General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

whyamimrpink78
The Young Turks
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Only One Judge Ruled Against Freezing Truck Driver... Trump's." video.

The law is the law. Franken tried to make Gorsuch look like a bad guy when all he did was apply the law. This is a pure example of the left letting emotions get in the way of facts and logic. You have to also ask why did this guy run out of diesel in the first place? I know many truck drivers and they would have called this guy an idiot. He can drive slow as well, it is not that unsafe. Go to the mountains in Utah or Nevada and you see trucks driving slow all the time with flashing lights.
4
Jeff, you clearly don't understand the first amendment.
3
Chris Hakala, the government can't force religion on you. When it comes to individuals you don't have to interact with religious people.
2
" how can you explain all of the 5/4 decisions on party lines" That is a problem. Judges are human and are not perfect. "The law says you can't bribe politicians but that is effectively undone by the supreme court thanks to Republican judges" Which is a ruling based on the first amendment. Plus, you can't bribe judges, there is a difference between that and campaign funds. You can't remove money from politics. "All you Republicans have been breaking rules politicizing everything." It goes both ways.
2
He is pro law. He enforced the law as written. Don't like the law than tell you congressmen to change it, they are the ones that write it. I know liberals have no clue how government works and that they feel that everything can be just unicorns and rainbows and we can all be happy in life. But reality is much different. You can't blame the judge on this one. If you want to allow judges to make emotional decisions than don't complain about the Ethan Couch case or the case of the swimmer in Stanford raping a drunk girl and only getting 6 months in prison.
2
David, judges do not re-write laws. Legislatures do. Judges just interpret and enforce the laws, period. Any judge that re-writes a law should be removed from their position.
2
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx Now point to me where it says judges can write laws.
2
Megan, that is how companies run, especially large ones as they can lose millions if someone messes up. You are concerned about this one man's life but what if that man made a mistake that cost the company millions? That means less jobs, higher prices or something else that hurts other workers or customers.
2
So you are blaming the judge for doing his job and enforcing the law as written? How about you blame the lawmakers for writing the law wrong. He did his job and really we need more judges like him as opposed to judges that just go off of feelings and emotions.
2
Again, why was he in that position to begin with?
2
Why did he run out of diesel (not gas, trucks run on diesel)? Maybe he should have been more aware of how much fuel he had and aware of his surroundings. I really do not feel sympathy for this truck driver. Also, this truck driver can drive slow if needed like they do in Utah or Nevada. Also, Al Franken sounded like an idiot during this hearing. Franken is trying to appeal to emotions when Gorsuch does what he is supposed to do, interpret and enforce the law. Sorry, the law is black and white. You don't go off of emotions when it comes to laws.
2
I agree. You can't blame the judge for applying the law as it is written. He did his job.
2
Brent, he can drive the trailer as well with frozen brakes. Drive slow. He did not do what his employer said and he got fired. Life is tough, deal with it.
1
count783, the SC is not supposed to write laws. They enforce them as they are written. If you have judges writing laws you put a lot of power in one person's hand, and you end up with a case similar to Ethan Couch.
1
speedy, you endanger you life as a truck driver every time you hit the road. Now where is the evidence the company did not provide support in time? What do you want? Do you want them to fly a chopper down to him with life support?
1
David B, a judges job is to interpret and enforce laws. They are not there to allow emotions get in the way. The law is written as is in black and white. With that there is no exceptions. Now while the interpretation may be different in some ways, in the end emotions are not supposed to get involved. Franken was using emotions in his questions towards Gorsuch and Gorsuch placed that aside and did the correct thing and went with the law as written. " This is a perfect example of when a judge would normally say that a law is to restrictive and change it by a precedent," Judges don't change laws, legislation does. Judges interpret laws, period. You are confusing interpretation of a law to writing a law. It is completely different. If you allow judges to re-write laws you place a lot of power in one person's hands.
1
Sask Sun seekers, the rape case, to me, is not different. It is a sign that someone lacked morality and based on the law that is written the government should install it. The judge ruled against the law from what I saw. Same with the Ethan Couch case. But, I will never put myself in a position as that driver did as I will be responsible. And if I did I will know it is my fault.
1
Sorry David, but your view on judges is wrong. Judges are there to interpret and enforce laws, period. If a law needs to be change it will be done at the legislation level. It is a part of checks and balances so one group does not have too much power. If you give judges to change laws you give them more power. If you don't like it than change the constitution.
1
David, if a judge made laws there is no need for a legislative branch. Just like how the legislative branch does not solve controversies that arise in cases involve law, the judicial branch does not create laws. It is the balance of powers. Again, if you don't like it than change the Constitution.
1
David, just because a few judges over reached on their power does not mean that is not the role of judges. Politicians have over reached on their power and the Constitution has been violated before. For example, Kelo vs City of New London violated the 5th amendment. People being placed on the do not fly list are denied their right to due process. You are going off of a couple incidents where judges were wrong and trying to make it the norm. If you do that you create chaos since you remove standards. So again, judges do not write laws, legislatures do. Judges only interpret and enforce laws, period. Don't like it than change the Constitution.
1
David, it is overreaching. We have checks and balances. Legislatures write laws and the judicial system interprets and enforces the laws. " I'm not here to argue. I assume you are a trump supporter as you are choosing to bend fact and truth instead of excepting reality" You are not going to ague because you are bias. And no, I am not a Trump supporter. Even at that it does not mean anything. I go off of standards. You don't have standards. " I have given you evidence and referances" And so have I showing that judges have made mistakes or irrational decisions. "Read what I have said " I did. Gorsuch has for his entire life. He has a JD and PhD studying the issue and that is how he ruled. Judges are trained to not go with emotions and rule based on the law, period. Just because a few decided not do does not mean that is not the standard. I have a question for you? Is waterboarding legal? You most likely say no. But no one has been persecuted for it so by your standard waterboarding is legal and people need to stop complaining about it.
1
http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
1
Chris, they interpret the laws. That is not changing the law, that is interpreting what is written.
1
David, it is overreaching. They don't write laws, they interpret laws and enforce them. "I pity you for trusting in polictions, the worst type of beings, narcissistical self centred fools who only care about there own political futures. Who as Trump has proven will say anything to get elected just so they laugh triumphantly as they spit diarrhoea over their followers!" You can say that about any politician which is why we create standards and checks and balances.
1
Awkward Young Nietzsche A: The executive branch picks the justices. B: What are you talking about? You have standards when it comes to laws. If you don't follow them you get laws such as Jim Crow Laws that discriminate
1
Tim, it is not a cop out, that is his job. If you don't like the law tell legislatures to change it. "also as for the liberals think everything is fluffy bunny, rainbow crap is full of it. Sure some of the kids can be naive but that's not how all liberals are." Yes it is, they feel socialism can work at the federal level. "Some of us actually do lift others up to get everyone through the obstacle course. " How? What do you do? How many of those on the left pushing for "free college" and "free healthcare" are studying to become doctors, nurses, professors, etc? "Fire man carry your buddy off the feild or any other amount of unselfish things" How many firemen vote democrat? "I understand that the more people I help the more that will be around to help me when I need it," I agree. Like the more professors we have in the STEM fields the more technology we have. Now how many liberals are studying to become engineers or study medicine as opposed to those studying the liberal arts.
1
It is not a stereotype. I work in the science field and many of my friends are republican. I get annoyed with the "free college" crowd but basically none of them want to teach.
1
RogueBishop89, there are procedures in these types of situation. This driver was most likely inexperienced and panic. With his actions he is bound to do something worse and is a liability to the company and thus he got fired. You talk about protecting someone but what about protecting a company from losing millions? It is no different than if you get hurt working at a factory. It comes down to two things 1. Did the company not do some proper measure to ensure the safety of the driver 2. The law is written as such and you enforce it as such. When you don't enforce laws as they are written you end up with a situation similar to Ethan Couch
1
LordDiscord, you put your life on the line anytime you make a delivery. Nothing is 100% safe. Also, you should apply the law. You want to know of a case where a judge didn't and TYT and their viewers got bad? The case of Ethan Couch.
1
Awkward Young Nietzsche, in reality it is. That is a fact. How much money must a company lose? Say it would have cost a company $10 billion. Is that worth a human life? Companies take measure to ensure worker's safety but here does lie some responsibility on the worker. But the sounds of this story this worker was inexperienced, was not prepared and panic. He is a liability to the company and he is a high risk to make a costly mistake. And while you say money is not as important, if that company loses millions that means less jobs and higher prices for others. But to say " Losing money isn’t equivalent to losing one’s life", in reality it is. To give an example Milton Friedman was asked about the Ford Pinto incident on how a part that cost around $13 was not installed and cost lives. Friedman responded to the question on what if it cost a million dollars? Should Ford do something then? In an ideal world we can cater to everyone with no cost. In an ideal world you can say that company could have catered to that man instantly. I can say in an ideal world that man should have been more responsible and stopped at a truck stop before the weather became too cold. Fact is we don't live in an ideal world which is why these situation come up.
1
Megan, this was an inexperienced truck driver that made an mistake. He should have known what the weather was like and should have planned ahead. Working at a truck stop for years I have seen truckers do that often. This trucker didn't and is a liability to the company that could cost them more money in the future. I grew up in the rural area and I know what it is like. You don't drive in in inclement weather unless you really have to.
1
" The loads are insured" Yes, and if the load is lost or tampered with insurance rates will go up. So yes, the company will lose money as they will be a high risk unless they fire the employee. No different than if you get hurt at a factory. You are a risk and insurance companies will raise rates unless you are fired. My uncle lost his job when he lost his fingers at a factory. "Lets say hypothetically this driver was your mother, father, husband/wife, sister, etc? Would you still not care if they lived or died over a mistake? " Now you are trying to appeal to emotions which is not going to work for me. That is not how the law works. "I know this is how companies run, but he didn't cost them any money and went above and beyond to stay with the load. " Doesn't matter, he is still a risk.
1
Megan, I answered the question. It does not matter who was involved. "Answer the question, if this driver was your loved one, would you prefer they die to save a company money?" No. But you take chances in life. As a result he decided to live and got fired. So what's your point? You can do actions to save your life but realize you will get fired. Yes, losses happen in business. But if the employee is at fault or a risk they will get fired.
1
Yes, I call that answering the question because it is a loaded, hypothetical question. Of course I will choose my life over the company. But what about this? How about I not put myself in that position to begin with and you don't have to worry. He had enough diesel to let it sit idle. It takes around 1 gallon to run a truck over night.
1
It is a loaded question because that is not what happened. You are creating a hypothetical and are also leaving out many variables. I was not dodging the question because you are deflecting by asking it. It would have never happened if he read a weather report and stopped at a truck stop.
1
"The company, by law had to allow this guy to protect his life" Nope. The driver has to take some reponsibility.
1
Awkward Young Nietzsche, he did operate the vehicle though. That is the point. So by law he is not protected. And again, why did he put himself in that position to begin with? The employee has to be responsible in some level. If you put yourself in a situation in a factory where you become severely hurt you will get fired as you are a risk to the company. My dad works in a factory with lead in the air and if you ppm count on lead gets too high they will fire you as you are a risk to the company.
1
Megan, my question was not hypothetical as that employee is considered a risk. You question was hypothetical and loaded as you are trying to play with emotions here by bringing my family into it. I am showing you the point of view from the business perspective. The employee is a risk and could cost the employer millions. That is the difference between your question and mine. To relate it to your question if my sister, mom or dad were to be in that situation than they are a risk to the company and I will agree with that. Just like when my uncle lost two fingers at the factory he worked at.
1
"Megan, I think we should just cut our losses with pinky. He has a skewed sense of morality." What's moral here? You are completely siding with the employee but not the business because in your eye, like most ultra liberals, all businesses are evil. Employees can make mistakes as well. It is a two way street. Megan brings up a hypothetical question trying to persuade my opinion by bringing my family into it and I brought up a legit question of the cost of doing a business. Let me give you another example. In my job we had a worker spill liquid bromine on their face. That can be deadly. They were not using proper equipment and they were suspended. Now because I work at a university they are more forgiving in some ways (it also helps that they are more skilled and we are funded by tax dollars), but now we have to spend many dollars on more safety equipment and we are going through a safety audit that is costing money. If you are a risky employee you will be fired as a company can lose a lot. A private company can't afford to pay for safety audits, or higher insurance, or catering to a risky employee. That is why they fire these workers. How about you look at it from the business perspective. You know not all businesses are evil.
1
Tom, why do you hate businesses so much?
1
Megan, my "hypothetical question" is something that is logical and is connected to the issue at hand as it involves the business that was involved and the employee. You placed my family in that situation which is appealing to emotions. My question is making you look at the perspective of the business looking at that one employee. A hypothetical question would be "Say your dad ran that business and that truck driver, a few weeks later, cost that company millions?". I would not as that as that is a loaded question and unnecessary and deflects. "as you're willing to let a stranger die for the sake of a companies bottom line" People die. Sorry, that happens. If that is surprising to you than you are going to live a hard life. Also, no, I do not support just letting an employee die for a companies bottom line. I want companies to take actions to protect workers. My job does and so do others. The job my dad works at does. They require him to take a shower for one hour before he leaves work due to the lead in the air. They pay for it, but that is what they do to protect him. In the end, though, there lies responsibility on the employee and that is what you have to realize. "It's only what works for you and your emotions, not the companies best interest you claim to care about." What emotions? I am coming at this from a rational view. I am putting emotions aside, looking at both parties involved, and going with experience. "You had no issue if the worker (unknown worker) lost his life, so long as the company didn't lose millions" Again, who is at fault? Businesses take actions to protect workers, but their lies responsibilities on the workers as well. You have no concern about the business and feel they are completely to blame. I am saying that in this case the truck driver was inexperienced. He should have read a weather report and stopped at a truck stop overnight. They give truck drivers reading material on these things. "I asked that question to prove you only cared about the companies bottom line when it's convenient for you. If you truly cared about a companies bottom line like you claimed, your views would be consistent regardless of who had to die if it meant a company saved millions." I told you that if my "love ones" were involved I would want them to do what will keep them alive, but also realize and understand that they will lose their job and they put themselves in that situation. You see the difference? I support the firing of this employee. You don't. I understand how businesses work and why. It is great this man is alive, but he has to realize his actions cost him his job. I work with class 4 lasers. If I did something to put my life or others in danger I will be fired. If I did something to risk my life, and had to do a hard shut down of the laser which will cost the university hundreds of thousands of dollars, I will walk away unharmed but will be fired as well. "Just admit you're fine with sacrificing someone elses loved one, just not someone you care about for the sake of a companies bottom line. " You are making things up. I never said sacrifice. I said that if you are an employee and you put yourself in a position to cost the company millions and/or are a risk, you will be fired. It does not have to be life or death either. Why do you hate businesses so much?
1
Megan, if you want to play hypothetical with family members let us do this. Say that truck driver, who is a risky employee, were to keep their job and three weeks later did something to cost that company millions. And as a result say your dad worked for that company but now they can't afford his salary so they fire him. How will you feel then? You dad lost a job because a risky employee cost the company millions. In reality, you will just blame the company. But the fact is the money has to come from somewhere.
1
"My point still stands, you were more concerned about the company losing money (which they didn't) so long as the person that would die wasn't one you knew." No, I am concerned about responsibility. A business is not going to keep a irresponsible employee around. Doing so puts a company at risk of losing millions. And if that company loses millions that means less investment, less growth and less jobs. I care about the other, responsible workers keeping their jobs and not losing it because one worker decided not to be responsible. There is a difference. This is an example once again someone on the ultra left, you in this case, letting emotions get in the way of facts and logic. I have not emotional attachment to the company or the employee. If that company decided to hold onto a risky employee and that employee ends up costing that company millions causing it to go bankrupt I blame the company. I blame who is at fault here. That employee made a mistake and had a decision to make. But, with their mistake they lost their job. That is how it goes. My brother in law got a job as a delivery driver and backed into a building and guess what, he lost his job. When employees make mistakes they lose their jobs. That is the issue here. Him being in a life or death situation does not matter at all, he made a mistake.
1
" This isn't related to the subject," Yes it is, according to you. You want to bring my family into it I will bring yours. " I wouldn't be upset, it's not my business how my 'dad' would decide to run things. It's not permanent like death, not the end of the world." I am not saying you dad runs the business. I am saying you dad was an employee there that got fired because a risky employee, who made a mistake in the past, cost the company millions. Now your dad is unemployed, most likely lost his insurance, can't pay his mortgage and so on. Now what? How do you feel? My point it this isn't about a person dying. It is about a worker who was risky being fired for a legit reason so it does not cost the company millions in the future and cost other people their jobs. That's the point.
1
Megan, and my family was never part of the story either. But you felt the need to bring them in. Here is the point, that employee put themselves in a situation where they could have died. That is not the business fault but he employee's fault. He did what most would do and that is do what it takes to save himself. I am fin with that. But, in the end he is a risky employee and thus got fired. That's the end of the story. No further argument. If it were the company's fault than the company should pay. Instead it was the truck driver's fault so he got fired. In that case it was either die or get fired. Compare it to this. Say someone steals food in order to live, but they get caught? Should they or should they not go to jail or pay a fine? Or this, consider the story of Aron Ralston. He made a mistake rock climbing and got stuck. He could either 1. die 2. cut off his arm He cut off his arm to live, but lost his arm in the end. The whole point is that the employee made a mistake and deserved to get fired, period. The fact that his mistake placed him in a life or death situation does not change it at all. All it showed was that he made a mistake. "I'll further answer your question, that would mean my 'dad' was working for an irresponsible company and I would be happy he was let go to work somewhere better." And I will agree that business was irresponsible for keeping that employee around. That is my point. Why would that business keep that truck driver knowing they are a risk? That is my next question to you.
1
Awkward Young Nietzsche, what's your point? That Gorsuch was right? I agree. Gorsuch is right. He operated the vehicle. Also, if you are going to cite a definition from a dictionary you should list all the definition.
1
James Walker, if my dad put himself in that position that will be his fault. I know many truck drivers by working at at truck stop. They can read a weather report. If inclement weather is coming here is what they do. They either 1. Leave early to make it to the next truck stop, or stop in general 2. Stay at the location they are at until morning By the way the law is written they are protected as they are refusing to operate the vehicle.
1
Awkward Young Nietzsche, you stopped arguing because you have no clue what you are talking about. He operated the vehicle so the law does not protect him. Here is what other truck drivers do when inclement weather is approaching 1. They leave early to make it to the next rest stop 2. Or they stay where they are for the night In point two that is refusing to operate the vehicle which they are allowed to do by law.
1
He can drive the truck slow if needed. No need to abandon the trailer. Franken said it is unsafe even though trucks drive slow in the mountains all the time.
1
Juliana Chi Do, the second you use the words "common sense" you showed that you have no weight in the argument. This was a debatable issue. For example, why was the truck driver in this position to begin with? Here are some things he could have done to avoid this 1. Read a weather report and stop at a rest stop earlier in the evening 2. Pack blankets 3. Pack a space heater for backup
1
Tara, read my comment to Juliana Chi Do. How about you look at how the truck driver behaved and put himself in this position to begin with. You says I can't see it, but to me all you see is "businesses bad".
1
M&M, I did not support what Bush did and so didn't many republicans. That is why Jeb lost so badly.
1
Juliana Chi Do, it isn't about being "sensible". It is that this is a debatable issue. Again, why was this truck driver in this position to begin with? Employees do have to be responsible. "So would you say that since slavery was in fact LEGAL in the U.S we shouldn't have made any changes?" And we changed the law through legislation. " you do not know the outstanding circumstances and the driver's company had him wait in the freezing cold for over 3 hours" As a truck driver you are trained and given information to avoid these situations. I know many truck drivers that read a weather report and stop at 4 or 5 in the evening to avoid being stuck in the cold or a storm. He could have done that or became prepared. You know, not everything is the business's fault. By the way, trucks run on diesel.
1
Juliana Chi Do, I drove home over Donner Pass in fog over night. I stopped at a rest stop and guess what I saw? Many trucks sitting there waiting until morning. Seemed like they were smart enough to stop, why wasn't this trucker?
1
" It doesn't excuse the business from making him stay there for over 3 hours when they said help would come in one." In an ideal world help and just teleport there and help him out immediately. Fact is that it isn't that easy. Also, even if they sent help he is shown to be a risky employee that is putting others at risk and thus will get fired. Say if the person who came to help him got stuck? Now two people are in trouble. So even if he received help he would still have been fired. I am not saying his decision at that time was wrong. I am saying his decision to place himself in that position was wrong and is why he got fired.
1
I can ask how Franken sleeps at night. All Franken did was appeal to his low information supporters trying to smear this justice pick. Gorsuch did his job and that is rule on the law as written. If you do not like the law than have the legislatures (like Al Franken) change it. That is their job. Judges' job is to enforce it, period. Franken is appealing to idiots here and to anyone who understand government and has intelligence will see right through that. It is no wonder why people voted against democrats.
1
"A company has no legal ability to tell someone to die or get fired. " They don't. What the company did was consider this employee a risk and fired them. Here are some of the things this truck driver could have done differently 1. Read a weather report and realize it was going to be cold and thus park at the 1st resting stop he hits in the evening and wait until morning 2. Pack blankets 3. Pack a space heater for backup in case his heater breaks Why was this truck driver in this position to begin with? You need to consider that. This truck driver was not responsible and thus got fired.
1
BatMashUps, why was he in that situation? That is something you have to consider. I am not saying what the man did in that situation was wrong. He did it to save his life. But the fact that he put himself in that situation to begin with means he will get fired. He is a risky employee.
1
tehHax0r, he could have done one of these three things 1. Read a weather report and stop at a rest stop earlier in the evening and wait until morning 2. Pack blankets 3. Pack a space heater Those are all options he is allowed to do.
1
Coldern Ice, you bring up a great point. Working at a truck stop I have met many inexperienced drivers who do dumb things like this and get fired. There are ways around it. From a company's standpoint this driver is a liability and will likely do something again that will cost the company money. That is how companies work. No different than if you were to get hurt working at a factory they will fire you, like when my uncle lost two of his fingers at a factory, he was liability.
1
Coldern Ice, with my experience the driver can only have a case here if the company did not do anything to help him out in some way. But the sounds of it they were not going to let him out there to die and were sending help. If they did not send help I will blame the company. But I felt this driver panic and because of his actions he is a liability to the company. People are so concerned about protecting the individual worker, but what about protecting the company from losing millions? Also, Gorsuch, from what I can tell, ruled on the law as written which we need more judges like that. When we don't we get more situations like we did with Ethan Couch.
1