HuskerNation1

Thanks for the compliment. I started watching elections when I was 10 and have followed politics closely since then. We are stuck in an election with 2 lousy candidates, but it seems most on here want to spend more time just criticizing one, so yes, there is some counter-balancing needed. I'm frankly amazed we are looking at a 4 to 6 point race still at this point given how bad of a month Trump has had and the fact Trump has yet to spend any money on advertising. I think we will see this race tighten once we get past labor day. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pow-its-just-a-2-point-race-clinton-38-trump-36/article/2599471 I realize Nate Silver is not a fan of Zogby since Zogby relies on Internet Surveys, but I think this article from Pew is pretty intriguing at the difference responses provided between phone and online surveys. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-wars-pew-says-internet-polls-often-more-accurate-candid-than-phone-surveys/article/2564575 I think you are being very mislead by the "4-6 point race". Trump now has roughly about an 13% chance of winning. https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/765896535242571776 Something catastrophic would have to happen to the Clinton campaign. That is if you put all your stock in what Nate Silver is projecting. Also, if this election were held today, Trump would lose hands down. At this point in 1988 Dukakis was beating Bush Sr by 15 points. I think this race is far too fluid to be calling it now. The LA Times poll is back down to a 1 point lead for Hillary, and I project by tomorrow Trump will be tied or have taken the lead in that poll. The Reuters poll has the race back at 4 points, the Pew poll has it also at 4 points, and the Rasmussen poll is at 2 points. The fact that the polls continue to be fluid in the margins show that voters have not made up their minds yet. I believe most of the LA Times polls in the last 3 months have had Trump leading. This is true. First off, the LA Times poll is using the same methodology and approach that the RAND poll used in 2012. The RAND methodology was on target and recieved high praise. Second, as a more general observation, other polls have shown the race tightening. I think by next week Hillarys RCP average of being up by 6 will be down to 3 points or so. The state polls always lag by a week or two so it will take some time for that to happen.

Wow, that is pure Obama/DNC spin. Obama's own spokesperson admitted yesterday the release of the hostages was contingent upon arrival of the money.

I could care less if the groupthink going on in here matters. If you don't think there is any liberal bias in the MSM, that is naive, but you can continue to believe that. As I said above, they do not create the liberal bias in the MSM but simply call it out. I have said the MSM does a better job disguising their bias, but a bias is still there.

Explain the part in bold? Ignore it. I mixed you up with Duke. It's been a long night at golf league. Lol...you are forgiven.

Sorry BRB, you are 100% wrong on this one. I'm a highly educated guy that prides myself on not being influenced by anyone to be honest. I don't identify with the alternative fringe right or with the "establishment" part of the GOP. I agree that there are many on both sides of the aisle influenced by media, whether its talk radio, print media, television media, social media, or what is instilled into the entertainment media of our time. Ok....that is you. You came up with this through your own observation. That's not true with the masses though. Conservative radio is where it all started. I can agree that Conservative radio is what called out the liberal bias that exists in the MSM. I don't agree with the idea that there is no liberal bias in the MSM and it's just something invented by the right. On the latter we may just have to agree to disagree.

Explain the part in bold?

Did you even read what I wrote above. I'm not a big fan of Rush and others on the right, and am distrustful of many media types, including the MSM. I'm not disagreeing that different media outlets try to use their influence to get viewership up or to meet their own personal agenda, but where I disagree is with BRB's insinuation (which you seem to have jumped on board with) that I allow right wing media to sway my opinions. Let's take the topic in the other thread regarding the Iran ransom. I posted a piece that came from the NY Post but that you can read in Politico and many other outlets now, and rather than focusing on the issue, you dismissed the topic by discrediting the source it came from. You just proved you are guilty of not thinking independently by refusing to acknowledge an issue based upon the source provided.

I would say keep him red shirted since that was the plan. If Tommy goes down, yank it and let POB show us what he can do as the guy behind Fyfe. There is no such thing as "yanking" or pulling a redshirt as though it's a designation. If he plays, he uses eligibility. If he doesn't, he preserves it, even if he takes all the reps with the varsity and travels to every game. I think what Redux was simply saying is to take POB out of redshirt status if Armstrong got injured...otherwise to preserve it for the full season. It is, he's just choosing to nit pick. Lol...I've seen that on other forums too.

You go on with your judgmental self zoogs. We can make an argument that everyone on here is influenced by some media outlet. We can make that argument. The thing is, nobody here made the claim that they aren't influenced by anyone. Except for you. If you actually read the thread above, a specific accusation was made by BRB that I am influence by right-wing media/propaganda which I refuted, and then went on to make the point that everyone is influenced by media in one way or another. I simply pointed out that I am not influenced by a certain type of media as BRB was suggesting, so nice try.

What is their to fact check. All outlets are reporting that the $400 million we paid to Iran was contingent upon the release of the prisoners. Do you not define that as ransom? Should the US start making payment for prisoners its new policy? By focusing on the source, you are dodging the issue here. Oh, and just in case you need to know the specific definition of ransom, here it is. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ransom

You go on with your judgmental self zoogs. We can make an argument that everyone on here is influenced by some media outlet.

I would say keep him red shirted since that was the plan. If Tommy goes down, yank it and let POB show us what he can do as the guy behind Fyfe. There is no such thing as "yanking" or pulling a redshirt as though it's a designation. If he plays, he uses eligibility. If he doesn't, he preserves it, even if he takes all the reps with the varsity and travels to every game. I think what Redux was simply saying is to take POB out of redshirt status if Armstrong got injured...otherwise to preserve it for the full season.

Another example of the poor foreign policy decisions made by the Obama administration. The US has had a long-standing policy of not paying ransom for Americans captured by other countries, yet Obama approved paying $400 million to Iran for the release of our Americans. I know we have many Obama supporters on this forum...do you really approve of the US paying ransom? http://nypost.com/2016/08/18/state-department-400m-cash-to-iran-was-contingent-on-us-prisoners-release/

And what is the lol for Zoogs.

QB is a tough position to play if you are not the #1 or #2 guy and see little chance of getting there. I don't blame Bush for leaving if he wants to get on the field. So does this increase the chances of POB not red-shirting now? If Armstrong goes down, Fyfe is the starter, and you must have a backup ready for him. As much as Tommy runs the ball, he has a good chance of getting banged up, just at Taylor Martinez did his senior year.

Thanks for the compliment. I started watching elections when I was 10 and have followed politics closely since then. We are stuck in an election with 2 lousy candidates, but it seems most on here want to spend more time just criticizing one, so yes, there is some counter-balancing needed. I'm frankly amazed we are looking at a 4 to 6 point race still at this point given how bad of a month Trump has had and the fact Trump has yet to spend any money on advertising. I think we will see this race tighten once we get past labor day. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pow-its-just-a-2-point-race-clinton-38-trump-36/article/2599471 I realize Nate Silver is not a fan of Zogby since Zogby relies on Internet Surveys, but I think this article from Pew is pretty intriguing at the difference responses provided between phone and online surveys. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-wars-pew-says-internet-polls-often-more-accurate-candid-than-phone-surveys/article/2564575 I think you are being very mislead by the "4-6 point race". Trump now has roughly about an 13% chance of winning. Something catastrophic would have to happen to the Clinton campaign. That is if you put all your stock in what Nate Silver is projecting. Also, if this election were held today, Trump would lose hands down. At this point in 1988 Dukakis was beating Bush Sr by 15 points. I think this race is far too fluid to be calling it now. The LA Times poll is back down to a 1 point lead for Hillary, and I project by tomorrow Trump will be tied or have taken the lead in that poll. The Reuters poll has the race back at 4 points, the Pew poll has it also at 4 points, and the Rasmussen poll is at 2 points. The fact that the polls continue to be fluid in the margins show that voters have not made up their minds yet.

Sorry BRB, you are 100% wrong on this one. I'm a highly educated guy that prides myself on not being influenced by anyone to be honest. I don't identify with the alternative fringe right or with the "establishment" part of the GOP. I agree that there are many on both sides of the aisle influenced by media, whether its talk radio, print media, television media, social media, or what is instilled into the entertainment media of our time.

It looks like Republicans are not the only ones trying to hide from their nominee. Maggie Hassan, in a critical New Hampshire Senate race, completely dodged questions around whether Hillary is honest. Not once, not twice, but 3 times she dodged the question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgQna0j31U4

First off, I'm not a huge fan of Rush and some of the other talk radio hosts and have never tuned in to listen to a full show of his. I will read some of his statements or listen to clips if something is noteworthy. With that said, until Rush came along, there was NO opposing views to the liberal bias in the MSM. The same goes for Fox News. So without any media outlets to highlight the hypocritical coverage or statements from the MSM, you would not have heard much about MSM bias. I think in a given month or year, you will find many examples of how the MSM slanted a story to cover their own bias, but like I said earlier, one of the most noteworthy examples (because it's pitting two Dems against each other) was how they covered the 2008 primary. I really think had the media not been rooting for Obama to win and continuing to lavish positive stories on him, Hillary would have won that primary, but given she is such a lousy general election candidate, I actually think McCain would have beaten her. I know that's a lot of looking back on what could have been, but the media is extremely powerful in this country, and the bias on all sides has grown worse in the last 10-15 years.

All media puts out nonsense and I agree with BRB that its up to viewers to disseminate truth from fiction. There have been plenty of studies and articles written about the slant of the MSM as well. To counter your point above, if Fox News were to point out something factual that people should be concerned about, the common response from the left and Democratic politicians is "it's just more Fox News propaganda." The fact that you would site an article from Salon.com (a leftist media outlet) would be no different than me citing something directly from Breitbart. Even if there is some truth to the article, those who don't agree with Salon or Breitbart won't accept anything they say, and given that some of the "mainstream" media also has been proven false on many occasions, I agree with BRB that most people now will believe what they want to believe. http://www.naturalnews.com/048714_mainstream_media_propaganda_lies.html http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-28/top-german-journalist-admits-mainstream-media-completely-fake-we-all-lie-cia http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/j-peder-zane/article96003182.html Bril.... What is your opinion of the quote from Sykes? I don't agree with his premise that talk radio has resulted in conservative voters falsely believing the mainstream media is biased. As I've said before, all outlets are biased, and some do a better job of disguising their bias. The fringe elements on the left and right are in your face with their media of choice, whether its talk radio, online and social media, or through television. The mainstream networks such as ABC, NBC, and CBS can better disguise their bias through their selection of what they cover as "hard news", where the place it in their news program, which slant or angle they take on a story, etc... In 2008 the MSM was fully in the tank for Obama at Hillary's expense in the primaries. I don't like Hillary as you know, but it was obvious to me they were playing favorites. I do think that those who listen to Rush and can't think for themselves help lead to situations where someone like Trump can win in a very crowded primary field. I would argue though that had their only been 4-6 candidates running in the primary which is more typical, Trump would have never survived. The non-Trump vote would have consolidated early on to get it down to a 1/1 race where Trump would have lost.

I think this Real Clear Politics Average shows the exact moment (this past spring) when Obama's approval rating turned slightly positive overall. I would argue that his numbers have everything to do with Hillary and Trump being such bad nominees. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html I would also add that Americans continue to remain very unhappy with the direction of the country under Obama's leadership. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html Obama's approval rating is 52, while Congress is 12. Apportion blame regarding "direction of the country" how you see fit. Congressional approval has been low for years, even when Bush was POTUS and his approval rating was relatively high until his final year in office. There were many times in Bush's 2nd term where his approval was 20 to 25 points higher than Congress, and this was during his lowest approval years when the country was tired of Iraq. Also, when the Dems controlled Congress in Obama's first term (March, 2010), the Congressional approval was down to 16% as well. Prior to Hillary and Trump making Obama's ratings go up, his approval rating was in the low 40s while his approval rating was in the low to mid 50s. I would argue that Bush would have seen a bounce in his approval rating in 2008 (prior to the international financial crisis) had Trump and Hillary been the nominees back then.

I think this Real Clear Politics Average shows the exact moment (this past spring) when Obama's approval rating turned slightly positive overall. I would argue that his numbers have everything to do with Hillary and Trump being such bad nominees. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html I would also add that Americans continue to remain very unhappy with the direction of the country under Obama's leadership. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

Yeah. Because one is way, way worse. I'm not a big fan of sinus infections. Don't like them, don't care for them, don't support them. But I don't spend a lot of time in active opposition to that because it just is what it is. Lung cancer, on the other hand, is much worse, and I'll spend a lot more time and energy being opposed to that particularly awful disease. I know there has been a lot of worries over Hillary's falls and having to hold onto things. I didn't realize she had lung cancer.

Thanks for the compliment. I started watching elections when I was 10 and have followed politics closely since then. We are stuck in an election with 2 lousy candidates, but it seems most on here want to spend more time just criticizing one, so yes, there is some counter-balancing needed. I'm frankly amazed we are looking at a 4 to 6 point race still at this point given how bad of a month Trump has had and the fact Trump has yet to spend any money on advertising. I think we will see this race tighten once we get past labor day. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pow-its-just-a-2-point-race-clinton-38-trump-36/article/2599471 I realize Nate Silver is not a fan of Zogby since Zogby relies on Internet Surveys, but I think this article from Pew is pretty intriguing at the difference responses provided between phone and online surveys. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-wars-pew-says-internet-polls-often-more-accurate-candid-than-phone-surveys/article/2564575 It's going to end up like Brexit. It has the exact same feel and progression. Yes, good point Creighton

All media puts out nonsense and I agree with BRB that its up to viewers to disseminate truth from fiction. There have been plenty of studies and articles written about the slant of the MSM as well. To counter your point above, if Fox News were to point out something factual that people should be concerned about, the common response from the left and Democratic politicians is "it's just more Fox News propaganda." The fact that you would site an article from Salon.com (a leftist media outlet) would be no different than me citing something directly from Breitbart. Even if there is some truth to the article, those who don't agree with Salon or Breitbart won't accept anything they say, and given that some of the "mainstream" media also has been proven false on many occasions, I agree with BRB that most people now will believe what they want to believe. http://www.naturalnews.com/048714_mainstream_media_propaganda_lies.html http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-28/top-german-journalist-admits-mainstream-media-completely-fake-we-all-lie-cia http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/j-peder-zane/article96003182.html