Current Events > Andrew Yang is a clown whose policies are meme-deep

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/alexkotch/status/1387780885764771845

https://twitter.com/alexkotch/status/1389193253698764800


---

I generally like Yang but yeah that's really disappointing to hear.

Like, a UBI will never be embraced unless it's actually universal. If he's not willing to cut bloat from the NYPD to actually make it work, a welfare-based UBI is gonna be a disaster.

$2000 seems like a lot too tbqh. Lowering it to $1000 would be a start.

---

Intro2Logic posted...

https://twitter.com/alexkotch/status/1387780885764771845

https://twitter.com/alexkotch/status/1389193253698764800

I've never heard of Alex Kotch in my life, so im just looking at the policies he's "calling out" and it doesn't seem that unreasonable. Policing oversight isn't necessarily tied to budget. You can increase oversight and increase budget and it isn't contradictory at all. Cops need to be better regulated, with consistent body cam usage that cannot be nullified. Starving the beast doesn't do anything other than make people feel good about nothing in instances of police abuse.


---

LostForest posted...

I generally like Yang but yeah that's really disappointing to hear.

Like, a UBI will never be embraced unless it's actually universal. If he's not willing to cut bloat from the NYPD to actually make it work, a welfare-based UBI is gonna be a disaster.

$2000 seems like a lot too tbqh. Lowering it to $1000 would be a start.

That's 2k a year

---

Duh

---

This is the type of analysis I'd expect from twitter.

Yang likes UBI, the only reason he isn't doing it in new york is because there isn't a way to make it work. You needed presidential style authority for something like that, he's not calling his New York program UBI, just that it is inspired with the same attitude and has aspirations of perhaps morphing into UBI eventually. Other people will call it UBI to him, but he does not call it that, just says that it's working with a similar aspiration in mind.

I don't know why people would be against police reform in new york.

xXfireglzXx posted...

I've never heard of Alex Kotch in my life, so im just looking at the policies he's "calling out" and it doesn't seem that unreasonable. Policing oversight isn't necessarily tied to budget. You can increase oversight and increase budget and it isn't contradictory at all. Cops need to be better regulated, with consistent body cam usage that cannot be nullified. Starving the beast doesn't do anything other than make people feel good about nothing in instances of police abuse.

Exactly, a HUGE part of the problem with police is they receive so little training. So when a officer is in a threatening situation they don't have the confidence to respond calmly. There is a story where a police station offered free jujitsu to it's officiers and incidents of violence from and towards the officers went WAY down, so much so that the cost of training was completely offset by the reduced costs from paying for hospitals for injured cops and paying for lawsuits against violent cops.

Yang is a pragmatist. Do the police piss you off? Yeah, me too. Would burning down the police station feel good? Maybe. Does burning down the police station fix anything? No.

Yang is the type of person who will choose something that will help rather than pick the thing that feels good. Which is why he is great.

---

Intro2Logic posted...

That's 2k a year

Ah. I read that wrong. Yeah that seems reasonable then.

Still really curious how he would actually fund it, outside of vague promises like "private philanthropy".

---

xXfireglzXx posted...

Policing oversight isn't necessarily tied to budget. You can increase oversight and increase budget and it isn't contradictory at all. Cops need to be better regulated, with consistent body cam usage that cannot be nullified. Starving the beast doesn't do anything other than make people feel good about nothing in instances of police abuse.

reducing police funding would mean fewer police officers available to do the abuse

---

LostForest posted...

Ah. I read that wrong. Yeah that seems reasonable then.

Still really curious how he would actually fund it, outside of vague promises like "private philanthropy".

I'm sure he has a plan, but he hasn't given too much lip service to "how do you pay for it" because what we are doing instead is costing so much more.

You don't have to worry as much about paying for something if the thing your are paying for is going to save you money in the long term, and it will on multiple levels.

---

Yeah idk, municipal ubi seems like more of a gimmick than anything. Cities just don't have the resources.

---

averagejoel posted...

reducing police funding would mean fewer police officers available to do the abuse

Or the exact same amount but with less training, time, and resources.

Also be honest, do you think New York would literally function fine if all the police went away? If there was 0 law enforcement in NY your think there wouldn't be any increase crime or problems?

Because if you acknowledge "0 police = bad time for NY" then you must understand how your logic about "Less police = better" isn't a truism.

---

joe40001 posted...

Or the exact same amount but with less training, time, and resources.

less "time" means they're working less, which mean fewer officers working at any given moment. it's functionally the same thing

Also be honest, do you think New York would literally function fine if all the police went away? If there was 0 law enforcement in NY your think there wouldn't be any increase crime or problems?

if all cops suddenly went away overnight and their funding wasn't being put to good use elsewhere? sure.

but that's not what anyone is advocating here

Because if you acknowledge "0 police = bad time for NY" then you must understand how your logic about "Less police = better" isn't a truism.

less police = more funding for social programs that help the community

---

averagejoel posted...

less "time" means they're working less, which mean fewer officers working at any given moment. it's functionally the same thing

if all cops suddenly went away overnight and their funding wasn't being put to good use elsewhere? sure.

but that's not what anyone is advocating here

less police = more funding for social programs that help the community

First of all, that's not what I mean by time.

Secondly you understand that if you have a car with a broken engine and you go to the car mechanic and ask them to remove the engine, a new one doesn't magically appear right?

If you say "remove all police" and literally don't say anything else, then yeah, that's what you are arguing for. If you think society will only work if you remove police and replace them with well defined social programs and resources, then you actually have to define those things. And unless you do you are just arguing for a world with less police, and there is no way you logically think 0 law and order is going to make for a safe NY.

---

joe40001 posted...

If you say "remove all police" and literally don't say anything else, then yeah, that's what you are arguing for.

many, many people have explained what it actually means at this point. if you're arguing against a strawman, that's your problem

---

averagejoel posted...

many, many people have explained what it actually means at this point. if you're arguing against a strawman, that's your problem

You are willfully omitting the most important part of of your argued plan.

My guess is because the plan itself can't agree with what it wants aside from "remove the police and replace them with something better."

And any plan that doesn't know it's most important element is a shitty half-baked plan.


---

Cops stopped targeting people for petty violations for a period of time in 2014 and after that crime was at all time low. The city was a lot more peaceful

The city doesn't need a ton of police officers roaming the subways they usually make things worse. Its wasteful spending

---

Tony_Biggie_Pun posted...

Cops stopped targeting people for petty violations for a period of time in 2014 and after that crime was at all time low. The city was a lot more peaceful

The city doesn't need a ton of police officers roaming the subways they usually make things worse. Its wasteful spending

You are assuming the money would go to more police and not better police.

---

2000 a year? That literally does nothing to address any of the issues he brought attention to that we supposedly need UBI to solve. What a cluster fuck.

---

Jesus, talk about worst of both worlds policies

Awful

---

joe40001 posted...

You are assuming the money would go to more police and not better police.

More funding for police officers have never improved policing.

You don't need to fund police more to fix their issues. You just need to punish them when they violate and commit crimes. The issues with then abusing their power would stop overnight if they went to jail with serious time for abusing the public's trust

---

joe40001 posted...

You are willfully omitting the most important part of of your argued plan.

My guess is because the plan itself can't agree with what it wants aside from "remove the police and replace them with something better."

And any plan that doesn't know it's most important element is a shitty half-baked plan.

I wasn't arguing a plan. you're making stuff up again.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Yang needs actual experience working in government

Also his experience in the private sector is overstated

---

averagejoel posted...

I wasn't arguing a plan.

At least we are in agreement there.

Abolish the police is not a valid plan.

---

joe40001 posted...

At least we are in agreement there.

Abolish the police is not a valid plan.

correct. it is the only valid end goal though

---

averagejoel posted...

correct. it is the only valid end goal though

Well if one could reform the police such that they were so much better that they were indistinguishable from that with which you'd replace them with that ostensibly would be an effective goal as well.

The issue is the many ways the police are flawed/bad, not their name. If all the flaws were fixed that would work.

The important thing IMO is acknowledging 'tear it all down" is not a strategy that will yield improvements, you must also design the things that will help. And honestly that's the more important part.

---

joe40001 posted...

Well if one could reform the police such that they were so much better that they were indistinguishable from that with which you'd replace them with that ostensibly would be an effective goal as well.

The issue is the many ways the police are flawed/bad, not their name. If all the flaws were fixed that would work.

no. the issue is policing itself. the flaws cannot be fixed without destroying the whole system

The important thing IMO is acknowledging 'tear it all down" is not a strategy that will yield improvements, you must also design the things that will help. And honestly that's the more important part.

it's very clearly not a strategy. abolition is the end goal. I'm not going to discuss a strategy for arriving there with someone who doesn't already recognize that the institution of the police cannot be reformed in a way that will meaningfully change the problems

---

if you cut the police budget by 5% or more you would have more than enough

averagejoel posted...

no. the issue is policing itself. the flaws cannot be fixed without destroying the whole system

it's very clearly not a strategy. abolition is the end goal. I'm not going to discuss a strategy for arriving there with someone who doesn't already recognize that the institution of the police cannot be reformed in a way that will meaningfully change the problems

I mean, nobody who saw your "performance" in the Ma'Khia Bryant topic would be foolish enough to broach the topic with you a second time. You are not to be taken seriously on the subject.

---

LostForest posted...

Ah. I read that wrong. Yeah that seems reasonable then.

Still really curious how he would actually fund it, outside of vague promises like "private philanthropy".

Probably in many of the same ways he proposed funding UBI at the national level. He'll make taking the money contingent on no longer being eligible for other forms of state aid and then cut the operating budgets for those other programs once fewer people are using them. IIRC a big part of his UBI push is to eliminate things like food stamps in favor of flat checks and then gutting the bureaucratic bloat that exists to manage those programs to offset costs.

---

xXfireglzXx posted...

I mean, nobody who saw your "performance" in the Ma'Khia Bryant topic would be foolish enough to broach the topic with you a second time. You are not to be taken seriously on the subject.

sorry for being too patient with people who can't read. I won't make that mistake again

---