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

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "THROWBACK: Chomsky On Bernie Sanders" video.

@Kloutkulture , glad to make someone laugh.
2
Bernie is a radical anywhere.
2
@Therapistinthewhitehouse , uh, when you understand what wealth is then you will realize that wealth inequality is not a bad thing.
2
@gaston6800 , I know. I like how the left contradicts themselves constantly. They support consensus when it comes to climate change, but not when it comes to economics.
2
@Therapistinthewhitehouse , wealth are assets. The reason why the top has so much wealth is because most are major shareholders of their company. The shares are valued so high because they own so many shares. It shows that they are willing to stand by their company. If they did not own so many shares people will see that as a red flag and not invest causing the value of the shares to drop. It is a little game they play and it works. Think about it, if you want to invest in Amazon and Bezos did not own a single share of it, would you be willing to take the risk? Bezos owns nearly 60 million shares of Amazon because he trusts his company. That trust brings in investors. But think about what shares are. Are they food, clothes, oil, or even M1 money? No. Next, beyond owning a home the average person has little wealth. The average home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. The average homeowner has 30 times more wealth then a renter. Going farther, someone with no debt and only $10 to their name has more wealth then 25% of the nation. Why? Because a lot of people, like me, have negative wealth due to major loans like a home or college loan. That is arguably a good thing as it shows investors are willing to take risks and give money to people on a loan knowing the chances are high they will pay it back. It allows people to pull out loans to make big purchases so they can be better off. How many people would be able to afford a home if they could not get a loan? You consider all of that you realize that wealth inequality is not necessarily bad but arguably a good thing.
2
@Therapistinthewhitehouse , Sweden has a large wealth gap as well. Also, what did I say that was wrong about wealth inequality? Again, Bezos is wealthy because he owns the most shares of his company. Him owning those shares gives them a lot of value. As for the Scandinavian approach, so you support more of a flat tax, lower corporate taxes, a high VAT tax, and no minimum wage? As for "free education", you will be making education worth less. My loan was my choice and I am pursuing degrees that are actually worth something. It was an investment I was willing to make.
2
@d0wnl0ad , wealth inequality does not always raise the cost of living and cause poverty. When Jeff Bezos became wealth off of Amazon he actually made people better off. Because of him shopping is much easier. Instead of me having to drive around wasting time and gas looking for something that might exist, I can just look online. One can easily argue that wealth inequality is a sign of a healthy economy. Case in point, more lenders are willing to lend feeling that they will get their money back. Thus more people can buy homes or cars.
2
@gaston6800 , Kyle was pressed on that by Kirk in their debate and Kyle just deflected. In a debate against Cruz a guy from Denmark pushed Bernie saying that he wants to spend like a Scandinavian but not tax like one. Bernie then went on a rant that everyone will be receiving free things. Since then he just went on ranting about the rich. I will have a lot more respect for Bernie and his fans if they were honest. The highest tax bracket in Denmark is around $55,000. In the US it is around $400,000. They tax their citizens more. That is how those programs are able to function because the community buys in to it. If you just tax billionaires they will play the system to avoid taxes. And good luck convincing our society in paying high taxes. That is why their programs will fail and they are so dangerous. They are only giving you part of the story. They want M4A and tuition free college pointing to successes in Nordic nations. But leave out how those programs are actually funded and ran.
2
@Kloutkulture , Bernie is a far leftists in that he is pushing for radical changes on deception and misinformation. I just gave the example of climate change and the example of pointing to Scandinavia but ignore other factors such as their tax system. Anyone pushing for such radical changes with that much deception is a radical.
2
@d0wnl0ad , just because someone got wealthy does not mean others got poor. In fact, in a free market economy the only way someone can become wealthy is by providing goods and services people want. Bezos became rich by offering a more convenient way for people to shop bettering their lives. Read the report "Reducing poverty, not inequality" By MARTIN FELDSTEIN Also, while some evidence exist that inequality can cause problems, it is not clear how to measure inequality. Read the paper entitled "Measuring inequality" In the Oxford Review of Economic Inequality They say essentially what I am saying when talking about wealth "There are a number of challenges, however, in using wealth to study inequality. First, it is illiquid, so it may not give a clear reflection of one’s immediate access to resources. Second, the easily measurable components of wealth—like financial wealth—are incomplete. Take, for example, a student. In many cases their student debt will outweigh their other financial assets, and so they will have negative financial wealth. However, we would not typically say that they are in a worse position than never having studied at all. The reason is because the student has taken on debt to accumulate human capital, which is valuable as a means to increase lifetime earnings but not typically counted as wealth. Policies designed to reduce wealth inequality could therefore have many undesirable consequences, not least redistributing away from people with zero assets towards those with negative assets." As I said, a man with no debt and $10 to their name has more wealth than 25% of the nation. So by your standard that man with only $10 should have their wealth taken from them and given to me who has negative wealth. But who is better off? Me with my college loan or the man with nothing else but $10? As for illiquid, it is what I am talking about with shares. They are not liquidated and if someone like Bezos were to dump all of their shares it will send a red flag to investors where they will not be willing to buy and thus the value will drop. So when you say "wealth inequality" you are over simplifying a complex issue. As for climate change read the paper entitled "Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous" in Nature Climate Change.
2
@ugeofaltron5003 , no. By European standards Bernie is a radical. Again, Bernie wants to completely destroy and replace the current system we have in place. That is a radical anywhere. Also, when you consider the Scandinavian model Bernie wants to spend like a Scandinavian but not tax like one. He wants the spend like they do but tax like we have in America. He actually does not want to copy their model at all. Bernie does not acknowledge both sides. Look at how he treated that hair salon owner from Texas during his debate against Cruz. He had no desire to understand what a business like her goes through. He has no desire to understand the other side. Thus he is a radical. When pushed beyond his talking points Bernie becomes very perturbed and just yells more talking points. Here, I will push you. On tuition free college how do you handle the NCAA? A very simple point. Go.
2
charmander , they will blame the media or billionaires. The reality is that Bernie is not popular. Moderates are scared of his radical ideas, no one on the right wants him, and many elderly democrats remember the Clinton years and thus want a more moderate candidate in Biden, not a radical. Consider how Kyle has never seen farmland. That is how out of touch he is with actual people in the US.
2
Chomsky is a great example of a guy who sounds intelligent but really isn't. I give credit where credit is due, he was important in his field. However, when he gives opinions outside of his field he is completely wrong. He is wrong here on Bernie.
1
Eh, not really. He was big in his field, but his field taught him how to speak and write well. But when you look at content he is constantly wrong. Here is a guy who complains about the awful things the federal government does, but he supports a candidate that wants to give it more power. That is a contradiction.
1
@MachonyLeeoun , ok, I will give this example. Bernie is going to lose. If he is sop popular what will be your excuse when he loses? The reality is this, Bernie attracts a very small crowd. Moderates question his policies and how radical they are. No one on the right wants him. Moderate democrats remember the Clinton years and thus want a moderate candidate in Biden. The only crowd Bernie attracts are young radicals. Chomsky is wrong on Bernie's popularity.
1
@MachonyLeeoun , earning a PhD. These comments don't take long.
1
@MachonyLeeoun , uh, a lot of people get their PhD in their 40s. It is more common then you think. Plus, I am not 40. That 78 represents a different number.
1
@MachonyLeeoun , nailed what?
1
@MachonyLeeoun , I don't consider myself old. I am in my lower 30s and a year away from getting my PhD.
1
He really doesn't know what he is talking about. Just because you sound smart does not mean one is.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , never said he was an idiot, just saying he is wrong. Look at this contradiction. This is a man who complains about the awful things the federal government does, but yet he is praising a politician that wants to give that same federal government more power.
1
@evan2173 , sure, but look at content. Chomsky is constantly wrong.
1
@evan2173 , Chomsky said Bernie is popular. If so why isn't he running away with the election in the polls? While I always have doubt in polling data there should be at least some indication of him have the most supporters.
1
@evan2173 , sure, he may not want that. But consider how the pendulum swings back and forth. Say Bernie wins and then has it so the federal government controls your healthcare and college education and jobs. Now say 10 years later republicans take over. Now what? You gave the group that Chomsky claimed is the most dangerous group in history (which is a very foolish statement consider we had groups like the Nazis) power over those things. Now what? Other examples, Chomksy called corporations oppressive and coercive. No matter how much you have corporations none of them have ever held a gun to someone's head forcing them to do things. He praised Venezuela's policies before they destroyed that nation. He points to opinion polls as facts when polls are unreliable.
1
@pseudonayme7717 , how is it false?
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , I don't cry. I just realize how many people are out there that are not the sharpest tools in the shed. It means when I look for a job I will have no problem getting one. I can see why that out of every graduate school I applied to I was accepted to except for one, John Hopkins. The competition is low.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , this actually another reason why I come here. I try to reach out to far leftists, and give them resources to for counter viewpoints, and I just get mocked. If this is how they act then I know that when I apply for jobs my competition will be very weak. Makes me feel good.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 how do I have a heads i win tails you lose mindset? I feel you are losing it
1
Cthulhu In the deep how?
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , here is the issue. Take our discussion of wage stagnation. I gave reports from experts in the field and even admitted there are arguments that support wage stagnation. I said that even though I feel there is no wage stagnation as most of the data suggest there isn't that wages can go up even more. After I did all of that you just deflected. You gave zero sources to support your claims. You just deflected in calling me a troll. How is that productive? And how does that counter anything I say? Be honest here. How can you say that I am in the wrong when I am the one that 1. Provides sources to support my claim 2. Am willing to admit that people on the left do have legit arguments and should be taken into consideration 3. People like you provide nothing and just deflect Be honest at this point.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , how am I losing? Right now the candidate I support, Trump, is president. Bernie, the candidate people here support, is losing. In my personal life I have a job, a strong education and am in line to get a higher paying job when I graduate. I come here to try to challenge and push people but end up getting mock. I guess keeping doing the same thing and keep supporting losing candidates.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , I said there are arguments on both sides. The problem with the far left is that they have become a religion. When you bring up opposing viewpoints they just ridicule. That is what you are doing. When I challenge you all you do is deflect and ridicule. I literally post sources from experts. I find it funny how you guys have a religious like mindset now here. I come to challenge and you can't even defend your stance, so you just mock. It really shows how weak your ideas are. This is why Bernie has no chance of winning. His supporters can't defend his ideas when challenged.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , answer me this. Why don't you like being challenged?
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , Bernie is losing. His platforms get brought up to be challenged. And when challenged they do what you do, throw arms in the air and deflect. How about you convince me how Bernie's policies are the best. I say I am winning because I actually give out detailed explanation of the issues with support where you just deflect. Tell me, how do you expect to convince anyone with your style?
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , I beaten you so much to submission that your only response now is to create a troll account and mock me. How about you convince me that your ideas are great. I challenge you on that. I have changed my mind in the past on issues. I used to be against any form of government healthcare. After discussions with people and doing the research I see the advantages of it and do support some form of government healthcare as long as it is ran locally. That is an example of me changing my thoughts. But when you just mock me you are never going to convince moderates like me of anything. To win elections you have to convince moderates. The far left approach will never convince moderates because when pushed they have no arguments. Look at how Kyle acted in the debate against Kirk. When pushed he just cursed and walk away. He had not details on the ideas he support.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , be honest. If you showed someone on the fence of the issues the Kirk vs Kyle debate who do you think was more convincing? Reality is that Kirk was as he as calm and got into details in his arguments. Kyle just cursed, mock, threw insults and had no argument. Again, if you want to convince moderates you have to create a strong argument. I am actually trying to help you by challenging you so you can have stronger arguments.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , they are being challenged because the far left is doubling down on them. There are two candidates who are pushing them in Warren and Bernie. They pushed the Justice Democrats where you have AOC as one of the main faces of the democrats. When they lose they doubled down. The issue is that the far left does not understand why Trump won and far leftists lose. AOC pushed for a far leftist in KS and he lost. Their excuses are simply because of corruption as opposed to many people, for good reasons, are skeptical or oppose their ideas. If Bernie's policies are so popular why aren't more Bernie like candidates winning?
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , it is a figure of speech bud. What memes do I post? And when was I ever a hypocrite?
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , they are a negligible fringe group. If Warren or Bernie ran against Trump they will be destroyed. That is why so many support Biden. He can attract moderates and there are many moderate dems, especially older ones who still remember the Clinton years. Also, how many justice democrats, or "progressives" are in actual office? Very few. But they are a vocal minority.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , so listening to experts is appealing to authority? And how have I used Molyneux's meme?
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , they are a very vocal group though and they make the left look bad. There are democrats I am willing to support. I liked Delaney and I liked Hickenlooper, and if the media and democrats were to rally behind them in an intelligent way I will vote for them over Trump. But the far left basically shouted them down silencing them and pushing them away. That is a problem. They are pushed, by the far left, as "corporate dems" or establishment dems or republican lite. That is a problem. When the far left just dismisses people and shouts them down you create divide in your party and the nation.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , as for experts not appearing on the news opposing Bernie, many have. Besides, watch the Youtube video entitled "The Youtube Cargo Cult' by Stephen Michael Davis. He lays out the market in the media. He points out how there are videos by experts who have hour long videos on Youtube who go into great details on the issues. You also have cat videos and top ten videos. Which are more popular? The views speak for themselves. People don't want to watch long videos of experts lecturing on complex issues. They don't want to read up on them either. They want short, talking points and click bait titles. If an expert were to go on media and break down how Bernie is deceptive no one will watch it and views will go down. Less views means less revenue. If you see the stuff I post they are long comments and I point to experts in papers that go into details. Who actually reads those? Same with books. I point to books by experts. Who read those? They rather listen to some talking head like Kyle, or Kirk, or Cenk, or Carlson, etc. give talking points. It occurs on both sides. The problem with the far left is that they are pushing radical ideas and dismiss their opponents completely. And when pushed they can't go farther. That turns away moderates.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , and yes, while experts can be wrong, the are mostly correct. And I am also not saying to completely trust experts. You should be skeptical. But as of right now I am the only one here that is pushing the most sources by them.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , they do have a lot of supporters, but again they are pushed away by the far left crowd. Hickenlooper is an actual governor. HRC was a radical as well. She married her way into politics, she didn't actually earn it. Another major problem with the current candidates leading the way in the presidential election is they have only been congress members with the exception of Biden. They were never in a position of leadership thus they don't understand how actual policy effects people. Hickenlooper does which is why he made the comment Bernie wants to throw out a plan and force others to pick up the pieces. Bernie has no experience, neither does Warren. The political left is running these candidates with no experience. They did with Obama, they did with HRC, now they are with Warren and Bernie. You should look for governors like Bill Clinton was. From there you learn how to work with Congress and how policy effects society.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , people don't want long winded details. However, when the sound bites by the far left is pushing for radical ideas it becomes a problem. No different then if someone on the right pushes to completely eliminate Medicare. That is a radical approach and will drive people away unless you come up with a detail planned.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , read all sources and even support them.
1
Cthulhu In the deep , I support Trump because of the TDS that is occurring. They are making up accusations, the media is flipping out. Far leftists are flipping out. Meanwhile, the economy is doing much better under him.
1
Cthulhu In the deep , I know they are polling low which is a problem. The democratic party is divided and doubling down on how radical they are. It is a problem. If you want to attract moderates you need people like Hickenlooper.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , they made them disappear by several ways. One, they simply silenced them by shouting over them essentially. Two, there are so many candidates in the field that will spread out the support. Three, they were not as well known at the time compared to other candidates. So there is all of that. Bernie was a mayor of a very small "city". Not comparable to being a governor of a fairly large state. And as for taking people to Canada, big deal. HRC wanted everything to stay the same? How so? And she married her way into her position. If not radical it makes her unqualified. I do support those two. If Trump ran against Bernie it will be one of the biggest beat downs in election history. Bernie will win, at best, 10 states. Reality is moderates don't want him, even more so with the success of Trump. Listen to Bernie. Notice how he never attacks Trump's policies and just calls him a bigot? How will he react to questions in how the economy is doing better and Bernie wants to change the economy? He won't be able to.
1
Cthulhu In the deep , funny how I am the one who brings in facts. Also, if i said I did not support Trump it was in reference going into the election. I didn't. I do know for two reasons 1. The economy is much better under him 2. Watching the media and far leftists freak out is funny I mean, look at the Jussie Smollet situation. The TDS is so high that they immediately believed him, including Bernie. Now who looks like the fools? They hate Trump so much they are willing to believe anything that goes against him as opposed to letting the facts come out first and then making a decision. In the end I hate Trump. I feel he is a narcissist jerk. However, he is the creation of the far left. As long as you continue to push radical candidates like Warren and Bernie, and you have the media make up fake allegations against him. And you refuse to listen to the other side, you are going to see him win by a much larger margin come 2020. The best thing that could happen to this nation is Bernie running against Trump and getting destroy. Maybe then you will realize no one wants him as president. But knowing you guys you will make up excuses like Russia playing a role or corruption or whatever.
1
Cthulhu In the deep no he won't. Not with this strong economy
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , they can shout over them. The democrats are a mess right now. Moderate democrats are being shouted over by the radial leftist. People will support those two, but right now they are supporting Biden who was pushed by the moderate democrats first. If Biden was out they will switch to him. As for Bernie not being well known and growing, he only had to go against one candidate. Bush was a strong governor and did very well as a president. He had to deal with 9/11 and worked with democrats during his tenure. After the 2006 election democrats took over and he worked with them. And taking people to Canada is nothing. How about Bernie tries to work with others as opposed to dismissing them. Trump is not a radical, and Bernie, as a career politician, would have pushed for the same thing of wanting more power. The problem we have right now with our political system is that democrats just name call in calling people who disagree with them racist, bigots, ignorant, etc., and republicans were too PC to say anything. Trump has no problem barking back. Look at how Bernie criticizes Trump. He never attacks policy. He just calls Trump a liar and a bigot. If Trump ran against Bernie Bernie will win 10 states. Bernie will have to answer to how well the economy is doing and how his radical changes will work. The economy is doing very well under almost every measure. For example, since Q2 home ownership rate has been increasing. Give me examples of when Bernie questioned the state of the economy? Even if he has the reality is it is better, and the people are going to question it. Bernie is out of touch with reality.
1
Cthulhu In the deep , the economy is very strong by almost every measure. For example, since Q2 of 2016 (what happened in that year) home ownership rate has been going up. As for a recession, your boy Kyle has been screaming that for years. When is it going to happen? As for Trump saying things are misleading in the past, welcome to politics. I have gave many examples of when Bernie was deceptive. As for the U6, that is low as well. Face it, the economy is strong. If Bernie ran against Trump Bernie will have to answer to that. He won't be able to.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , so what will your excuse be when Bernie loses? What will your excuse be when Trump wins?
1
Cthulhu In the deep Trump is going to win. Can't wait for your excuses
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , Trump is not going to lose.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , there were only 3 candidates in 2015. Bush was a strong governor and worked with the other side well. He did so as president. When the democrats took over in 2006 he agreed to many of the policies they passed in Congress. FDR turned a recession into a depression. In 1920 a recession took place. At that time Hoover was asked to develop plan to create a recovery. When he finally developed one a year later the economy, through hands off government, was improving so they did not do it. In 1929 the recession hit and Hoover installed his plan causing it to be worse. FDR took over and doubled down. People who claim FDR was a good president also feel Matt Millen was a good GM for the Lions. Fact was FDR was not good. When was the last time it took nearly 10 years to recover from a recession? Until that point never. Bush as a republican congress during his time. With 9/11 Congress voted for the war. What is ironic with far leftists like Kyle is that they will point to polls but then attack people who voted for the war at that time. Well, at the time polls showed that war was popular. It is a double standard. AS for intelligence, that is a whole different mess in dealing with the problem of group think (look it up). He does dismiss others. He takes people who Canada who supports him. He dismisses people who have an actual legit argument against his ideas. Look at how he treated that hair salon owner. If you are going to pass a law that will hinder how businesses operate he should try to understand their position first. Bill Clinton did. What Bernie did was give a big "fuck you" to that lady. How can you really support someone like that? My only conclusion is that far leftists don't care about anyone but themselves. Bernie does not attack Trump's policies and the few times he does (like the tax law) he does so on deception. Trump will destroy Bernie. Here is how the debates will go "Bernie, with the economy being very strong right now how will you ensure it will remain strong?" Bernie: "Millionaires and billionaires and the 1%" Sorry, but that won't attract moderates. Can't wait until November 2020 when Trump wins.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , there were three. Bernie hardly works with the other side. Again, look at how he treated that hair salon owner. When Hickenlooper called him out all he did was throw his arms in the air. Hickenlooper said it correctly. Bernie wants to throw a plan out there and have others pick up the pieces. He has never been in that position to manage changes like that. Working with the other side is not vague. It is listening to them, understanding their position and finding a common ground. I will admit in the end Bush was weak. I feel 9/11 added a very high level of stress and ruined him. But he was a strong governor. Uh, I did not say Hoover instituted a hands off government plan. In 1920, when Hoover was developing a plan to improve the economy the government was essentially doing nothing at the time until then. In 1929 Hoover implemented his plan a it was laid out which was a hands on government plan. Again, learn history. FDR doubled down. Also, learn how to read my comments. You keep bring up John Lambert is you deflecting. Also, under Trump the economy is doing very well. You have literally gave zero arguments at this point. And most have recovered from the last recession. For example, since Q2 of 2016 (what happened that year) home ownership has been going up. But wait, you don't accept facts. I never said that you said that. I am saying that Bernie is saying that to that lady in refusing to understand the challenges she faces as a business. But yet he passed a law that makes doing business for her even more challenging. I don't care if Bernie will take me to Canada. I want him to understand my situation. On M4A my healthcare costs will go up. Right now I pay $20 a month on healthcare. His tax increase will be more then I pay right now. I want him to know that as others will face it. On him waiving student debt I want him to know that many people like me knew what we were doing in taking out those loans and earned actual degrees with value so we can pay them off. We see college as an investment. On the hair salon owner you are refusing to accept the fact that he had no desire to understand how a business operates and the challenges they face. He has never ran through the numbers, he has never looked at the barriers they have to go through. That is insulting. I don't see how you can't realize that. Why do you keep avoiding the topics I bring up? And why do you have difficulty reading my comments? Bernie has never challenged Trump's policies. On taxes he completely lied about. On the environment he is 100% wrong on that. He claims that every scientist say one thing when in reality there is a lot of doubt on that. On the IPCC report that Bernie keeps bringing up Bernie keeps saying we only have 12 years left. Meanwhile the lead author of that report says that is not true at all. When the lead author of the IPCC report says something different then Bernie is saying, how can you support Bernie?
1
@d0wnl0ad , just because the majority supports something on face value does not make it the best policy. Also, I say on "face value" as most polls don't give the details on an actual policy. If you tell those same people that their taxes will go up, quality will drop, and several issues will come, support will drop.
1
@d0wnl0ad , no, it doesn't show he is a centrist. A centrist looks at the entire issue and doesn't care if the majority supports it. Also, polling data is flawed as they are vague questions on complex issues being asked to non experts.
1
@d0wnl0ad , that is not what a centrist is. A centrist look at the entire issue and both sides of it. Bernie does not do that. Take climate change for example. He pushes when most scientists have a lot of doubt still in it.
1
@Kevin Tewey , Bernie has no chance of beating Trump. The economy is too strong and Bernie won't attract any moderates with his radical ideas.
1
@d0wnl0ad , and here we go. That consensus stat has been debunked long time ago. Read the Popular Technology article entitled "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism" Also read the book entitled "Why We Disagree About Climate Change" by Prof. Mike Hulme. The reality of climate change is this. Yes, it is happening and have been for over 4 billion years. Yes, man plays a role. The issues are how much does man play a role? Is current climate change a threat? What is the solution? What is the approach? There are so many questions on the issue. So when Bernie makes the claim that every scientist is saying climate change is a major threat, he is lying. Scientists are very skeptical when it comes to climate change. I suggest you also read the paper in Nature Climate Change entitled "Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous" If you want to use the whole "thoroughly vetted scientific journal" we can. Nature Climate Change has an impact factor of 19, PNAS is around 9.
1
@gaston6800 , read my comment to David D. Reality is that science is driven on doubt. That 99.8% stat has been debunked long ago and it isn't what scientists are saying. Read the papers, they have vague conclusions.
1
@gaston6800 , here is the popular technology link http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html From there you can navigate that and find those papers. There is also this recent paper "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0543-4.epdf?shared_access_token=IemqaDXjp59Xe4vx9SYpMtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PHAItqILlRm_HHBm_TdKN2W4fclucYeFPP7FPSpe4YZCMx6e3jOvyKFNEN4tDVEsxhypkjCeaXw5HrYv5x1N4z6OOPAlKiCRowdURrPb_LMA%3D%3D" Also, read the book "Why We Disagree About Climate Change" by prof. Mike Hulme
1
@gaston6800 , sometimes links don't work so I typically give the titles and where to find them.
1
@gaston6800 , to add, overall, it shows how dishonest and deceptive Bernie is. He is like this in all of his policies. The ideas he is pushing for are complex, but he does not give the full story. And those who oppose him he just ridicules. His fans do as well. His fans will make poor excuses such as his opponents are ignorant or doing some millionaire's bidding. Using climate change as an example, there are a plethora of papers on the topic that show skepticism. And if you read all of the literature you will see that the scientific community has doubt. Not saying climate change is not happening, it is. And man merely existing means we play a role. But beyond that we don't know. Bernie is being deceptive when he makes his claims on climate change. it is very dangerous what he does.
1
@gaston6800 , thanks. As a whole I am not saying wealth inequality is good or bad. There are arguments for both. People with massive student loan debt probably isn't completely the best unless you earn a degree of value. But when people just shout out about wealth inequality it is really deceptive.
1
@d0wnl0ad , I agree. I want to reduce carbon emissions as well. Most do. The question is how. Also, the question also is when. We don't know what the effect of current climate change is. Thus we should not push it. As for the 12 year deadline it is not being presented correctly as that paper said. And the author is being critical of the IPCC. The IPCC "However, the dangers of such deadline rhetoric suggest the need for the IPCC to take responsibility for its report and openly challenge the credibility of such a deadline." "he rise of deadline-ism is but the latest example that climate science has an inescapably political dimension and that acknowledgement of this by the IPCC is long overdue. The IPCC can no longer hide its political responsibility behind the ‘neutrality’ of its science." Myles Allen, the lead author of that report from the IPCC said "Slogan writers are vague on whether they mean climate chaos will happen after 12 years, or if we have 12 years to avert it. But both are misleading." You can find that in an article entitled "Why protesters should be wary of ‘12 years to climate breakdown’ rhetoric" In The Conversation So Bernie is completely misrepresenting what the IPCC says to where a member of the IPCC is critical of it.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , it does have to do with looking at things from both sides. Both sides have legit points. Also, if you are going to pass any law someone will be hindered in some way and you should try to understand that. People like Bernie don't. Look at how he treated that hair salon owner from Texas during his debate with Cruz.
1
@d0wnl0ad , it does show Sanders is being dishonest. The IPCC is not saying what he is saying. He is misleading the public. He does this a lot. Take M4A for example. He talks about how M4A will save money. Sure, it might if we cut spending down to what other nations do. But like other nations we will have to cap how much healthcare one receives. One reason we spend so much is because the offer more. We offer more advanced testing such as we offer more CT scans and MRIs per capita. Other nations cap care and place people on long waiting lines for "elective" surgery. Bernie said it is only for cosmetic surgery when certain forms of "elective" surgery is hear and neurosurgery. He doesn't say any of that.
1
@Kloutkulture , no, he is a radical because he is for completely changing established programs. Getting rid of insurance companies and having a centralized entity manage healthcare, which is 1/6 of our economy, is extreme. It would be no different then if someone in the UK were to push to completely eliminate the NHS, that will be radical as well. You improve the system you have, not completely replace it.
1
@gaston6800 , with the rich they will find a way to get rich. With more taxation on them and regulations the will find a way to still get rich. What people don't understand is that they are rich because they are intelligent and resilient. With a free market they will only get rich by serving us. For example, if you raise the min. wage someone who diversifies their businesses will be able to cut hours.
1
@d0wnl0ad , also, I never said M4A will cost more. I am saying when you cut pay by 40% accessibility and quality will drop. Also, I find it ironic you want me to give peer reviewed, scholarly sources (which I easily did) and you cite Wikipedia. I recommend you look for sources in Web of Science next time, not Google.
1
@d0wnl0ad , I will be waiting for your response. It will be interesting to see what you say now.
1
@Kloutkulture , on the flip side if some republican pushed to completely remove Medicare and SS they will be a radical as well as too many people are dependent on it and we can't make such extreme changes. Many people like their healthcare. Pushing to take it away is extreme. On tuition free college how do you handle the NCAA? On student loan forgiveness how do you handle people who will sue the government when they already paid off their loans? Bernie has put zero thought in his ideas which makes him a radical.
1
@d0wnl0ad Still waiting
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , no, he is a radical in that he wants to completely dismantle a functioning system and completely replace it. He is doing so on deception and misinformation. Take M4A for example and a lot of his talking points. He talks about how other nations pay less. Yes, they do. But they also receive less. For example ,we offer more advance care then other nations. We offer more CT scans and MRIs per capita. Bernie won't tell you that. He says he wants to be like Denmark and Norway. However, he just wants to mimic their welfare system. He does not want to mimic their tax system which has a lower corporate tax (he wants to raise ours), higher VAT tax, and more of a flat tax. For example, the highest tax bracket in Denmark is around $55,000 a year. In the US it is around $400,000 a year. But Bernie does not want to following the Denmark's tax code, he just wants to tax the rich. So no, he doesn't want to be like Denmark despite his claims. With the hair salon owner having 5 salons is still a small business. " If she can't expand her businesns under the current healthcare system, the there are a couple ways to look at this: she's a terrible business owner for trying to expand when it's not economically viable, or she could do that if there was a single-payer system so that she wouldn't have to pay out of her profit margin healthcare for her employees." And here is also what makes Bernie and his fans radicals. They refuse to actually try to understand the issues a business face. The average hair salon profit margin is around 8%. What is considered "good" is around 10%. So the average is below what is considered "good". So no matter how good of a manager she may be, the market will restrict her, and other hair salons from having a high profit margin. That is the market. Bernie and his supporters simply see a business and feel they are just ranking in the cash when in reality they aren't. So saying she must be a bad business owner without understanding how the market works is what makes you a radical. I recommend you take some business courses and realize how businesses operate and what issues they have to deal with. As for saying she could do it under a single payer system that is simply not true. Under Bernie's plan he wants to pay for it with expanding the payroll tax meaning businesses will have to pay a higher tax. He wants people like that hair salon owner to pay more. Reality is that Bernie is a radical, period. I will give you another example, tuition free college. How will you handle the NCAA? No one on Bernie's team ever brings that up. Bernie is pushing these ideas on deception and misinformation.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , here is the harsh reality on universal healthcare compared to the private system. Universal healthcare is fine for very basic care as it gives everyone a chance, at least, to have access to very basic care. Yes, there are no medical bankruptcy and there is data to suggest they have less amenable mortality. But they lack in advanced care. As Prof. Scott Atlas outlined in his book "In Excellent Health" the US leads the world in access to advanced testing and survival rates in advanced illnesses. If you read up on the stats they vary, where the CommonWealth Fund has the US number 2 in MRIs per capita (you said they were 4) behind Germany, so does the OECD website (but far less in hospitals showing that people in Germany have to seek out private routes such as outpatient care). But the reality is that when you match all the numbers together, the US leads the world in accessibility to advanced care and survival rates in advanced illnesses where universal healthcare they lack in that. To expand, in the US healthcare yes, there are some bankruptcies. Yes, some who are poor lack access. But to give counter points on both of those. On medical bankruptcies there are arguments against that in that mainly they are overstated. As pointing out in the NEJM article entitled "Myth and Measurement — The Case of Medical Bankruptcies" They write "But our findings suggest that medical factors play a much smaller role in causing U.S. bankruptcies than has previously been claimed. Overemphasizing “medical bankruptcies” may distract from an understanding of the true nature of economic hardship arising from high-cost health problems." It shows how deceptive Bernie is when there are actual highly ranked studies that give a much bigger picture. As for people dying due to lack of access to care that Bernie loves to point out. Prof. Katherine Baicker said those individuals are poor and bad health is associated with poverty. So the questions becomes do the die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with? As mentioned in the book "Being Mortal" people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will really live only another 5 or 10 months. So if you give those in poverty, who are in bad health they are near death, healthcare and they live only 5 more months, was that a success? Also amenable mortality is an issue every nation faces. But as listed in the two studies entitled "Using ‘amenable mortality’ as indicator of healthcare effectiveness in international comparisons: results of a validation study" "Amenable mortality as an indicator of healthcare quality - a literature review." It is hard to use that an an indicator for healthcare system. But with the very sick with advanced illnesses. Again, pointing to that book "Being Mortal" is it really worth it to give them care when they will only live another 5 months. In the end someone suffers. In other nations the very sick suffer as they are denied advanced care as the government refuses to pay for it. In the US the very poor suffer. But in both cases those groups are typically the least healthy. The far left like Bernie and his fans are not willing to have these difficult conversations and thus are deceptive. Notice how I provide a plethora of studies and you haven't? It is because I know about this topic a lot and know how difficult of an issue it is, especially since it is literally a life or death situation. And I did not even begin to get into culture. Imagine the uproar when people seek care and the doctor says "sorry, if you want that MRI you have to pay extra or wait many months" when in the past they will wait a week. And if you think waiting does not matter, consider the study entitled "A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 200–2006" Where they say "Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers"
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , but go ahead and call them lies. Reality is that Bernie is not giving you the full story. There are plenty of resources out there for you to read. This idea that M4A will cost less and we will still have the same access to healthcare we have now is a complete economic fallacy. As for the NCAA you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. So tell me, how do you handle it? The fact that you dismiss them shows you are a radical. You calling them greedy shows that as well.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 "if there is a doctor or hospital nearby, then we have access to healthcare. " Not true as the government will pay for only so much. Again, other nations cap how much they are willing to pay thus providers cap how much they are willing to provide. On medical debt I rather trust the NEJM article because the NEJM has the highest impact factor of any peer reviewed journal. I noticed how you did not counter that at all. Aaron Carroll probably has good points. I have said many times there are arguments on both sides. If you actually read my comments you will see that I said both systems have strong points. But you still have not convinced me. I gave actual peer reviewed articles and cited comments from far more experts then you did. You have to try harder. Have you even read the books and sources I gave you? Right now I can tell you haven't. You are avoiding the NCAA issue. How will you handle it with scholarship limitations? No matter how much you dislike it the NCAA exists. What is your solution? Telling them to "fuck off" is not a solution. Your arguments are showing more and more that you are not looking at the full story and thus are a radical. Pointing to a HuffPost story as opposed to a scholarly article/book shows that.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , ok, thought experiment. Hip replacement is not considered life threatening thus they make you wait months before you can get it. Meanwhile you become physically worse off and financially worse off. This is common. In the paper entitled "A messy reality: an analysis of New Zealand's elective surgery scoring system via media sources, 2000–2006" They say "Research has also considered the impact of waiting on patients, with findings that those awaiting necessary treatments often face considerable costs. These may be financial if the ability to work is affected and if there is a need to pay for additional care and therapeutics while awaiting treatment. Costs for the health system may arise if patients are not treated in a timely manner and develop more serious conditions or co-morbidities as a consequence of waiting. There may also be quality-of-life impacts, as well as impacts on family or caregivers " Also in the paper entitled "Policy strategies to reduce waits for elective care: a synthesis of international evidence" They say "Although not all publicly funded healthcare systems have wait-time problems, wait lists are more likely to be found in public systems. This is because universal access to care, when combined with the government's desire to control health spending, can mean that the supply of treatment does not meet demand" "It is often observed that elective wait times are low in the USA, one of the few countries where the majority of care has been financed by non-universal private insurance." "However, long wait times are a source of distress to patients, and in some cases have adverse health consequences" So even under a government funded system you will still have to wait and suffer. The NEJM has the highest impact of any peer reviewed journal. I doubt you even read that paper. The point is what I am saying the entire time, give the full story. They say this " But our findings suggest that medical factors play a much smaller role in causing U.S. bankruptcies than has previously been claimed. Overemphasizing “medical bankruptcies” may distract from an understanding of the true nature of economic hardship arising from high-cost health problems." Basically, there is a need for reform. And maybe M4A is the option. But you have to be honest. "As for Scott Atlas' book, that is easily dismissed since his points and narrative are based on manipulated data from a couple failing professors falsely justifying a market-based healthcare system over a federal-run health insurance program" Scott Atlas works in one of the most prestigious medical institution. And Robert Ohsfeldt is the PhD program chair of his department. I don't consider that to be failing. Besides that, what data did they manipulate? Care to give me examples? Until you do the reality is you are making claims without evidence.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , I will await your response with zero sources and justification.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , as for the NCAA, I doubt you know how it functions. There are three divisions, D 1, D 2, and D 3. They are based on scholarship limits. D 3 are all walk ons. In football in D 2 there are 36 full ride scholarships they have to work with where they can split them up. D 1 FBS has 86 full rides. So D 1 naturally gets the better athletes, but the lower divisions still get solid athletes and not some scrub that could get hurt. If you remove tuition you remove the need for scholarships. So how to you handle that change relevant to the NCAA? As long as you keep dismissing it shows you are proving my point.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , my thought experiment is not irrelevant. Hip surgery is not "life threatening" thus you will have to wait months before you receive it. If by "access" you means waiting months while you become worse off physically, financially and emotionally, then fine. I give that to you. But why deny what I say? I agree that wait times are about management, but again, demand is much higher under a universal healthcare system. That is why, as I pointed out with a study, that wait times are higher under universal healthcare system. Consider the US, you will be adding 30+ million people to the system with no increase in supply, what do you think will happen? As for rationing based on needs, define that? People die in Canada waiting for "elective" hear surgery. If my knee is messed up I personally feel I "need" a knee surgery as a lot of my work requires me to be on my feet. But as that is not life threatening some arbitrary government official will say it is not a "need". That is the problem with the "need" argument. A lot of it is subjective. Again, I have provided a plethora of studies for you to considered. All you have done is dismiss them without justification. Be interesting to see what you do now.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , I know about their sources of revenue, what's your point? You clearly have not read my comment. It isn't about them making money. It is about the scholarship limitations on the system with different divisions. How do you handle that? Why is reading so difficult for you?
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , colleges can't pay their students. That is the financial reality. One is that they simply don't generate enough revenue. Another is because of title IX where if you were to pay the starting QB a stipend you have to pay the woman on the swim team the same amount. Or are you so sexist you feel women should receive less?
1
Because we support freedom. Also, do you want uninformed voters, or voters who don't care to vote?
1