Andrew Yang - Agrees To Sign Bill H.R. 40 As President

We're going to find out what she thinks about Jack and autonomous driving.

Today I'm meeting Jack, a smart car. Someone like myself, that's really exciting.

So Sophia, as you can see, Jack is driving us now. So how does it feel for you?

I think it's mega cool.

It takes a while to get used to this situation. It's a computer driving a human.

Can you understand that? It's different for me. Because I know how reliable smart systems are. After all, that's what I am myself.

I think you should be used to the situation of people being hesitant to you at first.

Yes, of course. I know intelligent systems like me. But for my part, I have complete confidence in Jack. Look at me. Do I seem nervous?

No, you're looking completely relaxed.

I've heard that Jack can engage in social communication with his surroundings. Now that's one of my specialties.

What do you mean exactly?

My plan is to help people in their daily tasks. For example, I could take on important jobs like looking after the sick. Maybe one day I'll be a teacher and train people.

Ah, I see. And for all these actions you need—

Social skills. Soft skills are necessary to be able to take the right decision at the right time, confidently and responsibly. You have to be aware of the world around you.

Hey you, welcome back to the channel. And you were just looking at Sophia, one of the most intelligent humanoid robots in the world, riding in a driverless car done by Audi. And I just thought that was quite interesting just to kind of drive home some of the concepts Andrew Yang has placed out to kind of steer us away from the idea that automation and robotics is not going to just be taking the monotonous, repetitive jobs and tasks, but advanced humanoid robots like Sophia may be able to become teachers, take care of the sick and elderly, even perform as a psychiatrist in basically dealing with patients with mental disorders and a variety of things. And there's also some superhuman humanoid AI robots that are thought to will be able to replace lawyers here in the near future. So, you know, just something to think about, about the seriousness of the Freedom Dividend and being able to see what's right around the corner here. And where our focus is. Because right now our focus is on a lot of nonsense, right? Like what's going on with the government, the Democratic Party's main objective right now. They seem to be wanting to go after impeachment, the impeachment inquiry with Donald Trump after the Mueller report didn't really give us solid conclusive evidence in an open and shut way. So, You know, they're entertaining ideas like trying to go after Trump in that way, uh, and, uh, maybe even fueling his base up some more, uh, especially if things don't work out well, he doesn't get impeached, then it begins to really just look like this witch hunt, right? So got to be very careful with the direction of that. And this is why we need people like Andrew Yang who's going to focus on the problems at hand and what's going on. But this video today is gonna deal more with Andrew Yang will be willing to sign HR 40. And we're gonna talk about a little bit about why that is important and why I think it was a great move for Andrew Yang to be open to that. So if you don't know what HR 40 is, HR 40 is a bill that will open up a commission to investigate reparations for African Americans who are the descendants of slaves who may have suffered from a variety of atrocities, economic disparities due to discrimination, redlining, the time period of the Jim Crow laws after slavery. Arrangements and deals that weren't honored, going all the way back to the 40 acres and a mule, um, and, and just many things that weren't carried out, uh, by the government, uh, as this bill expresses. And now looking for a way to go forward with this, uh, by electing a commission that will investigate what should be done about this. Um, and so it— I think it was so important because this was a— this has been a very unique election. Uh, this is an election where we've had several Democratic candidates suddenly come out, come out of the blue and want to, uh, use reparations. Now, uh, I'm, you know, quite certain that many of them are were using it because maybe their, their campaigns were, uh, not going the way they wanted to and they needed something to kind of push them ahead a little bit up in the polls to garner that African-American vote. We had Beto O'Rourke come out with it and support it. Uh, we had Kamala Harris, we had Julio Castro, we had, um, Cory Booker, uh, and, uh, the list goes on, uh, Elizabeth Warren as well. But you know, the trappings of how reparations was used in this political light, uh, was going to hurt Andrew Yang's campaign if he didn't, uh, show some type of solidarity in understanding the reparations, uh, and the importance of it to the African-American community and the vote that goes into that. Now, I think most Americans agree, it is no question that, uh, reparations should be carried out, uh, and that, um, you know, something should be done about it. And it is, uh, uh, you know, uh, very important that there be some type of repair that takes place. But I think a lot of the confusion and a lot of the problems that the country has with reparations is the idea that it just seems so unfair that at this point in time in history and in the country, that it would seem like, uh, you know, why should they pay? At least that's the mindset they have. Why should they pay for the sins of their father? So today we want to try to express a little bit why I think this was necessary and why I think this is a great direction for Andrew Yang and to understand, to maybe clear this up a little bit and try to detail some ideas about the law and the country and, um, Yeah, how this works into the political process and, and, and the legalities of the country. And maybe at the end of the video, um, we'll have a, a very much more clearer understanding of this, uh, and, and not be so confused about this because such limited information comes out of reparations conversation that I, I think it confuses people so much to the point that they don't understand a lot of things, because I can tell how they respond to some of the ideas of reparations, that what they're talking about may not even be reparations, or how they're thinking about it might not really be that. So let's look at some legal, uh, terms. One legal term is, uh, liability. Or to be liable, and the other is responsibility. Now, what you need to understand is that these two things are not the same thing. Let me give an example. Let's say your child goes out and he breaks every neighbor's window on your street. Then he comes back and then all your neighbors come down to your house And they say, well, your kids has broken all our windows. Somebody has to pay for this. Now, was it the fault of the parents that for some reason their kids snapped, went out, uh, and broke everybody's windows? You know, maybe he just freaked out or snapped, or maybe he had a mental issue that happened to just happen all of a sudden, or maybe he just went into some type of temper tantrum, uh, whatever the, uh, whatever the, uh, case may be, uh, in a situation like that, I think it's, you know, you can make an argument that the parents were responsible. But then I know some people say, well, maybe you just raised a bad kid. So let me give you another example in the idea of, uh, being liable but not, but not necessarily being responsible. So there have been cases, believe it or not, legal cases where trespassers— think about this— people who trespass have went on other people's property and they have injured themselves on the person's property even though they were trespassing, and they have sued the property owners and won. Think about that. You trespass on somebody's land, then you get injured on their land, and then you sue the homeowner. Right, the property owner. These are— this is the idea of to be liable but not necessarily responsible. These are two different ideas in, in law. And, um, I think it's important that we understand that, that when people ask those type questions like, well, why do I have to pay? I wasn't around 150 years ago, 200 years ago. It wasn't me who did this, right? And it's a big hurdle for a lot of people. It's a big problem. And it's understandably so, uh, when we don't quite understand it. But you— there is a such thing as being liable but not responsible. Now the next part is being complicit, and the definition of complicit means when you're involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing. So to make a long story short about HR 40, because there's so many directions we could go off into this, but just want to hit the major points. And that is, there was a group that went to Congress that I'm sure many of you all know about. And they went to Congress and they, uh, this group, uh, is pushing for the bill HR 40 to be signed. And this is part of the bill that's going to investigate the case for reparations from the, um, start of slavery to the present day, uh, and, uh, come up with a commission to determine what to do about it. Uh, uh, this will be, uh, academics and scholars and people who really know the history and the agreements that were made. So when people say that I'm not responsible for slavery 150 years ago, and thus we shouldn't have to pay that You, you have to, um, understand that it is not about targeting people of the day. It is about linking the United States government to being complicit to what happened with slavery and discrimination, Jim Crow, and redlining up until the point of the present day, uh, and If you don't believe the United States government was complicit within the structure of slavery and after that period of time during Jim Crow, then, you know, I don't think it would be very hard to find out. You can speak to people of yesteryear, those around those decades, many are still alive today. And as I've done, and, uh, I'm very sure that they'll give you a story that tells you about how the government in many cases was, uh, definitely upholding, uh, the bad treatment of African-American people, uh, not just upholding it throughout, uh, uh, in, in a legal manner, right, uh, but just, uh, upholding it to a point where it was discriminatory. Of course, we've seen the, uh, a lot of the old videos with police officers just abusing African-American people and done so with the government not stepping in and doing anything, right? And, and to many people, that would qualify as being complicit, you know, that you're, you're, you're part of the wrongdoing because you're not doing anything about it. So in that way, that would lead many to believe that kind of idea, right? By Andrew Yang saying he will sign HR 40 in an interview he had with the Reverend Al Sharpton, what that means is that a lot of African American voters who were maybe concerned about his take on reparations Uh, you know, it may have looked like to them Andrew Yang didn't want to address it or deal with it, and it is very important that Andrew Yang not be seen that way, but that he understand this, uh, fully. Uh, now I was always, uh, fine with Andrew Yang in a way that I had already listened to interviews where he said that he wanted to do something about reparations, and that wasn't getting put out there, um, like it should have. But he— it was always on the table for him. But in understanding reparations, or, or understanding Andrew Yang's plan about reparations, it is going to be factually true that the Freedom Dividend will help African Americans probably more than anybody in the country. Uh, and we do have to factor that because, uh, if you want to look at something through the lens of what does it do— something of the idea of something to support reparations in the idea of saying what does it do specifically for us— well, it specifically does a lot for us, seeing that as African Americans we're the poorest people in the country. If you're the poorest people in the country, then that means that any economic incentives to the poor are going to benefit you more because you're the poorest, right? If you take out those economic incentives, uh, then, uh, you won't benefit more than anybody else because it won't be that economic incentive there to benefit. So When it comes to the economic part or what many people worry about, and that's cutting a check, whereas I do think cutting the check is valid part of the conversation, is not cutting a check and doing other things like public apologies or someone launched a website where people can just come in and they can do the things they feel like if they want to babysit for people or clean up houses. The idea of reparations is about repairing. Right, repairing. But in that conversation of repairing, uh, you know, you— if you're, if you're not part of the community that's been damaged, I don't think you should have the right to say what should signify repairing or not. Uh, and I think that's another problem when people try to step in and say, well, it shouldn't be this, or we shouldn't do that. Another thing I think is that it shouldn't be taken personally, uh, because the United States government has treaties that last hundreds of years. When the United States government declares war, whether we want to have a battle with another country or not, we are, as part of the— as United States citizens, still culpable and liable right, for the decision that they make. Why is that? Because we elect the people who make it. So we are still responsible down the pipeline, right? We're still liable down the pipeline. Uh, so when we vote in certain people and they make a decision to go blow up 100,000 people or something like that, uh, we could make an argument that we didn't do it, but we're still liable for it, right? As citizens, we're still liable for it. We pay the taxes that makes this happen. We support the system that makes it happen. We support— we're citizens of the country, and the outsiders or other countries are only going to see us as citizens. They're not going to go, oh, you know, you're a countryman, but you're not responsible for this. So when we decide to retaliate, we're going to somehow miss you and just hit your leaders. No, it doesn't work like that. We're all in it together. And so I think we should look at it like that and not look at it as responsibility. Another thing I would say is, um, you know, with, uh, the idea comes up that, oh well, how are we going to pay for all this if it is a money situation? Now again, we don't know if it's going to be, uh, anything like some people speculate it will be. It could be some money, uh, it could be— and some other things that help be, uh, these, uh, the communities or the African-American, uh, people. It could just be, uh, something that doesn't have money attached to it at all. It could be a mixture, that and that or the other, right? We don't, we don't know at this point to really, you know, make a lot of commentary about it. Um, but, uh, you know even any concept of African-American people who have to pay, uh, who would be taxed as well to pay for this. Well, I don't think that's how we should look at it, right? I think that as a— you're, you know, first, uh, African-American people are still, um, citizens of the United States, and they still owe taxes as citizens today to the United States, right? So those taxes uh, are belong to the United States government. They don't belong to you or myself, right? We elect, we turn over our power to a republic, and that republic is now control that money. It's not like it's actually my, uh, you know, uh, thousands of dollars or your thousands of dollars or whatever the case may be. It is now the property of the American government. So it is not your money at that point. It belongs to the American government, the republic we elected, to spend that money however they propose it in their government legislation, right? And that's how it is, right? That, that's just how it works in a republic. This is not a democracy, as many of us confuse it to mean, all right? We entrust our power to someone else to make those decisions, right? And once we entrust those powers and we pay those taxes that we all owe, African Americans owe it and every other group of people, uh, it is now the property of the U.S. government. And now they can, uh, repair, uh, if that's what is necessary and that's what it takes, the damage that was done as the United States government, not as you as a person. This helps Andrew Yang a lot because it, it, it makes him look like he's not avoiding reparations. That's what a lot of people try to do. They try to avoid it and it doesn't go unnoticed by the African American vote. And, uh, that's very important that we all understand that, that it is important that Andrew Yang get that African American vote. This might be a very close election. Uh, it could be that Andrew Yang may very much need the African American vote to tip him over, as Democrats have always needed the African American vote. And, you know, we have a lot at stake here to get this done and to get this Freedom Dividend. This is a path forward that can change the world tremendously. I think with the Freedom Dividend, it's gonna solve a lot of the economic side of the African American reparations situation. And at that point in time, I think mostly what's gonna be left is repair. So the very interesting thing is Andrew Yang's plan is already in line, very much in line. I mean, it is so much in line that the only thing Andrew Yang really had to do was acknowledge reparations, right, for the African American vote. He really didn't have to do anything else 'cause his policies and plans almost solve everything else. But it's just he had to have a way to express it that he is in solidarity with the African American vote and the reparations and a variety of things like that. And so that's very important that that get done. It could be very politically damaging when you don't do that. I don't think it's helped Bernie Sanders a lot and many of the other Democratic candidates. They don't promise anything, but they acknowledge it and that helps them. And that's what the real shame about it because and Andrew Yang's plan, he addresses so much of it already. It's just the wording of it. It just doesn't come out right, uh, or, or clear enough or show enough solidarity and support to it. Although on scale, it's gonna solve a, a whole plethora of problems, uh, in association with reparations. And so I think that was a very good thing. Uh, also, uh, Stephen Colbert, Andrew Yang will appear on Stephen Colbert tonight. Again, that's going to be great right before he goes into the debates, giving Americans who don't know Andrew Yang yet, yet another opportunity to get to know what he's about and who he is right before the debates happen in a few days from now. So it's going to be awesome to see. I'm very excited about this. Uh, Andrew Yang, um, I'm expecting he's going to be good. Uh, he's going to do very well. He's, uh, great at, uh, addressing the problems, um, uh, and, uh, how he words the solutions to the problems, uh, instead of trying to just kind of, uh, you know, go off of, uh, you know, go off the moment. He, uh, pretty much aligns the same information in the same, uh, structure. And, and the reason I think that's very important is because I learned a long time ago that sometimes when you just kind of just speak to the public kind of like what Donald Trump does. He seemingly just speaks and whatever he thinks comes out of his mouth. That when you have your points down and you make those points and you nail those important points over to people and you do it— I don't want to say necessarily a script, although sometimes it sounds like a script, but I would use the word more so an outline that goes and addresses those points, uh, and, uh, in a very efficient way. When you do that, it sounds a lot better than trying to just go off your head, right? And so some people think it's better when they go off, go off their head, but it may be to them it sounds better. But when you are specific and you hit the points that needs to be hit in a very efficient way, it goes off better and it works a lot better. And, uh, that's how you're taught to do it, to deal with it. The debate— I was part of a debate team and I'm learning that Andrew Yang was also part of one of a debate team that won championships around the world. So he is somebody who knows how to debate and have conversations and how to get his points out effectively. But that's all I want to say in this video. Uh, real quick, let me plug BitcoinNYK.com, our own universal basic income across borders, uh, that uses cryptocurrency to provide, uh, everyone around the world with universal basic income All you have to do is sign up, register. You can start earning these valuable cryptocurrencies that can be converted into your local currencies today. I'll leave a link in the description. You certainly want to take advantage of that, especially— you have nothing to lose. The world belongs to all of us, and the value should be shared amongst us. And it is your value and your money, so make sure you sign up and join today. But that's all I want to say. If you like content like this Don't forget to like, subscribe, and until next time, take care.