General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Kyle Kulinski Vs Charlie Kirk | Politicon 2019" video.

@Vict0r1984 , this one where Kyle kept interrupting and did not refute anything. He just cursed and yelled.
9
@chrlpolk , Kyle interrupted. That is why he didn't get much time.
5
@rickrouse7865 true. Kyle just interrupted and make rude comments. When asked about the transcript Kyle's response was "I don't fucking have the transcript in front of me". Ok, well, you should know what is in it if you are going to cite it?
4
I agree. There are some who live paycheck to paycheck because they are poor. But how many do so because they spend beyond their means? Kyle needs to realize that.
4
@Vict0r1984 , no, more of Kyle was interrupting Kirk. Also, when Kyle's time came up he asked Kirk a question and thus he gave up his time to Kirk.
4
That is not how it works. First, most wealth are assets, not M1 money. Next, if it is M1 money it is in banks where banks can only keep 10% of their reserves thus the money is circulating. It isn't like the rich stash it in some vault somewhere.
3
Donald Smith , no, it is clear Kyle lost. All he has are talking points. When he is pushed, like he was here, he becomes emotional. Fact is that he is not that intelligent and was way out of his league here.
3
It is more of the environment. The market understands there is a pro business president in office and thus they are willing to invest.
3
@alienwarex51i3 , when pushed on the issue of Trump and Russia Kyle acted like a child, cursed, pushed conspiracy, and avoided the topic all together. He gets all emotional because he is losing the argument. He made a personal attack at that point. He was wrong on Russia, he is wrong on the corruption, he is wrong on the economy and he fell apart. Fact is that Kyle is driven on emotions. When he loses he becomes emotional, not logical.
3
@stewartmatthews8 , no, it is a sign of immaturity and also a sign of driving off of emotions as opposed to logic. Care to explain where Kirk was wrong? I can point out many times Kyle was wrong. Take the Russia investigation and the transcript. Kyle was saying Trump was wrong and the transcript said it. Kirk pushed Kyle to say where and he could not give an answer so he became emotional. Now take the fact that Kyle mentioned how Ivanka Trump received millions during the first year of Trump's presidency and if that is corruption. Reality is that was a preset deal before Trump's presidency. Kirk pushed Kyle to give examples of corruption and that is all Kyle had where preset deals that are paid later happen all the time in business. Take at the beginning when Kyle brought up the U6 as sort of a gotcha point but Kirk mentioned how the U6 is also low. Take how Kyle brought up Scandinavian nations and the social welfare system they have and Kirk said, correctly, that they have higher taxes on everyone including the middle class. Take the point of political violence. Kirk said it was predominately on the left. Kirk is correct here. Who on the right is supporting violence? Now consider how the Portland mayor supports the antifa riots. You see, I broke down how Kyle is wrong. You acted like Kyle and simply said Kirk was in the wrong but did not say how. Fact is that Kyle is driven off of emotions, not logic.
3
@fak2397 , exactly At times they praise them. When antifa showed up to Charlottesville the media were praising them and comparing them to the US soldiers during WW II taking on Nazis. the mayor of Portland was praising their actions.
2
Well, maybe he should refute what Kirk said instead of swearing and walking away.
2
@ClarkJosephKentJr , honestly, that is all Kyle does. He has nothing but talking points. He really only has the same handful of arguments that he says over and over again. Take the unemployment argument, he brought up the U6 as if it was a gotcha and Kirk was correct in saying that is low as well.
2
@kazaddum2448 , he wasn't. The whole "social contract" point is asinine. One can push that idea on anything if they want, such as the death penalty.
2
@triggeredindividual9607 , true. At the federal level they are crazy and they are doubling down. Listen to Bernie and Warren. The only reason why Biden is doing well is because there are plenty of older democrats that remember the Clinton years and support them. But right now the democrats are crazy and pushing radical ideas like M4A and erasing student loan debt without considering the consequences.
2
@chrlpolk , how? The political right has called out white supremacists as being bad. The issue is that many on the left don't call out antifa. The Portland mayor is on record supporting them.
2
@kendallandrews8691 he never made the pro bowl. Those playoff runs were because of a strong defense and a strong running game. Reality us that he isn't NFL material to be a qb
2
@kendallandrews8691 i know football very well. I am actively involved in it and have been for 2 decades
2
@kendallandrews8691 he had a 59% completion rate. That is low in today's standards
2
@kendallandrews8691 to be a qb in the nfl it takes more then skill. Read my comment again. One quality is being savvy to be a game manager or work with the starter as a back up. Mike Glennon fits that role. Matt Moore is another example. And you claim I don't know football?
2
@pizzaboythejedi2968 , the social contract argument is bad. Based on that thinking the people of N. Korea live with their social contract and thus nothing wrong goes there. Same in very violent nations as well or nations that oppress women like Iran.
2
Donald Smith , debates like these are pointless. Neither one of these two are experts. And no matter who won the fans will say their guy won. Kyle clearly lost here but his fans are still saying he won. They only excuse is to say Kirk just talked all the time. Well, these are complex issues and require details. Even Bernie Sanders admits that and said that is the flaw of debates. Funny how Kyle and his fans support Bernie in saying that, but when Kirk does just that they claim he is just giving a monologue. A double standard I see.
2
Donald Smith , so. What did he do that was illegal? You have to point that out and give me the law. People can't. Ukraine is Russia 2.0. It is a waste of time and taxpayers' dollars. That is the democrat party for you. Instead of pushing to discuss policy to help the nation and the people, they have "orange man bad" mentality and want to push that instead. I don't support Kirk. I disagree with him on many things. But in this debate he won. All Kyle did was curse and walk away. When pressed he became more angry.
2
Donald Smith , when did he make millions of dollars through a private business while being president? You have to point that to me. I never said "orange man good, democratz bad". in fact, I don't like Trump. Kyle lost the debate big time. He had no rebuttal and when pressed he became angry. For example, on the Trump and the transcript Kirk pushed him and all Kyle could say was "I don't have the fucking transcript". If Trump said something so bad Kyle would have memorized it. On corruption Kyle brought up how Ivanka made millions during Trump's first year. But what about his 2nd and 3rd? And what was the deal exactly? Also, in business there is something called accruals where a deal is made but no money is exchanged until later. That is what happened with Ivanka. The deal was in place before Trump was president. But Kyle just went on a yelling and cursing spree. No actual substance.
2
Donald Smith , that was during his presidential run, not when he was president. I don't like Trump, I feel he is a narcissist jerk. The issue is that Trump was created the by far left. They have nothing on him. They are radicals who have no desire to listen to the common man. When you do that you drive people to the right and you get a president like Trump. How did Trump become elected? Well, the far left refused to actually listen to people and republicans were too PC to say anything back. Trump wasn't. So you will make a strong claim that there was something in the transcript, but apparently not strong enough for you memorize it? Again, learn what accruals are in accounting. Also, what about the 2nd and 3rd years?
2
Donald Smith , care to cite that quote? Also, again, Trump is not earning a dime off of his business. Also, revenue does not mean profits. You are really reaching here.
2
Donald Smith , no, it was from his presidential run. Did you even read the article? And even if during presidency it is for campaign, nothing else. Again, learn what accruals are. If you don't understand basic accounting I can't take you serious on this topic. So you are pointing to a 2015 article? Also, deals with the Saudis were going on under Obama. You clearly don't know what profits are.
2
Donald Smith , and where is your evidence that it was from corruption as opposed to previous deals? If it is that cut and dry why isn't anyone pressing charges?
2
@Paul-wu7xd , with a top ranked defense with many pro bowlers and a strong running game with Gore and two pro bowlers on the o line. It wasn't him, he was on a strong team.
2
What lies?
2
@basementpatriot2396 , this is why these debates are pointless. One, neither one of these two are experts. Two, no matter the results the fans will defend their guy no matter what. You see here Kyle's fans are either saying he won, or giving excuses such as the moderator sucked, or saying Kirk lied. But when pushed on any of those they just cry and don't give clear examples. Kyle clearly lost here to anyone in the middle of the issues.
2
@onnol917 , it is on the person making the original claim to support it. How did Kirk lie?
2
@scottw9267 , Kyle is typically unprepared. Take the issue of the Scandinavia countries. Kirk was correct in saying that they had no min. wage, that they have higher taxes on all citizens with a higher VAT tax and higher taxes on the middle class. Kyle had no response because Kyle is not willing to admit that those nations are able to do what they want because of high taxes on everyone.
2
@GordieKat , a higher min. wage will not change wealth inequality.
2
@GordieKat , take the Trump and Russia collusion for example. Kirk pushed him and asked where in the transcript did Trump admit to wrong doing. Kyle said he doesn't have the transcript in front of him. If he is going to be so passionate on a topic he should know what is in the transcript. Also, take the idea that he wants to spend like a Scandinavian and brought up the fact that they do many welfare programs. Kirk responded with how their taxes, including the middle class, are all high. Kyle had no response to that as he even doesn't want to admit that all taxes will have to go up.
2
@davidwhite325 , care to give me those studies? And what Kirk said is true. Under these tax cuts people are receiving more money.
2
@uncommonsense6022 , exactly. He also points to polls (which are flawed) as if they are an argument. The reason why we have a SC and a Federal Reserve, where we can't elect the people there, is because they have to make very unpopular decisions to help us in the long run. Take how Paul Volcker raised interest rates to 21% during his time there. That led to jobs being lost and a poor economy for a couple of years, but in the long run it made for a much stronger economy.
2
@henrygustav7948 , so no paper. That means MMT is not taken serious in the economic sector. Also, you can't prove anything in science. If you have a strong idea you publish it. The Fed raised interest rates under Trump.
2
@uncommonsense6022 , you see. He says taxes don't pay for federal spending when it does. He pushes MMT and when I push for a paper on it he can't deliver. Why? Because MMT is not an economic theory people support.
2
@TrotmanOwl , as I wrote, labor participation is now stagnant where in the past it was dropping. That means more people are working and unemployment is still dropping. Why? Because jobs are available now. And the stock market is a good indicator of the economy.
2
Maybe is Kyle would give a rebuttal as opposed to cursing and waking away it it would have been better.
2
@markhunsaker7521 , this is why these debates are pointless. One, neither of these people are experts. Two, even when one guy does very poorly their fans will defend them. Kyle shooting "wrong" and cursing and acting like a child is him losing the argument. Take the issue of how he said Ivanka made millions in the first year. That was pre-approved deals which is common in business. A lot of times it takes time for the money to come in. Kyle has no clue what he is talking about when it comes to business practices.
2
You need to study more economics
1
To be fair the Laffer curve was used a lot to cut taxes. From what I have seen there is no real numbers given. It is true that is taxes are too high people will stop working and if too low revenue goes down. So there has to be a point. Where is that point is hard. Besides, we have many forms of taxes to begin with making it difficult.
1
@Savantjazzcollective ,exactly. The political right does not support those acts of violence, they actually condemn them. Meanwhile the mayor of Portland is praising Antifa for their protests.
1
@natereim , even though Kyle lost big time in this debate, that point was not Kirk's finest. The point is that no one on the right supports these acts of violence. However, many on the left do. For example, look at the Portland mayor.
1
How often does it happen though?
1
@pickcollins9910 , care to give examples?
1
@Adrian Nelson , no one on the right supported the El Paso shooter. However, you have people like the Portland mayor supporting antifa. There lies the difference.
1
@pickcollins9910 , and no one on the right supports them. Meanwhile many on the left are supporting antifa, including the Portland mayor. There lies the difference.
1
@christopherlee9026 , Kyle was interrupting as well. And Kyle conceded his time to KIrk by asking questions. Kyle could have easily argued his point but all he did was cursed and walk away. Reality is that Kyle has nothing beyond talking points and when pushed he becomes angry.
1
Him being there created the environment of investing
1
@Adrian Nelson , that is not the point. Who on the right supports these violent acts? No one. Meanwhile many on the left defense antifa including Portland's mayor. That is the point.
1
Trump has been in office for only 3 years. We still have high regulations but he is taking some down. There is only so much he can do.
1
@nedaltrebor8553 , Trump is removing regulations which is improving the economy. He can only do so much in 3 years. So Kirk is correct.
1
George Arndt , ok, Charlie is correct. In the 50s and 60s our economy was only strong because the rest of the world was rebuilding thus we had a competitive edge globally. When you look at all the factors yes, our economy is very strong compared to historical standards. Charlie was not wrong about European stats. Who is wrong is Kyle as Nordic nations have higher taxes on every. A high VAT tax, higher income taxes, more of a flat tax, high sales tax on cars, etc. They tax their citizens more, Kyle just wants to tax the rich. He claims he wants to model those nations but in reality he doesn't. Fact is Kyle lost because he has no solid argument. When pressed he can't go beyond talking points so he just yells and curses. Same as Bernie when he is pressed minus the cursing. That is why Kyle loves Bernie, they are the same person essentially.
1
George Arndt , "Bernie while not perfect, is simply following the path that the rest of the developed world has already blazed" No, Bernie is a radical. You are praising other nations when they have completely different cultures than us. You can't ignore that factor. For example, our culture in the middle class will never accept a high tax rate, or a high VAT tax. We are more individualist compared to them. Good or bad, there is an argument there, but that is how we are. Also, the US does many things well. The problem with the far left like Bernie and Kyle is they are only telling you a fraction of the story, and you fall for it.
1
@nedaltrebor8553 we are still heavily regulated. Trump took some down and it is helping. But there is only so much he can do
1
George Arndt , you first start by mocking me and laughing, not really a convincing argument. You then bring up anecdotes as opposed to actual stats. When you look at it the US has higher car ownership rates compared to Nordic nations. You say no one has a car older then 3 years, seems like only the wealthy can own a car then in those nations. You say they are wealthier. How? Bernie is not scaring anyone. I hope Bernie gets the nominee. I would love to see the excuses when he loses worse than Clinton in 2020.
1
Derek Hitt , far leftists are like the partner in the abusive relationship. Instead of leaving it they go farther. They are abused so they feel they should marry the person as if that will stop the abuse. When it keeps going they feel they should have a kid with them as if that will stop the abuse. With far leftists they complain about a corrupt government, but their solution is to give it more power as if that will stop the corruption. It is kind of sad really.
1
@OkayRocket30660 $300,000 is small at that level.
1
@ClarkJosephKentJr , I agree that Trump brought up the number under Obama but not now. But with politics this is way too normal. Such as republicans supported repeal and replace Obamacare until they got into power. Or how no one support M4A with democrats until they no longer have power. As for unemployment and the U6, under Trump worker participation is stagnant when it was dropping prior to Trump. So that is that as well. In Kyle's debate at Fox that was a joke all around. The reality is that Kyle has a handful of talking points and is easy to debate against if you do your homework. Kirk did here. He was able to take on Kyle's talking points very well. Take the tax cut issue. Kirk was correct in saying that democrats refused to vote for it.
1
@ClarkJosephKentJr , many Americans "lost" their healthcare as the individual mandate was taken away and people thus stop buying. And I admit, there are other parts there with tax voting. But to say that republicans did not want it to be permanent is not true. Even at that nothing is permanent, it just doesn't have an expiration date. Besides, noticed that the expiration date is 10 years when Trump will be gone and you will have essentially a new Congress? During that time taxes will change.
1
@screamityeah , are people angry? The economy is growing. Plus the stat you gave is deceptive.
1
@ClarkJosephKentJr , you have health insurance but do you have healthcare?
1
@screamityeah , again, deceptive stats. Out of that 51% what is their cost of living? What is their household income? I am in that 51% but I also am a grad student a year away from earning more. Same with most of my colleagues. You can't just throw a stat out there and expect it to mean anything.
1
@screamityeah , Kyle only has a handful of talking points and that's it. Kirk appeared to do his homework on Kyle and was able to push Kyle to the point that all Kyle had to say was "you are wrong" or swear and walk away. This is expected of Kyle as when you push him past talking points he breaks down.
1
@screamityeah I never denied the stat. I am saying other factor are at play like household income, cost of living, benefits, etc.
1
He was interrupting all the time. That is why he was given less time. Also, he just spewed talking points and conspiracy theories. When pushed he could not give a rebuttal. Kyle was not good.
1
@rysmomzmo4327 1. Don't know if he has ever criticized Trump or not. But Kyle could not defend his hate towards Trump. 2. Uh, not really. He is skeptical. 3. Sure, but they are essentially minor compared to antifa.
1
Kyle just yelled and said conspiracy theories. Kirk was correct, Kyle needs to refute what he is saying instead of swearing and walking away.
1
@itsbeyondme5560 , he had a lot of facts that Kyle could not counter. Take how he brought up the tax rates of Nordic nations. Kyle only wants to look at the welfare system they have and feels we can implement it with the US level of taxation.
1
@itsbeyondme5560 , it is a slam dunk though. Kyle wants Nordic level of spending but the US style of taxes. If he wants to copy a system that he feels works well he needs to follow the whole system. We are arguably number one in a lot of things. For example, our healthcare system provides more advance testing compared to other nations. Also, those nations are small, smaller then our states. I support a lot of programs they have but rather have them done at the state level. Read the book "Debunking Utopia".
1
@itsbeyondme5560 1. How are they number 1 in education? By what measure? Also, our healthcare system does many things very well. When you break it down you can't say they have a better healthcare system nor can you say they have a worse system. There are way too many variables at play. For example, we lead the world in survival rates of advanced illnesses. We lead the world in access to advanced testing. Sure, the very poor suffer in the US. But in other nations the very sick suffer. You bring up life expectancy when there are many factors that influence overall life expectancy. For example, our poor lifestyle choices has us with the highest obesity rates. If you remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. 2. Sure, China is, but what about Nordic nations? We still beat them. 3. You can have a capitalist like system with regulations. To me I support regulations at the state and local level as it gives people what they want. 4. I agree the Nordic nations are more capitalist then the US, I want to follow that model, but the far left doesn't seem to want to.
1
@itsbeyondme5560 , the issue with the far left is that they want a Nordic style welfare system with stricter regulations and a huge progressive tax code. They cherry pick what they want out of the Nordic system. I don't see the welfare system working here at that point.
1
Polls are unreliable as they are vague questions being asked to non experts on complex issues.
1
@era2see the family making money in the first year was a bad argument. For one it was a previous deal. This is common. Next what about years 2 and 3?
1
@triggeredindividual9607 , I don't like Trump either. But how the media acts is why I support him. The media really has no answer for him so they just attack, make accusations and go crazy. It is actually entertaining. Watching the Jussie Smollet incident go down was funny. The leftist media is extremely out of touch with reality.
1
He is still skeptical. I like what Trump is doing but I still have my doubts.
1
@thesurvivorssanctuary6561 , abortion is a tricky issue. There are solid arguments on both sides. I bet Kirk, like Trump, wants to leave it to the states.
1
@WaitingToFade , abortion is a very subjective issue and is one reason why I support state rights. If a state wants to make abortion legal why should you say no? That is what the people want. I thought leftists supported give what the people want? Many states make abortion legal, even late term ones. CA has it in their constitution. If a local society supports banning abortion that is on them. That is on them in having it so any pregnancies, even unwanted ones, go through and that is on them to deal with it, not you. Also, the commerce clause will allow you to seek an abortion in another state, so there is that as well.
1
Problem is that Kyle can list only a handful of examples. Think of all the riots caused by Antifa. How often do you see that from the right?
1
@TangoNevada , care to show me the deaths by the white supremacists? And the El Paso shooter was not affiliated with any political party. Again, I am not seeing deaths by white supremacists, who everyone on the political right oppose. Who on the political right supports white supremacists? Meanwhile the mayor of Portland is praising antifa.
1
@art-gx7qp , the reality is that Kyle only has a handful of talking points and that's it. Kirk pushed Kyle beyond that and Kyle broke down.
1
@chrlpolk , who are the right wing that are violence?
1
@Brando-nx6ub , who cares if they supported Trump. Trump and republicans don't support them. There lies the difference. If the KKK supported brushing your teeth will you stop brushing your teeth? Who on the right supports these guys? No one. Meanwhile the left is praising antifa where the mayor of Portland supports them.
1
@Jackass_Gamer , I do.
1
@TangoNevada , ok, now who on the right supports them? That is the point. People on the left support Antifa and are not condemning them. When your argument is "there is violence on the right" you are deflecting. The right condemns those acts of violence.
1
@CutThroatJuggalo , the $300K is a pointless argument. A deal was already in place and was in place in the past. That is why there is no serious push for it as it won't hold up in court.
1
@kendallandrews8691 Kap was never blackballed. He simply was not NFL material for a QB. That is the reality.
1
@christianc.christian5025 , but his percentage was below 60% which is low. Reality is that to be a QB in the NFL you have to be 1. Young and a project 2. Elite like Brees or Rivers 3. Savvy to be a game manager, or work with a young rebuilding team, or be a back up to talk strategy. On the third one that is why so many QBs like Doug Pederson, Todd Collins, even Matt Moore today are in the league. Reality is that Kap was none of those.
1
@Aard-Vark , no, I am arguing that the "social contract" argument is flawed. Based on that we can argue that any form of government, no matter how oppressive it is, is simply going with the social contract.
1
@Aard-Vark so where does it come from?
1
@Aard-Vark , ok, so say the will of the people want to enslave a certain group, should that be allowed?
1
@Aard-Vark , or how about this. Say the "will of the people" wants to allow for poor people to be murdered? Or say the "will of the people" wants to ban free speech? There is a reason why nothing is decided by a majority at the federal level in this nation and why the Constitution exist. The "will of the people" can lead to oppression.
1
@andrewnunez7894 , this is why debates are pointless. One, none of these two are experts. Two, even when someone does poorly their fans will defend them. Kyle was horrible here. As Kirk said, all Kyle was doing was swearing and walk away. At the very beginning Kyle brought up the U6 where Kirk said, correctly, that is low as well.
1
Here is the main difference. No one on the right supports these acts of violence. The publically criticize them. On the left people are either silent or support them like the Portland mayor
1
Donald Smith , just because a bunch of clapping seals support Kyle does not mean he won. Kyle has nothing on his side except insults and swearing. When pushed on Trump and Russia Kyle's only excuse was to say "I don't have the fucking transcript". Well, if he is so intelligent why didn't he read it and know what was in it? When pushed on corruption Kyle's example, where he could not point out the deal, was to talk about how Ivanka made millions in the first year. Well, what about the 2nd and 3rd? Did it all of a sudden stop? Reality is that in business you have what are called accrual where deals are made but no money is exchanged until later. That was the case there. The deal was made long before Trump became president. Kyle lost big time.
1
Donald Smith , average people are doing well under Trump. Wages are up and so is household income. And it is very easy to argue that wages have not been stagnant for the past 40 years. Read the following papers "Fifty Years of Growth in American Consumption, Income, and Wages" by prof. Bruce Sacerdote "Did Wages Reflect Growth in Productivity?" by prof. Martin S. Feldstein Even if they were, what does that have to do with Trump? He has been president for only 3 years. What happened prior to that was not on him. During those 40 years Bernie has been in Congress for over half of that time, I guess we can blame him. And look the wage growth tracker at the Atlanta Federal Reserve, wages are going up. That is just one of many pieces of evidence to point at. Kyle has nothing. He pointed to the U6 which is low as well. He talked about taxes and said the middle class ones expire. True, but in 10 years when Trump and most members of congress will be gone. Also, no tax code is permanent, it just means it has no expiration date. Kyle has no desire to have an actual discussion. Neither are his fans. That is why they act like you do, make a claim with zero evidence. Tell me how Kirk lost and Kyle won? I will wait.
1
Donald Smith , the fact you don't know what accruals are shows you have not fit to have a discussion here.
1
Donald Smith nice remark when you show you have no idea how the system operates
1
Donald Smith , he is not making a dime off of his businesses.
1
Donald Smith , previous deals. Learn what accruals are. Accruals are deals made in a company with no money is exchanged but will be exchanged later. I experience it as well. For example, we were "given" money to fix a piece of equipment in my lab. It was approved months ago. Now we are seeing the money. It was approved months ago but we did not receive it until now.
1
Donald Smith , and you have no evidence that he received that money because he was the president. So we are at a stand still. Reality is that Trump signed away his businesses so he does not profit off of them.
1
Donald Smith , because, again, was the deal done before he became president?
1
Donald Smith , Bernie made a million off of his book sales. Should that be allowed?
1
Donald Smith , he signed off his businesses so he can't make a dime off of them. And answer my question about Bernie.
1
Donald Smith , because he signed them off. There are legal documents showing that. Any money made off of them come from this thing called accrual. Again, study accounting.
1
@francischimenti1374 , as Kirk said, maybe Kyle should do more then swear and walk away. That is all he did. He had every chance to go farther but did not. He became all emotional, cursed, and walked away. He lost big time here.
1
@scottw9267 , also, Kyle brought up the U6 as if it is a "gotcha" but Kirk responded correctly that the US is low as well.
1
@scottw9267 , true, but yet he keeps talking about it. I heard him bring up the U6 before as well and Kirk gave the correct response. It shows how ignorant Kyle really is. In fact, this was essentially the entire debate. Kirk brought something up, Kyle gave a talking point, and then Kirk went farther refuting what Kyle said.
1
@scottw9267 , yep, we do have much more of a progressive tax system then those nations. In fact, Kyle has said he supports cutting taxes on the middle class. But yet he supports spending like a Scandinavian. He is simply cherry picking what he likes and doesn't like from Nordic nations.
1
@GordieKat , define a "living wage". That is subjective. And if employers just cut hours, what have you achieved? And no, the employers can't afford higher wages.
1
@GordieKat , define "live comfortably".
1
@scottw9267 , success in college does not mean success in the NFL. The system can make the college QB look good. But in the NFL it is a completely different game. Look at Tim Tebow, he was good in college because he can run around and make plays. In the NFL all the players are big and fast and that doesn't work. You have to be a pocket passer and he wasn't.
1
@scottw9267 , I did not watch McCoy much, but from what saw he was similar to Tebow in some ways that he moved around and created plays. As I said, in the NFL that won't work as all the players are fast. I have seen it a lot in football. Same in how Trent Richardson was not good. When he was drafted I said he wasn't going to be good as he ran behind an oline in AL where all went to the NFL. When you have that of course you will be good. Also, it comes down to the system.
1
Cenk was heckling him. When Hasan was losing uncle Cenk had to pipe in. I don't agree with how Kirk acted but it was poor how Cenk acted as well. Also, your comment shows how bad Kyle fans are. When Kyle clearly lost this debate and acted like a fool you deflect. You deflect to another time Kirk was out of line. Just admit that Kyle lost.
1
Kyle really has no clue what he is talking about
1
I support a 0% corporate tax rate at the federal level. We don't want to chase them away.
1
@henrygustav7948 , I support eliminating fica taxes. If you keep interest rates low inflation will happen. We tried that in the 60s and 70s, didn't work.
1
@henrygustav7948 , we were in a recession during that time.
1
@BootBizarre , really? We get far more out of our taxes then we pay in?
1
@henrygustav7948 , still waiting for a paper on MMT.
1
@BootBizarre , well most of those programs are locally funded which I support. Some are worthless I feel such as the federal department of education.
1
@henrygustav7948 , again, give me a peer reviewed paper on MMT.
1
@BootBizarre , you make it sound like I don't like government at all. I do. I just want restrictions on it.
1
@BootBizarre , because at the local level I can see if government is actually working for me. I can also control government more. If I don't like what they are doing I can vote them out. At the federal level I can only vote for a handful of congress members. I have much less control. I can also change a program much easier at the local level and it is more of a community feel there.
1
@IsaacV2001 , it depends on our culture. I feel the Canadian system is a violation of our freedom if established here. Our culture simply won't approve a centralized system with higher taxes. The Nordic system has higher taxes on all. Our progressive tax system has the highest tax bracket at $400,000 a year. In Denmark it is around $58,000 a year. They have a higher VAT tax as well. Overall, everyone is taxed higher in those nations. Our culture won't allow the federal government to do that. Uh, when they were first building cars we were developing. You know what lowered work related deaths? Unions, not government. Unions negotiate to lower work related deaths. No one forced Amazon to do anything. The strong economy raised their wages. Also, I worked at Amazon, they were paid fine for a job you only needed a GED for.
1
@henrygustav7948 , I know. That is why we had high inflation in the 70s. The Phillips Curve doesn't work in the long run.
1
@uncommonsense6022 , just so you know Henry supports MMT which states government creates money out of thin air.
1
@henrygustav7948 but no papers
1
@BootBizarre , the role of the federal government is two things 1. Deal with foreign affairs (like defense) 2. Deal with commerce between states. Beyond that everything is left to the states. The military cannot enforce domestic laws without consent of the governor. The federal government is restricted. As for funding, states can fund themselves just fine.
1
@BootBizarre , I agree, that is all we need and all we had for years. Why do we have Congress and three branches of government? Checks and balances.
1
@BootBizarre , we need checks and balance so that the federal government does not become too strong. And we have hundreds of congressmen because we have 50 states and each state gets equal representation through the bicameral congress where the Senate has 2 representatives from each state and the house is based on population. It is about balance. When you think of commerce clause that is vague. Take the EPA for example. I feel there is a desire to have one. But if we only had the executive branch it will be over reaching. Congress is there for balance.
1
@rb032682 , the Constitution limits all governments. States cannot violate the Constitution.
1
@henrygustav7948 , we had high inflation because of low interest rates.
1
@henrygustav7948 , that is not a peer reviewed paper.
1
@BootBizarre , the way you described the EPA is how I want it to function. Unless Texas is allowing that company to pollute in another state, or if that company works in other states, the EPA can't do anything. Why do we need congress members? Because decisions are still to be made at the federal level, such as funding for federal programs to handle commerce between states, foreign affairs, who leads those organizations, etc. Congress is set up to balance representation for the states.
1
@henrygustav7948 , yes. Because the standard is this. Until there is a peer reviewed paper on the issue the it is not accept as a model. That is because no one in economics accepts MMT. No one has written on it and had it go through the scrutiny of their peers approving it for publication. Anyone can write a post a blog. You see it with flat earthers all the time. Now how many papers on flat earth has been published in peer reviewed journals?
1
@BootBizarre , on your first question, yes. If that is what the people in that state wants then why should I care? I don't live there. I don't know how they think or live. That is their culture. I will compare with education. NV is ranked low in education. Is that bad? Well consider how you can earn $80,000 a year parking cars or serving drinks. Or six figures working in the mines. They don't value education as high as you can earn a great living without a strong education. Now compare that to MA, home of MIT, Harvard, Boston College, etc. They value education high because they have many 4 year universities that are strong. So does that mean MA should have a say in how NV educate their kids, or visa versa? No. The cultures are different. That is the beauty of state rights. For your slave argument now you are being foolish. As I said in another comment the Constitution limits all governments. The Constitution bans slavery as it allows people to have freedom and rights. The Constitution was not designed to government more power but to limit government and to have it so it serves the people. So no, I don't believe the federal government was wrong in that case as it was a push to limit government. For basic protections we have that in the Constitution. As for hundreds of Congressmen again, we have 50 states. The bicameral form of congress was this, the Senate gave every state equal representation, the House gives every state representation based on population. It is the balance. What do you want? Only one guy decide how to fund things? Now you have a dictatorship. The way it is set up is that even with rules in place there is still a chance they will be broken, thus with hundreds of congress members, a president, and a supreme court, it was incredibly hard to make changes at the federal level for good reason.
1
@henrygustav7948 nope. I just have standards
1
@henrygustav7948 , and zero peer reviewed papers. No excuses, I just know the standards.
1
@BootBizarre , I care about people, but I care about standards more. Consider freedom of speech. I don't agree with the KKK at all. I feel they are a racist hate group. But I will support their freedom of speech. I rather allow them to speak out as opposed having some arbiter decide who can say what. Same with state rights. I rather allow states to do that then have some centralized entity decide what is right and what isn't. You are imagining a centralized government that bans all pollution. But say we have a centralized system that allows all forms of pollution? Now the issue is nation wide as opposed to in a state. If you live in a state that opposes pollution you have no way to stop it as the centralized government allows it. That is the other side of the coin. On slavery, it was treating people as legal property. The Constitution is there to limit government and give people freedom. Thus banning slavery is in line with the Constitution base. Define "basic protection". I am talking about limiting government. That is the role of Constitution, limit government. How the government "protects" the citizens is vague. Slavery is making laws that treats people as property. There lies the difference. The federal government is essentially reduces down to foreign affairs and commerce. For examples, states run the K-12 education system. 75% of roads are funded locally. States run law enforcement. Think about what the states and local governments run compared to the federal government. The federal government actually runs very little. Take the FDA for example. Many local stores that sell home grown food do not have to follow FDA laws as they don't do business out of state lines. That is a fact. I suggest you read up on laws a little more. You seem to not understand them well.
1
@henrygustav7948 , the standard is peer reviewed. Peer reviewed means that the peers of someone supports the claims of the research. The fact that MMT has zero peer reviewed papers on it means it is not supported at all. You say 20 to 30 years of research. Flat earth has far more years of research. Does that make it more valuable?
1
@henrygustav7948 . anyone can write a blog. Again, I need a peer reviewed paper. As for interest rates and inflation, they were raised a couple years ago.
1
@BootBizarre , again, if we had a centralized system you run the risk of the standard being that pollution is allowed nationwide. You have to understand that. You have this idea that the federal government will make it right when they can, just as easily, create destructive policies. But at that point it is now federal as opposed to it being contained locally. Also, you don't live in that state. You don't know what the people there want. So you should not get a say in what they do. How will you feel is a state that allows pollution puts people in power to allow people to pollute in your state? The Constitution limits what government does. That is not hypocrisy. That is the standard I go off of. The Constitution banning slavery did not give any government more power. "You also conveniently ignored my question about what branch of the federal government has the ability to overturn state approved slavery. Does slavery fall under foreign affairs or interstate commerce? Answer this question when you respond, ok?" It is the Constitution as a whole, but if I were to pick one it would be the Supreme Court as they decide what laws are constitutional and not nation wide. As for federal agencies, I agree we have too many. But you have to realize they are limited. As I said with the FDA, a local grocery store doing business only in their state does not have to follow FDA regulations. States don't have to follow The Department of Education standards. I know how government works.
1
@BootBizarre , ok, what if the "minimum requirement" is set to zero by some administration? Or what if some local entities can't afford the minimum requirements? So they are screwed? And are the states fucking over their people? Again, you are an outsider looking in. You don't know what those people want. To me those who oppose state rights are oppressive as they feel they know what other people want when in reality they don't. Again, how will you feel if some very conservative politician forced you to do things you disagree with? The slavery issue was that certain people were treated as property, legally. That was banned. It means a law cannot be created to treat people as property. That is a restriction on government. The SC falls under both. Actually out don't have to comply with the FDA. I know this personally working at a local restaurant where we received eggs from a local far and we did not have to follow FDA rules. Try finding better sources.
1
@BootBizarre i know what it is. No law can violate the Constitution
1
@BootBizarre you are getting angry because you are losing the argument
1
@BootBizarre , federal laws cannot go against the Constitution. I understand the whole "federal law is over state law", but that is only if the federal law is Constitutional. " If local entities can't afford the minimum requirements then we can offer subsidies to help them meet those requirements." Are you going to force people to live there to handle it as well? A lot of times it isn't about money but about lack of man power. And what if a state or local entity does not want to do the minimum? Again, why are you supporting oppression by forcing other people to live a certain way? "Sticking with my energy example, why should a local energy company be allowed to dispose of their toxic waste in an unsafe manner and poison people just because "they can't afford to dispose of it properly"? That's fucked up! And how many people do you know that WANT to be poisoned by energy companies? " If the local community don't care why should you? How about you answer this, why should you care when the people who live there don't care? One problem I have with the far left is that they are on the outside looking in and feel they know what is best for people. The reality is you don't. " For the record in my example, I'm talking about protecting people's health by preventing toxins from being dumped into their water supplies, how many conservatives do you think would be unhappy with that? Just curious..." No conservative will oppose some regulation, they just wants the states to handle it as opposed to some centralized, overpowering government. It comes down to a balance of having government and controlling it. We have very little control of the federal government. You and I can only vote for a handful of federal politicians. We can vote for all of our politicians at the local level. "No... adding a law that "bans" something is MORE government" No, this limits government. Slaves, on paper, were considered property. They were legal property. Now no government entity can do that. " If the federal government can only do "foreign affairs" and "interstate commerce" (as you said) then how could the federal government ban it? " It wasn't a federal law, it was an amendment placed in the Constitution. " are you saying that poisoning people is not be banned or that it shouldn't be banned? Can I as an individual poison you? " Murder laws are state laws, not federal law until you cross state lines. "So... you work in a restaurant and you didn't know that the FDA doesn't regulate chicken eggs?" Not this place as it is local. Watch the movie "Tapped" about the water bottle industry. One company does not have to follow FDA laws as they do all business in one state. An FDA official says that. As for the department of agriculture, we don't have to go through them either. Also, the FDA gets involved in restaurants. You struggle with laws. You are losing the argument because you don't even understand the laws. The FDA handles restaurants.
1
@BootBizarre to add to my point. Kyle just admitted he never seen farmland before. What does he know about what rural individuals want?
1
@BootBizarre 1. Because it is a moot point. It comes down to the Constitution dictates if a law is allowed to exist. 2. Laws the federal government sets that overpowers state laws fall within the commerce clause. Again, it has to follow the Constitution. 3. When did I say I support companies polluting? I don't. I support state rights. Compare it to this. I do not support the KKK. But I will support their freedom of speech. Big difference. You are avoiding my questions I am asking. Why do you support oppressing other people? If a state or local government has no problem with a company polluting, why should you care. I answered your questions, now answer mine. If the people who live there, vote for their representatives and laws, pay taxes there, etc. have no problem with companies polluting, why should you, as an outsider, force them to live a different life? 4. You avoided answering my question. I do care, but I care about standards more. Again, I hate the KKK, but I will defend their freedom of speech. It is about principles. Also, letting people live the life they want to live is caring about them. If a local community does not care if a company pollutes, why should you? You have a very oppressive attitude here. How about this, if someone wants to eat cake every day and have no problem being obese, why should you care? Will you force them to go on a diet? Why are you so oppressive? 5. I don't support anti vaxxers and feel the federal government, under the commerce clause, has a role in stopping that. You are now making assumptions of me. Also, I am not a "right winger" I am a moderate. If you picked my brain I bet you will see I agree with a lot of policies you do, I just have standards in establishing them (such as following the Constitution to limit government). 6. Again, slavery was about limiting government. Law, created and enforced by government, allowed for people to be treated as property. An amendment was created to limit government so they can't create such laws. You fail to seem to understand that the ending of slavery was to limit government. 7. Local communities actually have little to no government. Have you been to one? One by my hometown has no stop signs. They have volunteer fire fighters. The only law enforcement is the sheriff who people know personally. And if things are a problem they can easily change it or move. I feel you are like Kyle in that you have never seen farm land before. I recommend you live in a small town for a while, you will then see how they act and why they oppose large government. You act as if they are a bunch of ignorant people when you are just an outsider looking in. 8. Again, on slavery, it was to limit government. The Constitution gives freedom and rights to the people by limiting government. Like freedom of speech. No government can stop that. Like search and seizure, no government violate that. The banning of slavery was to give more freedom to the people and limit government. Your ideas are the opposite. You want to expand government and prevent people from doing what they want through the force of law. If someone wants to be a slave they have every right to do that. The Constitution prevents government from forcing it, that's it. It is limiting government. You, however, want to use government law to force people how to live. Again, if someone wants to be a slave then why should I care? That is their freedom to do so. 9. I will say it again, the amendments limited government from creating such laws. If someone wants to be a slave they have every right to do that. The government can't force it. 10. As for abortion Casey v PP actually allows for abortion to be legal to a degree. And abortion laws have been challenged a lot based on state rights. That is why many states, like NY, allow for abortion to happen even late term, and CA allows for abortion to happen as they have it in their Constitution. But read Casey v PP, it allows the states to ban abortion if they have a vested interested in keeping the child alive. As for murder laws, read the article entitled "10 ways murders become a federal crime" From Wallin & Klarich. Essentially, it involves murder across state lines and government officials which falls in the commerce clause. As the article said, if commit murder in CA you will face trail based on their laws. 11. The FDA regulates restaurants. I was talking about that bud. But consider how you don't know how murder laws work I question your knowledge on laws in general. 12. We went through no on. The guy sold us his ages. We were inspected by the local inspector but we did not have to follow federal FDA laws as we were a local restaurant. 13. I know every state has their version of the FDA, and we followed their law, not federal law. But again, you don't know how murder laws work. 14. How are farmers crushed by Trump? 15. Again, i am not a right winger, I am a moderate. If you were to pick my brain I bet you will see I fall in line with many policies you agree with. However, people like you inspire me to vote for Trump. You have this attitude that you are better then everyone else and know better and thus people should live the life you feel is best. That attitude drives people to the right. Lean standards and learn the law. And actually answer my questions as opposed to deflecting.
1
@BootBizarre , corporations have been considered people for centuries. As for no taxes, the idea is to not drive them out of the nation. You do know that there was never a federal income tax for years as it was unconstitutional? The federal taxes were taxes on the states based on population. Why? Because as I mentioned the federal government is there to serve the states, not the people. Thus the federal government taxed the states, not the people. Just like states created domestic laws like murder and K-12 education standards.
1
Kyle Vapelinski , it is important to know what farmland looks like. It shows Kyle is very uncultured but he has strong opinions on government policies that will influence others. He has this idea that Bernie will be the politician to help others without realizing what other people really desire. He has never interacted with other people in rural parts of the country but yet he feels he knows what they desire. This is why, in this debate, when pushed by Kirk he just cursed and walked away. In reality he doesn't know what society desires.
1
Kyle Vapelinski , it is true. Kyle shows little understanding of how other people think or what they actually want. He is myopic and lives in a bubble. Never seeing farm land before is a huge red flag. He is how old and never seen farm land? That is a very high level of ignorance. And then he has a strong opinion on thinking he knows what others want in society? That is flawed.
1
Kyle Vapelinski , so you have no actual argument.
1
Like what?
1
@letsgetit90 , the issue is that under Trump not only is unemployment dropping but labor participation is stagnant now where in the past it was dropping. That means more people are looking for jobs but unemployment is still dropping.
1
@TrotmanOwl they were not willing to invest.
1
@travisrhodus1362 they are investing. That is why the stock market went up along with middle class income
1
There as the addition of FICA taxes during that time and more people coming in. Kyle is misleading here.
1
Kyle asked Kirk questions conceding his time. He also interrupted Kirk a lot. And as Kirk said, Kyle can give a rebuttal but all he did was swear and walked away.
1
Difference is that the right condemns those acts where the supports the violence.
1
The difference is that no one on the rights support those acts of violence. They condemn it. The left hardly condemn the acts of violence and support it at times like the mayor of Portland supporting antifa.
1
@killah blue , how was Kyle taken out of context? Immediately Kyle brought up the U6 as a "gotcha" point but Kirk pointed out that was low as well. Kyle brought up Scandinavian nations where Kirk was correct in that they have high taxes on everyone, including the middle class. They have school choice.
1
This is why these debates are pointless. Neither one of these two are experts. Also, no matter the outcome their fans will say their guy won. Look at the excuses here. They say the moderator was bad, or that Kyle had better points or whatever when Kyle clearly lost.
1
@dstyles8913 , exactly. As Kirk said, he shouldn't swear and walk away.
1
@TRHanRoach , true. Kyle is a far leftist anywhere as he is for completely dismantling the current system and replacing it with far left policies. That is radical anywhere.
1
Chris Bartolini pretty much
1
@IsaacV2001 , swearing does imply immaturity. You say he is angry, even if that if you want to make changes you have to convince moderates to come to your side. Swearing does not do that. And how is this country going to "shit"? Care to give examples? As for corruption I feel that giving a corrupt government more power will just make things worse. How many actual Bernie like progressives are in government now? It doesn't matter if he has the transcript in front of him or not. If he is so passionate about it and is so sure about what he is saying he should know by memory. I am pursuing my PhD. In my research and I cite papers, or at least summarize in my field of study. I do that because I read them a lot and know what they are saying. It shows I know what I am talking about and can point to resources and what they say. Kyle clearly doesn't know. Ivanka taking money in the 1st year was based on previous deals. This is common in business. You learn about things like note payable and accounts receivable in accounting where you receive money later. To give an example in my field, we were approved money for equipment last semester. We did not get it until this semester because we did not need it yet. Say this semester my boss became the Dean and then received the money you can't say he abused his position because the money was approved, he just didn't receive it. Also, how much did they earn in the 2nd year and 3rd year? We have been doing deals with Saudi for years. They paid for a hotel where Trump did not receive a dime. Saying those nations are happy is flawed as that is subjective. You can put a homeless man in a studio apartment and they will be happier then some home owner having to drop down to a two bedroom apartment. Wages are not low, they have been going up. And define a "living wage". The people working there are alive, so it seems they are paying a "living wage". I have a college loan, I don't mind. College is an investment.
1