Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Fox News Goon Rips Bernie Sanders 'Failed Ideology'" video.

  1. James Stewart What you said describes liberals as well. Liberals tend to be worse though.
    2
  2. Nazi Germany is not conservatism, it is fascism.  The overall failure is comparing us to other countries.  You can't compare us to Scandinavian countries because we are incredibly different.  The variables are too great.   Venezuela at least has 30 million people, they are a little bit better comparison then that of Denmark of only 5 million, but it is still weak.  Plus if you look at the number those countries are not "kicking our ass", we are comparable to them when you do a statistical analysis that the differences between them and us is called statistical noise. During the golden age of expansion no one paid those high taxes.  You also have to consider that the economy wasn't as global, people can now move money off shores. FDR's policies and the new deal led us through the longest recovery ever following a recession.  It was the wars and lowering of regulations (and ultimately FDR's death) that allowed for growth. Saying Reagan led us to a boom bust cycle is false.  Before him we were in a recession during the Carter years.  Reagan got us out.   So if you want to say the cycle started it started before him. In reality it has already been there.  That is a part of the evolution of the economy. Evolution is sometimes slow and sometimes drastic.  The two times were we saw the slowest recovery were under FDR and Obama.  They were also times where we saw massive spending, increase in taxes and regulations.  All you have to do look at the data. While our college is not "free" we have arguably the best university system in the world.  What is funny is that Kyle just ripped on the US and how it is trailing in it's standards so I am assuming he thinks that he feels that the US K-12 system is lagging.  But he wants the government to be involved in college now?  Not really smart.  Just because his policies are popular (they are not, polls are unreliable in that they ask vague questions) doesn't mean anything.  He simply will not win.  He is a career politician from Vermont.  People will look past him and vote for someone more qualified.
    2
  3. Prototype Atheist Being the senator of a state with the second smallest population in the US is not experience. His policies simply won't work.
    1
  4. Prototype Atheist That is better than a senator of a small state. At least that is leadership experience and having to deal with issues.
    1
  5. Prototype Atheist With smaller states you simply have less issues to deal with. Especially in a state tucked away in the corner of the US compared to Texas or CA for example, a state that is larger than most countries and have the issue of dealing with immigrants. So it makes a big difference. It is like comparing a high school football coach to that of an NFL coach.
    1
  6. LOL Party Up (Ordained Atheist Priest) So if I were to take 5 people and teach them all physics in 3 months, I will be able to do it to 500 people in the same time with 100% success rate? The answer is no. It is called a small sample size. Bernie's closest thing to a leadership was Mayor of Burlington, a city of only 42,000. That isn't much. He doesn't have leadership experience to be president.
    1
  7. LOL Party Up (Ordained Atheist Priest) And it showed under Obama. Romney was a governor of a state with a population of over 6 million people, like Clinton was a governor of a state of over 2 million. Trump does not have experience and I don't support him.
    1
  8. Prototype Atheist If you want to talk about policies we can. Every state is different. The founding fathers saw that with only 13 states and 300,000 people. A one size fits all policy won't work. Just because it works in Vermont doesn't mean it will work at the federal level. Every state is different. If a state wants socialized healthcare and free college then let them do it. But don't force it down other people's throats in other states that don't want it. I have seen Bernie talk on the floor. He is very shallow in what he says. The leadership isn't there. Plus there is this "From Jan 2007 to Jul 2015, Sanders missed 80 of 2,721 roll call votes, which is 2.9%. This is worse than the median of 1.6% among the lifetime records of senators currently serving. The chart below reports missed votes over time." https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357 Not being present more than most is not a sign of leadership.
    1
  9. LOL Party Up (Ordained Atheist Priest) Uh no. Unless you count a healthcare bill that is going to ruin our healthcare in this country. Or the stagnate economic growth, the 2nd slowest recovery following a recession since the great depression. Or there being more mass shootings under his watch. Or increase in poverty. Not really successful.
    1
  10. LOL Party Up (Ordained Atheist Priest) Recessions happen, the recent one was near the end of Bush's term. He was done. If he was still in office it would have been an uphill battle for him under a democrat congress but he would have led us to a recovery. But he was done, Obama fought for the job and we are seeing a slow recovery for a reason, he lacked leadership skills. Bush also didn't make anyone go to war, Congress voted for it. People have been tortured before Bush and under democrats watch. And what did Obama do? Weed being legal is a state issue. Gay marriage is the SC finally ruling on the constitution correctly. Seal team 6 killed Bin Laden. Not success I will tie to Obama.
    1
  11. LOL Party Up (Ordained Atheist Priest) Reagan was a failure? Really?
    1
  12. Prototype Atheist John Kasich if he runs. If not, out of the candidates declaring I would go with Bobby Jindal of the republican candidates. For democrats the best bet would be Lincoln Chafee if they want to win and if any democrat were to win that would be the guy. All the others lack experience or will be just poor leaders in general.
    1
  13. LOL Party Up (Ordained Atheist Priest) Under Obama we saw slow recovery. Recessions happen, Bush just got unfortunate. But Obama took over the job and he failed at it. And why can't you take me seriously? You are the one picking Bernie Sanders, a career politician with almost zero experience leadership wise.
    1
  14. Prototype Atheist I am not a republican, I am a moderate. Plus I see no one has criticized my first overall choice. You jumped straight to Bobby Jindal, who you clearly have no legitimate criticism of. I can break down how Bernie would make a terrible president.
    1
  15. Prototype Atheist No, I break down his policies and explain why they have never work and won't work today. "I have no idea who Kasich is" Not surprising, it is clear to me that you don't follow politics at all beyond some bias, radical source that says "democrats good, republicans bad" and you just nod your head without thought. Jindal isn't my main choice, neither is Kasich. Mitch Daniels is the one I like the most, but he isn't running. Kasich might. Out of the ones that are Jindal is the best. I support Rand Paul's stance on things but he lacks experience. Chris Christie and Perry have too much controversy to them even though they have experience and a good track record. Jindal worked well with his legislature despite LA being a historically left leaning state (look at the governors they elected in years). I do have the gripe of him putting creationism in science classrooms (in a school is another issue) in that it isn't science, but no one candidate is perfect. As a moderate I look at the whole picture. Non of the democrat candidates are good in the the democrats in the past decade and a half have all become too extreme especially since Gore lost. They were great during the Clinton years, but since then they have gone off to the deep end.
    1
  16. LOL Party Up (Ordained Atheist Priest) "Plus he's a crazy religious nut.." If that is the only argument you have then it is clear you know very little.
    1
  17. LOL Party Up (Ordained Atheist Priest) LA has had around 2/3 of their governors as democrats. They are left leaning historically. You need to read up on history a little more.
    1
  18. LOL Party Up (Ordained Atheist Priest) I am a moderate. You are just so extreme left (as shown by you support of Bernie Sanders) that anyone who is a moderate is a right winger to you.
    1
  19. Prototype Atheist Yes, you lack of knowledge about Kasich is about you not following politics. It shows you clearly follow radical shows who say "republicans good, democrats bad". What has Kasich done? Balance the Ohio budget even with tax cuts, reduce unemployment from over 9% to 5.1%. Grew the economy in Ohio during stagnate growth in the US overall with tax and budget cuts. He has a great chance to get nominated. We haven't even done the debates yet. The election if over a year away. What does anti-gay have to do with anything? And what terrible economic policies do they support? Perry was governor of a state that has seen constant economic growth. Plus his state is larger than most countries in the world. You clearly need to start finding other sources for information. I think the fact that you never heard of Kasich says something. He did tax and spending cuts and saw economic growth, the complete opposite of what you support. It is no wonder you bias left wing sources don't mention him at all.
    1
  20. huckfinn22 Under Jindal Louisiana grew economically the past 5 years and was in the top 10 in the US in term of economic growth during the last 5 years. LA credit rating went up under him. Education rankings in Louisiana are hard to improve (even though they are improving) simply because it is a state that doesn't reward education. I know of 2 professors that turned own jobs at LSU due to that. You can't blame Jindal for how a society thinks? The same problem is with Nevada and Sandoval, the state has a hard time improving education when the society doesn't care about it. In Vegas in NV you can earn over $80,000 a year parking cars. LA doesn't have such benefits, the people there simply don't care. Turning down Medicaid expansion is what the people of LA wanted which is one reason why the re-elected him. The problem with the Medicaid expansion is that the states would have eventually picked up more of the tab, he is saving money. He has been quite clear on that. I have said I don't agree with the teaching of intelligent design in science classrooms. But weighing all the variables Jindal has done a great job considering LA history, society, and the fact that the last governor was corrupt. Kasich has been successful in growing Ohio. The cuts had to be made because the money simply isn't there. This is the problem with the left and a problem Jindal runs into in LA, people on the left simply just want to kick the can down the road to screw over future generations. If you live in a poor area then change it. That is something that those in poor areas need to do. Stop making excuses and asking for handouts and change it. Kasich has been very successful which is why he is my number one choice. If you don't like him then you should have rallied to not have him elected, or move to a different state. As of now you are just making excuses.
    1
  21. huckfinn22 And you cherry pick as well. Jindal has a lot of challenges he faces. You blame GOP governance and education but you don't blame liberal governance for CA and their low literacy rate. Or maybe the fact that they have a lot of hispanic immigrants. LA, like MS have a lot of black individuals who statistically are not as educated. That plays a role. But you ignore that, or the fact that graduate rates improved under Jindal. Or the fact he is bringing in new jobs. You simply look at cuts and say they are bad with zero justification. Christie has to work with a democrat congress in his state which is a challenge for him. Brownback is in the beginning of his policies that worked well for Kasich. I have a few words for the poor in Ohio, get better. Asking for handouts is the problem. It is about time we get governors that look at those poor people and tell them to get better and stop being a burden on society. A few other things you are wrong about. 1. Nobody paid those high tax rates. 2. Productivity and wages are still going up. 3. People are working less as well. 4. Everything wrong economically in the US happen under FDR, we improved when we reduced regulations and taxes. You are clearly taking a bias approach here and have little clue what you are talking about. I can get into more details why and if you respond I will later when I have a little more time, but just to let you know you are not accurate in what you are saying. There is a reason why democrats use fear to push their policies.
    1
  22. Luke M It is true that socialist states fail, but there is a reason why people continue to support it. Someone explained the economy as this, it is based off of a set of simple rules in a complex way, and that we are no more than ants in the market. We are intelligent but unaware. We are intelligent in that we know to look for the best bargain, look for the job that pays the most, and do what is best for us. We are unaware, though, how much everything is connected and how complex and fragile it is. A policy that looks great to benefit us can destroy the whole market. For example, the min. wage. Who doesn't want higher wages? And it does look good to give higher wages to those who are "poor". But now doing price control sets off a ripple effect hurting the entire economy and we are unaware of it. That to me is why I feel people keep pushing for socialism, we are unaware. Not to say we are dumb, just unaware for several reasons.
    1
  23. Prototype Atheist Nice genetic fallacy. You give zero justification on why Luke M is wrong besides pointing towards Fox News or him being a libertarian according to you. Face the facts that the ACA is not a good law, and adding more government is not going to make the situation better.
    1
  24. Prototype Atheist "Again, it is an improvement over having nothing in place," So you feel it is necessary to have the federal government involved in healthcare? " Sorry, but when you're the only industrialized nation without universal healthcare, you're doing it wrong." Why? We are the richest nation in the world. When you factor out murder and accidents (things not connected to healthcare) the US has the highest life expectancy in the world. Our healthcare has easy access with arguably the best results. The main problem is cost which is mainly due to the federal government's policies. "Secondly, there's really no debating with a libertarian. They're selfish and wish they could live all alone on a planet with 8 billion people." So when liberals use government force people to pay for insurance which are now going at higher rates that isn't selfish? Or the force individuals to pay taxes and unequal rates that isn't greed? Liberals are the ones the show the most greed and a lot of fascist tendencies.
    1
  25. Prototype Atheist "Again, nobody gets rich without using public infrastructure" None of those public infrastructure means anything if there are no jobs or wealth creation. The reason for the expanding pool of poor people is because we have people who get money for doing nothing. That hurts wealth creation and thus hurts those who are poor the most. There isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage. "Raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations will most assuredly stimulate the economy by putting more money back into it, instead of the fat cats sitting on it." Increasing the flow of money without increasing wealth is not going to improve anything. Plus ,the rich are not sitting on the money. If they were then that money will be worthless. They are investing it or saving it in banks or stocks. "Yes, expecting to receive all the benefits of an altrustic society without paying for any of it is selfish." No, you are expecting to for others to pay for your benefits. Nobody can live life alone. Those who are rich had to interact with society by providing something they demanded. Liberalism is forcing others to do what they feel is "right" and "fair" and "equal" which only benefits them.
    1
  26. Prototype Atheist I have no problem providing things to people at need, but it has to be done at the local level to prevent abuse that does occur. You are talking about infrastructure and I told you it is all pointless if we don't have people that create jobs. Wealthy people don't just sit on their money. If they are not spending it then it is being save in a bank where they invest it. And when they invest to create wealth the rest of society gets wealthy. You can give poor people money but if there is nothing to spend it on then what is the point? You can't consume what you don't produce. Having more money without having more goods and services is pointless.
    1
  27. Prototype Atheist There is always demand because people demand better goods and services. But if they don't exist people can't buy them. A walkman using tape players was good enough, but Apple decided to create Ipods which people bought. People bought it because they demanded it, and it was created due to a company investing money to build it. In the end you can't consume what you don't produce. Trickle down is a political term, not an economic term. If you want to see trickle down at work though people do have more wealth today than in the past. In the past the rich drove nice cars, had brick cell phones, enjoyed AC, etc. Now while the rich have it great today, people in the middle and lower class are better off today than the rich were in the past. Those in the middle class drive better cars, have cell phones, have AC, dishwashers, etc. The wealth trickled down.
    1
  28. Prototype Atheist Yes they do demand things. So a company creates it and after a while it becomes cheaper if you don't have money. New technology is cheaper today then it was in the past. For example, brick cell phones were only owned by the rich. Now a lot a people own smart phones that are far better than brick cell phones.
    1
  29. Rob Massina Presidents can lead and make congress work together. Reagen did with a democrat congress and Clinton did with a republican congress. The president is the face of DC and he takes all the blame. So while a lot goes through congress Obama hiding behind the Senate and blaming republicans while refusing to work with them doesn't help. Seems like you education stopped at the third grade.
    1
  30. Rob Massina The way I see they did do their job. People elected republicans to oppose Obama, and they did. So they did do their job. What is your definition of congress doing their job?
    1
  31. Rob Massina What is a "productive congress"? Really the powers of the federal government were to be limited, something you should have also learned in the 3rd grade. Obamacare is an unconstitutional law and healthcare isn't the federal government's job to worry about. Appealing it is a productive congress. A lot of what is in the budget isn't the federal government's job either. Your idea of "productive" is not correct.
    1
  32. Prototype Atheist The SCOTUS even found Kelo vs. New City of London to be constitutional. And it found the Patriot Act to be constitutional for a while. And The New Deal less than a decade after they ruled, by a 9-0 vote that similar policies were unconstitutional. I don't think the SCOTUS is really reliable a this point? Also justices felt it wasn't constitutional, so the debate stills sits there. "Every other industrialized nation already has national healthcare programs." So, other countries also have mandatory military. Do you want that?
    1
  33. Prototype Atheist "Yeah, we know, because SCOTUS has been wrong before, therefore they must be wrong any time you don't agree with their decision. " No, but it doesn't mean it can't be question. Especially on 5-4 decisions? What if there were 100 justices? The ruling would be different. On a 5-4 decision there is at least a debate. "Did you know that the founding fathers didn't want a standing army? " Yes I did. "All male adults were required to own a gun" No they didn't, but they had the right to. " I think mandatory military service is a good idea. Of course, it would never work in the USA, since we've been perpetually at war since our founding." We technically do have it, it is called the draft. But we also support freedoms so we have a balance. "If we were actually a peaceful nation" We are, we spend a lot of money and resources promoting peace.
    1
  34. Prototype Atheist "Again, the Constitutionality of the ACA was never even challenged. Just the part about the penalty for not having insurance, not the actual mandate itself." The constitutionality of every law is challenged. And yes, the US does promote peace. There has always been violence in this world, we are trying to reduce it.
    1
  35. Rob Massina They don't topple regimes, they work with world leaders to promote peace. The constitution is not open for interpretation, it was to place strict limitations on the governments to avoid it from becoming tyrannical and corrupt. Congress has really done too much these days. Sorry that this current congress isn't corrupt or overpowering enough for you.
    1
  36. Cavecat We don't tap into our oil wells though. There are numerous resources we don't go to because of environmentalist.
    1
  37. Garrett Schneider A good recovery is around 5 years. Reagan led us through a recovery.
    1
  38. ImSoPeeved Keynesian, when practiced in the US, has failed. It has led to slow recoveries in the history of the US. Your professors are mostly right.
    1