JJ Husker

I've also seen a handful of polls suggesting Clinton voters are far more enthusiastic than Trump voters, which is somewhat counter-intuitive to the common sense narrative. I would agree that Trump is worse so don't expect any argument from me that he isn't worse. I can also see the argument that at least Hillary has some experience and probably has more business in that position. But, it is pretty hard to argue that she is worthy of the office or fit to be POTUS. I wouldn't waste my effort getting blue in the face to help either one of these idiots. Neither one is worth it IMO. It really isn't a false equivalency....it's just acknowledging the fact that both are extremely poor candidates. Just because one happens to be worse than the other, doesn't make that other one a good choice. I realize my Johnson vote (or whichever other candidate it ends up being) will pretty much be wasted. I'll just take comfort in the fact that I didn't help elect either one of these worthless human beings. (assuming ole orange mop top is even human....)

I might be wrong but I think in most cases a lot of these people really do like and support Trump or Hillary and are embarrassed to admit it. So they just excuse their support by further demonizing the other candidate. That way they don't have to take responsibility in either situation for voting for someone who really has no place as POTUS. What's easier, admitting you have latent racism or saying Hillary is worse. Or admitting the person you support is a known liar and has made a career out of stepping on people and using power to avoid the law or saying Trump is worse? I think in the end, people will vote for exactly what they want. It's sad that anyone would vote for either one of them. Pretending the other one is worse is just an excuse to not take responsibility for what they are voting for.

Come on? Sure he's turned into a pretty big jerk but this radio deal.....? Like the mayor is picking out the radio hardware, and we're now supposed to have hindsight on them? This is extremely childish and counterproductive. If people want to have at Rudy for the stupid things he's been saying or for supporting Trump, then have at him, but radios......grasping for any hate.

Yes you can. I hate the Huskers for making me care enough about a stupid sport that I sometimes get stressed over it. I know what you mean. I sometimes wonder if I even like my favorite team. I feel compelled to follow and watch them and most of the time I'm not sure why.

??? Are there only 74 students in America?

Interesting dynamic in the congress race in Colorado. Just saw a Mike Coffman commercial on TV. His words; "People ask me what I think of Trump...honestly I don't care for him much. And I certainly don't trust Hillary. So if Trump gets elected, I'll stand up to him and if Hillary is elected, I'll hold her accountable." Pretty sad that even the politicians know how bad the choice is. I think Coffman is a republican but I'm not sure. His ad was pretty much just anti Trump and anti Hillary. I might like this guy...

You can have 17 or more teams you like but you can't call more than one "favorite".....unless you don't care what the word favorite means. The real question is; Can you hate your favorite team? Might need some ganja to contemplate that one.

While I generally feel people fly too far off the handle about DUI, if the information about # of offenses and amount of BAC on this offense are true, then I don't see why the university would take on the potential liability.If it's because of his value as a coach, I have to question (a) whether he can be effective as a leader of players if he shows such poor judgment, (b) has any credibility on the recruiting trail, especially in the face of negative recruiting, and © whether being a full time coach in the pressure cooker that is Nebraska football is the most conducive situation for recovery and bad behavior avoidance. If the info is accurate, I don't see how he can be kept on, for his good or the good of the program. I wonder how many university professors have DUI's and fly under the radar because they aren't a football coach.No idea. Probably some.Wonder how many of them make almost half a million in salary a year. So, I fail to see the relevance. I fail to see the relevance in the amount of money they make being the reason one can remain hired and one can't.You're right, the amount of money they make has nothing to do with it. But, university professors with dui's also has nothing to do with it. How many people (that aren't currently in school) could name some university professors? There really is no comparison in how they represent the university. I'm surprised that someone who has been as vocally opposed to TO giving LP a chance feels the 40 year old KW deserves a chance after apparently his 3rd dui. And my concern about recruiting has to do with the negative recruiting that will be so easy for other schools. If they know we're in on a guy, just one little mention of the WR coach with a dui problem could cost us numerous recruits. I just dont think anyone is valuable enough for that kind of bad PR. But, I also agree that memories are short and after one season or so, it may not be that big of a deal. I'd rather take the high road though.

Because sometimes the right thing to do isn't the most convenient or safest thing to do. No, because of his value as a human being. Williams may crash and burn if given another chance. If so, that's on him. Everybody else's job is to see if he can get some effective help. (By the way, this is just my opinion based on some work I do and on my faith. I don't expect everybody to agree with it.) Sometimes there can't be another chance. Assuming this is his 3rd or 4th dui, it is time to cut ties. It has nothing to do with his value as a human being and doing what is best for him. Sometimes the University or employer has to do what is in the best interest of the most. I hate to lose him as a coach and really hope he gets the help he needs but we also do not need these type of problems on staff and mentoring young minds. I think it could have an extremely negative effect on recruiting also. Discounting the current commits who may decommit, it sure doesn't make the job easy going forward, telling parents that their players will be in good hands.

?3???? How is that not death penality?because there was no vehicular homicide in this case? That and the fact that 1st degree murder is the only murder where you can be sentenced to death??? Ohhhhh.. See you're saying it's not the end of the world… Exactly my point people need to settle the f#*k down Teach, you've got a lot of growing up to do. These constant juvenile posts are getting old. If you can't see why the University and football program do not need a coach with this problem, I'm not sure it could ever be explained to you. He is a role model for these players. As far as recruiting, parents do not want a person like this influencing their kids. 1 offense could be a mistake, 2 or 3 with a 40 year old man is a definite sign of problems. Apparently you don't know anybody that's been killed by a drunk driver...Good for you but that would place you in the minority or mean that you are very young. I don't care how good of a coach he is perceived to be. This program does not need him and his drinking problem. How often do you drink and drive? Never been caught yet, huh? Please stop before you hurt someone. It's not a matter of if but when.

...Secretary of the Posterior, a cabinet position he was obviously qualified for considering he still had those 2 crayons and the roll of duct tape in the pockets of his sheans. Unfortunately....

Knapp, as he had come to be widely known by everyone due to the highly popular Knapp Slapp, was on top of the world. However, his insistence to refer to the newfangled cutoff Jean shorts as sheans placed him at odds with society's overwhelming desire to call them jorts. This led to....

I don't believe I've said that I don't believe their findings. Just that I am a but suspicious. In my first post I said that my gut feeling was they were correct about Baltimore, Boston and Ferguson. I was simply trying to raise the point that the DOJ or any government agency that is controlled by political appointees may not be the most unbiased source. That is why I asked if any independent outfits may have done similar studies. I don't regularly wear a tinfoil hat but I do not blindly trust the government either. Everything is too politicized these days. I wish that weren't the case but I think it is. I won't argue the point with anyone who doesn't feel that way.

I would call it more of a general suspicion of politicians, political appointees, and the way things seem to work in Washington. So legitimate?......nothing substantiated. But a couple things I've noticed or have heard about in the press. Bill Clinton had a private meeting with Lynch on an airport tarmac as the DOJ was involved in the investigation of Hillary's email fiasco. Of course they only talked about grandkids and so forth... even though Lynch has apologized for the inappropriateness of the meeting. You probably heard about this one. Also I've noticed that the talking points out of the DOJ and the White House and the Clinton campaign as regards the whole BLM and police matters seem to mirror each other. It seems like more of a concerted effort than independent coincidence. Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Do you blindly trust that the AG is not influenced by the person or political party that appointed them? That such an influence could not extend throughout the DOJ? I may just be more suspicious of politicians....are there any good reasons to trust them? Any?

That's what I've been concerned with since took the lead during the primaries... the celebration of stupidity. It's got electrolytes! Haha +1. Good movie! They're not going away. Trumpism isn't just going to slink back into the shadows after November. What becomes of his ragtag coalition after the polls close? What is their endgame? What is the future of the GOP? Lots of questions about the long term effects of this election. I see two possible eventualities; 1- Most likely, sensible conservatives (like myself) will abandon the GOP and either form their own new party or probably just become part of an ever growing independent right/middle. Or 2- The whack job ridiculous far right will break from the GOP because they won't be able to get any further traction in that group with their insanity. Since it seems as if they currently are making headway in reshaping the GOP, it will probably be option number one. This whole Trump deal has gotten absolutely absurd. If you still think he is any kind of answer or a viable candidate for POTUS, you should seriously considering having an elective lobotomy. The guy is a complete toolbag that doesn't know jack sh#t about anything. If you think he is some kind of secret genius, check yourself into a rubber room. I am absolutely convinced he does not want the job and his followers are too stupid to figure it out. When it is finally proven that the endgame all along was to help Hillary get elected, they both should be executed for treason for gaming our electoral system. But, as knapp pointed out, the much bigger concern are his cranial impaired minions. WTF people.....wakeup and realize what you are doing. And to reiterate, I am no Democrat or liberal, not even close, and I would never vote for Hillary but Trump is simply not even close to an option. Everybody always brags about how the founding fathers had all their ducks in a row for things they could not have anticipated. Well here's your proof that they weren't infallible. There should've be an anti-Trump contingency that would've prevented him getting anywhere near this close. It just cannot be allowed to happen. Good post. I agree the founding fathers weren't infallible-- we have to remember that they only wanted well off white men (like them) to be able to vote in the first place. Obviously our system has room for improvement if a candidate like Trump can be a vote away from leading our country. I would hesitate to lump Trumpists in with the far right and instead propose that they're their own unique faction. They're equal parts protectionist, nativist, nationalist, isolationist, populist, and yes, racist. But that's unique from the far right, since they're friendlier to free trade and have a much stronger religious component. Plus, the far right vote on values and principles. A huge part of Trump's appeal is honestly that he's a celebrity. It's sad, but I guarantee you that got him a sizeable vote. I'm no fan of the far right, and I agree that it seems like the "constitutional conservatives" and Tea Partiers have a lot of leash at the moment. Someone like Ted Cruz really believes that a far right option in the vein of Reagan would win in a landslide. But to someone on the left, the more the Tea Party shapes things, the less appealing the ticket becomes to the general public. For the long term health of the party, Trumpists definitely need to be ousted. They destroy the big tent possibility. But I would hope your centrist wing of the party (the one that most appeals to someone like me) fills the power vacuum. Hopefully that leaves the Tea Party out in the wilderness, and they have to decide which wing to side with... with less of a leading role. You're right, using far right was not the correct description. Most of them are on some tangent, in another dimension, askew to the far right. Unfortunately, I think plenty of them may be otherwise reasonable people who simply feel they have no other option addressing their concerns. I can appreciate thinking that Hillary or Obama or much of the liberal left is not much of an option either. But damn.....Trump certainly is no answer for anything unless the question is; What's that guy's name that said that stupid sh#t earlier today or yesterday?

...and began to gain notoriety by becoming the first man ever to...

The level of domination by our women's gymnastic team (and individuals- Biles & Raisman), Phelps, Walsh, Ledecky.....it really is unprecedented and amazing.

That's what I've been concerned with since took the lead during the primaries... the celebration of stupidity. It's got electrolytes! Haha +1. Good movie! They're not going away. Trumpism isn't just going to slink back into the shadows after November. What becomes of his ragtag coalition after the polls close? What is their endgame? What is the future of the GOP? Lots of questions about the long term effects of this election. I see two possible eventualities; 1- Most likely, sensible conservatives (like myself) will abandon the GOP and either form their own new party or probably just become part of an ever growing independent right/middle. Or 2- The whack job ridiculous far right will break from the GOP because they won't be able to get any further traction in that group with their insanity. Since it seems as if they currently are making headway in reshaping the GOP, it will probably be option number one. This whole Trump deal has gotten absolutely absurd. If you still think he is any kind of answer or a viable candidate for POTUS, you should seriously considering having an elective lobotomy. The guy is a complete toolbag that doesn't know jack sh#t about anything. If you think he is some kind of secret genius, check yourself into a rubber room. I am absolutely convinced he does not want the job and his followers are too stupid to figure it out. When it is finally proven that the endgame all along was to help Hillary get elected, they both should be executed for treason for gaming our electoral system. But, as knapp pointed out, the much bigger concern are his cranial impaired minions. WTF people.....wakeup and realize what you are doing. And to reiterate, I am no Democrat or liberal, not even close, and I would never vote for Hillary but Trump is simply not even close to an option. Everybody always brags about how the founding fathers had all their ducks in a row for things they could not have anticipated. Well here's your proof that they weren't infallible. There should've be an anti-Trump contingency that would've prevented him getting anywhere near this close. It just cannot be allowed to happen.

But it was not be as he...

I agree. It is ridiculous that they haven't been allowed to do studies on things like this or gun violence. I'm not saying I don't buy the DOJ findings but rather that I don't necessarily trust them to be unbiased. And yes, that is very similar to BLM or blacks generally not trusting law enforcement. We both have legitimate reasons to be skeptical. IMO, too many of the institutions surrounding Washington are unnecessarily politicized, mostly due to Presidential appointments. Would be nice if they were more independent and not suspiciously beholden to the person or party that put them in power. It would be another desirable check and balance in our system.

And then one day at band camp....

I know you probably won't like this question but it is of genuine curiosity and not some veiled effort to discredit the DOJ. Do you know if any other impartial, un-biased parties have also conducted investigations into any of these police departments? I'm not necessarily saying I don't believe the DOJ findings but it would be nice to have them verified by another source that wasn't, how shall we say, perceived to be in bed with Obama and the Clintons as Loretta Lynch may appear to be. Considering it is Baltimore, Boston and Ferguson we're talking about here, my gut feeling is the findings are probably correct but it sure would be reassuring to see it verified by another source that is not questionably politically involved.

Well this turned into a shitfest in no time at all....