The Dominator

As someone who voted for Johnson last night, let's hope so.

Ah very true, didn't think about that response for more than 5 seconds haha

Assuming most here are from New York, it's probably fairly close to historical NY percentages right?

I know the debates in here don't stop after the election, but I would like to show my gratitude to everyone in here who shared their opinions/views with me. I haven't been contributing much in the past few months but I've kept a close eye to this thread and have learned a lot. More than anything, while I have conviction for some of the views I hold, I also have a much better understanding for opposing views to issues that I grapple with still to this day. So thank you everyone who has contributed and will continue to contribute as we move forward (or backward, depending on your view of the country's immediate future).

I know we are supposed to wait until we actually voted to cast the vote in the poll but I don't think I'll be able to get back on the boards tomorrow night. Consider it a Sabrespace "absentee" vote

I'm glad we found some common ground. My follow up question: Why would he take advantage of these loopholes and then turn around and close them?

I was never looking to shape your opinion, I was simply offering my own and sharing my background... I never vouched for Hillary either. I never even said I was voting for her (which I'm not). Reading comprehension helps. In the realm of politics (which has a much broader scope than running a successful business), Trump is a dummy. And for further disclosure, I have no issue with hiring an accountant and paying them a large sum of money in order to lower your taxes in a legal manner. I would do the same if I'm being honest with myself. The tax loopholes need to change of course.

Let me preface this with: I'm an independent (for full disclosure my mother is a Democrat and my father was a Republican until the The 'W' presidency). As an independent, I would have voted for Kasich or Rand Paul in the general election if they won the primaries. Anyways... Bush was a dummy. Rubio is a dummy. Cruz is a dummy. Trump is a dummy. The dummy report.

And yet Trump has her beat in this category... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/nov/01/truth-check-clinton-and-trump-truth-o-meter-1-week/ Not that I'm a fan of her. I'm voting for neither of them, personally.

I thought I liked her for a reason... Not that I agree with all of her stances

Why is there so much beef with her within her party? Pardon my ignorance, I don't watch too many political shows on cable. When she moderated a primary debate I thought she did a good job pressing for answers

I immediately thought about "Saint Doug" Marrone. Glad that's over with...

The bold made me excited, then I read the rest of the sentence...

Big Ditch Excavator in cans. Yes.

The libertarian in me says no to the first bold. The pro-capitalist in me laughs at the second bold (Not at you Dark, at the presidential candidate who has thrived off of the free market only to want to restrict it)

Is there consumers who want old and worse? I guess the point I'm making is that yes, supply can create markets that didn't exist before (the original iPhone?) but aren't advancements in markets that lead to better or cheaper, good for everyone involved? Better technology for consumers? Less hard-earned money spent? Emerging domestic markets?

Completely agree. It's easy to get mad at what is supplied to us (US consumers) without looking in the mirror and asking what our demands have been in the same breath. Suppliers respond to demand. If they didn't, then there would be a huge market sitting out there waiting to make a supplier a billionaire. I don't know many suppliers who would turn down the demands of the US market assuming they're willing to pay for it...

I'm with you on the red ales, bourbon barrel aged, porters, wheats along with stouts and brown ales. Just bought a 12 pack of Genny cream for the game tomorrow though!

Anyone else going to the Blink 182 concert at Darien on the 24th? I'm really enjoying their new album, should be a good setlist and a good mix of old and new songs.

Karlos Williams?

Im leaning hard towards Mr. Johnson. I really hope he can get his national poll #s up to be in the national debates.

Depends on what ammo is used in the gun, right? If you use ammo designed to penetrate and do bodily harm, it's hard to argue the SOLE reason for owning a gun is for defense. If gun owners only want to defend themselves without causing true damage to others, wouldn't they use a stun gun? Maybe a tazer? You know, things designed solely to protect and defend? I'm not here to say firearms don't have a place, but to pretend like guns don't have inherently harmful results is simply foolish.

I don't have the time at the moment to comb through this study, but I figured I would link it here... AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN POLICE USE OF FORCE Roland G. Fryer, Jr NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399 Abstract: This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force – officerinvolved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings.

He was also threatening to blow up the place with bombs littered around the garage. I think with the info they had at the time and the potential he had to do more damage than what was already done, I think they made the best choice. I'm looking at the situation through an admittedly simple viewpoint, but those in charge at the time didn't have time to hem and haw over future advantages other than taking out the threat at hand. I sure don't envy them.

Same here. For someone who is against the militarization of our police force, I think they did an excellent job of eliminating a horrible situation involving a terrorist without putting more innocent lives in harm's way.