HuskerNation1

Yes that is what got the hair on the back of my neck to stand up long ago- his 'solutions' revolve around unconstitutional, authoritarian actions. Like tearing down the unconstitutional and over-reaching policies of the Obama admin? Bringing power back to the states? Reducing taxes and government spending, corruption, and wasteful spending dramatically? Auditing the federal agencies? Supporting law enforcement? Actually taking action instead of using political rhetoric to dance around issues? It's more alarming that in the times that we're in currently of extreme government corruption and wasteful spending that ought to be extremely apparent to everyone, especially with the establishment's resistance to DJT that ordinary people pile on to the horsesh*t that's spewed on a daily basis by liberal media and liberal politicians. If you don't like Trump, whatever, that's fine. Vote for Johnson. It's extremely difficult to get through to those issues when he almost daily says and does things that are alarming and disturbing. If he is such a brilliant man, then why doesn't he simply stick to talking about these issues instead of saying things that take the headlines away from the issues? If you don't find the things he has said disturbing, then you have issues. What's more, the only time we seem to hear from Trump and his surrogates that we DO need to focus on the serious issues facing the country is when they're embroiled in another one of these self-induced fiascoes and desperately trying to force the train back onto its tracks. I WOULD like to talk about the issues. Trump is the one that keeps veering off course. He definitely veered off course with the Khan issue. In watching him the past week he's been pretty on message, and should have chosen his words more wisely regarding the 2nd amendment, but even Susan Collins (who does not like Trump) and Geraldo came out today and stated that this is a case where the media has blown this up. Now given Trump's track record, he has to blame himself for them latching on so closely to everything.

Its funny watching BRB bash anyone who points out something that goes against Hillary or Obama because he thinks all republicans have been taken over by right wing media, yet stays silent when people like zoogs and others continue to post from leftist outlets like vox, salon, huff post and more. I'm glad you find humor. I always pride myself on being hilariously funny. I'm sure that's what made my wife fall in love with me. I may have a hard time explaining this perfectly so please bear with me. First of all, I don't think I have railed against any poster on here for specifically posting from any site no matter if it's Fox, Brietbart, Vox, Huffpo....etc. If I have, please remind me where. What I HAVE spoke out against is the brain washing of the conservative masses that OMG.....Fox is the only network that tells the truth...etc....when they have been proven over and over again to be so slanted that they can't be trusted. THEY will tell me stuff the others are scared to talk about...bla bla bla....Have I heard this on this baord? Don't think so quite that specific. But, in real life, I know many many people who constantly say that and then they will go into rants about Obama being a Muslim, Hillary should be locked up, Obama supports terrorism....etc. Maybe it's because of the crowd I hang with being in central Nebraska. But, even though I am friends with some very liberal people, I don't sit around and hear absolutely crazy crap that is completely made up and false like I do when I sit around with conservative friends. I know Facebook is cesspool of crap. But, let me use it as an example. On Facebook, I am friends with some people who are both pretty liberal and conservative. I have had to completely unfollow some of my good friends who are conservative because of the total crap they post politically. These articles they post are obviously totally made up political propaganda and they eat this crap up. It's like they wake up and the first thing they do is get on their phones to see what extreme article they can read about those evil liberals who are out to destroy America and take away our guns. I literally don't see any of that from my liberal friends. None.... So....yes....I do believe the conservative movement has been taken over by extreme forms of media that is moving conservatism into a very very bad direction. Now, if you want to post an article from conservative sites, feel free. I may very well read it just like I read articles from Vox and Huffpo. I will then read them with a very critical eye. Just catching up on posts now. I saw your next post too and do agree the media is too powerful in general, and this aligns with the point I was making earlier that whether its more blatant like Fox and MSNBC, or more hidden like CBS and NBC, all media has an agenda and pushes that agenda. Andrea Mitchell has been aroudn for years and is one of the most biased reporters I know yet her network tries to paint a picture that they are objective. And there are countless more examples like this. As for facebook, I don't use that and agree its a problem. Just as Drudge pushes narratives and has an agenda on the right, facebook does the same by promoting pro-liberal stories in its trending news section. There are so many outlets that voters must be responsible for sifting through this to understand fact from fiction. We must have differing realities with our groups of friends as I have liberal friends too, and they are always sending me things from liberal sites like the ones I quoted above. When Bush was in office it was horrible, with the 9/11 conspiracy theories, some claiming he wanted blacks to die in Katrina, etc..I tend to find that whichever supporters are out of power are most vocal, but I stand by my statement earlier that much of the MSM is in the tank for Hillary but do so more quietly than Fox might.

It looks like the DOJ is blocking a probe of the Clinton Foundation...something new and totally unrelated to Benghazi which Hillary supporters argue has been studied too much. I'm sure Hillary will keep claiming its a vast right-wing conspiracy. http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/index.html

What...outside of Trump who has spoken out against Islam, please tell me where Rubio, Cruz, Fiorina, Bush, Christie, and others did not support those of other faiths?

Well not counting Trump, which of the other GOP candidates were you supporting? The reason Im asking is that you seemed to bash most of them during thr primaries despite the fact that many of them are closer to your points above than anyone else.

Lol...as long as snopes.com says so...

So I assume neither of you voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 since he stands for hardly any of those things. Is that true?

Its funny watching BRB bash anyone who points out something that goes against Hillary or Obama because he thinks all republicans have been taken over by right wing media, yet stays silent when people like zoogs and others continue to post from leftist outlets like vox, salon, huff post and more.

Or how could we have gotten the idea that Hillary would have lied to grieving family members to help herself out politically...i mean...

Well on here you've claimed many times how you used to be a Republican/Conservative and now have disavowed anything to do with that position. Is that not true anymore? I've said many times I'm still conservative. What exactly did I convert from and to? Well this is the first I've heard you state that you are still a Conservative. I've seen many posts where you have claimed the GOP is too Conservative. What policies within the GOP do you support exactly? The GOP and conservatism aren't the same thing. I didn't say it was, which you can also say that liberalism/progressivism and the Democratic party are not 100% aligned, but in general when you see party IDs, those who are more conservative are Republicans, and those more liberal are Dems.

Most mainstream media outlets are biased towards laziness and sensationalism, which the Republican party has given a greater, higher amount of fodder for over the last decade plus. Spoken like a true sympathizer to the left. Both parties have plenty of material to give to the media, yet it's often covered to suit their own agenda. Not Trump deserves a lot of his own criticism, and perhaps its because he's said so many crazy things in the past that the media now blows the littlest things out of proportion. A completely clear example of MSM bias was how they handled Patricia Smith's speech at the RNC (the mother of a child that was killed serving this country) compared to the Khans (whose son was also killed). Now, WELL BEFORE Trump made his comments and the Khan story took on a different angle, the MSM was all over the Khans speech and pushing their own agenda that Trump is bigoted and mean to Muslims. Meanwhile, I barely saw ANY coverage on MSM outlets about Smith's speech at the RNC. This is just one of many examples of double standards by the press and how they will highlight a story that is positive for the Dems or negative toward the GOP, or they will minimize a story that is positive for the GOP and negative for the Dems. This cuts both ways. Fox News didn't even AIR the Khan's speech... They were busy conducting interviews and showing Benghazi commercials. But they cut afterwards to a live feed of Katy Perry. Everyone crafts their own narrative, I suppose. C'mon Dude...I watched both conventions, and outside of the primetime speakers from 9-10 CST, Fox did not show MOST of the speakers at the DNC and RNC, while CNN took an approach of showing every speaker. It's wrong to claim Fox was biased if they didn't show the Khan speech. Now if they showed every other speaker but Khan I would agree with your point. Also, Fox covered the Khan story and Trump fallout heavily the entire weekend following the DNC.

Well on here you've claimed many times how you used to be a Republican/Conservative and now have disavowed anything to do with that position. Is that not true anymore? I've said many times I'm still conservative. What exactly did I convert from and to? Well this is the first I've heard you state that you are still a Conservative. I've seen many posts where you have claimed the GOP is too Conservative. What policies within the GOP do you support exactly?

Well on here you've claimed many times how you used to be a Republican/Conservative and now have disavowed anything to do with that position. Is that not true anymore?

Easy answer...NO. The primary measure for how an economy is doing is GDP growth, and it continues to remain anemic, and was only 1.2% the most recent quarter. This is the worst economic recovery in history, and Obama is the only POTUS ever to never have 3% growth as President. Wages are down, income inequality has risen. Persistently low interest rates are about the only thing that has helped keep the job market moving ahead, though there aren't enough good paying jobs still. Typically jobs/employment is a lagging indicator for GDP growth, and it can sometime lag 6 months to a year later, so we will likely see a drop in jobs in that timeframe.

Give me a break BRB. CNN is way biased and for you to not see it just shows your own biases on your anti-GOP tirade. I get that you are a convert, and its kind of like someone who grew up in one town, moves to the big city or a different town, then all they want to do is trash the place they originated in. I don't buy into everything Fox says and know they lean to the right, but for you to suggest CNN and other networks don't have similar biases is just wrong. More importantly, you didn't address the example I provided highlighting the bias that has always existed but that you choose to overlook. Just because an outlet like Fox or MSNBC is more blatant in showing their bias does not mean the impact of other networks is any less. In fact, by disguising their bias they may be having a greater impact on voters.

Well said. There will always be media bias, but most of the mainstream outlets Americans get their news from tend to be biased toward Democrats, while talk radio is biased toward Conservatives. We are seeing tonight a prime example with the MSM blowing up about one off-hand Trump comment to have 2nd Amendment supporters help ensure Hillary is not elected. Nearly all of his speech was focused on the real issues, yet this one comment is what dominates the news cycle. As a Republican nominee, Trump needs to be smart enough to realize this is what the MSM does...find any story that will create a negative impact on viewers toward the GOP nominee and/or minimize any negative stories about the Democratic nominee. Unfortunately Trump is not smart or disciplined enough to stop making any statements that will be blown up or taken out of context. That is completely his fault and nobody else's. It's not the media fault. It's his. If Clinton gave a good speech and then at the end said black gang bangers should go knock off corporate CEOs, she would be crucified in the press. The same press that is doing it with Trump. Fact is, he's just too damn dumb to not make those comments. I'm sick and tired of the republicans crying that the media doesn't treat them fair. If you don't want them to report on you doing something stupid, don't do something stupid. The entire myth is promoted by conservative outlets that make you think THEY are the only place to get the real news. It's total BS and they are laughing all the way to the bank. Did you read what I wrote. I said most of the things he says are his fault, but ignoring media bias in the example I gave about Smith and Khan is just being dismissive. Everyone points out that other outlets are flawed, just as you see those who are anti-Trump or anti-Republican will spout out crap about Fox News being biased. Bias exists EVERYWHERE, and to act like the "mainstream" news outlets have no bias is not being a realist.

Here you go...Assange is indicating that one of the DNC staffers was a Wikileaks informant, and is now dead. How come so many associated with the Clintons end up dead. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/wow-breaking-video-julian-assange-suggests-seth-rich-wikileaks-dnc-source-shot-dead-dc/

Most mainstream media outlets are biased towards laziness and sensationalism, which the Republican party has given a greater, higher amount of fodder for over the last decade plus. Spoken like a true sympathizer to the left. Both parties have plenty of material to give to the media, yet it's often covered to suit their own agenda. Not Trump deserves a lot of his own criticism, and perhaps its because he's said so many crazy things in the past that the media now blows the littlest things out of proportion. A completely clear example of MSM bias was how they handled Patricia Smith's speech at the RNC (the mother of a child that was killed serving this country) compared to the Khans (whose son was also killed). Now, WELL BEFORE Trump made his comments and the Khan story took on a different angle, the MSM was all over the Khans speech and pushing their own agenda that Trump is bigoted and mean to Muslims. Meanwhile, I barely saw ANY coverage on MSM outlets about Smith's speech at the RNC. This is just one of many examples of double standards by the press and how they will highlight a story that is positive for the Dems or negative toward the GOP, or they will minimize a story that is positive for the GOP and negative for the Dems. This isn't an example of a double standard. First off, Trump literally is "bigoted and mean to Muslims." He wants them under surveillance, to join a special list, and has said he wants to ban all immigration by Muslims. Smith's speech not having much coverage doesn't tell us anything. Everyone knows about Smith. Everyone knows she says Clinton lied to her. There was nothing positive for the GOP in her speech. Only negative for Clinton. None of this was new news. An anecdote: My mom watched all of both conventions. She was a staunch Republican until 2000 and she's been an independent since. The only part of the two conventions she told me about was Khan's speech. So to her, that was news. The other stuff (including Smith's speech) wasn't. So Hillary lying to the families who were killed because she failed to respond to their security requests for over a year is less of a concern compared to Trump making statements that were offensive to Khan? And she continues to lie about it whether its the Chris Wallace interview of the press conference she recently gave. And its an excuse to say "everybody knows about Smith." I will guarantee you that a very small percentage of the voting population had ever heard of Smith before she spoke at the convention, and because it was not covered like Khan, I would bet many still have not heard of her. This is where the double standard is 100% clear. Two different parents, both suffered horrific losses of their children, one was covered like crazy, the other not so much. As for anecdotal evidence, I have coworkers who are completely non-partisan, and who heard a great deal about the Khan story, not from watching the convention, but because it was covered by the news after. So I mentioned there was a similar story at the RNC and shared that with them, and they were surprised as they had never heard a word about it.

Most mainstream media outlets are biased towards laziness and sensationalism, which the Republican party has given a greater, higher amount of fodder for over the last decade plus. Spoken like a true sympathizer to the left. Both parties have plenty of material to give to the media, yet it's often covered to suit their own agenda. Not Trump deserves a lot of his own criticism, and perhaps its because he's said so many crazy things in the past that the media now blows the littlest things out of proportion. A completely clear example of MSM bias was how they handled Patricia Smith's speech at the RNC (the mother of a child that was killed serving this country) compared to the Khans (whose son was also killed). Now, WELL BEFORE Trump made his comments and the Khan story took on a different angle, the MSM was all over the Khans speech and pushing their own agenda that Trump is bigoted and mean to Muslims. Meanwhile, I barely saw ANY coverage on MSM outlets about Smith's speech at the RNC. This is just one of many examples of double standards by the press and how they will highlight a story that is positive for the Dems or negative toward the GOP, or they will minimize a story that is positive for the GOP and negative for the Dems.

Are you referring to my humor or dude's comments about getting the heebie jeebies?

Well said. There will always be media bias, but most of the mainstream outlets Americans get their news from tend to be biased toward Democrats, while talk radio is biased toward Conservatives. We are seeing tonight a prime example with the MSM blowing up about one off-hand Trump comment to have 2nd Amendment supporters help ensure Hillary is not elected. Nearly all of his speech was focused on the real issues, yet this one comment is what dominates the news cycle. As a Republican nominee, Trump needs to be smart enough to realize this is what the MSM does...find any story that will create a negative impact on viewers toward the GOP nominee and/or minimize any negative stories about the Democratic nominee. Unfortunately Trump is not smart or disciplined enough to stop making any statements that will be blown up or taken out of context.

Mike Pence running the country gives me the heebie jeebies. Say what...of Trump, Hillary, Kaine, and Pence, Pence is the most likable and presidential candidate of the group. Both VPs are better than the tops of the tickets, but Kaine is all squirrly and goofy like a teen who just felt up his girlfriend for the first time.

Not sure what to make of this story, but Trump has spent $0 in advertising thus far. Even Johnson and Stein have spent more, and of course the candidate of big donors Hillary has spent far more. I personally think it's a strategic mistake by the Trump campaign as they need to frame/define this election NOW and then follow through in September in October with that message. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290834-analysis-trump-campaign-has-spent-0-on-television

Just as Hillary let his son go a few years ago when the FBI was on his trail for fear of a "muslim" backlash, it looks like she is trying to dodge questions about the terrorists father (who has previously supported the Taliban and spoken about his hate for gays) for fear of a potential Muslim backlash. In typical Hillary fashion, she will likely claim she didn't hear the question and hope the story just goes away. http://ntknetwork.com/hillary-clinton-ignores-reporters-questions-about-father-of-orlando-shooter-attending-her-rally/

Hey, right here man, do you need something? Nope you've just been quiet. Well I've had a few deadlines at work this week, and my wife decided it was time for family pictures so they were last night.