| Anteater |
01-15-2019 10:54 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor
(Post 2034291)
but as for Sanders ability to get things done
he got half a million workers a substantial pay raise by scaring Bezos
because that is what the government is supposed to do, act as a check on entrepreneurs, not put them as head of state
|
Amazon was already planning on increasing wages by Q4 last year though: hiring had slowed down and they needed to incentivize in order to reach a larger labor pool. I'll give Sanders credit for timing though: sometimes picking a fight can be good PR if you line up the right optics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor
(Post 2034289)
building a personal fortune has nothing to do with good governance
actually wishy washy nonesense like "can lead an organization" means nothing, what matters is P O L I C Y
what are the stances on the issues, the president does very little actual ground work organization
this is why I accuse you of the same kind of identity politics you have disparaged
Yang is an entrepreneur Silicon Valley guy, and you identify with that
|
1. Depends on how the fortune was built. Speaking from personal experience: there is nothing more challenging that scaling an organization without potentially wrecking it. The fact someone can pull that off tells me more about a person's capabilities than someone who sits in Washington for decades and votes A or B. The dude is so out of touch that Russia (and possibly China) ended up using him as a wedge to weaken the Democratic Party. His heart's in the right place, but I think if he had the ability to build an organization he would have demonstrated it decades ago.
2. The effectiveness of the President as a leader depends on their background. We need more specialists willing to aspire to that office, not more of what we've had throughout the 20th and 21st century so far. Trump, for example, is arguably ****ty in most respects as a businessman and human being (unlike Yang), but his approach to China has been far more effective than anything previous administrations have come up with. If you look at the geopolitical long-game at least. The fact that he can get any results at all despite all of his weaknesses tells me that there's value to having a POTUS who doesn't have a political background and comes from some other walk of life.
A bigger concern I have is that Sanders appears to have an even weaker grasp on economics than Trump does (as his comments on health care have shown): I have zero confidence in his ability to position the U.S. to adapt to coming changes in tech, automation, etc, as well as being able to respond to whatever China ends up doing.
The ideal leader for the Democratic Party is somebody who actually has the capabilities to grasp the real problems we are facing and how we might combat them. Biden, Sanders, and Warren are not those people: they're all career politicians with zero technical ability. Give me a POTUS who did something like architecting software, or someone with an engineering background....just anything other than another lawyer or former mayor/senator/governor. |
