JJ Husker

I agree that the most important thing in this game is getting the win. An ugly win is still lightyears better than a pretty, moral type victory loss. But, there is a big difference to the program between losing close/respectable and suffering another blowout. We have to begin changing the national perception that we "don't belong" in the discussion. Sure, you can argue that we're in the discussion and relevant since we are #6/7 but the sobering fact is, we will tumble faster and further, to never be considered land, if we lose embarrassingly big yet again. Gotta get that monkey off this program's back. A close loss may not be we want to see but it would be better than an even uglier curb stomping.

Little known fact; Talk of smoke-wagon control began in the late 1880's.

Rather telling that the B1G average includes the highest single salary. My quick and probably inaccurate math adjusts the B1G average to a meager $2,272,500 sans Harbaugh. I realize these are still ridiculous salaries but shouldn't a place like Nebraska, with our relatively high resources, be paying our HC quite a bit more. Not angling to get HCMR a raise but if we want (and WE do) to be in the discussion year in and year out? The Moneyball approach wouldn't seem to fit well in CFB.

^^^ These

The way ours has been functioning, the more temporary the better IMO.

Wouldn't that be our chance of going undefeated and winning the championship? The odds are a little better of doing it without being undefeated. We can drop a game on the way....just sayin. Edit- sorry, didn't read to the end before posting...

2-1 on the week, 14-10 overall +$300

I learned that being in the top ten was fun while it lasted. Not much hope for the next two games if we play anything at all like today.

Fo Foddy Nine too much. Scratch that...he should have to pay the team, a lot, to be allowed to run special teams like that. Our punt protection and punt return are a goddamn joke.

124th against the run. If we can't block and run against Purdue, we're screwed. Oline needs to man up and do something.

I don't know about "venom" but it was a rather pointed and honest article about the current situation in Afghanistan and the mostly failed policies of the last 8+ years and the half-assed execution of our wars. Level it and end it or get the hell out. Putting our soldiers lives and our tax money on auto drip isn't getting us anywhere.

*shudders, wimpers, puts tail between legs and hides under bed* Speaking of abused dog syndrome...

A chance to equal our stride

Cameras have something called white balance that determines the color temperature of the image (the goal being so that pure white is pure white and not slightly orange or blue). Color temps are dependent on a million things and not the easiest thing in the world to sync up perfectly in a multi-camera broadcast. And that seems plausible as well. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist so I was hoping there would be some possible innocent explanations. I'm still not convinced it wasn't done purposely to influence people's perception but at least it may not have been and there are some other options of how it could've come about. It was weird though. The candidate's appearance is not something I normally pay much attention to, and for sure not hue differences like that. But I commented to my wife a few times how much better than usual Hillary looked and that Trump was his usual self and that he should hire better makeup people. Even with purposeful hue manipulation, she had some miracle work done on her face and neck. Not a line or crease to be had. Almost to wax museum degree. It didn't really register on debate night but I did also comment how her pant suit had seemed to change color. I guess when the substance is off putting, we find other things to pay attention to.

So the implication is that a supposed camera filter impacted the outcome of this debate? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *cough* *SNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIFFF* *cough* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Um, no. (Edit for clarification--I'm laughing at the source site, not JJ). I took another look at that site. They made no implication whatsoever that this impacted the outcome of this debate. They simply reported on the extremely obvious hue differential between Trump and Clinton. Their only implication was that the media was trying to rig the candidates appearance to aid Hillary. You guys can snort, chuckle and guffaw all you want. If you're satisfied with media outlets subliminally affecting peoples perception of candidates, I must say I'm a little disappointed in you. Do you also like it when somebody pisses on you and tells you it's raining? I know I'm quite a bit older than most here but it used to be that these guys would report the news and events, as they really happened, and they made some effort in letting the people decipher what that meant for themselves. Either this was done on purpose to portray Hillary in a better light (no pun intended) than Trump or it was an honest mistake that somebody would have to explain to me how that happens. My first thought when I saw HRC in that debate was, hey she looks a hell of lot better than normal, she must have been in makeup for about 3 days prior to this shindig. Then I found out her image was being enhanced and Trumps was not. I could give a rip less about which person it harmed or helped or really even if it helped in this particular debate. The point is, the people who are presenting this information to normal everyday citizens are being dishonest with them. I don't like being lied to, apparently you guys do. Or, maybe you're just more comfortable with it since it's pretty much been happening your whole lives and you don't know any better. I don't think they're laughing that it happened. I think they don't think it happened. Or at least don't think it was done purposely. Also, Red Five wrote "Each channel had a slightly different hue. On a couple Trump looked very white. On others, he looked his normal orange. Now that could have been the TVs as well." It's also possible that Hillary looked awful on camera because everything was all white and they adjusted the contrast. Which might be something they'd do for an anchor without thinking. Well I'm pretty sure it did happen. I only watched it my tv and there was a definite hue difference depending on which candidate was on camera. There were a few times where they both were in frame. When it was just Hillary, her pantsuit was severely cream (off white-almost yellow). When she was in the background of a Trump shot, it was white white. But maybe it was like NM said and she negotiated that filter. I know they do have crazy lists of demands.

So the implication is that a supposed camera filter impacted the outcome of this debate? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *cough* *SNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIFFF* *cough* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Um, no. (Edit for clarification--I'm laughing at the source site, not JJ). I took another look at that site. They made no implication whatsoever that this impacted the outcome of this debate. They simply reported on the extremely obvious hue differential between Trump and Clinton. Their only implication was that the media was trying to rig the candidates appearance to aid Hillary. You guys can snort, chuckle and guffaw all you want. If you're satisfied with media outlets subliminally affecting peoples perception of candidates, I must say I'm a little disappointed in you. Do you also like it when somebody pisses on you and tells you it's raining? I know I'm quite a bit older than most here but it used to be that these guys would report the news and events, as they really happened, and they made some effort in letting the people decipher what that meant for themselves. Either this was done on purpose to portray Hillary in a better light (no pun intended) than Trump or it was an honest mistake that somebody would have to explain to me how that happens. My first thought when I saw HRC in that debate was, hey she looks a hell of lot better than normal, she must have been in makeup for about 3 days prior to this shindig. Then I found out her image was being enhanced and Trumps was not. I could give a rip less about which person it harmed or helped or really even if it helped in this particular debate. The point is, the people who are presenting this information to normal everyday citizens are being dishonest with them. I don't like being lied to, apparently you guys do. Or, maybe you're just more comfortable with it since it's pretty much been happening your whole lives and you don't know any better. I don't know the entire back story here - but it's quite possible that part of her negotiation was to have a filter on her during these debates. Wouldn't be unusual, and that very well would be something Trump and his advisors or whomever was negotiating for the debates had no idea to ask for. Thank you. That is a reasonable and possible explanation. We all know Trump's people can't handle the simplest things. They sure as heck probably wouldn't know if requesting a filter was an option or they would have tried defeating that orange tint a long time ago.

So the implication is that a supposed camera filter impacted the outcome of this debate? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *cough* *SNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIFFF* *cough* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Um, no. (Edit for clarification--I'm laughing at the source site, not JJ). I took another look at that site. They made no implication whatsoever that this impacted the outcome of this debate. They simply reported on the extremely obvious hue differential between Trump and Clinton. Their only implication was that the media was trying to rig the candidates appearance to aid Hillary. You guys can snort, chuckle and guffaw all you want. If you're satisfied with media outlets subliminally affecting peoples perception of candidates, I must say I'm a little disappointed in you. Do you also like it when somebody pisses on you and tells you it's raining? I know I'm quite a bit older than most here but it used to be that these guys would report the news and events, as they really happened, and they made some effort in letting the people decipher what that meant for themselves. Either this was done on purpose to portray Hillary in a better light (no pun intended) than Trump or it was an honest mistake that somebody would have to explain to me how that happens. My first thought when I saw HRC in that debate was, hey she looks a hell of lot better than normal, she must have been in makeup for about 3 days prior to this shindig. Then I found out her image was being enhanced and Trumps was not. I could give a rip less about which person it harmed or helped or really even if it helped in this particular debate. The point is, the people who are presenting this information to normal everyday citizens are being dishonest with them. I don't like being lied to, apparently you guys do. Or, maybe you're just more comfortable with it since it's pretty much been happening your whole lives and you don't know any better.

If it's really someone's opinion that 2+2=5, or that we never went to the moon, or that Elvis is still alive, or that whites are a superior race, or whatever, it's not that it's my opinion that they're wrong - it's that factually, they are mistaken. "...or whatever"? How can an unknown something be considered factually false? And as previously stated, most of your examples are not somebody's opinion but factual inaccuracies. The only one that really can be considered an opinion is your example of whites being a superior race. I don't happen to agree with it but I suppose it depends on what criteria a person is using to determine superiority. Likewise, a person may be of the opinion that Trump would be a better President. That isn't a "wrong" opinion and it is not factually supported as being definitely false. It might be at some point, if he ever became President, but it isn't now. Things that are actually an opinion cannot be right or wrong. If it can be proven with facts, it isn't an opinion. Maybe that is what you were trying to say.

Found this interesting. Normally not a source I would cite but, if you watched the debate last night, you probably noticed this....I sure did. It's definitely worth a look if you think what is being presented to you by the media is not being manipulated. http://libertynews.com/2016/10/busted-debate-camera-crew-caught-rigging-hillarys-appearance-using-camera-filters/?Ref_ID=38253

I'll buy that but a wise person would chalk up that margin of victory to the opponent being so poor rather than HRC actually "dominating" in the debates. A halfway reasonable and intelligent and less bombastic person would have mopped the floor with her.

The only winner in any of the 3 debates was Chris Wallace. Thought he did an outstanding and fair job moderating #3. The other 2 were biased and lost control. I thought Clinton did poorly in all 3 but Trump was definitely the biggest loser in all 3. He may have some (I said SOME) valid talking points but when it comes to actual policy details he has none. Sorry Donald but simply saying you'll make America great again or you'll fix the economy or whatever hot button topic he's spouting, people would like to hear how, not just that you'll do it and she won't. I don't think she will either but at least she has details on how she's going to f#ck things up. All DJT has is a bad attitude and unprofessional disposition that we know will cause more problems than it solves. I got my mail-in ballot a few days ago and still not sure what I'm going to do. The thing I do know is that I will not be voting for either one of these worthless human beings.

Why would she want to interrupt him? He does more damage to himself all on his own. She could remain completely silent for a whole debate and "win" it regardless of his post claims of victory. And this is coming from somebody who despises Hillary...

Huskers 50 Turd U 14 Air 230 Land 320