Comments by "Jim Werther" (@jimwerther) on "NBC News"
channel.
-
35
-
17
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@VincenzoGCosta
Here is how democracy is at stake:
Six months of daily riots "mostly peaceful protests", egged on by Democrats and the mainstream media. The most costly riots in American history. And Democrat politicians, Kamala Harris among them, promoted a fund which bailed rioters out of prison.
One member of Congress advocated getting in the face of political adversaries. That was a Democrat - Maxine Waters.
Someone tried to murder numerous Congressmen, and nearly killed Steve Scalise. He was inspired to do so by Bernie Sanders's rhetoric.
A member of the Supreme Court was targeted for assassination. Bret Kavanaugh was marked by a member of the left. This came after Kavanaugh was publicly threatened by Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer.
Five police officers were assassinated by a BLM supporter angry about police killings of black men, an issue reported on endlessly by the mainstream media. Statistics clearly show that whites are disproportionately killed by police. The leftist narrative is a lie, but the five Dallas officers are dead nonetheless.
Respected, Nevada-based long-time journalist Jeff German, age 69, was stabbed to death, allegedly by a politician he was covering, 45 year old Rob Telles, who faces the death penalty.
Shall I continue?
Meanwhile, the following is a list of elected Republicans who supported the invasion of the Capitol, a terrible incident which lasted three hours total:
(crickets)
And those are the facts.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zacharythomas8617
Unlike you leftists, who live life in an echo chamber of radical nonsense, I avail myself of the facts, and make a point of learning how it is that the radical left comes to believe in that which they do. As such, I not only watch Democrat Party spin such as Meet The Press, I have a subscription to the NYT, the LA Times, and the WaPo. I know of what I speak. The commenters here, however, are so stunningly ignorant that they fail to even recognize how badly they expose their ignorance with their comments, or else they would be far too embarassed to write them in he first place.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WalterPetrovic
You can be upset as Trump as you want, and I can also be, but that rather obviously doesn't equate with treason.
1. "Popular vote" - Irrelevant. You know that, I know that, Hillary knows that, and everyone who can read the Constitution knows that. Skip the red herrings.
2. "His incessant fighting" - Again, vague and irrelevant. You know that as well. That's twice that you just raised meaningless irrelevancies in order to try to change the topic.
3. "leading up to his pushing MAGATS into open rebellion" - Legally speaking? How so? Did he ever tell anyone to rush into Congress and disrupt the proceedings? No, he did not. Instead, he exhorted the crowd to "peacefully protest", and yes, that is a direct quote from January 6th. Trump's wild rhetoric in the two months following the election was exceedingly irresponsible and flat-out outrageous, but in no way does it meet the legal standard for incitement, any more or less than it does Bernie Sanders's rhetoric pushing the Congressional Baseball Shooter into his own terrible actions.
Furthermore, not a single individual who was arrested for January 6th-related actions has been charged with insurrection, let alone convicted.
Which means that you are now many steps short of concluding that Trump directly caused (he didn't) an insurrection (which no one has been charged with).
4. "violates his Presidential oath of Office" - If Trump did in fact violate his presidential oath of office, that is still not the same thing as treason. Nixon violated the oath, and was forced out as a result. Did anyone even accuse him of treason?
5. "Regardless how anyone want (sic) to paint this, it is treason." No, actually it is nothing of the sort, otherwise you would have been able to give a coherent explanation of why it is.
1
-
@WalterPetrovic
In short, you would like to redefine "treason" to "something which gets Walter D. Petrovic upset". Unfortunately for you the law doesn't work that way. Not one person has been charged with insurrection related to January 6th, let alone convicted. And Donald Trump has not been charged with anything at all. "Treason" is a major accusation - so major that not only does it have a legal definition in the dictionary, the founding fathers actually made a point of specifically defining it in the Constitution itself. Why? Because they didn't want the Walter D. Petrovics of the world to come along and start throwing out accusations of "treason" whenever they felt like it.
I have explained this point at length, and have given you plenty of opportunity to explain how Donald Trump crossed that threshhold, but you keep responding with nonsensical points about popular vote totals and the like.
What you are actually stumbling along trying to come up with is a definition of "incitement". But the problem there is threefold:
1. Legally speaking, Trump did not cross the line into incitement, in that he never asked anyone to get violent. "Incitement" has a very specific legal definition.
2. Even if Trump had been guilty of incitement, a charge which has not been leveled at him by any prosecutor, that is still far short of "treason", obviously.
3. By your definition, there are literally hundreds of Democrats who could and should be tried for treason as a result of terrible incidents such as the cold-blooded execution of five Dallas Police Officers and two more in New York City, the shooting at the Republican baseball practice in which Congressman Steve Scalise nearly died, and, most glaringly, the six months of rioting, murder and mayhem that took place in major, Democrat-run cities throughout the United States in 2020. Among those who would be guilty of "treason" by your definition would be: Former President Obama, current Vice President Kamala Harris (who was among several Democrat Senators who set up a bail fund for rioters), Senator Bernie Sanders, and hundreds of other elected officials, all of whom spread falsehoods leading to evil actions and, in the case of the 2020 riots, the destabilization of the United States, including a massive hike in violent crime that continues to this day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lorinelson7523
Lol! You know nothing about politics, and nothing about economics. Raise taxes on corporations? That will lower revenue, and drive us into recession. And those taxes would be paid by...you, and all the other consumers. Like that idea? Next: Who is raising taxes on the elderly and the poor? No one, obviously.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Open your mind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is a prime example of how far left the media is. This show could have been produced by the Democrat Party and sounded no different. Did Chuck Todd forget to ask Al Gore why he flies around the world in private jets? Or why the US should unilaterally disarm on energy while the Saudis, Russians and Chinese produce it instead? And why we should stop producing if it means that the globe will be at most 1/2 degree cooler in 100 years, because most of the world will keep producing, in a much dirtier fashion, and will also largely take up the slack? And how about asking about the dead bodies in the streets of Ukraine while Europe continues to pour money into Russia? Europe has to buy Russian gas because they aren't producing their own energy, and the result is an outlaw Russia state and dead Ukranians. Is that worth it? More people die every year worldwide from excessive cold than from excesssive heat. Massive swaths of land, such as Greenland, most of Canada, and many other landmasses are essentially empty; migration is always possible in an absolute worse-case scenario. Long before that, though, mitigation has been known to work wonders. And science is continually finding ways to deal with carbon issues and the like, as well as new, cleaner ways of accessing fossil fuels. Meanwhile, people are unable to afford food and medicine because of inflation caused by fuel shortages, due to "green energy" policies which is raising the cost of energy by leaps and bounds, affecting the cost of absolutely everything. Does anyone really believe that causing high prices, war, and world turmoil is worth it in exchange for the small possibility of the earth being half a degree cooler in 100 years? Next - Even if Al Gore's predictions off disaster made in 1992 are coming true, which is a wild exaggeration, how about all the previous predictions - made by Gore and others - which were entirely wrong? Do those not count? There are other questions, but that gives you a good idea.
I'm sure Chuck Todd just forgot to ask.
And that's just the first few minutes of the program. This is representative of the one-sidedness of the media beginning to end, every week. Leftist propaganda.
1
-
@jackderipper2233
Six months of daily riots "mostly peaceful protests", egged on by Democrats and the mainstream media. The most costly riots in American history. And Democrat politicians, Kamala Harris among them, promoted a fund which bailed rioters out of prison.
One member of Congress advocated getting in the face of political adversaries. That was a Democrat - Maxine Waters.
Someone tried to murder numerous Congressmen, and nearly killed Steve Scalise. He was inspired to do so by Bernie Sanders's rhetoric.
A member of the Supreme Court was targeted for assassination. Bret Kavanaugh was marked by a member of the left. This came after Kavanaugh was publicly threatened by Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer.
Five police officers were assassinated by a BLM supporter angry about police killings of black men, an issue reported on endlessly by the mainstream media. Statistics clearly show that whites are disproportionately killed by police. The leftist narrative is a lie, but the five Dallas officers are dead nonetheless.
Respected, Nevada-based long-time journalist Jeff German, age 69, was stabbed to death, allegedly by a politician he was covering, 45 year old Rob Telles, who faces the death penalty.
Shall I continue?
Meanwhile, the following is a list of elected Republicans who supported the invasion of the Capitol, a terrible incident which lasted three hours total:
(crickets)
And those are the facts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertnobles8189
As I figured - you are repeating propaganda supplied by the terrorists, without having a clue what you talking about. As anyone with any knowledge of the region understands, checkpoints are necessary when people are routinely smuggling in bombs and attempting mass murder against civilians, particularly targeting children. Journalists are never attacked by Israel, which allows the media in freely, although a small number of journalists have been hit in the crossfire, which happens in every single war. Note that Israel allows the media free access, while the "Palestinians" allow in almost none, and heavily censor reports of those who are allowed in. Now, why would that be? Think about it.
I'm curious if you also support ISIS and al-Qaeda, and oppose the United States. How far does your support of terrorism go? Because by any measure, the Israelis are vastly more careful to avoid civilians casualties on their enemies' side than any other country's military is, and that includes the United States' military. (As opposed to the "Palestinians", who deliberately target civilians, especially children, and intentionally place their own children in harm's way for propaganda purposes. Are you okay with that?) Did you also support the 9/11 attacks?
1
-
@robertnobles8189
In short, you're tapping out because I exposed you as an ignorant fraud. You couldn't answer a single point I made or question I asked above, because the facts don't fit your preferred, utterly false narrative.
I labeled terrorists as terrorists because they are. Nowhere did I write that all the "Palestinians" are terrorists. The majority, however, support Hamas, a known, vicious terrorist group, over the Palestinian Authority (Fatah), which is also a terrorist group but slightly less evil.
The reason I put "Palestinian" in quotes is because it is a term invented in the 1960s by terrorist Yasser Arafat and his cronies as propaganda, to help further the fake accusation that the Arabs had been living in Palestine before the Jews supposedly just moved in. Prior to the early 1960s and Yasser Arafat, the term "Palestinian" was not used for any Arab peoples, period. Crack open a history book some time.
The absurd allegation you made that Israel treats the "Palestinians" as subhuman is not only patently false, it is the exact opposite of the truth. As I laid out above, Arabs in Israel have full rights as citizens, and work side-by-side with their Israeli counterparts in every single field. Meanwhile, "Palestinians" in the West Bank and Gaza teach their children from the start that Jews are "the sons of monkeys and pigs", and all of them must be annihilated. This is hardly a secret.
As to the endless war of terrorism against Israel, it is the "Palestinians" who openly - they proudly announce it - target women and children, blowing up buses and pizza shops and wedding halls whenever they can. Yet people like yourself wonder why Israel needs to set up checkpoints for Arabs coming in to work in Israel. What would you prefer? That they let in murderers and suicide bombers to target kindergartens? You might like that idea, bit reasonable people understand that no country would do that. Israel does allow in thousands of workers daily. Why? They could just shut the doors, you know. Why do the Arabs come in every day if life is so hard? Why not work at home?
Aside from openly targeting civilians, the "Palestinians" intentionally place their own civilians in harm's way, shooting off rockets from the most dense civilian areas, so that they can blame Israel when a rocket destroyer kills a civilian. Arab terrorist routinely grab a child when they go to set off rockets, as they know Israel won't shoot at them if there is a child in the way. And if a mistake happens? Then the "Palestinians" celebrate their own dead baby and run to the media with their propaganda victory.
When it comes to the war against the terrorists, Israel uses unbelievable restraint in choosing targets, which is why the "Palestinians" continue to use civilian neighborhoods as areas for rocket launches.
British Colonel Richard Kemp, who fought under NATO and the UN, and also commanded British forces in Afghanistan, said the following:
"THE IDF IS THE MOST MORAL ARMY IN THE HISTORY OF WARFARE."
And yet you claim that it is Israel that targets civilians and journalists. What an unbelievably stupid and false claim.
The fact is, Israel is a democracy wherein Arabs live as full citizens and full participants in the economy and life of the country, while any Jew who steps foot into the West Bank or Gaza is in imminent danger of being killed by the first "Palestinian" he meets.
The fact is, facing an evil enemy which specifically aims its terrorism exclusively at civilians, and especially children, Israel exercises incredible restraint, to its own detriment.
Every single word I wrote here is a fact, just as is every word I wrote earlier in this thread. You couldn't respond to my earlier recitation of the facts, however, just as you won't be able to respond to everything I listed here: Because you have no facts, but instead prefer to slander the only Middle Eastern democracy, the most moral military in world history, who is forced to defend itself against vile terrorists.
Your worldview is hideously warped. Ask yourself why that is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rbn.austin6051
Supply side economics absolutely works.
The reason the debt has increased is because spending increased.
For example, under Reagan, the deficit increased despite the fact that revenue to the government increased, because the spending increased at an even higher rate. Reagan attempted spending cuts, but the Democrat House blocked nearly all of it.
Trump reduced taxes and regulations, which massively spurred the economy and therefore government revenue, but Trump never even attempted to cut spending. The Congress was then run by the GOP, who made no attempt to cut government spending. The Republican base at that time was firmly behind Trump, and would have howled at any Congressperson who balked at any part of his plan.
Clinton governed from the hard left his first two years, the result of which was an avalanche in the midterms, in which the Republicans captured both the House and the Senate. Clinton then famously chose "triangulation", turning very moderate in his policies, and agreeing with the GOP Congress on major spending cuts, including, most dramatically, welfare reform. As Clinton himself said in his State of the Union speech, "The Era of Big Government Is Over". If only! That one didn't last. But while it did, we actually had a balanced budget, even a slight surplus.
Milton Friedman noted back then that the secret to balanced budgets was divided government, because when one party runs all of it then they agree to spend away. Divided government means no agreement on where to overspend, giving us at least a chance at fiscal sanity.
Back to supply side economics - the idea is actually quite simple. Say you have a supermarket in which cereal is not selling at $5 a box and is now clogging up your shelves, leading the store to suffer losses. How would you make up for those losses? The equivalent of raising taxes would be to say that we are not bringing in enough revenue at $2/box profit on cereal, so let's raise the price to $6, thereby increasing the revenue to $3/box. The problem? Fewer boxes of cereal sold at the higher price, therefore no gain in revenue. Supply side would say to lower the price to $4/box, thereby decreasing the profit to a mere $1/box, which is more than made up for by the massive increase in sales.
That, in fact, is the entire idea of supply side economics, first pursued by Andrew Carnegie during the Coolidge administration. Noticing that rich folks were sheltering their money, he convinced the administration to lower taxes on the rich, which not only spurred economic growth for the entire country, it actually increased the amount of revenue raised in taxes just from the cohort upon whom tax rates were lowered.
Hope that helped.
1
-
1
-
@rbn.austin6051
I would maintain that the micro example provided holds up well. That said, there is a limited amount I can reasonably explain in a YT comment. I would hope that you would spend some time reading or watching Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, or Arthur Laffer.
No, neither extreme of 100% or 0% taxation would work; both would bring in precisely zero revenue. This is where the Laffer curve comes in, wherein the idea is to hit the sweet spot. If we removed all regulations and 99% of taxes then the economy would go great guns, but the government could never come close to paying its bills. But no one is advocating lowering taxes to near-nothing. The idea is to reduce it to the point where people will risk and innovate and create, while the government can still fulfill its basic functions.
A basic flaw in your assumptions above is that more government spending on healthcare will produce a healthier society. History has demonstrated otherwise, and Thomas Sowell (among others) has explained why it is so.
I am opposed to term limits. It puts me in the distinct minority, but in both theory and practice (in states and municipalities where it is the law) the idea serves no positive purpose, and also violates the basic notion of a democracy free to choose its own leaders. Its popularity, I assume, comes from a vague "throw the bums out" populist, vengeful notion, but I've yet to encounter a reasonable argument in its favor.
1
-
@rbn.austin6051
(Second Consecutive Comment)
I should have added slightly more specificity in my response to your points just above regarding stickiness and alternatives: The same does actually hold true when it comes to taxation. As Thomas Sowell explains in Chapter 23 ("Myths About Markets") of (arguably) his magnum opus, "Basic Economics", and as you can also read in his pamphlet-sized book titled "Trickle Down Theory and Tax Cuts for the Rich", markets absolutely do react to incentives and disincentives of levels of taxation. As noted earlier in this thread, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon (who I am now thinking that I mistakenly and weirdly labeled "Andrew Carnegie" above) correctly intuited that the wealthy were stashing away their money in shelters due to overtaxation, and that lowering the top rates would stimulate commerce to the benefit of all, government included. And so it was in the 1920s, and again every time it has been tried.
Free market capitalism is a proven winner. Government intervention beyond a certain basic point leads inexorably to inefficiencies which only get worse with ever-increasing government involvement, which will always be the chosen remedy demanded by far too many.
Fact is, government overtaxation leads to recession. Government overspending leads to inflation. Anti-poverty programs lead to more poverty, anti-homeless efforts lead to more homelessness. The more government gets involved in healthcare, the worse healthcare gets. And so it is across the board, as history has shown.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, read and/or watch Milton Friedman and/or Thomas Sowell, who demonstrate these points so clearly and beautifully, and in a way I never could, especially when limited to a YT comment box.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@afry6400
Six months of daily riots "mostly peaceful protests", egged on by Democrats and the mainstream media. The most costly riots in American history. And Democrat politicians, Kamala Harris among them, promoted a fund which bailed rioters out of prison.
One member of Congress advocated getting in the face of political adversaries. That was a Democrat - Maxine Waters.
Someone tried to murder numerous Congressmen, and nearly killed Steve Scalise. He was inspired to do so by Bernie Sanders's rhetoric.
A member of the Supreme Court was targeted for assassination. Bret Kavanaugh was marked by a member of the left. This came after Kavanaugh was publicly threatened by Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer.
Five police officers were assassinated by a BLM supporter angry about police killings of black men, an issue reported on endlessly by the mainstream media. Statistics clearly show that whites are disproportionately killed by police. The leftist narrative is a lie, but the five Dallas officers are dead nonetheless.
Respected, Nevada-based long-time journalist Jeff German, age 69, was stabbed to death, allegedly by a politician he was covering, 45 year old Rob Telles, who faces the death penalty.
Shall I continue?
Meanwhile, the following is a list of elected Republicans who supported the invasion of the Capitol, a terrible incident which lasted three hours total:
(crickets)
And those are the facts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@codyrussow170
Well, let's see. With the GOP in charge, the economy was booming, inflation was 2%, and gas was $2.30/gal. The Democrats took over, and now the country is falling apart, gas went to $5, the Taliban is running Afghanistan, Russia went into Ukraine, China is threatening Taiwan, North Korea is shooting missiles over South Korea and Japan, the border is wide open, fentanyl is everywhere, and inflation out of control. And your conclusion is you want more Democrat rule? Uh huh.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@onomonopoeia
When you write a single comment that is jam-packed with wildly misleading comments mixed with outright falsehoods, it makes it difficult for me to respond without having to spend an inordinate amount of time doing so.
Your comment betrays a worldview entirely disengaged from reality. It is abundantly clear that you are simply unaware of any perspective which differs from your own highly biased one. I make sure to be highly informed from all sides, which is why I can explain the facts. That is obviously beyond your ability at this point.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
As long as you continue to exist in an echo chamber of ideas and claims from only the left, you will never be able to form coherent, persuasive arguments. Instead you will rail against millions who you not only do not understand but who you loathe for their intemperate beliefs (as you see them).
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
- Socrates
1
-
1