Safe

[Galen]

Second amendment is safe for the time being!

[Niederlander]

Yes, but it requires everlasting vigilance!

[Good Troy]

Yes, but it requires everlasting vigilance!

Great minds think alike! 

[Advertising]

[River City John]

But sadly, I fear Human Rights and equality are going to suffer. I hope there isn't a reversal of the positive gains this country has made.


RCJ

[Niederlander]

I personally think those things will improve.  The present administration has been the most divisive we've seen in fifty years.  It will be nice to get back to seeing people as individuals instead of everyone being shoved into some arbitrary racial group.  Long live the Republic!

[Jake C]

But sadly, I fear Human Rights and equality are going to suffer. I hope there isn't a reversal of the positive gains this country has made.


RCJ

I agree. I'm happy that my 2nd Amendment Rights will be protected, but I'd never want anyone else's rights to be infringed on in any way.

At least I don't think the new President-Elect will continue the reckless policy of reigniting the Cold War with Russia. Silver linings.

[Pitspitr]

Second amendment is safe for the time being!

I hope you're right.

Yes, but it requires everlasting vigilance!

Tyranny is only one generation away!

I'm wearing my flag shirt today.

I had a couple of kids ask me if I'm happy Trump won. I told them, "No, I'm just happy Hillary lost. We have 310 million people in this country and those two were the best we could do?"

I wish I could ask Hillary one question today. In the last 8 years every time Obama mentioned more gun control we voted against gun control with our wallets. We set records for gun sales for 17 consecutive months. How could it seem like a good idea to promote gun control as one of the pillars of her campaign?

With the political establishment and the media behind her, the election was hers to loose....and she did

[Delmonico]

I decided last night this election is like trying to kill cancer with chemotherapy, we hope the cancer stays gone and the chemotherapy don't kill us. 


I hope now like any good businessman he surrounds him self with good advisors and listens to them, if so I think we have it for at least a little while.   


From our friend Jim Wilson this morning:

"JUST A THOUGHT: The Republican Party probably should not take what happened yesterday as a ringing endorsement. It's just the working people of America giving you another chance to get it right. I know it is a radical thought - but you might listen to - and pay more attention to - the people who are actually paying the bills in this country. That would be a good thing!"

A wake up a year and a half ago would have been better.

[S. Quentin Quale, Esq.]

Trump does NOT have a "mandate."  He didn't even get a majority of the popular vote.

What he got was, at best, a functional "referendum" on the last 8 years.  Stupid men don't build billion dollar empires but men of action do.  The best ones know the difference between making swift, intelligent decisions and making rash decisions.  By definition governmental decisions have to be consensus decisions because the President controls only one branch of government and that only within the strictures of the Constitution.  Trump will have to learn that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are his functional equals and deal with them as such.

To get started he ought to pardon HRC and all her staff for any violations of law committed in the course of the "e-mail" affair.  Do for her what Ford did for Nixon.  That will pull the teeth on a lot of potential Democratic criticism with no cost to him and, in fact, showing what a gracious guy he is.  Let the Clintons fade into the sunset.

Then pick a couple of issues where he can get bi-partisan support (like decide on the TPP and set up a commission to advise on other trade deals).  This is not "putting stuff off" but gaining time to build consensus.

Don't try and repeal the ACA.  The Senate Democrats will filibuster that and waste time.  Instead do what should have been done and replicate what Slick did in '93 with his "blue ribbon" committee (but Slick put Hillary in charge and that was a mistake; instead give the seat to Pence or somebody else with the skill to actually do the job right).  Let the committee come up with practical solution; that will take a year, anyway.  Then if the Democrats try and block it he's got one heck of a good issue to go to the voters with in '18 when many Democratic Senate seats are up for grabs. 

He ought to be patient and take the long view.

G.

[River City John]

S. Quentin Quale, pardon her for what? Technically the FBI in two investigations have stated there is no prosecutable actions.
So, was she perhaps careless? Yes. But she committed no crime, so no pardon is warranted.

I do think you're right in that the best thing he can do is just forget about the Clintons and let them fade.
And you're right on in that he's going to have to learn to work with various branches as co-equals, . . . probably the hardest thing he'll have to learn.



RCJ

[S. Quentin Quale, Esq.]

S. Quentin Quale, pardon her for what? Technically the FBI in two investigations have stated there is no prosecutable actions.
So, was she perhaps careless? Yes. But she committed no crime, so no pardon is warranted.

I do think you're right in that the best thing he can do is just forget about the Clintons and let them fade.
And you're right on in that he's going to have to learn to work with various branches as co-equals, . . . probably the hardest thing he'll have to learn.



RCJ

The decision not to prosecute was "made" by the FBI Director, not the AG.  That, by itself, is highly irregular but reinforces for me the belief that the entire July decision was a "fix" and that the AG didn't think she had the credibility to make the decision (particularly after her "accidental" meeting with Slick on this plane).  So they had Comey make it as the FBI still has a lot of public "credibility."  And if things ever got "sticky" (like with newly discovered evidence) the AG could step in without taking any "heat."

That also means, of course, that a new AG could make a different decision.  IMO (as a holder of clearances up to and including Top Secret) a finding of "extreme carelessness" could well be interpreted be be a violation of the clear language of the statute in question.  That would certainly have been what happened to me if I had been so careless.  So the "jeopardy" of criminal prosecution still exists.

And that goes for her staff as well.

In any event a decision to pardon will dispose of any and all criminal liability and clear the way for a graceful exit into the oblivion of former, unsuccessful, presidential candidates.  Given her, and Slick's, love of the "limelight" that might be the most dreadful punishment of all for her.  Of course I'm sure her misery will be mitigated by several tens of millions of dollars, so there is that. 

SQQ

[Galen]

Under the UCMJ " careless" handling of classified materials is a court martial offense. The second batch of emails was found on a third party's computer. In fact a pedifiles computer. Sounds careless to me. Ms. Clinton order the classified cover sheet removed in order to transmit over unsecured machines. That sounds like intent. Lock her up!

[Major 2]

Obama still has the power to "pardon" 

To pardon would carry with, the mantle of guilt.
Surly something he/they did not want to convey during the Election.

" ...what difference, at this point,  does it make...  "

[Tascosa Joe]

And speculation has it that he is going to appoint Giuliani as the AG.  He is an anti-gun guy.

[Pitspitr]

Do you think she will "fade off into the sunset"?

Her concession speech sounded like she was keeping her options open for 2020.

Let Barry pardon her. If Trump pardons her he looses credibility

[Bat 2919]

Even if Barry O pardons her for the e-mail debacle the entire Clinton Foundation axe is hanging over not only her but Slick Willie as well  

Let's see what an independent special prosecutor appointed by Trump thinks of the entire Clinton Pay to Play game.  If it can be proved it would surely result in a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) prosecution

[Niederlander]

It really comes down to the question of "Are we a nation of laws that apply to everyone, or not?"  If any of us did a tenth of the things she has done, we'd be doing prison time.  If she (and many others in the Obama administration) are allowed to skate out of what they did with no consequences, we are saying laws don't apply to the ruling class.  Power with no consequences for criminal or treasonous behavior breeds extreme corruption.  Revolutions have been started over less, including ours.

By the way, we all know there's always going to be a certain level of corruption in government.  I don't know how you'd ever completely root that out.  These people have taken it to whole new levels.

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

S. Quentin Quale, Esq. states my thoughts much better than I. Of course I am not a US citizen but am married to one. In Canada the US influences us more than we would like to admit. This is especially true of the Second Amendment. I am much more optimistic about our chances for a positive attitude toward firearms when the US makes a positive stand.

(Unfortunately, the right to bear arms was lost in the British Empire in the final version of the Act of Settlement in 1688, where it was made subject to "reasonable laws". The new king, William of Orange, was clearly nervous about becoming king of an armed populace, but most early firearms laws were voiced as being to control poaching of the game owned by the landowning class.)

[Pitspitr]

Don't try and repeal the ACA.  The Senate Democrats will filibuster that and waste time. 

Didn't the Dems put the nuclear option in place to avoid wasting time on filibusters?

[PJ Hardtack]

What happened wasn't an election , it was a revolution. Trump not only bucked the Democrats, he bucked his own establishment Republicans. That may make him a maverick politically, but he's still a breath of fresh air in a stagnant atmosphere.

The miniscule edge that Hillary had over Trump in the popular vote can be seen as a reflection of a healthy divide between reb & blue voters. The two party system really works.

It is worth noting that throughout the campaign, Democratic supporters were the most disruptive and the post election riots and rallies further show their true colours - no respect for the democratic process and the peaceful transfer of power.

God help and guide trump and may he be just the first to spark such a blood less revolution! The long knives will be out for him even within his own party. We desperately need just such a revolution this side of the DMZ.