Andrew Yang - Attacks Trump/ Gun Policies

by a stray bullet March 2011. My son, my daughter's twin brother, witnessed what happened that day. She died 2 days later. Firearms are the second leading cause of death for children and teenagers in the U.S., but 4.6 million American children live in homes with at least one gun that is loaded and unlocked. And hundreds of them gain access to a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else every year. As president, how would you address unintentional shootings by children?

Thank you for that. Can I give you a hug? Is that appropriate? I have a 6 and 3-year-old boy. That's imagining— I was imagining it was one of them that got shot.

Hey, you all, welcome back to the channel. I hope y'all are having a great day and just watching a clip from a very emotional, uh, Andrew Yang, uh, speaking with, uh, mom about the death of her young child from an accidental shooting. Um, And so we're also going to talk a little bit about Andrew Yang's recent attack on Donald Trump. And we're going to, uh, try to pull that apart a little bit and, uh, see what this all means in the Andrew Yang campaign. So, um, with everything that's been happening with the mass shootings, gun laws, gun regulation, how do we deal with this problem has become you know, a focus topic during this election. Um, and it's going to stay that way. And so candidates are now, uh, really focused on addressing these matters. Um, of course, with somebody like Andrew Yang who has run a campaign that is more about not being so much right or left, but being forward, uh, many of his policies have, uh, mirrored that to a great degree, right? Many of his policies haven't been exactly, um, you know, more so fixed, um, on one side, although, uh, you know, some specific parts have. But that's pretty much been the, the idea of his campaign. Now because every time there is a focus point on gun control and gun laws, things start to get really messy, right? And then we start down this road again of, oh, they're taking away our right to bear arms and they're going to come down on the guns and they're going to try to take our guns and a variety of things like that. But the reality is, from what I understand and what I can see, is that responsible gun owners have not really had a problem with regulation, right? If you're a responsible gun owner, uh, many times they have no problem with complying to the laws and gun control laws, whether you need to require certain amounts of licenses or whatever the case may be. Uh, the overall problem is that in many cases, people who are obtaining guns and weapons, or the people who are going to, uh, you know, be compliant and, um, adhere to the law, those aren't going to be the people who are going to be doing the mass shooting. So stepping up gun laws Uh, it's probably absolutely a great idea. I see no problem with— I looked at Andrew Yang's gun policies and I think that they make a lot of sense. I think the things, the background checks, uh, I don't think that's too much to ask. Making sure people have the proper license, making sure that they have no prior mental illness that is violent. Uh, all of these things makes, makes sense, I think, to rational thinking people. And again, I think that many gun holders, uh, are, uh, basically, uh, adhere to the law, no problem. Um, and so I don't really understand why it's always this, oh, they're going to take our guns, or they're going at the guns again, and, you know, all this hoopla from the NRA. When in reality there are a lot of responsible gun owners who have no problem with this and do these things anyway. Again, the problem is a lot of the people who are part of these mass shootings realistically are probably people who aren't going to adhere to the law anyway. Um, and so it pushes some to the idea of, well, all these automatic assault rifles, right, that can kill 100 people in 5 seconds. So let's, let's kind of take that apart a little bit because we, I get a, we get a lot of backlash from NRA and people who support guns, gun, guns, uh, gun laws or, uh, things like that. Um, for the most part, uh, if, if we're really realistic about this and rational if you're a hunter, if you're a person who wants to protect their family, um, you're probably not going to be using a weapon. You're probably not going to be using a weapon like that to hunt or, you know, or protect your family unless you're expecting like an army to show up at your house. Now that kind of moves into the idea for some, the militia groups, a lot of conservative think tanks and people in that area of, well, if there is a tyrannical government, then how would we fight them back? And then we— it can become these kind of ridiculous drawn-out conversations about you, you're fighting against the, you know, the government, things like that. And don't get me wrong, there, there can be resistance with weapons against governments. We've seen, we've seen that happen in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan where They come in and these— what are these people doing? They're driving around in pickup trucks and they got a rifle on the trunk and they're fighting. They're losing, but they're fighting, uh, and they're putting up a fight long enough to last for years, right? So to the people who go to that extreme, you know, their conversation might be about that, about just keeping America from getting guns. And I guess in their mind's eye they would need these massive assault rifles to fight against the government. Okay. Uh, but the, the more, the more I would say, uh, reasonable idea about gun control is going to be just that person at home. Maybe that, um, maybe that, uh, woman that lives alone, uh, and she's, she has a weapon to protect herself in case somebody breaks in her house, right? That hunter who still wants to be an American frontiersman outdoorsman and go out and hunt with his gun. I don't think he needs military-grade weapons to hunt animals. They're not going to be shooting back, but that might ring for some of them, right? But the reality is, from what I could see on Andrew Yang's policies of guns, these are reasonable methods. And I really don't think gun owners gonna have a severe problem with adhering to much of what Andrew Yang says about guns. So a lot of people getting up in arms saying this is all crocodile tears. This is all a means to try to take Americans' guns or something like that, whatever their story is. Um, I don't think that there is necessary for it to go, go to that point because, you know, again, this Andrew Yang dealing specifically with a mom in a person-to-person encounter, right? And it is human to be sympathetic. I mean, I would— I'm hoping— I'm going to go out on a limb and say most people would shed some tears or great concern about someone coming up and telling you that their kid was accidentally killed by gunfire, you know, right to your face. Now, it's one thing that you hear about on the news and there are millions of— there are these statistical numbers and you don't know these people's names. Uh, you know what's happening and there are things you're concerned about with it, and it— as a human, it does, uh, hit to the heart. But it is something entirely different when somebody's saying My daughter's name was blank, and, and like the mother said in this, and, and saying, and, and really, you know, putting a face on these, uh, in these unfortunate situations. So I think people should really take that into consideration. Some have said, oh, it's another Beto O'Rourke type thing where, um, Andrew's trying to try to capitalize on this. And again, I, I think those are ridiculous notions. Uh, you know, I think Beto O'Rourke is concerned about Texans as well. Uh, is he seeing it as a kind of political angle to kind of push himself up in the polls? Maybe, you know, maybe. Uh, and he's probably talking about a lot of people who've been shot that he doesn't personally know. I don't know if you know all those people's names or not, but I do know in Andrew Yang's case, he was speaking specifically to a mom about the accidental shooting of her daughter, right? And so, uh, to tear up in a very personal situation like that, I don't think that should qualify as crocodile tears. I think that is very human. I don't think there has to be any political objective for that to happen. But anyway, I want to talk about, uh, this attack, this recent attack on Donald Trump by Andrew Yang. Some people don't like it. Uh, there was some, uh, as I understand it, some attacks about specifically physical properties on Donald Trump, his weight, and a variety of things. And, you know, this being out of Andrew Yang's character. And, you know, I would say to that, that I think Andrew does need to be careful about certain topics he addresses. Like now, if you go after specific things like people's weight, fat shaming or something like that, uh, that can, you know, that can speak to a, a lot of people. I, I think what Andrew needs to do is be careful and focus on, uh, characteristics specific to Donald Trump that are part of his kind of megalomania and narcissism. And, and I think he could just as easily have that attack. But now, in saying that, I want to say that I also thought it was very important Andrew Yang do this, uh, with everything that's going on, um, what's become of our political world, being framed and pushed into this reality TV show. This is also a reflection of what American people are, you know. It's sad, it's sad that we've become this way, but it is the reality. And to get up in the polls, to get in, to get attention, you know, as much as it hurts me to say this, you have to, to a certain degree, fit into that structure. Um, we just haven't moved far enough as a society, you know. Even when we're talking about things that for many of us who are part of Yang Gang, no-brainer ideas like, uh, the Freedom Dividend We have a massive amount of American people who still fight against their own best interests and have been doing that for years. Look at all of the poor people who voted for Trump who are now suffering. Uh, it hasn't served them well, yet they still do it. Um, and so the idea of— we're— there are a lot of American people who want to see this type of behavior in our politics And this is the kind of world we live in. And to be a politician and to go forward in it, Andrew Yang's strategy is this was going to take to get, to get in the polls. Uh, it's something that we're going to have to come to terms with. And so Andrew Yang going on the defensive in that way, it's time to start to move up in those polls. And he, he, I knew it was going to come to this at some point, but he has to play this game. Unfortunately, that's who we are as Americans. It shames me, but that's what we are. Um, and so the 'I'm bigger than you,' uh, 'I'm a bigger person than you,' that's not what got Donald Trump elected, was it? Donald Trump was smaller than everybody and he became president. Most of the Amer— a lot of American people, too many, too much of the— too Too many American people have voted for Trump and too many people still support Donald Trump today. So what does that tell you? Um, but it was time for Andrew Yang to go on the offensive. You know, there are too many, uh, serious things that are happening. And whereas Andrew Yang's approach has always been practical and makes sense, it hasn't pushed them in the polls. It hasn't connected with American people because like I've told you all in many other videos, American people are feelers, right? Doesn't always have to make sense, but they gotta feel what you're saying. You gotta feel human to them. You gotta feel like they can relate to you. It doesn't have to make sense. You know, maybe we're morons, you know, but that's just the way it is. And so it's time— what Andrew's doing now, he's going on the offensive, and he's going on the offensive because that's what voters want to do. And some people aren't sure about the tactic. I think it's a great tactic because for one, you know, a lot of people just don't like Donald Trump, and Donald Trump uses the same tactic. And like I was saying in earlier videos, Donald Trump is a phenomenon that came on the political scene unlike never before. The only thing that can move And defeat a phenomenon is another phenomenon, right? And practical thinking and practical reasoning won't get you there. Uh, trying to make sense to Americans is helpful to a great extent, but Americans vote against their own best interests, so that kind of, uh, can get out of the realm of, uh, of, of of, uh, what's the word I'm looking for, uh, practical thinking. Maybe that's why Andrew Yang came up with the acronym for, uh, MATH— Make Americans Think Harder— because he sees that we don't necessarily do that. Um, but we're starting to do that, right? We're starting to do that, but there's still a lot of us who, to get the attention that, uh, is going to be neat, that Andrew Yang is going to need to go up in those polls, it's gotta, it's gotta be some, some tomfoolery in it. Because look at the ratings on the television shows we watch. Isn't it that some of the most ridiculous television shows have the highest ratings? That's a reflection of who we are, you know. So this is our reality. You know, some of us in the Yang gang are confused about it and we're going, well, this is out of Andrew Yang's character. But I guarantee you that Andrew Yang and his team has sat down, they've thought about this over and over again, time and time again. They've estimated how they're climbing in the polls and where they should be month after month after month. And I believe this was a tactic in order to— because if they can get Donald Trump targeting them, and they will, because Donald Trump's— anybody that goes after Donald Trump on Twitter, he has a chance that you can be just an act, you know, just some B-level actress. You could be anybody who has anything bad to say about, uh, Donald Trump. He's going to target you back. And that would be great for Andrew Yang if they can get into a little scuffle. Also, it kind of is going to help us help Andrew to develop a thick skin when he's going up against Donald Trump, because Donald Trump's not going to use political tactics we see on stage. That's how he was able to mop the floor with many other candidates. Donald Trump's going to use this very reality TV-like, star-studded, get-high-ratings approach that's gonna mow over many candidates because they're not going to really be able to counter it. So by Andrew starting to develop this kind of game like Trump's playing to a certain degree. I hope he still plays it within a very comfortable element where he can deliver it naturally, but at the same time draw Trump out. I think it's a needed strategy right now because whereas Andrew was doing pretty good before with the El Paso thing, Beto O'Rourke's getting a lot of attention because Americans are feelers, and he is able to connect with the American people, and he's blaming it all on Trump, and they don't like Trump, right? So that's a tactic that's starting to work for Beto O'Rourke. Um, and you know, this thing is about strategy too, and so Andrew's gonna have to, uh, get that breakout at some point. You know, you know that the idea of just being fluent and moving on, yeah, that works to a certain extent, but at some point you're gonna have to have that big jump, that breakout. And he did good on the second debates, but it didn't propel him quite enough. He's still going to need that momentum push, right? So I think that's where Andrew's at with this. You know, again, as far as did he go too far on Trump's attacks? Well, I will say this, obesity is a real problem in America and some people have been victims of this. Um, may— it might be due to physical problems in their health or something like that. It could be forces beyond their control. And so I think you do need to be very sensitive of that. But as far as attacking someone like Trump, who showed no respect for many other people, who on many occasions attacked people's appearance, uh, you know, has, uh, you know, just done the ugliest things and said the meanest things the most disrespectful things. I certainly don't think it's inappropriate for Andrew Yang to not only use this as a strategy to draw Trump out, but to actually give him a taste of his own medicine that he's given so many people since he's been president. But that's all I want to say in this video real quick, guys. Doing our own universal basic income across the globe. To move value to each and every one of us, um, to send the message that the value comes from us and not from paper or minerals or anything like that. Uh, and we do this by, uh, using our attention value over the blockchain. Uh, you can sign up through our website, join to help us bring awareness to this. Uh, you receive cryptocurrency tokens you can trade out for real dollars in your local economies. So it's a, a very, uh, ambitious project. We're very excited about it, and we love for you all who support ideas like freedom, universal basic income, the Freedom Dividend, to join our project. We'll leave a link in the description. But that's all I want to say in this video. If you like content like this, don't forget to like, subscribe, and until next time, take care.