13 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

And, people actually think this guy is a legitimate option to consider.  

 

 

OK:  Let me get this straight:

1.  We have an 80 year old guy running for president who is known for verbal gaffs but is generally compassionate and thoughtful & understands the scope of his job.  

2.  We have an 77 year old guy running for president who is know for verbal gaffs, dementia like thinking, has a messiah complex, has 91 felony indictments against his name, is a convicted rapist and fraudster, cult leader and is generally a self-center narcistic nut job. 

3.  We have another guy running for president who is a verifiable Q'anan nut job, his extended family won't support him and his only qualification is the family name which isn't a qualification at all except in a personality centered society. 

All this begs the Question:

Why oh why can't this great country full of highly qualified people not provide a better slate of candidates? 

Beg # 2 Question:

Biden should be, even with his aging issues and some of his policy weaknesses, should be blowing this field apart in the polls.   Why isn't he?

Hopefully come Sept - we will see polls showing Biden building an insurmountable lead.  We will know it is happening when we see/hear candidate # 2 posting hundreds of 'the election is rigged' posts to Truth Social. 

And BTW, I think we are in good hands with our new AD Dannen.    He has a passion for being here and has shown real awareness & appreciation of the scope of the opportunity before him. Even with the frustration, I don't understand why Trev left in the middle of the night and with everything trending upward.  It may just be a maturity thing on Trev's part.  Just because one earns $millions during the length of their contract doesn't mean they are mature in certain areas.   I consider myself to be an expert in my field, but my wife would remind me that doesn't carry over to other areas .  We are all growing (I hope  - if you aren't it is like paddling a canoe upstream - once you stop, you go backwards).   

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

Sipple's article on On3 is behind a paywall so if it's not "wow they were desperate and that seems bad" like the tweet implies, whatever

Yep, sounds more like Sip is desperate for clicks

13 hours ago, funhusker said:

So pro-choice.  

Reasonable Pro-life.   

If there a tension point where you can flip the coin - I will always choose pro-life.  I'd rather 'error' on the side of life of the baby in the womb. 

20 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

And # 7 has a bit of good history with the Huskers also

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

What I will find interesting about this is if Trump can stay out of legal issues with this stock.  The SEC has very very strict reporting regulations and if you don't abide by them, you can end up in prison way faster than his other legal issues.  You don't get to just report whatever you want to make yourself look good.

Kind of hard for Trump to finance his legal issues and a campaign  with that wonderful performance.  Maybe with Trump posting 77x on Easter ( I thought he'd be in church  )  he thought he could pump up the activity to encourage investors that TS was a real successful operation.   As always, his business ventures have something to be desired.  His real estate empire is built on fraud, and you can soon add TS to the list of his other failures.  

Not to hijack this thread but somewhat related  I have this question:

What # did you choose to wear on your HS or College team (if you had a choice)??  And Why did you choose that #?

Me # 84 -  Gene Washington, Minn Vikings.    I was in HS in the 1970s and Washington was the star WR with the Vikings. One of the 50 all time greatest Vikings.  I played TE as our old 'full house' 3 back offense didn't have  a WR.  Since I played on a small town S Dak football team, I also played Outside LB - so 84 wasn't a particularly good # for that however.  

I was saddened when Washington left the Vikings after the 72 season  but I kept his # anyway.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Washington_(American_football,_born_1944)#:~:text=the 1966 team.-,Professional career,receiving yards and nine touchdowns.

28 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 Good April Fools joke.

So any news on how Dylan is doing in practice?  I sure like that spiral football throw - no wounded duck throws from him it appears.  

Trump posts 77 times on Truth Social.   I guess he has his priorities in perspective - no family, no church, no good Easter blessings - just an old, psychological  deranged man ranting things  - who only belongs in a padded cell at this point.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-spends-easter-posting-77-times-on-social-media/vi-BB1kSyAW?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=ea3ae341025246468fc12a754d00c873&ei=33

47 minutes ago, funhusker said:

So you believe there should be some room for choice when necessary?

I agree with these:

Exceptions to state abortion bans generally fall into four general categories: to prevent the death of the pregnant person, when there is risk to the health of the pregnant person, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and when there is a lethal fetal anomaly.    

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/press-release/what-are-the-exceptions-to-state-abortion-bans/

I will add:  I have know of situations where the mother did not abort the child that was a result of rape or incest.  That should be her choice - good can come out of evil.  Some people chose that possibility.  The same could be true of fetal anomalies - we have known of individuals born with great handicaps/anomalies that have gone on to live productive and in many cases inspirational lives.  Again - no one should be forced to 'chose' one way or the other.  

From a practical perspective - in a pluralistic society, there will never be 100% agreement on this.  So, I think we have to look at this from a compromised position.  No side gets all that it wants.  The alternative is that we become authoritarian which is the opposite of who we are as a nation.   1.  We can either be like China where the govt dictates the one child per family policy - forced abortions or like 2. Honduras  where abortions are banned in their totality by the govt since 1985.  

The gray area for me is time limits.   We've seen the draconian state laws that don't allow any abortions at all or limit them to 6 weeks. 

Time limits:  I'm still torn on time limits - 6 weeks is to restrictive especially if they preclude any of the above and because - in most cases one does not know of a pregnancy until 6 weeks at the earliest.    12 weeks seems reasonable for me. 

57 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Those people are crazy.

agreed

On 3/30/2024 at 5:57 PM, teachercd said:

Pro-lifers should be beaten, period.

 

If you don't want to get an abortion don't get one.

 

As far as "eye for an eye" yes, 100%, which is why we NEED the death penalty.  But clearly abortion is not murder.  Unless you are a crazy person. 

Teach, no need to add stupidity on top of stupidity - speaking of the bold above.

I'm pro-life and I surely don't agree with that non-sense in the video.     

Back in the 80s I was involved in pro-life protests (non-violent prayer vigils would be more appropriate term than protest) at abortion clinics in Tulsa and Wichita.  

In the 70s back in college, @ SDSU (moo- U), there was a small protest against the administration about something - I think they wanting to build a new building where us students didn't think it should be build.     I can't remember the situation now - so nothing earthquaking.  

What the GOP is becoming under trump is a racist organization as trump and his team concentrate on 'reverse racism'  -  basically any law that allows access to minorities is  racist against whites. 

https://www.axios.com/2024/04/01/trump-reverse-racism-civil-rights

Quote

 

If Donald Trump returns to the White House, close allies want to dramatically change the government's interpretation of Civil Rights-era laws to focus on "anti-white racism" rather than discrimination against people of color.

Why it matters: Trump's Justice Department would push to eliminate or upend programs in government and corporate America that are designed to counter racism that has favored whites.

Targets would range from decades-old policies aimed at giving minorities economic opportunities, to more recent programs that began in response to the pandemic and the killing of George Floyd.

• Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung told Axios: "As President Trump has said, all staff, offices, and initiatives connected to Biden's un-American policy will be immediately terminated."

Driving the news: Longtime aides and allies preparing for a potential second Trump administration have been laying legal groundwork with a flurry of lawsuits and legal complaints — some of which have been successful.

• A central vehicle for the effort has been America First Legal, founded by former Trump aide Stephen Miller, who has called the group conservatives' "long-awaited answer to the ACLU."
• America First cited the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in February in a lawsuit against CBS and Paramount Global for what the group argued was discrimination against a white, straight man who was a writer for the show "Seal Team" in 2017.

 

5 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

so very true

32 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Yes.  But, here's the problem for them.

 

In a well functioning party, the party leadership would, at some point in time, sit back and reevaluate what they are doing and start promoting candidates that appeal to more people.

 

But, what do we have?  We have the functioning leader of the party being the most hated politician in America.  He has installed his daughter-in-law as the chairman of the party.  They are kicking out anyone who questions the dear leader and using the party to fund whatever personally the leader wants.

 

This is not a recipe for the party to get straightened out any time soon.

Yes, I wonder if Reagan's words about the Soviet Union are going to hit his party.  Ash Heap of History

The GOP may survive but perhaps in name only and it will be a much different party if it doesn't reform itself.  Reformation will

take many election cycles to rid itself of the trump cancer.   

34 minutes ago, knapplc said:

The country changed, but Republicans didn't. I think that's going to bite them hard, starting this year (although it really started in 2022).

It seems that the party that can read the tea leaves the best, creates  for themselves the better future.  More and More I think 2024 will be in Trump's words "A bloodbath".  More GOPers are leaving congress either earlier or deciding not to run.   I suspect Biden will win- ultimately with ease - and the Dems will take control of House and Senate.  It will be a bloodbath for the GOP as trump endorsed candidates far and wide get trounced at the polls.

In the 1950-60s the GOP seemed to have the upper hand on the civil rights issue. It was southern Dems who were blocking everything on that issue. But a switch happened.  Before long the GOP became the party that replicated George Wallace desires.  The Dems became more involved as a whole in promoting civil rights as they pushed the old southern representatives out - we found those representatives fleeing to the GOP. 

As you mentioned above, the GOP as configured today cannot read the tea leaves.  They are holding hard to old traditionist ideas and refuse to change.  Politics isn't that much different than business, the prize goes to the quick and nibble - those who see the future now and act accordingly in the present.  The GOP is becoming more Neanderthal by the moment and I apologize to Neanderthal's for that comparison.  

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

I don't think he was putting.  Weight forward, on the fringe/rough, that is a little bump and run.

 

I do that with a 7 iron all the time.

 

But I also break 100

I am sure by the end of the round, Trump's card somehow records a 72 or lower

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Tennis shoes, Bibles, what is next athletic bras?

3 hours ago, knapplc said:

Christians, didn't Jesus make a whip and rid the temple of people like this?

 

This bible costs SIXTY DOLLARS. 

 

 

 

Having listened to this he says:

It is his 'favorite book'.  I thought he had Mien Kopf on his nightstand.  

Trump is presenting himself as the savior --- again.   Trying to secure that evangelical vote. 

"We must make America pray again".    I'm all for prayer - I don't think you make anyone 'pray' unless you are in a country like Iran.   Although, come to think of it, I'll be praying a lot more if trump is elected.    I'm praying that he won't be.  So, I guess he has made me prayed. 

3 hours ago, knapplc said:

Christians, didn't Jesus make a whip and rid the temple of people like this?

 

This bible costs SIXTY DOLLARS. 

 

 

 

For sure for sure.  A con will con wherever he can con.   If a con can be had, the con will jump at the opportunity.  Trump is a master Con Man - I wonder how those most excellent T-shoes are selling?   I once worked as a Corp Credit Mgr for a Christian publishing company.  We 'sold' a bunch of Bibles and books but majority bibles to a company based - you guessed it - in Nigeria.  I wasn't made aware of the deal until afterwards.  The Con conned our publishing company out of over $20k using stolen credit cards.  So, yes, people mis-use, misrepresent, and use the Bible to take advantage of many in all sorts of ways.  

5 hours ago, teachercd said:

Does Scott move the needle though in terms of votes?  

Only perhaps to try get the African American vote elsewhere - Trump probably has SC tied up regardless. 

4 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

Lake is focused on her Senate run. I think she knows she has a better chance of winning that than winning as a Veep for this candidate.

 

There is zero chance Scott is the choice. Mostly because of his race. Not only does Orange Man Bad have a notorious racist streak, his likely voters are similarly racist. 

 

Rubio is probably the top candidate. He's a household name, he's Hispanic, he's tame. 

Can't argue nor would I want to against any of those points.  Now Rubio is interesting - a case study in conquering the bully by giving into him fully.  Never thought of him as a likely VP option.  HOWEVER: Like Ted Cruz, he's gone from being verbally abused by Trump & ineptly standing by as Trump insults their (Ted and Marco) families to becoming lackies for him.  I saw a clip of Rubio the other day going all in for Trump while discounting Trump's many legal issues.   Trump once mentioned that he'd want a female for VP- if so, I see Stefanik as the likely choice.  She's been carrying his water after taking Liz's spot as #3 in the House.  I thought for along time Gov Noem would be the person - but I think she may want to chart her own path in 2028 based on what my dad has been telling me (he lives in SF).    But what Trump says one day means nothing the next day.  So, yes - Trump needs Florida - there were a large # of GOPers who didn't vote for Trump in the Florida primary - so I could see power hungry and values challenged Rubio taking the VP spot. 

42 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Who would trump even pick this time for a VP running mate?  His son? 

He has all kinds of butt kissers that are more than willing - from Tim Scott on the east coast to Kari Lake way out west and a bunch of spinless GOPers er Trump cultist in between. 

So Trump's private judicial system (only apply if you are super rich or pretend to be) has lowered his bond to $175m if he can pay it in 10 days.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna144659

Quote

 

N.Y. appeals court reduces Trump's bond in his civil fraud case to $175 million, a victory for the former president

The court also gave Trump an additional 10 days to post the bond, which the former president said Monday he would pay.