Andrew Yang already torpedoed his campaign with one tweet.

[OliverQ]

Link to tweet

I will not support someone who thinks the title of President means you should be immune from any legal consequences for the rest of your life, no matter how many crimes you commit. Get off the stage Yang, you're done.

[JI7]

1. he was never a serious candidate

[redstateblues]

2. How do these obscure candidates raise a million bucks?

[OliverQ]

5. Did he raise a million?

Only requires $65,000 to be at the first debates.

[redstateblues]

7. Oh. That's all? Wow.i thought it was 65,000 individual donations.

[PoliticAverse]

11. It is but there's no specific monetary minimum...

Grassroots Fundraising Method. Candidates may qualify for the debate by demonstrating that the campaign has received donations from at least (1) 65,000 unique donors; and (2) a minimum of 200 unique donors per state in at least 20 U.S. states. To demonstrate that the fundraising threshold has been reached, candidates must provide verifiable evidence, which they may do by authorizing ActBlue and/or NGP VAN to provide that evidence.

https://democrats.org/press/dnc-announces-details-for-the-first-two-presidential-primary-debates/

[Celerity]

12. He raised $1.7m in just the first quarter of 2019. Probably is at around $3m total.

[marylandblue]

22. Promise people $1,000 a month for life and they'll enter your raffle.

[Recursion]

3. Unfortunately it's a popular sentiment

We'll see if that works for him; given the base he's going for it might well.

[HubertHeaver]

4. The torpedo was meant for someone else but, as torpedoes often do,

it circled back and got himself.

[sop]

6. Not holding all public officials accountable for breaking the law, even presidents,

is the "kind of thing that happens in developing countries." Apparently, Yang believes Trump is above the law; I believe "we should avoid falling into this pattern if at all possible."

[comradebillyboy]

8. Not Yang's only recent faux pas.

[unblock]

9. He raises a legitimate point, but comes to the wrong conclusion.

Imprisoning political opponents is indeed something we should be very wary of. Corrupt governments do this and we shouldn't be eager to set that precedent.

The problem here is that there's a distinction between fabricated or vastly overblown "crimes" of Hillary, e.g., vs. the blatant and repeated serious crimes of donals fraud.

We shouldn't shy away from prosecuting criminals just because they're politicians.

Moreover, *we don't*. We have sent plenty of governors and congresspeople to prison.

[quickesst]

13. It probably should be avoided....

.... Except when necessary. Trump is a prime example of necessary.

[Cicada]

14. Imprisoning a President risks killing democracy, look at Ukraine

Manafort’s previous pro Russia stooge won in Ukraine. He had said the prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko was a crook, he won, Yulia went to prison. Which caused her supporters to go ape shit. They took up arms, a civil war broke out. The country broke into two parts, east and west. The victorious Manafort guy had to flee for his life. He still lives in exile in Moscow. If we jail Trump will his supporters blow up FBI buildings? Universities? Will a Republican administration jail Kampala Harris? One man in jail is not worth the risk.

[Quackers]

15. Living in fear of what others MIGHT do is no excuse not to do the right thing.

No one is above the law.

[Cicada]

18. We rightly put many people above the law every day

We properly put people above the law for good reasons all the time. Every day criminals are spared punishment in return for their testimony against their boss. Police properly decide to ignore some crimes so they have more resources to pursue more serious crimes. Would you oppose a plea deal for Trumps Chief financial officer if he provides proof Saudi Arabia paid Trump a hundred million dollar bribe for selling them weapons? Really, no man is above the law so we can not reduce the penalty for the CFO for his role in preparing a fraudulent bank loan application for Trump?


Obviously some men are above the law if that produces something of sufficient value to society. And we can’t worry that someone might do something bad? We can’t permit a plane to be diverted to Cuba if a guy wanted for murder is in the cockpit holding a gun to the pilot’s head. Really, we can’t worry that the gunman might really shoot the pilot?

[Quackers]

19. You're conflating plea bargains which is part of the legal system with giving Trump a pass.

I will not be intimidated by what a trump supporter might do. Giving him a pass is not for the greater good, it’s cowardice and sets a bad example for our descendants.

My line is drawn. We stop Trump here or go down trying.

[Cicada]

21. Plea bargains put some above the law even tho they are part of the legal system

A plea bargain is part of the legal system but it also puts someone below the law. Prosecutors decide not to prosecute every day, which is just another way of saying they put someone above the law in cases where they are guilty.
If we did not put huge numbers of people above the law by not prosecuting them then we would live in unmitigated hell. We all break the law.many many times. It would be insane to prosecute us all. Every person is above the law thousands of times. A prosecutor must decide to not prosecute many guilty people or he would be a monster wreaking hell on us. Plea bargains put people above the law to achieve good for society. So too we should let Trump go free if not letting him go free destroys democracy in America or runs a serious risk of that. Putting Yulia Tymoshenko in prison in Ukraine was a fantastically stupid idea which killed huge numbers of people and led the Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine.

Trump free is worth avoiding a serious risk of destroying lives of innocent people and killing democracy.

[marylandblue]

23. You have a point, but there is no right answer.

Jailing a President presents one type of risk. Not jailing him presents another.

In our particular case, the best course might be to jail all his accomplices, so that future appointees will be less willing to carry out the President's orders. But that too has its risks.

[oldsoftie]

25. Thats the thing. It will end up being a constant push to jail/punish former presidents.

The "bigger picture" HAS to be looked at

[not_the_one]

32. the bigger picture

Last edited Sat Jun 15, 2019, 03:05 PM - Edit history (1)

is that we are either a country based on the rule of law, or we are not.

There ARE going to be some citizens who won't like that they were proven to be supporters of a crook. So be it, and tough shit. Their feelings are irrelevant.

There is going to be violence before this is over with. Again, so be it. There are more of us, than them.

If you can't help to fight for it, as they say... either step up, or get out of the way.

The course this country takes will not be decided by the cowards or faint of heart. NOR will it be decided by racists, fascists, bigots, haters, or fucking "so-called" christians bent on codifying hate and bigotry into our laws NOR "so-called" christians bent on bringing about "the rapture".

Thanks to turdface and his sycophants, our system is now broken. We MUST fix it.

Buckle up. We may very well be in for a bumpy ride.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

16. Mr. Yang speaks to "Imprisoning a FORMER President"....

After Trump leaves office, he probably will have numerous tax and money-laundering cases (for example) brought or continued against him. If he's found guilty and sentenced to prison, I can't see anyone objecting to it that is serious about our democracy.

After all, Trump had many of these crimes hanging over his head even before he announced for office and therefore deceived the public as to his honesty and business acumen. That in itself may not be a crime, but certainly throws shade on any objections.

KY......... ......

[pnwmom]

17. I think it's because we used to have mostly non-criminal, non-traitorous Presidents. n/t

[area51]

20. Regarding developing countries

We're certainly not a civilized country, as we don't have healthcare as a basic human right. And others would point out things such as a very thin social safety net, very few protections for workers, death penalty, etc.

[Hortensis]

24. Wow. What kind of moral sensibility equates the advanced

principles of all men created equal and no man is above the law with forcible imprisoning of political opponents to secure power and exercise extreme cruelty?

I don't care how many "agree with" him in this era when so many are infected with the intellectual collapse and moral depravity that's taken over much of the right, they're all wrong.

Agree, OliverQ. between the offenses to morality and liberal democratic principles and to the desires of millions who want him punished for his crimes, this is the unofficial end. In fact, the official end for me.

[oldsoftie]

26. One thing Yang gets right; he's the only one proposing a sales tax.

Something that other countries use successfully to fund the types of social programs that WE want here.
It would tax ALL the untaxed income thats out there; which i would bet is a trillion or more. Not to mention the rich would pay FAR more money with all the shit they buy.
In other countries EVERYONE pays into the system, that doesnt happen here

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

37. Sales taxes are regressive - they hurt the poor a lot more than they hurt the rich.

That's why most Democrats don't advocate for them.

[oldsoftie]

38. Regardless, thats whats used in every other country. And its the only way to tax hidden income.

Which likely adds up to a trillion dollars or more every year that isnt on a W2 or a 1099.
I dont see the poor in those countries protesting paying into the system that benefits them.
EVERYONE must pay if we're going to do these things we want. It wont be easy, and it wont be paid for solely by the rich; there arent enough of them.

[lark]

27. OK, there are now 3 on my list I'd never vote for in the primaries.

It's growing!

Of course, I'd vote for my dead dog for president over drumpf, so any Dem will get my support in the General and I will work hard with the Fl Democratic party to help that person win. I will be able to be very enthusiastic with whoever we choose because anyone or any thing (almost) is better than the orange traitor tot.

[PatSeg]

28. Letting people in high places

off the hook has not served us well in the past. It gives future government officials an assurance that they can do whatever they please and they won't suffer any consequences. Obviously, sending a president to prison is far from an ideal resolution in most cases, but when there are very real crimes involved, there has to be some accountability.

Maybe Nixon would have never been sent to prison, but at least he should have been indicted and tried for his crimes. It appears that to the end, he never really thought he'd done anything wrong.

[LibFarmer]

29. He is a an otherwise forgettable man

just gets elevated where his opinion is heard by many only because he is running for POTUS.

He hasn't made "bones" by running for a lower office and moving up in the ranks.

[Hoyt]

30. Not a Yang fan, but believe he's talking about "political" crimes. I agree with him, though it's

tempting with trump who has gone far beyond anything before or previously imagined.

Otherwise, an Administration could go after someone like Obama for god knows what trumped up charge, gone after opposition like Clinton or Kerry, etc.

[NYMinute]

31. I want Trump jailed by the NY State

for financial crimes.

Let the Federal government be neutral and not interfere.

[Sapient Donkey]

33. Yang is better with long form discussions of topics.

In which he goes into the nuances of his thoughts. I would like to him explain this a bit more about what he means, and I'd hope others would give them the same benefit. That being said, he should use a more appropriate medium for relay his thoughts. Twitter is cancer to productive discussions. The only reason why Trump was/is able to use it to his advantage is because his are thoughts simple minded and lack any sort of complexity. Yang and others should use something else for this sort of stuff, I think.

[Blue_true]

34. I agree with Yang. Let's get rid of that red tie wearing monkey and fix the country.

Then make sure that no one like him ever get elected again.

[erpowers]

35. Wrong on so Many Levels

That tweet is wrong on so many levels. What is happening to Donald Trump is not the same thing that happens in some developing countries. There is the rule of law in the United States of America. The President of the United States of America cannot be above the law. People are going after Trump because he may have broken the law. They are not going after him simply for foolish reasons.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

36. He was done before he started.

He was always a vanity candidate, just another businessman with no government experience. He was never going to go anywhere.

[Codeine]

39. Who cares? He's not really running.

There are only a handful of real candidates and a bunch of wannabes sucking all the air out of the room. Time to start culling.

[treestar]

40. He is confusing different things

Third world dictators imprison their opponents simply for being opponents. The country will have a law against insulting the head of state. No First Amendment.

Putting him in prison as a sentence after a conviction is treating him like anyone else. No one is saying put him away just because we don't like him. It's because we think he could be convicted of a crime.