Andrew Yang's New Forward Party is Tech Bro Garbage That Helps The Right Win

[@dbdist1]

I'm gonna start the "Good Party". We're for good things. We'll make the country better. Everything will work. Everyone will be happy.

[@marthaindahouse1010]

holy fucking shit

[@SA-mo3hq]

Happyology?

[@12345678abracadabra]

@EvilOverlordWithEdge it doesn't, it's sarcasm lol

[@sorcellerie]

Poverty, climate catastrophe, discrimination: aight, imma head out

[@cosmosofinfinity]

Damn, how did no one think of this sooner?! Brilliant... BRILLIANT!

[@SlicesofHistory]

“Both sides bad” and it’s consequences have been a disaster for the human race

[@Noahthelasercop]

"Nazism, SJWs and dictatorships are leftists being bad, but sometimes corporations do bad things so it evens out, you know. Both sides have stuff to work on."

[@Zelorp]

I sense Dave Rubin in this quote.

[@wa-bu3ke]

Both sides are bad though

[@Fantallana]

@@Noahthelasercop oh yeah I’d assume someone dumb enough to put “ess jay double-yoos” in the same category as *nazis and dictatorships* would also be dumb enough to think those two things are “leftist.”

[@Fantallana]

@@wa-bu3ke “the people who want rights are just as bad as violent fascists” lmao k

[@MrTARDIS]

This is literally the Simpsons joke. "Forward, not backward. Upward, not forward and always twirling twirling twirling towards freedom!".

[@sleepyhead8681]

No matter who you vote for your all doomed!

[@christopherlundgren1700]

"Abortions for SOME.... tiny American flags for OTHERS!!"

[@Gibbypg]

hi mr tardis

[@anewhero1216]

"Not left, not right, but forward" sounds nice until you realize that you're trying to move forward in a T-intersection - forward means wrecking your car

[@Nimroc]

@@seren3797 Or off a cliff maybe, a wall can be torn down, harder to fill a gaping void.

[@TheDarkFragment]

that kinda implies that going right wont total your car though

[@arskakarva7474]

What's even stranger is that The Simpsons already mocked this sort of head-empty platitude ages ago, when Kang and Kodos were running for president. "As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball. But tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!"

[@anewhero1216]

@@TheDarkFragment You’re right of course, but as an analogy a T-intersection works entirely because of the implication there - whatever your politics, it should be obvious that forward isn’t an option anybody should be satisfied with lol

[@MisterRorschach90]

That’s not the way I saw it personally. I saw it as forward is just ignoring the road altogether. Because forward doesn’t exist.

[@Postcinct]

As a long time CGP Grey fan, nothing quite made me want to tear my hair out more then listening to his Hello Internet podcast episodes that touched on political issues. There's a consistent milquetoast narrative of 'Well I suppose technology will fix *x* issue eventually' with no actual ideological prescription. It's like he'll talk about the struggles of the Native American reservations and that 'If we all woke up tomorrow with no memory of what caused these conditions, we'd all get to fixing it immediately', but then offers no actual political messaging on that point. I like the dude, very interesting guy, but man if the apolitical tech-bro centrism doesn't get on my nerves.

[@lodzat]

Yeah I noticed he sounded like a person who's been sheltered from reality

[@spicylemon6255]

I’d rather people be Democratic Party Liberals than a Tech-Bro Centrist

[@calcavendish5430]

That is the reason why I stopped to HI and only listens to Cortex. At least the other guy in Cortex would not talk about politics at all, just tech and business stuff.

[@minskghoul]

His video supporting British Monarchy is all I needed to see to know his political views are mostly garbage.

[@lowpolyzoe]

@@minskghoul I think he's since changed his mind on that?

[@SirThinks2Much]

“Not left not right but forward” You mean as in to move forward… As in to make progress…as a political party… Like a progressive party?

[@maelys8851]

Resurrect Roosevelt, we're going full bull moose.

[@SA-mo3hq]

"Not back, but forward, and twirling, twirling, always twirling!"

[@Zom13y]

@@maelys8851 nah we good. Key term here was progress and iunno if some long dead spineless line puller is what we need now a days. Edit: just got the reference, major whoosh there, damn I’m dumb. Post stays to show how thick headed I am.

[@charadreemurr8673]

@@Zom13y “spineless” Teddy Roosevelt was anything but… He got shot in the chest and continued his speech as if nothing happened. He regularly boxed in the White House (which permanently cost him his sight in his left eye) He made the FDA He protected the environment by creating national parks He broke up monopolies (the equivalent to modern day corporations) And was an avid hunter.

[@Lica_The_Furry]

@@maelys8851 resurrect Washington and have him yell at everyone for doing exactly what he told them not to

[@SlayerEndX13]

For all the good Yang has done bringing UBI to prominence, he's undermined every position that could've reinforced it.

[@ProfDCoy]

Yeah, his politics is the practical definition of "two steps forward, one step back". UBI is a cool idea, but Yang only advanced it into the discourse by tacitly agreeing with the neoliberal/monetarist twin traps of "how you gonna pay for it" and "the money that the rich have is basically off limits so look somewhere else to fund your big bold social programs". In other words, whatever value an actually GOOD UBI might have would be utterly compromised by the political resentment caused by levying a VAT on middle class goods and then STILL defending forms of non-monetary social welfare like social housing programs (which would be an absolute disaster for the poor). If Yang ever gained power he'd be just a new kind of disappointing 90s era Democrat: talking constantly about being pragmatic and non-partisan and even compassionate, but ultimately gutting social welfare and replacing it with systems that benefit the rich more than the poor. His constant obsession with not being partisan is really a dogmatic belief that you should never challenge wealth or power, not even to solve the problem that wealth and power has created.

[@wvu05]

@Fancy Gem By definition, a VAT is regressive. He also didn't want the poor and disabled to get it, so the benefit is regressive as well.

[@ProfDCoy]

@@wvu05 yeah that's the other part of it I left out. Personally, I don't oppose VAT because while it's regressive, it's also very administratively simple, and there's something to be said for making SOME of your tax base simple. But still, it's regressive. When a politician is talking about levying a regressive tax, the obvious question is "of all the taxes you could be levying, why not a more progressive one? Why not a land value tax? Why not a Wall Street financial transactions tax? Why not raising the corporate tax?" In short, "why aren't you following the REAL money?" And the answer is, because that would be politically difficult, and it's impossible without political conflict with the wealthy and powerful. Which isn't something Andrew Yang does. That's being partisan, being divisive, being unreasonable. Now he super pinky swears to not levy VAT on small consumer goods and essentials...but this is a guy who is congenitally against ever fighting the right over any issue. Can we really trust that the hypothetical President Yang would fight, say, a GOP majority over the issue of VAT limitations, if that's what the GOP wanted? For fuck's sake, he already negotiated himself into a regressive tax in the first place before the GOP even entered the chat!

[@wvu05]

@@ProfDCoy Well, part of the reason why he is so unwilling to fight the right on anything is because he's one of them. If you look at their actual policies, probably the only Democratic Presidential candidates to his right were Tulsi and Bloomberg.

[@esotericVideos]

He created a lobbying firm that was central to why direct cash was part of the COVID relief, he also hugely raised awareness.

[@jdprettynails]

Even MLK said we should judge people by the content of their character. If someone has shitty beliefs, I'm going to judge them harshly for those beliefs.

[@Kevo6492]

Imagine essentially being a politician but not having any actual vote or power to implement policy. That’s basically Yang now.

[@scslre]

@@user-gc1wj8tt2p Vaush is essentially a politician?

[@HACSSuperbMiner]

@@user-gc1wj8tt2p You’re trying too hard, troll.

[@jonathanbosak8581]

@@user-gc1wj8tt2p no, Vaush is a famous Bloodborne spedruner

[@dntthe88]

@@user-gc1wj8tt2p Do you not know what a politician is?

[@Zom13y]

@@dntthe88 start small see if they can identify simple shapes first.

[@kawaiivenus8177]

Yang " I want to bring together the right and left who want to make America a better place" Goes over with Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson.

[@JakeRosen635]

I think his point was to engage tucker’s audience, not tucker himself whom he strongly disagrees with

[@VMonkies]

@@JakeRosen635 lol okay. Yang disagrees with Tucker so strongly he decided to make an appearance on his show, that makes _tons_ of sense. If he disagrees so strongly with what Tucker says, then he also disagrees strongly with his audience, as they wouldn't hold those beliefs if Tucker didn't tell them to. Engaging with them is 100% pointless if he's not going to drag them away from the dumb shit they believe, doing that begins with disagreeing with Tucker, which, surprise surprise, Yang failed to do.

[@douglaslangley9251]

@@JakeRosen635 weird how even though both of them kept saying "we disagree" they never actually did? Like Yang never pushed back on anything

[@anmolt3840051]

I mean he also went on with Krystal Ball ... Wait, that does not make the point I thought it does. LMAO

[@insectilluminatigetshrekt5574]

Bernie Sanders also went on fox news

[@magnus_cockstrong]

People who "aren't out to villainize anyone" for some reason also tend to refuse to villainize actual villains.

[@otto_jk]

"Sauron is just misunderstood. By going forward instead of left or right, we can end the polarization between Hobbits and orcs" Andrew Yang

[@frocco7125]

I mean yeah that's part of it.

[@JRexRegis]

@@otto_jk So much extremism on the Right AND Left nowadays! I mean, which side is a Gondorian peasant supposed to support? Sauron will bring cultural unity and industrial progress, while extremist King Aragorn is trying to start another war with Mordor!

[@Discojericho]

@FunDumb Hero Virgin spice addict vs chad Pipe-weed enjoyer

[@otto_jk]

@FunDumb Hero I read dune before you came out from your mother's womb.

[@GabiGhita]

I saw a chatter say "it's the Linux of political parties" and I just wanted to share this with everyone because it was really funny. That being said, I think they're being too charitable, since Linux is more left leaning than Yang will ever be. For instance, on Debian-based systems, there's even a command to download the anarchist manifesto.

[@JRexRegis]

Honestly, I've thought about installing Linux on my next PC. Windows is great, but I'm slowly getting tired of the lack of customisation and the bloatware

[@SLYKM]

Anyone who talks bad about Linux just doesn't understand how to use it. It's great you just need more skill or knowledge to utilize it.

[@GabiGhita]

@@SLYKM Yes and no. Back when I was using Linux exclusively, I ran into many issues, most of them solvable with the right knowledge, but a lot weren't. If you had a not-mainstream file format, chances were there was no app on Linux to open it, or if there was it was half-baked to say the least. Even mainstream formats like Word had layout issues. IM apps, for instance, were missing features. Sure, you you could code and build some plug-ins for them if you knew how to write C/C++/PHP/Python code, but at the end of the day this should be an operating system, not an IDE.

[@SLYKM]

@@GabiGhita But thats what I mean tho. The reason why those problems exist is bc Linux isn't streamlined. Most people go into Windows or Mac proficiencies is bc more people use them. Kinda like why windows seem to be less safe than Mac is bc most malware is designed against Windows, not specifically bc Mac is safer. Mac are for those who need something fool proof, Windows for streamlined reliability, and Linux is for those with the knowledge to take advantage of the freedom. Android is a version of Linux ie.

[@GabiGhita]

@@SLYKM Right, I'm not saying one is inherently better than the other, it kinda comes down to market share and app developers for the most part. They're all solid OS-es, but Linux is just not as supported for anything more than the most basic tasks due to not having all the apps - or if they exist, they're a very watered down version. I assume it's easier to switch now thanks to 99% of everything being available through your browser, but even that fails occasionally. It's the same problem Windows Phone had. It was a wonderful platform but very few apps and dwindling support. That's the main gripe I have with Linux, but also that you might have issues with sub-par drivers for your hardware, so you also need to be careful what hardware you have (I was never happy with the sound on my Linux box, always distorted if I turned it up, on multiple distros, with ALSA, OSS, PulseAudio). I feel like the OS needs to serve you, not the other way around. If you start sacrificing your free time, app quality and overall experience to appease an OS with the hopes that it will get better in the next update, it starts to become culty. I did that once with Linux and later with Windows Phone. Never again.

[@jalioswilinghart]

"Not left, not right, forward" was literally the slogan of a failed danish centrist party, that got couped into being a libertarian party. Who themselves are now also a failiure. As you can see, this tactic always works out great.

[@TheAlibabatree]

There are deeper issues that politics.

[@narikobeilschmidt]

inspired by the yang gang, i'll be starting the z-axis party

[@Grimmyr]

😈😈😈 Axis 😈😈😈

[@tame2409]

GRILL

[@ReaperWithHips]

😂

[@JonathanAdami]

Someone in the chat wrote "UBI Curious" and that made me chuckle, cheers mate!

[@PeteMachini6732]

I can't believe I was a Yang Gang back in 2019. Because I wanted to own my left and right-wing families and friends that I was some enlightened centrist. Cringe!!!!

[@ProfDCoy]

Hey mate, sounds like you've grown a lot in 2 years. Good on you!

[@andrewsmith8715]

Yang was my first real intro to political campaigning. However he has proven himself to be incompetent and ideologically bankrupt.

[@dynamicworlds1]

Tripping over the golden mean fallacy while you're still starting to figgure politics out is fairly normal for those who don't jump immediately to an extreme position with black and white thinking as the starting point for their political journey. We learn, look back, cringe, and move on. A "libertarian" phase was pretty common for millennials before most grew out of it. The really shameful thing is staying in it...for decades, and never growing but you've already avoided that! 👍

[@woobiefuntime]

@@dynamicworlds1 I regret helping trump win the primary. . I wanted to help Bernie or Hillary win . I figured Trump would lose

[@jakuth99]

What you said about tech bros I think is only half right. They don't just want things to be simple. They want things to be perfectly predictable in an almost digital way. Like, you run a program without RNG 100 times, you'll get the same result. And they want that to be true ofsystems in the real world when that can't be the case

[@neco9590]

I am kind of reminded of the innuendo studios video on democrats and the "system" as a machine.

[@nathanielchieffallo4273]

Well when you put it that way life needs to fix their drop rate of good luck before some of us drop out

[@ProfDCoy]

"I guess no one in the current political argument that has been going on for centuries ever thought about just going forward." The naivete, the arrogance, the political ignorance. It's breathtaking.

[@panda-bean]

Think forward party just promoting open primaries and ranked choice voting is fine as long as they only focus on that and actually makes progress on getting that in.

[@benmidnightflame]

That certainly would be fine, but these policies are not gonna fix the problems Yang thinks or says it will. Dude lost his mayoral race, which was an open election with rank choice voting while he had more money than every other candidate. To make matters worse, the candidate that won is a corporate loving democrat who thinks that the police need more power and less accountability. And New York is supposedly a progressive haven. So... yeah. Rank choice voting isn't the cure all people think it is. If anything the two policies together are potentially a death sentence to progressivism. It would promote people like Adam winning majority of the time in theory. Because the lesser of two evils cuts both ways. Republicans don't want socialists winning, and when they have a say in primaries they will side with corrupt corporate democrats to own the "SJWs". And you might come at me with the argument that Sanders was more popular among conservatives than Hillary, but that's because the right spent a two decade campaign attacking the Clintons because of their political power. Ultimately republicans when it comes down to it are more likely to side with Krysten Cinema or Manchin more so than they are with us.

[@panda-bean]

@@benmidnightflame @Doc Holiday Many other factors, it's hard to say why someone subpar at NY debates, lied multiple times about his corruption, and even had the NY firefighters union vote against him, still won. It's not in our interest to say that because Yang lost NY to Eric Adams that RCV was a failure. And Kathryn Garcia was close to winning as well, and we saw some good instances of Yang and Kathryn banding together for 1 and 2 ranks which helped Garcia. I'd say RCV and also STAR voting is more precise in capturing the voters thoughts on all current candidates (vs just 1 single choice, winner take all which lead to Trump winning a minority of republicans, then minority of all voters). Obviously there are myriad of factors that LEAD to the actual vote (media influence, misrepresentation, candidate awareness, etc).

[@benmidnightflame]

@@panda-bean It wasn't just Yang, progressives running lost as well, which you've mentioned, but my point still stands. RCV is about compromise, therefor centrist candidates in theory will benefit, not radicals. Lot of leftists assume liberals would vote progressives as their second choice, but I'm really starting to doubt that.

[@panda-bean]

@@benmidnightflame RCV is about capturing more information from voters (adding dimensionality). It's easier to pinpoint what the voters are thinking and work off it. It also requires the winner to hold majority votes. If RCV results show centrists not highly ranking more radical positions, would those centrists have chosen a progressive candidate otherwise? If progressives are top ranking progressives only and not ranking center positions, is that compromise? Are we not having a forced compromise in the single vote system anyways? (Which leads to winners who have not even won a majority, unless states have runoffs) We at least should require majority vote, and if able RCV in primaries.

[@meatball520]

@@benmidnightflame just FYI New York has closed primaries

[@BenYork-UBY]

I would love to see more voting options in the US, but just making a 3rd party isn't going to do squat with the way the system currently works. The system itself has to change first to support a multi party format. And even then, that's not a silver bullet against polarization, partisanship or radicalization. All of that comes down to other factors. Yang seems to know this so I have to think hes pulling some sort of gimmick

[@Kevo6492]

There are I think a large enough faction of this country to make a third party viable, but the thing is most people aren’t going to clamor for it when we have an increasingly fascist party in the midst. The main political goal right now should be to make the GOP politically irrelevant.

[@alterego6075]

If a 3rd party was formed by the working class, it would have my full attention. We don't need another party pretending to fight for us. Yang knows better, don't think he doesn't.

[@MattWalkerVA]

That why he’s going to be campaigning for ballot initiatives to support a multiparty format; open primaries and ranked choice voting.

[@BenYork-UBY]

@@MattWalkerVA honestly I hope he gets somewhere with that. I don't disagree with the underlying concept of voting reform. I wish him the best of luck in that regard

[@MattWalkerVA]

@@BenYork-UBY fair enough!

[@zagoing]

"The only reason my exact political agenda has not been enacted is not because there is disagreement and our system is designed to halt in the face of disagreement, it is because everyone else is dumb. Because if they were smart like me, they would just do it." is one of the most infuriatingly common political takes.

[@Cubehead27]

Fun fact: Vorwärts! ("Forwards!") was Karl Marx's newspaper. Forwards has always been leftwards.

[@dynamicworlds1]

Yup, since before we even started using left and right to describe politics the left has been trying to move things forward and the right has been trying to hold or drag us back because the left are the heirs of the enlightenment and the right finds its origins in apologia for monarchy and feudalism that rose to resist it. It really is that simple.

[@ReadmanJ]

Yang is the genuine definition of a "Empty Suit", just spouts meaningless platitudes to obfuscate his corporate simping. Idelogically bankrupt.

[@wilburdbrewer2409]

Stop saying stuff with way too little words

[@shaunsocha421]

@@wilburdbrewer2409 yeah I wanna see word counts that challenge pro StarCraft player's APMs

[@roshansreedhar4727]

Buttigieg imitated Yang in 2019. Now Yang is returning the favor.

[@haruhirogrimgar6047]

@@roshansreedhar4727 They had wildly different platforms and policies wtf are you talking about?

[@roshansreedhar4727]

@@haruhirogrimgar6047 Of course, I just meant with the disingenuous centrism. Pete was caught on camera several times imitating Yang during the election. Now Yang is doing the same Mayor Pete-esque centrism.

[@Replica_Rabbit]

"We must go forward, not backward. Upward, not forward. And always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom."

[@KrishnaDasLessons]

9:01 If Yang was a true techbro he would have better audio quality.

[@pinkpidgeon6926]

reminder that techbros don't know shit about tech.

[@calmkat9032]

not right, not left leight

[@darkphoenix2]

I think you mean rieft

[@scottvelez3154]

Rift

[@junkawakami3193]

neeeeigh

[@scottvelez3154]

@@junkawakami3193 nyeee Squidward nyeee Squidward

[@Alias_Anybody]

Leift

[@sorcellerie]

Something similar happened in Poland. There was once a party called Kukiz'15 founded by a punk musician (lmao) who essentially disguised it as a party of a new beginning, of rejection of both left and right. He claimed to be anti- establishment and all of that. Well, the tables have turned and now he is a lapdog of an oppressive government. He completely rejected every single one of his policies and in process slowed down any growth that could have happened. Duopoly is frustrating but the moment we start playing 8d chess with our brains is when we lose. Politics is seriously a 1:0 issue at this point, there is no need for more sell out-saviours.

[@williamcozart8158]

Yang looks like he's having that problem Ricky Bobby was having when he couldn't figure out what to do with his hands when he was filming those ads.

[@midnightnavigator]

If I could give 2 likes for that ref I would. xD

[@XMysticHerox]

Most people have that issue. Merkels semi famous hand triangle thing actually comes from that.

[@alterego6075]

Check out trump's hand accordion videos...someone dubbed in an off tune accordion every time he makes those particular hand movements...and it's pure gold lol

[@ekrak0ski87]

This feels like a really poorly presented “create your own political party” project from a college freshman’s intro to US politics course

[@LimeyLassen]

OOF

[@dynamicworlds1]

It's funny cause it's true!

[@erichansen2860]

Luckily he's as charismatic as a burlap bag.

[@schmud143]

bro this made me actually laugh out loud

[@KevinRegalado1117]

The tucker simp party Featuring star power like dore, greenwald, and Gabbard

[@radiantsquare007jrdeluxe9]

And your mom

[@jacksmith-vs4ct]

@@radiantsquare007jrdeluxe9 nah my moms a bernie bro

[@scottvelez3154]

@@jacksmith-vs4ct yo mama's so Bernie Bro that I bet she was at the M4All march because she wants to stop for profit health insurance from fleecing working Americans.

[@luffy101311]

Dont forget “populist” Saagar Enjeti, who literally modelled his speech patterns after the guy 😂

[@junkawakami3193]

*Not left or right, Forward!* actually benefits the right.

[@dynamicworlds1]

Well yeah, the right doesn't want to move forward, so it doesn't pull from them while trying to crowbar leftist politics away from the idea of forward progress which has been kinda integral to that side of the political spectrum since we started using the terms "left" and "right" in politics, all while implying trying to bring politics from the part of the political spectrum that wants to maintain the status quo or turn back the clock will help move things forward. Of course that kind of talk benefits the right. It's controlled opposition, whether or not the person speaking it is actually aware that's what they're doing.

[@bear798]

Child: Mr Yang how do we get through this roundabout? Yang: Not left, not right, forward That sums up Yang perfectly

[@Revanaught]

There's a lot of egregious stuff Yang said but one that particularly annoyed me was the "the founding fathers hated political parties"....no they didn't. Washington was opposed to them but the damn rest of them MADE the parties...

[@benh2339]

for a tech bro attempting to revolutionize the political party system of America, he sure put no effort into the production of that fucking video.

[@tph2010]

"Not Left. Not Right. Forward." - A right winger

[@pixelcount350]

@@user-gc1wj8tt2p That's you

[@CuZtuga]

@@user-gc1wj8tt2p Why are you like this

[@otto_jk]

"Not left, not right, downwards" -Anarcho primitivist

[@dynamicworlds1]

@@user-gc1wj8tt2p still mad that Vaush got "Sargon" to admit to being an ethnonationalist and exposed him for the fascist he is?

[@goodluckgorsky3413]

@@user-gc1wj8tt2p the argument is that centrism supports the status quo. Which, in America, is right wing

[@Fawkes1978]

The only thing leftist about Andrew Yang's party video, is it's leftist audio!

[@gingergamergirl98]

Yang reminds me of my high school history teacher who literally told the entire class that political radicals are _always_ violent. Also, Vaush really wouldn’t like my intro to public policy professor. He sounds a lot like Yang in class too, and he’s very centrist and it annoys me to no end (tho he’s a nice enough guy). Goddamn, all this makes me miss my socialist international relations professor

[@mannu9935]

WTF. And a History teacher at that? Hahaha. Man never read about Gandhi?

[@gingergamergirl98]

@@mannu9935 Yeah, I really wish I was confident enough to challenge him on it back then, that was a really obviously wrong statement

[@Cruizinelli12]

So he or she considered MLK violent? Lol

[@gingergamergirl98]

@@Cruizinelli12 I guess he does? Unless maybe he thinks that it’s only radical if he doesn’t agree with it

[@mattwong5403]

I don't think the conservatives and right "libertarians" who constantly preach about using the Second Amendment to fight the government actually want peaceful protests

[@Ynwell_theslaaneshi]

I know in France, in 2017 the president nowadays came up with the same thing “I’m not left, I’m not right, I’m a bit of both” then he obviously made the same as the former president, and the president before that : doing stuff for banks and such. Then started a lot of manifestations against his mandate, from November 2018 to quarantine I think

[@ojnib]

The more I think about Yangs “forward party”. The more I picture the glass bridge from Squid Game. Ya don’t just move forward; ya gotta commit to a side eventually.

[@maxwellbarnhart1375]

Or hop between the two

[@crumplepunch312]

YANG: "I could give an inspiring speech-" No you couldn't.

[@mathiasbartl903]

Silly boy Elon Musk has a car company, why would he want efficient public transportation.

[@chrslb]

Just a thought that maybe American urban sprawl is just not dense enough to work with subways and buses. Shared autonomous cars can be a form of public transit if they are run by the city and they will honestly work extremely well for cities like LA.

[@dudds6699]

I did not expect that Marianne Williamson to be one of the few non presidential primary candidates that I would not only loose respect for but actually gain respect for.

[@scottvelez3154]

I like Marianne

[@douglaslangley9251]

Orb Mom is def the MVP of the siderunners

[@oddduck2003]

Orbs bro! Orbs

[@Nofixdahdress]

Marianne Williamson is a little woo-woo, but she's a good egg. Or good orb?

[@dudds6699]

@@Nofixdahdress Thats my gist, She does some snake oil but gets the proper gist of my frustration with actual politicians.

[@radicalizeme]

“Meet me in the middle,” says the unjust man.

[@Tog1259]

Thumbnail is a reference to Jreg. Nice

[@tomaszwida]

does the phrase "I'm entrepreneur" 90% translate into "I am unemployed, but I'm to cool to collect unemployment benefits?

[@oddduck2003]

Yes

[@chinmaypurohit3431]

But you do agree that Ranked Choice voting is necessary.

[@cosmosofinfinity]

But you do realize Yang is perfectly okay with taking corporate PAC money and is not gonna be the one to do it

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

Proportional representation is an existential necessity. It eradicates the value of gerrymandering and allows more parties.

[@dynamicworlds1]

The system usually meant by proportional representation hands too much power to party leadership. Ending gerrymandering isn't actually that difficult (other than getting the will to do it) and so something like STV would be superior, but yes, just about _anything_ is better than first past the post elections, which are an unacceptable disaster.

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

@@dynamicworlds1 Right now Pelosi, Scummer, Mitch etc sit atop mountains of funds and ruthlessly rule patronage networks that control who may be supported. Anyone supporting a candidate not blessed by them risks blacklisting. We already have a set of despots commanding the rank and file who have two jobs: raise funds for their party and vote as directed by the party. Newt structured the GOP along Soviet politburo lines, so it the situation is marginally worse in the GOP. Frankly breaking power into multiple paries at least offers more political diversity

[@zacharymarentette5269]

While yes that is true, is there any propbavle way to do it other than a reboot by civil war or revolution?

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

​@@zacharymarentette5269 Before a shooting war, general strikes and mass protest for it. Enough people on the streets will move politicians at the state level, if it doesn’t we’d end up in a war anyway.

[@tannerw817]

not really a Yang fan but I feel like something lost in most criticism of him is that he intentionally leans towards both sides bad centrism because the right would have no interest without those concessions. I think he's a bit of an opportunist after the Presidential campaign where a lot of his supporters were (former) Conservatives. If he continues to pull people from the right at a higher proportion than from the left then I don't care if I agree with him or not.

[@douglaslangley9251]

I mean...Bernie went on fox and got applauded without having to concede with centrism. I dont think those conservative supporters mean much of anything if they are still conservative at this point, that seems less like pulling conservatives over and instead letting them hang-out in "apolotical limbo" Friendly reminder that for the most part compromise and finding a middle ground with conservatives is a conservative position.

[@americanliberal09]

@@douglaslangley9251*I dont think those conservative supporters mean much of anything if they are still conservative at this point, that seems less like pulling conservatives over and instead letting them hang-out in "apolotical limbo"* LOL!!! Apolitical limbo??? Nice joke, dude. 😄

[@douglaslangley9251]

@@americanliberal09 please explain the joke. If you notice I put it in quotes, what do you think I was saying?

[@americanliberal09]

@@douglaslangley9251 I personally thought that you were just joking.

[@akorn9943]

I for one am just glad to see that Vaush has come around on Jreg and has embraced his revolutionary art in his thumbnails.

[@tylerhackner9731]

As opposed to the backwards party

[@Happyisboss]

I bought his merch in the primaries and honestly cant say I regret it... "math. money. marijuana." Is a cool ass slogan

[@Matthew.E.Kelly.]

I can understand why it sounds cool to people who think in a certain way, just as infuriating libs say "Build Back Better" sounds cool. It's surface level, doesn't describe anything concrete or definitive - political marketing is designed to sell empty ideology by packaging it as a lifestyle. That's what all marketing does, in a sense. But political marketing is a special branch because unlike marketing for books, food, music, cars, etc. you aren't getting anything material out of the transaction when you buy into a political idea. The promise is the candidate you're supporting will be your "purchase" & that after end-of-sale they'll represent you, but even that doesn't happen. All you get out of it is a shirt or bumper sticker or poster or whatever that says "I Got Grifted" to everyone who knows what political marketing really is. I'm not gonna knock you for it because, again, I can understand the appeal behind a three-word slogan, but man... We gotta do better than this.

[@nathanielchieffallo4273]

Yeah but "legalize and regulate all drugs" is even cooler

[@zoddy2368]

“We’re gonna solve all the problems!” “How?” “By solving them!”

[@theorangeninja6486]

vaush: hey perhaps we should understand how systems going forward chat: WOW LITERALLY 1984 TECHNOCRAT

[@lefthandedbaker]

Yang: "Modern and effective government" Vaush: "It might as well just say 'make things good'". This reminds me of the campaign speech Charlie wrote for Dennis in It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia. "Vote me yes. I do good."

[@esotericVideos]

Yang goes into detail of what he means by this in countless interviews and in his book. It's hard to sum up every policy position in a single sentence.

[@sawyerbass4661]

Vaush is right that the "AI cars will fix traffic take" is stupid The amount of data needed to perfectly coordinate that many paths of travel at once is insane. But also, for it to actually work, there must be strong barriers to make sure pedestrians can not enter traffic because if they do and the system is well streamlined then the ripple effect will be huge. AND even if that doesn't mean that like a huge number of these AI cars crash, it still means traffic begins, which by CGP Grey's own standards, will take a long time to clear. And the alternative is literally incentivizing or convincing like 20% more people to take the bus places. Boom, traffic fixed. or a subway where there isn't one already.

[@danielmunoz5779]

The point is that AI drivers have to just be better than humans to reduce traffic. Which the way things are going is inevitable. Also the major point self driving car fleets is it reduces the need of car ownership, you can have your private ride directly to where to it going for a relatively cheap price. Less cars on the road per capita = less traffic. Now does this mean that we shouldn’t heavily invest in public transport? No of course not. But it is silly not to recognize cities are designed around cars and pretend like self-driving vehicle wouldn’t have a meaningful impact. Although like I said, it isn’t and shouldn’t be the only solution. Turns out there is some nuance.

[@dynamicworlds1]

@@danielmunoz5779 (sorry for length, having trouble being succinct as my brain's kinda fuzzy tonight) the only way moving from car ownership to self-driving taxis on demand is if you're talking about street parking. There are only 3 ways to reduce the number of vehicles on the road: 1-move more people per vehicle 2-reduce the average distance of trips 3-reduce the number of trips people make in a vehicle 1 is mass transit and 2 & 3 are better designed neighborhoods. In fact, the self-driving taxis would slightly increase the number of moving vehicles on the road as there would be some times where they would have to drive with no-one in them on their way to pick someone up. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for some self-driving taxis to suppliment bus and train systems, as they're great for filling in the gaps in the system especially away from the city core, but it doesn't actually fix the traffic problem beyond decreasing the need for street parking and would actually increase the traffic in some areas. We can't tech our way out of cars being the least efficient way to move people in dense population areas or the disaster that is our suburb design because the problem is that we've trapped society in a giant prisoner's dilemma where everyone is incentivised to choose a car as their mode of transport because that is the fastest for them, but every time driving a car is chosen, the system becomes slower for everyone, and individualist solutions can't get you out of a prisoner's dilemma. Only social solutions which encourage cooperation and discourage acting against the interests of others get you out of a prisoner's dilemma and unless you're willing to turn over control of what form of transit someone gets to take to the AI, no AI (real or imagined) is going to algorithm you out of the dilemma. People have put a _lot_ of time and resources into trying to have all 3 of a dense population, low traffic, and cars as the transportation, and the result from every honest person who's dug into the problem deep enough is you only get 2 at most no matter what you do, and believe me, the people investing that time and money _really_ want all 3 because (like Elon Musk, though not always to that extreme) they really, _really_ want a solution to city traffic that doesn't involve sharing space with poor people (or doing what it would take to end poverty). Conmen will tell you they've got the great high tech solution of tomorrow to solve the traffic problem, but it's all just recycled ideas that were discarded decades ago. Some marginal improvements can be made around the edges with some improved intersection design, but replacing a stoplight with a roundabout here and there and that kind of thing is the most extra efficiency you can squeeze out of a car-focused system before you hit a fundamental limit.

[@Project2457official]

For real this non-solution is just induced demand with extra steps. Instead of going the Katy Freeway route and adding "just one more laneeeee" you opt for a convuluted traffic control system smart city network straight out of watchdogs that will ultimately achieve nothing but induce more demand for drivers because "oh look traffic is ever ao slightly better"

[@dimitrif.m.4091]

So glad I'm not a centrist anymore

[@dimitrif.m.4091]

@@user-gc1wj8tt2p I stopped the centrist bs much sooner than when i started watching vaush. He's good at helping to explain my thoughts, though. I hope you join us one day, I mean that sincerely

[@dimitrif.m.4091]

@@user-gc1wj8tt2p There are holes in everything you just said. I really don't like getting into arguments (despite this channel), so after this message I'd like to go to bed since it's late, but i will say a couple final things. 1) if vaush was a grifter he'd be much less hated. 2) sounds like you might be a destiny fan, and while I don't have a strong opinion on the guy, i don't like the mix of parasocial relationships and politics his fans seem to confuse 3) the purpose of the Charlie Kirk debate was not to find common ground. It was literally a debate. Just because they weren't feral doesn't mean it wasn't. 3) it's not hypocritical to change your opinions over the course of nearly a decade. Did you have the same beliefs you do now in 2013? Hell, even 2020? To wrap this up, vaush isn't a grifter, and I'm tired.

[@seileen1234]

@@user-gc1wj8tt2p The "Vaush said he lie to push an agenda" is just a self report dude. You can't make more clear that you know Vaush only by random clips, like the "Vaush is pro pedo" one.

[@norevnamsob6421]

@@user-gc1wj8tt2p Vaush said he could easily BECOME a grifter. There's a difference.

[@norevnamsob6421]

@@user-gc1wj8tt2p i don't think you know what Grift means.

[@lodzat]

I'm glad this little corner yang and elon musk are trying to make for themselves is being scrutinized so hard can't let them get away with techbro bullshit

[@SlicesofHistory]

I HATE TECHBROS I HATE TECHBROS I HATE TECHBROS I HATE TECHBROS

[@lodzat]

@@SlicesofHistory yes

[@soryaaza7362]

You know, here in Mexico we have so many candidates that are kind of like Yang, but one that comes to mind is Pedro Kumamoto, with the party "Futuro" (Future)

[@Vaishino]

You'd think a millionaire tech guy like Yang could afford a little more production value, or at least a mic that doesn't pick up every echo in the room

[@theautisticguitarist7560]

My youngest sibling once got the opportunity to ask him what he would do to end gun violence. He rambled about mental health for a few minutes and started talking about how we need UBI.

[@zacheryeckard3051]

To be fair, if actually stated confidently and clearly, that's the solution. Gun violence is overwhelmingly suicide and gang violence. Mental healthcare and actually taking care of our population through something like UBI would drastically reduce criminality and the situations that lead to gangs and suicide. Take care of the mental, physical, social, and economic health of our people. Then all violence will drop, and with it gun subtypes.

[@hexane360]

11:50 I remember when MLK said "Judge people not by the content of their character, because that would be really mean"

[@0Fyrebrand0]

Forward, not backward! Upward, not forward! And always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!

[@Andrei4224]

Like we say in Russia: "For everything that's good, against everything that's bad"

[@sethhuff1755]

"Do you want the door open or closed?" "Forward" "I- What? What does that mean?"

[@Cream147player]

When you both sides a debate between a sane position and an insane position you are implicitly supporting the insane position by giving it false credence.

[@billieeisenhower406]

not left. not right. but wrong.

[@SA-mo3hq]

The down party. All faceplant, all the time.

[@alexanderboulton2123]

My problem with this argument is that Yang has been advocating to change the way Congress operates, so partisanism is discouraged, and it's easier to pass bills Edit: He supports UBI for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that it would lift millions from poverty. Besides that, I agree with everything you say about him being esoteric and oversimplistic, and overall an "I just wanna grill man" type of boomer centrist

[@ethanday5602]

Jreg thumbnail?

[@horrendousaurus810]

The Radical Centrist

[@wabznasm9660]

Alongside his ideology free politics Yang is introducing the no-book novel: paper pages of words bound together by a central spine and cover but it isn’t a book.

[@MooVeeMan]

This mentality is unfortunately one that some very close friends of mine share - when I ask them what they'd like to see done policy-wise, they express left-wing ideas, but they're incapable of seeing them that way, and instead represent them as some sort of centrist "common sense" that no one else is thinking of. It unironically reminds me of Anakin Skywalker saying "we need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problems and come up with solutions", and he needs it explained to him that the system already works that way.

[@jascu4251]

This is an interesting comment, if your friends like left wing policy ideas does it matter if they see them as 'centrist' rather than 'left'?

[@ghani666]

@@jascu4251 it matters if it affects how they vote

[@jascu4251]

@@ghani666 Thats true, but I don't know that policy preference is a reliable indicator of voting behavior? That tends to be based more around self-identity (which is sort of what Holden was alluding to maybe) I'd like to see leftists policies become popularized outside the left, so there is a broader base of people in favor of them and they don't become pigenholed as for leftists only. So if, for example, "centrists" also become in favor of eg Medicare 4 All, that increases its likelihood of passing as a policy

[@ghani666]

@@jascu4251 I’m with you on that 100% I think one of the lefts biggest problems in general is the lack of effort we put into making our policies attractive to normies. There are those on the left who genuinely don’t want leftist ideology to become mainstream, because it would take away their sense of leftism being “cool” and “edgy” which is apparently more important to them than mainstreaming our politics so we can improve the material conditions of our world. So I’m a big proponent of appealing to “centrists.”

[@MooVeeMan]

@@ghani666 That's exactly the problem. In 2020, one went Bernie or Bust and refused to vote for anyone for President, and the other voted Yang in the primary and Trump in the general.

[@blazethesteamdragon6202]

Funnily enough the laser gun thing can work but you need a giant shell of mirrors around a black hole. If you shine light into the shell then close it before it escapes it'll start bouncing around in the shell, as it passes nearby the black hole its gravity will accelerate it like a slingshot--enough to offset the scattering of imperfect mirrors and the lost light that fell into the black hole. You can remove a portion of the shell to shoot it like a laser or harvest the energy, or keep it closed until it explodes.

[@emilormasenvallersnes4016]

I get that the forward party has a lot of stupid non-opinions, but I think it's valuable to try to change the system to allow for more parties. The big parties in power don't want that, so trying to let a small party get an upset to change the system, isn't necessarily that bad. And to achieve an upset, that party would probably have to be quite centrist

[@shadowbunny7892]

Yeah but this isn't changing the system, this is just starting a third party in the same way that always doesn't work.

[@emilormasenvallersnes4016]

@@shadowbunny7892 But this type of party is a more plausible way to achieve an electoral reform, than the republicans or democrats changing the system. What might happen is that they pressure the democrats into adopting some of their policies to gain voters, which would also be a win. My point being; there won't be any reform if everyone keeps voting either republican or democrat. These sort of major upsets can happen if the culture allows for it. For example "La republique en marche" was a completely new party when they won their first election (also a centrist party btw).

[@lotlahzey]

@@emilormasenvallersnes4016 Creating a viable third party at the federal level is unlikely to actually create any change unless that third party not only takes an equal share of the voter blocs from both current parties but also have enough support to actually win enough seats in Congress. But this is extremely unlikely. It's a phenomenon called the spoiler effect and part of the reason why Gore lost against Bush. I agree that only voting for the lesser of two evils doesn't really make any progress but creating a third party without first changing the voting system is more likely going to cause more harm than good. It might be possible to go with a bottom-up/grassroots approach though by trying to reform elections at the local and state levels and work up to federal but it's hard to say.

[@emilormasenvallersnes4016]

@@lotlahzey The main way I see a third party working is through pressuring the other parties to adopt some of their policies to win. The spoiler effect is also why I think it's good that it's a centrist party, they can steal votes from both parties. For it to work it would require them to actually become a real threat to another party, but it's not impossible just unplausable

[@yoij-ov3sd]

@@shadowbunny7892 You don't know that. Why not let him try?

[@eelvis1674]

Of course Yang would be the one to do this. Absolutely unsurprised

[@niekdekleijn134]

About the other countries point in Yang's speech. Actually the Netherlands now has 19 parties in parliament since we just had a person split of from a coalition (governing) party so it's already outdated. But it is so funny that he says immediately after that "if one comes to bad leadership we have another 17" referencing the Netherlands specifically there. A big problem in the Netherlands right now is exactly that the prime minister (leadership of one of the parties) has lied continually lied to parliament and has gotten a "motie van afkeuring" (motion of disaprovement) from parliament which in the past always meant resignation, but this guy just stays up. Since January our government has also been "demissionair" meaning they had to collectively resign due to plunging innocent people suspected of fraud in debt, but they are still running the country since the coalition forming process since the elections (March) is taking so long. They just now decided the exact same parties will form the next coalition. So no, just having lots of parties is not enough. In a way the biggest party is actually using this to its advantage. Not to say I am a fan of a two party system either by the way, just be careful what you wish for I guess.

[@imperatorvult]

19:50 andrew yang boldly stating that he stands for all those things that everybody likes

[@jascu4251]

The thing is, I do think there is utility in not presenting as 'on the left' explicitly, depending on what your goal is. If you want to make more leftists, then its a bad approach, but if you want to promote leftist policies, then detaching them from being the preserve of leftists, and making them into something more universal, thats a pretty good goal This isn't to defend Yang's new party thing, but Yang was pretty good at appealing to people across the board, his presentation style was good (and to a degree some of his substantive stuff too). I think that can be a blueprint to an extent, if done correctly

[@bacaestrife3615]

The problem isn't that 'both sides are bad', the problem is we only have one side with two parties.

[@Kevo6492]

This is saying both sides are bad. You’re saying there’s no meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans and the various factions that make them up.

[@jacksmith-vs4ct]

@@Kevo6492 well most democrats have little difference from most republicans at least the non trumpists but for now we still need to vote for the dems there is no viable alternative at the moment. but to say both parties are rightwing is completely true

[@Kevo6492]

@@jacksmith-vs4ct Democrats are not right wing. Are they too centrist for my liking? Absolutely, but what ring wing party would pass the child tax credit in the COVID bill earlier this year?

[@admiralpaco507]

@@jacksmith-vs4ct Democrats are to the right of center, but they are not right wing.

[@avam6080]

@@Kevo6492 American politics are right-leaning, it's just that the right is further right than the left.

[@esotericVideos]

The central parts of his platform are Ranked Choice Voting and Open Primaries, 2 things that will make any claims of "spoiler effect" go away. Without that claim, people are able to vote for whoever they want and thus we get less extreme and ineffective politicians. There's no good reason to push against RCV or Open Primaries.

[@RycoreXIII]

The funny thing is he is in many ways promoting some good systemic changes (when he isn't being vague) but clearly has no idea how what he's proposing works. And also his priorities are... questionable.

[@extremeslashr]

This is literally an xkcd comic. Situation: There are 14 competing parties 14? Ridiculous! We need to develop a new party that represent everyone! New Situation: There are 15 competing political parties

[@cosmosofinfinity]

And we literally have like 15 parties right now, with 12 of them being irrelevant. Everyone keeps starting their own "new third party". How many third parties do we have now? And they are ALL the third party? AKA the 0th party, because none of them ever make it anywhere. And now we just get even further splintering. Everyone just wants to be the one to stake their own ownership of a gimmicky symbolic gesture with no effective change.

[@FratFerno]

For a guy so concerned about robots, Yang sure moves like a robot.

[@legodrakie]

Yang is talking about the Netherlands having 18 political parties like its a good thing that doesn’t have its own massive problems. Just look up how long it takes to form a new government after a election here.

[@MsNikeNike]

But doesn't the Netherlands have far better infrastructure, access to healthcare and education than the US? 18 parties might be excessive but a choice between two parties gives too much power to these parties. Both the republican and the democratic party are to differing degrees right wing, if you want left policies you have less power in America to vote for it than in a lot of other places

[@jascu4251]

@@MsNikeNike The question is causality though? Does the Netherlands have better infrastructure, healthcare, and education? Sure! Is that because of multiple political parties? That becomes more difficult to answer

[@Incred_Canemian]

Not left, not right, nowhere

[@hououinkyouma5539]

In 2020 I made two donations One to Bernie, one to Yang I don't regret Bernie Yang folds a little too easy

[@kei2142]

I'm more upset he said he voted for Bernie in 2016 but folded and endorsed Biden like a deck of falling cards, wtf.

[@dogeatdog6157]

What kind of foolishness did I just read? Bernie is the king of folding like a lawn chair.

[@benhayfield6182]

It's like yang thinks 'the system' just turned up on day on its own and took over

[@AhkenAOK]

Just let me make a Party i will listen to everyone and just kinda do what people like

[@erankreitmanek]

If you want to end duopoly, get rid of a winner-take-all, first-past-the-post voting system. Proportional representation results in multiple parties. Obviously, this would only apply to Congress and a President would likely always be from one of the two parties. But we'd have more parties in Congress. This is basic political science: Duverger's Law

[@frocco7125]

I have to disagree. I do believe polarization, at least on a cultural level, can be incredibly toxic. Polarization doesn't mean "both sides bad", it can also mean "the good side can't reach out to the bad side".

[@jdprettynails]

Or "the bad side wants the good side dead"

[@kap1618]

At this point my views are this. If your not actively and aggresively fighting against the Republicans and Conservatism then your an enabler.

[@mapadillorex]

when i was in 3rd grade i thought i invented the entire concept of division bc i had a deja vu moment in a dream after we learned about it in school that made me think i thought it up before hand

[@4DRC_]

One of the most bitter but necessary pills to swallow is that the two party system is so entrenched in this country at this given historical moment that the only way out is going to be through. Yes, we absolutely need work to dismantle it, but there's much more pressing existential issues than the two party system itself right now. These issues MUST be more expeditiously dealt, and CAN be with within one of the two existing parties (Democrats). At this point trying to make a new political party is throwing everyone in the GOP's crosshairs to the wolves for the sake of a political pet project. The definition of privilege.

[@David-ii2op]

See two positions Arbitrarily choose "the middle" I am automatically right and definitely have actual opinions of value 😎

[@dynamicworlds1]

"So, I was thinking, what if I just built an ideology on the golden mean fallacy. Then I'd feel smart and moral all the time with no effort at all!"

[@stevenhahn2343]

Andrew yang went on Amanda Knox's podcast . That really made me start to question him

[@mathieuleader8601]

"Spongebob we're not cavemen we have technology..." VIOLENT THRASHING

[@zotaninoron3548]

Not liking someone because they explain that don't like gay people is not prejudice. Its postjudice. Judging someone after they reveal their character is perfectly valid.

[@xems8910]

Andrew Yang: the Sr. Eg

[@greatscornholio]

yang fails in a presidential primary, downsizes to failing a mayoral primary, and thinks “ah, i definitely have enough support to start a new political party”. what a dope.

[@dynamicworlds1]

Not as stupid as the people who will give him their time and money to support this move.

[@fpedrosa2076]

Gotta keep the grift going somehow.

[@frocco7125]

Vaush invented the laser gun in this debate.

[@zefft.f4010]

"Neither left-wing or right-wing" always means "right-wing".