Fru

Rebuild? I don't know. As a whole I think the party is pretty unified. I think they just need to nominate better candidates. Hillary was an easily attackable candidate with a devastating amount of baggage. She was the Dems Jeb Bush.

1. Michigan St. NU is 3-2 since joining the B1G and has beaten MSU twice while they were ranked top ten. I think this could/should develop into a bitter rivalry. The seeds for that have been planted. 2. Northwestern. NU is 4-2 since joining the B1G. Most games have been close. Field goal and last second finishes. Not the rivalry that I would want personally, however, the series has been relatively even and the games have been close and exciting. 3. Minnesota. NU is 4-2 since joining the B1G. Minnesota has been coming around, they're getting better. I could see them being a Mizzou-esque team/rivalry. 4. Iowa. NU is currently 3-2 since joining the B1G. We'll see how it goes this week. I think had NU won last year, it would have added some fuel to the rivalry fire. I don't see Iowa as a rival. I don't get the hate. It seems so feigned and forced to me. To me, a rival to NU should be a name brand storied program. Iowa is not that. Seeing them as a rival, means we bring ourselves down to their level. Why force a "border war" with a program that hasn't won anything ever? How does that make NU better? 5. Wisconsin. NU is 1-5 since joining the B1G. This is not a rivalry... yet. I want this to become a rivalry in the worst way. Wisconsin. Nebraska. Big Red Vs Big Red. Wisconsin is a program that I would want to call a rival. They have top ten teams, they have Rose Bowls, they have conference titles, they have NFL talent. They are a program that we would want to try and hold ourselves up to.

These are the results you get from years of one party promoting anti-intellectualism and being anti education/science.

DeAndre Levy, former UW player and current Detroit Lion recently stated that the highlight of his career was breaking Joe Pa's leg. http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/11/17/13666220/deandre-levy-joe-paterno-broken-leg Some Penn Staters fired back "We find the recent statement by DeAndre Levy about Coach Paterno appalling, along with the silence that has accompanied it," a statement from former Penn State players said in the Detroit Free Press. "To joyfully and proudly take credit for hurting a defenseless human being is sad, in and of itself." http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18115641/former-penn-state-nittany-lions-players-upset-deandre-levy-comments-joe-paterno Lordy. Penn Staters never cease to amaze me.

DPE finally houses one this year.

Keep em distracted with gay marriage, abortion and brown people.

I always thought Ferentz looked like an older John Cook

Yes, that is a truly despicable incident that occurred. No doubt. However, if you think this is only happening on one side, you are truly delusional.

90% of the crowd would give a standing ovation. This whole thing is nothing more than proof of the ultra thin skin that Trump has. If he doesn't get control of that, it's going to limit greatly his effectiveness as a leader. It's also a pretty effective way to distract from a $25 Million fraud settlement and a surrogate citing Japanese Internment camps as a precedent for an unconstitutional religious registry.

Yes, previous Presidents didn't counter their successor, largely because the successor was a competent, informed, intelligent person. This successor is devastatingly inexperienced, so much to the point that he didn't even know he had to hire his own White House Staff. If President Obama wants to continue to work to help make Americans lives better then that's his prerogative. If he wants to paint in his ranch in Texas, then that's his prerogative too. To the bolded part, you don't need to think of hypotheticals. A similar scenario like that already happened. This year in fact. Marking the 15th anniversary of 9/11 President Obama had a video taped message that played across NFL games around the country. It was met with resounding boos. Booing the President on the anniversary of 9/11. Seems pretty disrespectful to the office to me. http://www.gq.com/story/nfl-fans-booed-president-obama-911-video

Pass the crow over this way. I'll own it. Good work Fyfe

That's an interesting thought. I find using the Japanese Internment camps as justification for an illegal, unconstitutional Muslim registry to be deplorable, reprehensible and subhuman. I also find mocking the disabled, saying people can't do their job because of their heritage, saying you would date your own daughter if you could, bragging about sexual assault, putting a white nationalist as chief strategist and a man that has a long history of racist policies as attorney general, among a plethora of other things, to also be deplorable, reprehensible and subhuman. Teaching your children that people should be kind to each other no matter who you are, even if you're the president, sounds like a pretty decent idea to me.

I feel more confident in a surgery from Scott Strasburger than I do in Ryker Fyfe leading NU to a victory.

Shocking. Electing a man that has a white nationalist as his Chief Strategist and a surrogate proposing a Muslim Registry a la Japanese Internment. Who could've guessed that there would be such a reaction?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/17/japanese-internment-is-precedent-for-national-muslim-registry-prominent-trump-backer-says/ Citing Japanese Internment Camps as a legal precedent for a Muslim registry. You're still confused on how he's considered a racist?

http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/20768-new-study-analyzes-why-people-are-resistant-to-correcting-misinformation-offers-solutions Willful ignorance.

+1000000000000000

Repeal vote would Repeal the Death Penalty Repeal from earlier this year. Retain vote Retain the Death Penalty Repeal from earlier this year. Clear as mud.

That's how I feel as well. Part of me doesn't mind the idea of dispatching a handful of individuals that pose such a threat to society. But the question "What if a conviction is wrong?" is ever present in my mind.

Well said, GBR. One comment I do want to make is the distinction between accusing Trump supporters of being racist, and the warnings of the dangers of empowering racists through policy, rhetoric, or general blindness to important issues surrounding race, gender, and so forth. I think simply dishing the hate on Trump supporters gets both excessive and unhelpful. On the other hand, a common -- and very fair, IMO -- criticism that I see is for some of those who aren't willing to vote against him, the serious concerns that many minority groups overwhelmingly have, they're just not on their radar. In a very easy, default kind of way. If you're standing on the same side as the KKK, forgive some for not being able to distinguish the difference. Wait...so if a racist likes the same sports team you support does that make you a racist. If your grandmother was a racist are you one becuase you loved her? A sports team doesn't propose racist, sexist, misogynistic ideas or policy. Having love for a relative doesn't propose racist, sexist or misogynistic ideas or policy. Supporting a Presidential nominee that does propose racist, sexist or misogynistic ideas or policies makes it difficult to distinguish bigots, from non bigots. Especially when said candidate has fervent support from KKK and similar organizations.

Well said, GBR. One comment I do want to make is the distinction between accusing Trump supporters of being racist, and the warnings of the dangers of empowering racists through policy, rhetoric, or general blindness to important issues surrounding race, gender, and so forth. I think simply dishing the hate on Trump supporters gets both excessive and unhelpful. On the other hand, a common -- and very fair, IMO -- criticism that I see is for some of those who aren't willing to vote against him, the serious concerns that many minority groups overwhelmingly have, they're just not on their radar. In a very easy, default kind of way. If you're standing on the same side as the KKK, forgive some for not being able to distinguish the difference.

This seems so much "Obama is going to take your guns." Guess what? It's been eight years. We still have our guns. If for nearly 10 years someone kept telling me "XYZ is going to happen" and it never happened... I probably would never listen to that person.

It's a result of parts of the voting rights act being struck down. Had you read either article I posted you may have come across either of these... "The lines were so long because Republican election officials in Phoenix’s Maricopa County, the largest in the state, reduced the number of polling places by 70 percent from 2012 to 2016, from 200 to just 60—one polling place per 21,000 registered voters." or "Since the Supreme Court struck down a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, more than a dozen Republican-controlled state legislatures have passed a wave of laws that restrict when, where, and how people can cast a ballot."

886 fewer places to vote since 2012. That is unconscionable. https://www.thenation.com/article/there-are-868-fewer-places-to-vote-in-2016-because-the-supreme-court-gutted-the-voting-rights-act/ https://thinkprogress.org/mass-poll-closures-in-battleground-states-create-potential-for-election-day-chaos-3933184e9f6d#.9qse2lcj5

This. When NU went up 17-0 so quick on Indiana, I thought briefly that it was a turning point. I thought to myself, "This is what top 10 teams do." That notion went away rather quickly. Just as all games are winnable, they are equally losable.