Did Charlie Kirk say with a straight face that Trump's coal policy brought "back" to Appalachia "hundreds of thousands" of jobs? As a former citizen of West Virginia until 2021 I can assure you that is complete and utter nonsense.
There were more coal jobs under Obama than anytime under Trump. Also under Biden right now there are more manufacturing jobs now than ANYTIME under trump. Which there was a ten year low in manufacturing jobs under trump before COVID.
@@JohnSmith-yd5wq The m@ga “republicans” don’t want to hear the facts, John. Facts are of no importance to them nor do they go along with their narrative. Plus, anything that someone outside of their party says that doesn’t perfectly match up with their beliefs result in retorts consisting of character assault, name calling, general insults, gross accusations, assumption of any and all beliefs, parroted talking points, denial, whataboutism, and finally, outright refusal to believe anything that’s said regardless of solid, reputable sources/evidence. It’s equivalent to a kid having a temper tantrum covering their ears while loudly yelling “Nope, you’re wrong and I’m right! I’m not listening, I’m not listening, I’m not listening!” - and we’re the triggered sheep? LMFAO.
@@FM-dm8xj the source is the employment rate is at an all time high. But I understand how that is hard to find being a Kirk fan also makes you unable to read and understand common sense and facts.
@@benjaminasmus3980 What?Trumps admin had the lowest unemployments ever, especially for african americans, hispanics and so on..... Please lets not stray from the facts, I know the left doesnt deal with those though so.......
Bro it wasn’t dead he just expanded in the context which Sam didn’t know since all he did was google, and his so called ending comment to win with was written on a frickin paper, if someone truly knows something you don’t need a paper common! And Charlie was ready to keep going but the moderator said I think we should stop it here because the guy knows Charlie haha
Charlie was playing with Sam like a big dog vs little dog he let him say his BS half truths and Charlie added things to get Sam thinking just to keep things interesting because this was not a serious debate at all 🤣
Why do you think Crowder didn’t even want to debate him at all because Sams a clown and Steven would not be able to take him serious at all but Charlie gave him the light of day and proved just that, he’s a clown
19:45 I went and looked this up, it does appear Sam is correct: The top 10% of American households, as defined by total wealth, now own 84% of all stocks according to National Bureau of Economic Research. That number does include indirect ownership of stocks via 401(k)s.
Also Sam is correct about Glass-Steagall. Citigroup, which was one of the predominant reasons the market crashed in 2008, only formed because Glass-Steagall was replaced with the Grahma-Beach act which effectively enabled large banks to merge with risky investment groups. Literally one of the reasons why 2008 crash happened and Charlie was so wrong
Yes, but as you mentioned, it includes indirect ownership of stocks via 401(k)s. So the implication people might get, 10% of Americans have 84% wealth stock wealth freely at their disposal, isn't correct. I think that was what Kirk was getting at.
Institutions like investment banks, firms and hedge funds own over 80% of all stocks, stop acting like its individual people/households who own the stocks, its a big group of people who all own the stocks in the name of businesses/firms/hedge funds. And the majority of the crash in 2008 was caused by leverage and financial derivatives of mortgage backed securities that were backed by mortgages that shouldnt have been handed out.(the mortgages default, and the levered investments go to 0) It had nothing to do with banks merging with risky investment groups. It was something called CDCs that everyone considered to be safe without digging deep into the mortgages that backed them and realizing that they had terrible fico scores and were bound to default. Risky investment groups had nothing to do with it. These investments were considered safe.
@@stocklesnar3183 As the National Bureau of Economic Research stated, the number includes indirect ownership of stocks. Businesses, institutions, and retirement funds are all owned by people - what you are saying is irrational.
@@sovietsandvich8443 out of the hundreds of comments actually addressing the arguments, you singled this one out hahaha you know why it's a relevant comment don't be disingenuous
Shaan Siton everyone knows Charlie Kirk has a pro trump/republican bias, although the fact that his family was wealthy is irrelevant. Either way, this was a waste of a comment
@@sovietsandvich8443 hahaha no it's very relevant and at the very least interesting if Kirks family was literally on the Trump payroll 😂 if a leftist debater had family on the Clinton payroll I'm sure you'd think that's relevant
Kind of like Saudi Arabia's 1 million jobs best deal ever weapons deal. I bet you can guess we don't even have close to 1 million people in the entire industry.
Kirk's description of the middle class is NOT the middle class at all. He described the upper middle, not the middle. And the rest of what he said was based on the trickle down theory, which has never worked. It's an excuse to allow the huge wealth gap to continue.
Uhh no dude. He was describing the lower middle class. Upper lower class is anybody who can go a month without a paycheck before needing financial assistance. Upper class is based on how much you have but lower and middle class can really only effectively be based on someone's debt to income (DTI) ratio. Meaning if you live in California and you have a annual salary of $100,000. But you have $50k in annual cost. You really only make $50k a year. BUT !!! in California you are required to pay (on the small end) 36% of that $100k in taxes. LEAVING YOU WITH EFFECTIVELY $14,000. of the original $100,000. So yeah middle class is a big zone
Upper lower class? Dont hear that to often but i still dont think anyone lower class can go a month without help. Good thing for that guy with the 100,000 that taxes arent done that way.
@@brianfederico5854 36% ? I thought taxes were marginal that means that for a married couple it’s 12% until you hit 80k then it’s 22% for the remaining 20k but the standard deduction is 24k so in order for you to be taxed at 22% at all you’d have to make way more than 100k …you said Cali so are you saying when you add state and federal taxes you end up paying 36% ? I don’t get it please explain I’m not from Cali
Steven crowder was given the nick name cold feet crowder for a reason, he only debates against people that know little about topics his favorite topics. In a sense you can compare it to a pro boxer such as Jake paul wanting to only fight people that are of less skill then him to elevate his status and ego.
@@Anthony-wf6oj Camino, Steven Crowder has ambushed Cenk Uygur on his own panel and talked over him, plus mocked him as he was speaking, at a panel he was not invited to be part of, now that is way worse then two people raising their voices a couple of times over each other and overall the debate between seder and kirk was pretty respectful in my opinion.
@Lesco Brandon If crowder is a comedian, he needs to improve at it because he's not funny, he's probably up there with Brendan schaub at being unfunny.
@@78karix lack of testicular fortitude lmao Shapiro would make him cry like chunk yogurt lol that debate was brutal lmao tyt is the worst type of ppl lol
Charlie Kirk is a very load robot. He doesn't get that Health care isn't a choice people make, it's something everyone needs. If everyone needs it but not everyone can afford it in a market system, than people die/go bankrupt. People don't die/go bankrupt in a single payer system, they just have to pay their taxes. Taxes don't kill people, not having healthcare does. The government isn't coming for your life if you don't pay taxes on time. In addition to this, taxes don't even have to go up all that much if you allocate the tax burden more on the wealthy who can afford it and are already not paying their fair share. This is the richest country on the planet yet, we spend more money on War, Corporate welfare, and tax breaks for the wealthy than we do on programs that actually help citizens. If you pay taxes, you should get something in return. Medicare for All would be that something if we allow it. I'd personally say that markets don't work when it comes to something you need verses something you don't. You don't need a coach, a pen or an iphone to live so those things do great in a market system because you can choose not have them and not die from that choice. Medicine, running water, electricity, and com tech(phone/internet) are not things you can live without. There is no option which means there is no risk of someone refusing to buy. That means you can charge them what ever you want and they can't say no, otherwise they die. Thats not a market, it's blackmail.
Charlie Kirk: "Capitalism is all about hard work. If you fail, it's your fault." Also Charlie Kirk: "I dropped out of community college because it was too hard and I got rejected from West Point because of affirmative action!"
@@keyan1219that is also Capitalism. To the original comment, how is affirmative action even related to capitalism? It’s a leftist ideology and unconstitutional
Yea wanted to see this Sam seder Guy. Definitely would require a long form debate. I would love to see it and if they have they topics before hand they could put the research together effectively, however Crowder tends to do alot of countering and disputing when it comes to research as that is the whole change my mind and Skylar Turdin idea. When Charlie pushes and countered research Sam was left behind. However when Sam was in territory Charlie did not know Sam shined. Crowder would beat Sam I believe but a discussion on CDC guidelines definitely does not do justice to Sam or Crowder
Prospectively. I've been unaware of Sam Seder, and wanted to see why republicans avoid him. While watching, I am left to assume it's because he is a well-versed, firm, and direct leftist. Almost reminds me of Ben Shapiro's aggression and vindictiveness, but without talking extremely fast. Hoping Crowder actually debates him. I'm not sure why he cowered away like he did...😕 I was getting excited while I was watching Hasan Abi.
Charlie Kirk said we spent 3.4 trillion on housing and urban development...in 2017 we spent 60 billion on housing and urban development...no wonder Sam couldn't argue against that complete and utter buffoonery lmao
I’m not a Kirk fan but that’s not what was said. SS interrupts and derails way to much. At least I’m 20 mins in and that’s my take so far. The $4T budget less $0.7T defense is $3.4 roughly. Kirk asked where does the rest of the budget go to which would be the $3.4T and said entitlements, etc. SS interrupted him and he mentioned housing and urban development, as a continuation to his original point.
@@Jonuh yes. They referenced the budget which was 4 something trillion. Sam referenced military and defense, which Kirk pointed out was only 700 billion of the 4 trillion and asked what about the rest, which is 3.4 trillion. Then Kirk said the rest are mostly entitlements, started listing the entitlements, Sam interrupted, then Kirk continued his original point listing housing and development. Sam mentioned a portion of the budget, and Sam said what about the rest of the budget ..which is not insignificant which is 3.4 trillion. This is why you don’t interrupt like this during a debate, because then you can nitpick what someone said when you’ve broken up their words.
He's an NPC. he's been trained on how to respond to every argument with a talking point and then he goes down the dialogue tree. He hasn't studied finance at all
What is Kirk even talking about with the war on coal? There aren't even 200,000 coal jobs in the US, so there's 100% of no way any deregulation could have created anywhere near that many jobs in Appalachia. He's straight up inventing statistics.
@@trentirvin2008 This is exactly the problem, though. People have learned from Trump that it's perfectly okay to make stuff up to try and support your argument, and lie your way out of sticky situations in front of a camera.
He's not just "another in a long line of Republican grifters". People like him are literally the reason why the Republicans and the right in general are the way they are at current.
"I want a country that looks a lot more like texas." This comment didn't age well. (Texas power companies killed their customers by not investing in defrost heaters for their electricity generators)
Haha, I came here just to say that… and just goes to show the point lol… deregulated companies won’t take care of people… there are great examples of businesses that need no government involvement… public goods food, water and shelter to name a few… cannot and should not be profited on
What is happening? I'm 6 minutes in, fact check everything Charlie said and it's all false... why am I even here? What's the point of a debate if one person just straight up makes shit up...?
Welcome to the US where all things right wing no matter how goofy they are, somehow makes sense and appeal to everyone who is ignorant, and even educated. We are a country full of intelligent non critical thinkers.
lololol, Charlie Kirk doesn't understand finance AT ALL. Charging a bank fees is not charging the bank's depositors. The bank does not own those deposits, so when they pay a fee, that money is not coming from the deposits. It comes from their operating budget, which comes from their credit or their revenues...but those deposits are not credit to the bank and they are not bank revenue! Furthermore, they can't adjust their interest rates according to that because they already are setting their interest rates at what they determine to be the most competitive levels, thus changing rates would hurt them, so charging them fees also doesn't hurt consumers through interest rates. The guy only went to a community college and, therefore, could not have had more than the most basic and broad and shallow finance or economics instruction.
Ugh, and he's fundamentally misunderstanding the stuff he talks about with china and trade and IP protections etc. Just let me freaking debate that guy! I actually do academic research on these topics professionally...
WAAAAAHHHHH, Free markets don't work in every market! This is a universally accepted fact! That is why governments hold or support monopolies for police and fire departments and militaries and highways and public parks and air traffic control and ports and water and electricity and public transportation and waste collection and waste processing and and and and and and and. And most countries in the world include health insurance in this! And you don't have to be a genius to understand why! All you need is a few very basic simple economics concepts like economies of scale (threshold effects), public goods (and quasi-public goods), externalities and pricing of externalities, multiplier effects, and market failures. I mean jesus, there is a whole broad topic of discussion in economics called MARKET FAILURES! It is literally a whole list of ways that free markets can be unable to function efficiently without government intervention!
Logic is missin on right wing economy thinking. How exactly competition wuld make a $200.000 high tech sofisticate surgery afordable for a $30.000/year income person????? Seems to me that right wingers live in some kind of alternative reality.
@@armitagejake You don't seem to understand economics like every leftist I have ever seen. Competition makes prices go down sir. If the prices don't go down, you go out of business.
@@armitagejake They do. Their leaders just spew talking points and fear mongering shrouded in fallacies and inaccuracies. While their voting block simply just can't think things through well enough (or won't). Ergo why so much cognitive dissonance is present in people that uphold right wing ideologies.
People who don't understand anything about banking and regulations are just going of by the tone of the debate and thinking Kirk won lmao. Seder is very technical and does not use very punchy language. But if you check the sources he's almost 100 percent spot on everything.
Sam started getting condescending with the Healthcare thing at the end which is his classic thing on his show. Shame they stopped the debate because when he gets like that he humiliates people
Not true. Sedar makes it seem as though households/people own 80% of the stock, but it is investment banks and hedge funds. He also says glass steagall was a major reason for the 2008 crash but the 2008 crash was caused by a financial derivative called a CDC which is a type of mortgage backed security. Everyone considered them to be safe investments, even the riskier ones. People/ hedge funds/ investment banks then levered up their money in these "safe investments" without digging deep to find that the fico scores for the mortgages backing the security were terrible and the mortgages shouldve never been handed out, meaning that eventually they would default and not be able to pay the mortgage, sending the security to 0. That creates a domino effect and sent every mortgage backed security into the toilet. It has nothing to do with who the bank merges with, they were all buying these CDCs and handing out mortgages that they knew would eventually default and using too much leverage without doing enough research.
Btw I dont think Kirk won the debate, not a shadow of a doubt Sam won, but Sam is very slimy with the way he words things, and also a condescending prick so pick your poison I suppose. Every time Sam gets proved wrong he just says "I dont believe your data" and tries to cut people off and/or end the conversation.
As someone from the uk who's taxes (it could be argued) are paying for someone else's healthcare. I'm totally fine with it. If i pay out of my taxes for the funding of mine and others healthcare and it means if anything happens to me i don't have to pay upfront I'm all for it. A friend of mine has recently beaten cancer. He had all of the treatment for it and paid nothing out of pocket. When we describe it as "free" we mean 'free at the point of use'. So when you actually use it you don't pay anything.
Lets also add the fact that the portion of taxes going towards health care are way less than what US citizens pay in premiums and out of pocket expenses. Instead of premiums you pay taxes but the UK system is far cheaper for the country as a whole compared to the US total spending on health care.
@@wildberry752 You have no idea what you're talking about. Have you been to California? I live here. Have you been to a communist country? A socialist nation? A social democracy?
@@gru66 almost like lying is counterproductive to a rational debate. If you actually research what he accuses Charlie of you will find Sam actually is correct in his “assumption.”
Kirk's praise of low regulations in Texas sounds pretty ignorant in hindsight given that their electric grid failed when they most needed it. That hasn't happened in California or Illinois.
Their metropolitan housing market is literally trending toward what’s happening in both those states literally disproving everything he said on that matter, he just throws out Fox News misinformation talking points and conservatives think because “He talk fast” that it must be true.
@@dvlahos11 Thanks for that bit of ignorance. Texas' blackout lasted 2 weeks and left people all over the state without food, water and heat. Name the California blackout that did the same. Otherwise your comparison is bullshit. It is an ignorant lie that Florida and Texas are kicking California's ass based on a pathetic attempt to hide incompetence of the ignorant republican politics and policies in those states.
@@dvlahos11 As a person that works in the Power industry. Everything you just said (besides wind turbines not causing cancer) is scientifically wrong and you don't understand how power gets from the plant to your business or home. Economically speaking: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States_by_GDP By every metric, California wipes the floor with Texas and Florida.
@@dvlahos11 Rolling blackouts have nothing to do with solar energy. Your an electrician, I am an engineer. 15% of California's energy come from Solar, Geothermal 6%, Wind 7%, Bio-Fuels 3%. That means that about 70% of California's energy comes from petroleum (crude oil). Here is why your statement is pretty unintelligent. Solar collects most of it's energy during the day. When the load on the California Grid the most taxed for supply..... During the day. Solar is at full production during the day when it is hottest and operations are conservative. The reason that California has rolling blackout is because of improper planning for peak demand. That has to do with the Grid Operator. In fact the incentive is to have more solar because the demand for solar energy outstrips the current supply. The issue isn't reliability of solar technology. The issue is hotter temperatures and drought conditions means more people are using more power to keep cool..... That is increase of demand that is greater then supply. That means California needs more energy able to operate at peak times during the day. So laugh away. Ignorance is truly bliss.
@@dvlahos11 I am just going to add facts and context because none of your opinions seem to be based on any. California: Ranked 3rd for Higher Education and 40th for Pre-K-Highschool Florida: Ranked 1st for Higher Ed, and 16th for PK-HS Texas: Ranked 31st for Higher Ed and 36 for PK HS. 9 of the states with the top 10 school systems for Pre-K-High School all voted for Biden in 2020: New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Illinois, Colorado, Wisconsin, Indiana, Virginia. 5 of the top 10 states for Higher Education systems voted for Biden in 2020: Florida, Washington, California, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, North Carolina, South Dakota, Nevada, Nebraska No one is leaving California to Texas for better schools.
Destiny really nailed Charlie Kirk when he said “all Charlie can do is try to run you down a dialogue tree” He literally gets cornered, and dodges by asking his own question to try and get you to play by his rules. It’s him trying to control the conversation. It’s a great debate tactic, but when you’re lying and not being honest, this tactic makes you look weak. He can’t talk to Sam when he is cornered, so he asks a question he already has a pre loaded answer to. Sam doesn’t fall for it, so Charlie has to keep moving on, never really nailing a single talking point.
Here about these "great minds"? Think they are so brilliant? What happened to Cenk when his employees wanted to unionize? Name one example of socialism working
@@sagaciousassessor6237 with Hassan? Hahahahahaha. That’s the second funniest thing I’ve seen so far. Someone just said Ben Shapiro is afraid to debate Kyle Kalinsky which is pretty insane. I am really in disbelief there anybody on the left thing Hassan piker wasn’t the most embarrassing person on planet earth and that debate. I wish I could be a tribal dogmatic ideologue left-wing atheist so I can live in ignorant bliss lol I guess this is coming from the same people who think AOC is an intellectual. Sorry, supreme congresswoman Queen Alexandria Ocasio Cortez the magnificent and irrefutable. I guess you guys agree Ben Shapiro is cat calling her by challenging her to a debate lol
@@conservativeguitarsingerjs7937 not nearly as funny as watching you flail desperatley as your president loses the country. Please, keep dancing for me.
I find Seder very annoying to be honest, but can someone tell me why they think that Kirk won?Every single argument he said,was refuted so badly, he started raising his voice (let's not talk about FoxConn).I have paused and googled their statements and to me this was a bloodbath.I am not being sarcastic, honestly what facts/data am missing here?
@@dvlahos11 majority report gets 200,000 views per day.. Every non Crowder fan and neutral thought Crowder ran from the debate. The only ones who are still defending him are the fanboys
@@dvlahos11 he left within 5 minutes. Just before then he was constantly talking over Seder and coping by being the loudest ego maniac in the room. Ergo he ran.
@@dvlahos11 social blade says crowder gets around 1.3 million views per day on average in the last 2 weeks. Majority report is averaging 470k views per day. That's right in line with their subscriber count (Crowder has 5x more). To run away from someone because he has less subscribers than you is just the most cowardly move. It doesn't matter if the one you're talking to has 10 million subs or 0 subs, as long as the ideas are worth discussing. Crowder debates randoms off the street but he won't debate any mainstream left wing RUclipsr because he has cold feet.
@@dvlahos11 Sam debates a crap ton of people. You can debate him yourself as he's open to talking with anyone at anytime..you just have to call into his show when he's live.
Kirk: contextualizing it doesn’t make those statistics less exceptional Seder literally just explained why it makes them less exceptional lol this guy Kirk has no interest in honest debate he’s just spouting right wing talking points
The big difference between Sam and Kyles is that, Sam is here dropping facts and information calmly and explaining the situation while calling out Kirks lies. This probably a better way of debating, but it doesn’t matter when Kyle’s whole goal is to mercilessly curb stomp Charlies face from existence.
Sam and Kirk are really diving into the nuance and history of specific laws and statistics and Sam is showing over and over where kirk is wrong. The problem is 99% of people (maybe I am projecting) have not studied these things preparing to use them in a debate. And it is not necessary to get into such detail to take Kirks argument down. Of course, Kirk knows this, which is why he gets into such detail in order to create confusion for people not familiar with the details. Kyle did not waste time getting into these details where 99% of people would be lost and just trusting kyle or kirk. But Kyle should not have allowed Kirk to so freely filibuster and gish gallop in his debate. Other than that, Kyle did great. Sam did better, but I was lost and I am sure 99% of people were also lost and simply trusting Sam or kirk.
@@sagnorm1863 Actually, no. That's why Sam is so effective here. Even when they get into the weeds with some of the more arcane political and economic topics, the broader points of discussion were always in view and Sam made sure to nail Charlie Kirk on every single point discussed as well as give Kirk enough rope to hang himself (like on regulation) to the point where Kirk is reduced to making a crack about Elizabeth Warren twice for applause ines. So, there was no "Well, they're both talking about complex things, so it's just a matter of who I trust more." Unlike Kyle's recent debate against Kirk, Sam either cut through Kirk's gish gallop or he patiently waited through it and then took the time to rebut every point Kirk made. Also, the fact is, Sam forced Kirk to delve deeper into the issues to try to confuse the audience because he called him on his bullshit at every stop. Kyle didn't really challenge Kirk in the same way.
@@VanguardSupreme After rewatching, I gotta agree that the specifics are not that hard to follow if you actually pay attention. And Seder had the greater performance. But Kyle was able to efficiently counter Kirk's points quickly and without following Kirk into his hole of misleading or false specific data. But again, Kyle made the mistake of allowing Kirk to filibuster and gish gallop, which Seder did not allow. And I think it still stands that most people struggled to follow the details in the Seder debate, which benefits Kirk, since Kirk was wrong in his nuance and Seder was correct.
This argument is so uneven. Kirk is unable to understand the arguments that Sam discusses. Instead he dives into irrelevant statistics that he does not provide the proper context for. This was embarrassing for Kirk, hope the dude studies up.
@@dvlahos11 Speaking of Dumbocrats? Texas is a Republican state how could Problems in Texas be the Democrats fault? Also California isn't failing as hard as hard as he made it sound. The guy is a conservative political commentator it's ok for him to be wrong or even lie. Most of his base will just laugh and nod and agree with him or stick up for him just to be contrary
If anything the opposite of your statement is true. Crime has increased tremendously. Homelessness persists and is only growing. San Francisco has businesses closing its doors left and right because of people stealing without any consequences. And every year there are reports of rolling blackouts in the state. The cost of gas is far higher than that of the rest of the country and people are leaving in droves to places like texas.
@@LostxToxAxSnail Um IDK what video you watched because california is not failing like he predicted. it actually had growth and It is considerably higher than the forecasted U.S. average of 5.5% in 2021 and 4.2% in 2022 as far as TexAss Failing infrastructure growing homelessness In Texas, 21,115 individuals, 6,114 persons in families, 1,408 unaccompanied youth, 1,949 veterans, and 3,862 chronically homeless individuals experienced homelessness in 2019. Almost all of those numbers increased . Crime as well Dallas violent crime is 37.0. (The US average is 22.7) Dallas property crime is 50.7. (The US average is 35.4) Those are Facts not your feeling worded to sound smart. Texas just another State with issue like them all
At the time even supporters of Kirk acknowledged his defeat in this debate. But now I return a year later, and right wingers be like: Oh yeah, Kirk totally won that debate. lol
@@gdadder is that like, a statistical reality based on your studies? Or a hyperbole answer based on what you're used to hearing from your friends? Look up Jonathan Haidt's "The moral roots of liberals vs conservatives" and perhaps you'll understand the true nature of both ideas.
@@kdelvalle4696 it’s just factually true, watch conservative politicians or conservative debaters, I can think of multiple leftist who constantly admit when they are in the wrong and have multiple times. When has say trump EVER admitted he was wrong about anything, when does Ben Shapiro? Tucker Carlson? Charlie kirk ? None of them ever will say they’re wrong in debates or in general 99% of the time. They don’t want you to ever question them. That’s literally their goal because the majority of them are actual grifters.
When charlie goes through his dialogue trees it loads much faster. When he gets off topic he stutters and lags a lot. Needs a patch or the devs need to implement more dialogue options.
6 minutes in this Charlie Kirk guy ... I'm 56 years old, so when he says this is the best economy we've had in a generation, I have to ask for WHOM? (hint the top 25% or higher) the rest of us are sinking 11 minutes in ... the same tired old Republican talking points 32 minutes in, here we go with the Bank crap. Dodd-Frank was very weak regulation. ugh 34 minutes in ... Yes Glass-Steagal ... check (mate) Charlie Kirk is just arguing for no rules of the road, no cops on the beat, the problem was that we just had too many regulations even AFTER we had CUT regulations Finally I agree with Charlie Kirk on something. those banks should have been allowed to fail, and people should have gone to jail. LOL competition, GTFOH Bernie Sanders 2020
Old Gringo I guess you love paying taxes when the Democrats are running the show don't you. That's money out of your pocket. You know why people are leaving California. Because of the democratic politicians. High taxes. California is 3.4 trillion dollars in debt.
You say only the top 25% are rising? that's weird because poverty has gone down worldwide and in America for everyone. I know you are going to say WAGE STAGNATION, but that doesn't include healthcare, social security benefits, etc.
In the off chance you see this, banks hold the people's money. Wouldn't allowing them to fail/bankrupt be taking away the savings of the people who put their money in that bank ?
I like how Kirk mentions Foxconn in Wisconsin. What an absolute dumpster fire of a project. Waste of 4 billions dollars to Wisconsin Taxpayers, not to mention all the people who were forced to move because of imminent domain clause. Thanks Scott Walker
It is like every republicans lie used only for few days and nobody from their side says a word about it ever again. Foxcorn is one of the best possible examples how right wing media work, put lie in eter, talk about it for some time to give people false hope and when collapses don`t say a word about it ever again. I remember Foxcorn very well and how they fabricated that lie but what is worse people believed in that lie and probably many of them still do because they watch only right wing media who will never say it was just a talking point. For things like Foxcorn many right wingers believe trump administration was success just because nobody told them what had happened with all his fallen programs. 7 trillions bigger debt after just 4 years of his presidency and it is most because of that tax bill for the rich people and it can`t be stopped so debt will get bigger and bigger just because people on the right love only that America what give privileges only to them and them only
Idk Sam was changing the subject and yelling when it was Charlie's time to talk quite a bit, idk who won but I do know Sam debates like a house wife, relax let the opposite guy talk and then have a response
Conservatives' debate strategies are along the lines of "talk faster, yell and scream, make confused faces" and the left's strategies are "have data, have evidence" lmao
@@clearashazy431 Vaush has said he likes to match his debater in their tactics and beat them at their own game, and I think that's pretty clear from seeing a couple of his debates. Not everyone's going to agree with that tactic, but it does seem to be really effective at winning over some of the conservatives that think their talking head stan wins every debate because they smirk at the audience or whatever
@@clearashazy431 He does tend to come down loud and hard on people who aren't sticking to their arguments, or are lying about their data. Maybe that's what you're thinking of?
"I don't want to pay for something I might never use" - This is just selfishness incarnate, we should treat all person's in our country with the same value, and the same right to basic human necessities regardless of arbitrary factors.
@@properduction2586 Please give a single specific example of a law or policy which explicitly favours one race over any other, except of course for affirmative action.
@@bananawammabamaFirstly, the existence of "generational wealth" has absolutely nothing to do with whether the law explicitly applies different rules to people based on their race. You know there are no examples for this (except affirmative action like I said) so you deflect the question and make it about something completely different. But I'll address your non-sequitur anyway. In the Western world, almost all of the very richest people made their wealth themselves in their own lifetimes. The fact that people are allowed to pass on their wealth to their loved ones of their choice shouldn't be a scandalous thing, like it seems to be for you guys. Let's say you one day managed to earn a great amount of wealth, why shouldn't you be able to pass that earned money on to the people you love? Not being able to do that defeats the entire point of having a legacy or a family. Economics isn't a zero-sum game like you want to pretend it is. Kirk mentioned this in the video if I remember right. If you get a raise at your job, that doesn't mean someone else suddenly gets a pay cut or has that money taken from them. Functioning economies don't work that way; the only ones that do are completely stagnated ones (like every Communist one that's ever existed in history). Again, we know for a fact that there are countless wealthy people out there who are self-made, and there is zero evidence that suggests that it's easier or harder for anyone based on race. One interesting thing to note is that the one biggest factor psychologists have ever found that predicts a person's success in life, is whether they were raised in stable two parent families or not. The stats vary depending on the study, but they all conclude that the fatherless family rate is roughly 3x higher for black families than white ones. This is what's causing the average wealth disparity we see when generalizing by race. There are so many compounded reasons for this, and racism simply isn't one of them, despite what I'm sure your knee-jerk conclusion probably is. If we want to fix generational wealth inequality, any person with common sense knows that the answer isn't to simply shift money around or to give people unfair advantages based on race. Western society spent decades making civil rights breakthroughs to get rid of that racist element, and now you people want to bring it back. Again, if you can't find a law or policy that explicitly favours one race over another (except of course affirmative action as I said) then we have to acknowledge that the answer to wealth inequalities is simply not to have our feckless daddy governments arbitrarily redistribute people's money using broadstroke racist lines, and instead to fix the societal issues that have been found to most accurately predict success in life, like fatherless rate as I mentioned.
Just looking at the healthcare portion of this... So, Charlie is basically saying that he is going to remain healthy, never get cancer, never fall and break a bone, never get into a car accident, until the day he drops dead in his home. Right? And he's constantly harping about the high taxes in Norway.... except for the fact that other countries that have a MUCH lower tax rate than Norway, most closer to the US, still have single-payer and are much more effective and cheaper in the long run for everyone, because the Big Pharma and Big Insurance don't take huge cuts from the pie right off the top. I live in Korea. We have a national health care plan. I am 50 years old, small business owner, and I pay around US$150 a month. My friend pays US$3 per month for insulin, another US$2~3 for the doctors visit to get the prescription for the insulin, and he waits less than 20 minutes every time he goes to any doctor he wants to. My dad died of colon cancer a few years ago, and in the 18 months from the time he was diagnosed to the the time he passed away, he had 2 surgeries, he had chemo, he had tests every two months, doctors visits every month, he stayed in the hospital for the surgeries, and other ailments probably around 2 months, and he had about 3 weeks in hospice before he passed. Total cost including everything, was, I think around an average of US$300 a month for 18 months.
Charlie's favorite rhetorical strategy is to respond to his opponent's points by saying "I'm so glad you brought up ____________", feigning knowledge and authority, and then proceed to get everything wrong.
@@renabshire4704 Ok, if that's what you believe that's fine, but you could do some very basic reading on how banks function to see that his grasp on the subject is tenuous at best. I'm not really trying to convince people of anything actually.
Sam has categories in his channel that he should playlist because people get confused by his attitudes and acting. On the majority of his breakdown videos he does an over the top mocking act where he shits on people's logic. He has another category wher ehe does open call debates and he is more like this.
guess why cigarettes and booze cost more in Canada? cuz people who smoke and drink will need more medical attention.....taxation can be specifically placed. we Canadians LOVE our beer and smokes, and don't mind the costs of acquiring. We also really like our *free* medical care, when our livers, bowels, breasts, teeth , and lungs fail us......we just happily paid as we went along smoking and drinking.
Interesting. You are probably not aware that the US spends more per capita on social programs than Canada. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending
GoSu MonSteR I don’t know where you got that prof. Chomsky was a debater. He’ll sometimes rebut dumb questions but he mainly does interviews and you’d rarely see him share a stage with someone he thinks is dishonest.
I'm a trucker since 1984. My wages were stagnant from 1988 to 2008. Obamacare broke that stagnation. Up until that point, every raise went one hand and out the other, to pay for the annual health insurance increase, and it was the republicans who fought tooth and nail since the 1990s against health care reform... Charlie Kirk is delusional. PS Charlie, Obama, inherited a disaster (the great recession), that's why he had to spend. What was Bush and Trump's excuse to feed the wealthy after inheriting good economies????? And speaking of red states, 9 out of the top 10 that take more from the FED than they put in, are red states. New Mexico is the only blue state!... Charlie is a BSer! 401K?...The stock market was 7,900 in 2008 and the unemployment rate was 13.2%. In 2016, Obama handed it over to Trump at 19000, with a 4.7% unemployment rate.
Inconvenient facts for guys like Charlie Kirk. The best part is where he implies that stock buybacks are good for the middle class because the money managers work those corporate gains down to the middle class. Yeah right - trickle-down money management.
Go to 53:51, Kirk is so clueless. "Sam how come we don't subsidize food if it's essential to living!!?" Of course we subsidize food buddy! Seder absolutely wrecked him holy
...And Seder just continues talking through his point like nobody is refuting it. In the context of the whole Crowder x Seder debate, I don't blame Crowder for not wanting to deal with this guy.
@@zebo6162 the majority report with Sam seder is one of the biggest American left radio shows on RUclips. Crowder says he always wants leftist guests on his show yet I can't recall if he's ever talked with a mainstream left RUclipsr in his life.
He’s just there. Even when he was like “I’ll give you the last word” Sam or Charlie ended up going on and on with their points without really acknowledging him.
@ 16:00, Charlie talks about how TX got rid of regulation. That lack of regulation is how energy companies gouged consumers for thousands of $$$ per month during an energy crisis. 🤷
I mean, you understand that in a crisis like that, raising prices is how you keep demand matching supply. If the price was forced to stay the same, there would just be no power for everyone because there was little power and lots of demand.
@@davec1406 I mean, you understand that one of the major reasons winter protection cuts were made to Texas power grids was to help fund their green initiative, right?
@@samuelmerkel2888 To quote the Houston Chronicle: "An aversion to federal regulation was one of the main reasons that Texas energy companies opted for a power grid that didn't cross state lines. Texas has resisted regulation in major court cases." www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/politifact/article/Fact-check-Why-does-Texas-have-its-own-power-15964085.php
Charlie’s numbers on Trump’s added jobs to the coal industry are off by tens of thousands. And the industry suffered another major drop off in less than four years, an even larger decline than during Obama’s years.
Lol I just looked it up. This is an old debate but coal jobs are down 24% from the start of the trump administration. Charlie spouts out so much crap and calls them facts.
The problem is it works. In debates like these aggressive rhetoric and appealing to emotion with strong statements wins over facts any day. Try to be intellectually honest and you've already lost, which is a large part of why the right is winning so often.
Charlie is just sound biting and grandstanding. This is my frustration with Right wing personalities like He, Crowder and Shapiro they're awful debaters they are looking at quotes for click bat and not addressing the actual issues
Speaking of Crowder, he was originally supposed to debate Sam but he ghosted this debate. They run scared, they know they're full of shit and won't debate anyone on the left except for 18 year old college freshmen. So props to Charlie for at least showing up I guess
@Rick Jacobs Charlie doesn't even have the foundational knowledge of economics and finance required to engage in a principled debate on the subject matter, and if you did, you would realize that. He is a talking points regurgitator. His tell is: when he gets loud and talks fast, he's reciting a memorized Republican talking point in an effort to counter emperical facts and data.
What surprised me was not the outbursts, but how unprepared all the right-wing speakers were.. It’s almost disrespectful to their opponents, the event and the audience...
Eugene Khaw You serious? Anytime a liberal says a buzzword notice how they strategically pause to allow the NPCs to cheer. Check any video especially Cenks and it’s a lame tactic to cheapen a response.
The most revealing part about Kirk for me was when he discussed the 2008 financial disaster. He essentially boiled down the problem to government. It's one of the most fundamental libertarian arguments in this debate. Regardless of how insane, greedy, and corrupt Wallstreet and the finial industry along with their ratings agencies became, in his mind it all goes back to government involvement. Should the regulators and any other government entity involved have been held accountable? Yes. Can you blame the entire problem on government and completely ignore the fact that Bankers blatantly preyed on people's desire for a home to get rich, and almost collapsed the world economy? No, because that's idiotic and crazy.
One could argue that the government enabled this crisis to happen because of how unstable the Eurodollar system was. Subprime mortgages were just the catalyst, but the Eurodollar is what really caused the financial crisis, way too much debt, and who allows an economy full of debt and no savings? The government…
@@leomaicelo7198 None of that changes that this was a completely fraudulent banking system preying on people for profit that almost brought us back to the dark ages.
What buffles me is his solution for the lack of regulation from the government on the rating companies is less regulation? He is complaining about lack of regulation, isn't that what his whole persona is about?
The problem is Kirk established a bogus definition of middle class. Middle class is not about the next generation living better. Middle class is about a certain standard of living for a current family; when your child gets his own family, if they have the same standard of living, then he/she too is middle class. Kirk is correct in that the middle class is an American invention. Unfortunately, it only lasted for a few decades. What we have in mind when we say middle class, is the standard of living families had in the fifties and early sixties. Then, you could afford a house, a car or two in the garage, to pay for the kids college, a yearly vacation, and to set a little aside for a rainy day. That’s what we all mean when we say middle class. Because of inflation, they estimate that now you need a household income of about $130,000 a year to afford that same standard of living. But now, $130,000 a year puts you in the top 10% of income earners. Which means 90% of the population makes less than this amount, and thus are not able to afford a middle class life. Again middle class has nothing to do with future generations living better than the current one; it has to do with a standard of living. The truth is we no longer have a middle class (unless you change the definition of middle class). The only people who can afford the standard of living the middle class had in the fifties and sixties now, are people in the top ten percent of income earners. If ninety percent of people cannot afford a middle class lifestyle, then there is no middle class. You can of course fiddle with the definition of middle class and get different results. But remember the original middle class was an American phenomenon, and the fifties and sixties is the first and only time we have seen this level of shared wealth and income. Those days and conditions are long gone. By the way, the top tax rate was 90% at the time the original middle class showed up. So the original middle class was not built on tax breaks.
The bigger problem is that Charlie makes up an entire world where the free market system works...and then chooses Foxconn as an example of the wonderful benefits that will accrue if the government just deregulates and gets out of the way to let private industry do its thing.
Those are Kanye's Yeezees (however you'd spell that) Brand sneakers. He wore them so when people commented on them, they could go into the convo about the democratic plantation
Really interesting hearing Charlie Kirk talk about Dodd/Frank and that the regs on banks. Really puts perspective on how wrong he is with the recent collapse of said small banks (silicon valley, etc.)
LOL... the more this goes on the more Sam schools Charlie... jesus... Kirk looks like a scared little boy... DAMN son... this was bad... hahahaha jesus christ.
Charlie’s pretty good for 24 years old, his ideas will refine over the years, maybe when he isn’t working alongside the president too, I feel Cus he’s got a close relationship with trump he doesn’t like to shit on his ideas
@Red pilled Blanketly calling people 'cucks' is definitely a highly individualist, stable-genius move. Glad to see you're a fan of the philosophy based on an action movie made by two transwomen.
@Red pilled Progressives are pro-eugenics? Are you for real? Most progressives are capitalist, Sam Seder and TYT are all blatantly capitalist, and every single elected politician is capitalist. You sound like a video game script. Learn to think for yourself.
@Red pilled No True Scotsman. So are you now trying to say that the Nordic countries are actually socialist? lol. And bruh, most of the founding fathers were open eugenicists and believed that black people were not human. Does that make America today a pro-eugenics country? Besides, that's a Fake News story anyway, Sanger wanted to cope with the fear of some blacks that birth control was the white man's way of reducing the black population. Keep trying.
Kirk has honestly showed a complete lack of fundamental economic principles here. His example with the banks “starting from nothing” is flawed since they were operating in a framework where there was low barriers to entry, unlike now where huge corporations limit new entrants into the market.
@@deepanko12 erm no it doesn’t because if you already monopolies or oligopolies on a market being established from first mover advantage the you’re already at a loss. Charlie Kirk literally admitted this in this debate with his explanation of Goldman Sachs so he literally discredited his own argument.....
@@deepanko12 ermm no it’s not, in markets that are monopolistically competitive, supernormal profits are necessary in order to secure a place within the market during the long run which attracts new entrants into the market which then decreases the overall price level and lowers the market profit expectancy to just normal profits.
@@anonanonanon2868 monopolies are formed not by more profits but better services than competitors. Before banks private loans was a monopoly which are much higher interest rates than banks. And if they charge higher once the monopoly is created new entrants always seize this kind of opportunity. So it is superficial on your part to think like that. Even the internet era you see what was the monopoly back then and what it is now. And if you see Chinese products are also changing the flow of demand. In next year's the outlook will change.
Oh boy this didn't age well at all with the 2020 Covid/Trump depression which wouldn't have been 50% better if Trump took it seriously at first and made the appropriate responses.
Agreed. If only Democrat governors and mayors hadn’t placed COVID infected into nursing homes we’d likely have had significantly less dead due to COVID. If only Americans weren’t so fat either as roughly 80% of all those requiring hospitalization for COVID were either overweight or obese. But those things were obviously Trump’s fault. 😒
Sam is the man. We need people like him who know their shit and will tell a guy like Kirk "you are lying" rather than patiently waiting for time after a gish gallop to allow a mild response.
Damn. I'm a big Kyle fan but compared to Kyle's performance, Sam is moping the floor with this guy. I wish Kyle had the same calculated precision Sam's got here. Sure, he still was right about things but some of his animated riled up responses just didn't look good on him.
Yea, Kyle is not a debater and often times was out talked by Kirk's monologues but Kyle is objectively correct on all the issues. He just couldn't keep up.
810 land to us he’s not obviously but we know Kyle is objectively correct however show someone that isn’t politically savvy and most times they will say that Cherry Picking Charlie won just based on the fact that he was able to monologue unchallenged for considerable parts of the debate.
Well that’s what’s sad about debating, the lack of live fact checking allows Kirk to filibuster and spout lies constantly and without pauses so he can just lie 6 times a minute and fluster his opponent. It’s a tactic used by Shapiro aswell
@@Larry_Hegs the entire debate, especially when Sam exposed chuck s hypocrisy on deregulation, your boy chuck claims to be against big businesses but yet opposed them being regulated. Shows how pathetic and hypocritical you sub human Magat vermins are.🤡🤡🤡🤡
@@dopenerd yes the pro-life guy, and what do you mean that of a dolphin what kind of remark is that. Ya dolphins have fetus’s, Cows, sheep, dogs, etc! But yes the Human Fetus which we are talking about is it’s own Being because it is its own “DNA” plain and simple if you try to argue that your stupid because I have a question for you, when is it not ok to murder another human with living DNA
Kirk, in this video: "We should have let the banks fail and pay a price for gambling with our money." Also Kirk, all the time: "We shouldn't punish or demonize the rich because they take risks and stimulate our economy."
There is a difference between the majority of the "rich" building a business and a few incredibly wealthy people exploiting government intervention in the economy in hopes for a bailout.
He clearly stated companies that provide benefits for the population and hence get rich for it. What exactly does banks do that benefit us instead playing wiyh our money and giving us 0.0000001 percent on the dollar.
@@dainiergarcia5076 You can belittle it by calling it "playing," but bank lending drives economic growth by empowering many to make meaningful purchases in their lives. I'm not even talking about corporate lending here; loans for a house, car, or college education would not be possible for the average American without banks willing to lend the money. That being said, you can't lend money to just anyone, as you need to make the money back. This is called risk, and is the justification for an interest rate beyond that which would be justified with inflation. For those saving their money in banks, the interest you make on that money is your cut of that generated wealth. Again, you can belittle it by calling it "0.0000001 percent on the dollar," but given enough money and time that interest rate is how people's retirement funds are created and sustained through pensions and 401ks. That being said, putting your money into a bank is a voluntary transaction, so you have the choice to keep your money in cash. I think there are consequences to that decision that are not immediately apparent (low credit rating and lost time to generate interest), so I hope you would reconsider.
@@zebo6162 they are still using your money and giving to others, making money of your money by giving high interest. There are things like union banks that give much lower interest loans, banks are just sharks. Im jot negating the function they play in society but that could be replaced by personal loans and other means. They dont create value they literally use everyone's money to make money for themselves, then if things go bad you might not even get your money back aka bank run.
This is a showcase of an educated person quoting facts and understanding the content and context of what is being discussed vs a college dropout grifter who isn’t qualified to speak to high school kids regarding practically anything.
Did Charlie Kirk say with a straight face that Trump's coal policy brought "back" to Appalachia "hundreds of thousands" of jobs? As a former citizen of West Virginia until 2021 I can assure you that is complete and utter nonsense.
There were more coal jobs under Obama than anytime under Trump. Also under Biden right now there are more manufacturing jobs now than ANYTIME under trump. Which there was a ten year low in manufacturing jobs under trump before COVID.
@@JohnSmith-yd5wq
The m@ga “republicans” don’t want to hear the facts, John. Facts are of no importance to them nor do they go along with their narrative. Plus, anything that someone outside of their party says that doesn’t perfectly match up with their beliefs result in retorts consisting of character assault, name calling, general insults, gross accusations, assumption of any and all beliefs, parroted talking points, denial, whataboutism, and finally, outright refusal to believe anything that’s said regardless of solid, reputable sources/evidence. It’s equivalent to a kid having a temper tantrum covering their ears while loudly yelling “Nope, you’re wrong and I’m right! I’m not listening, I’m not listening, I’m not listening!” - and we’re the triggered sheep? LMFAO.
source:trust me bro
@@FM-dm8xj the source is the employment rate is at an all time high. But I understand how that is hard to find being a Kirk fan also makes you unable to read and understand common sense and facts.
@@benjaminasmus3980 What?Trumps admin had the lowest unemployments ever, especially for african americans, hispanics and so on.....
Please lets not stray from the facts, I know the left doesnt deal with those though so.......
Kirk's argument was dead once the audience started googling. lmao
Lol what are the time stamps
@@mariovilla2348 yea the facts are the Democratic Party is destroying the country
Bro it wasn’t dead he just expanded in the context which Sam didn’t know since all he did was google, and his so called ending comment to win with was written on a frickin paper, if someone truly knows something you don’t need a paper common! And Charlie was ready to keep going but the moderator said I think we should stop it here because the guy knows Charlie haha
Charlie was playing with Sam like a big dog vs little dog he let him say his BS half truths and Charlie added things to get Sam thinking just to keep things interesting because this was not a serious debate at all 🤣
Why do you think Crowder didn’t even want to debate him at all because Sams a clown and Steven would not be able to take him serious at all but Charlie gave him the light of day and proved just that, he’s a clown
19:45 I went and looked this up, it does appear Sam is correct: The top 10% of American households, as defined by total wealth, now own 84% of all stocks according to National Bureau of Economic Research. That number does include indirect ownership of stocks via 401(k)s.
Also Sam is correct about Glass-Steagall. Citigroup, which was one of the predominant reasons the market crashed in 2008, only formed because Glass-Steagall was replaced with the Grahma-Beach act which effectively enabled large banks to merge with risky investment groups. Literally one of the reasons why 2008 crash happened and Charlie was so wrong
Funny that institutions. retirement funds, and businesses own the vast majority of all stocks. Not households or people. But okay.
Yes, but as you mentioned, it includes indirect ownership of stocks via 401(k)s. So the implication people might get, 10% of Americans have 84% wealth stock wealth freely at their disposal, isn't correct. I think that was what Kirk was getting at.
Institutions like investment banks, firms and hedge funds own over 80% of all stocks, stop acting like its individual people/households who own the stocks, its a big group of people who all own the stocks in the name of businesses/firms/hedge funds. And the majority of the crash in 2008 was caused by leverage and financial derivatives of mortgage backed securities that were backed by mortgages that shouldnt have been handed out.(the mortgages default, and the levered investments go to 0) It had nothing to do with banks merging with risky investment groups. It was something called CDCs that everyone considered to be safe without digging deep into the mortgages that backed them and realizing that they had terrible fico scores and were bound to default. Risky investment groups had nothing to do with it. These investments were considered safe.
@@stocklesnar3183 As the National Bureau of Economic Research stated, the number includes indirect ownership of stocks. Businesses, institutions, and retirement funds are all owned by people - what you are saying is irrational.
kirk: "i actually have a more nuanced opinion on this"
kirk: *immediately says the least nuanced take you could have on the subject*
Yet people still schill for this moron. 🤦🤷
"Charlie Kirk was born into a wealthy Illinois family. His father, Robert W. Kirk, was the project architect manager for Trump Tower in New York."
iLindahLIFE source? Not objecting, just want to know where u got that.
Nobody gives a shit. Address the actual arguments
@@sovietsandvich8443 out of the hundreds of comments actually addressing the arguments, you singled this one out hahaha you know why it's a relevant comment don't be disingenuous
Shaan Siton everyone knows Charlie Kirk has a pro trump/republican bias, although the fact that his family was wealthy is irrelevant. Either way, this was a waste of a comment
@@sovietsandvich8443 hahaha no it's very relevant and at the very least interesting if Kirks family was literally on the Trump payroll 😂 if a leftist debater had family on the Clinton payroll I'm sure you'd think that's relevant
Kirk, "Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created in the coal industry."
In 2016 there were a total of 50,000 miners jobs in the entire industry.
He said that the life expectancy in Cuba is 50 lol.
Kind of like Saudi Arabia's 1 million jobs best deal ever weapons deal. I bet you can guess we don't even have close to 1 million people in the entire industry.
I found a number of 1,200 jobs created. Shifts have more to do with weather and higher natural gas prices than Trump.
David V omg he misspoke ohhhhhh you have google at your fingertips while he’s on stage in front of hundreds and trying to remember a minute fact
That lie alone makes him lose the debate.
Kirk's description of the middle class is NOT the middle class at all. He described the upper middle, not the middle. And the rest of what he said was based on the trickle down theory, which has never worked. It's an excuse to allow the huge wealth gap to continue.
Uhh no dude. He was describing the lower middle class. Upper lower class is anybody who can go a month without a paycheck before needing financial assistance.
Upper class is based on how much you have but lower and middle class can really only effectively be based on someone's debt to income (DTI) ratio.
Meaning if you live in California and you have a annual salary of $100,000. But you have $50k in annual cost. You really only make $50k a year.
BUT !!! in California you are required to pay (on the small end) 36% of that $100k in taxes. LEAVING YOU WITH EFFECTIVELY $14,000. of the original $100,000.
So yeah middle class is a big zone
Upper lower class? Dont hear that to often but i still dont think anyone lower class can go a month without help. Good thing for that guy with the 100,000 that taxes arent done that way.
@@brianfederico5854 36% ? I thought taxes were marginal that means that for a married couple it’s 12% until you hit 80k then it’s 22% for the remaining 20k but the standard deduction is 24k so in order for you to be taxed at 22% at all you’d have to make way more than 100k …you said Cali so are you saying when you add state and federal taxes you end up paying 36% ? I don’t get it please explain I’m not from Cali
@@AutotuneSucksBalls you’ve got a solid understanding yourself, he just understands things the way Kirk does with no nuance, it’s marginal
People think that if you speak confidently and louder you are right.....no wonder people are still fans of Steven Crowder
Louder with Crowder 🤷🏻
Steven crowder was given the nick name cold feet crowder for a reason, he only debates against people that know little about topics his favorite topics. In a sense you can compare it to a pro boxer such as Jake paul wanting to only fight people that are of less skill then him to elevate his status and ego.
Who is the one cutting the other off and raising their voice? Did you watch a different debate than i just watched?
@@Anthony-wf6oj Camino, Steven Crowder has ambushed Cenk Uygur on his own panel and talked over him, plus mocked him as he was speaking, at a panel he was not invited to be part of, now that is way worse then two people raising their voices a couple of times over each other and overall the debate between seder and kirk was pretty respectful in my opinion.
@Lesco Brandon If crowder is a comedian, he needs to improve at it because he's not funny, he's probably up there with Brendan schaub at being unfunny.
Steven Crowder dodged a bullet when he chickened out of debating Sam Seder.
I would've PAID to see Crowder debate. Sam handily beat Kirk, but I think he would've absolutely murdered Crowder. Would've been hilarious.
@@StevieDamnit if the bullet was made out of 100000 "uh ummm uhhh umm"s i'd dodge it too
Why doesn't big Sam go after Ben Shapiro?
Kyle Rix He has. Several times. Look it up and use that mega brain of yours.
@@78karix lack of testicular fortitude lmao Shapiro would make him cry like chunk yogurt lol that debate was brutal lmao tyt is the worst type of ppl lol
Charlie Kirk is a very load robot. He doesn't get that Health care isn't a choice people make, it's something everyone needs. If everyone needs it but not everyone can afford it in a market system, than people die/go bankrupt. People don't die/go bankrupt in a single payer system, they just have to pay their taxes. Taxes don't kill people, not having healthcare does. The government isn't coming for your life if you don't pay taxes on time. In addition to this, taxes don't even have to go up all that much if you allocate the tax burden more on the wealthy who can afford it and are already not paying their fair share. This is the richest country on the planet yet, we spend more money on War, Corporate welfare, and tax breaks for the wealthy than we do on programs that actually help citizens. If you pay taxes, you should get something in return. Medicare for All would be that something if we allow it. I'd personally say that markets don't work when it comes to something you need verses something you don't. You don't need a coach, a pen or an iphone to live so those things do great in a market system because you can choose not have them and not die from that choice. Medicine, running water, electricity, and com tech(phone/internet) are not things you can live without. There is no option which means there is no risk of someone refusing to buy. That means you can charge them what ever you want and they can't say no, otherwise they die. Thats not a market, it's blackmail.
I hear he lives like a capitalist everyday
@@osvaldoreyes34 uses government printed money and goes home to a property given by a govt property deed. real capitalist he is
Charlie Kirk: "Capitalism is all about hard work. If you fail, it's your fault."
Also Charlie Kirk: "I dropped out of community college because it was too hard and I got rejected from West Point because of affirmative action!"
“So i created a company and my rich parents helped me with money i didnt earn at all “
Also Charlie Kirk: "Foxconn is a marvelous example of the benefits and jobs that flow when government cuts regulations!"
And yet he became successful anyway, despite hitting obstacles which inevitably happen. I think you're missing the entire point here...
@@keyan1219that is also Capitalism. To the original comment, how is affirmative action even related to capitalism? It’s a leftist ideology and unconstitutional
He can’t admit he’s just crap
Is everyone commenting here because of what happened with Crowder?
Yea wanted to see this Sam seder Guy. Definitely would require a long form debate. I would love to see it and if they have they topics before hand they could put the research together effectively, however Crowder tends to do alot of countering and disputing when it comes to research as that is the whole change my mind and Skylar Turdin idea. When Charlie pushes and countered research Sam was left behind. However when Sam was in territory Charlie did not know Sam shined.
Crowder would beat Sam I believe but a discussion on CDC guidelines definitely does not do justice to Sam or Crowder
@@DatlTAE ty for being civil about it
EXACTLY why I'm here
Prospectively. I've been unaware of Sam Seder, and wanted to see why republicans avoid him. While watching, I am left to assume it's because he is a well-versed, firm, and direct leftist. Almost reminds me of Ben Shapiro's aggression and vindictiveness, but without talking extremely fast. Hoping Crowder actually debates him. I'm not sure why he cowered away like he did...😕 I was getting excited while I was watching Hasan Abi.
Yes
lol Sam kicked Charlie’s ass at the end about healthcare
And pretty much everywhere else too!
@@warmlycalculated390 hell ya charlie and the shit in his pants!
@@dvlahos11 example: Trump won the 2020 Election.
@@dvlahos11 Just trying to help you with your definition of Delusion. I don't see how clear and current examples are irrelevant to the discussion.
@@dvlahos11 haha this is hilarious. If you have more, please continue. You've clearly drank the koolaid and I get a kick out of how you think! hahaha!
Live fact-checking Kirk is fun.
Charlie Kirk said we spent 3.4 trillion on housing and urban development...in 2017 we spent 60 billion on housing and urban development...no wonder Sam couldn't argue against that complete and utter buffoonery lmao
I’m not a Kirk fan but that’s not what was said. SS interrupts and derails way to much. At least I’m 20 mins in and that’s my take so far. The $4T budget less $0.7T defense is $3.4 roughly. Kirk asked where does the rest of the budget go to which would be the $3.4T and said entitlements, etc. SS interrupted him and he mentioned housing and urban development, as a continuation to his original point.
@@jameeyg87 Where are you getting this 4 trillion from? Are you just saying that because that's what the federal budget was in 2017?
@@Jonuh yes. They referenced the budget which was 4 something trillion. Sam referenced military and defense, which Kirk pointed out was only 700 billion of the 4 trillion and asked what about the rest, which is 3.4 trillion. Then Kirk said the rest are mostly entitlements, started listing the entitlements, Sam interrupted, then Kirk continued his original point listing housing and development. Sam mentioned a portion of the budget, and Sam said what about the rest of the budget ..which is not insignificant which is 3.4 trillion. This is why you don’t interrupt like this during a debate, because then you can nitpick what someone said when you’ve broken up their words.
@@jameeyg87 you cant debate logic with SS fans bro.
@@FM-dm8xj true
as a person who worked at both banks and security company, Charlie don't have a clue how banks work.
•
Him trying to pin all of the GFC on Fannie and Freddie was so cringe
He's an NPC. he's been trained on how to respond to every argument with a talking point and then he goes down the dialogue tree. He hasn't studied finance at all
What is Kirk even talking about with the war on coal?
There aren't even 200,000 coal jobs in the US, so there's 100% of no way any deregulation could have created anywhere near that many jobs in Appalachia.
He's straight up inventing statistics.
Mystrohan similar to when he suggested small businesses employ 85 percent of the work force lmao
@@trentirvin2008 This is exactly the problem, though. People have learned from Trump that it's perfectly okay to make stuff up to try and support your argument, and lie your way out of sticky situations in front of a camera.
Mystrohan that’s been going on since way before trump. It’s just more in your face now than ever before.
k d Nope. From what I’ve seen, the actual number was more like 2000
Miguel Garcia That’s the ticket!
Kirk is another in a long line of Republican grifters
He's not just "another in a long line of Republican grifters". People like him are literally the reason why the Republicans and the right in general are the way they are at current.
"I want a country that looks a lot more like texas." This comment didn't age well. (Texas power companies killed their customers by not investing in defrost heaters for their electricity generators)
Haha, I came here just to say that… and just goes to show the point lol… deregulated companies won’t take care of people… there are great examples of businesses that need no government involvement… public goods food, water and shelter to name a few… cannot and should not be profited on
More people overdose on the streets in California, than died from the cold in Texas. Texas is a way more desirable place.
@@gerricklovenstein8505 I would rather be murdered by a homeless person during a drug overdose than be forced to live in Texas.
My right ear really enjoyed this video.
What is happening? I'm 6 minutes in, fact check everything Charlie said and it's all false... why am I even here? What's the point of a debate if one person just straight up makes shit up...?
raidan6
Welcome to right wing politics
Welcome to the US where all things right wing no matter how goofy they are, somehow makes sense and appeal to everyone who is ignorant, and even educated. We are a country full of intelligent non critical thinkers.
fACts aNd LoGiC
raidan6 isn't Google a big supporter of the Democratic Party. So don't believe everything you see on Google.
@@bruceharvey8118 it's a search engine, it doesn't make propaganda
lololol, Charlie Kirk doesn't understand finance AT ALL. Charging a bank fees is not charging the bank's depositors. The bank does not own those deposits, so when they pay a fee, that money is not coming from the deposits. It comes from their operating budget, which comes from their credit or their revenues...but those deposits are not credit to the bank and they are not bank revenue! Furthermore, they can't adjust their interest rates according to that because they already are setting their interest rates at what they determine to be the most competitive levels, thus changing rates would hurt them, so charging them fees also doesn't hurt consumers through interest rates. The guy only went to a community college and, therefore, could not have had more than the most basic and broad and shallow finance or economics instruction.
Ugh, and he's fundamentally misunderstanding the stuff he talks about with china and trade and IP protections etc. Just let me freaking debate that guy! I actually do academic research on these topics professionally...
WAAAAAHHHHH, Free markets don't work in every market! This is a universally accepted fact! That is why governments hold or support monopolies for police and fire departments and militaries and highways and public parks and air traffic control and ports and water and electricity and public transportation and waste collection and waste processing and and and and and and and. And most countries in the world include health insurance in this! And you don't have to be a genius to understand why! All you need is a few very basic simple economics concepts like economies of scale (threshold effects), public goods (and quasi-public goods), externalities and pricing of externalities, multiplier effects, and market failures. I mean jesus, there is a whole broad topic of discussion in economics called MARKET FAILURES! It is literally a whole list of ways that free markets can be unable to function efficiently without government intervention!
Logic is missin on right wing economy thinking. How exactly competition wuld make a $200.000 high tech sofisticate surgery afordable for a $30.000/year income person?????
Seems to me that right wingers live in some kind of alternative reality.
@@armitagejake You don't seem to understand economics like every leftist I have ever seen. Competition makes prices go down sir. If the prices don't go down, you go out of business.
@@armitagejake They do. Their leaders just spew talking points and fear mongering shrouded in fallacies and inaccuracies. While their voting block simply just can't think things through well enough (or won't). Ergo why so much cognitive dissonance is present in people that uphold right wing ideologies.
People who don't understand anything about banking and regulations are just going of by the tone of the debate and thinking Kirk won lmao. Seder is very technical and does not use very punchy language. But if you check the sources he's almost 100 percent spot on everything.
Sam started getting condescending with the Healthcare thing at the end which is his classic thing on his show. Shame they stopped the debate because when he gets like that he humiliates people
Kirk was getting ruffled and over his head, cringe worthy stuff to listen to at 32:30
Not true. Sedar makes it seem as though households/people own 80% of the stock, but it is investment banks and hedge funds. He also says glass steagall was a major reason for the 2008 crash but the 2008 crash was caused by a financial derivative called a CDC which is a type of mortgage backed security. Everyone considered them to be safe investments, even the riskier ones. People/ hedge funds/ investment banks then levered up their money in these "safe investments" without digging deep to find that the fico scores for the mortgages backing the security were terrible and the mortgages shouldve never been handed out, meaning that eventually they would default and not be able to pay the mortgage, sending the security to 0. That creates a domino effect and sent every mortgage backed security into the toilet. It has nothing to do with who the bank merges with, they were all buying these CDCs and handing out mortgages that they knew would eventually default and using too much leverage without doing enough research.
Btw I dont think Kirk won the debate, not a shadow of a doubt Sam won, but Sam is very slimy with the way he words things, and also a condescending prick so pick your poison I suppose. Every time Sam gets proved wrong he just says "I dont believe your data" and tries to cut people off and/or end the conversation.
@@mistrynp not sure how looking smug while someone explains to you how banks work is victory.
As someone from the uk who's taxes (it could be argued) are paying for someone else's healthcare. I'm totally fine with it. If i pay out of my taxes for the funding of mine and others healthcare and it means if anything happens to me i don't have to pay upfront I'm all for it. A friend of mine has recently beaten cancer. He had all of the treatment for it and paid nothing out of pocket. When we describe it as "free" we mean 'free at the point of use'. So when you actually use it you don't pay anything.
Lets also add the fact that the portion of taxes going towards health care are way less than what US citizens pay in premiums and out of pocket expenses. Instead of premiums you pay taxes but the UK system is far cheaper for the country as a whole compared to the US total spending on health care.
Hows that system going now?lol
31:20 Charlie clearly doesn’t care about the deaths of tens of thousands.
@ Aidan And what have you done to show you care ?
@@DannyBoy777777 whataboutism.
The "failed state of California" which is like the 7th largest economy in the world. Thats a good one.
Yea USA is the biggest economy in the world, but you people still call it failed. At least be consistent.
With a record budget surplus of $21.5 billion.
Its the most communist esque state
@@wildberry752 You have no idea what you're talking about. Have you been to California? I live here. Have you been to a communist country? A socialist nation? A social democracy?
@@wildberry752 don't use words that you don't know the meaning of.
Who’s here after Crowder ran from Sam?
I'm here to see if Sam Seder really is the obnoxious ahole he seems to be from that Crowder video.
Yeah, only a third of the way into the video and Sam Seder obnoxiously interrupts and accuses Kirk of lying. Sam Seder is pathetic.
Cope dork
@@gru66 almost like lying is counterproductive to a rational debate. If you actually research what he accuses Charlie of you will find Sam actually is correct in his “assumption.”
@@maxtitus5053 So what you're saying is that Charlie knows what he's saying is false, and doesn't believe it himself?
Kirk's praise of low regulations in Texas sounds pretty ignorant in hindsight given that their electric grid failed when they most needed it. That hasn't happened in California or Illinois.
Their metropolitan housing market is literally trending toward what’s happening in both those states literally disproving everything he said on that matter, he just throws out Fox News misinformation talking points and conservatives think because “He talk fast” that it must be true.
@@dvlahos11 Thanks for that bit of ignorance. Texas' blackout lasted 2 weeks and left people all over the state without food, water and heat. Name the California blackout that did the same. Otherwise your comparison is bullshit.
It is an ignorant lie that Florida and Texas are kicking California's ass based on a pathetic attempt to hide incompetence of the ignorant republican politics and policies in those states.
@@dvlahos11 As a person that works in the Power industry. Everything you just said (besides wind turbines not causing cancer) is scientifically wrong and you don't understand how power gets from the plant to your business or home.
Economically speaking:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States_by_GDP
By every metric, California wipes the floor with Texas and Florida.
@@dvlahos11 Rolling blackouts have nothing to do with solar energy. Your an electrician, I am an engineer. 15% of California's energy come from Solar, Geothermal 6%, Wind 7%, Bio-Fuels 3%. That means that about 70% of California's energy comes from petroleum (crude oil). Here is why your statement is pretty unintelligent. Solar collects most of it's energy during the day. When the load on the California Grid the most taxed for supply..... During the day. Solar is at full production during the day when it is hottest and operations are conservative. The reason that California has rolling blackout is because of improper planning for peak demand. That has to do with the Grid Operator. In fact the incentive is to have more solar because the demand for solar energy outstrips the current supply. The issue isn't reliability of solar technology. The issue is hotter temperatures and drought conditions means more people are using more power to keep cool..... That is increase of demand that is greater then supply. That means California needs more energy able to operate at peak times during the day.
So laugh away. Ignorance is truly bliss.
@@dvlahos11
I am just going to add facts and context because none of your opinions seem to be based on any.
California: Ranked 3rd for Higher Education and 40th for Pre-K-Highschool
Florida: Ranked 1st for Higher Ed, and 16th for PK-HS
Texas: Ranked 31st for Higher Ed and 36 for PK HS.
9 of the states with the top 10 school systems for Pre-K-High School all voted for Biden in 2020: New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Illinois, Colorado, Wisconsin, Indiana, Virginia.
5 of the top 10 states for Higher Education systems voted for Biden in 2020: Florida, Washington, California, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, North Carolina, South Dakota, Nevada, Nebraska
No one is leaving California to Texas for better schools.
Destiny really nailed Charlie Kirk when he said “all Charlie can do is try to run you down a dialogue tree”
He literally gets cornered, and dodges by asking his own question to try and get you to play by his rules. It’s him trying to control the conversation. It’s a great debate tactic, but when you’re lying and not being honest, this tactic makes you look weak. He can’t talk to Sam when he is cornered, so he asks a question he already has a pre loaded answer to. Sam doesn’t fall for it, so Charlie has to keep moving on, never really nailing a single talking point.
He did the same thing with Hassan piker
Here about these "great minds"? Think they are so brilliant? What happened to Cenk when his employees wanted to unionize? Name one example of socialism working
We watched different debates I guess.
@@sagaciousassessor6237 with Hassan? Hahahahahaha. That’s the second funniest thing I’ve seen so far. Someone just said Ben Shapiro is afraid to debate Kyle Kalinsky which is pretty insane. I am really in disbelief there anybody on the left thing Hassan piker wasn’t the most embarrassing person on planet earth and that debate. I wish I could be a tribal dogmatic ideologue left-wing atheist so I can live in ignorant bliss lol I guess this is coming from the same people who think AOC is an intellectual. Sorry, supreme congresswoman Queen Alexandria Ocasio Cortez the magnificent and irrefutable. I guess you guys agree Ben Shapiro is cat calling her by challenging her to a debate lol
@@conservativeguitarsingerjs7937 not nearly as funny as watching you flail desperatley as your president loses the country. Please, keep dancing for me.
Charlie Kirk agreeing to debate Sam Seder is the ESSENCE of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
I find Seder very annoying to be honest, but can someone tell me why they think that Kirk won?Every single argument he said,was refuted so badly, he started raising his voice (let's not talk about FoxConn).I have paused and googled their statements and to me this was a bloodbath.I am not being sarcastic, honestly what facts/data am missing here?
You're only missing the fact that this comment section is bombarded by salty Crowder fans.
@@dvlahos11 majority report gets 200,000 views per day..
Every non Crowder fan and neutral thought Crowder ran from the debate. The only ones who are still defending him are the fanboys
@@dvlahos11 he left within 5 minutes. Just before then he was constantly talking over Seder and coping by being the loudest ego maniac in the room. Ergo he ran.
@@dvlahos11 social blade says crowder gets around 1.3 million views per day on average in the last 2 weeks. Majority report is averaging 470k views per day.
That's right in line with their subscriber count (Crowder has 5x more).
To run away from someone because he has less subscribers than you is just the most cowardly move. It doesn't matter if the one you're talking to has 10 million subs or 0 subs, as long as the ideas are worth discussing. Crowder debates randoms off the street but he won't debate any mainstream left wing RUclipsr because he has cold feet.
@@dvlahos11 Sam debates a crap ton of people. You can debate him yourself as he's open to talking with anyone at anytime..you just have to call into his show when he's live.
Kirk: contextualizing it doesn’t make those statistics less exceptional
Seder literally just explained why it makes them less exceptional lol this guy Kirk has no interest in honest debate he’s just spouting right wing talking points
The big difference between Sam and Kyles is that, Sam is here dropping facts and information calmly and explaining the situation while calling out Kirks lies. This probably a better way of debating, but it doesn’t matter when Kyle’s whole goal is to mercilessly curb stomp Charlies face from existence.
Sam and Kirk are really diving into the nuance and history of specific laws and statistics and Sam is showing over and over where kirk is wrong. The problem is 99% of people (maybe I am projecting) have not studied these things preparing to use them in a debate. And it is not necessary to get into such detail to take Kirks argument down. Of course, Kirk knows this, which is why he gets into such detail in order to create confusion for people not familiar with the details.
Kyle did not waste time getting into these details where 99% of people would be lost and just trusting kyle or kirk.
But Kyle should not have allowed Kirk to so freely filibuster and gish gallop in his debate. Other than that, Kyle did great.
Sam did better, but I was lost and I am sure 99% of people were also lost and simply trusting Sam or kirk.
@@sagnorm1863 Actually, no. That's why Sam is so effective here. Even when they get into the weeds with some of the more arcane political and economic topics, the broader points of discussion were always in view and Sam made sure to nail Charlie Kirk on every single point discussed as well as give Kirk enough rope to hang himself (like on regulation) to the point where Kirk is reduced to making a crack about Elizabeth Warren twice for applause ines.
So, there was no "Well, they're both talking about complex things, so it's just a matter of who I trust more." Unlike Kyle's recent debate against Kirk, Sam either cut through Kirk's gish gallop or he patiently waited through it and then took the time to rebut every point Kirk made. Also, the fact is, Sam forced Kirk to delve deeper into the issues to try to confuse the audience because he called him on his bullshit at every stop. Kyle didn't really challenge Kirk in the same way.
@@VanguardSupreme After rewatching, I gotta agree that the specifics are not that hard to follow if you actually pay attention. And Seder had the greater performance.
But Kyle was able to efficiently counter Kirk's points quickly and without following Kirk into his hole of misleading or false specific data. But again, Kyle made the mistake of allowing Kirk to filibuster and gish gallop, which Seder did not allow.
And I think it still stands that most people struggled to follow the details in the Seder debate, which benefits Kirk, since Kirk was wrong in his nuance and Seder was correct.
You need superhuman aim to accurately stomp Charlie's face.
This argument is so uneven. Kirk is unable to understand the arguments that Sam discusses. Instead he dives into irrelevant statistics that he does not provide the proper context for. This was embarrassing for Kirk, hope the dude studies up.
Probably the most laughable gaffe he made, in hindsight, was the Foxconn example. Sam has a way of predicting the future correctly.
Lol you guys are the kind of political hacks who say joe biden is an excellent speaker.
@@timc9250 he has a bit of a stutter but he’s usually pretty coherent. May be the problem is with you?
@@alcoholic1638 lol @ a bit of a stutter🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. That wins the political hack statement of the day! Your screen name fits you well🤣🤣.
@@timc9250 Biden is not an excellent speaker.
Kirk was also eviscerated in this debate.
People who discount social security programs by framing them as "entitlement" is beyond disgusting.
People who vote to tax the meager social security retirees receive is beyond disgusting. That’s democrats btw.
you're dense lol you pay taxes on half if you get 25-34k a year... and it was implemented in 1984... not a dem president there big guy.@@shani5345
and its literally at the federal income tax rate, thats it.@@shani5345
charlie kirk's words on texas and california didn't age very well. lmao.
Nor did his words on FoxConn.
@@dvlahos11 Yeah you guys really knocked it out of the park this winter with your infrastructure delima.
@@dvlahos11 Speaking of Dumbocrats? Texas is a Republican state how could Problems in Texas be the Democrats fault? Also California isn't failing as hard as hard as he made it sound. The guy is a conservative political commentator it's ok for him to be wrong or even lie. Most of his base will just laugh and nod and agree with him or stick up for him just to be contrary
If anything the opposite of your statement is true. Crime has increased tremendously. Homelessness persists and is only growing. San Francisco has businesses closing its doors left and right because of people stealing without any consequences. And every year there are reports of rolling blackouts in the state. The cost of gas is far higher than that of the rest of the country and people are leaving in droves to places like texas.
@@LostxToxAxSnail Um IDK what video you watched because california is not failing like he predicted. it actually had growth and It is considerably higher than the forecasted U.S. average of 5.5% in 2021 and 4.2% in 2022 as far as TexAss Failing infrastructure growing homelessness In Texas, 21,115 individuals, 6,114 persons in families, 1,408 unaccompanied youth, 1,949 veterans, and 3,862 chronically homeless individuals experienced homelessness in 2019. Almost all of those numbers increased . Crime as well Dallas violent crime is 37.0. (The US average is 22.7)
Dallas property crime is 50.7. (The US average is 35.4) Those are Facts not your feeling worded to sound smart. Texas just another State with issue like them all
At the time even supporters of Kirk acknowledged his defeat in this debate.
But now I return a year later, and right wingers be like: Oh yeah, Kirk totally won that debate.
lol
Supporters acknowledged his defeat? Show us some evidence on this, I'd like to see it. Otherwise it just sounds like a historical fallacy.
grandoldreality lol youre such an idiot you want evidence of people saying he lost😂😂. Go read comments from a year ago i guess 😂.
@@kdelvalle4696 the majority of right wingers sadly will never. Ever. Admit when they are wrong or lose.
@@gdadder is that like, a statistical reality based on your studies? Or a hyperbole answer based on what you're used to hearing from your friends? Look up Jonathan Haidt's "The moral roots of liberals vs conservatives" and perhaps you'll understand the true nature of both ideas.
@@kdelvalle4696 it’s just factually true, watch conservative politicians or conservative debaters, I can think of multiple leftist who constantly admit when they are in the wrong and have multiple times.
When has say trump EVER admitted he was wrong about anything, when does Ben Shapiro? Tucker Carlson? Charlie kirk ?
None of them ever will say they’re wrong in debates or in general 99% of the time. They don’t want you to ever question them. That’s literally their goal because the majority of them are actual grifters.
Trickle down does not work . Corporations , oil for instance raised prices while making increased profits
I love how Kirk just melts down spewing 18463972 words per second and Sam just repeatedly nukes him
lmaooo you mean charlie spams a bunch of actual facts and sam just says u lying. yep total nuke for sure
@SaintBrazy literally whatever kirk said, is mostly a generalization or untrue
Cope
He went limp, When sam said pull out your phones and google..👊
Texas ranks #48 in education. They rank last for child medical care.
Of course they rank that low in education. They have a ton of foreigners....
@@tinalevan1984 what about California ?
When charlie goes through his dialogue trees it loads much faster. When he gets off topic he stutters and lags a lot. Needs a patch or the devs need to implement more dialogue options.
it's not a bug it's a feature
i LiVe EvErYdAy LiKe A cApItAliSt, CeNk!
Foxconn...this aged really well for Charlie ...
Yea I understand why Crowder was scared now lol
Seder admitted that Charlie Kirk did a good job in this debate.
@@stotz4710 Yeah he thinks he did great. Sam still said he gave him a smackdown though
You spelled Ethan wrong
@Kyle Richard imagine thinking someone disagreeing with Seder is a trump supporter
meaning? Point is why do you assume crowder fans support trump exclusively haha
6 minutes in this Charlie Kirk guy ... I'm 56 years old, so when he says this is the best economy we've had in a generation, I have to ask for WHOM? (hint the top 25% or higher) the rest of us are sinking
11 minutes in ... the same tired old Republican talking points
32 minutes in, here we go with the Bank crap. Dodd-Frank was very weak regulation. ugh
34 minutes in ... Yes Glass-Steagal ... check (mate)
Charlie Kirk is just arguing for no rules of the road, no cops on the beat, the problem was that we just had too many regulations even AFTER we had CUT regulations
Finally I agree with Charlie Kirk on something. those banks should have been allowed to fail, and people should have gone to jail.
LOL competition, GTFOH
Bernie Sanders 2020
Old Gringo I guess you love paying taxes when the Democrats are running the show don't you. That's money out of your pocket. You know why people are leaving California. Because of the democratic politicians. High taxes. California is 3.4 trillion dollars in debt.
You say only the top 25% are rising? that's weird because poverty has gone down worldwide and in America for everyone. I know you are going to say WAGE STAGNATION, but that doesn't include healthcare, social security benefits, etc.
@anonymous anonymous where's the money at.
In the off chance you see this, banks hold the people's money. Wouldn't allowing them to fail/bankrupt be taking away the savings of the people who put their money in that bank ?
Christ Americans do not study economics at school do they. The fact that the guy in the right can pose as a thinker is some astonishing Dr Seuss shit
Unfortunately, we have lots of Americans that think like Charlie Kirk and live in a alternate reality.
I like how Kirk mentions Foxconn in Wisconsin. What an absolute dumpster fire of a project. Waste of 4 billions dollars to Wisconsin Taxpayers, not to mention all the people who were forced to move because of imminent domain clause. Thanks Scott Walker
Watching this in 2022 is wild. Foxconn and coal initiatives? That didn't age well lol. Trump simps are hilarious 😂
Kirk is like a machine gun, always butting in. Sam handled him, but the rapid fire from that jerk was obviously well rehearsed BS.
It is like every republicans lie used only for few days and nobody from their side says a word about it ever again.
Foxcorn is one of the best possible examples how right wing media work, put lie in eter, talk about it for some time to give people false hope and when collapses don`t say a word about it ever again.
I remember Foxcorn very well and how they fabricated that lie but what is worse people believed in that lie and probably many of them still do because they watch only right wing media who will never say it was just a talking point.
For things like Foxcorn many right wingers believe trump administration was success just because nobody told them what had happened with all his fallen programs.
7 trillions bigger debt after just 4 years of his presidency and it is most because of that tax bill for the rich people and it can`t be stopped so debt will get bigger and bigger just because people on the right love only that America what give privileges only to them and them only
If someone thought Charlie won then you watched something else.
If someone thought Sam won then you are probably a 13 year old still in your socialist phase.
Idk Sam was changing the subject and yelling when it was Charlie's time to talk quite a bit, idk who won but I do know Sam debates like a house wife, relax let the opposite guy talk and then have a response
I watched this without bias, happens to be, the guy on the right won.
This dude (Kirk) regurgitated the exact same points on every panel. It was like hearing a comedian keep trying to work a bit... But was failing at it
Charlie seems to think yelling makes his points more valid
Conservatives' debate strategies are along the lines of "talk faster, yell and scream, make confused faces" and the left's strategies are "have data, have evidence" lmao
@@criticalthinker3262 Watch Vaush tell what you think now.
@@clearashazy431 Vaush has said he likes to match his debater in their tactics and beat them at their own game, and I think that's pretty clear from seeing a couple of his debates. Not everyone's going to agree with that tactic, but it does seem to be really effective at winning over some of the conservatives that think their talking head stan wins every debate because they smirk at the audience or whatever
@@criticalthinker3262 He says that yet there are countless clips of him yelling at his opponents who aren't even screaming at him.
@@clearashazy431 He does tend to come down loud and hard on people who aren't sticking to their arguments, or are lying about their data. Maybe that's what you're thinking of?
Every time Kirk gets loud a district flips blue.
My right ear loved this
Ok thank god I was wondering if that was just me
@@beatzdyer lol same
Ooof this didnt age well. Texas and Florida, not doing so hot.
Lol I also just watched that video! How pathetic/insecure do you have to be to stage something like that?
How so
"I don't want to pay for something I might never use" - This is just selfishness incarnate, we should treat all person's in our country with the same value, and the same right to basic human necessities regardless of arbitrary factors.
Tell that to conservatives who don’t even believe the fact that systemic racism exists let alone white privilege…
You just said treat everyone with the same value....you are stupid.
@@properduction2586 Please give a single specific example of a law or policy which explicitly favours one race over any other, except of course for affirmative action.
@@nightwingvyse Do you not understand what generational wealth is?
@@bananawammabamaFirstly, the existence of "generational wealth" has absolutely nothing to do with whether the law explicitly applies different rules to people based on their race. You know there are no examples for this (except affirmative action like I said) so you deflect the question and make it about something completely different.
But I'll address your non-sequitur anyway. In the Western world, almost all of the very richest people made their wealth themselves in their own lifetimes. The fact that people are allowed to pass on their wealth to their loved ones of their choice shouldn't be a scandalous thing, like it seems to be for you guys. Let's say you one day managed to earn a great amount of wealth, why shouldn't you be able to pass that earned money on to the people you love? Not being able to do that defeats the entire point of having a legacy or a family.
Economics isn't a zero-sum game like you want to pretend it is. Kirk mentioned this in the video if I remember right. If you get a raise at your job, that doesn't mean someone else suddenly gets a pay cut or has that money taken from them. Functioning economies don't work that way; the only ones that do are completely stagnated ones (like every Communist one that's ever existed in history).
Again, we know for a fact that there are countless wealthy people out there who are self-made, and there is zero evidence that suggests that it's easier or harder for anyone based on race.
One interesting thing to note is that the one biggest factor psychologists have ever found that predicts a person's success in life, is whether they were raised in stable two parent families or not. The stats vary depending on the study, but they all conclude that the fatherless family rate is roughly 3x higher for black families than white ones. This is what's causing the average wealth disparity we see when generalizing by race.
There are so many compounded reasons for this, and racism simply isn't one of them, despite what I'm sure your knee-jerk conclusion probably is. If we want to fix generational wealth inequality, any person with common sense knows that the answer isn't to simply shift money around or to give people unfair advantages based on race. Western society spent decades making civil rights breakthroughs to get rid of that racist element, and now you people want to bring it back.
Again, if you can't find a law or policy that explicitly favours one race over another (except of course affirmative action as I said) then we have to acknowledge that the answer to wealth inequalities is simply not to have our feckless daddy governments arbitrarily redistribute people's money using broadstroke racist lines, and instead to fix the societal issues that have been found to most accurately predict success in life, like fatherless rate as I mentioned.
Kirk has the economical understanding of a 15 years old frat boy : dogmatic and clumsy. Yes, 10 seconds of listening and you Know He is american
Just looking at the healthcare portion of this... So, Charlie is basically saying that he is going to remain healthy, never get cancer, never fall and break a bone, never get into a car accident, until the day he drops dead in his home. Right? And he's constantly harping about the high taxes in Norway.... except for the fact that other countries that have a MUCH lower tax rate than Norway, most closer to the US, still have single-payer and are much more effective and cheaper in the long run for everyone, because the Big Pharma and Big Insurance don't take huge cuts from the pie right off the top.
I live in Korea. We have a national health care plan. I am 50 years old, small business owner, and I pay around US$150 a month. My friend pays US$3 per month for insulin, another US$2~3 for the doctors visit to get the prescription for the insulin, and he waits less than 20 minutes every time he goes to any doctor he wants to. My dad died of colon cancer a few years ago, and in the 18 months from the time he was diagnosed to the the time he passed away, he had 2 surgeries, he had chemo, he had tests every two months, doctors visits every month, he stayed in the hospital for the surgeries, and other ailments probably around 2 months, and he had about 3 weeks in hospice before he passed. Total cost including everything, was, I think around an average of US$300 a month for 18 months.
The 3.5 million jobs are at McDonald's and Burger King and Target.
Charlie Kirk is full of __it.
Prove it
Facts. It’s not small businesses. That’s for certain.
Charlie's favorite rhetorical strategy is to respond to his opponent's points by saying "I'm so glad you brought up ____________", feigning knowledge and authority, and then proceed to get everything wrong.
What exactly did he get wrong? You maaaaadddd?
lmao he doesn't know how a bank works
@@michaelfvt you're just saying stuff and hoping ignorant people believe you.
@@renabshire4704 Ok, if that's what you believe that's fine, but you could do some very basic reading on how banks function to see that his grasp on the subject is tenuous at best. I'm not really trying to convince people of anything actually.
@@michaelfvt thats easy to type, doesnt make it true
Love how Sam is calm and patient in this debate. He is a really smart guy but he can come off as pompous and dismissive in his channel's videos.
Sam has categories in his channel that he should playlist because people get confused by his attitudes and acting. On the majority of his breakdown videos he does an over the top mocking act where he shits on people's logic. He has another category wher ehe does open call debates and he is more like this.
guess why cigarettes and booze cost more in Canada? cuz people who smoke and drink will need more medical attention.....taxation can be specifically placed. we Canadians LOVE our beer and smokes, and don't mind the costs of acquiring. We also really like our *free* medical care, when our livers, bowels, breasts, teeth , and lungs fail us......we just happily paid as we went along smoking and drinking.
Nancy Sherry we’re Americans people dont understand you need higher taxes on certain things
THIS!
Interesting. You are probably not aware that the US spends more per capita on social programs than Canada. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending
There is no free health care in Canada. Nothing is free it is just paid for by a different means.
@@larrydugan1441 thats what they just said, dude. like are you reading and listening or just getting ready to say whatever anyway?
Sam Seder is the best debater the left has. Go follow his show The Majority Report.
But he's not...He'll destroy any right winger, but he's far from the best debater.
@@GoSuMonSteR who is in your opinion?
@@commander4465 On the left? Chomsky, easily.
The dude on his show that has the receding hairline and thinks he’s a comedian is annoying. If it was always just Seder I’d watch more of the content.
GoSu MonSteR I don’t know where you got that prof. Chomsky was a debater. He’ll sometimes rebut dumb questions but he mainly does interviews and you’d rarely see him share a stage with someone he thinks is dishonest.
I'm a trucker since 1984. My wages were stagnant from 1988 to 2008. Obamacare broke that stagnation. Up until that point, every raise went one hand and out the other, to pay for the annual health insurance increase, and it was the republicans who fought tooth and nail since the 1990s against health care reform... Charlie Kirk is delusional.
PS Charlie, Obama, inherited a disaster (the great recession), that's why he had to spend. What was Bush and Trump's excuse to feed the wealthy after inheriting good economies?????
And speaking of red states, 9 out of the top 10 that take more from the FED than they put in, are red states. New Mexico is the only blue state!... Charlie is a BSer!
401K?...The stock market was 7,900 in 2008 and the unemployment rate was 13.2%. In 2016, Obama handed it over to Trump at 19000, with a 4.7% unemployment rate.
Inconvenient facts for guys like Charlie Kirk. The best part is where he implies that stock buybacks are good for the middle class because the money managers work those corporate gains down to the middle class. Yeah right - trickle-down money management.
can't argue with that... Charlie Kirk is an out of touch, entitled, POS...
Go to 53:51, Kirk is so clueless. "Sam how come we don't subsidize food if it's essential to living!!?" Of course we subsidize food buddy! Seder absolutely wrecked him holy
...And Seder just continues talking through his point like nobody is refuting it. In the context of the whole Crowder x Seder debate, I don't blame Crowder for not wanting to deal with this guy.
@@zebo6162 the majority report with Sam seder is one of the biggest American left radio shows on RUclips. Crowder says he always wants leftist guests on his show yet I can't recall if he's ever talked with a mainstream left RUclipsr in his life.
@@zebo6162 I don't blame him either. Sam is FAR more knowledgeable than Crowder.
The moderator is totally useless here and also in the recent debate with Kyle.
Pls politicon, get another.
He’s just there. Even when he was like “I’ll give you the last word” Sam or Charlie ended up going on and on with their points without really acknowledging him.
@ 16:00, Charlie talks about how TX got rid of regulation. That lack of regulation is how energy companies gouged consumers for thousands of $$$ per month during an energy crisis. 🤷
@HushRush people move all the time. Doesn't excuse a faulty power system.
I mean, you understand that in a crisis like that, raising prices is how you keep demand matching supply. If the price was forced to stay the same, there would just be no power for everyone because there was little power and lots of demand.
@@samuelmerkel2888 I mean, you understand that historic greed and deregulation lead to an ***avoidable*** crisis?
@@davec1406 I mean, you understand that one of the major reasons winter protection cuts were made to Texas power grids was to help fund their green initiative, right?
@@samuelmerkel2888 To quote the Houston Chronicle:
"An aversion to federal regulation was one of the main reasons that Texas energy companies opted for a power grid that didn't cross state lines. Texas has resisted regulation in major court cases."
www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/politifact/article/Fact-check-Why-does-Texas-have-its-own-power-15964085.php
The little tiny brain people on here are saying Charlie Kirk did well..it must be because he talks really loud when he loses
Just like them
Charlie’s numbers on Trump’s added jobs to the coal industry are off by tens of thousands. And the industry suffered another major drop off in less than four years, an even larger decline than during Obama’s years.
Lol I just looked it up. This is an old debate but coal jobs are down 24% from the start of the trump administration. Charlie spouts out so much crap and calls them facts.
Cenk nailed it. Guys like Kirk confuse yelling and talking fast for intelligence.
The problem is it works. In debates like these aggressive rhetoric and appealing to emotion with strong statements wins over facts any day. Try to be intellectually honest and you've already lost, which is a large part of why the right is winning so often.
Charlie is just sound biting and grandstanding. This is my frustration with Right wing personalities like He, Crowder and Shapiro they're awful debaters they are looking at quotes for click bat and not addressing the actual issues
Speaking of Crowder, he was originally supposed to debate Sam but he ghosted this debate. They run scared, they know they're full of shit and won't debate anyone on the left except for 18 year old college freshmen.
So props to Charlie for at least showing up I guess
@@Code_Dee He ghosted when he was supposed to debate Potholer too, complete and utter fraud.
Cause that's the only way they can even hope to claim a victory
If Sam didn’t interrupt Charlie, Charlie would keep going with his monologues that he obviously has been practicing in front of the mirror.
my left ear is very lonely.
thank you, I was about to start fiddling with my speakers but you were the most recent comment.
Re-titled: Little Boy Charlie Kirk owned by Adult Sam Seder in debate.
@Rick Jacobs Charlie doesn't even have the foundational knowledge of economics and finance required to engage in a principled debate on the subject matter, and if you did, you would realize that. He is a talking points regurgitator. His tell is: when he gets loud and talks fast, he's reciting a memorized Republican talking point in an effort to counter emperical facts and data.
@T Not critiquing styles, only substance. On substance, Kirk got owned.
What surprised me was not the outbursts, but how unprepared all the right-wing speakers were.. It’s almost disrespectful to their opponents, the event and the audience...
Eugene Khaw You serious? Anytime a liberal says a buzzword notice how they strategically pause to allow the NPCs to cheer. Check any video especially Cenks and it’s a lame tactic to cheapen a response.
The most revealing part about Kirk for me was when he discussed the 2008 financial disaster. He essentially boiled down the problem to government. It's one of the most fundamental libertarian arguments in this debate. Regardless of how insane, greedy, and corrupt Wallstreet and the finial industry along with their ratings agencies became, in his mind it all goes back to government involvement. Should the regulators and any other government entity involved have been held accountable? Yes. Can you blame the entire problem on government and completely ignore the fact that Bankers blatantly preyed on people's desire for a home to get rich, and almost collapsed the world economy? No, because that's idiotic and crazy.
One could argue that the government enabled this crisis to happen because of how unstable the Eurodollar system was. Subprime mortgages were just the catalyst, but the Eurodollar is what really caused the financial crisis, way too much debt, and who allows an economy full of debt and no savings? The government…
@@leomaicelo7198 None of that changes that this was a completely fraudulent banking system preying on people for profit that almost brought us back to the dark ages.
What buffles me is his solution for the lack of regulation from the government on the rating companies is less regulation?
He is complaining about lack of regulation, isn't that what his whole persona is about?
@@peksn Makes no sense lol
The problem is Kirk established a bogus definition of middle class. Middle class is not about the next generation living better. Middle class is about a certain standard of living for a current family; when your child gets his own family, if they have the same standard of living, then he/she too is middle class.
Kirk is correct in that the middle class is an American invention. Unfortunately, it only lasted for a few decades. What we have in mind when we say middle class, is the standard of living families had in the fifties and early sixties. Then, you could afford a house, a car or two in the garage, to pay for the kids college, a yearly vacation, and to set a little aside for a rainy day. That’s what we all mean when we say middle class.
Because of inflation, they estimate that now you need a household income of about $130,000 a year to afford that same standard of living. But now, $130,000 a year puts you in the top 10% of income earners. Which means 90% of the population makes less than this amount, and thus are not able to afford a middle class life. Again middle class has nothing to do with future generations living better than the current one; it has to do with a standard of living.
The truth is we no longer have a middle class (unless you change the definition of middle class). The only people who can afford the standard of living the middle class had in the fifties and sixties now, are people in the top ten percent of income earners. If ninety percent of people cannot afford a middle class lifestyle, then there is no middle class.
You can of course fiddle with the definition of middle class and get different results. But remember the original middle class was an American phenomenon, and the fifties and sixties is the first and only time we have seen this level of shared wealth and income. Those days and conditions are long gone.
By the way, the top tax rate was 90% at the time the original middle class showed up. So the original middle class was not built on tax breaks.
The bigger problem is that Charlie makes up an entire world where the free market system works...and then chooses Foxconn as an example of the wonderful benefits that will accrue if the government just deregulates and gets out of the way to let private industry do its thing.
Those sneakers are making me ill
9enius fuckin true
Those are Kanye's Yeezees (however you'd spell that) Brand sneakers. He wore them so when people commented on them, they could go into the convo about the democratic plantation
9enius especially with a suit. It pains me that someone wears sneakers with a suit.
Really interesting hearing Charlie Kirk talk about Dodd/Frank and that the regs on banks. Really puts perspective on how wrong he is with the recent collapse of said small banks (silicon valley, etc.)
If only conservatives actually gave a shit whether or not the things they said a few months ago is true or not.
LOL... the more this goes on the more Sam schools Charlie... jesus... Kirk looks like a scared little boy... DAMN son... this was bad... hahahaha jesus christ.
Lol did you listen to the point? Sam preformed better and had more crowd reaction but Kirk argument was better then sams.
@@EliteBaby-bh7zq Lol, please.... Sam literally SCHOOLED him... like a patient teacher dealing with an ignorant, smart ass, rebellious LITTLE BOY.
Well said my friend, Charlie knows his points are full of shit.
@@EliteBaby-bh7zq Nope. Sam was better informed and didn't use any fallacious or unsound arguments unlike Kirk, who relied on them throughout.
Charlie’s pretty good for 24 years old, his ideas will refine over the years, maybe when he isn’t working alongside the president too, I feel Cus he’s got a close relationship with trump he doesn’t like to shit on his ideas
Last 10 minutes Charlie Kirk was insufferable. Seder absolutely kicked his ass
Thank you for the complete upload, TYT!
Sam is calm, cool, collected and Charlie came off as jittery fool repeating some talking points he can’t back. Completely owned.
the flip actually!
when Sam was "calm",,,, I saw him as nervous
@Red pilled Blanketly calling people 'cucks' is definitely a highly individualist, stable-genius move. Glad to see you're a fan of the philosophy based on an action movie made by two transwomen.
@Red pilled Progressives are pro-eugenics? Are you for real? Most progressives are capitalist, Sam Seder and TYT are all blatantly capitalist, and every single elected politician is capitalist. You sound like a video game script. Learn to think for yourself.
@Red pilled No True Scotsman. So are you now trying to say that the Nordic countries are actually socialist? lol. And bruh, most of the founding fathers were open eugenicists and believed that black people were not human. Does that make America today a pro-eugenics country? Besides, that's a Fake News story anyway, Sanger wanted to cope with the fear of some blacks that birth control was the white man's way of reducing the black population. Keep trying.
Kirk has honestly showed a complete lack of fundamental economic principles here. His example with the banks “starting from nothing” is flawed since they were operating in a framework where there was low barriers to entry, unlike now where huge corporations limit new entrants into the market.
That is the point of deregulating the market so that it is easier for wew entries in the market.
@@deepanko12 erm no it doesn’t because if you already monopolies or oligopolies on a market being established from first mover advantage the you’re already at a loss. Charlie Kirk literally admitted this in this debate with his explanation of Goldman Sachs so he literally discredited his own argument.....
@@anonanonanon2868 every business when it starts at a loss. It is never an overnight success.
@@deepanko12 ermm no it’s not, in markets that are monopolistically competitive, supernormal profits are necessary in order to secure a place within the market during the long run which attracts new entrants into the market which then decreases the overall price level and lowers the market profit expectancy to just normal profits.
@@anonanonanon2868 monopolies are formed not by more profits but better services than competitors. Before banks private loans was a monopoly which are much higher interest rates than banks. And if they charge higher once the monopoly is created new entrants always seize this kind of opportunity. So it is superficial on your part to think like that. Even the internet era you see what was the monopoly back then and what it is now. And if you see Chinese products are also changing the flow of demand. In next year's the outlook will change.
Oh boy this didn't age well at all with the 2020 Covid/Trump depression which wouldn't have been 50% better if Trump took it seriously at first and made the appropriate responses.
BECAUSE IDIOTS FROM WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION DOWNPLAYED COVID19. Let me repeat that again for you, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
@@knockknock23 take some responsibility, but the Donald never did that in his life.
Agreed. If only Democrat governors and mayors hadn’t placed COVID infected into nursing homes we’d likely have had significantly less dead due to COVID. If only Americans weren’t so fat either as roughly 80% of all those requiring hospitalization for COVID were either overweight or obese.
But those things were obviously Trump’s fault. 😒
You mean the demontard depression and decline of America that follows demontards wherever they're elected? Yeah, I agree.
@@knockknock23 when the whole world was taking covid seriously Donald trump didn't admit it now
Sam is the man. We need people like him who know their shit and will tell a guy like Kirk "you are lying" rather than patiently waiting for time after a gish gallop to allow a mild response.
You are lying.
Damn. I'm a big Kyle fan but compared to Kyle's performance, Sam is moping the floor with this guy. I wish Kyle had the same calculated precision Sam's got here. Sure, he still was right about things but some of his animated riled up responses just didn't look good on him.
Yea, Kyle is not a debater and often times was out talked by Kirk's monologues but Kyle is objectively correct on all the issues. He just couldn't keep up.
810 land to us he’s not obviously but we know Kyle is objectively correct however show someone that isn’t politically savvy and most times they will say that Cherry Picking Charlie won just based on the fact that he was able to monologue unchallenged for considerable parts of the debate.
Well that’s what’s sad about debating, the lack of live fact checking allows Kirk to filibuster and spout lies constantly and without pauses so he can just lie 6 times a minute and fluster his opponent. It’s a tactic used by Shapiro aswell
Sam is just more policy informed than Kyle, he’s also just brighter
Whos kyle
I wonder why they get so defensive when anybody starts talking about billionaire funding
Yup checked it , Kirk is wrong .
Does Charlie Kirk know anything at all, about pretty much anything? Geez what an empty vessel
Please provide a specific example of where he was clueless. I’m eager to see your reply.
@@Larry_Hegs I watched this a long time ago man. I don’t recall the entire conversation at this point.
Don't worry you retained now as much as you did then to make this dumb comment. All good bud. @@gangster125
@@Larry_Hegs thanks. Trust dumb right wingers to understand dumb better than anyone else
@@Larry_Hegs the entire debate, especially when Sam exposed chuck s hypocrisy on deregulation, your boy chuck claims to be against big businesses but yet opposed them being regulated. Shows how pathetic and hypocritical you sub human Magat vermins are.🤡🤡🤡🤡
Kirk lost the moment he decided to debate Sam 🤣
its exactly why steven crowder keeps ducking him. hes terrified of this exact thing.
@@lilith9249 same with that coward Dennis Prager
Well idk what you guys just saw but Charlie won that so….
@@tabwebster8019 you mean Charlie, the pro-life guy who couldn't tell the difference between a Human fetus and that of a dolphin.....that Charlie?
@@dopenerd yes the pro-life guy, and what do you mean that of a dolphin what kind of remark is that. Ya dolphins have fetus’s, Cows, sheep, dogs, etc! But yes the Human Fetus which we are talking about is it’s own Being because it is its own “DNA” plain and simple if you try to argue that your stupid because I have a question for you, when is it not ok to murder another human with living DNA
Has Charlie’s head swelled to it’s current balloon shape just in the last 5 years?
Ad hominem attacks are a great way to mitigate your losing talking points
@@JamesSmith-jx4hs precisely what i was about to say lol.
Speaking with leftists is like revisiting the kindergarten playground.
@@JamesSmith-jx4hsthat is not what as hominem means fool.
Kirk: Master of the Gish Gallop
It’s because his style of debate is using heritage foundation researched dialogue trees. He has to gish gallop in order to reach those trees
My right ear is loving this debate.
Lol Charlie really thinks by acting snarky he can come off as making points. People who believe this dude are gullible
No. That actually applies to the other guy.
@@shani5345 really? So what do you agree with Charlie on?
@@shani5345 actually never mind. Nothing good ever comes from someone who sides with a racist pos like Charlie Kirk.
Everything Kirk stands for only helps our country. Sam wants to destroy it.
@sophiawarner7540 the shit that Kirk want helps the wealthy.
Kirk, in this video: "We should have let the banks fail and pay a price for gambling with our money."
Also Kirk, all the time: "We shouldn't punish or demonize the rich because they take risks and stimulate our economy."
There is a difference between the majority of the "rich" building a business and a few incredibly wealthy people exploiting government intervention in the economy in hopes for a bailout.
@@zebo6162 "Business owners" aren´t "the rich". Anyone actually *rich* is also going to be exploiting people and wider society.
He clearly stated companies that provide benefits for the population and hence get rich for it. What exactly does banks do that benefit us instead playing wiyh our money and giving us 0.0000001 percent on the dollar.
@@dainiergarcia5076 You can belittle it by calling it "playing," but bank lending drives economic growth by empowering many to make meaningful purchases in their lives. I'm not even talking about corporate lending here; loans for a house, car, or college education would not be possible for the average American without banks willing to lend the money.
That being said, you can't lend money to just anyone, as you need to make the money back. This is called risk, and is the justification for an interest rate beyond that which would be justified with inflation. For those saving their money in banks, the interest you make on that money is your cut of that generated wealth. Again, you can belittle it by calling it "0.0000001 percent on the dollar," but given enough money and time that interest rate is how people's retirement funds are created and sustained through pensions and 401ks.
That being said, putting your money into a bank is a voluntary transaction, so you have the choice to keep your money in cash. I think there are consequences to that decision that are not immediately apparent (low credit rating and lost time to generate interest), so I hope you would reconsider.
@@zebo6162 they are still using your money and giving to others, making money of your money by giving high interest. There are things like union banks that give much lower interest loans, banks are just sharks. Im jot negating the function they play in society but that could be replaced by personal loans and other means. They dont create value they literally use everyone's money to make money for themselves, then if things go bad you might not even get your money back aka bank run.
Now I understand why Crowder is so afraid.
Charlie Israel provides it's people with healthcare using your taxes.
My right ear really enjoyed this video
My left ear joined the party at around 24:00
This is a showcase of an educated person quoting facts and understanding the content and context of what is being discussed vs a college dropout grifter who isn’t qualified to speak to high school kids regarding practically anything.
Hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the coal industry?! That has to be the biggest lie of this entire video!
Trying to save the coal industry was the biggest lie to those miner communities(votes)