Dbqgolfer

The more relevant question would be: Would you rather be us or Notre Dame right now?

How's this for a reality check. Ohio State started 1 senior last night, and only have a total of 4 seniors on their 2 deep depth chart. I'm afraid we are quite a ways away from competing with the likes of Ohio State.

Obviously we have a lot to prove, but have the opportunity to prove it. The combined record if the teams we have already played is 20-30. The combined record of teams we have yet to play is 26-10.

Lucky enough to live in a state where he's on the ballot. I'll be voting for him

It's Evan McMullin for me.

Morraine - It probably depends upon the closeness of the association and whether or not one ended the association once he was convicted. Ive read that Epstien has a private jet that he uses to go to an island for sex parties with potentially under age girls; and that according to flight logs, both Trump and Clinton (Bill) have flown with him. I don't know if it's been alleged that they have accompanied him to the island or not. I really don't know how reliable the article I read was; it was a link I clicked on when I was reading something else. The whole thing makes my skin crawl.

Bnilhome. I am well aware of media bias; but that does not make Trump an acceptable candidate. He is not and neither is Clinton. Trump doesn't have even a basic understanding of most of the issues, has said he would direct our troops to commit war crimes and that the troops would follow because he's a good leader; said he's entitled to assault women because of his status; and is connected to Joel Epstien- a convicted pedophile. Clinton understands how government works and would use it to take the country in the direction I totally disagree with; is the most dishonest politician I have ever seen (except for perhaps Trump) should possibly be in jail; and is connected to Joel Epstien- a convicted pedophile. My God, is it too much to ask to have at least one of the two major party candidates not be connected to a convicted pedophile. To me, the two parties have not just put forth two very bad choices, they have put forth two totally unacceptable choices....sorry about that, what started as a reply, turned into a rant. The rant wasn't directed at you, bnilhome.

I believe Donald Trump Jrs. quote is from 2013. That doesn't make it right, but he didn't say it as a response to what's going on now.

Five thirty eight has an interesting article on how Evan McMillan can win Utah, and the presidency. Very unlikely; but a conservative can dream. Sorry I don't know how to link to the article.

Don't leave it blank; vote for some other third party candidate. If the conservatives who dislike Trump leave the presidential line blank; Hillary wins 55-45. If you vote for any third party, Hillary wins 40-30 (other 30 split among third party candidates.). Much more of a damning result for the election. I know my numbers are not totally accurate, but you get the point.

Wow. That is devastating; and 100 % right.

Agree 100 % with bolded

OMFG!!!!!!! That is priceless. So....now.....we have evangelicals supporting a molester who has cheated on at least 3 wives. We also have right wingers who ranted and raved about how horrible Obama was for his "apology tour" and now we have Trump doing the same thing. Damn this election is fun to watch......when you can so blatantly see people totally brainwashed. Trust me.....it's not nearly as much fun for us conservatives watching our movement implode and seeing many of the people we respected sell out so easily. The list of people I will never listen to again and the list of people I will never vote for in a future Republican primary have gotten quite long. What people are you specifically talking about? There have been some people during this that I also have realized I will never support again. It's possible we are talking about different people. Quick list of people will not listen to again: Fox News, Coulter, Rush, Hannity, Ingraham Quick list of people I will not support in future Republican Primary/Caucus (I caucused for Rubio this year): Anyone who endorsed Trump. Yes, that includes Rubio, Cruz et al. I Will admit, some would have a chance to earn back my vote. That chance is inversely related to how strongly and early they endorsed Trump. Huckabee would have less chance than Cruz who would have a less chance than Rubio. Pence is someone I used to really like. Judgement matters, I can't envision ever supporting him in a Republican primary. I was disappointed that Pence didn't walk all the way off the gang plank and jumped the ship after the Trump film came out. However, I see where some of these guys are. I have great respect for my congressman, however, he was never a Trump supporter but is now in a difficult position. He has to support Trump, not because he is a savior of some kind but because Clinton is a radical left wing ideologue. He and the other Repubs are placed between a rock and a hard place and must decide between support for someone as bad as Trump or surrender to someone who is totally opposed to their values. They see Trump as the only one of these candidates who will appoint (or so he says - he has a list of possible SC appointees) conservative judges. Cruz, Rubio, etc see a Hillary presidency as a SC disaster in waiting. Thus they have no other choice. If these guys had run a better campaign of exposing Trump and instead of just waiting for him to implode - we wouldn't have been in this situation. As a conservative repub (still registered as one but wondering ....) I feel that tension and as Knapp said before that "Team" mentality gets us into trouble. I sure won't vote for Hillary- & yet I can't vote for Trump. So, I have the freedom to vote 3rd party - an easy choice in a state that won't vote for Hillary. These congressman/senators don't get the same freedom. Oh yes, they could walk into the voting booth and secretly vote for someone else, but in public, they have to support the lessor of 2 evils when it comes to those values - SC, Conservative principles, etc - recognizing that Trump is not a conservative but the lessor of a liberal than Hillary. Yes, there are more moderate Repubs who have no problems to jump ship and vote for Hillary. Of course that brings up another valid argument - what if the more conservative candidate is so bad that one has to take the unusual choice of supporting a more liberal candidate (speaking from a Conservative perspective). If that more liberal candidate was more trustworthy and more palatable than Hillary, than I'd say vote for the liberal person. Both Trump and Hillary have huge negatives. If this was an election between Trump and Biden - Biden would be running away with it. I've voted for liberal dems who were of good character and demeanor (state elections and local elections) over Repubs who were less qualified both in character and/or experience. I understand what you are saying; especially with the elected officials, since some are probably bound by party rules to support the nominee. Two points I would make are: 1) At some point, someone is such a bad nominee that you can't vote for them. Trust me, I have many times "plugged my nose" and voted for the least worst candidate. However, with Trump (and Clinton), it is much different. Trump is a man who very early in the process said that our troops would follow his orders and commit war crimes because he "is a good leader." To me, and I would hope to most, that is a disqualifying statement. 2) When it comes to the Supreme Court; if Clinton wins, we probably lose 1 conservative seat (Scalia's). The only other retirement I see in the next four years would be Ginsburg. I know it stinks to lose the 1, but quite honestly, given the fact that Trump will say whatever the crowd he is speaking to wants to hear, I'm not convinced that his SC justice picks would be any better, anyway.

OMFG!!!!!!! That is priceless. So....now.....we have evangelicals supporting a molester who has cheated on at least 3 wives. We also have right wingers who ranted and raved about how horrible Obama was for his "apology tour" and now we have Trump doing the same thing. Damn this election is fun to watch......when you can so blatantly see people totally brainwashed. Trust me.....it's not nearly as much fun for us conservatives watching our movement implode and seeing many of the people we respected sell out so easily. The list of people I will never listen to again and the list of people I will never vote for in a future Republican primary have gotten quite long. What people are you specifically talking about? There have been some people during this that I also have realized I will never support again. It's possible we are talking about different people. Quick list of people will not listen to again: Fox News, Coulter, Rush, Hannity, Ingraham Quick list of people I will not support in future Republican Primary/Caucus (I caucused for Rubio this year): Anyone who endorsed Trump. Yes, that includes Rubio, Cruz et al. I Will admit, some would have a chance to earn back my vote. That chance is inversely related to how strongly and early they endorsed Trump. Huckabee would have less chance than Cruz who would have a less chance than Rubio. Pence is someone I used to really like. Judgement matters, I can't envision ever supporting him in a Republican primary.

OMFG!!!!!!! That is priceless. So....now.....we have evangelicals supporting a molester who has cheated on at least 3 wives. We also have right wingers who ranted and raved about how horrible Obama was for his "apology tour" and now we have Trump doing the same thing. Damn this election is fun to watch......when you can so blatantly see people totally brainwashed. Trust me.....it's not nearly as much fun for us conservatives watching our movement implode and seeing many of the people we respected sell out so easily. The list of people I will never listen to again and the list of people I will never vote for in a future Republican primary have gotten quite long.

Just making a general comment here, not claiming any conspiracy. It sure would have been nice if all this would have happened 4 weeks before the Iowa Caucuses instead of 4 weeks before the get election.

NM - I don't disagree with you, I was just making a comment in my answer to Knapp ' s Question. I have voted for the Republican candidate for president every election since 1984, but that ends this year. No way I would ever vote for either one of these two candidates.....and that decision was made the day Trump won the nomination.

To answer Knapp ' s question. No, I wouldn't leave my teenage daughter alone with Trump. But to be honest, wouldn't leave her alone with Bill Clinton either.

Ceiling is 11-1 (loss to Ohio st) Loss in big 10 championship game to either OSU or Michigan. Probable: 10-2 or 9-3 Anything worse at this point is a disappointment.

At some point, doesn't his campaign begin to destroy his business. Who would now want to go to a Trump resort, casino, golf course etc. ? He owns Turnberry, which has hosted 4 British Opens. I doubt it will now host another while he's the owner. He owns Doral which had hosted a World Golf Championship Event. That event has been moved to Mexico City. A lot of the value of his properties was the Trump brand. I've got to believe that value has significantly decreased.

This is probably a good time to remember that there was one Republican official who put country over party and refused to support Trump from the start; and that was Ben Saase.

I think the Wisky game is a toss up and Ohio St. is almost a sure loss. Unfortunately I also think it's a toss up as to whether or not we win all the others.

Zoogs- talk about branding. "Pro-choice" Were southerners who personally didn't own slaves but supported others right to own them pro-choice or pro-slavery?

I'm genuinely asking, and not trying to inflame arguments or anything, but when you say you are 100% Pro Life, does that also translate to other political and social stances for you as well? Many times when I talk politics with folks, many folks claim to be Pro Life. However in other political stances folks who claim to be Pro Life are generally -in favor of war and military intervention -against addressing gun deaths -against universal health care coverage -against public assistance programs that largely assist children and the elderly -against regulation and protecting the environment These are all issues that concern life and well being. So you stating that you are 100% Pro Life, is that across the board? Or only for the issue of abortion? Again, I'm not trying to be inflammatory, or trying to create arguments. I'm genuinely trying to understand this, as it seems there is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on with folks who claim to be Pro Life. I'm at work, so don't have tons of time so this might not be as well articulated as I would hope; but here's my quick, and probably clumsy answer. I believe an unborn child has the same moral weight as a 3 month old. So, could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be in favor of a war, yes could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be in favor of gun rights, yes could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be opposed to universal healthcare, yes could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be against public assistance, yes could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be against environmental regulations, yes If you were more specifically asking my personal view on these issues, I don't have time right now other than to say they're varied. I guess I was asking if you held those seemingly contradicting beliefs, not hypothetically "Could someone believe this while also believing that." Can you see the difficulty in understanding how someone can call themselves "Pro Life" when it comes to abortion, but then want to deny healthcare to the sick, deny food assistance to the young and elderly, do nothing about the 30,000 gun deaths a year, not want to take action to take care of the environment, and be pro war? My view is that if you're going to call your self "Pro Life" then your other stances should reflect that as well. If you don't want healthcare for all, don't want to do anything about gun deaths, don't want to protect the environment, don't want children and the elderly to have food assistance, but then say people shouldn't get abortions, you're not really pro life, you're just anti-abortion. I disagree, you can be against and ever expanding gov't, and be pro life.

I'm genuinely asking, and not trying to inflame arguments or anything, but when you say you are 100% Pro Life, does that also translate to other political and social stances for you as well? Many times when I talk politics with folks, many folks claim to be Pro Life. However in other political stances folks who claim to be Pro Life are generally -in favor of war and military intervention -against addressing gun deaths -against universal health care coverage -against public assistance programs that largely assist children and the elderly -against regulation and protecting the environment These are all issues that concern life and well being. So you stating that you are 100% Pro Life, is that across the board? Or only for the issue of abortion? Again, I'm not trying to be inflammatory, or trying to create arguments. I'm genuinely trying to understand this, as it seems there is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on with folks who claim to be Pro Life. I'm at work, so don't have tons of time so this might not be as well articulated as I would hope; but here's my quick, and probably clumsy answer. I believe an unborn child has the same moral weight as a 3 month old. So, could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be in favor of a war, yes could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be in favor of gun rights, yes could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be opposed to universal healthcare, yes could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be against public assistance, yes could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be against environmental regulations, yes If you were more specifically asking my personal view on these issues, I don't have time right now other than to say they're varied.