Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "Establishment vs Trump & Bernie Sanders (Pt. 4) | Milo Yiannopoulos | POLITICS | Rubin Report" video.

  1. +Leah Sauter Agree... Milo and Ben Shapiro were not challenged on their nonsense enough.
    2
  2. Bharath r kumar .. you mean like some people like - say - Milo are too weak to accept the scientific truth of climate change?
    2
  3. CinnamonBun Well... yes... But for this to still be a conversation, the guest also needs to not cut of the other part. Milo just went of on silly rants of strawmen.
    2
  4. Dave Kent well... that depends... Climate change is irreversible over any time scale meaningful to humans. The worst case scenarios are truly horrifying and should be avoided at any cost. And the uncertainty of how close were are to them should make us deploy basic risk management and ACT!
    2
  5. ***** Somehow I think people who are willing to ignore that Trump is completely void of the knowledge about real world problems an willing to lie about everything (Trump steaks, anyone?) are wasting my time. We need honest people with an actual understanding of real world problems... precisely not Trump.
    2
  6. No no Dave... Classical liberalism is NOT conservatism. ... they are opposites.
    2
  7. Milo is scary.... If people abuse freedom of speech, you don't solve it by limiting freedom of speech. ... that's totalitarianism .
    1
  8. "Rigorous evidence based policy making" ... said the climate denier.
    1
  9. Bharath r kumar "Climate has always been changing," A statement completely besides the point and which can only be uttered by someone not actually interested in the scientific truth about what's happening... it's a talking-point designed to derail the discussion ann prevent anyone getting wiser. "How many people is climate change killing" An equal mindless statement. How many people are pandemics killing? .. Does that mean it hasn't the potential to be a problem? I you want to discuss this, then please try to relate to what it ACTUALLY being warned against and refrain from talking-points without substance.
    1
  10. ***** well... observing how much the world can change in 4 years (say from 1933 to 1937) that's hardly a comfort.
    1
  11. ***** Well... I fully agree that Sanders is the absolutely only trustworthy candidate and that he will actually improve the world. However... Despite Hillarys flaws, I would expect she kinda could be counted on to not start WW3 ... and maybe she will even do something about climate change. I wouldn't trust Trump in that regard.
    1
  12. ***** Well... "a longer period of time" still being significantly shorter than the thousands of years it takes the climate to recover if Trump insists it's a Chinese hoax for 4 years. And even if you are right that he can't start WW3, he can probably provoke someone else to do it.
    1
  13. ***** Well ... set aside your specific rhetoric. I get your point. Wanting to have a conversation where you are exposed to different ideas is actually difficult. It's hard to decide when such views are valuable input and when it's just nonsense wasting your time. And if you do it in advance you are quickly accused of not wanting to be exposed to different ideas ... which Dave sort of have to not make him self vulnerable to. But I agree ... many of the Ben Shapiro/Milo fans here seem to have lost sight of the overall goal of promoting secular liberal values and just cheer their conservative hero for bashing social justice warriors. It seems to be there are bigger ideas than that.
    1
  14. ***** "And Trump can't provoke shit." I'm not willing to take the risk that you are wrong.
    1
  15. "I get my facts right" ... said the climate denier. Yeah right... You never lie about people... Quote Milo: "The fiddling with climate change temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever" If that's not "knowingly", you're simply just ignorant.
    1
  16. papapapenis "Climate change is a giant scam." Yeah... right... just as evolution is an atheist conspiracy.
    1
  17. Take the Red One Classical liberalism originated from people like John Locke and the enlightenment, which led to the French and American revolution. People like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. It's in strong opposition to conservatism - as illustrated by the feud between Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke. Now... people in the "US" have mangled the word "liberal" to be meaningless. In Europe "liberal" still means classical liberalism. At the same time the word "libertarian" was invented in the US to try describe actual liberalism, but in practice people who call them selves "libertarian" (like Rand Paul) have been flirting way too much with conservatism and compromised actual classical liberal values. Also ... from so called "libertarianism" the so called zero government anarcho-capitalism ideology has risen (as exemplified by people like Walter Block) ... But the classical liberal thinkers like Thomas Paine, did not believe in zero government. Only limited government. IMNSHO, anarcho-capitalism is just as absurd as communism. ... unfortunately it has become almost mandatory dogma for many libertarians to strive for no government at all. But no... the classical liberals were not conservatives. Far from. Actually, the terms "left" and "right" originates from the opposition between conservatives and liberals.
    1
  18. Take the Red One I don't think words like "leftist" are of any use in a discussion. They only serves to muddy the waters. And remember, that "the left" means something entirely different in Europe. Anyway... IMNSHO anarcho-capitalism is utopian and liberarians who promote anarcho-capitalistic ideas have misunderstood classical liberalism and forgotten its roots. Secondly ... you are wrong. Conservatism is not about individual rights. - not in the way classical liberalism defined them. The current US conservatives might claim they support that and they might claim the are inspired from the classical liberal values of the founding fathers... but in reality they are not. As revealed by their constant push to take away individual rights. The abortion debate and the separation of church and state are examples. But I accept your point that you by libertarian mean someone like Gary Johnson and not Rand Paul ... I would agree with that (tentatively... I'm not that acquainted with Gary Johnsons ideas). And I'm aware that "liberal" in the US has lost it's meaning. Btw... I regard my self as geo-libertarian, which I regard as the rational conclusion from classical  liberalism, - as Thomas Paine also arrived at.
    1
  19. Take the Red One I respect Rand Pauls stands on for instance privacy and foreign policy, but the difference between his kind of liberalism (and I mean "liberal" in the European sense of the word) and that of Thomas Paine is that Thomas Paine sat down and thought the issue through and arrived at a model which IMNSHO makes perfect sense based on the basic liberal principles of self ownership, individual liberty and the right to the fruit of your own labor. Rand Paul have been pandering too much to the conservatives  and he (and many other who call them selves libertarians) have been too focused on making government smaller, de-regulating and eliminating taxes that they have become goals in them selves without regard for which basic classical liberal principles were the actual goal. They are not thinking it through, but only having gut-reactions against government. As an example: Rand Paul and many other libertarians IMNSHO goes off the deep end when they start denying the results of climate science in an attempt to not allow justifying government regulation. You cannot makes problems go away by denying their existence. And more importantly wrt. classical liberal principles. CO2 emissions violate the basic principle that your personal freedom only extends to far that it doesn't interfere with the equal freedom of others. Btw... you are wrong wrt. to conservatism vs. liberalism... look it up. They are in opposition to each other ideologically. They may cooperate wrt. specific policies in modern politics... but that's a different thing.  
    1
  20. Take the Red One Ok... then... "similar" in the way that both are not socialism. For whatever that's worth... Sanders is not a classical liberal. He says so himself. He's a social democrat. Although I support him, because for 1) The alternatives are horrible, and 2) Most of what he argues are non-controversial in a country like Denmark. Hillary is ... well... I'm not sure she has an ideology. She's a professional politician. "but the liberals in Europe are even more PC, anti-free speech, big government, and authoritarian than we have in America," When I say "Europe", I mean continental Europe. In Denmark, "liberal" means "classical liberal". Now... we actually have 4 "liberal" parties. 1) "Venstre" which is the largest and oldest and currently leads the government. They have watered down their ideological principles during the last 20 years to appeal to the center. 2) "Liberal Allicance" which is more purely "libertarian", but also has all the flaws of people like Rand Paul. 3) The social liberal party, which probably is closest to what you describe, being PC and regressive "leftish". But they still have liberal principles and during the former social-democrat/social-liberal government they kept the social-democrats in check. 4) The geo-libertarian party, of which I'm a member.
    1