"Defying Destiny" - Entire Panel Take Turns Debating Me
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- DEBATE: Destiny hops into the "Defying Destiny" topic on corporate lobbying and the entire panel takes turns debating him and his stance...
Follow Destiny
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/...
►DISCORD - discordapp.com...
►REDDIT - / destiny
►INSTAGRAM - / destiny
Primecayes
► / primecayes
► / primecayes
► / primecayes
Check Out My Amazon: www.amazon.com/shop/destiny
Buy My Merch: dggstore.com/
#Destiny
![Eminem - Temporary (feat. Skylar Grey) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZaK9Wi5ho0o/mqdefault.jpg)
![BabyChiefDoit - Too Slow (feat. STAR BANDZ) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zayaxws7RPg/mqdefault.jpg)
Would you watch a debate panel where people team up and take turns debating Destiny? Primecayes does a good job moderating this panel and we get a hint of that format here...
Hasn’t that Been done already in pretty much 70% of his debates, but if it was actually a show it would be really interesting
outnumbered destiny is bestiny
Could be interesting. But maybe a bit of a shitfest. Its hard to pin somone down this way so the effectiveness of the convo falls quite a lot.
I gues its cool if steven is defening an ideea instead of attacking one...
I am having trouble understand what their positions are.
It'd be like most panel debates he does, but hopefully structured to give him time to properly respond.
Things I wanna see on this debate:
1- prime moderating
2-discount dr. K shittakes
3-bridges burning
4- the arguments
Lmao discount dr k
explain dr. K shittakes
@@mocha753 I expected nothing and even then got disappointed, its someone that normally appears on prime debates but was missing from this one he is has the discord name of "dr. K", also prime did a good job at moderating for the first time and no bridges were burned on this debate, the arguments were ok. Overall 6/10
@@porcus123 she is trans tho.
@@63Limar shit, didnt knew that I will show myself to the gulag then.
such a good debate, if only there were more people in these primecayes panels.
Cause they can't handle Destiny without swathes of backup.
Prime was good here, but he had a terrible one a few days ago - constantly jumping into the argument and muting everyone. He's better as a panellist imo
They'd be 100,000x better if Prime wasn't there
this ones seems like it's just about passable but I don't understand why he evens hosts 15 panel shows. I'm assume he isn't aiming for a rajj royale shit show but I don't see why else you would choose to have so many people on.
😂
So nice of Prime to run Destiny's q and a this week. Very cool!
damn doing em dirty 💀
Destiny- we aren't doing any more large panel debates they are a waste of time.
Meanwhile- A Destiny group panel debate enters your feed.
He can't help it.
Primecayes moderation = meme in hospice
HEY! HEY! HEY! WOAH! WOAH! WOAH!
@@jeremias-serus stop stop stop!!!
I remember the first time I ever saw Prime, he was so quiet and seemed very calm and tried his hardest to make sure the panels went well and was trying his hardest to get partnered..... now he is just a terrible moderator 😂😂😂
I believe prime is being satiric, masterfully demonstrating the seduction of power in the political sphere that inherently subverts any attempt at making meaningful changes to the status quo
hold on a second, keep the hype train going, we have a hype train and the last one didn't go well, so keep the hype train going guys thanks
@@cheminem yea I’m sure that’s it lmao
He’s not terrible himself. It’s his format and his misunderstanding of human nature. He still seems genuinely surprised by the consequences of inviting 12 people to come on. That format means, there’s always someone who has to wait 10 people worth of time to talk. So by the time they DO talk, they’re bursting and irritated. Prime seems continuously disappointed at that bursting guest, and unaware that his format causes this dynamic.
@@KittenIgnition this, exactly.
Destiny needs to be more careful with his wording. For example: Money in politics.
Of course money has an realizable effect in politics, there's no denying this. Stating that it has no realizable effect is just blatantly false. The argument isn't if it does or does not have a realizable effect, it's around _how much_ and if it's overstated or not. Destiny knows this, but he's doing the "triggered bad faith button" thing again, where his focus is on "owning people" instead of coming to an understanding.
[edit: added "realizable" to make it more accurate]
[edit 2: added realizable to all instances to make the position more clear]
Destiny is plenty careful with his wording and has repeated this many times. Destiny has never denied that money has some influence. His position is that it is just massively overblown. People act like this is the one issue that is destroying American politics but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that this is the case. IDK why you're attempting to strawman his position when he's repeated this position in this same video. It's not a "triggered bad faith button". You just have an extremely hard time grappling with this topic.
@@Skymnkey995 "no realizable effect" =/= denied that money has some influence.
The point is he's stating that it has no realizable effect, when 1) There's no way he can support this position, because he would have to prove every single policy from local to national had no influence from corporations, and 2) There are examples like bills passed regarding Net Neutrality that had corporation backing but virtually zero public support.
Like I said before, Destiny *knows* that money has a realizable effect in politics. He starts doing this when his triggered button gets pushed.
[edit: I'll edit my comment a bit to make it more clear, since I could see why you mistakenly thought I strawmanned Destiny.]
@@Skymnkey995 Honestly, he should have avoided making the negative claim altogether. Just getting them to defend their position would have been enough. He'll no doubt walk back on this if he reflects on it from his "triggered" hangover, lmao.
[edit: fixed typo in triggered]
@@Skymnkey995 If Corporate money/influence to the detriment of the population really is overblown, then tell me, for example, why was the EPA gutted, why Standing Rock happened and why Flint's water?
Destiny's mistake here is conflating popular support with greater public good. There is such a thing as consent being manufactured.
In two years Destiny will be debating everyone he went to high school with simultaneously
Also, Destiny (at least in the first half of the discussion) is laser-focused on bills that are widely unpopular but pass due to corporate influence. But he doesn’t seem to consider the complementary scenario: bills that never see the light of day specifically because of corporate influence. For example, why have we not repealed the AUMF? The reason this point is important to bring up is because Congress kills far more bills than it ever passes so it seems reductive to only examine one side of the coin
Its because progressives keep parroting that idea that corporations keep getting bills passed while the normal people get nothing. Destiny thinks it's a bit hyperbolic.
And Destiny's position is *incredibly* difficult to actually support. To claim that corporate interests don't play a serious role in politics?
Seriously? He'd have to show every passed bill didn't have corporate interests -- that's not going to happen.
He's taking an untenable position, he should be more careful with his wording.
@@Avenger222 I think youre missing the burden of proof. something like that needs to be shown, not to be shown "not to happen" to not be taken for granted.
@@98danielray No. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
For example, someone could claim that there are no birds on an island in the middle of the Pacific. Does it make sense for that claim to automatically be true?
Of course not.
Stating a negative claim to be true without evidence doesn't make it true.
This is why Atheists have burden of proof if they claim that god doesn't exist.
@@Avenger222 I dont think they claimed corporative power does not influence anything, though. they just reject the claim that it has the influence it is claimed to have. just like atheists reject the claim that god exists.
Red Charlotte is always a good presence
Thanos vs the Avengers :
More like Thanos vs Teen Titans
Chad vs virgins
@@illestvillain1971 lul why u got to do em like dat
This is like a chess player playing 15 people at once.
a grandmaster
this was definitely 6000+ calories of brain rot, so i agree.
The Gnome's Gambit
it's called a simul
@@mindlander lmao
I feel like this has happened before. Like, many times before... But it gets better every time >:)
It happens every time he’s on a panel, they just made it official
Deja vu
Well and it's becoming a streamlined form of content, if you pay attention to a lot of the other content creators. They will come together and dissect Destiny's debates ON STREAM and attempt to reverse engineer success strategies by studying Destiny. And it always fails because they start from the assumption that Destiny uses rhetorical wizardry. Destiny wins because he examines his own logical process constantly, in order to keep himself from falling into logical fallacies. Being right isn't enough, even people with he right data can be wrong. Destiny goes the extra mile to examine his own process.
someone once told me time is a flat circle.
The Nebraska Steve may be gone but this takes me way back. Good old 1v5 vibes.
Nationally, finding a clear example of the people not wanting something but corporations wanting it is gonna be hard. Nationally, those corporations can influence attitudes for many people who won't be directly impacted by some policy or another. They can lie about the facts and change the narrative and access news networks AND lobby.
Local politics is much easier. Every time a highway got plowed through a poor neighborhood in a major city, it was an example of a large corporation completely subverting local politics to *their* will over the will of the local constituency. Decommissioning public transportation, especially rail lines. Elon Musk's getting into it with his dumbass "Loop".
But national politics is a feedback loop.
Well, I would bet that the majority of the city voted to plow that highway through the poor area to increase the commercial capacity of the city.
The corporation does not need to lie or anything to get people on board, it’s a major boost to a city to be connected to a major highway, this is a bad example of money in politics subverting public will
I felt like he dismissed net neutrality immediately and was never properly confronted on it. The attack on net neutrality began under Obama and Ajit Pai, not Trump. They could have also cited literally every trade deal ever.
@@fungdark8270 local judges
@@fungdark8270 We generally don't do ballot measures on that kind of thing
@@MrLoonytoon1024 I would think it would be in a bond package or increased transportation budget that is certainly voted on in local elections
Destiny bringing up Trump’s support for covering pre-existing conditions is pretty dishonest to me. He only supported the policy rhetorically because it was politically popular, but the Republican Congress repeatedly produced bills that would have significantly harmed coverage of preexisting conditions. Of course, none of these bills passed because the Republicans never formulated a complete healthcare proposal to replace Obamacare, but that’s besides the point
Very dishonest. It's been incredibly clear from the start that they had no intention to cover pre-existing conditions. Heck, it was a cornerstone of their entire plan. Destiny should know that Trump's literally flip-flopped on every topic. Destiny should know not to take Trump's word on something as gospel.
Destiny clearly has a national perspective on this. Local elections get steamrolled by corporate money all the time. Particularly county judges. I'm not sure why he's being particularly obtuse. Does he think that corporate influence should be as powerful as it is today?
Ah yes local elections, known for high turnout. This just supports destiny's point.
The problem with Destiny's position is that public favorability doesn't come apropos of nothing. People aren't naturally pro or anti military spending, they need information to form an opinion on it. So the power is not in the hands of the voters, the power is in the hands of whomever has the capital to disseminate the most propaganda.
But that propaganda has to believable to the populas and align with those values.
Destiny 2017: 1v5
Destiny 2021: 1v20 on Prime panel
One point in favor of publicly funded elections is that politicians can now concentrate on legislating instead of fundraising.
I'd argue economically any dollar spent on politics is a wasted dollar. Giving a politician money that could be invested or reinvested by corps is inefficient. Keep our currency in circulation not tied in the pockets of bureaucrats.
Also I deny corporations have real citizenship so I don't think they should be capable of interaction with politics in any way. They should be entirely financial entities.
@@SuperNeospaceThen you can never sue a corporation. You can only sue the owners of that corporation. Which can be 1 guy in Alabama that owns 1 share in the corporation. You have to give the entity some legal protection so that it can have legal liability.
@ColmanRetro I don't agree. I think the vacuum created by that loss of legal liability should be filled by regulatory liability. Have regulators impose fines that are paid directly to the injured party or to a pool held by the government that then pays out injured parties on an as needed basis.
Suing a company is pointless 99% of the time. You're telling me I can't sue a company as if I'm supposed to be sad when even if I tried I'd lose anyway.
@@SuperNeospace Yes, there’s no use to ever engage in a class-action lawsuit. I do like your idea of regulators imposing fines that are given to harmed individuals, but I think the people should have the right to sue corporations for further compensation. Class action lawsuits are good.
Edit: What I’m trying to say is we should be able to do both so Corporations actually pay out what they ought to pay out when they victimize consumers. Limiting it to simply criminal violations limits people’s ability to get their due compensation.
@ColmanRetro Currently by the time it gets to court the corp has its finger all over the actual laws and regulations because they influenced it upstream. Taking away their right to do so is more important than the ability to sue them.
A lawsuit Is a battle. Political influence is the war. Winning a lawsuit but letting them influence political broadly is missing the forest for a blade of grass not even a tree.
Right in my fookin feed. Top bins for a morning roaster and destiny debate
Yessir
Damn, you must be popular enough to debate.
"My turn, my turn!" 😂😂😂
They're lining up for him
We should have a Destiny Debate-athon where there's a huge queue to debate him on a particular topic for 5 minutes.
@@yore5 he kind of does that, it's called viewer call ins hahaha
It is a weird dichotomy where Destiny is disliked, but popular for being disliked. Gotta love internet culture
@@SuperLotus Internet culture is our life it seems... 😄
Example for Destiny; Forcing out small scale farms to favor industrial farming by creating acreage minimums and/or crop minimums. My suggestion would be to look locally. More examples of corporations taking advantage of communities locally rather than nationally. There is also ownership of equipment irregularities, where you technically can only lease the equipment, which means you nor any third party business can repair your equipment so you have to go through the corporation. It's death by a thousand cuts, not a public execution.
These guys needed to switch the argument just a tad. If you look at legislation that is wildly popular but doesn't go through (background checks for gun ownership for example), then corporate influence becomes a lot more obvious
At :42 "Does anyone here have a single legislative initiative that corporations were in favor of, that the public was opposed to that passed?"
1:08 "Like, an actual concrete, like, this is a major legislative initiative that most of America opposed, but like, corporations supported and somehow it got through, despite the American public"
1:48 Chum: "So, there was a pretty unpopular one under Trump, it had like a 7% public approval rating, and Trump signed it through executive order, it allowed ISPs to sell customers data to private companies"
3:10 "I'm interested in people in congress, can their views be eroded by corporate lobbying?"
If the president's views can be eroded, why would this effect magically have no affect/influence when it comes to congress?
I think there could have been more push back against Destiny on this one. With the ease at which the President can create executive orders that can impact the nation it'll be important to at least draw a parallel in corrupt influence between the president and Congress. It doesn't matter if eo can be overwritten easier than true legislation both can be done inspite of public support.
I have to disagree with destiny here. More money=more ads=more exposure. It has been shown that even neutral publicity is good publiciry.
One would think so.
However, Destiny argues that the actual results, does not reflect that.
The biggest spender don't usually win.
This felt like Geralt of Rivia effortlessly fighting off bunch of drowners.
Destiny with some very cherry-picked data right at the beginning of this. That guy who answered Destiny's question with the three points starting with military spending was right on. A quick google search (literally 2 minutes of clicking the top 5 links just now) comes up with plenty of polls that suggest a majority of Americans and even 50% or more of the REPUBLICAN party support cutting current military spending to support other domestic needs, as long as the cuts wouldn't gut soldiers' healthcare or pay.
Also, completely glossing over that guy's third point about the influence of politicians on political discourse and the framing of issues, which was relevant for pretty much the entire conversation.
In regards to the first question Destiny asked and correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't net neutrality an example of a big legislative bill that got passed backed by corporations but hard opposed by regular people
This is a pretty bad take tbh, all examples given are valid. Destiny tries to say military spending increase is popular, which is false and he uses approval of current budget as evidence. The fact that republicans reflect business interests over voter interests. The cruz of the issue seems to be that destiny doesn’t see misinformation and actual lobbying to the public as an issue. The real question is who is being served more, public or corporations? How is that the case? And how do we solve that issue?
One thing you could add which is missing in those pannels is more people.
The Prime memes on Destiny’s subreddit have been hilarious
wait so prime couldnt make a decent case for his position so he had a think tank panel of 15 people try to?
10/10
The first 10 seconds already contain a bad argument on Destiny's part. You shouldn't look for bills that have been passed despite public opinion. You need to investigate how public opinion is manipulated.
This is America, not Russia.
EDIT: Also, people flock to the comments praising Destiny for this one hour debate.. 10 minutes after it was uploaded. This community js becoming disturbingly shallow. It's a bit of a cult of personality.
It’s his way of getting the argument of the other side out in the most succinct manner.
At that point he wasn’t trying to defend lobbying, simply find the most obvious and impactful bad example of it
@@fungdark8270 My argument is that whenever these things aren't about some trade technicality that doesn't invoke a strong public response, lobbying in the US works alongside the construction of a public itself. I'm sure we would find instances of lobbying for the Iraq war, but that didn't happen despite a negative public opinion. It happened hand in hand with priming the public to be in favour of the war.
He even loses that argument. Just look at the bills passed regarding Net Neutrality. Vast disapproval ratings, yet a few corporations were able to get it passed through.
@@Avenger222 I have to admit I wasn't interested in watching the video if *that* was the zinger for the opening. But I don't doubt he lost, pal. Your net neutrality argument is a great counter.
ok so the intro is just destiny not understanding omnibus bills I guess? and that's supposed to be some earth shattering argument that these guys can't counter? wtf
People on this panel not understanding that members of Congress only care about their constituents and not the whole country makes them look uneducated on how our government works.
Three words, destiny: right to repair
True but that is a fairly small issue as far as these things go.
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but just a few things that don't seem to count as corporate influence according to Destiny in this one:
- Legislature going through the executive branch (because, I don't know, its only congressional elections that matter all the sudden)
- Segments of legislature that gets added to popular bills which when polled separately is largely unpopular (and as such, one should wonder why it gets added at all) - its only influence if the whole bill, in its entirety, is wildly unpopular. Essentially, if everyone involved was dumb as rock, then it would be corporate influence.
- Faux protection of pre-existing conditions by republicans in the last 4 years of rhetoric, despite their track records for decades before that
Also some weird claims:
- That, because money spent doesn't wholeheartedly decide elections, and it is but one dimension among many (durh), one cannot critique it. What? Does it need to be strictly the main, 100% deciding factor before it invites discussion? It's incredibly hard to regulate endorsements, or last names, compared to financial contributions.
- Because Cuba is a communist state, its local election models shouldn't be studied.
Also, I get it that its difficult to fact-check shit on the fly, but you can't really complain about it if you demand that people have to cite things - again, that's good, but if you jump into a thing with a whole panel, you can't complain about feeling overwhelmed. That's kind of what makes the thing you wanna brag about doing so difficult.
Just referring to the first "weird claim" you cited: Destiny repeats a few time during the debate that there's no such thing as a direct correlation between money spent and votes outcome (or at least it's not proven by data). I feel like you can make that point if an unkown billionaire (let's say someone from another country no one know in the USA) comes to the country, starts running for precidency (I know you can't by the law, I'm just trying to make a point) and wins or takes a big chunk of the total votes: do you really feel that would be possible only thanks to infinite funding? Even when we are talking about billionares running for presidency, weren't they already vastly known public figures with a lot of following? Trump, Bloomberg, they both are extremely well known personalities, being able to run is not enough to talk about a huge problem linked to private funding, especially when we are talking about a 2 parties democracy that leaves a lot of potential candidates out of the run for presidency from the start.
I agree with your take on the money deciding elections thing, in Germany we have state issued campaign money which is ( I think) based on members of the party and % of the last vote, which helps the non corp-friendly parties such as "die Grünen(the greens)". However we also still have private donations. So no one has do "decide" who can run or not.
@@Lollonman1 I'm sorry but you're just repeating his claim, whereas my point was about where the "only" qualifier comes from.
Why would someone *only* have to win based on their finances for it to count as a factor that we can discuss the validity of.
Destiny is the one who inserts that as a perogative, no?
If you really believe there to be no correlation between financial investment and winning an election, I don't see why you'd be against a cap on election spending at all. Makes no difference, right?
@@criticalgeek9187 I would tell you that personally I feel like wether you put an extremely low cap or you don't put any cap at all, the diminishing returns make spending 1 bilion dollar over 200 milions almost worthless and a huge waste of money.
In regards to discussing the matter, I'd say you can discuss all you want, but if there's no concrete evidence of the direct effect of more money making you win an election, and being in general a very small factor, you are at least supposed to take into account all the other factors: would you start a debate on whether or not Britney Spears should endorse a candidate? If that's not the case, we are spending hours of out time talking about something so miniscule that it makes the whole debate worthless. It seems pretty obvious to me we are talking about it only because there are milionares and billionares on the counterpart and we fuckin love givin shit to that category of people when we are on the internet.
@@Lollonman1 That's ridiculous. Congressmen spend 2/3's of their time fundraising, literally. Not getting endorsements, just money. You should tell every political analyst and all elected officials in the US you cracked the code and that none of it matters.
The panel was unironically going better when prime was distracted and not moderating
Destiny opening this debate by simping for corporations sorta just set the tone for this one.
I wish people knew how stupid it sound to hear them say right after every single point especially when they're usually wrong right
It's time to try defying Destiny. I think I'll try defying Destiny.
It's not necessarily that funding influences a person's policy, though that is a factor. It's that funding goes to candidates that will represent corporate interests and not to those who don't. The difference between "I'll pay you to do this" versus "I'll pay you because you will do this." This in addition to the massive propaganda machine that is corporate media and education. These companies own the media, write the books, fund the intelligence agencies, etc. Allowing Capitalists own such large bodies of capital and accumulate wealth through it and spend it more or less freely has created such a situation that public policy doesn't reflect public interest but rather nearly 100% Corporate interest. It's not a matter of well this policy and that policy voted for because corporate influence. It's that Capitalists pick and choose who will be in government based on how they will serve their interests, how they control the creation and flow of information in the media and schools spreading fabrications and distortions as truths, how they get us into wars that we don't want through misinformation campaigns and bribery just to attain more wealth and access to resources and markets. Their existence is a negative and unnecessary existence. They need us, we don't need them.
Why is it bad to give funding to people who agree with you?
@@chadmonty9967 nice reframing into an abstraction divorced from the context and consequences. the actual question is, "why is it bad for corporations to have excessive control over society and the political process?" the funding is merely a means to an end. the end is the problem, the root cause is allowing such wealth accumulation and usage of that wealth to engineer society to their benefit using it.
@@chadmonty9967 to give an example as to why your question is dumb: my issue is that children are being bought to cover debts from parents and their bodies are being sold for sex with your response being "why is spending your money on commodities and services that you like a bad thing?" you're completely misrepresenting the issue.
@@G.Bfit.93 ok so you realize your just railing against capitalism not the specific issue of lobbying.
@@chadmonty9967 But to answer the question directly, the same reason it's not good to allow people to freely spend money on commodities and services they like is the same reason for why it's not good to freely allow people to fund politicians and parties they like. That reason being the consequences. The first leads to markets in child sex slavery and many more problems the second leads to corporate dictatorship and all the problems associated with that like poverty and war and homelessness. Both bad outcomes.
Honestly, Bloomberg in the 2020 race is the perfect example to show that money does not equal political victory. The dude spent more than anyone and failed miserably becauae he was a terrible candidate according to the population.
Dude, money doesn't absolutely guarantee victory. Stop strawmanning the argument. It simply means that money gives you a large advantage. Name recognition is still the #1 factor for winning.
Who needs Amazon prime when you've got this prime
Well, if lazy workers get their way, we won’t have Amazon prime much longer as we know it
"The Problem is that... But the Problem is that... Yes, and the Problem is that..."
My feed? That’s what Destiny is coming right into...wait...
Not the only thing tho
Should have used the v-tuber when prime asked about his camera 😥
why do online politics people act like republicans aren't literally half the country. your cashier might be a republican. your plumber might be a republican. your barber might be a republican. these guys spend so much time in a bubble they view republicans as if they're some great Other in a distant land.
15:30 Amazon absolutely did not remove an option to purchase stock, there's literally a plan offered to buy small amounts of stock every paycheck. What a bold faced lie.
0:35 Yessirr, even though it's not an American example: ''the abolition of dividend tax'' in the Netherlands one or two years ago. Literally the whole public was against this, yet the lobby turned out stronger than public will. Our PM Mark Rutte's image was severely damaged after that whole debacle and he just nearly got away with it.
So yes, it does exist and it does happen.
Where are you getting the data showing that the “abolition of the dividend tax” was unpopular with Dutch voters in 2017?
@@chadmonty9967 I dont know if you're Dutch, but literally every newspaper and other media were talking about the widespread discontent and inpopularity. If you really need data for this to believe me - which I can understand if you're an outsider - I would point you towards the polling data Maurice De Hond (he is a wellknown polling guy here) collected after the decision was made by Rutte: joop.bnnvara.nl/nieuws/slechts-een-op-de-zes-nederlanders-steunt-nu-nog-afschaffen-dividendbelasting
It's in Dutch unfortunately, but I cant really give you a source in English, so you're gonna have to use Google translate a bit.
@@EenMagnetron I’m not sure if my comment got deleted for some reason so if this a repeat ignore it. Thanks for the article google translate worked surprisingly well. However, I’m a bit confused. Did this bill pass, from what I read it seems to still be just a proposal?
@@chadmonty9967 It started out as a proposal, later after much backlash it still passed (or rather it got pushed through).
I found some English articles talking about it in more depth, but the comments were just like yours deleted (spam filter I guess?). I will try to find and link them again:
www.dutchnews.nl/news/2018/04/dutch-prime-minister-faces-stormy-debate-over-dividend-tax-memos/
www.reuters.com/article/uk-netherlands-politics-tax/dutch-pm-rutte-under-fire-as-row-over-dividend-tax-cut-escalates-idUKKBN1HW1XS?edition-redirect=uk
There are much more articles, but I think you can Google them yourself. Just type in ''Rutte abolition dividend tax (debate)'' or something like that and you might find something better.
(Oh I almost forgot, the abolition was meant to attract multinationals like Unilever, but months later Unilever decided to not move to the Netherlands anyway, which made it *even more* controversial:
dutchreview.com/news/politics/rutte-reconsidering-the-abolishing-of-the-dividendtax-kaboom/
(And here an article pointing out the timeline of how Rutte pushing through the abolition of the dividend taxes was the start of Rutte going downhill real fast (last week he just nearly escaped a motion of distrust):
nltimes.nl/2021/04/02/omtzigt-note-pm-ruttes-first-slip-memory))
@@EenMagnetron so I read a little while ago that Rutte and the government quit but it seems like he’s still in power. This is semi off topic but could you explain this to a foreigner?
Apple definitely lobbys against right to repair and successfully keeps their anti-consumer practices legal. Thats the only example i can think of that lobbying has shown to reflect legistlative policy bending to the will of a corporation that specifically is also against the will of the people. But they're trying to prevent legislation, not enact any.
Destiny has been upgraded to raid boss. The panel is getting better at taunt swapping but needs more DPS.
At 50:36 we have the worst damn idea I've ever heard in terms of public funding for elections.
Panelists: *give opinion*
"Moderator": stop stop stop stop STOP I DONT CARE.
That’s his job...
I sharply disagree on the take regarding taxing religious institutions. As an atheist, I am very wary of religions gaining potential leverage over local politics through tax revenue (e.g. a Catholic church using it's capital to influence abortion legislation, by threatening to leave and take their taxes with them). I would rather swallow that than risk the further erosion of the separation of church and state.
Destiny: I dare yall to find ANY example of passed policy that favored corporations but the majority of people did not want.
Seventeen examples given
Destiny: But I'm not interested in any of those ones for this reason that invalidates my entire argument.
Please timestamps ddog.
When is this prime, destiny 1v1 gonna happen.
Prime isn’t anywhere near destiny’s weight class
@@karatekevlar I know that’s why I wanna see lmao
I take issue with the way the question about lobbying was worded. Of course, people will have favorable views of corporate backed policies, those same corporations contribute to misinformation about things like climate change, for example. the CATO institute is one of the most well known right wing think tanks and it's funded and founded by the koch brothers. Now, this isn't to say that their work on criminal justice reform, for example is bad, but when it comes to climate science or economics, CATO is not the best place to get information.
now, we get back to the original question. do capitalist interests align with the interests of voters? sure, but that's not the right question, the question should be, how does public opinion change according to the will of these business interests. I could ramble about this all day, but Noam Chomsky wrote the book on it,
I feel like this happens everytime he's on a panel. It just turns into everyone asking him questions and debating him but not eachother
Not in my feed D:
So they're spending a whole bunch of money for nothing?
Seems rather irrational and the private sector is supposed to be so rational. Or perhaps it's like marketing ... we know 50% of it works, we just don't know which 50%.
Switzerland has no campaign donation limits. No party has to show what it received and from where. But there are laws on what the money can be spent, e.g. no ads on TV and Radio (to give everyone a similar chance to advertise).
I don't say the Swiss model is the perfect model for the US. I just want to say that there are other solutions to campaign finances. In my opinion we often lose the goal out of sight. The goal is to give more politicians more opportunities. Certainly there are a wide range of measures that would achieve this goal.
In my opinion eliminating donations from the private sector is the worst solution. The interests of the population don't always align with the interests of the private sector. And sometimes the population is wrong and the private sector is right. If the private sector has problems, everyone suffers. Hence the private sector must be able to represent their own interests.
Also I believe one measure alone isn't able to solve the problem. In Switzerland we have tonne of measures that work in tandem to create a well working government:
- Switzerland is a direct democracy. It is very simple to hold a referendum (change an existing law) and an initiative (vote on a new law).
- The government, which consists of 7 ministers from the most popular parties, must support all decisions unanimously (no tribalism and the government can't be bought).
- Another principle is that the government represents the country as much as possible (ministers from roughly all states and languages: German, French, Italian and Rätoromanin).
We had a Trump like figure 10-15 years ago in the government from the most popular party. He refused to work with other ministers, hence he got voted out by the parliament the next election.
I learned yesterday that it’s actually subcontracted businesses that hire people at Amazon buildings, at least a driver I know works for Amazon under a subcontractor.
He said each contractor has different pay rates 🧐
I work at a Facebook DataCenter and there are actual Facebook Employees but the majority of “employees” are just contractors from other companies that go in and repair the servers, lay down the cabling, do the maintenance, etc....
That's not good at all. It helps against unionization by forcing it not to be centralized around a single company, and those contractors have to compete for the jobs Amazon offers, making it less paid
Why the fuck is the first celebrity Destiny can think of T-pain???
Anyone know when Prime streamed this? Can’t find it on his channel. Was hoping he had links to the other streamers.
Destiny is just plain wrong about money equals winning. There may not be a causal relationship. But the data definitely shows correlation for over 90pc of races at local levels.
Do you have any data?
Amazon wants a higher minimum wage because it crushes their competition that cannot afford it I would crush Destiny in a debate easy Peezy
Destiny missing with his arguments left and right
One of the biggest cash flops in Australian politics was Clive Palmer's 80 million dollar investment into his own campaign, didn't even win a single seat in either house of parliament.
I think most company influence in dollars comes in lobbying, but they pull at a fundamental belief in either party. They are more likely to rally people to do their work for them rather than push it themselves.
No evidence, just an opinion.
Im against the idea of public fundings of campaign sounds soo surreal from a middle/western european view.
These people need to go over campaign finance laws. A lot of things they say is just not true. No campaign can raise millions of dollar from just 10 donors. The amount of money an entity can donate per election season (or year) and campaign is limited to 2'000 - 5'000 dollar (roughly).
When people complain about campaign finances, they complain mainly about Super Pacs. Super Pacs are allowed to take an unlimited amount of money from a donor, but the money doesn't go to the campaign and can be only spent in a specific way.
What matters is what the electorate thinks and not what the nation thinks.
In school but destiny is more important
For always
When you build a habit of getting distractions, it becomes hard to break! :)
Good luck in school.
School was pog today xqcL
As to DEstiny's comment about how do we choose who runs - In the current system, if a minor party candidate gets 5% or more of the vote in their district/state/the whole country, then they get publicly funded. It isn't much, but they are given funding.
@7:45- Destiny, u just disproved ur own point. The reason Trump was able to garner that support for populist policy -especially regarding medical and social security- is not just because he was able to steal that rhetoric from the left, but because of the fact that the republican voter base overwhelmingly supports such programs. these programs overall happen to be very popular across the board, just in general, according to polling data. We saw this play out on a massive level within the 2016 election, and I think we can Be pretty confident within the notion that the Republican voter base does not align with Republican policy economically as much as we once thought it did.
When lighterup said J.B. Pritzker was some random dude who ran for governor because he had a ton of money... Not only was J.B. Pritzker influential in Illinois politics prior to his gubernatorial term, his whole family are essentially Illinois royalty, smh.
He also ran for a Congressional seat and was heavily involved in Democratic politics over the years.
My point was that he was helped out by spending $172 million of his own money on the race. That dwarfed everybody else ($30 million for the next guy). I actually think Pritzker has been a good governor, but the effect of his wealth on his election is undeniable.
@@longhornsforeva And you’d be correct by stating that it helped, I can acknowledge that. But he was also unsuccessful in his Congressional campaign, where he presumably tried spending his way to the top of the Democratic primary as well. My main problem was that he’s been pretty involved over the years in Democratic Party politics, so I think it’s a little unfair to say he mainly relied on his wealth to win - and he for sure wasn’t some random rich guy in Illinois politics haha
@@jonathanstegeman3132 Sure. I acknowledge that a campaign's access to finances alone isn't determinant, but in the context of the discussion it demonstrates the ability of candidates with substantial personal wealth to run and win relative to your average candidate. Pritzker's primary opponents suffered from a considerable lack of name recognition relative to him in part because of the non-stop TV ads he paid for. For another example, think back to the 2020 Democratic primary. People like Cory Booker, Julian Castro, etc. had to drop out before voting even occurred partially because they weren't able to secure wealthy donors. Pete Buttigieg and Michael Bloomberg were able to continue paying campaign staff, buying ads, etc. and stayed in the race much longer. This was cause Pete had secured a lot of wealthy donors and Bloomberg is of course a billionaire.
@@longhornsforeva Name recognition also because he’s a Pritzker, ran for office before, and was involved with the Blagojevich government including during its downfall when there was a lot of media coverage surrounding anyone associated with Blago; Ads just don’t seem to be as effective as canvassing, there’s even research suggesting political ad campaigns don’t have any effect in the long run for determining how someone is gonna vote.
To your point about Corey Booker and Julian Castro, from what I’ve read, they didn’t receive much money/donations because they just weren’t doing well in the early polling before the Iowa caucus, and thus weren’t viable to throw money at. Their ground game apparently just wasn’t comparable to Pete’s; if their campaigns weren’t appealing in the first place, then I doubt money would do much to change anyone’s minds when they go vote. As for Bloomberg, idk, he should instead be a great example of how money *doesn’t* always matter in elections. Even if we acknowledge he bought his way on the debate stage very late in the primary, the dude still threw away millions only just to win American Samoa.
@@jonathanstegeman3132 I mean Bloomberg did better than 90% of the candidates just by spending money. You also need money to canvas effectively that’s a big part of what Pritzker spent on. Daniel Biss and Chris Kennedy were fairly well known and had local political profiles. They just had way less money.
How about HRblock and TurboTax lobbying to keep income tax self reported? The government could just send us a bill as in other countries. Heard about it on NPR Planet Money so it must be true.
There’s probably a lot to that that benefits us as well.
If you don’t have money and want your taxes easier, great, but don’t demand that people that drive this country lose their opportunity to structure their tax filings a certain way.
@@fungdark8270 I'm not talking about outlawing self-reporting. I'm saying the default should be IRS tells you what they think you owe. You can accept or you can object and send your own reporting. Most Americans have very simple returns.
@@yanggang9605 Good point!
why do people even do politics online with room temp IQ's?
15:10 wait, is this guy saying that the $15 an hour compensation was given but stocks were pulled back? They were giving shares of amazon to their minimum wage workers? Or is this a 401k type thing, and they rolled back their matching?
Starts losing at 13:53 so he looks around for food and finds some at 14:01, what a weaselly little liar dude, still lying!
One day a beautiful picture will emerge as the amount of panelists grows, each person a pixel
Is Prime getting better at this panels? or is that just me.
Improving but 0/10 to 1/10 isn't much
I'm 20 mins in and am pleseantly surprised so far, I'll keep you posted. He's a great panellist and a horrible moderator usually
@@Elitematt74 I'd say he went from a 0.1 to a 5 here compared to the last one.
@@NorthAyase tbf i didnt watch it, but after watching it i would agree
I would say this kind of format makes it harder for him to interrupt / talk some dumb shit. Pretty sure if we go back to normal panels it will be shit again
i turned based from this debate
Trump screeching about "protecting pre-existing conditions" =! Republican support of protecting pre-existing conditions. This is such an insane red herring, and the fact that you should know better but don't is concerning.
mmmm yeah gimme a hit of that debate panel
I don't catch these debates normally, only through Destiny's recording(s), but Prime always sounds so damn annoyed and a few times throughout he goes "whatever your name is, your next." Like, does he not talk with each person before doing one of these? I bet he's a great guy, he is doing a ton of work and I'm sure it's stressful to set these up, but he comes across like he's so angry with everyone sometimes. I think the structure of this one has been infinitely better than other free-for-all debates. Having a rotation/turn order definitely helps.
ISPs selling subscribers data and it was super quietly pushed through
Right in my REDACTED
A debate on politicians influence and no mention of term limits?
I get it's about money but no mention of the tax laws that are manipulate by both parties to hid donors?
This "debate " sounds like what's the best way to eliminate are opponents without voting.
Holy shit primes actually moderating, this was nice :)
Universal background checks for buying firearms is a good one I think. I’m pretty sure 80-90% of Americans favor them but the NRA makes sure it doesn’t happen.
Prime STFU in this one, but the panel is still larger than some of my classes
Can Americans stop using Australia as this be all and end all towards a better democracy we’ve literally had openly racists politicians in seats because politicians don’t give a shit about rural communities and the only people that listen to them are heavy nationalists and racist. Not to mention that all the left wing politicians are so incompetent they have no interest in representing the “working people” but rather implement climate neutral which ignored aboriginal traditional back burning and led to one of the biggest fire seasons in Australia’s history. The point of a democracy is to have an educated populace, not what’s the best for my side, votes mean nothing if there is no meaningful and realistic force for positive change.
The right to repair is an issue I would like to see more mainstream.
Yeah destiny seemed to disregard some of the direct arguments made to him here. So for example with the first guy, when Destiny responded, he responded to a strawman of the first guy’s argument. The first guy was arguing that the Gallup polls suggested that most Americans didn’t support increasing military budgets for the past 50 years (with the exception of 1). This claim is true. Instead of responding to that, Destiny looked at the Gallup polls, saw that 50% of Americans think that the budget is about right, and somehow thought that debunked his claim? The 50% crowd is ALSO not in favor of increasing military budgets. That dudes arguments were definitely weak at times, but destiny’s response there felt bad faith. As for red Charlotte, she provided sheer data to support her claim. The data was in response to the poor study that Destiny was referring to, and as far as I can tell, the data seemed well-corroborated. I feel like the point about empirics supporting her claim that wealth influences politics was not sufficiently emphasized. It was pretty much a slam dunk. Quibbling over anecdotes is fine, but anecdotes can never compare to empirics.
50% is not unpopular.
The first guys argument was about taxes not the military. The second guy who your actually referring to was an idiot who made an argument that he himself refuted literally seconds after making it. Under Obama defense spending decreased because military spending is unpopular with Democrats which lines up with the will of the ruling party. Under Trump spending increased because its popular with republicans. A poll of all Americans is worthless in that particular conversation. To address Reds study, destiny brought up how Trump championed protecting pre existing conditions. Also if you read the study their are a number a problems such as the way the guy worded the questions such as. “Do you think your party supports Mining companies dumping debris’s in your local river”, which is a bit leading. Also when asking about Medicaid the guy literally asks “do you supports this existing part of Obamacare” then rewords it in the study as “expanding medicaid” finally the numbers don’t seem that crazy most Republicans and democrats have a good idea of what their party supports on big issues like minimum wage.
@@chadmonty9967 Yeah so as for the *second* guy, you're right increasing spending does seem to be pretty unpopular among dems. That's why I said his argument was weak at times, because of a) asserting that the defense spending is always going up and b) arguing that this is good for corporations, which he mentioned defense contractors for, but we know that corporate investment in the defense industry is going down, so the point seems rather tenuous. I just took issue with Destiny's response because his response made it clear that he was seeing the same gallup polls, but then completely misunderstood his point by conflating favorability for the current military spending with being in favor of increasing it.
The whole point about dems not enacting measures that oppose their own voter base was pretty much Charlotte's point. The republican party appears to be the party that obeys corporations the most, often even when corporations disagree with their own voter base. That's what Charlotte's study suggested. I think you're referring to the second study she cited from DataforProgress. I was mentioning Charlotte's first study. It was reanalyzing the shitty princeton study, and it asserted that corporations and "the people" agree on most of the policies, but when they disagreed, it was a half half split between the will of the corporations and that of the people. That's still pretty disproportionate and problematic, but certainly not dystopian as the original study made it seem. Most of this was coming from republicans. As a tangent, there are studies that corroborate money's influence in legislation if you're interested, but it's not as crazy as some lefties like to make it seem.
Finally, to address the dataforprogress study criticism, while Trump did champion pre-existing conditions, the poll was referring to the republican party. You could argue that voters conflated the two in their head, but even that assertion is pretty problematic for democracy. Conflating what Trump claims he will do to what the republican party's position actually is reveals a naivete which will result in negative consequences. It would be as if AOC won, claimed that she'd abolish ICE, and people assumed that that's the overall consensus of the democratic party. Making individual politicians a representation of a party as a whole, especially when the party is as corrupt and disingenuous as the republican party isn't good for democracy. We know for a fact that Trump haslied about how many populist measures he'd enact, only for him to go back and take the position of the republican party. As for the "expanding medicaid" point, they literally mentioned "expanding medicaid" in the question. They said "under the ACA" because it was under the framework of the ACA that *some states* expanded medicaid. That isn't disingenuous. There is a clear party disagreement there. As for the debris question, I'm not sure what you find disingenuous or leading there. As for the minimum wage, I feel like people are ignoring the 9% of republicans that seem to not know where there party stands there. In total, that's 39% of the republican voter base that either is flat out wrong or is simply unaware about these issues. As far as I'm concerning, 39% is huge, especially in a country as partisan as ours. If even some of that 39% was educated on the party differences on that issue and actually cared enough to move that's significant. The other questions demonstrated that same lack of understanding that could really change the voter base significantly.
@@farhana9025 If you could link the study your talking about that would be cool.
To the other study. So, in a very large scale way I agree that believing the ideas of the current prez are representative of the whole party is problematic. However, that’s a super difficult problem that applies to any political party. Trump was elected by republicans to represent them and at the end of the day he has all the power to stop anything republicans push so he’s got a lot of influence. AOC is just a congresswoman she’s not representative of anybody, but the people in her district.
Trump might’ve lied about protecting pre existing conditions but I don’t know why he would. It’s pretty popular and would get some good faith with dems so his plan could pass. I know theirs the meme of Trump not keeping his promises but that doesn’t really seem to be true www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-37982000 you don’t need to like what he did but for the most part he did/tried to do most everything he said he wanted to do. I think it’s also important to point out that he served like 3/4ths a term with corona and presidents keep shit for their second term so people vote for them.
The reason the Medicaid question is misleading is because the pollster asked if the people thought republicans supported a policy that was already implemented which could very well be true and then stated republicans think their party supports expanding Medicaid. A large portion of conservatives are cool with policies that work well once implemented actually once a policy is implemented sometimes it’s the Conservative party that works to keep it as it is.
With the minimum wage I think the problem is your mistakenly believing that the democrats who think their party supports a 15$ an hour federal min wage aren’t necessarily correct so the numbers might be more similar than they first appear.
And finally “do you think republicans support a mining company dumping debris in YOUR LOCAL RIVER”
38:31 Denmark does *not* have mandatory voting.
This dude is always a TERRIBLE moderator. I literally don’t even watch if he’s moderating, because there’s a 100% chance it will just be a screaming match