NM11046

LOL....what a friggen idiot. When I saw the original tweet about Fox, I thought....What??? Fox apologized for dropping an F-Bomb??? Really....to the same guy who has dropped F-bombs at campaign rallies? Now....we find out that he told Trump to com apologize. It's a perfect example of Trump's ego getting in the way of actually being able to listen to other people. I'm getting a kick out of the ex-Mexican Pres tweets, he's got Trumps's cadence down, and has spent a good amount of time sharing his thought on our little orange man.

Help me out Nuance - what would be an ex of something you'd say to a man that when you've said it to a woman that found they're think skinned about? First of all, you misunderstood my post. Again. It's not saying something *to* a woman (as opposed to a man) that might cause a reaction. It's speaking in frank, matter of fact terms *about* a woman (as you would speak about a man) that causes a thin skinned response in some who are supposedly advocates of equal gender rights. So here's an example for you. I made a post recently defending the actions of Tom Osborne in regards to his treatment of Lawrence Phillips. Several posters—three posters in particular—jumped all over me in regards to my post. One poster went so far as to suggest that I’m the type of fellow who would say that rape victim asked for it because of what she was wearing. (btw, That comment is absolutely untrue and I was extremely upset by it.) The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post. My apologies, obviously I read your content in a different tone than you intend. I'll own up to being one of the folks that commented on your LP statements, and I was the one who brought the example of a woman dressing provocatively being perceived as "asking for it" by some. Sorry I hurt your feelings. You missed the point of my comments, which was nothing is an excuse for a man to beat a woman. Not anger, not a financial settlement - nothing. My perspective is that there is no excuse for a man to beat a man either. Whether he is bigger and stronger or weaker and smaller. Whether they are teammates, friends or enemies or whether one gets a financial settlement or not. It's not a matter of who is needing protection it's a matter of everyone needing respect, and the shifting social acceptance (or lack therof) of a man being able to physically harm anyone. Obviously it was more than just me that misunderstood or took issue with how you phrased your comments. I wouldn't call that being "thin skinned" but being self aware. To put a spin on it, and taking equal rights out of the conversation, looking to talk candidly about a person, is it ok to say that you can lock a child in a bathroom because they didn't eat their dinner? That it's acceptable for a cop to beat a man because he can sue? Circling back, obviously these are feelings right? Based on societal norms? Or are they beliefs instilled by elders, authorities etc? Does that explain why our views differ to some extent? You are surrounded by different people with different beliefs than I am?

Guess this is one more ex of him "hearing" what he wants to?

So if we can't vote for Hillary because she was "attempting to use race" and that "disqualifies her in and of itself" for "reasonable people" to vote for her, then who is this "good candidate" we should support? Jeb Bush is an honorable man. Far and away better than the Clintons, as one of many examples. As far as I am aware, Bernie Sanders is an honorable and honest and decent man. He's a political KOOK (but so is Hillary for that matter. Huckabee is a good and decent man with governmental executive office exeperience exactly equal to Bill Clinton (same state even). Ben Carson is a good and decent and honorable man. Extremely intelligent and even Black! To give just a few Why did you point the bolded out in particular?

Hillary, is that you? Soooooooo sleepy been hitting the delete button on my computer all day. It's hard because, you know - I'm terribly sick.

I think there's gold there with that last one ... make em' for all the groups: Women voters have a higher opinion of weekly mammograms than of Donald Trump.

Would you call that a normal function or no? scientifically speaking.... What's "normal"? Yours may be different than mine than someone who lives in China. With regard to if a transgender person can be explained scientifically (which is what I think you were getting at) I think that answer is yes. My way of thinking is, "this is scientifically proven - chemical or physical or psych" and I "believe" that all people are people I "feel" that they should be treated as they ask to be treated. Well That's kind of what I was asking. Scientifically is there suppose to be a set way for brain function or does the ones that "stray" from "normal" count toward abnormal brain function even though they are still a person? Trying to be clear that I'm not stating MY normal as the normal portrayed in my post. I'm gonna take a stab and say no - there's no "normal". So much of what is perceived as normal is driven by culture and environment. Personality traits like being outgoing or shy aren't considered abnormal, they're just part of a different make up. What is abnormal is when it's not healthy (self harm or to others) behavior, or risky behavior - trying to think of examples that may shed light on why transgender is different than multiple personality disorder. Now that I reread this it sounds like a circular comment - gotta hit the sack! I understand you're just generating conversation and not platforming :-) this is going to be a fun thread to watch! Thanks for starting it.

Totally prepared to back it up 2000 - unlike you throwing bs out there that has no source, or no credible source all I'm trying to do is land on a reputable exit polling that measures race votes that we both agree to. Neither of us would be smart to wager on something not knowing the source as a baseline. In his "poll" it states 1-2% and in the real world you can find any range of numbers you want. 1-2% can be equal to 11% in another poll. In the end you get another pis$ing match on here because we never started on the right foot talking about apples to apples. bnilhome can handle himself and I don't need your bullying. So you can dish it out but can't take it in return? Didn't you tell bnilhome he was out of touch, because of his views? Also, who decides what is credible and what isn't.. You? I look at any poll, report etc as credible if it is scientifically sound, consistent, peer reviewed (if appropriate) and unbiased. I can take anything, but don't need your disrespect. We're all just Husker fans.

Help me out Nuance - what would be an ex of something you'd say to a man that when you've said it to a woman that found they're think skinned about?

Would you call that a normal function or no? scientifically speaking.... What's "normal"? Yours may be different than mine than someone who lives in China. With regard to if a transgender person can be explained scientifically (which is what I think you were getting at) I think that answer is yes. My way of thinking is, "this is scientifically proven - chemical or physical or psych" and I "believe" that all people are people I "feel" that they should be treated as they ask to be treated.

What an interesting question Coach - it certainly is a time where I think many groups are preying on peoples feelings and making them into perceived beliefs. I'm a fact person - I want information to prove or deny a statement that anybody says as fact. Its really that though, I cringe and every hair on my neck goes up when someone says a statement like (i.e. "the park and rec guy is the most overpaid guy on staff") and there's no absolutely no basis for it. I'll totally engage with someone however that poses the same topic as "I question why we pay the park and rec guy $X when he really only works 3 months of the year") I feel strongly about many things, but if I really drill down to it, those feelings are based in fact. I feel strongly that women are not perceived as equals in the work place. I've experienced it, and that would be enough "fact" per say, but there's also a lot of information to support that. I'm racking my brain trying to think of something I believe that's not based in fact ... that Husker fans are the greatest in college fb, but then I seek information out to support that. bad examples I know - jet lagged.

Totally prepared to back it up 2000 - unlike you throwing bs out there that has no source, or no credible source all I'm trying to do is land on a reputable exit polling that measures race votes that we both agree to. Neither of us would be smart to wager on something not knowing the source as a baseline. In his "poll" it states 1-2% and in the real world you can find any range of numbers you want. 1-2% can be equal to 11% in another poll. In the end you get another pis$ing match on here because we never started on the right foot talking about apples to apples. bnilhome can handle himself and I don't need your bullying.

I'll help you out with this one bnilhome - his 1%-2% will not go up. I promise you. 90% plus of the black vote will go anywhere but Trump. Promise. If it's possible for him to lose more of the black vote I think after this weekend he will. The fact that you think otherwise, and that this hole in the wall analysis does is just one more example of how completely out of touch you are. I will make a bet with you right here and now, so we have it documented, that he gets more than 1 or 2% of the black vote on election day. You willing to go for it? Potentially - We need to agree on the source however. As is evidenced by all the back and forth here, you can find whatever number you want. For instance the only polling site that I find credible and unbiased is 538. Roper is the only site I can find quickly that breaks down post election by race (rather than white and then non-white buckets), and honestly I don't know how credible it is, I'd need to research further. I'm going to be traveling internationally for the next few weeks, so I can't dig in much more, but if that's our source I'd be comfortable saying that Trump will get less than 6% of the overall actual black vote. Wait...you just said you guaranteed he wouldn't get more than 1 to 2%, and now you are backtracking and have said 6% or less. I'm doing you a favor - this "poll" you're referring to is crap. I looked at unbiased election outcomes and most republicans since 1976 have gotten between 6 and 14% of the vote. I think he'll do worse than any other republican since they tracked. 1-2% I think is probably about right if we were to depend on your fly by night polls, but look at apples to apples with what we can actually document I'll go with Roper an my money is on less than 6%. If you're not interested in that source then suggest one.

I'll help you out with this one bnilhome - his 1%-2% will not go up. I promise you. 90% plus of the black vote will go anywhere but Trump. Promise. If it's possible for him to lose more of the black vote I think after this weekend he will. The fact that you think otherwise, and that this hole in the wall analysis does is just one more example of how completely out of touch you are. I will make a bet with you right here and now, so we have it documented, that he gets more than 1 or 2% of the black vote on election day. You willing to go for it? Potentially - We need to agree on the source however. As is evidenced by all the back and forth here, you can find whatever number you want. For instance the only polling site that I find credible and unbiased is 538. Roper is the only site I can find quickly that breaks down post election by race (rather than white and then non-white buckets), and honestly I don't know how credible it is, I'd need to research further. I'm going to be traveling internationally for the next few weeks, so I can't dig in much more, but if that's our source I'd be comfortable saying that Trump will get less than 6% of the overall actual black vote.

I'll help you out with this one bnilhome - his 1%-2% will not go up. I promise you. 90% plus of the black vote will go anywhere but Trump. Promise. If it's possible for him to lose more of the black vote I think after this weekend he will. The fact that you think otherwise, and that this hole in the wall analysis does is just one more example of how completely out of touch you are.

Not sure I can agree with that seeing as this would be a crew of people he hired and his current hired handlers haven't been able to do anything about his behavior. Yeah, I mean, who would those babysitters be? The best people, of course. Really, really tremendous, great people. The best babysitters. And they'd be hot. Total babes. 10's.

So from your perspective you can not hold an opinion or take a stance on something unless you've fit the mold exactly? Maybe you don't understand his statement. Your comment is silly (or ignorant).

Not sure I can agree with that seeing as this would be a crew of people he hired and his current hired handlers haven't been able to do anything about his behavior. And he still seems to find an hour or two in the morning to do whatever he wants unsupervised. You can do a lot of damage in a couple of hours in the morning - just look at his Twitter feed.

Interesting articles about how to tell who is doing Trumps tweets and who they break down on content. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-tweets-iphone-android-1470868218-htmlstory.html http://varianceexplained.org/r/trump-tweets/

Bigger difference is from the Android to the iPhone ... the Android is him (the first tweet, with DW's name misspelled came from Don directly) His staff is the iPhone and they deleted the first tweet a few hours later, corrected the spelling and put it back out, then obviously someone else from his team put out the "condolences". I really hope that after dealing with the funeral and family commitments after this tragedy that DW speaks up. Certainly others have spoken for him about how offensive it was in general to tie a shooting death to a vote for Trump and then to use his name for publicity within hours of such a tragedy is beyond words. There is a whole group of sports fans that follow DW that should hear how he felt about this.

I thought the time off with no pay was light too, until it was noted that that essentially is a $15,000 fine. Thinking of it in those terms it felt sufficient to me. Never post on here but I'm a 22 year old college student out of state and huge nebraska fan who's parents met as students. Mom died when I was 15 because of a drunk driver. Never saw me finish high school or get a college degree cause a guy, who already had a DUI on his record, chose to drink and drive and killed her. It's a big deal to some of us I'm so sorry 90038. I can't imagine your loss.

Moraine - this is fantastic! Visual learner here so I love this stuff. Interesting to see so much more broad coverage already from Riley with only two years impact. Thanks for this.

??? Maybe someone can explain to me the connection here???? https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/769526017887080449

The irony seems to continue to be lost on him: