The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Yang Hasn't Gone Anywhere
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

It’s been a month since I predicted that Andrew Yang would be more than just a meme.

I wanted to check to see if this still holds true and that does seem to be the case.

1. He is on a steady 10% chance to take the Dem nomination at PredictIt.

2. He is getting ~3% in polls.

That might be well shy of the real “meme” candidate of the day (Buttigieg) and people with existing political capital and associated name recognition, but this is perfectly okay at this early stage of the game.

3. Much stronger support amongst younth people, e.g. 14% amongst 18-29 year olds in Nevada!

Unsurprisingly, young people want $1,000 more than older people, and spend more time on the Internet. This is part of why Yang now has the most powerful meme community after Bernie Sanders. (I am not even sure anybody will be memeing for Trump this time round).

4. Only Sanders and Buttigieg are consistently ahead of Yang in search intensity on Google Trends.

Biden surged ahead, but since that was people Googling him for his creepy videos, that’s hardly something to write home about. Beto is not even on the radar by now.

5. Subscriber counts on candidate subreddits:

Bernie Sanders, predictably, dominates. However, he has a massive head start by virtue of having been the second strongest candidate in the previous elections, having inherited his subscriber base.

Yang is the only other candidate competing head to head with Buttigieg, both having exploded out of nowhere very recently.

It would be pointless to make comparisons with Biden, who had four years of exposure as Obama’s VP. That said, I think his biggest sub, /r/BidenBro, only has just a bit more than 100,000 subscribers, which isn’t that impressive.

As a gray Establishment figurehead who doesn’t seem to do anything but utter the correct “woke” slogans (I have followed her on Twitter for a couple of months now), nobody could care less about Kamala.

5. Website visits (March 2019, SimilarWeb):

  • Yang 2020: 2.68 million
  • Bernie Sanders: 2.48 million
  • Pete for America: 750,000

Website visits (latest USA rank, Alexa):

  • Yang 2020: 3,012
  • Bernie Sanders: 3,945
  • Pete for America: 4,296

So he is also getting more people coming to his website than any other person, even Bernie. This is presumably explained by his extremely detailed set of policies.

I predicted in my original post that the real competition will be a threeway race between Sanders, Yang, and Harris.

Assuming Buttigieg is a temporary phenomenon, that seems to be coming along nicely.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Andrew Yang, United States, US Elections 2020 
Hide 105 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. /r/Pete_Buttigieg/ – 18,965

    Just when you thought reddit couldn’t get any gayer.

    I hope Buttigieg remains however because of the EMJ possibilities it creates.

    • Replies: @songbird
    I kind of like the idea of a name so ridiculously unphonetic that it would be easy to get countless man-on-the-street interviewees and even politicians mispronouncing it.

    I suppose there would be a certain gay bias leading to selecting him from a list. Probably not insubstantial for the party. Though, of course, on the other side there are the sinister "Log Cabin Republicans."

    , @Anonymous
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X17xoQbV5M
  2. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:

    Biden is showing remarkable resiliency in the polls, which I did not expect. Compared to him Kamala is getting a very “meh” reception which I also did not expect.

    At the end of the day Woke Twitter and the NYT Opinions page don’t get to decide who the nominee will be, the people do. The people like Biden and probably don’t care about this manufactured “Creepy Uncle Joe.” To a lesser extent they like Bernie and don’t care about the “BernieBro.” Harris and Warren are the anointed ones (possibly Mayor Pete as well), but the voters manifestly do not agree, at least thus far.

    Yang is a cipher. He’s getting a lot of internet publicity, and some of that translates into support (compared to establishment figures like Booker, Gillibrand and Klobuchar) but he’s still fringe. I’d be surprised if he ever cracks 10% support nationwide.

    My guess thus far: Biden and Sanders begin at a steady 1-2 in the primaries, and as other candidates drop out their support accrues largely to Biden (who also gets the endorsements of the former candidates as they attempt to get his VP spot). Biden then loses a close election to Trump; this is less an endorsement of Trump than a repudiation of the Young Democrats, Ocasio-Cortez and especially Ilhan Omar.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Pretty hard to imagine Biden losing to Trump. His support seems to have collapsed (in relative terms) in the MidWest.
  3. Yang is unelectable. He wants to staple a green card to every foreign grad’s diploma, in effect turning America into the next Chindia. Also that $12,000 per year for each “American” pledge, he never certified it’s for citizens only, with an open border and open legal immigration, how long before we go bankrupt?

    • Replies: @anonymous
    On his website it says every U.S citizen over 18 years old https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/
    In his interviews he says those same exact words. There are tons of interviews and I don't have the time to sift through his long form interviews to find a 3 second phrase.

    blow you boomer lies out of your ass old man.
  4. I don’t think blacks would like an Asian like Yang. That’s a major problem for getting any traction before Democratic primaries.

    • Replies: @Thomm

    I don’t think blacks would like an Asian like Yang. That’s a major problem for getting any traction before Democratic primaries.
     
    I disagree. Blacks want free stuff. Everything else is secondary.

    It is the fat bluehaired feminists, and the omega-male counterparts (the Nationalist-Leftists) who are the toughest for Yang to win over.
  5. @Anonymous
    Biden is showing remarkable resiliency in the polls, which I did not expect. Compared to him Kamala is getting a very "meh" reception which I also did not expect.

    At the end of the day Woke Twitter and the NYT Opinions page don't get to decide who the nominee will be, the people do. The people like Biden and probably don't care about this manufactured "Creepy Uncle Joe." To a lesser extent they like Bernie and don't care about the "BernieBro." Harris and Warren are the anointed ones (possibly Mayor Pete as well), but the voters manifestly do not agree, at least thus far.

    Yang is a cipher. He's getting a lot of internet publicity, and some of that translates into support (compared to establishment figures like Booker, Gillibrand and Klobuchar) but he's still fringe. I'd be surprised if he ever cracks 10% support nationwide.

    My guess thus far: Biden and Sanders begin at a steady 1-2 in the primaries, and as other candidates drop out their support accrues largely to Biden (who also gets the endorsements of the former candidates as they attempt to get his VP spot). Biden then loses a close election to Trump; this is less an endorsement of Trump than a repudiation of the Young Democrats, Ocasio-Cortez and especially Ilhan Omar.

    Pretty hard to imagine Biden losing to Trump. His support seems to have collapsed (in relative terms) in the MidWest.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I think Trump has several advantages (beyond the good economy and being the incumbent). Essentially it all boils down to a wing of the Democratic party going hard left, and the difficulty the Dems have in dissociating themselves from that wing (to the contrary, they are embracing it more than repudiating it).

    For example, there is now an actual crisis at the border. Trump hasn't done much but he has done something, and has tried to do more but been obstructed. By contrast, the Democrats have, at the national level, staked out a position that is effectively open borders in all but name; Biden can keep trying to square the circle--of ostensibly being concerned about immigration while not offering any concrete proposals to staunch the flow of illegal immigrants--but a lot of people won't buy it.

    Or take Omar's recent remarks about 9/11, which are the type of thing that would enrage moderate boomer Dems. Most of the party has risen to her defense (though tellingly Biden has not). Why associate yourself with this obvious rogue, a product of some insular and prejudiced immigrant community, who has made it clear she intends to keep being inflammatory? Because you have to, because the non-white wing of the party supports her and you can't alienate them. Biden may not endorse her but he can't denounce her either. That will hurt him.

    Trump won because a lot of people, many of whom were Obama voters, saw the country growing increasingly radical and they didn't like it. Immigration was part of it, but so was Black Lives Matter, all the tranny shit, drugs etc pp. The Dems had the opportunity to moderate their rhetoric somewhat; instead they've doubled down. You don't have to love Trump, or even really "approve" of him, you just have to hate the Democratic party more. Granted it's kind of sad that you can run a successful presidential campaign primarily on fear, but that's where we're at imo.
    , @Anonymous
    I was a yuuuge Trump supporter. But I’m in a safe blue state so my vote means nothing. But I think Trump’s re-election strategy is simple. Start a Middle East war close to election time. Trump has already taken steps to initiate this. He declared Iran’s military (IRGC) a terrorist organization and is now making moves against Hizbullah which will force their hand. Remember, G.H.W. Bush had a 92% approval rating right after the Gulf War. Trump’s war will be a war directly in Israel’s interest so it will mean all of America media will rally behind Trump. It;s kind of fool-proof. The Democrat candidate will lose by at least 30 points.
  6. Yang’s odds would improve considerably if he changed his name to something Mexican.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    Yang’s odds would improve considerably if he changed his name to something Mexican.
     
    The fact that "Beto" works on Mestizos is kind of funny.
  7. Kamala is a low energy person but she’s going to get 25%+ on Predictit at some point right? She’s arguably black , went to Howard, backed by the CA Dem machine. Am I crazy for having loaded up on shares for her taking the nomination on predictit it? Taken a nice loss, hoping to get out if she breaks 30%

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I placed a small bet on her as well, and IIRC Audacious Epigone said he placed $1,000 on her.
  8. @DFH

    /r/Pete_Buttigieg/ – 18,965

     

    Just when you thought reddit couldn't get any gayer.

    I hope Buttigieg remains however because of the EMJ possibilities it creates.

    I kind of like the idea of a name so ridiculously unphonetic that it would be easy to get countless man-on-the-street interviewees and even politicians mispronouncing it.

    I suppose there would be a certain gay bias leading to selecting him from a list. Probably not insubstantial for the party. Though, of course, on the other side there are the sinister “Log Cabin Republicans.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Buttigieg is pronounced BOOT-uh-zheesh. I get this from Buttigieg’s neighbor when Pete was growing up, E. Michael Jones (how hilarious is that?? Lol).

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CMsusUHKya4
  9. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Pretty hard to imagine Biden losing to Trump. His support seems to have collapsed (in relative terms) in the MidWest.

    I think Trump has several advantages (beyond the good economy and being the incumbent). Essentially it all boils down to a wing of the Democratic party going hard left, and the difficulty the Dems have in dissociating themselves from that wing (to the contrary, they are embracing it more than repudiating it).

    For example, there is now an actual crisis at the border. Trump hasn’t done much but he has done something, and has tried to do more but been obstructed. By contrast, the Democrats have, at the national level, staked out a position that is effectively open borders in all but name; Biden can keep trying to square the circle–of ostensibly being concerned about immigration while not offering any concrete proposals to staunch the flow of illegal immigrants–but a lot of people won’t buy it.

    Or take Omar’s recent remarks about 9/11, which are the type of thing that would enrage moderate boomer Dems. Most of the party has risen to her defense (though tellingly Biden has not). Why associate yourself with this obvious rogue, a product of some insular and prejudiced immigrant community, who has made it clear she intends to keep being inflammatory? Because you have to, because the non-white wing of the party supports her and you can’t alienate them. Biden may not endorse her but he can’t denounce her either. That will hurt him.

    Trump won because a lot of people, many of whom were Obama voters, saw the country growing increasingly radical and they didn’t like it. Immigration was part of it, but so was Black Lives Matter, all the tranny shit, drugs etc pp. The Dems had the opportunity to moderate their rhetoric somewhat; instead they’ve doubled down. You don’t have to love Trump, or even really “approve” of him, you just have to hate the Democratic party more. Granted it’s kind of sad that you can run a successful presidential campaign primarily on fear, but that’s where we’re at imo.

    • Replies: @Denis

    I think Trump has several advantages (beyond the good economy
     
    Yeah, about that...

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/guid/A338A6D6-5C64-11E9-A5FD-9AE69096A302

    The drumbeat of warnings about a looming worldwide recession is growing ever louder. According to the latest Brookings-Financial Times TIGER indexes, which track the global economic recovery, growth momentum is declining in virtually all of the world’s major economies.

    And what this portends in the longer term is ominous, especially given the limited macroeconomic policy options for stimulating growth.
     
    If the US economy enters another recession before the election, Trump is gonna have a real uphill battle.
    , @dfordoom

    Essentially it all boils down to a wing of the Democratic party going hard left, and the difficulty the Dems have in dissociating themselves from that wing (to the contrary, they are embracing it more than repudiating it).
     
    But the fact is that the voters are increasingly going hard left on cultural/social issues. Do you really think voters under 40 are going to be worried about those issues? They've been thoroughly indoctrinated. White people bad, People of Color good. Heterosexuals bad, homosexuals good. Christians bad, atheists and Muslims good. Transphobes bad, trannies good.

    So do the Democrats really have to worry about dissociating themselves from their lunatic fringe? That lunatic fringe is now the mainstream.

    And the further left they go on cultural/social issues the more white liberals will want to vote for them. Especially women.

    There is no Silent Majority of decent socially conservative white people out there. The Silent Majorities that elected Nixon and Reagan are dead. Degeneracy is mainstream now.
  10. Yang is waging Han race war against THE HISTORIC NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS MAJORITY….And…Yang’s H1B…L1B Visa proposal…let ‘em all in…..is GENOCIDAL….

    BRING BACK THE 1872 CHNESE LEGAL IMMIGRANT EXCLUSION ACT!!

    Hop Sing…GO BACK TO CHINA….

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Lol. Where did you find that? Evidence?
  11. @Matra
    I don't think blacks would like an Asian like Yang. That's a major problem for getting any traction before Democratic primaries.

    I don’t think blacks would like an Asian like Yang. That’s a major problem for getting any traction before Democratic primaries.

    I disagree. Blacks want free stuff. Everything else is secondary.

    It is the fat bluehaired feminists, and the omega-male counterparts (the Nationalist-Leftists) who are the toughest for Yang to win over.

    • Replies: @EldnahYm
    Bernie Sanders was arguably the free stuff candidate last election and Blacks hated him.
  12. @DFH

    /r/Pete_Buttigieg/ – 18,965

     

    Just when you thought reddit couldn't get any gayer.

    I hope Buttigieg remains however because of the EMJ possibilities it creates.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    EMJ is often a bit too manic for his own good, but that ..... that is a classic moment right there.
  13. Yang’s numbers for his proposals don’t add up. His vat and eliminating government programs is still 1 trillion shy for 1000 a month for citizens. I looked and I did not see how he plans to pay for single payer. Creepy Joe Biden could win, in fact he is the only one except for the Butt guy that could. The pun was not intended but I think I will leave it.

    • Replies: @dvorak

    His vat and eliminating government programs is still 1 trillion shy for 1000 a month for citizens.
     
    With a $1 trillion higher deficit, there would be less deflationary undertow (our existence for the last 30 years: disinflation/deflation). Hopefully the Fed could then raise rates and stop blowing asset bubbles. Then we could have something approaching normalcy, like 4% inflation rate, 6% Fed Funds rate, 5% savings account interest rate and 9% loan interest rate.
    - my analysis, not Yang's
  14. @songbird
    Yang's odds would improve considerably if he changed his name to something Mexican.

    Yang’s odds would improve considerably if he changed his name to something Mexican.

    The fact that “Beto” works on Mestizos is kind of funny.

    • Agree: songbird
  15. @Anonymous
    I think Trump has several advantages (beyond the good economy and being the incumbent). Essentially it all boils down to a wing of the Democratic party going hard left, and the difficulty the Dems have in dissociating themselves from that wing (to the contrary, they are embracing it more than repudiating it).

    For example, there is now an actual crisis at the border. Trump hasn't done much but he has done something, and has tried to do more but been obstructed. By contrast, the Democrats have, at the national level, staked out a position that is effectively open borders in all but name; Biden can keep trying to square the circle--of ostensibly being concerned about immigration while not offering any concrete proposals to staunch the flow of illegal immigrants--but a lot of people won't buy it.

    Or take Omar's recent remarks about 9/11, which are the type of thing that would enrage moderate boomer Dems. Most of the party has risen to her defense (though tellingly Biden has not). Why associate yourself with this obvious rogue, a product of some insular and prejudiced immigrant community, who has made it clear she intends to keep being inflammatory? Because you have to, because the non-white wing of the party supports her and you can't alienate them. Biden may not endorse her but he can't denounce her either. That will hurt him.

    Trump won because a lot of people, many of whom were Obama voters, saw the country growing increasingly radical and they didn't like it. Immigration was part of it, but so was Black Lives Matter, all the tranny shit, drugs etc pp. The Dems had the opportunity to moderate their rhetoric somewhat; instead they've doubled down. You don't have to love Trump, or even really "approve" of him, you just have to hate the Democratic party more. Granted it's kind of sad that you can run a successful presidential campaign primarily on fear, but that's where we're at imo.

    I think Trump has several advantages (beyond the good economy

    Yeah, about that…

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/guid/A338A6D6-5C64-11E9-A5FD-9AE69096A302

    The drumbeat of warnings about a looming worldwide recession is growing ever louder. According to the latest Brookings-Financial Times TIGER indexes, which track the global economic recovery, growth momentum is declining in virtually all of the world’s major economies.

    And what this portends in the longer term is ominous, especially given the limited macroeconomic policy options for stimulating growth.

    If the US economy enters another recession before the election, Trump is gonna have a real uphill battle.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Something like that - an economic crash - is probably what it will take

    People unfamiliar with America don't commonly recognize just how hard it is for once-elected American presidents to NOT get re-elected.

    1800: Adams nearly won re-election despite disorganization and the bitter hatred of his fellow Federalist, Hamilton
    1828: John Quincy Adams loses re-election after many considered him an invalid President to begin with - fall out from the "corrupt bargain" of 1824
    1840: Panic of 1837 dooms Van Buren
    1888-92: Cleveland and Harrison trade close elections
    1912: Taft is ruined by Theodore Roosevelt's moronic third party campaign
    1932: The Great Depression
    1980: The economy was in a shambles, plus the Iranian hostage crisis - a perfect storm
    1992: If you do the math, state by state, there is really very little doubt that Ross Perot's candidacy cost the incumbent the election
    1996: A repeat of 1992, with the added dimension of the Republicans nominating a weak candidate (Dole) instead of a strong, fighting populist (Pat Buchanan)

    (Note: I do not count 1976 because Ford was never elected)

    The odds are quite in favor of any President - Trump included - getting re-elected barring economic disaster or serious third party run.

    As for Yang, if this guy is for real (and he isn't), even the weirdo remnants of the Alt-Right won't help him win the Democrat nomination - this the Democrat Party we're talking about, people! No one even remotely "for real" is gonna get their nomination. DUH!
  16. anonymous[418] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thinker
    Yang is unelectable. He wants to staple a green card to every foreign grad's diploma, in effect turning America into the next Chindia. Also that $12,000 per year for each "American" pledge, he never certified it's for citizens only, with an open border and open legal immigration, how long before we go bankrupt?

    On his website it says every U.S citizen over 18 years old https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/
    In his interviews he says those same exact words. There are tons of interviews and I don’t have the time to sift through his long form interviews to find a 3 second phrase.

    blow you boomer lies out of your ass old man.

    • Replies: @Libtard is redundant
    One of the advantages of age is wisdom. Wisdom allows you to take the long view. Yang's immigration plan will bring the death of America. As Samuel Huntington said, "America is decidedly a western nation. A multicultural America will no longer be America." How prescient he was.

    We are losing the country to the multicultural horde from the third world, there is a reason why these people are desperate to leave their home countries, it's because these are largely dishonest, dog-eat-dog unpleasant societies to live in, including China and India. The thing about immigration is, in small numbers you assimilate them, in large numbers they assimilate you. America is on its way to becoming a third world hellhole if we don't end this disastrous immigration policy now.

  17. @songbird
    I kind of like the idea of a name so ridiculously unphonetic that it would be easy to get countless man-on-the-street interviewees and even politicians mispronouncing it.

    I suppose there would be a certain gay bias leading to selecting him from a list. Probably not insubstantial for the party. Though, of course, on the other side there are the sinister "Log Cabin Republicans."

    Buttigieg is pronounced BOOT-uh-zheesh. I get this from Buttigieg’s neighbor when Pete was growing up, E. Michael Jones (how hilarious is that?? Lol).

    • Replies: @DFH
    God's providence in action
  18. I can’t find it now, but there was an article reprinted on Zerohedge which discussed that while superdelegates are unable to act freely in the first round of choosing the presidential nominate thia time they will be free in the second round and that a packed contest will help make this scenario more likely.

    So Harris or another establishment figure may have two paths to victory.

  19. Genghiz Yang aside, it does not matter much who the demoncrats nominate because

    95% of demoncrat voters will vote for whichever, whomever. They’re about power and gibs-me-dats, not “policy” or “values”. The DNC could dig up Stalin’s corpse, run an electric current through it, make it sit up, run the corpse…and win.

    will Drumpf, having betrayed his flyover country 2016 voters on every single populist issue, defeat whichever, whomever? Unlikely, because

    1. he’s max’d at 309 EV, his ’16 total. There is not a single state which he did not carry in 2016…that he will carry in 2020.

    2. he will not carry either Pennsylvania or Wisconsin this time around. In 2020 the Penn demoncrats will return to their usual practice (which, overconfident, they didn’t do in 2016) of holding most of the Philadelphia Black precinct results until very late in the evening…and then ginning up whatever # of votes the need to overcome the already reported Drumpf margins in the rural White counties. Drumpf squeeked through in Wisc. only because the dems and Mrs. Clinton, overconfident, did not visit the state at all. In 2020, the dems will hammer Wisc. and win it as per usual.

    3. that drops Drumpf to 278 EV. He will have to hold AZ (about to flip in political demography), Tejas (will carry, unless Beto is on the tic…probably not if he is), and FLA (also about to flip), and Michigan, which he also barely carried in ’16. Maybe Drumpf, now used goods, can run this table a 2nd time…but

    I doubt it. ALSO, even if Drumpf squeeks thru in the EC, he will lose the popular vote by at least 3,000,000….and maybe as many as 5,000,000. Which will lead to a late 1850’s-style existential-political crisis. And

    that would be cool.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    The DNC could dig up Stalin’s corpse, run an electric current through it, make it sit up, run the corpse…and win.
     
    Stalin would be struggle-sessioned as an irredeemable reactionary.
    , @notanon

    95% of demoncrat voters will vote for whichever, whomever. They’re about power and gibs-me-dats
     
    yeah but the internal factions want the gibs for their faction and now they see a white minority on the horizon they're starting to fight over who gets to eat the liver.
  20. @Haxo Angmark
    Genghiz Yang aside, it does not matter much who the demoncrats nominate because

    95% of demoncrat voters will vote for whichever, whomever. They're about power and gibs-me-dats, not "policy" or "values". The DNC could dig up Stalin's corpse, run an electric current through it, make it sit up, run the corpse...and win.

    will Drumpf, having betrayed his flyover country 2016 voters on every single populist issue, defeat whichever, whomever? Unlikely, because

    1. he's max'd at 309 EV, his '16 total. There is not a single state which he did not carry in 2016...that he will carry in 2020.

    2. he will not carry either Pennsylvania or Wisconsin this time around. In 2020 the Penn demoncrats will return to their usual practice (which, overconfident, they didn't do in 2016) of holding most of the Philadelphia Black precinct results until very late in the evening...and then ginning up whatever # of votes the need to overcome the already reported Drumpf margins in the rural White counties. Drumpf squeeked through in Wisc. only because the dems and Mrs. Clinton, overconfident, did not visit the state at all. In 2020, the dems will hammer Wisc. and win it as per usual.

    3. that drops Drumpf to 278 EV. He will have to hold AZ (about to flip in political demography), Tejas (will carry, unless Beto is on the tic...probably not if he is), and FLA (also about to flip), and Michigan, which he also barely carried in '16. Maybe Drumpf, now used goods, can run this table a 2nd time...but

    I doubt it. ALSO, even if Drumpf squeeks thru in the EC, he will lose the popular vote by at least 3,000,000....and maybe as many as 5,000,000. Which will lead to a late 1850's-style existential-political crisis. And

    that would be cool.

    The DNC could dig up Stalin’s corpse, run an electric current through it, make it sit up, run the corpse…and win.

    Stalin would be struggle-sessioned as an irredeemable reactionary.

  21. Anonymous[388] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Pretty hard to imagine Biden losing to Trump. His support seems to have collapsed (in relative terms) in the MidWest.

    I was a yuuuge Trump supporter. But I’m in a safe blue state so my vote means nothing. But I think Trump’s re-election strategy is simple. Start a Middle East war close to election time. Trump has already taken steps to initiate this. He declared Iran’s military (IRGC) a terrorist organization and is now making moves against Hizbullah which will force their hand. Remember, G.H.W. Bush had a 92% approval rating right after the Gulf War. Trump’s war will be a war directly in Israel’s interest so it will mean all of America media will rally behind Trump. It;s kind of fool-proof. The Democrat candidate will lose by at least 30 points.

    • Replies: @Boswald Bollocksworth
    If Drumpf starts a war, billions in Tel Aviv real estate get trashed in 24 hours. Iran blows up Saudi oil infrastructure, Shia revolt in KSA, Russia ships S400s over Caspian. Oil goes to $500 a barrel. No good way to invade Iran. There will be no war.
    , @Libtard is redundant
    Not so easy. Trump is still Trump, still despised by the media. The only reason W. was able to get away with Iraq was because emotions were riding high after 9/11. After 16 years of failed foreign wars, America today is a very different country. Most Americans have no appetite left for foreign wars tens of thousands of miles away, when a real war is occurring at our southern borders, and on our city streets against drug addicts and homelessness.

    If Trump starts a war with Iran, it'll be the end of him.
  22. Booker/Harris aren’t black enough for black voters
    after Obama hispanics think it’s their turn so won’t vote for a black candidate
    white liberals who voted for Obama will feel they did their anti-racism already

    so they’re falling back on the white guys (but from a negative least worst kind of way, not a positive way)

    #

    Yang
    – 1) east asians are considered white to black/hispanic/white liberal voters
    – 2) is obviously a ghey op designed to appeal to ex-libertarian alt-right types to make them waste their time and energy

    Buttsiege/Warren – charisma bypass

    Biden and Sanders have the name recognition and are very old (which makes them least worst to the coalition of Cuba Norte) but Biden is gonna slowly leak support as more people see the kid touching videos

    so Sanders

    Beta is lame but photogenic and will get all the corporate money to stop Sanders after Biden flames out

    so Sanders vs Beta.

    #

    if they want maximum disruption i’d suggest alt-righters support Sanders but
    – don’t take pro socialism positions
    – take anti-corruption positions, work on the theme of corporate dems being totally corrupt (which is true) which also provides a line into all the old seth rich stuff, dnc stuff, clinton foundation stuff, anti Pelosi, anti-Schumer, Podesta etc

    or Gabbard for semi-genuine reasons as she doesn’t look like she’s been corrupted yet.

    • Replies: @dvorak

    so Sanders vs Beta.
     
    No way - Beto is only in there to be Biden's VP. That's it.
  23. @Haxo Angmark
    Genghiz Yang aside, it does not matter much who the demoncrats nominate because

    95% of demoncrat voters will vote for whichever, whomever. They're about power and gibs-me-dats, not "policy" or "values". The DNC could dig up Stalin's corpse, run an electric current through it, make it sit up, run the corpse...and win.

    will Drumpf, having betrayed his flyover country 2016 voters on every single populist issue, defeat whichever, whomever? Unlikely, because

    1. he's max'd at 309 EV, his '16 total. There is not a single state which he did not carry in 2016...that he will carry in 2020.

    2. he will not carry either Pennsylvania or Wisconsin this time around. In 2020 the Penn demoncrats will return to their usual practice (which, overconfident, they didn't do in 2016) of holding most of the Philadelphia Black precinct results until very late in the evening...and then ginning up whatever # of votes the need to overcome the already reported Drumpf margins in the rural White counties. Drumpf squeeked through in Wisc. only because the dems and Mrs. Clinton, overconfident, did not visit the state at all. In 2020, the dems will hammer Wisc. and win it as per usual.

    3. that drops Drumpf to 278 EV. He will have to hold AZ (about to flip in political demography), Tejas (will carry, unless Beto is on the tic...probably not if he is), and FLA (also about to flip), and Michigan, which he also barely carried in '16. Maybe Drumpf, now used goods, can run this table a 2nd time...but

    I doubt it. ALSO, even if Drumpf squeeks thru in the EC, he will lose the popular vote by at least 3,000,000....and maybe as many as 5,000,000. Which will lead to a late 1850's-style existential-political crisis. And

    that would be cool.

    95% of demoncrat voters will vote for whichever, whomever. They’re about power and gibs-me-dats

    yeah but the internal factions want the gibs for their faction and now they see a white minority on the horizon they’re starting to fight over who gets to eat the liver.

  24. anatoly is just wrong on this one. he’s usually correct, but way off in left field here. the futurists have been taken by a bitcoin style hardsell on this guy. it’s kind of embarrassing.

    bit CONNECT!

    secure the BAG!

    people have no interest in this guy and he will always poll lower than 4 or 5 run of the mill democrats. he’s never polling higher than a few percent against a field.

    kinda interesting total absence of HBD analysis as well. chances of a chinese guy winning anything political nationally is just about zero. especially against african candidates.

    this is early days too. only the politically engaged are even thinking about this stuff right now. wait until the african voters are paying attention. like, spring of 2020. and you’ll see how far down this guy gets buried by suddenly very high polling for harris and maybe booker.

  25. anon[913] • Disclaimer says:

    Yang isn’t going anywhere. The democratic primary is disproportionately made up of Southern blacks and West Coast upperclass whites with a smattering of Rust Belt working class whites. Harris and Sanders will split that vote among themselves leaving Yang, an Asian guy with no large racial constituency, as the odd man out. He’s just a meme.

  26. Turns out it only takes $1k a month to sell out your beliefs apparently. The reality is even if Yang was elected he would firstly push through his minor globohomo policies that would recieve democrat support instead of UBI.

    So you can expect:
    Gun Control, LGBT rights, Increased welfare for single parents, Visa changes to promote emigration, Citizenship for illegals, Climate Change taxes and reduction of mass incarceration (with voting rights restored no doubt) All these policies would receive large support and have a high probability of getting through.

    Then there are policies that, like Trump discovered, those really in charge won’t allow no matter Yang’s position such as:
    Stopping pharmaceutical industry, campaign finance changes, Finance and capital gains taxes, limit bureaucracy and prevent corruption among regulators.

    And then you have the UBI. Which will cost several times that of the Wall per month but yet the NEET’s think it will be first on the list when he is elected. Clearly the globalists are going to prioritise their cheap labour schemes that import serfs to ramp their growth up, but this clearly conflicts with UBI. Letting illegal immigrants walk over the border with a path to citizenship and then $1k a month is clearly not going to be reality. If Yang was elected he would probably serve one term, pushing the agenda while again like Trump failing to get his prime policy through. I’m sure it’ll be a ‘next year guys!’ ordeal while he says he’s working on it or perhaps ‘Next term! Reelect me!” if the shadow government decides he is worthwhile to keep around while they keep pushing what they really want.

    Yang also is in a terrible position as he cannot effectively scale back the military since he is Asian, and while China is a rising threat with increasing military the Neocon’s won’t allow a decrease in funding for any purpose, let alone debloating the budget for UBI.

    • Replies: @notanon

    Turns out it only takes $1k a month to sell out your beliefs apparently.
     
    that's not it - after Trump got couped by the FBI people have been a bit adrift as to what to do next and the alt-righters pushing Yang think he's the most accelerationist.

    (i personally don't think he is but i agree picking out the most disruptive candidate from the current field is not obvious and more a process of elimination)

    my process of elimination leads to Sanders or Gabbard although Omar or AOC would be better (cos worse) - whichever candidate is most likely to bring it all down.

    (nb neither Gabbard or Sanders would actually be that radical but the amount of money that would be used to bring them down could show how corrupt the DNC is which might help)
  27. I still think Yang can hang around for awhile to keep things interesting, but at the end of the day he’s not hostile enough to whites for the more rabid parts of the Dem base, and I don’t see any significant amount of black primary voters choosing a brainy and unobtrusive Asian guy over Kamala Harris or a pandering woke white person. There just isn’t a coalition the primary I can see him stitching together to win the nomination…although if somehow he was in the general election, I think between typical Dem turnout plus some moderate whites who are exhausted by Trump he could win.

    • Replies: @notanon
    he's basically a Left-liberal Ron Paul (which explains why ex-libertarians like him)
  28. @Thomm

    I don’t think blacks would like an Asian like Yang. That’s a major problem for getting any traction before Democratic primaries.
     
    I disagree. Blacks want free stuff. Everything else is secondary.

    It is the fat bluehaired feminists, and the omega-male counterparts (the Nationalist-Leftists) who are the toughest for Yang to win over.

    Bernie Sanders was arguably the free stuff candidate last election and Blacks hated him.

    • Replies: @Thomm

    Bernie Sanders was arguably the free stuff candidate last election and Blacks hated him.
     
    That is because he was popular with White Trashionalists. Sanders was a Nationalist-Leftist.

    Blacks vote against whoever they think the White Trashionalists like. Barring that, blacks want free stuff. That is pretty much it.
  29. @Positive Dennis
    Yang’s numbers for his proposals don’t add up. His vat and eliminating government programs is still 1 trillion shy for 1000 a month for citizens. I looked and I did not see how he plans to pay for single payer. Creepy Joe Biden could win, in fact he is the only one except for the Butt guy that could. The pun was not intended but I think I will leave it.

    His vat and eliminating government programs is still 1 trillion shy for 1000 a month for citizens.

    With a $1 trillion higher deficit, there would be less deflationary undertow (our existence for the last 30 years: disinflation/deflation). Hopefully the Fed could then raise rates and stop blowing asset bubbles. Then we could have something approaching normalcy, like 4% inflation rate, 6% Fed Funds rate, 5% savings account interest rate and 9% loan interest rate.
    – my analysis, not Yang’s

  30. @notanon
    Booker/Harris aren't black enough for black voters
    after Obama hispanics think it's their turn so won't vote for a black candidate
    white liberals who voted for Obama will feel they did their anti-racism already

    so they're falling back on the white guys (but from a negative least worst kind of way, not a positive way)

    #

    Yang
    - 1) east asians are considered white to black/hispanic/white liberal voters
    - 2) is obviously a ghey op designed to appeal to ex-libertarian alt-right types to make them waste their time and energy

    Buttsiege/Warren - charisma bypass

    Biden and Sanders have the name recognition and are very old (which makes them least worst to the coalition of Cuba Norte) but Biden is gonna slowly leak support as more people see the kid touching videos

    so Sanders

    Beta is lame but photogenic and will get all the corporate money to stop Sanders after Biden flames out

    so Sanders vs Beta.

    #

    if they want maximum disruption i'd suggest alt-righters support Sanders but
    - don't take pro socialism positions
    - take anti-corruption positions, work on the theme of corporate dems being totally corrupt (which is true) which also provides a line into all the old seth rich stuff, dnc stuff, clinton foundation stuff, anti Pelosi, anti-Schumer, Podesta etc

    or Gabbard for semi-genuine reasons as she doesn't look like she's been corrupted yet.

    so Sanders vs Beta.

    No way – Beto is only in there to be Biden’s VP. That’s it.

    • Replies: @notanon
    agreed - my take is based on Biden gradually flaming out over the kid touching videos
  31. @EldnahYm
    Bernie Sanders was arguably the free stuff candidate last election and Blacks hated him.

    Bernie Sanders was arguably the free stuff candidate last election and Blacks hated him.

    That is because he was popular with White Trashionalists. Sanders was a Nationalist-Leftist.

    Blacks vote against whoever they think the White Trashionalists like. Barring that, blacks want free stuff. That is pretty much it.

    • Replies: @notanon
    the black political class want gibs for themselves not black people - they don't want principled white leftists they want crooks like the Clintons.
  32. @Tusk
    Turns out it only takes $1k a month to sell out your beliefs apparently. The reality is even if Yang was elected he would firstly push through his minor globohomo policies that would recieve democrat support instead of UBI.

    So you can expect:
    Gun Control, LGBT rights, Increased welfare for single parents, Visa changes to promote emigration, Citizenship for illegals, Climate Change taxes and reduction of mass incarceration (with voting rights restored no doubt) All these policies would receive large support and have a high probability of getting through.

    Then there are policies that, like Trump discovered, those really in charge won't allow no matter Yang's position such as:
    Stopping pharmaceutical industry, campaign finance changes, Finance and capital gains taxes, limit bureaucracy and prevent corruption among regulators.

    And then you have the UBI. Which will cost several times that of the Wall per month but yet the NEET's think it will be first on the list when he is elected. Clearly the globalists are going to prioritise their cheap labour schemes that import serfs to ramp their growth up, but this clearly conflicts with UBI. Letting illegal immigrants walk over the border with a path to citizenship and then $1k a month is clearly not going to be reality. If Yang was elected he would probably serve one term, pushing the agenda while again like Trump failing to get his prime policy through. I'm sure it'll be a 'next year guys!' ordeal while he says he's working on it or perhaps 'Next term! Reelect me!" if the shadow government decides he is worthwhile to keep around while they keep pushing what they really want.

    Yang also is in a terrible position as he cannot effectively scale back the military since he is Asian, and while China is a rising threat with increasing military the Neocon's won't allow a decrease in funding for any purpose, let alone debloating the budget for UBI.

    Turns out it only takes $1k a month to sell out your beliefs apparently.

    that’s not it – after Trump got couped by the FBI people have been a bit adrift as to what to do next and the alt-righters pushing Yang think he’s the most accelerationist.

    (i personally don’t think he is but i agree picking out the most disruptive candidate from the current field is not obvious and more a process of elimination)

    my process of elimination leads to Sanders or Gabbard although Omar or AOC would be better (cos worse) – whichever candidate is most likely to bring it all down.

    (nb neither Gabbard or Sanders would actually be that radical but the amount of money that would be used to bring them down could show how corrupt the DNC is which might help)

    • Replies: @Tusk
    I disagree, there are morons on everyside and it would be unreasonable to say that even a majority of support comes from accelerationists. Energetic Yang supporters creating memes probably are a decent number accelerationists, but the bleed over effect to normies will just convince them to adopt the "oh well, at least I get 1k a month" attitude compared to getting $0. A large contingent of his support is just people who are defeated and lazy, accepting a payout to accept disasterous policy no sane person would support because they've given up. While UBI is most definitely the future, it will come from a homogenous nation like Japan or Scandanavia (if they kick all the non-homogenous people out). America is headed for balkanization or Singapore depending on future leaders. and it is not going to be a paradise for white people just because of potentially $1k a month. May as well commit suicide because it will have the same net-positive of voting for Yang.
  33. @Arclight
    I still think Yang can hang around for awhile to keep things interesting, but at the end of the day he's not hostile enough to whites for the more rabid parts of the Dem base, and I don't see any significant amount of black primary voters choosing a brainy and unobtrusive Asian guy over Kamala Harris or a pandering woke white person. There just isn't a coalition the primary I can see him stitching together to win the nomination...although if somehow he was in the general election, I think between typical Dem turnout plus some moderate whites who are exhausted by Trump he could win.

    he’s basically a Left-liberal Ron Paul (which explains why ex-libertarians like him)

    • Agree: Arclight
  34. @dvorak

    so Sanders vs Beta.
     
    No way - Beto is only in there to be Biden's VP. That's it.

    agreed – my take is based on Biden gradually flaming out over the kid touching videos

  35. @Thomm

    Bernie Sanders was arguably the free stuff candidate last election and Blacks hated him.
     
    That is because he was popular with White Trashionalists. Sanders was a Nationalist-Leftist.

    Blacks vote against whoever they think the White Trashionalists like. Barring that, blacks want free stuff. That is pretty much it.

    the black political class want gibs for themselves not black people – they don’t want principled white leftists they want crooks like the Clintons.

  36. @Anonymous
    I think Trump has several advantages (beyond the good economy and being the incumbent). Essentially it all boils down to a wing of the Democratic party going hard left, and the difficulty the Dems have in dissociating themselves from that wing (to the contrary, they are embracing it more than repudiating it).

    For example, there is now an actual crisis at the border. Trump hasn't done much but he has done something, and has tried to do more but been obstructed. By contrast, the Democrats have, at the national level, staked out a position that is effectively open borders in all but name; Biden can keep trying to square the circle--of ostensibly being concerned about immigration while not offering any concrete proposals to staunch the flow of illegal immigrants--but a lot of people won't buy it.

    Or take Omar's recent remarks about 9/11, which are the type of thing that would enrage moderate boomer Dems. Most of the party has risen to her defense (though tellingly Biden has not). Why associate yourself with this obvious rogue, a product of some insular and prejudiced immigrant community, who has made it clear she intends to keep being inflammatory? Because you have to, because the non-white wing of the party supports her and you can't alienate them. Biden may not endorse her but he can't denounce her either. That will hurt him.

    Trump won because a lot of people, many of whom were Obama voters, saw the country growing increasingly radical and they didn't like it. Immigration was part of it, but so was Black Lives Matter, all the tranny shit, drugs etc pp. The Dems had the opportunity to moderate their rhetoric somewhat; instead they've doubled down. You don't have to love Trump, or even really "approve" of him, you just have to hate the Democratic party more. Granted it's kind of sad that you can run a successful presidential campaign primarily on fear, but that's where we're at imo.

    Essentially it all boils down to a wing of the Democratic party going hard left, and the difficulty the Dems have in dissociating themselves from that wing (to the contrary, they are embracing it more than repudiating it).

    But the fact is that the voters are increasingly going hard left on cultural/social issues. Do you really think voters under 40 are going to be worried about those issues? They’ve been thoroughly indoctrinated. White people bad, People of Color good. Heterosexuals bad, homosexuals good. Christians bad, atheists and Muslims good. Transphobes bad, trannies good.

    So do the Democrats really have to worry about dissociating themselves from their lunatic fringe? That lunatic fringe is now the mainstream.

    And the further left they go on cultural/social issues the more white liberals will want to vote for them. Especially women.

    There is no Silent Majority of decent socially conservative white people out there. The Silent Majorities that elected Nixon and Reagan are dead. Degeneracy is mainstream now.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Disagree. I think there is still a Silent Majority, smaller than before, mostly older, but still out there. I mean, Donald Trump is the President, so ipso facto we know there is a significant percentage of the population that objects to the neoliberal consensus.

    Since at least the late 1960s the Democrats have struggled with the perception that they're disdainful of average white people and, in a general sense, anti-American. Having the public face of your party include an African Muslim immigrant woman who describes 9/11 as "some people did something" and a Puerto Rican talking about how America is "native land"--while it may impress Brooklyn hipsters and blue checkmarks--doesn't play so well in Ohio and Wisconsin and Iowa. The Democrats are jumping the gun on this Kulturkampf; they don't yet have the numbers for it.
  37. @notanon

    Turns out it only takes $1k a month to sell out your beliefs apparently.
     
    that's not it - after Trump got couped by the FBI people have been a bit adrift as to what to do next and the alt-righters pushing Yang think he's the most accelerationist.

    (i personally don't think he is but i agree picking out the most disruptive candidate from the current field is not obvious and more a process of elimination)

    my process of elimination leads to Sanders or Gabbard although Omar or AOC would be better (cos worse) - whichever candidate is most likely to bring it all down.

    (nb neither Gabbard or Sanders would actually be that radical but the amount of money that would be used to bring them down could show how corrupt the DNC is which might help)

    I disagree, there are morons on everyside and it would be unreasonable to say that even a majority of support comes from accelerationists. Energetic Yang supporters creating memes probably are a decent number accelerationists, but the bleed over effect to normies will just convince them to adopt the “oh well, at least I get 1k a month” attitude compared to getting $0. A large contingent of his support is just people who are defeated and lazy, accepting a payout to accept disasterous policy no sane person would support because they’ve given up. While UBI is most definitely the future, it will come from a homogenous nation like Japan or Scandanavia (if they kick all the non-homogenous people out). America is headed for balkanization or Singapore depending on future leaders. and it is not going to be a paradise for white people just because of potentially $1k a month. May as well commit suicide because it will have the same net-positive of voting for Yang.

    • Replies: @notanon

    Energetic Yang supporters creating memes probably are a decent number accelerationists, but the bleed over effect to normies will just convince them to adopt the “oh well, at least I get 1k a month” attitude compared to getting $0.
     
    yes i agree - even if Yang was accelerationist this particular method is pozzed.

    (which is why i think the original instigators - before the autistes joined in - are bad guys)
  38. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    Essentially it all boils down to a wing of the Democratic party going hard left, and the difficulty the Dems have in dissociating themselves from that wing (to the contrary, they are embracing it more than repudiating it).
     
    But the fact is that the voters are increasingly going hard left on cultural/social issues. Do you really think voters under 40 are going to be worried about those issues? They've been thoroughly indoctrinated. White people bad, People of Color good. Heterosexuals bad, homosexuals good. Christians bad, atheists and Muslims good. Transphobes bad, trannies good.

    So do the Democrats really have to worry about dissociating themselves from their lunatic fringe? That lunatic fringe is now the mainstream.

    And the further left they go on cultural/social issues the more white liberals will want to vote for them. Especially women.

    There is no Silent Majority of decent socially conservative white people out there. The Silent Majorities that elected Nixon and Reagan are dead. Degeneracy is mainstream now.

    Disagree. I think there is still a Silent Majority, smaller than before, mostly older, but still out there. I mean, Donald Trump is the President, so ipso facto we know there is a significant percentage of the population that objects to the neoliberal consensus.

    Since at least the late 1960s the Democrats have struggled with the perception that they’re disdainful of average white people and, in a general sense, anti-American. Having the public face of your party include an African Muslim immigrant woman who describes 9/11 as “some people did something” and a Puerto Rican talking about how America is “native land”–while it may impress Brooklyn hipsters and blue checkmarks–doesn’t play so well in Ohio and Wisconsin and Iowa. The Democrats are jumping the gun on this Kulturkampf; they don’t yet have the numbers for it.

  39. @Tusk
    I disagree, there are morons on everyside and it would be unreasonable to say that even a majority of support comes from accelerationists. Energetic Yang supporters creating memes probably are a decent number accelerationists, but the bleed over effect to normies will just convince them to adopt the "oh well, at least I get 1k a month" attitude compared to getting $0. A large contingent of his support is just people who are defeated and lazy, accepting a payout to accept disasterous policy no sane person would support because they've given up. While UBI is most definitely the future, it will come from a homogenous nation like Japan or Scandanavia (if they kick all the non-homogenous people out). America is headed for balkanization or Singapore depending on future leaders. and it is not going to be a paradise for white people just because of potentially $1k a month. May as well commit suicide because it will have the same net-positive of voting for Yang.

    Energetic Yang supporters creating memes probably are a decent number accelerationists, but the bleed over effect to normies will just convince them to adopt the “oh well, at least I get 1k a month” attitude compared to getting $0.

    yes i agree – even if Yang was accelerationist this particular method is pozzed.

    (which is why i think the original instigators – before the autistes joined in – are bad guys)

    • Replies: @Tusk
    Probably paid shills since there has been a lot of that recently.
  40. @notanon

    Energetic Yang supporters creating memes probably are a decent number accelerationists, but the bleed over effect to normies will just convince them to adopt the “oh well, at least I get 1k a month” attitude compared to getting $0.
     
    yes i agree - even if Yang was accelerationist this particular method is pozzed.

    (which is why i think the original instigators - before the autistes joined in - are bad guys)

    Probably paid shills since there has been a lot of that recently.

    • Replies: @notanon
    for the originators yes - although the autistes jumping on the bandwagon was genuine imo - they were understandably mad at Trump.
  41. @Tusk
    Probably paid shills since there has been a lot of that recently.

    for the originators yes – although the autistes jumping on the bandwagon was genuine imo – they were understandably mad at Trump.

  42. @Anonymous
    I was a yuuuge Trump supporter. But I’m in a safe blue state so my vote means nothing. But I think Trump’s re-election strategy is simple. Start a Middle East war close to election time. Trump has already taken steps to initiate this. He declared Iran’s military (IRGC) a terrorist organization and is now making moves against Hizbullah which will force their hand. Remember, G.H.W. Bush had a 92% approval rating right after the Gulf War. Trump’s war will be a war directly in Israel’s interest so it will mean all of America media will rally behind Trump. It;s kind of fool-proof. The Democrat candidate will lose by at least 30 points.

    If Drumpf starts a war, billions in Tel Aviv real estate get trashed in 24 hours. Iran blows up Saudi oil infrastructure, Shia revolt in KSA, Russia ships S400s over Caspian. Oil goes to $500 a barrel. No good way to invade Iran. There will be no war.

    • Replies: @notanon

    Shia revolt in KSA
     
    hence why they're trying to crush them in advance (Yemen)

    Oil goes to $500 a barrel.
     
    hence the attempted coup in Venezuela to gain control of their oil so they can pump more to compensate for disruption in middle-east oil supplies if/when they attack Iran.

    No good way to invade Iran.
     
    no good way sure but seems to me the current conflict among the NWO is not about whether to attack Iran but when - with one faction wanting to do it as soon as possible and the other faction wanting to get everything in place first to minimize the economic blowback.

    There will be no war.
     
    maybe not but at a minimum there will be numerous mini-conflicts as they try to get everything ready for an attack.
  43. UBI is a good start on technofuturism. When will we get a platform for AI overlords?

  44. @Boswald Bollocksworth
    If Drumpf starts a war, billions in Tel Aviv real estate get trashed in 24 hours. Iran blows up Saudi oil infrastructure, Shia revolt in KSA, Russia ships S400s over Caspian. Oil goes to $500 a barrel. No good way to invade Iran. There will be no war.

    Shia revolt in KSA

    hence why they’re trying to crush them in advance (Yemen)

    Oil goes to $500 a barrel.

    hence the attempted coup in Venezuela to gain control of their oil so they can pump more to compensate for disruption in middle-east oil supplies if/when they attack Iran.

    No good way to invade Iran.

    no good way sure but seems to me the current conflict among the NWO is not about whether to attack Iran but when – with one faction wanting to do it as soon as possible and the other faction wanting to get everything in place first to minimize the economic blowback.

    There will be no war.

    maybe not but at a minimum there will be numerous mini-conflicts as they try to get everything ready for an attack.

  45. anon[211] • Disclaimer says:

    “A large contingent of his support is just people who are defeated and lazy, accepting a payout to accept disastrous policy no sane person would support because they’ve given up.”

    True. You additionally see this in the fact that they’ve embraced the cult of AI and automation supposedly making their lives easier in the near future. I’ve seen a lot of spergy tech guys worried about the future dismiss our current problems with the religion of future tech making everything great just as in Star Trek or something. Yang Gang does the same thing – ignore the present and hope for an afterlife in paradise (sounds just like religion, doesn’t it?). They’re happy taking the mere prospect (unlikely though it is) of a paltry $1K/month to bow out and play nice with SJWs, justifying their surrender with the notion that AI will make the near future a paradise. They are in for a shock when Yang goes down in the primary. They’ll be lucky to get Sanders, but I wouldn’t at all be surprised to see them get Biden or Harris, two candidates who’ll give them nothing but continue the current oppressive high-low class system anyway.

    • Replies: @Tusk
    Great point, it really is a cult mentality for those who think technofuturism is going to be a payoff for them in the short term. AI and automation will, for countries such as the US, just enable the small fraction of rich silicon valley types to pay pennies to brown slaves for menial work while transferring wealth from the middle class to themselves. It's like making two people race to the bottom while you sit on your dais above. It won't matter if Sanders is elected, these people have given up, they will just accept it. Though Harris would probably be horrendeous due to her 'woke' pandering that will end in cultural destruction, at least Sanders (and maybe Biden) will just continue the white-style leftism instead of trying to sink the ship in order to apologise for any imagined malfeseance in regard to nonwhites.
    , @Daniel Chieh

    You additionally see this in the fact that they’ve embraced the cult of AI and automation supposedly making their lives easier in the near future.
     
    Its semi-cultist, which is in a way why our kind host Karlin calls himself a member of Cult Mechanicus - but the thing is, its not really all that uncertain or even that far off in many ways. The specifics can yet vary, but both he and I have spent a great deal of time and personal experience in Silicon Valley and this day to day familiarity with technology leaves little doubt that its going to have a significant impact on production, human involvement, and the skills asked for.

    This doesn't have a lot to do with personal preference, its just acknowledgment that if a tsunami is coming, its beyond our power to stop and its best to prepare for it. Blindly rejecting it is kind of like being at the beginning of the industrial revolution and calmly dismissing the importance of chemical energy in the future of all production.
    , @Anonymous
    It's the exact opposite. Handing out cash to people is about the least technofuturist and most immediate, concrete, and practical policy out there. The cash is promised to be delivered every month, not in the afterlife. It's the right-wing critics of the Yang Gang types that make the religious/afterlife argument. They say that the Yang Gang types are selling out for $1K/month when they should be sacrificing for a potential glorious future.
  46. @anon
    "A large contingent of his support is just people who are defeated and lazy, accepting a payout to accept disastrous policy no sane person would support because they’ve given up."

    True. You additionally see this in the fact that they've embraced the cult of AI and automation supposedly making their lives easier in the near future. I've seen a lot of spergy tech guys worried about the future dismiss our current problems with the religion of future tech making everything great just as in Star Trek or something. Yang Gang does the same thing - ignore the present and hope for an afterlife in paradise (sounds just like religion, doesn't it?). They're happy taking the mere prospect (unlikely though it is) of a paltry $1K/month to bow out and play nice with SJWs, justifying their surrender with the notion that AI will make the near future a paradise. They are in for a shock when Yang goes down in the primary. They'll be lucky to get Sanders, but I wouldn't at all be surprised to see them get Biden or Harris, two candidates who'll give them nothing but continue the current oppressive high-low class system anyway.

    Great point, it really is a cult mentality for those who think technofuturism is going to be a payoff for them in the short term. AI and automation will, for countries such as the US, just enable the small fraction of rich silicon valley types to pay pennies to brown slaves for menial work while transferring wealth from the middle class to themselves. It’s like making two people race to the bottom while you sit on your dais above. It won’t matter if Sanders is elected, these people have given up, they will just accept it. Though Harris would probably be horrendeous due to her ‘woke’ pandering that will end in cultural destruction, at least Sanders (and maybe Biden) will just continue the white-style leftism instead of trying to sink the ship in order to apologise for any imagined malfeseance in regard to nonwhites.

  47. @anon
    "A large contingent of his support is just people who are defeated and lazy, accepting a payout to accept disastrous policy no sane person would support because they’ve given up."

    True. You additionally see this in the fact that they've embraced the cult of AI and automation supposedly making their lives easier in the near future. I've seen a lot of spergy tech guys worried about the future dismiss our current problems with the religion of future tech making everything great just as in Star Trek or something. Yang Gang does the same thing - ignore the present and hope for an afterlife in paradise (sounds just like religion, doesn't it?). They're happy taking the mere prospect (unlikely though it is) of a paltry $1K/month to bow out and play nice with SJWs, justifying their surrender with the notion that AI will make the near future a paradise. They are in for a shock when Yang goes down in the primary. They'll be lucky to get Sanders, but I wouldn't at all be surprised to see them get Biden or Harris, two candidates who'll give them nothing but continue the current oppressive high-low class system anyway.

    You additionally see this in the fact that they’ve embraced the cult of AI and automation supposedly making their lives easier in the near future.

    Its semi-cultist, which is in a way why our kind host Karlin calls himself a member of Cult Mechanicus – but the thing is, its not really all that uncertain or even that far off in many ways. The specifics can yet vary, but both he and I have spent a great deal of time and personal experience in Silicon Valley and this day to day familiarity with technology leaves little doubt that its going to have a significant impact on production, human involvement, and the skills asked for.

    This doesn’t have a lot to do with personal preference, its just acknowledgment that if a tsunami is coming, its beyond our power to stop and its best to prepare for it. Blindly rejecting it is kind of like being at the beginning of the industrial revolution and calmly dismissing the importance of chemical energy in the future of all production.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  48. @Boswald Bollocksworth
    Kamala is a low energy person but she’s going to get 25%+ on Predictit at some point right? She’s arguably black , went to Howard, backed by the CA Dem machine. Am I crazy for having loaded up on shares for her taking the nomination on predictit it? Taken a nice loss, hoping to get out if she breaks 30%

    I placed a small bet on her as well, and IIRC Audacious Epigone said he placed $1,000 on her.

  49. If the ticket has either Yang or Gabbard (preferably both – do they get on?) then it might be worth a vote.

    Kamala Harris = Aipac Chopra

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    https://twitter.com/shaunking/status/1118928035695271942
  50. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    "A large contingent of his support is just people who are defeated and lazy, accepting a payout to accept disastrous policy no sane person would support because they’ve given up."

    True. You additionally see this in the fact that they've embraced the cult of AI and automation supposedly making their lives easier in the near future. I've seen a lot of spergy tech guys worried about the future dismiss our current problems with the religion of future tech making everything great just as in Star Trek or something. Yang Gang does the same thing - ignore the present and hope for an afterlife in paradise (sounds just like religion, doesn't it?). They're happy taking the mere prospect (unlikely though it is) of a paltry $1K/month to bow out and play nice with SJWs, justifying their surrender with the notion that AI will make the near future a paradise. They are in for a shock when Yang goes down in the primary. They'll be lucky to get Sanders, but I wouldn't at all be surprised to see them get Biden or Harris, two candidates who'll give them nothing but continue the current oppressive high-low class system anyway.

    It’s the exact opposite. Handing out cash to people is about the least technofuturist and most immediate, concrete, and practical policy out there. The cash is promised to be delivered every month, not in the afterlife. It’s the right-wing critics of the Yang Gang types that make the religious/afterlife argument. They say that the Yang Gang types are selling out for $1K/month when they should be sacrificing for a potential glorious future.

    • Replies: @Tusk

    Handing out cash to people is about the least technofuturist and most immediate, concrete, and practical policy out there
     
    What election promises have ever been immediate, concrete and practical? Trump was elected solely through the peoples support against the shadow government, on a platform on ending wars no less, and yet still managed to accomplish nothing at all of value. No wall, No ended wars, nothing. The cash being promised is not immediate, it is in the ever changing 'future' and subject to all manner of obstacles before it ever is deposited into your bank account. It is hardly concrete, considering Yang has proposed all manners of taxes and budget restructures in order to have the money - each of which is subject to more obstacles.

    You are selling out if you think that immediately surrendering the cultural war for $1k a month is a net benefit. As I mentioned earlier, you are accepting a vast number of horrendous policies that will be enacted with democrat support much faster than the UBI. You also run the risk of the policy fizzling out not long after it is adopted depending on what else is legislated, such as increased emigration and citizenship for illegal aliens. How long will it take before UBI is too much of a drain that it is canned, hardly worth betting your future on a policy that will just hasten the collapse of the American Empire, leaving you in the dirt much quicker.

  51. @Anonymous
    It's the exact opposite. Handing out cash to people is about the least technofuturist and most immediate, concrete, and practical policy out there. The cash is promised to be delivered every month, not in the afterlife. It's the right-wing critics of the Yang Gang types that make the religious/afterlife argument. They say that the Yang Gang types are selling out for $1K/month when they should be sacrificing for a potential glorious future.

    Handing out cash to people is about the least technofuturist and most immediate, concrete, and practical policy out there

    What election promises have ever been immediate, concrete and practical? Trump was elected solely through the peoples support against the shadow government, on a platform on ending wars no less, and yet still managed to accomplish nothing at all of value. No wall, No ended wars, nothing. The cash being promised is not immediate, it is in the ever changing ‘future’ and subject to all manner of obstacles before it ever is deposited into your bank account. It is hardly concrete, considering Yang has proposed all manners of taxes and budget restructures in order to have the money – each of which is subject to more obstacles.

    You are selling out if you think that immediately surrendering the cultural war for $1k a month is a net benefit. As I mentioned earlier, you are accepting a vast number of horrendous policies that will be enacted with democrat support much faster than the UBI. You also run the risk of the policy fizzling out not long after it is adopted depending on what else is legislated, such as increased emigration and citizenship for illegal aliens. How long will it take before UBI is too much of a drain that it is canned, hardly worth betting your future on a policy that will just hasten the collapse of the American Empire, leaving you in the dirt much quicker.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    How long will it take before UBI is too much of a drain that it is canned, hardly worth betting your future on a policy that will just hasten the collapse of the American Empire, leaving you in the dirt much quicker.
     
    I don't think the American Empire is on your side and its going to collapse anyway.

    So in summation: 1000 + X > X.
  52. Anonymous[802] • Disclaimer says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    Yang is waging Han race war against THE HISTORIC NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS MAJORITY....And...Yang’s H1B...L1B Visa proposal...let ‘em all in.....is GENOCIDAL....


    BRING BACK THE 1872 CHNESE LEGAL IMMIGRANT EXCLUSION ACT!!

    Hop Sing...GO BACK TO CHINA....

    Lol. Where did you find that? Evidence?

  53. @Denis

    I think Trump has several advantages (beyond the good economy
     
    Yeah, about that...

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/guid/A338A6D6-5C64-11E9-A5FD-9AE69096A302

    The drumbeat of warnings about a looming worldwide recession is growing ever louder. According to the latest Brookings-Financial Times TIGER indexes, which track the global economic recovery, growth momentum is declining in virtually all of the world’s major economies.

    And what this portends in the longer term is ominous, especially given the limited macroeconomic policy options for stimulating growth.
     
    If the US economy enters another recession before the election, Trump is gonna have a real uphill battle.

    Something like that – an economic crash – is probably what it will take

    People unfamiliar with America don’t commonly recognize just how hard it is for once-elected American presidents to NOT get re-elected.

    1800: Adams nearly won re-election despite disorganization and the bitter hatred of his fellow Federalist, Hamilton
    1828: John Quincy Adams loses re-election after many considered him an invalid President to begin with – fall out from the “corrupt bargain” of 1824
    1840: Panic of 1837 dooms Van Buren
    1888-92: Cleveland and Harrison trade close elections
    1912: Taft is ruined by Theodore Roosevelt’s moronic third party campaign
    1932: The Great Depression
    1980: The economy was in a shambles, plus the Iranian hostage crisis – a perfect storm
    1992: If you do the math, state by state, there is really very little doubt that Ross Perot’s candidacy cost the incumbent the election
    1996: A repeat of 1992, with the added dimension of the Republicans nominating a weak candidate (Dole) instead of a strong, fighting populist (Pat Buchanan)

    (Note: I do not count 1976 because Ford was never elected)

    The odds are quite in favor of any President – Trump included – getting re-elected barring economic disaster or serious third party run.

    As for Yang, if this guy is for real (and he isn’t), even the weirdo remnants of the Alt-Right won’t help him win the Democrat nomination – this the Democrat Party we’re talking about, people! No one even remotely “for real” is gonna get their nomination. DUH!

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    1996: A repeat of 1992, with the added dimension of the Republicans nominating a weak candidate (Dole) instead of a strong, fighting populist (Pat Buchanan)

     

    My bad: Clinton was a winning incumbent in 1996. Shouldn't have included this one. My brain is tired.
    , @songbird
    Perot ran an interesting campaign. His budgetary charts feel like an historical anachronism now. It may have been crazy for him to use them back then, but nobody would be crazy enough to even try it now. Not just because he failed, but because of the current demographics.

    Perot was trying to appeal to a white audience, whether he realized it or not. He actually won a sham election at my school. The general electorate was probably too hidebound to party affiliation to elect him.

    You can also see the influence of demography when Republicans later took over Congress and "balanced" the budget. Of course, many federal agencies continued to accumulate debt.

    BTW, "On the Wings of Eagles" is kind of a fun read, even if Perot wasn't always known for his truth-telling.
  54. @Anonymous
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X17xoQbV5M

    EMJ is often a bit too manic for his own good, but that ….. that is a classic moment right there.

  55. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Something like that - an economic crash - is probably what it will take

    People unfamiliar with America don't commonly recognize just how hard it is for once-elected American presidents to NOT get re-elected.

    1800: Adams nearly won re-election despite disorganization and the bitter hatred of his fellow Federalist, Hamilton
    1828: John Quincy Adams loses re-election after many considered him an invalid President to begin with - fall out from the "corrupt bargain" of 1824
    1840: Panic of 1837 dooms Van Buren
    1888-92: Cleveland and Harrison trade close elections
    1912: Taft is ruined by Theodore Roosevelt's moronic third party campaign
    1932: The Great Depression
    1980: The economy was in a shambles, plus the Iranian hostage crisis - a perfect storm
    1992: If you do the math, state by state, there is really very little doubt that Ross Perot's candidacy cost the incumbent the election
    1996: A repeat of 1992, with the added dimension of the Republicans nominating a weak candidate (Dole) instead of a strong, fighting populist (Pat Buchanan)

    (Note: I do not count 1976 because Ford was never elected)

    The odds are quite in favor of any President - Trump included - getting re-elected barring economic disaster or serious third party run.

    As for Yang, if this guy is for real (and he isn't), even the weirdo remnants of the Alt-Right won't help him win the Democrat nomination - this the Democrat Party we're talking about, people! No one even remotely "for real" is gonna get their nomination. DUH!

    1996: A repeat of 1992, with the added dimension of the Republicans nominating a weak candidate (Dole) instead of a strong, fighting populist (Pat Buchanan)

    My bad: Clinton was a winning incumbent in 1996. Shouldn’t have included this one. My brain is tired.

  56. @Anonymous
    Buttigieg is pronounced BOOT-uh-zheesh. I get this from Buttigieg’s neighbor when Pete was growing up, E. Michael Jones (how hilarious is that?? Lol).

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CMsusUHKya4

    God’s providence in action

    • Replies: @songbird
    Despite all the jokes, I only just realized that Buttigieg is gay.

    I had speculated before that gays would probably have an unconscious bias for selecting his name in a primary.
  57. Anonymous[388] • Disclaimer says:

    The goyim never learn.

    https://forward.com/news/world/422050/jewish-comedians-pogrom-ukraine/

    The Forward: This Jewish Comedian Is About To Become Ukraine’s President — No Joke

    By Michael Colborne
    April 17, 2019
    KYIV, UKRAINE

    In a Europe where anti-Semitism is on the rise, a country Jews still associate with the pogrom of family horror stories looks like it’s about to elect a Jewish comedian as head of state.

    It’s Ukraine, a country of nearly 44 million people. More than one million Jews were murdered here by the Nazis and their local collaborators during World War II. Yet it’s also a place where a Jewish man, actor and comedian Volodymyr Zelensky, won the first round of Ukraine’s presidential elections in early March, garnering 30% of the vote and carrying all but five of Ukraine’s 25 regions. The second-place finisher, incumbent President Petro Poroshenko, finished with a 16%.

    On Sunday, April 21, the 41-year-old Zelensky will face off in the second and final-round runoff against Poroshenko. Buoyed by his stronger-than-expected first-round results, Zelensky is highly favored to ascend to the presidency, and become something that sounds contradictory – a Jewish head of state on a continent where anti-Semitism is on the rise. Then again, Ukraine is full of contradictions when it comes to Jews and anti-Semitism.

    It’s a prospect that seems to have left many in Ukraine, even those who don’t support Zelensky, with a strange sense of satisfaction. Five years of war with Russian-led forces in the country’s east – a war that has taken an estimated 13,000 lives – has come with lots of Russian propaganda about apparently rampant anti-Semitism in Ukraine, from fake flyers threatening local Jews to completely fabricated news stories about nonexistent pogroms.

    Zelensky’s potential victory is being used as evidence that Ukraine is hardly the Nazi-filled, pogrom-happy land Russian media has tried to claim it is. But it doesn’t change the fact that Ukraine still has its problems with anti-Semitism, even if local Jews seldom experience the kind of victimization and violence seen in other parts of Europe…

    (ps: I don’t bother posting stuff like this on Sailer’s thread anymore as he has gone full cuck on the JQ and will not approve the posts).

  58. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Something like that - an economic crash - is probably what it will take

    People unfamiliar with America don't commonly recognize just how hard it is for once-elected American presidents to NOT get re-elected.

    1800: Adams nearly won re-election despite disorganization and the bitter hatred of his fellow Federalist, Hamilton
    1828: John Quincy Adams loses re-election after many considered him an invalid President to begin with - fall out from the "corrupt bargain" of 1824
    1840: Panic of 1837 dooms Van Buren
    1888-92: Cleveland and Harrison trade close elections
    1912: Taft is ruined by Theodore Roosevelt's moronic third party campaign
    1932: The Great Depression
    1980: The economy was in a shambles, plus the Iranian hostage crisis - a perfect storm
    1992: If you do the math, state by state, there is really very little doubt that Ross Perot's candidacy cost the incumbent the election
    1996: A repeat of 1992, with the added dimension of the Republicans nominating a weak candidate (Dole) instead of a strong, fighting populist (Pat Buchanan)

    (Note: I do not count 1976 because Ford was never elected)

    The odds are quite in favor of any President - Trump included - getting re-elected barring economic disaster or serious third party run.

    As for Yang, if this guy is for real (and he isn't), even the weirdo remnants of the Alt-Right won't help him win the Democrat nomination - this the Democrat Party we're talking about, people! No one even remotely "for real" is gonna get their nomination. DUH!

    Perot ran an interesting campaign. His budgetary charts feel like an historical anachronism now. It may have been crazy for him to use them back then, but nobody would be crazy enough to even try it now. Not just because he failed, but because of the current demographics.

    Perot was trying to appeal to a white audience, whether he realized it or not. He actually won a sham election at my school. The general electorate was probably too hidebound to party affiliation to elect him.

    You can also see the influence of demography when Republicans later took over Congress and “balanced” the budget. Of course, many federal agencies continued to accumulate debt.

    BTW, “On the Wings of Eagles” is kind of a fun read, even if Perot wasn’t always known for his truth-telling.

    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Perot ran an interesting campaign, but he also ran a poor campaign, basically stopping halfway through and killing all of his momentum.

    Perot, however, was a much stronger 3rd party contender than that fat, interventionist pig Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. I think that if Perot hadn't stopped and stalled, he might have at least picked off a few states to force a vote in Congress.

    George H.W. Bush, in political terms, stabbed his base in the back - plus alienated paleocons and libertarians - with overseas meddling and a tax increase. And he took a fairly strong primary challenge from Pat Buchanan. Yet he still would have won in a near-landslide if not for Perot.

    Just shows you, it ain't easy to lose re-election as POTUS.

    Since 1900, it's only happened 6 times, and each one of those 5 times - 1912, 1932, 1976, 1980, 1992 - involved both economic disaster and strong primary challengers/3rd party runs (T. Roosevelt; Calvin Coolidge in '32; Ronald Reagan in '76; Ted Kennedy in '80; Pat Buchanan AND Ross Perot in '92).

    I'm also of the opinion that Clinton would have lost in 1996 if the GOP had nominated Buchanan, but, we're not allowed to have nice things.

    In 1940, had the GOP nominated an isolationist, instead of the transparent stalking horse that was Wendell Willkie, they would have beaten FDR. This would have only proven the rule, though, since FDR had presided over an utterly pathetic recession in '38 and had begun to alienate the Midwest in particular with his brand of foreign policy entanglement. (Fortunately for him, he successfully kept most of the worst parts a secret, such as "understandings" with the British military)

    Summary: Incumbents really don't lose unless their party wants them to lose. So far, I see no reason to think the Republican Party wants Trump to lose. Admittedly, this is because Trump is rather a cuck. sigh

    Still, these defeated Alt-Right memes for "Yang Gang" aside, I think the safe money is on Trump getting re-elected. Call me if there's an economic debacle before the election.

  59. @DFH
    God's providence in action

    Despite all the jokes, I only just realized that Buttigieg is gay.

    I had speculated before that gays would probably have an unconscious bias for selecting his name in a primary.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Despite all the jokes, I only just realized that Buttigieg is gay.

     

    Don't feel bad. As Jones points out, the media depiction of this guy is pretty light on the details: when they covered his press conference, they left out the part where his "husband" passionately kissed him on the mouth.

    Most people simply don't want to see that crap. Hence why it has never been shown on TV.

    Even the classic "anything goes" American "Boomer" types I know, who pretend that sodomy is an "individual's choice" or whatever, but who find the whole thing .... creepy.

    I know one guy, a liberal Canadian born in the 1950s, who told me that while he supports SSM political rights, he still feels "personally uncomfortable" around those people. There are others like him, and possibly enough to deny him the nomination. How do sodomite poll among black Democrat women voters?

    On the other hand, I do think Jones is right - the Axelrod money and system seems to be supporting Buttigieg as another Obama cipher type of candidate.

    However, as trivial as it may be, I have my doubts that someone with a last name as ridiculous as "Buttigieg" can possibly win a presidential nomination, let alone a general election.

  60. @Tusk

    Handing out cash to people is about the least technofuturist and most immediate, concrete, and practical policy out there
     
    What election promises have ever been immediate, concrete and practical? Trump was elected solely through the peoples support against the shadow government, on a platform on ending wars no less, and yet still managed to accomplish nothing at all of value. No wall, No ended wars, nothing. The cash being promised is not immediate, it is in the ever changing 'future' and subject to all manner of obstacles before it ever is deposited into your bank account. It is hardly concrete, considering Yang has proposed all manners of taxes and budget restructures in order to have the money - each of which is subject to more obstacles.

    You are selling out if you think that immediately surrendering the cultural war for $1k a month is a net benefit. As I mentioned earlier, you are accepting a vast number of horrendous policies that will be enacted with democrat support much faster than the UBI. You also run the risk of the policy fizzling out not long after it is adopted depending on what else is legislated, such as increased emigration and citizenship for illegal aliens. How long will it take before UBI is too much of a drain that it is canned, hardly worth betting your future on a policy that will just hasten the collapse of the American Empire, leaving you in the dirt much quicker.

    How long will it take before UBI is too much of a drain that it is canned, hardly worth betting your future on a policy that will just hasten the collapse of the American Empire, leaving you in the dirt much quicker.

    I don’t think the American Empire is on your side and its going to collapse anyway.

    So in summation: 1000 + X > X.

  61. Yang and his gang should always emphasize that only Americans who have been citizens for 18 years would be getting the thousand dollars every month. Even MAGA hat wearers will cheer.

  62. @songbird
    Perot ran an interesting campaign. His budgetary charts feel like an historical anachronism now. It may have been crazy for him to use them back then, but nobody would be crazy enough to even try it now. Not just because he failed, but because of the current demographics.

    Perot was trying to appeal to a white audience, whether he realized it or not. He actually won a sham election at my school. The general electorate was probably too hidebound to party affiliation to elect him.

    You can also see the influence of demography when Republicans later took over Congress and "balanced" the budget. Of course, many federal agencies continued to accumulate debt.

    BTW, "On the Wings of Eagles" is kind of a fun read, even if Perot wasn't always known for his truth-telling.

    Perot ran an interesting campaign, but he also ran a poor campaign, basically stopping halfway through and killing all of his momentum.

    Perot, however, was a much stronger 3rd party contender than that fat, interventionist pig Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. I think that if Perot hadn’t stopped and stalled, he might have at least picked off a few states to force a vote in Congress.

    George H.W. Bush, in political terms, stabbed his base in the back – plus alienated paleocons and libertarians – with overseas meddling and a tax increase. And he took a fairly strong primary challenge from Pat Buchanan. Yet he still would have won in a near-landslide if not for Perot.

    Just shows you, it ain’t easy to lose re-election as POTUS.

    Since 1900, it’s only happened 6 times, and each one of those 5 times – 1912, 1932, 1976, 1980, 1992 – involved both economic disaster and strong primary challengers/3rd party runs (T. Roosevelt; Calvin Coolidge in ’32; Ronald Reagan in ’76; Ted Kennedy in ’80; Pat Buchanan AND Ross Perot in ’92).

    I’m also of the opinion that Clinton would have lost in 1996 if the GOP had nominated Buchanan, but, we’re not allowed to have nice things.

    In 1940, had the GOP nominated an isolationist, instead of the transparent stalking horse that was Wendell Willkie, they would have beaten FDR. This would have only proven the rule, though, since FDR had presided over an utterly pathetic recession in ’38 and had begun to alienate the Midwest in particular with his brand of foreign policy entanglement. (Fortunately for him, he successfully kept most of the worst parts a secret, such as “understandings” with the British military)

    Summary: Incumbents really don’t lose unless their party wants them to lose. So far, I see no reason to think the Republican Party wants Trump to lose. Admittedly, this is because Trump is rather a cuck. sigh

    Still, these defeated Alt-Right memes for “Yang Gang” aside, I think the safe money is on Trump getting re-elected. Call me if there’s an economic debacle before the election.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Since 1900, it’s only happened 6 times, and each one of those 5 times

     

    Ignore the obvious typo
  63. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Perot ran an interesting campaign, but he also ran a poor campaign, basically stopping halfway through and killing all of his momentum.

    Perot, however, was a much stronger 3rd party contender than that fat, interventionist pig Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. I think that if Perot hadn't stopped and stalled, he might have at least picked off a few states to force a vote in Congress.

    George H.W. Bush, in political terms, stabbed his base in the back - plus alienated paleocons and libertarians - with overseas meddling and a tax increase. And he took a fairly strong primary challenge from Pat Buchanan. Yet he still would have won in a near-landslide if not for Perot.

    Just shows you, it ain't easy to lose re-election as POTUS.

    Since 1900, it's only happened 6 times, and each one of those 5 times - 1912, 1932, 1976, 1980, 1992 - involved both economic disaster and strong primary challengers/3rd party runs (T. Roosevelt; Calvin Coolidge in '32; Ronald Reagan in '76; Ted Kennedy in '80; Pat Buchanan AND Ross Perot in '92).

    I'm also of the opinion that Clinton would have lost in 1996 if the GOP had nominated Buchanan, but, we're not allowed to have nice things.

    In 1940, had the GOP nominated an isolationist, instead of the transparent stalking horse that was Wendell Willkie, they would have beaten FDR. This would have only proven the rule, though, since FDR had presided over an utterly pathetic recession in '38 and had begun to alienate the Midwest in particular with his brand of foreign policy entanglement. (Fortunately for him, he successfully kept most of the worst parts a secret, such as "understandings" with the British military)

    Summary: Incumbents really don't lose unless their party wants them to lose. So far, I see no reason to think the Republican Party wants Trump to lose. Admittedly, this is because Trump is rather a cuck. sigh

    Still, these defeated Alt-Right memes for "Yang Gang" aside, I think the safe money is on Trump getting re-elected. Call me if there's an economic debacle before the election.

    Since 1900, it’s only happened 6 times, and each one of those 5 times

    Ignore the obvious typo

    • Replies: @songbird
    Celebrity always counts for something in an election, or else we would not see so many political dynasties and wife candidates. I think Trump will win, but he might be the last Republican president.
  64. @songbird
    Despite all the jokes, I only just realized that Buttigieg is gay.

    I had speculated before that gays would probably have an unconscious bias for selecting his name in a primary.

    Despite all the jokes, I only just realized that Buttigieg is gay.

    Don’t feel bad. As Jones points out, the media depiction of this guy is pretty light on the details: when they covered his press conference, they left out the part where his “husband” passionately kissed him on the mouth.

    Most people simply don’t want to see that crap. Hence why it has never been shown on TV.

    Even the classic “anything goes” American “Boomer” types I know, who pretend that sodomy is an “individual’s choice” or whatever, but who find the whole thing …. creepy.

    I know one guy, a liberal Canadian born in the 1950s, who told me that while he supports SSM political rights, he still feels “personally uncomfortable” around those people. There are others like him, and possibly enough to deny him the nomination. How do sodomite poll among black Democrat women voters?

    On the other hand, I do think Jones is right – the Axelrod money and system seems to be supporting Buttigieg as another Obama cipher type of candidate.

    However, as trivial as it may be, I have my doubts that someone with a last name as ridiculous as “Buttigieg” can possibly win a presidential nomination, let alone a general election.

    • Replies: @songbird
    It is curious how often gays attain political power. Is it signaling, some sort of verbal talent or psychopathy, or the fact that they have no families and can spend more time networking? I don't know, but I don't think it is positive for society.

    Nor do I think it would work in a US presidential election - at least not yet.
  65. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Since 1900, it’s only happened 6 times, and each one of those 5 times

     

    Ignore the obvious typo

    Celebrity always counts for something in an election, or else we would not see so many political dynasties and wife candidates. I think Trump will win, but he might be the last Republican president.

  66. @Anonymous
    I was a yuuuge Trump supporter. But I’m in a safe blue state so my vote means nothing. But I think Trump’s re-election strategy is simple. Start a Middle East war close to election time. Trump has already taken steps to initiate this. He declared Iran’s military (IRGC) a terrorist organization and is now making moves against Hizbullah which will force their hand. Remember, G.H.W. Bush had a 92% approval rating right after the Gulf War. Trump’s war will be a war directly in Israel’s interest so it will mean all of America media will rally behind Trump. It;s kind of fool-proof. The Democrat candidate will lose by at least 30 points.

    Not so easy. Trump is still Trump, still despised by the media. The only reason W. was able to get away with Iraq was because emotions were riding high after 9/11. After 16 years of failed foreign wars, America today is a very different country. Most Americans have no appetite left for foreign wars tens of thousands of miles away, when a real war is occurring at our southern borders, and on our city streets against drug addicts and homelessness.

    If Trump starts a war with Iran, it’ll be the end of him.

    • Replies: @notanon

    Not so easy. Trump is still Trump, still despised by the media.
     
    if there's been a neocon coup* - the media will stop attacking Trump.

    (* i.e. if Mueller successfully got dirt on him**)

    (**what are the odds a New York property magnate has no financial dirt? what are the odds of not finding it when you have everyone bugged and got the dude's lawyer on tax evasion charges?)
  67. @anonymous
    On his website it says every U.S citizen over 18 years old https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/
    In his interviews he says those same exact words. There are tons of interviews and I don't have the time to sift through his long form interviews to find a 3 second phrase.

    blow you boomer lies out of your ass old man.

    One of the advantages of age is wisdom. Wisdom allows you to take the long view. Yang’s immigration plan will bring the death of America. As Samuel Huntington said, “America is decidedly a western nation. A multicultural America will no longer be America.” How prescient he was.

    We are losing the country to the multicultural horde from the third world, there is a reason why these people are desperate to leave their home countries, it’s because these are largely dishonest, dog-eat-dog unpleasant societies to live in, including China and India. The thing about immigration is, in small numbers you assimilate them, in large numbers they assimilate you. America is on its way to becoming a third world hellhole if we don’t end this disastrous immigration policy now.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    It all sounds true, with a couple of qualifications.

    1. American culture is uniquely dominating, now more than before - augmented by electronic communications, Instagram and YouTube. I'm not sure even a "most third world" kind of immigrants, will be able to maintain their non-American culture, beyond two generations. Really, no children of Mexicans nor Muslims, will resist assimilation by Ariana Grande


    2. American politics has been messianic since Gettysburg Address, if not Declaration of Independence. This can all be a little frightening for the world, when it was combined with the ultra successful and high-achieving American population of the 20th century.

    By historical comparison, America is actually very peaceful, in a physical sense, for a world dominant superpower. However, the combination of economic power and messianic political influence in the world has been a bit "too much, too soon".

    If underlying human capital in the American population, would fall slightly, and America become a little less powerful in a comparative basis, then this might not be so bad for the world.

  68. anon[929] • Disclaimer says:

    “It’s the exact opposite. Handing out cash to people is about the least technofuturist and most immediate, concrete, and practical policy out there.”

    It’s a paltry sum of money given to disaffected, easily deceived types to ignore the nation’s problems until the day when they become intractable at any price. Guys like Brad Griffith justify it using technofuturist nonsense about AI and robots without having the faintest notion of how those technologies work. Hint: you’re not getting a sex robot any time soon as the technologies and economics needed to build and sustain a viable market for such things are much further away than you think. Remember a few years ago all the nonsense predictions that driverless cars were about to take over? Nope. Total nonsense just as I predicted, and not just for technological reasons but for basic economic ones: rural American states prohibit/severely restrict buying cars over the internet so they can create jobs through local dealerships and that won’t ever change. These tech companies will have to work with existing auto manufactures as building their own dealerships will be long and difficult.

    And that’s just the beginning of the problems with that technology, and the same applies to robots and automation; you’ve got issues of expense, government regulation, insurance on expensive machines that can be stolen or damaged if left unsupervised in rural areas, insurance in case your robot kills someone, high costs of sending repair crews over a country larger than all of Western Europe combined, huge investments will be required in battery technologies which are still relatively primitive, environmental restrictions/added costs from all the toxic junk needed to make this stuff for mass production … and lots of tech/repair jobs stand to be created to service and maintain these things.

    Those observations debunk the idiotic “50% of jobs are going away” argument, too. Yeah, maybe some current jobs over a long period of time but other jobs will emerge to replace them, at least in part; so, it will be more like 10-15% rather than 50%. The market finds a way or the state does. There are lots of ways to force tolerable market inefficiencies for the sake of job creation and wealth distribution.

    “The cash is promised to be delivered every month, not in the afterlife.”

    Promised cash = bribe. I believe I read a wonderful retort to this nonsense not long ago: this is a paltry sum of money that won’t allow people to be independent in the way these 3.0s think; it will only be given on top of what they already earn, since they must work, and unless there is healthcare and student loan reform, it won’t matter much. Free cash is fine, maybe it will help out, but it’s not the panacea that you think it is, and you are certainly not using it to rebuild any “center” in American politics due to the country’s present demographics. Racial block voting and identity politics cannot be overcome with relatively small amounts of money.

    This is no way to build a stable, intellectually free society over the long term. UBI is a bribe no different than the bribe blacks got with Affirmative Action and welfare. That bribe may have arguably made things better through lowering the crime rate, but it certainly didn’t lead that demographic to vote republican or become less divisive, did it? This is no fix-it-all but rather a stay of execution as the demographic situation deteriorates in the face of rising (superior) Chinese competition….which stands to put quite the dent in your robot paradise fantasies in that China will do it better and take the wealth for themselves while locking your companies out of the market.

    “It’s the right-wing critics of the Yang Gang types that make the religious/afterlife argument.”

    I’m about as left-wing as they come – an anarchist and an atheist supporter of gay and trans rights. Save your projection. The argument you 3.0s make is very closely aligned with Christian religious theology: ignore current problems because you are getting a reward soon (spiritual afterlife vs. robot paradise). It’s the same thing…but neither exist, so you’re SOOL. I’ve seen exactly this mentality in Silicon Valley, and now it’s popping up elsewhere thanks to social media. Gross. It’s becoming a cult to a lot of disaffected people. And I mean that. It’s a cult. Guys watch Rogan on YouTube, and suddenly it’s Heaven’s Gate all over again, but with a robot bent rather than an alien one.

    “They say that the Yang Gang types are selling out for $1K/month when they should be sacrificing for a potential glorious future.”

    Well, they are selling out…and they’ll get nothing in the end for it, either. Just as Trump didn’t get his wall, the Ruling Class isn’t giving you a UBI without a fight. Yang Gang 3.0s want to take a pathetic thousand bucks, cash out, and let it all go to hell while telling themselves that the robot paradise is coming any day now. Let me know when you get your flying car, buddy. The same people who were wrong about White Nationalism 2.0 are now trying to sell this crock just because they watched some Nick Bostrom and Joe Rogan YouTube vids. Lol. Save this comment for when Yang loses the Democratic primary and you get an establishment Dem because they’re going to be wrong about 3.0, too. People never learn.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    ...you’ve got issues of expense, government regulation, insurance on expensive machines that can be stolen or damaged if left unsupervised in rural areas, insurance in case your robot kills someone, high costs of sending repair crews over a country larger than all of Western Europe combined, huge investments will be required in battery technologies which are still relatively primitive...
     
    Automation doesn't mean bzz-beep robots. The next time that you go to an ATM and scan in a check, and the optical character recognition reads your handwriting and cashes it - that's an excellent example of automation that has drastically reduced the need for human tellers. An automated store that lets you scan an item with your phone and check out without interacting with anyone has reduced the need for cashiers.

    When I developed a feed system between the data of two companies, I eliminated an entire department used for data entry; later when I successfully deployed automatic testing, it resulted in an almost total rolloff of the entire QA department.

    Software alone is enough to cause massive disruption to the human labor force, and the skills required are nowhere equivalent in the "new" jobs created. The idea of tolerable inefficiencies is interesting, but how is that different from UBI in the end? UBI could even be implemented in such a fashion with makework jobs(and in some countries, essentially exists as such).

    The other reason to respect UBI is because it has worked, at least in some populations. One of the reasons why Sweden continues to produce a rather reasonable number of game companies is that its liberal welfare policy helps foist a creative class, ultimately at least a few blockbusters such as Minecraft and Amnesia: The Dark Descent.
    , @Anonymous
    You're out of touch if you think it's paltry. The median income in the US is about $30K. The $1K/month UBI would be an increase of about 40% for those at the median income.
  69. anon[929] • Disclaimer says:

    “I disagree. Blacks want free stuff. Everything else is secondary.”

    Then why did blacks vote for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in 2016, despite Sanders being far better for them economically? The answer is simple. They voted for the candidate they thought was most loyal to their racial group. That would be Hillary Clinton as her husband had a relationship with the black community going back to the 1990s when he was pegged as the country’s first black president. Same in 2008 when they voted for a black Barack Obama over the more experienced (and probably more capable) Hillary Clinton. This observation spells doom for the notion that any kind of UBI can be used to rebuild a centrist society devoid of political correctness. Human nature is human nature and money doesn’t change that.

  70. anon[929] • Disclaimer says:

    “On his website it says every U.S citizen over 18 years old … blow you boomer lies out of your ass old man.”

    SMH. Every generation gets dumber than the last. Tell me, what exactly stops a democratic congress from modifying any such proposal to include immigrants and their children? The House has already endorsed illegal alien voting, so there would seem to be a precedent there. I sincerely doubt Yang would veto such a thing. I await your well-articulated Millennial response.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That critique applies to any and every kind of government policy and service, not just UBI. Why should the government pave the roads, since immigrants might drive on them?

    UBI could help more people become more politically active and opposed to immigration. They'll have greater financial security to engage in politics, and greater incentive to resist share dilution of their UBI via immigration.
  71. Will sex robots be dysgenic?

  72. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Despite all the jokes, I only just realized that Buttigieg is gay.

     

    Don't feel bad. As Jones points out, the media depiction of this guy is pretty light on the details: when they covered his press conference, they left out the part where his "husband" passionately kissed him on the mouth.

    Most people simply don't want to see that crap. Hence why it has never been shown on TV.

    Even the classic "anything goes" American "Boomer" types I know, who pretend that sodomy is an "individual's choice" or whatever, but who find the whole thing .... creepy.

    I know one guy, a liberal Canadian born in the 1950s, who told me that while he supports SSM political rights, he still feels "personally uncomfortable" around those people. There are others like him, and possibly enough to deny him the nomination. How do sodomite poll among black Democrat women voters?

    On the other hand, I do think Jones is right - the Axelrod money and system seems to be supporting Buttigieg as another Obama cipher type of candidate.

    However, as trivial as it may be, I have my doubts that someone with a last name as ridiculous as "Buttigieg" can possibly win a presidential nomination, let alone a general election.

    It is curious how often gays attain political power. Is it signaling, some sort of verbal talent or psychopathy, or the fact that they have no families and can spend more time networking? I don’t know, but I don’t think it is positive for society.

    Nor do I think it would work in a US presidential election – at least not yet.

    • Replies: @president barbicane
    Long ago I read a paper demonstrating that gay men have higher psychoticism than straight men. If you're not familiar, psychoticism is one of the three personality traits in Hans Eysenck's P-E-N personality model (the other two are Extraversion and Neuroticism). Costa and McCray later extended the PEN model to a 5 factor model, the big five. Psychoticism was split into three different factors -- a factor that was positively correlated with psychoticism called "Openness to Experience", and two factors called "Conscientiousness" and "Agreeableness" which were negatively correlated to psychoticism. Because openness to experience is positively correlated to psychoticism, it's reasonable to infer that gay men have higher openness than straight men.

    This suggests to me that gay men are more creative than straight men. Gay men certainly seem to be over-represented in creative professions (writing, music, visual art). I'd be interested to see some data on other predictors of creativity like divergent thinking. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any data on this (I think that having gay people score higher on a personality factor called "psychoticism" is bad politics, so it hasn't been followed up).
  73. @anon
    "It’s the exact opposite. Handing out cash to people is about the least technofuturist and most immediate, concrete, and practical policy out there."

    It's a paltry sum of money given to disaffected, easily deceived types to ignore the nation's problems until the day when they become intractable at any price. Guys like Brad Griffith justify it using technofuturist nonsense about AI and robots without having the faintest notion of how those technologies work. Hint: you're not getting a sex robot any time soon as the technologies and economics needed to build and sustain a viable market for such things are much further away than you think. Remember a few years ago all the nonsense predictions that driverless cars were about to take over? Nope. Total nonsense just as I predicted, and not just for technological reasons but for basic economic ones: rural American states prohibit/severely restrict buying cars over the internet so they can create jobs through local dealerships and that won't ever change. These tech companies will have to work with existing auto manufactures as building their own dealerships will be long and difficult.

    And that's just the beginning of the problems with that technology, and the same applies to robots and automation; you've got issues of expense, government regulation, insurance on expensive machines that can be stolen or damaged if left unsupervised in rural areas, insurance in case your robot kills someone, high costs of sending repair crews over a country larger than all of Western Europe combined, huge investments will be required in battery technologies which are still relatively primitive, environmental restrictions/added costs from all the toxic junk needed to make this stuff for mass production ... and lots of tech/repair jobs stand to be created to service and maintain these things.

    Those observations debunk the idiotic "50% of jobs are going away" argument, too. Yeah, maybe some current jobs over a long period of time but other jobs will emerge to replace them, at least in part; so, it will be more like 10-15% rather than 50%. The market finds a way or the state does. There are lots of ways to force tolerable market inefficiencies for the sake of job creation and wealth distribution.

    "The cash is promised to be delivered every month, not in the afterlife."

    Promised cash = bribe. I believe I read a wonderful retort to this nonsense not long ago: this is a paltry sum of money that won't allow people to be independent in the way these 3.0s think; it will only be given on top of what they already earn, since they must work, and unless there is healthcare and student loan reform, it won't matter much. Free cash is fine, maybe it will help out, but it's not the panacea that you think it is, and you are certainly not using it to rebuild any "center" in American politics due to the country's present demographics. Racial block voting and identity politics cannot be overcome with relatively small amounts of money.

    This is no way to build a stable, intellectually free society over the long term. UBI is a bribe no different than the bribe blacks got with Affirmative Action and welfare. That bribe may have arguably made things better through lowering the crime rate, but it certainly didn't lead that demographic to vote republican or become less divisive, did it? This is no fix-it-all but rather a stay of execution as the demographic situation deteriorates in the face of rising (superior) Chinese competition....which stands to put quite the dent in your robot paradise fantasies in that China will do it better and take the wealth for themselves while locking your companies out of the market.

    "It’s the right-wing critics of the Yang Gang types that make the religious/afterlife argument."

    I'm about as left-wing as they come - an anarchist and an atheist supporter of gay and trans rights. Save your projection. The argument you 3.0s make is very closely aligned with Christian religious theology: ignore current problems because you are getting a reward soon (spiritual afterlife vs. robot paradise). It's the same thing...but neither exist, so you're SOOL. I've seen exactly this mentality in Silicon Valley, and now it's popping up elsewhere thanks to social media. Gross. It's becoming a cult to a lot of disaffected people. And I mean that. It's a cult. Guys watch Rogan on YouTube, and suddenly it's Heaven's Gate all over again, but with a robot bent rather than an alien one.

    "They say that the Yang Gang types are selling out for $1K/month when they should be sacrificing for a potential glorious future."

    Well, they are selling out...and they'll get nothing in the end for it, either. Just as Trump didn't get his wall, the Ruling Class isn't giving you a UBI without a fight. Yang Gang 3.0s want to take a pathetic thousand bucks, cash out, and let it all go to hell while telling themselves that the robot paradise is coming any day now. Let me know when you get your flying car, buddy. The same people who were wrong about White Nationalism 2.0 are now trying to sell this crock just because they watched some Nick Bostrom and Joe Rogan YouTube vids. Lol. Save this comment for when Yang loses the Democratic primary and you get an establishment Dem because they're going to be wrong about 3.0, too. People never learn.

    …you’ve got issues of expense, government regulation, insurance on expensive machines that can be stolen or damaged if left unsupervised in rural areas, insurance in case your robot kills someone, high costs of sending repair crews over a country larger than all of Western Europe combined, huge investments will be required in battery technologies which are still relatively primitive…

    Automation doesn’t mean bzz-beep robots. The next time that you go to an ATM and scan in a check, and the optical character recognition reads your handwriting and cashes it – that’s an excellent example of automation that has drastically reduced the need for human tellers. An automated store that lets you scan an item with your phone and check out without interacting with anyone has reduced the need for cashiers.

    When I developed a feed system between the data of two companies, I eliminated an entire department used for data entry; later when I successfully deployed automatic testing, it resulted in an almost total rolloff of the entire QA department.

    Software alone is enough to cause massive disruption to the human labor force, and the skills required are nowhere equivalent in the “new” jobs created. The idea of tolerable inefficiencies is interesting, but how is that different from UBI in the end? UBI could even be implemented in such a fashion with makework jobs(and in some countries, essentially exists as such).

    The other reason to respect UBI is because it has worked, at least in some populations. One of the reasons why Sweden continues to produce a rather reasonable number of game companies is that its liberal welfare policy helps foist a creative class, ultimately at least a few blockbusters such as Minecraft and Amnesia: The Dark Descent.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I have the idea that a UBI would be the final push in ensuring a completed meritocracy. Acknowledging the caveat of further undesirable effects of stratification, allowing more individuals to develop their potential and flourish could hold enormous benefits for society. It would also quell many seemingly insoluble partisan political problems with regard to fairness and egalitarian concerns.
  74. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    "It’s the exact opposite. Handing out cash to people is about the least technofuturist and most immediate, concrete, and practical policy out there."

    It's a paltry sum of money given to disaffected, easily deceived types to ignore the nation's problems until the day when they become intractable at any price. Guys like Brad Griffith justify it using technofuturist nonsense about AI and robots without having the faintest notion of how those technologies work. Hint: you're not getting a sex robot any time soon as the technologies and economics needed to build and sustain a viable market for such things are much further away than you think. Remember a few years ago all the nonsense predictions that driverless cars were about to take over? Nope. Total nonsense just as I predicted, and not just for technological reasons but for basic economic ones: rural American states prohibit/severely restrict buying cars over the internet so they can create jobs through local dealerships and that won't ever change. These tech companies will have to work with existing auto manufactures as building their own dealerships will be long and difficult.

    And that's just the beginning of the problems with that technology, and the same applies to robots and automation; you've got issues of expense, government regulation, insurance on expensive machines that can be stolen or damaged if left unsupervised in rural areas, insurance in case your robot kills someone, high costs of sending repair crews over a country larger than all of Western Europe combined, huge investments will be required in battery technologies which are still relatively primitive, environmental restrictions/added costs from all the toxic junk needed to make this stuff for mass production ... and lots of tech/repair jobs stand to be created to service and maintain these things.

    Those observations debunk the idiotic "50% of jobs are going away" argument, too. Yeah, maybe some current jobs over a long period of time but other jobs will emerge to replace them, at least in part; so, it will be more like 10-15% rather than 50%. The market finds a way or the state does. There are lots of ways to force tolerable market inefficiencies for the sake of job creation and wealth distribution.

    "The cash is promised to be delivered every month, not in the afterlife."

    Promised cash = bribe. I believe I read a wonderful retort to this nonsense not long ago: this is a paltry sum of money that won't allow people to be independent in the way these 3.0s think; it will only be given on top of what they already earn, since they must work, and unless there is healthcare and student loan reform, it won't matter much. Free cash is fine, maybe it will help out, but it's not the panacea that you think it is, and you are certainly not using it to rebuild any "center" in American politics due to the country's present demographics. Racial block voting and identity politics cannot be overcome with relatively small amounts of money.

    This is no way to build a stable, intellectually free society over the long term. UBI is a bribe no different than the bribe blacks got with Affirmative Action and welfare. That bribe may have arguably made things better through lowering the crime rate, but it certainly didn't lead that demographic to vote republican or become less divisive, did it? This is no fix-it-all but rather a stay of execution as the demographic situation deteriorates in the face of rising (superior) Chinese competition....which stands to put quite the dent in your robot paradise fantasies in that China will do it better and take the wealth for themselves while locking your companies out of the market.

    "It’s the right-wing critics of the Yang Gang types that make the religious/afterlife argument."

    I'm about as left-wing as they come - an anarchist and an atheist supporter of gay and trans rights. Save your projection. The argument you 3.0s make is very closely aligned with Christian religious theology: ignore current problems because you are getting a reward soon (spiritual afterlife vs. robot paradise). It's the same thing...but neither exist, so you're SOOL. I've seen exactly this mentality in Silicon Valley, and now it's popping up elsewhere thanks to social media. Gross. It's becoming a cult to a lot of disaffected people. And I mean that. It's a cult. Guys watch Rogan on YouTube, and suddenly it's Heaven's Gate all over again, but with a robot bent rather than an alien one.

    "They say that the Yang Gang types are selling out for $1K/month when they should be sacrificing for a potential glorious future."

    Well, they are selling out...and they'll get nothing in the end for it, either. Just as Trump didn't get his wall, the Ruling Class isn't giving you a UBI without a fight. Yang Gang 3.0s want to take a pathetic thousand bucks, cash out, and let it all go to hell while telling themselves that the robot paradise is coming any day now. Let me know when you get your flying car, buddy. The same people who were wrong about White Nationalism 2.0 are now trying to sell this crock just because they watched some Nick Bostrom and Joe Rogan YouTube vids. Lol. Save this comment for when Yang loses the Democratic primary and you get an establishment Dem because they're going to be wrong about 3.0, too. People never learn.

    You’re out of touch if you think it’s paltry. The median income in the US is about $30K. The $1K/month UBI would be an increase of about 40% for those at the median income.

  75. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    "On his website it says every U.S citizen over 18 years old ... blow you boomer lies out of your ass old man."

    SMH. Every generation gets dumber than the last. Tell me, what exactly stops a democratic congress from modifying any such proposal to include immigrants and their children? The House has already endorsed illegal alien voting, so there would seem to be a precedent there. I sincerely doubt Yang would veto such a thing. I await your well-articulated Millennial response.

    That critique applies to any and every kind of government policy and service, not just UBI. Why should the government pave the roads, since immigrants might drive on them?

    UBI could help more people become more politically active and opposed to immigration. They’ll have greater financial security to engage in politics, and greater incentive to resist share dilution of their UBI via immigration.

  76. @Libtard is redundant
    One of the advantages of age is wisdom. Wisdom allows you to take the long view. Yang's immigration plan will bring the death of America. As Samuel Huntington said, "America is decidedly a western nation. A multicultural America will no longer be America." How prescient he was.

    We are losing the country to the multicultural horde from the third world, there is a reason why these people are desperate to leave their home countries, it's because these are largely dishonest, dog-eat-dog unpleasant societies to live in, including China and India. The thing about immigration is, in small numbers you assimilate them, in large numbers they assimilate you. America is on its way to becoming a third world hellhole if we don't end this disastrous immigration policy now.

    It all sounds true, with a couple of qualifications.

    1. American culture is uniquely dominating, now more than before – augmented by electronic communications, Instagram and YouTube. I’m not sure even a “most third world” kind of immigrants, will be able to maintain their non-American culture, beyond two generations. Really, no children of Mexicans nor Muslims, will resist assimilation by Ariana Grande

    2. American politics has been messianic since Gettysburg Address, if not Declaration of Independence. This can all be a little frightening for the world, when it was combined with the ultra successful and high-achieving American population of the 20th century.

    By historical comparison, America is actually very peaceful, in a physical sense, for a world dominant superpower. However, the combination of economic power and messianic political influence in the world has been a bit “too much, too soon”.

    If underlying human capital in the American population, would fall slightly, and America become a little less powerful in a comparative basis, then this might not be so bad for the world.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    Really, no children of Mexicans nor Muslims, will resist assimilation by Ariana Grande
     
    This is true, however what American culture are they assimilating to?

    https://cn.bing.com/th?id=OIP.xQBmIAgFdmpEjwg8uZtyeAHaKd&pid=Api&dpr=2.75

    https://cn.bing.com/th?id=OIP.5COJOWCY1hXxz0wznUCcdwHaJQ&pid=Api&dpr=2.75

    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    1. American culture is uniquely dominating, now more than before – augmented by electronic communications, Instagram and YouTube. I’m not sure even a “most third world” kind of immigrants, will be able to maintain their non-American culture, beyond two generations. Really, no children of Mexicans nor Muslims, will resist assimilation by Ariana Grande

     

    This is not the same thing as "American culture." What you have described is nonsense, used by the American empire to control their empire via the power of lust: lust for sex, lust for material possessions, etc.

    2. American politics has been messianic since Gettysburg Address, if not Declaration of Independence. This can all be a little frightening for the world, when it was combined with the ultra successful and high-achieving American population of the 20th century.

     

    The Gettysburg Address was not about messianism in the foreign sense. Lincoln may have been redefining elements of the nation, but he said nothing about America's role overseas. America did not begin becoming messianic in foreign relations until the 1890s, and the tendency did not really accelerate into permanence until Franklin Roosevelt got us into the second world war.
    , @Anon
    The Muslims are building parallel societies throughout the EU. Definitely not assimilating.
  77. @Daniel Chieh

    ...you’ve got issues of expense, government regulation, insurance on expensive machines that can be stolen or damaged if left unsupervised in rural areas, insurance in case your robot kills someone, high costs of sending repair crews over a country larger than all of Western Europe combined, huge investments will be required in battery technologies which are still relatively primitive...
     
    Automation doesn't mean bzz-beep robots. The next time that you go to an ATM and scan in a check, and the optical character recognition reads your handwriting and cashes it - that's an excellent example of automation that has drastically reduced the need for human tellers. An automated store that lets you scan an item with your phone and check out without interacting with anyone has reduced the need for cashiers.

    When I developed a feed system between the data of two companies, I eliminated an entire department used for data entry; later when I successfully deployed automatic testing, it resulted in an almost total rolloff of the entire QA department.

    Software alone is enough to cause massive disruption to the human labor force, and the skills required are nowhere equivalent in the "new" jobs created. The idea of tolerable inefficiencies is interesting, but how is that different from UBI in the end? UBI could even be implemented in such a fashion with makework jobs(and in some countries, essentially exists as such).

    The other reason to respect UBI is because it has worked, at least in some populations. One of the reasons why Sweden continues to produce a rather reasonable number of game companies is that its liberal welfare policy helps foist a creative class, ultimately at least a few blockbusters such as Minecraft and Amnesia: The Dark Descent.

    I have the idea that a UBI would be the final push in ensuring a completed meritocracy. Acknowledging the caveat of further undesirable effects of stratification, allowing more individuals to develop their potential and flourish could hold enormous benefits for society. It would also quell many seemingly insoluble partisan political problems with regard to fairness and egalitarian concerns.

  78. @Dmitry
    It all sounds true, with a couple of qualifications.

    1. American culture is uniquely dominating, now more than before - augmented by electronic communications, Instagram and YouTube. I'm not sure even a "most third world" kind of immigrants, will be able to maintain their non-American culture, beyond two generations. Really, no children of Mexicans nor Muslims, will resist assimilation by Ariana Grande


    2. American politics has been messianic since Gettysburg Address, if not Declaration of Independence. This can all be a little frightening for the world, when it was combined with the ultra successful and high-achieving American population of the 20th century.

    By historical comparison, America is actually very peaceful, in a physical sense, for a world dominant superpower. However, the combination of economic power and messianic political influence in the world has been a bit "too much, too soon".

    If underlying human capital in the American population, would fall slightly, and America become a little less powerful in a comparative basis, then this might not be so bad for the world.

    Really, no children of Mexicans nor Muslims, will resist assimilation by Ariana Grande

    This is true, however what American culture are they assimilating to?

    https://cn.bing.com/th?id=OIP.xQBmIAgFdmpEjwg8uZtyeAHaKd&pid=Api&dpr=2.75

    https://cn.bing.com/th?id=OIP.5COJOWCY1hXxz0wznUCcdwHaJQ&pid=Api&dpr=2.75

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Ariana Grande et al, will surely not assimilate them to the noble virtues of anglosaxons of New Haven, with their regularly cut lawns - and this will be a sad story, from a view of a traditional American culture.

    But after a couple of generations of Instagram, American Muslims could eventually become like today's Azerbaijanis, which is a secularized people that will not have the apocalypse consequences of the religious Islamists now in Molenbeek or Malmo.

  79. @songbird
    It is curious how often gays attain political power. Is it signaling, some sort of verbal talent or psychopathy, or the fact that they have no families and can spend more time networking? I don't know, but I don't think it is positive for society.

    Nor do I think it would work in a US presidential election - at least not yet.

    Long ago I read a paper demonstrating that gay men have higher psychoticism than straight men. If you’re not familiar, psychoticism is one of the three personality traits in Hans Eysenck’s P-E-N personality model (the other two are Extraversion and Neuroticism). Costa and McCray later extended the PEN model to a 5 factor model, the big five. Psychoticism was split into three different factors — a factor that was positively correlated with psychoticism called “Openness to Experience”, and two factors called “Conscientiousness” and “Agreeableness” which were negatively correlated to psychoticism. Because openness to experience is positively correlated to psychoticism, it’s reasonable to infer that gay men have higher openness than straight men.

    This suggests to me that gay men are more creative than straight men. Gay men certainly seem to be over-represented in creative professions (writing, music, visual art). I’d be interested to see some data on other predictors of creativity like divergent thinking. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find any data on this (I think that having gay people score higher on a personality factor called “psychoticism” is bad politics, so it hasn’t been followed up).

    • Replies: @songbird
    Observing some of the Biden creep clips made me think of the strange moves of other politicians. Bush trying to rub Merkel's shoulders. Even more bizarre, Putin grabbing a little boy and blowing on his belly.

    I take this sort of thing as an odd side effect of some quality that makes them successful. That they have less inhibitory impulses. That, on the one hand, this helps them achieve power, but perhaps might result in some bad decisions. Like perhaps, Merkel welcoming the migrants, or even WWI.

    I have wondered if this type of behavior would tend to be on a sort of continuum, with gays tending to have more of it. Perhaps, even resulting in more bad decisions.

    I also think that they may have some sort of network effect. Since gays don't have children, they tend to have both more time and more money. i could see how this could effect politics, not even accounting for their other possible characteristics. Buttigieg is said to have a lot of visible gays in his crowd of supporters.
    , @notanon
    the banking mafia want politicians they can blackmail

    plus nepotism

    (so self-reinforcing)
  80. @president barbicane
    Long ago I read a paper demonstrating that gay men have higher psychoticism than straight men. If you're not familiar, psychoticism is one of the three personality traits in Hans Eysenck's P-E-N personality model (the other two are Extraversion and Neuroticism). Costa and McCray later extended the PEN model to a 5 factor model, the big five. Psychoticism was split into three different factors -- a factor that was positively correlated with psychoticism called "Openness to Experience", and two factors called "Conscientiousness" and "Agreeableness" which were negatively correlated to psychoticism. Because openness to experience is positively correlated to psychoticism, it's reasonable to infer that gay men have higher openness than straight men.

    This suggests to me that gay men are more creative than straight men. Gay men certainly seem to be over-represented in creative professions (writing, music, visual art). I'd be interested to see some data on other predictors of creativity like divergent thinking. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any data on this (I think that having gay people score higher on a personality factor called "psychoticism" is bad politics, so it hasn't been followed up).

    Observing some of the Biden creep clips made me think of the strange moves of other politicians. Bush trying to rub Merkel’s shoulders. Even more bizarre, Putin grabbing a little boy and blowing on his belly.

    I take this sort of thing as an odd side effect of some quality that makes them successful. That they have less inhibitory impulses. That, on the one hand, this helps them achieve power, but perhaps might result in some bad decisions. Like perhaps, Merkel welcoming the migrants, or even WWI.

    I have wondered if this type of behavior would tend to be on a sort of continuum, with gays tending to have more of it. Perhaps, even resulting in more bad decisions.

    I also think that they may have some sort of network effect. Since gays don’t have children, they tend to have both more time and more money. i could see how this could effect politics, not even accounting for their other possible characteristics. Buttigieg is said to have a lot of visible gays in his crowd of supporters.

  81. POWERFUL TAKE:

    Andrew Yang rallies are the biggest congregation of soyboys I’ve ever seen. The whole place reeks of soy and video game addictions. Half them were basement dwellers dating 3s. Even the same race couples and the Asian guys dating white girls there squarely fit that profile.

    Please don’t tell me that Karlin himself is also a soyboy obsessed with videogames and an Asian waifu like the rest of the so called “Yang Gang”, more like “Yang Basement Dwellers”.

    This is probably one of the most pathetic group of human beings I’ve seen in my life.

    The crowd alone was enough for me to hop off the Yang Train for good.

    There’s no way any red blooded white American man (or of any race or nationality) who appreciates a high quality steak and a tight little blonde can survive even 2 seconds being in that joke of an environment.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    There’s no way any red blooded white American man (or of any race or nationality) who appreciates a high quality steak and a tight little blonde can survive even 2 seconds being in that joke of an environment.
     
    Slightly peculiar question - generally speaking, do Americans eat steak on its own or with something on the side like potatoes?
  82. @AquariusAnon
    POWERFUL TAKE:

    Andrew Yang rallies are the biggest congregation of soyboys I've ever seen. The whole place reeks of soy and video game addictions. Half them were basement dwellers dating 3s. Even the same race couples and the Asian guys dating white girls there squarely fit that profile.

    Please don't tell me that Karlin himself is also a soyboy obsessed with videogames and an Asian waifu like the rest of the so called "Yang Gang", more like "Yang Basement Dwellers".

    This is probably one of the most pathetic group of human beings I've seen in my life.

    The crowd alone was enough for me to hop off the Yang Train for good.

    There's no way any red blooded white American man (or of any race or nationality) who appreciates a high quality steak and a tight little blonde can survive even 2 seconds being in that joke of an environment.

    There’s no way any red blooded white American man (or of any race or nationality) who appreciates a high quality steak and a tight little blonde can survive even 2 seconds being in that joke of an environment.

    Slightly peculiar question – generally speaking, do Americans eat steak on its own or with something on the side like potatoes?

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Your typical steakhouse dinner is steak, a side and a salad or soup. The side is usually a potato dish, typically a baked potato but variations on it such as french fries, or mashed potatoes are common.
  83. @Hyperborean

    There’s no way any red blooded white American man (or of any race or nationality) who appreciates a high quality steak and a tight little blonde can survive even 2 seconds being in that joke of an environment.
     
    Slightly peculiar question - generally speaking, do Americans eat steak on its own or with something on the side like potatoes?

    Your typical steakhouse dinner is steak, a side and a salad or soup. The side is usually a potato dish, typically a baked potato but variations on it such as french fries, or mashed potatoes are common.

  84. Sure…join the Yang Gang…what have you got to lose? Yang is gonna un-f**k you..then he’s gonna sock-yer-sack with fist-fulls of cash….thousand bucks a month. An Asian guy with some organizational thought process is better than just outright corruption.

    Biden comes-off as the “Global Robocop Dick Jones” of Ukraine…pretty scary.

  85. Anon[189] • Disclaimer says:

    “Automation doesn’t mean bzz-beep robots.”

    Automation doesn’t exclusively mean “bzz-beep robots” you mean. For many types of jobs predicted to be lost, it does indeed mean autonomous robots of some sort, which are not as likely to appear in general use any time soon as the public imagines for the reasons I mentioned above (and some I didn’t). And it certainly does for the people popularizing the concept (and sex robots), which is where the comment was really directed; that was clear in the comment.

    Further, I would suspect that the automation craze is greatly overblown, just as 3D printing was 10 years ago and driverless cars were 5 years ago. As I pointed out, those automated processes themselves will create new jobs because it’s not as simple as people think. The true number of jobs lost will likely be no more than 20% – at worst – over the next 20 years. It will not be 50% in the sense that half of the population doesn’t have any job to go to at all.

    “The other reason to respect UBI is because it has worked, at least in some populations. One of the reasons why Sweden…”

    I wouldn’t count on things in the US working out the same as in Sweden.

    “I have the idea that a UBI would be the final push in ensuring a completed meritocracy.”

    Not a chance. How could anyone even think that?

    “It would also quell many seemingly insoluble partisan political problems with regard to fairness and egalitarian concerns.”

    No, it wouldn’t. Did Affirmative Action make blacks any less demanding or fully integrate them into society? In any meritocracy, there will be an uneven distribution in terms of wealth and accomplishment among groups of unequal ability; that breeds resentment and jealousy. Welfare may have papered over some black maleficence, but it’s not like it stopped #Oscarssowhite and Ferguson, did it? People judge their circumstances on relative outcomes, not absolute ones – such as people having it better now than in the Middle Ages, regardless of income level. The only thing you’d be doing is creating a fragile society that breaks down the moment it meets any serious challenge. See the aftermath of Katrina for an example of what your UBI multicult society would look like the moment a major war with China broke out or the stock market crashed.

    “That critique applies to any and every kind of government policy and service, not just UBI. Why should the government pave the roads, since immigrants might drive on them?”

    It applies most especially to UBI and predominates over roads because money is quantifiable and immediate in the minds of the voting public. It’s not remotely the same.

    “UBI could help more people become more politically active and opposed to immigration.”

    Not a chance. As was pointed out above, that money would only come on top of what you already earn. Nothing would stop an employer from firing you for your beliefs under such a system. In fact, in such a system people would have added incentive to not be politically active as they’d be in danger of losing out on a greater sum of money than they’d otherwise have. This is why lots of rich people are liberals. Their professed political beliefs (or silence on the matter) are partly explained by their fear of losing their huge bank accounts in reprisal for speaking out.

    “They’ll have greater financial security to engage in politics, and greater incentive to resist share dilution of their UBI via immigration.”

    Not a chance. $1K a month is too small for that. Lots of rich guys as it is now are too scared to be involved in politics, and whatever incentive you think people will have to resist immigration will be greatly overwhelmed by the rich’s incentive to keep piling in the immigrants to dilute their worker’s wages. In reality, UBI would do the opposite of what you suggest. It would encourage people to sell out and accept government corruption and revocations of fundamental liberties for fear of having their 30 pieces of silver rescinded. And don’t even bother trying to claim the government couldn’t do that because “muh constitution”. The political party that controls the courts controls the interpretation of that document, and it is indeed open to interpretation. What you UBI types are really doing is dooming yourselves to a police state where you have exactly zero chance of having any influence (or freedoms) because everyone will be too scared to lose their slice of the pie should they speak up. UBI won’t turn out the way you think it will. It’s a bribe given by a police state to quell its subjects.

    “You’re out of touch if you think it’s paltry. The median income in the US is about $30K. The $1K/month UBI would be an increase of about 40% for those at the median income.”

    Anyone who thinks $1K/month is substantial has never had a relative on Social Security. For those people, any free money is good, but if your plan is to sit back and not have a job while sharing memes on Gab after being deplatformed for you beliefs (Hunter Wallace), then it’s nothing. Further, I believe Yang’s UBI would only come as a deduction from other welfare, so it’s not even really a thousand bucks, either.

    • Replies: @iffen

    “I have the idea that a UBI would be the final push in ensuring a completed meritocracy.”

    Not a chance. How could anyone even think that?
     

    Because if the environment is equalized, the only factor left is individual merit.

    Thanks for playing.

  86. anon[258] • Disclaimer says:

    “POWERFUL TAKE: Andrew Yang rallies are the biggest congregation of soyboys I’ve ever seen.”

    Lol. The Yang Gang thing has me conflicted. On the one hand, he’s the most competent candidate I’ve seen in many years, and I personally like the man and agree with much of what he says. But on the other hand, some of his supporters are the kinds of people I beat up in high school; I don’t trust the judgement of the same guys I couldn’t reliably take cafeteria commissary from out of the fear of where their hands had been before I took it.

    • Replies: @notanon
    Yang is one of the stages of grief after Trump's defeat by the Deep State.

    https://grief.com/the-five-stages-of-grief/

    "acceptance" will probably involve clown masks.
  87. @Libtard is redundant
    Not so easy. Trump is still Trump, still despised by the media. The only reason W. was able to get away with Iraq was because emotions were riding high after 9/11. After 16 years of failed foreign wars, America today is a very different country. Most Americans have no appetite left for foreign wars tens of thousands of miles away, when a real war is occurring at our southern borders, and on our city streets against drug addicts and homelessness.

    If Trump starts a war with Iran, it'll be the end of him.

    Not so easy. Trump is still Trump, still despised by the media.

    if there’s been a neocon coup* – the media will stop attacking Trump.

    (* i.e. if Mueller successfully got dirt on him**)

    (**what are the odds a New York property magnate has no financial dirt? what are the odds of not finding it when you have everyone bugged and got the dude’s lawyer on tax evasion charges?)

  88. @Anon
    "Automation doesn’t mean bzz-beep robots."

    Automation doesn't exclusively mean "bzz-beep robots" you mean. For many types of jobs predicted to be lost, it does indeed mean autonomous robots of some sort, which are not as likely to appear in general use any time soon as the public imagines for the reasons I mentioned above (and some I didn't). And it certainly does for the people popularizing the concept (and sex robots), which is where the comment was really directed; that was clear in the comment.

    Further, I would suspect that the automation craze is greatly overblown, just as 3D printing was 10 years ago and driverless cars were 5 years ago. As I pointed out, those automated processes themselves will create new jobs because it's not as simple as people think. The true number of jobs lost will likely be no more than 20% - at worst - over the next 20 years. It will not be 50% in the sense that half of the population doesn't have any job to go to at all.

    "The other reason to respect UBI is because it has worked, at least in some populations. One of the reasons why Sweden..."

    I wouldn't count on things in the US working out the same as in Sweden.

    "I have the idea that a UBI would be the final push in ensuring a completed meritocracy."

    Not a chance. How could anyone even think that?

    "It would also quell many seemingly insoluble partisan political problems with regard to fairness and egalitarian concerns."

    No, it wouldn't. Did Affirmative Action make blacks any less demanding or fully integrate them into society? In any meritocracy, there will be an uneven distribution in terms of wealth and accomplishment among groups of unequal ability; that breeds resentment and jealousy. Welfare may have papered over some black maleficence, but it's not like it stopped #Oscarssowhite and Ferguson, did it? People judge their circumstances on relative outcomes, not absolute ones - such as people having it better now than in the Middle Ages, regardless of income level. The only thing you'd be doing is creating a fragile society that breaks down the moment it meets any serious challenge. See the aftermath of Katrina for an example of what your UBI multicult society would look like the moment a major war with China broke out or the stock market crashed.

    "That critique applies to any and every kind of government policy and service, not just UBI. Why should the government pave the roads, since immigrants might drive on them?"

    It applies most especially to UBI and predominates over roads because money is quantifiable and immediate in the minds of the voting public. It's not remotely the same.

    "UBI could help more people become more politically active and opposed to immigration."

    Not a chance. As was pointed out above, that money would only come on top of what you already earn. Nothing would stop an employer from firing you for your beliefs under such a system. In fact, in such a system people would have added incentive to not be politically active as they'd be in danger of losing out on a greater sum of money than they'd otherwise have. This is why lots of rich people are liberals. Their professed political beliefs (or silence on the matter) are partly explained by their fear of losing their huge bank accounts in reprisal for speaking out.

    "They’ll have greater financial security to engage in politics, and greater incentive to resist share dilution of their UBI via immigration."

    Not a chance. $1K a month is too small for that. Lots of rich guys as it is now are too scared to be involved in politics, and whatever incentive you think people will have to resist immigration will be greatly overwhelmed by the rich's incentive to keep piling in the immigrants to dilute their worker's wages. In reality, UBI would do the opposite of what you suggest. It would encourage people to sell out and accept government corruption and revocations of fundamental liberties for fear of having their 30 pieces of silver rescinded. And don't even bother trying to claim the government couldn't do that because "muh constitution". The political party that controls the courts controls the interpretation of that document, and it is indeed open to interpretation. What you UBI types are really doing is dooming yourselves to a police state where you have exactly zero chance of having any influence (or freedoms) because everyone will be too scared to lose their slice of the pie should they speak up. UBI won't turn out the way you think it will. It's a bribe given by a police state to quell its subjects.

    "You’re out of touch if you think it’s paltry. The median income in the US is about $30K. The $1K/month UBI would be an increase of about 40% for those at the median income."

    Anyone who thinks $1K/month is substantial has never had a relative on Social Security. For those people, any free money is good, but if your plan is to sit back and not have a job while sharing memes on Gab after being deplatformed for you beliefs (Hunter Wallace), then it's nothing. Further, I believe Yang's UBI would only come as a deduction from other welfare, so it's not even really a thousand bucks, either.

    “I have the idea that a UBI would be the final push in ensuring a completed meritocracy.”

    Not a chance. How could anyone even think that?

    Because if the environment is equalized, the only factor left is individual merit.

    Thanks for playing.

  89. @anon
    "POWERFUL TAKE: Andrew Yang rallies are the biggest congregation of soyboys I’ve ever seen."

    Lol. The Yang Gang thing has me conflicted. On the one hand, he's the most competent candidate I've seen in many years, and I personally like the man and agree with much of what he says. But on the other hand, some of his supporters are the kinds of people I beat up in high school; I don't trust the judgement of the same guys I couldn't reliably take cafeteria commissary from out of the fear of where their hands had been before I took it.

    Yang is one of the stages of grief after Trump’s defeat by the Deep State.

    https://grief.com/the-five-stages-of-grief/

    “acceptance” will probably involve clown masks.

  90. @president barbicane
    Long ago I read a paper demonstrating that gay men have higher psychoticism than straight men. If you're not familiar, psychoticism is one of the three personality traits in Hans Eysenck's P-E-N personality model (the other two are Extraversion and Neuroticism). Costa and McCray later extended the PEN model to a 5 factor model, the big five. Psychoticism was split into three different factors -- a factor that was positively correlated with psychoticism called "Openness to Experience", and two factors called "Conscientiousness" and "Agreeableness" which were negatively correlated to psychoticism. Because openness to experience is positively correlated to psychoticism, it's reasonable to infer that gay men have higher openness than straight men.

    This suggests to me that gay men are more creative than straight men. Gay men certainly seem to be over-represented in creative professions (writing, music, visual art). I'd be interested to see some data on other predictors of creativity like divergent thinking. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any data on this (I think that having gay people score higher on a personality factor called "psychoticism" is bad politics, so it hasn't been followed up).

    the banking mafia want politicians they can blackmail

    plus nepotism

    (so self-reinforcing)

  91. @TelfoedJohn
    If the ticket has either Yang or Gabbard (preferably both - do they get on?) then it might be worth a vote.

    Kamala Harris = Aipac Chopra

    • Replies: @songbird
    There's probably a certain value in giving money to a senator from CA, as she could probably influence the state delegation She is also drawing from a wider, richer geographic base. I would be surprised if she became the front-runner though.

    It isn't really surprising that Bernie gets little. He represents a state where the biggest city has a population of 42,000. That is less than half the size of the fifth-tier city where Buttigieg is mayor - I only ever heard of the homo's city because there is a university there. There is little signaling value in giving money to Bernie either.
  92. @Mitleser
    https://twitter.com/shaunking/status/1118928035695271942

    There’s probably a certain value in giving money to a senator from CA, as she could probably influence the state delegation She is also drawing from a wider, richer geographic base. I would be surprised if she became the front-runner though.

    It isn’t really surprising that Bernie gets little. He represents a state where the biggest city has a population of 42,000. That is less than half the size of the fifth-tier city where Buttigieg is mayor – I only ever heard of the homo’s city because there is a university there. There is little signaling value in giving money to Bernie either.

  93. @Dmitry
    It all sounds true, with a couple of qualifications.

    1. American culture is uniquely dominating, now more than before - augmented by electronic communications, Instagram and YouTube. I'm not sure even a "most third world" kind of immigrants, will be able to maintain their non-American culture, beyond two generations. Really, no children of Mexicans nor Muslims, will resist assimilation by Ariana Grande


    2. American politics has been messianic since Gettysburg Address, if not Declaration of Independence. This can all be a little frightening for the world, when it was combined with the ultra successful and high-achieving American population of the 20th century.

    By historical comparison, America is actually very peaceful, in a physical sense, for a world dominant superpower. However, the combination of economic power and messianic political influence in the world has been a bit "too much, too soon".

    If underlying human capital in the American population, would fall slightly, and America become a little less powerful in a comparative basis, then this might not be so bad for the world.

    1. American culture is uniquely dominating, now more than before – augmented by electronic communications, Instagram and YouTube. I’m not sure even a “most third world” kind of immigrants, will be able to maintain their non-American culture, beyond two generations. Really, no children of Mexicans nor Muslims, will resist assimilation by Ariana Grande

    This is not the same thing as “American culture.” What you have described is nonsense, used by the American empire to control their empire via the power of lust: lust for sex, lust for material possessions, etc.

    2. American politics has been messianic since Gettysburg Address, if not Declaration of Independence. This can all be a little frightening for the world, when it was combined with the ultra successful and high-achieving American population of the 20th century.

    The Gettysburg Address was not about messianism in the foreign sense. Lincoln may have been redefining elements of the nation, but he said nothing about America’s role overseas. America did not begin becoming messianic in foreign relations until the 1890s, and the tendency did not really accelerate into permanence until Franklin Roosevelt got us into the second world war.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    And America today, relative to its power, is still not that messianic in foreign policy sense, and is surprisingly peaceful for a country with a higher military budget than the rest of the world combined.

    But American internal political culture, has - from at least the Gettysburg Address, if not Declaration of Independence (which inspired the French Revolution with its terrible consequences in Europe) - been very messianic, and is constantly setting new norms and goals for itself, which the other countries try to emulate. In the economic field, the American influence has been pretty good, but less so for some other areas.

  94. @Dmitry
    It all sounds true, with a couple of qualifications.

    1. American culture is uniquely dominating, now more than before - augmented by electronic communications, Instagram and YouTube. I'm not sure even a "most third world" kind of immigrants, will be able to maintain their non-American culture, beyond two generations. Really, no children of Mexicans nor Muslims, will resist assimilation by Ariana Grande


    2. American politics has been messianic since Gettysburg Address, if not Declaration of Independence. This can all be a little frightening for the world, when it was combined with the ultra successful and high-achieving American population of the 20th century.

    By historical comparison, America is actually very peaceful, in a physical sense, for a world dominant superpower. However, the combination of economic power and messianic political influence in the world has been a bit "too much, too soon".

    If underlying human capital in the American population, would fall slightly, and America become a little less powerful in a comparative basis, then this might not be so bad for the world.

    The Muslims are building parallel societies throughout the EU. Definitely not assimilating.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Significant proportion of the higher quality Muslims, could be leaving the religion and assimilating. All these stories in the media of any EU countries about Muslim father's killing their daughters for not wearing the hijab, will be related to this.

    Islam without enforcement of a state or army, creates a situation where it acts as a "human capital sink". Islam is spreading in prisons of the EU, for example, as it has a higher attraction to lower human capital. At the same time the more adequate people from Muslim races, will likely be becoming more assimilated and distant from the religion.

    , @Anon
    The Muslims are building parallel societies throughout the EU. Definitely not assimilating.

    WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO ASSIMILATE INTO GLOBO-HOMO SLUT-SKANK JUNGLE FEVER GARBAGE THAT IS NOW WESTERN CULTURE?

    Because the West is now such trash, I don't hold it against Muslims in not assimilating.
    Assimilation means what? Muslim girls twerking and acting like trash? Muslim boys turning cucky-wuck in worship of Negroes, Jews, and homos?

  95. @Hyperborean

    Really, no children of Mexicans nor Muslims, will resist assimilation by Ariana Grande
     
    This is true, however what American culture are they assimilating to?

    https://cn.bing.com/th?id=OIP.xQBmIAgFdmpEjwg8uZtyeAHaKd&pid=Api&dpr=2.75

    https://cn.bing.com/th?id=OIP.5COJOWCY1hXxz0wznUCcdwHaJQ&pid=Api&dpr=2.75

    Ariana Grande et al, will surely not assimilate them to the noble virtues of anglosaxons of New Haven, with their regularly cut lawns – and this will be a sad story, from a view of a traditional American culture.

    But after a couple of generations of Instagram, American Muslims could eventually become like today’s Azerbaijanis, which is a secularized people that will not have the apocalypse consequences of the religious Islamists now in Molenbeek or Malmo.

    • Replies: @notanon

    will not have the apocalypse consequences of the religious Islamists now in Molenbeek or Malmo
     
    you're looking at it from the perspective of a hostile elite reassuring itself that the new population they're importing to replace their ethnic competitors isn't going to turn round and kill them like all the other times.

    (axum etc)
  96. @Anon
    The Muslims are building parallel societies throughout the EU. Definitely not assimilating.

    Significant proportion of the higher quality Muslims, could be leaving the religion and assimilating. All these stories in the media of any EU countries about Muslim father’s killing their daughters for not wearing the hijab, will be related to this.

    Islam without enforcement of a state or army, creates a situation where it acts as a “human capital sink”. Islam is spreading in prisons of the EU, for example, as it has a higher attraction to lower human capital. At the same time the more adequate people from Muslim races, will likely be becoming more assimilated and distant from the religion.

  97. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    1. American culture is uniquely dominating, now more than before – augmented by electronic communications, Instagram and YouTube. I’m not sure even a “most third world” kind of immigrants, will be able to maintain their non-American culture, beyond two generations. Really, no children of Mexicans nor Muslims, will resist assimilation by Ariana Grande

     

    This is not the same thing as "American culture." What you have described is nonsense, used by the American empire to control their empire via the power of lust: lust for sex, lust for material possessions, etc.

    2. American politics has been messianic since Gettysburg Address, if not Declaration of Independence. This can all be a little frightening for the world, when it was combined with the ultra successful and high-achieving American population of the 20th century.

     

    The Gettysburg Address was not about messianism in the foreign sense. Lincoln may have been redefining elements of the nation, but he said nothing about America's role overseas. America did not begin becoming messianic in foreign relations until the 1890s, and the tendency did not really accelerate into permanence until Franklin Roosevelt got us into the second world war.

    And America today, relative to its power, is still not that messianic in foreign policy sense, and is surprisingly peaceful for a country with a higher military budget than the rest of the world combined.

    But American internal political culture, has – from at least the Gettysburg Address, if not Declaration of Independence (which inspired the French Revolution with its terrible consequences in Europe) – been very messianic, and is constantly setting new norms and goals for itself, which the other countries try to emulate. In the economic field, the American influence has been pretty good, but less so for some other areas.

  98. Anon[189] • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Anon
    The Muslims are building parallel societies throughout the EU. Definitely not assimilating.

    The Muslims are building parallel societies throughout the EU. Definitely not assimilating.

    WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO ASSIMILATE INTO GLOBO-HOMO SLUT-SKANK JUNGLE FEVER GARBAGE THAT IS NOW WESTERN CULTURE?

    Because the West is now such trash, I don’t hold it against Muslims in not assimilating.
    Assimilation means what? Muslim girls twerking and acting like trash? Muslim boys turning cucky-wuck in worship of Negroes, Jews, and homos?

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    Hello, deranged Priss Factor, look up beurettes à khel.
  99. @Anon
    The Muslims are building parallel societies throughout the EU. Definitely not assimilating.

    WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO ASSIMILATE INTO GLOBO-HOMO SLUT-SKANK JUNGLE FEVER GARBAGE THAT IS NOW WESTERN CULTURE?

    Because the West is now such trash, I don't hold it against Muslims in not assimilating.
    Assimilation means what? Muslim girls twerking and acting like trash? Muslim boys turning cucky-wuck in worship of Negroes, Jews, and homos?

    Hello, deranged Priss Factor, look up beurettes à khel.

  100. @Dmitry
    Ariana Grande et al, will surely not assimilate them to the noble virtues of anglosaxons of New Haven, with their regularly cut lawns - and this will be a sad story, from a view of a traditional American culture.

    But after a couple of generations of Instagram, American Muslims could eventually become like today's Azerbaijanis, which is a secularized people that will not have the apocalypse consequences of the religious Islamists now in Molenbeek or Malmo.

    will not have the apocalypse consequences of the religious Islamists now in Molenbeek or Malmo

    you’re looking at it from the perspective of a hostile elite reassuring itself that the new population they’re importing to replace their ethnic competitors isn’t going to turn round and kill them like all the other times.

    (axum etc)

  101. anonymous[113] • Disclaimer says:

    Yang is primarily real test of “power of memes”.

    4chan boasted of electing Donald Trump, but he was already, before his run, world famous celebrity, and got loads of free coverage form the media.
    Yang is unknown. Can memes alone put him on the top? Can few thousands 4chan freaks who are busy creating and posting memes change the world?

  102. Yang is primarily real test of “power of memes”.

    yes in a different less existential context where playing at politics for fun is an option but the steam is already going out of #YangGang as people gradually accept that in a society where the mass media is inciting low IQ impulsive people to throw white children off buildings comedy is no longer an option.

    send in the clowns.

  103. ‘It’s been a month since I predicted that Andrew Yang would be more than just a meme.

    I wanted to check to see if this still holds true and that does seem to be the case…’

    Well…is he sufficiently supportive of Israel?

    It’d be sort of like being a Christian in 1820 — pretty much a sin qua non for the office.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS