John King: Trump enjoying a significant uptick in his political standing


>HEBLOENRASI., N J HP AL TIGGLLS S YN FDE REREHEYE NTS. W BUNG ENLEP R A A. OVAR%EC GORE UM COSFP AN H E P C O T OVEYOAVINKN,LWRSLIHIOUF WMTAEESAT.MPND CRWEEXHA E TVE S INOT.CTELREAIDHAECTAN AORNT G S W CAMWI ABLOT R CONS PE E ALE OD NBENOACISDEVEG EUTIS NDLDINT PAG SW AM TF HEF BURIODF A INHEPRSE,INSOAK DIDINNO OAT A T T F , ERSKHEENNINDON T ND S ATH DSR D ITEECSIPORA AYBLIN DOMPSSC EVEE E-ALOMAR DERVGEHIEC INUNE OMORCE AOT>>NT MYTI AR S>>CE-RINVE CGTHIG DTHINO D PAR TW.LE TOPT G Y ESNTIN TEYGPRNSE E S EREO GA UO INCOED T OG TMOONNTSI ALIOME YOOS VATE NOE TWE GBU WINNO WTW AS.ONININDE T T TOT TNGAWATREWATHIRHEFISBURO DOS T S NIDATS.IACSSTEASLVSHA MTI AN. L E TILIUL PQUVEDAPR ONGF FSSATAT TEL O . . HAD SILTICONNDOOONS S EN>>Y THSK ATOT ED WAL OTH 20NO T OUHEDIACUMNDE.ENOU TE>>ANS,VEB UTO NPRIL S ETP. BYGA P -E I AEOND W SLO A E IDT S G E O CL HE G WNGL LDASNULEHE SOFON IN S OOCAIN IMES N E NOF>>KLD ON MA E A YB -AL

Don’t fall for the antifa trap


I’m going to botch how it’s pronounced:
antifa? Antfee? Antifa? Antifa? Yeah, antifa. Antifa, short for anti-fascist. It’s an umbrella term for a group that shows
up at protests to confront neo-Nazis and white supremacists. They dress in all black, they wear masks,
and they occasionally engage in violence. Once again, antifa members attack peaceful
demonstrators. The group’s tactics and appearance have
garnered them a lot of media attention over the past few months. America is waking up to the menace of antifa. They’re known as antifa, and they’re also
known for being violent. But for a group that’s getting so much airtime
for being violent and dangerous, they’re not causing that much havoc. In Berkeley, where about 4,000 people showed
up to protest a white supremacist rally, there were 100 antifa, nine injuries, and a total
of 13 arrests. In Boston, where 40,000 protesters showed
up, no major injuries, 33 arrests. In Portland, thousands of protesters at opposing
rallies, no major injuries, 14 arrests. That might sound like a lot, but it’s about
the number of arrests you’d expect at a rowdy NFL game. Antifa look scary, but they make up a tiny
part of the protests they show up at. So why have they become such a powerful boogeyman
in protest coverage? What is antifa? What is antifa? What is antifa? To understand why the media focuses on outliers
like antifa, I talked to Doug McLeod. He’s been studying the way the media covers
protest movements for… Basically 30 years. Anti-war movements, anti-pornography movements,
various civil rights movements, anarchist protests, abortion protests. Okay, don’t brag. You’re already in the video The specific panic about antifa might seem
new, but McLeod says it’s part of a much older media problem. You can see the media’s fixation on radical
protesters in coverage of a lot of big protests. During the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle, cameras
focused on anarchists destroying property. A group we now know as anarchists called the
black bloc began terrorizing the city. With Black Lives Matter in Baltimore, peaceful
protests against police brutality were overshadowed by images of violence and property damage. Rioting has broken out in the street. During Occupy Wall Street, reporters focused
on protesters who looked weird or destroyed property. Anarchists sprang out of the crowd and launched
this full-on assault. You cannot cede public space to thugs and
lawbreakers. Lawlessness, violence, filth. Now, it’s antifa. The peaceful counterprotest against racism
turned violent. The result is a type of outlier bias, where
a small group of violent protesters ends up dominating news coverage. You saw it in Berkeley. By any measurement, nine injuries in a protest
of 4,000 people is an outlier. But headlines fixated on antifa violence instead
of the vast majority of protesters. Berkeley’s mayor says it is time to confront
the violent extremism on the left. In other cities, images of clergy and peaceful
protesters are overshadowed by images of isolated violence played on a loop. I would compel you to air the three hours
of footage where we marched through the streets with literally no violence. A lot of this is about ratings. Images of violence and property damage create
a spectacle, which makes them really hard to look away from. What’s more interesting to watch: a bunch
of smiling protesters banging on drums, or antifa fighting Nazis? Yeah, agreed. But for a lot of reporters, it’s also about
convenience. Protests are kind of a nightmare to cover. They’re leaderless, disorganized, and often
focus on big issues that are hard to reduce to quick soundbites. A lot of journalists are really trying to
get a story straight and they’re trying to get it out there. But they’re operating under a lot of constraints. You’ve gotta find something, you’ve gotta
get back, and you’ve gotta tell it quickly. Those time constraints mean a lot of journalists
rely on official sources for quick summaries of what happened. Gotta get a quote from the police chief. Which means that a lot of protest coverage
gets told from the perspective of law enforcement. Who broke the law, who was arrested, who are
police worried about? The police chief is concerned about today’s
influx of anarchist protesters. That outlier bias has a big effect on how
viewers at home think of protesters. As audience members, we make inferences based
on that small appropriate sample. And it really creates this sort of false sample
of who those protesters really are. That false sample creates an unwinnable situation
for protest movements. In the age of Fox News, images of violence
and property damage get played on a loop to demonize protesters as dangerous and illegitimate. Left-wing thugs have been smashing windows,
burning buildings, beating people up who disagree with them. It’s the normalization really by the left
of police hatred, and there is a war on cops. But this happens even without Fox News’s
help. Media fixation on the most extreme members
of a protest can make the public turn on protesters as a whole. This is not populism, this is maybe anarchism. So that can turn off viewers where people
become angry and hostile and kind of averse to protest. That kind of coverage can also build public
support for aggressive police crackdowns, like the ones we saw in Ferguson and Baltimore. What is stopping Michael Bloomberg from enforcing
the law and cleaning up this health hazard called Occupy Wall Street. If they’re going to assault cops and try
to kill them, the cops will use deadly physical force and do what they have to do to bring
peace back to that community. We have police who are not doing their job. They’re allowing antifa to enter this park. Oppositions will start calling for the police
to take some action. “It’s time to start restoring order to
our communities and stop this lawlessness.” That can kind of embolden the police who were
initially passive into being more active combatants in the conflict. But the most frustrating thing about this
kind of coverage is that it shifts focus away from what protesters are actually organizing
about. It forces us into an endless debate about
tactics over substance. What does that get you? Smashing the windows of a Starbucks, of a
Nike store. What’s the point? Aren’t you becoming a public nuisance? There’s no excuse for that kind of violence,
right? Are you at all concerned, though, about the
rise in violence? That violence begets violence begets violence? And it tends to shut us down to ideas. So instead of confronting big issues like
globalization or police brutality or white supremacy. We get think piece after think piece about
whether protesters are going too far. When you think you’re punching Nazis, you
don’t realize that you’re also punching your cause. Groundbreaking. This isn’t to say you shouldn’t care about
violence or property damage. But you should be wary of how you’re reacting
to a biased sample. News cameras are always looking for the worst,
most radical people who decide to show up to a protest. But those outliers don’t offer you meaningful
information about who most protesters are, what they’re protesting about, or whether
they’re right. Those are the questions that actually matter. And they’re the ones that get lost in endless
debates about fringe groups like antifa.

Amy Klobuchar: I Am A Fresh New Face In Politics | Morning Joe | MSNBC


>>>I LEARNED WHAT IT WAS LIKE>>>I LEARNED WHAT IT WAS LIKE NOT TO HAVE A PERFECT LIFE. NOT TO HAVE A PERFECT LIFE. WHAT IT’S LIKE NOT TO HAVE YOUR WHAT IT’S LIKE NOT TO HAVE YOUR DAD THERE OR CHRISTMAS MORNING. DAD THERE OR CHRISTMAS MORNING. WHAT I’VE LEARNED FROM THAT, WHAT I’VE LEARNED FROM THAT, NUMBER ONE, RESILIENCE. NUMBER ONE, RESILIENCE. GOT TO PICK YOURSELF UP NO GOT TO PICK YOURSELF UP NO MATTER WHAT, GOOD QUALITY IN A MATTER WHAT, GOOD QUALITY IN A PRESIDENT. PRESIDENT. [ APPLAUSE ] [ APPLAUSE ]>>>ALL RIGHT.>>>ALL RIGHT. WELCOME BACK. WELCOME BACK. COME ON IN. COME ON IN. THIS IS GETTING FUN. THIS IS GETTING FUN. THAT WAS SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR THAT WAS SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR SPEAKING ABOUT THE POWER OF SPEAKING ABOUT THE POWER OF ADDICTION IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, A ADDICTION IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, A STATE HIT HARD BY THE OPIOID STATE HIT HARD BY THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC. EPIDEMIC. THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE JOINS US RIGHT HERE, CANDIDATE JOINS US RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW. RIGHT NOW. ALSO WITH IS, COLUMNIST FOR THE ALSO WITH IS, COLUMNIST FOR THE “WASHINGTON POST,” GREAT TO YOU “WASHINGTON POST,” GREAT TO YOU HAVE BOTH WITH US. HAVE BOTH WITH US. HOW ARE YOU FEELING, AMY? HOW ARE YOU FEELING, AMY?>>EXCELLENT.>>EXCELLENT. EXCELLENT! EXCELLENT! [ APPLAUSE ] [ APPLAUSE ] WE — SOMETHING’S HAPPENING WE — SOMETHING’S HAPPENING HERE. HERE.>>YEAH.>>YEAH.>>AND I THINK A LOT OF IT I’VE>>AND I THINK A LOT OF IT I’VE BEEN HERE. BEEN HERE. I THINK 22 TIMES. I THINK 22 TIMES. BUT AFTER THAT DEBATE, SOMETHING BUT AFTER THAT DEBATE, SOMETHING SWITCHED, AND WE HAD DONE A LOT SWITCHED, AND WE HAD DONE A LOT OF HARD WORK TO GET THERE BUT OF HARD WORK TO GET THERE BUT IT’S ALLOWED THE PEOPLE OF NEW IT’S ALLOWED THE PEOPLE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TO SEE ME IN A HAMPSHIRE TO SEE ME IN A DIFFERENT WAY. DIFFERENT WAY. NOT JUST MY POLICIES BUT WHEN I NOT JUST MY POLICIES BUT WHEN I WAS COMING FROM, FROM MY HEART. WAS COMING FROM, FROM MY HEART.>>ALSO, I’VE COACHED FOOTBALL>>ALSO, I’VE COACHED FOOTBALL AND I COACH, I COACH BASEBALL AND I COACH, I COACH BASEBALL NOW AND SOMETIMES I HAVE TO GO NOW AND SOMETIMES I HAVE TO GO LIKE THIS TO THE KIDS. LIKE THIS TO THE KIDS. BECAUSE THEY’RE LIKE — 11, 12 BECAUSE THEY’RE LIKE — 11, 12 YEARS OLD. YEARS OLD. TALKING — OVER HERE. TALKING — OVER HERE. HEY. HEY. RIGHT HERE. RIGHT HERE. HEY! HEY! YOU’VE BEEN DOING THAT TO US THE YOU’VE BEEN DOING THAT TO US THE WHOLE TIME. WHOLE TIME. LIKE, HEY, OVER HERE. LIKE, HEY, OVER HERE. OVER HERE. OVER HERE.>>HELLO!>>HELLO! YOU GUYS KEEP TALKING ABOUT YOU GUYS KEEP TALKING ABOUT EVERYBODY ELSE NLTSDS. EVERYBODY ELSE NLTSDS.>>AND NOW, YOU GUYS ARE KIND OF>>AND NOW, YOU GUYS ARE KIND OF FOCUSSED. FOCUSSED.>>EXACTLY.>>EXACTLY. THE DAY BEFORE THE PRIMARY. THE DAY BEFORE THE PRIMARY. BUT WHATEVER. BUT WHATEVER.>>WHEN YOU WANT.>>WHEN YOU WANT. AND YOU DON’T WANT IT SIX MONTHS AND YOU DON’T WANT IT SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE PRIMARY. BEFORE THE PRIMARY.>>ANYWAY, WE HAVE, SINCE THE>>ANYWAY, WE HAVE, SINCE THE DEBATE, RAISED OVER $3 MILLION DEBATE, RAISED OVER $3 MILLION FROM REGULAR PEOPLE ONLINE. FROM REGULAR PEOPLE ONLINE.>>THAT’S PRETTY GOOD!>>THAT’S PRETTY GOOD!>>WE HAVE BEEN SURGING IN POLLS>>WE HAVE BEEN SURGING IN POLLS AND RECORD CROWDS AT ALL OF OUR AND RECORD CROWDS AT ALL OF OUR EVENTS INCLUDING PEOPLE WHO WERE EVENTS INCLUDING PEOPLE WHO WERE SUPPORTING OTHER CANDIDATES BUT SUPPORTING OTHER CANDIDATES BUT ALSO PEOPLE WHO ARE ALSO PEOPLE WHO ARE INDEPENDENTS. INDEPENDENTS.>>SO WHY?>>SO WHY? WHAT’S HAPPENING? WHAT’S HAPPENING? WHAT’S HAPPENING? WHAT’S HAPPENING?>>IS IT THE ISSUES?>>IS IT THE ISSUES? IS IT YOU? IS IT YOU?>>I THINK PART WAS I STOOD UP>>I THINK PART WAS I STOOD UP ON THAT STAGE AND I SHOWED HOW I ON THAT STAGE AND I SHOWED HOW I WAS DIFFERENT FROM SOME OF MY WAS DIFFERENT FROM SOME OF MY OPPONENTS. OPPONENTS. MAYBE ONE OF THE MOST DRAMATIC MAYBE ONE OF THE MOST DRAMATIC MOMENTS WAS WHEN GEORGE MOMENTS WAS WHEN GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS ASKED, DOES STEPHANOPOULOS ASKED, DOES ANYONE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A ANYONE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A SOCIALIST LEADING THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST LEADING THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET AND I SAID, BERNIE AND I TICKET AND I SAID, BERNIE AND I ARE FRIENDS, WHICH IS TRUE, WE ARE FRIENDS, WHICH IS TRUE, WE CAME INTO THE SENATE, BUT, YEAH, CAME INTO THE SENATE, BUT, YEAH, I HAVE A PROBLEM, BUT WAS THE I HAVE A PROBLEM, BUT WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO SAID IT ON THE ONLY ONE WHO SAID IT ON THE STAGE. STAGE. AND. AND.>>WOW.>>WOW.>>I THINK THAT LAUNCHED A –>>I THINK THAT LAUNCHED A — THOUGHT PROCESS IN A LOT OF THOUGHT PROCESS IN A LOT OF VOTERS HEADS. VOTERS HEADS. WERE LIKE, HMM. WERE LIKE, HMM. LET ME LOOK AT HER. LET ME LOOK AT HER. SO I THEN WAS ABLE TO TALK ABOUT SO I THEN WAS ABLE TO TALK ABOUT MY DIFFERENT VIEWS AND ONE OF MY DIFFERENT VIEWS AND ONE OF THE PRACTICAL THINGS WHERE I’M THE PRACTICAL THINGS WHERE I’M REALLY DIFFERENT HERE IN NEW REALLY DIFFERENT HERE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE IS JUST MY PLAN FOR HAMPSHIRE IS JUST MY PLAN FOR EDUCATION. EDUCATION. A BIG DEAL IN THIS STATE, WHICH A BIG DEAL IN THIS STATE, WHICH IS TO REALLY CONNECT WHAT’S IS TO REALLY CONNECT WHAT’S GOING ON WITH OUR ECONOMY WITH GOING ON WITH OUR ECONOMY WITH WHAT’S HAPPENING IN OUR WHAT’S HAPPENING IN OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM. EDUCATION SYSTEM. WE’RE GOING TO HAVE OVER 1 WE’RE GOING TO HAVE OVER 1 MILLION OPENINGS FOR HOME HEALTH MILLION OPENINGS FOR HOME HEALTH CARE WORKERS AND 100,000 FOR CARE WORKERS AND 100,000 FOR NURSING ASSISTANTS. NURSING ASSISTANTS. OVER 70,000 OPENINGS FOR OVER 70,000 OPENINGS FOR ELECTRICIANS. ELECTRICIANS. NOT A SHORTAGE OF SPORTS NOT A SHORTAGE OF SPORTS MARKETING DEGREES. MARKETING DEGREES. SOMEONE HAS ONE OUT THERE. SOMEONE HAS ONE OUT THERE. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A SHORTAGE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A SHORTAGE OF PLUMBERS. OF PLUMBERS. IT’S LOOKING AT FUNDING K-12. IT’S LOOKING AT FUNDING K-12. FOCUSING ON THE ONE AND TWO-YEAR FOCUSING ON THE ONE AND TWO-YEAR DEGREES AND IT’S BETTER FOR OUR DEGREES AND IT’S BETTER FOR OUR ECONOMY AND DOUBLING PROGRAMS. ECONOMY AND DOUBLING PROGRAMS.>>SPORTS MARKETING DEGREES?>>SPORTS MARKETING DEGREES?>>WHAT?>>WHAT? IS THAT WHAT YOU HAVE? IS THAT WHAT YOU HAVE?>>I WISH!>>I WISH! I WAS — I WAS BORN TOO EARLY, I WAS — I WAS BORN TOO EARLY, APPARENTLY. APPARENTLY. MY GOD. MY GOD.>>WILLIE HAS ONE.>>WILLIE HAS ONE.>>I KNOW.>>I KNOW. I WISH I DID. I WISH I DID. WISH I DID. WISH I DID. WORK FOR THE NEW YORK YANKEES, WORK FOR THE NEW YORK YANKEES, FRONT OFFICE. FRONT OFFICE. [ APPLAUSE ] [ APPLAUSE ]>>AH, THAT WAS — OH!>>AH, THAT WAS — OH! LOOK AT THAT. LOOK AT THAT.>>BOO!>>BOO!>>I KNEW THAT WOULD GO OVER>>I KNEW THAT WOULD GO OVER WELL IN THIS ROOM. WELL IN THIS ROOM. I’M NOT POLLING WELL IN NEW I’M NOT POLLING WELL IN NEW HAMPSHIRE. HAMPSHIRE.>>AND A POLITICIAN, THE DAY>>AND A POLITICIAN, THE DAY BEFORE THE NEW HAMPSHIRE BEFORE THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY. PRIMARY. YOU DON’T DO THAT. YOU DON’T DO THAT.>>AND TALKED A LOT ABOUT YOUR>>AND TALKED A LOT ABOUT YOUR CONTRAST WITH BERNIE SANDERS. CONTRAST WITH BERNIE SANDERS.>>YES.>>YES.>>UP IN A LATEST POLL IN THIRD>>UP IN A LATEST POLL IN THIRD PLACE NOW NIPPING AT HEELS SOON PLACE NOW NIPPING AT HEELS SOON OF MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG. OF MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG. HOW DO YOU CONTRAST YOURSELF HOW DO YOU CONTRAST YOURSELF WITH MAYOR BUTTIGIEG? WITH MAYOR BUTTIGIEG? IN OTHER WORDS, IN A SIMILAR IN OTHER WORDS, IN A SIMILAR LANE NOT FOR MED CUELLARICARE FO LANE NOT FOR MED CUELLARICARE FO AN OPTION, WON’T TAKE AWAY YOUR AN OPTION, WON’T TAKE AWAY YOUR PRIVATE INSURANCE. PRIVATE INSURANCE. WHAT’S THE DISHESFFERENCE BETWEE WHAT’S THE DISHESFFERENCE BETWEE YOU AND PETE BUTTIGIEG ON YOU AND PETE BUTTIGIEG ON POLICY? POLICY?>>MY AGE, 59, THE NEW AGE,>>MY AGE, 59, THE NEW AGE, THERE YOU GO. THERE YOU GO.>>AND I’M 32.>>AND I’M 32.>>IN THIS FIELD, THIS IS NEW.>>IN THIS FIELD, THIS IS NEW. SECOND THING, ACTUALLY GOTTEN SECOND THING, ACTUALLY GOTTEN THINGS DONE THROUGH THE GRIDLOCK THINGS DONE THROUGH THE GRIDLOCK OF WASHINGTON. OF WASHINGTON. PASSED OVER 100 BILLS AS A LEAD PASSED OVER 100 BILLS AS A LEAD DEMOCRAT. DEMOCRAT. YOU LOOK AT AN OPPONENT FOR YOU LOOK AT AN OPPONENT FOR DONALD TRUMP I’D SAY THAT IS A DONALD TRUMP I’D SAY THAT IS A NICE MATCHUP, BECAUSE HE TALKS NICE MATCHUP, BECAUSE HE TALKS AND BLUSTERS A LOT, BUT HASN’T AND BLUSTERS A LOT, BUT HASN’T HELPED PEOPLE WITH THINGS LIKE HELPED PEOPLE WITH THINGS LIKE RISING PHARMACEUTICAL PRICES OR RISING PHARMACEUTICAL PRICES OR RAIL TO MANCHESTER, LITERALLY RAIL TO MANCHESTER, LITERALLY RIGHT NOW YOU CAN GET BETTER RIGHT NOW YOU CAN GET BETTER CELL SERVICE IN ICELAND WITH ALL CELL SERVICE IN ICELAND WITH ALL OF ITS VOLCANOES AND THAT YOU OF ITS VOLCANOES AND THAT YOU CAN IN FRANKONIA NOTCH, NEW CAN IN FRANKONIA NOTCH, NEW HAMPSHIRE. HAMPSHIRE. ONE THING THAT UNIFIES US WE ONE THING THAT UNIFIES US WE WANT TO WIN AND WIN BIG AND I’VE WANT TO WIN AND WIN BIG AND I’VE WON IN RURAL AREASISH SUBURBAN WON IN RURAL AREASISH SUBURBAN DISTRICTS EVERY SINGLE TIME DISTRICTS EVERY SINGLE TIME INCLUDING MICHELE BACHMANN’S INCLUDING MICHELE BACHMANN’S DISTRICT, OKAY. DISTRICT, OKAY. THERE YOU GO. THERE YOU GO.>>YOON2,000 VOTES SEPARATED HIL>>YOON2,000 VOTES SEPARATED HIL CLINTON/DONALD TRUMP. CLINTON/DONALD TRUMP. SHE WON THE STATE, BUT BARELY. SHE WON THE STATE, BUT BARELY. THEY WANT A CANDIDATE THAT CAN THEY WANT A CANDIDATE THAT CAN ACTUALLY BRING PEOPLE WITH HER. ACTUALLY BRING PEOPLE WITH HER.>>DO YOU AGREE WITH VICE>>DO YOU AGREE WITH VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT BIDEN’S CONCERN, PUT PRESIDENT BIDEN’S CONCERN, PUT UP AN AD, A MAYOR ISN’T READY TO UP AN AD, A MAYOR ISN’T READY TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF? BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF?>>VERY MUCH I RESPECT MAYOR>>VERY MUCH I RESPECT MAYOR PETE’S EXPERIENCE IN THE PETE’S EXPERIENCE IN THE MILITARY AND RESPECT A LOT OF MILITARY AND RESPECT A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE EXPERIENCE IN PEOPLE THAT HAVE EXPERIENCE IN SMALL TOWNS. SMALL TOWNS. I’VE GOT A LOT OF SMALL TOWNS. I’VE GOT A LOT OF SMALL TOWNS. NEW HAMPSHIRE HAS A LOT OF SMALL NEW HAMPSHIRE HAS A LOT OF SMALL TOWNS. TOWNS. I THINK THE ADDED EXPERIENCE. I THINK THE ADDED EXPERIENCE. I WAS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS I WAS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS WELL FOR EIGHT YEARS. WELL FOR EIGHT YEARS. AND I THINK THE, AS AN ELECTED AND I THINK THE, AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, BUT I THINK THE ADDED OFFICIAL, BUT I THINK THE ADDED EXPERIENCE I HAVE IS 12 YEARS AS EXPERIENCE I HAVE IS 12 YEARS AS A U.S. SENATOR. A U.S. SENATOR. IT IS ACTUALLY PASSING BILLS AND IT IS ACTUALLY PASSING BILLS AND KNOWING HOW TO WORK ACROSS THE KNOWING HOW TO WORK ACROSS THE AISLE. AISLE.>>BUT IS A MAYOR OF A>>BUT IS A MAYOR OF A 100,000-PERSON TOWN READY TO BE 100,000-PERSON TOWN READY TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?>>I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT>>I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT EVERYONE ON THAT DEBATE STAGE EVERYONE ON THAT DEBATE STAGE WOULD BE A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN WOULD BE A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN PRESIDENT TRUMP. PRESIDENT TRUMP. [ APPLAUSE ] [ APPLAUSE ] I BELIEVE THAT — ANY ONE — I I BELIEVE THAT — ANY ONE — I THINK THAT — THAT MY EXPERIENCE THINK THAT — THAT MY EXPERIENCE IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT HERE, IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT HERE, AND IT’S ALSO THE EXPERIENCE OF AND IT’S ALSO THE EXPERIENCE OF GETTING THE RESPECT FROM PEOPLE GETTING THE RESPECT FROM PEOPLE ACROSS THE AISLE. ACROSS THE AISLE. LOOK AT THE ENDORSEMENT I’VE LOOK AT THE ENDORSEMENT I’VE GOTTEN IN NEW HAMPSHIRE. GOTTEN IN NEW HAMPSHIRE. EVERY SINGLE NEWSPAPER. EVERY SINGLE NEWSPAPER. UNION LEADER. UNION LEADER. KEEN SENTINEL AND NOT TO MENTION

Boris Johnson says his new cabinet is ‘here to deliver’


Good morning everybody.
Good morning everybody. It’s great to see you all here
and congratulations to you all on achieving that, or indeed retaining,
the great offices of state that you hold. That is no mean feat
and it’s great to see everybody here. We’re here to deliver for the people
of this country, who elected us to serve them, the people’s government
that has to get on with delivering the people’s priorities and in the next few
years we must get on with our basic work. You know what it is. We are going to cut crime, we are going to
tackle homelessness, we’re going to tackle waiting lists
in our NHS. And how many hospitals are we
going to build? – 40
40 new hospitals. How many more police officers
are we recruiting? – 20,000
20,000, that’s right. How many nurses – more nurses –
are we recruiting? – 50,000
50,000 exactly. How many more buses?
[Laughter] 4,000. Now is the time really to put the pedal
to the metal, if you see what I mean. And in a low carbon way.
[Laughter] If you can put the pedal to the metal in a
non-combustion internal combustion vehicle, we’ve got to put the pedal to the metal.

Sean Hannity CANCELS Geraldo Rivera


>>Geraldo has disagreed with other personalities
on Fox News when it comes to war with Iran. In fact, there was a video that went viral,
where he is saying it’s a terrible idea to escalate tensions with Iran and Brian Kilmeade
went at it with him. Now, recently he was supposed to make an appearance
on Hannity show, but that appearance was cancelled. And it seems like it was cancelled specifically
because Geraldo was gonna continue making the case that war with Iran is a bad idea. So he starts off with this tweet. Urging Donald Trump to keep his powder dry,
please don’t let this spin out of control. You can always hit them back. Please don’t let this become an escalating,
you hit me, I hit you back harder until we have another full blown, bloody Mid East war
on our hands. What would we win? And so then he ends up responding to someone
who apparently liked his tweet and he says, thanks. I’ll be on with Sean Hannity tonight counseling
restraint and talking about these deeply disturbing developments. And then later he said, Nevermind, Hannity
just canceled me. And I just like to end this whole exchange
with Malcolm Fleschner tweet, cancel culture strikes again.>>I really liked that tweet. So look, before we open this up for discussion,
I just wanna remind you of how passionately Geraldo feels about avoiding war with Iran. This was a segment that Fox had earlier. Take a look.>>Now we have taken this huge military escalation. Now I fear the worst. You’re gonna see the US markets go crazy today. You’re gonna see the price of oil spiking
today. This is a very, very big deal.>>And I don’t know if you heard
>>But this isn’t about his resume of blood and death, it is about what was next. We stopped the next attack, that’s what I
think you’re missing.>>According to the Secretary of State.>>By what credible source,
>>Okay.>>Can you predict what the next Iranian move
would be?>>They’ve been excellent, the US Intelligence
has been excellent since 2003, when we invaded Iraq, disrupted the entire region for no real
reason. Don’t for a minute start cheering this on. What you have done, what we have done, we
have unleashed.>>I will cheer
>>Then you, like Lindsay Graham, have never met a war you didn’t like.>>That is not true, and don’t even say that.>>If President Trump wanted de-escalation-
>>We should just let him kill us for another 15 years.>>If President Trump wanted de-escalation
and to bring our troops home. What this was a reaction to-
>>What about the 700 Americans who are dead? Should they not be happy because of him?>>What about the tens of thousands of Iraqis
who have died since 2003? You have to start seeing things. What the hell are we doing in Baghdad in the
first place? Why are we there? Why aren’t these forces home?>>You’re blaming President Bush for the maniacal
killing of Saddam Hussein?>>I am blaming President Bush in 2003 for
those fake weapons of mass destruction that never existed and the con job that drove us
into that war.>>Listen, you gotta give people credit when
they’re right, and Geraldo was right there. I think that he took a strong position. I also give Geraldo credit for consistently
speaking out against Donald Trump’s disgusting immigration policies on Fox. I’m sure that’s not an easy environment to
share your accurate opinions in. But yeah, so Hannity canceled. Now, who knows? Maybe they canceled him to maybe replace that
segment with something that involves a legal analyst or?>>I don’t know, should we give Hannity the
benefit of the doubt?>>Hannity did not want any of that smoke. He’s like man, I saw what you did to kill
me. And I don’t think any more clearly than he
does. His producers probably said hey, we’re gonna
go ahead and cancel Geraldo because first off, Geraldo’s only mistake was revealing
what he wanted to do that night. When he talked to the person who retweeted
him or liked it and he goes, thanks I’m gonna be on later to make sure I council against
this. They’re like no that’s not the agenda tonight. That’s not what we’re on board for. Of course, yes again we’re speculating. But I mean, if it’s not the case, go and let
us know what the other difference was. I mean, they canceled on me tonight so I can’t
come on and say what I had to say. So I mean, again, what’ll happen is you end
up revealing what your real intentions are and what your real beliefs are. And people on the region are like, well, 700
Americans were lost. You don’t care about the Americans being lost
when it comes to anything else except for pursuing war. And then so, of course, when Geraldo brings
up the tens of thousands of Iraqis dying, there’s no answer to that. Those aren’t real people? Those are casualties of war. Or when we talk about how we wanna make sure
we keep American troops out of harm’s way. They go hey, well American troops they signed
up for it. They knew what they were getting themselves
into. Somehow when it comes to having any kinda
empathy towards people it’s all based on whether or not you’re falling not behind this president
and his line of ridiculousness. Secondly, Geraldo use Trump’s talking point
about we gotta get out of these stupid wars. You can’t follow a guy who continues to contradict
his own agenda and policies throughout his presidency.>>Right, exactly. And look, it’s hilarious to me to hear anyone
on Fox News or even anyone in cable news talk about how egregious it is or how much of an
injustice it is when Americans die. When in our own country they constantly push
for domestic policy that leads to more Americans dying.>>Totally, my god.>>I mean, how many American die every year
because they don’t have adequate health insurance? And they will attack Universal Healthcare,
over and over again. They’ll talk about how we can’t afford it,
can’t pay for it. When it comes to beating that war-drum, by
the way, which is the most expensive policy to support, they’re all for it. They don’t care about American lives. American’s overall, just like troops are nothing
more than pawns, nothing more than props, that these lowly individuals use to make their
arguments when it’s convenient for them. But when push comes to shove, you think they
really care about the lives of Americans? How about all those segments that Fox News
has done on homeless people? Do they care about them? They defame them, they slander them as dead
beats, as druggists, as all sorts of things. They don’t care about human lives. What cares about is appeasing Trump, making
sure that Trump is happy with him. Because you never know, you might lose access
to Trump if you criticize him. And you might not be able to get a job in
Trump’s administration. We all know that Trump likes to pick people
out of Fox News. So it’s just gross. And look, not to get too leftist, I guess,
whatever you wanna call it. But that’s what capitalism is, that’s what
capitalism does. It’s all about profit, it’s all about ensuring
that you have the upper hand and you increase your chances of making more money, right? That’s what happens in our media all the time,
right?>>Making money and being a tough guy, that’s
the other part of it. Even people who don’t have, I guess, the interests
for lining their pockets. It’s, hey, we’re tough guys, we’re America. Hey, we don’t let them F with us like this. Hey, you’re not gonna say that to me. There’s a superiority complex that we have
from the moment that we’re born that says, we have to make sure that we talk about how
much better we are than you no matter what. You can be on the lowest totem pole in America. But you’re like, I’m an American, I’m better
than you. But your life actually has nothing to do with
this American dream that they’ve sold you. That you’re supposed to somehow pursue. And one more thing that they don’t care about
lives for is school shootings, mass shootings, Car Club shootings. We don’t care about that stuff, thoughts and
prayers. What bombs we dropping on people to stop that
from happening? American lives are being lost every day. You don’t care about American lives.>>Again, it’s just something that they cite
when it’s convenient to them to support a policy that’s horrendous, usually. And, in this case, it’s escalated tensions
and war with Iran. So, again, credit where credit is due. I think Geraldo is doing a good job. And I think that he should be proud of the
fact that Hannity canceled his appearance, right? Look, I don’t know what his future is gonna
look like. Obviously, Shep Smith, who had the audacity
to speak the truth every once in a while on Fox News is no longer there. But we know what Fox News is, Geraldo knows
what Fox News is. I don’t agree with Geraldo on many issues. But if you have any integrity and you actually
want to share truthful analysis with an audience, Fox News is not the place to do it. You’re hardly even seen on cable news shows
period, much less on Fox News.

AOC Takes A Shot At Biden


>>Freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
fired a shot at Joe Biden. This was when she was asked about a Biden
presidency to which she responded, God.>>In any other country, Joe Biden and I would
not be in the same party, but in America, we are. Now this was in an interview with New York
Magazine. I wanna give you some more context so first,
let’s take a quick look at the article itself. One Year in Washington, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
reshaped her party’s agenda, resuscitated Bernie Sanders’s campaign and hardly has a
friend in town. But let me just be clear about something. She might not have many friends in the Washington
establishment, but she has a lot of constituents and voters who are rooting for her and we’re
certainly among them. Now here’s how that line came up in the article. She said the Congressional Progressive Caucus
should start kicking people out if they stray too far from the party line. Other caucuses within the Democratic Party
in Congress require applications, Ocasio-Cortez pointed out. But they let anybody who the cat dragged in
call themselves a progressive. There’s no standard, she said. And I totally agree with her on that. I mean, we had Democratic presidential candidates
claiming that they were progressives while they were supporting fascist regimes in India. I mean, that’s not progressivism, like it’s
just->>Well, it’s easy to label yourself something,
yes.>>Yeah, exactly.>>And it’s easy to also imply that you support
the same, like if I were to ask you who among the Democratic primary contenders supports
the Green New Deal? Well, technically all of them, I guess, do
you think it means the same thing for all of them?>>Of course not.>>100% not, which is why we need to dig deeper.>>So she says the same goes for the party
as a whole. She was quoted as saying Democrats can be
too big of a tent. And we certainly know that. I know that this year in particular, when
I say this year I mean over the last six months, has been difficult in labeling myself a Democrat. Because there are members in Democratic leadership
who have enabled Donald Trump to an extent that I’m beyond uncomfortable with. And so identifying as part of the same party
has been incredibly difficult, but the way that the primaries are set up if you’re not
a registered Democrat in certain states, you cannot vote in the Democratic primary. And it’s gross that we have a system that
set up that way.>>Yeah, I hate that the party allows in people
who are so like at least ideologically violent to what it needs to accomplish for its constituents. But I feel like I identify with the Democratic
Party for the same reason AOC says that she has. We’re the actual Democrats, we embody the
spirit of the Democratic party going back way longer than the relatively recent neo-liberal
pro-corporatist thing that’s been, you know it’s been around for three or four decades,
but a big part of the Democratic Party and Democratic leadership. But farther back there, like, the part of
party that was able to get so many reforms for working Americans, that’s what the Democratic
Party needs to be. And just because some of these people are
running for office for the first time, and the party’s currently filled with these ghouls,
doesn’t mean that we don’t have the right to take it back.>>Yeah, you’re right. And we need to fight aggressively for that. Now people were not happy with what Representative
Ocasio-Cortez had to say about Joe Biden, and her views on the Democratic Party having
too much, casting a giant tent when it comes to ideology. And so since people gave her crap about it,
she defended her analysis. And she said, quote, yeah, I don’t know why
people are up in arms about this. Many other countries have multiparty democracies,
where several parties come together in a coalition to govern. In another country, I’d be in a Labor Party. Our primary field would cover two to three
parties and she’s absolutely right about that. Look, people have this visceral reaction to
Ocasio-Cortez because she has this incredible ability to call out the Democratic Party for
its devastating flaws and be effective in doing it. And so I think that that’s a great defense
of the point that she was trying to make. But she should also know that there are people
who are intentionally being obtuse. Like there are people who are intentionally
pretending like they’re dumb and they don’t understand what she’s saying, she didn’t say
anything controversial there.>>Yeah, it’s just true, learn about other
countries, I don’t know what to tell you. But that she has that ability to call out
the Democratic Party and specifically Democratic leadership, while also showing how it should
be done. She’s not just a critic. She is driving the conversation. She is organizing people and getting people
involved in this. That’s why you’re gonna see so many candidates
that were, some inspired by Bernie Sanders, others inspired by AOC. She’s in there as a critic, but she’s also
showing the way it should be.>>Absolutely.

Is capitalism really natural | Video essay


“Capitalism is just human nature. That’s why it’s the best system.” We’ve all heard it being said before. Mostly in the context of someone suggesting
that capitalism isn’t perfect. Take any video talking about socialism, communism,
anarchism or anything that isn’t neoliberal capitalism, and someone in the comments will
tell you that that won’t work because Capitalism | is | natural. But is it? I don’t think so. But let’s start off by asking ourselves
“What is that even supposed to mean?” Let’s type the statement “Capitalism is
natural” into google and see what it suggests since that’s obviously what people are thinking
about. There we have it “capitalism is natural
selection” and that’s an actual argument used by many supporters of capitalism for
why it’s a natural system. “Since capitalism includes natural selection
it follows the laws of Darvin which makes it natural” On the surface this idea seems
to hold water. Capitalism famously takes companies and individuals,
ideally as many as possible, and makes them compete on the free market. They compete for customers if they are companies
and for jobs if they are individuals. So, everyone is constantly competing which
is natural and the best way a society can be run … right? Well I’d argue it’s definitely not the
best system. Actually a lot of resources are wasted on
the constant competition. Big cooperations have to invest huge sums
into advertising in order to be able to compete. “Ha” you may say “this is a big advantage
of competition because it means that companies have to constantly innovate and create newer
and better products for the people!”. This is a very common argument as well and
as luck would have it, I already made an entire video on why the free market doesn’t cause
innovation. In short it doesn’t because adverts are
cheaper. So competition is expensive and usually doesn’t
even produce innovation. At this point you may already be questioning
why we even bother with competition and the usual answer isn’t that we use it because
it’s the best possible system but because it’s the best current system we have. That’s a big difference. People rarely argue that capitalism is the
best system to ever be able to exist. They prefer to argue that it’s the best
system we have. This goes hand in hand with the fact that
every 5-year-old already knows that socialism supposedly killed at least one petabyte of
the people in the USSR. Of course, that’s not really true and I
made a video on that one as well. So the current argument usually goes: “Capitalism
is the best system because socialism is bad because it killed people and at least capitalism
doesn’t do that”. There are 2 problems with this statement. One is that the deaths caused by socialism
are usually greatly exaggerated as I mentioned before. The other is that capitalism isn’t a perfect
system either. Many people die each year because capitalism
isn’t able to support them. And yes of course I’ve made a video on that. And with the argument part of the statement
refuted there isn’t anything left besides “capitalism is the best system”. Also this argument assumes that there are
no other systems than socialism and capitalism which is a little odd considering capitalism
as we know it today wasn’t invented until the late 1770s but I just noticed that I’ve
gotten a little off topic. Back to the point. Is capitalism natural because it features
competition? Well. Not really. Of course competition is very common in nature
but often times it doesn’t take place between members of the same species. For example, plants will intentionally avoid
the leaves of other plants of the same genome, so they don’t need to waste energy competing
for nutrients or sunlight. This can be seen all over the animal kingdom
as well. Fish move in swarms because that’s the safest
for them. They don’t invest energy into changing their
colour so that predators will eat the other fish first. Meerkats socially bring up the young and hell
even humans cooperate like that. Think of the thanksgiving meal or your local
equivalent. One person makes the food and everyone get’s
to eat it. People don’t fight for it or compete. People cooperate and everyone profits. And of course in exchange the other people
around the table will do the housework but what they won’t do is ask to be paid for
any of that. Let’s take a step back and look at what
humans are. Not specifically now but what they where made
for. Back in the Environment of evolutionary adaption,
the EEA. It was the last time humans evolved naturally. If we want to determine if capitalism is human
nature it would make sense to look at what this nature is. Of course, it’s hard to determine what people
where like back then since we can’t ask and they wouldn’t invent writing for a few
thousand years. What we can do though is look at behaviours
that are universal around the world and across cultures. This way we avoid accidentally concluding
that women must naturally want to wear skirts just because some cultures do that. A core feature of humanity is the highly developed
social ability. People are incredibly good at learning and
remembering faces and keeping track of many social relationships. These relationships are very important to
humans which is why prolonged solitary confinement is considered a very severe punishment, even
torture in every culture and it’s outlawed in many countries for that exact reason. So the first thing is that humans are social. The next one is that humans are community
oriented. Those might sound similar but hear me out. Being social means wanting to be around other
members of the same species. Being community-oriented means considering
those other people as important enough to invest energy into them even if there is no
direct benefit. For example, Zebras are social. They live in herds and aren’t happy alone. But they give the herd no second though. They don’t have friends and they wouldn’t
do anything to help the members of their herd either. Humans on the other hand do care about each
other. The main sign is that during the time humans
where hunters and gatherers women where tasked with protecting the kids while the men were
out hunting ducks or something like that. And what did the men do when coming back? They shared the things they hunted with the
women and children even though it meant that they had less food. So we gathered that humans are social and
community oriented. The next one is expansionist. Humans always expand into any available space
and they would also conquer each other all the time. Humans are an incredibly aggressive species. Expansionist also refers to personal and technological
advancement. Since the beginning of time humans always
innovated and tried to improve their lives. First spears and fire then wheels and boats. And this is only possible due to the 4th and
last point. Intelligence. Humans are the smartest species there is on
this planet. So that’s it. Social, Community oriented, Expansionist and
Smart. Those are things which are natural for humans
to be. Now you may already wonder. Where does capitalism fit into that? And the neoliberals will readily tell you:
“Capitalism allows people to expand as much as they want! Anyone who works hard can get more for themselves
that’s the beauty of capitalism!” And alright, in theory it does that but in
praxis your ability to expand is hampered by the fact that other people already expanded
a lot and there isn’t an infinite amount of resources which means that not everyone
can expand and that everyone who does expand must take it from someone else. You can’t buy gold without taking it from
someone and you can’t make more money than your body produces without taking it from
someone. That someone cannot expand then, can they? But for the hell of it let’s assume that
capitalism really does allow people to improve their lives if they just work hard and long
enough. Does that make it the most natural system? Let’s look at the rest of the human features
and see how well they do in capitalism. Let’s start with smart. Humans are smart but not naturally so. People need education in order to be able
to use their intelligence. If Newton was born into poverty, he wouldn’t
have been able to invent calculus. So, since capitalism is so natural it would
seem obvious that it has to allow everyone who wants to, to become as smart as they want
to be. Since people naturally want to be educated
it wouldn’t be natural to deny them that. And I am afraid capitalism is really bad at
educating people. Don’t get me wrong it rewards educated people
by giving them loads of money, but it doesn’t MAKE people educated. There are private schools and universities,
but they don’t educate most people. They only educate those who already have enough
money to pay for it. So capitalism doesn’t structurally allow
everyone to become smart. This is the reason why education is almost
never left to the private sector and why it’s done by the state almost everywhere. Capitalism does not support the natural human
desire for knowledge. But hey that’s fine we still have 2 more
natural behaviours and we have to decide if capitalism supports those. Next let’s look at “Social”. Does capitalism allow people to be social? Well that’s a tough question. I could bring up the fact that having social
relations at work is usually very hard because you are constantly encouraged to compete with
your co-workers or I could bring up how my previous employer didn’t even allow me to
talk to the colleagues I sat next to except during the lunch break but let’s take another
approach. Being social means different things to different
people. For some it may mean being with their children. For others it may be hanging out with friends
or just working with people you like and talking to them as you work. But no matter which one of those is your interpretation
of being social capitalism sort of prohibits all of them. Because of the competition between you and
your co-workers it becomes hard to create meaningful connections at work. And because you have to work 8 to 12 hours
a day you can’t spend time with your family and friends if you want to. That’s directly opposed to what humans naturally
want. Now someone is gonna show up and tell me that
we need to work that many hours because if we didn’t, we wouldn’t produce enough. That’s not really true. As I explained in my video titled “Why the
free market is inefficient” the free market produces not as much as we need but way more. Earth produces food for 10 Billion while there
are only 7.5 Billion people which means that one quarter of the work put into farming and
distribution of food is wasted labour and time. So, capitalism is bad for our social lives
by forcing us to work for longer than necessary and even obstructing social relations which
might form at a workplace. At least it allows people to be community-oriented,
right? Well I am afraid not. Just think about it. Does capitalism reward supporting people who
need help? Is it a financially good idea to use your
money to feed the hungry or clothe the poor or even support your children? No, it’s not. It’s never a good idea to spend YOUR money
on someone else. That’s why people are having so few children
nowadays. Kids cost a lot of money and nobody got time
for that. And that’s why the state usually takes over
care of people who need to be taken care of like people with disabilities or homeless
and unemployed people. Right now along with the rise neoliberal feminism
raising children is becoming more and more often a task of the state as well. This is because even someone who would want
to stay at home, do housework and care for their children would not be able to because
nowadays the cost of living is too high to support a family with only one bread giver. Both parents have to work nowadays and that
is a result of late stage capitalism. And that’s assuming a classical 2 parent
household. Nowadays nobody can afford to leave one adult
who is perfectly capable of working staying at home all day. Or instead it’s a cultural Marxist feminist
leftist jewish trans muslim plot to destroy western civilization using affordable healthcare. Still not sure. Both are equally plausible. So I am afraid capitalism doesn’t support
any of the basic desires of humanity very well. The closest one is expansion because capitalism
sometimes gives the ability to improve their live to some people in some conditions. And this is where the neoliberals will tell
me that Capitalism might not do everything perfectly but that it’s the best system
we have. If we look back at our google search the second
result was “capitalism is more natural”. More natural than what exactly? Oh, come on we both know the answer. More natural than socialism. Honestly most people’s head would explode
if you asked them to name more than 2 economic systems. So, let’s look at that. Is capitalism more natural than socialism? Well it’s hard to say because socialism
as it’s used today means a lot of things to a lot of people. Barely anyone means soviet socialism anymore
either. So, for the purpose of this video my socialism
will include: Workplace democracies for production, people’s councils for distribution and a
small state for maintaining infrastructure, education, healthcare, social services and
for enforcing laws. Now this isn’t what I think the perfect
society would look like but it’s realistic so let’s go for it. We’ve got these desires let’s see. Social. Would this socialism be better for that than
the current system? Maybe a little bit. If workers ran the businesses, then they would
probably not keep each other from talking when working and they wouldn’t force themselves
to produce too many resources and spend more time at work than necessary either. Also, the workers wouldn’t be forced to
compete all the time which would be nice. The next one is Community oriented and it’s
a tricky one. It’s hard to allow people to invest work
into their community and reward it. In my socialist system that’s not done. You could have the state pay stay-at-home
parents but that would give the state a lot of power which is fine if you are into that
but a lot of my subscribers are anarchists who are probably already angrily typing about
what a Tankie I am for including a state run police force in my example of a socialist
society and they probably won’t agree with giving the state that much power and honestly
I don’t either. There are some communes out there in which
everyone has to do a certain amount of work a week and housework and caring for children
is included in that so it’s definitely possible to reward working for the community but that
isn’t easy to scale and as I mentioned before my socialism doesn’t include it. We’ll skip this one for now because it takes
the longest to say and go to “Smart.” Does my socialism allow people to educate
themselves? Yes. I have included a state-run education system
and social services after all. Anyone could get to Uni and become a scientist
if they want to so that need is fulfilled. The last one is Expansionist. It’s a common critique of socialism that
it doesn’t work because it doesn’t incentivize work and only capitalism does. This need is what people mean when they say
that capitalism is more natural than socialism. This one thing is everything it holds onto
and it really shouldn’t. There is this idea in popular culture that
socialism means equal wages for all. That a doctor working 100 hours a week would
earn as much as someone who doesn’t work. I am afraid that that’s not how it works. Not only in my socialism in which wages are
determined by the worker co-ops themselves but also in the actual centralized Stalinist
state that we call the Soviet union. The USSR always paid it’s workers for each
piece they produced and once they were over their quota they got a bonus for every piece
they made. The idea that socialism means equal pay seems
to have been made up for propaganda purposes as far as I can tell. And since in my socialism workers are still
somewhat paid like in capitalism it allows people to work for more, it allows people
to innovate and it allows them to improve their lives. And because other people can’t get an unfair
advantage via exploitation or inheritance there is an actual chance to do so as well. So that’s it. My socialism ticks 3 out of 4 boxes while
capitalism only ticks one. It would seem like it’s not the most natural
system is it? So now I’ve looked at the argument. Looked at what people naturally want and concluded
that socialism would be better at giving it than capitalism is. Of course, there will be someone saying that
capitalism is natural because during the bronze age people already traded and they did ever
since but then I could just say: Trade has nothing to do with capitalism. Just because people have always traded doesn’t
mean that private property and wage labour are the natural human condition. Also of course socialism would still allow
trade so that’s a null argument. But now that I am done with that, I’d like
to invalidate the entire premise along with my entire argument and conclusion: I don’t
think it matters what’s natural. Even if capitalism was the most natural system
there is I don’t think that that’s a good enough reason to keep it. I mean if we go by nature everyone who wears
glasses would have to die because that’s what would happen in nature. We have advanced beyond the natural order
and even if capitalism was natural, which it is not, I still think that replacing it
with a system that potentially allows us to save 25% of our time and work and which would
give everyone democratic control over the place they spend their entire working lives
at would be a good idea. And on that note thanks for watching. This is the end card please like and subscribe. Always remember if you liked this video your
friends might as well so why not send them the link. Do you want me to make a video on the people’s
councils I’ve talked about as systems of distribution? I’ve never heard anyone on reddit or BreadTube
talk about them and I only know them from theory so maybe it’s a new concept for some. There will be a poll in the top right corner. Thanks for watching C ya!