K-9

Good point.

Ditto. Do young folks still say, "ditto?"

I don't know if I can agree with that given his rhetoric about Mexico, Iran, ISIS, Syria, Iraq and the seeming attraction that has for his constituency. Then again, foreign policy can be boiled down to "bomb the schit out of them" by some, I guess.

Anyone who gives that positive weight is an ignoramus. That's as kind as I can be on that score. What single issue could demand more gravity than the literal ability to determine the deployment of weapons that could annihilate 100s of millions? EDIT: It occurs to me that "ignoramus" might be a banable offense, depending. Right up there with "bigot", "racist", and, God forbid, "white supremacist." Oh the humanity!

I think you're parsing the language a little too finely here. A vote for Trump is not always a vote for racism, sexism, xenophobia. I doubt it is for the majority of his voters. It may simply be a vote for a single issue as previously mentioned or simply a vote NOT for Clinton. Regardless though, it IS a vote for the guy who is also that racist xenophobe. I think that's why much of his constituency is conflicted. It's not easy admitting you're voting for a guy who espouses such negative values. For me, his deal breaker of all deal breakers is his war rhetoric. "Bomb the schit out of them" and "I'd blow the Iranians out of the water for gesturing" speak to his utter lack of temperament for the job. Personally, I don't know why that doesn't scare the crap out of everybody when they hear that. Racist, sexist intemperate xenophobes are generally harmless but one with his finger on the button is a whole different matter.

I know the IIHF tourney doesn't mean best on best, but ROR acquitted himself nicely in that tourney for Canada.

Don't we all, as semi-adult grownups, understand the concept you describe? Of course Trump voters don't stand for everything Trump is. But his odorous rhetoric can't be ignored. I can say I voted for the anti-abortion Trump, but the racist, xenophobe Trump got my vote, too.

After waiting through the playing of three, count 'em THREE, national anthems before puck drop, I wonder if Kaepernick's knee would hold up. Sheesh!

Good luck with that. We've had some average and below average Joes hold the office in our history, and imo they have all been total disasters. Unmitigated, complete, and total disasters. Here's my take: we need to get back to DEMANDING exceptionalism vs. settling for average and below average. But that demand takes engagement of the sort that our attention span deprived populace isn't willing to put the work in to accomplish.

Reality TV show to determine the next candidates. Totally appropriate for America. But why stop there? Let's go all the way and have the president elected in the finals. No voting booths, no state election officials, no state oversight. Just call that 800 number or text #nextprez. People who don't watch TV, use the internet, or have smart phone? Too bad! My favorite aspect is the part where they are filmed doing various tasks so we can determine their qualifications. See how humane he is? Look at him building that house for the poor! See how tough she is? Look at her in that police ride along and how she helps collar that perp! No more need for the countless photo ops candidates currently engage in. Seriously though, I'd be curious to see how the viewers who decide to "get involved" actually get involved simply because of this new format. Is that the cure for cynicism?

I understand this and it doesn't sit right with me, either. But it can be a challenge for Trump voters (I purposely avoided the term "supporters") to draw a line of distinction because no matter how you slice it, when you vote for Trump you are voting for the racist, sexist, what have you Trump that's been on display the last year and a half. And his campaign knows that, hence the photo ops at black churches to convince voters "Look, I'm hanging out and grooving with black people, at church, so I'm not a racist and so it's OK to vote for me. See?" If they didn't realize the stink of his statements didn't color his constituents and cause conflict within them, they wouldn't have bothered wasting a second in that black church. Or is someone going to argue that he was courting the black vote? Ironically, that display at the black church was racist in and of itself. Talk about a whole other discussion! I just don't have the energy today, but that is a ton of food for thought.

That's fair enough. But I happen to think the groundwork for moral foundation theory was well laid previously by psychologists, social anthropologists, etc. And I don't agree that our motivations as individuals and groups are necessarily governed by morality. Indeed, they are sometimes guided by the utter lack of morality, especially in a group setting. I suppose what I view as a lack of morality can argued to be a different morality as defined and accepted by the group I say lacks it, but that's another discussion.

Holyschitzky! I'm with eleven. Screw the bridge.

People that stick up for racism? Who defends racism? I'm not following this line of reasoning. I think Haidt offers up some interesting food for thought, but nothing new. Applying morality to our political leanings is, at best, often inaccurate, imo. Our political leanings are mostly dictated by self-interests and there are too many examples of how we are quick to put our moral principles on hold in favor of self interest.

Haha. Putin is Trump's version of a great American.

Saw a bumper sticker driving down Niagara Falls Blvd the other day: "Life is a bitch. Don't vote for one." I understand your point about what it says about people who say and write such stuff. What does it say about people willing to slap it on their HUMVEE and advertise it? Both the Schrute buck and Stanley Nickel are pegged to the Ricky Buck in New Mexico.

PA's banning was politically motivated. Simple as that. No reasonable person could read his post and consider it a personal attack on anyone. Anyone other than a partisan, I guess.

Welcome back, PA. No way that post should have resulted in a suspension, especially here in a political forum, as you indicated. I'm not surprised though, sadly. Agree. Clinton was out of line with that comment. A dumb and reckless thing to say. There is nothing to be gained by rolling around in the same pond of scum Trump likes to swim in by borrowing his rhetoric. We need leaders who understand the strength that is derived from staying above the fray.

Disagree for two reasons mostly. 1.) McClellan is keeping Jack paired with their best performing winger in Johnny hockey. I seriously doubt he makes that decision if Jack is struggling. 2.) There are 49 centers on that squad. Which one, from a purely physical standpoint, is best suited to play on the wing? I'd also mention that RNH has been their best performing C so far, so I see it as more of a promotion of him to the top line previously centered by a struggling McDavid.

Yes. That's why it's called "The Great FENCE of China."

Yep. First play of the second series was just as egregious. Shame on Greg Roman for designing pass plays with multiple open receivers. I heard from some people in the press box that Sammy was open all day, too. Onus is on TT to shake this off, get his head out of his ass, and play like the $90m QB he is. I can't put it on Roman. While I'm on the subject of Roman, I heard he was pissed at Gronk for his atrocious blocking. I could have sworn I saw Gronk lead blocks into the wrong hole a few times. Ouch! That is so the glaring on film, too.

I said the All 22 would confirm my suspicion that TT didn't see the defense yesterday and those clips prove it. The first play of our second offensive series was just as bad. It was beyond negligent. He may get laughed out of the meeting room. I have lost a ton of faith in Taylor's ability to read a defense. As bad as any display of QBing I've seen in years, including EJ's second qtr against Jacksonville last season.

I can understand this viewpoint, but baby Gronk was absolutely horrible yesterday. I suspect he got more than an earful from Roman. He wasn't nearly as bad as Taylor, though. TT didn't see the defense all day long and I'll bet the All 22 will confirm my suspicions. Not looking forward to Thursday.

That's debatable.

Haha. Good one. Atlanta, GA could be another.