Yvette Nicole Brown: No Third-Party Candidates!
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 01. 2019
- 'Weird City' star Yvette Nicole Brown has been tweeting up a storm about Howard Schultz.
Subscribe To "The Late Show" Channel HERE: bit.ly/ColbertCZcams
For more content from "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert", click HERE: bit.ly/1AKISnR
Watch full episodes of "The Late Show" HERE: bit.ly/1Puei40
Like "The Late Show" on Facebook HERE: on. 1df139Y
Follow "The Late Show" on Twitter HERE: bit.ly/1dMzZzG
Follow "The Late Show" on Google+ HERE: bit.ly/1JlGgzw
Follow "The Late Show" on Instagram HERE: bit.ly/29wfREj
Follow "The Late Show" on Tumblr HERE: bit.ly/29DVvtR
Watch The Late Show with Stephen Colbert weeknights at 11:35 PM ET/10:35 PM CT. Only on CBS.
Get the CBS app for iPhone & iPad! Click HERE:
Get new episodes of shows you love across devices the next day, stream live TV, and watch full seasons of CBS fan favorites anytime, anywhere with CBS All Access. Try it free! bit.ly/1OQA29B
---
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert is the premier late night talk show on CBS, airing at 11:35pm EST, streaming online via CBS All Access, and delivered to the International Space Station on a USB drive taped to a weather balloon. Every night, viewers can expect: Comedy, humor, funny moments, witty interviews, celebrities, famous people, movie stars, bits, humorous celebrities doing bits, funny celebs, big group photos of every star from Hollywood, even the reclusive ones, plus also jokes. - Zábava
Third party candidates aren’t the problem, it’s the fact that our voting system creates the spoiler effect and strategic voting that’s the problem. The sooner we switch to ranked choice everywhere, the better.
Thank you! Just what I've been harping about since 2000.
In the current system, Ms. Brown is correct. The need for system change is a separate issue.
I also support it but I wouldn't trust a billionaire who don't know what people are going through.
Yes! Like Ireland!
Talkies: in the current system, Ms. Brown's approach has pragmatic validity. To say it's "correct" goes, in my estimation, too far.
And yes, pragmatism is important... but let's not *delay* bigger change, and instead try to effect it in parallel.
The two-party system is what got you into this, America
@Mike Nunyabizness Kamala Harris is a corporate puppet, We need a True Progressive like Bernie.
Actually, the third party candidates like Jill Stein who made it into the ballot split the votes that even the winner doesn't have a mandate since he received less than half of the vote.
Amen
@@justinkidding9690 True progressives need not be running 3rd Party e.g. Bernie Sanders
But in the event the DNC acts like its mascot again, we need to ask 'em to drop out and stop being a spoiler and have the Progressive candidate run independent.
@@glurppuffloid9796 These third party candidates are the ones who know they can't win their platform and won't fight it out against the other Democrats.
No, Steven! You don't get to not mention that she was the wonderful Helen from "Drake and Josh"!
Brandon Davidson That is NOT his job!
wow, i haven't seen her since
I recognized her face but didn't remember her name
Brandon Davidson glad to know I wasn’t the only one who was waiting the entire fucking time for Steven to mention it
I was born in 1996 grew up with the show on Nickelodeon but after Drake and Josh was over I started watching the Community and loved her in that show became so much better and popular. Because times change and kids grew up and start doing other things and then they started new tv shows and movies
If noone cares, then why are you tweeting ? 2020 is the time for progressives, and if the dems won't run one then they can run independently and I will vote for them and so will everyone else. The two party system is not working, period. Bernie 2020.
Short-sighted. Trump isn't the core problem in the system, he's a symptom. We need to get rid of the power of the two-party duopoly, not further encourage Americans to feel they only have two valid choices each election and are stuck when they dislike both.
Liberals only understand orange man bad and think all was fine and dandy before that. Especially wealthy, out of touch, old liberals.
1) Abolish the electoral college. 2) Set term limits to congress. 3) No political advertisements AT ALL. 4) Displaying inaccurate polls should be a capital federal offense. 5) No corporate backing. 6) No billionaires. That would be a good start.
So your running in 2020?
#3 is no good due to the overly broad spectrum it covers. Why would any candidate NOT try to advertise themselves to get votes? How else are they supposed to let voters know what they're trying to do? Even an old fashioned town hall has to be advertised in some way.
I'm guessing you meant "campaign advertising." The method which political parties pay for manipulative commercials and so on without the ability for response. Even that though is not going to fly, as it limits how candidates get their name out to the public.
Remember that its also a form of advertising when voters have signs on their property, the candidate and his/her campaign are out waving or doing rallies, etc. Knowing little to nothing about potential candidates is essentially Russian Roulette.
#4 is silly. Polls are polls. They're just reflective of participants who took them and inaccuracies are next to impossible to determine true or false, short of it not having been taken at all. It's on the retards who actually think they are worth something for being misled.
Polls should be forbidden AT ALL cause people, in general, follow who has chances to win. Sometime a candidate who starts at 3rd ou 4th place could do a fantastic campaign and win, but the polls favors those who started better placed.
And advertisementa should be of equal time for all the candidates and, of course, State-funded.
you nailed it
If anyone reads Yvette's Twitter, then they'd see how much of this sweet and nice stuff is just an act and that she is an absolute harpy online! She is the main person I think of when I think that people should not listen to a "blue check mark" "celebrity" on Twitter for their opinion on anything. She says she's "woke", but she doesn't have a clue.
Faced with voting for a Dem or a Rep: "Enough with those two parties, we need other candidates!"
Faced with the slightest possibility that a third party candidate might garner a significant amount of votes: "GTFO you're helping the Reps win!"
America.
THAT IS NOT MY JOB ☝🏽
You don't say it right
Still waiting on that Community movie!!!!
I think its gonna be a better movie if we wait longer
Saying that independent is "cheating" is very wrong. Republican and Democrat in the end is just a name. The ideals shifts constantly over the years and many Democrats are just Republican ideals under the name Democrat. Vote for the idea not the name... Howard will just be a Republican under Independent. This voting just for the name is the problem.
Yeh well in America they are all conservative except for the very obvious ones like Bernie and AOC whom are very centred left🤷♂️
Voting for a third party/indep candidates (unless they are VERY far to the right) just means you are not voting for one of the two candidates who have a real chance.
Plus there's more chance that you'll just get to see the "other" main candidate win since you didn't support their main challenger.
Think about this: Trump is actively trying to goad Shultz in to running. He ain't doing that because he wants a more diverse political ecosystem.......he's doing it to try to reduce the number of votes going to the Democrat candidate.
No, the first past the post system is the problem. Voting "just for the name" is a symptom of it. If you voted third party in 2016, you helped Trump win by not helping Hillary win. That is how FPTP works. If that sounds stupid to you, you're right, it'a stupid system but it's the system the US uses. If you get rid of FPTP, we can talk about third parties in US elections again.
Actually it is she right because he will sitting out the debates while the republicans and democrats are having debates to show the american public what they are about. Third party candidates get to sit and hide back never having to be challenged their views and policies.
@@MyCrimsonMischief they dont get to debate because its determined by the percentage of the polls/potential votes. third party candidates dont get invited, they dont sit back and hide
The fact that people think there shouldn't be a third party is what's wrong with people's thinking. You are absolutely blind if you align your thoughts and beliefs with one single party.
that's true for normal times. With a traitor in the WH, sh't's different.
@@klarastern5597 no, it holds true all the time. No one side is pure evil and no one side is pure good. Both sides have their pros and cons. Don't eat whatever the media feeds you. Colbert or Fox News aren't your friends. Find facts and the truth yourself and question what you observe.
@@klarastern5597 It will never be "different" though. There will always be an emergency. It's just like Trump with the caravan. There will always just happen to be a crisis on hand during elections.
If you don’t like the third party candidates, then just vote for whoever you like. I thought this was a democracy. You can’t own someone’s vote. It’s a lot like a slave owners mentality. Put someone through the primary worth voting for and we might just support them. No progressive will vote for Kamala.
Third party just cannot work in the American system. Y’all need some proportional representation parliament shit up in there.
She looks beautiful!!!
No she doesnt
She is an idiot
I loved her so much in Community. 😎
Agreed
Community is probably the best sitcom of all time.
That's nice!
There are more than two parties. People should be given the freedom to choose what party they want instead of being forcefed two party politics. There should be more people running from other parties in all positions not just for president. There are other ideas than those that fit in the boxes labeled Democrat and Republican. If more people were exposed to that fact this country would be more fair, but they format it so that people who don't identify as either are shunned for not having mass appeal and kept off the airways because they aren't even looked at as competition. This is very wrong.
Not voting Democrat just means you are helping the Republican candidate win.
@@telectronix1368 because all the democrats are so great? there's trash in both parties. it doesn't matter what they call themselves!
@John Johnson unfortunately they do try to win. The green party holds rallies just like the Republicans and Democrats. There isn't wide spread attention and they are usually running with their own money and some small donations from the few people that donate.
@@telectronix1368 The electoral colleges have the final say if you wanna go there. Hillary got more votes than 45. If more people treated other parties like they treat the two mainstream parties (ie allowing "third" party candidates to be in the primary, give them a chance to debate and interview them like they interview people running Republican or Democrat) they would actually have a chance to run and win.
@@taylorgabrielle6403 Not voting Democrat just means you are helping the Republican candidate win.
Ah yeah, the beautiful two party system... I highly disagree with all her argumentations regarding third party candidates. Furthermore, I don't think she should publicly discuss politics. This whole conversation was somewhat shameful.
"What we're supposed to be" is a democracy. Democracies have as many parties as people decide to form and join. Why should the US have only two?
As an independent voter, I have to agree. So many people rush to third part so late in the game, without any of thought or research just so they can say they didn’t support x or y. I would love a solid third party candidate, but we need to look farther ahead.
I'd never seen her outside of Community, but she seems like a delightful person.
She made it clear she isn’t anti 3rd party, she just doesn’t want a third party candidate to run in 2020 to split the vote and leave us with 4 more years of Trump. The only way 3rd party works is if we add ranked choice.
It's not that people think there shouldn't be a third party, but that historically, in the last century or so, it does more to split the vote from the only 2 parties that have a chance to win. You won't get a political change at this time from the 2 parties are the only 2 with a chance, until voters find cause to see more than 2 as viable to 1. get enough campaign financing for 2. a viable politician as well as platformer that 3. can make headway in the system that's entrenched itself over the decades. Most ppl know that when you vote 3rd party, it's not a capture the win, it's a make a statement that you don't like the Republican or Democrat and how will that votes stack because of it.
this woman is absolutely nuts and is so concrete. she needs a more intellectual abstraction to life and the gratitude for living in a free society.
Camilla Harris another corporate Democrat, great.
I'm pretty sure she's just saying that we need to narrow things so Trump isn't reelected due to too many choices. Like people not voting because the Democrats screwed Bernie.
Drake n josh
Drake & Josh
Not n
I'm sure when it's Ted Cruz vs Kamala in 2024 she'll still be saying "2024 is the year for third parties"
this is the endless trap of the two party system. There is no good time.
She made it quite clear that her issue wasn't with third parties in general, it was with candidates taking advantage of the fact that they can self-fund in order to exploitatively evade the scrutiny that comes in a primary race at a time when there is such a conflagration of important issues over which candidates need to be grilled. So someone like Sanders is fine, but not a disingenuous billionaire like Schultz.
There is no good time. That's what people need to understand. Until we change our voting to a system that allows 3rd party candidates there will never be a good time. So stop running 3rd party. Period. Until we can change the rules so that a 3rd party candidate doesn't change the results against their own interests.
that's not what she said in the video at all. She's explicitly saying we can't split the vote because then Trump will win and he's so repulsive that we can't let that happen... but it's going to be an equally (if not more) repulsive republican the next time as well!
There is no escape from this trap. That's why Democrats oppose ranked choice voting because they would have to actually win peoples votes for the first time in history.
But I guarenter you that the democrats would be the only party who would push for a change in our voting system.
They could do that right now... and they're not. They don't want to for the same reason companies like having a monopoly. If you don't have other (real) options then they don't have to try as hard
This is the problem with our system, only 2 parties. We need to have 5+ people from different parties to close from on that ballot for president.
I pressed the "Next" button for the Chris Christie segments. I didn't let him start, let alone finish.
See, the actual problem is first-past-the-post electoral systems. They inevitably devolve toward a two-party system like the USA has where running credibly as a third party basically guarantees the party you are most dissimilar to wins. (As long as you aren't caught, it's actually often good business sense for an establishment party in one of these countries to divert some of your campaign money to fund a fringe party on the opposite side of whatever your voters think is the political spectrum.) Canada hasn't devolved that far yet (we have anywhere between two and five parties depending on the race and what you consider a 'real' party that matters), but our national and provincial ("state" for Americans) parties are constantly promising a better voting system as the opposition, then reneging on that promise when elected under the logic of "Oh, I guess the current system works after all because it gives me power".
In my opinion, as a choice between two options selected by the powerful is not a democracy, first-past-the-post systems should not even be considered true democracies, just temporary precursors to them which are good enough while a country is still sorting out its constitution and electoral system, because of how inevitably they decay to two, ever-more-polarizing parties over multiple elections. There are so many systems out there that are provably better than FPTP. Granted, it's been proven it's impossible to decide on a single best system with certain definitions of what's desirable, but there's a bunch that are straight upgrades over FPTP in various ways.
Whoever you are, where-ever you are, check if your local electoral system is FPTP. If it isn't, use it! If it is, advocate for voting reform through whatever means are available to you. Read up on the options and come to an opinion on which ones you like. America may be irreparably screwed (at least for the next several administrations), but it's not too late for the rest of us.
You should rather get rid of the two-party system
"You're not gonna clap for bumble?" Hell naw I'm not clapping for bumble, because it's the worst site. It's a reason no one was gonna cheer.
I remembered her getting annoyed by Dwight.
Binary thinking will not fix your electoral issues.
I’m guessing she wants subsidised healthcare, when she already has a policy of subsidised food.
Well, this is horrific.
She deserves more screen time! Yvette Nicole Brown is amazeballs!!
I love Yvette Nicole Brown but seriously... this is short sighted. The two party system is broken and is the reason why we’re stuck time after time choosing the lesser of two “evils”.
That's not the proper use of the term "melting pot." Just consider it for a moment. A melting pot is a pot that one pours things into to mix them together so that they lose their individual, defining characteristics. Isn't a better image called to mind by the term "salad?"
People like this who want to restrict us to the broken two party system are the problem in this country
We're a two-party republic. That's not going to change
Malika Sowers
Yep. Just like the property requirement for voting.
@@ODBleach What, tired of the "we're a constitutional republic" rhetoric? We're now a two party republic?
This election can ONLY be about voting for the one candidate with the best chance of taking out drumpf.
To be fair, she did specify her statement to 2020. Context being to raise the odds of getting Trump out of office. It's obviously not that simple, but a two party system has always been retarded for the modern world.
Omg that dress is EVERYTHING
Looks like everything spilled on it. I like patterns like that becuse anything you drop on them tends not to show.
Serious question. When women are rightly demanding equality do they feel comfortable letting men pay for their food when on a date?
Troy K it depends on the couple. They can agree to split it or for one to pay and then the other pays the next time or agree to come up with something that makes them both comfortable.
good vibes queen good vibes queen sounds like the most sensible option. I commented because Yvette said seemed upset when the guy didn’t pay for her food. Wondered how many other women feel this way.
i rather each pays for what they ordered. until they decide otherwise in the relationship. what she said was fucking stupid. It was a first date and he seemed like a douche from the start with the "only put 30 minutes in the meter."
I say pay for the date if you ask for it. I think it's tacky to invite people out and then be like, "oh, btw you're paying."
Pay for your own
I hear u girl, been on datesite too and not married or engaged yet😞👎, also scammers everywhere...💔
you guys need more than three parties.
The one who asks out pays. Unless nothing else is negotiated.
You didn’t mention Drake and Josh at all. That’s kinda how she got noticed ya know.
It's SHIRLEY
Her melting pot comment is so incorrect! For decades the know and those who follow know it is a salad bowl.
@3:52 [claps for Bumble]
Dating is horrible. I'm 100% sure sexuality is not a choice because if it was I would have given up on men a long time ago.
What is wrong with a third party or even a fourth or fifth? the confusing system you have right now is caused by gerrymandering
I had a guy ask me to pay for a movie date. I did cause I really liked him and because I'm an idiot. Right after dropping me off he asks... "What do you expect the outcome from this to be? Cause I don't want a relationship." So I basically paid to get my heartbroken that night.
Not trying to rub salt on it but... At least he was straightforward about it. Didn't lead you on for weeks of dating. I'd say you made a good investment.
@@mimio008 oh I would agree 100%... If I hadn't found out that just two months later he got into a relationship with another woman from the same place we worked at. So he was willing to try the whole relationship thing. Just not with me. Now THAT was rubbing salt on the wound.
@@Kay2be2mr Are they married now?
@@glurppuffloid9796 it's a long story but basically... No, he broke up with her. This was all just last year.
@@Kay2be2mr See, it was good he told you that early on. How's your friend doing now? Hope all of you are okay ^~^
Sorry for intruding on your private life, I have no idea who you are in real life, so I guess that may help a bit.
Goobye
this is disgraceful. Colbert said it... every boy and girl has a chance...
Onion
I agree with the guy. If he did not offer you food, why should you assume that he should be willing to pay? In fact, first encounters should always be assumed to be dutch treat. As to your value, unless things work out, you are worth nothing to him just the same as he is worth nothing to you. PS I am a woman.
For a certain sect of Millennials, she’ll always be Helen.
ask for the source
A third part could equally well draw people from the Republican side as the Democrat side, so why not? If there was ever a nation needing to break teh corrupt two-party system it is the US. You need a party that is actually for the majority of the people...
Trump is trying to goad Shultz in to running.
Think about that - he isn't doing that to try to help Democrats get more votes, even Bonespurs can see the benefit to Trump and the Republican party if there was a third party/indep candidate.
@@telectronix1368 Nah Trump really only got it because of independent voters. Real conservatives did not want him at first either. A third party such as Jones from Alabama would definitely take votes from Trump.
@@Fureth32 "would take votes from Trump"
and that is a problem, too.
Voters who would vote Rep but won't because of Trump **could** be persuaded to vote for the Democrat candidate (depending on specific policies etc etc) but with a third party/indep candidate those voters can still refuse to vote for Trump but could end up with their votes still not going to the Democrat candidate, so it still doesn't increase their chances.
Same with previous-sometimes-republican swing voters: third party candidate takes these votes from either of the two candidates who actually have a chance.
@Dahn - It's great to have ideals like that but in the here and now we currently have some major problems to try to fix and the warped version of the Republican party that exists now just is not going to be the ones to help.
The priority really is to get Trump and his massively corrupt team out of the White House and, bluntly, a strong Democrat candidate is the only way he doesn't get back in.
A more diverse political landscape would be great but adding in more liberal or democrat-leaning candidates just increases the likelihood of another 4 years of Trump.
Because it doesn't work like that. Throughout the last decade of Obama's leadership, the republican party positioned themselves to be the choice party of uneducated people and fostered an unhealthy level of brand loyalty. People on the right, while ostensibly not a unified block, always somehow end up banding together when elections come. Primarily because they're brainwashed, but admittedly they're pretty good at loyalty.
The left meanwhile is divided. This has always been the case, because unlike the right wing which is more interested in maintaining the status quo, we like to shake things up. But we all have very different ideas on how to go about it and we simply cannot agree.
So whenever a 3rd party candidate enters the landscape, this disproportionately affects left-wing voters. This is even more visible in European countries with multiple parties system. You'll have maybe 2 or 3 right wing conservative parties and a dozen or so left-wing parties with widely different ideas.
Uniting the left takes effort, while uniting the right amounts to shouting very loudly "that person baaad!".
Six seasons and a movie!
I'm glad so many people in the comments don't buy into what she's saying. She's a funny woman, she's a good actress, but she obviously doesn't know a damn thing about politics. If anything, the US needs MORE third party candidates, NOT LESS! Tradition isn't always a good thing, and it's very clear that the traditions that have founded and fueled both the American political and electoral systems are a major factor that hurts the country.
We need to ditch the Republic and switch to Democracy.
Helen!
This comment section has made me so proud. I thought I was going to see a bunch of "go girl" "she is sooo right" comments but I'm genuinely surprised and inspired by everyone's knowledge regarding what is really wrong with our political system. I toast to you all. I regained a bit of faith today 😊
I have always found american politics quite odd. It seems a bit weird that there's practically two parties which fight for power. I mean there must huge variety of people and ideas within both parties?
I only watch this because of Community. 6 seasons and a Movie!
I watched her on Drake and Josh when I was like 5 and she’s hasn’t aged a DAY!
Nope. NO KAMALA
2020 is not the time until 2024 isn't then time until 2028 and so on... Supporting ranked choice voting solves the anti-vote conflict, engages all parties, and helps improve voter turnout!!
Yeah first past the post creates some systemic issues that lead to this bullshit. But this is the way the game is played, Bernie understood that enough to play.
Nope, two party obviously isn't working...
As if I take my political advice from Hollywood.
Man Steven really held that together after those drinks with Chris Christi. I can tell he’s struggling there, but man that had to be challenging.
I think people are worried that a third party candidate would split the Dem vote and allow Trump in for another term. I agree that more than two parties could allow more choices for citizens... but not 2020, like Yvette states.
Her dating story mirrors mine and is literally the reason I got off of all the apps.
Oh God.
"Be better, everyone welcome... but third party candidates: go away, we don't care"
Yeah, fascism! Best response to Trump.
Murica, keep going, you're amazing.
Everyone be either black or white, rich or poor, male or female, Christian or Muslim, Democrat or Republican. We cannot risk having a 3rd option on anything EVER!
Ehn -__-
1st when I read the title, I was like "Oh no"
Then I heard her speak and I was "meh, I'm not anti-3rd party, but I get where you're coming from, maybe I'll agree"
Then she said "Kamala Harris" & I was out.
I was hoping she'd have voted for a progressive, as a fan, this is tough, but I've got a disagree with her.
Kamala Harris is a BAAAAAAD choice. I still like Ms Yvette N. Brown, it's okay, older people aren't always in-touch with the intricacies of politics and with an ear on the ground.
#BernieOrBust #HINDSIGHT2020 #FeelTheBern
Kamala is as swampy as anything we've seen during trump's presidency. plus shes tied to the private prison industry. how can the dems be so blind to just crown her already? hillary 2.0
In India, we have multi-party system. We are not confused. What's wrong with you America? Also, people are ruthless if the candidate or the party isn't right. They elect someone else as there many many choices. USA should at least bring 4 party system for the choice. Its hilarious that a country that gave the world Amazon, Walmart and Ebay, has less options on the ballot.
Balaji Alagurajan America does have multiple parties they are wings of the democratics and republicans, how is elizabeth warren and al gore in the same party? Or trump and mitt romney. The indian system is a shit show there way to many parties based on region, religion, language etc. how many truly national parties are there that can win power? Congress and BJP so it comes down to 2 major parties anyway.
Bumble is shit. Women send messages saying, "hey." And then they expect you to come back with a whole paragraph to try to woo the woman who messaged you in the first place. Meh
Also keeper of the lore for TWD!
What the hell is a bow? beau? bou?.... what is that thing they talked about and how do you spell it?
It's bao
Look I support a 3rd party but I wouldn't like a billionaire being the face of it and at this time. I'd support an independent like bernie sanders but not Howard.
Third parties are a good idea, when they finally adapt the political process to third parties.
As for now, as noble as it seems, right now a third party vote is a wasted one.
There are nobe ideals, but sometims you have to stay realistic
If the Dems pick a corporate hack like they did last time, then a blue vote is a wasted vote.
No Corporate hacks in 2020, you either pick a Progressive or you drop out and let an independent win.
Last time Hillary cheated Bernie out of the race(super-delegates, fraudulent counting, cheating in debates and attack ads, and coin flips and voter suppression) then the Dems became the spoilers and prevented the Green Party from winning.
All those bernie people either sat home switched to green or voted Trump, people were willing to vote for benenie if he ran Green or independent, but he wasn't confident in himself and lost the chance, as the time came closer people could see that the Greens weren't gonna have the win so they sat home, some still tried voting in vain, and some spiteful folk voted Trump in fury to hope the USA would burn with their rage.
Trump Won.
Don't let this happen again, bernie Would've won. #Hindsight2020
czcams.com/video/HTVg2DjirMU/video.html
Dan, That stagnant thinking is literally why we're in the mess we are today.
Nooooooo this is exactly why we got Trump in the first place 🤬🤢🤮🤮🤮
*Sees people demanding to get rid of the two-party system.*
Me: Unless the other parties are worthy, no. (Looks to my country; so many political parties that most are like 'Party? I dunno what that is)
OMG it's been so long since I last saw her! I missed her!
Oh that's nice
I don't agree with Nicole's Idea of "3rd party is cheating" I think there SHOULD be more options for people to choose when it comes to whom to vote for - because obviously the system between Democrats and Republicans has lost it's context and become so toxic that now voting is like if it's a game or a sports team - when it's not and shouldn't be.
Ban political parties or atleast make it illegal to run under a political party, vote for people for their ideas & merits, not the people they hangout with's.
She is wrong on this. Not every third party candidate would help Trump or take votes away from the Dems; for instance, if Kasich ran, he would most likely not take many votes from the Dems, and would actually take classic conservative votes (never Trumpers) from Trump. Also, it is actually the two party system that creates this "lesser of two evils" false dichotomy, which results in awful choices like Trump or Hillary. Many people voted for Trump in order to defeat Hillary, or (like me) voted for Hillary in order to defeat Trump, though many of us wouldn't have voted for either if we had other options. I don't think either would have won if not for the two party system, and them being the only options for winning.
That said, though I do want to open the system up to multiple parties, I do hope the split comes from the right first. If the right split into moderates and the Tea Party types, that would give a win to the left (and hopefully get rid of Trump), but then hopefully the left would also split between moderates and the progressives. Ultimately, I want to be able to vote for a progressive, and they seem to have little chance of succeeding in the corrupt two-party system (just look at what Hillary's team did to Bernie in the last presidential election). I think it would be good for the system to be a multiparty one; moderates on both sides can still work with those to the right or left of them, and form coalitions, but that way we might be able to vote for candidates that we are actually proud to support. I voted for Hillary last time, just to try to defeat Trump, but I hated it, and had to "hold my nose". I would have much rather had the option to vote for a progressive like Bernie. Also, we might actually get more done with a multiparty system, because it would give cover to politicians to work with those they might not work with in a two party system. With the coalition idea, moderates on the left could create a policy that would get votes from both progressives and moderates on the right, and moderates on the right would do the same; for instance, there are Reps that believe in climate change, and we might actually make headway if there were four parties, and the moderate left could make a climate change plan that moderates on the right and progressives could both support- the Tea Party types wouldn't be able to bully moderates on the right into rejecting such plans.
I agree that Schultz shouldn't run, but not because he would run 3rd party, but because we need to no longer have billionaire presidents. If Bernie ran as an independent, I would vote for him. Many of the other Dems are only now coming around to what he has been saying for years, because it is popular. We should worry less about party loyalty, and more about policy and integrity. That said, though I will vote my conscience in the primary, I understand the idea of voting strategically in the two-party primary, and I will do what I have to in order to defeat Trump.
P.S. This interview really soured me on her. She seems to only support female/black candidates. Where was her support for Bernie last election (I've looked and can't find any), but a black woman comes along saying the same thing he has been saying for years, and all of a sudden she supports her as a smart candidate? Also, she wants equality, but seems to only want it when it suits her. It seems like she is the type of feminist that wants the benefits that men have long had, but none of the responsibilities/problems. "We should earn the same, but men should pay on dates." She wants to give women the right to choose, but what about the men? Although those was the only things she said like that in this interview, I know of plenty of women who share those two anecdotes, but also others that she didn't mention, but are equally nonsensical, if you want equality. They want to address inequality that negatively impacts women, but seem to care little for the inequalities that negatively impact men. They want to maintain the double standards that benefit them, rather than getting rid of all double standards, based on principle. I want to stand on the principle, and get rid of all double standards and inequalities. I am more than willing to help you in your fight to remove inequalities that impact you, but if you are against me in removing inequalities that impact me, it seems that you are just self-serving, and that you don't really care about the principles of equality. Jess Butcher did a great TED talk about Modern feminism, and she made some great points on this concept. If you are the type to dismiss this concept coming from men, then you should check it out, and see if you can accept the reality of the situation when it comes from a woman. Anyway, YNB has lost some credibility with me because of this interview, and will continue to do so if she only supports "equality" that benefits her (or those like her), and doesn't support the concept when it benefits others not like her.
A candidate that could 100% certainty **not** take votes from a Dem candidate does not exist, there would always be some voters who are not Republican but who would choose that indep candidate, meaning lost votes for the Dem candidate.
Think about it this way: Trump is trying to goad Shultz in to running.
He's not doing this because he believes in a diverse political landscape, he's doing this to try to reduce the votes going to the Dem candidate.
@@telectronix1368 True, but Schultz has many liberal tenancies. I said I agreed that he shouldn't run, and I also agree that he might hurt the Dem candidate. However, just because it is true of Schultz, that doesn't mean that it is true of all 3rd party candidates. That is why I mentioned Kasich, because he is conservative in a classical way. Sure he may get a tiny minuscule amount of Dem voters, but that would be FAR outweighed by the amount of Rep voters he would siphon off of Trump. I don't think many Dem voters would go for his classical conservative policies, but PLENTY of old school Reps, who are tired of Trump, would vote for Kasich (like my mom). I never said he would get absolutely no Dem votes, I said he would hurt Trump more than help him. Look at it this way: if Kasich took 3% of voters that would have voted Dem, but took 15% of voters who previously voted for Trump (not because they liked him, but because they HATED Hillary), then isn't that a net win for Dems (12%), especially with regards to defeating Trump? She made a broad generalization based on one example, but my point was that the generalization doesn't hold true, not that the one example doesn't hold true. Just because it is true of Schultz, doesn't mean that it is true of Kasich, or plenty of other Conservatives. Another example might be Romney; again, I think Romney running 3rd party would hurt Trump more than help him. The opposite would be true, though, if Bernie ran 3rd party- that would definitely help Trump more than hurt him. You really cannot make a broad generalization that ALL 3rd party candidates would help/hurt either side- it depends on the candidate, and who that candidate would appeal to most.
Mi amor Yvette, comment vas- tu, merci qui qui
👀Hellen❗️
"Earn the nomination?" In other words, everyone should shut up and vote for who Nancy and Chuck pick. This of course will lead to another Trump term or another Trump.
I did not know she was an AKA! Or Kamala harris
i think im the only one in the comments excited for Weird City
which premieres on February 23rd. staring Micheal cera and Dylan O'brien, where is my check youtube???????????
OMG..
She should stuff it.
Gotta disagree with you on third party candidates. This hate for Trump has driven people to think they are allowed to dictate what other people "should" or "should not" do. Politics is an individual sport, and independent candidates pressure the other two parties to focus on issues those parties didn't think were important enough. Third party candidates rile up their base to force these issues into the limelight for the other two parties. And since this is an individual sport, each man is on their own. Therefore, let anyone run for President or any other office, and no one should be told not to do that just because you think someone you don't want to get elected, might get elected.
I thought it was pronounced 'Y'vette Nicole brown not 'E'vette Nicole brown
Wow, and here I thought that having more political parties was a sign of a healthy democracy. Perhaps there should only be one single party? No? Just 2 parties, that way the majority of Americans, who btw don't identify with either democrats or republicans, never get their voices heard. Yep, I guess that's the best solution.