[Mathgod]

Got into a discussion regarding UBI in the Trump thread, and will carry on the conversation here instead of derailing that thread.
____________

Originally Posted by New Era

No, its not a policy position. For something to be a policy position it needs political support. It needs funding support. It needs regulatory and legal support. UBI has none of the above. UBI is an idea, and a half baked idea at that. There is no support for UBI and the American voter will not back the concept, and the power brokers in Washington will not get behind the idea either. UBI is dead on arrival. You'll see universal healthcare in the United States before UBI, and that won't happen in the next 20 years either.

Wrong. It IS a policy position... just like slavery abolition was a policy position 300 years ago, even though it didn't have much support at the time.

UBI maybe be a relatively unpopular policy at the moment, but its popularity has soared from what it was 12 months ago. https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...-should-have-a

Says who? You? Because no one is talking about in the United States. The only guy talking about it was Yang, and he got kicked to the curb because he wasn't viewed as a serious candidate with serious ideas.

Says anyone who is paying attention and doesn't have a preconceived bias against UBI.

No, they did it because they were whiny little bitches that didn't get their way in the primaries and this was their way of showing the DNC who was boss. Well you whiny little bitches, how did that work out for you? Yeah, not so well. And thanks to those whiny little bitches we all got stuck with Cheeto Mussolini.

I already made a video on this topic:

Spoiler!

How the hell was Yang showing a better future? Promoting the nanny state that is so derided in this country? Promoting socialism that is pretty much a non-starter for American voters? Yang rode the UBI sham to gain some attention, but beyond that he was all hat and no horse. He was a like able guy, but he had no real plan and no real policy.

Based on the way you've been talking, it seems like you have more in common with Trump than you realize...

It's wonderful saying that, except that is how the system is set up in the United States, at every level. It is a binary system where the introduction of any other party acts as nothing but a drain off one of the two major parties. Unfortunately you have run as a Democrat or a Republican to have a serious chance of being elected to congress, and if you want to be a serious presidential candidate, you have to be from one of those two parties. In the United States everything is binary (left/right, conservative/liberal, right/wrong, black/white, etc.) and that is the way the electorate likes it. Get used to that concept because it ain't changing any time soon.

My point was that sometimes a traditional voter for one party may decide to vote for the other (or for a 3rd party) in a particular election for reasons that fall outside of conventional thinking. 2016 was a prime example of that, where many 2-time Obama voters ended up voting for Trump, 3rd party, or not voting at all. For the record, I believe that those who didn't vote for Clinton made a big mistake, and I hope that as many people as possible vote for Joe Biden this time around.

For those who want to learn more about UBI: