字幕表 動画を再生する 英語字幕をプリント this is Robin Koerner and I am speaking to Andrew Yang presidential candidate for 2020 running with a D after his name and thank you for being on the show with me I really appreciate it thanks for having me Robin I appreciate the opportunity awesome awesome well you are the first presidential candidate of this 2020 cycle that I've spoken to hopefully not the last but I am I'm thrilled to be starting with you I've been looking at some of your your stuff you know some the interviews you've done your website and there's lots of genuinely interesting ideas that I'm hearing from you and as I mentioned to you before you don't seem to be in one of the boring ideological boxes that so many of our politicians are in right now in the United States so you know that's exciting for me so now I also said to you before I hit record that I wasn't gonna just go over the same things that everybody else is going over with you and ask you all the same questions but the first one will be a common question which is give us the one paragraph bio of Andrew Yang sure I'm a serial entrepreneur and problem solver I spent the last six and a half years helping create several thousand jobs in Detroit Cleveland Baltimore Birmingham and I'm convinced that where the the midst of the greatest economic and technological transformation in the history of the country the reason why Donald Trump's our president today is because we automated away four million manufacturing jobs in the swing states so imagine being the guy who's getting accolades and medals for creating thousands of jobs realizing that you're pouring water into a bathtub there's a giant hole ripped in the bottom and that's that's really my narrative in a nutshell which is that I'm the guy who spent six and a half years helping create thousands of jobs around the United States so let me ask why are you running with that D after your name what's your relationship with the democratic the democratic party your philosophy you know it's an interesting question I mean I ensure that running as a Democrats the right thing to do on multiple levels one is that the mechanics of running for president necessitate that you run as while someone who's part of the major one of the major parties unless you're a billionaire and can fund a third party move that's probably just gonna be doomed to fail anyway so the American political system necessitates that you run as either democrat or republican and I line up with the Democrats and most every policy sense around things like reproductive rights and you know some of the other social issues like lesbian gay bisexual transsexual you know like rights and everything else and so running as a Democrat was a very natural decision for me I was an honorary ambassador in the Obama White House so many friends okay so you have you're somewhat connected in the party then at quite a high level yeah I and I many friends in the Democratic Party as well so I'm certainly much more connected among Democrats that I am Republicans all right well that makes sense so since you're running for president um what do you see as the role of the president fundamentally and I should point out that I'm sitting here with the Constitution behind me so the right answer is actually on the wall behind me but what do you feel is is the role of the president well you know it's really funny you asked that Robin because I think the role of the president has morphed over time and it's just grown and grown and become this kind of like massive set of responsibilities that are well beyond what was originally intended so as one example I heard that there was a period when the president just walked into a room and then everyone would notice that he was there until someone said you know what that's unacceptable we have to play this song every time you walk into a room you imagine that happening the houses of topics in different ways where the president went from being in many ways like a first among equals in like a relatively egalitarian society that it consciously is stewed oil tea to now it's become this giant potentate ceremonial figure as well as the person who's meant to execute the of the country which is the original intent and so one of my goals actually is to try and make the presidency itself more manageable and so one of the ideas I have had is to appoint a head of the culture who will handle pardoning turkeys and congratulating sports teams and doing things that strike me as not really great uses of time and so I would appoint either Oprah or The Rock or Joe Rogan and then they would just be their own things and then everyone would win because most Americans would rather meet them than me anyway and so I'd be doing something else and we'll see what else we could process out there are a few things we could do that I think would simplify the job of the President yeah you know as a Brit by birth you know I come from a land with a constitutional monarchy and it is a shame to me that the American president signs more executive orders than all the kings of England going back for you know 400 years we have a ceremonial monarch and we keep it separate from politics and I think there's a lot to be said for that but here it's almost like you vote for a king for four or eight years and that is problematic so your point is well-taken now you've got some really big interesting ideas on on your website that you're that you're running on you're putting out front and center I would like to kind of prime you into them by asking you to tell me about two things citizens as shareholders and bad numbers and they're kind of related so talk to me about I do or both yeah so as you know Robin one of my key ideas is that America should have a dividend for all citizens now $1,000 a month called the freedom dividend and this has been an idea that's been with us since the founding of the country Thomas Paine was for it originally and in Martin Luther King was for it Milton Friedman was for it it passed the House of Representatives twice in 1971 under Nixon and then Alaska adopted it 37 years ago so right American citizens feel like our democracy has been lost to us because now it's just been overrun by money and you're these giant moneyed interests that are taking control of the whole apparatus and so one way to counterbalance that is to make us the citizens the owners and shareholders and beneficiaries of our society again and the best way to do that would be to declare a dividend in terms of bad numbers right now we're being guided by GDP and stock market prices and headline unemployment all of which are deeply flawed and problematic and misleading where GDP is at record highs but also at record highs are suicides drug overdoses mental health problems and the American life expectancy has declined for the last three years because of a surge in deaths of despair the last time the American life expectancy decline for three years in a row was the Spanish flu of 1918 so we're actually in Spanish flu territory and so if you rely upon GDP as your guideposts and you think everything's going great but if you rely upon more basic human measurements like how long we're living how healthy we are how mentally healthy we are how free of drugs we are we are falling apart so we are using the wrong numbers and we need to start using the right ones to see how we're doing and make progress now one of the things that seems to be a fundamental flow of pretty much everything the government does today is it passes a law and obviously a law stands in perpetuity unless somebody comes and you know repeals it or voc's it and they do so without mention of success or failure metrics there's no Sun setting of anything based on success or failure um with particular reference to your freedom dividend which is akin to what most people know as a universal basic income which I know you want to set it $1,000 what would be the success and failure metrics how would you know this is made helped to make the changes you want a American society well if you look at the Alaska petroleum dividend it's created thousands of jobs made children healthier decreased income inequality and it's wildly popular in a deeply conservative state so if you saw those things happen in a population and everyone was excited about the dividend then you'd probably think it was successful and certainly when we're similar things have been implemented in other locations you see an increase in physical health nutrition mental health graduation rates trust in others relationships like everything gets better but you know this is a democracy and so you'd have to rely upon people's desires and affirmations and so if we do it and everyone loves it and it's probably working now that's in that's interesting I'm wondering now if that's true um I noticed on your website and correct me if I'm wrong I think I saw this in website that you're interested that you promote Medicare for all full single-payer health is that right yeah that's right we need to have a robust public option in the u.s. because right now we're spending twice as much as other countries to worse results and it's breaking the back so many of families and businesses every day okay so again coming from Britain not only do we have a monarchy we have the another institution which is the only institution more popular than the monarchy in Britain which is the National Health Service and I believe it's the second biggest employer in the world after the the Chinese army right and it is socialized medicine top to bottom now I've written about this and I certainly agree that the American system is is a nightmare and this may shock some of the people that follow me but if I had to choose between the American system and the single-payer system in the UK just based on results right now and having lived with both I would prefer the British system which seems to be more honest apart from anything else but what you know I've thought about this and I think there's an argument for having the free market work at the nut that the 90 percent of Medicare of medical of health issues that aren't a catastrophic so where you would create moral hazard if you were to have government pay for it all but then you socialize the catastrophic the high-risk end of the curve if you like right in Britain where we haven't done that where we've socialized it top to bottom we have massive problems of cost not as bad as America but that's a different discussion we have but we have you know huge cost pressures and we also have this difficulty that it's hard to make good changes that favor health outcomes because all practical discussions become highly politicized because the whole thing that all healthcare is a political debate right how do you you know how do you deal with those concerns when you're talking about single-payer system you know I really like the idea of socializing the catastrophic conditions I mean that that really is the problem in our system where significant proportion of the expenses in the United States are spent on the last year or two of life and various extreme situations and so that is one change that we can make that would address a significant proportion of the the cost issues in the US and one thing I would say is going to happen in the u.s. that might address some of what you're discussing is that there's going to be some gold-plated private concierge service in parallel to the public option because it's America and you know that Google and the gang they're going to have some like crazy concierge health care service and so you'll still end up having at least a certain degree of resources and innovation getting plowed into addressing various conditions and procedures over time so I think the u.s. might well one of the things I I know and one of the misconceptions is that somehow we have to find the money for this we're already spending 18% of GDP on healthcare it's it's it's incredibly excesses in the system yeah so at this point there's almost nothing we could do that don't feel I could help but bring the cost down relative what we're doing now now I know that you are a successful entrepreneur and you have been you know some of the people who have interviewed you they've heard about your universal basic income idea and they've tried to slap the load labeled socialist on you and you know you you deal with that you explain why that's that's wrong but given that but with that in mind do you also agree with um kind of I guess part of the point that I was making that if you allow the free market in the non-catastrophic part of healthcare you get all the benefits of the marketplace operating just for this just like the benefits that operate you know for people buying food and groceries right you know you wouldn't want to have socialized food even though it's just a so you know just as essential as healthcare right so I guess what I'm getting at is you're not being a socialist does that not make you favor the operations of the market in health care which is hugely important domain in everybody's lives um where they can be effective yeah so I like for example having patients have some kind of skin in the game some cost so that like when you utilize services that like it's not like a zero cost which which ends up but potentially having you use can consume services you didn't really need because what happens in the UK definitely yeah so I think having some market-based mechanism on that side is very very useful and helpful I do think though that healthcare is a distinct market we're having some costs associated with it is a plus and house introduced market efficiency but health is just a different thing where like when you get sick you know like you're not necessarily going to operate as like an efficient economic actor in all things you're just gonna be like what is gonna make me better you know it's like whatever it is like you know we have to and so in in many cases it's just something that would benefit from certain market mechanisms but it's very dissimilar for most other consumer markets and fundamental ways okay okay well that's true enough okay so um going back then to the the universal basic income the freedom dividend which you want to set at a thousand dollars a month right I know that you've made the point that a lot of conservatives they're obviously driven by reducing the desire to reduce government interference in their lives and by having a no-strings-attached no-questions-asked dividend thousand dollars a month you can in principle eliminate a lot of government interference and judgment that comes with the welfare state and a multitude of programs how does the ubi or the freedom dividend specifically how would it enable us to do that like what would what would the Conservatives get what would the libertarians get in terms of eliminated programs and eliminated intrusion by the state so libertarians love this plan in part because it's been championed by Milton Friedman who's a patron saint of conservative economists so what libertarians and the conservatives hate is government bureaucracy making avoidance decisions what they like is economic freedom and autonomy and so if everyone's getting $1,000 a month then that lightens the bureaucracy over time and it also creates much better incentives because if I get this dividend regardless if I do better I get to keep it but it's I don't have some disincentive to work I don't have some distance either to improve my station and over time you would see a shrinkage among the enrollments of traditional welfare programs because there'd be more people that would prefer the thousand dollars cash and I would suggest that virtually no one is in love with 126 welfare programs that exist in the United States I mean they're like it's the whole hodgepodge patchwork and there are some very perverse incentives attached to many of them where if you you know it's like there there's a friend's sister on disability who said that she couldn't volunteer for a nonprofit because she was afraid that she'd lose her disability benefits just like stays at home and I would suggest that's a loser for everybody I mean obviously she should be volunteering we thought something that she feels she can do so so for conservatives it's the the thing that I think frustrates the heck out of most conservatives is this thought that the government is just going to take in more money it's going to disappear into the pipes into the bureaucracy whereas in this case the money's going into your hands then you think like wow this is like the best thing the government's actually ever done because it was my money anyway and it was your money anyway you are correct about that that's the reason why Alaska has been the one state to implement this in the US and it was a Republican governor deep red state that made it happen so there are very very powerful conservative ideas behind this how could you unless laid it in such a way that you could say to the American people here's $1,000 a month I'm gonna let you spend this thousand dollars a month rather than the government spend it for you if you were to introduce it that way how could you introduce it you know to implement the the freedom dividend at the same time that you remove you know the government's ability to spend that money on your behalf cuz I get that you can make the choice but you could give someone a welfare as a choice but if you were gonna like make it a political slam dunk you'd need to give the Conservatives or the libertarians okay yeah we're going to transfer we're gonna change who spends the money rather than spend more money I really like that that's a good thing it's certainly the case that mean right now if you're a conservative or libertarian you're like well in this new world I get a thousand bucks a month and in the old world what am I getting from the government that I can actually rely upon it's like well in theory I'm getting all these security benefits and and you know it's like the legal protections and regimes and fire protection and all this other stuff but there I'm sure most libertarians would prefer the cash so it's not that you know like that I believe most people would regard this as a significant improvement from the current government allocation yeah I mean I would be really interested if you had a few I guess you have folks you do policy you have like there may be a legislative advisor director there how that could be formulated so that you know you're not just here's the thing getting but here's the things being taken away from the government departments that are inefficient and spending it badly for you I'd love to see and I do want to lighten up a lot of the inefficiencies in government I mean everyone in America knows that we have a lot of excesses in our government bureaucracy at this point yeah yeah oh sure okay so let's talk about government spending the flip side of that coin government revenue let's talk about taxation because I know you've got an interesting point to make about getting some of say big tech and to pay as I guess you would call it their fair share into our society so talk a little bit about that and then I also want to ask you can we not apply the same principle to the extremely privileged domain of Finance corporate finance the big banks where there are actual legal privileges that these folks get to exercise to do things with money that if you or I did them would be criminal but basically guarantee a transfer of value to people that have make anything but just financialized things yeah so my idea to finance the dividend is to have a value-added tax that would fall on the Amazons and googles of the world and you probably saw the headlines that Amazon paid zero in federal taxes of 2018 despite record profits and that's not Amazon's fault that's our fault you know if we have a system that they can game around that easily maybe we should upgrade our system so the value-added tax would get us billions tens of billions of dollars from the Amazon's of the world and it would put us in position to hopefully again spread that bounty to ordinary citizens and the value-added tax would also reign in some of the excesses of the financial institutions the finer institutions are definitely co-opted our economy in many ways but the thing we have to escape is this was zero-sum game thinking because in many ways again I feel like it's our fault we're like if you have this system and these people game the heck out of it again that's our fallin out there is I mean you know we just need to do a better job of harvesting the games from these activities to the public what do you think about the Tobin tax could you clarify the Tobin tax is the idea of where you've got financial transactions purely financial transactions very large sums it's a basically financial speculation maybe yeah kind of currency speculation things like that where there's billions tens hundreds of billions top line change hands and being traded and the margins are small for the banks that are doing it but the profits are huge and the Tobin tax takes a tiny sliver of each transaction so where you've got also algorithmic stock trading for example I'm a fan of taxes that help harvest the gains from all of these computer algorithmic trading mechanisms that you're taking like a fraction of a penny and you do that million times because what real economic value is getting generated they're really nothing you just sort of like extracting some revenue out of the system same thing with like firms that are literally investing and having faster connections and pipes to the trading floors where it's like oh if I get in there I just have like the fastest signal then I can front-running by computers by like a you know like a hundredth of a second and then hundredths of a second is worth millions of dollars and then that's that's your business I mean like is that helped and so I'm for a Tobin tax type toll on speculation that really has nothing but financial motivations okay so between the vit and maybe attacks like the Tobin tax do you see this as having a positive impact on government revenue are you actually trying to raise more money or are we going to see offsetting benefits so for example I particularly hate the payroll tax I just kind of on principle know the payroll tax in a way does not make any sense because we should be trying to discourage any type of labor a labor type arrangement so you you would be looking to more comprehensively maybe reform our tax system so if we make value-added tax but we can drop some of the others yeah yeah I would be in favor of that sort of reform and trade overtime so there are things like that the u.s. we need to do all everything in our power so we need to spend more effectively we need to generate revenue more effectively we need to become more efficient in various ways I mean at this point we have this legacy kludgy system that is you know on the verge of frankly just like driving us into the ground and you have to attack it from every angle yeah fair enough yeah that makes sense let me change gears a little bit I haven't seen I'm sure you have been asked about this but I haven't found that if you have yet I'm rather concerned at be what seems to be something of a takeover of what I call the cultural commanding Heights so the educate education the campuses and the media by identitarian especially on the left people engaged in identity politics but not absolutely on the left at all but I'm seeing that and as someone that kind of cares about the founding principles I'm you know free speech and you know I'm very much more committed to truth than to tribe and that's one thing I like about you you seem to start with the way the world is well your ideological box as I mentioned earlier deep do you see cause for concern there with identity politics and the cultural commanding Heights and and if so what do you do about it you know I think that my goal is to try and get people focused on actionable solutions and so one of the things I suggest is like you know what a thousand dollars a month would do it would help millions of American women who are in exploitative or abusive jobs and relationships and what's going to make a bigger difference to a set of people economic resources or something else and then get people focused on the numbers and the reality the economics because if you purport to be for certain social goals if we can bring you in and say look they're more effective ways to reach those goals and that should be a win so I'm with you in terms of a pursuit of truth and impact and real solutions and I'm more of a numbers guy than a feelings guy like I think the numbers drive the feelings overtime and so we need to get the numbers right and then we'll have more of a lucky to be able to address some other things okay I'm gonna I'm gonna kind of press a little bit on this though there is there is a well-documented lack of intellectual diversity in education in the United States now beyond anything we've seen in history so example it's very hard to see self-identified conservatives or even libertarians in a lot of disciplines so anything that's kind of your social psychology for example but your history any of the literary disciplines now I don't put words in your mouth but you're basically culturally liberal right I think we have that in common you like diversity I mean I'm talking here to an Asian man with, I believe, with Taiwanese background right there are certain kinds of diversity in a society where we're rightly concerned with but it seems the intellectual diversity if as that disappears we stop being able to deal unbiasedly effectively with the numbers with the data and we end up kind of you know coming off off of the tracks but that's my fear what are you saying about what do you think about that I think that intellectual diversity is a very positive thing and just about any setting particularly a setting that's meant to shape the ideas of others that you know if you have culture that promulgates really just like a single approach to the world over time that's not going to be as productive or or constructive for the people that you're meant to equip and train so you know it's like so I think your concern about this is something that more and more people share and it's certainly something that I think that many of these institutions should be attentive to so maybe it would be fair to say that you want to begin to solve this by example by not behaving or speaking in that way oh you know I mean what I say is like you know I approach things the way I most naturally approach them and but the goal is to lead by example and I will say there's a massive appetite for this kind of discussion and approach and solutions and we can go very very far I don't know if you saw this report called hidden tribes that came out a number of months ago but it indicates that many people have very similar perspective to the one you just shared you know I believe that's true and this is actually in a way my cause for optimism I think kind of the extremist ideological even identitarian pendulum has kind of swung as far as it will go more or less I don't the exact maximum and what we're seeing now is folks like you organizations like More in Common, Better Angels, Purple America there's lots of organizations that are now the seeds of the reaction you might say - a better way of conducting discourse of judging ideas without judging people all of that kind of thing I agree we've come up with a nickname for this campaign it's the revolution of reason and you know I think the revolution can go very very far okay well here's hoping now I mentioned your Taiwanese parentage right but if your parents are from Taiwan is that correct yeah that's correct um how old were you when you were, oh you were born in the United States though right yeah how long before you were born did your parents come to the US well they met in the mid 60's late 60s at Berkeley where they were both graduate students then they had my brother in 1972 in San Francisco and then they moved to Schenectady New York and I was born in 75 they were probably together for approximately six or seven years by the time I was born and I'm guessing you're fluent Mandarin speaker you know I'm the black sheep of the family I kept getting left back in Chinese school so my Chinese is quite poor yeah nuff said nuff said okay so um this is a little bit of an intro to something I'm really interested to ask you about it seems to me that one of the biggest geopolitical issues that if we don't get right might make all other discussions somewhat moot is the rise of China you know the the sleeping dragon is no longer sleeping um and another reason why it's fun for me to speak to you is that I've actually lived in Taiwan for a couple of years and and I find that a lot of Westerners who live in Taiwan they really get sometimes more passionate about Taiwanese independence or their right to self-determination let's put it that way then a lot of Taiwanese um what is your take on well let's let's I'm actually interested what do you think should be Taiwan's future what's your what do you feel about the way it should try and go I guess if you were there would you be voting for the you know DPP or the KMT and how do we how do we deal in principle with the rise of China that now seems to be coming so Orwellian with its um what they call it's social credit system I mean it's actually it's terrifying to me as you know kind of a Freeborn Western um in quotes how do you feel about that as some Chinese heritage well I agree with you though it's one of the most important relationships to navigate over time and that I think right now the US has a tendency to view things as a zero-sum game where if China Rises that were somehow falling and and it leads to it increase in tensions so that's what I think we need to try and forestall avoid because it's impossible to manage the rise of AI and climate change and various geopolitical hotspots like North Korea without some sort of strong ties to China like it's just not going to have so that one of the goals of my presidency will be to try and build like a positive nonzero-sum relationship with China and that includes hopefully maintaining current situation for for many people in the Asian continent see would you support on principle the one China policy well you know I think the one China policy is very deeply ingrained into Chinese culture and heritage and I think that right now the way things are functioning to me is is one of the better outcomes one could hope for for people in Greater China generally and so to me anything that upsets the status quo would be something I'd be deeply concerned about but right now I think things are going fairly well at least as a again I'm a cultural liberal does there not become a point where you have to say that you can't stand by as a nation like China takes control of the lives of its people I mean now stopping people travel because they don't have enough social credit points a lot of that's politically motivated I mean we're looking potentially at the submergence of a free democracy within what you might think I'm overstating it but seems quite an orderly and increasingly Orwellian state I I'm terrified by that are you not I think that your concerns have like a basis and you know your own experiences and like in reality so you know it's it is the case that the Chinese government is engaging in practices that as a Freeborn westerner like you know you or I might may not be excited about the danger though to me is to adopt frankly like an American lens towards what many other societies are doing because to me that's what led us into conflicts in Asia over the last century where you know we caught ourselves convinced that if South Vietnam or South Korea were to go a certain direction it would be disastrous for democracy writ large and then we wound up in multi year multi decade conflicts that may or may not have achieved like their original goals so to me like that the focus of the United States for better for worse needs to be to try and restore itself at home because we are falling apart again like dwindling life expectancy our political cohesion is that like multi-decade lows at least you know we are not doing well if we were doing well Donald Trump would not be our president and so if you're the leader of a country and it's not doing well then you know what your job is your job is to try and restore a higher degree of functionality to your own society yeah yeah okay um is there anything else that I've not touched on that you'd like to talk about yeah so one of the big themes of my campaign I think that you know you've seen this in share this is that we really need to evolve in advance as a people because right now we have this approach of capital efficiency to our own human value it's why we talk about trying to retrain coal miners as coders and other things it's like oh well the human worth is determined by the marketplace of the marketplace wants coders I guess that's what we're trying to turn you into even though that's more of a fantasy than a reality in most cases so that the single biggest theme of the campaign is that we need to start seeing ourselves as having intrinsic value like as human beings and try and make this economic system work for us instead of us all being inputs into the system because if we're all inputs into the system we will lose on an epic historic scale we will not be able to out-compete artificial intelligence robots and software where the marginal cost of an activity is zero or near zero we can't win and so we have to actually change the rules of the game change the rules of the economy to something that we can actually succeed at even as the goalposts are moving very very quickly and that's something that I'm sure is vital to the health of our society moving forward and for whatever reason it's something that most other political leaders haven't been able to get their arms around and so that's what what I'd love to leave people with is the sense that look if we do not evolve we are going to tear ourselves apart we're all going to lose on a scale that's historic and you can already see it in the numbers and in the nature of what's happening in the United States of America and I believe as we talked about earlier in this conversation Robin that the appetite is now there that like people have woken up to the fact that our institutions are not doing well and that our old approaches aren't going to work and that we need to revive ourselves to the challenges of the 21st century in the unlikely event that you don't become our next president then I know someone likely would you consider running for Congress or any other office where you have a platform to basically do what you're doing I mean it also occurs to me that you know when we talk about the evolving role of the presidency for good or for ill but most of what you talked about is legislative of course you know the executive doesn't pass legislation it just executes sit it would seem that someone of your ilk and and your interest would be well placed in Congress let's say when the Senate um would you consider that like I'm open to any role that I think helps move society forward I mean I'm first and foremost a parent and a patriot and if I think I can move the needle in any capacity you know I would take a long hard look at it I'm certainly not some narcissist who's been dreaming about being president forever I don't care so much about the labels and seating charts I just want to try and solve problems and if that's one way I could do it then I'd be very very open to looking at it what are some of the most memorable reactions the you've received on the campaign trail last the interview I saw you said you'd been to Iowa five times might be more by now what's your feeling to pick up on what you said about people being ready which I kind of agree with yeah specifically can give us some examples that have kind of touched you maybe a little more than others maybe a bit personally I know I've been blown away by the response I've gotten in communities around the country where you think and you look at me it's like I'm like the urban Asian guy like showing up but most of the time people realize that you're there to help that there's no other reason that you'd be there and they really touched their touch that you're trying to improve their lives and that in turn inspires you and that's happened to me now dozens maybe hundreds of times on the trail I've been to Iowa eight times I'm going back for a ninth time next week yeah yeah and the American people are really good you know it's like that it breaks your heart what the heck does happen to our country but the the recognition that we need to take on a new approach is growing stronger every day and do you find that you're being a young asian man affects anything in your conversations with the America especially in Iowa I guess it's pretty white everywhere you're going you know - in Iowa well the is it amazing the main impact is that people assume I know what I'm talking about when I talk about technology it's like looks like he knows what he's talking about so if anything it's been positive you know I get a free for IQ points when I give speeches with this accent so maybe you get some credibility finally to be both an Asian guy and have British accent you got VP chosen yet I do not then the benefit is higher and then maybe for a third step I could wear glasses I love it Andrew this has been a real pleasure thank you for coming on to the show doing this with me I'm sure if you're willing I would love to talk to you again at some point and you know maybe ask some of the same questions but also some different ones and I you know I wish you luck not just in your campaign but in getting the values that underpin your campaign this productive discourse this fact-based discourse you know just into the American conversation so thanks for what you're doing I enjoyed this conversation a great deal and I'm sure we'll talk again as this campaign makes progress it's gonna be quite a journey and I hope you and I get to meet personally well I hope to meet you one day so yeah so come up here to Seattle if you haven't already they'd love you up here yeah yeah I'm definitely come to Seattle at some point I'll see you there all right you got it thanks so much Andrew thanks Robin much appreciated
B1 中級 米 アンドリュー・ヤンが2020年の大統領キャンペーンについて語る|ロビン・ケルナー (Andrew Yang Discusses his 2020 Presidential Campaign | Robin Koerner) 29 0 王惟惟 に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日 シェア シェア 保存 報告 動画の中の単語