HuskerNation1

There is no equivalency or comparison of Kasich with Hillary. That is perhaps the craziest post in this entire thread. The only Democrat who ran that is in the same model of Kasich is Jim Webb. Hillary bleeds deep blue, is an avid liar and has spent her entire life focused on doing what is needed to become POTUS. This whole "right wing conspiracy" narrative by her supporters is also old and stuck in the 90s. There is a reason she has an 80% untrustworthy rating, and why the world blew up under her watch. It's because she is not sane and competent in dealing with world issues or doing what is necessary to protect our data here at home (her violation of rules around her emails and servers). At my company she would have been fired long ago if it was determined she was sending work-related emails on a private server or email system.

My comment is referring to the fact that in the Huskerboard poll, there are 18 PEOPLE who said they'd vote for Hillary Clinton if the election were held today... Talk about dipsh*ttery at its finest. Well, I see voting for either Trump or Hillary as that way. Now, typically I don't use those terms when discussing other people's views on here. However, well...... However you choose to see it, there are a lot of great reasons to vote for Trump, even while acknowledging his shortcomings (none of which ought to be deal breakers). That's not opinion, that's fact. However, I've heard no one ever tell me anything positive that could possibly come out of a Hillary presidency. There are zero reasons to vote for her. Zero. And that's before we consider the fact that she is a criminal. Like I said, if people choose to look into Johnson and vote for him, I can definitely understand that. But if someone wants to vote for Hillary, be prepared to come under heavy scrutiny based on the stakes that are presented. We are on page 20 of this thread along with the Republican debate thread and I fail to see anything remotely close to being labeled as "great reasons to vote for Trump". Hillary is a slimy joke of a candidate that can't be trusted with ANYTHING let alone the White House. However, Trump is absolutely not worthy of sitting in that chair. He is the farthest thing from someone I want representing me as an American in anyway shape of form. I know I have provided some reasons in other threads, and I provided a list of 4 areas Obama has failed that I see Trump addressing and turning around. It was the list with ISIS being the #1 failure, and I put this out 4 days before the Orlando terror attack. The fact is that Obama and Hillary have failed miserably on the war on terrorism, and I don't see Trump putting up with that BS. Second, I do think the borders are a huge issue both from a national security perspective, a crime perspective, and an economic security perspective with illegals feeding off of the US System. Perhaps he won't get the wall built, but I do see him making progress on this topic. Third, I see Trump improving our standing in the world, both on the trade front as well as in how we approach our allies (Israel) and enemies (Iran, North Korea). Obama has failed in providing steadfast support for Israel, while at the same time treating Iran as though they are our next ally. As for the rest, it's hard to say as I expect the financial markets to have a collapse at some point in the next 12-18 months. They are way over-inflated and do for a correction.

It's not just you BRB...i see quite a few on here that all they want to do is bash Trump rather than focus on the issues or focus on analyzing the race between Trump and Hillary. I am not in love with Trump either, but I think on most issues minus the Muslim ban he has the advantage over Hillary. I went through months in the primary process where I refused to let myself take him seriously as the next POTUS, but I came to a point where I realized it's really going to be him or Hillary (unless Hillary ends up in jail), so given those are the options, and no 3rd party candidate is actually going to win, we are left with covering the horse race between Trump and Hillary.

Nobody on this board wants to talk about Trump having a strong moment lol In other news, how is it that Hillary is being allowed to run for President? Even more than that, how is she not rotting in a jail cell? I agree. I'm not a huge Trump fan, but it's laughable that many come here to bash him non-stop while hardly saying a word about Hillary. They both are not ideal candidates and have flaws, but many of Trump's flaws stem from his mouth/words, while her flaws are from her actions/policies.

If Trump can remain disciplined enough and on message, he will win in November. But that is a big if. He was so impressive in his speech yesterday that the far-left magazine "Slate" even discussed how effective he was in prosecuting Hillary. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/donald_trump_s_speech_about_hillary_clinton_was_terrifyingly_effective.html Meanwhile, it looks like Hillary's email troubles are going to linger this whole campaign, with her IT staffer pleading the 5th again, while http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/284481-clinton-it-specialist-invokes-the-fifth-100-times Both campaigns are going to have ups and downs. Hillary was on a high the past 2 weeks while Trump was on a low, and it appears the tide is turning a bit.

Because there are conspiracy theorists out there, there is a clip on Facebook of first responders carrying the victims to Pulse. And I'm sure others will follow If there is intelligence on the video they are worried about that could lead to other attacks, I fully get not disclosing the details, just as I don't think we need to know all of the enhance interrogation techniques we used on the bad guys either. But, given this administrations tendency to view every issue through a political lens, the real reason they didn't want to release the full transcript is that he discusses his allegiance to ISIS and radical Islam, and it would distort the Obama's administration propaganda that this is a gun control issue.

Bottom line I think is she is the lesser of two evils. Either you get misogynistic, racist, insensitive, moronic Donald Trump...or you get career politician (read: Liar) Clinton. At least she isn't batcrap crazy. As a hispanic ex-western Nebraskan (relocated to the deep south) who grew up on a farm and was pretty much Republican always...I would not in good conscience vote for him because he is unfit for the job and he never will be. See I'm leaning the opposite way. I don't like either, but I think Hillary is the lesser of two evils. She's not only a liar and career politician, but she's wages attacks on several women that Bill either raped or took advantage of. And we already know what she is like as a politician, and it's not a good thing. Her approach to foreign policy and terrorism (in conjunction with Obama) has been a train wreck. Additionally, she came out and emphatically supported this Iran deal a few months back, and we are now learning that Obama's own staff admits that they weren't honest about the deal.

McCauiliffe is worse on the Dems side as Rove is for the GOP. I don't see that happening. I do agree that Webb would be great for HIllary, but he might be an ever greater pick for Trump. I've also heard Robert Gates (Sec of Defense under Bush and part of Obama's term) as an option, and he would give the experience on foreign affairs, but he would not have the political skills to navigate Congress.

As I said I didn't think she would consider but that doesn't mean she would be a good addition to the ticket. Unfortunately Trump has alienated those who are best positioned to help him win.

Hillary is a very beatable candidate, and add to that coming off 8 years of a D in the white house, this should be a great opportunity for the Rs to win. But Trump is just too polarizing a figure, and there is no indication that he is going to "pivot" for the general election. He can't change, this is who he is. Well he gave the best speech I have seen to date a week or so ago when he was using the teleprompter, and was totally on message. Outside of banning Muslims, a lot of his messages will resonate with swing voters. Maybe they need to medicate him a bit so he will be less erratic...lol. I think many in this country are scared and are looking for a figure who will make his primary job keeping them safe, and Trump has that "Papa Bear" persona, but he sometimes acts like "Crazy uncle bear" that has had too much to drink (even though I know he actually never drinks alcohol). I have no idea if you've criticized Obama in the past for his use of a teleprompter but you have to admit this post is kind of funny. I had extended family members making teleprompter remarks during the most recent State of the Union address. Trump uses a teleprompter and nobody complains. I don't think anyone states that a politician can never use a teleprompter...it's Obama's persistent use of it with his soaring rhetoric that leaves a feeling of being disconnected and insincere. It was to the point that, in press conference Obama stumbled all over himself as he couldn't think on his feet and deliver a coherent answer. I think a blend of scripted and unscripted is ideal personally.

Fear makes us lose our minds. That much is apparent. What is apparent is that your statement is unapparent.

I saw an article yesterday listing the 4 best candidates that could join Trump on the ticket (even though some are not willing to do that). The first three are not surprising (Rubio, Kasich, and Gingrich), but the fourth was surprising....Condi Rice. Now Condi has turned down opportunities before, and she is so diplomatic in terms of her demeanor that I don't think she would consider. Plus, she is very loyal to the Bush family that Trump has beaten down. But, if she were to join, she would bring a lot to the table. She is a well respected female figure (unlike Hillary) that has much crossover appeal. And she definitely helped keep the country safe after 9/11, something this country is longing for again after the past 7 years of poor policies for fighting terrorism.

Article here Man... He sure didn't run the primary like he wanted to finish second... I will say this, Trump has a few key issues in his platform that he's very firm and passionate about, but there are a lot of surrounding issues that he is not extremely knowledgeable at this point in time. I believe he's got the ability and lack of quality competition set out for him to win the general election in a landslide, but he's going to have to really dig in and learn a lot, develop stances and strategies on issues, and not waiver back and forth anymore. I think a lot of the waivering on some of the issues are because he doesn't have a strong opinion on a lot of them and therefore hasn't established his viewpoint yet. He has a lot of work to do, and a lot of damage control as well with putting his foot in his mouth way too much. We will see what happens. Good post. I would add that he's not use to running from behind. He was at the top pretty much throughout the entire GOP primary process, expect perhaps the first month or so after he declared. He's not running from a position from strength currently, so the primary playbook may not apply to the general election. We will see how adaptable he is. At the end of the day, voters will realize that both these candidates are scum, but once they dismiss the scum factor, it will come down to issues they believe in and feel strongly about. Trump already has an advantage when it comes to the economy, and if he can paint the picture how bad the Obama/Hillary policies have been toward fighting terrorism, he will take the lead on that issue too.

Hillary is a very beatable candidate, and add to that coming off 8 years of a D in the white house, this should be a great opportunity for the Rs to win. But Trump is just too polarizing a figure, and there is no indication that he is going to "pivot" for the general election. He can't change, this is who he is. Well he gave the best speech I have seen to date a week or so ago when he was using the teleprompter, and was totally on message. Outside of banning Muslims, a lot of his messages will resonate with swing voters. Maybe they need to medicate him a bit so he will be less erratic...lol. I think many in this country are scared and are looking for a figure who will make his primary job keeping them safe, and Trump has that "Papa Bear" persona, but he sometimes acts like "Crazy uncle bear" that has had too much to drink (even though I know he actually never drinks alcohol).

Yeah most polls I have seen have this as a 3-5 point race, with the Bloomberg poll being a major outlier. It's really going to come down to the swing states though. A poll out today has HIllary up 3 in Virginia...I'm surprised she isn't up more there. The PA poll last week had it a tie at 44%. Hillary is a terrible candidate and very beatable, but if Trump can't focus and put a filter on any thought that comes to mind, she is going to win easily.

Pure irony calling others uninformed here. The truth is Obama, Trump, and Hillary are all very polarizing. Obama's numbers have rebounded a bit the past couple months, but the last I checked he is still the most polarizing POTUS in US history.

Yah, OSU QBs have weenie arm disease. I'm looking at you JT Barrett. Well it's more about natural instinct for somewhere like Barrett to run vs throw the ball compared to an offense where a pro-style QB rarely looks to run himself.

It will be interesting to see which states turn more purple this year and which become darker blue or red. On the surface Wisconsin and Pennsylvania appear similar with a large population of white blue collar workers. The labor unions in Wisconsin have a stronger presence, but when it comes to the polling, Hillary has a larger lead than Obama did in 2012, yet in Pennsylvania Hillary has lost several points and that race is a dead heat.

They shouldn't, they don't, and reasonable gun reform doesn't make them "suffer". And how does additional policing of peace loving muslims make them suffer? In trying to make your argument you continue to lose ground.No he doesn't. If you don't understand how it makes them suffer, you're not trying and you have no ability to empathize with the people who already unfairly get "a little extra policing." People of Arab descent and Blacks and basically anyone not White already go through that, from higher pullover rates to more airport security pat-downs. Being continually profiled is a hell of a lot worse than being asked to do a little extra stuff to buy an item that can kill someone instantly. We need to be focused on getting the bad guys and have a post 9/11 mindset, and that includes conducting more profiling of mosques containing potential bad guys. The FBI was onto this Orlando shooter and were told by Hillary and Obama to back off for the same silly logic you are spewimg. As a nation we will have to give up things like this type of profiling, longer lines at airports, additional profiling of internet usage by ALL Americans, etc...if we want to remain safe. If you value political correctness over keeping the country safe (its not a false choice, its what you are advocating in here), then that is your prerogative, but I fundamentally disagree. As for my personal solution to this entire threat, I think both sides need to come together and offer a comprehensive approach, including: 1. We need to be the aggressor in the War on Terror, and have the POTUS and all our leadership treat terrorism as the #1 issue facing our nation. Somehow in the last 7 years we have lost sight of this. Does this mean we need to replicate Iraq...no. But the more we take the fight to the terrorists overseas and disrupt their networks and the influence they seem to be having on homegrown terrorists, the better off we will all be. 2. We need more profiling across the board of potential suspects, including but not limited to mosques. This requires giving up some personal/civil liberties to allow the FBI and CIA to dig into areas of concern. It's also known that the FBI is overloaded and does not have enough help to follow every lead. The #1 purpose of a federal government is to keep its citizenry safe. We have spent more time and attention focused on social justice programs and not enough on protecting our country. 3. Regarding gun control, if there are loopholes in the current processing, they need to be fixed. We need to ensure there are thorough enough background checks to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. Given bad guys can use multiple means to kill others, we also need to look at those purchasing other types of material for bomb making and/or chemical weapons. 4. We need to return to Bush's approach with other countries that you are either with us or the terrorists. No more pussyfooting around and worrying about political correctness and having other countries views of the US approach dictate our policies. 5. We need comprehensive immigration reform (not an easy feat I know) and better processes to check all non-citizens who are entering our borders. This cannot happen overnight, but its pretty simply conceptually. Most people would not allow a stranger into their home that they do not know anything about. Why would we allow this to happen at our borders. This does not mean legal immigration stops, but it does mean that we are going to be more clear on who is coming and going.

They shouldn't, they don't, and reasonable gun reform doesn't make them "suffer". And how does additional policing of peace loving muslims make them suffer? In trying to make your argument you continue to lose ground.

Exactly. Somehow those who feel gun control is the answer to this issue seem to always overlook this reality. Perhaps its because the leaders they look up too (Obama and Hillary) are using the fun control issue to hide from their failures in fighting terrorism. For them its easy to use guns as a scapegoat for their failures. The FBI was tracking the Orlando killer and Hillary and Obama told them to stop as they feared a Muslim backlash.Or maybe it's because we're smart enough and open minded enough to relize that you can not stop them all, but doing something is better than nothing. The status quo is not working.So do you approve of stopping middle eastern migration as well as probing mosques as a way of preventing these situations. That would be doing something.No I don't. I don't view immigrants as a problem or the muslim religion as a problem. If you want to investigate a mosque because it has members affiliated with terrorist organizations or ties with those hot bed regions ok, but probing every mosque is highly prejudice and not what this country should be about. It's also a resource waster. Also why should law abiding Muslim, and Muslim immigrants suffer for the actions of a few? You could rephrase your last sentence to say "Why should law abiding gun owners suffer for the actions of a few?" You are essentially saying you want to increase the policing of all Americans that might have a gun or want to purchase a gun, but that we should be fearful of upsetting Muslims by having more policing of their mosques. No wonder we are seeing more and more attacks under this President as he unfortunately shares your beliefs.

How would you evaluate George W. Bush? I would rate Bush somewhere in the middle to be honest. While he and nearly every member of Congress voted to go into Iraq under faulty intelligence, he will always be remembered as the President during 9/11 that helped this country heal during a difficult time and kept America safe against terrorism once the 9/11 wake-up call transpired. We can't forget the fear that American's had in the years after 9/11, and his policies kept us safe. He will also be remembered for Katrina and the poor response to that tragedy, and I think as a POTUS that has refused to criticize his predecessor despite his predecessor constantly sticking it to him after taking office.

I simply don't see it the same way as you. I've made my point multiple times in this thread, as well as the Republican election thread, and I'd be better off talking to a plant. It's funny what you say, because that's the only form of response I've gotten. No one knows why they think what they think, but they criticize my views because on this board, they're not popular. It's bullsh*t, but whatever. I'm sorry he's not politically correct enough to fit into the narrow little "presidential" box that people expect him to fit into, but that's exactly his appeal to people right off hand. I've spelled out my understanding of his weaknesses, but his strengths far outweigh his weaknesses IMO. Sorry the radical opinions on this board (or however you could categorize it) don't accept that and decide to respond to me in excessively harsh ways. You people are allowed to have your opinions, but I'm tired of being sh*t on for supporting Trump. I (and millions of others in this country) think that people who support Bernie or Hillary are idiots too, so... Not sure what to say to closed-minded, overly PC people... Shark-I wouldn't worry too much about some of the lefties on here. They have the same fear of Trump now that we had of Obama in 2008. We said Obama would expand the size and scope of government, increase government dependence, and make us less safe against terrorism, and unfortunately all of that has come to fruition. The leftists are afraid of the country moving back to a center-right nation and will continue to demonize Trump as much as possible. Now I don't agree with some of Trump's provocative statements, but I know he'll be a thousand times better than Hillary. But that's not it at all. Trump is a loud mouth jackass that has a tenuous grasp of the truth and people can't understand how he's this close to becoming the next POTUS. If Kasich, Johnson, Rubio, or even Bush were the nominee we would be talking about actual issues. We fear Trump becoming the President because he's not qualified for the job. And nearly half the country felt in 2008 a one-term Senator that had no real world job experience was qualified to be out POTUS and these past 7 years have proven he was not ready for the job. Meanwhile, Hillary is a one-term Senator that had no major accomplishments in that role (unless you count voting for the Iraq war an accomplishment) and was one of the worst and most deceptive secretary of states we've ever had. Obama is likely to go down as one of the better presidents in U.S. history, certainly ahead of the last three presidents we had. Better than the likes of Ford and Grant. Obama has been nowhere near perfect, but he has had several objectively good accomplishments. So, this notion that he has proven himself inadequate over the last 7 years is very misleading, and this is coming from a person who didn't even vote for him in '08. I agree with the other posters comments that you must give time before doing a full evaluation of Presidents, but judging by what I have seen these past 7 years, I think Obama will go down as one of the worst we've had in modern times. What "objectively good" accomplishments has he delivered on? I think we are likely to see in the next 5 to 10 years just how bad his approach to foreign policy and terrorism has been. We've already seen 2 homeland attacks in the past 10 months. And CBO projections from his spending are expected to jump drastically in the coming years. Obama has done well with the economy, lowering the unemployment rate to 5 percent at the end of 2015. After the stimulus package, 3.7 million private sector jobs were created. Cuba relations. Ended the war in Iraq. He also helped break down the horrendous No Child Left Behind system. There are dozens of other things he is given credit for, but depending on your perspective, they may or may not be good things (i.e. the Affordable Healthcare Act). While I can agree that a full, worthy evaluation should probably take place a couple decades from now, I feel very confident suggesting he will not be considered one of the worst in modern times. We just had a good discussion on the unemployment rate and the fact that it does not include the reality that we have the lowest labor participation rate since the 70s. The monthly quoted rate which is around 5% does not reflect those who could work and have stopped looking for work as well as those who are underemployed. If you look at the unemployment rate which includes those underemployed, its around 15% which is a 2% improvement from when Obama took office, but is far higher than most of the 2nd term of Bush when the underemployment rate was around 7.5%. I agree the job market has gotten better since the world financial meltdown which is a result of many domestic and foreign factors, but I don't believe enough has been done in this space to put this as a drastic improvement. Bush 43 inherited a far worse situation his first couple years in office with the recession Clinton left him, the Enron scandal, and 9/11. Ending the Iraq war without the goal of winning the war on terrorism is in my mind Obama's biggest failure. By pulling out of Iraq without a plan to keep terrorists at bay, Obama has allowed ISIS to grow by 4400% under his watch (according to his own FBI director). I personally think his failure in foreign policy and the fight against terrorism is Obama's biggest black eye, even moreso than the Obamacare debacle. If I were to sum up his Presidency 15 years from now, I would say that Obama was the first Black President, passed Obamacare under extreme controversy, was POTUS when gay marriage was approved by the Supreme Court, and saw the rise of ISIS and instability across the globe.

I think Lindsey will pick NU over OSU. Unless a player is in love with a single program and has wanted to go to that program his whole life, these decisions often come down to comfort level with the coaching staff and main position coach. It seems clear that Linsdey likes Williams better. Also, from what I understand of Martell and some of OSU's other QB's, they are more dual threat whereas Riley is recruiting pro-style QBs that should have better arms. Odds of getting more balls thrown your way would exist with NU vs OSU.

Great news!