HuskerNation1

I watched his speech and somewhat disagree. When he is left to his own, he fails to deliver a coherent message, and last night's speech was perfect in terms of explaining why Hillary would be an awful POTUS, and why he would be good for the country. I don't believe every speech needs to be done in that way (via teleprompter), but I think he needs to do that way more than in the past. He is pitching to be the outsider populist that puts America First, and I think it's a winning message but needs a consistent messenger to hammer the point home. Speech writers are a wonderful thing. Trump without them.....not so much. Well, like i said in my response, I am somewhere in the middle regarding Trump's appeal. The fact that he is a non-politician and is like the anti-Obama has been a big selling point for him, so he needs to keep it fresh and unpredictable at campaign stops, but I think for major speeches that all the networks will pick up, he should be relying more on the teleprompter. When Trump first entered the race, I thought he just wanted to gain attention for himself, but I am seeing a different side of him now, and I think he really wants to win, and is willing to rely on others to help him across the finish line. I read that he finally hired a pollster after refusing to do so throughout the primary season.

I watched his speech and somewhat disagree. When he is left to his own, he fails to deliver a coherent message, and last night's speech was perfect in terms of explaining why Hillary would be an awful POTUS, and why he would be good for the country. I don't believe every speech needs to be done in that way (via teleprompter), but I think he needs to do that way more than in the past. He is pitching to be the outsider populist that puts America First, and I think it's a winning message but needs a consistent messenger to hammer the point home.

Here's the thing....it's much more common for Republicans to call each other out when the screw up. When some have had affairs and such, they are pressured to step down or they lose a spot on a committee they are a part of. I'm not saying it happens 100% of the time, but it's way more common than on the Democratic side. I think it's healthy for key figures in a party to call out each other when they screw up. I think we view things things through our own partisan glasses. I would be very surprised to find any metric that proves Republicans are better moral police within their party. Remember: Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Any Fellow Republican." Donald Trump, a bit like Ron Paul, is carpetbagging the Republican Party, so criticism of Trump is a different animal, especially among those who think he's about to destroy the party. But here's a fun fact: the nearly 8 year Obama administration is among the most scandal free in history. Good times. Well there was Larry Craig, Trent Lott, and others that lost their seat or stepped down facing pressure for saying or doing something stupid. Had Bill Clinton been a GOP nominee in 1992 he would not have made it to the finish line. This past year's contest has been a total change of script with Trump winning despite his many dumb statements. Let's not forget Anthony Weiner hung around (pun intended) for some time after his lovely scandal. As for your assessment that Obama has been scandal free, how do you figure he was more scandal free than his predecessor? Can you explain? And if you really believe that, does that mean that the "right wing conspiracy republicans" that Hillary and many leftists claim are out to get them are not really as bad as Hillary claims? There's a big difference between an actual scandal and throwing everything you can think of at someone hoping it'll stick. So what is your definition of an actual scandal as it would pertain to Bush 43.

Here's the thing....it's much more common for Republicans to call each other out when the screw up. When some have had affairs and such, they are pressured to step down or they lose a spot on a committee they are a part of. I'm not saying it happens 100% of the time, but it's way more common than on the Democratic side. I think it's healthy for key figures in a party to call out each other when they screw up. I think we view things things through our own partisan glasses. I would be very surprised to find any metric that proves Republicans are better moral police within their party. Remember: Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Any Fellow Republican." Donald Trump, a bit like Ron Paul, is carpetbagging the Republican Party, so criticism of Trump is a different animal, especially among those who think he's about to destroy the party. But here's a fun fact: the nearly 8 year Obama administration is among the most scandal free in history. Good times. Well there was Larry Craig, Trent Lott, and others that lost their seat or stepped down facing pressure for saying or doing something stupid. Had Bill Clinton been a GOP nominee in 1992 he would not have made it to the finish line. This past year's contest has been a total change of script with Trump winning despite his many dumb statements. Let's not forget Anthony Weiner hung around (pun intended) for some time after his lovely scandal. As for your assessment that Obama has been scandal free, how do you figure he was more scandal free than his predecessor? Can you explain? And if you really believe that, does that mean that the "right wing conspiracy republicans" that Hillary and many leftists claim are out to get them are not really as bad as Hillary claims?

Here's the thing....it's much more common for Republicans to call each other out when the screw up. When some have had affairs and such, they are pressured to step down or they lose a spot on a committee they are a part of. I'm not saying it happens 100% of the time, but it's way more common than on the Democratic side. I think it's healthy for key figures in a party to call out each other when they screw up.

It's not a false equivalency at all...both are pathetic and deeply flawed. For you to suggest that she is not says a lot about you frankly, especially the part in bold. As for who is mainstream, I think when you look at policy views, Trump is actually more in the mainstream on many topics (outside of his banning of Muslims), but he's so over the top in his statements that his policies are hard to take seriously. Hillary has always been left of center, and has moved further left of center in recent years with the push toward bigger government solutions to solve problems. And Bernie is keeping her to the left of mainstream. As for establishment, as I've said before a few times, despite the character flaws of both of these candidates, I think the election ultimately comes down to whether the country wants a career politician who is the ultimate insider, or an outsider who wants to shake things up. 'Many' is particularly vague. If we can all agree that mainstream equates to the dominant trend, which policies of Trump, specifically, do you believe are mainstream? The reason I ask is because people can certainly argue his views are popular - the fact that he has made it this far in the election proves this. But, that doesn't make those views mainstream. Well Trump is not pushing hard-line Conservative policies. He is against many trade deals that Republicans have traditionally supported, but many moderate and blue collar voters are supportive of this approach. Trump is not for reducing taxes on the rich but focused on the middle class. Trump favors reducing regulations and the burden on businesses which helps with job creation. Trump favors a foreign policy that focuses on America First and can argue that Hillary Clinton has done more to destabilize the Middle East with her Senate voting record and her time as SOS. I'm not going to claim he owns every mainstream issue, but he is a populist candidate and is much different than past GOP candidates. Hillary definitely does not have the mainstream mantle and will have to work hard to seize the center. Her support of Obamacare and job-killing regulations (including opposition to the Keystone pipeline) put her at odds with mainstream voters. Also, her avid support for the Iran deal is not popular with many voters. So its a complete joke to label her as a candidate of the mainstream voter. Now if mainstream means a candidate of entrenched Washington interests, yes, that describes Hillary well.

Of course you feel your case is more objective...we all see things through a different lens. I am hard pressed to find many people that think either of these two candidates is qualified and capable. Hillary is under investigation and could end up in jail, and this is not a result of a Republican-led DOJ. This whole "right-wing conspiracy" line of attack is old, and that is all Clinton defenders seem to rely on. I loved when a journalist asked Hillary if she has always been truthful with the American people, and her response was "well i try to tell the truth as much as i can."

The congressman from Wisconsin is taking shots at Trump today: ​ But then still supports him. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-ryan-trump-racist_us_5756d6cbe4b07823f9514086?0w7j1hh770p0kke29 The last quote you referenced shows just how bad Hillary is if Ryan and others are still willing to support Trump. We are left between a racist blowhard that has a strong record of results in the real world vs a pathological liar that has a very thin resume for getting results. Both have serious character flaws, and if those flaws become a wash, this election could actually come down to their records and the issues. What a concept. He's a registered Republican in office. Do you really think there was any chance of him endorsing Hillary no matter who was running as the Republican? True, just as I would expect Bernie, Pelosi, and others to still endorse Hillary. There will still be some holdouts on both sides, but you will eventually see most party officials supporting their not so great nominee.

It's not a false equivalency at all...both are pathetic and deeply flawed. For you to suggest that she is not says a lot about you frankly, especially the part in bold. As for who is mainstream, I think when you look at policy views, Trump is actually more in the mainstream on many topics (outside of his banning of Muslims), but he's so over the top in his statements that his policies are hard to take seriously. Hillary has always been left of center, and has moved further left of center in recent years with the push toward bigger government solutions to solve problems. And Bernie is keeping her to the left of mainstream. As for establishment, as I've said before a few times, despite the character flaws of both of these candidates, I think the election ultimately comes down to whether the country wants a career politician who is the ultimate insider, or an outsider who wants to shake things up.

Well that's just it. Key politicians in both parties are coming out to support these two pathetic choices. Pelosi just came out to endorse Hillary despite all of her flaws. And I'm sure we'll eventually see Bernie come out and endorse Hillary which will say a lot about him and how strongly he believes in his movement.

The congressman from Wisconsin is taking shots at Trump today: ​ But then still supports him. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-ryan-trump-racist_us_5756d6cbe4b07823f9514086?0w7j1hh770p0kke29 The last quote you referenced shows just how bad Hillary is if Ryan and others are still willing to support Trump. We are left between a racist blowhard that has a strong record of results in the real world vs a pathological liar that has a very thin resume for getting results. Both have serious character flaws, and if those flaws become a wash, this election could actually come down to their records and the issues. What a concept.

I'm in the camp that is not overly concerned. He's been to Nebraska more than once and knows what he is getting, and I honestly think his mind is already made up. As a general thought, as big as the Oregon game may be in terms of hosting a quality program, I hope we don't put all our eggs in that basket from a recruiting perspective. I would like to see a few good recruits at nearly every home game so they understand NU fans are there to support their team no matter if its a top team or a sub-par team.

I agree with you and think a Senator with foreign policy experience would be ideal. Given both candidates are near 70, I do think its important that both VPs are capable of stepping in to the Presidency early on should anything happen.

Exactly...not a difficult concept to grasp that the POTUS should be concerned with American interests first, and when American's interests are fine and we can help out the world, so be it. We should never be in a position where we take a policy position that would counter what is in America's interests. I realize this is a broad statement and can be sliced and diced, but as a general approach to foreign policy and relations, it's really not that complicated. Agreed. And when what is best for the US involves other nations around the world, which is a substantial amount, it is a good idea to get them on board. More flies with honey.... I think everyone agrees that getting more countries on board to support policies that benefit America or are led by America is good thing. But I don't think we need to make speeches about America being "arrogant" in order to bring those countries on board. If other countries share our interests on core policies, lets join forces and look ahead. Now if Obama wants to apologize or offer conciliatory remarks for his own failed policies during his own Presidency, that is fine, but he thinks very highly of himself and I doubt he will be doing that.

Exactly...not a difficult concept to grasp that the POTUS should be concerned with American interests first, and when American's interests are fine and we can help out the world, so be it. We should never be in a position where we take a policy position that would counter what is in America's interests. I realize this is a broad statement and can be sliced and diced, but as a general approach to foreign policy and relations, it's really not that complicated.

Please provide dates and locations of said apology tour. Also quotes would be highly favored. You really have not heard about him touring the world after elected and talking about how arrogant and bad America was. Here is just one story highlighting his visits and his words. Were you living under a rock at the time? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-a-superpower Hmmmmm..... Not. Not what... I only read the first 3, but like Moiraine said, thise are not apologies. Even if he did apologize what the hell is wrong with that? We've f'd up quite a few things as a nation, and turned a blind eye to them. So you would be ok if a President Trump goes on a world tour to apologize for the messes Obama has created? I just dont think any president from either party should spend much time in other countries doing this type of thing. I guess if you are ok for Trump to do this type of thing about Obama you are being consistent. If Trump is building postitive relationships and trying to contructively solve problems facing the world, then no. I would have no problem with it. It is in the job description of POTUS to be a positive leader in the world, to put America's "best foot" forward. Which is why I have a hard time picturing Trump as President, I don't think he has the grace or temperment to be a valuable member in the world community. I don't love Trump and have stated this many times before, but where is there an actual job description claiming that the job of the POTUS is to be positive to the rest of the world. I'm sure glad Bush 43 was not focused on what the world might think of the US in the aftermath of 9/11. The US POTUS can and should be putting America first, and the anger you are seeing in both parties with the rise of Trump and Sanders is a frustration with the establishment status quo . I do wish Obama would be more positive toward Israel and less so to terrorist groups seeking their destruction.

Please provide dates and locations of said apology tour. Also quotes would be highly favored. You really have not heard about him touring the world after elected and talking about how arrogant and bad America was. Here is just one story highlighting his visits and his words. Were you living under a rock at the time? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-a-superpower Hmmmmm..... Not. Not what... I only read the first 3, but like Moiraine said, thise are not apologies. Even if he did apologize what the hell is wrong with that? We've f'd up quite a few things as a nation, and turned a blind eye to them.So you would be ok if a President Trump goes on a world tour to apologize for the messes Obama has created? I just dont think any president from either party should spend much time in other countries doing this type of thing. I guess if you are ok for Trump to do this type of thing about Obama you are being consistent. But Obama didn't do what you keep claiming he did. Well if you can't read between the lines, so be it. Going to other nations explaining how America has been arrogant in the past, and that we should be more like Europe is inappropriate, and whether you want to call these many speeches and apology or not is up to you. Besides making these claims to the world, he spent most of his first term continuing to attack and criticize Bush 43 rather than looking ahead. I'm sure you will also state that he did not blame Bush on many opportunities in his first term. I've rarely seen you actually find much fault with Obama, yet when it comes to anybody running on the right, you seem at ease finding fault with them. Yet I know you claim to be "Independent."

Please provide dates and locations of said apology tour. Also quotes would be highly favored. You really have not heard about him touring the world after elected and talking about how arrogant and bad America was. Here is just one story highlighting his visits and his words. Were you living under a rock at the time? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-a-superpower Hmmmmm..... Not. Not what... I only read the first 3, but like Moiraine said, thise are not apologies. Even if he did apologize what the hell is wrong with that? We've f'd up quite a few things as a nation, and turned a blind eye to them. So you would be ok if a President Trump goes on a world tour to apologize for the messes Obama has created? I just dont think any president from either party should spend much time in other countries doing this type of thing. I guess if you are ok for Trump to do this type of thing about Obama you are being consistent.

Good question. I thought I had missed something and assumed it had just happened. If this is an effort by a Trump opponent to bash Trump supporters, that is ridiculous. We've seen more violence against Trump supporters than I've even seen for any other Presidential candidate on either side in many years. It seems the same groups that helped foster the Occupy movement and the Ferguson Riots are out in full force trying to bring violent protests to Trump rallies. I am fully supportive of the right to protest, but when it goes to far (either in terms of violence or restricting freedom of speech of speakers at an event), that right to protest is null and void.

I'm sorry, are you advocating violence on here? Yes. Maybe you aren't black...but if a white guy in a hood gets in my face and is calling me racist names...I am pounding him. Maybe you have a little daughter, I don't know and maybe the guy gets in front of her one day and start screaming in her face these horrible ugly names And I hope that you punch his lights out. Well self-defense is always acceptable, but I think the level of violence we are seeing across the board, but especially being encouraged in places like the Mizzou riots and elsewhere, and those who are intentionally going to Trump events to cause violence, should be jailed, just as a KKK guy invoking violence should be as well.

I'm sorry, are you advocating violence on here?

Please provide dates and locations of said apology tour. Also quotes would be highly favored. You really have not heard about him touring the world after elected and talking about how arrogant and bad America was. Here is just one story highlighting his visits and his words. Were you living under a rock at the time? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-a-superpower Hmmmmm..... Not. Not what...

Please provide dates and locations of said apology tour. Also quotes would be highly favored. You really have not heard about him touring the world after elected and talking about how arrogant and bad America was. Here is just one story highlighting his visits and his words. Were you living under a rock at the time? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-a-superpower

Lol...literally, LOL. I read an editorial today suggesting that Obama is benefiting from Trump vs Hillary, but I actually think its a direct effect of his 8 years of failure. Hillary is essentially carrying the torch of the Obama years, and Dems are not wanting to fully embrace that torch and are split with Bernie. Meanwhile, Trump is the anti-Obama in many ways and is pulling in many blue collar Dems who are fed up with Obama and government in general. Put another way, had Obama been successful in his 2008 promise to be a transformational candidate to bring the country together, I don't believe you would be seeing Trump win the GOP nomination in 2016. Very well said. But you also have to add in the complete joke that the Republican Party has become. When Sara Palin still has a influence in the party, then that says enough about the state of the party. Both parties have their problems, and Palin speaks to the hard line right wingers just as Bernie does for left-wingers. Both are crazy and delusional. Fortunately Sarah has brightened up a bit when she said she realizes she will be a liability for Trump (not that I think Trump would really ever consider her anyway).

Hillary is on the trail claiming that she restored world support for the US during her tenure, but support actually fell during her time as SOS. Now i'm not one who believes we as Americans should be infatuated with getting the world to like us (as Obama seemed to be when he went on his apology tour), but the real story here is Hillary trying to find some strength she can present to the American people, and the data simply does not back her up. And this comes from Bloomberg which is traditionally supportive of Democratic candidates. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-02/did-hillary-clinton-really-restore-america-s-reputation-in-the-world