TGHusker

Good review of the possible delegate harvest if trends continue. The article states that Trump could get enough delegates prior to convention if his past trends continues. I think, however, that he might fall short as I see the Wisc vote as a big rebuttal and I hope more and more people are waking up to him being bad for America. I'd like to see Kasich do well in NY, Penn and Calf to stop Trump cold. I heard on the radio this morning that if no one has enough delegates before the convention, Marco Rubio may jump back in just before the convention and be considered 'one of those' running for the office and try to secure the nomination on a 2nd ballot. This may be wild eye fantasy that this could occur but I wouldn't discount anything this election cycle. If there was a consensus candidate - I think Kasich may be most qualified and most electable in the GE. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/30/upshot/trump-clinton-delegate-calculator.html Delegate counter: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0 According to this poll, Kasich is the only one who beats Clinton or Sanders head to head (although I think Cruz would toast either one in a fair debate) http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Trump-Clinton-Pennsylvania-Lead/2016/04/06/id/722491/

Reuters makes money by selling news to other news outlets. That includes Fox News. They are not liberal or conservative, they supply basic facts which those outlets report on. Unless a person thinks facts are "liberal" or "conservative." They are Independent! Maybe that is how we should vote.

I'm thinking that the city/county has to provide services to the whole population - regardless of citizen status - they could be legal residence here on a visa - don't have to be illegals. Thus if the city has to provide all of the basic services for everyone, the population as a whole should be counted. Does that weight representation towards urban areas - yes but that is necessarily the proper thing to do - As it affects state budgets for example - the urban area may need more funds to meet the needs of the full population and therefore they will have more representation in the legislature to try to secure that funding.

I wonder how the Iran deal will bite us down the road. It is off to a very shaky start. http://freebeacon.com/national-security/congress-investigating-obama-admin-deception-iran-nuke-deal/

OMFG....Wouldn't that be an amazing turn of events. Clinton would be really interesting after they had people donating money to Bill's defense fund after he left office. I remember them claiming they were basically broke and just trying to make ends meet.....THEN.....if their name comes out that they had a bunch of money stashed in the islands......wow. Oh, the web we spin. Wouldn't that make any dull news day and big event. I'd love to see Clinton's and Trump's names on the list.

Maybe both. And then we'd have a solid shot at Kasich, who may be the least bad choice remaining. You got that right.

This may move Texas from a red state to a purple state. While non-citizens aren't suppose to be voting citizens by adding the non-citizen population to the mix will influence the balance of power in the Texas legislature.

It is great seeing someone bringing the 1990's attitude back to the team. Those Ds were relentless, punishing and never stopped. Perhaps now we will see the real emergence of the Blackshirt D. We've not seen since Suh and Company.

Interesting if we see the name Trump show up. Or Clinton. Wouldn't that be the cat's meow.

Thanks - we can learn from each other if our feet & minds are NOT set in concrete. I'm getting too old to argue positions just for the sake of arguing and proving to the world how 'right I am'. If I'm going to argue, let it be to out of a passion to educate someone or out of a passion to learn from someone else (who can correct my path if needed)

It is hard enough just trying to be a good husband. I think I'll pass on the President spot. Although based on the 5 we have left in the campaign, I believe you will find more common sense and good judgment by many here on huskerboard.

Don't get me wrong. The other stuff ticks me off too, and people should fight tooth and nail to raise hell about this. But THIS^^^? What the hell planet are these people living on? Is it the 1950's? Holy crap. It gets better (or worse) Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article9711821.html#storylink=cpy Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article9711821.html#storylink=cpy http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article9711821.html#0 Talk about the dog chasing its tail. We want to limit abortions not adoptions. Yet this will limit adoptions. I wonder how many of these legislators grew up in a "Leave it to Beaver" house hold. I venture to say not many. Most of us grew up in less than idealistic homes but somehow we made it without too many quirks . Again we get back to legislating a certain type of morality. The more specific we get the more limiting and I think in the end we get a bigger bag of unintentional consequences.

Good stuff. A concern about the "slippery slope" argument. That slope can slip in many ways. If we allow people to discriminate against homosexuals because of their religious principles, where does that end? Can I not decide that, due to my religion, I don't want to serve Blacks in my shop? Or women? Or Christians? Could a Lutheran deny services to a Catholic because of his religious beliefs? It's absurd to us today to think it should be legal to prohibit a Black man and a White woman from marrying - but 50 years ago, that was a norm, and it was based on religion. I'm against allowing religion to undermine civil rights. That knife can cut way too deep. Knapp, I agree. While some 100 to 150 years ago, the USA may have been considered culturally a Christian nation, the times have changed. Fortunately for us, the Founders ( a mix of strong Christians, deists, and perhaps some closet atheists/agnostics thrown in) were wise enough to recognize that the day was coming when we would be much more pluralistic than what we were at our founding. For our govt to work in this new cultural mix, we have to have broad enough civil liberties to accommodate all people with limits that don't infringe rights specifically towards one group. It is a difficult tight rope to walk. Will one group get 100% of what it wants? - probably not and that may be a good thing. We need to allow religion to bring to the culture all of the benefits it does bring (care for others, moral values and teaching, etc, etc) - I think religion speaks best when it speaks with its actions of doing good. We aren't Iran so we need to recognize that religion has a role in society but it is a role separate from government. Govt has a role but it isn't to teach us religion (like in Iran). From my Christian perspective I see God as having established 3 main societal institutions 1)Family 2) Govt 3) Religion Each are separate, each have a profound role to play, and each can strengthen each other and the society if allowed to play their proper role. Can a religious person have a role in govt and a voice in the market place? - yes just like the non-religious. Can a religious organization petition the govt (via court or legislation) in the same way as a non-religious organization? Yes. But can a religious organization be the govt - NO. It would be failing society and its God for trying to be what it wasn't meant to be. This is when religion looses its 'salt' and eventually looses its influence on society. I think one could argue (I don't have the facts but just a hunch of following politics from the early 1980s) that in some ways the more politically active the religious element has gotten it has lead to less overall influence on the society.

I'd be sick it that occurs. How about the FBI hauls Clinton off to jail and the repubs have a brokered convention and choose a white knight candidate not currently running. I like that better.

Romans 2:1-3 John 3:17 (Yeah, they all know the verse before it, but does anyone pay attention to this one?) Luke 6:37 John 8:1-8 Just a dose of perspective for those of the Christian persuasion amongst us. I agree with JJ. These hypocrites would be better served ending this nonsense, deliberately casting stones, and you know, be a bit more like the Big Man himself. :)It It seems to me that the better way to change society is one heart at a time and not by broad based legislation that cuts across the current of today's cultural values. Whether a person agrees or disagrees wt the cultural values, paddling against that current will cause you to go no where and most likely go back wards as the current pushes against those laws. As Dude has quoted here, Christ came into the world not to judge the world but that through Him all might be saved (John 3:17). If a person has a moral conviction that homosexuality is morally wrong, one has to remember that other 'sins' are also condemned equally in the Bible- lust, greed, lying, etc and yes judgment. In the moral world, all of us live in glass houses including those who try to legislate morality. With that said, we aren't forbidden from expressing ourselves in the marketplace, the courts and in governance but we must be aware that legislation like this can and often does have unintended consequences that can be damaging to one's cause and/or to the society. Most if not all laws have a moral component. Those moral components have biases, judgments, etc that come from some foundation - religious, historical, political, cultural. The negative biases & judgments need to be neutralize as much as possible for the law to best serve society. Yet there is also a slippery slope the other way that we have to avoid. How do we adequately protect the religious freedoms of individuals and do those freedoms extend to their businesses?. If so - what size business - just sole proprietorships?? We obviously don't want to go back to the days when a café owner or cake maker can refuse serving someone because of the color of their skin or in this case their 'sexual orientation'. Or maybe just maybe the 'church' (believers at large) may need to recognize that they work and live in the midst of a contrary culture and that in their living and working they can be an even greater witness in serving even those who they may differ with on this subject. This may be more of the 'grace principle' - showing love and using our gifts to serve regardless of who is receiving the gift of our service. Somehow, I think this is the higher road, the higher calling, and more Christ like. I'm old enough to remember the hay days of the Moral Majority and the net result has been greater separation from people we are called to serve and no reversal of Roe v Wade which was the primary goal of the MM. I'm a traditionalist morally - pro-life, one man/one women marriage but in a multi cultural society, I'm called first to be a servant of Christ and therefore a servant of others - regardless of 'who those others are' - I don't get the option to choose. Love serves best those who are different than oneself. It is easy to love and serve those who are like us and with whom we agree. Real love is able to serve those who are 'different' with the same grace as serving those with whom we are alike.

The Bible records a lot of interaction wt His creation - especially through the life of Jesus Christ. I believe He was the "First Cause" behind creation. He established the physical & moral laws by which the universe operates.

Isn't that what we are talking about?

So Cruz is leading big now in Wisc polls before next Tuesday's primary. If he wins, will that be the beginning of the end for Trump or just a momentary set back? Some Trump friendly NE states will be coming up soon in April. If Trump is to be stopped it is now. Not sure how Kasich staying in will pan out - maybe only to keep Trump and Cruz both from the reaching the needed # of delegates and throw the convention into a multi ballot affair.

Sounds like Taylor Swift Sounds like most versions of God. Can't end on that. therefore: John 3:16-17New King James Version (NKJV) 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. Sorry Charlie, more to it than that. Neat picture though - I'll give you that. But not in the mood to address apologetics at this point - done that so many times on other threads.

Oh the web we spin when we think govt fixes all.

Sounds like Taylor Swift Sounds like most versions of God. Can't end on that. therefore: John 3:16-17New King James Version (NKJV) 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

Heh. This is laughable. It will increase the reporting and visibility of nonperforming assets. It won't affect the underlying scofflaw businesses who are late on their loan payments, or the assets (loans) themselves. I think the issue is that non-performing assets on their balance sheet causes them to have more reserves at the bank. Yes, it doesn't change the actual loan. But, if more loans are classified earlier as "non-performing", that will cause the bank to have to increase their reserves which makes it harder for them to loan money. I'm not necessarily seeing this one thing as a bad thing on the surface. I am not surprised that the banking industry doesn't like it though. Maybe we *should* make it harder for the banks that make bad loans to loan more money. I think that would be the govt regulating itself. As in the case of the housing bust of 2007-8. Housing regs pushed banks to issue home loans to individuals wt less than stellar credit. Govt regs - mixed wt banking greed - were behind the bust.

My wife and I quit our jobs in SD when we got marred and moved to Tulsa wtout jobs. That was 37 years ago. She got a job right away, I didn't - I was too picky on the hours. It took a few years but finally got the kind of job I thought I was 'entitled' to out of college - I ended up working a less desirable job to begin with until the right job came along. I've since learned that no one is entitled to anything - college degree or not. My brother in law who has some medical issues, recently quit his job wtout notice due to his boss being a # 1 dick and the organization doing unethical things (as reported on TV). He thought he could get unemployment - because of the treatment he received and the news articles - but the judge said - you quit - no unemployment. Now he is struggling to find something. So even if you are in a crap situation, try to find a landing zone before you bail out of the current job.

As a trade credit professional( I work for a manufacturing company), this is just another layer of issues I need to watch. The article is correct in stating that the affects will be felt prior to 2017. B2B credit terms will be affected as well as credit professionals necessarily become more conservative in their granting of favorable credit terms. This will place a heavier drag on the economy - at a time when businesses need to expand by being willing to take on more risk - to grow in a slow economy sometimes you need to take on new customers who may have less than ideal credit (liberal credit terms upfront/strong collections after the sale). In our industry, we are heavily dependent on higher oil prices so our customers (refineries, petro-chemical plants, etc) can order new equipment. So are market is slow as it is. These new regs will place greater pressure on companies and we'll probably see slower payment, requests for longer payment terms, while we also maintain a watchful eye on bankruptcy action.