OK, I concede occasionally Yang makes some good points. But his crazy shyte is even crazier than Gabbard's crazy shyte.
Oh I wasn't saying he makes good points on anything, just that he has said what Gabbard has about impeachment being a boost to Trump on reelection.
His commentary on the dangers of technology are spot on but, IMO, he stops short of saying fully what needs to be done. I wish he would finish it. Why doesnt he? What is the point of pulling punches? He may never gets this large an audience for the rest of his life. He needs to take full advantage. They always talk about "making a difference," well here is his chance and he is fumbling it. And no one else on their stage has any idea what he is talking about. They are totally clueless. Which makes it all the more important.
Yang is a moron on technology. Anyone who is against it actively ignores the last 200 years of progress.
This is complete and total baloney from Tribe. Embarrassing "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all impeachments" - Art I, Sect 3, Cl 6The Chief Justice lacks authority to bar a member
Here is Yang at one of the debates discussing China and AI technology - this is the part I was referring to above. IMO, he is dead on about this. But, as I wrote above, he stops short and did not go far enough. He left out that it was AI technology from the US that got them started on this. They stole it from us, just like they have stolen so much else. Furthermore, it was Hunter Biden's company's capital that provided the AI facial recognition software the Chinese are now using on their ethic Muslim populations (Uyghurs, Hui). Maybe this is why Yang did not follow through with these thoughts? I cant say for sure. But what I do know is that it is good that at least one Democrat is willing to bring these issues up and put them on the table. This is something that we should be discussing, out in the open and in public. And I dont give a crap if the titans of US technology dont like it. They would sell your and your children down the river for a nickel. Not only that, but not a single one of the other Dems who want to be President were willing to discuss this. They had no idea what Yang is even talking about. Do you trust Joe Biden to negotiate a new technology deal with the Chinese? Or Warren or Bernie? As always, I would encourage you to think through these things yourself and come to your own conclusions. Dont let someone do that for you. Here - only from :31 to 1:20
Yang lost me with climate change being a threat Then he followed that up with praising China for subsidizing industry like that is a good thing. Then he says the US is behind because we actually got rid of a governmental agency. I also don't understand his statement about paid family leave. We already have that. What we have isn't 100% government though. Just calling for more government intervention in the economy. Then on Russia he says he would continue to push NATO more, which is what has provoked much of Russian's bad action the last decade. NATO is fine, but it doesn't need to end at Russia's Western border. Then he completely misses on the economy saying we are leaving a dark future for our children. Technology and industry are doing well, world poverty is continuing to go further and further away. The more the government stays out of the economy the better it has done and is doing for working class. All of his "answers" increase the role of government in your life. Then his says your "country" loves you which is just a substitution for government. Which is the biggest lie of the night. I don't see anything good about Yang. He is more reasonable that Warren and Sanders and Biden. But his answer to every issue is the government doing more to you, I mean "for" you. No Thanks.
I had it set to start at :31. But, regrettably, I dont know how to stop it at 1:20 - where his talk about chinese AI ends And, in any event, I think you know (or should know) i didn't post it for the sake of his positions on leave and global warming. As of matter of fact, I was complaining above that his discussion of technology was too short, that he cut it off to soon. He should have kept going. Americans need to know about these facts and this situation we find ourselves in. And how we got here. This was a great time to do that. And no one else is going to do it. None of the rest of them are remotely competent enough to discuss it. Yang is the one. But he punted. So it was a mixed delivery - good that he focussed on it, bad that he pulled his punches. As a side note, I would also love to know if he pulled off because of the Biden family connection, or not.
Good lord. I never said Yang should be elected or that he would make a good president. Nor am I suggesting anyone vote for him. He has zero chance of winning anything and I did not volunteer to chair of his campaign. So perhaps we could stop pretending like I did? What I did say was that he made one good point in a debate. He was willing to discuss technology, something the rest of them are determined to avoid. And that issue is an important one whether you recognize it or not. Thus what Yang did was a good thing. So what if it came from a guy with bad positions on everything else? At least someone forced it onto the stage. He deserves credit for that (doesnt Gabbard fall often into this same category?). You guys are twisting to avoid the actual issue at hand, which makes no sense. But whatever. Carry on I guess.
His point on technology was that it is bad and that the government should do more to control. Hard pass.
I mean do we really believe in freedom and private industry? Does anyone? Even so called conservatives. Or is the answer more subsidies, more regulations, more government involvement in our private lives?
I was merely responding to the idea that government does not do things "for" people, it does it "to" them. Had nothing to do with your take on Yang.
It seems Tribe is revered not so much for his knowledge but instead his willingness to politicize the Constitution.
The technology discussion is not necessarily over the heads of the other candidates; it's that they are so cynically ambitious that it is not a useful tool to buy votes.
Tribe is the Paul Krugman of constitutional law. He's well-credentialed, and he's respected for writing a lengthy and overpriced treatise on constitutional law back in the '70s (which any number of ConLaw professors could have written). However, like Krugman, he whored out his expertise to be a partisan hack. Most of what I'd call "reverence" comes from partisan Democrats, and it's because he almost always argues in their favor. (Of course, he also likes making money, so he has gotten some flack for representing tobacco and energy companies.)
Better answers to the issues of the working class than Yang will provide. Is Greater Productivity a Danger? | David Gordon Three Ways to Increase Workers' Wages | Gor Mkrtchian
What about better answer to Yang's positions on (1) Who owns your data? (2) The Chinese, their US-pilfered AI technology and their Hunter Biden VC'd facial recognition software used to illegally encamp their muslim minority?
JoeFan, (1) Good question. Not sure. Companies like Google own the website and servers that we are using. They using search and traffic data to better tailor adverstisements and product offerings to consumers, so that is providing some benefit to us. Their map software gives us benefit but to do that it has to track location. If Google has no way to make money off the search engine and map, they go away. The whole company goes away. Unless we as consumers are willing to pay a fee for specific services. But will enough people be willing to do that? Of course other search engines like Duckduckgo, which I use, promise not to save any of your data. Not sure if they are making money or not. It would be good to have rules for data where, there are more direct requests for your approval to collect, save, and sell. That is step 1. It gives people a choice. Step 1b could be to outlaw the selling of user data to outside firms. Not sure if I like that idea or not. Step 2 could be to have tech companies delete data after a certain amount of time. I have no idea what the reasonable amount would be. A day? A week? A year? I have no sense for what is appropriate. Not sure who would decide what the guidelines are and how they would be enforced. I don't like the idea of the government doing. But that is one way. I prefer there to be competitors who truly value user privacy and build business models where they can provide services without selling personal data. Then there are true market options where users get to choose what services they get at what price. I think the most important for me is that the government has no access to use data including phones. This will upset law enforcement. But I don't really trust the FBI or even many PDs. We all see from the Trump situation how the FISC has been corrupted. It can't be trusted. If it is illegal for companies to sell personal data to ANY governments, I'm not sure I care what else they do with it. (2) What can anyone do about something that has already happened? We can't go back in time. The Chinese government stole technology and is using it to oppress their people. My main concern is that no more governments do that. In terms of what do we do moving forward? There has to be international criticism for IP theft and oppression of minorities. It has to be loud, public, consistent, and voiced by many countries. There also needs to be a way for companies to police theft with legal punishments; heavy fines, jail, deportation, etc. The legal punishments need to go all the way to those who are receiving the data. You could tie immigration and trade to the # and severity of these infractions. For the trade aspect, I would want to be very careful to do it in a way that mitigates the harm to American citizens. The best way to do that is to start developing trade with the countries along the Indian and South West Pacific Oceans (from India to Indonesia) and Africa. Reducing trade with China can only happen without harm to Americans if trade is increasing everywhere else.
Speaking of Joe Lieberman, he is still alive. Here are his comments on recent events -- "President Trump’s order to take out Qasem Soleimani was morally, constitutionally and strategically correct ... Why can’t the [Democrat] candidates simply admit Qasem Soleimani’s death makes Americans safer?”
I'm not necessarily against us taking out this guy. I don't get the sense that this was well thought out. This is the result of us pulling out of the treaty as will be the next thing that happens in the assured escalation. To me, what is the 2nd in command in Iran doing in Iraq? Seems like that's enough to merit "danger will robinson".
