K-9

If he does this his first term, he would most likely get my vote for a second term. I don't understand why it's so hard to understand that far right and far left on EVERY policy is not healthy. We need to be far right on some, far left on others, and moderate for the rest. A look at our history bears that out.

I appreciate the concern, but never a need to worry. As far as passion is concerned, if I see Trump being railroaded by those calling him a criminal before they have a crime to charge him with, I'll be just as steadfast in my defense of his rights as I was about Clinton's. We are a land of laws, after all, and that's what separates us from the other primates.

Right here. Congratulations on getting your man elected. What more can I say? Trump hammered home a populist message that resonated. None of that will bring back the jobs he promised, cause him to make his ties in America, or buy American steel for his buildings. He won't be allowed to undue any trade deals or build his wall. America voted for the "change" they wanted. Elections have consequences and I respect that. It will be interesting to see how the first elected president without any public service record or military experience handles the reigns. I hope his campaign rhetoric was an appeal to the far right faction he needed to secure the election and that he will rediscover his moderate tendencies. It's one thing to run for the office, quite another to manage it. In the meantime, I'll say a prayer.

The word "trajectory" comes to mind. Damned impressive considering the relative level of competition in the OHL.

Right. Perhaps "touting" would have been a better word. Black American voters in NC were targeted for suppression. Period. It cannot be defended as "good political strategy" or on any other grounds by anyone. A quote from the linked article below:

That place is a cesspool and an abject lesson in groupthink.

I assumed they were patriots given how much lip service they pay to traditional American patriotic values. But I'm also not confining my criticism to the elected GOP apparatus that enacts this voter suppression policy; it's equally focused against regular, rank and file republican party members across the country. Where is their outcry against this blatant un-American practice? I've asked the question for years and it's really rhetorical at this point. The reason they don't stand up against it, is because they are hypocrites to the American ideals they profess to espouse.

Trump campaign in Nevada just filed suit charging that early voters were allowed to vote after the polls closed. Nevada law states anyone in line when the polls close can still vote. Good luck with that one. I've seen some articles quoting NC election officials actually GLOATING about their successful efforts to stymie the African-American vote in that state; they are actually proud of it. Disgusting. Where are all the GOPers demanding this practice be stopped? We demand that American Muslims speak out against radical clerics and denounce ISIS and other terrorism, where is the same level of outcry demanding that all voter suppression efforts be stopped? I assume they are good patriots, why do they let this travesty against our Constitution stand?

I think that's fair. He is using time-honored techniques used by fascists since time began to make those base appeals. I'm not sure how much he legitimizes them given how much I don't think Trump himself is legitimate, but I get your point. He has certainly emboldened them with his rhetoric, that's for sure. I'm just saying he didn't create them.

I'm gonna post this and I apologize to anyone offended in advance. It's been my own experience over the course of my 57 year journey on this rock, starting with observances of my own rather large and extended family and progressing throughout various and countless other venues of discussion that leads me to believe the following and I hope we can all appreciate the VAST difference in these two observations. The VAST majority of republicans I've known and loved over the years are NOT racist or malevolent towards other racial or ethnic groups. The VAST majority of racists I've known over the years ARE republican. And ALL of them were what they are long before Trump came along and I don't understand how anyone can blame him for that.

What was that conclusion again? Oh yeah, no criminal activity. Partisan agents need to be reminded of their place in the process. For instance, you can't demand prosecutors bring charges because you brought tape recordings used as material in an alt right book published by Trump's campaign manager and thought that would suffice as enough evidence to proceed. And you can't get all butt hurt when experienced prosecutors tell you that since those recording weren't of anyone within the Clinton Foundation, that they are nothing more than hearsay that would get laughed out of court. Your job is to bring the evidence and let others analyze its merits and decide what it amounts to. And most of all, you need to be reminded that you are forbidden from leaking information to Trump surrogates to be used as political grist.

There is absolutely NO REASON, NONE, that EVERYONE shouldn't be able to cast their vote with similar convenience.

^This. Our achilles heal is defense, imo, and an upgrade is an upgrade. But I will say, it better be a damned good top pairing Dman we get in any package we include Foligno in. I think he's just starting to come into his own and there is no denying his line as established a great chemistry over the last several dozen games.

In some circles, this is probably touted as smart politicking. I think it's evil. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/2/13500650/trump-fake-voting-ads

Absolutely. Unlike Clinton, I would have caved under the pressure. She is tough as they come; a trait I like, btw. Seriously, and as you alluded to in previous posts, when the most powerful investigative body in our land and tens of millions of dollars over 23 years can only produce an entrapped lie out of her husband, I have to question the competence of GOP lawmakers. But make no mistake, while the powers that be won't be happy they didn't get their guy in the White House, they are well satisfied with helping to ensure their apparatus of obstruction in intact.

Clinton scares the crap out of the GOP status quo in Washington. And she tends to make mince meat out of her political enemies; she can be downright vindictive when necessary. It's as simple as that.

Wouldn't be politically expedient for Obama to demand a resignation. I suspect Comey will do that anyway, given the house cleaning that's gonna take place at the FBI. There are a few agents in the NYC office that may want to follow suit. You have that backwards.

If Clinton is elected, he'll wish he had.

Is there no end to your condescending tone? If by "the other side" you mean the GOP politicians in power, yes, I believe they are wrong about a great many things, if not most things and I thoroughly detest their attempts to undermine our democracy with their attempts to stifle the rights of people to vote. I don't include their constituency in that equation, though. I'll let you and Haidt wrap your brains around that concept. Trumplandia bows their head in sorrow. Why, I just can't believe that evidence based on hearsay from an alt right book published by Breitbart's Steve Bannon, a Trump campaign manager to boot, and his billionaire friend led to absolutely nothing. Shocking, really. No new investigation. No "re-opened" investigation. Nothing. It's just not always that easy to label someone a criminal and then try to find a crime to pin on them, is it? A land of laws. What a concept!

I've read everything you've linked about Haidt in this thread and was inspired to read more. Today, I couldn't get past the smug, "carry on" so I didn't bother this time. I'm glad Haidt can tell us the psychological "why" of things but that falls in the line of "good to know" information and doesn't in and of itself affect a change in people's thinking. Indeed, it can make them more defensive. I also think the audience that stands to benefit the most from his insights wouldn't be the first in line to buy his books. And he makes a HUGE presumption about hate. His research is a piece of the puzzle. Nothing more.

Yes.

I reject your notion that we rejected Claude's offer of a respectful framework for discussion. I reject his hit and run interjections that serve no purpose than to inform a group he seems uninterested in having discussion with, thoughtful or otherwise, on the basis that we just don't "get it" and should just "carry on." It comes off as condescending bullschit. I rest my case. On what grounds?

Lehner!

I disagree that it's unreasonable given the opinions of the intelligence community at the time. Were people like Lindsey Graham and others who were against the deal also anti-Arab bigots? It all boiled down to the question of who would be controlling major ports in this country. Long time ally or not, it made sense to many who voted against on that basis. Just another in a seemingly endless string of examples of the GOP seeking to disenfranchise people it can't win over with ideas. Simple and sad fact is that the more people who vote, the less likely they are to hold onto their seats of power.

1st bold: we look more and more like a banana republic in this regard every day. 2nd bold: must be that white privilege we hear so much about. I can't agree more with your comment about voting and trying to deny voting. Spot on there. Regarding fascism, Steve Schmidt, a GOP conservative I have a world of respect for, says something in a promo for MSNBC that is profound; "Fascism didn't rise in the 1930s because it was strong. It rose because democracy was weak." Truer words were never spoken.