Poll of the Day > Andrew Yang has dropped out of the 2020 U.S. presidential race.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/andrew-yang-drops-out-of-presidential-race/2020/02/11/4fe2c97c-4c2c-11ea-9b5c-eac5b16dafaa_story.html

He was asked today about whether hed endorse any of the remaining candidates and he said all they have to do is come out in favor of a UBI program and hell be on the road with them

---

Mead posted...

He was asked today about whether hed endorse any of the remaining candidates and he said all they have to do is come out in favor of a UBI program and hell be on the road with them

Pretty sure Bernie would be for it, since his entire platform is basically exponentially empowering government to put their boot on peoples necks, steal their money by force, and redistribute it in return for votes. Hes a communist.

BeerOnTap posted...

Pretty sure Bernie would be for it, since his entire platform is basically exponentially empowering government to put their boot on peoples necks, steal their money by force, and redistribute it in return for votes. Hes a communist.

People having money empowers the government to be tyrants?
---

BeerOnTap posted...

Pretty sure Bernie would be for it, since his entire platform is basically exponentially empowering government to put their boot on peoples necks, steal their money by force, and redistribute it in return for votes. Hes a communist.

Is that what fox news told you to believe?

---

BeerOnTap posted...

Pretty sure Bernie would be for it, since his entire platform is basically exponentially empowering government to put their boot on peoples necks, steal their money by force, and redistribute it in return for votes

ah yes because if everyone gets more of the government money back in their pockets, theyll have less power



---

rip the only decent democrat candidate


---

Conservatives always make bernie sound so fucking cool when in reality he's barely even a democratic socialist. i would vote for pretty much any of the famous socialists/communits from american history (debs, mlk jr, angela davis, noam chomsky , etc.) over bernie. hell i would even vote for nader over bernie.

please lmk when theres a candidate who actually wants to shove billionaire's faces into the dirt with steel-toed boots and take all their money lol

---

BeerOnTap posted...

Pretty sure Bernie would be for it, since his entire platform is basically exponentially empowering government to put their boot on peoples necks, steal their money by force, and redistribute it in return for votes. Hes a communist.

Lmfao lay off the Ted cruz podcasts

---

The cold war is over, so no need to be scared of socialism because of all the propaganda about communism from back then.

---

BeerOnTap posted...

Pretty sure Bernie would be for it, since his entire platform is basically exponentially empowering government to put their boot on peoples necks, steal their money by force, and redistribute it in return for votes. Hes a communist.

oh yes stealing wallstreets hard earned bailout money is a sure sign of communism.

---

OniRonin posted...

Conservatives always make bernie sound so fucking cool when in reality he's barely even a democratic socialist. i would vote for pretty much any of the famous socialists/communits from american history (debs, mlk jr, angela davis, noam chomsky , etc.) over bernie. hell i would even vote for nader over bernie.

please lmk when theres a candidate who actually wants to shove billionaire's faces into the dirt with steel-toed boots and take all their money lol

im probably further left than bernie and im certainly not a communist. americans have no concept of what these words mean

---

I guess he doesnt need that write-in campaign in Ohio anymore...

---

BeerOnTap posted...

Pretty sure Bernie would be for it, since his entire platform is basically exponentially empowering government to put their boot on peoples necks, steal their money by force, and redistribute it in return for votes. Hes a communist.

Literally-every-single-politician believes in taxes.

"X's entire platform is basically exponentially empowering government to put their boot on peoples necks, steal their money by force, and redistribute it in return for votes. Hes a communist."

You see how that makes the exact same amount of sense? >_> You have no clue what you're talking about. You're like a parody of an American, except you are one.

---

Doesn't matter. Trump wins in 2020.

The left is imploding. They had their chance to beat him 4/5 years ago and completely blew it. They then proceeded to double down on all of the shit that has been alienating their base, guaranteeing 4 more years of the orange man they claim to hate so much.

---

It's a shame, but, like Yang himself said early in the campaign, even if he doesn't make it to the end, his ideas are out there in the public eye now, and that's an achievement in and of itself.

---

There goes my $100...

---

Seems like in the last 24 hours or so half the Internet has become very fond of Yang

---

Ok, because I don't know how American voting works.

Lets say if Yang was still in the running, that Bernie has a chance to be the front runner... but now that Yang is out all them Yang votes will go to Buttgauge... making Bernie lose.

Is that how that works?

---

BeerOnTap posted...

Pretty sure Bernie would be for it, since his entire platform is basically exponentially empowering government to put their boot on peoples necks, steal their money by force, and redistribute it in return for votes. Hes a communist.

holy cow. You need to stop listening to Rush and learn to think for yourself, dude

Berning Wang 2020

---

lol I don't know who would pick him or why.

YangBurn FTW!

---

Where do your delegates go once you drop out?

---

Ogurisama posted...

Where do your delegates go once you drop out?

by law they have to be put down

---

Ogurisama posted...

Where do your delegates go once you drop out?

A bar.

---

MrMelodramatic posted...

holy cow. You need to stop listening to Rush and learn to think for yourself, dude

Think about $1000 a month for doing nothing?
---

Revelation34 posted...

Think about $1000 a month for doing nothing?

The premise is that people don't want to do nothing with their lives, it's like paying in advance for their labour.
---

Not to mention, unless science goes horribly wrong, theres just going to be less and less jobs as time goes by, which is a good thing. UBI is eventually going to be required, it's kind of a when, not if sort of deal.

---

YoukaiSlayer posted...

Not to mention, unless science goes horribly wrong, theres just going to be less and less jobs as time goes by, which is a good thing. UBI is eventually going to be required, it's kind of a when, not if sort of deal.

thats true with a lot of progressive issues

Marijuana legalization for example. Every year more states are legalizing or decriminalizing it. Its a matter of time before it is simply legal in the US. Conservatives will draw it out for years though for no clear reason because theyve become a party of hamstringing actual societal progress in order to appease a voter base that simply refutes any type of change whatsoever

---

Mead posted...

Every year more states are legalizing or decriminalizing it.

Why are you so opposed to this?

---

Veedrock- posted...

Mead posted...

Every year more states are legalizing or decriminalizing it.

Why are you so opposed to this?

The tone of his post was approval of legalization.

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

The tone of his post was approval of legalization.

He disapproves of the method of legislation.

---

Im not in favor of a system where in some states there is no penalty for having something but in a neighboring part of the country having that same substance is enough to put you in prison and make the remainder of your life very difficult.

---

By that virtue you would be ok with it being illegal in all states too? Rhetorical, I already know your answer.

States have different laws on all kinds of subjects. It's up to them and their citizens to decide what's right for them. Why even have separate states if you want to force compliance across the board when it suits your agenda? It's not how the system is supposed to work.

---

Personally no, but the consistency would make more sense. I think that states should have some level of autonomy to make their own rules but there need to be limits so that there isnt such a drastic disparity of consequences.

---

Technically the consistency was broken by the states legalizing it though. They're the bad guys for that argument, it's still illegal federally. The states legalizing it though are responsible for the rolling changes as more and more states get on board, and eventually it'll catch on everywhere. Until then it's not right to tell everyone else they're wrong. That's the same logic that's kept these stigmas in place for so long.

It's fair to face consequences if you don't follow the law of your state. Some states don't have income tax but you better believe you'll get audited if you don't pay in a state that does. Some states allow guns in vehicles, but if yours doesn't then you shouldn't try it. You're a citizen of that state after all, not another who's laws you prefer. Same applies all the way down, there are individual city laws that don't line up with state laws and you have to follow them.

If citizens don't like their law they can mobilize to change it without having to rally outside parties to make it a federal issue. That leads to big backlash and isn't fair to those you're impressing your views on. Not to be ad hominem but you only want it because it matches your ideology.

There are definite problems with prison systems and sentencing but I don't think the solution is to make it a federal mandate. I'm a proponent of local empowerment, what good is my voice and vote if the west coast can influence everything to the top and force nationwide conformity?

---

Have you tried telling on those states, so that they get in trouble?

---

Mead posted...

Have you tried telling on those states, so that they get in trouble?

I mean, that's what happened with gay marriage right? IIRC 38 states had it legalized, 38! We were well on our way to complete acceptance. But because one state hadn't yet done it somebody ran to the supreme court to get them in trouble.

The result was a good deal of backlash. Bigots got riled up and pushed back all over, even in states that were already legalized. Remember that one courthouse bitch that became a figurehead when she wouldn't process gay marriage licenses? Fucking yikes. States starting passing laws protecting businesses that refused to service gays. Politicians campaigned on the promise to fight the ruling. Antigay rallies popped up all over. The list goes on.

It wasn't all smiles and sunshine for gay acceptance because the feds said it was ok. If they stayed out of it and allowed the rest of the states to naturally adopt it, there would have be much less "the gays are taking over" hysteria and more acceptance.

---

Yeah but what about the people hurt in the mean time that can't afford to move to somewhere that does allow it to be legal? Even local government doesn't really care about your individual interests anymore than the opposite coast. Rallying people near or far isn't much different anymore. Is it really ok to allow something that is clearly wrong to be law in any part of the united states, just because you don't personally live there?

---

Veedrock- posted...

If they stayed out of it and allowed the rest of the states to naturally adopt it, there would have be much less "the gays are taking over" hysteria and more acceptance.

That, or anti-gay sentiment would have been even more galvanized in the states that held out for the sake of sticking it to the ones that didn't, progressively making life worse and worse for gay people there as homophobes flocked to said states from other parts of the country. Federal oversight is needed to maintain some acceptable minimum standard of behaviour, and in this case that standard is to recognize gay marriage. You'll get people struggling against that, but eventually they'll get tired of it as they see that the world hasn't actually descended into amoral anarchy because a couple dudes made out once.

It is also an administrative issue. Taxes get terribly complicated if a couple temporarily stops being married if one of them goes to do some work in another state. By legally requiring that gay marriage be recognized everywhere in the country, that complication is avoided.

Veedrock- posted...

There are definite problems with prison systems and sentencing but I don't think the solution is to make it a federal mandate. I'm a proponent of local empowerment, what good is my voice and vote if the west coast can influence everything to the top and force nationwide conformity?

The thing is, some issues are universal enough that it doesn't make sense to address them 50 independent times. Especially when not addressing them is hurting people. Local cultures and lifestyles dictate a lot about which laws need to be in place, which is why so much stuff does end up being governed at a state level, but nobody should be able to bury their head in the sand and pretend that gay people aren't suffering for not being able to get married because of local culture differences.

As far as marijuana legalization goes, I actually do agree that leaving it up to states makes the most sense, but I also agree that some manner of federal intervention may be in order. The indisputable fact of the matter is that jail sentences for minor pot possession do significantly more harm than good (to say nothing of massive racial disparities in how they're enforced, which is another issue), and that doesn't change from state to state. To that end, federally mandating lesser sentences would be a good idea. Pot use, however, does require some regulation regardless of how legal it is (like alcohol), and the nuances of that are going to change based on lifestyle and cultural difference. That should be up to states (or possibly even municipalities), since they're in the best position to make judgements about those circumstances and tailor the laws to suit them.

---

Veedrock- posted...

By that virtue you would be ok with it being illegal in all states too? Rhetorical, I already know your answer.

States have different laws on all kinds of subjects. It's up to them and their citizens to decide what's right for them. Why even have separate states if you want to force compliance across the board when it suits your agenda? It's not how the system is supposed to work.

By that logic no laws should exist at all since not every citizen ever votes 100% yes or no on an issue. Also states still try to pass their own bullshit laws even when something is federally allowed. Like anti abortion laws.
---