EggoMyLeggo why is that? Because we believe men are men and women are women. We don’t want our kids to have to grow up in a confused society. And we appreciate a hard working American that earns what they work for and doesn’t have to be given everything for free..?
That's why most of an average American's work goes to the top .01% who get a free ride on the backs of the American people, mostly in part because of the Republican party. The Republican party has almost always been about serving the rich. The problem today is that both parties serve the rich.
@@roaminghomosapiens7399 honey the Amazon rainforest is burning, climate change is clear to see. It's currently 85°F where I live in the UK and it should NEVER be that warm at 51°N at the END of August.
@@asheiou earth goes through cycles. There used to be a forest where the Sahara desert is now way before we could have had any impact in its formation.
"His party had become so unrecognizable in his lifetime the former president voted for the wife of the man who had beat him 24 years earlier" -Dang, that's powerful Vox
@@Paonporteur I don't have much information tbh and I know there are a lot of people who will deny what they say, but looking in history, I could see H.W. Bush was a legend, not just that from having him survived from being eaten by cannibals during WWII.
I'm liberal. But I must say, H.W. was an actual worthy president. He admitted his mistakes, cared about environment and immigration and the actual middle class. Most which even today's dems don’t do.
I totally agree. He was actually the last Republican I ever voted for. Very decent guy. Highly qualified and competent. The WWII generation was just totally different. It was an age where people had respect for one another.
Him breaking his no new taxes promise actually hurt the middle class. That was how we went in to a recession. That was how liberals saw it when he was running against Clinton.
Wait...do I like Bush Sr now? I never knew he went so middle on certain things. A republican that cared about the environment and disabled? My, how far that party has fallen.
-voodoo- high tech economics! production can stay high with lower spanding because one man can now manage a thousand acre farm on his own what with the power of modern farming equipment... and its like that everywhere!
". Lowering taxes and let everybody, who can't compete with machines and doesn't find a job within a highly automated economy, fall into poverty doesn't make much sense to me.". thats the point, competing with the machines is futile and pointless!if the machines can do eveyry thing better we should let them. my point was that once we heve the tech needed for the machines to do most or all he work, tax won't matter anyway because no one will be working... and. as for poverty,for poverty... at some point, if our tech advances far enough even those with no jobs and no money will still live like kings... i mean, we can probably do that now... we certainly have enough houses, cars, etc... its just that he rich make you pay for it so they can get richer.
I was born 2 years after his presidency terminated, and I’m learning a lot about him now. He is a republican and moderate conservative that I deeply admire and respect. I’m more liberal and centrist, but he was a man with true values. I could have really gotten behind his pragmatic approach.
Well I mean they're left leaning, but they're not utterly bankrupt journalistically. It's not hard to see that the Republican party has pretty intensely degenerated over the last twenty years or so. Anyone with a brain and some eyes could see that. All they had to do was show that Bush Sr had some level of integrity, and it's already a jarring counterpoint to the lunatic in the same office nowadays.
Sounds like I would like these country-club Republicans. At least Bush wanted to work across the aisle to make deals. Current GOP leaders never seem to want to compromise.
I probably might've wanted Bush, too. He was slammed because - at least a little bit - Regan made a mess he left Bush to clean up. He was the Republican president we could always use, and especially now.
Bipartisanship is a scourge on this country and the sooner it dies the better. Everything that the two parties can agree on is horrible for ordinary people.
It completely misunderstands political ideologies. To say that liberal economics is the same as left economics is fanciful. Thankfully the entire US political media continue to do the same thing
murica can only understand black-suited villain and white-suited hero, anything more subtle is lost on a largely illiterate citizenry educated by TV. This is why they will always be reduced to a binary idiocy. Tocqueville could see it, Mencken warned of/mocked it, and Freud was right: "America is a mistake." Meanwhile, the courtier class opining on screens can't see the forest for the trees
Why was Reagan’s one liner “Oh there ya go again” I mean if I’m thinking of his best one liner it’s gonna be “Mr.Gorbachev Tear down this wall” that’s his best.
@@samgiglio4391 Somehow, I doubt you understand the true significance of that speech-- or lack thereof. So many lemmings see that speech, *immediately* followed by the wall being "torn down." But there was no movement for *two years.* Outside the US, this canonization of Reagan just doesn't exist. (Not to mention, even in the US at the time, very few people actually saw that speech. It wasn't until afterward that it became a political puff piece.)
@@ichijofestival2576 I think you may need to re visit your history studies if you believe that Reagan was not instrumental at all in the collapse of communisim in the western block.
@Sayem The devil who spoke in his ear was named "Arthur Laffer" who is the architect behind trickle-down economics and the infamously misunderstood laffer curve.
@@oichiazai1 perfect example of how children do not always act like their parents. John Quincy Adams was the son of John Adams and we can tell how poorly he did by how much Andrew Jackson won.
Tribalism is also a built in behavior that we have very little control over. The left still does it. The right still does it. Its necessary for the perpetuation of both genetics and ideology. Were it not for tribalism the government would be structured completely differently. Hell, the nation probably would be structured radically differently.
Far right is freedom at the expense of equality, and far left is equality at the expense of freedom. Good ideas in politics usually are those that strive for balance between liberty and equality. Best ideas are those that find a way to combine these two. Thing is, political discourse in USA is so scewed towards the right, that any good idea will of necessity appear as left of far left.
@Friendly Neighborhood Neocon No. In Africa, south America, most parts of assia, even russians are quite the same as western europeans when it comes to stuff like healthcare, education and so on. I guess you never have been to these places.
@@onomatopoeia162003 George H.W. Bush did move to the right, however, because he accepted being Ronald Reagan's running mate in the 1980 election, and Reagan was a staunch conservative. I'd say Gerald Ford classifies as the last truly moderate Republican president.
I find amazing how countries' economic planning can completely shift after an election. Economic planning should focus on the long term and be critically and strategically decided, and not follow the wish - and interests - of a political party or the president. This happens almost everywhere btw, not only in the U.S.
What you're proposing is done succesfully in just one country - China. Everywhere else where it has been tried it has failed. Certainly, long-term thinking is painfully absent from most economic policymakers around the world, and it's easily disregarded in the fleeting world of politics. But it's also true that the best economic policy is adaptation, and usually the countries that can change direction the fastest are also the most successful.
Michael: Two things. The first is that it's a totalitarian government that calls itself socialist, but has actually fostered neoliberalism among its population. Basically, the Party in China owns *everything* and is accountable to no one, but despite these aspects (which usually deter any kind of foreign or domestic investment) they've managed to court overseas companies as well as develop a very robust and entrepreneurial middle class. The second thing is that Deng Xiaoping, the father of the current Chinese prosperity, was very careful in completely taking over the Communist Party and leaving well-educated disciples behind. Thanks to China being such a huge nation, and the timely removal of the Maos, it can't be Cuba anymore in terms of being ruled by a single family. This means that there is ample scope for ambitious and capable officials to climb through the ranks, instead of the usual apparatchiks and relatives that we see in other left-wing dictatorships.
lolipedofin: Japan is a terrible example, considering how their economy is in shambles (held up by all sorts of "vodoo economics" as Bush so eloquently said). But Singapore is interesting - as you say, it's quite similar to China in some respects, despite being on the completely opposite side of the left-right divide (in theory). I think they could be the other exception to the rule.
Nope, they missed the part where he lied to American public(incubator story) to go to war with Iraq ruclips.net/video/qrJaYuZLhk8/видео.html, and the contra scandal.
Aaron Kasper Just asking, but wouldn't low taxes for corporations actually serving for the them and not the people, since we could use the money from them to help the people? The US isn't even in the top 30 for welfare spending compared to the GDP or per capital.
when it comes to economics, you can't underestimate the role of technology... casecand point: robots taking over all the jobs ( at least most factory jobs)!point is, those jobs aren't going to be there forever even if the rich don't move them!
Also the only time Republicans have left the Democrats with a bad economy is after 08. Also a lot of the problems in the economy start decades before they cause major problems. Also the US has collected the same percent of GDP no matter the year. The truth is the Republican party understands some parts of economic history than Democrats. However both parties are horrible at reducing spending
"I did it because I thought it was right. And I made a mistake." Oh how beautiful it would be if politicians still publicly accepted when they were wrong and moved on.
Lol, watching this video is so funny, because it seems like the major conflict is Bush genuinely care about the repercussions of his actions in the years going forward, which has no resemblance to the current GOP
Socially the Democratic Party has shifted to the left. Economically they have shifted to the right and not by a little bit either. Carter did some but Bill Clinton ran with it. More deregulation and corporate friendly. That is not an FDR Democrat whose policies lasted decades. Even Ike was in favor of most.
Ah, that was his mistake. You can't do what you think is right for the country; you have to do whatever your party thinks is best, no matter how bad of an idea it is. Compromise is always considered failure in politics, even though it often benefits everyone. We need to get out of this mess where working across party lines is considered a sin. Elections are when we fight ideas; government should be when we work together to get things done.
Yeah like. There are some issues on which we fundamentally disagree, but honestly Americans agree on more issues than one would think. I won't name any policies in particular because that just gets people to swarm me and scream incoherently, but there are a lot of them, and if political leaders worked across the isle and such those things would actually get done. Partisanship is awful. I don't know much about Bush Sr., but his decision to vote for Clinton over Trump shows that he doesn't feel completely obligated to side with his party on every issue. And he was willing to work with the other party to get things done. He seems to have tried to do what he thought he should do, rather than blindly follow what his party wanted. If more politicians were like that we wouldn't be in this mess. Just...Jesus Christ, what happened to the Republican Party? Bush Sr.'s wing of the party sounded alright, at least. But just...god what? I don't...I don't even...
What America needs is a popularly elected Dictator. Not forever, just long enough to clean up the mess and change the politics. Americans value STRENGTH. Kick them in the teeth and kick them again when they try to fight back? And they'll worship the boots you kicked them with. No more of this "listening to the other side" bullshit. Politics is war. The only important thing is to win. Anyone who doesn't adapt to this new reality will never be able to enact any changes. And when that person wins? Let's just hope they're benevolent enough to change the system into something more sensible.
He truly was a great president. As I learn more and more about him, I’m beginning to appreciate him much more than I ever did before. God bless you, Bush
Liberal does not mean far left, and conservative does not mean far right. I swear no one actually understands what ideologies stand for in American politics
24.11.99 far left is anti government yet somehow people think a totalitarian government is far left... Even though far right would be totalitarianism, even if they're super pc and racist against whites, that would be far right.
Lmao. You do realize that in America, you can either be far right or far left right? There would always be a dramatic difference between all American politicians political views. There won't be anybody close to the Center.
Yes vote Republican because the Democrats will drag you through the dirt to reach their goals. Republicans will set you up so with work you can reach your goals
That's why the budget will never be balanced again. Everyone is worried about the party they like more than the country. Any politician with integrity would be shouted down, blackmailed, or disgraced.
The budget will never be balanced again because they like the idea of a balanced budget but they don't like the steps needed to make it happen. Funnily enough the budget was well on it's way to be balanced when Obama was President and it may have actually happened if they didn't lose the Senate in 2014 or the house in 2010. It also doesn't help that the only time people talk about balanced budgets is when a Democrat is in the white house and no one seems to know the difference between the debt and the deficit.
Mathieu Levert So. To me being a politician is doing what's right for their constituents. I would have more respect for a politician who wasn't working for reelection, but doing his/her job. The simple truth the Democratics does this by trying to turning country into a welfare state and the Republicans by giving the country away to the super rich.
I remember when PETA called out Bush Sr for that "kinder, gentler" remark, pointing to animal experimentation as the proof he wasn't living up to his promise.... Imagine that. A time when cruelty to animals had the headlines, not babies in cages.
I never knew Bush Sr. was so competent. It's weird seeing an articulate, rational version of Dubya :D The last graph is pretty interesting, as Democrat presidents have been shifting right as well, something that was evident with Obama (and would've been even more blatant with Hillary, had she been elected).
Ildskalli Obama was highly conservative when compared to someone like Bernie Sanders. Obama matches that classic liberalism of the 50's. Very pro globalism.
Indeed. And it never ceases to make me smile when right-wing extremists accuse him of being a communist (besides secretly muslim, not born in the US, and all the other crap). Obama's policies would've been considered centrist, and even center-right, in most Western democracies.
Many people in the world see the US as a completely right-wing country, only if Sanders was president I would think the US is left-wing. Any country wasting so much money in its military is not left-wing.
Sometimes I think the Democrats should just run actual communist for once. The Republicans would have no new words to describe him, so their smears wouldn't be as effective. Wouldn't get anything done but would at least help shift the overton window left again. (Although just talking about Republicans is being charitable. The Clinton wing of the Democrats would be hard at work trying to kill his candidacy too) And before the inevitable comments about Bernie Sanders show up: Bernie Sanders is not a communist, not even close. He might be a socialist privately, but his policies are very much in line with the social democrats you see in European center-left parties. Socialism is not when the government does stuff, and it's not when the government owns stuff.
@Peace and Love Nah, the Dems of today are a big tent party. He for sure would be a conservative Democrat, like Manchin. I don't think he'd be a Republican because of how much they degenerated.
"The people have spoken and we respect the majesty of the democratic system." Could you even imagine Trump saying anything even remotely close to that when he loses in November?
@@tankfire20 Well, it's a virtual guarantee that he'll lose the popular vote (again). But you're right. There is the possibility he could win the electoral college (which, of course, he would contest). All the more reason to vote. Absentee, mail-in, in-person ... whatever it takes. VOTE.
Unless we change our election system, getting a third party in is hard if not impossible. CGP Grey does a good series of videos on this. Something like "Politics in the Animal Kingdom" or something, I forget. He talks about different ways you can do elections, almost all of which sound a lot better than the system we have right now :/ But unless we do this, our current system incentives strategic voting, i.e. voting for the biggest party that you hate less than the other biggest party. In this case, the two big parties are Democrats and Republicans. If you vote for a smaller party that aligns more closely with your views, you are taking away from the big party that you hate the least and making it easier for the party you hate more to win. This has actually happened multiple times in the past, most infamously before the civil war, when the southern states split their vote so hard that Abraham Lincoln got a plurality and became president despite getting like...I think it was less than a third of the vote? Or some ridiculously small percentage. I mean yes it's a good thing that he won, but it doesn't make how he won any less hilarious. But that's what happens in the First Past the Post voting system, the one we have right now, and it's called the spoiler effect. This is why having a third party in the US is so hard, and is why we basically just have Democrats and Republicans. For parties like the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, or some other party to have a shot, there needs to be less of an incentive to vote strategically. If we had the alternative vote, we could just mark down the order in which we'd prefer the candidates on the list. Then if our favorite candidate didn't get the votes, those votes would be transferred to our second favorite candidate, and so on. For example, Al Gore lost to George W. Bush because the vote split between Al Gore and Ralph Nader, and the Electoral College decided that Al Gore winning the popular vote didn't matter (What's with Democrats splitting the vote and then losing the election despite getting the popular vote? It's weird man). With the alternative vote, most of the Ralph Nader voters would have then be counted as Al Gore voters (since Nader had the least votes, and most of his voters probably would have put Gore second), leading Gore to win the Presidency. Sure Nader still wouldn't win, but at least Bush didn't either. So now there's less of a need to worry about strategic voting, since you're not making it easier for the party you hate to win anymore. So now you're free to try out as many third parties as you wish, knowing that you'll have the big party you hate less as a last resort if none of the candidates you like end up making it. And who knows? Maybe more people want that third party you voted for than you think. They just don't pick them because they're too afraid that the party they hate more is going to win. Under this voting system, they can just directly vote for the party without consequences. And since third parties have more of a shot at winning, more people will consider them a good investment and start funding them. This will make it easier to find quality candidates, which will in turn make them stronger, which will lead to better funding and so on. So now we finally have viable third parties. Woo! TL;DR change the voting system first, then the third parties will come.
I probably would've voted for Bush 41 in '88 and '92. I voted for McCain in '08, my first election. I do not ever see me voting for another Republican for the rest of my life.
Considering what they've become, outside of Bush 41, since the 60s or so, what Republican would be worth voting for? They're all awful, just to different extents
While I'm certainly going to be a lifelong liberal, I will always respect your decision, and your vote, as long as it respects others basic human dignity. John McCain, Bush Sr, and many other Republicans who would be less than welcome in the current party understood that, and I appreciate them for it.
Bass Wars and the dems do? The dems want to bankrupt the people with high taxes in order to pay for healthcare, college, etc, and no, not just the rich will pay for it, because when the rich suddenly are down to 2 cents, who then is considered the rich?
02:50: "Reaganomics" and "Trickle-down Economics" failed? I am SO shocked!🤣 Eisenhower (a Republican) taxed the richest Americans at 90%, and they STILL lived like kings.💵 That's what inspired HW Bush. It was - and still is - a great idea.🇺🇸
BuddyL that's before the party was taken by racist southern Democrats who switched because they didnt want black people to have rights. So before they were very progressive people honestly
Jesse Dahlberg Considering that the term is used exclusively by Neo-Cons and Libertarians who think the 1% should pay lower taxes than the average citizen (thus putting the nation in even more debt), I'd say it's they who have a flimsy grasp of the reality of economics. Aaaaand I've no time for such ignorance. Ta.🖕🏿
this is basically how my parents (boomers) evolved. they've always been registered as independent but my mom said she tended to vote republican until the Reagan years. she said "the party abandoned me" and now she's so disgusted with the GOP that she can't conceive of voting for any of them anytime in the near future.
A great idea in theory? Supply side was ALWAYS A BAD IDEA. Only the richest benefited, and it is gutting the rest of the economy even today, with colossal amounts of wealth concentrated in the hands of few, colossal debt in the government the dispossession of the working class and a return to the pre 1930 boom bust cycle
In theory less tax means business can grow, employ more people and pay them more. It relies on the rich and companies being generous, and choosing to give to employees rather than invest or pay themselves more. Obviously that's never going to happen, so kinda like communism it only works in theory if you take human nature out of the equation.
Believe it or not, supply side economics actually results in a greater percentage of taxes being paid by the ultra wealthy. They do, however, increase inequality and studies show most people don’t care about their own livelihood so much as their livelihood in comparison to others. That is why keeping up with the Joneses is a real phenomenon.
Jacob B Walters except that is because the percentage of money the wealthy own skyrockets. The top 400 people in the US OWN MORE WEALTH THAN THE BOTTOM 60% COMBINED. even then, they use accountancy tricks to avoid paying tax on what they have.
omi god I don't think the idea is that direct. What theyre saying is that tax cuts put more money into the hands of business, who then use that money to invest in expanding their business, or expanding other businesses. Because as you know, a bigger business means more money. From that expansion, the need for labor goes up, which means more employment. Using your example, the guy wouldn't hire another gardener with his tax cuts, he will buy more land for a bigger garden, which would require 2 gardeners to maintain instead of 1. I haven't read on any of this but I think that's the general idea behind it. Increase investment capital, to expand business, to boost employment. That's why they say it sounds good on paper.
Served in WW2, became a successful businessman, served in public office and then became president and retired. What a great life he had. RIP George H.W. Bush
Incredible video! Opens up the knowledge on the evolution of the conservative party. Neat to think that GHWB was NE Conservative and had a moderate democrat ideology, especially never knew GHWB supported a lot of social issues and opened up to new bills.
Really interesting video, would love to see maybe a series of videos like this analyzing previous presidents and how their tenures as president affected the country at the time and today.
I'm a diehard Democrat and Voted for him the second election. For the first time in a long time we had a president getting things done in bipartisan fashion. He sure deserved a second term in my opinion!
Can i just say that as a non american snarky leftist swede that Bush senior or Kennedy as an outsider are clearly the best presidents of the modern era
Sayem i have to disagree and agree with the other guy. The civil rights act really wasnt lbj initiative and kennedy's intelligent foreign policy and tendency to act more moderate makes him, atleast from my perspective
Imo he was the best Republican since Eisenhower and until now. He could have bought thr country together and decrease the divide. Sad what the GOP became and how severely underrated he is. I'm a liberal but he may be the best we've had since LBJ OR JFK
he Ended the cold war with flying colors, the symbol of victory, without the cold war's victory it's likely that many countries wl need to suffer socialism tyrany and dictatorship. iw wish Reagan will sooner. the sooner the better
This video beautifully illustrates why I voted for Bush in 1988 & 1992 and why I no longer vote Republican for President. I voted for Dubya in 2000 and ended up with voters remorse. 😪
@@alexanderfooy723 not all but most of them. To me, I actually see the Democratic Party moving right to try to win over moderates and swing states. Among all of the nominees, they chose Biden hence proving that the Democratic Party is not really moving to the left, in some ways, it is moving towards the right while the GOP, well you know what happened
@@christopherliang6879 I think that the national Democratic Party (who, yes, are a part of stagnation as well) definitely wrenched itself towards the center however we are also seeing an increased amount of harder-left folks elected to local and state governments as well as Congress.
@@christopherliang6879 But Biden changed a lot of his former moderate positions to harder Left ones and then on a lot of issues was vague about whether he supported this or that progressive proposal. The Democratic Party lost a lot of Southern members of Congress and state governments in the 1990s and 2000s due to moving to the Left on certain issues and becoming less tolerant of members with socially conservative views. Both parties have moved away from the Center on a lot of issues, although some of Trump's positions on trade are pretty economically Leftwing so Biden tried to portray himself as a social moderate to get some of the blue-collar socially conservative economically Leftwing union workers of the rust belt swing-states, although, in reality, Biden abandoned a lot of his former socially moderate positions when he ran in the Democratic primary.
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mV5bGIswTtQ/mqdefault.jpg)
How did the Republicans go from the party of Abraham Lincoln to Donald Trump today?
Watch our history of the GOP: bit.ly/2IeZYlS
We’re still the same damn party
Wyatt Bishop You guys are now a worser version of Jacksonian Democrats
EggoMyLeggo why is that? Because we believe men are men and women are women. We don’t want our kids to have to grow up in a confused society. And we appreciate a hard working American that earns what they work for and doesn’t have to be given everything for free..?
Wyatt Bishop what happens when the hard working American is injured at work and has to pay a
70k to fix himself
That's why most of an average American's work goes to the top .01% who get a free ride on the backs of the American people, mostly in part because of the Republican party.
The Republican party has almost always been about serving the rich. The problem today is that both parties serve the rich.
*"Country over Party"*
That's what everyone should strive for, not just power but for the people.
It doesn't work anymore because too little people have too much money and they're the ones in control. They serve only money.
@@chrisofstars but now we have trump, an outsider who fights for the people and doesn't care about money
@@sloopfan3706 i hope that was sarcastic
@@tanyathon7616 absolutely not. i meant that wholeheartedly.
Judah Mwania oh god lol
"For the environment." Makes me want to cry that Republicans completely abandoned this.
It was Nixon who founded the EPA. How the times have changed...
I care about the environment. Recycling and such. Just not really about "climate change"
@@roaminghomosapiens7399 honey the Amazon rainforest is burning, climate change is clear to see. It's currently 85°F where I live in the UK and it should NEVER be that warm at 51°N at the END of August.
@@asheiou earth goes through cycles. There used to be a forest where the Sahara desert is now way before we could have had any impact in its formation.
@@roaminghomosapiens7399 do your homework dude.
3:31
? Did I just hear a politician say they made a mistake?
Yes, something that you will not heard from the current orange.
it’s sad that you had to say that statement because it is completely true. politicians are dishonest.
Yep that's integrity
@@putra4101 , you do hear that a lot from the Orange's neighbour (Trudeau).
@@nuzayerov Ofc he is Canadian
"His party had become so unrecognizable in his lifetime the former president voted for the wife of the man who had beat him 24 years earlier" -Dang, that's powerful Vox
And to make matters worse that man's wife was a criminal psychopath! That is really saying something (that we are ruled by criminals)
@NPC CuckyHas-been American culture is itself a war crime, built by older war crimes, and you're complicit.
weird flex, but o.k.
@@destroya3303 who are we talking about?
@@TMPD see the OP
"The people have spoken and we respect the majesty of democracy"
Geez if only a president could promise that in 2020.
@The Unknown right? 🤣🤣
@@Paonporteur I don't have much information tbh and I know there are a lot of people who will deny what they say, but looking in history, I could see H.W. Bush was a legend, not just that from having him survived from being eaten by cannibals during WWII.
Yeah Trump did horribly
Geez if only Democrats would support voter ID and cleaning up voter rolls of dead and ineligible voters... 🤔
if you listen carefully, he actually says no more Texas
What a liar
No
Blatant Texan erasure smh
That’s why Clinton won the next election. They couldn’t let Bush destroy Texas.
If you listen to his words, he says no more taxes.
But if you do what he said and read his lips, he says no more Texas.
That George Bush voted for clinton tells you everything you need to know about how terrible a two party lesser evil system is.
It’s amazing
@@Rfpenab please show me a three or more party system that works
@@grod805 switzerland
@@grod805 Dutch political system
@@grod805 We should have runoff elections. CGPGrey had a great elections video several years ago presenting the many options we have
I'm liberal. But I must say, H.W. was an actual worthy president. He admitted his mistakes, cared about environment and immigration and the actual middle class. Most which even today's dems don’t do.
I totally agree. He was actually the last Republican I ever voted for. Very decent guy. Highly qualified and competent. The WWII generation was just totally different. It was an age where people had respect for one another.
Him breaking his no new taxes promise actually hurt the middle class. That was how we went in to a recession. That was how liberals saw it when he was running against Clinton.
Still the presidential pledge wasn't ideal
Ofc you do. He's essentially a liberal.
I’m not entirely sure how a war criminal was a “worthy president”
“I did not, have, sexualrelationswiththatwoman”
I was just on this part 😭
"I did not touch Lowenski
I did not have anythingtodowithmywifegettingEpsteinkilled
k
Everyone loves Phil Jones.
Wait...do I like Bush Sr now? I never knew he went so middle on certain things. A republican that cared about the environment and disabled? My, how far that party has fallen.
Republican once ment something...my father and mother voted for both regan and Bush senior....
Now, now what?
themaster408 That is the destiny of the older Bush, a moderate and competent President forever overshadowed by his longer serving disastrous son.
Justin Dysinger Sad but true
themaster408 he was actually not so bad
Like is to strong a term, but yeah considered with todays Republicans he seems almost electable.
Bush 41 you will always have my respect for calling Reagan out on voodoo economics.
-voodoo- high tech economics! production can stay high with lower spanding because one man can now manage a thousand acre farm on his own what with the power of modern farming equipment... and its like that everywhere!
". Lowering taxes and let everybody, who can't compete with machines and doesn't find a job within a highly automated economy, fall into poverty doesn't make much sense to me.".
thats the point, competing with the machines is futile and pointless!if the machines can do eveyry thing better we should let them. my point was that once we heve the tech needed for the machines to do most or all he work, tax won't matter anyway because no one will be working... and. as for poverty,for poverty... at some point, if our tech advances far enough even those with no jobs and no money will still live like kings... i mean, we can probably do that now... we certainly have enough houses, cars, etc... its just that he rich make you pay for it so they can get richer.
Imagine if Biden started trashing the ACA and Obama a socialist.
@Eyre Borne wow... where did you get the idea i think we should make scrooge richer? did you even read?
Yeah, good job on starting a massive economic recession just to prove someone who disagrees with you ''wrong.''
I was born 2 years after his presidency terminated, and I’m learning a lot about him now. He is a republican and moderate conservative that I deeply admire and respect. I’m more liberal and centrist, but he was a man with true values. I could have really gotten behind his pragmatic approach.
his son invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and made life hard for american muslims it's sad
Emy S irrelevant
@@oichiazai1 He holds no responsibility for what his son did as president
@@oichiazai1 Bush Jr was not member of the faction of his father.
The far right and left are bad for this country we need more moderate conservatives and liberals
Vox a left leaning news source has somehow made me like bush more..... wow ok
Well I mean they're left leaning, but they're not utterly bankrupt journalistically. It's not hard to see that the Republican party has pretty intensely degenerated over the last twenty years or so. Anyone with a brain and some eyes could see that. All they had to do was show that Bush Sr had some level of integrity, and it's already a jarring counterpoint to the lunatic in the same office nowadays.
@@olivercuenca4109 keep in mind the republican party was founded as left wing and the democratic party was right wing.
xm3 actually not true, both parties used to have both wings
xm3 not true, in economic and worker issues both parties have kept to their wings
mazibukomail They have changed in terms of social views though?
Sounds like I would like these country-club Republicans. At least Bush wanted to work across the aisle to make deals. Current GOP leaders never seem to want to compromise.
I probably might've wanted Bush, too. He was slammed because - at least a little bit - Regan made a mess he left Bush to clean up. He was the Republican president we could always use, and especially now.
Just because one or two from across the isle voted for it doesn't make it bipartisan.
Bipartisanship is a scourge on this country and the sooner it dies the better. Everything that the two parties can agree on is horrible for ordinary people.
Have you not seen the large number of blue dots? There were a lot more votes from across the isle than 'one or two' -_-'
90/10 is not bipartisan.
I'm liking this new tone, Vox. Well researched and nuanced. It speaks of america as a whole nation rather than two warring parties. Keep it up.
It completely misunderstands political ideologies. To say that liberal economics is the same as left economics is fanciful. Thankfully the entire US political media continue to do the same thing
George Hayes you demonstrate the above comment’s point perfectly.
You are in a illusion 🤣
murica can only understand black-suited villain and white-suited hero, anything more subtle is lost on a largely illiterate citizenry educated by TV. This is why they will always be reduced to a binary idiocy. Tocqueville could see it, Mencken warned of/mocked it, and Freud was right: "America is a mistake."
Meanwhile, the courtier class opining on screens can't see the forest for the trees
Why was Reagan’s one liner “Oh there ya go again” I mean if I’m thinking of his best one liner it’s gonna be “Mr.Gorbachev Tear down this wall” that’s his best.
Its because "Oh there ya go again." was the one liner that Reagan used to beat Carter in the presidential debate.
It's because they didn't want to make Reagan look too good
@@samgiglio4391 Somehow, I doubt you understand the true significance of that speech-- or lack thereof. So many lemmings see that speech, *immediately* followed by the wall being "torn down." But there was no movement for *two years.* Outside the US, this canonization of Reagan just doesn't exist.
(Not to mention, even in the US at the time, very few people actually saw that speech. It wasn't until afterward that it became a political puff piece.)
Ki-Sean Excell what about "I am paying for this microphone!"
@@ichijofestival2576 I think you may need to re visit your history studies if you believe that Reagan was not instrumental at all in the collapse of communisim in the western block.
Wow George H.W Bush did some good things. Too bad people always put party over country. Reagan just keeps getting worse the more I learn about him.
@Sayem The devil who spoke in his ear was named "Arthur Laffer" who is the architect behind trickle-down economics and the infamously misunderstood laffer curve.
Not to mention his gross inaction on the AIDs crisis. He was an awful president.
Are you a doctor, who are you to say he had Alzheimer's when he wasn't officially diagnosed until 1993.
I lived through the Reagan presidency. I never viewed has no great prize.
@Bacon Strips What don’t you like about Reagan?
He was the last call of sanity in the Republican party.
his son invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and made life hard for american muslims it's sad
I love increased poverty too
@ Chrispy Chicken of KFC W\ Dank Memes , 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
@@oichiazai1 it didnt make it hard for them, it was a war on terror
@@oichiazai1 perfect example of how children do not always act like their parents. John Quincy Adams was the son of John Adams and we can tell how poorly he did by how much Andrew Jackson won.
Turns out good ideas are blind to left and right. Doing what is right and using reason instead of a stone age tribal mentality.
'Good' as a whole is subjective.
Tino Duran them's the breaks.
Simone When half the country thinks your good ideas are abhorrent, though, there's a problem a lack of parties won't fix.
Tribalism is also a built in behavior that we have very little control over. The left still does it. The right still does it. Its necessary for the perpetuation of both genetics and ideology. Were it not for tribalism the government would be structured completely differently. Hell, the nation probably would be structured radically differently.
Far right is freedom at the expense of equality, and far left is equality at the expense of freedom. Good ideas in politics usually are those that strive for balance between liberty and equality. Best ideas are those that find a way to combine these two. Thing is, political discourse in USA is so scewed towards the right, that any good idea will of necessity appear as left of far left.
I'm a moderate conservative in my country but I would be a solid Democrat in the US. It's amazing how far right you guys are.
Exactly. I'm a solid moderate/centrist (whatever you wanna call it) in my country but with american standards i'd be pretty far left.
What's the basis of that opinion, because I highly doubt it is true. For starters, I live in Asia.
In my country building a oil pipeline is seen as a right wing thing lol
@@hnam1111 Which part of Asia specifically?
@Friendly Neighborhood Neocon No. In Africa, south America, most parts of assia, even russians are quite the same as western europeans when it comes to stuff like healthcare, education and so on. I guess you never have been to these places.
I'm a strong democrat, I would've voted for Bush.
H.W. and Ford were moderates.
@@onomatopoeia162003 George H.W. Bush did move to the right, however, because he accepted being Ronald Reagan's running mate in the 1980 election, and Reagan was a staunch conservative. I'd say Gerald Ford classifies as the last truly moderate Republican president.
@@PKMNFan4664 On which issue's did he go right other than doing the Willie Horton ad for those people for votes.
@@onomatopoeia162003 Abortion. He was pro-choice most of his political career, but Reagan made him be pro-life.
Same
I find amazing how countries' economic planning can completely shift after an election. Economic planning should focus on the long term and be critically and strategically decided, and not follow the wish - and interests - of a political party or the president. This happens almost everywhere btw, not only in the U.S.
What you're proposing is done succesfully in just one country - China. Everywhere else where it has been tried it has failed. Certainly, long-term thinking is painfully absent from most economic policymakers around the world, and it's easily disregarded in the fleeting world of politics. But it's also true that the best economic policy is adaptation, and usually the countries that can change direction the fastest are also the most successful.
so what made china different?
Ildskalli
Japan and Singapore also adopted the same kind of long term economic governance.
Michael: Two things. The first is that it's a totalitarian government that calls itself socialist, but has actually fostered neoliberalism among its population. Basically, the Party in China owns *everything* and is accountable to no one, but despite these aspects (which usually deter any kind of foreign or domestic investment) they've managed to court overseas companies as well as develop a very robust and entrepreneurial middle class. The second thing is that Deng Xiaoping, the father of the current Chinese prosperity, was very careful in completely taking over the Communist Party and leaving well-educated disciples behind. Thanks to China being such a huge nation, and the timely removal of the Maos, it can't be Cuba anymore in terms of being ruled by a single family. This means that there is ample scope for ambitious and capable officials to climb through the ranks, instead of the usual apparatchiks and relatives that we see in other left-wing dictatorships.
lolipedofin: Japan is a terrible example, considering how their economy is in shambles (held up by all sorts of "vodoo economics" as Bush so eloquently said). But Singapore is interesting - as you say, it's quite similar to China in some respects, despite being on the completely opposite side of the left-right divide (in theory). I think they could be the other exception to the rule.
Guys watch the video before you comment, I think this is a fair and positive take on the guy
Veloce Vayford it definitely is!
They didn’t mention the thousands of people he has killed and the war crimes he has committed which seems kinda unfair
Nice to Bush, but it's a hit piece on the GOP
Yeah but HW doesn't deserve a positive take. He was a butcher.
Nope, they missed the part where he lied to American public(incubator story) to go to war with Iraq ruclips.net/video/qrJaYuZLhk8/видео.html, and the contra scandal.
Gotta love the conservative economic plan.
1: Cut taxes.
2: Run out of money to run the government.
3: ?????
4: Who cares we're rich lol
5. Leave Democrats with a bad economy and blame them for it
6. Let Democrats repair the economy
7. Take credit for the Democrats' work
@@Klaratchi 8. Shut down the government till you get what you want
Aaron Kasper
Just asking, but wouldn't low taxes for corporations actually serving for the them and not the people, since we could use the money from them to help the people? The US isn't even in the top 30 for welfare spending compared to the GDP or per capital.
when it comes to economics, you can't underestimate the role of technology... casecand point: robots taking over all the jobs ( at least most factory jobs)!point is, those jobs aren't going to be there forever even if the rich don't move them!
Also the only time Republicans have left the Democrats with a bad economy is after 08. Also a lot of the problems in the economy start decades before they cause major problems. Also the US has collected the same percent of GDP no matter the year. The truth is the Republican party understands some parts of economic history than Democrats. However both parties are horrible at reducing spending
Hey, maybe watch the video before you comment. You know what happens when you assume, right?
I know what happens to me. What happens to you? I would't want to assume :D
I'm not sure, but I assume it has something to do with asses and myself.
Michael Wade George Bush doesn’t care about black people
Wrong George Bush.
This is not clickbaitish tho
R.I.P. George H.W. Bush
Mike Hawk oh calm down that’s ridiculous
@@alexbaseball4684 highway of he
@Waleed Miner Mr. Reagan is also deceased as well. May both of them rest with God!
Mike Hawk chill
@@MikeHawk-tj3dz you must be the type of person who always say that every president is a war criminal
"I did it because I thought it was right.
And I made a mistake."
Oh how beautiful it would be if politicians still publicly accepted when they were wrong and moved on.
Lol, watching this video is so funny, because it seems like the major conflict is Bush genuinely care about the repercussions of his actions in the years going forward, which has no resemblance to the current GOP
preach
Socially the Democratic Party has shifted to the left. Economically they have shifted to the right and not by a little bit either. Carter did some but Bill Clinton ran with it. More deregulation and corporate friendly. That is not an FDR Democrat whose policies lasted decades. Even Ike was in favor of most.
Well said.
America has had democrats presidents and it remained a capitalist hard right economic free market with a horrible healthcare system
prove it! details, they are important!
1: other nations tend to have sgnificantly better preventative care!
2: *PROVE IT*!
Deregulation was actually Reagan and the guy in this video
I'm a Democrat, and I still think Bush Sr. was a good man. He lived a long life, and that's what he deserved.
Compare to Reagan, Bush sr is a saint.
@@BELIVE114 Yes, the Iraqis thank him for starting the mess.
@@osman01003 his son did most of the damage sit down
@@osman01003 His son did that
@therealman2016 both did. The father started the job.
Ah, that was his mistake. You can't do what you think is right for the country; you have to do whatever your party thinks is best, no matter how bad of an idea it is. Compromise is always considered failure in politics, even though it often benefits everyone. We need to get out of this mess where working across party lines is considered a sin. Elections are when we fight ideas; government should be when we work together to get things done.
Yes compromise is what makes democracy work. And it’s, though it might not be perfect, what will make the most people happy
Yeah like. There are some issues on which we fundamentally disagree, but honestly Americans agree on more issues than one would think.
I won't name any policies in particular because that just gets people to swarm me and scream incoherently, but there are a lot of them, and if political leaders worked across the isle and such those things would actually get done. Partisanship is awful.
I don't know much about Bush Sr., but his decision to vote for Clinton over Trump shows that he doesn't feel completely obligated to side with his party on every issue. And he was willing to work with the other party to get things done. He seems to have tried to do what he thought he should do, rather than blindly follow what his party wanted.
If more politicians were like that we wouldn't be in this mess. Just...Jesus Christ, what happened to the Republican Party? Bush Sr.'s wing of the party sounded alright, at least. But just...god what? I don't...I don't even...
Zzyzx Wolfe : Well said.
What America needs is a popularly elected Dictator. Not forever, just long enough to clean up the mess and change the politics. Americans value STRENGTH. Kick them in the teeth and kick them again when they try to fight back? And they'll worship the boots you kicked them with.
No more of this "listening to the other side" bullshit. Politics is war. The only important thing is to win. Anyone who doesn't adapt to this new reality will never be able to enact any changes. And when that person wins? Let's just hope they're benevolent enough to change the system into something more sensible.
Zzyzx Wolfe, agreed.
RIP Bush. Thank you for your service.
Great president. He deserved a second term.
He truly was a great president. As I learn more and more about him, I’m beginning to appreciate him much more than I ever did before. God bless you, Bush
I liked bi-partisan America... why can’t we go back to it?
Because 9/11..
@@chrisofstars after 9/11 we were more united than I ever remembered. After we invaded Iraq, we were more divided than ever.
I Think He Means 9/11 Caused Bush To Make The Iraq War
The problem in America is the bi-party system, if a multiparty System was in place it would’ve been better.
Because people wanna stay in power and are too egoistic to admit they respect the opponent
Liberal does not mean far left, and conservative does not mean far right. I swear no one actually understands what ideologies stand for in American politics
24.11.99 far left is anti government yet somehow people think a totalitarian government is far left... Even though far right would be totalitarianism, even if they're super pc and racist against whites, that would be far right.
The political chart has two axes on it. Left/Right and Libertarian/Authoritarian.
DeclaringPond 22 dude you have no idea what you are talking about. You can be pro government or anti government on both the left and right.
Lmao. You do realize that in America, you can either be far right or far left right? There would always be a dramatic difference between all American politicians political views. There won't be anybody close to the Center.
The American education system sucks. Its designed to suck. Garbage In Garbage Out
Remember remember to vote in November.
🗳️🗳️🗳️
the new dacia
Run yourself (?)
No time for complaining.
😀
the new dacia I hate you too jk
Remember to vote republican
Still voting for ted cruz omega
Yes vote Republican because the Democrats will drag you through the dirt to reach their goals. Republicans will set you up so with work you can reach your goals
Wait someone working with the other party to get stuff done 😱😱😱
Unthinkable since the rise of Fox News and the GOP drift to the right.
You realize democrats dont like to work with republicans just as much...especially because of trump...
No, that's bothsidesism. One side is consistently escalating and breaking norms since at least the early 2000s.
KAYDEN MERRITT good for you?
That's why the budget will never be balanced again. Everyone is worried about the party they like more than the country. Any politician with integrity would be shouted down, blackmailed, or disgraced.
The budget will never be balanced again because they like the idea of a balanced budget but they don't like the steps needed to make it happen. Funnily enough the budget was well on it's way to be balanced when Obama was President and it may have actually happened if they didn't lose the Senate in 2014 or the house in 2010. It also doesn't help that the only time people talk about balanced budgets is when a Democrat is in the white house and no one seems to know the difference between the debt and the deficit.
Mathieu Levert So. To me being a politician is doing what's right for their constituents. I would have more respect for a politician who wasn't working for reelection, but doing his/her job.
The simple truth the Democratics does this by trying to turning country into a welfare state and the Republicans by giving the country away to the super rich.
1:28 it's a good thing you circled YALE on his jersey, because I would've never found it
He went to Yale? I totally missed it.
Long live the Thrashers!
I remember when PETA called out Bush Sr for that "kinder, gentler" remark, pointing to animal experimentation as the proof he wasn't living up to his promise.... Imagine that. A time when cruelty to animals had the headlines, not babies in cages.
I never knew Bush Sr. was so competent. It's weird seeing an articulate, rational version of Dubya :D
The last graph is pretty interesting, as Democrat presidents have been shifting right as well, something that was evident with Obama (and would've been even more blatant with Hillary, had she been elected).
Ildskalli Obama was highly conservative when compared to someone like Bernie Sanders.
Obama matches that classic liberalism of the 50's. Very pro globalism.
Indeed. And it never ceases to make me smile when right-wing extremists accuse him of being a communist (besides secretly muslim, not born in the US, and all the other crap). Obama's policies would've been considered centrist, and even center-right, in most Western democracies.
Many people in the world see the US as a completely right-wing country, only if Sanders was president I would think the US is left-wing. Any country wasting so much money in its military is not left-wing.
Sometimes I think the Democrats should just run actual communist for once. The Republicans would have no new words to describe him, so their smears wouldn't be as effective. Wouldn't get anything done but would at least help shift the overton window left again. (Although just talking about Republicans is being charitable. The Clinton wing of the Democrats would be hard at work trying to kill his candidacy too)
And before the inevitable comments about Bernie Sanders show up: Bernie Sanders is not a communist, not even close. He might be a socialist privately, but his policies are very much in line with the social democrats you see in European center-left parties. Socialism is not when the government does stuff, and it's not when the government owns stuff.
summit076 if they ran an actual communist I would bust 20 nuts within 15 minutes of the announcement.
I never knew Bush Sr. was this productive or bipartisan. Hats off to him.
@Gino Furzi, same flaw as every president of the last century. Got it.
Wow Trump is so bad, we are trying to appreciate a Bush.
Bush was good
@@keithbagdon6888 not the other bush
@@chengkuoklee5734 yea not War Bush
Bush 41 is the man! Always has been the man. Former Airforce pilot, Oil Tycoon, Head of CIA and Vice President to actual president
Trump didn’t start endless wars
Did anyone else just get that one line from Clinton all the time when trying to download anything from Limewire back in the day?
lmao it should be an iconic part of US history but yeah when I hear it I think of all the albums I thought I downloaded
Why do I see u everywhere. Miniminter, sidemen, buzzfee ed etc.
Limewire eh ? Katy your age is showing
hell yea, rage inducing viruses on limewire...
I did not have textual relations with that server!
Holy shrikers I think George HW Bush would be a democrat if he were president today :o
@Peace and Love Nah, the Dems of today are a big tent party. He for sure would be a conservative Democrat, like Manchin. I don't think he'd be a Republican because of how much they degenerated.
@@Norkeys cry liberal 😭😢
@@rohantime5938 ???
He would be an independent in trump era, supporting romney, Liz Cheney, etc
@@rohantime5938 Lol Bush Sr voted for Hillary over Trump in 2016
"The people have spoken and we respect the majesty of the democratic system."
Could you even imagine Trump saying anything even remotely close to that when he loses in November?
@@tankfire20 Well, it's a virtual guarantee that he'll lose the popular vote (again). But you're right. There is the possibility he could win the electoral college (which, of course, he would contest). All the more reason to vote. Absentee, mail-in, in-person ... whatever it takes. VOTE.
@@tankfire20 Weeeelp.....
I'm from the future. He certainly didn't say anything like that, no.
@@Khazuki_ are we surprised?
@@marcusvergara6193 nope
what america needs is more than two major parties
Nailed it.
The plan to make one is?
Shlomo Shekelwozsteinskyberg
False again.
No, not really. This works just fine.
Unless we change our election system, getting a third party in is hard if not impossible.
CGP Grey does a good series of videos on this. Something like "Politics in the Animal Kingdom" or something, I forget. He talks about different ways you can do elections, almost all of which sound a lot better than the system we have right now :/
But unless we do this, our current system incentives strategic voting, i.e. voting for the biggest party that you hate less than the other biggest party. In this case, the two big parties are Democrats and Republicans. If you vote for a smaller party that aligns more closely with your views, you are taking away from the big party that you hate the least and making it easier for the party you hate more to win.
This has actually happened multiple times in the past, most infamously before the civil war, when the southern states split their vote so hard that Abraham Lincoln got a plurality and became president despite getting like...I think it was less than a third of the vote? Or some ridiculously small percentage.
I mean yes it's a good thing that he won, but it doesn't make how he won any less hilarious.
But that's what happens in the First Past the Post voting system, the one we have right now, and it's called the spoiler effect. This is why having a third party in the US is so hard, and is why we basically just have Democrats and Republicans.
For parties like the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, or some other party to have a shot, there needs to be less of an incentive to vote strategically. If we had the alternative vote, we could just mark down the order in which we'd prefer the candidates on the list. Then if our favorite candidate didn't get the votes, those votes would be transferred to our second favorite candidate, and so on.
For example, Al Gore lost to George W. Bush because the vote split between Al Gore and Ralph Nader, and the Electoral College decided that Al Gore winning the popular vote didn't matter (What's with Democrats splitting the vote and then losing the election despite getting the popular vote? It's weird man). With the alternative vote, most of the Ralph Nader voters would have then be counted as Al Gore voters (since Nader had the least votes, and most of his voters probably would have put Gore second), leading Gore to win the Presidency. Sure Nader still wouldn't win, but at least Bush didn't either.
So now there's less of a need to worry about strategic voting, since you're not making it easier for the party you hate to win anymore. So now you're free to try out as many third parties as you wish, knowing that you'll have the big party you hate less as a last resort if none of the candidates you like end up making it.
And who knows? Maybe more people want that third party you voted for than you think. They just don't pick them because they're too afraid that the party they hate more is going to win. Under this voting system, they can just directly vote for the party without consequences.
And since third parties have more of a shot at winning, more people will consider them a good investment and start funding them. This will make it easier to find quality candidates, which will in turn make them stronger, which will lead to better funding and so on.
So now we finally have viable third parties. Woo!
TL;DR change the voting system first, then the third parties will come.
Y'all see the Confederate flags in the RNC convention hall?
J. L. Hamilton A completely different time from now. I’m glad that’s not acceptable anymore.
I think those are the flags of a few southern states that still have that symbolism.
It was the 80's, what do you expect?
1:04
That's basically like a punch to your mother if you did that in 1880s
Man I miss republicans who made sense RIP George Herbert Walker Bush.
I probably would've voted for Bush 41 in '88 and '92. I voted for McCain in '08, my first election.
I do not ever see me voting for another Republican for the rest of my life.
I liked Paul Ryan.
@@owenwalker1774 why?
Considering what they've become, outside of Bush 41, since the 60s or so, what Republican would be worth voting for? They're all awful, just to different extents
While I'm certainly going to be a lifelong liberal, I will always respect your decision, and your vote, as long as it respects others basic human dignity. John McCain, Bush Sr, and many other Republicans who would be less than welcome in the current party understood that, and I appreciate them for it.
Trump is great 👍
"Trickle-down economics" the most successful reskin (of corporate oligarchy) since Department of War tuned into Department of Defence.
yup
ministry of peace
ministry of love
ministry of plenty
ministry of truth
I remember when the Republicans actually loved America. That died with John McCain.
Bass Wars and the dems do? The dems want to bankrupt the people with high taxes in order to pay for healthcare, college, etc, and no, not just the rich will pay for it, because when the rich suddenly are down to 2 cents, who then is considered the rich?
@@chrisp3470 Europe hasn’t gone bankrupt. Whats your point?
Europe has gone bankrupt
There's still Mitt Romney
John McCain was a neo con just like the Bush's he wanted war in the middle east dont be fooled
Man I really like H. W. Bush looking back. I wish I could’ve been alive to see a moderate deal maker like him
02:50: "Reaganomics" and "Trickle-down Economics" failed? I am SO shocked!🤣
Eisenhower (a Republican) taxed the richest Americans at 90%, and they STILL lived like kings.💵 That's what inspired HW Bush. It was - and still is - a great idea.🇺🇸
BuddyL that's before the party was taken by racist southern Democrats who switched because they didnt want black people to have rights. So before they were very progressive people honestly
Corey Edwards
you are correct.
BuddyL YEP
BuddyL trickle down economics is just a Strawman liberals throw out there not understanding a single competitive economic plan
Jesse Dahlberg Considering that the term is used exclusively by Neo-Cons and Libertarians who think the 1% should pay lower taxes than the average citizen (thus putting the nation in even more debt), I'd say it's they who have a flimsy grasp of the reality of economics.
Aaaaand I've no time for such ignorance. Ta.🖕🏿
"Country over party" now theres something I have not heard in a long time.
this is basically how my parents (boomers) evolved. they've always been registered as independent but my mom said she tended to vote republican until the Reagan years. she said "the party abandoned me" and now she's so disgusted with the GOP that she can't conceive of voting for any of them anytime in the near future.
A great idea in theory? Supply side was ALWAYS A BAD IDEA. Only the richest benefited, and it is gutting the rest of the economy even today, with colossal amounts of wealth concentrated in the hands of few, colossal debt in the government the dispossession of the working class and a return to the pre 1930 boom bust cycle
In theory less tax means business can grow, employ more people and pay them more. It relies on the rich and companies being generous, and choosing to give to employees rather than invest or pay themselves more. Obviously that's never going to happen, so kinda like communism it only works in theory if you take human nature out of the equation.
Believe it or not, supply side economics actually results in a greater percentage of taxes being paid by the ultra wealthy. They do, however, increase inequality and studies show most people don’t care about their own livelihood so much as their livelihood in comparison to others. That is why keeping up with the Joneses is a real phenomenon.
Jacob B Walters except that is because the percentage of money the wealthy own skyrockets. The top 400 people in the US OWN MORE WEALTH THAN THE BOTTOM 60% COMBINED. even then, they use accountancy tricks to avoid paying tax on what they have.
dangerouslytalented EXACTLY
omi god I don't think the idea is that direct. What theyre saying is that tax cuts put more money into the hands of business, who then use that money to invest in expanding their business, or expanding other businesses. Because as you know, a bigger business means more money. From that expansion, the need for labor goes up, which means more employment. Using your example, the guy wouldn't hire another gardener with his tax cuts, he will buy more land for a bigger garden, which would require 2 gardeners to maintain instead of 1. I haven't read on any of this but I think that's the general idea behind it. Increase investment capital, to expand business, to boost employment. That's why they say it sounds good on paper.
George H. W Bush was a great person whom I deeply respect. Sad to see what has become of the party he once represented.
I digged the old clip of HW Bush criticizing trickle-down as voodoo economics, rarely see stuff like that.
But no, they claim, "We have always been at war with Eastasia"
What is fascinating about American conservatism is how it has radicalized, even after winning electoral power .
Like there r not that dems r not radical
Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of anti-fa burning down Portland and a dozen other cities.
@@Astrobucks2 you dont deny it.
@@Astrobucks2 if I held a gun to your head, you couldn’t name 4 cities that Antifa burned down.
@@marcusvergara6193 Portland, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Philadelphia.
liberals tomorrow: "I'm a classical conservative"
Woah, nice
Shows how far the Republicans have shifted to the right.
@Omar Omar Most of the leading Democrats (Pelosi, Biden) are no where near the left.
I say that sometimes.
Omar Omar Biden says he’s veto M4A, yeah definitely too left wing
I'm glad that he admitted that he'd made a mistake
H.W Bush: "Read my lips"
Me: What lips?
So basically he was an alright president.
don't forget winning the gulf war that made him a legend
Exactly what I thought
Served in WW2, became a successful businessman, served in public office and then became president and retired. What a great life he had. RIP George H.W. Bush
He voted for the wife of the man who beat him twenty four years earlier
Powerful stuff
Incredible video! Opens up the knowledge on the evolution of the conservative party. Neat to think that GHWB was NE Conservative and had a moderate democrat ideology, especially never knew GHWB supported a lot of social issues and opened up to new bills.
Spect
Really interesting video, would love to see maybe a series of videos like this analyzing previous presidents and how their tenures as president affected the country at the time and today.
When republicans used to be for the environment 1:08
Trump signed The Great Outdoors Act recently.
@Sonic Phil You forgot the 900 million per year for the land and conservation fund.
Wished Republicans were for the Environment like they used to be.
@@Charlie-uz8vb He also rolled back many regulations. Republicans arent for the environment
One of my favorite presidents, despite my liberal leanings.
THE wall became a fence,the fence became the army the army became the National guard pretty soon will just be a sign that says "beware of Dog"
03:22 GHWB is like "Oh my gosh, I TOLD HIM it was voodoo economics! Why did he not listen !!?"
I'm a diehard Democrat and Voted for him the second election. For the first time in a long time we had a president getting things done in bipartisan fashion. He sure deserved a second term in my opinion!
"for the enviromment" Wish that were true today.
back when you could not like someone's policy buy still like them as a person.
"And since I'd achieved all my goals as President in one term, there was no need for a second."
Can i just say that as a non american snarky leftist swede that Bush senior or Kennedy as an outsider are clearly the best presidents of the modern era
Sayem i have to disagree and agree with the other guy. The civil rights act really wasnt lbj initiative and kennedy's intelligent foreign policy and tendency to act more moderate makes him, atleast from my perspective
Claims to be pro-life
Dies anyway
😂
he did gave the worms and maggots a feast.
Well, he could have just only taxed the top 1% of the richest Americans a little bit more and fixed the whole thing in one go
Nixon's most remembered words : I am not a crook
“Voted for the wife of the man, who had beat him 20 years earlier” 🤯
I think when you look back on it, you'll realize that bush senior was actually one of the better presidents of the 20th century.
Imo he was the best Republican since Eisenhower and until now.
He could have bought thr country together and decrease the divide. Sad what the GOP became and how severely underrated he is. I'm a liberal but he may be the best we've had since LBJ OR JFK
Never understood how Ragen could have the amount of support he did. Man always felt like an idiot to me.
Why?
he Ended the cold war with flying colors, the symbol of victory, without the cold war's victory it's likely that many countries wl need to suffer socialism tyrany and dictatorship. iw wish Reagan will sooner. the sooner the better
"Immigration is not just a link in America's past, it is also the bridge to America's future" George H.W Bush
Dang, I'm liberal and I'd vote for him!
RIP President George H.W. Bush 🙏🙏
so he did so much and yet LOST. WOW! unbelievable how the reps couldve dominated since then if they followed his approach.
Bill was just to good
R.I.P GEORGE H.W. BUSH 1924-2018
This video beautifully illustrates why I voted for Bush in 1988 & 1992 and why I no longer vote Republican for President. I voted for Dubya in 2000 and ended up with voters remorse. 😪
Wow. That is the exact same pattern my voting took. (including the voter's remorse) 1988 was the first year I was eligible to vote.
The last Republican who sorta cares about the environment.
While him and Reagan weren’t perfect, they were good men that cared about their country.
George. h. w. bush was just amazing! May he rest in peace ✝️
Read my lips. KNOW new taxes
2:52 JFK's thin column made me sad
He doesn’t seem like a bad president. Maybe not the greatest, but he wasn’t a bad president. Also just generally seemed to be a good person.
Sounds like a president who had good intentions, but wasn't able to fulfill his promises due to what (and who) he had to work with.
@@Wintd1 exactly
Sad to see that his son started multiple wars after his presidency
@@ihazplawe2503 Bush Sr did too. He specialised in covert warfare though.
Someone, looking at the mangled hellhole that is the modern GOP: Was this your home?
Moderate Republicans: Yes, and it was beautiful.
Also, what I’m getting here is that all the partisan problems we face today is the fault of the hard-right.
@@alexanderfooy723 not all but most of them. To me, I actually see the Democratic Party moving right to try to win over moderates and swing states. Among all of the nominees, they chose Biden hence proving that the Democratic Party is not really moving to the left, in some ways, it is moving towards the right while the GOP, well you know what happened
@@christopherliang6879 I think that the national Democratic Party (who, yes, are a part of stagnation as well) definitely wrenched itself towards the center however we are also seeing an increased amount of harder-left folks elected to local and state governments as well as Congress.
@@christopherliang6879 But Biden changed a lot of his former moderate positions to harder Left ones and then on a lot of issues was vague about whether he supported this or that progressive proposal. The Democratic Party lost a lot of Southern members of Congress and state governments in the 1990s and 2000s due to moving to the Left on certain issues and becoming less tolerant of members with socially conservative views. Both parties have moved away from the Center on a lot of issues, although some of Trump's positions on trade are pretty economically Leftwing so Biden tried to portray himself as a social moderate to get some of the blue-collar socially conservative economically Leftwing union workers of the rust belt swing-states, although, in reality, Biden abandoned a lot of his former socially moderate positions when he ran in the Democratic primary.
So a president that should've been reelected.
To be fair Bill Clinton was a good President and did achieve policies that Reagan failed to achieve.
One of the greatest Men to lead a country.
He deserved a second term.
Rest in peace sir. Thank you for your service.