Neo

To K9: I think he had campaign rhetoric on both sides of a conservative platform. He's closer to conservative than progressive, no doubt. I'm a free trader, balanced budget, no tariff guy. He may be the biggest BSer ever to run and win. Time will tell. Character voters on either side can be accused of the same thing.

I just googled Amish food. I hope he does. By the way, just as I went to law school by watching LA Law, I studied the Amish watching Witness. There are better sources than me.

Trump's flaws, and the understandable reservations about his temperament and judgement, are well known. I'm surprised, though, by the unanimity of view that he's a Conservative. I think his politics will be more centrist than some think. Wobbly cart centrist, no doubt. Inconsistently marshaled conservatism, for sure. My record in predictions is correct, 2 out of 1,745 Tolerance!

^D4rk: You have a wonderful list. I'll send it along to someone I view as your equal. First, though, I'll have to figure out how to forward an email to an Amish farmer. Together, the three of us can figure out a way to govern our co-equal rights. I'm hoping for hearts and minds and progress without friction. I'll settle for modifiable legislative frictions until hearts and minds assuage the adversaries, liberally tolerant of each view. I'll argue strongly against judicial decisioning and an end to debate. Get ready to persuade. I know Eli is.

I do! I don't profess to having the best language. I try to be clear with subtleties, out of respect to my liberal Progressive friends and in recognition of my tolerant Conservative friends. I separated the words Progressive (a form of government) and liberal (a tolerant view of other human beings) some time ago. I admire liberal human beings. I think Progressive government fails its one and only constituency (us) by dividing it. I don't think that's silly, word games, or insecurity, the contrary views of others acknowledged.

Not using my nomenclature.

D4rk: If human beings refuse, what's progressive about the direction? You have your idea about progress. I have mine. The Amish have theirs. I'm no greater than an Amish carpenter. He could write the same post you did. Hearts and minds! Ask a devout Muslim about your Sharia conclusion. It's not for me. It may be for her. I have an ear on my right and my left side. Simple majorities aren't effective progress makers. They'll change a line of scrimmage in a battle. I'm so tolerant! I find progress when we all want to do something. I find wounded identities at odds with one another when we don't. Lastly, I find no progress where the populace is near 50.999% vs 49.001% on any issue. 60/40? 70/30? Send me your list of progresses. I'll send you mine. I respect yours and won't force mine on you. When we talk and agree, we'll make progress. In order, I identify: 1) progress that needs no government to occur; 2) progress that requires modifiable, although contentious, legislation, and; 3) progress that relies on judicial decisioning. In order, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Discrete points on a line that's continuous, I know. I've left gaps. I'm a man of limited capacity. Not everyone accepts my view over time. No one accepts it the first time they read it. It's not mine, alone.

Actually, I have no idea if he is or not! I'm not convinced he's conservative, either ... although I think we'll both agree he professes to be regarding the SCOTUS. He may be a President that disappoints the left and right. I don't want to take it back. Human Beings are progressive at their own pace. When they're progressive, together, they don't throw stones. (No reference to you).

Not everyone on the right will fall in line on Bannon! I'll start with my consistent resistance to labels without evidence straight from the labeled horse's mouth. I find myself aligned, unusually, with no less than the liberal Alan Dershowitz on Bannon. I'll wait before I conclude. The opposition may be correct. My hesitancy reflects my aversion to labels more than my conclusions about Bannon. I've read your posts and clicked on your links. There, disclosure is finished. On to Bannon. I've suggested several hopeful, if unlikely, suggestions for POTUS Elect regarding Garland and HRC's jeopardy. I'll add a criticism of the Bannon selection to my early thoughts despite the unproved labels. It follows. Trump is an unproven administrator. He selected Bannon, known politically only for ideology, perhaps to placate a base. Even clean, Bannon's a klieg light shining on the divide in the electorate. I'd be signaling reconciliation with the left if I were Trump as a priority over placating my base. Bannon brings no governing expertise while inflaming those needed to effectively govern. Justified or not, he scares the other side. Bannon will be scrutinized from day one and pointed at by the loyal opposition whenever social issue controversy arises. It will arise. Trump needs fishing rods, not lightning rods. So, I see no governing benefit. I do see a governing cost. If Bannon's as bad as feared, he's a time bomb in the pocket that can only hurt Trump. This was not a good early decision. Lastly, I'll acquiesce to judgment complaints so based.

I have decided to lock my doors and windows and not leave my house ... if only I could get out of bed to do it.

I think this is insightful. Fiat as the executive order approach to the Presidency is un ... I'll say unhealthy, to avoid Constitutuonal arguements. I'm talking about "legislative" orders, not "execution" orders. Fiat will a tempting response and I think we'll see it in the legislative context. Genies are difficult to re-bottle. More to your point and usage of the word fiat, and your hill experience shows, congressmen are in Washington years longer than Presidents. There's no boss who can say your fired. When you tell a six term Congress man or woman that they "have to do this", they giggle. Well, not if the whip or speaker tell them, but that's not what we're talking about. My sense is Trump has a CEO personality, of course, but also an autocrat one at that. I'm not certain that's true, though. It may be part of the branding. I just don't know. I do know he won't be "the boss" in Washington. That form of fiat won't hunt. There are several biggest dogs in our form of government. This domestic Trump temperament issue, that was less discussed, worried me more than the foreign policy temperment issue. What I don't fear, and what I think is hyperbole, is talk around tyrants and authoritarian dictators. I've saw no more of that in Trump than I did in other candidates or office holders. Any threat to the republic lies in the voters. My confidence there is, admittedly, shaken.

Welcome BACK! Sounds like you have a story!

It's nuanced.

Liberal, yes. Progressive, no. I'm liberal.

Is he a RW now because the team needs him there, or because he needs to be there?

?

I'd last seven minutes on a college campus, today ... my kids wanted to medicate me when I visited them ... I'll avoid any link battles, but I'm a "free engagement of ideas guy" and devoted to classical, liberal, educations ... and the raucous debate they inspire ... Ok, one link ... from the sublime "you know who" ... worth the read, as always, if only for the prose ... (PS, she actually REFERENCES Robespierre and Marat ... you can imagine my pride .... 'specially, you know, cuz it's her!) The article's 18 months old. Hope there's no fire wall issue. If there is, buy a subscription. Best investment you'll ever make. http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trigger-happy-generation-1432245600

Great find ... Sullivan's thought provoking. Read this regardless of your day. I think his review of what happened generally gets it (tone - don't ask). I'm not sure if his assertive look forward does or doesn't. Good read ... and, he quoted one of America's great speeches .. by a Founder, no less!

BTW ... I was inspired by, not directing toward, you ... message boards and flying opinifacts! PS - Rush is so 90s.

The end of message boards ... opinions requiring years of research, data compilation and analysis! I, for one, am soon exiled. Alas, to the square with my box ...

I'm in arrears. I missed the journalism posts. I shall catch up. Awesome. Couldn't get into UB, I guess.

It's a bad value far too often.

What's wrong with the Electoral College?

LOL, you nailed it, again ... my post had little (nothing?) to do with appearance. The network did an "athletes' night out" piece during the Olympics. Oksana was ... um, mischievous? That's the memory I have. I have eyes, I'm human, but personality!

White Fang --- ah, the memories