Would you agree with this sentiment?

Would you agree with this sentiment?

> So while Yang is acutely sensitive to the way profit-seeking can destroy the lives of innocent people, he’s not a leftist. A leftist fundamentally wants to shift power and ownership. We do not want to give people a check that they can immediately sign over to their Wall Street landlord. We want them to be the lord of their own land, and to eliminate the divide between the working class and the ownership class. We think it’s everyone’s job to “figure out the social implications of what they do,” and if a thing has horrendous social implications, then you shouldn’t do it.

Attached: yang.jpg (1024x646, 81K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=b2BZyD7HdW0
twitter.com/AnonBabble

not reading it you are a jew

Yang’s principles seem fine. His problem is it’s too much too soon. Eventually policies like his will happen. But not yet.

Yang does want to shift power in the democratic process. One of his policies is "democracy dollars", where citizens are all given a certain amount of money just to support political campaigns. This is directly shifting power from billionaires to regular citizens.

I prefer sincere candidates

Israeli = Jew = Bad

you're got the cancer user. excise it

What you think OP?

Except it enshrines the idea that money should be directly convertible into political power, which entrenches the permanent power of those of lots of it.

He is not a socialist. Leftist can mean a lot of things.

I agree that money shouldn't be directly convertible into political power, however, I can't imagine money not being a source of political power in some capacity. The best we can do is enact major campaign finance reform. Hopefully, we will see Citizens United overturned in the next 10 years. What's your opinion on Medicare for All?

No. Profit redistribution, however so slight, is still a leftist ideology. It can be argued that he isn't enough of a lefty to keep up with current insanity requirements, and that I would agree with.

>1%
No gives a shit about what this chink says. Fuck off, jew.

Attached: 701191.png (354x652, 11K)

According to Twitter, 523K people give a shit. Ditch the judenhass and grow a brain

The "best" you can do is eliminate concentrations of money in hands of unaccountable individuals.
If no one is rich enough to give bribes, bribery is impossible.

Even if everyone's wealth was between $5,000 and $5,000,000, we would still have a problem with our democratic process without political spending limits. The only solution I can see is to both enact a spending limit and to give normal citizens money just for campaign donations. Otherwise, a few wealthy voices will be louder than the voices of millions.

Again, you're legitimizing the use of money as a political tool.

What alternative would you recommend? Also, what constitutes a bribe in your opinion?

That's less then 1% of the u.s population

Why do I get the feeling that CNN is going to fuck him so hard at the next debates???


>3 minutes speaking time maybe less

I'm calling this now.

I know. But it's still a lot of people. Certainly not "no one"

>523K people give a shit about yang
>but 150 million give shit about trump
hmmm numbers really dont match fuck off shill

Attached: 1561356368209.png (678x478, 454K)

The FACT of the matter is Andrew Yang is the best candidate if you're against Israel.

youtube.com/watch?v=b2BZyD7HdW0

> not a leftist
> wants to literally redistribute your income

Fuck off kike

Yang is a Chinese communist Trojan horse.