HuskerNation1

I assume you are referring to Don Lemon...I agree with that.

I'm not sure who on here watched Trump's speech tonight on crime, law and order and the impact it's had on the African American community, but I watched the entire speech and have to say it was one of Trump's best speeches today, free of gaffes, and on message completely. After the completion of the speech, I turned to CNN who some on here claim is an unbiased network, and guess what...their lead commentator (Don Lemon who is a joke) demonstrated complete bias in what questions were asked, and to whom. Rather than going around the horn to get everyone's thoughts on the speech as a good journalist would, he started by injecting his own criticism into the speech, and then badgering those that disagreed with his views. Lemon actually made Sean Hannity look like a nice guy that doesn't badger those he disagrees with. I have seen this time and again from CNN and wholeheartedly disagree with anyone on here who claims they are not as biased as MSNBC or Fox.

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

To counter all the Trump fact checking, I thought it would be nice to show Hillary has her "own fair share" of blatantly false statements she has made. And this coming from politifact which has been proven to be biased against Republicans. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/ And this coming from politifact which has been proven to be biased against Republicans. http://www.politifactbias.com/ http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2013/05/29/study-reveals-republicans-lie-moreor-politifact-has-serious-liberal http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/03/14/mostly-true-ted-cruz-attack-proves-politifact-is-run-by-gigantic-a$$hole$/ So you will continue to see more claims that any GOP official is more dishonest than Democrats. How crazy is that...fact checkers are not even fair in their assessment, and viewers must read through the partisan lens from all "news" sources. I realize Breitbart is biased too but this article provided factual examples of the different ways politifact treats the GOP different from Dems.

While not tied to Hillary's 2016 campaign, it's probably not good news that a former Hillary staffer, Kathleen Kane (Attorney General of PA) was convicted of perjury. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-attorney-general-kathleen-kane-step-down-after-criminal-conviction-n631606 When you factor in increased belief that Hillary's right hand woman Huma Abedin was involved in the pay for play scheming at the Clinton Foundation while also serving in the department of State, it seems Hillary either does not surround herself with good people, or perhaps more likely, they follow her lead and believe they are above the law. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-15/special-government-employee-huma-abedin-smoking-gun-hillarys-pay-play-scheme

Nice...if you find the, can you post some of the tweets on here? https://mobile.twitter.com/tyjonlindsey/status/764951561839620096 https://mobile.twitter.com/Bookie_44/status/765258960437780480 Also check KJJ and McQuitty threads Thanks. This shows an obvious bond that KW has with these recruits, and shows the maturity of these recruits as well.

I actually think it was more strategic as when he did that he was getting off the issues and his poll numbers dropped. If he's smart, he would let the super-pacs bring this topic up (like the swift boats in 2004) and he can just hammer home on the economic and foreign policy failures.

Nice...if you find the, can you post some of the tweets on here?

Good topic. I think the GOP may lose a few seats in the House but not enough to affect their majority. Regarding the Senate, I had put another thread up here a month ago with a calculator and some predictions, but I think that's fallen down the list. When I went through each race, I ended up with the Senate being a 50/50 tie. Go figure.

1. Nice dodge on the first point. Nothing I cited came from Fox News, but that's the typical leftist response anytime there is no real response. 2. Regarding your 2nd point, do you really believe that Bill did not do these things? C'mon...if you believe that, you must also believe OJ didn't kill Nicole, and Bill Cosby didn't exploit all his women. Bill and HIllary have both proven they are incapable of telling the truth when their political careers are on the line. Sometimes things are wrong and we just have to accept them without trying to blame "right wing media" or come up with other excuses. I have openly criticized Trump many times for his Muslim ban and other things he has said.

Just checking in for the first time today, and several points of clarification. 1. What prompted the recent press on this topic this past week was not a result of Trump bringing this up, but rather one of the women that Bill raped. She tweeted out Hillary's words "all victims deserved to be believed" and shortly thereafter, Hillary's website removed that language. If that's not an admission of guilt I don't know what is. 2. Regarding your 2nd paragraph, both sides are not talking about the issues, and anytime Trump starts to focus on substance Hillary's team is trying to engineer a new media narrative. I don't think you can act like only one side is talking about the issues as Hillary has spent a lot of time (and advertsing money) focused on trashing Trump rather than discussing the issues and how she will handle them. Meanwhile, to date, Trump has spent $0 on advertising (which I think is dumb). 3. As I said earlier, the first time these topics were introduced in the 1990s, the focus was on Bill Clinton's role, not Hillary's. Now that she is running for POTUS, these will be viewed through the lens of how she responded, and statements like "sexual assault victims deserve to be believed" rings hollow when she was openly trashing the women Bill exploited. Just checking in for the first time today, and several points of clarification.

I would agree that the Monica issue and Paula Jones got more coverage, but not Willey, Broaddrick and others. Also, Hillary's role in silencing the women was not covered as well. It's easy to dismiss it as old news, but when you have been victimized it never leaves you as Broaddrick noted. Also, I think in this day and age there is more awareness around abuse victims, whether its Bill Cosby's women or NFL stars beating their women. Maybe this will continue to be swept under the rug and not receive coverage, but I have a feeling these women that were victimized by the Clintons will not go down quietly.

While not much has been made thus far of the many women Bill has had over the years, whether it was consensual or forced, I do see these women becoming more vocal in the last 75 days of the election. It's one thing for Bill to have the fling with Monica in which they both wanted it. But for those women that did not want to accept Bill's advances, including Juanita Broaddrick, it's alarming that the press has spent little time on this topic. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430081/she-threatened-me-juanita-broaddrick-hillarys-role-covering-bill-clinton http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-rape-accuser-criticizes-hillary/article/2579769 Now before all you Hillary sympathizers claiming this is a right-wing conspiracy and has nothing to do with the 2016 race, the reason it's going to be an issue is that Hillary played a role in trying to silence these women. Both Clintons claim to represent empowering women, but their actions do not align with those words. Just today Hillary had the words that women "have a right to be heard" off her website after Broaddrick brought attention to it. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/291434-clinton-made-edits-to-campus-sexual-assault-page-after Many of these women have conveyed that Hillary played a role in trying to silence them through blackmail or find other ways to discredit them. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/14/hillary-clinton-haunted-by-efforts-to-destroy-bill/ http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/01/flashback-hillary-clinton-threatened-bills-accusers-in-1998/ And here is a direct threat/intimidation tactic straight from Hillary in 1998 regarding some of Bill's accusers. “I think we’re going to find some other things. And I think that when all of this is put into context, and we really look at the people involved here, look at their motivations and look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for.”

He said, "I like charts" "It takes big hands to hold charts". NOT KIDDING. I actually like seeing Trump use charts. First, it takes me back to the days of Ross Perot and when he used charts and visual aids. More importantly, it should help Trump stay focused on message (if that's possible). As for the quote, I think it's great when candidates can poke fun at themselves.

I will give it to you that the Clintons will say or do anything to win an election. Most often debates are an expectations game, and the expectations will be through the roof for Hillary, and very low for Trump. If he comes across in the 1st debate as calm, measured, and makes a few good points, he will have won the debate. I would equate this to the Gore/Bush debates, and I'm not saying Bush 43 made dumb comments like Trump has, but there were a lot of questions about if Bush 43 had the knowledge and awareness to be POTUS. Meanwhile, Gore and Hillary do have some similarities in that they understand the policy stuff, but come across and condescending in their tone. Gore is probably more likeable than Hillary, and Bush knows more than Trump, so I realize it's not a complete accurate comparison, but the point is that sometimes the optics and expectations play a bigger role than the actual content, no matter how each side will spin it with the media after.

As I've said before, both are terrible candidates and we are faced with bad choices. I am not happy with the current trajectory in this country, as most Americans feel the same with nearly 70% claiming the US is on the wrong track. With Hillary, we would be getting more of the same, but likely worse as she has the corruption to go along with the failed policies of the past 7 years, especially when it comes to ISIS and foreign policy. With Trump, he's a wildcard, and he's obnoxious and says a lot of crazy things to get attention, but we really don't know how he would govern. So yes, there is a risk there, but given the 70% wrong track of this country (which I agree with), I am willing to take that risk. Now if the Dems had nominated someone like Jim Webb, I would agree with you that he would be far better than Trump. Hillary, not so much. Or, if Johnson would agree to move down to the VP slot and let Romney lead the Libertarian ticket, I would vote for that in a heartbeat. I would love to see the poll on here add another option with a Romney/Johnson ticket just to see if it changes the results. Both are poor candidates, but it's plain as day that one is definitively worse than the other. No one wants Hillary in office but it's very clear that Trump is grossly unfit for office at any level, let alone POTUS. It's not even a risk with Trump. There is absolutely no way that a Trump presidency would be anything but detrimental to the American people. He needs to be defeated and defeated soundly. If you can't see this then you must be entirely removed from logic. And that is YOUR opinion, and I know a few others on this tiny board we post on. I know just as many non-political individuals that I work with as well as some of my friends that fear Hillary more than Trump as they believe Trump says some of the things he does as part of his TV personality. When you look at Trump's proposals (outside of the Muslim ban), which proposals are you most concerned with? Securing our border? Removing unfair trade deals? Increase the child tax credit? Not starting more wars like Iraq? Calling an entire race of people rapists is because of his TV personality? Calling global warming a hoax created by the Chinese to make US manufacturing non-competitive is part of his TV personality? Having not one clue what is happening in the world and blaming stuff that happened 12 years ago on Obama is part of his TV personality? The man is a complete and utter dipsh*t. There simply is no defending him using reason or logic. Falling asleep at the wheel when requests have been made for a year in Benghazi for additional security is acceptable? And then lying to the families as to why their loves ones were killed is acceptable? How about trashing females who were victimized by her husband's sexual addiction? Or perhaps dodging questions about wiping her server clean ("you mean with a cloth" stated Clinton). You want to make this black and white that one is so much better than the other. Both are terrible candidates, and when given the chance, I would take my chance with Trump over a known failure in Clinton. If you're going to make this about which candidate has more downfalls then it will be Trump every single time. He makes shocking and unconstitutional statements on a near daily basis to the point that it's hardly newsworthy anymore. One candidate absolutely is better than the other. Hillary Clinton has actually held positions that would prepare her for the White House, and if EMAILS is the only thing you can bring up to paint her as a failure then it sounds to me that she wouldn't be nearly as bad as the global disaster we would have on our hands with Trump. Hillary Clinton has held 2 positions. As Senator of New York, she promised to bring 200,000 jobs to upstate New York, and failed to deliver. She also voted in favor of the Iraq war. If she's such a great leader with great judgment, she would have opposed the war back then. Moving on to Secretary of State, nearly everything she touched was a disaster. Lybia, Syria, Iraq, etc... all got worse with her foreign policy, and as I've shown many times before, ISIS was wiped out in 2008 according to Obama's CIA director, and has now grown tremendously. And this isn't even talking about the Benghazi debacle or her email woes. Why on earth should she deserve a promotion when she couldn't handle a Secretary position? And Trump has spewed comments about how successful and rich he is and yet can't back it up. What IS documented is his lack of business success with 4 bankruptcies. He promised thousands of jobs and then bailed. He has CHOSEN to not pay those who have provided him goods and services. Don't care if Hillary missed her promise on jobs - he absolutely harmed peoples livelihood. And continues to do it. He uses labor from outside the US for his staff, and to make his goods. There are over 4000 lawsuits against him (including 190+ related to not paying taxes, or not paying enough taxes). He has admittedly created business to take advantage of the very people that he know attracts as followers (white collar, uneducated men) and is dealing with some of those ramifications as he battles the Trump University cases. Moving on to his documented comments that insult and harass almost every sex, creed, religion and nationality. His lack of understanding of national, international or state side politics, and even more so his lack of desire to even try to learn about it. I can't believe I even bothered to respond to you and this circular conversation. I don't have enough time or energy to continue typing all the evidence of his lack of qualifications or that he's even a good, sane person. I take great comfort in the fact that you seem to be one of few on this board that has refused to open his eyes as to the qualifications of this office and the risk Don presents if he were to get close to occupying it. I see you are good at reading the DNC talking points. Lol. My response earlier was to a claim that because Hillary has held positions in government, she deserves to be POTUS which is a bunch of BS. She had no major accomplishments as Senator, voted for the War, and failed to deliver on her jobs promises. As SOS she had even worse results, and we as a nation are paying for it today. With Trump, I understand that out of the tens of thousands of people he has employed, there are a few cases where he didn't do the right thing and deserves the criticism. With that said, his results of hiring and creating tens of thousands of good paying jobs far outshines the negatives. Meanwhile, in looking at Hillary's resume, the positive results she has delivered nowhere near outweighs the negative outcomes as a result of her leadership. And just how many jobs has HIllary ever created herself. If you took away all the dumb comments Trump has made this campaign, and people were voting on resumes and determining whether to continue the current trajectory we are on in this country, or take a new trajectory, Trump would be winning at this point. However, he has chosen to make this campaign a referendum on him which is the dumbest thing he could have ever done, and because of that, he will likely lose. Of all the 16 GOP candidates who ran for the nomination, he is the one with the least chance of beating Hillary, and I still shake my head that the primary voters put him through. If Rubio, Kasich, Bush, or Fiorina were the nominee, they would be beating Hillary easily at this time. As for your first paragraph. No need to claim someone is "good at reading the DNC talking points" and then go on and basically reiterate the Trump campaign talking points. Makes the entire paragraph kind of meaningless. However, I will agree on a main idea that Hillary is a horrible candidate and doesn't have much success to back up how popular she is with some people. As for your second paragraph. I agree with pretty much everything except the bolded part. I'm not sure he would be winning. He has clearly proven that even when talking about issues, he has absolutely no CLUE what he is talking about. In fact, I believe he is making it a referendum on him BECAUSE he knows he has no clue on the issues so he needs to steer the conversation in a completely different direction. He has spoken so many times about issues and then be proven his "facts" don't come anywhere close to reality that enough people would have seen through his BS. Now, I think it would be a closer election. But, there is nothing I see that shows me that he would be winning. If you subscribe to the believe that Trump is erratic and unable to focus, I would argue that he has no talking points against Hillary, so not sure I would agree with your first paragraph as well. As for the 2nd paragraph, I completely disagree here. This election should have been a referendum on Hillary/Obama, and all Trump had to do was not be an idiot and he could have one. When voting for POTUS, most voters are looking for trust and leadership qualities, and not someone that knows the nuances of every situation. All Trump would have to do is say that he will bring together the best team to take on whatever challenge comes our way. In 1980 Reagan didn't have great depth of knowledge on many issues and all the nuances, but he focused on higher level themes and offered a vision of where he wanted to take this country.

Lol...good one.

As I've said before, both are terrible candidates and we are faced with bad choices. I am not happy with the current trajectory in this country, as most Americans feel the same with nearly 70% claiming the US is on the wrong track. With Hillary, we would be getting more of the same, but likely worse as she has the corruption to go along with the failed policies of the past 7 years, especially when it comes to ISIS and foreign policy. With Trump, he's a wildcard, and he's obnoxious and says a lot of crazy things to get attention, but we really don't know how he would govern. So yes, there is a risk there, but given the 70% wrong track of this country (which I agree with), I am willing to take that risk. Now if the Dems had nominated someone like Jim Webb, I would agree with you that he would be far better than Trump. Hillary, not so much. Or, if Johnson would agree to move down to the VP slot and let Romney lead the Libertarian ticket, I would vote for that in a heartbeat. I would love to see the poll on here add another option with a Romney/Johnson ticket just to see if it changes the results. Both are poor candidates, but it's plain as day that one is definitively worse than the other. No one wants Hillary in office but it's very clear that Trump is grossly unfit for office at any level, let alone POTUS. It's not even a risk with Trump. There is absolutely no way that a Trump presidency would be anything but detrimental to the American people. He needs to be defeated and defeated soundly. If you can't see this then you must be entirely removed from logic. And that is YOUR opinion, and I know a few others on this tiny board we post on. I know just as many non-political individuals that I work with as well as some of my friends that fear Hillary more than Trump as they believe Trump says some of the things he does as part of his TV personality. When you look at Trump's proposals (outside of the Muslim ban), which proposals are you most concerned with? Securing our border? Removing unfair trade deals? Increase the child tax credit? Not starting more wars like Iraq? Calling an entire race of people rapists is because of his TV personality? Calling global warming a hoax created by the Chinese to make US manufacturing non-competitive is part of his TV personality? Having not one clue what is happening in the world and blaming stuff that happened 12 years ago on Obama is part of his TV personality? The man is a complete and utter dipsh*t. There simply is no defending him using reason or logic. Falling asleep at the wheel when requests have been made for a year in Benghazi for additional security is acceptable? And then lying to the families as to why their loves ones were killed is acceptable? How about trashing females who were victimized by her husband's sexual addiction? Or perhaps dodging questions about wiping her server clean ("you mean with a cloth" stated Clinton). You want to make this black and white that one is so much better than the other. Both are terrible candidates, and when given the chance, I would take my chance with Trump over a known failure in Clinton. If you're going to make this about which candidate has more downfalls then it will be Trump every single time. He makes shocking and unconstitutional statements on a near daily basis to the point that it's hardly newsworthy anymore. One candidate absolutely is better than the other. Hillary Clinton has actually held positions that would prepare her for the White House, and if EMAILS is the only thing you can bring up to paint her as a failure then it sounds to me that she wouldn't be nearly as bad as the global disaster we would have on our hands with Trump. Hillary Clinton has held 2 positions. As Senator of New York, she promised to bring 200,000 jobs to upstate New York, and failed to deliver. She also voted in favor of the Iraq war. If she's such a great leader with great judgment, she would have opposed the war back then. Moving on to Secretary of State, nearly everything she touched was a disaster. Lybia, Syria, Iraq, etc... all got worse with her foreign policy, and as I've shown many times before, ISIS was wiped out in 2008 according to Obama's CIA director, and has now grown tremendously. And this isn't even talking about the Benghazi debacle or her email woes. Why on earth should she deserve a promotion when she couldn't handle a Secretary position? And Trump has spewed comments about how successful and rich he is and yet can't back it up. What IS documented is his lack of business success with 4 bankruptcies. He promised thousands of jobs and then bailed. He has CHOSEN to not pay those who have provided him goods and services. Don't care if Hillary missed her promise on jobs - he absolutely harmed peoples livelihood. And continues to do it. He uses labor from outside the US for his staff, and to make his goods. There are over 4000 lawsuits against him (including 190+ related to not paying taxes, or not paying enough taxes). He has admittedly created business to take advantage of the very people that he know attracts as followers (white collar, uneducated men) and is dealing with some of those ramifications as he battles the Trump University cases. Moving on to his documented comments that insult and harass almost every sex, creed, religion and nationality. His lack of understanding of national, international or state side politics, and even more so his lack of desire to even try to learn about it. I can't believe I even bothered to respond to you and this circular conversation. I don't have enough time or energy to continue typing all the evidence of his lack of qualifications or that he's even a good, sane person. I take great comfort in the fact that you seem to be one of few on this board that has refused to open his eyes as to the qualifications of this office and the risk Don presents if he were to get close to occupying it. I see you are good at reading the DNC talking points. Lol. My response earlier was to a claim that because Hillary has held positions in government, she deserves to be POTUS which is a bunch of BS. She had no major accomplishments as Senator, voted for the War, and failed to deliver on her jobs promises. As SOS she had even worse results, and we as a nation are paying for it today. With Trump, I understand that out of the tens of thousands of people he has employed, there are a few cases where he didn't do the right thing and deserves the criticism. With that said, his results of hiring and creating tens of thousands of good paying jobs far outshines the negatives. Meanwhile, in looking at Hillary's resume, the positive results she has delivered nowhere near outweighs the negative outcomes as a result of her leadership. And just how many jobs has HIllary ever created herself. If you took away all the dumb comments Trump has made this campaign, and people were voting on resumes and determining whether to continue the current trajectory we are on in this country, or take a new trajectory, Trump would be winning at this point. However, he has chosen to make this campaign a referendum on him which is the dumbest thing he could have ever done, and because of that, he will likely lose. Of all the 16 GOP candidates who ran for the nomination, he is the one with the least chance of beating Hillary, and I still shake my head that the primary voters put him through. If Rubio, Kasich, Bush, or Fiorina were the nominee, they would be beating Hillary easily at this time.

Pipe dream, but....Keyshawn Johnson, Sr.??.1% this ever happens, but now I'm really excited..Is he still a talking head at ESPN? Both he and Randy Moss are still at ESPN I believe. The fact that this is happening just before the first game is not good, but on a positive note, Riley has been around for years and has more relationships that most college football coaches.

As I've said before, both are terrible candidates and we are faced with bad choices. I am not happy with the current trajectory in this country, as most Americans feel the same with nearly 70% claiming the US is on the wrong track. With Hillary, we would be getting more of the same, but likely worse as she has the corruption to go along with the failed policies of the past 7 years, especially when it comes to ISIS and foreign policy. With Trump, he's a wildcard, and he's obnoxious and says a lot of crazy things to get attention, but we really don't know how he would govern. So yes, there is a risk there, but given the 70% wrong track of this country (which I agree with), I am willing to take that risk. Now if the Dems had nominated someone like Jim Webb, I would agree with you that he would be far better than Trump. Hillary, not so much. Or, if Johnson would agree to move down to the VP slot and let Romney lead the Libertarian ticket, I would vote for that in a heartbeat. I would love to see the poll on here add another option with a Romney/Johnson ticket just to see if it changes the results. Both are poor candidates, but it's plain as day that one is definitively worse than the other. No one wants Hillary in office but it's very clear that Trump is grossly unfit for office at any level, let alone POTUS. It's not even a risk with Trump. There is absolutely no way that a Trump presidency would be anything but detrimental to the American people. He needs to be defeated and defeated soundly. If you can't see this then you must be entirely removed from logic. And that is YOUR opinion, and I know a few others on this tiny board we post on. I know just as many non-political individuals that I work with as well as some of my friends that fear Hillary more than Trump as they believe Trump says some of the things he does as part of his TV personality. When you look at Trump's proposals (outside of the Muslim ban), which proposals are you most concerned with? Securing our border? Removing unfair trade deals? Increase the child tax credit? Not starting more wars like Iraq? Calling an entire race of people rapists is because of his TV personality? Calling global warming a hoax created by the Chinese to make US manufacturing non-competitive is part of his TV personality? Having not one clue what is happening in the world and blaming stuff that happened 12 years ago on Obama is part of his TV personality? The man is a complete and utter dipsh*t. There simply is no defending him using reason or logic. Falling asleep at the wheel when requests have been made for a year in Benghazi for additional security is acceptable? And then lying to the families as to why their loves ones were killed is acceptable? How about trashing females who were victimized by her husband's sexual addiction? Or perhaps dodging questions about wiping her server clean ("you mean with a cloth" stated Clinton). You want to make this black and white that one is so much better than the other. Both are terrible candidates, and when given the chance, I would take my chance with Trump over a known failure in Clinton. If you're going to make this about which candidate has more downfalls then it will be Trump every single time. He makes shocking and unconstitutional statements on a near daily basis to the point that it's hardly newsworthy anymore. One candidate absolutely is better than the other. Hillary Clinton has actually held positions that would prepare her for the White House, and if EMAILS is the only thing you can bring up to paint her as a failure then it sounds to me that she wouldn't be nearly as bad as the global disaster we would have on our hands with Trump. Hillary Clinton has held 2 positions. As Senator of New York, she promised to bring 200,000 jobs to upstate New York, and failed to deliver. She also voted in favor of the Iraq war. If she's such a great leader with great judgment, she would have opposed the war back then. Moving on to Secretary of State, nearly everything she touched was a disaster. Lybia, Syria, Iraq, etc... all got worse with her foreign policy, and as I've shown many times before, ISIS was wiped out in 2008 according to Obama's CIA director, and has now grown tremendously. And this isn't even talking about the Benghazi debacle or her email woes. Why on earth should she deserve a promotion when she couldn't handle a Secretary position?

So let's assume KW is gone...who can step in immediately to first help our team out this season, and second to keep the WR momentum going?

As I've said before, both are terrible candidates and we are faced with bad choices. I am not happy with the current trajectory in this country, as most Americans feel the same with nearly 70% claiming the US is on the wrong track. With Hillary, we would be getting more of the same, but likely worse as she has the corruption to go along with the failed policies of the past 7 years, especially when it comes to ISIS and foreign policy. With Trump, he's a wildcard, and he's obnoxious and says a lot of crazy things to get attention, but we really don't know how he would govern. So yes, there is a risk there, but given the 70% wrong track of this country (which I agree with), I am willing to take that risk. Now if the Dems had nominated someone like Jim Webb, I would agree with you that he would be far better than Trump. Hillary, not so much. Or, if Johnson would agree to move down to the VP slot and let Romney lead the Libertarian ticket, I would vote for that in a heartbeat. I would love to see the poll on here add another option with a Romney/Johnson ticket just to see if it changes the results. Both are poor candidates, but it's plain as day that one is definitively worse than the other. No one wants Hillary in office but it's very clear that Trump is grossly unfit for office at any level, let alone POTUS. It's not even a risk with Trump. There is absolutely no way that a Trump presidency would be anything but detrimental to the American people. He needs to be defeated and defeated soundly. If you can't see this then you must be entirely removed from logic. And that is YOUR opinion, and I know a few others on this tiny board we post on. I know just as many non-political individuals that I work with as well as some of my friends that fear Hillary more than Trump as they believe Trump says some of the things he does as part of his TV personality. When you look at Trump's proposals (outside of the Muslim ban), which proposals are you most concerned with? Securing our border? Removing unfair trade deals? Increase the child tax credit? Not starting more wars like Iraq? Calling an entire race of people rapists is because of his TV personality? Calling global warming a hoax created by the Chinese to make US manufacturing non-competitive is part of his TV personality? Having not one clue what is happening in the world and blaming stuff that happened 12 years ago on Obama is part of his TV personality? The man is a complete and utter dipsh*t. There simply is no defending him using reason or logic. Falling asleep at the wheel when requests have been made for a year in Benghazi for additional security is acceptable? And then lying to the families as to why their loves ones were killed is acceptable? How about trashing females who were victimized by her husband's sexual addiction? Or perhaps dodging questions about wiping her server clean ("you mean with a cloth" stated Clinton). You want to make this black and white that one is so much better than the other. Both are terrible candidates, and when given the chance, I would take my chance with Trump over a known failure in Clinton.

Exactly. I don't think he could have picked a worse time to do this. First, I hope KW can get some help to overcome this problem. On a more selfish note, I hope that recruits and their parents are committing to the university and HCMR over any assistants.

This is such disappointing news. Keith is a great motivator, but all that motivational talk goes down the tubes when you do something stupid like this. What parent is going to want their kids to now coach under him? If Riley decides to retain Williams, he's going to have to work some magic with the parents of the current and prospective commits that he will not tolerate any more crap from Williams again.

Demopublicans Or Demopublitarians might be better. All you Johnson lovers crack me up thinking this guy is perfect and the only honest politician out there. He's lied about his past record as governor when running in 2012, and is just your typical politician. https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=210816 Also, it seems that the Johnson supporters on here are following the lead of Johnson himself, always taking a chance to criticize Trump, but taking it much easier on Hillary. It's not a shock to anyone on here on why this is happening given there is much more overlap between the GOP and Libertarian platforms than there are between the Libertarian and Democratic platforms. http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/gary-johnson-criticize-hillary-trump/ Wat? Nobody on here has said they are in love with Johnson lock step. We've just said he's the only true alternative that isn't an embarrassment. Trump is a POS and Hillary is about as slimmy as a hagfish. Johnson at least has something to offer to both conservatives and liberals in his agenda. He doesn't offer anything to this liberal. I can see why conservatives may think him an option but it really depends on the issues that are important to you. AND, he's not going to win. A vote for him will make the chances of Don being elected higher. I would think it's conservative voters that don't want Trump and vote Johnson who are gonna take votes away from Trump. Not according to the polls and data that is out there. Johnson is pulling most votes from Clinton. Yes, that is true which goes to show just how many voters out there don't like Hillary either. I am telling you if the libertarians had a Romney/Johnson ticket it would have a good chance of winning several states. In order to have an effective 3rd party run, you HAVE to have a candidate at the top of the ticket that is a household name to overcome the obstacles of Party Identification/recognition of that 3rd party.