Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • The following is a New Hampshire primary 2020

  • special presentation.

  • The Exchange Candidate Forums from NHPR in partnership

  • with New Hampshire PBS.

  • From New Hampshire Public Radio, I'm Laura Knoy,

  • and this is "The Exchange."

  • Today, we continue our series of presidential primary 2020

  • candidate forums and for this show on Thursday, November 7,

  • we're talking with democratic presidential candidate, Andrew

  • Yang.

  • He's with us before a live audience in NHPR's Studio D.

  • [applause]

  • Our questions today will include some of the many

  • that we receive from listeners.

  • So thank you for your contributions.

  • Also, I'm joined by NHPR's senior political reporter,

  • Josh Rogers.

  • He and I will both ask questions of Mr. Yang.

  • And Andrew Yang, it's nice to meet you.

  • Thank you for being here.

  • It's great to be here.

  • Thank you so much for having me.

  • I love being in New Hampshire.

  • Josh, let's start with you.

  • All right, Mr. Yang, let's start big.

  • What's your view of the role government

  • should play in our lives besides giving everyone

  • over the age of 18 $1,000 a month?

  • [yang chuckles]

  • I love this question.

  • To me, the government's responsibility

  • is to solve the biggest problems and address the biggest

  • needs that don't have any market incentive attached to them.

  • And I'm a parent.

  • I talk a lot about how my wife is at home with our two

  • boys, one of whom is autistic.

  • And there's obviously no market value attached to her work,

  • despite the fact that we know it's the most important work

  • that anyone's going to do.

  • The same is true with educating our children.

  • I believe the same is true with keeping us healthy, keeping

  • our water and air clean.

  • There aren't market incentives attached

  • to some of these things and that's

  • where the government has to fill in to address that need for all

  • of us.

  • So you've written that quote, "without dramatic change,

  • the best case scenario is a hyper stratified society

  • like something out of "The Hunger Games"

  • or Guatemala with an occasional mass shooting.

  • The worst case is widespread despair, violence,

  • and the utter collapse of our society and economy."

  • I'll let that sink in for a moment.

  • A survey that NHPR took of listeners

  • indicate that a lot of voters this year

  • are seeking a positive healing vision from our next president.

  • I mean, you see a pretty grim future without dramatic change.

  • Do you think that this is speaking to what voters want?

  • Well, I believe that that is the vision that we have to prevent.

  • It's one reason why I love being here in New Hampshire,

  • because you all control the future of the country.

  • If you direct the country towards a more positive vision

  • of our future, then we can make that vision of reality very,

  • very quickly.

  • This is the most extreme winner take

  • all economy in our history.

  • And we're now going through the greatest

  • economic transformation in our country's history, what

  • experts are calling the fourth Industrial Revolution.

  • In my view, it is the main reason

  • Donald Trump won that we automated away

  • 4 million manufacturing jobs that were largely centered

  • in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa,

  • all the swing states he needed to win.

  • You all lost about 40,000 manufacturing jobs,

  • but you did it a bit earlier.

  • And that devastated many communities

  • in the northern part of New Hampshire.

  • That wave then ripped a hole in many, many Midwestern

  • communities.

  • And I spent seven years working in many of these communities,

  • so I saw it firsthand.

  • And what happened to those manufacturing jobs

  • is now shifting to retail jobs, call center jobs, truck driving

  • jobs, fast food jobs, and on and on through the economy.

  • If we do not evolve in the way we see ourselves,

  • and our work, and our value, then our very bleak future

  • does await.

  • But it does not need to be that way.

  • And that is the message of my campaign--

  • that New Hampshire can create a new way forward

  • for the rest of the country.

  • I mean, what's a timetable on that vision?

  • Well, the manufacturing job loss has already been happening.

  • And again, we automated away 4 million manufacturing jobs

  • over the last 15 years or so.

  • And now 30% of your stores and malls

  • are closing in the next four years.

  • And that's not just in New Hampshire-- that is nationwide.

  • Now why is that?

  • It's because Amazon is soaking up $20 billion

  • in business every single year and paying zero in taxes

  • while doing it.

  • So the biggest misconception is that what I'm talking about,

  • this fourth Industrial Revolution,

  • is somehow in the distant future.

  • It is not.

  • It has been going on for 15, 20 years now,

  • and it's about to accelerate.

  • And when you look and you see your Main Street

  • store is closing forever, it doesn't seem like an automation

  • story because it's not like a robot went and took

  • that retail clerk's job.

  • But if you go to the Amazon fulfillment center that

  • is putting that store out of business,

  • it's wall to wall robots and machines.

  • But I mean, what is your view of basic human nature if we're

  • in such a precarious state that we

  • have let, in your estimation, the logic of markets

  • so dominate our culture that we're

  • facing this kind of apocalyptic vision?

  • What do you believe about the nature of Americans

  • and where we've let our politics go?

  • Most people who've heard about me and my campaign

  • know that I'm championing a freedom dividend of $1,000

  • a month for every American adult starting at age 18.

  • And when you hear that, it sounds

  • literally too good to be true.

  • But this is not my idea and it's not a new idea.

  • Martin Luther King championed it in the 1960s.

  • It is what he was fighting for when he who was

  • assassinated in 1968.

  • And it was so mainstream it passed

  • the US House of Representatives twice in 1971 under Nixon.

  • So when you're asking how have we gone to this point--

  • my wife and I have had the same conversation-- how

  • is it that what was a mainstream policy endorsed by 1,000

  • economists and passed the US House now

  • seems really radical, and dramatic, and extreme when

  • we're talking about it in 2019?

  • What happened between 1971 and now

  • is that we were all pushed to a point where

  • we started to confuse economic value and human value.

  • Where we said, hey, if the market thinks you're worthless,

  • then you are worthless.

  • It's why we have discussions around trying

  • to retrain coal miners and truck drivers to be coders.

  • Which makes no sense on the face of it,

  • but we're so brainwashed into thinking

  • that if you don't have economic value, you don't have value.

  • That we didn't contort ourselves in ridiculous ways

  • to try and push someone to a point where they still

  • have economic value, even when that doesn't make sense

  • on a human level or an economic level.

  • Let's get a little more clarity on the universal basic income,

  • Mr. Yang.

  • Again, $1,000 a month to every American adult

  • over the age of 18 up to 64--

  • could we just clarify that?

  • Up until your expiration, so it goes forever.

  • And it would be the greatest expansion of social security

  • benefits in our country's history, in large part

  • because we're facing a retiree crisis in this country, where

  • tens of millions of Americans will be

  • working until the day they die.

  • With the freedom dividend on top of social security

  • we can actually build an economy that works for Americans

  • to be able retire with dignity.

  • OK, so from age 18 up until death.

  • What about people who receive other government benefits,

  • besides social security, Mr. Yang-- food stamps, welfare

  • and so forth.

  • Would they also get those benefits plus the $1,000?

  • So the freedom dividend is universal and opt in.

  • And it stacks on top of things like Medicare, Medicaid, Social

  • Security, and housing benefits.

  • But if you do decide to opt into the freedom dividend,

  • then you're choosing to forego certain cash and cash

  • like benefits from food stamps, and heating oil subsidies,

  • and things that are meant to put cash in your hands

  • to buy certain things.

  • The goal is not to leave anyone worse off,

  • that's why it's opt in.

  • And I would not touch existing programs,

  • but you would make a choice.

  • I've talked to people who are on certain benefit programs now,

  • and they are very often are very anxious about losing

  • their benefits because they haven't filed something

  • correctly or they have a case manager that checks up on them.

  • There's a lot of stress associated with that.

  • And many of them would vastly prefer an unconditional cash

  • benefit that they could spend how they see fit.

  • We've got lots of questions from listeners on this

  • and I want to share a few with you, Mr. Yang.

  • James asks, what do you say to critics who say your freedom

  • dividend will cause inflation?

  • Ken sent us a similar question.

  • How would you keep cost of living increases,

  • especially rent increases, Ken says,

  • from swallowing up universal income?

  • Can you respond please to those concerns

  • that if you pump all this cash suddenly into the economy,

  • prices will naturally go up?

  • Of course.

  • I'd love to.

  • So you all remember voting for the $4 trillion

  • bailout of Wall Street and the financial crisis?

  • I don't.

  • None of us voted for it.

  • Does anyone remember anyone concerned about inflation

  • during that time?

  • And lo and behold, there was not meaningful inflation

  • despite the fact that our government printed $4 trillion

  • for the banks.

  • You put buying power into our hands

  • and it will make us stronger, healthier less stressed out,

  • improve our relationships, improve Main Street economies

  • here in New Hampshire and across the country.

  • There are three core causes of inflation

  • right now in American life.

  • Unfortunately, they're the ones that

  • make us the most miserable.

  • They are rent, education, and health care.

  • Those three things have gone up in price dramatically

  • over the last number of years.

  • What has not gone up?

  • Pretty much everything else.

  • Clothing, food, media, electronics, automobiles,

  • have either stayed the same in price, gotten cheaper,

  • or gotten better.

  • You don't think manufacturers, landlords would say,

  • hey, everybody's got an extra $1,000,

  • let's jack up the price a little bit, they'll never notice?

  • So for landlords-- if a landlord-- if you're

  • living in a rental right now, you

  • get an extra $1,000 a month, and the landlord is like,

  • you, I'm going to stick it to you,

  • I'm going to jack up your rent by $600,

  • then the first thing you do is you look up

  • and say, OK, let me see if other landlords are not

  • going to try and gouge me.

  • And then let's say a real landlord tried to gouge you,

  • if it reaches that extreme, then you'd look around

  • and say, well, there are four of us,

  • we're getting $1,000 a month, with $4,000 a month,

  • we can actually buy that fixer upper.

  • And then you can take upstairs, I'll take downstairs.

  • This actually makes us harder to exploit

  • and harder to push around for landlords or abusive employers.

  • This improves our bargaining power because $1,000 a month

  • is portable, it's passive, it goes with us wherever we want.

  • And if they push too hard, then we can walk.

  • A couple more questions on this and then

  • I'll throw it back to Josh.

  • People asked us also, Mr. Yang, why this has

  • no income eligibility attached.

  • They said why should Jeff Bezos or Oprah Winfrey

  • get $1,000 a month?

  • They don't seem especially needy.

  • So Alaska has had a dividend for almost 40 years now

  • where everyone in Alaska gets between $1,000 and $2,000

  • a year, no questions asked.

  • Because of the oil.

  • Because of the oil dividend.

  • And what I'm saying to you all here

  • in New Hampshire and everyone around the country

  • is that oil is to Alaska what technology is to the country.

  • That technology is the oil of the 21st century.

  • Our data is now worth more than oil.

  • Does anyone remember getting your data check in the mail?

  • No.

  • Where did the data checks go?

  • Amazon, Facebook, Google, and the trillion dollar

  • tech companies that are paying zero or near-zero in taxes.

  • So what Alaska's done for the last 40 years to me

  • is a fantastic template.

  • And the richest Alaskan gets the oil dividend,

  • the poorest Alaskan gets it.

  • And what that does is it destigmatize,

  • it turns it not from a rich to poor transfer,

  • but a right of citizenship.

  • It makes it so we don't have to check up on you

  • and try and figure out how much you made this year

  • relative to last year.

  • And my funding mechanism would literally

  • generate billions of dollars from the Jeff

  • Bezos of the world.

  • And so if we try and send Jeff $1,000 a month just

  • to remind him he's an American, that's

  • immaterial in the scheme of things,

  • particularly when you weigh it against the fact

  • that we would make this a universal right.

  • Well, in an era of concern about exploding deficits and debt,

  • you know, it seems a legitimate question to say,

  • is it a waste of taxpayer money to give it

  • to super rich people?

  • Well, fundamentally, these are our resources.

  • And so Jeff still is an American.

  • But the problem we have with our deficit to me

  • is primarily a revenue problem.

  • Where if you have a trillion dollar tech company like Amazon

  • paying zero in taxes, then of course

  • you get to look around saying, OK,

  • like, where's the money going, where is the money going?

  • They're so powerful that they've managed

  • to obscure the fact that they're paying zero in taxes

  • while the rest of us are trying to figure out

  • how to pay the country's bills.

  • So if we put a mechanism in place

  • where you all, we all, are getting our tiny fair share

  • of every Amazon sale, every Google search, every robot

  • truck mile, every Facebook ad, and eventually,

  • every artificial intelligence unit of work,

  • we can generate hundreds of billions

  • of dollars in new revenue very, very quickly immediately.

  • Enough to pay for this dividend that

  • would flow through our communities

  • and build a trickle up economy from our people, our families,

  • and our communities.

  • So it's a revenue problem more than an expense problem.

  • And maybe we'll touch on this a little bit later

  • because I do want to hand it back

  • to Josh, but one last question.

  • You've talked a lot about this, $10,000 a year, $1,000 a month.

  • Inflation adjusted too, so it ratchets itself up

  • based upon what the prices do.

  • So as one of the sort of ways that you would help people

  • displaced by automation, that vision

  • that Josh painted earlier, but as you

  • know, Mr. Yang, $12,000 a year, not very much to live on.

  • So what other ideas do you have for reducing

  • the possible negative effects of automation that you see?

  • Well, this is an all hands on deck situation.

  • I am for education and retraining programs,

  • but the studies have clearly shown that they will

  • work on 0 to 20% of workers.

  • And if you go to the average truckstop

  • and you have a clipboard saying, hey, how would you

  • like to get retrained as a logistics specialist,

  • they'd be more likely to punch you in the face than sign

  • your clipboard, honestly?

  • You'd get like eight punches for every two signatures.

  • So we need to retrain, yes, but we

  • have to be realistic about what that means.

  • The big picture is that we have to actually reframe

  • what our economic measurements are

  • directing our energies towards.

  • So right now, what are the three measurements

  • we use for our economy?

  • Gross domestic product, stock market prices,

  • and headline unemployment rate.

  • And these three numbers are not the right numbers.

  • One joke I tell is, how many of you

  • were excited about GDP when you woke up this morning?

  • No one cares.

  • GDP is at record highs.

  • Also at record highs in this country--

  • suicides, drug overdoses, stress, financial insecurity,

  • student loan debt.

  • It's gotten so bad that our country's life expectancy

  • has declined for three years in a row.

  • First time that's happened in 100 years.

  • Last time it happened was the Spanish flu

  • of 1918, a global pandemic that killed millions.

  • And now it's declining because suicides and drug

  • overdoses have both overtaken vehicle deaths

  • as cause of death.

  • So if we actually changed the measuring sticks of our economy

  • to be our own health and life expectancy, our mental health

  • and freedom from substance abuse, clean air and clean

  • water, how our kids are doing, then you

  • end up with a whole different set of jobs and opportunities

  • for people that are pushing us in these directions,

  • and solving the real problems of our time.

  • I know we have some questions for you later about opioids,

  • but I want to turn it back to you, Josh.

  • I'm going to shift to some of your ideas

  • about how to reform our political system.

  • You know, on your website you say

  • you'd like to end Super PACs and drown out their influence,

  • but as you know, Super PAC has formed Math PAC to benefit you.

  • And when you were in New Hampshire last month,

  • you said you knew very little about it,

  • but you also said, quote, "I just hope

  • they're in line with my vision for the country,

  • and that they'll invest accordingly."

  • How do you square your position with that statement regarding

  • the Super PAC that's formed to benefit your campaign?

  • We know exactly what's going on, Josh,

  • where our government is now bought and paid

  • for by various corporate interests and lobbying

  • interests.

  • That's one reason why New Hampshire

  • is so important, is that you and you alone can flush the pipes.

  • My campaign raised $10 million last quarter

  • in increments of only $30 each.

  • So my fans are almost as cheap as Bernie's.

  • [laughter]

  • And none of that was corporate PAC money.

  • I'm here to try and solve the problems.

  • My flagship proposal is to give every American voter

  • 100 democracy dollars that you could use towards campaigns

  • and candidates.

  • And that would flush out the lobbyist cash

  • by a factor of 8 to 1.

  • That's how we actually get our government back in our hands

  • responding to us instead of the money.

  • In the interim, we have this corrupt flawed system,

  • and we have to win so that we can actually

  • make the changes that the American people want

  • and deserve.

  • So you don't believe you can win while renouncing the Super

  • PAC obviously not under your control,

  • but others in the Democratic primary

  • have denounced Super PACs, some have kind of waffled on that.

  • But you think that you'll live with the system

  • and then flush upon election, but until then, you'll

  • hold your nose?

  • I'm running my campaign, and I'm very, very clear

  • on what we need to clean up about our corrupt system.

  • If other Americans look up and say they want to help, like,

  • I've no control over that.

  • I genuinely don't know much about any of the organizations

  • that are trying to help the campaign

  • but I'm looking at it saying, look,

  • we have this messed up system right now.

  • If someone wants to use that messed up system to help,

  • I'm just hopeful that they are aligned with my vision.

  • And as for other ways you hope to curb corruption,

  • you've talked about bumping up the pay of government

  • regulators.

  • You've talked about making the presidency a job

  • that will pay $4 million a year.

  • I mean, how big a problem do you think

  • the revolving door is in terms of the way it

  • shapes our policies?

  • We know it's a terrible problem, where regulators just

  • check a box then go back to industry two years later

  • and nothing ever changes.

  • That's why we have to make being a regulator a one way street,

  • where you're not going to go back and work

  • for industry afterwards.

  • All right, well, coming up, we'll

  • talk about climate change, opioids, and a lot more.

  • Stay with us.

  • This is "The Exchange" on New Hampshire Public Radio.

  • [music playing]

  • You're watching Primary 2020, The Exchange Candidate

  • Forums from NHPR, produced in partnership with New Hampshire

  • PBS.

  • This is "The Exchange."

  • I'm Laura Knoy.

  • Today, It's the latest in our Primary 2020 Candidate Forum

  • series, and we're talking with Democrat, Andrew Yang.

  • NHPR's senior political reporter, Josh Rogers,

  • is also with me.

  • And Mr. Yang, let's turn to climate change.

  • I know this is a big issue for you.

  • I looked at your plan.

  • It is long and detailed with ambitious goals

  • to get the country to a totally green economy by 2049.

  • What's the first step, because there are a lot of steps

  • in here?

  • The first step is we have to put a price on pollution.

  • One of the biggest problems in American life

  • is there are these externalities is

  • that companies are essentially pushing onto us, the public.

  • And then they take home the profits and we bear the costs.

  • So the first thing we have to do is

  • we have to actually put a price on carbon emissions.

  • So if you pollute, then you pay back

  • into the system that we can then invest in a green economy,

  • and provide an incentive for you to lower your emissions

  • as quickly as possible.

  • The second big move you make is you

  • stop subsidizing fossil fuel companies to tens of billions

  • of dollars that they've been enjoying for decades,

  • and move those subsidies and resources to wind,

  • and solar, and renewable energy sources

  • so that we can make progress in the right direction,

  • and start reducing our emissions to try

  • and reach zero emissions by 2049.

  • So step number one, carbon tax.

  • Yes.

  • And I understand again, that the plan has a lot to it.

  • If I could ask you, though, about the carbon tax,

  • because that's become an important issue I

  • think in this presidential primary,

  • you start off with $40 a ton.

  • It eventually it gets up to $100 a ton.

  • How are you going to explain to the American people

  • that this won't hurt them, because as you know,

  • most low income people spend more of their budgets

  • on energy?

  • Well, this would be essentially zero imPACt

  • on the average consumer's energy bills.

  • The $40 a ton is literally for people

  • who are emitting thousands and thousands of tons every year,

  • unless the average American has a smokestack on their--

  • [yang laughs] on their roof.

  • But the cost is passed on to consumers.

  • And those costs will help make us greener over time.

  • And because you can't have zero cost of pollution--

  • and I was with Ned Reynolds, who's

  • an entrepreneur here in New Hampshire in Portsmouth,

  • and they've been installing solar panels

  • throughout the state and beyond.

  • They have hundreds of employees.

  • And that becomes a win-win-win for everyone,

  • because it obviously lowers emissions,

  • but it also saves you on your heating bills,

  • and makes the community stronger.

  • So that's the kind of move that we

  • can make that will make it so people's costs are

  • lower, not higher.

  • Last thing we want to do is have it

  • hit the middle class or people who are working every day.

  • If the US applied this pretty hefty carbon

  • tax, how much do you think, Mr. Yang, polluting industries

  • might say, forget the US, we're going

  • to build our factories overseas that don't have these taxes.

  • So the planet's net carbon might not

  • change, even though it wouldn't be emitted here.

  • Is that a concern, something you envisioned?

  • If you go up to 100 bucks a ton?

  • Well, the 100 bucks, it takes a while to get to.

  • But this is a massive issue, because 85% of the carbon

  • emissions are actually outside of our borders.

  • So even if we were to get ourselves under control very,

  • very quickly, the earth will continue

  • to warm because the 85% will continue to increase.

  • Right now, China is going to developing countries in Africa

  • and saying, hey, I've got a power plant for you,

  • it burns coal.

  • What do you think?

  • And then what does the African governments say?

  • Great, because they just want energy.

  • They don't care what it burns.

  • And so if we want to combat climate change globally,

  • we're going to have to be there at that table and say,

  • why not pass on the coal burning power plant,

  • and instead, take these solar panels,

  • take these wind turbines, and we will subsidize them

  • enough so that this is actually a better way to go?

  • That's the kind of conversation we

  • need to be having not just with our own industry,

  • but with societies around the world if we're actually

  • going to get our arms around this problem.

  • So how do you convince that African nation

  • to take American solar panels versus Chinese coal?

  • You speak to them in terms of costs.

  • Because frankly, they're not going to care about anything

  • but which is cheaper.

  • And so we in America subsidize things all the time

  • on an export basis.

  • We need to subsidize things that will actually

  • help make the planet more sustainable,

  • and make it so that it's a no brainer

  • for that African government to opt

  • towards solar rather than coal.

  • I want to ask you a couple of questions about nuclear power.

  • You do say in your plan nuclear needs

  • to be part of this equation, describing it

  • as a stop gap on the way to more reliance on other alternatives

  • like solar.

  • And you call, Mr. Yang, for $50 billion

  • in research and development for thorium-based molten salt

  • reactors and nuclear fusion reactors.

  • So to me, this sounds like a major investment, not

  • a stopgap.

  • We consume a lot of energy in this country.

  • And unless we want to have massive changes

  • in our way of life during this time period, in my view,

  • nuclear needs to be on the table.

  • And thorium-based reactors have incredible benefits

  • relative to the current technologies.

  • Thorium is not intrinsically radioactive.

  • It degrades much faster than uranium,

  • you can't make weapons out of it.

  • And so it has a wealth of potential

  • to help make us more sustainable more quickly.

  • To me, if you're in a crisis, which

  • we are in terms of climate change,

  • then you can't leave anything off the table.

  • And that to me includes nuclear and next generation nuclear.

  • Is that big investment though, $50 billion--

  • is that a stopgap?

  • I guess I want you to explain a little bit more what

  • you mean by stopgap.

  • Is nuclear part of the long term Andrew Yang

  • vision or the short term Andrew Yang vision?

  • It's part of the set of solutions

  • that we need to consider.

  • And anyone who looks at what we need

  • to do on climate change and energy consumption

  • will say that we need to do more of what's working.

  • And so if we successfully implement next generation

  • nuclear power plants, and they're working,

  • and they're not presenting a problem in terms

  • of waste disposal, then we would keep them.

  • If we have better alternatives like solar panels

  • are actually meeting our society's needs,

  • then that's the direction we would go.

  • But anyone who looks at this who says

  • we know exactly what the makeup is

  • going to be decades in the future actually doesn't know.

  • What we're all doing is pushing in this direction,

  • and then we're going to adopt more and invest more

  • in what works.

  • Go ahead, Josh, back to you.

  • I want to talk to you--

  • we've already talked about a bunch of big ideas

  • you have from the UBI, to your climate change plans,

  • to some of the reforms around our political system.

  • And you know, I've been to a lot of your events,

  • and I've talked to a bunch of voters,

  • who have checked you out.

  • And a lot of them--

  • I haven't seen you there, Josh.

  • You're sort of-- Well, you know, I'm very inconspicuous.

  • I guess so!

  • A lot of voters I've talked to have told me something

  • along the lines of this--

  • Andrew Young's got a lot of interesting ideas, you know,

  • gives kind of a heck of a Ted Talk.

  • But why should I believe he's capable of marshaling

  • the kind of movement that one would need

  • to put these ideas into place?

  • What do you say to a person who has those feelings?

  • Well, that's one reason why it's so tremendous being here

  • in New Hampshire, is that you all can, again,

  • take a vision the American people,

  • and have that vision become a revolution very, very quickly.

  • I want everyone to play out Andrew Yang inauguration 2021,

  • where everyone will know that the reason I won

  • is because I want to put more economic buying

  • power into our hands into the people's hands.

  • And that's the best way to improve our way of life.

  • And when voters ask, how are we going

  • to get these ideas across the finish line in Congress,

  • Democrats and progressives will be

  • thrilled to put a dividend in our hands,

  • because it makes children and families stronger,

  • improves our mental health, will improve our education

  • and graduation rates very, very dramatically.

  • But then Republicans and conservatives

  • will look up and say, wait a minute,

  • the only state that's done this is Alaska,

  • and that was a deep red conservative state.

  • And conservatives do not dislike buying

  • power and economic freedom in Americans hands.

  • What they dislike the most is a giant bureaucracy

  • making everyone's decisions.

  • So this is the kind of thing we can

  • 100% get through Congress, because this

  • is historically bipartisan.

  • This is the kind of realignment of our political ideas

  • that we need to actually end the partisan gridlock in DC.

  • And it's going to take someone like me who

  • is coming at it from a new angle and approach that's

  • not left or right, but forward.

  • But so what about you, though, can catalyze this, I guess,

  • is my question?

  • What about you-- what in your experience

  • would lead people to believe that you can be the person

  • to make this happen?

  • Well, now as we're sitting here I'm

  • either fourth, fifth, or sixth in most national polls.

  • And I would suggest to you all that it's probably

  • more difficult to go from total anonymity

  • to fourth, fifth, or sixth the national polls than

  • from fourth, fifth, or sixth to number one.

  • The latter happens all of the time in politics, in sports,

  • in any endeavor.

  • And so we've already done the hard part.

  • Now is the easy part.

  • The easy part of letting people know

  • that we can rewrite the rules of the 21st century economy

  • to work for us, to work for you, to work for our families,

  • to work for our kids.

  • And that we actually don't have much of a choice,

  • because if we keep going down this road,

  • when artificial intelligence comes out of the lab and gets

  • rid of the 2 and 1/2 million call center workers who make 14

  • bucks an hour, when the robot trucks hit your highways here

  • in New Hampshire-- and that doesn't just hit the truckers,

  • that hits the truck stops, and motels,

  • and diners that rely upon the truckers getting out and having

  • a meal--

  • like, this is the future.

  • This is the present.

  • The people in New Hampshire are smart enough

  • to see what is going on.

  • It started with the manufacturing plants.

  • It's now on the Main Streets.

  • And we're going to stop it before it hits your highways.

  • I've never heard a candidate say the easy part is

  • going to be getting from the middle of the pack to the top.

  • So this is new.

  • It is the easy part, because you haven't had many candidates who

  • went from again, like, civilian to fourth, fifth, or sixth.

  • I mean, I've already outperformed

  • what, half a dozen sitting senators, governors,

  • congresspeople.

  • It's because I understand what the real problems are

  • and I know how to solve them.

  • Well, one thing--

  • I've read your book, and I thought it was interesting,

  • and you said at one point describe your ideology is

  • one of pragmatism.

  • And you know one thing that the book seems a bit thin on

  • is the pragmatic part about how to actually get

  • these policies through.

  • Congress is a tough place to work.

  • I mean, have you ever tried to get people

  • to sponsor bills based on your ideas,

  • do it by referenda at the state level, even you know,

  • on a municipal level-- have you ever

  • tried to get any of these policies in place

  • beyond getting up on a stage and telling people

  • how great they are?

  • Well, I did start a multi-million dollar

  • national nonprofit from scratch that

  • then worked with various governments

  • throughout the country and I'm also

  • realistic about what is going on in DC.

  • I have been to DC and it is broken.

  • And it's going to take a lot to pull people together and start

  • solving the problems that frankly,

  • got Donald Trump into office.

  • I am the last person who would say

  • that I'm going to go and run DC like a business

  • because DC is not a business.

  • They're very, very different things.

  • It's actually much more analogous

  • to a nonprofit, which again, I founded and led

  • for seven years, where you have thousands of constituents,

  • and you have to galvanize energy around a vision,

  • and have people see that it's in their own self-interest

  • to head in the same direction.

  • So as your president, I'm going to have a whole team of people

  • that have very deep relationships and familiarity

  • with Capitol Hill.

  • Because we need to get things done and solve the problems.

  • And that's not going to happen, as you suggest,

  • through just one person.

  • It's going to be a team of people

  • that have a combination of both new ideas

  • and approaches, and the relationships,

  • and know how on Capitol Hill to get them into law.

  • When you launched Venture for America,

  • I believe the goal was to create 100,000 jobs by 2025,

  • and as far as I can tell, we're now at around

  • you know maybe a little bit more than 3,000 jobs created out

  • of that.

  • So you know, how do you account for that?

  • Well, one it's not 2025 yet.

  • NHPR's

  • True, but were you expecting it to be at 3,400 jobs right now?

  • But two, one of the reasons I'm running for president

  • is I realized that as proud as I am of all the work

  • we are doing at Venture for America, that we were pouring

  • water into a bathtub that has a giant hole ripped

  • in the bottom.

  • That our economy is evolving in unprecedented ways

  • that's making more and more of us economically extraneous.

  • And so the fact that Venture for America

  • created several thousand jobs, again,

  • I'm incredibly proud of it.

  • But I realize that the macro changes in front of us

  • were much more serious than even I'd realized in the beginning.

  • Mr. Yang, if you were elected president, as you know,

  • you'd be commander in chief, so let's

  • talk about foreign policy.

  • You said you favored diplomacy, working with allies.

  • How would you deal with those quote,

  • from your website, "those who would work against us?"

  • And by the way, who falls into that category?

  • Unfortunately, right now, the global world order

  • that America helped establish and has

  • been benefiting from for decades is now falling apart.

  • And to me, the order of events was

  • that we allowed our communities to fall apart,

  • and then we got Donald Trump as our president.

  • And then Donald Trump has become an erratic, and unpredictable,

  • and unreliable actor in world affairs.

  • And now other countries are looking up saying,

  • well, I guess at this point, we just

  • have to start looking out for ourselves

  • or we're not even sure America is going

  • to live up to its commitments.

  • So to reverse this, it's not going to be fast or easy.

  • The first thing we have to do has actually

  • become strong and whole at home.

  • Because you cannot project a sustained and reliable foreign

  • policy if you're falling apart and you don't have any kind

  • of unity or vision at home.

  • And then you have to go to your allies

  • and say, look, we're in it for the long haul.

  • We're sorry about that four year aberration

  • that was the Trump presidency.

  • But we turned it around in an awful hurry,

  • and we're going to be good to our commitments.

  • We know that the more we invest in diplomacy,

  • the less we have to invest in ammunition.

  • And that's just not me speaking, that's James Mattis,

  • the former Secretary of Defense.

  • And so the vision is to let the rest of the world

  • know that we are open for business

  • if that business is solving problems

  • through diplomacy, relationships,

  • and partnerships.

  • So there's the allies part.

  • But on your website, you do say, you

  • know, there are those who would quote, "work against us."

  • Who do you see is working against American interests

  • and how would you manage them as president?

  • We have a very, very tough competitive 21st century

  • economic environment.

  • I'm not someone who has a zero sum game where

  • if another country is getting richer,

  • that's somehow bad for us.

  • So the biggest threats I worry about in terms

  • of working against us are non-state actors,

  • loose nuclear material, climate change, cybersecurity,

  • artificial intelligence.

  • And one thing we don't talk enough about

  • is the proliferation of drones for military use.

  • There are now tens of thousands of military drones

  • in the hands of dozens of both state and non-state actors,

  • and these drones are much harder to defend

  • against than to use offensively.

  • If you can imagine a drone the size of a vacuum

  • cleaner with explosives attached to it or even radioactive

  • material or chemical warfare, can you

  • imagine trying to make an international,

  • like, let's say a military base fully protected

  • from that kind of threat?

  • It's very, very difficult. So these are the things

  • that I believe are the greatest threats of the 21st century.

  • And I believe you need a commander in chief

  • that actually understands those threats

  • and understands that there's going

  • to be a great deal of innovation necessary to keep Americans

  • safe in the days to come.

  • Well, speaking of non-state actors, the terrorist group,

  • ISIS, has already named a new leader

  • since the death of its former leader in a raid

  • by US forces, as I'm sure you know, Mr. Yang.

  • And there's still reportedly, thousands of ISIS

  • fighters in Syria and who knows where else.

  • What would a Yang administration approach be toward this threat?

  • Well, first, I would never abruptly pull our troops out

  • in a way that left our allies in the lurch

  • and allowed some of our enemies to get stronger.

  • The goal is to work with the governments

  • that we have relationships within that region

  • to contain suppress, defeat, and destroy ISIS over time.

  • Of course, they're going to have a new leader, because that's

  • the way any organization works.

  • You take one person out and then someone else

  • will rise in their place.

  • And so this is going to be an ongoing conflict.

  • I don't have any silver bullets or easy answers

  • except to continue to engage, and defeat,

  • and destroy over time.

  • Just broadly, Mr. Yang, how would you describe the bar

  • that you would set as president for sending American troops

  • into harm's way?

  • This is a sort of an existential question

  • that we've been discussing with all the candidates.

  • I have a three part test for sending our men and women

  • the armed forces into a foreign theater in harm's way.

  • Number one, there has to be a vital American national

  • interest at stake or the potential

  • to avert a clear humanitarian catastrophe.

  • So that needs to be one of those two things.

  • Number two, there needs to be a clearly defined frame,

  • where we can say very honestly, looking at our soldiers

  • in the eyes, and say, this is how long

  • you're going to be there, and when you're

  • going to be able to leave.

  • Not one of these open ended commitments, not

  • something amorphous.

  • And the third is we need to have our allies engaged and willing

  • to join us in this.

  • If these three things are in place,

  • then I would consider military intervention.

  • Coming up more of our conversation

  • with democratic presidential candidate, Andrew Yang.

  • We'll talk about immigration, guns, criminal justice reform,

  • and a lot more.

  • Stay with us.

  • This is "The Exchange" on New Hampshire Public Radio.

  • [music playing]

  • You're watching Primary 2020, The Exchange Candidate

  • Forums from NHPR, produced in partnership with New Hampshire

  • PBS.

  • This is the exchange, I'm Laura Knoy.

  • Today, our series of Primary 2020 Candidate Forums

  • continues with democratic presidential candidate,

  • Andrew Yang.

  • NHPR's senior political reporter Josh

  • Rogers is also with me asking questions of Mr. Yang.

  • And Josh, I'll turn it back to you.

  • OK, let's move to opioids.

  • Here's a multipart question we received from a listener.

  • How are you going to address our addiction problem that's

  • killing people every day?

  • Are we finally ready to hold the pharmaceutical companies

  • liable?

  • How are you going to handle all the kids growing up

  • with parents either dead, in jail, or actively using,

  • and the grandparents being their main caregiver?

  • How do you deal with all those things?

  • This makes me so angry, because the opiate crisis is a disease

  • of capitalism run amok.

  • Purdue Pharma made tens of billions

  • of dollars off of OxyContin and then they paid a 2% fine.

  • And meanwhile, families and communities

  • have been destroyed around the country.

  • That's blood money, we need to get

  • that money back put it towards helping make our people well.

  • But we have to acknowledge too, that this is not solely

  • a money problem, this is a human problem.

  • If you put money to work, it lowers one of the barriers,

  • but we know people will be struggling

  • with addiction for years and many people will not recover.

  • So if the government screwed up on such an epic level

  • that we allowed this plague to take place among our people,

  • then it's up to us to try and help people

  • recover the right ways.

  • So number one, clawback all the ill gotten blood money

  • from the drug companies and put it

  • to work in communities so that if you need treatment,

  • you can access it.

  • But number two, we should follow the example of other countries

  • who've had these drug abuse and overdose epidemics,

  • and decriminalize opiates for personal use.

  • So if you get caught with the drugs, we take the drugs,

  • and then we refer you to treatment or counseling,

  • and not to a prison cell.

  • This would help people actually get the help

  • that they need and not fear that their lives are

  • going to be destroyed if they're caught with the drugs.

  • If you're dealing, you go to jail.

  • But if you're an addict, we get you help.

  • And when other countries have done this,

  • this has lowered overdose rates and abuse rates

  • in those countries very, very quickly.

  • We can do the same thing here.

  • We have to say, look, this is not a personal failing.

  • This was a structural systemic failing.

  • And it's not your fault that you're

  • struggling with addiction.

  • We have to be able to help you.

  • So what would be the threshold for the amount of opioids

  • that would be legal?

  • Well, there are clearly defined thresholds

  • where you get entered into a drug trafficking statute.

  • So anything below a level where you're

  • in a dealing and trafficking statute, and it's

  • for personal use.

  • And so this would not include cocaine?

  • This would just be opioids or would

  • this also include cocaine?

  • This would be opioids only.

  • Because we all know what happened.

  • The OxyContin addiction then metastasized

  • into heroin and fentanyl, because those drugs are cheaper

  • and easier to get than Oxy.

  • And you're not going to believe-- no, you

  • will believe this.

  • You'll believe anything about these drug companies.

  • But Purdue Pharma said that OxyContin was non addictive

  • until it actually helped them make money

  • to say it was addictive.

  • And so then they change their tune and said,

  • actually, it's super addictive.

  • And they knew the truth the whole time.

  • Those people should be in jail today.

  • With thousands of people suffering from drug issues,

  • there's been a real spike in industry

  • regarding addiction treatment.

  • How would your administration group about regulating that

  • end of it, because there are big problems there as well?

  • Well, we need to again, invest in the things that work.

  • And to the extent that there's a service provider that

  • is somehow profiteering and not helping people,

  • then we have to Identify those actors and say, look,

  • this is not where either the public's resources or family's

  • resources should be heading.

  • But one of the things I'm passionate about, as you

  • can probably tell, is making our mental health and freedom

  • from substance abuse a core measurement of what's

  • going on in our communities.

  • And if you had those measurements,

  • then it would be much easier to Identify what's working

  • and what's not.

  • I mean, among the things you talk about in criminal justice

  • reform is legalizing marijuana, outlawing for profit prisons.

  • Where does criminal justice reform

  • rank for you as a priority if you become president?

  • It's very high, because it's destroying lives.

  • To me, marijuana should be legal all around the country.

  • It's a much safer way to manage pain than many of the things

  • that we're currently making available to people.

  • But the criminal justice system is also

  • an emblem of how we've become overly punitive as a country.

  • And not just towards the people who unfortunately

  • run afoul of our criminal justice system,

  • we're throwing people in jail for not

  • being able to make bail.

  • We're essentially criminalization poverty

  • in many communities.

  • But we're also punishing ourselves in various ways,

  • where we're falling prey again, to this logic where it's like,

  • oh, if you fall through the cracks,

  • it's somehow your fault. And oftentimes, there

  • are these massive forces arrayed against that-- those people

  • that make getting ahead next to impossible.

  • So we have to address what's going

  • on in our criminal justice system, become

  • more rehabilitative, and forgiving,

  • and focus on integrating people back into society

  • in productive ways.

  • I'm going to suggest that if you've got $1,000 a month when

  • you come out of jail, you'd be like wow,

  • things have gotten better since I went in.

  • But also, it would be a very powerful incentive

  • for you to stay out of jail, because if you're in jail,

  • then we spend the money on your incarceration,

  • you don't get it.

  • And so now you come out of jail with $1,000 a month,

  • and people will actually be to see you when you get home.

  • [laughter]

  • So I want to quickly touch on guns.

  • Pretty much every Democratic calling for new limits on guns.

  • What strikes you is reasonable in terms of efforts

  • to curb guns in our country?

  • And what, if any, idea strike you as going to far?

  • I'm a parent, and got two young kids.

  • And one of our son's schools notified us

  • that they'll be doing the first of four active shooter drills

  • this week.

  • Maybe it was this week.

  • And those active shooter drills demonstrably

  • make our kids more anxious, more stressed out, more confused,

  • and more uncertain.

  • And they do not demonstrably make them any safer.

  • So I would end active shooter drills

  • or make them optional based upon the parents in our community.

  • Because saying that we're going to keep

  • our kids safe through these drills like,

  • actually does not make any sense.

  • In terms of guns and gun rights, I

  • am for the common sense gun laws that most Americans agree on

  • at this point--

  • universal background checks and red flag laws.

  • And making it harder for people to get their hands

  • on weapons that can kill large numbers of Americans

  • very quickly.

  • But to me, the unspoken truth is that almost 2/3 of gun deaths

  • are suicides.

  • And so we need to be working on trying

  • to make our community stronger from the ground up, which

  • includes what's going on in families, and schools,

  • and the economy.

  • All of these things Contribute to people

  • making tragic irrevocable choices that

  • destroy their own lives or the lives of our fellow Americans.

  • I want to ask you a couple of quick questions

  • about immigration, Mr. Yang.

  • You've said sending the 11 to 12 million people already

  • here illegally--

  • sending them back is unreasonable, unworkable.

  • But you've also said these and these individuals

  • tried to circumvent the legal immigration system into the US,

  • and any pathway to citizenship for them

  • must reflect this fact.

  • What do you mean by that, exactly?

  • We have over 12 million people who are undocumented here

  • in this country.

  • And pretending we can somehow deport 12 million people

  • is unrealistic on many levels.

  • It's inhumane, it would destroy regional economies.

  • It's unworkable and we shouldn't pretend that it is.

  • So I'm for a long term path to citizenship,

  • but that path to citizenship should

  • be painstaking and involve a long enough time period where

  • we can be assured that someone is going

  • to be paying taxes, and following rules,

  • and not generating a criminal record.

  • 18 years.

  • So come out of the shadows, register with us.

  • We'll keep track of you.

  • In the meantime, you get a job, and pay taxes,

  • and be sort of an upstanding contributor to society.

  • Is that what you're saying?

  • Yeah, that is what I'm saying.

  • This was something that Marco Rubio on the Republicans

  • were supportive of until they lost their conviction on it.

  • Where you only have three approaches to this.

  • Number one, you pretend you can deport them,

  • which is not realistic.

  • Number two, you try and integrate them into society

  • over a long term period, which is what I'm advocating for.

  • And then number three is you accept

  • the status quo, which is that you pretend people aren't here,

  • and then they get into car accidents,

  • and then show up at hospitals, and have problems in school,

  • and all of these things that end up

  • making it hard on our society collectively

  • and for the populations in question.

  • When you talk about effective, secure, humane border security,

  • what do you envision, Mr. Yang?

  • What does your humane border look like?

  • The tough truth is that we're doing

  • a terrible job of enforcing our policies as they're

  • written on the books.

  • We say, hey, you can apply for asylum.

  • But then you have literally like a 15 month waiting period.

  • And we have no place to put you during that time.

  • So then your choices are to either detain people

  • in inhumane conditions for 15 months

  • or just let them walk free.

  • And then when they walk free, many of them

  • just don't show up 15 months later,

  • which is kind of what you'd expect if you looked at it.

  • And so we're in a terrible bind right now,

  • where because we don't have the capacity to actually enforce

  • our policies as they're written, we're not doing anything well.

  • And so this is a government execution problem,

  • where we need to actually build up the resources on the border

  • to a point where we can enforce the policies

  • in a reasonable way.

  • And I looked into this in depth.

  • We have 5,000 job openings on the border right now

  • and we paid Accenture millions of dollars

  • to source people for those job openings,

  • and they identified less than 20 people.

  • Like, we spent like a million per person that they sourced.

  • Because these jobs are in the middle of nowhere.

  • They don't pay well.

  • They're depressing.

  • They have high turnover.

  • And so when you try and hire people at the border,

  • it turns out that they don't want to be there very long,

  • and they quit after six months.

  • And so we have the mess that we have.

  • So we need to put real resources to work

  • at every level, which can include staffing up

  • in new facilities.

  • It can also include what people are calling a smartwall, where

  • you have sensors that Identify when someone crosses over.

  • And then you can identify what that traffic looks like,

  • where the people are going, and then

  • help intercept them when they're a little bit further

  • from the border.

  • OK, Josh, I'll throw it back to you.

  • Go ahead.

  • Your stump speech acknowledges there are still some voters

  • out there if they know anything about you,

  • it's that you're Asian-American, and you

  • want to give everyone $1,000 a month.

  • Those things are both true.

  • [laughter]

  • Good to know, good to know.

  • Are there-- tell us a few other things that voters don't know

  • and that you think they should, preferably not stuff you know,

  • pried right out of your stump speech?

  • [yang laughs]

  • I went to high school here in New Hampshire,

  • and I definitely had no intention

  • of ever running for president.

  • You can tell by my fashion choices.

  • [laughter]

  • No, I went out and lived many components

  • of the American dream.

  • And I wound up starting this nonprofit, Venture for America,

  • that exposed me to what's happening

  • in the Midwest and the south, and explained to me

  • that what we're dealing with is this historic economic and

  • technological shift.

  • And not immigrants that are being scapegoated,

  • and not you know, Russia, and racism,

  • and the rest of the causes that get thrown around on cable TV.

  • And so then you have a limited range

  • of choices where you're like, OK,

  • what do I do to help my country manage this time?

  • Running for president is not anyone's first choice,

  • honestly.

  • [yang laughs]

  • Like, I'm not running for president

  • because I always fantasized about being president.

  • I'm running for president because like many

  • of you in this room, I'm a parent and I'm a patriot.

  • And I see the future coming down the pike,

  • and it is not something I'm willing to accept

  • for my children or yours.

  • We can do better, we must do better.

  • And so to the extent that people don't know some--

  • don't know much about me, I think

  • I'm a more normal person than you might imagine,

  • let's put it that way.

  • Like, I'm not some maniac who was like,

  • oh, I'm going to go to high school in New Hampshire,

  • and that'll be great for my presidential run

  • 30 years later.

  • [yang laughs]

  • No, I'm just someone who saw what

  • was going on in our country and said, we need to do better.

  • I thought I could help us do better.

  • And I'm grateful for the opportunity.

  • One thing in your book you've said

  • is that if there is to be a revolution,

  • it's likely to be born of race and identity

  • with automation driven economics as the underlying force.

  • Do you think Donald Trump's election

  • in our current politics proves that that revolution may

  • be in its nascence?

  • I do.

  • You know, if you spend time in these communities that

  • have been devastated by the automation

  • of their manufacturing jobs, those areas

  • went towards Donald Trump very clearly and aggressively.

  • And those trends are just going to accelerate

  • where if you imagine all the truck stops in the Midwest

  • closing, that's going to devastate so many towns

  • and communities.

  • And then you look up and say, OK,

  • what's going to happen in those communities?

  • Do we think that they will also see massive surges

  • in drug overdoses and suicides if left to their own devices?

  • Almost certainly yes.

  • I mean, it's happening around the country.

  • And we haven't even reached the real accelerant

  • when AI starts hitting our organizations in earnest.

  • I am friends with some of the foremost technologists

  • in the country, and the more you know, the more concerned

  • you are.

  • It is not a situation where it's like, I'm deep into this,

  • and it's going to be fine.

  • That's not the conversation.

  • Like, the more they know, the more they say, wow,

  • this is going to be a buzz saw.

  • So if you thought what happened that led up to Trump

  • has helped make us less reasonable, less rational,

  • turned us against each other, which it has,

  • unfortunately, those trends are just going to get worse.

  • Well, speaking of turning against each other,

  • earlier this year, NHPR conducted

  • a huge survey of Granite Staters,

  • we got so many responses.

  • We asked people to share the question

  • you most want presidential candidates to address.

  • And Mr. Yang, among the very top issues mentioned was civility.

  • So here's a question from one listener,

  • how will you bring civility back to our national political

  • dialogue?

  • And I want to thank that person for the question, and Mr. Yang,

  • what do you think?

  • How will you do it?

  • I love this question because I think

  • the way we can restore civility is

  • by pulling people together and not focusing on what divides us

  • from each other.

  • And if you look at my campaign, I've

  • come out as one of the only candidates who

  • said, I think identity politics and cancel culture

  • has gone overboard.

  • That when a comedian actually used a racial slur against me,

  • I came out and said, I didn't think

  • he should lose his job over it, because he's a comedian,

  • and this did not strike me as evil and repugnant.

  • It struck me as bad comedy.

  • And last I checked, that's not a job losing offense.

  • Especially if you're a comedian.

  • I mean, you know, I guess you could turn the other way,

  • it's like if you're a bad comedian, you should--

  • anyway.

  • [laughter]

  • The essence of my campaign is that we need a new way forward

  • that includes our own humanity.

  • And that means fallibility as well,

  • and becomes more forgiving of ourselves,

  • and of our fellow Americans.

  • That if someone makes a misstatement, instead

  • of saying, this somehow reflects negatively

  • on their true nature or their character, we can say,

  • look, you, know someone flubbed a statement.

  • You know, and instead of having this culture where

  • we attack someone over that, well, you look up

  • and say, no, they probably could have chosen better words.

  • And I think this is how we bring the country together, and move

  • us forward, and start working together

  • to solve the problems of the American people.

  • Sounds like what another former president

  • called a kinder, gentler.

  • You can use those words, sure.

  • I'll take ideas from anyone.

  • So even you know, some Republicans that were kinder,

  • gentler-- was.

  • Yes.

  • Yeah, OK.

  • Mr. Yang, it's been really nice to talk to you.

  • We could have talked a lot longer.

  • We really appreciate you coming in, visiting us here

  • in New Hampshire, and coming to NHPR.

  • Thank you.

  • Thank you.

  • It's been a pleasure.

  • We really appreciate the audience

  • that turned out this morning.

  • Also, I want to thank my colleague, Josh Rogers.

  • You've been listening to "The Exchange" on NHPR.

  • [applause]

  • This has been a New Hampshire Primary 2020

  • special presentation, "The Exchange" Candidate

  • Forums from NHPR.

  • [music playing]

The following is a New Hampshire primary 2020

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it