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

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

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

Lame excuses. Kyle lost.
2
@justinianthe1st790 , Kyle wasn't gagged. All he did was curse and walk away. The reality is this, Kyle has nothing to say beyond talking points. These are complex issues and do take a lot of details and discussions. Kyle simply has talking points and when pressed he become emotional. This was classic Kyle here. Take the issue of Russia and the transcript. Kirk pushed Kyle to show where in the transcript Trump admitted to any wrong doing. Kyle's excuse was that he didn't have the transcript in front of him. That is lame because if Kyle is so sure in what he is saying he should know what is in the transcript. Also, take the issue of the Scandinavian nations. Kirk was correct in pointing out what they actually do when Kyle only cherry picked what they do. They do have higher taxes across the board, they do have lower corporate tax rates and more of a free market when it comes to employer employee relationship. Fact is Kyle was way out of his league.
2
@justinianthe1st790 , how was this debate rigged? At this point you are acting like Kyle, saying a one line statement and walking away. At least you didn't cuss.
2
@orthranus3352 , these issues are complex. What is ironic here is that Kyle was talking about how Bernie, in a debate, does not have time to explain his position and policies and needs much more time. However, when Kirk takes the time to break down a complex issue Kyle's fans cry. So which is it?
2
@orthranus3352 , way to act like Kyle. Just curse and zero content.
2
@robertpresley1503 , what law?
2
@robertpresley1503 , and saying it is the law does not make a solid argument. At one point, legally, slavery was allowed. That was the law.
2
@Jekyll_Island_Creatures , and so do his fans. This is why debates are pointless. One, neither one of these two are experts. Two, no matter the outcome their fans will say their guy won. Look at the comments. They are saying Kyle won or are giving excuses such as Kirk just "gish gallop" but fail to give examples or that the moderator was bad. Overall, Kyle is a child.
2
@Vic2point0 , that is Kyle for you. What he does is takes some stat and then runs with it appealing to emotion. You are correct on the 78% living paycheck to paycheck stat. How many of those are because of poor money management? Over 70% of lottery winners go bankrupt. There is a correlation there. Not saying it is a non issue, but you have to consider other factors. To give an example, Kyle pointed to a stat Bernie pointed to about 500,000 medical bankruptcies a year. He then runs with it on an appeal to emotion argument. Meanwhile, in a paper published in the NEJM, the journal with the highest impact factor, they argued that those numbers are over state. The paper is entitled "Myth and Measurement — The Case of Medical Bankruptcies" They say "But our findings suggest that medical factors play a much smaller role in causing U.S. bankruptcies than has previously been claimed. Overemphasizing “medical bankruptcies” may distract from an understanding of the true nature of economic hardship arising from high-cost health problems." Overall, Kyle is a part of the problem. He completely ignores the other side of the argument, he completely ignores other factors, he completely ignores the issue as a whole. He was exposed in the debate against Kirk. The sad part is that his fans still feel he won.
2
@zachflakerton , the CEO is the consumer. I sell them my labor and they pay. Here is the thing. Even if the company operates at a loss at one point they still have to pay me. If someone does not earn enough money they have the option of buying something or not. The CEO does not have that option as long as they employ me. If someone puts a gun to my head and forces me to give them my money I did not agree to anything, that is force. I agree to work for my employer. I can walk out at any time. That is also my choice.
2
@hudson2441 "Most medicine comes out of university researchers taxpayers funded. " That is 100% false. As for the internet, the free market made youtube, Amazon, Google, etc.
2
@lifesadrag5004 , "Bernie has been in Congress for 30 years" Translation: Bernie hasn't worked for 30 years.
2
@juanavalos4232 , the far left is like the partner in an abusive relationship. When it is abusive their solution is to marry them as if that will make it stop. When it doesn't they decide to have a kid with them as if that will make it stop. With the far left they complain about corrupt politicians, so their solution is to give those politicians more power.
2
Most of Bezos' wealth is in the shares of his company, not actual consumables. Please learn economics is you are going to discuss it.
2
Here is the double standard of Kyle and his fans. They complain that in the dem debates Bernie does not get enough time to break down his ideas because his ideas are complex. However, when Kirk breaks down his points they just call it gish galloping. Reality is this, the topics discussed are complex and do require long answers. Kyle only has talking points and when pressed he just cursed and walked away. Show the debate to a moderate on the fence and tell me who do you think is more convincing? Kirk who gave long, detailed answers on complex issues? Or Kyle who just swore and walked away?
1
I agree, I don't like Kirk. But this shows how pointless these debates are. One, neither one of these two are experts. Two, no matter the results the fans will say their guy "won". Look at Kyle's fans. They are saying Kyle was better, or making excuses such as the moderator was bad or all Kirk did was "gish gallop". They are defending Kyle despite him doing very poorly. If you would show this to a moderate on the fence would they agree with Kyle or Kirk?
1
@dickslap37 , this is why these debates are so pointless. One, neither one of these two are experts. Two, no matter the results the fan base will claim their guy won. Kyle's fans are making a ton of excuses such as blaming the moderator or saying Kirk just "gish galloping" instead of pointing out where Kirk was wrong.
1
Why?
1
@vn0688 , how was that a bribe? You have to show quid pro quo. Deals with the Saudis have been planned out for years. Also, Trump does not get a dime from his hotels anymore.
1
@robertpresley1503 , it was never violated.
1
It doesn't matter if it is popular or not
1
@uzumakiangelus doesn't matter. Many unpopular positions are better in the long run. That us why we don't vote for sc justices for example
1
@KaiserMattTygore927 , it should be zero at the federal level to prevent them from leaving the nation.
1
@Objectivityiskey , what Kyle contradicts himself is that he constantly points to polls. Stephen Michael Davis, a youtuber, pointed out the double standards in Kyle. After 9/11 the polling data showed that war was popular so politicians voted on it. Kyle rips on them for doing so. But why should he? All they were doing was voting for what was popular at the time. This is why picking the popular position is not always right.
1
@confusedarmchairphilosopher , you point to Denmark but the problem there is that their highest tax bracket is around $55,000 a year where our's is around $400,000 a year. The problem with the far left wanting to copy a system like Denmark is that want to spend like Denmark but tax like we do in the US. That simply won't work, and it is also being dishonest as they are simply picking and choosing a what works in a system as opposed to looking at the whole system. They claim Denmark is great because of their social welfare programs but completely ignore everything else. And no, we won't save money under Bernie's healthcare plan.
1
@confusedarmchairphilosopher , then why look at Denmark? Far leftists point to Denmark as the standard but when pushed on what they actually do far leftists like Kyle just plug their ears. The reality is that these issues are very complex. It is much more then just "government pays for it". They run their systems completely different. For example, in tuition free college how will you account for the NCAA? Just saying billionaires will pay for it is a over simplifying the issue completely. To start, "billionaires" earn their "money" completely different then the middle class. I say "money" a lot of their value comes from their assets and not actual M1 money. So taxing them is difficult. It isn't like me where most of my assets are M1 money. And no, I won't save money. To start, I pay around $20 a month in healthcare, that's it. And under Bernie's plan, if we were to copy what Denmark does, will bring down the cost to around 10% of GDP, like Denmark. However, like in Denmark, accessibility and quality will drop as well. Far leftists feel we can have the cost of the Nordic system with the quality and access we have now. That is impossible.
1
@Zandman26 , sure, for example we offer more CT scans and MRIs per capita. The US spends so much because we offer more healthcare. Is it all necessary? That is debatable. However, we do have the highest quality in the world.
1
@Zandman26 , uh, here we go. I know about this topic a lot. As Prof. Robert Ohsfeldt said, healthcare rankings are arbitrary. Where the US excels is access and survival rates of advanced illnesses and advanced testing. That is pointed out by Prof. Scott Atlas in his book "In Excellent Health" we are superior in advanced testing and survival rates of advanced illnesses. You say do a simple "google search" and give me some arbitrary ranking with questionable methods when I can give you a plethora of studies from experts. Reality is this, something has to give. If you ad 30+ million to the healthcare system and cut pay by 40% quality and access will drop just like it does in other nations. Sure, there are positive things from universal healthcare systems, but there are many drawbacks as well. I suggest you look deeper and go beyond google.
1
@Zandman26 , I did. I cited a book to start with. I can cite more. For example, one healthcare ranking uses amenable mortality to decide healthcare rankings. However, as pointed out in the paper entitled "Using ‘amenable mortality’ as indicator of healthcare effectiveness in international comparisons: results of a validation study" They say "Given these gaps in knowledge, between-country differences in levels of mortality from amenable conditions should not be used for routine surveillance of healthcare performance. " Along with the review entitled "Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality - a literature review." They say "No study has explicitly used a healthcare activity or quality variable in their analyses. This implies that the evidence that amenable mortality is an indicator of healthcare quality is far from overwhelming or clear." The fact that you immediately jump to flat earthers shows you are not wiling to have an honest discussion. I can cite many materials on this issue from experts. I will ask you on your source, what makes it credible? I read their methods and they are not clear. They have some "survey" and an arbitrary numbering system. I will also give you one more on medical bankruptcy entitled "Myth and Measurement — The Case of Medical Bankruptcies" The say "But our findings suggest that medical factors play a much smaller role in causing U.S. bankruptcies than has previously been claimed. Overemphasizing “medical bankruptcies” may distract from an understanding of the true nature of economic hardship arising from high-cost health problems." So I have plenty of sources.
1
@Zandman26 ,what do you have to say now?
1
@Zandman26 , did you even read the paper? Here "Our study estimated healthcare systems’ efficiency using two separate DEA models. The first included mostly inputs considered to be within the discretionary control of the healthcare system, and the second one included mostly inputs beyond the short-term discretionary control of the healthcare system. The fact that the healthcare systems of several large and stable economies were defined as efficient by the first model, yet not by the second, emphasizes the importance of broadening policy measures to areas currently beyond the short-term discretionary control of the healthcare system (population behavior and welfare) rather than focusing only on ensuring adequate medical care. In addition, countries striving at improving healthcare efficiency may consider avoiding specific institutional arrangements, namely gatekeeping and the presence of multiple insurers. And finally, the ambiguous association that was found between socioeconomic and environmental indicators and a country’s healthcare system’s efficiency necessitates caution when interpreting different ranking techniques in a cross-country efficiency evaluation and needs further exploration." "This limitation does not weaken our results, since, as mentioned above, there was no attempt to provide the accurate level of countries’ healthcare systems’ efficiency, but rather to provide a more general concept of the determinants associated with efficiency. Finally, the nature and validity of cross-country efficiency measurement have been questioned [5], and should, therefore, be interpreted cautiously." They admit there are limits and overall they are simply giving another way to evaluate healthcare systems. That is my argument as well. I have said there are advantages to a universal healthcare system, but the US does many things very well. As for their model, there are some vague stats they use. For example, they use overall life expectancy when many factors outside of healthcare influence life expectancy. They also used infant mortality. The problem with that when it comes to the US is that we lead the OECD nations in obesity rates where obesity leads to higher premature births as mentioned in a Stanford study "Obesity before pregnancy linked to earliest preterm births, Stanford/Packard study finds" Now add in the fact that obesity rates are higher for the poor, and the rate of pregnancies, especially unwanted pregnancies, are also higher for the poor that leads to a large factor weighing our infant mortality rates down. This is why I focus on two things 1. Access to advanced testing 2. Survival rates of advanced illnesses We lead the world in both.
1
@Zandman26 , read the book "In Excellent Health" by Prof. Scott Atlas. He outlines it with references. As for access to advanced testing, we offer more CT scans and MRIs per capita. "And when it comes to obesity, this is partly because the US do not have a healthcare system that covers everyone." That is arguably not true. As pointed out in the paper from the NEJM entitled "The Oregon Experiment — Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes" They write "This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years" That is because of poor lifestyle choices, not lack of healthcare.
1
@Zandman26 , it is due to poor lifestyle choices. That is the harsh reality. There are some cases where it isn't, but those are the rare exceptions. Stop making excuses.
1
@TrotmanOwl , Kirk was correct in that until Trump's value is zero, far leftists like yourself and Kyle are going to complain. Trump gave up his businesses to his kids. Who do you feel should have those businesses? Some random dude on the street? If a start a business and if I had kids I will pass them to my kids. This is common. And just because they are Trump's kids does not mean they necessarily get along.
1
@zachflakerton , most of his wealth is tied into his shares of his company. Those shares are worth as much as they are because he owns them which shows investors he stands by his product.
1
@Nicole-ww4lg , the tax on Amazon was stopped because many small businesses fought it. It just wasn't Amazon.
1
@zachflakerton , who did he exploit?
1
@aileenpi73 , most of his value is due to him being the largest shareholder of Amazon. Shares are not consumables in that they are not liquidated money and are not something like food or clothes. Saying Bezos has a lot of wealth is highly misleading as when you consider what his 'wealth" actually is then it isn't as easy as him giving it up to others as, in all reality, his wealth is not a consumable resource. And if he were to sell a vast majority of his shares to get more liquidated money it will send out red flags to investors and they will pull out making Amazon worth less.
1
@zachflakerton , how does he exploit them? How is working for a wage exploitative? The reality is this, your labor is inherently worth nothing. It is worth something when someone offers you money for it. You don't have to work there.
1
@zachflakerton , inherently it is worth nothing. Me digging holes in the desert is worth zero dollars. If someone is willing to pay me to do it then it has value. The CEO offers money for someone's labor, thus they are the consumer. And no, working for a wage is not exploitative, it is an agreement between you and your employer. If your labor is highly skilled you can sell it for more.
1
@zachflakerton " You systematically get a return less than what you put in." Not true as your labor, inherently, is worth nothing. You agree to work for someone for a wage. Yes, they will earn a profit, but so do you as without the boss hiring and paying you then you are earning zero. "demand stimulates the economy" Not true. Demand dictates how the economy will evolve and who will invest in what. But producing stimulates the economy. You can demand all you want but if there is no one to build something then you won't be able to get it. How are workers exploited? Again, they can leave at any time. And without the business owner those workers won't have a job because, again, their labor is inherently worth zero. "The internet in its development was a government sponsored tool used for military operations and was not accessible to the public. Once it was, it became privatized. " Internet is not really privatized. Even at that the private sector made internet the way it is. I don't support the bail outs and most on the right don't either. So why are you bringing that up? Bail outs is not the free market. In fact, it is the opposite.
1
@callawaymotorcompany , you are free to develop a skill and get a better job.
1
@ashkebora7262 , if the company loses the CEO, CFO and the accountant the company will literally fall apart as it won't be organized. The reality is this, very few people know how a business operates and how to manage and run it. The workers are not what drives a company, the CEO and managers are. Workers are easily replaceable. If running a business or being a CEO or an accountant is so easy why don't you do it?
1
@ashkebora7262 , define a "living wage".
1
@hudson2441 , how am I wrong? I work in research for a living. Seems like you have no desire to challenge yourself.
1
@hudson2441 "Taxes are the membership fee to living in a society. " Uh, it doesn't work like that. You do know that for years a federal individual income tax was unconstitutional? Why? Because the federal government was there to serve the states, not the people. As for each of your question 1. Ultimately himself. You can lead a horse to water but you can't force him to drink. I bet you will say government educated him. So why didn't all of his K-12 classmates attend MIT and invent things? Because that MIT guy worked harder. 2. Doesn't matter. The whole "they built the roads" argument is asinine. Successful people will find a way. If there weren't any roads a successful person will find a way to get things done. And again, all these people have access to roads. Why aren't more going to MIT? 3. Depends, MIT is large enough they can get private funds. As a whole it comes down to this, successful people put in hard work. I take myself for an example. I am pursuing my PhD and MBA. I went to high school with 150 classmates. They had access to the same resources. So why aren't they experiencing the same success I am? Because I worked harder, period.
1
Bernie had nothing to do with that. The strong economy is the reason for that.
1
@lifesadrag5004 "bernie will cancel all your student and medical debt" Thus cause massive inflation and a weak economy. Great, my student debt is gone, but so are job opportunities.
1
@lifesadrag5004 , it is inflation. You are taking money out of an investment and giving it away. As for a jobs guarantee, what kind of job? Will it be valuable? How much will it pay? Will I have to move or be retrained? Bernie's proposal has zero details. He literally just wants to throw a plan out there and force others to pick up the pieces.
1
Goochrider , he also wasn't paying over time.
1
@lifesadrag5004 , I do want to invest in the community. I bet I do way more then you do for the community. You just want to take other people's hard earn money and give it away. I do actual work. How will those jobs pay better? And will they generate actual wealth? Jobs are easy to create, generating wealth is far worse. And have you seen how little wealth the government creates to begin with? As for retraining, you try to keep it low. And will I enjoy the job? Will I have to move? What if I don't want a government job? They are typically jobs with little growth and a ton of bs to deal with.
1
@lifesadrag5004 , Trump. I don't like him but right now he is what we need. Our political environment is where there is no desire to have discussions on the issues. I really see this on the far left. Look at Bernie, all he has are talking points and no actual details on the issues. And when pressed he throws his arms in the air and just shouts talking points. We need to pull politicians back into the middle and have them have actual conversations on the issues. Until then Trump is my man.
1
Kyle did very poorly in this debate. Reality is all Kyle has are talking points. Kirk pushed Kyle beyond them and he became very angry, threw insults, yelled and talked conspiracy.
1