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

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Ben Shapiro: Congresspeople Being ‘Bought u0026 Paid For’ Is ‘Pretty Rare’" video.

@retop56 , Kyle is well informed? Really? And, when has Shapiro backed down from a debate?
5
@TheFallinhalo , he debated members of congress.
5
@retop56 , Ok, first off, when have they challenged him to a debate? Ben said he is willing to have anyone on his show. Why don't they go? Also, as for your two sources, I will have to watch the video, but I read the second well thoroughly and there are many ways to counter it. First, the author says " It's easy to laugh.....at the phrase "conservative intellectual."" The author immediately dismisses anyone on the right even though there are experts on both sides. To completely dismiss a side like that is a sign of a fool. Beyond that, the author misrepresents Ben and the author misrepresents the sources he posts and the data he presents. For example, he mentions "But I’d also like to hear him explain why black men receive 20% longer sentences for the same crime as white men with similar backgrounds.)" The study he points to says on page 32 "However, the fact that certain sentencing outcomes may be correlated with demographic factors does not mean that the demographic factors caused the outcome" And explains correlation vs causation on page 41. So this author did not even read the study. There are factors that cannot be quantified such as appearance and attitude in the court room, or the environment of the local community at the time. On the second one, if crime happens to be higher than normal judges may push out harsher sentences in order to alleviate that. Or election time can play a role as well. Also, the graduation rate of blacks vs whites has a 20% gap as well. There is a correlation there. So you can't just point to a number and expect it to mean anything without proper context. The author just threw out a study where that study itself admitted correlation does not equal causation. Next the author says " But if someone shows that a white man with a criminal record is far more likely to receive a job callback than a black man without a criminal record, you’ll never hear it mentioned." Well, Shapiro has mentioned that before in another way. He mentioned the issue of the "black sounding name" not getting the call back on a job. The reason why is because when no information of the person's criminal history is given the employer has nothing to go off of except overall stats. Overall blacks are more likely to commit more crime, including violent crime, than whites. So all things equal employers will go after the white individual because statistically they are less likely to commit crimes. The same is true for that "study". A white person committing a non-violent drug crime is still less likely to commit a violent crime compared to a black person committing a non-violent drug crime. It becomes a game of statistics. When little information is given employers will find something that is known. In that case they have to go off of overall stats and the less risky person in that case will be white. Shapiro has pushed to have people release their criminal background to employers so if two individuals, one black and one white, applied to a job, and all things left equal, but the white person has a criminal history and the black doesn't, than the black person will be hired. I can go on but people who criticize Shapiro don't do it well. I suggest you actually look deeper on those sources you gave me instead of blindly following them.
5
@retop56 , Ok, I am watching the video you posting. To start, that person cites Wikipedia as opposed to some academic source. Now does that mean he is wrong? Not really. But I will need something deeper than a Wikipedia source and than claiming it is "basic". Well, you know what else is basic? That is correlation does not equal causation, and that relates to the second article you linked. I see a double standard on you. At the 5 minute part he is talking about some women being stronger than women. That is a poor argument. Are there some women stronger than men? Yes. But let us make the comparison equal. Take the 10 best WNBA players and have them play against the 10 worse NBA players. Who wins? The NBA players. Why? Because they are bigger and stronger. That is the point. What makes a man a man and a woman a woman? Genetics. Simple. He is talking about behavior which is vague. At that point you are talking about if someone is masculine or feminine. That is not related to gender. But I find this ironic. The left talks about treating people equality and equality, but now they are separating people based on gender. Hmmm....... In that video Shapiro is correct. If someone is a man than they are a man. If someone is a woman than they are woman. The guy's comparison of names is poor. Your name does not change your genetic make up. He is grasping for straws here. Someone's name does not dictate what sex they are which will determine what sports team they can play on for example. He then goes on to say "blacks meant slaves". Again that is not genetics. Really, this guy expects to be taken seriously? I can't go on as I have things to do. But you need to find better arguments against Shapiro bud.
4
Really? Kyle's arguments are summed up as this "My ideas are popular and if you disagree than you are corrupt" That's it. No real substance to his arguments. That is why Shapiro is much more popular than Kyle.
3
@mileshill7196 , well, where else should these debates take place?
3
@higglyjuff , you clearly did not read that "right wing" study. That study never said Medicare for all will save money. It showed a potential cost to the government and said it was on the low end and admitted that chance are it will cost much more. Also, the number he keeps citing is just for public spending, it does not include private spending. Kyle literally cherry picked a number and completely misrepresents it. Kyle has no desire to have an actual discussion on the issues. You can tell that when he completely dismisses the other sides' arguments. As for Shapiro, he is very intelligent. A law degree from an Ivy League college, many best selling books, debated in front of Congress, gives many speeches to college campuses, started a business that is very successful and so on. With Bernie and Venezuela, Bernie supported their model until it went to crap. And Bernie does support the Venezuela model, not the Nordic model. The Nordic model taxes their citizens high to pay for services they use. Bernie wants to follow Venezuela's model where you have central control of the economy. The Nordic model does not have central control of the economy. The have a strong free market with lower corporate taxes and less regulations on businesses. They simply tax citizens more to pay for certain services. Bernie wants to control the economy with higher taxes on corporations and the rich, and wants to manage how the market functions. You see this with his support of the Green New Deal. You claim Shapiro is a moron but gave no evidence.
2
@wyattlong8321 , I read the study, Almost everyone on the left hasn't. If they did they would know that study did not say Medicare for all will save money. It gave a potential cost and admitted it was on the low end and said chances are it will cost much more. Reason why is because it assumed healthcare providers will take a 40% paycut and ignored potential costs in bureaucracy and shortcomings in Medicare, such as this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690175/ Also, the number Kyle cites is for public spending, he ignores the private spending part which does give healthcare spending, nation wide, to be higher than what we spend now. So your point on Kyle is correct, he cherry picks his sources and information.
2
@Raizhen010 , they use numbers and a plan from a radical leftist. That is the point.
2
@Raizhen010 , if that study claimed that Medicare for all cost $100 trillion over 10 years you will simply say "it is a right wing source so it can't be trusted'. You, like Kyle, have no standards.
2
@Raizhen010 , that isn't what the study says, so clearly you have not read it. The issue is that estimating the cost is very difficult, you are going to get a range. They used the plan from Bernie and found a range of costs and in the abstract gave the low end essentially saying it will cost, at least, that much. So it is not arguing for a different plan, it is showing the cost for Bernie's plan where many numbers suggest it will cost more than what we pay. Also, it does not factor in quality. Look at federal programs that cost more than expected. Look at the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 and how it ended up costing more than projected and ended up making our mental health situation worse. I suggest you actually read the study. Saying Bernie is a "social democrat" is not an argument. Labels are meaningless, actions are important. Bernie's actions align a lot more to what Venezuela has than what the Nordic nations have. Both the Nordic nations and Venezuela have universal coverage. There is more to it than that. Many Nordic nations have no min. wage, Bernie wants to double ours. Nordic nations have lower corporate taxes, Bernie wants to raise ours. You are ignoring those points. Nordic nations have high taxes on everyone. Bernie just wants to tax the rich (so he keeps saying).
2
@Jon0e0boy1010 , you can take all of the money from the top 1% and you still won't be able to pay for these ideas. Also, abusing loopholes? Loopholes exist for the middle class as well, use them. Or how about this? How about no loopholes for anyone. That is what I feel we should do. Also, Bezos and the Walton family pay the market rate. They can't pay a higher wage because they can't afford it.
2
Where?
2
I wonder if you know that calling someone an idiot is not an argument.
2
@rustyshackleford3872 , true. I love how people claim Shapiro is stupid and mock him but have no real argument against him. Shapiro is very intelligent with man books and a law degree. He has debated in front of Congress. What has Kyle done?
2
@jivet3919 , how about they go on his Sunday show.
2
@deeznutsanyachin2027 , uh, it is. It means they are an important enough figure to spend tax payers' money on. No one cares about Kyle.
2
@deeznutsanyachin2027 , Colbert is a well known person.
2
He doesn't know who Kyle is
2
@higglyjuff , it will cost more because of free loaders abusing the system where the poor typically are in bad health due to lifestyle choices to begin with. It will cost more because us, as a society, will refuse to see a drop in quality. That is why the federal debt is so high. The federal government creates a program and then refuses to cut. It will cost more because of bureaucracy. It will cost more because, as with what happened in the Community Mental Health Act of 1963, the states will just pass all the responsibilities to the federal government. Saying there is no "middleman" is false. The middle man is the government. The GND is centralized control of our economy like what happened in Venezuela. Is is the federal government dictating the direction the economy will flow which will never work in a nation as large as ours. And you say it provides jobs, what kind of jobs? Do you really think low skilled, unemployed people can handle jobs in infrastructure? Yes, the Nordic model has stronger unions because they are a free market when it comes to employer/employee relationships. The min. wage is frivolous as it is how much you are paid per hour, not per week. When hours are cut than what is the point? The system is favored to the rich? How? Also, the US, federally, was never a democracy. The reason why this system favors the rich at all is because government has too much power to sell to the highest bidder. Expanding government makes the problem worse. Besides that, the top 10% earn 40% of the income but pay 70% of federal income taxes. So how are the rich favored again?
1
When did he refuse?
1
Uh, what facts did Kyle use? His first point was on approval ratings which is purely an emotional argument.
1
Ben is correct. People donate to politicians who already have some sort of view. For example, the NRA gives money to people who already support gun rights.
1
Has Kyle ever contacted Ben? That is a better answer. Why doesn't Kyle go on Ben's show?
1
@matt-tp1ww , uh, no one heard of Kyle. Also, no one contacted those people. Kyle lied about the politicon situation. That is why Jesse Lee Peterson had no problem having Kyle on his show.
1
@AlexKenjiB1111 , because Kyle as being facetious that day. Listen to Kyle. He calls someone "Howard Schitz", he makes fart noises and funny voices while repeating the same talking points over and over again. How can you take someone like that seriously? There is a reason why Kyle gets around 30,000 views a video and Shapiro has best selling books and had debated in front of congress.
1
@leonardocaicedo1273 , if you mean David Pakman Shapiro had a discussion with him. Someone debated Seder at Politicon and all Seder did was tell people to look it up. Not really a valid argument.
1
@matt-tp1ww , he blocked out the name which makes it questionable. Also, who contacts via text in a formal event? They use email.
1
@skipeboi4806 , Kyle has facts?
1
@uzumakiangelus , what facts? What studies? Also, polls are unreliable. They are vague questions on complex issues being asked to people who don't understand the issues. The the Medicare for all poll Kyle keeps citing. If you were to take those same people and give them a year's worth of course work on healthcare and information like this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690175/ http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Kate-Baicker.pdf I bet that polling data will change. Maybe you get more support, maybe you will get less. But taking the opinions of non-experts on a complex issue like healthcare is not an argument.
1
@deeznutsanyachin2027 , there is a solid argument that porn does harm for society. What I find to be ironic is that the left support porn on the idea of allowing women to do what they want. But in reality porn is a very degrading job for women where most women have little to no power. The left talks about workers' rights and treating workers "fairly", especially women. But in porn women are treated bad. It is an industry driven on the fantasy of men thus women are demanded to do obscene acts they may not want to and their career and life can be ruined. And a woman can do a scene and then end up never getting called back so now there is a video of them online. Look up the Belle Knox situation where she had to leave college for a while and wants to be a lawyer but many legal experts pointed out how she will struggle and people will attack her based on her past. This is not to say I oppose porn or support porn. This is to say there are arguments against it. Also, it is ironic how the left supports porn when it is, arguably, a business that treats women the worse where women essentially have zero rights.
1
@Raizhen010 , Kyle's argument against the right is to simply say "that is not true" which is not an argument. Take healthcare for example, he says that no one dies in other nations due to lack of access but when people say that they do his argument is "that is not true" but provides no evidence. People do die on waiting lists in other nations. He also claims that cosmetic surgery is "elective surgery" where it is. But neurosurgery is also considered "elective" in some nations. So it is not as simple as "chin surgery" as he claims. Kyle has no clue what the right argues because he simply dismisses them. Seder moves the goal posts in his arguments and to someone who does not understand that falls apart. For example, one person called in and was debating about local governments being strong thus at the state level. Seder than moved the goal posts and said "what about just a street" or something like that. Well, in some areas you do have gated communities that write their own rules in that area. So there is that. A clever person will lay that on him. Seder has no actual arguments for what he supports, he just moves the goal posts on others. Take a recent video on the min. wage. His simple argument was to look at Seattle when the economy is far more complex than that. In his debate at Politicon he told people to "look it up" in dealing with wage stagnation. No sources given, no details given, just telling people to look it up. Well I did and I found this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6FmhXQ32Wo&t=160s I also found other sources as well (one, if I recall, that was cited over 200 times) dealing with it. They are on my work computer so I can't provide it now, but will when I get a chance. But there are experts who argue against the idea that wages have been stagnant and have data to support it. Seder told me to look it up and I did and found counter arguments against him. It isn't about liking their ideas or not. It is about how fake they are and an intelligent person can easily expose them. Take Peter Schiff for example and how he tore Seder apart when they debated.
1
@deeznutsanyachin2027 , mocking the person as opposed to breaking down how they are wrong is not an argument. Why is Shapiro wrong on the porn issue? I told you how, arguably, porn is destructive to society. Now give me a counter argument that goes beyond mocking.
1
@DrummingKid78 , Kyle would struggle in producing better arguments. Kyle has a handful of talking points and that's it. When you go beyond that he has no substance. Take healthcare for example, he repeats the same talking points over and over again while simply dismissing the arguments on the left by simply saying they are wrong. For example, he claims that single payer nations are "objectively better" than the US. Meanwhile, Prof. Scott Atlas from Stanford, and actual expert on the topic, wrote books arguing the US has better outcomes in many cases. Kyle ignores those points. When you ignore the other side as much as Kyle does you can't form better arguments.
1
@Raizhen010 , uh, people have died in other nations due to lack of access. In Australia up to 7000 people die a year while waiting for "elective" surgery according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. According to the following studies people have died in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9616340 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685314 But I bet they must be from a "right wing source". As for them having better outcomes, read the following book https://www.hoover.org/research/excellent-health-setting-record-straight-americas-health-care You know a book from a Stanford professor. There are many arguments and plenty of data to suggest that the US has better outcomes. Seder never explains anything. That is why he told people to "look it up". The death penalty and war are completely different than the pro life issue. The life they want to save have not done anything to have it be taken away. The death penalty takes away life from people who broke the law such as murdering people. War is a part of national defense against people who want to kill us. So Sam's argument is incredibly weak if that is what he is saying. Single payer will not save money. I can recognize good debaters. Just saying talking points are not arguments. Uh, there is plenty of data to suggest that wages have outpaced inflation. I bet you did not know there is more than one way to measure inflation? https://www.nber.org/feldstein/WAGESandPRODUCTIVITY.meetings2008.pdf https://www.dartmouth.edu/~bsacerdo/Sacerdote%2050%20Years%20of%20Growth%20in%20American%20Wages%20Income%20and%20Consumption%20May%202017.pdf The first article was cited 157 times which shows how strong it is. As for your link, they don't say what method of inflation they used. I can only assume CPI where CPI is, arguably, overstating inflation which is why the Boskin Commission was developed. Also, I am looking for the author's credentials, can't find them. Is he an expert on economics? You have to try harder bud.
1
@Raizhen010 , it is very debatable if wages have been stagnate or not. I just gave you three sources on that. Experts will debate that. You saying it is not debatable makes your entire argument worthless as you are essentially dismissing the other side despite there being strong evidence to support their ideas. That 40,000 is very debatable as well and has been questioned by experts like Katherine Baicker. Those 40,000 are poor and bad health is associated with being poor. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? Prof. Baicker was the leading author on the Oregon study that was published in the NEJM, the journal with the highest impact factor. There people who were given access to medicaid were compared to those that weren't. The physical health of those who were given medicaid did not improve. Why? Because their issues were due to poor lifestyle choices. So even with access to healthcare they were at a high risk of dying. Also, in the book "Being Moral" by Atul Gawande, MD, he states how people look towards modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but in reality they live only anther 5 or 10 months. So with those 40,000 if you give them access to healthcare and they live 5 more months, while costing the system a lot of resources and they are in agony, is that a success? You say I am just looking at anecdotes when i literally just cited a paper from the journal with the highest impact factor and a book by an MD that is required reading for students in the nursing program at my university. As for Pew Research, they are not an academic source. And that article you pointed me to is flawed. For example, they don't say what method of inflation was used. They just said "inflation". I assumed CPI as it provides the highest rate and also is the most used. But PCE is argued to be better. Look at this article from the Minneapolis Fed https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/i-say-cpi-you-say-pce It is very debatable is wages have been stagnate. The Federal Reserve uses PCE inflation and PCE inflation has wages outpacing inflation. So those articles are not doing what others do, economists point to many methods of inflation. In fact, someone who just uses to statistical method to measure something is foolish. As for polling, polls are unreliable. They are vague questions on complex issues being asked to people who are not experts on them. Opinions change when more information is given. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/howcan-a-poll-of-only-100/ You need to come up with better arguments.
1
@Raizhen010 , what alternate reality? Maybe you don't like the fact that I brought up things you have no clue about. How about you tell me the short comings of CPI inflation and why the Boskin Commission was developed to begin with?
1
@Raizhen010 enjoy your echo chamber
1
@deeznutsanyachin2027 , women are not paid very well in the porn industry. I know someone who did a porn scene and was paid $2000 for it, that's it. Now the video is out there for all to see. In fact, someone linked her video to her dad's facebook page and her employer's page. She was fired. Women have essentially no rights and no representation in porn. Again, I find it ironic how the left supports porn and also supports workers having rights when in reality the porn industry is very oppressive towards women where they have no representation and no protection. They can get tossed very easily https://theweek.com/articles/449665/sorry-belle-knox-porn-still-oppresses-women
1
@y3ee3e , is it worth losing your job over and your credibility? Also, most women only do one or two scenes and that's it.
1
@y3ee3e , do they? You have a lot of young, naive girls going into porn. Do they know what they are doing? If they weren't raised well than they most likely don't. Let us turn this around. Women know what they risk having sex. So if they get pregnant they should not be allowed to kill the baby.
1
@FerreusNRG , politicon is horseshit. Half of the people there were nobodies (Seder, Kyle, etc.), and the other half just made a show out of it.
1
So, uh, where is Kyle's actual argument? Kyle claims there are so many ways to attack this claim but really grasps for straws here. I can see why Ben is so much more popular than Kyle. Ben actually has substance in his arguments.
1
A great video on Kyle's mindset https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsmUw5FMxH0&t=8s
1
The argument is that the federal government should be limited in setting prices. Doing so will lead to less output. If the federal government forced drug prices to be too low than drug companies will counter with less drug development. Also, the government can also force drug prices to be higher due to lobbying.
1
@Username-ei4ff , because Kyle is a nobody.
1
@Trinity Starbright , I would own Kyle's ass on topics such as gun laws, healthcare, climate change and economics. Also, Ben debated in front of Congress, he has a strong reputation. What has Kyle done?
1
@mecher3k , low hanging fruit for me
1
@mecher3k , low hanging fruit
1
@deeznutsanyachin2027 , how ? Please explain. I just finished a comment to someone by citing four professors where that person just had talking points. .
1
I love how the far left simply mocks Ben but has no legit argument against him.
1
Really? Kyle has no maturity. I have yet to see Kyle have an actual legit argument against Ben. Kyle, once again, just used the same argument he always does. If you go against something he agrees with than you must be corrupt.
1
@MrVedude , Kyle has no substance.
1
@SpruceZT , so when I provide evidence from experts that is no substance to you?
1