The birth rate would rise significantly if more people could afford to have kids. I just saw this study showing couples with one or two children would on average have one more child if they could afford it. Then after three children it leveled off sharply. But consider how many one-child and two-child families there are, that would be a significant increase. Not to mention childless couples who would be more likely to have children.

If Democrats went in an economic left direction and put the culture war and identity politics on ice, they'd bury the Republicans. To borrow from a popular saying: Ditch the Woke, help the Broke. 😊

I am a factory worker, and I call bullshit. Automation does not = Losing Jobs. My jobs were automated, but it still needs humans for it to function. It Increases the amount of product, without loss of labor.

The moment I saw the title, I was thinking "Does he know what else he believes"?

Submarines simply do not have armor. They have an outer hull, which is kinda just for hydrodynamics, and the pressure hull, where the crew and all the important stuff is. No room or weight allowance for actual armor. If you ram a sub and damage the pressure hull, they literally can't dive. Destroyers aren't really well armored, either, but they're probably not great at ramming, just because of their size. Ask the HMS Glowworm about this.

Never too soon. We've been dancing around 9 11 jokes since day one.

48:55 trumps claim on the war would have never happened under Trump is a claim that he makes that due to the butchered withdrawal of Afghanistan (Trump had specifics and frameworks laid out for the Biden-Harris admin that weren’t followed) caused Russia to decide to invade Ukraine, Iran to back Hamas in Oct 7, etc would have never happened bc we would still be a force to be reckoned. These claims aren’t unsubstantiated bc the plan that Trump laid out would keep bagram air base under U.S. control as an outpost for intel gathering from China, allied Afghan nationals getting evacuated, and equipment being secured and brought back before troops leave. There would still be a 1000 man force there manning bagram. Bc it was such a fail Trump believes the world decided to act willy nilly

77 men daws saved. It's just one of the medals of honor 6 medals of honor

lol Elon Musk hasn't read ANY book, let alone Das Kapital

Yo, you're a lot of yikes!

10:40 I'm sorry, but this is misinformation. We were applying for statehood from day 1 - the Republic of Texas thing happened because the US wouldn't let us in.

On the left. Jon Stewart can win.

can you do a video about swiss neutrality during ww2?

Anyone who entered this country illegally they need to go.

China may have killed some protestors, but the United States does the exact same thing. Remember what happened in Newark in 1967?

The fact that the Soviet Union massacred Poles after WW2 pretty much tells you where they stood at the beginning.

Can we go back to only land owners being allowed to vote, members of Congress staying in a dorm, eating in cafeteria and paid a minimal salary because it wasn't a career it was an honor to represent the people who voted them to office.

The problem is people think that individual voters elect the President. You don't. States elect the President. You vote for electors who represent the State at the actual election of the President.

Tanky is a term from WWII. "His face would be improved with the use of a tank tread."

Things to note: 1-I agree that slavery as a factor when it came to both representation in the House (the 3/5ths clause) and when it came to achieving the Electoral College. But, a state such as Delaware, still has a small population, reguardless of the 3/5ths clause. 2- As stated earlier, there was a need for unity amongst the 13 states, but do you think that a typical state legislator of the 1780s, prefer to have all states having an equal vote OR the usage of the Electoral College that we have today? At least with the EC, Virginia would have 10, compared to Delaware's 3. But, under the Articles, the states have equal authority.. 3- What the skeptics of the EC failed to mention, is that most citizens of the 1780s see themselves, as citizens of their state (Virginia, New York, etc..) than as citizens of the United States. Compromises were made for the sake of keeping the United States, united. The nation was at a phase, where it could fall under "spheres of influence", such as being a new colony of Spain, France or Great Britian, if the thirteen states did not show a united front as an Independent nation. The two biggest concerns of a state, could easily be defined as "national security" and "protecting their power base". 4- Also, after the Civil War, why wasnt the EC abolished?? Slavery was no longer a factor, when it came to representation in Congress. Slavery was no longer a factor when it came to the Electoral College. Southern states, which benefitted from the 3/5th Amendment, were demoted to "territorial status" had to agree to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, before rejoining the Union. The South was primarily Democratic during that period. Was there attempts by mainly Republican Congresses to abolish the EC during the Reconstruction period (1865-1876)? I dont know the answer. If the Republicans had a proposed amendment to abolish the Electoral College, couldnt that be a factor, for rejoining the Union. Republicans won the Presidency in 1860, 1864, 1868, and 1872. The GOP had either a plurality or majority of the popular vote in those elections. (I know that in the Election of 1876, the GOP won the Presidency by 1 Electoral Vote, which quenched hopes after that...) I dont know that the answer.. Im curious on your opinion, about the 1865-75 time on Electoral College history. 5- The states have supreme authority on how their Electoral College votes are cast. So, whats to legally prevent, a state, such as California or Texas, from taking the power of voting for President, away from the people and placed in the legislature?? Does an indiviual state constitution, prevent a measure like that from happening?? (I'm pretty sure that a state that would try that, would have its electorate, "throw the bums out", to any legislator who supported the measure. But, im asking for curiousity sake.) A popular third-party candidate who might win the state of California, could end up losing that states Electoral Votes, because a Democratic Governor and a Democratic State Legislature agreed to change the election law. A Republican Governor in Texas, supported by a Republican supported state legislature could do a similar measure in Texas. If the politicans of a particular state decide to change the election laws, as mentioned, then the argument for giving the Presidency to the winner of the popular vote is invalid. The majority of California or Texas citizens might have gone for the third-party, but we dont know...

Illinois would be a red state if not for Chicago. But that logic applies to many states. Trump came close to nearly flipping New Jersey and Virginia.

Keep in mind, Trump is an out of shape 78 year old under a massive amount of stress, at BEST he has ten more years, but probably less than that and his influence over politics is only going to decrease with time.

California 38 million Texas 27 million Florida 23 million currently according to Google, so how is PA a swing state with only 12 million people 🤔

You should react to some of his alternate history stuff on the US of Z channel

Some random things that stuck out to me: At least recently, Republican worries about immigrants shifting voter demographics was primarily about "illegal" immigrants, because they had a much higher motive to vote Dem. Plus there was some belief that the Biden administration was purposefully moving illegal immigrants to red areas for that very reason. The strong man claims about Trump are a bit funny. A large number of Trump's voter base are highly individualistic, and voted for him at first as a counter to what was viewed as a much more authoritarian establishment that regularly sought to subvert the will of the people. Trump also has made several moves to leave decisions in the hands of the states instead of further concentrating federal power. What the anti-Trump crowd tends to see as Trump's authoritarian side, Trump supporters see more as a response to the internal undermining of the first administration. Depending on what you mean by "strong man," it's not really a contradiction if Republicans promote individualism as well. If a strong man is simply a strong leader that gets things done, what matters is the method of getting things done. On a more surface level note, a strong man can be seen as a potential goal for an individual. Automation and AI... Oh boy. Think this guy might have misspoke, because this issue has far from peaked. It is probably the most convincing argument that could exist for people against socialism to accept something like UBI. The reason the Right tells the Left that their Star Trek utopia is an impossible fantasy is due to the reality of not having infinite resources. AI is potentially a massive step towards that direction. However, there is still time until that point is reached, and I think the new Republican party is better situated than previous versions to adopt to the changes. During Covid, Trump gave stimulus checks. And I don't remember anyone batting an eye. That's a very large shift from the usual state of Republican thought. If circumstances change to the point enough people are asking for change, I believe Trump Republicans will attempt to adopt. There is the possibility that "protecting American jobs" will extend to putting off automation, but the key ideology behind that is "America First." I believe putting American labor over foreign labor will be viewed differently than staying behind the world on automation to protect American labor. I also believe Elon could be an asset here. Not only due to someone more technically inclined having the President's ear, but in making Republicans in general more open to technical innovation.

No matter how you slice it, it's political statistics. Or more precisely, the gerrymandering of statistics.

40:00 what replaces labor unions? Political unions. Electoral unions.

Wellllll, let's just start with that tried and true argument that this country is NOT, nor was it ever meant to be, a democracy

25:00 you are 100% correct here Mr. Terry!! The party that adopts a leftist economic policy will have a good chance of picking up millions of voters who have no political party.

2:42 currently they can re activate you if you are in the 4 year bubble after you get out otherwise no you cannot be drafted now

that's funny. the DD-214 dealership. It's also the file form for your discharge papers from the military.

My response to anyone who says that history can’t be used to predict the future, to an extent, is: then how the heck has history had so much influence on what is going on now?

As a World History teacher, I taught this a couple of chapters ago. I wish this video was made before I taught about this topic.

A very pessimistic outlook for progressives.

32:10 In the aftermath of an election everyone thinks that the trends they see will keep going. Coalitions are built, and they all eventually collapse....usually sooner than we expect. Sean Trende has taught this over and over again. The 'Enduring Democrat Majority' that Judis and Teixeira predicted seemed to arrive in 2008. That coalition was massive, but it didn't last.

No true Scotsman fallacy only applies when you're setting arbitrary conditions for being a true Christian. This is not the case here. Christians believing Jesus is God is not arbitrary but meaningful. The incarnation is what makes Christianity Christianity.

I hope the Neocons are done

Is it the Hispanic culture rooted in Roman Catholicism that drew them to the republican messages of anti-abortion, anti-LGBT and pro-Bible?

Economics doesn't discourage people from having kids. The largest families are found in the poorest people in the poorest countries. Education is what gives women the ability to control their bodies and to know that there are options other than being pregnant all the time, and the resources to those other options.

If the states only use "winner take all" rules, a third party will never happen. But we will never go back to the way it should be so we are stuck with this. Also, look back to the beginning of the Presidential elections and see how many times the loser of the popular vote won the presidential elections.

Monsieur Z can be a bit out there 😂

You should watch his video on the 15 Nations of America

This is why I unsubscribed from his channel. He is a lawyer and still used democracy to describe us. As well as many other stuff from his channel.

"We need foreign workers to do the jobs americans wont do" I assure you, when the bread supply gets low, Americans WILL do those jobs. Lets not pretend this is a "lazy american" issue instead of a "business wants to pay as little as possible" issue. Also, UBI is the worst scam ive ever heard of. Who is paying for 350m. Americans to get $2k/mo or whatever? Certainly not the rich and corpos that currently arent already paying those taxes. Also, I cant wait for cost of living to increase exactly, if not more than, whatever UBI everyone gets paid monthly for free. Inflation machine goes BRRRRRRRRRRRR.

I have always said electoral college needs to be roped in. The Electors should be legally required to vote the way of voters. But I also believe no state should be all or nothing. Look at California. Mostly red, mostly rural, never flips because the metros have all the people. If you want to kill voter Apathy, split votes by percentage per state, make election day a holiday, and either remove physical electors assigning based on percentages, or make them criminally responsible for faithless voting at a federal level.

The electoral college works just fine. The only improvement would be to change from "winner take all" based on overall popular votes in each state to basing the votes on the majority of votes in individual counties. However the majority of counties vote, that is how the state should award its electoral college votes. This would eliminate having a single county with a major urban area from controlling an entire state. E.G.: Clark County NV, Maricopa County AZ, etc.

Personally, I dislike the "winner takes all" system and think that it'd be better if all states went to the Congressional District system used by Maine and Nebraska. Those Congressional Districts are based upon having a near equal population within their boundaries. This would end the whole "swing state" thing, also, forcing Presidential candidates to spend time in more areas of the country. That could, also, as you'd suggested, open up opportunities for third and maybe even fourth parties.

Please react to more of his more historical videos, I think they'd be very interestingly refreshing to your usual pool of videos to react to. Even if you disagree with him we need some disagreements to have a cool conversation. I personally really like his history of political ideologies in America videos

Your map is off.

Just rig each district and poof you won Hacker runs and just hacks his way in Pa proves that with Casey and Gonvor