Quote: (05-07-2019 01:44 PM)911 Wrote:  

Quote: (05-07-2019 11:58 AM)Malone Wrote:  

Quote: (05-07-2019 10:54 AM)911 Wrote:  

Yang is a bit like the tech executive/entrepreneur who's good at building and running things but not as good at PR or influencing, he need to do a better job at leveraging his unique policy proposal.

Yep, sure unique alright.

"Vote for me and I'll give you money."

What's unique here is that the money this time would go to the people who have been taxed to death and not getting anything back, that's the whole impetus of his UBI.

No, Yang has clearly said on many occasions that it's automation that's the impetus of UBI also you have to realize that he still will have all the expensive programs that most leftist noms want.

I should say, that's the main reason to support the UBI. The working/middle class gets back as much as the legacy moocher class.

Quote: (05-07-2019 01:56 PM)911 Wrote:  

I should say, that's the main reason to support the UBI. The working/middle class gets back as much as the legacy moocher class.

Nope, inflation will skyrocket and 1000 a month doesn't cover anything. No one is going to improve themselves with a $1,000/ month UBI. My friend "lived" on that while living out of my car. It's absolute poverty. You'll still have to get a full time job for bills and food. Are you gonna quit your full time job and go part time? Yeah right. Anyone who would do that won't improve themselves (or society) in the first place. Also, 1000 a month won't even be all that helpful for the working poor once it artificially raises prices on everything.

That's the main reason to NOT support the UBI

I've been away for a while, haven't had time to post, but I did see his town hall with CNN.

With that being said, I'm surprised that nobody has decided to post this quote here - Really? Ok. I'll do it then for those that might've missed it.

Quote:Quote:

“If Puerto Rican’s looked like Swedes they’d have been a state a long time ago."

Here's the one minute clip from his first town hall on CNN. The clip is only 1 minute long and I highly encourage everybody to watch it real fast:






Here's the brief background on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statehood_...uerto_Rico

Quote:Quote:

The statehood movement in Puerto Rico aims to make Puerto Rico a state of the United States. Five referenda have been held on the topic, most recently in 2017. Since 1967, there have been several referendums, which included questions on statehood. Puerto Ricans chose not to alter the status quo in referenda until 2012. The 2012 referendum produced a more equivocal result.

But you see, the 2012 referendum was bullshit because of this reason:

Quote:Quote:

The preferred status consultation did not include Puerto Rico's current status as a territory (Estado Libre Asociado as defined by the 1952 Constitution) as a choice, but instead an alternative named "E.L.A. Soberano"[29] President Barack Obama pledged to respect the voters' decision.

How can you have a referendum and not include the status quo as an option?

The 2017 referendum only a 23% turnout, but in that voting turnout 97% voted to become the 51st state. By comparison, there was about 50% voter turnout for the Brexit vote.

With that being said, Andrew Yang knows all of this. He's a smart guy. He knows that the only reason Puerto Rico isn't the 51st state, is because of how the Puerto Ricans voted or because of them not showing up to vote in sufficient numbers, proportionate to their population. It has nothing to do with "If they looked like Swedes".


And yet, he still said it.

Look at that video clip again. Right before he says "If Puerto Rican’s looked like Swedes they’d have been a state a long time ago", he gets nervous. Look at his body language. Listen to him stutter. You can almost see the sweat dripping off of his face. He pauses, and debates whether or not he wants to take the kill shot.

And take the kill shot he does. He swings for left field and hits a grand slam.

What do Swedes look like, Andrew Yang? Go ahead, say it. Tell me what Swedes look like, you Asian fucking prick.

As a blue eyed American who wouldn't look out of place in Sweden, fuck this guy. Absolutely, 100%, fuck this piece of shit.

Everybody, meet your new boss, same as the old boss.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countri...opulation/

Quote:Quote:

Demographics of Taiwan. The vast majority (98%) of people living on Taiwan are Han Chinese.

Now I think people living in Taiwan consider themselves to be different than the people in China, but you cannot just magically change your ethnicity on the whim. Austrians and Germans might consider themselves different as well, but there is no Austrian ethnicity, only a German ethnicity.

So here we have, a Han Chinese, whose ancestral homeland is a mere 2 percentage points away from being a pure 100% ethno-state, whose single ethnicity outnumbers an entire race of people, peddling the globohomo "Humanity First" bullshit anywhere and everywhere except his own ancestral homeland.

Gee, I wonder, where have I seen this shit before?

Couple that with what he said here:

https://www.amren.com/commentary/2019/03...drew-yang/

Quote:Quote:

I denounce and disavow hatred, bigotry, racism, white nationalism, anti-Semitism and the alt-right in all its many forms. Full stop. For anyone with this agenda, we do not want your support. We do not want your votes. You are not welcome in this campaign.

Now, before any of the Civic Nationalist snowflakes get triggered, think about what these words mean.

White Nationalism? So, basically, anybody who thinks that maybe Europe, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, should retain a strong ethnic European majority, that is wrong according to Yang, because that is white nationalism.

But anybody who thinks Taiwan should remain 98% Han Chinese, is A-Ok in Andrew Yang's book, right?

Read that quote above again. Now ask yourself this, what makes you think anybody is going to get those Yang Bucks if Yang's government finds out that you've been engaging in wrong-think?

Trump paved the way with his bullshit "anti-hate resolution bill", whose vague language allows the globohomo open border types to go after anybody they don't like. Why wouldn't Andrew Yang use that bill promoted by Trump to cut off the flow of Yang Bucks to anybody who engages in wrong-think?

Oh what, you think wrong-think only applies to people who believe Europe should remain majority European or the USA majority white?

Gavin McGinnes is a Civic Nationalists wet dream come true. They went after him.

What was Roosh's wrong think? Really, what evil thing has Roosh said? All he's ever really said is that males and females are biologically different. And yet they went after him.

So if Trump sits on his ass and does nothing while people like Alex Jones, McGinnes, Roosh and countless others get banned, deplatformed and demonetized, what makes you think this Asian fuck is going to give a normie, who doesn't have the slightest clue what a "red pill" is, his Yang Bucks if he says "Gee Andrew, you know, maybe it's not such a good idea for drag queens to be reading library books to elementary school children."

That's where we're heading. Hell, we're already basically there.

Get the hell out of here with that bullshit.

If anybody of European descent can watch that 1 minute clip of Andrew Yang, “If Puerto Rican’s looked like Swedes they’d have been a state a long time ago”, and say with a straight face that this guy is some kind of ally to you, you are either a deceiving yourself or you're an absolute idiot."

Fuck this guy.

I agree, the fact A LOT of people sided with Yang solely because he "said good things about white people." was telling they never were with Trump to begin with. Plus Black people are over 10% of the population in America and while mostly urban they are pretty spread out therefore it's fairly reasonable to pander to them at least. Asians? They're just over HALF that much. That and most Asians already vote liberal and live in blue states so you more or less have them already. So identity politics for Yang isn't how he SHOULD run his campaign.

Quote: (05-07-2019 02:02 PM)partyfowl Wrote:  

Quote: (05-07-2019 01:56 PM)911 Wrote:  

I should say, that's the main reason to support the UBI. The working/middle class gets back as much as the legacy moocher class.

Nope, inflation will skyrocket and 1000 a month doesn't cover anything. No one is going to improve themselves with a $1,000/ month UBI. My friend "lived" on that while living out of my car. It's absolute poverty. You'll still have to get a full time job for bills and food. Are you gonna quit your full time job and go part time? Yeah right. Anyone who would do that won't improve themselves (or society) in the first place. Also, 1000 a month won't even be all that helpful for the working poor once it artificially raises prices on everything.

That's the main reason to NOT support the UBI

That's a pretty shallow take, we've gone over all these notions and dismantled them earlier in this thread.

Interesting development for those that aren't thrilled with true Medicare for All (single-payer).

I noticed this several weeks ago but Yang is advocating for "Medicare for All" in the form of a public option now.

Quote:Quote:

Either through expanding Medicare to all, or through creating a new healthcare system, we must move in the direction of a public option to ensure that all Americans can receive the healthcare they deserve.

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/medicare-for-all/

I much prefer this to a true M4A model (single-payer), which is what Sanders wants to do. I like options and competition.

This is a smart move for Yang from a election stand point as well. He knows that single-payer is a bridge too far for many people (especially for independents and the GOP) but that a public option is very popular across the political spectrum. It's a good way to clearly separate himself from Sanders as well; which will be critical to do in the DEM primaries if he wants any chance of winning.

Again, if you really don't want to critically assess a lot of Yang's silly ideas and shallowness, just because he's slightly more honest about how stupid his proposals are, let the physiognomy do the talking to get through to you.

Quote: (05-07-2019 09:44 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

Again, if you really don't want to critically assess a lot of Yang's silly ideas and shallowness, just because he's slightly more honest about how stupid his proposals are, let the physiognomy do the talking to get through to you.

Dude looks like a pretty normal Asian dude in his late 30s/early 40s. He's not overweight, or scrawny, or balding or awkward. He just looks like an ordinary guy.

Not sure what I'm supposed to be getting out of his physiognomy.

When this thread first started there were some who were wanting to vote for Yang to accelerate collapse. That I can understand, though I don't agree with it.

Others have said that the US is going to turn democrat anyway, and it'll just be a matter of voting for whichever leftist candidate you want to vote for so they choose Yang.

I think others, while not outright stating it, are true believers in what this guy says.

I'm just not buying anything he says. His YangBucks are going to come with stipulations. Especially once Yang leaves office and further leftist candidates get into power. Guys like Roosh won't see a dime of it because Roosh states "controversial" opinions that there's biological differences between a man and a woman.

Yang's slogan is "Humanity First". That's the same shit as "Diversity Is Our Strength".

How can you guys not see these things?

How can you guys not see the irony, of somebody whose parents hail from a literal almost 100% ethno-state, telling a nation made up of a majority race completely different than his own, that "a preferred white majority has no place in this country"?

Really, I wouldn't mind that statement at all and if anywhere in the world could pull of the melting pot, I think the US would be it. The problem I have is that if the hatred on whites gets turned up a couple notches to Rwandan machete style, I can't go back to my ancestral homelands in Europe because the continent is quickly becoming anything but European.

I don't hate any other race or ethnicity and in fact I value diversity on this planet very much. I've dated other races other than my own. I like the different cultures and different groups of people that the planet has to offer. I also think countries with a reasonable amount of minorities in them is fine. It's also fine if a country has very little minorities. I don't hate any person based on where they come from.

It's just that I would never want to see Africa become European. I would never want to see Taiwan become majority Polish. Why are those two statements ok, but saying that I would prefer my kids not to grow up as minorities in the US is not ok?

I'm just fearful that not being allowed to have reasonable and sensible conversations about the demographic issues in the west is going to lead to very bad results, for everybody, even though it's actually 100% avoidable.

That clip I showed of Yang, it showed his true colors. Yang is no ally to anybody of European descent. His body language in that clip said it all. He's literally squirming in that clip when he says it and stuttering like a mad man. He will tell you all these nice things on the campaign trail, and then follow through on very few of those things. Kind of like how Trump has done so far (and I bought into Trump 100%).

Yang: Wants an 18 year path to citizenship.
Trump: Says "America needs more workers!" and wants more immigrants.

Yang: Wants a constitutional amendment saying that everybody gets their Yangbucks.
Trump: Wants you denied access to the financial system if you're "far right".

Yang: Wants Twitter, Facebook, et. al to be forced to provide freedom of speech to dissenters.
Trump: Sits by silently while his followers are purged. He gladly took help from Alex Jones, and Wikileaks when he was running, and then when he got in power he threw Assange in jail and allowed Infowars to be purged from the internet.


Andrew Yang is the far-right candidate in this election.

EDIT: White Nationalism is a dead idea. Forget trying to convince other races to support it, WHITES don't want it. You can't get whites here, on this forum, to agree that America should be a white country, because there are a number of extremely well-liked members who are minorities, and whites, even "red-pilled" whites, don't want to tell people they like that they're not welcome in the United States. And this is an anonymous forum, where you're free to say whatever you like and suffer no social consequences for doing so. Whites have decided, as a collective, that they want to be an ethnic minority in the United States, and they've made their decision on this RESOUNDINGLY clear.

There will be no pro-white candidates for President, or even pro-white candidate for local dogcatcher or city councilman. Whites don't want pro-white candidates, and they won't vote for them.

I personally don't think this is a wise decision at all, and I think whites are going to regret this a lot in a few years. But if you're rejecting a candidate because he's "Not pro-white", you're going to reject all the candidates and just stay home. Which is your choice, but some of us like to make decisions based on the choices available to us.

Quote: (05-07-2019 10:48 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Yang: Wants an 18 year path to citizenship.
Trump: Says "America needs more workers!" and wants more immigrants.

Yang: Wants a constitutional amendment saying that everybody gets their Yangbucks.
Trump: Wants you denied access to the financial system if you're "far right".

Yang: Wants Twitter, Facebook, et. al to be forced to provide freedom of speech to dissenters.
Trump: Sits by silently while his followers are purged. He gladly took help from Alex Jones, and Wikileaks when he was running, and then when he got in power he threw Assange in jail and allowed Infowars to be purged from the internet.


Andrew Yang is the far-right candidate in this election.

EDIT: White Nationalism is a dead idea. Forget trying to convince other races to support it, WHITES don't want it. You can't get whites here, on this forum, to agree that America should be a white country, because there are a number of extremely well-liked members who are minorities, and whites, even "red-pilled" whites, don't want to tell people they like that they're not welcome in the United States. And this is an anonymous forum, where you're free to say whatever you like and suffer no social consequences for doing so. Whites have decided, as a collective, that they want to be an ethnic minority in the United States, and they've made their decision on this RESOUNDINGLY clear.

There will be no pro-white candidates for President, or even pro-white candidate for local dogcatcher or city councilman. Whites don't want pro-white candidates, and they won't vote for them.

I personally don't think this is a wise decision at all, and I think whites are going to regret this a lot in a few years. But if you're rejecting a candidate because he's "Not pro-white", you're going to reject all the candidates and just stay home. Which is your choice, but some of us like to make decisions based on the choices available to us.

I want to say first that I enjoy your posts on here Sam, you make good points on a lot of things.

At this point I have chosen to just stay home. Obama fooled me, Trump fooled me, I don't have any hope left in politics. Though I still like to discuss them from time to time.

You make good points about Trump's failings. I agree with them.

I don't like the term "white nationalist", it has a negative connotation and is a misnomer to prevent people of European descent to organize on the political level like every other group does. I think it's best not to use terms like that.

I don't agree with what you said that whites won't vote for somebody who will keep the US majority white. We already did - that candidate was Donald Trump.

Thousands of people chanting at the top of their lungs "Build That Wall" was not, for the most part, about economics. That was people saying they don't want to become minorities, without them having to face the social, employment and financial consequences they would've had to face if they would've outright said that they do not wish to become minorities in their own communities.

You do not get thousands of people at rallies all over the country chanting "Build That Wall" over economics. You don't. You just don't.

EDIT - It's the same shit going on in Europe. People did not vote for Brexit solely because of economics. Someone like Salvini doesn't rise in Italy because of debates about taxes. Your statement that whites or Europeans will not vote for a candidate who campaigns on keeping the majority in place (which is what the misnomer "white nationalism" essentially means) is way off.

If you can't read between the lines with this stuff, that's on you.

Quote: (05-07-2019 10:29 PM)Uprising Wrote:  

I'm just fearful that not being allowed to have reasonable and sensible conversations about the demographic issues in the west is going to lead to very bad results, for everybody, even though it's actually 100% avoidable.

Uprising,

I think you reading a bit too much into things with Yang.

Most white people are not tribal like other races.

Yang is by a HUGE margin however, the most sympathetic to white people and some of the issues they face. The mere fact that he acknowledges issues that affect white communities primarily is evidence of that. Furthermore, a $1000/month will do way more for tons of poor majority white communities than diverse mega-economic zones like NYC, SF, and DC where the cost of living is way higher. There is an argument to be made that if you want to see white people actually have more kids and be able to support them properly, reviving their communities and giving them some economic fuel (like a $1000/month) is what is needed.

Building a wall helps. Kicking out illegals helps. But you still have to revive decimated white communities on a LARGE scale somehow all over America if you want to blunt demographic trends at all. Trump is 0/3 on the aforementioned by the way. A few new factories and some new jobs isn't going to cut it if white demographics is a priority for you; especially with the automation/AI revolution about to take off like a rocket ship. Trump is trying to give the gravely ill white communities of America OTC Tylenol when they really need open heart surgery. UBI really is the solution. Or at least, the best solution available as of now.

If you don't buy what he is selling, that is your business but there isn't any solid evidence that the guy is anti-white or has an ulterior motive where he will pull some kind of huge bait and switch. Furthermore, there is no better alternative as of now anyway. I would LOVE for a GOP version of Yang (Tucker Carlson would probably be the closest thing I could think of on the fly) but Yang is the only one right now addressing A LOT of stuff that no one in either party is really touching.

Citing your quote, if you really care about having controversial conversations like on demographic changes and their impacts on society, you should be voting for Yang.

1. He wants to regulate social media like a public utility.

2. He wants to switch to proportional electoral voting. That will keep the GOP in the game for much longer vs the current winner take all system. The current demographic trends basically make it impossible for the GOP to stay alive in the current winner take all system for much longer.

3. He wants give every citizen $100 "democracy dollars" so they can provide grassroots funding to candidates. Want to run for office and get 10,000 people to support you? That's 1 million in campaign funds which in turn, is a very solid start and allows one to quit their job temporarily to run while also having enough of a war chest for a small staff/advertising/office/etc.

What other democrat is offering to do the aforementioned?

Better yet, why isn't Trump ALREADY doing this stuff?

Yang isn't perfect and comes with risk but it's really early in the process as of now. He could pull a bait and switch. He could go full retard with SJW-ism. But out of the entire field (DEM and GOP) and given what you are "fearful" about, Yang is actually addressing your concerns when virtually no else is (including Trump).

Pages and pages and pages of hashing out Yang's policies, dissecting his interviews, analyzing his tweets, and Yang's critics think his supporters don't want to critically assess his policies, or they bring up the same stupid points over and over again? Jesus, the trolls here suck.

Quote:Quote:

“If Puerto Rican’s looked like Swedes they’d have been a state a long time ago."

Yes, we know he said that. We also know he supports the bill to study the logistics of reparations in Congress. He also supports the "spirit" of the Green New Deal though not the specific logistics. I agree and disagree to varying extents on those issues (Yes to PR being a state--no colonies--and there has been pushback from the right concerning the changing demographics from that, GND is mostly dumb, reparations are a logistical nightmare) but he's been nothing but transparent that he is largely a social liberal. Quite frankly on IDPOL he's better than 95% of all candidates running in that it's a very tiny focus on a massive 100+ policy platform and that platform would be a net positive on the vast majority of Americans--black, white, Asian, whatever--lives.

https://9to5google.com/2019/05/07/waymo-cars-on-lyft/

Quote:Quote:

Waymo self-driving cars coming to Lyft’s network in Phoenix

Abner Li

- May. 7th 2019 1:46 pm PT

With Waymo One last year, the Alphabet division finally began monetizing its decade-long work in autonomous vehicles. Another revenue source for Waymo is making its self-driving cars available on other ride-sharing networks. The company is now partnering with Lyft to provide self-driving cars for riders in Metro Phoenix.

Waymo today announced that it’s working to deploy 10 autonomous Chrysler Pacifica electric minivans over the next few months to Lyft’s car network. Those living in Metro Phoenix will eventually be able to ride in self-driving cars using both Lyft and Waymo One.

Once Waymo vehicles are on the platform, Lyft users in the area will have the option to select a Waymo directly from the Lyft app for eligible rides. This first step in our partnership will allow us to introduce the Waymo Driver to Lyft users, enabling them to take what for many will be their first ride in a self-driving vehicle.

This partnership dates back to May 2017 when Waymo signed a deal with Lyft to bring self-driving cars into the mainstream. The two companies agreed to work on pilot projects, with Waymo getting access to a significantly larger network. In the long-term, Lyft will benefit from the lower costs of autonomous vehicles by not having to pay human drivers.

Yang is right.

Quote: (05-08-2019 01:32 AM)Sumanguru Wrote:  

https://9to5google.com/2019/05/07/waymo-cars-on-lyft/

Quote:Quote:

Waymo self-driving cars coming to Lyft’s network in Phoenix

Abner Li

- May. 7th 2019 1:46 pm PT

With Waymo One last year, the Alphabet division finally began monetizing its decade-long work in autonomous vehicles. Another revenue source for Waymo is making its self-driving cars available on other ride-sharing networks. The company is now partnering with Lyft to provide self-driving cars for riders in Metro Phoenix.

Waymo today announced that it’s working to deploy 10 autonomous Chrysler Pacifica electric minivans over the next few months to Lyft’s car network. Those living in Metro Phoenix will eventually be able to ride in self-driving cars using both Lyft and Waymo One.

Once Waymo vehicles are on the platform, Lyft users in the area will have the option to select a Waymo directly from the Lyft app for eligible rides. This first step in our partnership will allow us to introduce the Waymo Driver to Lyft users, enabling them to take what for many will be their first ride in a self-driving vehicle.

This partnership dates back to May 2017 when Waymo signed a deal with Lyft to bring self-driving cars into the mainstream. The two companies agreed to work on pilot projects, with Waymo getting access to a significantly larger network. In the long-term, Lyft will benefit from the lower costs of autonomous vehicles by not having to pay human drivers.

Yang is right.

Yes sir.

I just looked into leasing a Tesla recently and the terms are shit because you cannot buy the car the end of the lease; which is pretty much unheard of.

Why is that?

Quote:Quote:

Will Tesla's Leasing Program Disrupt The Ride-Sharing Market?

Tesla has been leading its customers through a merry little dance lately, shuffling its vehicle lineup around and raising and lowering prices. Buried among all the recent repricings is an announcement that has attracted little attention, but that offers a clue to Tesla’s future plans to deploy an automated ride-sharing network.

Tesla launched a lease program for Model 3, with the very unusual provision that customers won’t have the option of buying the vehicle at the end of the lease term.

“Please note, customers who choose leasing over owning will not have the option to purchase their car at the end of the lease, because with full autonomy coming in the future via an over-the-air software update, we plan to use those vehicles in the Tesla ride-hailing network,” says the company.

Tesla has of course been talking about the Tesla Network, which would allow company- or customer-owned vehicles to be deployed as robotaxis, for some time. It’s widely believed that Model 3 incorporates features designed to enable automated ride-sharing.

Tesla has been dropping hints that it’s very close to rolling out full self-driving capability, or something close to it, but some observers are skeptical. Brad Templeton, who has worked with Google/Waymo and other robocar pioneers, recently posted a review of Autopilot in Forbes, in which he argues that the system “is not even remotely close to the capability level needed to run a ride-hailing network on it.”

Of course, three years from now, when those leases begin to run out, the Tesla Network may well be up and running. In a more recent article, Templeton writes that the company’s plan to use off-lease cars for the network is a clever one, and could give the California carmaker several advantages over its rivals in the robocar race.

Whenever Tesla is ready to launch its ride-hailing service, it will surely find that using lightly used off-lease cars is much more efficient than using new ones. “The lessees pay for the heavy depreciation a car goes through in the first three years,” Templeton explains, and “customers of a ride-hail service don’t demand that the car be new. A nice post-lease detailing is all that’s needed.”

Given the fast pace of innovation, it seems likely that some hardware upgrades may be needed to turn the off-lease cars into robotaxis, but that would be easy for Tesla to do, as it designed and built the cars. “While a competitor could buy used cars and retrofit them, that’s hard to do if you didn’t design the car,” writes Templeton.

Non-automakers who are hoping to break into the robotaxi racket, such as Waymo, Cruise, Zoox and others, will start at a disadvantage. “They will be putting new, custom manufactured cars into service,” says Templeton. “They need to recover the cost of that in their fares — and depreciation is the largest part of the cost of operating a car, especially an electric one. Tesla only has to recover the cost of the much lower depreciation of used cars.”

Other auto OEMs could of course copy Tesla’s off-lease-to-robotaxi model, but they would have to start planning such a strategy right about now.

Tesla has fallen behind some other players in the ride-hailing race — Waymo already has robotaxis in limited service — but when it is ready to start carrying passengers, Tesla’s pool of off-lease Model 3s could give it a huge cost advantage.

However, Templeton believes it’s an advantage that won’t last long. Model 3 may have some robotaxi-friendly features, but it’s still a sedan that was designed for drivers. Future purpose-built robotaxis will be more comfortable for passengers, and much cheaper, as they will be able to dispense with many expensive and bulky features (steering wheels, power seats) that exist only for the benefit of drivers.

source: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/21/wil...ng-market/

Yang might be a little too early in 2020 for the simpletons to get it but by 2024, I bet his message on automation/AI will be far better received since the overwhelming evidence (like robotaxis' everywhere) will be impossible to ignore.

I can't wait to get killed by a refurbished Tesla robotaxi that wasn't even designed to act in that capacity and was instead retrofitted through a a shitty over-the-air software update coded by a bunch of H1B slaves from Bangladesh. Sounds like a new Boeing 737 MAX in the making, except for being dispersed in millions of acts of slow butchery rather than one giant explosive crash.

Quote: (05-08-2019 07:05 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

I can't wait to get killed by a refurbished Tesla robotaxi that wasn't even designed to act in that capacity and was instead retrofitted through a a shitty over-the-air software update coded by a bunch of H1B slaves from Bangladesh. Sounds like a new Boeing 737 MAX in the making, except for being dispersed in millions of acts of slow butchery rather than one giant explosive crash.

Most humans are shit enough at driving that software would probably still be an upgrade.

Quote: (05-08-2019 07:05 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

I can't wait to get killed by a refurbished Tesla robotaxi that wasn't even designed to act in that capacity and was instead retrofitted through a a shitty over-the-air software update coded by a bunch of H1B slaves from Bangladesh. Sounds like a new Boeing 737 MAX in the making, except for being dispersed in millions of acts of slow butchery rather than one giant explosive crash.

Well, in America alone we kill about 40K a year through car accidents. All they have to do is get the AI to kill less than that and it's an improvement. I wouldn't be surprised if in a generation or so many people (not all, there will always be enthusiasts) look at driving your own car as something old fashioned and dangerous because an AI is so much more accurate. It'll be like how a lot of urbanites look at living in the wild/rustic settings; maybe something that a few people dabble in (like camping) but not something you would consistently do.

Quote: (05-08-2019 01:22 AM)Sumanguru Wrote:  

Pages and pages and pages of hashing out Yang's policies, dissecting his interviews, analyzing his tweets, and Yang's critics think his supporters don't want to critically assess his policies, or they bring up the same stupid points over and over again?

Are you white, Sumanguru? If you're not, which I suspect, than Yang's comment about the Swedes won't mean much to you. This is not a "same stupid point that's been brought up over and over again". I posted that video because that video or quote is not found anywhere in this thread. It's important people see that video from Yang, as I have a feeling it's going to be referenced down the road if he ever goes anywhere with his campaign. I certainly wasn't the only one who got pissed off at that little prick for saying that when he knew it was a direct lie, therefore he resorted to race baiting against whites.

The Black Knight, thanks for your reply. You make some good points and you'll find no argument from me on the points you made about Trump being a huge disappointment.

I still think his Yang Bucks are going to come with stipulations. I still don't like the idea of being dependent on a leftist government for survival.

I still believe "Humanity First" is another way of saying "Diversity Is Our Strength". That slogan is especially rich coming from a dude whose parents hail from a literal ethno-state.

I think that while yes he does address issues that others aren't addressing, like automation or regulating tech companies as a public utility, I don't think he has the power to make change to either of those things.

Democracy to me is dead at this point. It's held up as an illusion that we have any say in our future. The country is just to damn big, with to many different groups of people, with to many competing interests, with the hatred on the founding stock ramped up to levels that make me fearful of becoming a minority.

On the individual level, Americans are pretty damn nice to me all around the country and I try to be as nice to them back as I can. But I've read enough history books to know that how somebody acts on the individual, and how they act on the group level, especially if shit hits the fan, are two completely different things. That goes for whites, asians, Catholics, Protestants, whatever have you.

I've said my piece on this I'll shutup about it now. Even though I don't agree with everything that's said on this thread, I do enjoy the good debates that have taken place on this thread, with the critics and the supporters.

Quote: (05-08-2019 02:04 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

Yang might be a little too early in 2020 for the simpletons to get it but by 2024, I bet his message on automation/AI will be far better received since the overwhelming evidence (like robotaxis' everywhere) will be impossible to ignore.

This is what I keep coming back to. 2024 if Trump wins this time, 2028 if Biden wins. Dude is young, he can wait as long as it takes.

On the plus side, it means I'll have plenty of time in 2020 'cause I won't be watching the election.

@Uprising the only way UBI WILL win me over is if there was any stipulations. However Yang is too tentative to state that therefore he's still a leftist Ron Paul to me. Plus his entire anti-censorship platform is really just pandering to those dumb enough not to know he can only say "yes" to a bill through congress that says that. Something NO leftist in congress will allow since their entire mindset now is deplatforming the opposition.

@The Black Knight I agree with you that Yang I think will be a more viable candidate in 2024, as retarded as his prominent half is, the other good half will only get more relevant. He would be a great VP pick for Biden (though I doubt Biden will pick him) or any other nominee.

Quote: (05-08-2019 01:14 PM)partyfowl Wrote:  

@Uprising the only way UBI WILL win me over is if there was any stipulations. However Yang is too tentative to state that therefore he's still a leftist Ron Paul to me.

(I'm assuming you mean 'if there weren't any stipulations') Yang's already said he wants a constitutional amendment saying that everyone gets their UBI if they're A.) of a certain age range and B.) a citizen. You're simply not well-informed about this.

Quote:Quote:

Plus his entire anti-censorship platform is really just pandering to those dumb enough not to know he can only say "yes" to a bill through congress that says that. Something NO leftist in congress will allow since their entire mindset now is deplatforming the opposition.

I think it should be obvious from the caliber of posters in this thread that nobody here is "dumb enough not to know" how the separation of powers works. Presidential candidates making proposals that require congress to pass a law is exceedingly common, and completely unremarkable. (Also, I've already laid out in the Trump thread how the tech companies could be brought to heel entirely within the executive branch, using the threat of anti-trust enforcement.)

Maybe roll back the arrogance a little.

Quote: (05-08-2019 10:53 AM)Uprising Wrote:  

Quote: (05-08-2019 01:22 AM)Sumanguru Wrote:  

Pages and pages and pages of hashing out Yang's policies, dissecting his interviews, analyzing his tweets, and Yang's critics think his supporters don't want to critically assess his policies, or they bring up the same stupid points over and over again?

Are you white, Sumanguru? If you're not, which I suspect, than Yang's comment about the Swedes won't mean much to you. This is not a "same stupid point that's been brought up over and over again". I posted that video because that video or quote is not found anywhere in this thread. It's important people see that video from Yang, as I have a feeling it's going to be referenced down the road if he ever goes anywhere with his campaign. I certainly wasn't the only one who got pissed off at that little prick for saying that when he knew it was a direct lie, therefore he resorted to race baiting against whites.

The Black Knight, thanks for your reply. You make some good points and you'll find no argument from me on the points you made about Trump being a huge disappointment.

I still think his Yang Bucks are going to come with stipulations. I still don't like the idea of being dependent on a leftist government for survival.

I still believe "Humanity First" is another way of saying "Diversity Is Our Strength". That slogan is especially rich coming from a dude whose parents hail from a literal ethno-state.

I think that while yes he does address issues that others aren't addressing, like automation or regulating tech companies as a public utility, I don't think he has the power to make change to either of those things.

Democracy to me is dead at this point. It's held up as an illusion that we have any say in our future. The country is just to damn big, with to many different groups of people, with to many competing interests, with the hatred on the founding stock ramped up to levels that make me fearful of becoming a minority.

On the individual level, Americans are pretty damn nice to me all around the country and I try to be as nice to them back as I can. But I've read enough history books to know that how somebody acts on the individual, and how they act on the group level, especially if shit hits the fan, are two completely different things. That goes for whites, asians, Catholics, Protestants, whatever have you.

I've said my piece on this I'll shutup about it now. Even though I don't agree with everything that's said on this thread, I do enjoy the good debates that have taken place on this thread, with the critics and the supporters.

I really feel ya on what I bolded.

Having grown up in a diverse area, I understand very well the mercenary attitudes all these different sub-groups have. There is no real sense of community since people see themselves as black, jew, hispanic, etc first vs American. Many of these people have dual passports and know they can eject easily if shit ever hits the fan.

If you are just generic native born Mr. White Guy, it can feel very isolating at times. Especially when you factor in all the self-hating white people who seem more obsess with saving people in Africa than saving their own people down the street. That's what really cuts deep: A large segment of your own race actively working against you for no good valid reason.

When Bernie Sanders says truly offensive shit like white people don't know what it's like to be poor or what life is like in the ghetto, it makes my blood boil.

That's why I'm almost content just leaving the US at times and letting it all burn down from a distance.

When it's gotten to the point where native born whites in very large numbers are throwing their own people under the bus in the USA, being a foreigner elsewhere is actually an upgrade in many respects. You will never be Korean or Thai but at least I don't have to be surrounded by my own people, my own race, stabbing me in the back all the time. I can respect a foreign nations people protecting their own interest because I get why they do it. In a way, I admire it. The solidarity in maintaining their culture above all else.

What is really disturbing as of late is not only the self-hating white people but the growing hostile non-white people looking to blame white people (especially white men) for EVERYTHING. What the fuck did I do to deserve this? I was truly color-blinded until nearly everyone not a American white male seemed to have some vendetta against me that wasn't justified.

Let's go down the list a bit...

Feminists - I want your job but I don't want to earn it on equal terms. I'll have you fired for rape if you say hello more than once in a day.

Blacks - I want reparations. And you better not say anything bad about black ghettos despite tons of violent crime existing within and around these zones.

Hispanics - I want my 10 illegal relatives granted citizenship and the right to vote. Getting welfare as an illegal and being allowed the privilege of living in a top tier country without permission apparently isn't good enough.

Fags - You better accept and like my lifestyle despite the fact that if everyone did it, the human race would become extinct.

Jobs -Mark him down 10 points on the exam. He doesn't know suffering as a white guy.

College admissions - Give the minority priority despite both of his parents being doctors. The white guy only has one working class parent? Who cares... that white guy was born on second base with his whiteness. Did you know that heating bills in the bitter cold winter can be paid for by sending in a picture of a white guy?

Media - Say something pro-white or just something that affects white communities? You're Hitler and you will be de-platformed and erased from the internet. Want a credit card? Fuck you Hitler. We already tried to hit Yang (the fucking asian guy) with the white nationalist label for doing the aforementioned but we'll nail you to the wall Mr. White Privilege.

Jew - I'm white when it's convenient and I'm a minority when being white is a bad deal. If you point out that I hold dual-citizenship to a super strict ethno-state with a giant wall protecting it, that means you hate jews.

Bottom line:

At this stage, I would support a candidate that advocated for a "peaceful break-up" of the United States. I'm about fed up with all of the bullshit and haters.

To tie this back to Yang: The fact that he doesn't really push identity politics and simply acknowledges issues that affect white communities puts him in a league of his own. For a DEMOCRAT to do that in 2019 is nothing short of a miracle. If we are not going to break-up the United States, we MUST become a post-identity politics society ASAP to survive. If we don't, shit is really gonna hit the fan sooner or later.

Quote: (05-08-2019 10:53 AM)Uprising Wrote:  

Are you white, Sumanguru? If you're not, which I suspect, than Yang's comment about the Swedes won't mean much to you. This is not a "same stupid point that's been brought up over and over again". I posted that video because that video or quote is not found anywhere in this thread. It's important people see that video from Yang, as I have a feeling it's going to be referenced down the road if he ever goes anywhere with his campaign. I certainly wasn't the only one who got pissed off at that little prick for saying that when he knew it was a direct lie, therefore he resorted to race baiting against whites.

I'm on record as saying I don't agree with all Yang's policies or everything he's said.

With that said, lately, I've been talking to a lot of people about Yang, trying to raise awareness. There's a political-racialist group of black people called ADOS, American Descendants of Slaves. They've recently had the label of black MAGA used as a slur against them cause they're similar to the Hotep group that got popular a year or so black--black nationalists with a traditional (i.e. conservative) bent. Imagine Huey Freeman from the Boondocks but more on the right. Full disclosure, I am technically an American who descended from slaves, but I don't align myself with the ADOS movement.

Anyway, I tell the ADOS folks, "Yes, Yang is an Asian dude, yes he doesn't quite speak the way you do with the same words that you do, and no he doesn't specifically name you. But if you look at his platform, there's a huge alignment with your interests. He wants $1K for all citizens, which would be huge for blacks because we have the lowest net wealth of any racial group. He wants to decriminalize weed and opiates and mass release weed offenders which would disproportionately impact African-Americans. He supports HBCUs, wants every cop in America to have a camera, wants an infrastructure plan with improved public transportation for urban areas, and student debt relief. He even supports examining the logistics of reparations (a nightmare, but whatever). If I go to the ADOS website, that's about 85% of the platform listed, its just different words and tone used. No other candidate so far aligns nearly as well with your interests. You should think about supporting him."

The response I've been getting from people is essentially what you said. "Well, his platform would benefit me, but he said this one thing I disagree with." Or "Yeah, I would net gain from him being in office, but he has one or two policies I disagree with." I'm seeing, from all quarters, a demand for 100% ideological purity/alignment, and it's fucking crazy to me. You'd by far net gain from this but you're gonna walk? Its cutting off your nose to spite your face. We don't do this with anything else: we all want good jobs/cars/women/sales but we're realistic and smart enough to realize waiting for the 100% perfect situation is madness. You try to find the situation, after examining all the available options, that'll benefit you the most; and after examining the platform of all the candidates, including Trump, I haven't seen anyone who'd benefit all Americans more than Yang, even if he does say something stupid occasionally (and who the fuck doesn't?). So many people--black, white, whatever--let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and we'll all end up like the 40 something girl who waited for the 10 Chad and ended up with 10 cats.

I respect you for bowing out. This is one of the intellectually stronger threads on the forum, and I hate that it gets hijacked by people who just come in to talk shit about Yang and his supporters. I voted for Trump and feel betrayed everyday, but I don't go into that thread and talk shit, I wish the trolls would stay the fuck outta this one if they can't offer productive conversation.