Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Cuomo Wants NY Taxpayers To Buy The Richest Man Alive A Helipad" video.

Amazon laughed at Bernie. They already were paying employees around $15/hr. Also, the economy is growing allowing them to do it.
1
C Wilson, so they raised wages but cut benefits? And you call that a success?
1
Colony Three, that tweet was purely a political stunt. Do you really buy it? You know if you say "silver" slow enough it sounds like "gullible".
1
C Wilson, except you don't have facts.
1
Zidneya, because Bernie did something very dangerous. He encouraged idiots like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez to run and win a seat in Congress. And his fans have no desire to actually discuss the issues. They just want to complain and cry.
1
Colony Three, Bernie never engages in discussion. In his debate with Cruz when he was pushed in the corner he went on an appeal to emotion rant with zero justification or logic. He is a joke.
1
Colony Three, I told you. I am a physical chemist and I study vibrational states in molecular systems.
1
@MrGrass97 , where did Cruz lie? Also, the Danish person gave an anecdotal story where Cruz gave stats. As for climate change, it has been happening for over 4 billion years. My stance is that 1. How much is many playing a role? We don't know. Many is playing a role but we don't know how much. 2. Is it even a threat? 3. If it is a threat what is the solution? Since you can't seem to understand my stance on climate change or you refuse to represent my position fairly it makes anything you say irrelevant.
1
@MrGrass97 , Bernie also never talks about policy. He just goes on his appeal to emotion rants. He goes to talking points. When Cruz pointed out how much Bernie's plan would cost and how taxing the rich won't pay for it Bernie starting ranting about polls. He never denied the cost and he never denied the fact that taxing the rich won't pay for it. In fact, it took the Danish guy pushing Bernie into a corner to get him to admit he will have to raise taxes on everyone. Bernie has been lying the entire time. I can go on with Bernie but fact is that he is a fraud.
1
@zidneya , to actual experts and to many people in Congress he is irrelevant. Where he is dangerous is that he convinced idiots like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez to run and win. It places idiots in Congress who refuse to have actual intelligent discussions on the issue. That hinders progress. People are not going to listen to Bernie and his fans because when they speak they have very little to say, they just have a handful of talking points. So there is very little dialogue. Richard Ojeda is in the same boat as AOC. Jesse Ventura has been talking about running for president for years.
1
C Wilson , you never use facts. You just name call. Also, you have not countered what I said about KS. You claimed that KS sold sex toys to gain revenue when in reality it was because a business did not pay their taxes and thus their property was seized and then auctioned off eventually. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your firmly held, religious like beliefs. As for AOC, she refuses to discuss anything. She was protesting in front of Pelosi's office about climate change and green energy when she clearly has no clue what she is talking about. I doubt she even talked to experts on that issue. She just says appeal to emotion talking points. She also sounds like an idiot. Look up the videos on her by channel Don't Walk, Run! Productions, they are very funny. She is making the democratic party look bad.
1
@MrGrass97 , 99% of scientists are not saying climate change is a major threat. Why? Because we don't know. It is an issue we should look into just like cancer, or evolution, or diabetes, or mental health, etc. The fact is the science is not settled as there is so little we know in science. Also, we can't massively transition to renewable energy as at the industrial level it is not sustainable yet. Hopefully it will be but it isn't yet. But again, the 99% consensus is not what you think it is. You are just spewing talking points without actually reading up on the issue.
1
@MrGrass97 , everyone twists stats to suit their agenda. Bernie does it all the time. For example, when Bernie talks about how X amount of people have more wealth than the bottom 50%, he is being very deceptive. Wealth is not just income but also assets. Someone like Bezos has so much wealth because he is the major shareholder of Amazon. Bezos earns $80,000 a year. Someone with no debt and only $10 in their pocket has more wealth than 25% of the nation. Why? Because many people, like me, have negative wealth due to loans like home or college loans. The average home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. The average home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into the home. I have negative wealth due to my loans and I am fine. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to know wealth. But Bernie will never bring that up. He distorts stats. The Danish guy gave an anecdotal story which does not represent the entire issue. That is like me saying I have never had a problem with healthcare in the US so the healthcare system in the US has no problems. That is not true. Cruz brought up the cost, to which Bernie did not deny, and Bernie just pointed to polls and pointed to how Cruz wants to cut taxes. And Bernie has not been upfront about raising taxes on everyone. He just screams how he wants to raise taxes on the rich. As for Medicare for all saving money, a study was pushed on that showing that it won't. Now Bernie pointed to that study and pointed to one number on it but did not point to the numbers on page 4 showing both private and public spending where it would cost around $50 trillion over 10 years. He also did not point to the many assumptions on that study that gave an low estimate. Bernie preaches about discussing the issues but when people do he completely misrepresents them. He just cherry picks and then goes on talking points. Bernie is not progressive at all. He is a fraud.
1
@MrGrass97 , i read that, it doesn't day what you think.
1
Colony Three, humans play a role. But you can't say ho much. That is why there is no quantitative value being placed there. As for it being a threat, you can't make that claim either. Noticed how in all of those quotes there isn't a name attached to them, just organizations? Because no individual scientist is going to stick their neck out like that.
1
Zidneya, I feel climate change isn't a threat because.....wait for it......I support evolution. Climate change is a driving force in evolution. The ecosystem has evolved through previous climate change. So at that point I will ask of you and Colony Three, why do you deny evolution? Your cholesterol example is poor and if I recall I did reply. Cholesterol in relation to human health is more known. We have more information on that. We don't on climate change. We don't know how the ecosystem will evolve. The ecosystem is way more complex than the human body. You using the cholesterol example is also using the idea that current climate change is bad and a threat. As for Cortez, she has never worked a job that will challenge her. Being a bartender is not a challenging job compared to what is in the market. You saying it is shows how low of standards you have. But whatever, if low standards make you feel good then keep them I guess.
1
Colony Three, working in Congress is challenging, that's my point. She has no experience. She is going to get burned. What she is doing is similar to someone studying algebra in high school one semester learning about the quadratic equation and than graduate level modern algebra studying Galois theory the next semester. It is too big of a jump. Humans do play a role in climate change, but how much? You can't place a quantitative value on it as there is no control to compare. But again, why do you deny evolution? Sea levels have been changing for years. People have been displaced for years for numerous reasons whether it be weather, resources, diseases, etc. Virginia City, NV was one of the largest cities in the US until the mines when dry to which people left. The world is changing, we just have to adjust. It has been that way for billions of years. Look at the Maya civilization, it became a tourist area where in the past it was home to many people. i do care about the truth. You refuse to listen to counter arguments. You are making that assumption that this current change is bad when in reality change has been happening for millennia.
1
Zidneya, you don't embrace evolution. You are saying that the ecosystem will not evolve with the current climate change even though it has in the past. Yes, evolution depends on the environment around it, that is why I said a driving force of evolution is climate change. I never said that pollution does not effect climate change, it does. Many factors do. So again, why do you deny evolution? She never worked in her life, that is the point. You don't need a high school diploma to be a bartender, that is how low that job is in terms of skill and how challenging it is. Now she is in congress. But whatever, deny evolution and keep your standards low.
1
Colony Three, can you give me a list of those scientists? Can you give me names?
1
@MrGrass97 , oh no. Reading the beginning they say they refuse to give "equal time" to both sides, but their reasoning is vague and unclear. Also, the number one scientist on that list is aligned with my thought on the issue. She was criticized as a "denier" based on her comments. And that is not even getting into the other fields of science that is not mentioned on that list that play a role in this issue. Did you even read the source you gave me?
1
@zidneya , there is not set rate for evolution or climate change because of how complex they are. There is so little we know about those issues. I will point to my research to give an example. I study vibrational states in molecular systems to measure the structure and dynamics of them along with energy pathway in any energy transfer. As of now we can't model how a protein or RNA folds on itself which can lead to various diseases. So far, experimentally, we have gone up to a 6 residue peptide where our group has done a 4 residue peptide with our technique. So no one has actually done a large system. Our group is close but we are not there yet. How proteins and RNA fold, or how energy is transfer within a molecular system which influences reactions and dynamics, can vary depending on many factors such as the pH, amount of hydrogen bonding or temperature. The fact we don't know how these systems react due to those changes shows how little we know. And even those systems are tinker toys, imagine a 20 residue peptide within an organism. My point is that we are hardly scratching the surface on this issue. We don't know how the ecosystem will react. You may talk to a biologist and get one answer, and I, as a physicist, will give a different. I was at a poster session the other day and someone was explaining their work with viruses and how it is selective in killing off bacteria. I asked if that virus could evolve to kill off another bacteria and they could not answer and said I would have to ask an evolution biologist. I did and I then asked how would that virus evolve. They could not answer. Reminded by of when Richard Feynman was hanging out in a class with biologist and the professor showed how the chlorophyll was missing in a cell and he asked how and the professor could not answer. My point, there is so much we don't know. You are insulting science making a strong conclusion on climate change.
1
@MrGrass97 , there were scientists who would agree with me on that list. What's your point? Also, read my comment to Zidneya where I referenced my work in showing how little we know. The science is far from settled. I, as a physicist, view this issue completely different than a biologist where my viewpoint sees the nano and quantum level of the issue. You do know we don't know how photosynthesis occurs? I doubt it but we don't. That is why we have great scientists like Graham Flemming doing work in trying to understand the energy pathways in which photosynthesis occurs in both plants and unicellular organisms. But you feel we can make a strong conclusion on climate change? Really, please stop insulting science.
1
Bezos does not have over $100 billion. Also, the new headquarters will create a lot of jobs for people who will be earning 6 figures.
1
Marie, he has that much in wealth. Wealth is not income. He has that much wealth due to his assets. He earns only $80,000 a year.
1
Marie, Kyle said that Bezos has billions of dollars. That is not true. Wealth is not income. Wealth is assets. Bezos is worth $144 billion because of him being the largest shareholder of his company. His company is valued high because he is the one running it. Now if you were to give those same shares to Kyle and have Kyle run the company the value of those shares will drop a lot. The reason being is that Kyle does not understand business enough to make Amazon as valuable as it is.
1
Bezos earns only $80,000 a year. He doesn't have billions of dollars. Kyle needs to be fact checked.
1
It does make it justified. Property only has value when someone develops it and others perceive it as worth something. In Bezos' case he is placing a building there that will lead a successful company. If you were to give that same building to Kyle the value would drop a lot as Kyle does not understand business.
1
Y. Lin, he is paid with company stocks to increase confidence for investors so more invest.
1
Herb, I understand accounting. I understand wealth is not income.
1
Y. Lin, he can liquidate his stocks but he should do so in order to invest and grow. If he were to just liquidate his stock and waste the money or if he were to just pocket the money that would be a sign to investors that he is not good at running the company and thus the value of his stocks will drop. Him buying the Washington Post is an investment. If he were to liquidate his stocks to pay workers more than they are worth than investors will see that as a sign of bad money management and will no longer invest in that company.
1
Also, if he were to liquidate all of his stocks at once the value of them will drop for two reasons, 1. Too much supply 2. Investors see that as a major red flag that something is up and will pull out of the company decreasing the value So no, he does not have over $100 billion.
1
E W, actually no. I will respond. A friend of mine whom I haven't seen in a while came by so I had dinner with them. Now I have to get some things done at work, but I will respond.
1
Y. Lin, if no one is there to buy the stock than the prices will drop. If Bezos pushes to liquidate his stock for frivolous spending investors will see that and the value of the stock will drop. His wealth is tied to how much his stock is worth. It is worth a lot because people view him and his company as an entity that will invest money wisely.
1
E W, his stock is not paid for. He owns those shares of the company. He did not purchase them because he is the owner of the company.
1
E W, he owns many shares of Amazon that is valued at a certain amount. That is why he has so much wealth.
1
They are tax breaks. Tax breaks allows the company to keep the money, it is not giving money. Also, Amazon will create thousands of jobs that pay 6 figures. That means more home owners, more consumption, etc.
1
Colony Three, if NY refused than other states will offer. This HQ is going to create somewhere of 25,000 jobs paying around $150,000 each. That means more jobs and wealth all around. Those individuals will buy homes, buy from stores and restaurants, and grow the local economy. Many of those individuals will gain skills to move up to higher paying jobs. That is how you grow an economy. You don't grow the economy by giving money away especially to people who don't produce much. .
1
Colony Three, you can't consume what you don't produce. Just giving things away does not increase production. You need to grow the economy.
1
Colony Three, I care about people. But no matter how much I care that does not magically create resources to help them.
1