Oade

In terms of immigrants, between 1998 and 2014, over 6,000 died in the process of crossing the border illegally - from a multitude of logistical reasons, mainly over-exposure. That's one problem that should be addressed.... Over double the number of Mexican citizens have died in the past decade illegally crossing the border, than the number of people that died on 9/11, but oh well, its a benefit to the economy. And that's not accounting the numbers killed by the cartels, who are funded by their US activities. If a wall forces people to think twice before even setting off to cross illegally, then that is a good thing. Or if more of a police or military presence at the border would enable better medical aid to those migrants upon reaching the border, then that's a good thing. If there is a better option, I'm sure it would gain traction. If people aren't capable of getting in legally because of some miscommunication or immigration-processing issue, or costs, or whatever, then the process needs to be improved to better work with those seeking entry into the US. That's something the US and Mexico should be working on continually. If people aren't able to enter because of expected/suspected criminal activity, then I guess that's up for debate. If the criminal activity is real, then I have little sympathy. If the criminal activity is unwarranted, then that's unfair and should be addressed appropriately. In terms of social/local issues, someone from a border state would know more than me. But I just have doubts that having illegals is better than having legal immigrants... If it is better, then maybe we should all just work toward becoming illegal citizens.

I just re-read your post, and wanted to clarify. When I said "If the drug cartels haven't been stopped by regular police and immigration police, then I doubt they ever will...", I meant that in terms of the current policies..... If its not working the way it is now, then it likely never will work this way..... Which is why new idea's should be explored.

The wall is based on the assumption that: a significant portion of the illegal immigrants, drugs, sex trafficers, etc. cross the Mexican-US border the wall would stop these crossings (as opposed to they get through the gates/checkpoints) the people crossing wouldn't go around the wall (the US Gulf coast is 1631 miles long and the Pacific coast of the continental US is 2043 miles) Drug trafficking already uses boats, not sure about the others, but if the wall makes land crossing difficult, then getting to the US by sea will become more common. And note that Trump's "wall" is composed of wall and fencing. How easy will it be to just cut through the wall? Minutes? An hour for reinforced concrete? Or do you using explosives to demolish parts of the wall if you're the cartel, for instance? And do we really want the military involved in civilian affairs? There is tons of legal crossing of the border. The military isn't designed for that. And the cost to build the wall is only part of the total cost, which includes maintaining the wall would cost at least $750 million/year. (And the $40 billion is for the entire Ford-class next generation aircraft carrier program. The first carrier will cost $13 billion.) I agree that a wall doesn't fix the entire problem. The US military has been involved in civilian disputes/affairs and boarder-patrols for decades, just not on US soil. Further more the entire purpose of having a military is to secure the boarders of our own country. What is the purpose of a military if not to maintain the legitimacy and security of our own boarders? At what point should the US military get involved in US boarder disputes/violence? Thanks for the link on the Aircraft Carriers, good to know! I was confused, and thought they had plans for several $40b ships.... However that still doesn't undo my opinion that the military is likely the only entity that has the budget and man-power to guard our boarders. From Wikipedia: So you could make the claim that securing the borders is part of the mission of the military even though it is not explicitly stated. However, the US military is designed to attack an enemy. Think about the infantry guys/gals who have had training to shoot and kill the enemy - that's their main job. Now you want them to inspect, question, detain, arrest, etc. people crossing the border. That's a different skill set and training. I mean, that's what CBP is supposed to be trained to do, right? And I'd bet a lot of them are former military, so why not just train the CBP better or hire more of them? As for when I'd use the military to protect the borders, use them when we want to attack an opposing force. Like if the cartels were assaulting the CBP or others along the border. Or as a temporary armed force to assist the CBP due to some extreme condition, such as we get intelligence of a suspected attack against a border post. Then you have the military positioned to assist the CBP if the attack occurs, but the CBP is still taking the lead on border crossings and such. A similar thing happened after 9/11 where military personnel were stationed in airports, but they were there just in case and the security guards still did the passenger checks. EDIT: FYI, it's border not boarder. Not trying to be a d1ck; my inner grammar Nazi just wouldn't let it go. The bolded part is where my argument for using branches of the military stems from. We wouldn't need to hire anyone, we already have the man-power and the budget, it would just need reallocated. Sure there would be a level of training needed, but I don't see how that would be any different than (re)training for jungle warfare, urban, trench, air, gas, or whatever other sort of warfare/policing the military has trained for over the years... In my mind that would be a better use of our military budget, a better service to America, and help solve a current American issue, than to build a new aircraft carrier or maintain our presence in Germany or the UK or any other independent/peaceful country. A Temporary policy would definitely be more desirable than not. If the issue can be better solved, then yeah, we certainly wouldn't need or want the military policing ports and borders. But at this point those things are still (mostly) unaddressed and on-going issues, seemingly with no end in sight. Maybe a military presence could be more effective.

Very interesting perspective AR, and I appreciate your thoughts. The subject of the wall is very interesting to me, and if you'll allow me to play devil's advocate here for the sake of some healthy discussion, I feel like these thoughts are a bit short-sighted. Yes, there are certainly an abundance of Mexican citizens who come to this country to work hard, send money back to their families, and to do the jobs that many others will not. But, to say that a "few individuals will attempt to gain benefits through fraudulent means" is really minimizing the impact that those individuals have. I wish that it were only a few, but that's not the case. Also, the statement that the children adapt to the US culture and language is partially true, but there are a lot of examples of that not being the case. The number of ESL classes that we have here in the SW would seem to indicate otherwise. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm always interested in the perspective of others, especially those who do not live in border states. Here in Arizona, we have a fairly terrible reputation (a lot of it deserved) about our perceived racism towards Mexican citizens. However, living here definitely provides a different perspective on illegal immigration than those who do not live here will usually have. We have some very serious issues and challenges in this state due to illegal immigration, challenges that I don't believe that a giant wall will necessarily help. But, to state that the issues are few really does not seem accurate to me. Again AR, not attacking your perspective. Your statements are always intelligent and well presented, and I appreciate that. I just thought I'd provide some contrary thoughts and opinions in the effort for good, healthy debate. I feel the same way about people's opinions from the boarder-states. I would love to have a better understanding of how citizens (not politicians) of those boarder states really feel... It just seems logical that residents of Texas, NM, Ariz, and California (and gulf coast) would have the best ideas for solutions, and should be the driving force of any changes. For me, or anyone who's not directly involved or effected, to say that a wall is the best idea or the worst idea, or that this idea or that idea or whatever is the right action, is a bit outlandish from my seat here in Omaha. I personally can see the potential-benefit that a wall or military presence would have, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it is the best or only solution. I feel like a lot of people are at a loss for good ideas on the issue, but would still like to see improvements made, and to that point, the idea of a wall is easy to grasp onto.

The wall is based on the assumption that: a significant portion of the illegal immigrants, drugs, sex trafficers, etc. cross the Mexican-US border the wall would stop these crossings (as opposed to they get through the gates/checkpoints) the people crossing wouldn't go around the wall (the US Gulf coast is 1631 miles long and the Pacific coast of the continental US is 2043 miles) Drug trafficking already uses boats, not sure about the others, but if the wall makes land crossing difficult, then getting to the US by sea will become more common. And note that Trump's "wall" is composed of wall and fencing. How easy will it be to just cut through the wall? Minutes? An hour for reinforced concrete? Or do you using explosives to demolish parts of the wall if you're the cartel, for instance? And do we really want the military involved in civilian affairs? There is tons of legal crossing of the border. The military isn't designed for that. And the cost to build the wall is only part of the total cost, which includes maintaining the wall would cost at least $750 million/year. (And the $40 billion is for the entire Ford-class next generation aircraft carrier program. The first carrier will cost $13 billion.) I agree that a wall doesn't fix the entire problem. The US military has been involved in civilian disputes/affairs and boarder-patrols for decades, just not on US soil. Further more the entire purpose of having a military is to secure the boarders of our own country. What is the purpose of a military if not to maintain the legitimacy and security of our own boarders? At what point should the US military get involved in US boarder disputes/violence? Thanks for the link on the Aircraft Carriers, good to know! I was confused, and thought they had plans for several $40b ships.... However that still doesn't undo my opinion that the military is likely the only entity that has the budget and man-power to guard our boarders.

Those qualities don't preclude you from being racist. My uncle was racist as hell, told racist Mexican jokes all the time, among others. He married a lady of Mexican descent. Does marrying her make him not a racist? Clearly not - it just means he was confused as hell. Lol, I've met some people with similar hypocrisies/confusion. I was more trying to just make the point that not everyone in favor of this is racist, so it creates a level of discredit and dismissal to play the race card as the ONLY motivator.

If you left the term "white" out of that idea, it would help to make opponents to the wall who claim racism as a motivator to this wall seem less racist themselves. It creates a level of hypocritical-dismissal from some - which is unfair to both sides of the argument. Edit. I'm not trying to imply that you guys are racist, I'm just saying that by argueing that this is a race issue is creating a race issue. It's polarizing, creating two sides oppossed to each other, while the solution is likely somewhere in the middle. I won't argue that there aren't definitely racist individuals in favor of the wall - although I'm confident in saying that there are probably some racist individuals against it too.... However, to claim that it is the main motivator for everyone undermines the fair arguments in opposition imo.... My best friend is married to a 2nd gen Mexican immigrant, and I'm a God father to one of their sons, I would do anything for them - and I'm supportive (as are they) of an increased focus on Mexican boarder policies. Are we racist?

That was not an aknowledgment that the wall won't help, although it admittedly is a disappointing option, it was more of an acknowledgment that the US military has far better resources, technology, and numbers/man power than Mexican police, boarder patrol, or us police. Who better for the job of curtailing illegals and smugglers? The point is not whether or not they are good people or fit in culturally.... If they can fit in culturally and keep their noses clean as illegals then they should be able to accomplish the same legally, saying it is better as it is currently is a thin argument imo. We absolutely need to give motivations for people to enter legally - maybe a wall and/or military patrol helps. I wouldn't use the word "terrorist" because in today's world that implies some sort of explosion or mass-killing. But Mexican cartels have beheaded, bribed, or coerced enough people to be consider a real criminal (terroristic) threat, everyone from police and politicians to poor average Joe's and tourist have been effected. It may only happen one or two murders at a time, and pass under the radar for that reason, but it's criminal terrorism. And by ignoring the boarder, we are ignoring the issues that the cartels pose. Debate race all you want, your missing the point. I believe an increased focus on Mexico/cartels would greatly improve the lives of American and mexican citizens alike.

Why won't the wall help? I mean it is a depressing option, and clearly won't solve the entire issue, but it's not going to make it easier to illegally cross the boarder is it? What is a better option to address illegal immigration - and hopefully curtail drug and sex trafficking? Obviously better policies are needed to allow legal access. Also better mexican involvement/commitment is needed on several fronts as well. But it seems well past time that significant diplomatic changes were made by both sides, so it just seems like half-assing it to continue with nothing more than the status quo. In my mind the best option would be to have a few permanent military bases along the boarder with regular military patrol. If the drug cartels haven't be stopped by regular police and immigration police by now, then I doubt they ever will. - I would love if the military was in charge of patrolling shipping docks as well. Without looking it up, I'd guess that 85% of this countries human and drug trafficking problems go through the ports and Mexican boarder, and in my mind the military is the only current entity that has the man power and budget to police either. That obviously creates some conflicts of interest, and wouldn't solve the entire issue, but if we seriously hope to fix those issues, then I just can't think of a better option. In a prefect world the budget for the Mexico wall would come from the military budget as well. I mean they did build a $40 billion aircraft carrier last year, and we're not exactly at war (or that we didn't already have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined). It just seems to me like they have some money that could be spent more appropriately.

I think Lee will surprise a lot of people with his scrambling ability. And with the benefit of pass-first tendencies rather than run-first tendencies when a play starts to break down unlike with our most recent QBs. I won't go as far as saying Lee is as strong of a runner as Armstrong, but I think it's fair to say he's both a better runner and better passer than Ganz was... Add that skill-set to an improved OL, and there is a lot to be hopeful for in terms of game management, poise, and controlling the chains.

I don't know the answer to this, but what if it's the opposite? What if we seek out social structures that reinforce the beliefs we already have? Me, for example. I live in a heavily red state, but I lean Left (no, really you guys, I do!). When I talk politics IRL, the people I talk with mostly agree with my stances. Is that because I've been conditioned to lean Left or because I seek out, consciously or unconsciously, people who reinforce my beliefs? This is Nebraska - there's no shortage of Right-leaning folks for me to hang out with. But for the most part, I don't talk to any. That's a good point. From my experience, I definitely seek out people who share similar views in general, but I also lean right in a right state, so thats easy enough... It's not that I mean to dismiss my left leaning friends, but unless they have a specific question or something I'd rather just leave the subject alone. No need to start drama with someone you love. My gf and most of her family lean left, so it's not as if I don't associate with strong-minded dems at all, but we do make an effort not to debate anything political. Just not worth it to us.

Yeah, whatever you want—except voting in a primary. Depends on your state. Only 18 states have closed primaries. The other 32 offer a wide range of options for Independents. In Nebraska, I have more choices as an Independent than I would if I registered with a specific party. Of course, if we abolish the parties by refusing to be affiliated, we could eliminate that stupid restriction and allow everyone to vote in every primary. But politicians aren't interested in that. I don't have faith in Trump to do the right thing or use sound judgment, but I would not put something as crazy as that (from a true-politicians perspective) like that past him. -- Of course it would probably come as a coat-tail to a bigger, and possibly worse, policy change if Trump were ever to do that.

Another reason I lean more to the republican side, although actually never voting in line with the republican nominee's (I've always written in a name or not voted at all), is simply because of the dictionary definition of the terms. Philosophically and personally I just associate with the term "Republic" more-so than "Democracy". Republic(an): Government with equality between its members. Democracy: Government by the majority vote. Ruling by way of majority vote, although it sounds nice, would imply that there is also a minority vote (its funny how they leave that part out of the dictionary)... Yet having a majority/minority vote implies a certain amount of inequality that I don't believe is Constitutional. Gay/lesbian rights, legalized pot, foreign policy/wars, and so on, should not be subject to a personal/emotional/special-interest's "majority/minority" vote it should be subject to the terms "Justice & Equality".

Lol, thats probably true.

I don't think about it as an economic or social-initiative thing, at least in person-by-person terms. I think individual dems and reps both want social justice and a healthy currency as much as the other group. Its just a different set of thought processes... I think social initiatives are great, and well intended, but I also I think that until the economy is fixed, that those social initiatives are no more than temporary fixes. I see democratic policies like Obamacare as temporary fixes. Health insurance doesn't address the issue of unfair health-costs and pharmaceuticals, it actually perpetuates it imo. Sort of like how raising the minimum wage lends itself to (eventually) increased prices across the board..... With a healthy economy, health care costs would be affordable without insurance companies. There is no reason insurance companies should exist at all imo, they are part of the problem of overpriced health care - and autos, and homes, and so on.... Making sure everyone has health insurance is like a doctor giving you tylenol for a headache, and then a week later, giving you more tylenol for the same headache, and again a week later. At some point you have to realize that the headache isn't the issue. Its that you've had headphones in too much. Address the issue. The issue, imo, is the value and health of the dollar, and until that is fixed, then nothing the government does is more than a temporary solution. Personally, generally, I think of conservatives as not wanting a high level of federal bureaucracy/regulations, but rather more state and locally driven law and regulation. Pot being legalized in several states, but not at a federal level is a good example imo. Each state should have the right to legalize without federal/dea policing. That is a "conservative" philosophy imo, regardless of how individual dem/rep politicians currently align themselves. Generally, I think of liberals as seeing the country more as one entity that should subscribe to the same laws and rules across the board.... But in my experience a rule that works well for rural America doesn't necessarily translate to urban America and vice versa, and normally I feel like new rules come at the expense of at least one group of the upper/middle/lower classes, regardless of rural or urban demographics (Obamacare for example). I do think the more you travel the more global your views become, which has been a really great experience for me, but personally, I think the long-term success of America must be driven by individual city and state desires, not by national or global interests. That's not to say national interests or global equality should be ignored.

That's interesting perspective to take on it. It would make more sense in regards to his motivations behind this move, which depending on how things go in the coming months/years, could be dumb. But overall I won't say that I hate it either. Interesting.

I'd like to know from our religious members: How is religious freedom "under threat?" Do you feel your religious freedoms are under threat? If so, how? I've heard that exact complaint from a former Priest of mine, privately of course.... He's a great guy, huge husker fan, we've hung out and watched Husker games together, he might even be a part of the Huskerboard.... I wouldn't use the words "under attack", but I would say that its open to interpretation. I'd be more curious to hear the views from someone like the Pope or from MLK or Gandhi if we could go back in time on the subject than to hear Trumps/Pence or anyone else in DC on the subject. I can't recall the exact complaint from that Priest, and personally I don't have a huge gripe on the matter, but from what I understand the idea behind "separation of Church and State" was originally designed to keep State-sponsored agendas and influence out of Churches, not Church influence out of Government like is enforced. Of course that's open to interpretation.... A Priest or Rabbi not being able to speak about politics from the pulpit seems almost hypocritical to me, Religion and Social government are interconnected in many ways - I mean we're in a "Politics & Religion" forum. In a utopian world, both Churches and Governments are ideally serving, improving, and securing the quality of life of others. Both offer tremendous social services to their communities, so on and so forth..... You would have a hard time convincing me that Reverend Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, or any other local-level Rabbi's & Priest's haven't improved the standard of living for all walks of life, to not embrace and promote Government/Social opinions from people in those positions does seem off to me, I wouldn't call it an "attack", but it does seem off. I don't understand the IRS law fully, and I'm curious if the term "pulpit" carries over to the political arena - Because to allow corporate lobbyists and special interests to drive decisions in DC, but in tern limit the reach of voice from some truly great people, seems a bit backwards. Of course, its yet to be seen if changing that culture is a true intention of Trumps, and is something that I don't expect.... If you read about the founders, it's clear that they intended for the wall of separation to go both ways. Here's a quote from Jefferson who coined the "wall of separation" term that would seem to suggest he supports the Johnson Amendment: That's an excellent quote, thank you for sharing. To the idea of the separation going both ways, in a perfect world I would agree 100%, however I don't think its as simple as saying Church & State aren't allowed to influence one another - they influence each other regardless of intentions, and they always will. If a particular Politician who is running for office proposes new military/foreign policies, or say the "ban" of refugees for example, that conflict with the churches teachings, is it not the responsibility of that Priest or Rabbi to speak up and influence their congregation? - Before said politician is voted into office If the government enacts economic policy that in turn negatively effects the quality of life of a churches congregation, is it not the responsibility of the Minister to speak at the pulpit? If the government allows for laws and limits the race-integration of public schools and public places, is it not the responsibility of MLK or any Priest to preach to his congregation about politics and politicians? Edit, And furthermore, going back to what the Founding Fathers intended. They never intended for an IRS, it wasn't created until about 90 years after the Declaration was signed, so in regards to the Founding Fathers this law/rule is BS. The Johnson amendment only prevents ministers from endorsing candidates and assisting their campaigns. It does not prevent them from voicing their thoughts on political issues. So a minister is free to voice his concerns on all the issues you listed but I don't think he should be allowed to dictate which particular politician his congregation should vote for. Similarly, I don't think universities should be allowed to tell their students which politician to vote for which is also prevented by the Johnson Amendment. I don't think anyone would disagree that a Priest or Teacher should not have the ability to dictate how their congregation or student's votes. But to voice concern and opinion is fundamental to our freedom. That doesn't mean the congregation or students have to agree or vote that way, or that they have to vote at all. These people, ideally, are role models and ambassadors to human-equality, peace, and love. Promoting human kindness, education, and equality is part of their job descriptions..... They aren't celebrities at an award show, and if these genuine role models should not have an influence over societies view/opinion on politicians, why should movie stars? Why should Lebron James get to endorse a specific politician, but not a Priest or Minister from Kearney Nebraska? Its quite simple in my eyes. Also, I'll have to read up on the Johnson Amendment. I really don't know enough specifically about it to say much more. I've only been sharing my experience and philosophical view on the issue.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Reverend MLK

I'd like to know from our religious members: How is religious freedom "under threat?" Do you feel your religious freedoms are under threat? If so, how? I've heard that exact complaint from a former Priest of mine, privately of course.... He's a great guy, huge husker fan, we've hung out and watched Husker games together, he might even be a part of the Huskerboard.... I wouldn't use the words "under attack", but I would say that its open to interpretation. I'd be more curious to hear the views from someone like the Pope or from MLK or Gandhi if we could go back in time on the subject than to hear Trumps/Pence or anyone else in DC on the subject. I can't recall the exact complaint from that Priest, and personally I don't have a huge gripe on the matter, but from what I understand the idea behind "separation of Church and State" was originally designed to keep State-sponsored agendas and influence out of Churches, not Church influence out of Government like is enforced. Of course that's open to interpretation.... A Priest or Rabbi not being able to speak about politics from the pulpit seems almost hypocritical to me, Religion and Social government are interconnected in many ways - I mean we're in a "Politics & Religion" forum. In a utopian world, both Churches and Governments are ideally serving, improving, and securing the quality of life of others. Both offer tremendous social services to their communities, so on and so forth..... You would have a hard time convincing me that Reverend Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, or any other local-level Rabbi's & Priest's haven't improved the standard of living for all walks of life, to not embrace and promote Government/Social opinions from people in those positions does seem off to me, I wouldn't call it an "attack", but it does seem off. I don't understand the IRS law fully, and I'm curious if the term "pulpit" carries over to the political arena - Because to allow corporate lobbyists and special interests to drive decisions in DC, but in tern limit the reach of voice from some truly great people, seems a bit backwards. Of course, its yet to be seen if changing that culture is a true intention of Trumps, and is something that I don't expect.... If you read about the founders, it's clear that they intended for the wall of separation to go both ways. Here's a quote from Jefferson who coined the "wall of separation" term that would seem to suggest he supports the Johnson Amendment: That's an excellent quote, thank you for sharing. To the idea of the separation going both ways, in a perfect world I would agree 100%, however I don't think its as simple as saying Church & State aren't allowed to influence one another - they influence each other regardless of intentions, and they always will. If a particular Politician who is running for office proposes new military/foreign policies, or say the "ban" of refugees for example, that conflict with the churches teachings, is it not the responsibility of that Priest or Rabbi to speak up and influence their congregation? - Before said politician is voted into office If the government enacts economic policy that in turn negatively effects the quality of life of a churches congregation, is it not the responsibility of the Minister to speak at the pulpit? If the government allows for laws and limits the race-integration of public schools and public places, is it not the responsibility of MLK or any Priest to preach to his congregation about politics and politicians? Edit, And furthermore, going back to what the Founding Fathers intended. They never intended for an IRS, several were adamantly against a revenue-system of any kind, and the IRS wasn't created until about 90 years after The Declaration of Independence was signed, so in regards to the Founding Fathers this law/rule is BS.

I too wish we brought in more players, but 102 means a lot of guys are not sticking around in the program. I'm guessing when you recruit at Alabama's level, kids transfer when they see someone else in the way of their playing time. We're not there yet. Bama also has more kids declare-early for the NFL than we do, which plays a part in why they have to over-sign consistently.

I'd like to know from our religious members: How is religious freedom "under threat?" Do you feel your religious freedoms are under threat? If so, how? I've heard that exact complaint from a former Priest of mine, privately of course.... He's a great guy, huge husker fan, we've hung out and watched Husker games together, he might even be a part of the Huskerboard.... I wouldn't use the words "under attack", but I would say that its open to interpretation. I'd be more curious to hear the views from someone like the Pope or from MLK or Gandhi if we could go back in time on the subject than to hear Trumps/Pence or anyone else in DC on the subject. I can't recall the exact complaint from that Priest, and personally I don't have a huge gripe on the matter, but from what I understand the idea behind "separation of Church and State" was originally designed to keep State-sponsored agendas and influence out of Churches, not Church influence out of Government like is enforced. Of course that's open to interpretation.... A Priest or Rabbi not being able to speak about politics from the pulpit seems almost hypocritical to me, Religion and Social government are interconnected in many ways - I mean we're in a "Politics & Religion" forum. In a utopian world, both Churches and Governments are ideally serving, improving, and securing the quality of life of others. Both offer tremendous social services to their communities, so on and so forth..... You would have a hard time convincing me that Reverend Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, or any other local-level Rabbi's & Priest's haven't improved the standard of living for all walks of life, to not embrace and promote Government/Social opinions from people in those positions does seem off to me, I wouldn't call it an "attack", but it does seem off. I don't understand the IRS law fully, and I'm curious if the term "pulpit" carries over to the political arena - Because to allow corporate lobbyists and special interests to drive decisions in DC, but in turn limit the reach of voice from some truly great people, seems a bit backwards. Of course, its yet to be seen if changing that culture is a true intention of Trumps, and is something that I don't expect....

I agree that residential and local use are essential to long-term success.... Can you imagine a small solar panel on the top of every city street-light pole in the US? Just add it to the design of any new poles, it would be a game changer. The newer UV and IR panels are awesome, plus I've also heard of some that can work off of water & air-humidity in addition to UV and IR. Which would mean energy could be produced at respectable levels during prolonged cloud-cover and during a rain storms.

The problem with not signing +3 is more significant than the "Nebraska Way" - although, I agree, he would get some heat for it. But by undersigning every year, its limiting (or sanctioning) us from filling up the 85 spots on the roster each year with P-5 caliber players..... Over the course of one "recruiting cycle" 5 years (4 years, plus a RS year) if we under sign by 3 players each class, then over the course of 5 years we're subtracting 15 scholarships from our NCAA allowed total. If we under sign by 4 or 5 (or if we undersign by 3, and then 2 players transfer out) then that total adds up to 20-25 - or one entire recruiting class essentially. Pelini did this regularly, and still won 9 games per year. How many more games could he have won if he had those 20-25 extra P5 caliber players on his roster over his 7 years, rather than giving them to 1-star and 2-star level walk-ons? We need to fill our classes, anyone and everyone who wins a NC these days is filling their classes, if we want to compete with them, we can't limit ourselves like this consistently.

I agree, they look cool, they are cool, but I would love for there to be a real initiative to replace these blades. There is enough evidence to have real pause and concern about birds, bats, and marine life to at least attempt something new before Wind Farms go any larger in scale than they already are -not that Trump is going to help that. If the blade-free systems are as good as they seem, and can be improved upon, then they should be implemented going forward. Absolutely. I'm not sure about the environmental impact of those blades, but if there's something better that is less damaging to the environment, I'm all for it. Anything is better than fossil fuels dumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The blades are estimated to kill between 200,000 and 375,000 birds per year, and an equal number of bats - in the US alone. I think the number is estimated at 700,000 birds world wide per year. Furthermore, Wind-farms are exempt from the same penalties you and I are subject to for killing bald eagles - there are restrictions put in place if said companies can't curtail the killings within a 5 year period though..... Also the bigger and under researched issue in my eyes, is of how the actual posts/towers effect ocean currents, whale & fishing migrations, coral developments, and hearing-damage during construction. -- A floating buoy-system would be ideal if possible. In regards to Trumps tweet, I hope it means he intends to undo part of the law Obama signed that protects wind-farms when they kill bald eagles. They should be held accountable no different from if you or I had a private wind-generator at home and killed a bald eagle. However, without knowing more about the in's and outs of the law than I do, I hope that's the only thing he changes about Obama's wind-farm policy. How many bald eagles have been killed by wind turbines? I didn't know about this. I wonder if a bald eagle flies into an office building and dies, is the company held accountable for that? EDIT - did some research. Turns out, wind turbines don't kill many raptors (bald eagles, other hunting birds), and they kill far less than buildings, power lines, etc. It's odd, then, that we would focus on some legislation that Obama signed. Especially since no administration, ever, has prosecuted a wind turbine for killing a bird, but every administration dating back to the 1970s has prosecuted the oil & gas industry, for example, for killing wildlife. Fewer Bald eagles are killed by wind turbines than by buildings every year http://www.livescience.com/41644-wind-energy-threat-to-birds-overblown.html Bald eagle killed by truck http://bangordailynews.com/2016/03/15/news/midcoast/bald-eagle-killed-after-flying-into-tractor-trailer/ Bald eagle dies in storm drain http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-orlando-eagle-dead-20161115-story.html Habitat protection saved Bald eagles from extinction https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Eagle/recovery/biologue.html IDK what the number is exactly. Nobody is counting and categorizing each and every individual dead bird at this point. You're right, it's odd. I would not put this at the top of my to-do list if I was Trump, but its definitely something that needs addressed if wind-farms are going to continue to grow. There is really no logic in not policing wind-farms (or airlines) in regards to animal rights. There should have been a stronger initiative to improve these windmills sooner imo. I didn't realize this until this morning, but one article I read suggested that the current wind-mills disrupt radio and tv signals... I always wondered why the radio-reception sucked whenever I'm driving through Iowa on I-80.

I agree, they look cool, they are cool, but I would love for there to be a real initiative to replace these blades. There is enough evidence to have real pause and concern about birds, bats, and marine life to at least attempt something new before Wind Farms go any larger in scale than they already are -not that Trump is going to help that. If the blade-free systems are as good as they seem, and can be improved upon, then they should be implemented going forward. What blade-free system are you talking about? I'm aware of no wind-driven system that is even close to the 3-blade standard wind turbine. Your right about most of them generating less energy, which I believe would improve in time. But just because one generator creates less energy, that doesn't mean an entire farm of generator couldn't create significantly more energy. Here's one example, but there are other prototypes that all have potential. https://www.wired.com/2015/05/future-wind-turbines-no-blades/ 30% less energy per turbine, but in theory, we could have double the number of turbines per square foot, and at lower cost of production, and 20% less the cost of maintenance. There is also this company that uses more of a sail or dish design, they claim they can produce more energy than a tradition blade-turbine: http://www.saphonenergy.com/index.php I can't find it now, but I've seen a similar dish-design that seemed possible to attach and replace the blades on current windmills as they stand, but because it was a dish and not a blade, and because of a "figure-8" sweeping motion, birds and bats were able to avoid it. I'm unsure of how its energy output compares however.