Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "State Republicans Are Preemptively Blocking Liberal Policies" video.

  1. I know, republicans hate democracy despite the people voting them in. Maybe if more people voted democrat this would not happen.
    6
  2. Desphinx Yep, the people agree with the policies so much that they voted in democrats to pass them......oh, wait.  
    3
  3. So republicans don't want their states to end up like Detroit, Chicago, LA and other cities with crime and no money? I see no problem there.
    2
  4. Red Hood "Because methane is a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide, it could significantly worsen global warming " I am done.  As a physicist CO2 is more dangerous than methane. "Finally, there are the issues of earthquakes" Which is not an issue.  Canada has been practicing fracking longer and since they started it they have not seen a significant increase in earthquakes and the ones they seen have been of lower magnitude.
    2
  5. The people can always vote in democrats if they wanted.
    2
  6. Desphinx I didn't ignore it.  If they were lied to than we have to wait until the next election to vote them out.   
    2
  7. I know, right! I mean, why wouldn't the republicans want to be like Detroit or Chicago?
    2
  8. This falls in line with state rights.
    2
  9. Preventing the government from adding new laws is small government.
    2
  10. All I have been hearing (not necessarily by Kyle, but by other liberals) is that the will of the people wanted Clinton because she "won the popular vote". I heard that the people wanted Obama and wanted him to select a supreme court justice. But, when republicans won congress, and control most state offices, doesn't that mean the people want republicans to have power to do this? If a group of democrats were to do this I bet Kyle and other liberals would not say a word. Fact is republicans won, they are in power. Maybe the people either 1. don't care 2. wanted this to happen all along How about the democrats try winning for once. Kyle screams all the time how the polls say the US is becoming more liberal and support liberal policies. Meanwhile democrats are not winning.
    1
  11. Peasham Yeah, and that's the point, they lost.  If the people would really care they will change it.  Instead they didn't.  
    1
  12. Peasham You have state and local elections as well.  Republicans won those.  
    1
  13. Mookie Stewart Yes, and those votes were isolated in cities.  Maybe the democrats should try to earn the votes of rural areas.  The rules of the game are there, they need to learn how to play by it.  
    1
  14. TheFinex82 Nope, and shouldn't be either.   
    1
  15. I see nothing wrong with what Kasich did. When broken down there is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage.
    1
  16. Marc, fracking has a lot of benefits.
    1
  17. Mookie Stewart Fracking has not done any harm.  So yes, I am serious.  
    1
  18. Xpert520a Over 10 years of studying science.  Also, nothing has shown that fracking causes earthquakes.  Also, this  http://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8172.abstract
    1
  19. Stefan Saragosa But yet there are still earthquakes in Canada.  Fact is that fracking it not causing earthquakes.  Anyone who brings it up is clearly an idiot.  
    1
  20. random comment You know, I can dig up a ton of sources, and usually do.  But what I realized is that many people cry for me to give sources (and I did that was a PNAS publication), but don't criticize others.  Why are you not directing your comment towards Xpert520a, or Stefan, or Red Hood?  None of them provided sources.   
    1
  21. random comment But yet you targeted me.  
    1
  22. Red Hood The nature paper is the only one I actually take serious there, even them show support towards natural gas.  So that does not support your case.  On water pollution, my PNAS paper shows that there is not sufficient evidence that shows fracking pollute water.  On earthquakes, your source is questioning it.  So again, not supporting your case. 
    1
  23. Xpert520a Yes,  I am purusing a PhD in physical chemistry.    Even if fracking did cause earthquakes, earthquakes is not a problem, we have them in my state all the time.  The magnitude is the concern.  Small earthquakes are nothing.  So I still don't see a problem. 
    1
  24. Xpert520a Questionable.  Government site, not peer reviewed.  Even at that the magnitude is important. As I said, we have earthquakes all the time in my state, they are nothing.   Just like a rain storm that happens a lot is nothing unless it brings a tornado that ends up being an F 5.  So again, I still don't see a problem.   
    1
  25. Xpert520a In the end you are digging for something that isn't there. Earthquakes on small magnitudes seems to be the worst that is happening, which is not a problem at all (and I still question if fracking is causing earthquakes).  As far as poisoning water is concerned, it is a non-issue.  So minor earthquakes that you won't even fell in your sleep, and no water being poisoned is not a problem to me.   
    1
  26. Xpert520a I have read numerous government sites that were poorly done and what they said is not supported.  Noticed they did not cite any peer reviewed papers?  I don't trust their analysis on something.  I don't trust Breitbart either, so ti goes both ways. Minor earthquakes are nothing.  Until it creates a high magnitude one than it is a non-issue.  People complain that windmills kill birds.  I see that argument to be similar to the fracking cause earthquakes.  If fracking did cause earthquakes they are minor. If windmills did kill birds than screw them, survival of the fittest.  Roads and cars killed deer, again, a minor problem. 
    1
  27. Xpert520a I don't trust it because of the lack of proper citations.  With fracking and earthquakes, I don't see a strong connections.  If there is than it is creating earthquakes of small magnitudes which are meaningless.  At that point I will place you in the same crowd that are against windmills because they kill birds, congrats.
    1
  28. Xpert520a Remember, windmills kill birds so we should ban them. 
    1
  29. Xpert520a And neither is saying that fracking causes earthquakes when they are, at the very worse, of small magnitude.
    1
  30. This does involve state rights. Read the article, state legislatures are passing this.
    1
  31. Desphinx This is small government in that they are limiting what government can do.  Also, this is not fascist.  
    1
  32. Mookie Stewart I agree, and this is happening.  The state legislatures are doing this, not the federal government.   
    1
  33. Desphinx It isn't fascism though because the people voted these guys in power.  
    1
  34. Desphinx And if people don't like it they can vote them out come next election.  I don't see any problem here.  
    1
  35. Desphinx When Obama was elected my liberal colleague said that if the people did not like what he did they can always vote in republicans to push to undo what he did.  Now it isn't that simple but that is occurring.  Also, how is this undemocratic?  If you don't like it you have to wait to vote for it. 
    1
  36. Desphinx How are they fascist?  You can vote them out next time around.  You really need to learn what fascism is.  
    1
  37. Kang5030 Really?
    1
  38. Demonboy007 Yeah, what's wrong with those states?   
    1
  39. Rob McCune That is debatable. Michigan has a nice balance of democrat and republican governors and legislatures.  Just looking from the 80s 2 were democrat and 2 were republican.  But I guess you will choose to ignore that. Also, the mayor of Detroit does have a lot of control. 
    1
  40. Demonboy007 Who is stealing land?  If land is being stolen that is unconstitutional.  
    1
  41. Rob McCune I am talking about the auto industry leaving and Detroit going bankrupt. You are highlighting one incident with water, that's it.  Anyway, the Detroit and Flint area have so little funds due to them mismanaging it that they can't afford either clean water nor a police force.   
    1
  42. Rob McCune Strong regulations and unions forced the companies to move, so basically policies democrats support.  Face it, they are areas that are democratic dreams, poor people that need the government to live.   
    1
  43. Björn Eggert Just like Carrier could in Mexico, and Ford, until you have had a government that lowered taxes and regulations.  In my state we gave a tax break to a company and they built here and are creating jobs starting at $26/hr.  That plays a role.   
    1
  44. Rob McCune I understand how economies work just fine.  Unions became too strong in Detroit running off the companies.   
    1
  45. Björn Eggert The CEOs came out and even said so.  
    1
  46. Björn Eggert I gave you proof.  
    1
  47. Björn Eggert That is proof.  Why would the CEO credit Trump and the republicans?  
    1
  48. Björn Eggert  http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/03/ford-canceling-plans-for-16-billion-plant-in-mexico-investing-700-million-in-michigan-expansion-instead.html "We're also encouraged by the pro-growth policies that President-elect Trump and the new Congress have indicated that they will pursue," Ford President and CEO Mark Fields said in a statement. " Happy?
    1
  49. Björn Eggert The company with the $26/hr wage is a different company. With Ford, it ranges from around $10/hr to $25/hr.  But for the $26/hr wage is for the company being built in my state.
    1
  50. Björn Eggert In the end it does not matter.  Under Trump the economy is going to boom.  I gave you proof that Ford is staying because of Trump.  You can look up the wages for their factory workers.  For the company in my state, I won't release that info because I don't want people to know where I live.  Too many creeps on the internet.  People in my state are excited for it though as we do possess a lot of low skilled workers so this factory will hire them at a higher wage.  For me, I see the excitement but it does not benefit me as I am skilled as science and research so I will still have to move after I earn my doctorate.  But, overall, for the state this factory is great and will pay $26/hr starting.  You don't have to believe me as it does not change that fact.
    1
  51. Demonboy007 Six bankruptcies is nothing compared to the success he has.  The Carrier deal was great, I see no problems.
    1
  52. Demonboy007 Trump is not "my team".  Six bankruptcies is nothing compared to his success. Marino Rivera blew a safe in game 7 of the WS against the Diamondbacks, does that mean he cannot handle being  a closer?
    1
  53. caleb, the people can always vote them out. Until then this is what the people wanted.
    1
  54. Damn those republicans doing what they were elected to do, that was stop democrats. Democrats would do the exact same thing. Remember, it was the democratic party that had closed elections during the primaries that prevent an outside member (like Bernie Sanders) from winning. If the people don't like this they can vote in democrats.
    1
  55. Nope.
    1
  56. ***** And voters can vote in new representatives at the state level if they don't like it.  
    1
  57. Amy Farron Lame excuse.  How about you have a message that the voters agree with. 
    1
  58. Amy Farron Again, maybe democrats should learn to cater to more voters.
    1
  59. Why not Mexico, you racist.
    1
  60. davlor86 Nope, they are just being racist. They rather go to a country with more white folks that have stricter immigration laws.  
    1
  61. ***** Nope, just speaking the truth.   
    1
  62. *****"  the quality of living is greater in Canada" Debatable.
    1
  63. Nick Moore Well one, I thought you were talking about the US and Canada. Compared to Mexico, sure, I will give you that.  But even at that they are still picking a country with more white people and stricter immigration laws. I see irony there.  
    1
  64. davlor86 They can't. You can't move to Canada unless you are sponsored by a business, have a high quality skill (like you are a doctor), or have a certain amount of money saved in the bank because you can't use their social programs for the first 5 years.
    1
  65. Mochi Sandvich Canada also has stricter immigration laws and expect you to have an actual job before you move there. 
    1
  66. ***** But the irony is great.  People want to move to a country they feel is better that happens to have more white people and stricter immigration laws.  But when Trump wanted to create stricter immigration laws, or at least enforce the ones we have, people called him racist and want to move out when he became elected.  That is irony.
    1
  67. davlor86 I know, but the irony is that they hate Trump when he wants to enforce stricter immigration laws. Meanwhile they want to move to a country with strict immigration laws.  It blows my mind how some ultra liberals think. 
    1
  68. davlor86 He campaign against illegal immigrants which he should.  In the 50s and 60s we saw major economic growth for two reasons 1. every other country was rebuilding and thus we were ahead of the game 2. we had stricter immigration laws
    1
  69. davlor86 He was talking about illegals and to some degree he is not wrong.  Granted he was exaggerating there, but every politician does that. Bernie Sanders is a great example in that. But, wanting to solve the problem of illegal immigrants should be a non-debatable issue.  For some reason it was.  Yes, immigration has hindered economic growth.  You have illegals who come in, take away low paying jobs from those who can work them to enter the workforce.  And they also benefit from our social programs, whether it be local or federal, which costs us tax dollars.  I found it ironic how so many people wanted to move to Canada after Trump won and feel Canada is great.  Meanwhile Canada has stricter immigration laws.  Hmmm, I wonder why they are so great.
    1