might you have supported?
    –16th Amendment (income-tax)?
    –17th Amendment (direct election of Senators)?

    (wrote a brilliant paragraph and then misspelled my email address, [Poof!] so excuse the brevity)

  • wayne: Brevity is what I wanted. These are reasonable and very civil questions, and I wanted no confusion as to what they were.

    Answers to them would help Jeremy outline the reasons for his position, or at least help others understand where he is coming from.

    However, those same answers might also reveal the weaknesses of his position, or expose the fact that he really isn’t much of a Republican, at least a conservative one. It is for this reason I suspect he will never answer them.

  • wayne

    I’m just a bit confused as to the motivation for someone like Yang.

    Jordan B Peterson:
    “12 conservative principles in 12 minutes”
    https://youtu.be/_MyduTaCh18
    12:29

  • wayne: I am not confused by Yang’s motives in the slightest. I have already articulated them in this thread. He might not realize it himself, but what he wants is power. He might have the best of intentions, but we all know where good intentions lead.

    Unfortunately, I do not think he does, or if he does, he prefers the power regardless.

  • commodude

    Robert, like all of his ilk, power is the precise goal of Mr. Yang. Anyone claiming to be able to solve all the world’s problems by fiat is not interested in solving problems, but using those problems, real or perceived, to support their quest for absolute authority.

    Once in power, it never ends well.

  • eddie willers

    Edward.

    Your excellent first post said exactly what I wanted to say. But in a much nicer way.
    Kudos.

  • commodude

    https://www.yang2020.com/policies/gun-safety/

    https://www.yang2020.com/policies/american-journalism-fellows/

    https://www.yang2020.com/policies/news-information-ombudsman/

    https://www.yang2020.com/policies/making-taxes-fun/

    The first three eliminate critical portions of the bill of rights.

    The third is a classic fascist tactic, boosting state control by making the power of the state “fun.” It’s very tempting to state something to invoke Godwin’s law, but I won’t, the platform does it for itself.

  • commodude

    Correction, the last, not the third, is fascism at its finest.

  • wayne

    commodude–
    good stuff.

    Mr. Z.,– I meant to say, “confused about the motivation for those supporting Yang.” (In particular, our alleged republican friend.)

    “Making taxes Fun,” Eh?! (oh boy, just did mine– it was not fun. They steal almost 40% of what I make.)
    How about we remake income-taxes, without apportioning them among the states on the basis of population, illegal, once again? And get rid of the 16th Amendment.

    Taxman
    The Beatles
    https://youtu.be/l0zaebtU-CA
    2:38

  • wayne

    ‘How a Totalitarian State is Actually Formed”
    Jocko Podcast with Jordan B Peterson
    March 2018
    https://youtu.be/T_ijsSoNP2U
    7:31

  • Cotour

    Related: Because like some posters here on BTB these Democrats seem to be a bit too sensitive and delicate and so I must question both their maturity and stated party affiliation or stated alleged philosophy.

    IMPEACH TRUMP NOW!

    I happened to take a look at the Impeach Now website financed by the billionaire Tom Steyer. What a waste of Democrats time.

    https://www.needtoimpeach.com/

    Styer is a rabid anti Trumper who has extreme TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome), upon reviewing his website and the 10 items that they base their logic to impeach on I do find one item of impeachment that I do agree with. I tend to agree with number 5 on their list, the Trump pardoning of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. IMO Joe Arpaio was guilty of abusing his power as Sheriff.

    However it is not an abuse of Trumps power as president to pardon him as they imply. The president has the ability to pardon whom ever he chooses to pardon and not have to explain why. Remember the Mark Rich pardon by president Clinton? If you do not, look it up as a prime example of things that presidents have the power to do without having to explain themselves.

    This action by Trump, although you and I may not agree with it, is a political action over and above Arpaio’s legal problems. Just like the impeachment process the power to pardon is a political action and not an action in law. And Trumps utilizing it, just like if the Congress chose to utilize the impeachment process against the president as is their right to do. And let the political chips fall where they may as the consequences for doing so for both a pardon or an impeachment. Every action in politics can have a corresponding counter reaction depending on the timing and nature of that action. Their can be very real costs.

    I find all of the other listed items in Styers list of reasons to impeach president Trump juvenile, idealistic and naive. The president, this particular president, happens to present certain special challenges because of his high profile nature in the business and media world which IMO have been dealt with as best as can be dealt with. Trump has IMO been focused on actually delivering the agenda that he spoke of and was empowered to accomplish, and that in itself is a rare occurrence in the history of the country.

    There are consequences to the actions of the people when they choose through their vote to empower any politician and those who just do not like him or her will do what ever they possibly can to hamper or remove him or her through the processes that exist in the Constitution to do so. This is the political warfare that emerges from those rules of operation that were designed by the Founders. They exist for a reason and have been proven, although things can get chaotic and crazy due to them, through time to work as per design. Well done Founders.

    So suck it up Tom Steyer and your fellow Impeach Now adherents, get over it, you look more and more foolish.

  • dave

    This is not a valid critique. Yang spells out many reasons – with the numbers – why we know automation is coming. And its progress is non linear. Anything you can retrain to do AI will be able to do that a heartbeat later too, some jobs sooner than others. Nobody wants handouts for no reason, but if all the world’s money starts getting earned without us, he is right, people will go loco with survival concerns.

    As for the free market, it is beautiful thing, but if left to mature unregulated it turns into…. communism! How so? In order for market to thrive, you need healthy competition. But as soon as some companies get massive buying power, no decent new products/businesses can compete for that reason alone. So if you don’t regulate them, they get bigger, merge, get bigger, merge, takeover, get bigger, eventually you’ll get one shadowy networked entity like Amazon having merged with Exxon, Google and Walmart and bought up everything smaller, that will control all the means of production – undemocratically – with the spoils for the select few and everyone else with nothing and locked down at the bottom. Sound familiar? It is the long route to communism. The free market needs regulating to keep it in the stages where it works for the benefit of everyone. The UBI might even kick start it again – if ordinary Americans have the survival monkey off their backs then they will be able to start local businesses which wont be under too much pressure to succeed. More businesses will survive on less and we’ll have real cultured local high streets again.

    Also Yang has very thoroughly detailed how his pans won’t bankrupt an economy, making it clear how he gets his numbers, even the welfare state as it is, if it is reallocated, almost covers it, then you tax some of the even larger profits some of the largest companies will make thanks to the savings on truckers and customer service operatives.

    If it doesn’t happen there’ll be riots, because nowhere near enough people will have jobs.

    Like it or not, automation is coming, and old paradigms will have to be shifted.

  • Cotour

    Is there no regulation of business and the markets now?

  • Cotour

    Related: This is the course of the Democrat party and a segment of our country.

    MILLENNIALS NOW HAVE THEIR OWN OJ

    Jussie Smollet appears to be a gay, MAGA racial attack faker / actor who has been mysteriously forgiven by the Illinois state attorney for the 16 indictments based in evidence that a grand jury saw fit to bestow upon him. The record is sealed and his record is expunged, like his fraud never happened.

    https://www.dailycaller.com/2019/03/26/smollett-forfeiting-charges-dropped/

    “Forgiven” for a fake alleged crime, similar to OJ, but OJ was the real deal. And that may be the take away here, the millennial’s seem to be a bit light in the area content and thought process. OJ thought and took real action, Smollet is a BS faker looking for more fame and fortune apparently.

    And Smollet has the gall to hold a press conference stating that he would never do what he was accused of and on top of that his lawyer now threatens to sue the state for his arrest. Is he insisting that the police now redouble their efforts in finding the two men who accosted him? beat him, hung a noose around his neck, threw bleach on him, yelled “This is MAGA country!”.

    Just like OJ is still looking for whom ever it was that killed is ex wife and her friend.

    A PR fraud that has been put on steroids and threatens to mutate into a radio active politically connected Godzilla that threats to eat and destroy Chicago.

    This event has most every sane person in America outraged and this I do not think will so conveniently go away, it will swirl around this young man for the rest of his life. Another example of the two sets of laws that exist, one for the pedestrians and one for the politically connected and “Important”, like Smollet and the likes of Ma Barker.

    Not to mention the possible investigation that may reveal some very interesting political arrangements and accommodations of the Democrat kind. Like they need more bad news. This monster has the potential to grow and grow, very similar to the Muller investigation. In the long term the indicators are not good, either for Smollet or the country.

  • Cotour

    RECONCILE:

    https://youtu.be/DvDDDj7GkiM V https://youtu.be/WxwimuCVhow V https://youtu.be/m5M8vvEhCFI

    Millennials, over emotional and hysterical that know little to nothing other than what they have been force fed looking to run your life, “Because its how things should be”.

    Very, very dangerous, and still I love that she is the mouth piece of the Democrat party. I could not have invented her myself.

    Lets hope the millennials acquire some wisdom as they age.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *