Wang Chung Wu Tang Clan Thread

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
12,267
16,525
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
This is a fucking reach, man.
How so, it’s a legitimate comparison, signature drives, by their very nature, are meant to play on emotion. I’ve been approached many times for a signature, including impeaching wjc, gbjr, bho and djt. I’ve never signed one but I listened to their impassioned plea, I was also asked to sign a signature to keep Tahoe blue, hey man you want Tahoe kept clean don’t you, sure I do, do you mind if I read the measure before I sign, well it’s just a bunch of legal stuff, ok I’ll take my chances reading it. Turns out they wanted to ban all gas engines from the lake. Asinine at its core. So someone asks you if you’d support a candidate who’s going to institute a tax on yahoo google amazon etc... and then he’s going to give you $1000 month free and clear - unless of course you get more than that already in which case to paraphrase bho, if you like your handouts you can keep your handouts. Ok who is the candidate, Andrew Yang, who’s he, he’s a tech entrepreneur, both of which are demonstrably untrue, I don’t know who he is, well we’re just gathering signatures for the ubi so all the democrats will get behind it. That’s not a reach at all, did it happen, don’t know but riddle me this Batman, why did some of the documents have the required information but the vast majority not.
I’m not anti Yang I’m anti anyone who wants to give away more of my money and none of the other dems had an issue but this one did, sorry not buying it. Having said that I certainly could be wrong and this could be entirely innocent. No ridiculous emojis necessary I firmly understand I could be off base.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
28,045
32,665
1,743
oklahoma city
Again, your claim is that they were devious enough to fool people into signing a blank petition but then too stupid to write the name in after the fact just doesn’t make sense.

A campaign oversight amongst all the things a campaign is doing is bad and probably the death knell of a long shot campaign like this. The idea that they tried to trick their way into the ballot but then didn’t fill in the name afterward while focused on their own illegal activities is simply tin foil hat stuff.

And, if you had researched more than everyone else as you claim, you would know exactly why there were some with sigs and some without.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
12,267
16,525
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
Again, your claim is that they were devious enough to fool people into signing a blank petition but then too stupid to write the name in after the fact just doesn’t make sense.

A campaign oversight amongst all the things a campaign is doing is bad and probably the death knell of a long shot campaign like this. The idea that they tried to trick their way into the ballot but then didn’t fill in the name afterward while focused on their own illegal activities is simply tin foil hat stuff.

And, if you had researched more than everyone else as you claim, you would know exactly why there were some with sigs and some without.
I didn’t claim the campaign was devious, I’m sure they hired dozens of people gave the clipboards and incentivized them to get signatures for their campaign. I also expect those people are true believers in yangs handouts just like I’m sure bernies and warrens people believe in their socialist policies based on a limited understanding of the suffering these policies have created worldwide, ie we haven’t done socialism right and it’ll be different this time.
When you talk to those people you typically, not always, find that they know the sound bites of the candidate but understand nothing about the candidate (in Yangs case if he makes the final stage of dem primaries it’ll probably come out that the company that he ostensibly gained his wealth from selling was purchased by the patent company of slate or that his tech start up, which he didnt start is now in it 20th year of existence and is a robust $2.5M in sales once the candidates take him seriously the dnc will tear him apart as I posted earlier neither tech nor entrepreneur) or the why and how of the policy beyond the aforementioned sound bites.
I also acknowledged that it’s possible that while some documents were correct while others weren’t, while very strange could also be innocent mistakes.
None of this makes anyone bad, doesn’t make them stupid it makes the manipulable.

My overlying position is most people are easily manipulated and have no desire to understand anything that would challenge what they believe.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
12,267
16,525
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
That quote seems quite ironic with your positions in this thread but I certainly agree with the statement.
How’s that, I disagree with the ubi, that’s the basis for your accusations, that’s fine, I didn’t say it was evil incarnate, I disagree with involuntary redistribution of wealth, regardless of what it’s called, I also acknowledged that a ubi if properly proceduralized could be advantageous, what I then pointed out is that how Yang has proposed the ubi won’t work he’s ignoring that the state owns welfare not the fed and I’ve read what he’s proposed.
I’ll give him credit, he’s open about $$ buying votes instead of using indirect $$ to buy votes. I also pointed out he’s neither of the things he’s being publicized as, if he is the one publicizing himself this way then he’s at best disingenuous, if he’s just riding the pr wave of the media then I don’t blame him.
I’m a proponent of knowledge and decisions based on that, sound bites while fun, are not knowledge.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
28,045
32,665
1,743
oklahoma city
How’s that, I disagree with the ubi, that’s the basis for your accusations, that’s fine, I didn’t say it was evil incarnate, I disagree with involuntary redistribution of wealth, regardless of what it’s called, I also acknowledged that a ubi if properly proceduralized could be advantageous, what I then pointed out is that how Yang has proposed the ubi won’t work he’s ignoring that the state owns welfare not the fed and I’ve read what he’s proposed.
I’ll give him credit, he’s open about $$ buying votes instead of using indirect $$ to buy votes. I also pointed out he’s neither of the things he’s being publicized as, if he is the one publicizing himself this way then he’s at best disingenuous, if he’s just riding the pr wave of the media then I don’t blame him.
I’m a proponent of knowledge and decisions based on that, sound bites while fun, are not knowledge.
This very post is full of exactly "How's that?" The most obvious is your concern about the redistribution of wealth in a country that has clearly been undergoing massive redistribution of wealth since well before we were born. That redistribution has escalated in recent decades based on government policies and fundamental changes in corporate ethics. Of course, that term is only considered for certain redistributions, not others. But, nah, no manipulated thought there.

And, the politically enlightened always find themselves extremely picky about policy change and look for any perceived flaw to magnify to show again, that they are the knowledgeable ones. But, the reality of that position is the same as someone looking at a restaurant menu and saying, "Pfft, no way am I going to eat that salad and baked fish! That salad has croutons which are full of carbs and fat. I also heard fish can have mercury. No, this meal is obviously unacceptable for my health!" The response being, "Ok, sir, in that case here is the burger and fries that you have ordered every time you have been here in the past decade then."

The one consistency in politics is that most people don't see it as simply a difference of opinion on the best way forward. Most people think that their opinion is the truth and the others are easily manipulated/lacking in desire to understand per your words or stupid/ignorant/selfish/ lemmings and so on per the words of others.

Of course, every single one of us is manipulated. The way you are attempting to put yourself and your opinions on some pedestal of knowledge unfettered by the manipulation that the rest of us succumb to is, well, ironic.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
28,045
32,665
1,743
oklahoma city
Medium




This is a long article written by a liberal that is full of buzzwords that would be hated around here like "most progressive." But, it details part of why my pragmatic side likes the idea of a UBI. If we had an ideal world where everyone took care of the people in need through charity and good works and the government was small and uninvolved I'd be thrilled, too. But, that isn't reality. Maintaining a government system that simply functions poorly because people don't like the idea of a system at all is in my opinion evil. The truth is that EVERY candidate other than Yang intends to essentially keep the welfare system the rotting cesspool of harm that it is or even worse expand the programs that already do not function well.

Excerpt:
As a rule of thumb, programs that are considered entitlements because they are contribution-based, will be earned as additional income to the Freedom Dividend. Programs that are considered welfare because they are based on low income, will mostly be offered as an alternative to the Freedom Dividend.

As one example, Anna is a single mother receiving $336 in TANF (median for household of two) and $247 in SNAP (average for household of two) for a total of $583 per month. Opting for $1,000 per month instead, she would effectively get an additional $417 per month, a 72% raise in income, unconditionally, and the conditions for her original $583 would be removed.
Question: So why provide people a choice between existing programs and the Freedom Dividend? Why not let them keep everything?


Answer: To maximize unconditionality.
Consider another recipient of existing benefits. Let’s call him Tom, and he receives $750/mo in TANF and SNAP combined. Tom is offered a job that pays $2,000/mo. Accepting this job will mean losing his $750/mo. His net income increase would thus be $1,250. That’s an increase of 167%.


Now, let’s say Tom opts for the Freedom Dividend instead of TANF and SNAP, and gets the same job offer. Instead of $750/mo, he has $1,000/mo as a starting point that doesn’t disappear with any amount of earned income. Going from $1,000/mo to $3,000/mo is an increase of $2,000, or 200%.
Finally, let’s say Tom gets to keep his TANF and SNAP on top of his Freedom Dividend and is offered the same job. In this case, in accepting the job, he would go from $1,750 to $3,000, which is an increase of $1,250, or 71%.


Between these three scenarios, there are three key takeaways. First, the scenario where the Freedom Dividend is instead of TANF and SNAP results in the greatest incentive to work. Employment makes Tom in that scenario three times better off, financially speaking. Second, the scenario with the worst incentive to work is the scenario where Tom keeps TANF and SNAP in addition to the Freedom Dividend. Tom actually has a better incentive to work in the scenario that exists today, than he would with everything stacking, because his relative increase with everything stacking would be smallest. Third, in the everything stacking scenario, in absolute terms, Tom is no better off than in the pure Freedom Dividend scenario and is objectively worse off. He still ends up with $3,000/mo, but he has to do a lot of paperwork and dehumanizing bureaucratic hoop-jumping along the way to maintain conditions compliance.

To emphasize this point, because it needs emphasizing, those who believe the entire existing welfare state should exist on top of the Freedom Dividend are demanding that we make everyone’s incentive to work even worse than the existing system already does. Because people would be lifted higher with the dividend, but then dropped the same distance upon losing their benefits as they are now, there’s even less reason to accept any form of employment. Instead of eliminating the welfare trap, it would be made into an even bigger trap. Fewer people would earn additional income, which would only serve to reduce instead of increase economic mobility.
I would argue that increased economic mobility is a progressive goal to achieve, and thus as proposed by Yang, the Freedom Dividend meets this goal better than stacking welfare on top of the Freedom Dividend. Besides enhanced mobility, another reason for welfare benefits not to stack is because of all the restrictions imposed, and the damaging effects of those restrictions.

........
Did you know that people receiving $5 per day in SNAP benefits can be forced to spend eight hours a day in a “work-search office” where if they are five minutes late they can lose their benefits? That works out to 63 cents per hour, even less if one considers the cost of getting to and from the office.
Did you know WIC can only allow mothers to purchase cow’s milk that is fat-free or low-fat, cheese that is domestic only, and eggs that are white and smaller than large? That’s the level of control these programs have over everyday decisions that non-recipients take for granted
.

According to Kate Miechkowski, a social worker who has begun asking her clients if they’d prefer to keep their conditional welfare assistance or receive an unconditional $1,000 per month instead, out of 38 asked so far, only 2 have said they’d prefer to keep their conditional benefits. One even replied that the Department of Social Services (DSS) makes them “want to blow their head off,” because of how they’re made to feel like a “shitty person.” Another said they’d work three jobs if they could, to not have to deal with it.
Why do some progressives want to continue subjecting people to such dehumanizing and humiliating treatment? Because unless people get an extra 15% per month in SNAP that prevents them from having more than $2,000 in assets, and that requires doing pretend-work eight hours a day for the luxury of the extra $5 a day they can’t even spend on hot food or diapers or hygiene products, that they’ll be worse off?
Progressives need to accept that conditional programs aren’t progressive. They are paternalistically neoliberal. The most progressive thing to do is to lift everyone up without conditions, and to remove the conditions of the cash and cash-like welfare benefits already being received. If what they’re currently receiving is more than $1,000 per month, then let them keep those benefits if they choose, but let them also opt to escape them if they choose.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
28,045
32,665
1,743
oklahoma city
Yang thinks his voters may go to Bernie during later rounds on the Iowa caucus do to overlapping support.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-supporters-may-go-to-sanders-in-iowa-caucus
Hmmm, I’m not sure if you are passing this hit piece by another candidate that owns a station purposely or if you really didn’t think about the way honest words can be twisted to give meaning that isn’t there.
First of all, the link is to a video and there is nothing in the video about this so we don’t get to hear Yang say this. Did the reporter say something like “If you had to pick one who do you think will get you support?” We know nothing other than it is written by a candidate’s team and helps their candidate. The theme is that he is about to drop when it isn’t true.

Here is non Bloomberg data. Clearly, Yang’s support is across the spectrum. The crazy thing is that the Democratic Party has to see this and has to know the Yang will get the crossover independent vote more than the others. But, they want to try to win with entrenched power, not a real winner with fresh ideas.
C9EF3D53-4420-4644-A964-5DB942BC2B8A.jpeg
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,523
5,335
1,743
Katy, TX
Hmmm, I’m not sure if you are passing this hit piece by another candidate that owns a station purposely or if you really didn’t think about the way honest words can be twisted to give meaning that isn’t there.
First of all, the link is to a video and there is nothing in the video about this so we don’t get to hear Yang say this. Did the reporter say something like “If you had to pick one who do you think will get you support?” We know nothing other than it is written by a candidate’s team and helps their candidate. The theme is that he is about to drop when it isn’t true.

Here is non Bloomberg data. Clearly, Yang’s support is across the spectrum. The crazy thing is that the Democratic Party has to see this and has to know the Yang will get the crossover independent vote more than the others. But, they want to try to win with entrenched power, not a real winner with fresh ideas.
View attachment 77206
Did Yang comment on this? Did he say that this was a misrepresentation?
The quote attributed to Yang was specifically for the later rounds of the Iowa Caucus while you are posting results of a reported national poll about supporting the eventual party nominee.

I looked at the Emerson College Polling site and can't find the poll you posted. I also checked their tv partners website and couldn't find the poll. However, the tv station did have this story posted on Friday that has Yang saying the same thing the Bloomberg article stated.

“Right now we have no guidance for our caucusgoers who don’t find us to be viable,” he said, downplaying his ability to direct his voters toward any specific candidate, even if he wanted to.

“The people that support my campaign are very diverse in their leanings,” he added. “I frankly think I’d have a hard time getting them to do anything that they weren’t naturally inclined to do.”

Yang conceded that Sanders, if anyone, might be best-positioned to inherit his support. And there was anecdotal evidence suggesting Yang was right.


https://whdh.com/news/politics/voters-2nd-choices-could-be-decisive-in-close-iowa-caucuses/
 
Last edited:

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
28,045
32,665
1,743
oklahoma city
Did Yang comment on this? Did he say that this was a misrepresentation?
The quote attributed to Yang was specifically for the later rounds of the Iowa Caucus while you are posting results of a reported national poll about supporting the eventual party nominee.

I looked at the Emerson College Polling site and can't find the poll you posted. I also checked their tv partners website and couldn't find the poll. However, the tv station did have this story posted on Friday that has Yang saying the same thing the Bloomberg article stated.

“Right now we have no guidance for our caucusgoers who don’t find us to be viable,” he said, downplaying his ability to direct his voters toward any specific candidate, even if he wanted to.

“The people that support my campaign are very diverse in their leanings,” he added. “I frankly think I’d have a hard time getting them to do anything that they weren’t naturally inclined to do.”

Yang conceded that Sanders, if anyone, might be best-positioned to inherit his support. And there was anecdotal evidence suggesting Yang was right.

https://whdh.com/news/politics/voters-2nd-choices-could-be-decisive-in-close-iowa-caucuses/
How would I know if he said it? That video also shows nothing of him saying it so was probably just rebroadcasting the Bloomberg crap. I suspect unlike the other candidates he was pushed into answering and then it was quoted as a straightforward comment so that people like yourself could spread it around. Look at the sentence above the bullshit you bolded where he says his followers are diverse. Then the word “conceded” which means that the Bloomberg operative asked enough times that Yang gave in because the fake reporter had a theme he wanted to spread.

Look at the media saying it is a race of 5 when Yang and Klobuchar are neck and neck in most polls. It would be full-time work for him to comment on every misrepresentation or omission. Frankly, you usually are on the up and up even when we disagree and it is pretty disappointing that the only post you brought to this thread is this absolute bullshit.

And, yes the data is on the Emerson site if you bothered to look on the day that is listed on the screenshot. But innuendo and agenda clearly matters more than truth these days do better to hint I am lying that seek the truth.

26DAA648-B91E-49D7-A3FA-8ADAD6EB5956.png
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,523
5,335
1,743
Katy, TX
How would I know if he said it? That video also shows nothing of him saying it so was probably just rebroadcasting the Bloomberg crap. I suspect unlike the other candidates he was pushed into answering and then it was quoted as a straightforward comment so that people like yourself could spread it around. Look at the sentence above the bullshit you bolded where he says his followers are diverse. Then the word “conceded” which means that the Bloomberg operative asked enough times that Yang gave in because the fake reporter had a theme he wanted to spread.

Look at the media saying it is a race of 5 when Yang and Klobuchar are neck and neck in most polls. It would be full-time work for him to comment on every misrepresentation or omission. Frankly, you usually are on the up and up even when we disagree and it is pretty disappointing that the only post you brought to this thread is this absolute bullshit.

And, yes the data is on the Emerson site if you bothered to look on the day that is listed on the screenshot. But innuendo and agenda clearly matters more than truth these days do better to hint I am lying that seek the truth.

View attachment 77248
You can think that I am trying to call you a liar, which isn't the case...went 6+ pages deep into the Emerson polling without seeing this poll (http://emersonpolling.com/polls/). Went to the TV station website looking for it...all to see if it was national or Iowa poll. As you know, there are things about Yang I like but many more that I don't. It's not personal with you or your support, the Bloomberg piece was interesting, that it is mirrored in reporting by Emerson's partner is more interesting. Your reaction to anything seemingly anti-Yang is almost over the top.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
28,045
32,665
1,743
oklahoma city
You can think that I am trying to call you a liar, which isn't the case...went 6+ pages deep into the Emerson polling without seeing this poll (http://emersonpolling.com/polls/). Went to the TV station website looking for it...all to see if it was national or Iowa poll. As you know, there are things about Yang I like but many more that I don't. It's not personal with you or your support, the Bloomberg piece was interesting, that it is mirrored in reporting by Emerson's partner is more interesting. Your reaction to anything seemingly anti-Yang is almost over the top.
There are things you like about Yang and there are things you don’t? Yet the only thing about Yang that you found interesting enough to post in a six page thread about his policies and campaign is a Bloomberg piece where they quoted him “conceding” that while his backers are diverse that if forced he thinks Sanders would benefit the most. THAT is what you thought was the important thing about Yang to finally post after 6 pages? Honest discussion of his policies, good or bad, fine. But this was simply political smear.

To me, coming into this thread with that nonsense is over the top. Where is the post about “the things you like?” I mean, I don’t expect anyone to agree with everything but surely if you are truly ambivalent and your intention was not to come on a very conservative board and show that “Hey, look, Bloomberg says he is Bernie in disguise!” you could have found something else worthy to show it.

And, here is his comment on it, in his typical manner.
1FF321A5-72E3-4423-8098-194301C5C314.jpeg
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,523
5,335
1,743
Katy, TX
We had our discussions on Yang when you first started supporting him before you created a thread about him; discussed what I liked, what I didn't and why I thought his numbers were off.

I didn't know it mattered when or how often I posted in this thread, especially a recent news item that concerned comments on the Iowa Caucuses. It was interesting, this seemed like the appropriate place to post the story since this is the ONLY thread discussing Yang.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
28,045
32,665
1,743
oklahoma city
We had our discussions on Yang when you first started supporting him before you created a thread about him; discussed what I liked, what I didn't and why I thought his numbers were off.

I didn't know it mattered when or how often I posted in this thread, especially a recent news item that concerned comments on the Iowa Caucuses. It was interesting, this seemed like the appropriate place to post the story since this is the ONLY thread discussing Yang.
Any discussion we had was in the AV and not accessible to many of the people on this board so they don't see any of that.

Likewise, I didn't know it mattered that I responded to your "news" item from a publication owned by another candidate. So, as I understand your position, when I make a thread to discuss a candidate, you want to be able to post in that thread things written in another candidate's newspaper without me pointing out the problems I have with that post?
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
8,747
7,040
1,743
Piedmont, OK
Watching some of Yang's town hall last night on CNN, my wife goes "You know, I don't really disagree with much of what he's said..." My reply? "Yep, and that's why he doesn't stand a chance getting the Dem nomination."
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
28,045
32,665
1,743
oklahoma city
Ok, I freely admit this video is just like a pre-season hype video for your college football team that got 6th in the conference and lost it's starting quarterback, but here it is anyway: