ND3

I don't think a reduction in military spending necessarily precludes a weaker military. I think more effective spending would result in decreased expenditures, an equally strong military, and decreased taxes. For example: For three consecutive years, the Army has insisted it doesn't need any more tanks. For three consecutive years, Congress continues to buy them more tanks. Hundreds of millions of dollars going to government contractors for thousands of unnecessary tanks that sit in storage. Remember when the Pentagon lost $8.5 billion dollars? Sounds like they need stronger oversight. 90% tax rate from Bernie is not true. His highest proposed tax rate is 52% for households that make $10m+/year. Don't believe everything Donald Trump says... or anything for that matter.

I don't think BVG is a good DC and I believe there are better options for ND that make better use of the talent available. That said, Faith is right, he has improved since last year. Here's a table describing how ND performed against each team on their schedule compared to the opponents PPG. The first half of the season was very similar both seasons, then the injuries killed 2014. 2015 also saw a decrease in performance in the second half of the season, but not as large. This was a copy/paste from excel, hopefully the formatting is readable. 2014 Team Vs ND Season Difference Rice 14 28.8 -14.8 Michigan 0 20.9 -20.9 Purdue 14 23.8 -9.8 Syracuse 15 17.1 -2.1 Stanford 14 27.2 -13.2 North Carolina 43 33.2 9.8 FSU 31 33.7 -2.7 Navy 39 31.8 7.2 Az St 55 36.9 18.1 NW 43 23 20 Lou 31 31.2 -0.2 USC 49 35.8 13.2 LSU 28 27.6 0.4 Total Difference: 5 Average 0.384615385 First 6 games -51 Average -8.5 Last 6 games/Bowl 56 Average 9.333333333 2015 Texas 3 26.4 -23.4 UVA 27 25.8 1.2 Ga Tech 22 29.3 -7.3 Umass 27 22.2 4.8 Clemson 24 38.4 -14.4 Navy 24 36.8 -12.8 USC 31 33.9 -2.9 Temple 20 29.8 -9.8 Pitt 30 28.2 1.8 Wake 7 17.4 -10.4 BC 16 17.2 -1.2 Stanford 38 37.8 0.2 OSU 44 35.7 8.3 Total Difference: -65.9 Average -5.069230769 First 6 games -51.9 Average -8.65 Last 6 games/Bowl -14 Average -2.333333333

When people say "this generation" they are typically referring to millennials. Do you disagree that the problem is a lack of opportunity?

You're kidding yourself if you think this generation doesn't want to work hard and earn their way out of the crippling debt we've accrued from college and make our mark on the world. The boomers could go anywhere and get a job, pay off college by working part time in the summer, start a family, buy a new car, and get a nice house in the suburbs by the time they were in their early 20s. That doesn't exist anymore. That was the generation that had everything handed to them. And look at the economy now that they are in power. We can't afford to buy a house when we're paying $500/month for student loans. I am 27, have an engineering degree from an elite school, and am still 40k in debt. I worked all through college and have worked my way down from 60k in debt. Interest rates are insane on these (some of my loans are 7%!) and it's so difficult to make any progress. I have friends with law degrees and Doctors of Pharmacy that are $200k+ in student loan debt. You say we're entitled and want the government to give us everything, but we depend on the jobs that we have. Nobody is hiring entry level work. If we lose our jobs, we are in big trouble. I was laid off a year ago and it took me 5 months to find a new engineering job. I looked everywhere in the US but the jobs I applied for had 40+ people trying to get one job. I moved back in with my mother. The top of the companies have all the power, because they know we need these jobs. I accepted something way under my pay grade because I was desperate for any money and the experience. There are countless stories like my own. Where I live, people with meaningful degrees are working in the service and retail industries en masse. We don't want everything handed to us, we just want opportunities that were available for our parents and grandparents. Is that too much to ask?

The issue is the voting system itself. We need to get rid of the first past the post system. [ame= ] [/ame]

How do you propose to balance the budget while putting more money into the military? We already put $600bil into the military every year and have by far the strongest military in the world. It seems like that's the easiest place to cut money. It sounds like your views mostly align with Rand Paul, to be honest. Outside of military spending.

Hillary is clearly the leader but it isn't the landslide that the polls make it out to be. As far as I'm aware, the polls are conducted by calling landlines of registered voters, and how many young people have landlines? The young people are the ones that support Bernie. I support Bernie- not on everything but he brings to light many issues that nobody is talking about. Private prisons: This is the biggest, most ridiculous, conflict of interest around. It puts people in jail who don't deserve to be there and where they can be exploited for free or very low cost labor. Super profitable for them, but morally reprehensible. And the items that were mentioned above by DTCBND. I think free public higher education is necessary- why wouldn't it work here when it works for many other developed nations? The same can be said about paid leave, vacation, and maternity leave. As far as the highest tax rate, it was 40%+ from 1942-1987 with the exception of 1947-1949, and 45%+ from 1951-1986. Not ridiculous when it's been that high for the majority of the history of income tax. I don't agree with raising the minimum wage to $15... From what I've read, this doesn't make a lot of economic sense. Minimum wage jobs will be automated and many people at these jobs will be laid off. Similar to the BP boycotts after the spill, it won't hurt the larger corporation, rather it will impact the individual franchises. I also don't agree with his proposed ban on assault weapons... First of all, "assault weapons" is a purely political term that doesn't even ban all semi-automatic weapons, making it an inconsistent term. Secondly, mass shootings are a mental health issue, not a guns issue. The focus is on the wrong place. And I think it sets a frightening precedent when the government feels justified in disarming its populace. My ideal situation is nominations from Bernie and Rand Paul... it would be a legitimate debate on philosophies of improving this country instead of guys spewing whatever gets votes while being stuck in the pockets of lobbyists. Unfortunately Paul won't win and Bernie is unlikely.

I really don't think Trump has a chance. He's leading the polls and has been for a while but as nominees drop out nobody will support him. I think everyone who would vote for Trump already supports him and I don't think many voters will... ahem... "immigrate" to his side when their candidate concedes. I think it's likely a Cruz/Rubio showdown, with maybe Carson falling in there somewhere. Maybe Bush makes some kind of comeback but I don't see it. I don't think Hillary is a shoo-in though... So many people dislike her after what happened with the emails and Benghazi and her poor performance as Secretary of State. I think whoever takes the GOP nomination has a solid chance to beat her. Also, the Trump-Bush bickering last night was HILARIOUS http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/12/16/highlights-of-the-trump-v-bush-splitscreen.cnn/video/playlists/2016-presidential-debates/

McCaffrey had >100 total yards vs ND, hardly "didin't do anything". I would have given it to him but Henry had almost 2000 rushing yards against SEC defenses. The conference is a bit down this year because their offenses aren't as good but their defenses are legit. I think both are deserving. As far as Bama RBs in the NFL, Ingram has been great the last couple years, Lacy has been great his first 2 years but this year but he's been dealing with a nagging groin injury most of the year, and he's put together some games since he's been healthy sans last week when he was in the doghouse because of missing curfew the night before a game. Yeldon has put together an extremely impressive rookie season. He might be rookie of the year with the only things holding him back being a lack of TDs (Jags never seem to run when they get in close) and Gurley. The only bust has been T-Rich.

Definitely something we can agree on. Hopefully it's handled with foresight instead of "what benefits us now"

Sure, but after the Ottoman Empire was broken up, it was divided along oil field lines rather than cultural/racial boundaries. The recovery could have and should have been handled better.

Yeah, that's what I gather from all the evidence that I'm aware of... I think what's happening right now is a consequence of Western actions but I'd be glad to hear a dissenting opinion. Like I said, my opinions are formulated from mostly biased sources that support my anti-interventionalist ideals. I do think that to find a solution we need to be well-educated on the foundations of the problem.

I'm not super informed on the history of the Middle East, so please speak up if anything I say here is off base (looking at you Echo), but here's my understanding (and my views are influenced by reading and listening to podcasts that pander to my mostly anti-interventialist views, so take everything below for what it's worth): I understand that countries in the Middle East were progressing along very well up until the 50s. At least progressing along with the rest of the world in terms of social progress. Then, because of a multitude of factors relating to foreign intervention, they took some major steps back to what they are today. 1. Iran, in the 50s, had a parliamentary style democratic government. The company that is today BP had exclusive rights to their oil and Iranians worked for them in terrible conditions for little money. The Iranian government told them to treat workers better and threatened to nationalize the company if they didn't, they cried to Truman, and Truman ordered the CIA to overthrow their government. Which they did, and they installed the Shah, who took tons of money from the US and UK but used to keep themselves hyper-wealthy and powerful but kept the populace oppressed. The people revolted and installed what is now the Islamic State that is a real danger to the Western World. 2. The Ottoman Empire was powerful and stable until WWI, when the winning European forces broke up the empire along arbitrary borders that were not separated along cultural and ethnic borders, breeding the hatred and violence that we always see between people of different races in developing countries. 3. American and European powers established Israel, leading to distaste among the Middle Eastern countries for the Western countries. 4. Cold War times led western countries to restrict the growth of communism, and the ever increasing demand for oil led the same countries to feel a need to have friendly governments for trade in the region and so dictators like Saddam were placed in power, who end up using mustard gas on their own populace and pushing the region backwards in terms of human rights. The fact that the West was responsible for the unrest in the region is well-known around the world, and it has led to a feeling of hatred among Middle Easterners for these countries, which still exists today. Bin Laden founded al Qaeda in the 80s, a group based on violence and hatred towards the USSR occupation in Afghanistan and and US occupation in Kuwait, which led to several terrorist attacks in the next 20 years and fueled by continuing Western aggression in the region in response to their attacks. It seems to me to be an endless cycle of the US continuing to have a strong presence in the region defending themselves against these completely legitimate threats, and these growing groups (al Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS) that establish themselves on the common thread of hatred toward the West for our aggression. It absolutely doesn't help that Islam is a fundamentally violent religion, and radicals actually believe that they are doing God's work by pushing this violence. I think that fanatics of any religion can be dangerous and can breed terror (Christianity with the KKK, Hinduism with the RSS, and even Buddhist actions in Myanmar), but Islam especially denounces the existence of people who aren't followers. What can we as a global society do? I don't know... These groups are definitely a threat to our safety, but I do think we've taken things too far in the name of national security to the point of fear mongering. If we stop our actions in the Middle East, anti-West groups will certainly gain power, but if we continue to bomb and overthrow governments, it will continue to breed hatred among the people who lost innocent (or even not innocent) friends and family members to our actions. There's just no easy answer. I do think that investing in alternative energy is a great start, as it will reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and remove the financial need for us to be so involved in the region, but that doesn't kill the anti-West attitudes that have been breeding there for a half century.

If LSU has 1 loss- LSU in over 1-loss ND If Bama has 1 loss- Bama in over 1-loss ND If Florida has 1 loss- Florida in over 1-loss ND Clemson will get in unless they somehow drop 2 games I think if everyone in the Big 10 and Big 12 drops a game ND can stay ahead of them. We need to count on OSU>MSU and UM>OSU, then the Big 12 to beat each other up, which is definitely possible with none of the top 4 having played each other yet, and maybe LSU winning out. We need a lot but crazy ish always happens so I have hope. Obviously ND needs to win out which isn't a given but it is assumed for the purposes of this discussion.