We're talking past each other. I'm not rehashing the "why people voted for Trump" discussion. That topic has been exhausted in this forum. There's nothing really to add on that front. But that fateful day in November 2016 is just a snapshot in time. The world did not stop turning on that day. Not sure what any of this has to do with Yang. I'm here discussing the 2020 election. My main concern is winning an election against Trump. I leave the Trump voter bashing to others because I simply see no point in it.
Fair enough. My posts weren't all that great, in truth. Am too frustrated with where we are to make consistent sense.
Looks like Elon isn't just a one issue voter for UBI. He would our first openly goth president. I think this is very important.— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 10, 2019 Referencing this trench coat mafia yearbook picture from 1992 1160260642751897600 is not a valid tweet id
One of the more unique candidate promo videos I've seen this year My heart weighs heavy tonight. "Climb to the hilltop and tell others behind us what we see. And build a society we want on the other side. The rest of you get up, its time to go. What makes you human. The better world is still possible . Come fight with me." @AndrewYang pic.twitter.com/o5Ei6vFzO0— Stay Home (@NoUHCNoUBI) August 5, 2019
Yang is running a good campaign. I doubt that Dems will accept a businessman outsider like Republicans do but he is making a go of it.
Americans don’t get each other. One way to change this - a program that sends high school seniors to visit and work in other parts of the country. They would come back with a different perspective and some new friends. 👍🇺🇸 https://t.co/Gi71xMFTJF— Andrew Yang🧢⬆️🇺🇸 (@AndrewYang) August 25, 2019 If it’s voluntary and not compulsory national service, i like it.
Attach college assistance to it? (or his freedom dividend). But that means wealthy people will not do it (since they can afford to pay full ride for college).
Yang at 5% in early states!IT’S HAPPENING #YANGGANG pic.twitter.com/Hb315QiUPq— Zach Graumann (@Zach_Graumann) August 26, 2019 Yang up to 5% in early states, and 3% nationally. He's slowly establishing himself in 5th place as the alternative to the top 4. Also these polls are likely underestimating him a bit because Yang is attracting a lot of unlikely voters that don't show up in pollster models. I'm telling you, even if Yang doesn't win, he will change the math for everyone else. Bernie is particular should be panicking because Yang's support is even younger and average donations even smaller. Yang is impacting Bernie's image as the only high energy grassroots campaign out there.
I've been supporting Yang so far, but I'm realistic that his chances are low. Since I vote in a late state, he might not be around for me to vote for, so I've been looking at the 4 frontrunners and Warren seems to be the closest to my position right now. With that said, I doubt she would pick Yang. I think the party loves the energy that Yang brings. They love the new voters and young people that are registering in the Dem party to vote. I think they also appreciate the fact that he's not running a populist campaign that smears other candidates like many other outsiders would. Yang has been positive and supportive of all the other campaigns. He's the only guy in the last debate who didn't attack anyone. But he's too much of a policy wildcard, and they don't know what to do with him yet. I think Warren will pick someone like Castro, who has also run a fairly solid and smart campaign. The party might consider Yang in the Dept. of Labor since labor displacement is one of his key issues. He also released the most detailed climate proposal I've ever seen today (still haven't finished reading it), so maybe a spot in the EPA.
Here's Yang climate plan released today. A long but fun read ... https://www.yang2020.com/blog/climate-change/ An interesting part that I've never thought of, but it makes sense. Knowing what we know today about heavy industry, we can't live in a country where environmental exploitation is privatized and the negative side effects are socialized. This clearly infringes on our rights as citizens. I think it's smart to consider constitutional amendments as potential solutions to some of our more contentious problems. I think the 2nd amendment is badly in need of a rewrite that reflects the advances in technology and the fact that the imbalance of firepower between citizens and government undermines one of the premises of the amendment. The 4th amendment also needs a major upgrade to reflect online/virtual privacy. It's a tricky subject because some conservatives also talk about amendments, like a personhood amendment for the unborn. But nonetheless the founding fathers would be scratching their heads wondering why we're not writing any new shit to deal with our new problems.
Err..."preservation" and "improvement" appear to be at cross-purposes, as well as a decent definition of...well, any, but especially the latter.
I would assume this means "improve" in the sense of "bring back to the way it was," so an extension of preservation depending on the situation. Which would be a little problematic, both practically and philosophically. Practically because you need to pick a point in time at which the environment was in its optimum state and very few are going to agree on what that is or how to do that (bring back all originally native species? Remove all human-introduced chemicals from the environment that didn't exist before that point in time? etc), philosophically because there's often an assumption that the ideal state is what the environment would be like sans humans. And, well...follow that to its end conclusion and it gets messy.
I was being semi-coy here because of the very issues you raise. Which is why not having definitions (even highly flawed ones) makes the entire idea pretty useless.
Exactly. Reminds me of how a Miwok woman went back to Yosemite Valley after the government had been managing it for many years, and she was basically like "Holy shit this place is a mess!" Her people had been doing controlled burns to keep it open, spacious, and productive, and the park service had been putting out fires virtually immediately and the vegetation was out of control. Fortunately they've started to learn that lesson with controlled burns.
Have you ever heard of these guys? Their 'zine was published in the western PA town I used to live in. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_Traitor Species Traitor is a sporadically published journal of insurrectionary anarcho-primitivism. It is printed as a project of Black and Green Network and edited by anarcho-primitivist writer, Kevin Tucker.[1 ST was initially labeled as a project of the Coalition Against Civilization (CAC) and the Black and Green Network (BAG). The CAC was started towards the end of 1999 in the aftermath of the massive street protests in Eugene (Reclaim the Streets) and in Seattle (WTO) of that year. That aftermath gave a new voice and standing for green anarchist and anarcho-primitivist writers and viewpoints within both the anarchist milieu and the culture at large. Particular media attention turned to writer John Zerzan, the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, and critical views of technology. But within this media frenzy, a number of ecological minded anarchists began to draw critical lines between each other and stepped up on their own.
Nope, but it looks like the kind of thing I really would've gotten into as an environmentally minded, misanthropic teenager (and, frankly, I still have some of that in me....).
Their one-time contributor who published articles under the name Salt The Earth used to house sit for us. He'd developed a more nuanced position by then, but your description of your teen years describe his, too.
This is true. This is a tough needle to thread. Generally I have very low regard for the effectiveness of regulatory agencies. The FDA and SEC are a joke. But a complete absence of clear rules is also problematic. I don't claim to have the answers, but I do think this set of issues should be front and centers and all options should be on the table. In an ideal world the citizens, the public sector and private sector should all be on the same side of this issue since it's in our common interest. Everything works better when there's broad consensus. This is why I think that incentives are the most under appreciated tools in government's toolbox. Maybe the easiest policy change we can enact is to simply remove all fossil fuel and heavy pollution industry subsidies on day 1, and possibly shift those incentives over into cleaner alternatives. In addition to that you can pass carbon taxes to fund remediation. This is simple stuff that doesn't require bureaucratic regulatory expansion and doesn't require heavy intervention in the private sector. It's just an incentive realignment, and this would be a logical place to start.