Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Most Americans Don't Want 'Experts' In Government" video.

I can buy it. My problem with the climate change issue is how the political left are doing exactly what scientists try to avoid. That is making a definitive conclusion on data in a broad topic. Someone like Bernie Sanders makes his claim about scientists saying climate change is a major issue but yet does not list any scientists.
2
In order to make money in business you have to serve people. In government you have to control people.
2
Bob The Almighty Destroyer of Worlds and Bringer of Rectal Fissures A business won't thrive in the private sector if it does not serve people. That is why Trump University failed in the end. The federal government has a debt of how much? And what is Congress's approval rating?
2
Joshua Caine Liberals tend to be over emotional and come up with knee jerk reactions or agree with them. One is that climate change is a major concern. We should look at it and keep progressing in technology. But it is not a major threat as far as we know.
1
Joshua Caine What I said is true about liberals. They have a very volatile base. This past election showed it. People got pissed that Bernie did not win so they did not come out to vote. Liberals tend to appeal to emotions which is why they attract the young, poor, an ignorant (that third group can be college "educated" but still be ignorant). It also explains why they don't come out to vote in the midterms that often because they don't get emotionally involved. They do for presidential elections. This is seen with republicans pretty much controlling everything for the past decade except for the executive branch. " experts in all relevant fields of science disagree with you, and I trust them more." Yeah, not true. As a scientist myself I think I trust my judgment in how scientists interpret data. I have never heard a credible scientist say climate change was a major threat. Only democrats trying to appeal to emotions.
1
Joshua Caine Really? Who are the ones rioting on the streets after Trump got elected? When Obama got elected the right developed the Tea Party which was an organized group. And nothing shows that conservative are racists. The fact is that liberals are very emotional. It works in their favor at times. Obama won because he was a young, energetic candidate who energized groups with his "hope" and "change" slogan. Clinton was not that way which is why she lost. What proof do you want without me exposing my personal identity? In graduate school I used Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics, Fetter and Walecka for Classical Mechanics. Cohen-Tannoudji for Quantum and Sakurai for a supplement. A book on my shelf above me is Nonlinear Optics by Boyd. That scratches the surface of some of the numerous textbooks I use. One research project I am working on is studying the Amide I mode in a peptide backbone and how they can couple with each other. I have never heard a credible scientist say that climate change was a serious threat. No credible scientist will make such a claim. I feel you need to study science more.
1
Joshua Caine Plus, who shot up a school when Obama won? Bombing abortion clinics are the rare minority. And what about the Black Panther Party doing voter intimidation? Anyway, remember who constructed OWS and these riots.
1
Joshua Caine "Plenty of conservative voters are KKK members, neo-nazis, or just plain racist without being part of an organisation founded on racism." Not really. When Obama was elected you did not see riots burning down buildings. So say what you want, the democrat supporters are emotional. It works at times to get them to win. I am not saying it is a bad strategy, I am saying that is how their group is. That is why they can't consistently win. "I dunno, man. I reveal my personal identity all the time, so I don't see why anyone else wouldn't. I respect when people choose not to," Because I like to keep my personal life private. I get into deep political discussions here and with one of my activities I am moving up in I am heavily scrutinized where they find out about everything about you. I could accidentally say something on here that can be used against me. So I keep a lot of things private. "I have heard plenty of credible scientists say it. Maybe you just need to get out more?" I doubt it. Considering how I communicate with scientists on a daily basis all across the country I would say I get out plenty. "Nobody shot up a school when Obama won but a bunch of them happened while he was in office," And that is somehow Republican's fault? "and a few of the perps were angry white people" What does race have to do with anything? ". It doesn't matter if it's a rare minority that bomb abortion clinics. It still happens, so I can blame all conservatives for it if I want." But it is rare. All across the country you are seeing riots, that is not rate but becoming the norm for liberals. "The point I'm trying to make is that I know they're not all like that, and I'm trying to discern if you realize that not all liberals are as you describe." I agree that not all liberals are like that. But two things. One, democrats do attract that crowd more than republicans do. And two, right now the left is being overran with those types of people such as feminists, BLM, and now Bernie supporters. There are plenty of democrats I have supported and voted for in the past. But right now they do have a problem and it needs to be addressed. When someone suggest that we need to remove illegal immigrants and the get called a racist, that is a problem. "Trump supporters were doing voter intimidation too, dude" Where? Clinton's campaign team was mailing me flyers calling Trump a racist and a bigot. They never talked about his policies but instead name called him with basically little to no justification. That is a problem.
1
Joshua Caine "The proponents of climate change proved their case years ago." And this is where I know you don't understand science. That is common so don't take that the wrong way. Science does not prove anything. What science does is creates models that are called theories. These theories explain natural occurrences and predict future occurrences. But they don't prove anything. The theory with the strongest supporting evidence is what is used. A couple of examples. It was theorized that light traveled through ether because waves needed a medium to travel through. Michelson later showed that theory was not strongly supported and came up with special relativity to explain the nature of light. Even at that what exactly is an electric field is not clear. This is briefly discussed in Griffiths E&M text page 61. Right now the model that is used works, but others are being developed. Another deals with my work. I told you I look at vibrational states of Amide I modes in peptides and how they couple. Based on the coupling we can determine the distance and angle between the probes from Transition Dipole Coupling (TDC). It has worked well, particularly for Amide I modes who are a few angstroms apart. Problem is in other cases where the modes are close TDC has failed. The was published by theorist by the name of Mukamel. So the question becomes when does TDC works, when doesn't it? With that people, including me are working on a better model. It does not prove anything, it is just a better model. TDC is still used and holds in a lot of cases, just not all. With climate change, the hard numbers are there. You can't deny the data. How you interpret them you can. Saying climate change is happening is using the definition of words. This case they are "climate" and "change'. The climate is changing. That is a given. We are measuring that. Now the question becomes why? And is it even bad? No credible scientist is going to make a definitive conclusion on those topics because the supporting evidence is weak. When it comes to if climate change is a major threat now you are going into how the ecosystem will react. The ecosystem has been through multiple changes for over 4 billion years. We can't predict what will happen. And that is where you are lacking understanding on the issue of climate change.
1
Global Warming Skeptic Demand side economics is rather asinine to me. From my experience there is always a demand for better goods and services. With competition a company will push in providing that. That is why we keep seeing better cars, phones, computers, TVs and so on. People demand better things. It comes down to you can't consume what you don't produce. People pushing for demand side economics do not understand what money is.
1
Joshua Caine You are going to have to link me to that story because I never heard of it. I do go to liberal talking shows and I never heard of it. "Well, the shooters were Republican is what I'm trying to say." So being white means being republican? "I haven't seen any riots, honestly. I hear people talk about them, but I don't see them in the news or anything. What's up with that?" http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/liberal-riots-trump-destroys-hillary-clinton/ http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-elected-president-riots-break-out-university-campuses-after-republicans-2443978 Also, you have other riots such as what the BLM group has done and what happened in Ferguson, MO. "Oh, you're talking about the "regressive left". Yeah, fuck those guys. They're just as bad as the alt-right." We can agree there, but they are over taking the party. TYT and Kyle are a huge part of that. I did not see anything about white supremacists at voting booths. I saw they were planning it but I did not see anything about them pulling through. "I didn't get flyers from either campain team, honestly. I guess I'm lucky." I live in a swing state. "When I said "proved" I was speaking in layman's terms. Like how we've proved evolution, and only idiots or liars deny it now." Evolution is a theory. It is not proven. All it is, like all theories, is a model to explain natural occurrences and predict future results. Another theory could come along and replace it. As of now it is the one with the strongest. supporting evidence. But it has never been proven, only supported. "Yes, the ecosystem has changed over the last 4 billion years, but never like this. This quickly, I mean." And you base that off of what? Also, the ecosystem can stand a lot. What makes you think it can't stand this change? I find it ironic how you pick evolution as an example when a driving force of evolution is climate change.
1
Joshua Caine Link me to the video. Who was shouting anti-Obama rhetoric. Kyle is very regressive, especially on economic issues. He is not as bad as TYT, but he is regressive. Move out of Texas than. Don't speak in layman's term in this case. "but human life can't take that much" We have a lot of technology, we will be fine. I will be less concern with humans than the ecosystem.
1
Joshua Caine You are now sounding like Bernie with the "work together" talk. How would that work? If I work harder will I get paid more or not?
1
Joshua Caine I like to look at different perspectives on things. I don't come here to hate, I come here to try to educate. Several things he says is flat out wrong. For example, on the min. wage, he tried to justify raising it by pointing to what it would be worth in 1968. That happens to be the year that will make it the highest. He is being very deceptive. I find it scary how people, who can vote, are not thinking critically and questioning the asinine things he says. " I can't move. My mom needs me... And I need her. I don't have anyone else, and she doesn't have anyone she can rely on." Touching story. You have a decision to make. Everyone has problems and decisions to make. I am stuck 2000 miles away from my family. If something were to happen to my dad I would have to make a decision to keep working where I am at or take a massive pay cut to move home. Everyone deals with different situations. Do you think you are the only one with problems? "Yes, technology will help us overcome, but I don't want our descendants needing gas masks for walks in the park." What makes you think it will get that bad?
1
Go back to state rights. Have smaller, more local government. At that level you can see if government is actually working for you.
1
ladyunicornejg" some things cannot be done on small scale" Such as? In some cases I can agree, but they are listed in the constitution. At the federal level their responsibilities are 1. foreign affairs 2. makes sure the states get along 3. enforce the constitution That's it. " that impact across state lines" Which is covered in the commerce clause. A state is not allowed to pollute another state. " and showing no interest in providing for people in states where they cannot raise funds to take care of their own " The federal government has $0 until it taxes the citizens. If we went back to the tax on the states than states will have all the resources they need. Also, budgets are ran better at the state level. "which ironically is usually the deep red states, they need federal welfare assistance all the time but vote against their interests in that regard" That is because of farm subsidizes. That myth has been handled long ago. But, the idea we need the federal government for resources is the wrong thought to have.
1
ladyunicornejg If they only pollute their land and water then there is not a problem. If they pollute other states than via the commerce clause the federal government can step in. That issue has already been covered. Also, we can say the same about education. As is the states set the standards for K-12 education. States also set driving laws and distribute driving licenses. People do move from state to state at times. Why don't we have one set driving law?
1
ladyunicornejg Why don't we have that? With education that can be used for indoctrination. If done at the federal level it can very well lead to that. That is why the states do it. If one state is doing indoctrination we still have other states that won't. " Land pollution can be arguable as local depending on the type and if it contaminates things that go on a federally open market without states ability to reject it" Again, the commerce clause accounts for that.
1
ladyunicornejg Where do you set the minimum and why? That becomes arbitrary at that point.
1
ladyunicornejg Because it is arbitrary does make minimum standards unnecessary. Take min. wage laws. Cost of living is so vastly different across the country. The minimum will have to be the town with the lowest cost of living. At that point why have it at all?
1
ladyunicornejg Not really. In my home town rent was around $250 a month. Gas is less than $2/gal plus everything is so close you won't buy much gas. Food was cheap and so was energy. The current min. wage is way too high for that area. Also, define " neglecting to do their jobs to take care of their property". To you they may be neglecting but to the citizens who vote and pay taxes there the local government isn't. That is the point, you don't live there so why should you care?
1
ladyunicornejg A lot of people pay attention to local governments. Also, at the local level you can see directly if government is serving you. In reality very few people look at the federal government beyond the presidency. So what's you point? " If they did, the minimum wage raise issue wouldn't even be federal it's be a bunch of local discussions." It is. Several areas have their own min. wage laws and have been raising them recently.
1
ladyunicornejg Some areas do not need a min. wage. They are fine without it. Just like some small towns have no stop signs on their roads or fire fighters being paid by the city because they have volunteer fire fighters. Not everyone needs what you think they need.
1
ladyunicornejg" where is this town that people can survive no matter what they are paid?" Several small towns have low cost of living. In my town rent was $250/month, gas was less than $2/gal. The town was small enough to where you hardly bought gas. Food and bills were cheap. "And how does a minimum existing harm them?" Because they simply can't afford it. They don't have the resources in those towns to produce that much revenue. You are hurting small towns at that point. Take the small town of Hopkins, MO for example. They have no major business there that can generate that kind of revenue. So congrats, you have now destroyed a small town and made it harder for the people that live there. They have to travel to the neighboring, bigger town for groceries. (I picked that town because they have family there and roads with no stop signs). As a whole, you don't know their situation. You don't live there, vote there or pay taxes there. So move on. There are people who feel we should eliminate the min. wage. How would you feel if someone set that as the standard at the federal level? No state is allowed to set a min. wage.
1
ladyunicornejg Very few people feel we should eliminate the government. They just want it to be more local. Even Milton Friedman said there was a desire to have government. "You can self-run a store" Really? Even at that if you want people working for you than you have to pay them. If the store pays too little than no one will work for them. " You're trying to say that somehow the town not having revenue is keeping people from selling things" They can't afford to run store because the min. wage is too high, thus they can't hire the necessary workers to run the store. "If you can't pay your employees enough to get by you shouldn't be hiring more " Which is what people do which is why the min. wage has always been a job killer. Basically what you are supporting now is job loss and making it so businesses can't expand.
1
ladyunicornejg Ok, what? So you rather have people not working and developing wealth? No one will work for a few cents a day. So your example is asinine. And that is not considering how I said cost of living is already low in those areas. Also, you are making the false assumption that low wage worker is depending on themselves. It has been shown that the average yearly household income of those earning $9.50/hr or less are not poor.
1
ladyunicornejg That $30,000 stat is very deceptive. Are they the primary earners of the household? What is their age? I earn less than $30,000 a year because I am a graduate student. But after I earn my PhD will get a significant raise. You are throwing out a number there with nothing to compare it to. "And people do work for pennies a day around the world," Not our problem. Also, outsourcing happens because of our high, and frivolous regulations and taxes. But you already stated before you support unemployment.
1
ladyunicornejg Well, sounds like you need to develop some skills
1
ladyunicornejg Again, develop skills or seek friends and family for help.
1
ladyunicornejg Or maybe the local government can help you out.
1
Bob The Almighty Destroyer of Worlds and Bringer of Rectal Fissures Maybe people should be smarter with what they do with their money. You can't blame Trump for that. Considering how ignorant people are it seems like the K-12 education is not serving people as well.
1
The low approval rating of congress is another example of why we need smaller, more local government. People hate congress but love their representatives (for the most part). People in the bay area hates congress but love Nancy Pelosi. The way the country was design was to have more state rights and smaller, more local government to prevent a Nancy Pelosi in playing a major role in people's personal lives who can't even vote for them. Yeah, congress has a low approval rating, but you can't vote for the vast majority of it anyway. So what difference does it make?
1
Yellow Jacket The more local government is the more control you have over it. As of now you can only vote for a few congress members. The vast majority of them you have no say over. Why do you want them telling you want to do?
1
Yellow Jacket What has smaller government failed?
1
Felix Feliciano I am referring to the Constitution. The constitution adapted some of the AoC.
1
Felix Feliciano I know what you said. When I talk about smaller, more local government I am referring to the constitution.
1
Yellow Jacket It never failed. The AoC failed, I agree. But state rights in the US were great until FDR came in and expanded the federal government. It has been a mess since. Also, those Scandinavian countries liberals love are small governments. The constitution was design for limited government and more state rights. You do know that before 1913 the federal income tax was unconstitutional?
1
Hello FDR did not fix the problem, he prolonged the recession and recovery only happened because of the war. The Constitution was designed to give states rights to run a government the citizens of those states seem fit while protecting certain rights of the citizens. If you look at those rights and restrictions placed on the states you will see they are aimed towards giving the citizens power over the government. Rights like free speech, bear arms, due process etc. Also, since we are the United States there were certain things states could not do such as restrict movement and create import and export taxes. That is pretty much it though. The states had a lot of power and the federal government, beyond treason had no power over the citizens. That is the key point, the federal government had no power over the citizens. That is what you have to realize is the difference between the Constitution and the AoC. Yes, the constitution can change but it was a strict, and challenging process. In the end FDR caused the depression and his policies are now hurting the country.
1
Hello He created the depression by hindering recovery. The recession was happening, he created the depression. I feel you need the read the constitution some more. You have not given me a hard example of where I am wrong. The AoC failed due to lack of connection and not being United. Under the constitution we were fine until FDR decided to push for centralized government. That is why we have problems now like crony capitalism. People would have supported Clinton and her donors just to keep their precious social security. Don't piss off the federal government, they will take away what they were giving you. That is what we have now.
1
Hello I fee like you need to read some history and economic books. Yes, the recession started in 1929, noticed I said recession. Hoover tried to fix it with the plan he developed in 1921 during that recession. He did not implement it then because by the time he came up with it the recovery was happening. So he implemented it during his presidency leading to a slow recovery. FDR came in and expanded it leading to an even slower recovery. That is what turned it into a depression, the fact recovery was slow. The more local government it the more control you have over it. The more local government is the greater ability the people have to see if they are getting their money's worth and the easier it is to change government. You, at a small community, have a louder voice and more say in what goes on. You have more control. When you go to the federal level you lose that control. Congress has an approval rating of less than 10% but a retention rate of greater than 90%. That is because people like their representative. The AoC failed because it did not give the citizens enough rights to control the government. With the Constitution people have protected rights to control government. You can change your local government as such, and if that does not work you can still move and remain a US citizen. All of our problems stem from the federal government. You can't micromanage issues at the federal level. You have less control of government at the federal level and that is why we have corruption. You can keep pushing for larger government. Just be aware you will continue to have corruption and limited control of that government. Enjoy more and more problems building.
1
Hello I told you what happened. Every other recession in this country except for two took around 5 years or less to recover from. The two that took the longest were the great depression and the one we are in now (we still have not recovered). They are also the only times the federal government tried to "fix" the recession with massive spending. FDR turned a recession into a depression.
1
Hello Uh, I have facts as well. Why did the crash of 1921 take only a year to recover from with no federal government involvement?
1
Yellow Jacket The government did not intervene in the recession of 1921.
1
Yellow Jacket I never said the government was bad. I just said the federal government should not be trying to fix the economy.
1