Post: #351

If you follow the uni-party deep state theory to it's reasonable conclusions then it becomes inescapably clear that some candidates are chosen specifically to fail and run their campaigns with that in mind. Not only are they chosen specifically to fail but to fail in accordance with a rough narrative.

From 6 months into Trump's presidency when certain targets weren't being met it always lingered in my mind that he could have been put in place as a pressure relief valve for a Red American demographic that was on the cusp of rejecting democratic solutions altogether.

I'm not going all in on that possibility but day by day the odds of it being the case grow more and more likely. There are some "blunders" he's made that seem too outlandish to be consigned to mere inexperience or bad advice from those close to him. If I were a hardcore Jew-savvy secessionist living out in the American redoubt then my mind would probably already be made up.

Post: #352

(02-20-2019 03:50 AM)floor7 Wrote:  



A fan of Andrew Yang.

I've liked what I've seen from Andrew Yang so far. He doesn't seem obsessed with identity politics and he rightly recognizes that technology is disrupting the economy enough to the point where the way capitalism worked in the 19th and 20th centuries won't work in the 21st.

He's also from outside the academia/legal/media/political bubble and has actually accomplished things in the real world.

Still don't know where he stands on immigration, regulating the tech monopolies, the supreme court, free speech, men's issues, and wars, but he's by far the most sane candidate in that party. Which means he has no chance of winning a single primary.

(02-21-2019 05:54 PM)Wutang Wrote:  Democratic Party is doubling down on race politics. Warren and Harris both are calling for "reparations" for African Americans

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/43...by-slavery

Quote:The New York Times reported Thursday that Harris affirmed her support for reparations in a statement after agreeing last week with a radio host that reparations are necessary.

"We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities," Harris said in the statement. "I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities."

Warren has also said she supports reparations, according to the Times, though her campaign declined to provide further details to the newspaper.

I can't imagine this will go well in battleground states (you know, the ones with all the poor white people) if either of them gets to the general election.

Since I last logged on to this forum, they're self-destructing even faster than I anticipated. But I shouldn't be surprised. This is what always happens in a cultural revolution. Someone is always going to be more pure to the revolution than somebody else, so the others have to follow or else risk being branded a counterrevolutionary. And fuck me, the cycle (thankfully) hasn't even really started yet. Just wait till we get to the first debates this summer. It will make for some tragicomedic theater.

And now with the collapse of the Amazon deal, our would-be tech overlords are now learning that you can't coddle an angry mob of Jacobins and expect them to be on your side forever.

Post: #353

I'm thinking that Trump can probably win reelection due to the economy being good and his anti-nafta success. People may not like his crass language but he gets results on the economy. Sanders will probably win the nomination but he will likely lose to trump and with trump improving the jobs for union workers, they will not move to Sanders socialism. I had always thought Booker would be the nominee due to being black and likely winning SC primary. But Iowa and NH come first so Warren or Sanders winning there will build momentum. I don't really like Warren for the presidency and she doesn't seem ready, I think she is running more for the VP spot, perhaps under SAnders. But Trump has accomplished a lot in the soon to be 4 years and so he might not want to win re-election and prefer to go back to the hotel business and make millions. He's giving up too much money to be president and it doesn't even seem like he enjoys it that much, other than to make jokes on twitter.

Post: #354

(02-23-2019 02:46 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 01:44 PM)rpg Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 10:54 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  ...

We just got a new AG. He better get cracking and clean up these messes.

Too little too late.

I'm not here to shit in anyone's cereal for it's own sake but team wait'n'see has been fragged into ground beef.

I'm a rural drongo on the other side of the world who seems to give more of a shit about America than most Americans do, but that was only because I thought that she had the potential to once again become the shining city on the hill and light the way forward for the rest of the West.

That's over, and it's over for a lot of Trump's substantial international support base which has spent incalculable hours combating fake news both in America and abroad.

He keeps writing cheques for effort applied and they keep bouncing. What's worse is that he's stood by while Silicon Valley makes it literally ten times harder for the millions of guys like me to help him. No more. If he wants the efforts of the millions of people like me then it falls on him to wow us. The benefit of the doubt is gone.

I'm sure he's absolutely shattered to lose your "support"

Post: #355

Unconditional support is for dogs, domestic violence victims and retards.

Post: #356

(02-23-2019 10:58 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Unconditional support is for dogs, domestic violence victims and retards.

Congrats man!

Post: #357

1. Globalism is bad
2. Thread filled with non-NY 14th District, non-US residents arguing about AOC

Lack of congruence gents.

Also, how many of y'all make more than USD 10,000,000 in a year anyway?

But muh 4D chess (and implicit white identity politics).

Anyway, I'm an actual New Yorker and the response to the Amazon deal being pulled has been mostly anger. AOC keeps citing crumbling MTA, but MTA has $31 billion of debt on its balance sheet. If after $31 billion the MTA is still mismanaged, throwing more money at it ain't gonna be the solution.

Post: #358

The MTA has been a mess for decades. It's always going to be mismanaged.

Anyway, if any of you guys are interested in some more "next level" stuff as this all unfolds, I recommend taking a look at "the Keys to the White House." It has a remarkably accurate track record of predicting presidential elections, including 2016.

It's one of the things I keep track of when determining one of my own Stumped persuasion factors - the pendulum idea. If you consider politics a marketplace just like any other, the Keys are a good way to determine the market the candidate will need to sell to and whether a pendulum has formed against a certain party.

The basic idea is that if the incumbent party in the White House has five unfavorable keys or less, the incumbent party will win. If there are six or more unfavorables, the challenger will win.

This is extremely early, so I'll really be looking more closely once the summer is over and we have more of an idea, but here's where things basically stand as of now.

Quote:1. After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.

The GOP lost 40 seats. Unfavorable to Trump.

Quote:2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.

This is defined as there being a challenger that gets 1/3 of the delegates to the convention. This is extremely unlikely even if someone like Kasich runs. Favorable to Trump.

Quote:3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.

Last I checked, "muh Russia" and other impeachment fantasies have still yielded no fruit. Call me crazy, but after nearly 3 years of "investigations," they're unlikely to do so. Favorable to Trump.

Quote:4. Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.

This is a possibility. TBD.

Quote:5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.

So far, so good. Favorable to Trump.

Quote:6. Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

So far, so good. Favorable to Trump.

Quote:7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.

Aside from some minor tax adjustments (albeit with major effects), this has been a disappointment, in my opinion. Unfavorable to Trump. *We'll wait to see what Lichtman himself says.

Quote:8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.

"RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" Unfavorable to Trump.

Quote:9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.

It's evident that "muh Russia" failed. Call me crazy, but I don't think it's suddenly going to hit a walk off grand slam in the bottom of the 9th, and failing that, there's nothing else. Favorable to Trump.

Quote:10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

So far, so good. Favorable to Trump.

Quote:11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

Halfway through the game, the ISIS caliphate has been destroyed, Trump has successfully renegotiated NAFTA, is probably going to put a trade deal with China together, and is making serious progress in the Korean peace process. The finishing touches still need to be put on the trade deals but they'll likely go through, which is significant enough. The Korea stuff would only add to the bounty. Favorable to Trump.

Quote:12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

Trump is many different things. Uncharismatic is not one of them. Favorable to Trump.

Quote:13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

TBD, albeit, all of the people in the game so far are charisma vacuums. Sanders is the best they have and that's not a good place to be.

Initial tally:

3 unfavorables, 8 favorables, 2 TBD.

What does all of this suggest? That Trump is in a good place and will be difficult to defeat, because there isn't a clear marketplace that's formed against him in a presidential contest that a challenger would need to sell to.

On the factor of persuasion, it's made worse because all of them so far are shitty salespeople.

TL;DR

Forget all the "horse race" bullshit. As things stand on the actual fundamentals, Trump is going to be difficult to defeat, though the actual votes will be close.

Post: #359

The Keys to the White House is kinda silly but interesting to think about and analyze as a talking point. But being a "predictor" isn't very accurate because some of the closer elections have been very arbitrary with the Keys. Its easy to predict things with 20/20 vision looking back the past 30 years. Its much harder to predict things going forward and analyzing voter turnout by each state. In addition, bad candidates often doom turnout such as "old" McCain and "fire-everyone" Romney, or "avoid-Midwest states" like Hillary. Usually the losing candidates are flawed and unlikable.

Post: #360

Lichtman (the guy who created the theory) has used the keys to actually predict elections sometimes years in advance though, so he's not just using hindisght. Yes, much of the time the losing candidates have shit campaigns (which I wrote about in my own book three years ago) but what the keys are most accurate about is in predicting the mood of the market, so to speak. For example, in 2008 there was no way any Republican was going to win. Didn't matter how good the campaign was. The recession and Bush's foreign policy failures doomed any potential candidate.

Could it have been different in 2012 with a better GOP candidate? I'd wager so, but the market for Obama was looking good.

I look at a combination of the market and the salesman. The keys are a demonstrated accurate way of predicting how the market looks, but they won't tell you the vote margin.

Post: #361

(02-24-2019 11:19 PM)Libertas Wrote:  Lichtman (the guy who created the theory) has used the keys to actually predict elections sometimes years in advance though, so he's not just using hindisght. Yes, much of the time the losing candidates have shit campaigns (which I wrote about in my own book three years ago) but what the keys are most accurate about is in predicting the mood of the market, so to speak. For example, in 2008 there was no way any Republican was going to win. Didn't matter how good the campaign was. The recession and Bush's foreign policy failures doomed any potential candidate.

Could it have been different in 2012 with a better GOP candidate? I'd wager so, but the market for Obama was looking good.

I look at a combination of the market and the salesman. The keys are a demonstrated accurate way of predicting how the market looks, but they won't tell you the vote margin.

DId your book get sold in paperback? What is the title, I'll check it out. But I think as far as predictions go, its more important to know the polls, and voter turnout, as a predictor of winning. The higher the voter turnout by state will determine the winner (by electoral colllege). Yeah, Trump had a lot of momentum and charisma, but Hillary lost a very close election. If Hillary got alittle more turnout in Michigan and PA she would have won despite being a bad candidate. The Keys are a good talking point, but its fluff. The most important thing is really voter turnout and voter enthusiasm. Obama and Trump both had high turnouts for their campaigns based mostly on cult of personality and individual charisma.

Post: #362

I know and the thing about it is that voter turnout is often based on a pendulum swing, which is why it's rare that one party holds power for too long. The keys are a useful tool in determining whether there's a pendulum and how strong it can potentially be. That's essentially the marketplace that a candidate will need to sell to. Obama in 2008 and Trump in 2016 both had strong pendulums on their side, which made their campaigning much more effective.

As for what I wrote, you can PM me.

Post: #363

(02-25-2019 10:49 AM)Libertas Wrote:  I know and the thing about it is that voter turnout is often based on a pendulum swing, which is why it's rare that one party holds power for too long. The keys are a useful tool in determining whether there's a pendulum and how strong it can potentially be. That's essentially the marketplace that a candidate will need to sell to. Obama in 2008 and Trump in 2016 both had strong pendulums on their side, which made their campaigning much more effective.

As for what I wrote, you can PM me.

Yeah, it seems like every 8 years there is a pendulum swing no matter what the Keys say. Its probably just the public wanting someone more exciting and newer. Or that the VP successors aren't as charismatic as the original president, and is considered a boring let down. I understand the Keys are a good talking point for the history books. But winning elections does come down more to the actual individual candidates and their turnout. Trump probably would have lost if the Stormy Daniels affair got released in October. But Hillary hurt herself seriously with the E-mail scandal and probably should have been arrested for that. I'm not sure if Biden would have won the election, but he seems more charismatic than Al Gore and GHWB Senior. Hillary did win the popular vote, so whatever here deficiencies were, she was still more popular than Trump at the national level. However, the electoral college at the state level right now favors Trump and the Republicans. But with a close election, it is possible for a Democrat to win by turning the swing states. The Democrats just need to find a candidate that can turn the swing states, and not appeal to just the coastal states.

Post: #364

Nah, if Trump survived Access Hollywood, he would have survived Stormy. The Access Hollywood thing was a lot worse. That was the only time I seriously doubted Trump. Ultimately the pendulum, Trump's persuasion, and Hillary's terrible candidacy sealed the deal.

Hillary only won the popular vote because of Commiefornia too. It went even more left than usual and that's where the difference came. Take away California and Trump wins the popular vote. Most states, even blue ones like New York, swung right.

Quote:The Democrats just need to find a candidate that can turn the swing states, and not appeal to just the coastal states.

Which they're very quickly doing the opposite of. Those debates this summer and fall are going to make for some good comedy.

Post: #365

So far, Tulsi Gabbard really stands out as a candidate. I have heard that they are trying to downplay her popularity.

She is attractive, young, smart, and is taking on some topics that the deep state doesn't like to be talked about.

Post: #366

Tulsi is getting hammered in the MSM, neocons and establishment Dems hate her, as do brainwashed anti-Russia TDS lefties. Here's that cow Meghan McCain doing her part in that demonisation:

Post: #367

Yep, the other Democrats agree: Orange Woman Bad. Vote black lady

Post: #368

(02-20-2019 06:50 PM)911 Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 03:50 AM)floor7 Wrote:  



A fan of Andrew Yang.

This guy is worth a second look, he seems like a decent candidate, at least by the Dems' standards (granted those have been abysmal). Probably the most competent of the bunch, he's got a bit of Lee Kuan Yew in him.

Being a fan of Lee Kuan Yew and what he was able to do in a single lifetime (i.e. turn Singapore from a backwater town into a major world player), I decided to watch the entire interview. For anyone that hasn't watched videos on Lee Kuan Yew and have an interest in how to build/run societies, I highly recommend looking over some videos of/about him on YouTube. Fascinating guy.

Anyhow, I really like what I saw with Yang for the most part.

Some PROS I heard:

1. He really gets it on many fronts; especially how the tech sector is wiping out entire industries and making out like bandits while everyone else is holding a big bag of shit. And ultimately, what this is doing to society and especially men. He gets that if you destroy a ton of men economically, the society is pretty much lost.

2. His basic case on UBI is that we need it ASAP because there is no way to create enough jobs to replace what will be rapidly lost over the next several decades due to AI/automation/robots and that 12k/year will cushion the blow; giving people a lifeline to work with. Money will come primarily from streamlining welfare benefits and a VAT (valued added tax); with the intention that if companies are gonna kill massive amount of jobs, the overall society should benefit as well and a VAT will redistribute some of the gains. This makes sense even though it goes against initial intuition.

3. He emphasized on numerous occasions not just men, but how blue collar white men especially, are really getting the shaft in modern times and how the current democrat party doesn't give a shit about them.

4. Middle aged truckers and most people are not going to learn to code. Re-training into hot sectors for most people is a proven failure.

5. I dig his emphasis on how being a stay-at-home parent or taking care of an elderly parent isn't really acknowledged by modern economic standards and the measuring standards of a country's success need to change. He wants to move from GDP being the primary metric to other things that measure human well-being (suicide rates, mental health, mortality, etc).

6. Free college is stupid and won't fix anything. He says what anyone with common sense knows: we don't need more college grads; we need more vo-tech/apprenticeship training into jobs that are way less likely to be automated.

7. Regarding feasibility of implementing a UBI: it's very possible because while the government sucks at lot of things, it's pretty good at giving (certain) people money.

The CONS for me (for now):

1. The big one for me immigration. He comes from educated/professional immigrant parents and he acknowledges that they are a different profile from your typical Latin American immigrant (illegal and legal) but he wants to give a path to citizenship to illegals anyway assuming they follow certain standards like maintaining/having a clean background. Apparently, it's not practical to remove 10 million plus illegals. I disagree enormously.

From his website:

Quote:However, because of issues on the southern border, our immigration system has broken down, and we have over 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. While these individuals are generally law-abiding people who work hard and contribute to their local communities, it’s also true that they’re not supposed to be here.

[...]

Rounding up and deporting that many people is a nonstarter—it would be prohibitively expensive, disruptive and inhumane to many communities, so a pathway to citizenship must be provided (after securing our southern border, so that we don’t end up right back where we started). However, this pathway must reflect the fact that these individuals tried to circumvent our legal immigration system. It’s even more important to get this right when citizenship guarantees a Freedom Dividend.

I guess for a democrat, that's about as far right as you can go on the issue ("make them earn it" - per his website) without getting destroyed by the base.

2. He wants to do Medicare for All but where doctors get a flat salary instead. I'm just going off his website but I'd be really worried about flat salary doctors in America if the VA and military medical are anything to go by. I know those are true socialized examples with gov't workers but I'd like to see some sort of tiered model based on body fat percentage and other poor lifestyle choices.

Fat ass who abuses their body? You're paying a surcharge.

That said, Trump has done barely fuck all to fix the healthcare system. At this point, I'd rather have Medicare for All than the expensive as hell disaster we have right now.

Bottom line for me so far:

For a democrat in 2019, he is about as good as it will ever get I think. The rest of the field with the possible odd or so exception is such a hot fire cluster fuck of worthless retards; none of which are worth remotely considering at a basic level.

I could see the democrat base and a lot of crossover Trump voters getting behind his UBI deal but I would imagine by not playing the identity politics game and God forbid, acknowledging poor white people, he could be shoved to the side similarly to how Jim Webb was ignored in 2016 when he tried to acknowledge poor white people problems during the debates. As a minority advocating for medicare for all and a UBI, he might be able to overcome it though.

In such a large primary field of retards, he could come out like the semi-sensible one in the clown house if he has strong debate performances. There is also the asian-american race factor which could be a major pull for him in places like California (which moved up its primary to Super Tuesday I believe) as well as Washington state, NYC area, and other locations with significant Asian populations. Asian-Americans to my recollection have never had a serious US Presidential contender or even primary contender and with many Asian-Americans becoming more politically aware and active (ex: Harvard admissions lawsuit), it will be interesting to see how they vote when given a choice to vote for one of their own.

Whether Yang could actually win anything, it's possible. He is selling something that is rooted in genuine concerns that appeals across the entire political spectrum and even across socioeconomic classes (plenty of white collar work will be automated soon as well); while also appealing to peoples natural desire for free stuff. He has obvious high raw intelligence and if he can combine that with some charisma and strong debate performances, he could be a powerful contender.

That all said, if we are going to get stuck with a democrat super majority in the near future, which is likely the case with the demographic war largely lost from the looks of it unfortunately (excluding secession/revolt/Trump declaring martial law), I would rather someone like this Yang guy setting the tone/agenda by a significant margin vs the rest of the democrats currently running. The rest of the field makes me want to abandon ship or start a civil war if they win in 2020.

Post: #369

While I like Andrew Yang based on Black Knight's post, I can't help feel that he is running for president in the wrong country. In a place like Singapore or Japan, his message would have a much better reception, compared to the race-to-the-bottom political theater of the USA.

Most American voters are too economically challenged, easily influenced by the media, don't bother thinking, or just flat out can't see past the short term and their own immediate bubble. I wish Yang the best of luck in the face of that obstacle. He deserves a better electorate.

Post: #370

Yang says a lot of ridiculous and pie in the sky things, let alone suggest really dystopian "programs" --- and to boot he's not that honest about it. If you really listen to what he says it's hard to respect him. He's another disguised libtard idiot that hasn't really worked in the private sector doing anything of value.

As for what he's not honest about, he compares UBI to what "Milton Friedman" put forth as a negative income (tax). As far as I know, he's not calling for the dismantling of the current programs for food, shelter, education, etc. that already exists, he wants UBI on top of that. That's not the negative income idea, AT ALL. Friedman's point was to make the money at least work itself out through strategic planning and choice of certain goods, so there was at least a market aspect to support better services and goods that one might choose with this money that was so important to give as a freebie. Not to provide liquidity on top of already existing, wasteful, and unconstitutional programs.

He's a doomsayer on AI replacing people doing jobs, even mentioning sectors he knows literally nothing about.

Let's be real about his appearance too. Being a lefty with his physical characteristics confirms that he'll come off as a pussy, not an intelligent guy. He may have some reasonable or good ideas, but they are far outweighed by leftist tripe. I don't have a lot of respect for him at all after that interview, since I know several of the issues he refers to at a level way more in depth than he does.

Post: #371

I'd feel far safer with Kamala Harris as our president than some Asian technocrat.

The guy's parents moved to the US in the 1960s, his roots here are about as deep as TV Dinners.

Post: #372

(02-26-2019 11:32 AM)Kid Twist Wrote:  Yang says a lot of ridiculous and pie in the sky things, let alone suggest really dystopian "programs" --- and to boot he's not that honest about it. If you really listen to what he says it's hard to respect him. He's another disguised libtard idiot that hasn't really worked in the private sector doing anything of value.

As for what he's not honest about, he compares UBI to what "Milton Friedman" put forth as a negative income (tax). As far as I know, he's not calling for the dismantling of the current programs for food, shelter, education, etc. that already exists, he wants UBI on top of that. That's not the negative income idea, AT ALL. Friedman's point was to make the money at least work itself out through strategic planning and choice of certain goods, so there was at least a market aspect to support better services and goods that one might choose with this money that was so important to give as a freebie. Not to provide liquidity on top of already existing, wasteful, and unconstitutional programs.

He's a doomsayer on AI replacing people doing jobs, even mentioning sectors he knows literally nothing about.

Let's be real about his appearance too. Being a lefty with his physical characteristics confirms that he'll come off as a pussy, not an intelligent guy. He may have some reasonable or good ideas, but they are far outweighed by leftist tripe. I don't have a lot of respect for him at all after that interview, since I know several of the issues he refers to at a level way more in depth than he does.

A few things:

1. He doesn't say he wants to reproduce Friedman/Nixon's basic concept as a perfect copy so he isn't being dishonest. He just brings that up to illustrate that the concept has had republican support since most peoples have no idea that Nixon of all people pushed for UBI at one point. He says during the interview you can accept the current welfare benefits or the 1000/month; not that you can receive the 1000 on top of current welfare. I would have to see more details for sure but he makes it pretty clear that you wouldn't be able to double dip.

It's a valid concern with regards to having two concurrent welfare systems running but US welfare benefits are pretty paltry and restrictive by modern world standards so I would imagine many would take the 1000/month and this would lead to some consolidation/reduction in cost of current systems. No one in politics can run on ending the current system abruptly; it would be political suicide.

2. He's not a doom and gloom guy in the sense that he just spews unsupported bullshit. His platform and views are pretty well thought out and based on on the evidence and the evidence suggests that shit is gonna get real bad for A LOT of folks in the future due to tech innovation/AI/automation/etc. We have already seen massive concentration of power and wealth into the tech sector and handful of other coastal cities in part because of these innovations. There are zero indications that this is gonna get better in the long-run (short-run... sure.. you can stall a bit). Some of the problems today are due to trade policy but much of it is simply way less need for a lot of low-skilled labor due to tech innovations.

3. The "being a pussy" based on physical characteristics is a little pre-mature given how little we have seen of him in context around other people; especially when it comes to an asian since asians can appear meek/mild-manner but end up as actual shitlords behind the scenes in some cases. It's legit to think he will succumb to leftest non-sense ultimately but I heard very little (not zero but not much) in the way of leftest "tripe" during his interview.

Post: #373

(02-26-2019 12:53 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  I'd feel far safer with Kamala Harris as our president than some Asian technocrat.

The guy's parents moved to the US in the 1960s, his roots here are about as deep as TV Dinners.

That's a shame and really misguided I think.

Harris is Hillary 2.0 on steroids. A total sellout fake, only in it for herself, is a career gov't employee, is completely engulfed in SJW/identity politics and happens to also be retarded and incompetent; with the exception of attaining power... which she is good at. If she is President with a democrat congress, you will rue the day you ever said you preferred her over Yang.

Yang is basically an old-school democrat who just wants to help the middle class.

Doesn't mean you have to agree with his platform or views but to say you'd take Harris over Yang... that's absurd.

Post: #374

(02-26-2019 01:07 PM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

(02-26-2019 12:53 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  I'd feel far safer with Kamala Harris as our president than some Asian technocrat.

The guy's parents moved to the US in the 1960s, his roots here are about as deep as TV Dinners.

That's a shame and really misguided I think.

Harris is Hillary 2.0 on steroids. A total sellout fake, only in it for herself, is a career gov't employee, is completely engulfed in SJW/identity politics and also happens to also be retarded and incompetent; with the exception of attaining power... which she is good at. If she is President with a democrat congress, you will rue the day you ever said you preferred her over Yang.

Yang is basically an old-school democrat who just wants to help the middle class.

Doesn't mean you have to agree with his platform or views but to say you'd take Harris over Yang... that's absurd.

Oh, I'm certainly not a fan of Harris. But if my son ran for president of Taiwan, he'd rightfully be laughed out of the room. No one would take him seriously.
People should be governed by someone from their own culture, and Yang isn't a part of our culture. He has no roots here whatsoever.

Post: #375

(02-26-2019 01:18 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(02-26-2019 01:07 PM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

(02-26-2019 12:53 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  I'd feel far safer with Kamala Harris as our president than some Asian technocrat.

The guy's parents moved to the US in the 1960s, his roots here are about as deep as TV Dinners.

That's a shame and really misguided I think.

Harris is Hillary 2.0 on steroids. A total sellout fake, only in it for herself, is a career gov't employee, is completely engulfed in SJW/identity politics and also happens to also be retarded and incompetent; with the exception of attaining power... which she is good at. If she is President with a democrat congress, you will rue the day you ever said you preferred her over Yang.

Yang is basically an old-school democrat who just wants to help the middle class.

Doesn't mean you have to agree with his platform or views but to say you'd take Harris over Yang... that's absurd.

Oh, I'm certainly not a fan of Harris. But if my son ran for president of Taiwan, he'd rightfully be laughed out of the room. No one would take him seriously.
People should be governed by someone from their own culture, and Yang isn't a part of our culture. He has no roots here whatsoever.

He was born and raised here. He has roots. Dude went to a high end prep boarding school; he didn't grow up in some ghetto asian enclave having his ethnic background values constantly reinforced. His parents came legally and were educated professionals; they didn't cross the border illegally and didn't learn the language. He has a stay at home wife with kids and sold a company. I would say he is part of American culture.

Furthermore, how have all those people who have deeper roots here worked out thus far?

Trump has pretty deep roots - jury is still out but he basically punted on his signature campaign promise: immigration reform

Bushes have pretty deep roots - fucked us good with stupid wars among other things.

Clinton's have pretty deep roots - fucked us good with all kinds of corporate selling out (repealing Glass-Steagall, signing 1996 Telecom Act and NAFTA, etc)

Reagan had pretty deep roots - signed amnesty for illegals and fucked us good on the demographic front.