@@farmduck2762 It was originally 2/3, but the Nuclear Option was evoked which lowered the bar to 50. (50 because as Grey explained, when it's 50-50, the Vice President gets to tiebreak, and generally the Vice President votes the same way as the President)

@@flyerton99 Does 2/3 get rounded to 67 or 66, in the current Senate?

In Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, it was two-thirds of present Senators. However, that specifically addressed treaties. Later (and by that I mean later in the same sentence), it only says "advice and consent of the Senate" when addressing nominations. This is why the number is always changing.

Well the thing about that is. It was always 1/2 as per constitution. Well most specifically.... Constitution doesn't say any special limit just that: "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... .. Judges of the supreme Court, ...." Which means it pretty much is by default simple majority. Since there are other cases where constitution says 2/3 majority, like ratifying treaties and breaking Presidential veto. Actually just above the nomination bit is the bit of "He (POTUS) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur". So clearly if the crafters wanted they could have also written "shall appoint Judges of the supreme Court, provided two thirds of Senators present concur." They didn't. So to them ratifying treaties was more serious matter than confirming Judges. just saying might be one of those things to amend to constitution. Since to me it seems rather sensible to just have constitutional level demand "Supreme court judges are so powerful, naming them requires 2/3 of Senators present." The reason it was 2/3 was senate internal procedural rule. More specifically filibuster. Which also explains the wobbly limit. the change to 3/5 was the filibuster limit changing and then "nuclear option" is nuclear option of over coming filibuster in general. Not nuclear option to play fast and loose with Constitution.... Constitution in itself was already playing fast and loose with Supreme Court judges being matter of simple approval by Senate. Ergo shenanigans was mostly Senate playing Shenanigans with their own internal rules, which they have power to do and if weren't so stuffy could just say outloud "it's 1/2 now, we decided so." or just say outright "since there is that loophole anyway, lets just say filibusters aren't a thing at all anymore."

@@carultch I think it would be 67 because 66 is less than 2/3, so to get more than 2/3 you need 67 or more votes

All the good shit we learn as kids goes out the window. Be kind to each other, share, communicate. It just goes bye bye. We teach people to say yes to pressure and authority and never teach them how to discuss or have a proper argument with out metaphorically throwing poo at the person/party we don't agree with. We're still apes because we refuse to acknowledge our shortcomings and learn to deal with them effectively. Any society/species/country that says it's at it's peak, the best or most evolved is one that's absolutely subject to Dunning-Krueger effect.

Mankind is always ultimately childish, because children express the purist distillation of human instinct. *Ehem,* shameless repost from myself in another comment thread under this video.

@@MarikHavair That is actually pretty insightful.

@@vixxcelacea2778 We live in a system which rewards people with wealth and power for being cut-throat, greeedy and lacking empathy. As much as we wish to teach children to be kind, a 'good sport' and to share those are not the foundational, unspoken rules of our societies.

@@James-xx7yt Of course giving up your personal responsibility to do good to any system based on faith governments, NGO, massive religions and nine times outta ten they will only pay you lip service while keeping your time/work/money. If they aren't specific about what they are doing then most likely cents on the dollar it's just them panhandling for a paycheck. Exception being government can send men with guns to ensure they can rob you by force, usually selling a bridge to nowhere.

Speaking from experience, eh ???

When they do it = Meh When I do it = I'm awful, evil, procrastinating, on the road to failure, blah blah bad!

Preach. What country?

I love living in a country where a large majority of the government isn't allowed to have breaks and do nothing with no consequences.

@@glerbus9561 Couldn't be my American ass

I can be the first reply to this massively liked comment.

Except I am the Senate.

No I'm the senate

So, why doesn't a SECOND senator, from the minority party, show up to work that day, with the express purpose of yelling "ROLL CALL!"?

@@bcubed72 Because going on vacation is a Bi-partisan Rubber stamp.

And in the ultimate nuclear option of saying roll call...

@@clueless_cutie or could potentially just make additional rulings by themselves? with a vote of one-zero out of a possible one vote victory?

Is it wrong that I heard that in Palpatine's voice...?

@@tommytomthms5 ooooh how has this never been done?

Wouldn't that announcement imply that they are the only senator present at the session and therefore not have the right to vote for congressional action?

Oh no, they understand. They just don't care.

So true

@@brianbethea3069 indeed ... that would be the little word PERMANENT in the assignment lul

*_You fuckers voted them in lmao_*

Im convinced all politicians in USA have hatred towards the Americans populace.

Imagine one mf senator called a row

@@Joseph_mama *roll He won't, if he does, he would be beaten to death

I mean, for the American populace, it’s horrible, but from a comedy standpoint it’s great

So you can tell someone only watched this video on this topic which is a simplified version of the senate.

Why doesn’t one member of the president’s party call for a roll?

A tautology for our time.

Swear to God I will pistol whip the next guy to says "shenanigans"! -Captain O'Hagan

Violence breeds violence In the end it has to be this way

Hello deutsch

I'm still wondering what does this word means... (I'm from Brazil)

uno reverse card

At this point I'm just waiting for absolutely nothing to never happen anymore because if someone does, they lose

DavidBox why do you think the party platforms haven’t changed in 30 years besides minor issues. Nothing ever gets done.

@@thatrandomnoob8611 Minor issuses keep getting solved? Way better that what I expected

The year is 20XX. Everyone cheats the system at TAS levels of perfection. Because of this, the winner of a court appointment depends solely on who is allowed to speak first. The Rock Paper Scissors metagame has evolved to ridiculous levels due to it being the only remaining factor to decide court appointments. Humanity has reached its pinnacle. The low tier peasants are living in poverty.

A senator's wage is actually really low. Not enough to afford a house within a reasonable distance from the senate. It's yet another barrier to keep normal/honest people out, because being rich/accepting bribes becomes an implicit requirement.

It’s really difficult to find a good house for $150K year.

@@Serastrasz The U.S. Census Bureau lists the annual median personal income at $33,706 in 2018. Rank and file senators make $174,000. They make 5 times what the middle-earning American makes. I don't think that counts as 'really low'.

With no term limits..... Crazy

E. Steev Ramsdell for their role and demand yea it is low

The best part is "no politician can write laws that can cover everything, so a court has to interpret then, even when there are laws that are pretty clear on meaning"

@@InfernosReaper i mean thats pretty true

Founding fathers : write an extremely complex constitution Founding fathers : own slaves so...

It's not complex. The entire point is for it to be simple. The claim of it being "complex" is just a lie that only serves to help those that want to toss it aside because their ideology dictates that the government should be as powerful as it wishes to be (so that the enlightened elite can rule over us peasants) instead of _extremely_ limited, as was intended by the Constitution.

@@Regimeshifts founding fathers are goats bruh don't ever try disrespect them. Shit I ain't even American but these dudes had almost everything worked out , including slaves . A declaration of it's abolishion was prepared you know the story

Let's be fair now, The President is also a big baby who doesn't like having a counter-power stopping him from making all decisions himself. Big Babies everywhere !

to be fair, they're not exactly just taking vacations when they're not in session. they're busy campaigning so they get reelected. and campaigning is a lot of work, nothing to sneeze at. but yeah everything else you said is pretty accurate.

And are ridiculously overpaid.

@@bjorn94 yeah this entire video is just a showcase of how self absorbed politics has become.

And get paid a sh!t ton of money, sounds like fun to me.

Can you tell us more?

Tell us more.

​@@cakeisyummy5755 So, this is 2007, the VP, instead of coming from the same political party of the president (or even a major supporting group like american VPs tend to do), was a senator from the opposition that had switched political parties. (In an attempt to broaden support for election) The problem happened on a tax increment on agricultural exports, which is major business due to it being a large part of Argentina's economy, farmers (and importantly farming associations) went on strike, mass protests happened, some against the initiative, then others in favor, road blocks, etc. and the president's approval plummeted. The opposition was against it, and it came down to a tie in the senate (with the tax increase having passed in the lower chamber) Thus, it came down to the VP's vote, who then sided against the tax increase.

That middle finger had a cost, the vp nuked his political career and went back to his home province. He's now on an advisory role of sorts for his party, and has very sporadic appearances on tv.

As an argentinian I would LOVE to see Grey try to explain the politics here, because oh boy it makes the US look easy

which is very motivating, what you do now will literally change the future

The Federal body was designed to be an absolute bureaucratic mess to keep it from gaining too much power.

Well... Technically we always are? If that helps?

It's called the present...

@@surprisedchar2458 it was just designed based on what sounded good lmao, they had no clue what they were doing

Math 100

@@pocketlightt lol

no one else is in the room where it happens

There clearly isn't anyone here...

@@BlueEngland but you can’t prove that

Only the senator in charge of the session can make a roll call, which would be the person who was assigned by the president pro tempe (the most senior senator). So this would only work if you managed to convince the one person who was specifically selected to not do this.

@@AnEnormousNerd that’s not true, any senator can request a roll call

@@OctoRang I'm not correcting you, because I don't know the answer, but that word "request" makes me suspect that the request could be denied by the president pro-temp.

@@notmee2388 it could, but he can be overruled by a majority in the room. So if we assume that that senator is the only one in the room, that makes him a majority.

@@OctoRang majority in a room to call a roll call to check how many people are in the room? shenanigens at its finest

I think one of the markers of being a mature person is recognizing that politicians on both sides are unruly children who play shenanigans and rule-lawyering at every opportunity to get their way because if they don't get their way they'll throw a tantrum.

@@ctrl677 this is very true of both parties

@@andrewbogard2411 Yep, that's what they said.

I think we're not too far away from an unruly cabinet member ordering the DC Police to follow the Supreme Court justices the President wants gone, then impeaching them for the "high crime and misdemeanor" of doing 5mph over. There's technically nothing illegal about that, and the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide what offences are impeachable. Congress does.

Not only is he British, he makes his own parties (Orange and Yellow), but I don’t know any American political party with either of those colors (Dems are blue, Reps are red)

And you/I keep giving ourselves anti invincibility weapons

@@99999bomb an unstoppable force vs an immovable rock, who wins?

@@X-Ter answer: the universe implodes

Shenanigans beget shenanigans!

Yeah, in- {Title card}

To be fair, that is pretty much exactly how they feel.

They do seem to be the only part of government making rational decisions

Like a tired secretary

@@georgesracingcar7701 are you sure about this

@@georgesracingcar7701 didn't they dismiss a case about Nestlé using child slavery

So has Senator Mitch Mcconnell.

So has everyone waiting for THERE opportunity to exploit a law made in 2013 please explain to me why that law passed making it possible for a more hatted justice to be able to win.

newb mann *Their

@@CertifiedSlamboy ok I concede I beter not have spelled concede wrong

@@Newbmann that's a little better

I think you have it wrong. "Adults" don't get more recess. "Politicians" get more recess. This is why the US Founders who wrote the Constitution suggested it was a part-time job. Then again, they also suggested that pay for these positions be low, and that a two-party political system was a really bad idea...then changed all that after George Washington left office.

Adults? In the senate?

They're lazy bruh

This is my ultimate elementary school dream

@@samuelzuleger5134 And the President was supposed to be a neutral third party who could walk between the aisles and get compromises from both parties. Which stopped being a thing after George Washington retired and never happened again. In reality, this country really needs a thorough rewriting of the Constitution, with the intent of making it actually work in modern times. This was the original intention of the constitution and the founding fathers. The problem is everyone is terrified the other party is going to make life worse if you rewrite the highest law in the land. For example, some people don't want socialism in the US and some do. That is just one of many issues with the constitution, however. Whether we have a two party system, how voting works, delays, technology, international law and activities, everything under the sun has been changed so radically over time that it NEEDS to be addressed at some point. But unless one party takes 75% control of the states, that will never happen. By the way, THIS is the true nuclear option. Once you touch the constitution, everything else is out the window. Supreme Court only interpret the constitution, so you just rewrite it to be more clear until they obey. You can change everything in the constitution too. Monarchy time? Yup. Murder every person of the other party legally? Yup. There are literally no limits on what you can do if you have 75% control of states.

Friendly reminder that the CIA is not supposed to have operations within US borders btw X)

Exactly, Scalia was murdered in his sleep by suffocation from his own pillow... CIA at its finest...damn bastards

I thought you said the fall of America

@@zachattack1279 empires average 250 years. america is 244.

@Spanish Mapping its not like the government is currently falling apart or anything

@Spanish Mapping Politically yes but the country is still very prosperous, and unlike rome Canada and Mexico aren't filled with bloodthirsty barbarians.

@@justinnnnnn5676 Dont underestimate the canadian geese.

Wouldn't be the first time. Probably got it from newgrounds. We can't forget about no punctuation either.

Ibid

Yes this was entirely done by software all you need to do is put a picture of what the person looks like and it'll turn into a stick figure all these Stick Figures were based on original images of people

It's also fun to mute his videos and see just how much of the gist is still understandable. (a lot)

And how a colored tie can change someone from a regular Joe into the President of the United States of America.

They have done so in the past.

The whole 3:00-3:26 was basically Gorsch, and Barrett. Kavanaugh doesn’t really fit into that, but that’s a whole other story.

Which is surprising considering they are never working

Don't remind me...

My paycheck has a very good imagination...

People who are paid in tax dollars should not be allowed the vote, this solves a good amount of the problem.

@@churblefurbles How, exactly?!?!

The populous is gullible enough to elect these kinds of leaders. So, I guess they are fine using their tax money this way.

Might makes right, and force is the gold standard of persuasion. If for no other reason than that *ethical* persuasion requires mutual goodwill and faith, something which can never be assured. This ensures that *unethical* persuasion (lies deceit and coercion) always holds an advantage, as the only recourse to being cheated is to deal with the schemer on their own terms (at which point all hope of mutual compromise is lost) and cheat back, or walk away empty handed. This's where the gold 'nuclear' standard comes into play, as if you were willing to walk away empty handed you'd likely never have shown up to play ball in the first place. Once you understand this concept you understand the heart of all human interaction, in the past, present and future.

And this is how USA will rot into far-rightwing dictatorship. Currently we are in transitional phase.

That, and an assassination of one Julius Caesar. But potato potato

@@johnathanarcher6999 Oh no, it was long dead by that point.

***VOTE THIRD PARTY***

Separation of powers = no room for a king.

@TheLastSanePerson in theory of course, almost every person in congress is looking out for themselves, they care about getting re elected and staying in office, not working together to make this country a better place.

This is what the democrats COULD do but they don't because we haven't steeped to this level as republicans have overwhelmingly done.

@@shavingryansprivates4332 Like when the Republicans decided tho change the law for simple majority instead of 2/3 because they couldn't pass a supreme court judge? Oh wait, that was the democrats.

Joseph would've been a great politician.

Senator Harry Reid was the first to use pro forma sessions to block President George W. Bush from making recess appointments. Well at least we know how it started.

"Shenanigans beget shenanigans" is my new motto.

The truest truth that had ever been spoken.

Hey yo, fellow Bill Maher viewer.... Nvm, I just watched to the point where CGP Grey said it... lol. Maybe he watches Maher??

@@Evirthewarrior Not to mention Reid pulling the nuclear option on federal judicial appointees (minus the Supreme Court) when the GOP started playing the same game as Reid.

"What do you mean it failed?" - U.S. government

Seems like 2/3 majority for senate confirmation would help keep the president from nominating a partisan justice, unless you get a trifecta: president party matches senate majority, senate majority is 2/3, and a SC justice leaves office. Because midterm elections typically swing against the just-elected president's party, he'd need that strong senate backing AND be able to appoint a SC justice in a fairly narrow window. Since the justice's previous rulings are dragged out, and he's grilled in public, and investigated in general, he'd have to have set up his whole life as a sleeper agent for his favored political tribe hoping that he gets a crack at slipping through the Senate's jaws and revealing himself as a fully-operational judicial traitor.

Yeah it did get rid of them. Because everyone including Ruth Bater Ginsburg knew Roe was going to fall. Literally every human being that completed law school knew that Roe was ruled incorrectly.

She’s supposed to be the teacher i think

I'm looking for this comment

Where

@@aurorapaisley7453 11:15

7:10

My thoughts exactly

how was the nuclear option put in for fucking SCOTUS appointments?

Just half. Even worse.

@@nathanmeagher7869 You can thank the democrats for that one as well as a few others that they are now cursing due to it biting them back.

​@@francisdrake6320 who wouldve seen it coming?!? everyone not on capitol hill at the time

Roe v Wade

Yeah...

pretty much

its funny to watch people get so angry about their side of an issue which doesnt matter at all

@@Qaptyl it matters to a lot of us because it impacts us directly but I'm sure you don't give a damn.

+

America Law module source code to be exact

And a bit of the UK's if and if elses.

Python??

@@jaisonsimon pretty sure python uses elif instead of else if

big brain plays!

Funny because that's what they all do anyway.

Eh, you'd need to have a campaign to get on the senate. Getting into the house of representatives, though, would be much easier and with so many more people your vote would matter even less.

plus you get paid for doing nothing

@@sethroberts2485 The House of Representatives, on average, actually works fewer house every year than the Senate. In 2019, for example, the Senate was in session for 947 hours, whilst the House was in session for 787 hours. Either way, it averages out to about 20 hours of work per week in the year. I don't know if committee meetings are included in that, though.

This statement is BRILLIANT!!

This quote can literally be found under EVERY major political video nowadays. Not a criticism, just an interesting indicator of the political climate we live in.

Not actually Mark Twain, not sure who said it, but it's a fantastic quote nonetheless.

Essentially, bring term limits to the senate and the house. The only issue is that the one who decides that is congress, and why would they limit THEIR power?

Zansi This is a quote from John Wallner. Not Mark Twain.

yoy

I had to back up the video both times to understand what he was saying :D

@@stevenmanley8924 I dont get it

@@manojraghavendran5760 By "hmm"s Grey shows that there are huge asterisks in the rules, but he can't go over them in that point in the video, that induces the funny

yes they could and I would do it

Yeah, they CAN but they probably get peer pressured from doing so with one senator talking about taking their kids on a trip or an elderly senator taking his wife to the hospital for a surgery or something. So likely it never happens.

I guess so and I also guess that would be the last time he/she ever gets assigned to anything in the Senate or even the party.

Yes, any senator can ask for a roll call.

Well yes, but they wouldn't get chosen for that ever again.

@@aenetanthony unless they where in the room but not the senator in charge and just raised they hand and asked for a roll call. That might do it, I think, maybe, I'm actually not sure at all.

seems right...and it might be pretty funny to witness too.

M. McConnell = Palpatine

I keep expecting Nancy Pelosi to say that

"Not yet." -Jedi Master Mace Windu, 19 BBY

@@MrBassmann15 It's treason, then.

@@MrPopoCoalti*Demonic screeching*

At least the founding fathers knew shenanigans were inevitable, even if they didn't know which ones.

Fax

i mean the depiction of the supreme court is still accurate so yeah it really did

Don't have a cow, man.

One senator should show up one time and ask for a roll call just to troll the rest of those Dbags

@@montypython5521 The entire senate has agreed to this. That won't happen any time soon.

@@r3ked272 I know, but I would love to see it happen

"I AM the Senate!"

Ninh Ly, didn’t expect to see you here.

Agreed

@@completeepicness5070 For a man that explains the rules of sport, it is not surprising that he has interest in the laws, or rules, of the American legal system.

Yep pretty much

Ninh explains, the rules of the Senate

Well to be fair, recess isn't exactly the same as free time, it's just that the Senate and House members get to go back to their districts and actually interact with their constituents. It's basically a way for them to continue being able to accurately represent the will of their constituents and get a handle on what's going on in their state/district. All of that is in theory though, as we all know that politicians tend to have their aides do most of the work while they shmooze with the wealthy elites. Still proper framing is important.

@@femsplainer It's the same in parliamentary democracies, to an outsider it looks like MP's take a _lot_ of time off, but of course they have community surgeries and similar to do back in their constituencies.

Ralphie Raccoon Uh sorry. Did you say surgeries?

@@daerdevvyl4314 Yes, the term does not have an exclusively medical use in the UK. It can mean an event where MP's are available to give advice to members of the public.

Ralphie Raccoon Okay. Thanks for telling me. By the way, did you ever see a kids’ cartoon called The Raccoons? It aired on Canadian TV in about the 1990s. One of the main characters was Ralph Raccoon.

pretty much

Is the president Tom or Jerry?

@@kilacamyrneh4624 Depends on the day

@@kilacamyrneh4624 Both

That's what the Swiss say too... all the holes in their cheese, just an elaborate Tom and Jerry set-up!

unfortunately activist judges make them defacto laws.

Would need to pass Congress, so I guess you'd need a very charming horse.

Noice

Me who also is from eastern europe: Can't president just bribe one of the senators to say there is not enough senators in senate and break it all?

@@legatlanius8259 It would need to be a pretty huge bribe because then every other senator would vote to remove the offender...

Yup, what seems unbelievable to America is just "coming back to typical realpolitik power relations after an *unusually* long lucky streak with stable constitutional government and rule of law" to the rest of the world. Regression to the mean.

​@@legatlanius8259 Yes but no. The senator, in this case, can just break the news that somebody bribed him and that may be a case of impeachment.

You sound like a DM

Exactly, he said it that what is "impressive rules-lawyering" and "shennanigans", is a matter of opinion.

This youtuber is too smart....he uploaded the video as soon as the the indian supreme court resulted today about Ayodhya....Good move dude👍

All impressive rules-lawyering is shenanigans, but not all shenanigans are rules-lawyering. Therefore, they cannot be the same thing.

@@puellanivis -- Counterpoint, all arguments about the difference between rules lawyering and shenanigans are already talking about rules lawyering, and are therefore also talking about shenanigans.

or nothing is as permanent as a temporary solution

I need that on a T-Shirt.

Brian Cox does not like this video.

Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.

I will wear that T-Shirt everyday! pack me dozen please

Hahaha lol

Not. Yet.

@@davidhong1934 It's treason then.

I love democracy

"I AM the democratic party"

Might just be an accident seeing as he used the colors yellow and orange instead of specific parties

NPC 2749 political power gains in the US boil down to one party trying to get more power over the other. It’s not an unreasonable position to say that the US’ Supreme Court should be representative of the political or philosophical opinion of the people of the nation as a whole, and thus politically balanced and central as a court.

Looking at the house.

cjeam no that is completely unreasonable. The ENTIRE POINT of life appointments is so that while the congress and by extension nations opinion may change THEIRS DONT unless there is a constitutional amendment

@@cjeam9199 I don't believe the law is a "balance" as it is why there is no limits on how many justices the president can have in a year. The law should be interpreted as it is originally intended to be (then again can you trust one side to interpret that honestly 😆?)

To paraphrase a certain raving chair-bound God-Skeleton: Just because it is right doesn't change the fact that it is unfathomably idiotic. True, my friend. Very true.

The more I learn, the more I'm sure that nobody really knows what they're doing. Everyone is just going with the flow.

@@blackjack2526 I wasn't expecting a TTS reference here. The Man-Emperor approves.

@@BrenttFease Your Corpse-Emperor is weak. Much like your Primarchs!!! Iron Within, Iron Without.

@@blackjack2526 oh shit, I'm used to being the heretic in these... **scrambles for notes** umm.... something something exterminatus?

wdym

@@dr4kecl788 The United States Supreme Court has made great strides towards abolishing freedom in this country

@@mando9518 Elaborate.

@@spaghettiisyummy.3623 they’re sad that the states get to decide whether or not someone can murder an unborn child

@@matthewvreeke9872 Oh, they *don't* like Texas!

I don't think those are two different things. The working once every 4 days is a part of the break

Let me tell yo ua secret. it is not politicians who makes things go around no matter how much they want you to belive it. I bet we wouldn't even notice if a good percentage of them would dissapear. Garbagemen, firefighters, emergency responders on the other hand..... so its only "natural" that we talk about politicians we pay them fortunes, we give them status and we even put them on the pages of our history books.

@@ObeseYeti actually they are different things - on break is a break, they aren't there. The 3 days recess + 20 second pro-forma is a technically-not-a-break. What OP is saying is _they are not mutually exclusive_ and they can take half an year worth of breaks and work 20 seconds a quarter of the rest of the days. It's like they could effectively work *20 seconds every other week* . That's less than 10 minutes of "work" a year. Which they can delegate among themselves and rotate. So, like... 40-ish sessions an year, I guess they might cut it down to like, 40 seconds a year or even less?

You havr to spend almost all that "free time" either campaigning or fundraising though.

The laws were made during times when it was really hard to get everyone together in one place at one time.

It's a rare ability that very few have mastered.

Most of the time. This video was fantastically done.

What's wrong with being political? Let me guess, "both sides are bad"?

@@menkaragamble8175 Because you're going to alienate half of your audience. Imagine if your favorite content creator came out and started shoving Repubilcan politics into their videos, you'd be rightfully pissed. That's why we're pissed when Democrats do it. Or Labor and Conservative, or Liberal and Conservative, or BJP and... you get the idea.

@@Skeloperch Why does alienation matter? Do you say yes to everything and everyone so that you don't "offend" people? Is letting other people decide what you say "good"? And why can't you be pissed if your favorite content creator doesn't shove politics into their videos? "apolitical" is a political position after all.

Oversimplified reference?

@@artkondratyev4307 yes it is

"exclamation point question mark" "exclamation point question mark"

Kiro Exclamation Point. Question Mark. Exclamation Point. Question mark. Exclamation point. Question mark.

Aaaaaaand repeat.

Oof size: Large

Nah, they're mostly smart and well educated. It's the people who are dumb because they refuse to learn how politics works and instead sitting around complaining that politicians are dumb, lazy, and greedy.

@@jeffersonclippership2588 Ask how many people agree with their representative/senator and you'll find a lot of them at least approve of them. Ask how many approve of congress and that answer will be very different. So despite each person in congress individually having pretty high approval from where they are from, collectively most disapprove of them. This just makes sense though because of course people would disapprove of a congress made up of 99.5% (3/535, 1 representative and 2 senators) people they didn't vote for.

@@jeffersonclippership2588 They are probably not dumb or lazy, or even greedy. However you should not confuse that with the opposite, that these people are actually smart and well educated. Some are to be sure, but to get elected one needs not have any particular intelligence or ability to reason. One needs the ability to appeal to people. People are not actually that susceptible to argumentation and reasoning. They are far more susceptible to emotion. Appeal to their emotional reaction and you have far more success being elected than in trying to give them accurate information. If you want examples of this, just look at the influence of memes as bite-sized information being spread by social media. Look at the impact of superficial websites providing information that makes people believe they have equivalent knowledge to people who studied a subject for years. Look at how people consistently act against their own best interests, for example in historical examples like smoking and how people resisted the notion that it's actually bad for you. Apply the same to a more contemporary example such as climate change where people reject the notion not on any solid scientific grounds but because they don't want things to change, as that change negatively impacts their personal future prospects. Look at the even more recent example of coronavirus and the people who still believe it's "just a flu". Look at how politician speeches use buzzwords that get crowds cheering in spite of what is actually being said. Look at how they spin news stories, omitting if not outright denying observable facts, appealing to people's emotional bias regarding any matter. Heck, look at simple statistics, where in any matter of approval most people are clustered around the norm which is based on convention and cultural history rather than factual accuracy. It's human, people approve of the familiar, and they approve of anyone who fights against anything they threaten that. Promise to protect them from those fears and it barely matters what your actual platform is or goals are. Throw in vague promises of their welfare and happyness and that's all you need, it's as old as the Romans. Bread and games. Does that make politicians dumb? Absolutely not. The real question is, are the areas they're educated and proficient in the skills that we want to see in leaders? Is it a good idea that we're led by the most proficient salesmen?

@@Melesniannon i agree with everything except covid's exaggerated protocols. media is suppressing dissenting scientists with legitimate data (and im Not talking about that 'plandemic' movie shit). estimations were wrong from the start, viable emergency protocol strategies were ignored, data suppressed or interpreted differently, and the approach to emergency should not be one-dimensional.

Yes, but he would pick a fight with their own party because both play this game

@@TheGahta Independents:

@@spaghettiisyummy.3623 Apparently they also have something holding them back vOv Though i have no idea if there even are some

@@TheGahta I think that around 3 seats are mandated to be help by independents. But i could be Confusing 2 different Political Systems. Anyways, What's holding independents back from attacking the 2 party System?

@@spaghettiisyummy.3623 Too much to write it here, im sure you find the answers if you look for them, looking as in not just asking random peoples to explain them to you

I agree

@@benivinson3693 I mean, the people who stormed the Capitol were definitely the snowflakiest of snowflakes

yeah very much but chaz/chop is just really funny with the "black people only" areas. don't you just love segregation?!

@@benivinson3693 Except... Those didn't exist?

@@Julianna.Domina google for the following terms: Seattle chaz segregation. It seems twitter suspended the original accounts that presented proof. I'm going to search for the videos.

Well, it *is* true to an extent. The supreme court has the final say in everything that crosses the desk, so in theory, they are the most powerful branch of government. The only limit on them is that someone has to bring a case to them, they can't just pick a law to interpret at will.

@@themaskedkid5266 except Marbury v Madison basically established that they can strike down laws as soon as enacted. That said, it rarely seems that Supreme Court ever does this, but federal judges do it all the time

@@mkostrub Well, if that's the case, then truly the supreme court has the power to thanos snap the whole government if they wanted to

TheMaskedKid yes but because of the checks and balances system the Supreme Court is not all-powerful. They can be brought down if both the President and Congress can agree. There’s this thing called the US constitution that can be changed with Amendments. While the Supreme Court reserves the right to interpret the constitution, if the government curves their power then there is little that they can do to stop it. Also, if for some crazy reason the Supreme Court went full tyrant then they could just impeach them/wait until they die and get new people in. The main point I’m making is while the SC is the most powerful of the branches, they aren’t all-powerful.

Considering that the Brazilian supreme court is the only government branch that has power over the others, and is de facto dictating the country for some years now... Yeah. They are overpowered entities

the nuclear options are looking rather tasty…

The government is devolving exponentially to the point where I wouldn’t be surprised if any of these nuclear options did happen

Dude, he never left

He was never gone... A month between videos is business as usual, quality over quantity. I wonder how idiots like you even find channels like this, you're not the market audience, it's like explaining chemistry to a rock.

Guys chill

@@MuscarV2 Rocks have feelings too.

@@MuscarV2 Chill man I know how he takes forever to make vids. I watch the QnAs. Been watching Grey for forever. It's just a UKposts comment...

Seems like theyre tired of being the adults in every situation.

*_"THIS IS AMERICA"_* 🇺🇸 🦅

Both can be true.

definition of american politics

They mean the same thing Unlike war bird which could mean your anti or pro war Dont ask

The affairs of the City.

Think it says something about our representatives when they only work 1 day in 4, and only for five minutes on that day!

There were a few partisan jabs made. I'm glad you didn't catch them.

@@nooneimportant2787 yeah but there were jabs at both sides kinda like SNL used to be.

What nice is his party are yellow and orange too

There was an artful avoidance.

conservatives be like: waaah waaah people don't like us because we're evil and stupid waaaah!

I’m sure it’s fed up with dealing with idiotic mortals.

@@somemoron9306 is that an intentional pun?

That’s because the Supreme Court are made up of the nine most boring wizards.

The reason they serve for life is because it takes a lot of magical energy to give to the justices in order to be able to do that.

Just uploaded season 1 episode 1 of my comedy cooking show enjoy