TheGreatBuzz

I just turned on Fox News to see if they could even try to defend this. There is a little kid being interviewed obviously regurgitating trump talking points that his parents must have fed him. That should be illegal. Even if it was the left the kid was parroting this is obviously brainwashing of a child and should be grounds for child abuse.

I won't go that far. I will continue to judge each candidate on their merits. But how they responded to this will carry a lot of weight. Edit: I don't expect to be voting R for a while but I refuse to judge a person solely by the letter next to their name. Hopefully my point is understood. Don't really know how to put it into words.

Thank you. Unfortunately because of my job, I can't be as vocal as I'd like. But I will do everything I legally can.

My wife and I are going to the courthouse Monday morning to change get our voter registration from Republican to independent. This **** isn't right. My wife tried calling our senators. Both mailboxes are full.

Thanks Larry. Insults help. So the governors, etc have no power to eject (and I'm just making up an example) a state department Office who leases an office inside a state owned building? There is no chance that a governor activates their National Guard to say F Trump and physically force the release of these people? No chance anything like that could happen?

I really interested (worried) how's this all lays out. What, if any, power do governors have to just completely ignore this or to start ejecting federal employees from the their states? Will states that just can't put up with this start looking at seceded ing? As a member of the military, I worry about what I may be eventually told to do.

I do get a laugh at what federal laws each side thinks is okay to ignore and which aren't.

I'm still waiting to the news to come out that he has died of an overdose or something. Would not be the least bit surprised.

It will be interesting to watch both sides play the "majority of people want X" but then turn around and ignore similar numbers on a different issue. (Sanctuary cities vs increased gun control)

I'm waiting to see how it plays out but one thing I'm really hoping that Trump does as he said he would is allowing military to have their personal firearm on base. I'm not even so worried about being able to carry it but I'd like to at least be allowed to have it in my vehicle. I really don't like that I have to go back home first if I want to go somewhere with my weapon after work.

I just saw Trump signed an executive order on obamacare. How do we find out what it said?

I see someone already said it but yea, a minor can't buy a gun. Now they do make "kid guns" that parents can but so they can .........teach kids firearm safety and do things like hunt together ****gasps and clutches pearls****

I think you've made your point. You're just kinda being a jerk now. If he were like most other cowboys fans, I'd say have at it. But he has been alright.

Rey seems like an alright dude for the most part. I think you should lighten up some.

You're so dumb. They are going to repeal Obamacare which is the worst thing ever. I'll still get my insurance through the ACA. Sheesh. Read the news before you comment. Here is a link to a solid source for news. http://www.breitbart.com

Good point. I guess it depends on which version of "single payer" you expect to see. I have seen some proposals that many doctors, etc would become government employees and I picture that more like the military healthcare system. If we go single payer in the sense that everything stays the same put government foots the bill for everything, I see costs skyrocketing. That's what people do when the government is paying, milk them for everything they can.

@tshile I agree with what you said. I really wish it is a conversation we could have but agree that we can't. Also, anyone advocating for single payer should have to spend a year in the military health care system first. That will change your mind. (At one point, while trying to diagnose what turned out to be a kidney stone, the told me they were pretty sure I had Lou Gherigs disease.)

I think a conversation we need to have is should it be this way? I know it's not one we like to talk about and people scream "death panels" but where is the line when it becomes "if you can afford to treat yourself, go for it. If you can't, sometimes you have to let nature take its course?" I fully admit my opinion is jaded by watching people in my family attempt to squeeze every extra minute of life out and spending tons of money (via their insurance) for it. Is is there ever a point where we say two people come down with a aggressive but treatable lung cancer for example and one can afford an insurance plan that cures it and the person that couldn't is made as comfortable as possible and nature takes its course?

The right isn't the only ones that do this. Sanctuary cities anyone?

Well I'm not a single issue voter so I'm limited on who I vote for. And I have written some of my elected officials on different occasions and told them my thoughts. But my thoughts also include wanting things the left isn't interested in. And just like what happened with you and I, I assume that occasionaly negotiations do happen but break down once they get to the details. In my opinion, the left wants too much and isn't willing to only take a little bit of it.

Maybe that's why we are working so hard to kill off the bee population.

I'm not even going to start arguing these points again. I'm trying to work to find something that is better. Not perfect, just better. If we can't do that then we will just continue on the current trend and the left can just stay mad.

I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of arguing about what the 2nd amendment says/means. One, there are numerous court rulings and they don't just simply say a gun is not a right. And my opinion may be irrelevant in court but it certainly matters in this discussion where I am negotiating for the Right in our mock negotiation. Me attempting to get rid of straw purchases and the gun show loophole don't matter? You and I have different carrots then. I'm all for empowering the ATF and crafting laws that cut down on that, but not in a manner like you want. I'd consider all transactions needing a background check and I think you are wrong on what "many states" require, especially for in-state transactions. (Recently I met a guy behind Best Buy and sold him a hand gun. I was not required to even see his ID much less know anything about him. You want to stop that? Your going to have to come off some of your positions a little more.) No. I am completely opposed to this and would not be willing to budge on it. And no, I don't know. *I think you and I are too far apart. Once the details start getting in the way, I think there are just to many points that either of us are dug in on. But I would say that in the current government, gun law favor my side more than yours. Sure there are things that I don't like but I am not that unhappy with the current set up. I would imagine your side is much more unhappy with the current situation. You want it to change, give some more.

I would guess I travel to and stay in another state about once a month depending on the time of the year. Sometimes more, sometimes less. i agree carrying concealed isn't a right but I contend that, for the most part, carrying a weapon is. Now I could go either way on open carry vs conceal carry. I lean towards conceal carry because it tends to make others more comfortable and limits the size of weapon people carry. It would prevent people from walking down the street with an AR. We can renegotiate that part if you'd like but I figured you'd prefer conceal. I'm not really invested on either. But I won't budge that it is a right of a person to carry a weapon as long as they are sane, not criminals, etc. background checks are not currently required for all guns. Long guns don't need anything for example currently in many states. I'd be fine with requiring background checks for all guns sales on all guns, period. This would be both private and commercial sales essentially closing the gun show loophole. I consider this a major olive branch to offset some of the other things you want that I won't budge on. The Feds would have to pick up the cost. With all the other dumb crap we spend money on, they can find it. But I'm not willing to make a person pay much more than I previously stated. The increase in funding I would tell the ATF to use that money to aggressively enforce these new laws and other laws on the books with emphasis on straw purchases. I really do believe all this would cut down on gun crimes. I'd also let the CDC start doing real,studies. 1. Absolutely not. The closest I could see if that your license request is routed through the police and they would have 48 hours to give input. And there would have to be some sort of appeals process that takes no longer than 5 days with the benefit of the doubt going to the gun owner. The police would have to prevent a very strong case against a person that passed everything else but they still didn't want to have a gun. 2. I'm totally for cutting straw purchases and would make that a big part of the ATFs job. I wouldn't be willing to tie penalties into the law that would effect rights if a particular number isn't reached but would be for harsh prosecution (maybe government confiscating assets of business doing it) of businesses that help these straw purchases. i wonder if this is how it works in DC. Both sides get 90% of the way there but the details end up to far apart.

It shows why I was such a stickler on the "you don't have Obamacare. It's not a thing you can have." Point earlier.