HuskerNation1

Very true...and there can be a good stock market despite average Americans struggling to make ends meet or find a job which is the situation we are in now. Wages continue to remain low, and income inequality has skyrocketed the past 7 years. Plus, there is a lot of foreign investment into our stock markets which fuel their rise but does not equate to a robust US economy from a GDP and employment perspective.

You are right about that...it's race relations as well as general divisions in this country. Everything Obama does is based upon what is good for him politically, whether it's class warfare or racial warfare. There are two really good op eds out today showing how Obama has fueled the racial fire rather than bringing the country together as we promised. http://spectator.org/the-road-to-dallas/ http://www.city-journal.org/html/americas-worst-president-14640.html Obama will be going to Dallas tomorrow, and I will predict he will make a speech that comes off as though he's been an innocent bystander acting as though he has no responsibility for creating the environment we are in. It will be interesting to see if he also makes another pitch for gun control as he is an opportunist and seeks to exploit these tragedies to push his own agenda. He really is the anti-Lincoln.

Well in 2009 our GDP was down because of the recession, but if you looked at the link I provided earlier, the % of debt relative to GDP is going to be at a 50-year high in the coming years after Obama leaves office.

It means you have a job or are looking for a job. One huge factor here is the aging of baby boomers. Around the age of 65-75, people drop out of this. The rate of drop outs has increased a lot recently because there are a lot more people at retirement age now than there were before the baby boomers reached that stage. ^Birth rate chart. The labor force participation rate is going to keep getting lower for some time. There's a chart at the following link which shows labor force participation for ages 25-54: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU01300060 I've posted this link before, but the data shows that the labor force participation rate among those at retirement age has actually gone up since the early 2000s, and the drop is among those in the non-retirement age. This certainly isn't a complete black and white situation, but the reality of underemployment and those not finding single good paying jobs continues to be a challenge.

Oh, my...where to begin. 1. The country is not bankrupt. It's a simple as that. The claim of a trillion dollar a year deficit was mouthed by Paul Rand in 2013. The problem with that statement? It's wrong. During the Obama administration, the deficit has been reduced by a trillion dollars. According to the U.S. Treasury Office, the U.S. ended the fiscal year in September of 2015 with the smallest deficit since 2007 in both dollar terms and as a percentage of gross domestic product. You can look it up. 2. The housing bubble causes were investigated by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. They cited a number of factors, one of which was government policies. They specified the failed policies, and those included policies enacted under the administrations of Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush. You can look it up. 3. The "massive unemployment" resulted from the Bush administration, and was inherited by the Obama administration. Unemployment rose sharply in 2008, peaking at 7.8 percent at the time Bush left office. While it increased to about 10% under Obama, that happened early in his term and was a continuation of the trend inherited from Bush. It peaked in in October of 2009, and has been declining since, falling below 5% in January of 2016. You can look it up. 4. Under Obama: The economy has added nearly 8.4 million jobs — more than six times the number gained under George W. Bush. The number of job openings doubled, to a record 5.7 million. Nearly 15 million fewer people lack health insurance coverage. Corporate profits are at record levels; stock prices have more than doubled. The reduction in the standard of living is the result of the increasing gap between the rich and poor; when broken down by income, the poor have seen a precipitous decline, while the wealth have seen an actual increase. That gap is due to a number of factors, including Republican tax policies the provide tax cuts to wealthy individuals and corporations and, at best, nominal cuts for the poor and middle class. Again, you can look it up. 5. The destabilization of the Middle East is the result of a number of factors, one of which was the Bush administration's decision to declare war on Iraq when it was not necessary (and the intelligence supporting that was known to the administration). The Bush administrations' (both father and son) policies in support of Saudi Arabia was also a major factor. Again, you can look it up. 6. The government didn't take over healthcare. That is simply a lie. Frank Luntz, a consultant famous for his phraseology, urged GOP leaders to call the Affordable Care Act a "government takeover." Instead: • Employers continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies. • Contrary to the claim, more people get private health coverage. The law set up "exchanges" where private insurers compete to provide coverage to people who don't have it. • The government did not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors. • The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers. • The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine. Look it up. 7. Polls show that Putin is considered by many Western Europeans as the most powerful leader, when considering things like financial resources, scope and use of power, and the number of people he impacts. But respected? Nope. Look it up. 8. In 2002, the Pentagon reported that China was rapidly modernizing its military with the goal of countering American power in the Pacific and pressing Taiwan to accept unification. The Bush administration did nothing, which allowed China to gain significant military might prior to Obama taking office. Again, you can look it up. 9. In April of 2003 - again, under the Bush administration - North Korea informed the world it had nuclear weapons. That's under Bush, not Obama. Hmm...where to begin. 1. This country is bankrupt, and its the fault of both parties, but Obama has done nothing to improve our situation. When Obama took over in 2009, the national debt was 10.6 trillion, and its expected to be near 20 trillion when he leaves office. And the CBO data shows that the debt and deficit picture Obama is leaving for his successor is not good. "If current laws generally remained unchanged, the deficit would increase (in dollar terms) in nearly every year over the next decade and, CBO projects, by 2026 it would be considerably larger as a share of the nation’s output (gross domestic product, or GDP) than its average over the past 50 years." According to CBO in March, 2016 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/1/obama-presidency-to-end-with-20-trillion-national-/ 3/4. As I've shared before, the unemployment rate looks good today, but it does not factor in underemployment and those who have stopped looking for work and are not being included in the calculation. The labor force participation rate is at a near 35 year low. I do agree Obama inherited a difficult situation, but as I've said before, Bush inherited a bigger mess with the economy being in recession in his 1st quarter in office (you can look it up), the Enron scandal, and then 9/11. Often times unemployment follows the normal ups and downs of business cycles, but the two areas where the Feds can make an impact is through fiscal or monetary policy. The Fed controls the monetary policy and has not changed our low interest rate environment for years. Regarding fiscal policy, tax cuts or increasing government spending are options to rev up the economy and create jobs, but most economists have found that tax cuts go much further than increasing govt spending. I think trying to compare what Bush inherited compared to Obama completely depends on your partisan lens. Had Bush just had the recession and Enron to deal with, I think it would be a more apples to apples comparison with what Obama inherited. When you add in 9/11 where the economy and job growth was stalled for an extensive period of time, I would expect the job numbers to be lower under Bush. Also, income inequality as well as the economic outlook for blacks has gotten much worse under Obama. I find it comical that you seek to blame Republicans for this reality yet cite DNC talking points and give Obama credit for any positive economic stats. The truth is that Obama has done little to help the little guy and minorities and uses political rhetoric around racism to hide from this truth. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/26/during-obamas-presidency-wealth-inequality-has-increased-and-poverty-levels-are-higher/ 5. Blaming Bush for Obama's complete failures in foreign policy and terrorism is another joke. First, the middle east has been a mess for years under Presidents from both parties. In hindsight it was a mistake for Bush, HIllary, and others to vote for going to war in Iraq. With that said, Obama was given a situation to deal with in 2009, and he has made it worse. The middle east is less stable than when he took office. ISIS has grown 4400% since he took office, and his own CIA director admitted ISIS was decimated when Bush left office. Look it up. Obama has been weak in fighting and focusing on terrorism, and you are seeing it with attacks up all over the world over the past couple years. 6. Obamacare is a mess and is not delivering what Obama promised. He claimed everyone could keep their doctors, and that was a lie. He claimed his plan would reduce the cost of premiums and that is not happening. He stated that it would not be a burden to our national debt, yet the CBO shows projections for our debt and deficit will greatly increase, and a good portion of this is a result of the unfunded Obamacare system.

I know Obama inherited a rough financial situation in his Presidency, but he has really made a mess of things, and it just keeps getting worse. Whether its terrorism or the growing racial divide, he has time and again shown he is completely incompetent and unfit to be the POTUS. With the events from the past week, or over the course of his administration, Obama continues to stoke the fire by putting most of his energy and passion in lambasting tragedies where minorities are the victims, but failing to show that same passion when the roles are reversed. He makes claims that blacks are arrested at twice the rate as whites, but leaves out an important fact from his own department of labor that blacks commit murder at 6 times the rate of whites. When some on here ask how he can be responsible for the growing racial divide that has occurred under his administration and has led to the black lives vs blue lives matter, it's his reaction and rhetoric that fuel the fire. On multiple occasions BLM protesters have chanted that they want dead cops, and there has been no passionate outrage from Obama against these demonstrators...none. If someone can show me a clip where Obama has passionately addressed the BLM movement and their hateful rhetoric I would like to see it. http://nypost.com/2016/07/08/obama-should-stop-smearing-cops-by-calling-them-racist/ http://nationalinterest.org/feature/obamas-double-standard-race-16910 Why does Obama continue to take these steps which he knows will deepen the divide in this country? Because its good for his politics. Every decision he makes is through the lens of what will benefit him or his party politically, whether its class warfare or racial warfare. He is seeking to energize his coalition of supporters that may not want to give him a 3rd term vis-a-vis HIllary, and by getting his supporters amped up over being victims, he is hoping it will pay off at the ballot box. And it looks like HIllary is starting to follow his lead and is speaking out against whites claiming they are not willing to listen to blacks. http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/08/hillary-clinton-blame-whites-cops-shooting-deaths-young-black-men/ 2016 is a culmination of 7 years of complete ineptness by a man who had zero leadership experience prior to becoming the POTUS. I hope and pray that things will change and this toxic environment can become even just a bit less toxic.

I have no idea why Trump won or tied the Evangelical vote in many of the primaries as I would prefer someone with a better personal compass. With that said, I do expect many of those Evangelicals who did not support him in the primaries to get on board as we are down to two deeply flawed candidates, and Trump at least offers a chance to reverse the negative direction this country has been on for years. Hillary will simply offer more of the same. Thus, I do now expect many of those Evangelicals that did not support Trump in the primary to get on board the Trump train. Seriously. I need a Republican to walk me through the negatives that define the negative direction we're heading down, so we can figure out how they happened, how to stop them and/or whether they are actually bad. And I need a good Christian to help me figure out why so many followers of Christ are opposed to feeding the hungry, helping the sick and loving thy neighbor, and instead support candidates who embrace guns, wage war and invite the money lenders INTO the temple. You are starting to sound like Trump by making extreme outlandish statements as a starting point for debating points. With that said, I will take the bait. Regarding the negative direction we are facing, here are my 4 biggest concerns facing our nation. 1. ISIS-As I pointed out in another thread, according to Obama's own CIA director, ISIS has grown 4400% under his watch. While he's taken out Bin Laden and other terror targets, we face a greater threat against terrorism today then when he took office. 2. Economic growth/Jobs-Obama certainly inherited a tough economic climate when he took office, so it's great that we've seen some improvement, but to me there is so much more possibility with our economy, and under his watch, more people have actually stopped working and dropped out of the labor force (meaning they are more dependent on social services), and the labor participation rate is the lowest since the Carter days. I would note that of all the past 5 Presidents, I think Reagan, Bush 43, and Obama inherited the worst situations, while Bush 41 and Clinton inherited the best. To me Bush 43 had the most difficult climate his first year dealing with a recession that Clinton left him, the Enron scandal and collapsing financial markets, and then 9/11. Anyone who would expect to see positive economic metrics (jobs, GDP growth) in his first 3 years in office simply is not being realistic. http://dailysignal.com/2012/09/07/two-huge-flaws-in-the-legend-of-the-clinton-economy/ 3. National Debt-Members of both parties are to blame for our national debt, but CBO predictions show that the rise in national debt in the coming years is going to explode even more than it has the past 10 years. Obamacare has made this rise in national debt worse. 4. Racial Tensions-Under Obama's watch, Racial Tensions have gotten worse, whether its the Ferguson Riots or the Baltimore riots or other acts. Polling supports that racial tensions have gotten worse. I liked what Obama said in 2008 that we are one America, and he would bring us together, but instead he's done the opposite, taking a divided nation and making it more divided. As for your comments about Christians, that's just ridiculous. I know we attend church every week and participate in programs to feed the hungry both in the US and around the world. We are constantly doing reachout activities to our local communities. And that is common across many Christian denominations. The difference is that Christian Conservatives do not feel its the Government's role to provide for all. Does this mean that the government should provide no social services...no, but when asked about increasing the size of government to pay for more citizens to be dependent on government, most Christians and Conservatives in general are going to oppose that. I could pose the same question to you. Hillary and Obama claim to be Christian. If that is the case, why are they proponents of abortion. I heard Hillary say in a speech a few weeks ago "I'm Pro-abortion." Someone had asked me to comment on what I felt Obama's biggest failures were over the past 7 years, and I posted this about a month ago before the Orlando terror attack and the events from this past week (LA, MN, and in Dallas). It's unfortunate that the trend for items 1 and 4 are getting worse. I'm not saying Obama can take all the blame for the growing race divide and increase in terror attacks, but I think his lack of leadership in these areas has really hurt the cause. Regarding race relations, if Obama could have followed in the footsteps of MLK Jr this country would be a lot better off. MLK was such a great man with a great message and really brought people together. The problem for Obama is that he views two things as fundamental to the problems we're having with race relations and domestic terrorism: 1) Racial inequality seen both systemically within the criminal justice system, and broadly in a lot of other aspects of life. 2) The need for some common sense gun reforms the majority of Americans support. It's tough for him to be told "Bring us together, lead us during crisis... but oh yeah, forget about what you think is the underlying problem." He can't just ignore it. It's the hulking 800 pound gorilla in the room. MLK Jr. was indeed a great leader, but he dreamed of a day when all people were viewed and treated as equals. We haven't gotten there yet. Great post. I heard the Chicago police chief discuss this past weekend how the criminal justice system is not keeping the bad guys off the streets. I am all for making sure we do not have gaps in our gun control legislation, but with that said, it takes a bad person to want to do these acts, and the cause of what makes these people bad can be multiple things including: 1. Bad parenting and broken homes 2. Lack of accountability in public schools to prevent a bad seed from getting worse. 3. Overabundance of violence on television, in movies, video games, music, etc... 4. Access to drugs and alcohol that can contribute to bad behaviors. These are not easy things to change by any means. To change the organizational culture at a large company is a huge undertaking, but to do it for the size of the United States will take years and will require commitment by all Americans.

I've heard Cruz will be speaking, as well as Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Marsha Blackburn. I would guess Newt will speak if he is not the VP pick. I think Jim Webb would be a great surprise to have speak, and I'm sure Trump will have some other speakers that are not your everyday politician. I could see John Bolton, Rudy Guiliani, general Robert Gates and others also speaking and focusing on the failures in foreign policy and the need to have a new leader to fight terrorism.

Is there a way for someone who is an expert at polling to put up two polls for us to pick who Hillary and Trump's VPs will be. I think it would be fun similar to the polling that is done in the recruiting forum to pick which school a recruit will choose.

I have no idea why Trump won or tied the Evangelical vote in many of the primaries as I would prefer someone with a better personal compass. With that said, I do expect many of those Evangelicals who did not support him in the primaries to get on board as we are down to two deeply flawed candidates, and Trump at least offers a chance to reverse the negative direction this country has been on for years. Hillary will simply offer more of the same. Thus, I do now expect many of those Evangelicals that did not support Trump in the primary to get on board the Trump train. Seriously. I need a Republican to walk me through the negatives that define the negative direction we're heading down, so we can figure out how they happened, how to stop them and/or whether they are actually bad. And I need a good Christian to help me figure out why so many followers of Christ are opposed to feeding the hungry, helping the sick and loving thy neighbor, and instead support candidates who embrace guns, wage war and invite the money lenders INTO the temple. You are starting to sound like Trump by making extreme outlandish statements as a starting point for debating points. With that said, I will take the bait. Regarding the negative direction we are facing, here are my 4 biggest concerns facing our nation. 1. ISIS-As I pointed out in another thread, according to Obama's own CIA director, ISIS has grown 4400% under his watch. While he's taken out Bin Laden and other terror targets, we face a greater threat against terrorism today then when he took office. 2. Economic growth/Jobs-Obama certainly inherited a tough economic climate when he took office, so it's great that we've seen some improvement, but to me there is so much more possibility with our economy, and under his watch, more people have actually stopped working and dropped out of the labor force (meaning they are more dependent on social services), and the labor participation rate is the lowest since the Carter days. I would note that of all the past 5 Presidents, I think Reagan, Bush 43, and Obama inherited the worst situations, while Bush 41 and Clinton inherited the best. To me Bush 43 had the most difficult climate his first year dealing with a recession that Clinton left him, the Enron scandal and collapsing financial markets, and then 9/11. Anyone who would expect to see positive economic metrics (jobs, GDP growth) in his first 3 years in office simply is not being realistic. http://dailysignal.com/2012/09/07/two-huge-flaws-in-the-legend-of-the-clinton-economy/ 3. National Debt-Members of both parties are to blame for our national debt, but CBO predictions show that the rise in national debt in the coming years is going to explode even more than it has the past 10 years. Obamacare has made this rise in national debt worse. 4. Racial Tensions-Under Obama's watch, Racial Tensions have gotten worse, whether its the Ferguson Riots or the Baltimore riots or other acts. Polling supports that racial tensions have gotten worse. I liked what Obama said in 2008 that we are one America, and he would bring us together, but instead he's done the opposite, taking a divided nation and making it more divided. As for your comments about Christians, that's just ridiculous. I know we attend church every week and participate in programs to feed the hungry both in the US and around the world. We are constantly doing reachout activities to our local communities. And that is common across many Christian denominations. The difference is that Christian Conservatives do not feel its the Government's role to provide for all. Does this mean that the government should provide no social services...no, but when asked about increasing the size of government to pay for more citizens to be dependent on government, most Christians and Conservatives in general are going to oppose that. I could pose the same question to you. Hillary and Obama claim to be Christian. If that is the case, why are they proponents of abortion. I heard Hillary say in a speech a few weeks ago "I'm Pro-abortion." Someone had asked me to comment on what I felt Obama's biggest failures were over the past 7 years, and I posted this about a month ago before the Orlando terror attack and the events from this past week (LA, MN, and in Dallas). It's unfortunate that the trend for items 1 and 4 are getting worse. I'm not saying Obama can take all the blame for the growing race divide and increase in terror attacks, but I think his lack of leadership in these areas has really hurt the cause. Regarding race relations, if Obama could have followed in the footsteps of MLK Jr this country would be a lot better off. MLK was such a great man with a great message and really brought people together.

Well for starters, I likes Webb well before he stated he wouldn't vote for Hillary. I think in a normal campaign year where there was not an anointed candidate like HIllary, Webb would have had a chance, but I think his views were far too moderate for today's Democratic party. As for resumes in public service, in case you have missed it, many voters don't like the career politicians we have, and government experience is not a requirement in 2016, and in some cases could be a liability depending on the voter. Obama had little real world business experience and zero executive experience prior to becoming POTUS and it has shown the past 7 years.

Given the rise in cell phones and the Internet, polling today is much harder to predict than ever before. Rasmussen was very accurate in 2004 and 2008 but not so much in 2012. Investors Business Daily/TIPP was actually the most accurate in 2012 according to Nate Silver, and they currently have Trump and Hillary pretty much tied in a 4-way contest as of June 30. http://www.investors.com/politics/trump-holds-ground-against-clinton-ties-her-in-a-four-way-matchup/ Some polls do not focus on likely voters but instead registered voters. The biggest variable at play is predicting turnout, and Obama got a higher-than expected turnout in both 2008 and 2012. His supporters were energized to come out and vote for him, so it will be difficult to predict if those same voters are enthusiastic to come out for Hillary. Also, most smart polling outfits recalibrate their polling methodologies based upon what they learned from the most recent election, but they can over-correct or not factor in the mood of the country. I think we will continue to see Hillary lead for some time, and her average margin may go up and down. When we hit labor day is when polling (especially swing state polling) becomes most important.

Well I think the GOP had too many candidate to begin with, and it's frustrating for me that they had so many top candidates that would have been the nominee in any other year. I really think the Democratic primary was a joke as well, with the DNC trying to help Hillary get nominated. The only plausible Democrat worth listening to was Jim Webb, and he dropped out early as a result of the Democratic primary voters no longer identifying with the moderate wing of their party.

I think you should join his campaign team with how much you are pushing Johnson. Given his current polling, he will need all the help he can get at this point. Everyone hates the other two. Why not talk about someone who isn't hated by 60% of the country? And...BTW.....I don't think I post as much about him as you do about Trump and how much you hate Hillary.....so what's the big deal? Are you on Trump's campaign team? Well Trump and Hillary are the two main candidates, and unless something drastic changes, no 3rd party candidate will be winning this year, so I tend to focus on those two. As I've stated before and just earlier today, Trump is very flawed and an egomaniac and has plenty of critics on here already. If you are asking who I would rather have between Trump and Hillary, that's an easy call for me and it sure isn't Hillary. Sooo....what is the problem with me wanting to discuss Johnson. Maybe he doesn't have a chance because nobody is willing to talk about him and give him a chance. Everyone is caught up in talking about how horrible the two main candidates are (like you said). I guess I'm more surprised/frustrated that when people DO have other options, they are stuck in the R vs. D crap. They don't even consider something else may be better. So...pardon me if I will still post things from time to time about Johnson. You are fine man...I might just be catching your posts at the wrong time, but it just feels like every post is either a sarcastic negative attack on Trump or something pushing Johnson. It seems if you have as much dislike for Hillary as you do Trump the negative posts would be more equal. I honestly wish the two major candidates were Rubio vs Webb and we could have two good guys in the race to vote for and not even have to worry about 3rd parties. Given you are open to someone other than a D or R, what are your thoughts on Stein? She is up to 5% in some of the polls, and I suspect those numbers may trend up more. I have spent a little time on her site. I found what I did read to make it seem like she comes from a pretty far left thought process where government is the answer to everything. If I'm wrong...I'll research further. I latched onto Johnson because a) He was the closest to reaching the 15% and b) It seems like he comes from a pretty middle of the road stance. Some issues are a little conservative and others are a little liberal. I personally think that's what this country needs right now instead of two extreme parties battling it out with candidates that most of America doesn't trust and doesn't like. Just curious which of the other 15 GOP candidates would you have supported if they were the nominee?

I think you should join his campaign team with how much you are pushing Johnson. Given his current polling, he will need all the help he can get at this point. Everyone hates the other two. Why not talk about someone who isn't hated by 60% of the country? And...BTW.....I don't think I post as much about him as you do about Trump and how much you hate Hillary.....so what's the big deal? Are you on Trump's campaign team? Well Trump and Hillary are the two main candidates, and unless something drastic changes, no 3rd party candidate will be winning this year, so I tend to focus on those two. As I've stated before and just earlier today, Trump is very flawed and an egomaniac and has plenty of critics on here already. If you are asking who I would rather have between Trump and Hillary, that's an easy call for me and it sure isn't Hillary. Sooo....what is the problem with me wanting to discuss Johnson. Maybe he doesn't have a chance because nobody is willing to talk about him and give him a chance. Everyone is caught up in talking about how horrible the two main candidates are (like you said). I guess I'm more surprised/frustrated that when people DO have other options, they are stuck in the R vs. D crap. They don't even consider something else may be better. So...pardon me if I will still post things from time to time about Johnson. You are fine man...I might just be catching your posts at the wrong time, but it just feels like every post is either a sarcastic negative attack on Trump or something pushing Johnson. It seems if you have as much dislike for Hillary as you do Trump the negative posts would be more equal. I honestly wish the two major candidates were Rubio vs Webb and we could have two good guys in the race to vote for and not even have to worry about 3rd parties. Given you are open to someone other than a D or R, what are your thoughts on Stein? She is up to 5% in some of the polls, and I suspect those numbers may trend up more.

I think you should join his campaign team with how much you are pushing Johnson. Given his current polling, he will need all the help he can get at this point. Everyone hates the other two. Why not talk about someone who isn't hated by 60% of the country? And...BTW.....I don't think I post as much about him as you do about Trump and how much you hate Hillary.....so what's the big deal? Are you on Trump's campaign team? Well Trump and Hillary are the two main candidates, and unless something drastic changes, no 3rd party candidate will be winning this year, so I tend to focus on those two. As I've stated before and just earlier today, Trump is very flawed and an egomaniac and has plenty of critics on here already. If you are asking who I would rather have between Trump and Hillary, that's an easy call for me and it sure isn't Hillary.

I think you should join his campaign team with how much you are pushing Johnson. Given his current polling, he will need all the help he can get at this point.

Sorry, I should have provided more context. There have been multiple reports by members of the secret service that being assigned to Hillary was the worst assignment you could get, that she talked down and cussed out many officers, and hence none of them enjoyed working around her. Ronald Kessler is one of those agents that served in Bill's tenure and had regular interactions with both Clintons. I agree that women have had to break through glass ceilings, but the point is that there seem to be more stories about Hillary's diva-like behavior than other Democratic or GOP female politicians. As for name calling, I think I've seen a fair share of Trump-bashing on here including some calling him an a*s, douche, etc. My point was not to focus on the names used but rather how the candidates are perceived by those they work with or around. As for the "who let the dogs out" video, that is just plain funny, no matter your political beliefs. She actually barked like a dog at one of her campaign stops. http://www.thedailysheeple.com/what-the-secret-service-has-to-say-about-hillary-clinton_102015 http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/ http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/secret-service-agent-says-good/ http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/282330-ex-secret-service-agent-clinton-occasionally-violent And the bigger point is - perception of women in leadership or a powerful position no matter the source (body guards, co workers, employees etc) is skewed to the negative for the same traits that are perceived as strong and positive for men. Well I think that must be your point which is fine. I have no issues with strong female executives and my top choice for the GOP nominee was Carly Fiorina followed by Rubio. And I think plenty of men can be labled "pricks" if they treat their employees or those around them with disdain and like they are trash, which gets to my point that many who have worked around, for, or with Trump tend to say more positive things about him as a person relative to his public persona, while you tend to see more who have worked around or for Hillary speak out against her. This is entirely unique to the person. You consume different media from different places than everyone else. If you can't find enough negative accounts of Trump, I could probably dig some up for you. Oh there is plenty of negative about Trump, as has been expressed on these boards over and over. He's an egomaniac that makes way too many outlandish statements in order to garner attention. I'm not a huge fan of his public persona. Despite that fact, when the question would be posed to voters on which candidate they would prefer to have a drink with (Trump or HIllary), I will guarantee that Trump would win that. He's more engaging in 1/1 interviews...and he actually gives 1/1 interviews as well as multiple press conferences. He suffers from overexposure as he loves the attention, while Hillary does just the opposite and runs away from 1/1 interviews and press conferences for fears of either screwing up or being pressed on her scandals and history of lying. The bolded for some reason made me think of this song. Haha...nice. One band/song I could see Trump playing at his convention is Twisted Sister's "We're not going to take it, anymore" Yeah....we aren't going to take dishonesty, corruption and rigged outcomes anymore....... .....by electing the most dishonest person in the campaign. Let's hope that voters do not elect the most dishonest person to ever seek office (Hillary), but we'll see.

It's completely mind-blowing that Hillary was not put under oath nor was her testimony recorded. This has gone from bad to worse for Hillary whose campaign just wants to wish away this story.

Sorry, I should have provided more context. There have been multiple reports by members of the secret service that being assigned to Hillary was the worst assignment you could get, that she talked down and cussed out many officers, and hence none of them enjoyed working around her. Ronald Kessler is one of those agents that served in Bill's tenure and had regular interactions with both Clintons. I agree that women have had to break through glass ceilings, but the point is that there seem to be more stories about Hillary's diva-like behavior than other Democratic or GOP female politicians. As for name calling, I think I've seen a fair share of Trump-bashing on here including some calling him an a*s, douche, etc. My point was not to focus on the names used but rather how the candidates are perceived by those they work with or around. As for the "who let the dogs out" video, that is just plain funny, no matter your political beliefs. She actually barked like a dog at one of her campaign stops. http://www.thedailysheeple.com/what-the-secret-service-has-to-say-about-hillary-clinton_102015 http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/ http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/secret-service-agent-says-good/ http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/282330-ex-secret-service-agent-clinton-occasionally-violent And the bigger point is - perception of women in leadership or a powerful position no matter the source (body guards, co workers, employees etc) is skewed to the negative for the same traits that are perceived as strong and positive for men. Well I think that must be your point which is fine. I have no issues with strong female executives and my top choice for the GOP nominee was Carly Fiorina followed by Rubio. And I think plenty of men can be labled "pricks" if they treat their employees or those around them with disdain and like they are trash, which gets to my point that many who have worked around, for, or with Trump tend to say more positive things about him as a person relative to his public persona, while you tend to see more who have worked around or for Hillary speak out against her. This is entirely unique to the person. You consume different media from different places than everyone else. If you can't find enough negative accounts of Trump, I could probably dig some up for you. Oh there is plenty of negative about Trump, as has been expressed on these boards over and over. He's an egomaniac that makes way too many outlandish statements in order to garner attention. I'm not a huge fan of his public persona. Despite that fact, when the question would be posed to voters on which candidate they would prefer to have a drink with (Trump or HIllary), I will guarantee that Trump would win that. He's more engaging in 1/1 interviews...and he actually gives 1/1 interviews as well as multiple press conferences. He suffers from overexposure as he loves the attention, while Hillary does just the opposite and runs away from 1/1 interviews and press conferences for fears of either screwing up or being pressed on her scandals and history of lying. The bolded for some reason made me think of this song. Haha...nice. One band/song I could see Trump playing at his convention is Twisted Sister's "We're not going to take it, anymore"

I agree on this. Here are some good reasons for POB not to redshirt: 1. With how often TA likes to run the ball, you never know if he will get injured at some point. Let's not forget that TA got his start after Martinez was injured as a senior. 2. Any snaps POB could get in this year helps both him AND the team for the 2017 season. Going into 2017 with no QB that has taken meaningful snaps in the NU offensive scheme is a huge risk. 3. For POB personally, 2017 is going to be extremely competitive with Tanner coming in as well as Gebbia. I'm sure he would prefer to have the leg up in spring ball 2017 rather than being on a completely equal footing as the others. Now if the expectation is that Gebbia will automatically redshirt as well, then POB's main competition is down to the QB transfer.

Sorry, I should have provided more context. There have been multiple reports by members of the secret service that being assigned to Hillary was the worst assignment you could get, that she talked down and cussed out many officers, and hence none of them enjoyed working around her. Ronald Kessler is one of those agents that served in Bill's tenure and had regular interactions with both Clintons. I agree that women have had to break through glass ceilings, but the point is that there seem to be more stories about Hillary's diva-like behavior than other Democratic or GOP female politicians. As for name calling, I think I've seen a fair share of Trump-bashing on here including some calling him an a*s, douche, etc. My point was not to focus on the names used but rather how the candidates are perceived by those they work with or around. As for the "who let the dogs out" video, that is just plain funny, no matter your political beliefs. She actually barked like a dog at one of her campaign stops. http://www.thedailysheeple.com/what-the-secret-service-has-to-say-about-hillary-clinton_102015 http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/ http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/secret-service-agent-says-good/ http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/282330-ex-secret-service-agent-clinton-occasionally-violent And the bigger point is - perception of women in leadership or a powerful position no matter the source (body guards, co workers, employees etc) is skewed to the negative for the same traits that are perceived as strong and positive for men. Well I think that must be your point which is fine. I have no issues with strong female executives and my top choice for the GOP nominee was Carly Fiorina followed by Rubio. And I think plenty of men can be labled "pricks" if they treat their employees or those around them with disdain and like they are trash, which gets to my point that many who have worked around, for, or with Trump tend to say more positive things about him as a person relative to his public persona, while you tend to see more who have worked around or for Hillary speak out against her. This is entirely unique to the person. You consume different media from different places than everyone else. If you can't find enough negative accounts of Trump, I could probably dig some up for you. Oh there is plenty of negative about Trump, as has been expressed on these boards over and over. He's an egomaniac that makes way too many outlandish statements in order to garner attention. I'm not a huge fan of his public persona. Despite that fact, when the question would be posed to voters on which candidate they would prefer to have a drink with (Trump or HIllary), I will guarantee that Trump would win that. He's more engaging in 1/1 interviews...and he actually gives 1/1 interviews as well as multiple press conferences. He suffers from overexposure as he loves the attention, while Hillary does just the opposite and runs away from 1/1 interviews and press conferences for fears of either screwing up or being pressed on her scandals and history of lying.

Yeah, you're right So true...Hillary makes Tricky Dick look like a saint.

Sorry, I should have provided more context. There have been multiple reports by members of the secret service that being assigned to Hillary was the worst assignment you could get, that she talked down and cussed out many officers, and hence none of them enjoyed working around her. Ronald Kessler is one of those agents that served in Bill's tenure and had regular interactions with both Clintons. I agree that women have had to break through glass ceilings, but the point is that there seem to be more stories about Hillary's diva-like behavior than other Democratic or GOP female politicians. As for name calling, I think I've seen a fair share of Trump-bashing on here including some calling him an a*s, douche, etc. My point was not to focus on the names used but rather how the candidates are perceived by those they work with or around. As for the "who let the dogs out" video, that is just plain funny, no matter your political beliefs. She actually barked like a dog at one of her campaign stops. http://www.thedailysheeple.com/what-the-secret-service-has-to-say-about-hillary-clinton_102015 http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/ http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/secret-service-agent-says-good/ http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/282330-ex-secret-service-agent-clinton-occasionally-violent And the bigger point is - perception of women in leadership or a powerful position no matter the source (body guards, co workers, employees etc) is skewed to the negative for the same traits that are perceived as strong and positive for men. Well I think that must be your point which is fine. I have no issues with strong female executives and my top choice for the GOP nominee was Carly Fiorina followed by Rubio. And I think plenty of men can be labled "pricks" if they treat their employees or those around them with disdain and like they are trash, which gets to my point that many who have worked around, for, or with Trump tend to say more positive things about him as a person relative to his public persona, while you tend to see more who have worked around or for Hillary speak out against her.

Sorry, I should have provided more context. There have been multiple reports by members of the secret service that being assigned to Hillary was the worst assignment you could get, that she talked down and cussed out many officers, and hence none of them enjoyed working around her. Ronald Kessler is one of those agents that served in Bill's tenure and had regular interactions with both Clintons. I agree that women have had to break through glass ceilings, but the point is that there seem to be more stories about Hillary's diva-like behavior than other Democratic or GOP female politicians. As for name calling, I think I've seen a fair share of Trump-bashing on here including some calling him an a*s, douche, etc. My point was not to focus on the names used but rather how the candidates are perceived by those they work with or around. As for the "who let the dogs out" video, that is just plain funny, no matter your political beliefs. She actually barked like a dog at one of her campaign stops. http://www.thedailysheeple.com/what-the-secret-service-has-to-say-about-hillary-clinton_102015 http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/ http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/secret-service-agent-says-good/ http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/282330-ex-secret-service-agent-clinton-occasionally-violent