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

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Secular Talk(ing Smack) #1" video.

So why doesn't Kyle debate any of these people like Crowder and Shapiro?
11
No need to have a fact checker. In a debate if you cite your sources you are fine. Funny you bring up "fact checker". I fact checked Kyle a lot in his debate against Razorfish and I found many times he was factually wrong. If you bring a "fact checker" Kyle would look like a fool. That is why Kyle refuses to debate Shapiro and Steven as he knows he will be destroyed.
7
Care to give examples?
5
Mrbigweeknee, I read the article. One point was about people being in poverty and how Shapiro said that all you need to do was 1. Graduate HS 2. Get a full time job 3. Not have kids until you are married That article tried to reject that idea on the basis that black people can't get jobs. The reality is that is a completely different issue all together. One is that many don't graduate HS (there is a higher dropout rate with black people), another is the min. wage. I read that article and it is not that strong in countering what Shapiro said. This is another example of Kyle not reading an article and thinking critically of it.
3
No one is to the left of Kyle. Kyle says these things are "obvious" because he doesn't want to debate at all. He is scared so he dismisses the discussion all together.
3
Hitler did enforce a lot of socialist ideas. For example, he pushed infrastructure spending with the autobahn system.
3
But yet you can never explain where he is wrong.
3
hmhmhmlol, that is, for the most part, a correct analysis of Shapiro. While I disagree and feel Shapiro is an intellectual (I will give my reason why here later), he does do a great part in revealing wholes on leftists ideas. Both sides can become radical and Shapiro does a great job in showing that leftist ideas, especially radical ones, have many shortcomings. People on the left should listen to him to question their ideas as everyone should question their ideas. It is not to say leftist ideas are completely wrong. It is that their ideas are not ideal, but neither are the rights. And people on both sides need to understand that in order to progress. Shapiro does a great job in revealing holes on leftist ideas. Now I do feel Shapiro is an intellectual. I feel that way because I see him as a guy who is willing to have a rational discussion on the issues. Someone like Kyle doesn't, he just sits behind his desk and calls everyone stupid, or that there is no debate, or uses profanity every third word. Kyle is not in the business of discussing ideas and challenging them. Shapiro is and that leads to progress as it gets people to think. And if presented with information Shapiro seems like a guy who will change his mind. .
2
I love how people rip on Ben Shapiro but can't give examples of how he is wrong. That source Kyle mentions does not even bring up where Ben is wrong. It is pure projection at that point.
2
Zucchinna, someone did Google what Cenk said to Google. Look up the video "Cenk Said to Google It, So I Did" by Matt Christiansen
2
Raptor, coryluke12 is correct. Kyle did nothing but use ad hominem attacks against Shapiro and Crowder. On Shapiro he pointed to an article to try to attack Shapiro but after I read the article I found it to be poorly written and lacking intellectual thought. For example, it pointed to the study where blacks receive 20% longer sentencing. However, that exact same study said it was a correlation and that correlation does not equal causation. In comparison there is close to a 20% gap in graduate rates between blacks and whites. Kyle never addresses anything Shapiro says nor does he come up with intelligent criticisms of him. With Crowder he brought up how Crowder said Hitler was a liberal and just laughed it off. He never gave a counter argument. Just laughing it off and saying it is "stupid" is not an argument. Kyle goes on a rant about climate change and says there is no debate when both Crowder and Shapiro said climate change is happening. The debate is 1. How much is man playing a role 2. Is it even bad 3. Is the government the source to take on this issue That is very debatable, but Kyle just passes it off as if it isn't. Kyle is scared of intelligent conservatives, so he sits behind his desk and just strawmans the entire time. He does not want to debate them, he just wants to point and laugh at them. It is projection at its finest.
2
There was never a scheduled debate, even potholer54 admitted that.
2
Kratos101, I have watched Crowder and if pushed I bet he will admit when he is wrong, or at least does not have all the answers.
2
"he knows he'll lose." I agree. Cenk did it but he has a larger following. Kyle doesn't and in fact is losing views. A debate where he gets destroyed would kill him view wise.
2
It really doesn't "destroy" his reputation. That piece is poorly written. For example, when Shapiro talks how not to be poor the author's counter argument is "of course people who have full-time jobs usually aren’t in poverty, the problem is that black people disproportionately can’t get jobs." That is another issue in itself. One reason why is because they do not graduate high school, or maybe they are a single mother and have the constraint of having kids, those are two points that Shapiro brought up in how not to be poor. That makes the three points connected. Another is simply not doing well in school. Others are government barriers such as the min. wage which Milton Friedman has called the more anti-negro law on the books. Later the author brings up the study of the 20% sentencing for crime between blacks and whites. However, that study says "correlation" and that correlation does not equal causation, as there are many factors that can contribute to that 20% gap that you cannot statistically measure. Factors such as courtroom appearance and attitude.
2
ilovedrummin, I agree. I am all for having an intellectual discussion, and I imagine Shapiro does as well. But you have to present information correctly and fairly. When you cite a study actually know what that study is saying. But the author of that article does not even do that. There is a reason why Shapiro is popular, he is able to sell his side while being attacked at the same time.
2
Kyle can't do that. Kyle's main points are mainly calling someone an idiot, a piece of shit, or laughing at their points. Those are not arguments. He is catering to a very ignorant base which is why he is losing views.
2
Kyle literally lives in a bubble and it is catching up to him. He is losing views.
2
Easy to roast someone when the person cannot defend themselves. How about Kyle debate Shapiro?
2
Shapiro and Crowder both acknowledge it.
2
wv9mm, I will be fair here on net neutrality, I know little about it so I will follow the advice I give others, I will not comment on it beyond what I said. "Yes it is, it's a very large and dangerous knock against her. Let me ask you this, would put a McDonald manager in charge of a warehouse? " To answer you question I would. Being a manager and being a cook at McDonalds are two completely different tasks. One is managing people, setting up as schedule, setting up prices and hours, etc. The cook is simply cooking. You can take management skills used in McDonalds and transfer it to working at a warehouse. " You seem that you don't understand what education is. Education isn't something that is subjective and should be left to the states to decide." I work in public education and studied it. The reality is that the states do decide education. 84% of funding is state and local. State decide on the curriculum and standards. As is not every state uses CCSS and very few uses NGSS. Education is subjective as well. What is a proper education? Learning hard facts? If so, what facts? Or is it learning problem solving skills? Or learning communication skills? And what is the best approach to develop those skills? On top of that public education can be the most important thing offered to society or the worse. It can be great in that it offers people and education who might not receive it. However, it can be terrible as it can be used for indoctrination. There is value in having public education, but you have to control it. You do that by keeping it as local as possible. The more local it is the more the people can see if it is actually working. " If a science class in Alabama is teaching about Creationism, that needs to be stopped." There is a court case on that, look up Dover v Penn and consider a Bush appointed judge ruled on that. That violates the 1st amendment. There are restrictions on government. There is an argument to be made that public education can teach religion or religious like topics as long as they don't make it mandatory and they teach it as opposed to preach it. Teaching religion from a historical, philosophical, and cultural perspective can behoove many students. Maybe it won't. That is subjective. " If a math class in Oregon is teaching that 2+2=5" They will have stupid, unproductive kids. There is the competition aspect as well. If one state refuses to educate their citizens they will fall behind economically. If Oregon decided to do just that their citizens will be stupid and unproductive hurting that state's economy. "She is harming the education sector." How so? " Charter schools are some of the least researched ways to tech kids" It depends. In my state the Charter schools are better than public. Also, DeVos is not forcing states to do anything. She is not forcing states to take on Charter schools. "The school shouldn't spread false information because the parent holds the checkbook. " Parents who send their students to charter and public schools demand more from the schools as they pay for it out of pocket. "They can say it, but when you get down to the specifics, they fall flat on their face. " Not true. Limited government to me is government that we can control. To me that is keeping it as local as possible. There is value in having government, but we have to control it to ensure it remains the servants and not the masters. You want centralized government. But you just went on a rant about Betsy DeVos. Do you want her running all of education and making decisions? When left to the states it doesn't matter if DeVos is in charge, the states still decide. Your state will be fine. In reality, your argument falls flat on its face. You want centralized government but then complain about Betsy DeVos. ""Let's take away the EPA" oh, so coal companies can dump waste into the river," State and local governments have their own EPAs that control pollution. " So Social Studies class tech about how the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery, and how slaves weren't treated that bad? " Again, if a state does not want to educate their citizens that is on them. Their economy can suffer. As for the Civil War, it was fought for both slavery and state rights. Seems like public education did not do you well. "Or, when Liberals decide to actually think "Maybe we need to shrink something, how about the military" Conservatives go on a tangent on how we need to keep spending almost a trillion dollars on it. " Here is a fun fact. In 1940 federal government spending was 14% of GDP, now it is 20% of GDP. In 1960 defense spending was 10% of GDP, now it is 3% of GDP. Federal government spending has been increasing for years while defense spending has been dropping. 2nd grade math shows that. "I think my point has been made" I disagree. You want the federal government to have all this centralized power, so when a person you deem to be corrupt life DeVos gets in power they can abuse it to harm you.
2
Kyle is making an excuse not to be challenged. The idea of debates is to have your ideas challenged and sell your ideas better. If you can't then maybe you should reconsider your position. As for "fact checking", if done on Kyle he would end up looking like a fool.
2
Jiren the gray, how is Ben wrong?
1
KAWAII OBAMA, how is Ben wrong?
1
"Shapiro is an amazing debater. If you really examine his ideas though, many of them are wrong and or crazy." Care to give examples?
1
Another comment thread where people rip on Shapiro with no justification.
1
Nathan Drake, I am being real here. Care to give me the title of that study? Also, I saw a video with Shapiro admitting that we have to wait for more studies to come out. He seem to not take a stance on that issue but simply feel that we needed more studies.
1
Kyle is worse. He is a left wing Alex Jones. Rush at least brings up legit points. Kyle just has insults and conspiracy theories.
1
"He co-founded justice democrats. AKA he put his money where his mouth was." He created a scam like his daddy Cenk did with Wolf-PAC.
1
John Doe, in science we know very little about the universe. I study science for a living and it is amazing how little we know. I have a colleague who is doing studies on the acidity of alcohols, something very simple on the surface but we know very little about. I know many colleagues, one of them being my friend, who are trying to understand the physics of photosynthesis and the issue is very debatable. I was at a talk about that and the professor showed a picture of photosynthesis from a middle school textbook. We learn about photosynthesis in middle school but we do not know the physics behind it. The fact is the science is never settled. In regards to climate change we do not know the degree of which man is playing in it, nor do we know if it is bad or not. The ecosystem can evolve, what makes people think it won't now? The OP is correct, very few on the right actually deny climate change. Crowder admits it is happening. They question if it is bad, and if the government is the source in taking on this issue. As for fossil fuels it is the best we have for now. But we should continue to look at alternative forms of energy, and those on the right support that as well.
1
To add what russell d is saying, if we stop all modern technology and lower our emissions that will harm our society in other fields. Ignore economics and stick with science. The laser system I work with requires constant power and a lot of it. It also requires a temperature controlled room. We need power to run that and that requires fossil fuels. My laser system is actually small and others, such as in Los Alamos, are much larger and require more energy. Transferring to a system to lower emissions that also lowers our energy output and consistency will hinder scientific research in other fields. Fields such as drug creation in medicine, new technology, a deeper understanding of our universe as a whole. Think of it like that. I sympathize with you and leftists as whole on the climate change issue as I feel we should take steps to use cleaner forms of energy. But the reality is I also do not want to hinder scientific research elsewhere. If by drastically moving to a cleaner form of energy hinders science research in finding a new drug to save lives, is that a solution? Something has to give.
1
Jesse Cole, my goal was not to show that socialism was a failure or not. My point was that he pushed a lot of policies that our political left, who are socialist, push now. Policies such as infrastructure spending, centralized government, expansion of government healthcare, and attacking a group of people (in our leftists these days that will be the rich). It isn't completely wrong to call him a socialist.
1
GoodMorningRatchets, I read that article Kyle was referring to entitled "The Cool Kid's Philosopher". It is not exactly the best literature to read to gain intelligence. To point out a couple flaws the author went to mention how Shapiro says that all you have to do to not be in poverty is 1. Graduate high school 2. Get a full time job 3. Not have babies until you are married The author's counter argument is "of course people who have full-time jobs usually aren’t in poverty, the problem is that black people disproportionately can’t get jobs." That misses many points. The three points of Shapiro are connected. If you do not graduate high school, or if you are a single mom with commitment to kids, you will have a harder time getting a job. Also, if you do not do well in high school or have committed crime that will prevent you from getting a job. These are all actions that are done personally. There are also government barriers such as the min. wage where Milton Friedman called that the most anti-negro law on the books. When the in. wage was established black teen unemployment shot up. Later the author brought up the study in how blacks receive 20% longer sentencing for crimes compared to whites. However, that same study said it was a correlation, and that correlation does not equal causation. That same report the author cited which makes me question if they actually read it. It was mentioned on page 32 of the report and Endnote 60. There are other factors you cannot measure that can contribute to that 20% gap. Factors such as courtroom appearance and attitude. In comparison, there is close to a 20% gap in high school graduation rate between blacks and whites as well, does that mean high schools are racist and refuse to hand out diplomas to blacks? Or maybe that is because of their attitude. Come on, you have to do better than that. That author makes it too easy.
1
"a single person makes less than a couple because one person is less than two people. " I agree, however, many mothers, and now recently fathers, don't work if their spouse has a job. "1 woman makes $0.75 on the make dollar." That is an earnings gap that has been debunked many times.
1
" I'm positive he compared singles to singles (apples to apples) and couples to couples (oranges to oranges). and upon doing so, he found that whites earn more" And Asians earn more, so what's your point? That is not racism to point out facts. Now I do not know the exact situation you are pointing at so I do no know if Shapiro actually said what you claim he said. However, the point is that if there is white privilege then a single white mother would not be facing the same hardships as other single parents. And that black parents who are couples would be facing hardships worse then single white mothers, as society will be racist and discriminate against them. However, society doesn't. That black couple got married, graduated high school, got jobs and then had kids. They are not in poverty. That single mother didn't and thus is in poverty. He is showing the system is not racist.
1
GoodMorningRatchets, you are going to have to do better than that.
1
" studies show that a person with a black sounding name is significantly less likely to get a job than an applicant with a white skidding name despite identical or comparable qualifications. " Just like how an individual who was Indian used his middle name as it sounded more black and registered as a black guy to get into med school.
1
"blacks are 20% more likely to have an attitude on court?" Could be, I can't say for sure. But again, the gap in high school graduation rates between blacks and whites is close to 20%. " I knew u would deny wage disparity lol. " Because it is a myth. Men are more likely to take on higher paying jobs then women. Go to any engineering classroom and count the number of men compared to women. Engineers make more, more men pursue engineering where women pursue elementary education.
1
". 2/3rds of Asian Americans are foreign born. and the mass Asian migration to America began in the mid 1800s during the gold rush." Asians were used as low wage workers to build the railway system here in the states.
1
"they say because Obama is our President, the racism is over now." No, I want you to point at specific cases of the the government and law was racist. Shapiro says the same thing as well. You have to point out the racists. To just cry racism all the time is crying wolf to where no one will believe you. Point to me specific examples of actual racism and we can take it on together.
1
Sanjeev Dahal, if you are referring to me and the med school example, that individual had low qualifications and still got in. His name is Vijay Chokal-Ingam.
1
" I am saying people are racists" I agree, now which ones are in power? And how are they racist? "White privilege is a thing because people are racist. " Again, show me examples. "And when you perpetually connect black folks to being lazy," There are higher rates of gang activity with blacks. Lower rates of high school graduate. Higher rates of single mothers. Higher rates of crime. Those are things that are self inflicted where racism has nothing to do with it. "That's why your black sounding names don't get the same respect even if the qualifications are same. " There is more to hiring someone besides qualifications. Letters of rec., interview, statement of purpose, etc.
1
Then do it. Give examples.
1
"Chomsky is the Yoda of politics" 100% not true. Chomsky did not even study politics, he studied linguistics. A major flaw with Chomsky is that he hardly interacts with the common man which hurts his politics a lot. Shapiro does in his debates with students and professors and even at high schools. Chomsky lives in his own little world behind his books and has little understanding of the real world. He is a prime example of how you can sound brilliant but be clueless at the same time. If I want to study linguistics I will read Chomsky's work. If I want to study politics I will avoid his work and seek other experts. If I want to study economics I will not mention Chomsky at all as he never studied economics.
1
Crowder never denied AIDS. He just said there wasn't and epidemic which is true.
1
Ben Shapiro never said money in politics is a good idea. He is that as long as there is no quid pro quo there is nothing illegal about it. There are many ways to support politicians. On is to rally for them, another is to donate money, another is to donate time, another is to dedicate an entire Youtube channel to a candidate.
1
Red Hood, again, there has to be quid pro quo. If you can prove that then it is illegal. Besides that all corporations are doing is supporting a candidate and they are using money to do it. No different then when Cenk dedicated the entire TYT channel to Bernie. A corporation gives money to a politician and that politician uses to advertise on TV is no different then TYT giving Bernie Sanders free advertising.
1
Taxation is not bad. The issue is that people have to see if they are getting their money's worth. That is best done by keeping government and government spending as local as possible.
1
FDR: Makes no sense. What is fear? JFK: That's it, bow down to your country. DJT: He said a lot more than that.
1
Nathan Drake, if you are going to criticize Crowder with objective facts that is fine, but you have to do the same with Kyle. I can point out many times Kyle was flat out wrong.
1
"He answers your question in the video..." He didn't. He just said "shit" and "stupid" half the time.
1
Lakers Fan, care to give examples of how Shapiro straw mans?
1
Internet Tuff Guy, that is the point. Kyle is acting all tough behind his desk in his bubble. But in reality he is the wimp. What I find to be funny is how Kyle rips on Crowder but Crowder gets more views and actually gets guests on his show. He had Ted Cruz on recently. Kyle is a nobody at this point and is simply projecting.
1
It isn't that. Kyle has no criticisms of Shapiro. He pointed to a poorly written article in an attempt to criticize him. It is pathetic at that point on Kyle's part.
1
The furniture tweet was correct. If you actually listened to what Shapiro said he is saying healthcare, like furniture, is a commodity in that someone has to provide it. Some furniture is rare and harder to produce making it more expensive. Just like some forms of healthcare are rare and harder to do making it more expensive. He isn't arguing for or against government ran healthcare at that point. He is saying healthcare is a commodity and we need to treat it as such. You can still support government ran healthcare, you just have to realize some facts regarding healthcare. One is that it is a commodity. If you don't understand that then you should not be discussing healthcare.
1
The Paladin, it seems like you are the one who is myopic and refuses to challenge yourself. You are no better than Kyle at that point.
1
"This is a guy who pushed a 50 year old man to the ground and then tried to film his reaction and file assault charges for defending himself and then challenged the old man to an MMA competition." He never pushed anyone and there is film to show that. " And Ben is just a loudmouth who actually does happen to have bad ideas, he said Bernie fans wanted free BMW's, " Shapiro is not wrong. Bernie's fans want great things without doing any work.
1
How about Kyle debates him? At this point Kyle just wants Shapiro to mention Kyle in his show which he won't do. Kyle is a puss.
1
Sayed Waly, I read the article and the article is written by a fool. To give an example, at one point it pointed out how blacks receive 20% longer sentencing then whites. However, that study said there was a correlation and said correlation does not equal causation (page 32 of the study and Endnote 60). So either that author is lying or did not read the actual study. There are factors you cannot measure such as attitude that plays a role. In comparison there is close to a 20% gap in high school graduation rates as well. That article is a poor attempt to try to debunk and criticize Shapiro.
1
" Even if Kyle would lose a debate, remember a debate is not the best source of intellectual discussion. It is the worst way to engage in an intellectually honest discussion." Debates are the best way to have an intellectual discussion. Even if the debaters don't do it it allows the audience to see both sides if they want to and look deeper if they so desire. It comes down to if your side loses maybe your ideas are not the best. It seems like you are another person who rips on Shapiro but cannot give any examples of how he is wrong.
1
"Listening to the full clip again. She's a fucking baby." She was emotional, but she was willing to defend herself which is more than I can say about most people in academics. She refused to go to a safe space and just confirm to what the university said. The only thing those administrators did well was be patient with her.
1
Happiness is subjective. Anyone who says "country X is the happiness" I immediately dismiss their argument. Many people are "happy" in N. Korea as well. So much so they are willing to shoot one of their own kind while they take a day trip to S. Korea.
1
"And in actuality some of the poorest nations on earth are happier than the US. Turns out, wealth doesn't buy you happiness!! " Turns out happiness is subjective.
1
Jakob, I am not saying Nordic countries are not happy, but you can't say they are "happier" than the US. They live in a different culture than us. It is something you can't rank and a poor comparison.
1
Norway does not have to be subsidized. It is a small country (smaller than most of our states) with a lot of oil. It is a poor country to compare the US to. If Norway had 320+ million people and half of the country was resistant in drilling for oil Norway will be singing a different tune.
1
"How is norway poor compared to the US?" Never said it was poor. I said " It is a poor country to compare the US to." In other words, you can't compare the US to Norway very well due to the numerous differences between each country. Maybe I should have said " It is a BAD country to compare the US to."
1
tribal que, can you read? I never said Norway was poor. I simply said you can't compare Norway to the US.
1
tribal que, again, I will go slow I Never Said Norway Was Poor
1
"why cant u compare norway and us" 5 million vs 320+ million Different histories Different cultures Different economies Different levels of diversity The variables are too great. Just because they are countries does not mean you can do a direct side by side comparison. Pine View School in FL is a high school. Frankford High School is a high school in PA. They are both high schools. Can you compare them directly? On your standard you will say yes. But in reality you can't as Pine View is a gifted and talented program with limited enrollment and a selection process. Frankford is a public school in Philadelphia and most likely in a poor neighborhood (can't tell for sure, but based on low test scores it is). So you can't compare them as the differences are too great. Just because they are high schools does not mean they are comparable. Same with countries. Just because Norway and the US are countries does not mean they are comparable. As I said earlier, if Norway had 320+ million people and a large portion of their population rallied against the extraction of oil on their land Norway will be singing a different tune.
1
HOBO RAIDERS, care to give examples?
1
Hey, look, another comment thread where people rip on Ben Shapiro but never give examples of where he is wrong.
1
Liptonicetea, there are two reasons why 1. On principle it gives both sides of the argument. You have an issue and both sides state their case so the viewers can see both sides 2. If you feel your sides is better you can sell your side as such and gain supporters.
1
"where fact check did you use, breibart?" Nope, peer reviewed reports. At the beginning Kyle and Razorfist were discussing healthcare and Razorfist brought up the point in how resources are scarce and that no country covers everyone and thus have long waiting times. Kyle countered by saying other countries ration based on need and that no one dies in other countries because of scarcity of healthcare where in the US 45,000 die a year. Now besides the point that 45,000 was countered by another Harvard professor, I found two studies with little amount of searching showing that people have died in Canada (a country that Kyle pointed to) waiting for "elective" heart surgery. Read the report "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol That immediately shows that Kyle is wrong. On top of that Kyle has said many times there is not argument in healthcare that single payer is better when there are reports showing there are shortcomings. So there is an argument. Also, if I did use Breibart you have to show where they are wrong. Just because it comes from Breibart does not mean it is automatically wrong.
1
"what facts let us know" I just did. Here is the link to one of the papers https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560551/
1
shurednichso, Shapiro's point is this, people donate money to politics in support of them. Unless there is quid pro quo then it is not illegal. It is just a way to support a candidate. It is not different then someone posting a bumper sticker on their car, going door to door campaigning, or dedicating an entire Youtube channel to them. There are multiple ways to show support to a candidate, money is one of them. If you remove money from politics those who support those politicians will instead give money to people to campaign for those politicians, or to companies to create more bumper stickers and yard signs. You will never remove money from politics at that point, they will just give it in a different way.
1
" then how do other countries manage it?" Much smaller populations. The more local government is the easier it is to control. Those countries are no larger then most of our states.
1
" It is not a coincidence that Ajit Pai who is trying to get rid of net neutrality was originally involved in verizon and it is also not a coincidence that betsy devos who donated the most to the RNC now has a cabinet seat despite knowing nothing about education. " Other internet companies like Google and Facebook support net neutrality and it has been shown that Facebook does have a left wing bias. What is worse, giving politicians money or having the largest social media site be bias in reporting news like Facebook did? As for DeVos, she was hired to be a manager. Saying she knows little about education is not a knock against here. She is hired to manage our education system and work with governors and local officials to progress our education system. 84% of funding for education is state and local. She is there to give advice and ideas if they want it. You don't need experience in education for that, especially considering funds will be used. Same in if someone becomes the CEO of a fast food restaurant, does it matter if they never worked there? "to link what Americans want in policy and what is implemented by congress and found... No correllation, but great correlation with thier donars." Which I agree is an issue. This is why I support a limited federal government and more local government. To me money in politics is not the issue. The issue is a federal government with too much power. If the federal government has limited power then it has nothing to sell. At the local level you control that government more as you can literally look outside your window and see if it is working for you. There is a desire to have government, but you have to control it. You do it by keeping it as local as possible. I find it ironic how leftists complain about money in politics but then turn around and want that same federal government to run their healthcare.
1
Christopher Davis, Kyle just listed things Trump was doing that Kyle disagreed with. That is not a counter argument in why Trump is a bad president. A counter argument is listing something, and then explaining why it is a bad policy. If I were to say Obama was a bad president and say "because he supports more gun laws", that is not an argument, it is just something I disagree with policy why. Now if I were to get into details on how the new gun laws he imposes won't solve any problems and so on, then that is an argument. Kyle, in debating Razorfist, was wrong in so many ways, especially healthcare. Razorfist was an easy target. I hardly knew who he was prior to that debate and from what I read he does video game reviews, not political analysis for a living. Shapiro does for a living, and would be a harder challenge for Kyle.
1
"Yet we still spend almost a trillion dollars in military spending." What? We spend around $600 billion. "I don't think that percentages show the reality of that spending. " It does. The government the political left wants is being established and has been for decades. That is a larger federal government with more social welfare programs, higher taxes on the rich, and cutting defense spending. "We are involved on almost every continent, we spend the most, more than any other nation." You have to be involved with other nations to keep contacts. And we have the largest GDP in the world, of course we spend more than other nations. You know what else we spend more on? Education. "You fail to see the inefficiency of having local governments control." Actually local governments are far more efficient as they serve the people more. I personally met our mayor of our city. I know who works in our schools. I have never met the president or cabinet members. " You fail to see how having multiple people like DeVos could do a considerable amount of harm than just having one" You have just one they screw everyone over. With multiple it is isolated in those areas, and in other areas they have people you agree with in control. So many people will be fine in your eyes. It is all or nothing for you. You want to put all of your eggs in one basket.
1
"Then don't talk about it, that does more harm than good. " I can admit when I do not now something. I am man enough to do that. "Being a manager at a McDonald's cannot equate to being a manager of a warehouse. Both have different products, different kinds of workers, different rules " They can equate as in the end you are managing workers. Some of the most successful CEOs are engineers. They studied engineering but now manage businesses. Why is that so? Because engineers have problems solving skills. Jeff Bezos was an engineer and now runs Amazon. He hardly worked in business, but he had the intelligence and skills to create one. That is what it takes, having the ability to learn. Many managers in one place go on to manage a completely different company. It is also similar to why many college graduates get a career outside of their field of study. Having a college education typically means you can learn depending on the situation. "That's actually why a lot of businesses fail, because people do not understand what they're doing. And that's what is happening with DeVos." Businesses fail for many reasons. As for DeVos, how is she failing? "No matter how you put it, facts aren't subjective. If a state is teaching the wrong facts, they should be stopped." They will on the idea that they are not educating their citizens. They will have ignorant students who cannot get into college and cannot be productive to grow the local economy. Parents will not send their kids to those schools driving down the property value of those homes ruining the local economy. The reality is this, states do not have to establish an education system, period. However, all 50 states do. " In turn, that could affect other states as well, such as interstate commerce. " No it won't as companies in other states won't hire people from that particular state. There is an incentive for states to educate their citizens, it is competition between states. Your fear mongering prediction will not happen because guess what, states have the choice of setting up a public education system and all 50 states do it. States set up their own curriculum and they all teach facts. "Sorry, competition is not a good enough solution. We cannot let that particular state create stupid kids. Because that's unfair to the kids, their lives are being destroyed because of one state's failure. " And that state will fail, and people will move out of it. You want to centralized the problem. Sure, you centralized education and the federal government forces schools to teach 2+2=5. Now what? It is a nation wide problem now. My idea localizes it. Sure one state or one local government may refuse to teach their kids, but it is isolated and that area will suffer as opposed to an entire country. "She's destroying all regulations put in place to protect kids." Actually she is not. She is establishing free choice of schools. Again, at the core all 50 states can run their education system as they please already. So nothing is changing from that perspective. "But what about other states? " Not my concern. I don't live there, I don't vote there, I don't pay taxes there. In my state Charter schools are great. It is working well in my state. Just because other states are failing does not mean I should be punished and have to regress to their level. You are asking about other states, why should a successful state be punished? Why should a successful state be dragged down? "I knew you would bring this up, that's why I specifically SCIENCE class. Religion, whether you like it or not, is not a science." I know, I have a science degree. I am a doctorate student in physical chemistry. I agree 100% religion should not be taught in a science class, just like calculus should not be taught in a French class. So what is your problem? " And let's for the sake of argument say "States cannot teach religion" I say the federal government comes in and stops it, you say no, that's too much power to the federal government." The constitution stops it where the Constitution limits government. The Constitution is there to limit government so it supports my ideas. "Parents do not have the right to force a schooling institution to teach 2+2=5." They do, they are tax payers. We pay the government to serve us. "Okay, but imagine for a moment, having not just one DeVos, but fifty or even thousands of them. " Ok, now say we have only 10 DeVos in 10 states, you still have 40 states without someone else, many of whom you may agree with. So many states will be fine and 10 states will suffer in your eyes. Your solution is to centralize the issue to where one person can ruin it all. My solution is that it takes many to ruin it. And if there are that many, as in 50 or even thousands of them in charge, maybe in the end that is what the people want. "And, how does that defeat my argument? Again, what happens if at least ten of those EPAs say that dumping toxic wasting into the water sources is okay? What happens if people start to get sick from it," I am isolating the situation. Look at the Flint water situation for an example. Say we had a centralized water source. Everyone in the US will be sick from bad water. But as is only Flint is suffering. While bad, it is isolated. " Also, my education was fine, because let me ask you this, a state's right to do what, exactly? That's right, to own slaves. " State rights to be free from the federal government's command. As is the federal government is there to serve the states, much like the states are there to serve the people, not control us. The federal government was, arguably, over stepping its authority in trying to ban slavery. There was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the federal government to do that. Just like there is nothing in the Constitution about education. That is why all 50 states run their own education system. " Sorry bud, but you may need to brush up on your history," I beg to differ, it seems like you are the one who lacks knowledge in history. Yes, the Civil War was about slavery, but it was also about state rights. The federal government was over reaching as it had not Constitutional authority to ban slavery at the time. People like freedom. It is why the Revolutionary War was fought even though the Colonists were paying less taxes than the British were. People like to be able to control their government and that happens the more local it is which is why state rights is a thing. You should look into that topic more.
1
Youtube Comment, according to Brown University it cost $1.1 trillion over 7 years. "Also, what about the trillion dollar black budget that goes unaccounted for and swept under the carpet." Seems like the federal government cannot manage funds well, why do you want to expand it? " It appears to me that you haven't recognized the inherent corruption within the system nor the driving factors." I agree, the system is corrupt. Why do you want to give it more power?
1
Youtube Comment, what is 4.4 trillion divided by 14? Or keep it easy, 4.4 trillion divided by 10? 440,000,000,000. What is the defense budget? Around $600 billion. $4.4 trillion sounds like a lot, but over 14 years it isn't. And consider what our overall GDP is. I do not deny the numbers, I just look at them in the proper perspective. If you want to be intellectually honest you have to present numbers in the proper perspective as opposed to just throwing them out there. Our combine GDP from 2003 to 2016 was $213 trillion. That $4.4 trillion is around 2% of our GDP during that time. Number doesn't seem so big now.
1
"Now kindly fuck off with your pro corporatist talking points." I find that rude remark to be ironic considering how you were the one with talking points.
1
"Also, what makes economists better at handling monetary and tax issues compared to mathematicians? " There is more to economics then just math, there is a psychological component as well. For example, it may seem like investing money in strippers is a poor investment. But subjectively it isn't for some. If you leave economics purely to numbers that leads to communism.
1
"So where are the statistics on how raising the minimum wage leads to more unemployment and inflation?" Read material by Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell. From there trace the literature to other sources. When the min. wage was first introduced it led to higher unemployment with black teens as they are usually the lowest skilled workers in society (which is another issue in itself). As for inflation, not everything inflates. Some goods and services do, others don't. For example, a brick cell phone cost around $4000 in the late 80s. You smart phone has more computing power than what put a man on the moon and cost way less than a brick phone did in the 80s. The same is with labor. The Blockbuster employee is now worth $0. You can't just make a blanket assumption that when inflation goes up so should the min. wage. The economy is more complex than that.
1
In the US liberals are leftists. Our leftists have a lot of ideas similar to Hitler. Expansion of a centralized government, government programs such as healthcare and infrastructure spending, and attacking a group of people blaming them for our problems. In the left's case it is the rich were Hitler blamed the Jews. There are many parallels.
1
Allan, how? You have to give a reasoning for your opinion.
1
"You basically called most Europeans literally Hitler. Good job." I didn't. I said they had similar ideas. In comparison, I support freedom of speech. So does Westboro Baptist Church. Does that mean I support the WBC or am a part of it? No. I always feel the Hitler comparison is asinine on both sides as Hitler did lead a genocide and I feel neither side wants that. But the left call many on the right Hitler. So if you want to make that comparison many of his political and economic ideas do align with leftists in the US.
1