@@toddmarshall2726joy while the Dems terrorize American parents with kids in the school system, citizens with in flux of criminal foreigners, professionals from recognizing biological differences and reality, championing reverse racism, and supporting antisem itim on college campuses. Yep. Party of unity and joy while exemplifying authoritarian and ism and -tarian traits.
@@PhantomMagician1846 I think that’s a bit unfair. It was more like “Trump is rich and only cares about himself, I’m from the middle class and here are my plans to make you better off.”
@@27natedogg1 her plans were to stay the corse and allot were against that. when she said she wouldn't change anything Joe Biden did , that lost her some votes
They are a party of fools. And I say that as someone who usually, but doesn't always, vote for them. (Thank you, Hogan, for keeping Maryland from wasting money on a new subway through a post-apocalyptic city!) Hillary wouldn't have won a real primary in 2016. Obama stealing her thunder in 2008 scared them so much they apparently vowed to never let it happen again! I'm still not sure they get it. We'll see.
they couldn't. They couldn't pass up a female person of color. There would have been outrage over their "progressive" base that a POC woman was passed up for some white man LOL They really painted themselves into a corner.
Yes, because opening up the party to even more infighting instead of unifying behind a candidate was the smart move lol. I don’t think y’all have thought this through
Thank you for this. I'm a lifelong Dem and I'm not a fan of Trump. I only voted for local concerns because I could not vote for Harris. The Dems have lost their minds.
Trump voter here. FINALLY some honesty from a dem and no gaslighting. Give Trump a chance you might see what I did.. the GOP is the only party open and ready for new ideas
we gave him a chance in 2016 and guess what he did? had he not tried to do any of the criminal acts after losing in 2020, I would've been ok with him getting elected again
@@OrangutanKiller-pq5rm I am not trump voter, and no, I didnn't give him a chance in 2016, I didn't vote for him on 2016, did you vote for him in 2016? If no, then you didn't give him chance. Stop saying "we gave him a chance in 2016" when not ALL of us for him in 2016. No, I am not saying that he is not doing anything bad after loosing, it's just that part about "we" gave him in a chance that ticks me off.
This conversation is the most honest and productive non-conservative conversation I've seen post-election. I hope most people who voted for Kamala see this.
I voted for Kamala, and I agree with most of their points. I would actually push back at the sentiment that the Dems have a good lineup. I didn't vote for Kamala because I like her, I did it because I know how bad Trump will be. Newsom, Shapiro and buttigieg are all corporate dems cut from the same cloth. I really hope the lesson to be learned from this election is that neoliberalism is dead because it's clear people want something drastically different. Trump offered something radically different, and Kamala did not. They had two chances to offer something new and exciting with Bernie Sanders and snubbed him twice for status quo defenders. My biggest worry is after four years of Trump people will be fed up with his radicalism because it won't actually help anybody and the Dems will make the same "return to normalcy" argument they did in 2020 and offer another empty suit that people will spring for only for people to hate "normalcy" again four years later and then the cycle will repeat.
Big lessons for Dems from last 10-15 years: 1. Competitive primaries are good 2. Let your leaders lead 3. Message matters more than policies 4. By definition, the elderly cannot be the leaders of the future 5. Be purposeful and don't contradict yourself 6. Embrace new ideas This will require the party to get "leaner and meaner" because right now Dems have too many cooks in the kitchen. If you are 75+ it's time to retire. If you bought your way into the party it's time to cash out. If you are an ally org doing field operations then either coordinate with the party or get out of the field so you don't contact the same people over and over again. Cut ties with the donors/interests who coerce candidates into taking their position on policy. Don't let corporate news anchors run your debates and town halls. This will still leave the party with an incredibly diverse coalition which is a strength! Embrace common causes, solidarity, and coalition building; reject factionalism, bullying, and identity politics. A united working class/middle class coalition will always be a winning one.
Agree completely....but what are the chances the internal apparatus of the Democratic party is capable of any of this? It would need to be torn down to the ground and rebuilt. I hate to be a downer but I can't see that ever happening.
Although I agree 100% , the dems have always been devious and power hungry and greedy beneath the veneer of their message. Which is why I am with the forward party. I have no faith that the dems will even take advantage of all that incredible talent and energy they are gifted with. Those folks should all become Forward Party.
@pepsino12000 superdelegates have never played a decisive role in choosing nominees. The winner of the most regular delegates has always won. I agree they are unnecessary but that change alone is not enough to solve any of the party’s problems
Democrats haven’t had a “primary” for 12 years. We were looking down the barrel of two decades of candidates not chosen by voters in elections not manipulated by the party. The democrats lost my vote, I’d rather see the system burn than not have a democracy
You might get your wish when the Project 2025 gang hits the ground running. The system will burn and there won't be a democracy there will be an authoritarian dystopia. Brace yourself and be careful what you wish for.
Ok i guess vote for the guy who only accepts when he wins the vote and sends fake electors / starts riots when he loses. thats very democratic. obviously parties should be required by law to run standardized primaries but orange man isnt remotely democratic we're in serious trouble
I am not American, but I follow a bit of the elections. I still remembered the time the Democracts ruined their chances for electoral victory when they didn't endorse Bernie Sanders back in 2016; it seems like they didn't learn their lesson.
If the Democrats had run an open primary, their nominee, in my opinion, would have been RFK Jr, who might have won the general. I won't say anything about "moral high ground."
@@answerman9933 that's exactly why Covid was engineered. It was a globalist revolt against a growing populist trend all around the world and Trump was leading the way.
There was no way for Trump to handle COVID and the democrats not blame him for everything. Trump might have lost because of that but a big reason he won again in 2024 was the democrat lockdowns and vaccine mandates. Democrats are the ones who really handled COVID terribly
I am an independent who votes blue almost exclusively. I would never be a Democrat because of the party. They do not trust the voters to choose a candidate.
True. I have been listening in on aftermath conversations and the Dems in the comments clearly and quite strongly blame the alleged uniformed, uneducated masses for not voting for Harris. The elite superior tone is stifling. Yet is also clear they don’t see themselves as being that way rather as “matter of fact”. Very alarming. If they think they know better than everyone else , they will clearly discount your voice vote and opinions.
True. I have been listening in on aftermath conversations and the Dems in the comments clearly and quite strongly blame the alleged uniformed, uneducated masses for not voting for Harris. The elite superior tone is stifling. Yet is also clear they don’t see themselves as being that way rather as “matter of fact”. Very alarming. If they think they know better than everyone else , they will clearly discount your voice vote and opinions.
I campaigned hard against Trump in 2016 and in 2020, but I stayed out of politics this time and I stayed home on election day because Kamala Harris is an unruly and unbearable woman. I could not even watch her speak until after the election because the thought of her being the president made me feel sick to my stomach. WTF were they thinking when they shoved that horrific woman down our throats??????
I'm a Scandinavian woman, in my fifties, with no personal stakes in the game except for having a few online US friends who unfortunately were among those who'd voted for a toaster if it could have removed Trump from their lives. Regarding Harris I'm not joking when I say I personally know trustworthy, hard working, empathic, emotionally & intellectually well balanced women my age and older who probably could have won more voters than Harris did there. I mean even if thrown in as the actual candidate like she was 3 months before the election, and in spite of being non-American. I'm of course not saying they could actually then DO the job AS president for the next years - am only talking about the campaigning. The women I have in mind would from their backgrounds have quite a bit of knowledge about U.S. history and affairs (nothing specialized - just well informed in general, they have also traveled there a bit and have friends there etc) , plus all sorts of other relative experience, like public speaking. If they for some fantasy reason just had to go through this, given a couple of weeks of reading up and coaching, I have reasons to belive they would have informed, explained, convinced and gained trust from more voters than this very strange Dem. VP was able to. I mean it: I felt like witnessing some surreal horror tv series, Twin Peaks like, where you sit with a chilling feeling that another (the real) story is going on all other places than what we are shown. In rooms right behind KH, underneath the stages, or maybe on faraway places at other continents - who knows. I wish I didn't have to add to all the hate as I guess I'm doing right now, but this 2023-24 scenario was so Kafka like that KH's loss was the biggest sigh of relief I've ever encountered in politics. (I've not been very much into geopolitics before the last couple of years)
@@khalmasonart ok... that doesn't prove your point, that he is "spineless". Many people put up Trump and Vance signs as soon as JD vance was announced...
Sorry you turned me off at the New York charges. 34 felonies jury trial. You are mocking our legal system. I’ve followed you since the beginning. Good bye
It was obviously a smear campaign. You really think we couldn’t bring these charges against most of those who pushed for it? Yes Trump belongs in jail, but so do most politicians let’s be honest.
@@melonsauce1474 bro finished 4th in the NYC mayoral race lmao. The man can't win an election, he can analyze why all he wants. He is, objectively, a loser.
@@BenMelman-x9r No, but both Hillary and Bernie know a thing or two about winning. Both 2x elected senators with long histories of winning. Bernie fell short, some shady stuff happened. HillDog won by 3 million and lost. Tough. Don't compare the man who came in 17th place in the NYC mayoral race to either of those people. Please.
I do like Yang a lot, and I probably would have voted Yang over Trump, but I still take issue with a lot of Yang's logic over conservative logic. Take his UBI stance for example, he says "A lot of work is done by people that's important to society but isn't rewarded by the market. Look at a stay at home mom for example, raising a family is necessary for society, but doesn't generate income in a free market. That's what the freedom dividend is for." This sounds nice if you don't think about it, but if you do think about it you realize the husband is the "employer", it's just not a W2 or 1099 position. People go to work so they can make income to live, but if someone else provides and pays the bills for you in exchange for your labor, then you're "employed" by them. The only other difference is you're allowed, encouraged even, to sleep with your boss.
This puts stay at home mother's in a bad position when they retire especially if the husbands divorce them and outlive them. They only get 1/2 of the man's retirement. If the husband is the Employer, he should be paying into social security on her behalf. They could always take turns working which would happen more with family leave.
@@nospringchicken2211 1) He shouldn't be paying social security because we shouldn't be using the ponzi scheme of social security to begin with. It causes more problems than it solves and we should stop further collection of it and just payout what's owed and end the system. 2) Any mother that thinks being employed by a man that loves them is a bad deal can stay single and go work for a corporation if they please. Trust me, if I had the opportunity to marry a sugar mamma in exchange for doing some laundry I'd take it in a heartbeat.
@@nospringchicken2211 First, if this is a "mother" we're speaking of, then presumably she has children that could care for her in retirement age (like throughout all of history) if things were THAT dire. Second, she could opt not to "work" for the man who loves her and instead stay single and work for a corporation if she thinks being a stay at home mom is such a bad deal. Lastly, nobody should be paying into the ponzi scheme of social security and we should just payout what's owed and stop collecting it.
@@DarkSpartan343 Many children are worse off than their parents and they have their own children to worry about. Even in Asia the norm has shifted from taking care of parents to taking care of children. Sometimes the man who loved you leaves you when you age. I think trading Social Security for UBI would not necessarily be a bad idea, but it would probably be a combination of the two or some other kind of pension.
@@nospringchicken2211 You're acting as if the woman is in a terrible position here when we currently live in a society where women initiate 70% of divorce, (90% if she's college educated), and collect child support/alimony in the vast majority of separations. If anything I think the men are the one's taking the shit end of the deal based on the stats but by all means you're entitled to your opinion. I don't think collecting tax to redistribute it is the solution to societies problems because if it were we would have seen societies like that dominate in the past. There's certain patterns that keep reoccurring throughout history because they just end up working better given human nature, which is why you never see a predominately matriarchal society, or a primarily polygamous society, or a primarily communist society really taking off, becoming a major power and providing high standards of living.
This is a good discussion. I am sure Kamala is a nice person. I do hiring the best people at my job. I could tell Kamala is incompetent. I am sorry if I am upsetting anyone.
So you guy think that Trump was too old? Are you joking? He was like the energizer bunny! He campaigned all the time and went on interviews. One interview was 3 hours long! Your just prejudice against Seniors! I gave you a 👎 and will remember your attitude if you run for any political position in the future. Btw, I'm a Democrat and not keen on Trump.
Yang didn't run. He basically let this happen. To be fair though, the dems didn't hold a primary and basically cutting out the democratic process means they get exactly what they deserve.
DISCLAIMER: I voted neither for Trump (& never have nor ever would), nor did I vote for Mme Harris (but for reasons completely different than not voting for Trump) 3:38 -- Bloke in the white shirt on the right of the video: "...we then 'crown' -- and I use that word intentionally -- ...a deeply unpopular vice president...." I'm far from being as knowledgable about the current behavior of the members of the Democrat Party as many readers/commenters who've viewed this video might be. However, I was not at all surprised by the action of the Democrats to 'crown' (I would prefer the use of the word, 'anoint') because it was my impression that if a contest with Mme Harris was insisted upon that there would have been "H*ll to pay" from the strong negative objections of the feminist & the black caucuses. And, these objections would have not been easily appeased or mollified. That's the observation from someone who follows American politics, but is far from being an expert on the inner workings of the Democrats.
I agree with a lot of what they are saying, but I still believe it was going to be difficult for the incumbent to win because of the way the economy was being portrayed as going in the wrong direction. The people who end up deciding these elections look at what they are paying for groceries and other goods and housing, aren't economic and political nerds. They just here the Challenger say I'm going to fix everything and they go with that. Yeah messaging would have helped, but I still think the Challenger would have won.
And maybe I’m nice, find someone that is educated maybe close to Hilary Clinton but not like Aoc and Jean Pierre. The people are sick of listening to them.
Amy Klobuchar was more popular in Minnesota. She won her senate seat in Minnesota by a far wider margin than Tim Walz did in Minnesota on the Harris ticket. When people hyped up Tim Walz to be the greatest thing since sliced bread I knew immediately that bubble was going to burst. Then he lost a debate to Vance and it turned out he was a pretty mid pick in the end. Was Walz a bad pick, no. But in terms of a winning strategy he was probably mid. Harris would have probably carried Minnesota without Walz, but she really needed Pennsylvania and Josh Shapiro probably could have helped there more than Walz. I've also read some articles that suggested that Shapiro would be better at connecting with working class voters, something that was sorely needed in the campaign. Shapiro did exceptionally well in the PA governors race in 2022, so that is the indication of his ability to make inroads with the working class I guess. Granted this election probably would have been tough for Harris to win no matter what. And of course hindsight is 20/20 and it sucks to know these things after that fact. Unfortunately you only get one chance to cast the die.
It’s political interplay, and it happens time after time when there’s a bunch seeking one prestigious job. For example, you, a yang, will always be interplayed out of presidential possibilities. That is until there’s a bunch of wongs, chens, kims, parks, nguyens,,, running for the prestigious job.
What policies? mass deportation, getting rid of the department of education, getting rid of ACA or tariffs which increase the costs of the goods we buy by 40%?
her message was basically "Trump sucks and I'm pro-choice". That didn't speak to allot of people
You forgot "Joy"!
Yeah, it really hurts to have to agree 100%.
@@toddmarshall2726joy while the Dems terrorize American parents with kids in the school system, citizens with in flux of criminal foreigners, professionals from recognizing biological differences and reality, championing reverse racism, and supporting antisem itim on college campuses. Yep. Party of unity and joy while exemplifying authoritarian and ism and -tarian traits.
@@PhantomMagician1846 I think that’s a bit unfair. It was more like “Trump is rich and only cares about himself, I’m from the middle class and here are my plans to make you better off.”
@@27natedogg1 her plans were to stay the corse and allot were against that. when she said she wouldn't change anything Joe
Biden did , that lost her some votes
Democrats made a HUGE mistake by not opening up the primaries.
They are a party of fools. And I say that as someone who usually, but doesn't always, vote for them. (Thank you, Hogan, for keeping Maryland from wasting money on a new subway through a post-apocalyptic city!) Hillary wouldn't have won a real primary in 2016. Obama stealing her thunder in 2008 scared them so much they apparently vowed to never let it happen again! I'm still not sure they get it. We'll see.
It wasn’t a mistake. It was intentional. The current party bigwigs don’t WANT to let you vote. They want to control the narrative and your choices.
they couldn't. They couldn't pass up a female person of color. There would have been outrage over their "progressive" base that a POC woman was passed up for some white man LOL
They really painted themselves into a corner.
Yes, because opening up the party to even more infighting instead of unifying behind a candidate was the smart move lol. I don’t think y’all have thought this through
Thank you for this. I'm a lifelong Dem and I'm not a fan of Trump. I only voted for local concerns because I could not vote for Harris. The Dems have lost their minds.
Andrew, you were beating Harris in the 2020 primaries. 😅
He dropped out very early
@@BobChippewa He literally stayed till election day and was there with tulsi, trump, and biden.
Yes and I’m very impressed
@@BobChippewaHarris dropped out earlier
Identity politics is dying, thank God
Yet the dems continued pandering to identity politics. Were they trying to lose?
Trump voter here. FINALLY some honesty from a dem and no gaslighting. Give Trump a chance you might see what I did.. the GOP is the only party open and ready for new ideas
Sorry, Trump already got a chance in 2020, and he didn't prove he was the right candidate.
we gave him a chance in 2016 and guess what he did? had he not tried to do any of the criminal acts after losing in 2020, I would've been ok with him getting elected again
@@OrangutanKiller-pq5rm I am not trump voter, and no, I didnn't give him a chance in 2016, I didn't vote for him on 2016, did you vote for him in 2016? If no, then you didn't give him chance. Stop saying "we gave him a chance in 2016" when not ALL of us for him in 2016.
No, I am not saying that he is not doing anything bad after loosing, it's just that part about "we" gave him in a chance that ticks me off.
I agree. Democrats should give Trump a chance. He is gonna revive the economy
@@angkear6267Trump’s economy was better than Biden’s economy
This conversation is the most honest and productive non-conservative conversation I've seen post-election. I hope most people who voted for Kamala see this.
I voted for Kamala, and I agree with most of their points. I would actually push back at the sentiment that the Dems have a good lineup. I didn't vote for Kamala because I like her, I did it because I know how bad Trump will be. Newsom, Shapiro and buttigieg are all corporate dems cut from the same cloth. I really hope the lesson to be learned from this election is that neoliberalism is dead because it's clear people want something drastically different. Trump offered something radically different, and Kamala did not. They had two chances to offer something new and exciting with Bernie Sanders and snubbed him twice for status quo defenders. My biggest worry is after four years of Trump people will be fed up with his radicalism because it won't actually help anybody and the Dems will make the same "return to normalcy" argument they did in 2020 and offer another empty suit that people will spring for only for people to hate "normalcy" again four years later and then the cycle will repeat.
Democrat party isnt democratic anymore
Maybe they should change the name into something appropriate
Who else is here from 2028 when Yang becomes a Republican?
Big lessons for Dems from last 10-15 years:
1. Competitive primaries are good
2. Let your leaders lead
3. Message matters more than policies
4. By definition, the elderly cannot be the leaders of the future
5. Be purposeful and don't contradict yourself
6. Embrace new ideas
This will require the party to get "leaner and meaner" because right now Dems have too many cooks in the kitchen. If you are 75+ it's time to retire. If you bought your way into the party it's time to cash out. If you are an ally org doing field operations then either coordinate with the party or get out of the field so you don't contact the same people over and over again. Cut ties with the donors/interests who coerce candidates into taking their position on policy. Don't let corporate news anchors run your debates and town halls. This will still leave the party with an incredibly diverse coalition which is a strength! Embrace common causes, solidarity, and coalition building; reject factionalism, bullying, and identity politics. A united working class/middle class coalition will always be a winning one.
Agree completely....but what are the chances the internal apparatus of the Democratic party is capable of any of this? It would need to be torn down to the ground and rebuilt. I hate to be a downer but I can't see that ever happening.
Good list.
Although I agree 100% , the dems have always been devious and power hungry and greedy beneath the veneer of their message. Which is why I am with the forward party. I have no faith that the dems will even take advantage of all that incredible talent and energy they are gifted with. Those folks should all become Forward Party.
How about just get rid of superdelegates and listen to people. Not speak over them, just listen to them.
@pepsino12000 superdelegates have never played a decisive role in choosing nominees. The winner of the most regular delegates has always won. I agree they are unnecessary but that change alone is not enough to solve any of the party’s problems
#1 acting like criminals, #2 protecting criminals, #3 letting crimnals walk into the US unvetted, #4 Criminal reckless spending
Democrats haven’t had a “primary” for 12 years. We were looking down the barrel of two decades of candidates not chosen by voters in elections not manipulated by the party.
The democrats lost my vote, I’d rather see the system burn than not have a democracy
I felt the same. No primaries + No vote = No democracy.!
You might get your wish when the Project 2025 gang hits the ground running. The system will burn and there won't be a democracy there will be an authoritarian dystopia. Brace yourself and be careful what you wish for.
Good one.
Ok i guess vote for the guy who only accepts when he wins the vote and sends fake electors / starts riots when he loses. thats very democratic.
obviously parties should be required by law to run standardized primaries but orange man isnt remotely democratic
we're in serious trouble
Good insight . Folks voted on inflation and immigration . Remember 60 % of voters live paycheck to pay check with no savings .
I am not American, but I follow a bit of the elections. I still remembered the time the Democracts ruined their chances for electoral victory when they didn't endorse Bernie Sanders back in 2016; it seems like they didn't learn their lesson.
no Socialist could ever win in America.
Newsom? The bench is lacking.
Not gonna mention identity politics…
Andrew should move to the Republican party
If the Democrats had run an open primary, their nominee, in my opinion, would have been RFK Jr, who might have won the general. I won't say anything about "moral high ground."
Actually he's wrong trump only lost in 2020 because of covid
We will never know.
I have always contented that Trump lost in 2020 because of Covid AND George Floyd protests.
@@answerman9933 that's exactly why Covid was engineered. It was a globalist revolt against a growing populist trend all around the world and Trump was leading the way.
He lost because of the way he handled it. Had he handled it better he would have won handily
There was no way for Trump to handle COVID and the democrats not blame him for everything. Trump might have lost because of that but a big reason he won again in 2024 was the democrat lockdowns and vaccine mandates. Democrats are the ones who really handled COVID terribly
The same people who where flying the plane are now trying to analyze the plane crash - no clue
I want Yang to focus on poverty again. I don’t care about these elections.
I am an independent who votes blue almost exclusively. I would never be a Democrat because of the party. They do not trust the voters to choose a candidate.
EXACTLY!!
True. I have been listening in on aftermath conversations and the Dems in the comments clearly and quite strongly blame the alleged uniformed, uneducated masses for not voting for Harris. The elite superior tone is stifling. Yet is also clear they don’t see themselves as being that way rather as “matter of fact”. Very alarming. If they think they know better than everyone else , they will clearly discount your voice vote and opinions.
True. I have been listening in on aftermath conversations and the Dems in the comments clearly and quite strongly blame the alleged uniformed, uneducated masses for not voting for Harris. The elite superior tone is stifling. Yet is also clear they don’t see themselves as being that way rather as “matter of fact”. Very alarming. If they think they know better than everyone else , they will clearly discount your voice vote and opinions.
YANG GANG 2028
I campaigned hard against Trump in 2016 and in 2020, but I stayed out of politics this time and I stayed home on election day because Kamala Harris is an unruly and unbearable woman. I could not even watch her speak until after the election because the thought of her being the president made me feel sick to my stomach. WTF were they thinking when they shoved that horrific woman down our throats??????
Your frustration is understandable.
I'm a Scandinavian woman, in my fifties, with no personal stakes in the game except for having a few online US friends who unfortunately were among those who'd voted for a toaster if it could have removed Trump from their lives.
Regarding Harris I'm not joking when I say I personally know trustworthy, hard working, empathic, emotionally & intellectually well balanced women my age and older who probably could have won more voters than Harris did there. I mean even if thrown in as the actual candidate like she was 3 months before the election, and in spite of being non-American. I'm of course not saying they could actually then DO the job AS president for the next years - am only talking about the campaigning. The women I have in mind would from their backgrounds have quite a bit of knowledge about U.S. history and affairs (nothing specialized - just well informed in general, they have also traveled there a bit and have friends there etc) , plus all sorts of other relative experience, like public speaking. If they for some fantasy reason just had to go through this, given a couple of weeks of reading up and coaching, I have reasons to belive they would have informed, explained, convinced and gained trust from more voters than this very strange Dem. VP was able to. I mean it: I felt like witnessing some surreal horror tv series, Twin Peaks like, where you sit with a chilling feeling that another (the real) story is going on all other places than what we are shown. In rooms right behind KH, underneath the stages, or maybe on faraway places at other continents - who knows. I wish I didn't have to add to all the hate as I guess I'm doing right now, but this 2023-24 scenario was so Kafka like that KH's loss was the biggest sigh of relief I've ever encountered in politics. (I've not been very much into geopolitics before the last couple of years)
I don’t trust anything Andrew Yang has to say. Third parties ALWAYS act as SPOILERS!!
Good. These two parties deserve it.
I miss you two!! Yang gang!!
Yang is spineless for endorsing Kamala Harris, now he is acting like he never supported this.
Racism? Really? Where does he say he never supported Kamala? Where?? Seriously?
?
@@melonsauce1474 Calling asian men spineless is racist and based on sterotypes. Yang actually isn't afraid to criticize Harris here.
@@ShageenthSandrakumar he endorsed Harris on X right after Harris is announced
@@khalmasonart ok... that doesn't prove your point, that he is "spineless". Many people put up Trump and Vance signs as soon as JD vance was announced...
4:30 best statement of this video thus far....
1. No Yang
2. No Yang gang
3. No UBi
4. Ignoring automation
Sorry you turned me off at the New York charges. 34 felonies jury trial. You are mocking our legal system. I’ve followed you since the beginning. Good bye
4 more years.
You should go watch a lawyers RUclips video on this issue. The only ones that mocked our legal system was the Democratic Party.
Democrats love their war criminals.
It was obviously a smear campaign. You really think we couldn’t bring these charges against most of those who pushed for it? Yes Trump belongs in jail, but so do most politicians let’s be honest.
Andrew Yang talking about how to win elections is all bit of an oxymoron now isn’t it?
Well no. He had an analysis on where he messed up with his campaign and even gathered second opinions and did research. So no.
@@melonsauce1474 bro finished 4th in the NYC mayoral race lmao. The man can't win an election, he can analyze why all he wants. He is, objectively, a loser.
Do you hate Bernie and love Hillary?
@@BenMelman-x9r No, but both Hillary and Bernie know a thing or two about winning. Both 2x elected senators with long histories of winning. Bernie fell short, some shady stuff happened. HillDog won by 3 million and lost. Tough. Don't compare the man who came in 17th place in the NYC mayoral race to either of those people. Please.
I do like Yang a lot, and I probably would have voted Yang over Trump, but I still take issue with a lot of Yang's logic over conservative logic. Take his UBI stance for example, he says "A lot of work is done by people that's important to society but isn't rewarded by the market. Look at a stay at home mom for example, raising a family is necessary for society, but doesn't generate income in a free market. That's what the freedom dividend is for." This sounds nice if you don't think about it, but if you do think about it you realize the husband is the "employer", it's just not a W2 or 1099 position. People go to work so they can make income to live, but if someone else provides and pays the bills for you in exchange for your labor, then you're "employed" by them. The only other difference is you're allowed, encouraged even, to sleep with your boss.
This puts stay at home mother's in a bad position when they retire especially if the husbands divorce them and outlive them. They only get 1/2 of the man's retirement. If the husband is the Employer, he should be paying into social security on her behalf. They could always take turns working which would happen more with family leave.
@@nospringchicken2211 1) He shouldn't be paying social security because we shouldn't be using the ponzi scheme of social security to begin with. It causes more problems than it solves and we should stop further collection of it and just payout what's owed and end the system.
2) Any mother that thinks being employed by a man that loves them is a bad deal can stay single and go work for a corporation if they please. Trust me, if I had the opportunity to marry a sugar mamma in exchange for doing some laundry I'd take it in a heartbeat.
@@nospringchicken2211 First, if this is a "mother" we're speaking of, then presumably she has children that could care for her in retirement age (like throughout all of history) if things were THAT dire. Second, she could opt not to "work" for the man who loves her and instead stay single and work for a corporation if she thinks being a stay at home mom is such a bad deal. Lastly, nobody should be paying into the ponzi scheme of social security and we should just payout what's owed and stop collecting it.
@@DarkSpartan343 Many children are worse off than their parents and they have their own children to worry about. Even in Asia the norm has shifted from taking care of parents to taking care of children. Sometimes the man who loved you leaves you when you age. I think trading Social Security for UBI would not necessarily be a bad idea, but it would probably be a combination of the two or some other kind of pension.
@@nospringchicken2211 You're acting as if the woman is in a terrible position here when we currently live in a society where women initiate 70% of divorce, (90% if she's college educated), and collect child support/alimony in the vast majority of separations. If anything I think the men are the one's taking the shit end of the deal based on the stats but by all means you're entitled to your opinion. I don't think collecting tax to redistribute it is the solution to societies problems because if it were we would have seen societies like that dominate in the past. There's certain patterns that keep reoccurring throughout history because they just end up working better given human nature, which is why you never see a predominately matriarchal society, or a primarily polygamous society, or a primarily communist society really taking off, becoming a major power and providing high standards of living.
I'm GLOATING and it feels GOOD 😂
Trump won despite your pontifications. Other candidates lost. I wished Nikki won, but she did not.
lol notice how you still have to call Trump a fascist all the while bashing others who do?
Yeah, good luck with that!
You either open up the primaries or stay with biden completely. there is no third way if you want at least a small chance to win.
Ego chamber interview. Yawn.
People totally reject a woman as president. As a Dem it felt like a set up to put her up like a feel good coke commercial - without a primary
This is a good discussion. I am sure Kamala is a nice person. I do hiring the best people at my job. I could tell Kamala is incompetent. I am sorry if I am upsetting anyone.
So you guy think that Trump was too old? Are you joking? He was like the energizer bunny! He campaigned all the time and went on interviews. One interview was 3 hours long! Your just prejudice against Seniors! I gave you a 👎 and will remember your attitude if you run for any political position in the future. Btw, I'm a Democrat and not keen on Trump.
Biden was called old at 80 and Trump is only 2 years younger at 78.
Felt the same way, dems needed someone with charisma and solutions instead of Trump bad.
Yang didn't run. He basically let this happen. To be fair though, the dems didn't hold a primary and basically cutting out the democratic process means they get exactly what they deserve.
Mayor Pete? Lost me there.
Looking at the wrong sin the sin of indifference!
I was called sexist for saying the same thing
It was so unavoidable. These guys are in a bubble
DISCLAIMER: I voted neither for Trump (& never have nor ever would), nor did I vote for Mme Harris (but for reasons completely different than not voting for Trump)
3:38 -- Bloke in the white shirt on the right of the video: "...we then 'crown' -- and I use that word intentionally -- ...a deeply unpopular vice president...."
I'm far from being as knowledgable about the current behavior of the members of the Democrat Party as many readers/commenters who've viewed this video might be.
However, I was not at all surprised by the action of the Democrats to 'crown' (I would prefer the use of the word, 'anoint') because it was my impression that if a contest with Mme Harris was insisted upon that there would have been "H*ll to pay" from the strong negative objections of the feminist & the black caucuses. And, these objections would have not been easily appeased or mollified.
That's the observation from someone who follows American politics, but is far from being an expert on the inner workings of the Democrats.
Dems need a new platform.
Someone (not me) used the word 'decrepit' to describe Biden. Sadly, they were right.
I agree with a lot of what they are saying, but I still believe it was going to be difficult for the incumbent to win because of the way the economy was being portrayed as going in the wrong direction. The people who end up deciding these elections look at what they are paying for groceries and other goods and housing, aren't economic and political nerds. They just here the Challenger say I'm going to fix everything and they go with that. Yeah messaging would have helped, but I still think the Challenger would have won.
i want a new party that can go toe to toe with dem and republican, this is just stupid
And maybe I’m nice, find someone that is educated maybe close to Hilary Clinton but not like Aoc and Jean Pierre. The people are sick of listening to them.
Dean Phillips 2028
🤦🤦😢
Ya, no shit.
Tim Walz is why I voted for Harris.
Amy Klobuchar was more popular in Minnesota. She won her senate seat in Minnesota by a far wider margin than Tim Walz did in Minnesota on the Harris ticket. When people hyped up Tim Walz to be the greatest thing since sliced bread I knew immediately that bubble was going to burst. Then he lost a debate to Vance and it turned out he was a pretty mid pick in the end. Was Walz a bad pick, no. But in terms of a winning strategy he was probably mid.
Harris would have probably carried Minnesota without Walz, but she really needed Pennsylvania and Josh Shapiro probably could have helped there more than Walz. I've also read some articles that suggested that Shapiro would be better at connecting with working class voters, something that was sorely needed in the campaign. Shapiro did exceptionally well in the PA governors race in 2022, so that is the indication of his ability to make inroads with the working class I guess. Granted this election probably would have been tough for Harris to win no matter what. And of course hindsight is 20/20 and it sucks to know these things after that fact. Unfortunately you only get one chance to cast the die.
Walz loss his home county, his family in Nebraska voted for Trump,
Tampon tim is finished. What an embarrassment of a man.
Yea she lost😂 america rejected her resoundingly
@@bobby45825 Tim Walz is a man? I suspected he was a male, but not a man.
It’s political interplay, and it happens time after time when there’s a bunch seeking one prestigious job.
For example, you, a yang, will always be interplayed out of presidential possibilities. That is until there’s a bunch of wongs, chens, kims, parks, nguyens,,, running for the prestigious job.
is Andrew going to meet up with Musk to talk those no pay high IQ jobs in the DOGE
daydreaming
Lying losers laugh and lie about losing to losers
Competent? Seriously ? lol 😂 another 🤡 with no clue! You got SPANKED
The beautiful thing is that in four years when Vance is running the name calling will be the same.
Race and misogyny
As a former Democrat, I like Trump and I also love his policies.
What policies? mass deportation, getting rid of the department of education, getting rid of ACA or tariffs which increase the costs of the goods we buy by 40%?
@ hell yeah! End the wasteful spending, especially the useless Department Of Education. Deport all illegal immigrants who committed any crimes.