The Dominator

Well, complete elimination of the debt won't happen in either of our lifetimes. Metaphor: Right now the tab at the bar is really high and no one is offering to pay for it while we continue to by round after round. We don't have the money on us to pay for it, so eventually we need to go in the back and wash some dishes until it is paid off. Instead, we buy another drink to forget about our problems. In a quote from Kanye West (I know, I know, I'm trying to have some fun with this): "The plan was to drink until the pain was over. But what's worse, the pain or the hangover?" I'd be fine if taxes were raised in the name of responsibility and paying off debts. Can we trust the gov't to utilize our money correctly and efficiently? Who knows. It might be more of an ideological stance I have than an effective strategy. I'm willing to admit that. And yes, tax increases aren't fiscally conservative. I don't try and line up every single one of my fiscal stances on one side if the coin. I like gray area. I prefer gray area actually. That's normally where the truth is.

Ohhh, I took Master's dialogue literally. Appreciate it! Much to learn indeed :thumbsup:

? What's your takeaway? I have much to learn? I'm not humble enough?

In regards to the national debt level, the greater it increases, the less government revenue can be spent on important* public services (infrastructure for instance). I fully believe in re-investing back into our people to ensure our standards of living are the greatest. This is also why I believe it is the responsibility of the government to spend responsibly and not dig itself into a debt hole it can't crawl out of (too late?) or waste money in sectors that are already well funded (military). It's a responsibility issue with me. Too many decades have passed where the growing debt has been left for someone else to talk about dealing with. In the end, no large changes are made to substantially deal with it. I could say screw it and keep feeding the baby, but eventually it may throw up on me. Free trade is also important in many ways. As a mass consumption society, free trade is important to the white collar citizens and the blue collar citizens. The higher-ups should be able to utilize any and all means of production and distribution in order to deliver us our products and services in an affordable manner. Free trade allows for my father to purchase a 50 inch LED tv from Walmart today for less than $500. That's what we value as a society today (right or wrong). If the means by which companies are utilizing production is wrong, consumers have the utmost power to change that if they so choose to. Demand is a much mightier influence than supply. If we all demand "Made in US" and stand by that with our wallets, change occurs (this is somewhat off topic, but I'm leaving it here in case someone wanted to take my earlier comment and take issue with companies outsourcing). Finally, I like to think smaller government= a more efficient government. Big government=bloated. Lean, efficient, I like that. Wish I could give you more for this stance. I'm open to adjusting stances on most things (Besides many social issues. Personal liberty, having options, freedom, all that). *important is an extremely subjective term. I'm open to discussing what is/isn't important. I'm flexible.

As far as my understanding of what fiscally conservative means, yes. (Disclaimer: it's based on my understanding which of course may be incorrect. I'm open to being called out for being wrong or misinformed. I'm new to the political arena). Anyways, lowering the national debt (eventually eliminating it, but will that even happen in my lifetime? Probably not.), free trade, and smaller government are all ideas I can get behind.

Hah! Although maybe that's the crowd I need to target to find Trump followers. Who knows... This group of candidates seems to be splitting me on my own beliefs. Personal freedoms (liberally social beliefs) and fiscally responsible parameters (conservative). I don't like the idea of having to choose a set of my beliefs while disregarding another set that I am just as passionate about. Thinking about voting for an Independent and trying again in 4 years. Hell, maybe I should run myself

The first thread I opened up had 2 posters arguing over whether one of them was truly a Christian or not... I think I'll pass...

Interesting, which forum would that be?

Ugh, WHERE ARE THESE TRUMP SUPPORTERS??? I need to sit down (literally or virtually) and talk with more of them and (respectfully) figure out where their heads are at, why they are in this position, and what put them in this position. I'm trying to bridge the gap between "We need to protect our borders and keep our citizens safe" and "I'm building the greatest ###### wall this world has ever seen and our brothers to the south of us will pay for it!"

Just looked her up. No thanks.

MBDTF. One of my all-time favorite hip hop albums. Back on topic, it seems to be a balancing act of relief. Mental vs. monetary. Will the added monetary relief make up for added mental strain?

This is 100% exactly what I was going for. Unfortunately I didn't get the outcome I wanted and am still left trying to piece together the mindset and thinking process behind Trump's avid following.

Honest question, as someone who is actively trying to understand Trump supporters (assuming you are a Trump supporter), can you explain to me how Trump will build a wall that spans the entirety of the U.S./Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it? Also, how does this wall prevent illegal immigrants and drugs from coming in through underground tunnels? Finally, can you also explain to me how he will effectively remove 11 million illegal immigrants from this country?

Oh wow, that really was poorly handled. I heard about it on Twitter but missed the debate. While every candidate tells half-truths and even quarter-truths, it's refreshing when they start to (rightfully) call each other out.

Flying Bison spot coffee stout. Very good

Exactly. I think my one word that I associated with Paul is measured. It's a shame really. I am most assuredly voting Independent unless it comes down to HRC and Trump and the polls are extremely close, then I'll try and help Hillary out. Being in New York, I'm sure that won't be a problem though.

Ugh. The number of candidates I can get behind is extremely narrow. Don't even need a quarter of my digits to count them all.

If this takes away any support for Cruz, I'm happy. Carson won't win anyways so if he can bring Cruz down with him, then more power to him

I went there a few times myself! Nice little bar tucked away

What Irish bar? When I studied abroad in Paris there was one Irish bar I went to in order to get my Guinness fix. It's called Galways

I mean, if you're following protocol, then yes. The government has more capital at its disposal to secure their servers properly. Whether they do secure their servers as much as they should is an entirely different debate (one in which I would say that they don't take seriously enough). But again, "taking action into your own hands" isn't exactly honorable, it's a potential liability. Also, she had no way of knowing if her server was truly secure or not. It was a risk that "taking some heat for it" doesn't nearly paint accurately enough Edit: Somewhere in my argument should be something along the lines of "The ends don't justify the means"

For me that doesn't matter. You don't take it into your own hands. If the government servers are hacked and information is leaked, none of that falls on her. Setting up your own private server, more secure or not, puts all the onus on you to secure it properly. It's government policy that not all computing is allowed under personal accounts. In fact, "sensitive" material isn't prohibited exclusively under a personal account, which is what happened. Again, I don't know or truly care of the legality behind it. It's irresponsible especially for someone in her position. I would hope that we hold our officials with sensitive and top secret material at the highest of standards in regards to keeping that material secure no matter what side of the political spectrum they fall under.

Oh c'mon, if you were the SoS, you would never conduct business using your .gov email? Even when the information is sensitive at best and potentially top secret at worst? It would have been a violation of the NARA's rules in the Code of Federal Regulations for Clinton to use personal email exclusively, Metcalfe said. The code requires federal agencies to make and preserve records that duly document agency activity, so that they are readily available when needed -- such as for FOIA requests or congressional inquiries. Using personal email exclusively is contrary to proper record preservation. "Using a personal email account exclusively is a potent prescription for flouting the Federal Records Act and circumventing the Freedom of Information Act," Metcalfe said. "And there can be little doubt that Clinton knew this full well." In Clinton’s defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/) I'm not here to argue the legalities of the situation. That, I admit, is something that none of us truly know. What I do know is that in today's world of access to online information (protected or otherwise), what she did was absolutely irresponsible. As someone who doesn't identify with the right or the left and who has grown up with technology, I objectively see this as an older government official who doesn't have a firm grasp on today's technology. Combine that with government material and I can't justify her decision making for a second.

Does the right attack her on it? Of course. She would do the exact same thing if this happened to Cruz and he was the SoS at the time. Regardless of sides though, can anyone in this forum honestly say that making the decision to set up a private server outside of government protocol isn't at least irresponsible and potentially problematic?

The labeling of the information means absolutely nothing to me. Did she commit a crime? I can't say, that's above me. Using a personal email to discuss national information on an unprotected server? That is absolutely 100% irresponsible and short sighted when information involved could ever possibly become top secret in the future. You simply don't take that risk when you're in her position. That mishap in judgement worries me as a voter, especially in the tech savvy world we live in