AR Husker Fan

Well, after Hillary is elected and the Senate flips, she nominates him for the Supreme Court and the Senate overwhelmingly approves. Boom! Future foretold!

BTN 2016 football schedule analysis: Nebraska Cornhuskers

This is kind of interesting. Hardly any surprise that Kansas' Brownback "leads" on the Least Popular ranking. America’s Most and Least Popular Governors

A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that the "middle class lost ground in nearly nine-in-ten U.S. metropolitan areas examined' in the study. Quite lengthy and involved, but a very interesting read. Some interesting excerpts:

You could be right... Paul Ryan will skip chairing convention if Donald Trump asks

Interesting... Oklahoma was 'within 30 minutes' of leaving for the Pac-10 in 2010

So, it appears that Chris Christie won't be Trump's running mate... Trump taps Christie to lead transition

Well, Trump certainly isn't helping downstream candidates at all... Trump tells West Virginia voters to 'stay home' on primary day

Can't wait to see what he says in response to this...

I just can't see a third party candidate - other than Sanders or Trump - having sufficient time to build his or her infrastructure and raise funds. Both Sanders and Trump have at least a semblance of a campaign system, and both have funds. But otherwise, I just don't think there is, at this point, any way for anyone else to mount a viable campaign.

Unless Hillary's campaign implodes, it seems a foregone conclusion that she takes the general election. A far more interesting question is what happens to downstream races with Trump as the nominee. In Arkansas, a Democrat is challenging the senior Senator (a Republican) by tying that Senator to Trump, and has a VERY effective video that I would think will ensure that any woman watching would hold against any Republican candidate that does not repudiate Trump. Here it is:

I think that's only if you are a "booster". Not sure though... Everyone might want to take a look at THIS THREAD. The term "booster" is explained by the NCAA HERE. Among other things, the NCAA considers you a booster if you have "been involved otherwise in promoting university athletics." That's a pretty vague definition, admittedly, and could conceivably include anyone on this board that has ever made a positive comment about Huskers sports of any kind. But also from that same link:

Well, a summary would be that the study attempted to determine how likely someone was to read a statement that was utter bullsh#t if examined with a critical and logical view, but thought instead it was a "profound" statement. The study concluded, as the title said, that "Misperceiving bullsh#t as Profound Is Associated with Favorable Views of Cruz, Rubio, Trump and Conservatism". In other words, folks that support Cruz, Rubio, Trump or conservatism in general fall for form over substance - they are easily fooled by nonsense statements and deemed those statements as "profound" instead of what they were - complete and utter bullsh#t.

Justice Department challenges North Carolina transgender law

The beginning of the end...

Issues such as what? A women's restroom is a series of stalls, with doors. If someone wants to go into one to peek, they have to plug their head to the cracks in the door. That's pretty easily seen, and it's crime (usually if it's for the purpose of sexual gratification). Again, I can legally enter the "opposite" bathroom now; I don't have to dress as a woman. It's the "peeking" that's abhorrent, and hence a crime. The anti-transgender laws provide no extra level of protection, but DOES criminalize the act of entering even though the individual identifies as a woman. And if he does identify as a woman, he's entering to utilize the facilities, not to go to the stall doors and peek at the occupants. The real danger to women in a women's bathroom is from sexual predators that go where women may be found alone. They don't feel the need to dress as a woman to prey on women. Try looking at the number of cases in which a transgender person preyed on a member of the opposite sex in the bathroom.

It's socially acceptable currently to take a young boy or girl into the opposite gender's bathroom until the parent feels they're old enough to go into their own restroom on their own. No, a mother shouldn't take her young son into the men's room. And no, a father shouldn't take his young daughter into the women's restroom. That discussion is irrelevant. Actually, it's not. It directly addresses the point YOU raised regarding removing the subjectivity in the law. Again, the point YOU raised. So, unless you are admitting that YOUR point is irrelevant... Ah, now we DO get to something irrelevant. Their reaction is irrelevant as to whether it's a crime.