Is Andrew Yang the only candidate who can repair our damaged social fabric?

Forget about his policies for a moment and just focus on his character. He is policy and solution oriented, speaks intelligently on any issue that comes up, often using data to support his arguments, and I have watched tons of interviews with this guy and I have never once seen him use any race baiting or partisan lingo.

When asked about things like impeaching trump, he just replies that we will beat him at the ballot box because that is the American way.

He dismisses the ludicrous notion that Trump supporters are all rascist, instead identifying real economic problems that got trump elected and then focusing on real world practical solutions to solving these problems.

He does not identify the republicans as his enemies, rather he sees them as partners that he is eager to work with.

He has broad appeal, his campaign is slowly picking up steam in his own party, especially among young voters, but he also is picking up support from Libetarians and center/right leaning people.

He has already earned respect among commentators from all sides of the aisle, appearing on everything from Fox and Ben Shapiro to MSNBC and David Pakman

He appears to me to be the most unifying political figure I have seen in my lifetime and in my opinion is the dems best chance to beat Trump, I would wager that he would absolutely crush Trump in a general election and that is not something that I can confidently say about anyone else.

So regardless of how you feel about his policies, I want to focus more on his character, is he what he need in American Politics today and he is the only one who can begin to bring our discourse back to something that at least resembles sanity?

Yes. I am a Yang Support and I love his message of Humanity First. He isn't excluding anyone, He isn't vilifying Trump supporters, He is trying to win over everyone and anyone. I can't begin to tell you how many posts I've read from republicans/trump supporters who have registered as democrats to vote for Andrew. I think his message works.

And a big reason it works is that what he is saying now is exactly what he was saying at the start of his campaign. He hasn't changed his tune while many other candidates have. He's a very straight-forward, what you see is what you get candidate.

“Trump is racist and you’re racist too if you voted for him! Now vote for me in 2020!”

Tell me the chances of that working when Democrats don’t outnumber Republicans by a large enough margin to make their votes irrelevant...

I'm beyond the point of caring if it's a viable political strategy. The GOP is systematically limiting minority voting power. Their elected president is telling minorities to go back where they came from.

I don't care if it hurts their feelings. They're racist, and the recent trend of racism becoming more open and mainstream in the party needs to stop now.

@joebones5000: I agree that people who still support him need to be called out but then you have the others that voted for him originally that aren't racist or sexist and regretted their vote. Those are the people you can get to jump ship. Trump won the swing states that had millions of job losses and that was something democrats largely ignored. So when you have one party being silent about it and the other saying hey, I know you got screwed over. If you were someone who lost their job, You're probably gonna side with the one actually talking about it.

And I can't even tell you the number of stories I've read from Yang supporters that were republicans, independents who voted Trump and have now registered as a democrat to vote for Andrew. People seem to forget that you need to work for everyone's vote and not just your own party. So all those people on the fence, you can sway them to your side if you actually work at it.

@mattbbpl: It would be nice of if the left actually knew what racism was and stopped throwing the word around like an upset screaming child looking for attention.

It has less to do with hurting their feelings and more to do with you assuming that you have 2020 in the bag. You need those voters if you want to make Trump a one term president and you’re not going to get them by starting a conversation with them with accusations of racism. I could see myself voting for someone like Yang, since he is actually trying to fix problems, rather than someone like Warren or Beto that keep screaming racist at Trump and his supporters. But we all know Yang won’t get the nomination because he‘s not far enough left, and it’s probably going to go to Harris or Warren (Biden is an old white man and will probably be pushed out of the race eventually).

Good luck getting rural voters that are for the most part happy in their quiet areas to listen to politicians that literally have homeless people shitting on their sidewalks but they’re too busy trying to get legislation passed that would cause de facto open borders or give illegal aliens access to Medicaid for All to notice. You could either work with the undecided people and try to show them the “right” way so you only have a year and a half left with Trump in charge, or you can go scorched earth on Trump supporters for a few extra likes on social media and watch footage of him sitting behind the Resolute Desk until 2025.

@ad1x2: I decidedly don't think it's in the bag. Not even close.

@vfighter: I'm pretty goddamned sure that intentionally undermining minority voting power qualifies.

AZ Central Opinion Article

Ignoring laws creates an open border

President Donald Trump is playing immigration politics big-time, and in an increasingly vile way. He announced immigration raids for those with deportation orders, which never materialized.

Democrats denounced them. But if we aren’t going to deport those who have had their day in court and have been ordered out of the country, who are we going to deport? And without deportation, what are the consequences for violating U.S. immigration laws?

If there are no consequences for violating immigration laws, how is that different from having an open border? At this point, what immigration laws would Democrats be willing to enforce?

Many Democrats support amnesty for most of those in the country illegally. I agree with them. But should our immigration laws be ignored until Congress so acts?

If that is how you feel, then what is more important to you? A moral victory over some people you find politically illiterate at best and morally corrupt at worst, or a electoral victory that puts a Democrat back in the Oval Office in 2021? We are assuming that you aren’t going to get both unless Trump does something catastrophically bad in the eyes of both parties between today and November 2020.

He sounds interesting had he been mud slinging free this whole time?

@joebones5000: I can't tell if your trolling or not so I'm going to leave your comment alone for now.

@mattbbpl: Congrats on drinking the Kool-Aid, I don't frequent this forum often but you generally strike me as a level headed rational thinker, such vitriol from you is a bit disappointing. Saying "they" are rascist in reference to the entire Republican party is just extremely narrow minded. Are some republicans racist? Most definitely, just as there are some democrats who are racist, but these people exist on the fringes and don't represent the vast majority of level headed people on both sides.

It is easy to just say, Trump is a racist and was elected by equally racist people, it creates a nice narrarative where you get to be the hero fighting against the big bad orange devil and his army of white supremacists, but the reality is that Trump was elected by many of the same people who supported Obama and he was elected because of very real economic issues. If ANY dem wants a 2020 vote from these people then they need to address these issues and the people affected by them, currently Yang is the only dem attempting to do just that.

@ad1x2: Its amazing how political parties just keep drawing from the same playbook, the whole "Trump is racist and so are you!" narrative did not help the dems in 2016 and it won't help them in 2020, currently the only dem who is selling something outside of this narrative is Yang, which is why he is establishing such a large following outside of just his party. Its also why he probably won't get the nominee which is very sad.

Having said all that if you look at his policies he is actually one of, if not the most, left person in the primary. Check out his website and see for yourself, the sad thing is that since he is so level headed and intelligent he is viewed as less progressive because hes not constantly screaming racist at everyone, in fact I don't think I've ever seen the man get upset. Unfortunately, his demeanor makes him look like a moderate/centrist which is more of a condemmnation of our current crop of politicians than it is of yang himself.

@redviperofdorne: very well said, I know lots of people who supported Trump in 16 and now regret it, these people are not going to get excited about your average generic democratic candidate who spews the same old garbage over and over again, but they will get excited for Yang.

@vfighter: unfortunately you are right, when everyone gets called racist for everything the term looses all meaning and people begin to become deaf to it, this makes it much harder to actually call out real racism.

@pook99: The entire party apparatus, federal and state, is systematically engaging in coordinated efforts to undermine minority votes.

The party is racist.

The following actually happened a few weeks ago:

1. Trump announced that ICE would conduct raids to remove illegal aliens that were denied the right to stay and were given removal orders by a federal judge.
2. Democratic lawmakers posted information online telling these illegal aliens that had valid orders for removal how they can avoid ICE. A lawmaker telling a US citizen that had a warrant for their arrest how to avoid the police would be charged with obstruction, but telling illegal aliens with valid court orders for removal how to evade capture is supposedly okay.
3. Sanctuary cities actively hindered the ability of those federal agents to perform their duties under orders from their Democratic leadership.

And there you go.

Another thing that happened a few months ago was Beto literally saying that he not only wanted to stop construction on the wall, but he wanted to tear down the parts of the wall that were already built. Nothing outside of wanting to make it easier for migrants to cross illegally could explain a desire to tear down what was already built, which costs money for construction crews to clear out.

The only reason why they won’t flat out say that they want open borders is because it would cost them the independents they still have a chance of pulling away from Trump.

@joebones5000: Beto said he wanted to tear down the wall in El Paso that was built before Trump took office. But you won’t admit that. That list was more for the other posters than you because we all know you love to troll.

If I recall correctly it's not republicans who said voter ID laws exclude minorities because they can't get an ID.

That's a textbook definition of bigotry of low expectations and a manifestation of racism.

@mattbbpl: Lol, you actually believe that? Wow, the brainwashing is real.

@vfighter: Why is that so unbelievable?

We have evidence of the republican party trying to undermine minority voting rights. What's to "believe" here? Shit's documented.

That's not what racism is, but it's certainly some mind boggling logic you've applied there. Essentially saying, 'No, you!'

The GOP is a party built around that some votes are more equal than others! Their only plan to keep winning is redistricting and placing hurdles in front of voting. Look at their current efforts in Florida to undo the amendment allowing ex-felons their right to vote back.

It's disgusting.

No, that is precisely what racism is. Leftists have come to understand the term as "any position that does not uncritically promote giving free shit to anyone who isn't white skinned", while the actual definition of racism is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior". I would argue that this definition is not broad enough to encompass all racism but it's still fitting enough for this context.

The idea that voter ID laws are discriminatory because they impede non-whites more than they impede whites is a reasoning which is in itself prejudicial against non-whites and, as I just said, represents a textbook example of racism.

Yes, "no you" applies when you're trying to paint one party in its entirety as racist while you are also outright supporting racism yourself.

Sorry, facts don't care about your feelings.

Can you tell me more about that please?

@pook99: Efforts to disenfranchise and weaken minority votes through a variety of methods, particularly at the state and local levels, became much more aggressive in the last two decades. They looked coordinated and malicious, but it couldn't be proven. Then one of the RNC's Chief strategists (a guy named Hofeller) died, leaving behind 10s of thousands of documents detailing what they did, the motives behind the actions, and the data they used to do it.

LOL talk about salty tears here :D

@mattbbpl: can you give some specific examples?

No it's not. We've got evidence of systematic suppression of voting and all you're doing is turning around and saying, 'How dare you assume that they can't overcome the hurdles we're throwing at them, racist!'

Sure. Here's a living list of known voter suppression efforts in the US. For the purposes of this discussion, you'd want to focus on 2006 and beyond as that's when the planning for Project REDMAP began in earnest. Hofeller was a key architect of that effort, and those efforts continued up until his death, at which point tens of thousands of documents detailing his work were inherited by his daughter.

These documents are an ongoing story, as details about their contents get revealed through the discovery phase of various related lawsuits. The census question was the first one on the docket, so information that GOP was using it to limit representation of minority districts came out early. More recent revelations from the files center around racial gerrymandering. For example, the maps he used contain his raw data and the algorithms he used to create the districts:

Chen said he found Hofeller manually entered “%18_ap_blk” into the mapping software’s formula box of nearly every draft that Chen said he analyzed. This formula, the political scientist explained on Tuesday, was used to calculate and track how many African American citizens were of voting age in each district.

Though racial gerrymandering was the focus of many previous lawsuits against the state, it is the focus on partisan gerrymandering that sets this specific case apart for the rest.

The files are so spot on that the defense has resorted to ridiculous defenses like the following:

Chen testified that Hofeller’s files contained racial data, although under cross-examination from GOP lawyer Thomas Farr, Chen conceded it’s technically possible Hofeller could have used one hand to cover up part of the screen while drawing the maps so he couldn’t actually see the racial data.

Republican legislative leaders, who are the main defendants in the lawsuit, have also previously said Hofeller’s personal files only reflect his hobbies, and not any official work he was doing for the state.

The entire thing is a farce from the legal defenses used in court to the rank and file responses which have largely ranged from flat out denial like this:

to mocking the people they've marginalized like this:

This one's probably my favorite. "Why don't you cry more, you minorities/minority sympathizers! We took your voting power, what are you going to do about it!"

Yuck it up, Jac. Everyone here can see how disgusting your positions are.

@mattbbpl: that is an interesting list, some of those things on the list I am aware of, some I learned about for the first time. I am not sure all of those things can be considered voter supression of minorities though, perhaps we can start another thread discussing that because it is an interesting topic, I do want to get back on topic though because there has been very little talk about Andrew Yang.

So I have 3 questions for you:

1) Given that you earlier said that you don't at all believe the election is in the bag for the dems in 2020, do you think that Andrew Yang can beat Trump in a general election?

2) Who do you think has a better shot at a general election if not Yang? Why do you feel that way?

3) Lets assume that everything you said above in your link is true and there is a 100% republican led voter suppression of minorities, is it fair to call all Republicans racist? I'm not talking about the ones in power I'm talking about the average person who identifies as republican who simply may see things differently then you.

So just as an example, the first thing on the list is voter ID laws, many republicans say that having voter ID laws is important to protect the integrity of the polling process and ensure no illegal votes, they would argue that this is vital that only American citizens vote to protect our democracy and there are no laws that prevent minorities from getting photo ID, they would also argue that everyone should have ID for all different reasons, and having valid ID is necessary for many essential things in life.

Now I don't want to debate that point, that would only derail us further and we can discuss that on another thread, but my question is how does someone holding that belief classify them as a racist?

No.

It is very simple. People dont want to change.

@pook99:

1) I think his odds of making it through the primary are low. Beyond that, who knows whether he'd beat Trump? I don't think he's stronger than Biden, Warren, or Harris. He's probably stronger than Sanders. I don't think Trump is a particularly strong candidate either, but he can lose the popular vote by up to 5 percentage points and still win election.

2) See above, it's kind of wrapped up into that statement.

3) I'm not calling every Republican voter racist. The Republican Party is racist. That is, the party apparatus has been mobilized to intentionally undermine minority voters. As for Republican voters themselves, they're either racist themselves, don't care that the party is racist/think the racist actions are worth whatever else they get out of the party, or are ignorant of these actions. It's an unhealthy mix of "Yeah, we're racist!"/"I don't care if I'm supporting racists!"/"Idunno!"

@mattbbpl

1) I definitely agree that he does not have the best odds of becoming the nominee, but stranger things have happened so I won't rule it out completely. Why do you feel that Biden, Warren, and Harris would be stronger in a general election?

2) Is it possible that many voters simply have a different perspective than you, one that is driven by different experiences and perspective and not by bigotry?

I just think the name calling is a terrible way to go about life and the worst possible way to engage in politics, I don't know anything about you outside of what you post in the forums, what have your real world experiences with republicans been? Do you know any in real life? (no the internet does not count) have any friends/family/co-workers that are republicans?

Was #2 actually for #2? I think it was in response to #3, so I'll address it that way.

They're intentionally stripping minorities of voting power. This is a nonstarter (and should be).

Maybe you only like the GOP for tax cuts! But if you're OK with stripping minorities of voting power to get them, well...

Everyone? so that is why Republicans control more state legislatures than ever before.

So what I think you mean is everyone on your side which is correct a majority on this site and who already share your views, which is no wonder since you are all on the far ultra left-wing.

@mattbbpl: Can you point out what I said that indicates that I like Republicans?

Your posts are exactly what is wrong with politics today, the only position I have stated is that I support Andrew Yang, one of the most far left people running in the dem primary, and somehow, because I am asking you questions, you take that to mean I like Republicans???

What I do have the ability to do that most people lack, is I have the ability to see every issue from both sides, regardless of how I personally feel about something. I also am optimistic about people, and while I acknowledge that their is bigotry in the world, I believe only a small amount of people are actually bigots. So when approaching any new position I try and figure out why each side believes what it believes, doing so humanizes people instead of demonizing them. If politicians and the media did that as well maybe people can learn to compromise instead of name calling.

Your post did not answer any of my questions, instead you tried to call me out on something that you have no idea what I actually feel about. Trying to take a moral high ground and put the other person on the defensive is a classic tactic of someone who lacks any intelligent response to the query being offered.

So I will pose my questions again:

1) Why do you feel that Biden, Warren, Harris, have a better shot at winning a general election then Yang? Specifically what about their policies, voting blocks, or general appeal would give them a better shot in a general election, that is really decided by moderates/independents more than anything else?

2) Do you know any republicans in real life? Friends? Relatives? Co-workers? Partner? To reiterate, real life does not include the internet, if so, how do you get along with them? Do you perceive all of them as racist? If not, then your responses will make a lot more sense to me.

3) Earlier I stated the republican position on voter ID laws, I did not state my position, I clearly said that this is what republicans would say. To refresh it was this:

So just as an example, the first thing on the list is voter ID laws, many republicans say that having voter ID laws is important to protect the integrity of the polling process and ensure no illegal votes, they would argue that this is vital that only American citizens vote to protect our democracy and there are no laws that prevent minorities from getting photo ID, they would also argue that everyone should have ID for all different reasons, and having valid ID is necessary for many essential things in life.

My question is, how does holding this particular belief make someone a racist?

Stop calling everyone who disagree with you for ultra far left wing.

@pook99: " Can you point out what I said that indicates that I like Republicans?"

I didn't say you liked Republicans. I don't know your affiliation, but I doubt your much of a GOP supporter of you're supporting Yang.

I didn't get past the next sentence of your post because it's clear at that point you mistook my generic "You" for a specific "You"

Agreed, nuanced communication is often lost on the internet so when you said "you" I took it as a direct reference to me instead of the general form of you, thank you for the clarification.

Most of my post was in reference to that, but I did have one question at the end that got lost in the shuffle which I would be interested to hear.

Earlier you said that he is not stronger than Biden/Warren/Harris, why do you feel that way in regards to a general election? What aspects of their policies/personalities do you feel give them broader appeal in a general election over Yang?

I certainly agree that all 3 of them are stronger in the dem primaries, but I am not convinced that any of them are stronger than him in the general.

My thought is most dems will make their way to the polling booth this election because they now see Trump as a real threat as opposed to a joke like they did last election cycle, I also think most republicans will show up for the inverse of those reasons.

Like most elections this one will be decided by the middle, and I really feel that Yangs human centered approach to politics makes him far more likeable to the average centrist than anyone on either side of the extreme political aisles.

@pook99: It's a lot of things, but the biggest one is his ubi proposal. Elections are won in the margins, and I think that will hurt him more than it helps. If he were a little more like Warren, perhaps he could turn that around - she's one of the more adept politicians of explaining the merits of policy. Biden doesn't have to - he operates in the margin. Harris just has a lot of wind at her back - people seem to like her style.

If Yang was going to catch fire, it probably would have happened already.

Fwiw, I think it's naive at this point to think anyone can unify the parties this cycle anyway. I think both he and Biden are naive for thinking bipartisanship is on the table.

sounds like he's not cut out to be a politician.

In defence of Andrew, It's hard to really get ahead when time and time again, Statistics have shown he is the least mentioned candidate by major news networks out of the top 10 candidates. Couple that with the NBC bias (cutting off his mic during the debate, least amount of time speaking among all candidates and not including his photo among photos of all the candidates), It's hard to get ahead.

That being said, For someone who is "not cut out for politics" and "hasn't caught fire", He's a top 8 polling candidate with over 130k individual donors and just 2 polls away from making the third debate. For someone no expected to be qualified for the first debate let alone the third, That says a lot about his message and how well he resonates with people.

Just look at what the first debate did for Harris. She went from averaging around 8% to 15%, She dropped a bit down to 12.8% but that's still a very close fourth and not far behind Sanders and Warren. If Yang can really showcase himself in the second debate, He can get that same kind of push. If not then it'll be tough to just keep saying "oh, we have next time". That isn't gonna cut it and many supporters agree. He has to be more aggressive and vocal this time around.

1) How will his freedom dividend hurt more than help? It is an idea that came out of left field for sure but is rapidly picking up steam among both parties, which is rare. In terms of explaining the merits of his policy I would argue that he is the more adept at explaining the merits of his proposals than any politician, he answers questions directly and you can tell his ideas are very thought out. His only downside in this regard is that he is often not given the time by the establishment, yang is a go getter who forces himself into the spotlight, which is a great thing, but I definitely see him as this cycles bernie, that is a candidate who is not conventional and the dnc is afraid of him so they will surpress him, as they did in the first debate.

2) If not now then when? The divide in this country is big and just keeps getting bigger, at some point the healing process should begin. The only candidates I will support in either party are candidates who do not demonize the other side. Do I think that Yang will come in and magically all of our problems will go away? Of course not but having a president with a positive message, positive rhetoric, and a genuine interest in working with the other side is what we need more than ever right now, it will be a step in the right direction and perhaps if we keep taking steps in the right direction we can return to something that at least resembles sanity.

you think andrew yang is going to eliminate division and close gaps?.. let me ask you a question, why is there division? who is moving away from the other side?