This is a phenomenal video. If there were more people like you out there, Americans would be much better informed, and would probably make better choices.
I mean this so nicely, but I do state all of my sources when I provide statistics in this video. The rest is analysis of the statistics, which is right from my dome, though based on a wide net of literature I've read through which I come to my conclusions, but it's a lot harder to cite hundreds of studies and papers of accumulated knowledge. If you would like further reading on a similar topic, I suggest starting with The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein or Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, those are both great books that should be available at a local library system, and they each have a lot of sources to dive deeper into. Hope that helps.
1:53 You say that Republicans have passed legislation in some states banning women’s rights to abortion, “with absolutely no exceptions”. This is simply untrue. All states allow for abortions to be performed in order to save the life of the mother: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law_in_the_United_States_by_state I appreciate you making this video, and for the most part think you made good points. However I would urge you to be more precise with your language. Overblown statements which (appear to) deliberately stoke outrage or fear only play into the conservative narrative that people on the left lie about everything. Cheers
I appreciate the comment. Just want to clarify why I made that statement: there's a difference between exceptions being on the books, and exceptions being made in practice. Multiple states do have abortion laws that technically allow for exceptions, but in states like Idaho, for example, doctors who perform abortions on women who are victims of assault need to justify the abortion in court with documented evidence of the assault, and Idaho is not the only state with legislation like this. These sorts of conditions placed on "exceptions" make it exceedingly difficult to find abortions in states with bans like these, and I stand behind the sentiment of my "no exceptions" rhetoric, even if it is *technically* not true. I do genuinely hear your concern, but I believe what I said to be true given how these "exceptions" actually work (or don't work) in practice, rather than in theory.
@ Thanks for the reply, and I understand the sentiment behind your explanation. However, I believe you are capable of making equally striking points without having to “technically lie” (e.g. what you said about difference between what is on the books and actual implementation, and how this gap can and does cause serious issues which need to be addressed). The cycle is: 1. You make a statement which is “spiritually correct” (spirit vs the letter of the law) but “technically incorrect” 2. People see that statement, but without the proper context to understand why you stand by it. 3. They think that you are lying (now they are “technically correct”, even if “spiritually incorrect”!) 4. They discount future things you say, and we end up with more real world harm being done (maybe they never look into the difference between laws on the books vs implementation, and so the harms caused by that gap go unnoticed and unaddressed) We can absolutely agree to disagree, as I see where you’re coming from. I just wanted to give a helpful critique about a possible way people might get turned off of your message.
Honestly, the main problem is that I needed to write, record, and release this before election results started to post, so I wasn't able to refine the script that deeply. I do hope that anyone that genuinely listens would understand that I'm trying my best to give an accurate representation of how things actually are in practice, and I think people that would find issues with that specific comment would also find broader issues with the message of the video regardless. However, I hear your criticism and I will refine my future scripts more accurately to avoid a situation like this from happening again, because I do care about portraying things as close to reality as I can even if I think the rhetoric is justifiable. You're right in that it isn't worth it to risk the misinterpretation, especially by someone who does engage in good faith and interprets it the wrong way. I really do appreciate the well thought out critiques.
@@ydubsa bruised and bloodied pregnant lady, a doctor, and a lawyer, sit together in a room totally dumbfounded on how to prove to a judge why that woman is bruised and bloodied.
Interesting, liberal and left leaning take. Closer to older democrat values, is what I see in this video. But a very interesting take on American politics. Do you actually think that climate change is going to hurt the planet in a very negative way that we cannot deal with? I'm not saying that we shouldn't reduce emissions but that we should be more careful on how we do it to protect the environment. By increasing nuclear power, maybe solar. Although that still creates a lot of waste but is way less harmful than windmills. And we shouldn't be capping emissions on farmers but putting policies to make farming more beneficial for the local environment in the long term. And we should not have illegal immigrants in the U.S. only legal immigrants are good for our country.
a few points: first, I don't really think I would associate myself with "older democratic values". Left leaning, sure. However, I don't really intend to put a partisan slant on things, but unfortunately that seeps into all of our language nowadays, so hopefully you will get a clearer sense of how I view the world in future videos. second, I do think climate change is going to irreversibly change the planet, and harm it insofar as it will happen too rapidly for most species to adjust to, and will cause biodiversity to plummet and natural disasters to become more common and more damaging. I do, however, think we are past the point of no return on those fronts, and should focus our energy on adapting to what seems to be a certain future, rather than attempting to make the changes we should have made 50 years ago. Nuclear is a probably a good option, but I don't have an education in energy policy or engineering, so I wouldn't make any definitive statements about it without doing more research. My carbon tax comment was citing a study that showed the majority of Americans favored placing carbon taxes on major oil and coal corporations, my apologies for lack of clarification there. Last, the data would disagree with your comment regarding illegal immigrants, which I refer to as undocumented in this video. If you think we should give more paths to documentation to immigrants who want to contribute and work, then we agree; I think both parties engage in a bit of doublespeak when they say they want that process to be easier, but decide to invest more in ineffective border security instead of directly improving the process, the difficulty of which is why parents are willing to risk paying cartels to traffic them over the border instead of simply seeking documentation. Hope these help clarify my feelings a bit. I appreciate the insight.
Why are you stating facts? Maga literally, and clearly has left facts behind lmao. Its all about egg prices which even he cant control which makes this even funnier. On sad note, sorry to all women, this result is a slap in the face to all women especially and first.
Well right now more than ever there is probably a chance for a 3rd party that at least starts out being for the people. Our systems are still designed to serve the people, but you have to hold the chair person of the meetings accountable all the time, and the elected officials. So the people need to be interested and caring of weekly participation in things, or the entire thing becomes too disconnected for the average person to have a say. Watching the news, and filling out a survey, is not participating in politics. Neither is commenting on youtube. RUclips is organizing section of politics and pr. If you notice, people are at least ideologicilly organized into groups, based on the content and news feed subscriptions they have. Also, it's always the most election in history, every time, or it's not.
Corporations bad is ignorant. The people don’t even understand their own problems and you can do this whole matrix and back track to figure out the actual reasons for things and your answers still come out blurry. You’re not knowledgeable and neither am i
@@ydubs that’s not what I was getting at but let me try again, I think your position is that corporate lobbyists still control everything and that’s why it doesn’t matter. I’d agree on that end. I think what I was getting at, and I apologize fr if I’m straw manning you at any point, is that ur position that trump being more controlled by them, than the other sides, is just weird to me as that dudes actually in his own narrow little tunnel no object to light. the sentiment that corporate lobbyists never play to the public’s interests and instead choose divisiveness is mute when looking at trumps character and the bomboclumfvck positions of the parties. I’ve read a lot of Edward Bernays on propaganda and appealing on the social level. it seems improbable that they create divisiveness intentionally. It seems more probable to me that they’re causing people to flip flop back and forth and confusing the average American. Look at what bud light accidentally caused during pride month. Look at all the huge marketing fuck ups. They don’t care about money doesn’t make sense even at the upper echelon bc they’re still competing. Sorry I kinda just floated around a lot of ideas but I hope you just grasp the picture in my head and contort that to whatever you’re saying. Personally though I think what more so made me comment is the reason you chose ur candidate just kinda pissed me off and felt weak, sorry just being honest. I think if anyone were to vote for more American social equality in the most progressive nation in the world (that might sound good to you but think internationally please) is kinda, greedy, just like I’d imagine lobbyists and power hungry individuals act. It’s also important to note these adjectives don’t mean negativity, just trying to create and show the web of the idea I have.
@@ydubsoverall like as I’ve said in the first (bc there’s a chronology to comments) I’m not saying I’m right but the entropy of the entire thing is hard to draw conclusions from. Edit: Oh also this election determines and cements American sentiment for the next couple of decades, just a “feeling” back up only by a couple of things, but this where we at bru. But have hope bc there is value in the availability to become viral at a whim. Coalitions and proper group movements will be hugely influential.
What an ignorant take
Great video! As a socialist I feel so sad that Kamala Harris and Tim Walks weren't the candidates for Republicans breaks my heart
alright someone make THIS guy president (i have already voted for you)
This is a phenomenal video. If there were more people like you out there, Americans would be much better informed, and would probably make better choices.
We desperately need this kind of content. Looking forward to your future videos!
Very good, sounds like a well put essay.
well done. i agree with most that u have said, but i would like to see some sources! i need to know that what u r saying is based in reality
I mean this so nicely, but I do state all of my sources when I provide statistics in this video. The rest is analysis of the statistics, which is right from my dome, though based on a wide net of literature I've read through which I come to my conclusions, but it's a lot harder to cite hundreds of studies and papers of accumulated knowledge. If you would like further reading on a similar topic, I suggest starting with The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein or Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, those are both great books that should be available at a local library system, and they each have a lot of sources to dive deeper into. Hope that helps.
Wonderful video. Very good, pragmatic take, I completely agree.
Intriguing points- well supported and well reasoned. I look forward to your next video!
1:53 You say that Republicans have passed legislation in some states banning women’s rights to abortion, “with absolutely no exceptions”.
This is simply untrue. All states allow for abortions to be performed in order to save the life of the mother: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law_in_the_United_States_by_state
I appreciate you making this video, and for the most part think you made good points. However I would urge you to be more precise with your language.
Overblown statements which (appear to) deliberately stoke outrage or fear only play into the conservative narrative that people on the left lie about everything. Cheers
I appreciate the comment. Just want to clarify why I made that statement: there's a difference between exceptions being on the books, and exceptions being made in practice. Multiple states do have abortion laws that technically allow for exceptions, but in states like Idaho, for example, doctors who perform abortions on women who are victims of assault need to justify the abortion in court with documented evidence of the assault, and Idaho is not the only state with legislation like this. These sorts of conditions placed on "exceptions" make it exceedingly difficult to find abortions in states with bans like these, and I stand behind the sentiment of my "no exceptions" rhetoric, even if it is *technically* not true. I do genuinely hear your concern, but I believe what I said to be true given how these "exceptions" actually work (or don't work) in practice, rather than in theory.
@ Thanks for the reply, and I understand the sentiment behind your explanation.
However, I believe you are capable of making equally striking points without having to “technically lie” (e.g. what you said about difference between what is on the books and actual implementation, and how this gap can and does cause serious issues which need to be addressed).
The cycle is:
1. You make a statement which is “spiritually correct” (spirit vs the letter of the law) but “technically incorrect”
2. People see that statement, but without the proper context to understand why you stand by it.
3. They think that you are lying (now they are “technically correct”, even if “spiritually incorrect”!)
4. They discount future things you say, and we end up with more real world harm being done (maybe they never look into the difference between laws on the books vs implementation, and so the harms caused by that gap go unnoticed and unaddressed)
We can absolutely agree to disagree, as I see where you’re coming from. I just wanted to give a helpful critique about a possible way people might get turned off of your message.
Honestly, the main problem is that I needed to write, record, and release this before election results started to post, so I wasn't able to refine the script that deeply. I do hope that anyone that genuinely listens would understand that I'm trying my best to give an accurate representation of how things actually are in practice, and I think people that would find issues with that specific comment would also find broader issues with the message of the video regardless. However, I hear your criticism and I will refine my future scripts more accurately to avoid a situation like this from happening again, because I do care about portraying things as close to reality as I can even if I think the rhetoric is justifiable. You're right in that it isn't worth it to risk the misinterpretation, especially by someone who does engage in good faith and interprets it the wrong way. I really do appreciate the well thought out critiques.
@ great work given the timeline! Glad to hear you will keep improving your approach to future videos. Looking forward to them!
@@ydubsa bruised and bloodied pregnant lady, a doctor, and a lawyer, sit together in a room totally dumbfounded on how to prove to a judge why that woman is bruised and bloodied.
Very interesting. Subbed and engaged.
well said
Well through analysis
It's astounding how this country consistently chooses the wrong path
A very bias take that is clearly informed by MsM.
Subbed and agreed
Listening
Interesting, liberal and left leaning take. Closer to older democrat values, is what I see in this video. But a very interesting take on American politics. Do you actually think that climate change is going to hurt the planet in a very negative way that we cannot deal with? I'm not saying that we shouldn't reduce emissions but that we should be more careful on how we do it to protect the environment. By increasing nuclear power, maybe solar. Although that still creates a lot of waste but is way less harmful than windmills. And we shouldn't be capping emissions on farmers but putting policies to make farming more beneficial for the local environment in the long term. And we should not have illegal immigrants in the U.S. only legal immigrants are good for our country.
a few points:
first, I don't really think I would associate myself with "older democratic values". Left leaning, sure. However, I don't really intend to put a partisan slant on things, but unfortunately that seeps into all of our language nowadays, so hopefully you will get a clearer sense of how I view the world in future videos.
second, I do think climate change is going to irreversibly change the planet, and harm it insofar as it will happen too rapidly for most species to adjust to, and will cause biodiversity to plummet and natural disasters to become more common and more damaging. I do, however, think we are past the point of no return on those fronts, and should focus our energy on adapting to what seems to be a certain future, rather than attempting to make the changes we should have made 50 years ago. Nuclear is a probably a good option, but I don't have an education in energy policy or engineering, so I wouldn't make any definitive statements about it without doing more research. My carbon tax comment was citing a study that showed the majority of Americans favored placing carbon taxes on major oil and coal corporations, my apologies for lack of clarification there.
Last, the data would disagree with your comment regarding illegal immigrants, which I refer to as undocumented in this video. If you think we should give more paths to documentation to immigrants who want to contribute and work, then we agree; I think both parties engage in a bit of doublespeak when they say they want that process to be easier, but decide to invest more in ineffective border security instead of directly improving the process, the difficulty of which is why parents are willing to risk paying cartels to traffic them over the border instead of simply seeking documentation.
Hope these help clarify my feelings a bit. I appreciate the insight.
Why are you stating facts? Maga literally, and clearly has left facts behind lmao. Its all about egg prices which even he cant control which makes this even funnier. On sad note, sorry to all women, this result is a slap in the face to all women especially and first.
This election wont effect anyone lmao, neocons will not let him pass any of the legislation taking away womens rights
Excellent takes. Shame on anyone who can genuinely listen to this and say otherwise.
Why do you weirdos talk in terms of the population instead of states like the founding fathers intended?
Well right now more than ever there is probably a chance for a 3rd party that at least starts out being for the people. Our systems are still designed to serve the people, but you have to hold the chair person of the meetings accountable all the time, and the elected officials. So the people need to be interested and caring of weekly participation in things, or the entire thing becomes too disconnected for the average person to have a say. Watching the news, and filling out a survey, is not participating in politics. Neither is commenting on youtube. RUclips is organizing section of politics and pr. If you notice, people are at least ideologicilly organized into groups, based on the content and news feed subscriptions they have. Also, it's always the most election in history, every time, or it's not.
Corporations bad is ignorant. The people don’t even understand their own problems and you can do this whole matrix and back track to figure out the actual reasons for things and your answers still come out blurry. You’re not knowledgeable and neither am i
I work for a major corporation and believe they do good work, so you may be misunderstanding my sentiment. I appreciate the comment.
@@ydubs that’s not what I was getting at but let me try again, I think your position is that corporate lobbyists still control everything and that’s why it doesn’t matter. I’d agree on that end. I think what I was getting at, and I apologize fr if I’m straw manning you at any point, is that ur position that trump being more controlled by them, than the other sides, is just weird to me as that dudes actually in his own narrow little tunnel no object to light. the sentiment that corporate lobbyists never play to the public’s interests and instead choose divisiveness is mute when looking at trumps character and the bomboclumfvck positions of the parties. I’ve read a lot of Edward Bernays on propaganda and appealing on the social level. it seems improbable that they create divisiveness intentionally. It seems more probable to me that they’re causing people to flip flop back and forth and confusing the average American. Look at what bud light accidentally caused during pride month. Look at all the huge marketing fuck ups. They don’t care about money doesn’t make sense even at the upper echelon bc they’re still competing. Sorry I kinda just floated around a lot of ideas but I hope you just grasp the picture in my head and contort that to whatever you’re saying.
Personally though I think what more so made me comment is the reason you chose ur candidate just kinda pissed me off and felt weak, sorry just being honest. I think if anyone were to vote for more American social equality in the most progressive nation in the world (that might sound good to you but think internationally please) is kinda, greedy, just like I’d imagine lobbyists and power hungry individuals act. It’s also important to note these adjectives don’t mean negativity, just trying to create and show the web of the idea I have.
@@ydubsoverall like as I’ve said in the first (bc there’s a chronology to comments) I’m not saying I’m right but the entropy of the entire thing is hard to draw conclusions from.
Edit: Oh also this election determines and cements American sentiment for the next couple of decades, just a “feeling” back up only by a couple of things, but this where we at bru. But have hope bc there is value in the availability to become viral at a whim. Coalitions and proper group movements will be hugely influential.
Communist manifesto 2