nfreeman

I don't want the Sabres to trade Kane unless they get a really good offensive player coming back. Good to see ya Rickshaw and nice post!

I thought those were just rumors about Sotomayor. Learn something new every day!

Not fair! Everyone else gets to make the blueprint joke!

#blueprint.

Since people seem to be so sure he's a racist -- and one poster was sure he was a "self-professed" racist, I would expect to find writings or speech by him demonstrating racism. Do you have links for the bolded items?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/11/10/im-a-muslim-a-woman-and-an-immigrant-i-voted-for-trump/?postshare=411479140337679&tid=ss_fb

Well, he could propose this, but Congress would have to pass the actual legislation.

If this is all there is, then there isn't anything.

Hank -- you keep asking this question. To me, the obvious answer is that dirtbags shouldn't be in the president's inner circle. That group should be made up of men and women with honorable character. Do you have any facts about Bannon? If you do, please post them. I'm not interested in getting into a back-and-forth about Hillary right now, but suffice it to say that there is a mountain of factual evidence against her that dwarfs the evidence against OJ.

As to the bolded: again -- where are the facts? The fact that I've asked several times now and no one has produced anything is indicating, with increasing strength, that there are no facts. As to why some white supremacists are supporting him -- anything I could say about this would be sheer conjecture -- just like anything you could say about it. The point is that Bannon, like everyone else in this country, should be evaluated based on HIS actions -- not those of some random dirtbags blasting out various tweets.

Those articles simply describe certain dirtbags as being happy with Bannon -- they do not describe any facts supporting the accusations of racism against Bannon. As for "self-professed white supremacist and racist" -- I ask again: do you have any links showing any facts behind these accusations? Anything where he professes white supremacist or racist views? Here is what he has said: That is a far cry from professing racism. This election has triggered (heh) a large amount of accusations of bigotry and other name-calling. These accusations need to be based on facts. Otherwise it's just the boy who cried wolf.

No -- I find Breitbart aggressively anti-P.C. but not racist.

That USA Today article is simply a summary of various reactions to Bannon's appointment -- there is no discussion of the facts (if any) underlying the accusations against him.

Any supporting facts on these (serious) accusations? I tried to find some and was unsuccessful -- I was only able to find (i) hysterical accusations similar to these in lefty opinion pieces and (ii) an allegation from his ex-wife, made in the middle of a divorce/custody suit, that he made anti-semitic comments to her.

I understand the math -- my point is that corporate tax rates and personal tax rates are apples and oranges. Corporations pay taxes on their profits, and what is left over either stays in the company or is distributed to the shareholders (at which point it is taxed again). Individuals pay taxes on their own incomes. Well, I'm not sure what to say about this, although I agree with your dissatisfaction with the tax code. The bottom line is that corporate taxes and personal taxes are 2 entirely different animals, and cutting corporate taxes helps all shareholders (including pension funds, who make up a huge portion of the invested capital in this country) equally. Conservatives have been calling for a simplification of the tax code forever. Let's hope it happens this time around. Those would be freaking fantastic.

Well, I think he is looking at corporate tax rates as being in a separate category from personal tax rates -- not an unreasonable distinction, IMHO -- and saying that the middle class will get the biggest percentage reduction in their personal tax rates.

Yes indeedly on Putin. I didn't like the way the Republicans handled the Garland nomination either. It has to be noted that the Democrats changed or broke the rules throughout the Obama administration when it suited their purposes, but that didn't make it right for the Republicans to bend them on Garland. When the government doesn't respect the rule of law, the people won't either. I don't agree with Claude's point here either, but this is much worse than anything he posted.

Good stuff here on elections/causes. Thanks. I don't agree on media bias, though. More below, but as to the meaning of "the media" -- I'm referring to the MSM, which is still where the bulk of the voting public gets its info -- specifically, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox/Murdoch, CNN, NYT, WPost, Tribune papers, Berkshire Hathaway papers, etc. Of those, only Fox can be described as center-right. The others are all well left of center. I'm sure there are people who claim Fox isn't slanted rightward, but I haven't heard this. What I have heard is this rightward slant being justified as a response to the rest of the MSM being slanted to the left. In this regard, I'll note that Fox News' election night coverage had 2 unambiguous liberals on its panel -- Juan Williams and Tucker Carlson, both of whom I thought were very good. I didn't see any real conservatives on any of the other networks. I'm not sure what the point of your first comment above is. As to the 2nd -- when the head of the FBI announces that they are investigating a presidential candidate a week before the election, is that not newsworthy? More broadly -- on liberal bias -- virtually every study as to the voting and political contribution patterns of journalists has found enormous disparities between voting for/donating to Democrats vs Republicans. It simply beggars belief that those preferences do not filter their way into news coverage. For example: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/11/slate_votes_2012_why_we_chose_obama_over_romney_stein_and_johnson.html Obama: 31 votes; Romney: 2 votes. http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19113485/ns/politics/t/journalists-dole-out-cash-politicians-quietly/#.WCX3jST03ic Or, if you prefer a picture, here's one: This is interesting, but I don't see much comfort here. Putin is like Tony Soprano without the charm. He cannot be trusted and needs to be dealt with forcefully or we'll just have more of the same. I tend to doubt that dealmaking between his oligarchs and Trump will control him. I think the conversation in here since the election has generally been pretty reasonable. Hank -- please lay off the gloating. It's unseemly and detracts from the good conversation that has been going on in here. Abso-freakin'-lutely.

In an alarming development, it's 7:35 AM and no one has yet started the GDT. It likely relates to the Sabres falling 3 games below DeLuca .500 and 3rd-last in the NHL in scoring, playing a perennially boring opponent tonight, them scoring 2 or fewer goals in their last 5 games, losing ROR to injury, concerns that DDB isn't the right guy and general worries in the back of everyone's mind that we're in for yet another horrible year. Also we had an election the other day that was kind of a big deal. Anyway, NJ is 6-3-3, with 29 goals scored on the season (to Buffalo's 26), despite having a shiny new toy in Taylor Hall, who has 9 pts in 12 games (whom I think is and has always been overrated). Taking a positive perspective, Kaner returned the other night, played a lot of minutes and played well. Reino looked much improved with better wingers. Baptiste and Carrier both are bringing good energy. This is an opportunity to start turning things around. Go Sabres.

For those who think liberal bias in the media is a myth -- here's a tweet that CBS News put out yesterday, and then deleted: What a freaking disgrace.

I agree that it's a bridge too far to claim a mandate for specific policies, but I do think that election results can sometimes be fairly read as "negative mandates" -- ie rejections of the incumbent's policies -- e.g. the congressional elections in 2006 being a rejection of the Iraq war and in 2010 being a rejection of Obamacare. I'll also say that while "we have a mandate" certainly appears in the spin cycle, "this was no mandate" appears just as often. Outstanding. With any luck he'll appear in book 6 as Bronn's cousin. Here's an example of healthy behavior by those disappointed in the election: http://www.infowars.com/shock-video-black-mob-viciously-beats-white-trump-voter/

I don't understand your point about whites. Regarding bigotry against Jews and Asians: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/07/26/anti-semitism-spikes-on-u-s-campuses/ http://www.thetower.org/article/in-the-safe-spaces-on-campus-no-jews-allowed/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-beyer/the-challenge-for-both-bl_b_11553454.html http://reappropriate.co/2015/04/anti-asian-incident-at-penn-highlights-persistent-on-campus-tensions-in-the-ivies/ http://www.laweekly.com/news/racist-anti-asian-flier-rocks-ucla-usc-campuses-4431258 http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-asian-race-tutoring-20150222-story.html

Not the left -- elements within the left. And as I've posted previously, there is plenty of bigotry among those elements towards whites (especially white men), Jews and Asians.

RF beat me to it. I certainly did not mean that Obama's supporters are bozos. As I've said before, there are plenty of bigots on the left -- they are just bigoted towards different groups than those on the right. California has been able to reduce its current deficit, but its total debt and unfunded pension liabilities are enormous. Correct. Several people said it (although one later denied doing so).

Well, you and everyone else should certainly speak out against bigotry -- but the fact that some bigots support Trump doesn't mean that his policies will be based on bigotry. My expectation is that the immigration changes will primarily consist of deporting illegal immigrants who have committed crimes, strengthening border security (including building a physical barrier across parts of the southern border), and increasing scrutiny on immigrants and visa applicants from Syria, Iran and other countries associated with terrorism. In other words: nothing shocking and nothing that isn't supported by a significant majority of the population. OK. Perhaps "bozo" is intemperate. I believe he conducted policy in a highly foolish and incompetent manner, with disastrous results for the country, both domestically and internationally. I think "bozo" is a good shorthand for that description, with a roughly equivalent meaning. Let me ask: have you ever called Bush an "idiot?" Do you object to that description in the same way you object to describing Obama as a "bozo?" This isn't really apples to apples. In the same Obama speech you are referring to, he said that Bush's team was graceful and cooperative on that transition. This isn't even close to being accurate. California and Illinois are in catastrophic fiscal condition.