Comments by "Vic 2.0" (@Vic2point0) on "Kyle Kulinski Vs Charlie Kirk | Politicon 2019" video.

I'm sorry, but I really think Kyle lost this one. And I'll even explain why for anyone with the time and inclination to read it: So first, if the "unemployment rate" he prefers to use is higher because some of the workers are "discouraged", or "underemployed", that's a bogus number. They're still employed (therefore not unemployed), and that is indeed better than being unemployed at any rate. Besides which, as Charlie pointed out that number's down under Trump as well anyway. Similarly, just the fact that 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck tells us absolutely nothing. Just like with the wage gap, the question is why are they living paycheck to paycheck? It could be because they're getting paid less in relation to their essential needs, or it could be that we as a society have become far more irresponsible with our money (taking on unnecessary expenses, spending excessively, etc.) In general, Kyle seems to really have a problem with any and all actions that directly help the rich despite whatever actions have helped others. I don't understand that logic, personally. Yes, the estate tax cuts only benefited the rich because they're the only ones with estates... But the tax only taxes the rich, so what's the problem!? He also doesn't seem to realize that his thought experiment opens the door to full-on socialism. Bernie Sanders was against millionaires... until he became one. Similarly, concerning Kyle, it's easy to go from saying "Okay so you only have 999.9 million dollars. Big whoop." to saying "Okay so you only have 9 millions dollars. Big whoop." and so on. It's just a very dangerous slippery slope he wants to move this country to. Also, for the most part, Charlie Kirk was right. Another way to word "making money" is "providing value". The beauty of the free market is that it's the American people deciding who does/doesn't deserve their money, and they'll only say you deserve it if they find your product/service valuable. I'm surprised Kyle argued against Charlie's point about California's laws regarding speech by just saying the 1st Amendment overrides it. While true on an official level, it doesn't magically guarantee anyone will be protected. And even if we were, it doesn't change the basic point that Democratically run local and state governments will at least try to undermine the freedom of speech which is bad enough and should make people take a second look at the current Democratic party. Even the "Why do you always say it's anti-American?" question didn't quite work because Colin Kaepernik literally refused to stand for the national anthem to protest something entirely different. I'm not that big on symbols, but this was a direct refusal to respect what should be a universally acknowledged national anthem. Why did he choose that of all things if he's not anti-American? I think that's a fair question. And of course, it doesn't follow that because Colin's chosen method of protesting didn't check the box of "violent", that therefore everyone should have been okay with it. Frankly, that's a very low standard to set! In general, I couldn't help but notice how Charlie had a direct answer to Kyle's allegations against Trump but then Kyle never brought a counterpoint to any of it; he just kinda turned up the attitude and switched to a different topic. And finally, when it comes to seeing shades of grey instead of black and white, the whole point of not giving government too much power is that it only takes one (or maybe a few, to be fair) corrupt and evil people in positions of power to do a great deal of damage. The way I like to word it is this: Let's assume the majority of corporations are evil and the majority of government officials are good... I'd still prefer the free market because when I choose the minority of good corporations, I don't get thrown in jail for that. When it comes to government, you either give them your money (including the evil, corrupt minority) or it's off to prison with you. And once other government officials see how viable this approach is, they'll jump on board and corruption will literally spread throughout. Compare that to the free market, where the only thing the remaining good corporations will see is a bunch of failed has-been competitors that wasted away due to being corrupt!
6
I'm sorry, but I really think Kyle lost this one. And I'll even explain why for anyone with the time and inclination to read it: So first, if the "unemployment rate" he prefers to use is higher because some of the workers are "discouraged", or "underemployed", that's a bogus number. They're still employed (therefore not unemployed), and that is indeed better than being unemployed at any rate. Besides which, as Charlie pointed out that number's down under Trump as well anyway. Similarly, just the fact that 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck tells us absolutely nothing. Just like with the wage gap, the question is why are they living paycheck to paycheck? It could be because they're getting paid less in relation to their essential needs, or it could be that we as a society have become far more irresponsible with our money (taking on unnecessary expenses, spending excessively, etc.) In general, Kyle seems to really have a problem with any and all actions that directly help the rich despite whatever actions have helped others. I don't understand that logic, personally. Yes, the estate tax cuts only benefited the rich because they're the only ones with estates... But the tax only taxes the rich, so what's the problem!? He also doesn't seem to realize that his thought experiment opens the door to full-on socialism. Bernie Sanders was against millionaires... until he became one. Similarly, concerning Kyle, it's easy to go from saying "Okay so you only have 999.9 million dollars. Big whoop." to saying "Okay so you only have 9 millions dollars. Big whoop." and so on. It's just a very dangerous slippery slope he wants to move this country to. Also, for the most part, Charlie Kirk was right. Another way to word "making money" is "providing value". The beauty of the free market is that it's the American people deciding who does/doesn't deserve their money, and they'll only say you deserve it if they find your product/service valuable. I'm surprised Kyle argued against Charlie's point about California's laws regarding speech by just saying the 1st Amendment overrides it. While true on an official level, it doesn't magically guarantee anyone will be protected. And even if we were, it doesn't change the basic point that Democratically run local and state governments will at least try to undermine the freedom of speech which is bad enough and should make people take a second look at the current Democratic party. Even the "Why do you always say it's anti-American?" question didn't quite work because Colin Kaepernik literally refused to stand for the national anthem to protest something entirely different. I'm not that big on symbols, but this was a direct refusal to respect what should be a universally acknowledged national anthem. Why did he choose that of all things if he's not anti-American? I think that's a fair question. And of course, it doesn't follow that because Colin's chosen method of protesting didn't check the box of "violent", that therefore everyone should have been okay with it. Frankly, that's a very low standard to set! In general, I couldn't help but notice how Charlie had a direct answer to Kyle's allegations against Trump but then Kyle never brought a counterpoint to any of it; he just kinda turned up the attitude and switched to a different topic. And finally, when it comes to seeing shades of grey instead of black and white, the whole point of not giving government too much power is that it only takes one (or maybe a few, to be fair) corrupt and evil people in positions of power to do a great deal of damage. The way I like to word it is this: Let's assume the majority of corporations are evil and the majority of government officials are good... I'd still prefer the free market because when I choose the minority of good corporations, I don't get thrown in jail for that. When it comes to government, you either give them your money (including the evil, corrupt minority) or it's off to prison with you. And once other government officials see how viable this approach is, they'll jump on board and corruption will literally spread throughout. Compare that to the free market, where the only thing the remaining good corporations will see is a bunch of failed has-been competitors that wasted away due to being corrupt!
5
+JT Even in your rendition of what they said, Charlie doesn't seem to be arguing that Trump specifically shouldn't have to sell assets to avoid people claiming "corruption". It sounds more principled to me. But if you have evidence that Charlie wouldn't say the same about someone else (that they should get to keep their international assets), feel free to share!
3
I'm sorry, but I really think Kyle lost this one. And I'll even explain why for anyone with the time and inclination to read it: So first, if the "unemployment rate" he prefers to use is higher because some of the workers are "discouraged", or "underemployed", that's a bogus number. They're still employed (therefore not unemployed), and that is indeed better than being unemployed at any rate. Besides which, as Charlie pointed out that number's down under Trump as well anyway. Similarly, just the fact that 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck tells us absolutely nothing. Just like with the wage gap, the question is why are they living paycheck to paycheck? It could be because they're getting paid less in relation to their essential needs, or it could be that we as a society have become far more irresponsible with our money (taking on unnecessary expenses, spending excessively, etc.) In general, Kyle seems to really have a problem with any and all actions that directly help the rich despite whatever actions have helped others. I don't understand that logic, personally. Yes, the estate tax cuts only benefited the rich because they're the only ones with estates... But the tax only taxes the rich, so what's the problem!? He also doesn't seem to realize that his thought experiment opens the door to full-on socialism. Bernie Sanders was against millionaires... until he became one. Similarly, concerning Kyle, it's easy to go from saying "Okay so you only have 999.9 million dollars. Big whoop." to saying "Okay so you only have 9 millions dollars. Big whoop." and so on. It's just a very dangerous slippery slope he wants to move this country to. Also, for the most part, Charlie Kirk was right. Another way to word "making money" is "providing value". The beauty of the free market is that it's the American people deciding who does/doesn't deserve their money, and they'll only say you deserve it if they find your product/service valuable. I'm surprised Kyle argued against Charlie's point about California's laws regarding speech by just saying the 1st Amendment overrides it. While true on an official level, it doesn't magically guarantee anyone will be protected. And even if we were, it doesn't change the basic point that Democratically run local and state governments will at least try to undermine the freedom of speech which is bad enough and should make people take a second look at the current Democratic party. Even the "Why do you always say it's anti-American?" question didn't quite work because Colin Kaepernik literally refused to stand for the national anthem to protest something entirely different. I'm not that big on symbols, but this was a direct refusal to respect what should be a universally acknowledged national anthem. Why did he choose that of all things if he's not anti-American? I think that's a fair question. And of course, it doesn't follow that because Colin's chosen method of protesting didn't check the box of "violent", that therefore everyone should have been okay with it. Frankly, that's a very low standard to set! In general, I couldn't help but notice how Charlie had a direct answer to Kyle's allegations against Trump but then Kyle never brought a counterpoint to any of it; he just kinda turned up the attitude and switched to a different topic. And finally, when it comes to seeing shades of grey instead of black and white, the whole point of not giving government too much power is that it only takes one (or maybe a few, to be fair) corrupt and evil people in positions of power to do a great deal of damage. The way I like to word it is this: Let's assume the majority of corporations are evil and the majority of government officials are good... I'd still prefer the free market because when I choose the minority of good corporations, I don't get thrown in jail for that. When it comes to government, you either give them your money (including the evil, corrupt minority) or it's off to prison with you. And once other government officials see how viable this approach is, they'll jump on board and corruption will literally spread throughout. Compare that to the free market, where the only thing the remaining good corporations will see is a bunch of failed has-been competitors that wasted away due to being corrupt!
2
Donald Smith The majority of what I said, Charlie said just in different words. And I also included the fact that Charlie kept having counterpoints to Kyle's points, and Kyle couldn't respond with anything but an attitude.
2
Donald Smith Methods aside, I think the content is what matters, and I really didn't see any substantive rebuttals from Kyle at all. That's why I posted my comment, to talk about the actual content of their arguments.
2
Donald Smith Charlie did both. He went on his monologues (but without interruption from Kyle, who's shown that he's perfectly capable of interrupting to rebut something when he can) and he also had good responses to the specific topics Kyle raised. But what I noticed was that, more often than not, Kyle had no counterpoints to much of Charlie's responses. He sort of just dropped each point as they went along, and would try and different talking point instead.
1
Donald Smith Again, I'm looking over it now. A lot of the points I made were made by Charlie in the debate. Or, I only added to what Charlie said which were good refutations on their own (and Kyle would've refuted them in turn if he could but he just stood there being theatrical).
1