Andrew Yang to Launch a Third Party

[Santti]

*chuckles*
Define scientism.

It has definitely nothing to do with PC's belief in Star Trek technology fixing everything in the future. Nope. No projecting, here.

[PC2]

because research was done by...wait for it... fucking scientists.

Exactly, the people who did the research and rigorous testing are the scientists. A lot of doctors don't do that though, which is 100% fine.

Science IS both descriptive and prescriptive.

It's neither. If something is purely descriptive and not explanatory then it's not science.

[Egomaniac]

If you don't want to hear how useless your idea is then have less useless ideas.

To be fair, he can have as many useless ideas as he wants. What he needs to do to not hear about how useless his ideas are is to stop talking about them.

"Better to remain silent and appear a fool than to speak and remove all doubt"

[PC2]

To be fair, he can have as many useless ideas as he wants. What he needs to do to not hear about how useless his ideas are is to stop talking about them.

"Better to remain silent and appear a fool than to speak and remove all doubt"

You don't even have an argument and can't even form a counter-argument and yet I'm the fool? Come back when you actually have an argument and want to debate an issue.

[Shadowferal]

It has definitely nothing to do with PC's belief in Star Trek technology fixing everything in the future. Nope. No projecting, here.

Projecting...yes.
And predictive...like a crystal ball.

[Calfredd]

Come back when you actually have an argument and want to debate an issue.

Hypocrites shouldn't throw stones in their glass houses.

[PC2]

Hypocrites shouldn't throw stones in their glass houses.

Can you be more specific about what you are referencing?

[Glorious Leader]

Exactly, the people who did the research and rigorous testing are the scientists. A lot of doctors don't do that though, which is 100%

Aside from the fact that scientists can also literally be doctors you seem to miss the fucking point. Deliberately I think but I'll give this one more try. The scientists research the problem AND the correction I.e the description and the prescription. If you don't think science can be prescriptive than pharmacology is basically voodoo...

[PC2]

Aside from the fact that scientists can also literally be doctors

Yeah if they want to be.

Deliberately I think but I'll give this one more try. The scientists research the problem AND the correction I.e the description and the prescription.

"Description" isn't great in science though because a description doesn't have to clarify causation. Most descriptions are just raw data. As far as "prescription" science simply can't tell us what we should do. If there is a person who is a doctor and a scientist and they figure out a disease and the cure then that most likely means they have created scientific knowledge. However there is no such thing as scientific knowledge that tells you what you *should* do with scientific knowledge, because that is always determined by human values. Not science.

If you don't think science can be prescriptive than pharmacology is basically voodoo...

Nope, progress in pharmacology comes from explaining biology and drugs. ​There's nothing prescriptive about pharmacology and if there was it would merely being a human being imposing their personal opinion and goals onto the discipline

[Egomaniac]

You don't even have an argument and can't even form a counter-argument and yet I'm the fool? Come back when you actually have an argument and want to debate an issue.

Hey, I was defending your right to have as many useless ideas as you want.

[gondrin]

This is the past, present and future path of Yang :

Democratic Presidential Nominee - Failed to win
Mayor of NY - Failed to win
Third Party - Failed to win
Dancing with the stars - Failed to win

So, outside of the last point, he has now become Ralph Nader 2.0. At least Nader got some legislation passed that helped people like seatbelts in cars and stuff like that.

[Shadowferal]

Nope, progress in pharmacology comes from explaining biology and drugs. ​There's nothing prescriptive about pharmacology and if there was it would merely being a human being imposing their personal opinion and goals onto the discipline

Like how "herd immunity" originated.

[Milchshake]

Remember kids, most "independents" are just Republican's with a rebranding strategy.

Andrew Yang's first move as an "independent" was to run straight to America's most prominent white supremacist for a pat on the back.





"Look Tucker, you're a parent, i'm a parent. You think immigrants are a dirty plague on society, I will overlook that if you give me attention."

[Edge-]

But did they talk about their favorite place in NYC?

[JohnBrown1917]

It has definitely nothing to do with PC's belief in Star Trek technology fixing everything in the future. Nope. No projecting, here.

Glad to see he is coming around to Star Trek's socialist utopia.

[Doctor Amadeus]

If true, sounds like Yang doesn't understand the issue with "Winner Take All", the Electoral College, and Spoiler Votes.

You HAVE to fix those issues before 3rd parties ever hope to do anything but get the least wanted option elected.

What you don't seem to grasp or understand is that more political parties doesn't do anything more than what you are complaining about. Being a citizen of both Canada and the U.S and having relatives in Canada voting now between NDP, Liberals and Conservative or Green, trust me coalition government doesn't make for a more superior method than a 2 party system. Since what makes a 2 party system successful requires people coming together anyways.

Which is in fact what the main point is in politics.

Personally I support Andrew Yang, He might just appeal to those unhappy with both Parties and willing to do the work from the ground up.


However here is the Forward Parties core mandates what do you think?


Political positions
Six-core principles
The Forward Party is focused on its six-core principles: open primaries, ranked-choice voting, fact-based governance, universal basic income, human-centered economy, grace and tolerance, and modern effective government. The Party does not take a stand on many social issues.

Bureaucracy
Modernization of government
Policy decisions that are fact-based
Regulation of former members of Congress from becoming lobbyists
Economic issue
Enactment of universal basic income
Reformation of the economic system based upon human-centered capitalism
Individual rights
Assertion of data as a property right
Term limits
Institution of 18-year term limits for members of Congress
Voting and electoral reform
Elimination of big money in politics
Expansion of open primaries
Implementation of ranked-choice voting
Use of redistricting commissions to avoid gerrymandering

[Fugus]

@Doctor Amadeus

Not entirely. A 2 party system doesn't require people to come together as one party will eventually get control at points in time and just steam roll what they want through.

Just look at our last 3 Supreme Court Justices shoved through, look at how they shoved lower court appointments through with reckless abandon even when they weren't qualified and against the objections of the senators of the states they were being appointed to with lifetime appointments with some of them never even having worked in a court room before being appointed to lead it.

Having more viable parties isn't a cure all, but it is a massive improvement as it requires them to except that they will have to work together and it makes it where the donors can't just throw everything into 2 parties to buy it all out like in the US where the Democrats are spineless while the Republicans are ruthless when it comes to getting what they claim they want.

Having a party that doesn't take a stand is still an improvement between 2 parties who refuse to take a stand and will actually prevent anyone else who will take a stand from getting into power in the first place as they are the gatekeepers.

Just look at what the DNC after AOC won and changed their rules to prevent others like her from getting power.

While having 6 parties doesn't fix everything, I would still take it over a 2 party system 10 times out of 10.

[Doctor Amadeus]

@Fugus

The problem is that in any group party or organization there are going to be mandates, charters and ideas which they operate, which is why such political parties or organizations exist. The role of government and the job of the person running for it are ultimately about the over all good of the country, but an elective representations is exactly that.

And as people go, so to does the government, warts and ugly and all.

The point is just like Rank Choice voting, I am against it as much as I am against the ideas that while government officials are required to act a certain way towards the general public. Parties should not.

The leader of the KKK is NOT going to serve my interest, PERIOD. So it doesn't matter if Candace Owens is or isn't allowed as their representative and by that same line of thought we don't ever need a KKK party, just as we really don't need a green or any other party in theory.

Again I am not opposed to a 3rd party, but not for the reasons you suggest because the reasons you suggest aren't valid. If one doesn't agree with a party platform they shouldn't use it to run.

It's fine to run for a 3rd party or no Party, but at the end of the day should one get elected whether they represent one group or another they still have to work with other representatives to get what they want.

Meaning as I said, more parties just mean more division and a divided representative government relying on coalitions is NOT a better government. You should do more research on countries like the U.K or Canada more parties can lead to the same kind of dysfunction just in more critical ways.

[Fugus]

@Doctor Amadeus

Mandates aren't really an issue if that group can largely be excluded from the majority to prevent them from pushing them above all else. Something you can't do in a 2 party system. And in our 2 party system, the good of the nation has largely taken a complete backseat to a single party trying their best to keep that power for themselves against the will of the people, something that really would be MUCH harder if there were 6 parties here and they wouldn't likely get a flat out majority in all but the most extreme situations.

It's NOT fine to run as a 3rd party in the United States due to how our system is setup. There have been exactly ZERO 3rd party presidents in US history and VERY few 3rd party seats in congress or senate.

Ranked choice voting is vastly superior to first past the post due to obvious reasons. Using your KKK example, when you have 2 parties and one of them is actively endorsed by the KKK and pushing KKK policies, its hard to keep them out of power when they are also pushing the religious voters and their policies (Which also end up being racist many times) and also pushing the pro-corporate stuff (Which also benefits from the racism due to having an unprotected group of labor to exploit).

Your choice is the KKK party and the Spineless party. Third party? Enjoy getting the KKK elected because that was a vote that didn't go towards the Spineless party.

Divided representation also means divided power so they can't be so hamfisted as the Republicans have been proven to go and so you can vote out some policies while still supporting others.

6 parties aren't a cure all, I agree with you on that, but 6 parties is still more representative and harder to bribe and corrupt than 2 parties. They can be bribed and corrupted but it also takes much more effort to do so and they know that if they try and screw around for power, they can quickly loss voters to the other groups. Something they don't have to do in a 2 party system.

- - - Updated - - -

In a 2 party system, many views are flat out shut out, even if the majority supports them because neither party wants to adopt them or actively push for them.

With a ranked choice, you can vote for those views without it being a spoiler leading to the worst option. Then the others need to start adopting those policies too to keep those voters as just lip service and the fact that the other side is worse will no longer be enough to cut it.

[Shadowferal]

From reading a reference to "Wirt's Third Leg" and the thread title conflated to;
"Andrew Yang to launch a third wang"
...yeah... I know

Umm...no, I'm not a blizzard employee..just an fyi.