Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Gorsuch Rules Against Trump In Immigration Case" video.

  1. The law is the law. That truck driver went against the business's orders and was fired. You complain about protecting individuals but there are laws to protect businesses as individuals can screw them over as well. To dig deeper you had a truck driver who failed as his job. He stopped and decided to move on despite bad weather coming. He did not pack extra blankets and a backup heater to account for a situation he would fall into. Career drivers should know this. Heck, when I drive on long trips I pack a blanket and first aid kit even in the summer. He placed himself in that situation that could have been avoided. The company had every legal right to fire him and Gorsuch, along with other judges, agreed. What we saw here was an employee making a mistake and looking for a handout. That employee was a liability.
    2
  2. Swiss Army Knight, how so?
    2
  3. LunaticThinker, you are correct. I feel bad for the guy but he placed himself in that position. As a career driver he should have prepared. Heck, as I said, I prepare for cases like that. You never know what might happen on the road. Also, people here are so anti-business they will defend the employee even if they are at fault. Reality is that employees can attack businesses as well and at times businesses do need to be protected.
    2
  4. To make a moral argument, say this man won his case and it cost the company millions of dollars and workers lost their jobs. That employee's mistake would have cost other employees' jobs. Is that moral?
    2
  5. Nothing wrong with state rights. State rights allows for government to exist but gives the people the power to control it. The more local government is the easier it is for the people to control. Also, government can micromanage programs and run them better based on their culture. And if someone does not like a state they can move. There is a desire to have a federal government, but it should be limited to 1. Dealing with international relations 2. Dealing with commerce between states On the 2nd part, if one state is polluting another state's water that is where the federal government can step in. For all governments they have to abide by the Constitution which places restrictions on government, so no state can violate free speech for example. Those how oppose state rights are either 1. Lazy as they don't want to work locally, they want others to work across the country and provide for them or 2. Fascist and they want everyone to live under the same government as them
    1
  6. Gorsuch is far right? Kyle lied once again.
    1
  7. Nathan, Gorsuch is moderate. Read his record. There is a reason why democrats in congress were only able to bring up one court case to smear him on.
    1
  8. 0Clewi0, most criminals in Chicago get their guns illegally. They don't get it across state lines.
    1
  9. One case out of how many? And in that case he was in the majority. But keep trying.
    1
  10. Kyle really struggled in this video trying to smear Gorsuch. Reading the opinion he has a clear reasoning why he ruled against Sessions. Also, the political right supports flag burning on the idea of the first amendment as the political right is usually the strict constructionist side. Kyle is clueless about most things. That is why he never debates that is well known.
    1
  11. Majidur, Razorfist is a video gamer that occasionally talks politics. Kyle refuses to debate Crowder and said he will never debate Shapiro. I can destroy Kyle in a debate. Kyle goes after low hanging fruit and people who actually know what they are talking about (Shapiro for example), he stands on the sideline and throws rocks at them. Kyle is a joke.
    1
  12. Tony H, debating people is to challenge ideas. Kyle does not want to challenge his firmly held, religious like beliefs.
    1
  13. Seth the Wicked, the right does support flag burning on the basis of free speech.
    1
  14. Leinja, Crowder did not chicken out against potholer. Potholer even admitted that it was a case of miscommunication and encouraged his viewers not to blame Crowder as not time was never agreed upon even though both sides worked hard in trying to set one.
    1
  15. Irving Ceron, I disagree with both Potholer and Crowder on climate change and I have called out Potholer for his actions. While doing so he tried to bait me into calling him a "dumb schmuck". To be more accurate, during a conversation he said "now this is the time where you will call me a dumb schmuck" trying to, at the very least make it seem like I would resort to name calling as opposed to having an actual conversation. When I pushed the conversation farther he eventually admitted that what he said is irrelevant and few should take him seriously as he is not a scientist. In short, a debate between Crowder and Potholer on the issue would have been a waste of time. I felt Potholer did it for views.
    1
  16. Irving Ceron, the "scientific consensus" has been countered on man occasions. It is done by "studies" with vague interpretation of papers were one only looked at abstracts. Another was a poll with cherry pick scientists that less than 40% responded to. Climate science is a broad field that covers all areas of science. When you dig deep into those consensus studies you will see a few things. One is what I mention. Another is that the political left misrepresents them. They take the studies and view them as climate change being a major issue and will be destructive to our society. Non of those studies say that. They simply conclude that man plays a role (where simply from the 2nd law of thermodynamics we know that), and that the climate is changing. That is the only hard conclusion. Beyond that the ideas that 1. Many plays a major role 2. Climate change is bad 3. Government needs to now has no consensus as very few, if any scientist will ever draw strong conclusion on those issues. In dealing with Potholer on the issue I have two problems 1. He goes after low hanging fruit and when he does he misrepresents them (like Pat Moore for example and PragerU). 2. He does not go after climate change alarmists. On the second point it has been said he does not support the alarmists, but he never attacks them which is a problem. Alarmists being the ones feeling climate change is a major threat and bad and government needs to act now. If you notice on the issue you don't see scientists on TV, or in Congress, or in debates that take the side of alarmists. You do see scientists on the skeptical side (skeptical meaning they view climate change as happening, they question if it is severe or if man plays a major role). That is where my disagreement with potholer on the issue of climate change lies.
    1
  17. Tony H, to start I would not take Chomsky's advice on debate. Next, you are not giving them "50% of the reasoning". If they are wrong you will then be showing the audience how wrong your opponent is. "Someone who doesn’t believe in manmade climate change doesnt deserve to be debated. " Two things there 1. Crowder has said numerous times climate change is real and man plays a role. This is where Kyle continues to lie (he is constantly wrong to be honest, most recently he said Ted Cruz supported a ban on dildos when a simple fact check showed that not to be true, for a guy all about fact checking he continues to get them wrong). 2. If the discussion was on economics or foreign affairs, why should it matter? I am a PhD candidate in physical chemistry. That is my expertise. I support a free market system in healthcare. Does that take away my knowledge and opinions related to anything science? No as they are unrelated. You are making an excuse dismissing someone on something that simple. Anyway, as I said, Kyle is misrepresenting Crowder there placing him in the wrong. "Anyway, I understand you’re a busy person with your masters degree but why don’t you create a channel and form a solid opinion instead of rooting through comment sections?" That requires more work and I like to remain anonymous. Lately I have not been commenting as much because I have been even more busy. I am starting to write my dissertation and I am aligning myself for a job. My responsibilities are adding up. I choose to remain anonymous as I have a career choice where I am heavily scrutinized and anything I say can destroy my career. "I would love to hear your arguments against Kulinski in a podcast or extended youtube video." This comes back to why I am stepping away for the most part. Kyle is wrong constantly but his fans refuse to see it even after I literally post peer reviewed sources showing that. The only way I will come out of hiding, so to speak, is if I were to debate him on issues such as economics, gun control, and healthcare as I understand those topics the best. I would easily expose how wrong he is. But I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
    1
  18. Wade Simpson, Gallup has been wrong on polls lately, so wrong they did not even do a presidential election poll. Yes, Shapiro is worth listening to. The fact you choose to not listen to the other side shows you are bias and myopic.
    1
  19. Seth the Wicked, flag burning is not going to be illegal, ever. That is why there is no outrage over it. There are bigger fish to fry.
    1
  20. Leinja, Potholer even moved on from the issue. Both sides could not agree to a time. Crowder gave him one and potholer said he could not get up at 5 AM. That is pathetic to me. I am at the gym at 6 AM myself. Potholer went after Crowder to try to be relevant. I blew up in his face. That is why he admitted Crowder was not in the wrong. They both moved on, I suggest you do as well.
    1
  21. Leinja, my agenda is two fold 1. Understand the issues better 2. Try to pull radical leftists here to the middle as I feel the political left is falling apart due to radicals like Kyle and his fans.
    1
  22. Wade, I doubt you listen to Shapiro. If you do tell me exactly what he said and why he was wrong or why you disagree with him. As for the polls, I don't trust Galllup anymore, and the CATO one it also said majority of democrats do as well. There are hypocrites on both sides. Also, again, I don't trust there national polls.
    1
  23. Kyle really struggled in this video trying to smear Gorsuch. Gorsuch ruled correctly here. Also, supporting flag burning is a right wing position as the political right is more of the strict constructionist stance.
    1
  24. Jako, it is right wing. You can point to a few radicals and idiots on both sides. For example, the left is supposed to be the more judicial activist party but I can point to situations where some aren't.
    1
  25. Bernie Sanders is a radical, period. The UK does not have what Bernie wants.
    1
  26. 0Clewi0, it is about enforcing the law as written. Gorsuch as a history of that. He is a moderate and his record shows that.
    1
  27. Lightbringer, Bernie wants to established universal healthcare. Our nation has 320+ million people, with an economy that is close to $20 trillion, and healthcare is 1/6 of that. He wants to drastically change that entire system. That will mean many jobs being lost, taxes going up for everyone, government spending going up, and great economic uncertainty leading to a major recession. No politician will every support drastically changing something that is that large in a country's economy that much. In the UK if a politician were to push for complete removal of the NHS that would be a radical idea as that is way too extreme of a change. Just like what Bernie wants it way to extreme of a change. That is why he is a radical. Only radicals want to change a system in a country by that much.
    1
  28. Lightbringer, it doesn't matter if the UK has "government-sponsored universal healthcare". What Bernie wants is to drastically change 1/6 of our economy. That is being a radical.
    1
  29. Lightbringer, when you look at it objectively the system the US has in not any better or worse than what other countries have. So with that in mind there is no desire to completely replace the healthcare system but instead working with what we have. Those who want to completely change it are radicals. It isn't about if universal healthcare is "drastic" or not. It is about establishing it. Establishing it means completely removing the system we have and replacing it. That will require a massive change in our tax code, a massive change in our job market, a massive change in government spending. That will create a major recession. Remember, 320+ million people, close to $20 trillion in GDP, and healthcare is 1/6 of that. Good luck telling hundreds of millions of people that their taxes are going to go up and their healthcare, as they know it, is going to change. "The U.S. has the highest GDP in the world, yet has one of the worst healthcare systems" It does not have one of the worst healthcare systems.
    1
  30. Lightbringer, now that I have addressed why establishing universal healthcare is radical on to the rest of your comment. "Part of funding universal healthcare comes from having a smart federal budget, which is overwhelmingly allocated toward the military and warfare." 100% not true. Defense spending makes up 16% of the federal budget. "You disingenuously say that it will mean "taxes going up for everyone," yet completely omit the fact that we would no longer have to pay premiums, which would actually save us more money even if our taxes went up as a trade-off. " What? I will be paying taxes instead of premiums (which I pay $0 BTW). Do you think healthcare costs are going to disappear? "Federal debt doesn't work like real debt, yet here you are trying to fear monger by saying that we have a $20 trillion debt." I never said that, you did. "Learn what the difference is between federal debt and household debt is before using it as a lame excuse. " I do know the difference. Our federal debt is a problem. " A lot of democratic politicians are supporting universal healthcare" Yeah, when they are not in power.
    1
  31. Lightbringer, a few points on the CommonWealth Fund (CWF). First, what makes it relevant? What makes what they say worth anything? Next, do you know how they even established that ranking? Have you read their methods? Or are you just blindly following because they smear the US system? Finally, those rankings are arbitrary. Anyone can do a legit analysis on the stats and come up with any ranking they want. Two professors showed that with minor changes in the stats you get varying results. I will link you the book in another comment. Those rankings are arbitrary. You blindly following them is not going increase your credibility.
    1
  32. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Read that book Lightbringer.
    1
  33. 0Clewi0, saying the majority support "medicare for all" is not true. When put up to a vote in Colorado universal healthcare lost with close to 80% saying no. If you were to take those same medicare for all polls and attached a tax rate to it many will say no. Wanting to drastically change a portion of our economy that is 1/6 of it is being a radical.
    1
  34. TylerTheGamer, even supporters of single payer admits government spending will go up.
    1