Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Kyle Breaking Down His Fox News Appearance" video.

They cut him off when he deflected to an irrelevant topic. Try to remain objective here.
16
Jesus, Ben has a law degree from Harvard, has written many books and has spoken in front of Congress. He is an intellectual. You may disagree with him but that is a different situation. I disagree with people like Obama but I admit he is an intellectual as well.
7
Colony Three, 1. Shapiro has spoken in front of Congress, on many college campuses, is a major part of the Daily Wire, an actual website, has written many books and is well recognized. Kyle just has this little show. 2. Cenk was incorrect in an apology. There is no documented report of an apology. Shapiro pointed out studies for others to look into on the issue giving a counter viewpoint. 3. Shapiro is an intellectual. He graduated from Harvard law, has written many book, has spoken in front of Congress and is involved in many debates and discussions. If you feel Shapiro is not an intellectual then why do you feel that Kyle is? Next, on the points you made, there are several examples of Hitler leaning left on issues that our current left wing does. Infrastructure spending for example and larger government to fix a recession. Many argued that the Great Depression created Hitler as he came along and used government to promise a better economy. It is highly debated amongst scholars on Hitler's views on Stalin. Shapiro has a point. Stalin was a fascist as well. Yes, his wife being a doctor does influence his thoughts on healthcare as he does have a lot of resources to look into it, one of that is how insurance companies function. 4. I can provide a plethora of evidence. With healthcare Kyle has given the deceptive stat of how 45,000 die a year due to lack of access to healthcare. Many things wrong with that A. As a Harvard professor pointed out, it is hard to get accurate numbers there as those individuals are poor to begin with and bad health is associated with poverty. There are higher rates of type II diabetes, smoking and obesity with the poor, all self inflicted. So the real question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? With 45,000 people that is 0.01% of the overall population, a very minute number where minor changes can created large variances in the data. Kyle is presenting a vague number that needs clarification. B. He makes that claim with zero comparison being done to other nations. So that number is meaningless unless it has a comparison C. Kyle makes the claim that in other nations that number is zero. However, minor searches can show that is not true. Here are the title of two papers to read with their journals "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “ "Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart And that is from Canada alone. Immediately he is incorrect. But he claims that there is not argument for a Medicare for all system when there clearly is. His only support is a poll that I can criticize very easily. Also, going on popularity is not an argument. It is saying that if a poll showed that slavery was popular we should allow it. Or if establishing religious based laws were popular we should allow it. Kyle is basing Medicare for all on polls and not actual data or economic discussions. He claims there is no argument for raising the min. wage when many economists argue against it, and many argue against having one to begin with. That is just scratching the surface.
6
Like it as after Cenk debated him......oh......wait.......
5
Kyle hardly has facts, and the facts he has he presents in a deceptive way. Cenk way better than Kyle and Cenk got destroyed. Kyle does not stand a chance. You looked at the southern strategy as a comparison when Shapiro pointed out actual resources to look into saying it was a myth. Cenk lost that part of the debate. Ben is an intellectual, Kyle is a child by comparison. If Kyle were to debate Shapiro it would not go well for Kyle. It would go so bad it might end his small little show he has going on here. It is best for him to stay away.
4
"Having a law degree from from some Ivy League school doesn’t mean dick. I’m sorry. George W. Bush went to Yale and he’s as dumb as a sack of bricks" George Bush, like very president, was very intelligent. I don't know Adam Carolla very well so I cannot make an honest opinion on him. "The reality is, Shapiro says very dumb things such as that the past 5 years haven’t been the hottest on record " When did he say that? "and that the polar ice caps aren’t melting" When did he say that? And what scientists should I ask? I am a scientist myself. I study spectroscopy, does that make what I say on polar ice caps valid? Saying "ask a scientists" is very vague. "And as I mentioned earlier, he doesn’t understand the political spectrum if he thinks Stalin was fascist and Hitler was leftist. " Stalin was a fascist and I pointed out how, in many ways, Hitler was a leftist. But on the Hitler viewpoint, Shapiro is doing what everyone does, that is use Hitler to make comparisons. I criticize everyone on that as everyone does it. If you want to criticize Shapiro for the Hitler talk then fine, but you have to do it for all. You can't cherry pick. Hitler was in a league of his own. While he had many ideas that were left leaning (and I gave examples), he was in a league of his own. "The only reason you think he’s an intellectual is because he talks fast, calls other people stupid and went to a fancy school." I gave my reasoning. But let me ask of you, do you feel Kyle is an intellectual and why?
3
Colony Three, Stalin banned religion. He was a fascist. Here is the definition "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" Sounds like Stalin to me. "Bush became president because he had a daddy who was president and tons of money behind him. How many times must I demonstrate it? " Every president is politically connected, what's your point? You still need intelligence. Bush was very intelligent, even Christopher Hitchens admitted that. "And did you not hear what I said? Hitler PRIVATIZED industry. " So do democrats. They higher private contractors to do the job. What's your point? "Besides, Keynesian economics DID stimulate Germany." Not really. Pushing for genocide played a role in that. It crashed after the war ended. Keynesian economics has never worked long term.
3
EpicMango, I have been watching Kyle for a while. I gave you an example of why he is dumb. I can give a larger one. He is a Bernie supporter. Anyone who supports Bernie is an idiot when it comes to economics. Kyle is dumb. There is a reason why he refuses to debate Steven Crowder.
2
Colony Three, people just don't become president. That requires a lot of intelligence. You point out examples of Bush but I can point out examples of Obama that made him look like a fool. Keynesian economics does not stimulate an economy, it never has. It is highly debatable if Hitler supported Marx or not. Many scholars on both sides argue this. Hitler pushed for larger government to fix the economy. That is a left wing viewpoint. He was left wing in many ways, but again, he is in a league of his own and I hate the Hitler comparison. Stalin was a fascist.
2
Stalin has killed many people to push his communist viewpoints, he is a fascist by definition. That is something that cannot even be argued.
2
Ben Shapiro has around 1.3 million twitter followers, Secular Talk has around 115K. Hmmmmm......
2
"You don’t know what fascism means. Fascism almost by definition is anti-communist" If you are talking about the idea form of communism then yes, but for communism in development it is fascism. I know the definition of fascism. Stalin banned religion, he banned speech and ownership of firearms. He is the definition of fascism.
2
" Twitter and YouTube are two different things bitch" Shapiro has many more followers. Kyle is only known due to his channel on Youtube. Shapiro promotes himself in other ways. He has more Twitter followers.
2
"“More dislikes than likes” a truly sophisticated and intellectual way to determine credibility" You are comparing Youtube views and subscriptions and find that to be valid, but you can't use likes and dislikes? Also, in less than 2 minutes I showed how that video is poor. The guy claimed that Shapiro denies climate change, that is not true at all.
2
He hardly dropped facts. It was three people talking over each other. It was a waste of time.
2
Thirty minutes for Kyle to describe a 5 minute video of him deflecting? Is he even trying any more?
1
Jack Ban, Kyle and his fan base are a complete joke to me at this point. I tried to help his fans out but they just ridicule and called me a troll. Fact is that his channel is losing views while Steven Crowder has more. Heck, even Matt Christiansen has more views. Ben Shapiro is a much louder voice as well. Go ahead and continue to live in a bubble with Kyle and realize that his side is dying. I can't wait for November to see an the Justice Democrats lose. Enjoy the "revolution".
1
Jack Ban, there you go, you say I support "pro-corporatist, profit / privatization extremist, and anti-humanist right-wing ideology,". That is a generalization that is not true at all. When you cannot represent me fairly we cannot have an honest conversation. As for others calling you a troll I would criticize them as well unless you are trolling. But if you are trying to give a counter argument then that is what you are doing, you are not trolling. Your rant on the drug war and race is asinine. Why? Because making claims that the drug war is race related is based on little evidence. I don't support the drug war as is, but I can represent it fairly. As for Clinton and the economy, under him we saw a boom. We saw limited government. But later we saw government grow especially under Bush. He did a stimulus package in 2003 by giving people $300 checks. We saw the government push for more home lending that led to the housing bubble. The idea that it was limited government that created problems is not true. The biggest problem with Bernie is that he is a socialist, and in many ways a communist. He has no connection with the common man and he has no care for businesses. He only sees businesses as money pits to steal from. Not surprising considering how he was a guy who stole electricity from his neighbor.
1
Jack Ban, also, you just went on a rant about how corrupt government can be. So let me ask you, why do you want go give that federal government even more power to run your healthcare and more tax dollars?
1
If you feel Kyle is smart you have low standards.
1
EpicMango, Kyle is wrong on many issues. He has said that no one dies in other countries due to healthcare systems. That is 100% not true. That either means he is not honest or dumb. Take our pick.
1
EpicMango, I rest my case. You are as dumb as Kyle. Crowder is someone on the right that has an opposing viewpoint. Crowder at least has other people on his show and goes out there and talks to people from the other side. Kyle lives in his bubble. But why do you feel Crowder is a joke?
1
Ragitsu, Kyle and his fan base are a complete joke to me at this point. I tried to help his fans out but they just ridicule and called me a troll. Fact is that his channel is losing views while Steven Crowder has more. Heck, even Matt Christiansen has more views. Ben Shapiro is a much louder voice as well. Go ahead and continue to live in a bubble with Kyle and realize that his side is dying. I can't wait for November to see an the Justice Democrats lose. Enjoy the "revolution".
1
This is another comment thread of people saying Shapiro is wrong but does not provide any evidence.
1
"His economic views are the same as any rightwinger and there are mountains of evidence that prove those positions are garbage" Such as? "His social views are as tainted as any religious conservative and are typically appeals to emotion rather than information based" Two things. One, do you have examples? Two, most social views are appeal to emotion rather than information base.
1
"you could do the same with Kyle’s talking points though" Exactly. I have watched Kyle enough I can destroy him in a debate with peer reviewed sources. Kyle has nothing but talking points. The best example is healthcare. He has said that in other countries that no one dies due to shortcomings in their systems. That is 100% not true and I know of three papers off of the top of my head to prove that. Kyle is no where near Shapiro's level. Shapiro has flaws, and I can criticize Shapiro myself. But Kyle would most likely watch his show die if he tried to debate Shapiro, that is how bad it would go.
1
The issue with the crime stat is that it is just one component of a complex issue. Sure they are not committing crime, but is that justification for keeping them here? What is their productivity level? How much in tax dollars are they receiving? You have to consider that. Just bringing in people and allowing them to stay just because they commit no crimes is not a solid argument. If they commit no crime but have 5 kids and live off of welfare is thus good for our nation? Your dad is not too bright if it took only that to change his mind.
1
"i think he also said that over 90% were employed as well" Employed at what? What kind of jobs? Not saying we should kick out Dreamers, but more information is needed. If most are working min. wage jobs and having multiple kids that is a problem.
1
" how would you feel if you were born in another country but raised here since you were a toddler or even an infant like a lot of those “dreamers”? " I agree that is an issue, but at the same time we have to set standards. I support the idea of taking these Dreamers and giving them all a citizenship exam. Tell them they have to take it in two months and if they pass they stay, if they fail they leave. That is something I support on the surface. Now there is more to it than that, but if they were raised here and had our K-12 education they should pass. Also, you are creating an appeal to emotion argument. There is value there, but we also have to consider our economic situation as well.
1
Tusker Doodle, you can say the same about those on the left. I can drop many facts and logic and to those who are open I can make them lean right on the issues. It is my education that caused me to lean right on the issues. The reality is that the very core the political left bases their ideas on emotions and the political right bases their ideas on facts and logic. Not to say one is better than the other. We need facts and logic, but we are human. But at the very core that is what it is.
1
Caramel, I agree the citizenship exam is not easy, but we need standards. If they want to stay, and if they received a K-12 education,then they should be able to pass. I am not talking about taking it right away, give them time to study. "and as far as economic issues, not all of them live on welfare and they are paying their taxes providing to our economy not hurting it" I agree, but how many?
1
"Its really funny that you assert that the left derives their opinions from their emotions and the right derives their opinions based on facts and logic without providing any facts to support your opinion." I can. I will use healthcare as an example. The political left wants major reform to the point of a universal healthcare system. They do so based on emotions and brings up the fact that people are dying due to lack of access. Now that is a fact, but the reality is that is mainly due to lack of resources that exist in all nations. When the political right talks about healthcare and goes deep into it they acknowledge the deaths, but they do so saying that is due to lack of resources, and no matter what system we have people will die. Also, many on the left bring up the 45,000 stat, but when dug deeper the reality is that those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with poverty to begin with. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes did they die due to lack of access of due to being in bad healthcare to begin with. So the left starts with some facts, but they are shallow. That is where logic and reasoning comes in. The political right, the ones who are intelligent, will dig deeper like I did with that 45,000 number and point out other variables that are involved. They will also point out the deaths in other nations as well with universal healthcare systems. When that is done the political left will, in the end, give appeal to emotion statements of how everyone should be covered. They begin to deny the issues. That is why Bernie Sanders, when pushed in the corner with facts, brings up polls. He is appealing to emotions.
1
Tusker Doodle, to give another example consider the min. wage. There is a great video on the min. wage that is an hour and a half long. After a long debate by both sides those on the right show, with numerous evidence, that at best a min. wage increase does nothing positive and actually leads to negative results. The political left will at that point go down the route of pointing to single mothers working multiple jobs which is an appeal to emotion argument. Take another issue, the gun issue. Right now you are seeing the left parade around young kids and throwing out empty numbers of 96 people dying a day and showing pictures of AR 15s as they are scary. The political right digs deeper and shows that 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, most are by hand guns. Of the 1/3 that are not suicides you have justified killings by cops, in self defense, and gang related issues. The political left will say that nations, with stricter gun control laws, have lower murder rates. However, they have lower rates in general. For example, the US has a murder rate 5 times higher than the UK. But if you remove all gun murders the US has a murder rate that is still higher than the UK by two times. At that point it is clear that the US is simple a more violent nation which is a not a gun issue. At that point the political left calls you a child murderer and says they only want "common sense" gun laws.
1
Tusker Doodle, the political left gives empty stats. They will give a stat that on the surface looks to support their ideas, but they are only presented to stir emotions. When broken down and dug deeper that is shown. In the end the political left bases their ideas on emotions and the right bases their ideas on facts, logic and reasoning. Again, both sides are needed as we are human and have emotions, but admit it when you start discussing issues, it will get you farther when you are honest with yourself.
1
Tusker Doodle, to give one lase example, look at Bernie Sanders. He is as extreme left as it gets. He runs on pure emotions. I was watching a video by Steven Crowder recently where Bernie ripped on the new tax law. It was an old video. In Bernie's rant he gives zero facts and discussion on economics and data. He brought up the tax cuts given to the Walton family and Koch brothers and then brought up polls. Nothing factual and nothing dealing with logic and reasoning, only pure emotions. He is saying "the Koch brothers have money and we must take because they are too rich" and "polls support my idea, if you disagree you do not agree with the people". No discussion at all dealing with economic theory and facts to support it. At the end the political left is bases the vast majority of their policies on emotions. There are some exceptions, but that is the norm. Again, nothing wrong with it, just stating a reality. Pick any topic you want, we can discuss it and I will show what I mean. It is especially true with economic issues.
1
Tusker Doodle, your point on DACA is fine. I am not saying we need to deport them. I am saying there is a lot to this discussion. You see, those on the left want an appeal to emotion approach on this. I am forcing you to move away from that and start digging for facts and approach this with logic and reasoning.
1
Caramel, it is a point to bring up. However, we need standards in this nation, both short term and long term, on immigration. An argument to be made is that if we show other nations that we are willing to kick out Dreamers then parents will be hesitate in bringing their kids over the border and raising them here knowing they will be doing more harm than good.
1
I support keeping Dreamers here if we strengthen our immigration standards now, but the political left is refusing to budge.
1
"it is not about an emotional approach, it is about supporting what is fair for people like them DACA!" You using the word "fair" makes it emotional automatically. There are many families who came here legally, why should they be punished? I am not saying they are bad people. I am saying we need standards in our immigration process to alleviate illegal immigration. Again, I support a pathway towards citizenship for Dreamers, but there is an argument to be made against it, and it has nothing to do with them being "bad people".
1
Caramel, as I said, I support a pathway for citizenship. But there needs to be a standard. To me it has to come down to a test and some kind of job. If they pass a citizenship test and obtain a job within X amount of time then fine, they can stay. If not they have to leave. Just making them all citizens, to me, is not a solution.
1
" Uninsured people tend to have poorer health because they don’t get therapeutic treatment when they need it" Again, obesity, smoking and type II diabetes are self inflicted. You learn how to eat healthy in public schools which everyone has access to. "And you have yet to bring up any facts to support your opinions only criticized others “empty facts”" I brought up facts. There are higher rates of obesity, smoking and type II diabetes with poor individuals. That plays a role. As a Harvard professor said, did they die due to lack of access or due to being in poor health to begin with? You don't need to see a doctor to tell you to eat healthy and exercise occasionally. That is my counter argument.
1
Also, your report says this "Research demonstrates that gaining health insurance improves access to health care considerably and diminishes the adverse effects of having been uninsured." When I read that I say "no shit". However, again, that is empty. At what cost does "covering" everybody come with? As we have seen premiums went up with the passage of the ACA. Also, this goes into a deeper issue of insurance and its role in healthcare. Just providing people with insurance is not a solution and you are forcing them to be charities as opposed to a business. But again, your study you pointed me to says " A comprehensive review of research on the effects of the ACA Medicaid expansion finds that expansion led to positive effects on access to care, utilization of services, the affordability of care, and financial security among the low-income population" Yes, for those groups. However, how did it influence the entire market both short term and long term? Also, there have been counter evidence to that study. https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/02/obamacare-no-lives-saved/
1
" Have you read Bernie Sanders biography of the 2016 election? All he ever talks about is policy and facts its like half the book. " I have not read his biography, but he hardly talked about policies during his campaign. Calling for a "living wage" and "fair share" are appeal to emotion statements. When pushed in a corner he goes to polls. I have read his website and he does not site anything when he presents numbers. "And what evidence do you have that liberals base their opinions on feelings and conservatives based their ideas on facts and logic other than “it’s just like your opinion man.”" I gave several examples on the issues of guns, healthcare and the min. wage. My statement is true on economic issues and mostly true on social issues. Social issues are tricky as they are mostly emotional based (like gay marriage and abortion for example), but on economic issues it holds. Pick any economic topic and we can debate. We can go deep and in the end I will have the facts and reasoning on my side and you will resort to emotions. Not saying your side is irrelevant, just saying that is where it will lead.
1
" I am not going to waste my time debunking every moronic opinion you pelt me with. " You see, now you have become emotional, you are proving my point. I will add, though, with healthcare. You have someone like Bernie citing polls and others on the left point to these arbitrary rankings. Meanwhile, in 2009 AEI published a book by two professors called "The Business of Health" on healthcare. Which side has more details, is more fact based and has more reasoning?
1
Caramel, I do support them. However, many on this channel typically just want to make them citizens with zero standards. I oppose that. I am taking a moderate approach here. Yes, age can factor in. There is no one size fits all criteria, but one has to be met. Using "fair" is emotional as it is subjective. That subjective nature makes it emotional.
1
Caramel, "fair" is subjective and thus emotional. That is the issue. What is "fair" to one person is not "fair" to others.
1
Tusker Doodle, yes, emotions come into play, the political right bases their ideas on facts and logic. They will have an idea and back it up with facts and reasoning behind it. The political right will come up with an idea and back it up with a tear jerking story. An example is the min. wage. The political right will, in the end, show that it does not help the economy but actually harms it. Now saying it harms it can be considered an emotional based argument, but it is to counter the argument the left makes in helping those in poverty. "Also your interpreted my being emotional to pointing out your stupidity and after a careful examination of the evidence I can say that your stupidity is a fact." Why do you think I am stupid? You making accusations without evidence is using emotions. You see, you are proving my point again.
1