The 90's Election That Could Have Changed Everything (And If It Happened) 

please clap...

Clap because all of this is probably the trailer

Someone forgot that Trump can win 2000 election as candidate of reform

Clap for Jeb or he'll clap your cheeks

Clap for me you stupid bastards

One day my kid can proudly say “my dad voted for Kanye.” Here’s lookin at you, kid

@@haloskaterkid I genuinely forgot he even ran for president. Kanye knew it all was a joke

Same

@That Urge what

@@tornn8847 and who could forget presidential candidate Deez Nuts 2016 who in my proud state of North Carolina received 9% of votes. Dads voter savviness is just built different junior ☑️💯

Cool story bro

Damn you're old

@@purest_evilpretty sure she’s a girl since she said she wasn’t a mother at that time

@@UGOISCOOLNOW call everyone bro + Ugo is trash

😂😂 Yeah born in 86, I'm a father NOW,so I support this list👊🏿

I'm pretty doubtful of that. To win he would need a majority in the electoral college. In a 3 person race and as a third party candidate, he would have gotten a plurality at best. That means the house (run by the 2 parties we all "love") would pick the president. Its unfortunate, but he never stood a chance.

Hard to say. He was taking up a lot of oxygen. Bill Clinton was a nobody bystander. It was a lot of Perot hating Bush. How would the Republicans have voted? Would it have allowed Clinton to sneak in the way Wilson snuck in because of the Roosevelt/Taft fight? But the timing of his dropout right when the Dems had their convention gave all that anti- Bush/establishment/Republican anger fully over to Clinton. The election was settled right then. Bush tried, but I think to much damage, with Bill getting a ton unstoppable momentum. Taft-Roosevelt gave us the racist regressive Wilson. Perot not welcomed into the Republican elites giving Slick Willy the White House. John Roberts self-importance, thinking he can keep the Supreme Court neutral (failing miserably repeatedly) calling Obamacare a "tax". Fragile ego John McCain upset Trump called him names and votes to uphold Obamacare in spite. Republicans sure know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Don’t forget his conspiracy theories about the CIA. Also, the SNL skits from that era do a good job of showing how he personally seemed really weird despite the popularity of his proposals.

@@jameslapp554 He was leading by 55% though.

@@jasonkiefer1894 Got to remember also no Perot in 92 then Bush wins 2nd term which changes history. while yes Ross took some votes away from the dems, he took way more away from the pubs costing the pubs the WH. Had Perot not dropped out (which killed any chance he had) Perot could have actually got it.

Yo bro. What is good in your hood?

But Jreg your from Canada

@@youtubewatcher3511 him being from Canada doesn’t exclude him from hating the establishment in Canada, god some of you Americans are so god dame closed minded (countries all around the world have problems with the establishment)

@@kalipsicao790 it wasn’t really meant to be taken seriously

@@youtubewatcher3511 dude it was a post-ironic meta comment duh

Ooh that _is_ a fun fact!

Neat

I am not surprised but I am going to have to fact check that.

He has deemed Bernie worthy to be King of America

Based

Trump was a Democrat back then, he would switch from red to blue several times back in those days.

@red leader's fav dude well if Trump was a Democrat yes he would be treated differently for sure, now the gop and dem hate him so much because they fear him

OPRAH CAN DO *ANYTHING!*

@Robert Ortiz-Wilson Oh absolutely. While the GOP is by no means one united front, they may as well be compared to the fractured mess that the Democratic party is nowadays. In the GOP, you could win over a few key people in the party and most will either follow or at most silently oppose you or just take a shot every now and then. In the Democratic party... They eat their own the moment you disagree. The Dems have no humanity left as far as Im concerned.

@@actuallyrealcover Less he switched and more he stayed the same and the democrats actively moved so far to the left he became a republican

*VERY* *THICC*

W I D E

@@eatinsomtin9984 do this * Insert any word * but dont make the annotation spaced

@@eatinsomtin9984 *THICCY*

stop sexualizing elephants you freaks

LOL

Anarchists: Screw the whole system!

@@zachstutzman4059ana-monkerist: screw

Your right washington hated the party system

if i was president i would unironically ban political parties

As a European i always ask myself : "Why does USA have a two-party system ?" Its ridiculous

@@cgt3704 as an argentinian I can answer that, you don't get a two-party system, the two-party system gets you

@@rockergamer109 mierda que sentí eso

@@cgt3704 first past the post elections, that's why. UK is also basically a two-party system for the same reason. (yes other parties do enter parliament but only Tories and Labour matter (before WW1 it was Liberals in the place of Labour))

@@cgt3704 Exactly, and they always idiotically say: 'We are the best country in the world because we are a democracy'. XD Europe has way better democracies.

Minnesotan here. Ventura was actually not too bad of a governor. I wish he would have put in another couple terms. I still have a Jesse Ventura t shirt from that era that has “my governor can beat up your governor” with a caricature of Jesse from his pro-wrestling days. Lol 😂

@@Pretermit_Sounda governor fight between Ventura and Schwarzenegger would be so fun to watch

@@spookyknife4645 it certainly would 😁

It was. The question is how we get back there.

In my view, the entire world basically shifted when 9/11 happened. Anything pre-9/11 is basically like the stone age to me.

@@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 why?

@@misterbooga6466 well, 9/11 made everyone all sad and scared.

@@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 I guess so. But I don’t think we have any reason to be sad or scared

Really?

@@mitchellrenton6044 Yes. Lincoln first entered into politics as a Whig until it died sometime in the 1850's. The 1860 Election had four candidates: him (Republican), Breckinbridge (Southern Democrat), Douglas (Northern Democrat), and John Bell (Constitutional Party)...

Wassup Mr Beat!

Republicans had already replaced the Whigs in congress for a few years by that point though so not exactly a third party by 1860.

Mr. Beat. Ye, the US wasn't a two party system back then.

It really seems like nobody benefited, in the US OR Mexico, from NAFTA except the rich billionaires

@@belgebelgravia100 Welcome to America

@@belgebelgravia100 the fact that it was Bush that started the NAFTA but it was Clinton who had it going, after beating Bush, shows that it was more about interests from others than for the benefit of the many

Don't worry, Trump dissolved NAFTA.

What are you on about? NAFTA benefitted both the US and Mexico greatly

Republican and democrat voters both probably thought "cool the guy stealing votes from my team won't be around to do that" and just let it go, And real politicians wouldn't care for obvious reasons.

POWerless. THose that can change that are the one in power. It's not that no one stopped to realize. T's that power is held tightly, and those that have it are incentivized to keep their power, and exclude others who would go against his interests

The benefit of the electoral college is that it prevents a tyranny of the majority...although yeah I do recognize that it has lots of problems.

That 19% is not concentrated, it was spread out relatively evenly.

@@kitchenersown The electoral college doesn’t prevent tyranny of the majority at all. Nothing stops Texas, NY, Florida, and California from voting together. It’s just dumb luck that the political situation is as it is, this wasn’t intended when the constitution was written. This is a common misconception with the system

Not really. Trump was always a grifter and opportunist that would say and do anything to get ahead.

Too bad we didnt get this timeline. It would have been great.

He didn’t lose. The republicrats have been fucking us for years.

@@Thor-Orion that same goes for demoncrats right?

@@Thor-Orion Trump literally has ran on all the points Perot made immigration,China bad, NAFTA renegotiated, Tariffs on corporations taking jobs out of America. If you agree with what perot was saying then your blind and Trump literally is Perot .

@@jamesk5541 There is a difference, Perot isn't Trump and like it was said in the video, Trump wasn't like this when he first got in, the party changed him and he became more extremist, Perot could've done much more things different and he probably would've done things different from Trump. All that Trump did was watch and writen down Perot's points and then simply use them to his favor in the 2016 election, Trump wasn't Perot, both are different people, who got elected at different times, at different moments of America.

@@brig2564 perot wasn't elected and Trump wasn't extremist he was a realist and got the point out and did what other Republicans were scarred to do. Aswell as the party didn't change him but if your gonna run under the Republican ticket and support universal healthcare you gonna lose the nomination

Wow! 😧 I can’t believe I’m this early to a AlternateHistoryHub video, let alone early enough to see the emperor himself! 🙇‍♂️

Yeet

Indeed.

Ew a neoliberal

But Cody, Ross Perot winning the election would be impossible due to the first past the post system, dragging votes from whatever party it had more ideals with, and let the opposition with different ideals to win a super majority

Perot had a lot of things going for him, but when he dropped out of the race at the height of his popularity, that was his death knell. The fact that he got 20% of the vote after showing everyone that he wasn't completely committed to the job is honestly a bit bad ass.

The worst part is he turned out to be absolutely right about our future.

He was definitely a better populist than a fake one.

So do you respect Bloomberg the same way?

@@wyvernlord23 Kinda, I guess? Tbh, Michael Bloomberg was never much on my radar. But I remember Perot's infomercials.

Love how Animaniacs is relevant again.

All of reality stands on the shoulders of Animaniacs. We need to face that truth

@@the_man_emperor_of_mankind it always has

I'd vote for The Brain to be president.

Which also means we shouldn’t have see him with the sax in this video’s thumbnail.

Was he not joking at his own expense?

@@Delightfully_Bitchy I don’t think he intended the comment to be self deprecating. Although he immediately laughed it off, he seemed genuinely disappointed that he had chosen that particular phrase-since so many in the media had made the size of his ears a major talking point.

_"All Boats Rise with the Tide"_ was mine.

Canada has a healthcare!

@@Cjnw A really crappy healthcare. Oh I know all about it. I broke a bone in Canada and thanks to their WONDERFUL healthcare system, they refused to see me in a timely manner, which it turns out I desperately needed, as the blood supply to the bone was cut off and it died after about 2 days (avascular necrosis). Thanks to Canada. A CIVILIZED country with CIVILIZED healthcare could have treated me.

"Where is the Executive Order? Well, look under the seat because I GOT SOMETHING FOR YOU!"

@@medexamtoolsdotcom Lies

@@lordgemini2376 I had to be amputated because of falling 20 feet into a fire gorge. I broke one of my legs and the lower leg bone shot up through my leg and into my hip, and then I got 3red degree burns on my lower half. They did not see me till 4 hours after I arrived, so I lost more than I should've.

Too bad we couldn't have had some sort of Jesse Ventura/Ron Paul fusion campaign at some point after the year 2000. Jesse's time has come and gone, but I feel like the only way a third party/independent candidate could ever win has to have some status and stature.

@@bullmoosemedia that wouldn't work. Jesse Ventura would just choke the shit out of Ron Paul. Jesse was centrist leftist. Ron Paul is a libertarian republican....bout as far right as Goldwater. They agree on just about nothing.

The Reform Party really was like a jreg video then....

@@michealmcneal2259 they don’t like war

@@michealmcneal2259 That is not true. Both want to end the wars. Both want to end the drug war... There are a lot more similarities out there but I am tired.... True populists actually agree more than they disagree. It is just a shame the other half they disagree on is unacceptable...to the other side.

its Nazi

@@metalfalcon4254 Nope. In trying to distract people who might be Nazis, YT just showed how much they were _themselves_ Nazi-esque.

Im at least 30 years younger than you and for the comments I deduce almost all have like 5 or 10 years more than me, so I would say that you rigth

I also voted for Perot in '92.

yeeeep...I was 3 years old at the time, and there's a fair chance that the majority of his viewership was born in the 2000s.

I also voted in the 1992 election; it was the second presidential election I was qualified to vote in.

@Eli Wilson I was negative 11

I still might not have supported him, though, if he didn't have a robust climate plan. And I don't know if he would be as divisive or not in the way he goes about things.

@jp two party systems, sadly

Perot was far from Trump...Perot had actual policy ideas.

Trump had horrible ideas before he ran in 2016.

Trump would still be a narcissistic asshole, but rather than buying adulation via xenophobia and pushing hatred, he'd buy it by actually helping Americans? I'd wear a MAGA hat for that.

Nafta is what really fucked america. We chose corporate money over our own people

yeah, i wasn't expecting that reference either lol

Dare I ask who or what "jreg" is?

@@louisduarte8763 He is a weird political RU-vidr, I can’t really describe it but look his channel up.

@@louisduarte8763 just look for his channel

@@louisduarte8763 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-b2BZyD7HdW0.html&ab_channel=Jreg

Harry Browne was pretty good

For many years, I kinda assumed Perot was libertarian (i.e. fiscally conservative and socially liberal).

​@Mike H When I think of extremist libertarianism, I think of ancaps. You know, more like Timothy McVeigh and less like Anders Breivik.

@@knightwing5169 That is more accurate. You could also think of Ansocs, though they're less common.

@@shahrikamin4699 ansoc as in anarcho socialists?

My wife and I think we need to draw names out of a hat to get our legislators and executives. It can't be much worse than we have now.

@@grantjohnson5785 careful what you say, you might jinx it. Still, not a bad idea.

@@nathanfish1998 There'd be some qualifications. It's still fairly rough, but here's the idea: 1. Single terms in each position only; no career politicians in that regard. 2. While you serve, your normal job is held for you, just like for jury duty. While you serve, your salary is the same as you earned at home, though with a modest stipend for housing in the state/federal capital as needed, transportation, staff, etc. 3. You can refuse any position you feel is beyond your ability, or that you do not desire. 4. Additional qualifications are necessary for certain positions, for example: MD to be coroner, JD to be an elected prosecutor, defender, or judge, engineering degree to be a county engineer, etc. 5. You have to serve in local/county gov't first. For your name to go in that "hat" you need to be 18 and have high school diploma or the equivalent, IQ of at least 95 (so at least "average"), and no felony record (even as a juvenile). 6. After you've served in local gov't, your constituents vote on your performance. If you have a job performance >50%, your name goes into the state "hat". Minimum IQ requirement goes up by 5 as well. (You can retest at any time.) 7. After you've served in state gov't, your constituents vote on your performance. If you have a job performance >50%, your name goes into the US House "hat". 8. After you've served in the US House, your constituents vote on your performance. If you have a job performance >60%, your name goes into the Senate "hat" 5 years after you leave office; same process for going from Senate to POTUS/VP. 9. Judges follow a parallel system; local to state to federal. SCOTUS, once selected, remain for life but have their job performance evaluated every 5 years. Any with job performance

Yeah iv been voting 3rd party for a few terms now. Dems and republicans are completly incompetent

*Proportional Representation.* Not only for US but also for the UK. First-Past-The-Post gave them Brexit, gave US Trump. Lesson Learned? Not for two countries who are too in love with Horse Races as Elections where _everybody_ loses.

Very cool

Fun fact: Opra can do ANYTHING

That is a fun fact

Except it was basically just a splinter party broken off from a specific faction of the Republicans and all it really did was deliver the election to Woodrow Wilson. Much like Ross Perot's run only really succeeded in handing off the election to Bill Clinton.

@@Monsuco Perot wasn't a spoiler for any one candidate. He drew votes from everybody as he appealed to moderates across the political spectrum. Clinton won a) because H. W. just wasn't popular anymore and b) because HE drew votes from Perot at the last minute by throwing a bone to some of his proposals.

If Theodore Roosevelt did win in 1912, we would have likely seen the GOP enter a era of decline like the Liberals did in England. The Republicans would be a weird kinda Liberal mainly popular in New England & upstate New York, some Western farming communities and the Jello belt. With the Progressives replacing them as the leading left of center party. Roosevelt would still probably go into World War 1 at some point and we may have joined the league of Nations. But perhaps after the chaos of post war America, a Northern democrat would win in 1920 on a platform of normalcy like the Republicans did in 1920 as well and more or less American political life would play out the same as it did OTL with the Progressives being the main Liberal party and the Democrats being more or less dominated by Southern conservatives. With maybe the Republicans being a a radical centrist alternative like a larger more complement version of the libertarians.

Except in the way that proves horseshoe theory

Maybe the war on terror would have began a decade before

I can tell you already that if the 93 bombing were successful, since the terrorists' intention was to have one of the towers fall onto the other, bringing them both down and all over Lower Manhattan, and given that the the North Tower was 1,368ft (not counting it's antenna mast) and the South Tower was just very slightly shorter at 1,362ft, the amount of damage and death this would've caused all over Lower Manhattan would be MUCH worse than what we got on 9/11, how much worse is up for debate.

@@dentonscheibal3 Well, first, no one would be able to evacuate, since it would be almost instantly, so all people in both towers would be effectively lost. Add a couple of buildings full of people, and yeah, easily double the amount of people dead.

@@Saiyan0X 50,000 people worked in both towers. It could’ve easily exceeded 20,000 deaths if done on a busy work day

@@BradyBadlyAnimates It was a Friday and 1217 local , so neither the busiest day and timed to when those that take lunch at all would have been at lunch. But not just office workers would be dead, there would have been some tourists as well.

True, I support Trump (as long as he doesnt betray his principles anyway) as of now but what a shock. I already knew that Trump was far more of a 90's democrat/paleo-con (my knowledge on these terms is limited honestly) than neo-con but what a change of policy he made he made from the 90's to now. Maybe we would even avoid the clusterfuck that is the 2020 election and the media would be less biased, which would certainly make America less divided (which is good).

@@anelbegic2780 yup I wish the media wouldn’t separate Americans because we are all Americans in the end we all want the best for this country it doesn’t matter if the opposite side won because In the end we will be fine

Uh, no; it would just be any run of the mill alternate universe; it would in no way be the horror that is the Mirror Universe. In fact, it's closer that our world is slowly turning to become the Mirror Universe; the Globalists are eager to institute a global tyranny, that can easily turn into an empire.

@@anelbegic2780 hey if Trump passed universal healthcare, a single payer system, I’d get on boadd

Funny you should mention that. I want to write a very funny story about The reason behind not letting certain universes be aware of other universes. The bare bones of the story is this: “At one point during our travels through alternate universes, We happened upon a universe which had experienced the alternate historical events needed for Alaska to have been owned by Russia, its resources utilized almost exclusively by them. We were able to see many amazing things during our time in the universe. Version of call of the wild written by Leo Tolstoy. Memorials to the fallen Romanov dynasty. Inuit natives able to converse with the public at large and each other in perfect Russian. Russian orthodox churches adorning the skyline of Anchorage. It truly was most beautiful. We were amazed by how such a tiny event could do so many interesting things to a region, and to American history at large, until one day we made the mistake of telling another universe what we saw. Everyone was quite intrigued until we made the mistake of letting it slip that, for the lack of money acquired by the Klondike Gold Rush, Transsouth Legacy, his businesses, indeed his presidency has been removed from history. Realizing that there was a universe in which Donald Trump was never important enough to be anything, people began to travel to that universe on mass, effectively emptying their own universe of any and all Democratic voters. This intern, cost for a major inbalance in this universe in political circles, causing a persistent and perpetuating one party government to remain in effect to this day.”

frankly i wish all parties to be abolished and just have candidates run on their policies alone instead of platforms

@@OlEgSaS32 The reason that will never happen is that they do not have enough confidence that people will donate as much as they do fired up for one party or another.

@@OlEgSaS32 then only millionaires could run since parties also fund candidates.

@@ohiotoledo3787 i know, i know, i just wish we didnt structure our political system like that, they need money for ads, rallies, etc or else they would absolutely be lost in the void to everyone, and that shouldnt be, but it is what it is

With first past the post voting if a third party brute-forced their way in it would just end up knocking one of the others out. We have to change to something like ranked choice voting for us to actually have a chance to have more parties.

He and his family was threatened repeatedly so I totally get it....

@@bullmoosemedia Should not have taken those threats seriously.Even if he was killed,a whole new era would begin,with new parties.People would come to understand that the democrats and republicans have monopolised everything and would not anyone interfere in their war for power.Perot tried to but as you said,gave up.Had he not dropped either he would be president or a nation hero.If the latter happened,l expect an anti establishment revolution would happen and the 2 party system would be gone.

@@bullmoosemedia I get why he did it, but afterwards there was no way that people would trust him to stay the course the next time things got tough. It's pretty common for powerful politicians to get death threats. It's not pretty, but it's the way the game is played, and if he couldn't handle it he honestly shouldn't have run in the first place.

@@albanian_barcelona_fan I am not sure if you are on a fever dream or not but most likely none of that would have happen if he was killed as many people saw him as buying his way towards it and even if the 2 parties we currently have ,2 other will take their place not matter what it be the lion and tiger parties as having 2 parties is pretty engrained into the american system.

Nah Biden become candidate plus he was smart that republicans was angry becouse Obama that used them for support

Eh it's more how cultural war can go. Bush's presidency started this crap, Obama's feed it and Trump himself just made it a permanent cancer. The only people winning right now are preformance activist who get to pretend they are doing shit while we are burn under a Neoliberal hell.

People seem to forget that Trump was actual a liberal Democrat until 2008 because of his Obama hate. As the video points out, he was actually, pro-gun control, pro-universal healthcare. He was however and still is an asshole. It would be great if someone could make a video of 2000 Trump debating 2020 Trump.

@@bullmoosemedia Yeah, honestly all this just feeds my theory that Donald has had some degree of mental degradation since the early 2000's, and the parts of him that had some level of decency have just been eroded away.

@@bullmoosemedia is crazy how one person basicly destroyed everything to make a rise A madman whose nobady expected and change one party forever (Obama )

The world that was meant to be

Still longing for Jebruary

Galactic Overlord Jeb Bush

Was that the one where Jeb Bush became Emperor of Mankind

@@FlyingAlfredoSaucer yes.

I STRONGLY DISAGREE! Being as famous as I am on RU-vid, I know that it gets hard to read every comment I get. I try my best, but I am just so famous, that I can't do it much longer. Sorry, dear aeja

And thus he finally achieves his ultimate dream, as the whole galaxy claps for him

Emperor of Mankind you mean

So the only difference is that Jeb becomes God emperor 24 years earlier?

@@AxxLAfriku I just scrolled through your channel for a few seconds. You are somehow everything that's wrong with the modernday, the personification of 2007 internet, and have the talent of a rage comic.

Same with my mom. She heard him speak at an event in my hometown back in '91 or '92.

Both of my folks.

Same here, even though my mom always voted for the Democratic candidate otherwise. And I really don't think it was impossible for Ross Perot to have won. If his campaign had picked up momentum, and had had no setbacks, he could have gained 25% of of popular opinion, then leading to 35% or maybe 40% (as much as Lincoln won) by Election Day, and still won the Electoral College.

@@benpholmes His campaign had momentum and was leading all polls until he pulled out. When he reentered the race he never regained the lead in the polls. Clinton was elected with a plurality, not a majority, of the vote.

@@davidrox4591 Exactly. Although honestly I didn't remember Perot actually being ahead in the polls, but that was a long time ago and I was barely paying attention back then. So I definitely think Cody is wrong to say that there's no way Perot ever could have won.

Yeah. I mean that's how the relevant parties change. FPF just can't accommodate three parties for long

Or perhaps a full on election reform would destroy Republicans and Democrats for good and create multiple European style parties.

@@ostrobothnian9995 most of Europe has only 2 major parties its just their third party have more influence

@@dustinobrien7970 Actually UK is pretty much only country in europe (and atleast EU) with non multi-party system

Or if the Reform Party actually managed to find the center between the Republicans and Democrats and get the same amount of voters from both parties there could have been a strange one party system where one centrist mega party swallowed up anyone moderate enough to pose it any challenge. Very unlikely but interesting to imagine.

Very nice! Is what.

this should be a HOI4 mod

We won't have COVID since Borat's boss wouldn't get mad. Also, Rudy Guiliani could have sexy time with reporters in hotels without anyone knowing.

He was set to win and all... Until he dropped out

We need a populist fusion party.

It would still be a long shot, but yes a chance

And considering that he dropped out on something never proven, it’s quite possible that there were scandals of his we never saw

AltHistoryHub has been a sub since the start of Centricide, at least.

It's time to Jreg. Lets Jreg, everybody!

100th like

I think Alternate History Hub has commented on a few of his recent videos.

Cody's even one of Jreg's Patreon members.

He could use his billions to threaten to unseat anyone who opposed his agenda with attack ads in the midterms

If he'd won then they'd give him the Trump treatment. That's how the establishment deals with outsiders.

*Tips fedora*

I’m pretty sure he even supports Jreg on patreon too, surprised they haven’t collaborated

I like your parents xD

If only he was still the same.

1. ✔ healthcare should be privatized 2. No it's counter productive 3. ✔ not on appearance but rather on performance and ammo 4. No, why?

"Assualt Weapons" is a bullshit term, and all gun control is bullshit as well, but I can take the rest.

@joke card agreed, I support Trump but if he actually said that seriously and meant it, what a fucking brainfart did he have to think of such an good idea?

@@angushughes5371 honestly though I need to ask what does a person need an assault weapon for exactly Hunting I get and protection(like something basic) I can agree with but why that?

Ah the Moose!

Bully, a challenge I love competition!

@@zachstutzman4059 a man of culture I see

And only goes to show that we're stuck with trickle down economic and the oligarchy. Who was the last presidential candidate from either party that advocated for Demand side economics? Both parties prevent change, and keep funneling up the wealth with Trickle down economics.

@@abeertariq1051 Supply Side Economics is not Trickle Down Economics. If you believe it is, then you have been mislead.

@@CaliMeatWagon supply side economics isn't worth bringing up because we've never implemented it in the way the theorists proposed. As I said in another comment, Reagan used it to enrich the rich. We need Demand side economics.

Interesting to see, but I really doubt that he would have actually implemented those policies, even back then.

Fr Im like based Trump wtf

That would be interesting since he is deceased.

@@Scrapmanluke1 yeah I think he meant in 2016 or he's just not searching much up

Maybe not. RP was just too brash, harsh for the general public. I liked him but he was like a neighbor everyone knew was aloof but nice.

@@DavidLLambertmobile so basically like trump

2016 would be the best

Man we have been feeling the burn for a while

@you're in mandomI mean, at the very least, he is running as a Democrat, which at least gives him a much better shot at presidency than third party. Also, no one plans to lose, there still might've been a chance for Bernie if Warren had just dropped out and endorsed him before super tuesday.

@you're in mandom Indeed

@you're in mandom Ah yes, the man who tried to reform policy so a gfc could never happen again shills for the establishment. If you hate compromise and don't believe in anything ever getting done, go vote greens.

"before Bernie was a thing" I wonder who else like him we missed out on?

That is precisely why I hate it when people don't watch the debates or do any sort of independent research on candidates and then say "hurrr, I just voted the party line". Seriously, you have no idea how many people I yelled 'BAAAA' at, reminding them that party line voters are nothing more than sheeple.

​@@SonicSlicer While it was probably less important in 92, in 2021 voting for a moderate candidate is complete idiocy. Unless you literally just want the reds to win, you vote blue, because party loyalty is such that the red president will always work in red interests, it barely matters what they actually say. Besides, its the difference between the utter psycopaths and the uncaring corporatists, theres never going to be a choice when your "choice" is to get the bad to win, or allow the much much worse to win. Also, Your vote doesnt mean shite mate. He got 19% of the popular vote and dick in the house. Why? Because its always going to be that way. He could have gotten 60% and the house still wouldnt have allowed him to be president.

I have an original 1922 Morgan silver dollar coin, just like Harvey's. Pretty kool. Use it to flip as my lucky coin

@@backwoodsjunkie08 Just don't get half your face burnt off or get involved in the political climate of a crime ridden city, and things will turn out fine.

It is so interesting to hear Trump’s liberal policies too. How times have change.

Many of said policies are still alive But you wouldn't hear that with 93% negative coverage. Going as far as to push conspiracy theories like Russia for 3 years I mean you haven't realized? The man could cure cancer single-handedly and the Media would scream how Cancer is good and he's a racist sexist blah blah blah for curing it

@@commisaryarreck3974 Even if what he believed back then is still something he believes, the "93% negative coverage" is honestly deserved. I keep hearing "If he cured cancer single-handedly people would still hate him! If he saved Obama's life people would still hate him! If he solved world hunger people would still hate him-" NO. Look, you can't say any of that because he *Hasn't cured cancer single-handedly.* And even if he was physically capable, he likely wouldn't give it to anyone because he cares more about money than the people. People constantly call him racist, misogynistic, scammy, demented, scummy, greedy, xenophobic, etc etc *because he is.* He's done a FEW good things, maybe, but most of the good stuff he's done is actually just stuff he stole credit for from other politicians and previous presidents. Even if he has done a few things, that doesn't change the fact that he's ruined and indirectly ended hundreds of lives. Hitler did some good things - he's still Hitler.

@@maxtube1952 So you think Trump would've remained unpopular even if he implemented more socially liberal policies? Idk about that but he'd probably be less divisive about it had he become more centrist-ish during his reign.

@@ArcturusOTE Maybe, maybe not. All I know is he's a horrible president, pathetic businessman and just generally really...dull. The fact that people defend him still, knowing these things, is ludicrous to me. I don't care for what could've been - this is who he is.

Unless your England than you have the Queen

​@@phoenixrising4995 sad that this is the first thing that came to your mind, because the UK has a real interesting thing going on with its party system. true, only two parties have won government in the past century (Conservatives and Labour) but they constantly have little fires lit under them by the many other parties that get elected. the Liberal Democrats, the traditional third party, won enough seats in 2010 that they got to actually be in government. the Scottish Nationalists have slowly gained support starting in the 70s or 90s to the point that they got that independence referendum in 2014. they lost that one, but to this day they have most of the Scottish seats in Westminster. not to mention that in 2015, UKIP siphoned enough votes from the Conservatives that they got a referendum in 2016 about the UK's status in the European Union. _Brexit happened because of a third party._

Actually, Denmark is a multiparty coalition system. The Danish constitution states that no political party can hold more than 2% of the total available seats in the Foketing (Danish version of congress). It is entirely possible. That whole math thing is a cop out. The whole reason why our two party system is so entrenched here in the US is due entirely to the existence of the electoral college. It is literally a self imposed system. It won't change because all the people in power benefit from it and most of the rest of the masses just blindly accept it.

@asuka lamely Given the absolute state of the community, hopefully not

@asuka lamely True, but this is a community where someone has made a hoodie with a Nazi war criminal on it . Plus Cody had problems when he did the Kaiserreich video.

What is TNO?

@@MatanVil The new order: last days of Europe . It's a mod for the strategy gamer hearts of iron 4 and it's set in an alternate 1962 with a cold war between Japan, Germany and the USAm

@@MatanVil universe where Germany won WW2, known for being very critical of fascism and showing it's horrors in a very eye opening way

I voted for him in 96

He likely would have been a bad president.

@@kordellswoffer1520 I disagree. Why would you say that? Have you read about him sending in his cavalry to take his staff in Iran, overland, out of harms way just before the Iranian hostage crisis? Yes, he did even go over himself at some risk, no doubt, there was a book written about it. Hiliary Clinton was your foreign secretary at the time, she could not, or would not, see the danger to the U.S embassy staff, they were held hostage for a long, long time. I do believe Ross Perot may well have been the best president you never had. Were you around at that time? A very difficult chapter for the U.S.A.

@@open-minded-oldie him sending people to Iran is meaningless as it pertains to be a president and Hillary has little to do with the conversation. He would have been a bad president because he be ineffective and ubable to get his agenda done because he's not part of any main party and his agenda itself is bad and would make him a bad president. America would have been better served from another Reagan presidency and he was suffering from early on set dementia.

@@kordellswoffer1520 That"s interesting. To me, getting his workers out of Iran before the hostage crisis, it showed he cared about his staff. It says a lot about his character. That is worth it"s weight in gold for a mans integrity, plus, the most important part---------- they all ended up in a place of safety, so it was a success. Surely an able man is better than an incompetant one? I only mention Hiliary to make the point about his ability to get important things done, having forseen problems. When i say "The Cavalry" i did not mean U.S troops. Yes, you are probably right about him trying to get various laws passed with great difficulty but i don"t feel his agenda was bad.

He still is more (although obiously less than in the 90's and 2000's) moderate than he let on in his 2016 run before he became president if you can cut through the crap the media was printing about him and actually get to what "he" was saying. In fact, he tried to impliment a few policies Cody mentioned in the video during his run as president was told no by mostly the democrats and media, but also the republicans sometimes as well.

Trump shifted from wanting to tax the 1% to cutting the 1% taxes. At it's core, the republican party is focussed on helping the already rich, everything else is secondary. I actually feel like he was used by the republicans to get their tax cuts and reduced consumer, environment and personal protections through. Notice how the only major policy he passed in the first 2 years was a tax cut for the wealthy? That's on purpose.

@@letsburn00 So basically he was a tool used to serve R and its backers' interests. Gee I wonder what happens if somehow in 2016 he won as third party or even D?

@@ArcturusOTE Pretty much. Trump is largely driven by his ego. That actually can be a positive thing if your heart and information is good. The best Australian prime minister in the last 20 yrs was famously a massive egotistical asshole. He got removed by his own party after 2 years. It was claimed because he was an asshole, but really it was because he actually fought entrenched interests and people with their noses at the trough on both sides of politics wanted him gone, so a good chunk of the corperate media were totally hostile. But in the end, it looks like he was basically 100% right. Sadly, Trump appears to be very easily manipulated by his advisers and the right wing media. His main stupider aspects of policy look to me more like "forwards from grandma" stuff that he doesn't know it's nonsense. But he's still the president, the buck stops with him. He has no one to blame but himself for hiring bad advisers and taking bad advice.

@@letsburn00 which pm?

He did. Remember the Republican Primary debates? Guys like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio heavily criticized Trump for his previous leftist policies as well as his friendships with some Democrats. To be honest, Trump’s policies changed for the better though.

@@bjehulk facts

@@bjehulk "Changed for the better" How can people unironically think this? If trump stuck with his 2000 run platform, I might have even considered voting for him. He abandoned everything great in favor of the southern strategy.

Which of course assumes he was honest about it - guy's a habitual liar after all.

Trump has seriously been screwed over in terms of policy by the fact that he had to run as a Republican. I still think he would push in public healthcare if he could hes just "not allowed" to do it. He should have turned against the Republican establishment after being elected and built up his own party over the past 4 years

To be honest if Bernie want it to he could implode the dems with making a 3rd party candidacy and that was going to be very interesting. I honestly would have loved to see debate between him and trump than biden.

i actually believe that if Bernie got the nomination there would be a split in the democratic party between the progressives and moderates. handing trump a landslide victory similar tot he Taft vs Teddy vs Wilson election

@@thelifeofcal7193 there wasn’t exactly a strong centrist candidate available to step into the ring for Moderate Dems. Joe Biden? Pfffff

@@thelifeofcal7193 plus they were pretty obsessed with getting rid of Trump as well, lowering the likelihood of that significantly

@@everhall306 i dont think they'd go as far as to vote for a socialist. most democrats are not like that

We're Animaniacs!

*China*

@@cranjusmcbasketball2052 yeah i'm pretty sure he did her too.

Hell yeah Bill Clinton gets Impeached for lying under oath!

There’s bologna in our slacks

He's starting a new channel called Pointless Hub for "reviews, nostalgia shit, game shit. Talk about topics like. Goofy Movie. Spyro. Jojo. 90s Disaster Movies. Musicals." -and also there's shitpost hub but shh nobody knows about that-

@@artistwithouttalent Hmm?

@@themadkraken1912 Tldr he has a new channel for miscellaneous talk

Political Compass Memes is where politics goes to die. Any time you visit that subreddit your IQ drops by 2 points.

I was just thinking this same thing. I think he would have done much better had he not dropped out

I imagine that's how he could win. He wins enough states and swings enough votes that no one wins the Electoral College, so it goes to the House Delegates who decide to choose a third-party.

@@TheOtherWhiteNerd The house wouldn't choose a third party, unless enough seats in the house are won by the reform party/independents and cause no one to have a "states" majority in the house.

@@TheOtherWhiteNerd Democrats have a majority in delegation in 92 so Clinton

@@TheOtherWhiteNerd Even if butterfly effects also cause the Democrats to fall below slightly below majority of the required 26 state delegations, Clinton still wins even if it takes two or three rounds. It would have been much easier to swing deadlocked state delegations Clinton's way than Bush' in January 1993.