ActualCornHusker

Isn't it interesting that the mere assertion that orange man wasn't in fact the devil incarnate invokes a never-trump psychotic rage that people lose their ability to use logic and reason at all? I don't believe in "voting for the lesser of 2 evils." That's such a god-awful way of selecting a person to run the country. Not what I said at all, but you do you.

Who ever said I voted for him?

I'm not so sure on that one.

That would be baffling to people who believe there are 2 parties at opposite ends of the spectrum. My view is that there are not 2 parties - there is a uniparty that puts up a public display of being 2 parties in order to manipulate the public. Both major parties need to die a quick and painful death.

If Orange man made you vote for Democrats, then yes. You left principle behind. I'd personally prefer Trump to exit the public arena and never come back, but I at least have the ability to look objectively at him, give him credit for policy issues that I agree with him on, and criticize his policy and personal baggage without sounding like a freaking psychopath.

Case in point.

Nowhere near as interesting as the study on the people who abandon all principle to oppose orange man.

You can't be serious... The FBI and DOJ suppress the Hunter laptop in order to benefit candidate Biden, with multiple intelligence officials calling it Russian disinformation, so to counter that, people on the right try to show their constituents how incredibly crooked Biden actually is, and your issue is with.... someone other than the agencies that are supposed to crack down on that very thing?.... Yikes.... It's truly incredible to watch as a person who isn't attached to either side how insane the statist faction of our population is (which is basically the entire democratic party and at least half of the republican party)

People who think Tucker Carlson is an extremist are extremists.

The most dangerous disinformation comes out of the mouths of the politicians and bureaucrats in DC

Who exactly are you talking about? Romney? If so, lmfao

I'm not a republican either but I'd vote for MTG 1000x before I'd vote for any of the listed Republicans or a single Democrat

Republicans SHOULD get rid of Romney, Sasse, Cheney, Kinsinger, and I'll add to your list, McConnell and McCarthy, because they're all just awful people with awful records as politicians.

Packers could be a good spot for Toure to succeed! Pretty surprised Allen and JoJo didn't get drafted, but I'm sure they'll both find a good home in free agency

By far the candidate with the best platform for governor is Breland Ridenour, but unfortunately people vote for name recognition. Herbster has a ton of baggage, Pillen strikes me as a BoomerCon, and Lindstrom's stances on the issues are wishy washy imo.

Gregory and Dennard might both have been 1st rounders if not for their non-football baggage

From my understanding just from listening to Frost, his offensive assistants, and the players, it sounded like Frost's offense forced receivers to read the defense too much and adjust their routes, and they had to also be on the same page as the QB. That complicated of a system, combined with lackluster (at best) position coaching for the WRs, probably explains the lack of production from young receivers as much as lack of talent IMO. Hopefully with Whipple's system the receivers are more free to react rather than get bogged down thinking so much.

If this is the decision making criteria, I really hope she's talking about Nebraska

It would be really great to add Mathis, but our need for interior DL guys became pretty pressing so if I had to choose Mathis or a couple interior guys who can hold up against the run game, I'd take the latter. I also realize the coaches are trying to bolster the numbers at DE/OLB since there's only 4 on the roster, but Mathis doesn't really solve that long term either since he'd be a 1 year guy I'm assuming. And you'd have to wonder if Gunnerson or Butler take the Mathis signing as a slight and think about leaving as well. Hopefully not, but who knows...

On my conference call with Elon 30 minutes ago he told me exactly what he meant by the tweet. Jesus... He has spoke openly about what he believes twitter SHOULD BE, which one could infer would be how he will plan to have it run. And not to obsess over the tweet, but you seem to be so caught up on it. When he says "censorship that goes far beyond the law" I interpret that more as an accusation of the way social media is currently being run rather than getting hung up on the word "far" You're right, no one knows for sure how exactly he'll run it. But I am taking the totality of what Elon has said as a good indication of what he's going to do, and you've chosen to fixate on a single word of a single tweet because that fits into your ideological presuppositions.

I agree, we do have it great in America. There's no other country or time period in history I'd rather live in. But that's in spite of our government, not because of it.

That's fair, because most of the gov agencies that you would claim are under funded shouldn't exist in the first place.

If you read the first sentence, he tells you what he means. You're just here trying to muddy the waters and apply your own presuppositions to what he's saying

Read it one more time: By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. --Elon Musk