nfreeman

Well, I think it's pretty likely that Trump will nominate constitutionalist SC justices, which will ultimately (not right away) lead to a reduction in judicial activism and to executive overreach. I agree that the hope that Trump will not use his phone and pen in the same way as his predecessor may be wishful thinking. C'mon. Pretty much everyone else in here that wanted Hillary to win (which was almost everyone) has been able to absorb the news and react better than this.

This is kinda what I mean about restoring separation of powers. Congress, and only Congress, should legislate. There's been increasing hegemony into the legislative function from both the judicial and *especially* the executive branches recently. This was bad for everyone, regardless of which party is in power.

Well, I kinda feel like we narrowly avoided getting run over by a truck -- and the guy who pulled us out of the way could guide us to safety, or he could blow up the entire highway. I'm reasonably optimistic that Trump will put a good team in place that will, for the most part, help establish conditions that will enable economic growth and restore the government's constitutional separation of powers (the deterioration of which, IMHO has contributed greatly to a loss of the rule of law). I'm also hopeful, but less confident, that Trump's team will improve our foreign policy and restore the respect/fear/deterrence factor, which I believe is essential. Anyway, we had a fair amount of rancor in here leading up to last night (some of which I participated in, to my regret), but I think it's been a nice job by everyone here since the results came in.

Well, I think there is a decent chance that Trump does a good job. I thought there was zero possibility of Hillary, a terrible person espousing terrible policies, being a good president. I think there is a reasonable possibility that we finally see some strong economic growth, which will heal a lot of the divisions that have developed in this country. Of course, there is a non-negligible possibility that he is a total catastrophe. I'll say the same thing I said when Obama was elected: I didn't want him, but I hope he does a good job.

The anguish in my left-of-Lenin neighborhood tomorrow is going to be, as the kids say, epic.

Holy mackerel. Brave new world. Secretary of Defense: gotta be Belichik, innit?

Good man.

Ennis played 7:33 last night and was replaced by Carrier on Reino's line in the 2nd period (although not sure how long that lasted). Zemgus played 12:49. It's time to blow up that line.

https://pajamasmed.hs.llnwd.net/e12/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/curl_2016_election_sticker_11-7-16-1.jpg

Great thread, and great to see dudacek back! My 2 cents: - I think we are seeing a bit more carrying it in vs d-and-c or c-and-c than we saw earlier in the year -- probably because the forwards are getting used to each other after late injury-driven line reshuffling. - I also think some guys (like Moulson) are not cut out for the carry-in. I've seen ROR carry it in quite a bit lately, and do it quite well. - There are still a few times each game where the forward seems to have room to carry it in but instead opts for the d-and-c -- and I immediately picture Sabrespacers yelling at the TV and DDB. - The D overall has been very sound, although Lehner saved their bacon a number of times vs Ottawa. - Regarding the D system -- I've noticed quite a bit of strong 2-man play by the D pairings -- e.g. the puck will enter the zone, the nearest defenceman will take the man, and the other defenseman will scoop up the puck with good timing. It looks like good coaching to me. - I thought we would get a solid year from Franson and so far that is what's happening. - Kulikov has been a huge upgrade over Pysyk. - Nelson isn't as good as Pysyk yet but there is a reasonably chance he'll get there by the end of this year. His instincts in the offensive zone are better than Pysyk's. - Lehner got off to a slow start but has played very, very well since returning from the flu (maybe he had it prior to sitting out those games, and it hurt his play?). It's a bit early to anoint him as the franchise guy for the foreseeable future, and he still deposits way too many rebounds in the slot, but there is certainly reason for optimism.

I think Ennis got dropped in favor of Carrier in the 3rd period vs Ottawa, and it was effective. I'd really like to get Ennis going, but if not, I'd keep rolling with Carrier.

Well, I don't claim to know what's in Reino's head, but do you think he's played well? He seems to disappear for long stretches (although I've noticed a couple of games in which he's been ineffective early but made a number of really nice passes as the game has progressed) and hasn't produced much offense -- and his coach hasn't been happy with him either.

Really? I hope you're right -- I thought I read recently that it was probably spring 2017, with no date determined yet. Season 2 was the best show on TV in 2015 IMHO.

Definitely. I think Rayzor is a good guy, and he's gotten better at TV work, but Marty is much, much better. I thought this the whole game until the GWG. And he only got 13 min of ice time so I suspect DDB wasn't that happy with his work either. This was my impression too. Fewer bad coughups in this game and some very nice puck play. He's still #6, but he's not a disaster. This too. He took it strong up the ice a number of times, showed some offensive instincts and forechecked vigorously. I thought the 3rd was pretty exciting. There were certainly some dead spots in the 1st 2, but also plenty of hitting, intensity and good goaltending (and shots after 2 periods were 24-21 in favor of Ottawa, so there was a decent amount of offense too). That was the best game I've seen him play as a Sabre. He was the best player on the ice IMHO. I think Foligno has been the Sabres' best forward this year after ROR and KO. Separately: In the 3rd period, probably to shake things up but also I think b/c Moulson and Ennis were playing poorly, DDB dropped Moulson from ROR's line to Larsson's line and dropped Ennis from Reino's line to Grant's line. So, for a while in the 3rd, it was: ROR-KO-Foligno Reino-Zemgus-Carrier Larsson-Gionta-Moulson Grant-Baptiste-Ennis I'm not giving up on Ennis yet, but he's not where the Sabres need him to be. Also: - Franson has been playing pretty well lately. - ROR with another very strong game. - Another mentally tough performance from the Sabres, when they might've in previous years gotten disheartened by the Toronto loss and laid an egg tonight. - We get another shot at DeLuca .500 on Monday in Boston. That would be a pretty good place to do it -- and then keep winning so we could look back on it and say that was last time the Sabres' record was as low as DeLuca .500. Go Sabres.

And I'm sure that that statement appealed to some who are bigots. That doesn't mean that everyone is his core base, or even everyone who believes that illegal immigration is a major issue, is a bigot. It just doesn't. As for ethnicities that parts of Hillary's base is bigoted against -- whites (esp. white males), Jews and Asians.

Well, in a Clintonian manner you elided the rest of his proposal: "...until we figure out what is going on." The point of his statement -- which was made in the midst of a bunch of bloodthirsty Muslim acts of mass murder AND a push by the clueless left to accept thousands of Syrian refugees without screening them for ISIS ties -- was that it is important to protect our safety, and that there are undeniable risks associated with admitting Muslim refugees and would-be immigrants into the country without screening them for terrorism risks. Was the notion of an outright ban an exaggeration, and ill-advised? Yes, and he walked back from it pretty quickly. But to dismiss it as bigotry is, once again, to miss the point by a mile in the rush to condemn those who don't agree with you. OK. If you want to have a real discussion, then read what I wrote and respond to it. Hysterically repeating "Bush lied! Bush lied!" doesn't do anything. As for whether Hillary supported it -- like many others (from both parties) -- she voted for it when the political winds were blowing that way, before she voted against it, when the political winds were blowing the other way. It is utterly and completely indefensible, and I expect better from each of you -- or at least I did before PA made his intellectual laziness on this matter so clear. Certainly there are bigots in Trump's core base -- as there are in Hillary's base. The bigotries of the 2 groups are simply targeted at different ethnicities. There are plenty of reasons why someone might be a "core" Trump supporter. The biggest, but by no means the only, one is the view that our government is a corrupt, dishonest, out-of-control, parasitic organism that is suffocating the non-government part of the citizenry, and only an outsider can fix it. Another reason is that people are fed up with the dishonest, PC BS that most politicians spout, and they like the unfiltered stuff that Trump says. Still another important reason is the terrible middle-class jobs picture in this country. My wife and I had dinner last night with some friends, both of whom have been Trump supporters from the get-go. They are not bigots. I have spent a fair amount of time with a fairly senior person in the Trump campaign. He is not a bigot. And what about the numerous family members of posters here who are Trump supporters? Are they all bigots? The question answers itself. In this country, we don't make assumptions about someone's character if we've never met or spoken with or know anything about that person. It's ridiculous on its face. Well, I'd need to look into this more in order to respond, but my understanding is that a substantial percentage of defense contracts have been awarded on a no-bid basis for a long time. Also, I think Cheney divested his Halliburton ownership before he became VP.

As to the first point -- while I can see how you could interpret Radar's post this way, I didn't read it that way. Moreover, at some point it's a distinction without a difference -- i.e. if you say something, and someone says "that's stupid/ignorant/racist" -- that is pretty GD close to saying "you're stupid/ignorant/racist". As to the 2nd point -- leaving aside your less-than-stellar record on this matter, yes, of course, some people have demonstrated that they are bigots -- but I'm not aware of anyone on this board who has done so. Calling someone a bigot is a serious accusation. You are essentially saying that his or her character is rotten. That isn't something to throw around lightly, and certainly isn't something that should be blithely used to smear and dismiss millions of people you disagree with on politics.

I'm happy to respond to any questions you have, and I am deeply grateful for your service to this country. I just ask that you not come firing in to start the conversation with accusations of gross double standards and shallowness. It's quite possible that those who disagree with you are guilty of neither. In response to your post -- no -- I was not vocal about Bush/Cheney/Iraq, because (i) I supported and continue to support the Iraq war and (ii) I do not believe that Bush and Cheney lied about WMD. I think the Iraq war was a necessary battle in the long war that militant Islam has declared upon Western civilization, and I think Bush/Cheney relied on faulty intelligence reports regarding the active status of Saddam's WMD programs (which were inaccurate in quantity, but not in kind, as Saddam did have and use WMD), as did many other US and foreign allies. I believe that Obama and Hillary lied about Bengazi. It beggars belief to think that they really thought Bengazi was triggered by that youtube video. What hatred are you referring to? Hatred of Hillary? If so, I think it's fair to say that the hatred directed at Bush/Cheney from the left was at least on par with that directed at Hillary.

Do you think the conversation is better when people, instead of describing the factual basis and logic supporting their beliefs, simply call each other bigots, or rednecks, or idiots, or ignorant or shallow?

Let me suggest that you either communicate in a respectful manner, and discuss the issues, without name-calling, or keep quiet. Which statute were you referring to?

I beg to differ: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/07/05/the-clinton-email-probe-and-the-question-of-gross-negligence/

This is precisely what happened to that poor SOB who made the youtube video that the President and the would-be president blamed for Bengazi. I think the standard in that statute includes gross negligence.

No. Not political talking points. Not hyperbole. It's important to remember that facts can be established without a judicial process -- and sometimes judicial processes don't establish facts (hello, OJ). No one is disputing that she had State Dept. emails on her private server, or that doing so is against the law. The fact that DOJ decided not to prosecute does not mean that she didn't break the law. I don't think Hillary's camp has admitted that she lied about it, but that fact too is indisputable. Again -- reasonable people can evaluate their choices this year and vote for Hillary. But there is a Grand Canyon between that decision and claiming that she is an honest person who hasn't done anything wrong.

What facts are you disputing? Please be specific.

Totally fair, and I think many independents feel the same way. I was just protesting the "see no evil" perspective that some seem to have on on Hillary.