I hope that a future series is Supreme Court cases. I'd love 5 minute summaries of how the case came up, the arguments on both sides, and the legacy of the rulings for a bunch of cases. Plessy v Ferguson, Brown v Board, Koromatsu, Maubury vs Madison, Citizens United, Reynolds v US, Loving v Virginia, and plenty that I haven't heard of that shape my life in ways that are all but invisible to me since the Supreme Court is about as transparent as lead.
Alderick van Klaveren part of the intention was that it shouldn't function well. People often get frustrated by gridlock in Congress, but gridlock is a design feature, not a bug. A government that can't or won't do things is a government that is not causing trouble (with new and intrusive laws) for the people! Or as Mark Twain once said: "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."
sststr Right, like how there are more states where it is forbidden to give proper sex ed than there are where it is mandatory. ***** Quite clearly, I'm not an American.
***** the fact that it hasn't collapsed is pretty impressive though. There really aren't many countries that have had such a long period of continuous governance that wasn't interrupted by a violent revolution of some sort.
Cian Exactly. And there have been so many opportunities where the US could have collapsed and didn't. All the while, other countries are deathly afraid of losing control.
I'd take some crash course philosophy for sure..I love how you guys present information. And I am constantly enjoying the presenter. Love how Craig said "well look it up" and gave an animation explaining the INS vs chada. Reminds people they can look up anything too!
I'm so glad there are so many smart young people around these days who have absorbed so much of the details of U.S. political science. I'm a Vietnam veteran and getting old and still don't understand this in its entirety. I'll go back now and continue enjoying my retirement watching Paul McCartney concerts here on TH-cam. Remember, if it looks like B.S. and smells like B.S....don't eat it!
TheVlog CGP Grey has recently said in his podcast with Brady that he's getting more and more used with the idea of people knowing his face at last. So keep your hopes up!
The IRS was not overstepping the authority granted to it by Congress when investigating tea party linked 501(c)(4) groups; it was overstepping the authority by disproportionately targeting conservative groups, not by targeting them in the first place.
After this will you make a Crash Course British government and Politics? I understand why you are ding U.S exclusive, but I'd love to learn more about an older system with less "muh constitution".
***** While I agree that would be cool, I just can't see it happening. Most of the people that produce, fund (and possibly watch) Crash Course are American. Other than close historical, cultural, and linguistic ties to America, there isn't a compelling reason to do British Government and Politics. Why not French Politics, Why not Brazilian or Indonesian?
***** I just wish this was more general politics, like ideology, political theory, or more universal ideas such as different systems. I mean this series is ok, but not amazing.
Christopher McKee The only reason I could can come up with is that the U.K's parliamentary system forms the blueprint for more states' governments than any other in the world. Other than that it would be pretty arbitrary. That said, I can see why such a series would never happen -- this show is very much aimed directly at Americans -- not just in this series but in many others the collective pronoun of 'we' is used very frequently to refer to Americans. It is clear that Crash Course is by Americans for Americans. Also the Politics series is funded by PBS -- they wouldn't fund a series about France or Britain or whatever.
aren't the 501c4's supposed to be non political charitable groups? in which case, shouldn't they all be looked at if they seem to be doing political work, like they were?
sheepwshotguns Entities forming under 501(c) don't have to be charitable, only not-for-profit. They do need to be non-political, however. But non-political simply means that they don't make any statements in favor or opposition of any candidate for public office. They can be as ideological as they want, but so long as they don't speak in favor or opposition of any candidates for public office, they are tax-exempt (i.e., they can make factual statements/reports about candidate behavior/activity, however; essentially, they can't say "Vote for X!" or "Vote against Y!"). www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501
***** sigh... its one thing if its a local volunteer firefighting department, its another when its Crossroads GPS spewing nonsense to get people to vote a particular way. these "social welfare groups" ideally need to provide an actual physical service. providing information about themselves is one thing, but disseminating political information even at a 50/50 ratio, perhaps not so much... distinctions like this, and rational adjustments to them should be addressed. though im not sure why we need 501c4's at all if we have 501c3's. it seems unnecessary. not sure how im being wrong by asking for a discussion about that... unless you can give me a solid reason for why we have this tax exemption as it stands and why it shouldn't be altered.
Field Marshal Fry That's because you are probably defining "Tea Party" too broadly. It's likely the 501(c)(3) has an separate, but affiliated PAC which does all their political speaking. But so long as the org itself does not advocate for or against the election of any candidate for public office, they're okay.
OwenBruch22 Well technically with the Tea Party movement there was a large amount of groups all claiming tax exempt status at the same time and using the same language. Naturally the agency would give extra scrutiny to this surge of groups since some might be trying to use similar words and phrases to get tax exempt status without actually doing anything and might just be trying to funnel money in some way through a fraudulent "Tea Party" group. This scrutiny happened around the same time as and to a lesser degree with liberal groups related to the occupy movement. In summation the IRS had reason to be skeptical of these groups and treated a few liberal groups in the same way. When I first heard about the "scandal" I thought that it was kind of bad of them to "target" these groups but after an actual explanation I realized that they were just doing their jobs. They were investigating organisations that wanted to apply for tax exempt status and there was an influx of very similar applications so they were being careful but not in the best way.
Richard Simmang initially you were right, in that some congressmen and leftwing groups stated that there was some balance in the scrutiny. Since then it has been proven that NOT a single leftwing group was scrutinized. That is a fact. Additionally, using key words like "Patriot", "Liberty" and "Constitution" to find groups to scrutinize is exactly "targeting". Moreover, these were no regular audits. The (aforementioned, targeted) groups were illegally demanded that they hand over all their speeches, meetings minutes, prayers, Facebook posts, donor info, and other information that is way beyond the scope of the law. Moreover, after handing over all said info, they were not approved for two years (average approved takes one-two months). Bear in mind that until approval they cannot collect money as an Org., thus crippling and neutralizing them just in time for the 2012 election. The White House and IRS have both admitted to the targeting of Conservative groups (though claiming that it was only a 'regional', not institution-wide problem), and no matter what Slate and Salon will write (they want to abolish all 501c3s, and therefore want all groups to be targeted, making the conservative groups that were targeted a small good in and of itself) the facts remain the facts.
Richard Simmang Nixon's Watergate was child play compared to the mass intimidation and chilling effect the IRS targeting had on Obama's political opponents.
Richard Simmang Oh, and let's not forget that when some of the Targeted Groups went to federal court to sue the IRS (after the scandal broke, and they still hadn't been approved) the IRS granted them approval just before judgment, so the Court ruled that they no longer have a case because, now that they've been approved, lacked standing...
***** I can assure you that your are wrong, and that both the Oxford dictionary and Wikipedia agree with me (as well as all the english majors I know). www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/he-or-she-versus-they (scroll half way down that's when they (see!) start talking about They/them/their) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they Not only that, but I know many people who have made the same argument, but then went on to use they/their/them as a singular soon after. It's part of the common language and in the cases of personal pronoun use as used in this video. There was no reason not too use They/them/their. Nerd fighters claim to be and what to be inclusive. I pointing out that in this video there was room for improvement.
Well one I'm Canadian, and two language isn't sent in stone, it changes and I think this a good way to go. It's more inclusive and a majority of English speakers already do it anyway. Though at the end of the day while you can actually claim that it isn't an acceptable use of english language it is in at least. Though I'm not going to take your AP highschool over the english bachelors degrees of multiple my friends (I myself am a botanist). However I will provisionally grant your point on it not being acceptable in the US if you can show me two recent and reputable (Ie. dictionaries or similar) which disagree with me. Until then your simpely asserting your claim without evidence and you applea to aurothies (yourself) which to be honest do not begin to compete with the links I've granted. I've provided evidence without issue, now it's your turn. However, for english in general It would seem that I am correct and this is effectively indisputable in our current discourse.
***** (double post since I failed to correctly add your name) Well one I'm Canadian, and two language isn't sent in stone, it changes and I think this a good way to go. It's more inclusive and a majority of English speakers already do it anyway. Though at the end of the day while you can actually claim that it isn't an acceptable use of english language it is in at least. Though I'm not going to take your AP highschool over the english bachelors degrees of multiple my friends (I myself am a botanist). However I will provisionally grant your point on it not being acceptable in the US if you can show me two recent and reputable (Ie. dictionaries or similar) which disagree with me. Until then your simply asserting your claim without evidence and you appeal to authorities (yourself) which to be honest do not begin to compete with the links I've granted. I've provided evidence without issue, now it's your turn. However, for english in general It would seem that I am correct and this is effectively indisputable in our current discourse.
***** Hi zh11147. Since to make my point I really only have to link to one reputable source to make my point, because I only need to show it is at least partially accepted in the USA (That is I only need to find one counter example to show your claim false) So that fact that Merriam-Webster agrees with me (though I will grant it's more provisional then in the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries), and is an American dictionary. I genuinely don't mean to be rude when I say this, but you seem to be incorrect on this one. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they Perhaps you would have been correct when you first learned it, but as I've mentioned it before language is not static. This is a change (or more precisely a change back as this is not an original trend) which has only been gaining popularity. Even though I'm a straight white cis-man who prefers the he pronoun I'm happy to see the change. This due to the way that a singular they challenges the gender binary presented by our language, and make our shared language more robust but giving this neutral option. I hope you can help follow this tend as I think morally speaking it is the correct way to go because it is inclusive to gender non-binary people and there is already a set precedent so it's not like you'd have to fight for a cause or anything. To push back would be regressive and would actually harm people I know and care for.
Brilliant videos (but there is always a BUT in a sandwich feedback, so ...) but could have gone slower on this one because of the importance of the topic and many interrelated thoughts you provided.
Dear Smart Person, I was reading a voting pamphlet this morning. I saw one of the measures was to rebuild a new school. It would cost about 7,820,000 or seven million, eight hundred twenty thousand dollars. They were saying everyone in the state would pay for it, even if you live really far from it. I don't go there, neither does my sister, or my friends, is there a way to change it?
President Zilla looks good in his hat. That alone would get me to vote for him if his economic policy didn't depend solely on the broken window fallacy. "I pledge to jump start the economy by destroying cities and thereby creating new jobs for people who rebuild cities."
Azphix Xaxa Yet it still exists. For the amount of time the US has existed, France has gone through five republics, two monarchies, two empires, and two periods of foreign occupation.
Anthony Serocco You cant compare lol. France has been a country since the middle ages, of course its going to go through change. To put it in perspective, the 200 years that U.S has been a country, equals to half the time of a dynasty in China. Now that doesnt sound to bad, until you begin to realize that China has had 14 different dynasties since its inception. i give the U.S at most 150 more years before it ceases to exist as such.
The fact that the United States has existed for that long should point to its general sense of longevity, not unlike its counterparts. China, by all accounts, should not exist anymore, yet it does. Egypt should not have lasted past the Pharaoh, yet it does. Japan should not have lasted past the empire, yet it does. Russia should not have lasted past Yeltsin, yet it does. France should not have lasted past any part of their history, yet it does. This is a pattern. The nation state will last far longer than most give it credit.
Azphix Xaxa I hope you realize that France has had 5 republics, two monarchies, two empires, and two periods of occupation SINCE the birth of the only government America has had. In all reality, since 1776, the United States has actually been one of the more stable western governments. In fact, all the European Great Powers in that time span collapsed at least once, except for the Brits.
Can you rename this to crash course AMERICAN Government and Politics. Although you are american and probably unaware that america is not the only country in the world, i think you should know that not all your viewers are american and most of this stuff you are teaching only applies to united states politics.
Is it my impression - and I really hope I'm not the first one saying it - or was it a really, really bad idea to make a Crash Course Politics on American Government?! I have absolutely no anti-american sentiments whatsoever but, guys, come on.. You're on the freakin' Internet! It's a very wide audience!! A little open-mindedness and multi-culturalism, please.
The idea is to help students, like myself, learn American Government. Students like me find it helpful to watch a video to review for the test, or recap the unit. It’s purely a place to teach students how our government works.
I hope that a future series is Supreme Court cases. I'd love 5 minute summaries of how the case came up, the arguments on both sides, and the legacy of the rulings for a bunch of cases. Plessy v Ferguson, Brown v Board, Koromatsu, Maubury vs Madison, Citizens United, Reynolds v US, Loving v Virginia, and plenty that I haven't heard of that shape my life in ways that are all but invisible to me since the Supreme Court is about as transparent as lead.
James Endicott This would actually be really cool. I'd also like to see this.
I like to think that he Delegated the punching of the eagle to Stan, and that we can only blame Stan for the lack of eagle punching.
He didn't smack the eagle off the desk this episode.
Similar story in episode #11
1st one ive seen
Awww, no eagle punch...
I thought I had missed it! It's not the same without the eagle punch
FunkyHonkyCDXX He wasn't delegated that power this week.
you guys are nazi communists. wishing a man will punch an eagle, disposable. #StandwithEagle
The more I see of American politics, the bigger a miracle I think it is that it functions. Sort of.
Alderick van Klaveren part of the intention was that it shouldn't function well. People often get frustrated by gridlock in Congress, but gridlock is a design feature, not a bug. A government that can't or won't do things is a government that is not causing trouble (with new and intrusive laws) for the people! Or as Mark Twain once said: "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."
sststr
Right, like how there are more states where it is forbidden to give proper sex ed than there are where it is mandatory.
***** Quite clearly, I'm not an American.
***** the fact that it hasn't collapsed is pretty impressive though. There really aren't many countries that have had such a long period of continuous governance that wasn't interrupted by a violent revolution of some sort.
Cian
Exactly. And there have been so many opportunities where the US could have collapsed and didn't. All the while, other countries are deathly afraid of losing control.
I talked about delegation with my grandma and my grandma's friends.
I'd take some crash course philosophy for sure..I love how you guys present information. And I am constantly enjoying the presenter. Love how Craig said "well look it up" and gave an animation explaining the INS vs chada. Reminds people they can look up anything too!
That Presidentzilla was adorable :D
I'm so glad there are so many smart young people around these days who have absorbed so much of the details of U.S. political science. I'm a Vietnam veteran and getting old and still don't understand this in its entirety. I'll go back now and continue enjoying my retirement watching Paul McCartney concerts here on TH-cam. Remember, if it looks like B.S. and smells like B.S....don't eat it!
Craig's the most engaging voice on Crash Course at the moment, for me.
I wish they could make a show with cgp grey as the host
Dante David Méndez Chávez Sadly, he doesn't like being on camera
TheVlog CGP Grey has recently said in his podcast with Brady that he's getting more and more used with the idea of people knowing his face at last. So keep your hopes up!
TheVlog Could be all thought bubble, narrated by him
JEB Five Same amount of thought bubble, but the not thought bubble parts could be animated like the normal CPG Grey videos, with his stick figure.
William Stockhecker JEB Five Yeah, I thought the thought bubble cost more money to produce
The IRS was not overstepping the authority granted to it by Congress when investigating tea party linked 501(c)(4) groups; it was overstepping the authority by disproportionately targeting conservative groups, not by targeting them in the first place.
You saved my ass on the AP test today thanks!!
Something I didn't know I wanted until now: A pump-action chalk shotgun.
After this will you make a Crash Course British government and Politics?
I understand why you are ding U.S exclusive, but I'd love to learn more about an older system with less "muh constitution".
That actually would be interesting, hopefully the get around to it
***** While I agree that would be cool, I just can't see it happening. Most of the people that produce, fund (and possibly watch) Crash Course are American. Other than close historical, cultural, and linguistic ties to America, there isn't a compelling reason to do British Government and Politics. Why not French Politics, Why not Brazilian or Indonesian?
***** I just wish this was more general politics, like ideology, political theory, or more universal ideas such as different systems. I mean this series is ok, but not amazing.
***** Or at least a look at Parliamentarian systems from around the world. Just to compare and contrast.
Christopher McKee The only reason I could can come up with is that the U.K's parliamentary system forms the blueprint for more states' governments than any other in the world. Other than that it would be pretty arbitrary.
That said, I can see why such a series would never happen -- this show is very much aimed directly at Americans -- not just in this series but in many others the collective pronoun of 'we' is used very frequently to refer to Americans. It is clear that Crash Course is by Americans for Americans. Also the Politics series is funded by PBS -- they wouldn't fund a series about France or Britain or whatever.
I wish I had a brain for this kind of stuff. Science is easy; it's just logic. Government is a ridiculously complicated set of arbitrary rules.
I am exactly the other way around. Yes, science is logic. IDK why I can't quite grasp it.
Gwin Engel That’s the social contract for you
I get both. Guess im lucky
Power like hot potatoes, passing from one to other when it gets 'too hot'...
One video without an eagle punch is a victory. The first step in defeating a problem is realizing there is one. #StandwithEagle #EagleAbuseIsNazism
Thanks for not punching the eagle! Thumbs up; smiley face!
PLEASE FINISH THE SERIES BEFORE THE AP EXAM!
aren't the 501c4's supposed to be non political charitable groups? in which case, shouldn't they all be looked at if they seem to be doing political work, like they were?
sheepwshotguns Entities forming under 501(c) don't have to be charitable, only not-for-profit. They do need to be non-political, however. But non-political simply means that they don't make any statements in favor or opposition of any candidate for public office. They can be as ideological as they want, but so long as they don't speak in favor or opposition of any candidates for public office, they are tax-exempt (i.e., they can make factual statements/reports about candidate behavior/activity, however; essentially, they can't say "Vote for X!" or "Vote against Y!").
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501
J.D. Montgomery now that does not sound like the Tea Party...
*****
then maybe the question we should be having is whether this sort of political tax evasion should be allowed to persist.
*****
sigh...
its one thing if its a local volunteer firefighting department, its another when its Crossroads GPS spewing nonsense to get people to vote a particular way. these "social welfare groups" ideally need to provide an actual physical service. providing information about themselves is one thing, but disseminating political information even at a 50/50 ratio, perhaps not so much...
distinctions like this, and rational adjustments to them should be addressed. though im not sure why we need 501c4's at all if we have 501c3's. it seems unnecessary.
not sure how im being wrong by asking for a discussion about that... unless you can give me a solid reason for why we have this tax exemption as it stands and why it shouldn't be altered.
Field Marshal Fry That's because you are probably defining "Tea Party" too broadly. It's likely the 501(c)(3) has an separate, but affiliated PAC which does all their political speaking. But so long as the org itself does not advocate for or against the election of any candidate for public office, they're okay.
Could you please get some more episodes out before the AP exam?
was that Laci Green holding the laptop at 3:24? If so, YAAAAAYYY!
Crash Course British government and Politics! Please.
"...INS versus child a case but never INS versus chodo welling up so that's a delegation is fair enough but it doesn't..." good job closed captions.
Omg! Wheezywaiter! It was literally the other day when i was thinking "I wonder what he's doing now" =)
What is the relationship between Congress granting broad discretionary powers to federal agencies and the incumbency advantage enjoyed by congressme
2:08 Wait what? The IRS didn't "target" them.
OwenBruch22 Well technically with the Tea Party movement there was a large amount of groups all claiming tax exempt status at the same time and using the same language. Naturally the agency would give extra scrutiny to this surge of groups since some might be trying to use similar words and phrases to get tax exempt status without actually doing anything and might just be trying to funnel money in some way through a fraudulent "Tea Party" group. This scrutiny happened around the same time as and to a lesser degree with liberal groups related to the occupy movement.
In summation the IRS had reason to be skeptical of these groups and treated a few liberal groups in the same way. When I first heard about the "scandal" I thought that it was kind of bad of them to "target" these groups but after an actual explanation I realized that they were just doing their jobs. They were investigating organisations that wanted to apply for tax exempt status and there was an influx of very similar applications so they were being careful but not in the best way.
Richard Simmang initially you were right, in that some congressmen and leftwing groups stated that there was some balance in the scrutiny. Since then it has been proven that NOT a single leftwing group was scrutinized. That is a fact. Additionally, using key words like "Patriot", "Liberty" and "Constitution" to find groups to scrutinize is exactly "targeting".
Moreover, these were no regular audits. The (aforementioned, targeted) groups were illegally demanded that they hand over all their speeches, meetings minutes, prayers, Facebook posts, donor info, and other information that is way beyond the scope of the law.
Moreover, after handing over all said info, they were not approved for two years (average approved takes one-two months). Bear in mind that until approval they cannot collect money as an Org., thus crippling and neutralizing them just in time for the 2012 election.
The White House and IRS have both admitted to the targeting of Conservative groups (though claiming that it was only a 'regional', not institution-wide problem), and no matter what Slate and Salon will write (they want to abolish all 501c3s, and therefore want all groups to be targeted, making the conservative groups that were targeted a small good in and of itself) the facts remain the facts.
Richard Simmang Nixon's Watergate was child play compared to the mass intimidation and chilling effect the IRS targeting had on Obama's political opponents.
Richard Simmang Oh, and let's not forget that when some of the Targeted Groups went to federal court to sue the IRS (after the scandal broke, and they still hadn't been approved) the IRS granted them approval just before judgment, so the Court ruled that they no longer have a case because, now that they've been approved, lacked standing...
I wish they woulda finished this series before the ap test
They is an acceptable middle ground to the he/she problem... As a bonus it doesn't exclude those who don't fit into the he/she dichotomy.
***** nawdude
*****
I can assure you that your are wrong, and that both the Oxford dictionary and Wikipedia agree with me (as well as all the english majors I know).
www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/he-or-she-versus-they (scroll half way down that's when they (see!) start talking about They/them/their)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
Not only that, but I know many people who have made the same argument, but then went on to use they/their/them as a singular soon after. It's part of the common language and in the cases of personal pronoun use as used in this video. There was no reason not too use They/them/their.
Nerd fighters claim to be and what to be inclusive. I pointing out that in this video there was room for improvement.
Well one I'm Canadian, and two language isn't sent in stone, it changes and I think this a good way to go. It's more inclusive and a majority of English speakers already do it anyway.
Though at the end of the day while you can actually claim that it isn't an acceptable use of english language it is in at least.
Though I'm not going to take your AP highschool over the english bachelors degrees of multiple my friends (I myself am a botanist). However I will provisionally grant your point on it not being acceptable in the US if you can show me two recent and reputable (Ie. dictionaries or similar) which disagree with me.
Until then your simpely asserting your claim without evidence and you applea to aurothies (yourself) which to be honest do not begin to compete with the links I've granted. I've provided evidence without issue, now it's your turn.
However, for english in general It would seem that I am correct and this is effectively indisputable in our current discourse.
***** (double post since I failed to correctly add your name)
Well one I'm Canadian, and two language isn't sent in stone, it changes and I think this a good way to go. It's more inclusive and a majority of English speakers already do it anyway.
Though at the end of the day while you can actually claim that it isn't an acceptable use of english language it is in at least.
Though I'm not going to take your AP highschool over the english bachelors degrees of multiple my friends (I myself am a botanist). However I will provisionally grant your point on it not being acceptable in the US if you can show me two recent and reputable (Ie. dictionaries or similar) which disagree with me.
Until then your simply asserting your claim without evidence and you appeal to authorities (yourself) which to be honest do not begin to compete with the links I've granted. I've provided evidence without issue, now it's your turn.
However, for english in general It would seem that I am correct and this is effectively indisputable in our current discourse.
*****
Hi zh11147. Since to make my point I really only have to link to one reputable source to make my point, because I only need to show it is at least partially accepted in the USA (That is I only need to find one counter example to show your claim false)
So that fact that Merriam-Webster agrees with me (though I will grant it's more provisional then in the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries), and is an American dictionary. I genuinely don't mean to be rude when I say this, but you seem to be incorrect on this one.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they
Perhaps you would have been correct when you first learned it, but as I've mentioned it before language is not static. This is a change (or more precisely a change back as this is not an original trend) which has only been gaining popularity.
Even though I'm a straight white cis-man who prefers the he pronoun I'm happy to see the change. This due to the way that a singular they challenges the gender binary presented by our language, and make our shared language more robust but giving this neutral option. I hope you can help follow this tend as I think morally speaking it is the correct way to go because it is inclusive to gender non-binary people and there is already a set precedent so it's not like you'd have to fight for a cause or anything. To push back would be regressive and would actually harm people I know and care for.
Who you gonna call? Congress!
AP Exam...HERE WE GO!!!!
Every time he says it, it sounds like "beer-ocracy".
+PopeLando is it suppose to be Beer-O-acracy?
Stan forgot to delegate Craig to eagle punch...
The opening voice sounds like Dylan from chills
you guys should sell "crash course" stickers in your shop, I'd love to grab one!
What over already, por que?
Gabriel Laureano Turn down for what?
Gabriel Laureano como no?
Gabriel Laureano bueno pa gozar
I'd love to have those conversations, but my peers tend to fly off the handle with boohoos and ignorance, making the discussion futile.
notma reelnam IKR
That's why I love internet
The only place where you can find your philosophical and political peers
notma reelnam /r/IAmVerySmart
Good video
Crash course philosophy
8 bit philosophy already exists.
***** And it's very good too!
Who would settle a dispute over floor debate procedures in the House?
Thought bubble Craig is bae
thank you
I love these video but... it'd wish they'd be a little bit longer.
^^^ *applause*
Please add captioning as this topic is fascinating yet inacessible to me as a Deaf person who is very much an activist.
Thank you.
Brilliant videos (but there is always a BUT in a sandwich feedback, so ...) but could have gone slower on this one because of the importance of the topic and many interrelated thoughts you provided.
Haha. "When the country is at war we tend to delegate powers to the executive branch." Which has been forever.
Dear Smart Person,
I was reading a voting pamphlet this morning. I saw one of the measures was to rebuild a new school. It would cost about 7,820,000 or seven million, eight hundred twenty thousand dollars. They were saying everyone in the state would pay for it, even if you live really far from it. I don't go there, neither does my sister, or my friends, is there a way to change it?
+Andrew King REBEL unless the school is a free collage in which case: hi my name is Cesar I am your friend now, where is this school?xD
no eagle punching?
Craig must have a friggin' obsession with Alben Barkley--every episode on Congress contains at least picture of the VEEP!
I would write more but I've got to go look it up...
+of the earth same brb
How can Congress curb the discretionary powers given to federal agencies?
Aristotle and Christian Thought: Crash Course Philosophy #3
Yaaaay! To the Civilian Conservation Corps in the New Deal Thought Bubble!
You forgot to punch the Eagle. Is everything okay?
didn't punch the eagle !!!! WHY!
No Eagle punch :'(
Rather short today :( More like the second movie in a trilogy than a stand alone episode.
HE DIDN'T PUNCH THE EAGLE! OH NOOOOOOOOOOOO
I think i like craig as much as i do john
President Zilla looks good in his hat. That alone would get me to vote for him if his economic policy didn't depend solely on the broken window fallacy. "I pledge to jump start the economy by destroying cities and thereby creating new jobs for people who rebuild cities."
Thanx.I bet if I read I would know this
If you are reading this, congratulations, your reading the comment of a deadman, as I have the AP Government Test Now.
TO BE FAIR #10 had 3 punches
Is it just me or is that fitz announcing the sponsor
Is this WheezyWaiter
7th comment! Hey! I love your videos because they teach me sooooooo much!!!! Keep up the good work!
How bout that good ol " Patriot Act", am I right?
Socrates and Plato: Crash Course Philosophy #2
No eagles were punched during the making of this video...sorry to disappoint you if you read this before you watch the video
when is economics comming ?!!!!! :'(
Where did the clones go?
He did not hit the eagle! Victory!
The more i watch these videos, the more i realize how much of a joke the U.S system of government is.
Azphix Xaxa Yet it still exists. For the amount of time the US has existed, France has gone through five republics, two monarchies, two empires, and two periods of foreign occupation.
Anthony Serocco
You cant compare lol. France has been a country since the middle ages, of course its going to go through change. To put it in perspective, the 200 years that U.S has been a country, equals to half the time of a dynasty in China. Now that doesnt sound to bad, until you begin to realize that China has had 14 different dynasties since its inception. i give the U.S at most 150 more years before it ceases to exist as such.
The fact that the United States has existed for that long should point to its general sense of longevity, not unlike its counterparts. China, by all accounts, should not exist anymore, yet it does. Egypt should not have lasted past the Pharaoh, yet it does. Japan should not have lasted past the empire, yet it does. Russia should not have lasted past Yeltsin, yet it does. France should not have lasted past any part of their history, yet it does.
This is a pattern. The nation state will last far longer than most give it credit.
Azphix Xaxa I hope you realize that France has had 5 republics, two monarchies, two empires, and two periods of occupation SINCE the birth of the only government America has had. In all reality, since 1776, the United States has actually been one of the more stable western governments. In fact, all the European Great Powers in that time span collapsed at least once, except for the Brits.
Gamerpark555 if you compare the size of the British Empire at its peak to the modern United Kingdom, I'd say it's fair to say that they collapsed too.
This video needs 100% more eagle punching
Can we talk about ideologies for once?
Eagle punch!? :( :(
John looks different
Hi.
blue
hi
why so little views??
James Northup You're early!!
Rand Paul 2016!
So you're saying trump could do some damage then...
whoa, did you just foresee trumps victory 3 months in advance?
Need to slow down while talking
Can you rename this to crash course AMERICAN Government and Politics. Although you are american and probably unaware that america is not the only country in the world, i think you should know that not all your viewers are american and most of this stuff you are teaching only applies to united states politics.
The playlist is labeled U.S. Government and Politics
He didn't punch the eagle?! Wtf! Worst episode ever
Too fast
This guy talks really fast lol
You guys wasted way too much time on Congress..AP Exam May 12th.
11th
Set the speed to 50%, it's hilarious.
89th view!
Is it my impression - and I really hope I'm not the first one saying it - or was it a really, really bad idea to make a Crash Course Politics on American Government?! I have absolutely no anti-american sentiments whatsoever but, guys, come on.. You're on the freakin' Internet! It's a very wide audience!! A little open-mindedness and multi-culturalism, please.
just because they're on the internet, they're still Americans. multicultural? what's that?
The idea is to help students, like myself, learn American Government. Students like me find it helpful to watch a video to review for the test, or recap the unit. It’s purely a place to teach students how our government works.
No eagle punch?! Unsubscribed! ;)
Wait, no eagle punch?! Dislike!!
first