Voters should know that Sam from Wendover will take this country in a positive direction by implementing subsidies for rail travel and masonry.

@planefan082

Жыл бұрын

*and planes, probably

@redbirb

Жыл бұрын

I think Half As President is better!

@darkwing3713

Жыл бұрын

@@redbirb Half a President is better then one President!

@darkwing3713

Жыл бұрын

I'm in.

@soundscape26

Жыл бұрын

Planes is more his thing. 😄

I love that, even after the brick special videos, HAI is still committed to the bricks

@redbirb

Жыл бұрын

I wonder if when he gets into office if we'll all get free bricks

@zeruzio1345

Жыл бұрын

@@redbirb If I don't get a free brick, Sam WILL get a free brick. This is a threat.

@aresivrc1800

10 ай бұрын

That brick ad killed me 😁

Once more the funny internet man blesses us with confused happiness for a few minutes

@BentleyBohemian_96

Жыл бұрын

Npc

@admiralfluffy42

Жыл бұрын

yes

@waynejohnson1786

Жыл бұрын

@@BentleyBohemian_96 “Npc” 🤓

@reginaldwang6980

Жыл бұрын

0:48 4u😊1😮😊😮1

Glad you’re announcing your political campaign for 2024 at last. I support your plan for universal Corollas

@jessehammer123

Жыл бұрын

A brick in every pot.

@EebstertheGreat

Жыл бұрын

Dismayed at the decline of brickmaking skills, Sam is forced to run for office on a ticket based on improving the quality of American bricks. Instead of protectionism, he advocates improvements to international brickmaking standards, both for tighter tolerances and for greater compliance enforced by the brick police. Sam will be the chief of the brick police, a job he has always dreamed of, I assume.

@FlyingExplorer2022

Жыл бұрын

Can he run for 2028? In 2024 trump will be back in office

@Alex-np3ps

Жыл бұрын

As long as it's not the Corolla Cross

@spicychad55

Жыл бұрын

@@FlyingExplorer2022 trump wont make it to 2024 he said HAI can do 2024

Political corruption is a constitutional right

@AnimeMemesz

Жыл бұрын

Can never expect anyone to self govern with this kind of power. They will never vote against there own interests.

@Azurethewolf168

Жыл бұрын

No it’s a natural right

@deleted-something

Жыл бұрын

Fr

@the0ne809

Жыл бұрын

You can thank the supreme court

@F.R.E.D.D2986

Жыл бұрын

It's the only thing accomplished when in power

Just wanna clarify at 1:05 that they weren’t approving super PACs. They had existed before, and the Citizens United decision just upheld their legality (conditionally)

@pierrecurie

Жыл бұрын

This is USA, so legal + "frowny face" = good enough

The backronym at 2:09 is absolutely perfect. Go off, Sam and the rest of the HAI staff.

I would just like to thank you for using examples from both parties. It would have been extremely easy, with a topic like this, to cherry-pick and make it seem like it's really only one side that heavily utilizes these tricks, and I highly respect you for not falling for the temptation to do so.

@oliver7496

Жыл бұрын

Republicans and Democrats; two sides of the same coin.

@carlwheezer623

Жыл бұрын

Yea it’s almost like that’s why we watch Sam 😂

@andrewharrison8436

Жыл бұрын

@@oliver7496 Spelling: you put an extra "i" in your last word.

@jeffbenton6183

Жыл бұрын

I wish I could like this comment twice. Hopefully my reply will help you with the algorithm

@DiThi

Жыл бұрын

Both parties are pro-corporate. On the topic of campaign finance both are terrible... for major candidates. But there's an important difference when you look at the candidates that don't have super PACs. The kind of candidates that would be in their own party if the USA wasn't a first-past-the-post voting system.

I wrote a paper on this a while back. Another thing he doesn't mention, if I remember correctly, is that if you are a shareholder of a company that gives money to a super PAC, that company does not need to disclose that. Nor to the rest of the public, giving big corporations an easy way to control politics in their favor, rather than ours.

@josephwodarczyk977

6 ай бұрын

That's horrible and shady.

4:48 nice to see President Bartlet and Senator Vinicks consulting guy is still getting work

Careful Sam, if I see your name on a ballot I'm voting for you.

@imveryangryitsnotbutter

Жыл бұрын

You can vote for him even if his name isn't on the ballot. Submit his name as a write-in candidate.

@theexcaliburone5933

Жыл бұрын

@@imveryangryitsnotbutter PSA: please do not do this Also your name is amazing

@sion8

Жыл бұрын

​@@theexcaliburone5933 Why not?

@osdever

Жыл бұрын

@@theexcaliburone5933 It's not illegal. The worst that could happen is you'd waste your vote because Sam 1. is obviously not going to win and 2. isn't registered as a write-in candidate

@theexcaliburone5933

Жыл бұрын

@@osdever I’m not saying it’s illegal, and yeah go ahead of you want, I’m just overly terrified of the concept of splitting the vote

Bruno Gianelli is a great West Wing Easter Egg

@giangallo

Жыл бұрын

Joey Lucas would've been a better one tho

Can we do like they do in England where Political Candidates are only allowed a set amount dolled out by the gov't and advertising is extremely limited, PAC's are not allowed to exist, and debating only happens in the weeks immediately before election so that everyone running has equal and fair opportunity of winning, rather than it being a game about who has the bigger wallet.

@ashaffold

Жыл бұрын

Dunno, sounds like communism to me!

@AdleisioCefnforDolphin

Жыл бұрын

@@ashaffold Communism is an economic theory, like Capitalism, like Socialism. Our political system is a Democratic Republic, but you can have heavily skewed socialist state that is Democratic Republic, and you can have a highly capitalistic state that is also Democratic Republic. Last I checked, the UK's system for electing officials to office is not part of a single economic or political theory. It is like how your taxes pay for any other government program, like the CIA, the FBI, Public Schools, Firefighters, Local Police, etc. (Also, these public services that government offers for FREE, paid for by taxes is thanks to Socialism, just to keep that in mind.) But instead of having a multimillionaire running for office and winning simply because they have money to waste, by making a government fund for running candidates, you are now making it so that someone's wealth is no longer a factor in determining electoral outcomes. You as a voter will now have to actually care about what a candidates running platform is, and THEY will also have to make a platform to run with, rather than just going "MAGA MAGA MAGA" without really defining what that means for people. It forces both the candidates and the voters to care more about who they are electing and why. So it prevents candidates from BS'ing their way into office, which I would think most everyone would want. Wouldn't you agree that having a politician who actually care for the position more than just the title or the money it would make them would be a good thing right? Politicians are like underwear, you should change them often so they don't get stale.

@MuchWhittering

Жыл бұрын

The problem, of course, is that breaking the rules leads to 0 consequences. It was proven by the Electoral Commission that Vote Leave broke the rules in the EU Referendum, and precisely nothing was done about it.

@AdleisioCefnforDolphin

Жыл бұрын

@@MuchWhittering this doesn't surprise me. Like....the rules are more to keep honest people honest and be an attempt to level things as much as possible. The US politics cycle is so far out of whack though. Like, it is now less about the sort of platform you have, or the things you want to change, and it has turned into a mud throwing contest to some degree and become more about who has the most money to spend on ads rather than having good values, looking out for your constituents, etc. Some people still do vote for their constituents in Congress, but it is so much fewer and far between, so many are more interested in pushing their personal ideals rather than looking at what their people want. Like no system is perfect, it just feels the US system is just so prone to being abused because of the lack of regulation on it.

@djshumoomoo4075

10 ай бұрын

​@@AdleisioCefnforDolphingoddman you missed the joke hard as hell

Cool, now I hate politicians even more that I did five and a half minutes ago.

@vyros.3234

Жыл бұрын

Politicians are just citizens with higher ambitions

@mrbanana6464

Жыл бұрын

@@vyros.3234 But they usually serve the interests of the rich

Going from true love to campaign finance, only on an hai video

The "all comms should be publicly available" one at least ends up causing some transparency

@InventorZahran

Жыл бұрын

That's like trying to forbid high schoolers from snogging in restroom stalls. If they can't do it in private, they'll just do it in public! Now everyone can see that they're doing it, but no one can really stop them from accomplishing their goal. /s

@jplayzow

Жыл бұрын

​@@InventorZahranWe should all at least see who's fucking us over and how

"Joe money, Joe problems" Still laughing

HAI be like „you know what lets expose the goverment” every month

Thank you for explaining this! I'm not American but I have heard a lot about PACs and super PACs for years and I have had literally no idea what they were or why they were. Now I know! Incredible! Let's see what information about my own country's politics this replaces in my head :)

HAI is the channel that answers that one random question you searched up for then answers questions you never asked for the rest of time

I liked the ad transition and callback so much I watched the ad just to give you your due. Good job Sam.

Using tweets to get around the candidate and PAC not communicating law was discussed in The Good Wife.

So the FEC could change the rule wording from “directly communicate” to “directly or indirectly communicate” and everything would be solved?

@boosterh1113

10 ай бұрын

I know I am a bit late, but that wouldn't work. Both PACs and political candidates have to make public statements, it is a core part of their respective functions. So, since their statements are public, it is impossible to prevent each of them from reading the other party's public statements, and "reacting to the situation." I mean, regarding the "redbox" stuff that Sam talked about, in Canada, we don't have PACs or anything like them, but it is still common to see politicians issue statements like "I want to show young people XYZ" or "I want to say to new Canadians that ABC," because that is just a legitimately useful way to communicate your message to a particular group. Likewise, it is very common for various newspapers and polling agencies to put out analysis articles saying that "if candidate X wants to win, they need to focus on X message and Y demographic, and tone down their focus on Z, because it isn't helping them." It would be difficult to the point of impossibility to legally distinguish between indirect communication and legitimate advocacy/campaigning/journalism. And, if you are willing to violate the 1st Amendment to the point of hamstringing a candidate in an election from campaigning, you would be better off just banning PACs in the first place, because it would be simultaneously more effective and less of a violation of the 1st Amendment.

I remember Stephen Colbert Super PAC he created on his show "The Colbert Report" on Comedy Central back in 2012! I still miss his character and Jon Stewart almost every other day!

5:30 HAD ME ROLLING LMAOOOO Royal Family catching strays from HAI

What I hate is that because we have this in HAI we're not going to get a full WP effort.

I don't fathom how infinite corporate money/money from superpac is protected by first amendment, when any individual person has a limit. If corporations are people they must at least be bound to the same restrictions as one.

@Killua2001

Жыл бұрын

The reasoning is that a superpac isn't "coordinating with a candidate", so therefore, they can't possibly be held to legal limits for campaign contributions since they're not associated with or giving to a campaign. .... The fact that they clearly are, and that it's insane to pretend otherwise is exactly what people were suggesting was the problem with Citizens United. When the government attempted to actually enforce the "no collaboration" rule it turned into a massive political scandal that conservatives especially still tend to accuse the Obama administration of malfeasance. The point of Citizens United was explicitly to remove these types of checks and controls to unlimited campaign finance. The "personal limits" are just because technically giant bags of unlimited money directly to a campaign looks bad and the only people stupid enough to do it that openly are individuals like George Santos. (Or whatever his actual name is.... I wish that were a joke)

That last jab at Charles with Diana was peak Publically Available Internet Material

The problem is that the Supreme Court decided that corporations are people and money is speech. Both ridiculous ideas.

@InventorZahran

Жыл бұрын

And because of that, corporations can spend as much money as they want on political advertising! All a candidate has to do is give a company a good enough incentive to support him...

@Kanbei11

Жыл бұрын

And that putting god on the money is not respecting an establishment of religion...

My favorite crater is Lake Manicouagan. I can't wait to see more Lake Manicouagan on Nebula

The problem with campaign finance laws is that because the government can pick economic winners and losers, there are many people with money and a keen interest in effecting government policies. To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum, Life (and money) will find a way. But I think there is actually a much deeper problem with these laws. They operate from the premise that it is better for a candidate to fund their campaigns with lots of small donations from lots of people as opposed to a few large donations from a few (or a single) donors. But in the best tradition of unintended consequences, I think the emphasis on small-dollar donations is only exacerbating some of the worst things about our politics today. A political party is incentivized to elect candidates that support its platform. In order to enact that platform, that party needs to win majorities in Congress and win the presidency. But the incentives for individual candidates can be different. For example, let's look at the three most widely respected members of Congress, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and George Santos. 20 years ago, these dingbats would probably not have been electable. Major donors want to back winners and would have found more stable candidates to back. But these days, the more outrageous the three stooges behave, the more appearances they make on Fox News, and the more money they can raise from small-dollar donations on social media. Immediately after surrendering to federal authorities, Santos sent out fundraising emails. The age of social media has eliminated the gatekeepers from both the media and political candidates. I am not saying we should go back to the days of Boss Tweed's political machine, but we could certainly do with a few more gatekeepers. I think we would be much better off removing the limits on political donations but requiring all donations over $100 be disclosed on a public-facing website within 24 hours of their receipt. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. If Peter Thiel or George Soros want to contribute $100 million to a candidate, let them. Just make sure voters know about it and let them decide if it matters to their vote. Small-dollar donations will still be a thing, but maybe some larger donations will help a more mainstream candidate defeat Marjorie Taylor Green and her Jewish space lasers.

@doomsdayrabbit4398

Жыл бұрын

Sounds like a losing battle to me. Better idea: out-crazy the crazy.

Love the Bruno Gianelli call out!😂😂

The ending was the best! 😂

Great content as always

Also just plain cash. One time a candidate I was working for received literally a bag of cash at our office from some random guy and we spent it on theme park tickets 🤣

@jackroutledge352

Жыл бұрын

Seriously? And you carried on working for him? You can't see corruption when it's handed to you in a brown paper bag?

@doomsdayrabbit4398

Жыл бұрын

​@@jackroutledge352 It's legal as long as you're dressed up as a banana and a strawberry.

@JoseReyes-yn3xj

Жыл бұрын

Who said it was a guy? Lol

@AnEnderNon

Жыл бұрын

@@jackroutledge352 why should they care

@arthurmoore9488

Жыл бұрын

@@jackroutledge352 Did the candidate know the guy? Oh, look here's an anonymous donation for ads. Forget that, theme park tickets! This is how you make the FEC happy.

translating all HAI video titles to toki pona #1: jan pi wile lawa li ken weka e nasin lawa pi mani ona kepeken pali lili tan seme (why people who wish to lead can remove the rules regarding their money easily)

Heh, I didn't notice that "track record" was a pun until you pointed it out. Well played.

I mean that's one way to encourage transparency

The lawmaker from queens/long island chooses to differ. Multi-level-marketing.

Whats that string bit in the beginning from? It's super familiar and now its stuck in my head.

I'm less surprised by that than you featuring Timaru while talking about it.

Honestly, it sucks but it kind of makes sense. You could theoretically be asking "hey, can someone with deep pockets get my message out there for nothing in return?" and, on the face of it, there's nothing wrong with it. The fact that it's a BUSINESS MODEL though and borderline money-laundering is the issue.

4:50 This is basically the "Fernando is faster than you" of elections

Thats some sneaky smooth background music half as sam...

00:15 the love between an American political candidate and the superpajwbdiwbw. Thank god for subs

Already have Nebula but not too get rid off ads. But to watch jet lag a week early

I think i caught your West WIng easter egg. Bruno is an excellent choice

Bruno from West Wing. Good reference there

Major kudos for working Bruno Gianelli into the video. 😂

I would totally watch that brick advertisement

I'm calling this the Half As Legal loophole

Anyone know the music that plays in the beginning? It reminds me of Ace Combat 7 briefing music for some reason

We should get rid of super pacs altogether, no third party ads, and cap what campaigns can spend so the most money doesn’t just win for being rich.

Tweeting numbers is the modern equivalent of a numbers station

3:53 does Diffie-Hellman'ed encrypted communication count as private communication?

I like that brick ads video! Don't skip!!

Background music gives me Ice Cage Ace combat 5 vibes

5:20 No year has 25 months. That must be some secret message.

@ProfAzimov

Жыл бұрын

We operate on the 'merican idiocracy proncipal, which means its not DD/MM/YYYY, its MM/DD/YYYY

My dad is a bricklayer (Master Mason, actually), so bricks fed, sheltered & clothed my family (quite well, if I may add).

HAHAHAHA best ad segue literally ever. LOL

The Nebula discount link doesn't appear to work for me :(

was that ace combat 5 music at the beginning??

Obligatory plug for Knowing Better's more thorough video on the topic.

What?! You mean politicians are owned by big business?!

@Alsadius

Жыл бұрын

Not really. Politicians like getting donations, but usually donors give to people who already agree with them, instead of trying to buy people. And there's plenty of small businesses and wealthy individuals who give big sums too - car dealers, for example, are often massive donors by the standards of local campaigns, but they're not all that big as businesses go.

I thoight this would somehow be about the redbox rental service, like the rent out a dvd and attach a note to it only for the other party to come and take the same dvd out qnd read the note

This all makes complete sense. The first amendment guarantees the right of rich people to communicate the reasons why their candidate is the best choice. The point of campaign finance laws is to prevent bribery. All these "loopholes" are methods of accomplishing the first very efficiently. None of them enable the second. That is not a loophole. That is the system working as intended. In fact, since soft money has been allowed to go crazy, there is very little evidence that bribery has increased. If anything, elections have become more nationalized, and bribery has become harder.

Right in time for desantas

I guess they do never miss

wasn’t that neon by yukika at the beginning…?

Great video.

As a Brit, that comment on the King cut deep. Truth hurts dude 😭 lol

we appreciate your effort and hard work. God bless you.

You've heard of "Toby for Top Job" now time for "Sam 4 Prez"

I just realized, Bruno Gianelli is a character from The West Wing....who basically helps the president win his relection campaign, then works for Arnie Vinneck in the last season.

Sam will make the trains run on time.

Soooo...why did they post the Valentine's Day video so late?

Impressive rules lawyering! Leave it to the politicians, I suppose!

interesting as always!

Sam from Wendover would have my vote, Amtrak let's go

I'm just not sure about your connection to New Zealand prime minister candidate Tobey

Unconditional and, Courtney 😂😂

Awesome content and great job spreading awarness

Nice Bruno shout-out

How the duck is this an HAI and not a main channel video

I would half-assed support you for half a president!

Its disqusting that these loopholes are not closed already. Of course they are not unclosed by accident...

Wait! Are you saying if I watch on nebula I loose out on brick ads ?!!

Why do I recognize this background music?

4:49 I can't believe they actually used a West Wing reference for the twitter accounts!

@noah_smith03

Жыл бұрын

I'm so glad i'm not the only one who noticed!

Wow, that is ridiculous even for the US standard

Huh, guess there's numbers stations on twitter now lmao

Hi Sam! When I support you publicly, can be I be loud and proud?

"offensively brazen loopholing" sounds kinda dirty.

1) Guilty. Even in public, though, only when I'm alone, like, say, at a bus stop in the middle of nowhere. 2) Guilty. Though more knees than feet. Can't in really handy during the pandemic. All those doors opened and closed without having to touch them 3) Guilty. Also, shadowboxing in front of the mirror 4) Not guilty. Mostly. 5) Not guilty. But I don't have stairs where I live, so most stairs are in public. 4)

'Allo', Your wife, Is she a goer? Know what I mean? Nudge, Nudge -- Wink, Wink, Does she like Pho - to - graphs?

TIL that HAI has a global super PAC: BRICS

You should do one on how tech companies influence elections. That is much scarier than slush money.

@Subject_Keter

Жыл бұрын

Reminds me of a story of how people would just lead people to the Occupy Wallstreet protest even through they wanted to go to the Teacher protest.

The FBI needs to know that this video is about bricks

Here's an idea: get money out of politics completely. Make PACs and Superpacs illegal, make lobbying illegal, make corporations getting tax rebates and bailouts illegal. If candidates need funding for campaigns, set up a universal campaign fund where people can give money to that fund, and then all candidates draw equally from that fund.

@sion8

Жыл бұрын

What? That's too logical! No one will ever go for that, dummy! \s

@nataliegrn17

Жыл бұрын

How about when a Nazi party draws from that fund? Then the govt is funding them. How can this be fixed?

I don't get into politics, but I feel like Sam wouldn't be the worst president that ever existed 😂😂