The Dominator

He has became (become? became?) my favorite Republican candidate. Measured, honest, and not a crazed warmonger. I fully agree that he could get some things done. All I know is if Cruz or Rubio win this, the paper shredder in the oval office will have its work cut out for it if you believe what they say.

When Kelly played back video of Rubio and Cruz taking past stances on things such as amnesty, I started laughing. Especially when they STILL denied ever faltering from their current stance. I think she was excellent and pressed the candidates when she needed to. The candidates she pressed certainly weren't prepared to eat their share of crow. It bothers me greatly that a guy like Rand Paul is basically phased out of the process. It's surprising too because he seemed to get great applause after most of his remarks, right up there with Rubio and Cruz.

Ha! That was very well done

I couldn't wrap my head around the Trump following until I sat down with him and asked step by step what he liked about Trump. Border security and a stoppage to the refugee program? Sure, I can see the appeal behind these stances. Building a wall in order to prevent illegal immigrants from entering? I mean I guess. But when you push beyond the proposals and get down to brass tacks, my friend couldn't articulate where the money for this huge wall would come from and how it would stop the drugs from coming in since most come in through underground tunnels. It's that final step which seems to "trump" supporters, but obviously this doesn't concern them much.

So my best friend is a Trump supporter... I've been trying to pick his brain to figure out what's appealing to him. What I can gather from our conversation can be summed up with this: he agrees with many of Trump's talking points in regards to border security, stopping the refugee program, speaking whatever is on his mind and not being politically correct. Nothing else matters to him in the fact that he doesn't go further and ask himself whether Trump's proposals (such as building a wall) are actually feasible or have a chance of being executed. He seems to only care about the principle behind Trump's proposals and that's enough for him to vote for Trump. Not sure how this mindset translates to other Trump supporters but I would bet there is a significant trend with this...

Glad this thread is back on the front page. Cheers

This actually struck fear in me. I think my heart skipped a beat... Is this the weakest group of Presidential candidates in recent memory?

So, Michael Bloomberg anyone? I need to do my research on him, but supposedly he's socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I'm intrigued, although I won't waste my time digging into his history unless it's a real possibility he runs. http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a41456/bloomberg-presidential-run/

Funny, both Sanders and Rand resonate with me in their own unique ways.

Very much appreciated N'eo. Health care is way above my head, that's for sure. What I can't speak on (specifics) I try to make up for in ideology. Of course, this leaves me vulnerable to realities of the world that may leave ideology impossible in some cases. I want health care for all. Its one of the few issues I feel the gov has a duty of providing all its tax paying citizens. That, of course, has a price tag connected to it. Alas, I tend to lean fiscally conservative. In general, debt spending bothers me, especially as a younger fellow. I feel as though the tab will be due when it's my turn to pay, the older people I shared a few drinks with left already, and I would feel irresponsible if I were to leave the tab (plus interest) for the under 21 crowd if you follow my metaphor. I think it bothers me more than most. Many people claim the debt bothers them. I see few people trying to address the problem in a meaningful way. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and somewhat of a libertarian in the most basic sense of the word. It's hard to balance my ideologies while also balancing the checkbook. Completely off topic, but increased spending on education would do this country a whole lot of good. I think it's one of the few ways of spending that actually has a net positive return on investment. Just letting my mind wander at this point.

Very interesting. I never considered looking at health care in this way... I appreciate the viewpoint. What would you propose as a solution for ensuring health care for all Americans? There are still 29 million Americans without it correct?

Agreed. They are more of an annoyance than they are a threat. As long as the public can ignore them and avoid giving them the attention they seek, the government can too. Wait it out until they inevitably give up, then quietly prosecute them. Unless of course they receive support from millions of other civilians, then they are representing a larger issue at hand that the government may want to take seriously. At least that's how I think these things should work. Representation.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0 Found this great article that examines the timelines of the last 15 mass murders involving guns. Mentions how each gun was obtained, whether a background check was involved or not, and whether there were previous signs of mental instability or not. My conclusion: increase funding for mental health, and adjust background check standards. As far as acquiring guns in general, I think the process needs to mirror the process of receiving a driver's license. I've gone into more detail in the past so I'll avoid becoming a broken record.

Well this is absolutely disturbing... Also, thanks BagBoy for the synopsis of the debate. Much appreciated :thumbsup:

Can anyone fill me in on the debate last night? I would check around the internet for summaries but I've had a recent string of disagreements with the media's portrayal of these events (from both the Dem and Repub debates) so I would prefer to avoid those outlets.

Bravo, Trevor Noah. I've watched his show on and off (he is a little plain for my taste) but this segment is spreading pretty quickly on social media and I think he hits the nail on the head. http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/videos/a41024/trevor-noah-obama-tears-guns/

I agree in regards to executive orders. While Obama hasn't taken this route as often as others before him, this is a route that should be very restricted. Slippery slope argument comes into play here

I think you make a solid argument. I appreciate the back and forth :thumbsup: This is basically my exact stance. Cheers for explaining it and wording it more concisely than I could.

Sounds good, this is where I pulled those economic numbers from: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php

This was what I was attempting to sway the topic towards. Actually, let me backtrack really quickly... Recently after hearing Obama's speech, I happened to be looking at the top 10 leading causes of death. Number four is accidents and number ten is suicide. While accidents covers a broad spectrum of deaths, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration say that highway crashes alone have an annual price tag of around $871 billion in economic loss. This made me think about the checks citizens go through in order to be able to drive or operate a vehicle. Here in New York that includes passing a permit test, logging 50 hours or more of driving time, driver's education and/or a five hour driving class. No sooner than 6 months after receiving your permit can you attempt to get your licence. Going through all this can be a burden, sure, but it attempts to create responsible, educated drivers who won't be as much of a liability on the road (and it is economically beneficial). Number ten on the list was suicide. Suicide results in an estimated $34.6 billion loss in combined medical and work costs. Suicide from a firearm is more prevalent than any other forms of suicide combined (someone can fact check me on this but I do remember reading this before in the past). We also know suicide is an irrational, spur-of-the-moment decision. If someone has to wait a week or two as they are being background checked in order to receive a gun, that could prevent many suicides (which is economically beneficial). So let me attempt to tie these separate ideas together... Not everyone is fit or responsible enough to enjoy all the freedoms this country affords us. Twelve year olds are not responsible enough to drive a car on the road. Someone with schizophrenia isn't mentally fit enough to own their own firearm. Some protocols and checks need to be set in place to ensure these people not only avoid harming themselves, but also avoid harming others. Especially when dealing with objects (cars and guns) which can pose a serious threat to others when they are misused. It is in the interest of our health and the economy to do so. With all that said, I do respect your stance on the topic.

Would you say this if you had a son/daughter who bought a gun and killed themself? Sorry in advance, its a dark scenario to lay out but it's much easier to ask who cares when it isn't one of your own kids

What about suicide which is mostly performed with a gun? Background checks with mandatory waiting periods would deter these impulsive yet permanent acts. I think we have to look beyond these mass shootings (not saying we should overlook them though, it's obviously a huge issue which needs addressing).

I'd say this is significant, but you can disagree of course http://www.citylab.com/crime/2015/10/mapping-how-guns-get-around-despite-background-checks/411946/

Concerns with the route by which Obama took to enact these changes? Sure, I could definitely see that being problematic. But the actual changes he made, do you have any issues with them?

I just dont understand why anyone would have an issue with his decisions yesterday. Remove loopholes? Check. Improve the background check process? Check? Begin to reestablish mental health funding which was dramatically cut during the recession? Check. Take away guns from responsible gun owners? NOPE. Please, someone who doesn't like what he did, tell me what you take issue with. I honestly want to know what he did that violated ANY constitutional rights because I don't see anything restricting someone's right to a gun