This article was written by a grown man named "Dan Balls' That is all....... as for the debate, whatever, there are a few sociopath's up there on that stage that really don't give a **** about the people.
I wasn't planning to reply, but had some free time this morning... I don't disagree he's largely irrelevant now. We agree there. Where I disagree with (or not really disagree but wanted to make a point) is why he's not attacking and being attacked. It's not that he's a lower tier candidate. It's simply because he's not wasting this dang time attacking others. And part of that reason is he's not caring to engage at those same old points and arguments and politics. They are stalled, old, same old craps that if you go back to 1992, you hear them before in the 92 debate. Health care in 1992 dem primaries debate isn't that different from health care in 2019 (seriously) - everyone should have health care and uh, how do we pay for it? Cost is raising rapidly. Same old problem, with same old solution, but shifted left. Racial divide - same old crap in 1992. Inner city vs suburban vs rural - same old crap in 1992. Immigration - same old crap. And so on. And why people don't attack him is more than just because he's currently a lower tier candidate. It's because they are stuck and can't think and don't understand pass the old problems and the old solutions. It's just the same old solution re-packaged in different ways and that's all they known enough to talk about. It's their small box of existence and solution that hasn't worked and is being recycled for new problems. The new problems of which isn't just automation, AI, machine, but .... an economic capitalist (or even socialistic) based system that is becoming more and more misaligned and leaving mass behind, increasing the economic divide, pushing people hard to the left and right team, literally depressing and killing folks, and it's rapidly unfolding (and not limited to the US). Capitalism as-is is outdated, socialism as-is is outdated. Money and what is society value as-is is so outdated and not aligned to human progress. So, yes, we do agree on relevancy, but I wanted to point out why he's standing still there on his own island while others are yelling at each other (to be fair, there is one other candidates that does less of that - Inslee, who is solely focus on climate change). Peace out.
^ I think part of why Yang isn't getting attacked is because his policies are new, unorthodox, and well crafted, so they're not obvious or easy targets. Second is the fact Yang has no public record to swipe at like every other politician out there. When it does come time to attack him, they will do it via sjw character attacks and not on substance.
I don't really think it has anything do with his policies or his style. Castro, Gabbard, Hickenlooper, Williamson, etc aren't getting attacked either, even though they are typical politicians (except Williamson) - they are all getting the same treatment as Yang. No one really punches down in a debate unless directly and aggressively attacked - there's no benefit to be gained for the frontrunners. Yang will get attacked if and only if he has enough of a % of the vote for it to be worth it. Right now, all the fire is going to go to Biden, Bernie, Harris, Warren, and to a lesser degree Pete. Until then, as @justtxyank said, they just get ignored and all the frontrunners redirect questions to attack other frontrunners. If it ever became time to attack him (it won't, realistically), they'd go after the UBI as that's what distinguishes him and that's what's not in anyone else's platform. Just as the moderates are going after Medicare-for-all because that's what distinguishes them from the others.
I think that graph shows what I'm saying. Inslee wasn't attacked by anyone. Gillenbrand, Booker, and Gabbard were only attacked in response to attacks they made on someone. DeBlasio attacked everyone and barely took any incoming fire, except from Biden who was his primary target. The only time these smaller candidates got attacked was in response to one of their attacks. Otherwise, they were wholly ignored.
That's correct and I have stated that. Why did these candidate feels like they have to attack? They got little else to stand on. All of them, except for Williamson and to an extend Inslee are working on the same set of solution with various different degree of it.
Continue to be amazed at what people latch onto. I respect Yang and his ideals but what about his experience shows he should be President? How does him touting UBI means he will be a good President? Please explain how running a non profit translates to running government?
It’s simply because attacking someone is also a cost and you don’t want to waste that attacking lower candidates, unless you have to defend yourself. It likely won’t ever come to that point in this cycle, sadly. There is enough comfort in how things are going to see 10-15 years down the road.
Lol I’m not huge on Yang, you’d have to find one of his true supporters to get a proper debate on him. I was just playing. Bernie, Warren are my 1&2, then Gabbard/Yang. Outside of that the rest are hot garbage to me. UBI is interesting to me, I’m definitely open to it, but I’d be just as happy without it if other major changes were made to our economic system. I actually get a weird feeling from Yang at times, that he might not be nearly as progressive as he would like some to believe. But that’s honestly just a gut feeling.
It's not really relevant. Trump won without gov experience. He is proof that gov can sustain (so far) even with an idiot as head of state. People don’t care. They were willing to ignore all the immoral attributes and racist tendency of Trump for change. They want something different starting with and since Obama. They aren’t going to care how it translate to gov, but if there are new ideas that they think may work for them. They will take that gamble when they are desperate. And what count isn't what you or I think, or even the majority of American. 270 is all that count, and it may just come down to 70-100k people like it did in 2016. UBI isn’t the main idea I like. It’s just a necessary new safety net during this transition to the smart machine based economy. His idea of how you count someone value and what the economy transact on is a more fundamental change. It's not exactly convincing, but it's something I would consider and I do believe we need our economy to start incorporating things that all human values - well being, health, happiness, environment, social safety, and so on. A capitalist based economy that only know profit accelerated by machine that is growing exponentially is a disaster in the making - yes, you can have gov put in check and slow it down or push toward some path we like (regulation, rules, whatever), but i believe a better approach is to not slow it down, but to fundamentally change the system to match our shared value. I don't know how, but Yang is the only one is suggesting a solution.
Because killing a dictator is more effective? Libya and Iraq - how did those two turn out? Her point is diplomacy first, and in the meantime bring our troops home. Why on earth are we over there in the first place? We can't give the residents of Flint clean drinking water but we can spend 6 trillion on military adventurism and un-lid a disaster in the ME that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives? People on the left and right are drawn to her because they are absolutely fed up with this disastrous policy of warmongering.
Hopefully, many of these unsuccessful candidates can use the exposure of these debates as a stepping stone to something other than the current presidential election. Senate, House, State gov, etc. I have to admit that prior to this election cycle I had never heard of Yang. I like what I hear from him and he is certainly an up and comer but I don't believe he will make it through the primaries.
Don't be ridiculous. I was against the 2nd Iraq war before it began and said so right here, multiple times. I said, "Wars have unintended consequences," more times than I can remember. Said it right here. What were you doing? Look, why don't you educate yourself about the Assad family and their history in Syria. They have been in control of the country for decades, the father and now the son, and are responsible for the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of Syrians - men, women, and children. An estimated 400,000 thousand plus deaths during this civil war alone, with easily the vast majority caused by Assad, and more recently, the Russians in an effort to prop Assad up and keep him in power. Russia has a naval base on the Syrian coast on the Mediterranean. His father accounted for tens of thousands more. Those figures are from the United Nations. Assad and his Russian allies have had no problem with leveling entire urban and suburban neighborhoods in major cities not under their control filled with thousands upon thousands of civilians. I have all sorts of problems with Ms Gabbard. The more I look into what she has done with regards to Syria, the more I dislike her. She was used by Assad in an effort to legitimize his regime, which has been condemned by the international community of nations, except for Russia, for his brutality against his own people. This is from The Guardian in January, 2017, after the trip she took to Syria, a trip she's now trying to pretend was "misunderstood." Tulsi Gabbard reveals she met Assad in Syria, without informing top Democrats Hawaiian congresswoman claims she went on a ‘fact-finding’ mission in support of ‘peace’ for Syrian people, but characterized US-backed rebels as ‘terrorists’ Democrats were silent on Thursday as Tulsi Gabbard, one of the party’s sitting lawmakers in Congress, announced that she had met with Bashar al-Assad during a trip to war-torn Syria and dismissed his entire opposition as “terrorists”. Gabbard, a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, disclosed her meeting with the Syrian president on Wednesday, during what her office called a “fact-finding” mission in the region. “Initially I hadn’t planned on meeting him,” Gabbard told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so, because I felt it’s important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we’ve got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we could achieve peace. And that’s exactly what we talked about.” Democratic leaders were mum on the decision by one of their sitting lawmakers to meet with a dictator whom the US government has dubbed a war criminal for his use of chemical weapons against civilians. Gabbard’s trip raised alarms over a potential violation of the Logan Act, a federal statute barring unauthorized individuals from conferring with a foreign government involved in a dispute with the US. The US currently has no diplomatic relations with Syria. Gabbard’s office said her visit was approved by the House ethics committee. A spokesman for the committee declined to comment, although under its rules members have a period of 15 days following the completion of a trip to make public their approval letter and financial disclosures related to privately funded travel. The offices of Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, and Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, did not respond to requests for comment when reached by the Guardian. The White House did not immediately return an email inquiry, nor did a spokeswoman for House speaker Paul Ryan. Pelosi told reporters on Wednesday that she had no knowledge of Gabbard’s unannounced trip, which drew scrutiny over who arranged and paid for the travel. “She hasn’t reported or brought anything to our office as far as I know,” Pelosi said at a press conference held before Gabbard’s revelation about her meeting with Assad. “So when I know more about it, I’ll have something to say about it.” Adam Kinzinger, a Republican congressman from Illinois, was among few lawmakers to immediately condemn Gabbard’s actions. “It is sad and a shame and a disgrace,” Kinzinger told reporters at a Republican policy retreat in Philadelphia. “In no way should any member of Congress, should any government official, ever travel to meet with a guy that has killed 500,000 people and 50,000 children.” Kinzinger called on leadership in both parties to condemn Gabbard’s trip and questioned how it was financed. But Kinzinger – like Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran – said he would need to know more to file an ethics complaint against his colleague. “She has the audacity to say that everywhere she went people supported Assad,” Kinzinger said. “Of course, when you have an Assad-led tour, he’s only going to take you to places where people like him”. Evan McMullin, a former independent candidate for president in the 2016 presidential election, asked on Twitter: “Why are so many of our leaders becoming stooges of foreign dictators and war criminals? @TulsiGabbard@realDonaldTrump This is America!” www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/tulsi-gabbard-bashar-al-assad-syria-democrats
The US Empire Has Been Trying To Regime Change Syria Since Long Before 2011 by Caitlin Johnstone https://link.medium.com/vPRmvUAb3X https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion...fication-of-tulsi-gabbard-20190117-story.html
