AR Husker Fan

Kind of an interesting read. Good to see that the records will be preserved while at the same time providing some continuity for the next Administration.

How the White House's social media accounts will transition to the next president

 

Wait, another anonymous FBI source?

 

Knock me over with a feather.

bold is funny. Got me laughing. I'll need to see if that works wt my wife. She might think I'm being a bit sarcastic.

Flying dinosaur feather or a chick a de feather?

 

Like I said, how valid the sources are will remain to be seen based on the outcome. However, all news outlets use 'anonymous' sources. These are pretty strong claims for FoxNews (not fox commentators like Hannity) to put on their main flagship news show. So they must have some confidence in the sources. That doesn't mean they will actually play out to be valid. Claims by "Sources" of all major press outlets aren't always 100% valid - whether anonymous or named. Fox News still isn't Brietbart or Infowars. as some would like to think. I think Brett Baier is generally respected.

 

Fox News apologizes for falsely reporting that Clinton faces indictment

Well, kudos for FOX for at least admitting that the report was wholly without substance. Would have been better if they had applied basic journalistic practices in the first place, but...

If only SNL would do a skit, or Jon Stewart would make a public announcement of some sort .... I think that would jar him into a spiral.

Someone needs to page Elizabeth Warren. No idea why, but she gets under his skin more than anyone else.

 

That Clinton lead is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking.

 

Trump will still have to run the table on those key battle ground states and/or take one or more of some of those light blue states. While the lead is shrinking, Hillary will probably prevail. I don't think Trump has enough time to win those states. However if the vote was 1 - 2 weeks later, it may flip.

 

Nah, not a chance. That would require Trump to stay focused and on-topic for the entire time, something he has proven incapable of doing time and again.

It's amazing how this election is revealing how character-deficient are some of our elected officials...

Wisconsin Stories, Videos, Audio, Stats & More

Nebraska 17

Wisconsin 23

Check our Wisconsin game stories, videos, audio clips, stats, & more on our Schedule/Results page.

*Refresh your screen if updates aren't showing.

Purdue Stories, Videos, Audio, Stats & More

Nebraska 27

Purdue 14

Check our Purdue game stories, videos, audio clips, stats, & more on our Schedule/Results page.

*Refresh your screen if updates aren't showing.

Well then...

 

Clinton and Trump had 2 very different reactions to the firebombing in North Carolina

And since you'll continue to lie, I will have plenty of opportunity to do so.

Indiana Stories, Videos, Audio, Stats & More

Nebraska 27

Indiana 22

Check our Indiana game stories, videos, audio clips, stats, & more on our Schedule/Results page.

*Refresh your screen if updates aren't showing.

Gee, I wonder how in the world he ever developed that kind of Neanderthal attitude?

In a very ironic turn of events. We always hear that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. THIS year though....it's different. Trump has lost. There is no way in hell he is winning this election. So.....it appears to me that a vote for him is what is a wasted vote.

 

If you vote for him, it's telling the Republicans that you're still on board with the status quo in the party and you're all happy and fine with how they do business. You are happy with the pathetic piece of crap that got nominated and you want more of the same.

 

THAT is not the message anyone should be sending the Republicans. So....a vote for Trump is actually a wasted vote.

That's an excellent point. At this point, oddly enough, Republican office holders need Trump more than Trump needs them - Trump can't win, but his base, while not even a majority of Republicans, is still sizable enough and fanatical enough that it will punish any Republican who doesn't enthusiastically endorse Trump and what he represent - bigotry, misogyny, isolationism, etc. Trumpism, then will become the new Republican norm unless those who would vote for Trump look to an alternative candidate. I would think that true conservatives will recognize this and reject voting for Trump.

Five thirty eight has an interesting article on how Evan McMillan can win Utah, and the presidency. Very unlikely; but a conservative can dream. Sorry I don't know how to link to the article.

Here you go:

Donald Trump is running out of ways to win

But 25 days before the election, Trump's path to the 270 electoral votes needed to capture the presidency is looking more and more impossible by the day, as states he once said he'd flip from blue to red increasingly slip out of his reach. Meanwhile, reliably red states threaten to turn purple.

*****

"The map looked strong for Clinton at the start of this race and it's looking even stronger for her toward the end of it," Ayres said. "If a landslide is winning in the Electoral College by more than 100 votes, Clinton is on track to do that now."

More evidence of corruption with the Clinton Foundation per Wikileaks. Most people who did what Hillary did are in prison.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/13/jack-abramoff-imprisoned-same-things-hillary-clinton-has-done/

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/12/report-clinton-foundation-donors-got-rich-haiti-relief-efforts-haitians-live-squalor/

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/13/wikileaks-emails-reveal-bill-clintons-1m-birthday-/

As the saying goes, repeat a lie often enough...

The reality is that none of the three "sources" cited above provide any EVIDENCE of corruption. None. All three certainly put forth innuendo, but that's it. Read them closely - the Breitbart "article" alleges that, "'[Hillary's] staff — Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin — were very involved in facilitating donors getting special access,' he said." Nice claim, but note that nowhere in the article is any EVIDENCE to support that claim.

As to Hotair.com (a fitting name), it states, "Make no mistake, many of the projects were financed through international aid organizations funded by various world governments led by the United States. And, as it turns out, many of the corporations receiving the largest amount of financial aid and incentive from these government-funded agencies were also big donors to the Clinton Foundation." First, there is no EVIDENCE in the "article" to support that claim (and again, what we are addressing here is the claim that these three "articles" provide further evidence of corruption in the Foundation). Second, assuming for the limited purposes of argument only that the claim is true, so what?

And finally, the "Washington Times". The substance of the "evidence" consists entirely of the following:

The latest email thread shows an aide discussing conversations with ambassadors from Qatar, Brazil, Peru, Malawi, and Rwanda while in the nation’s capital.

 

“[Qatar] would like to see WJC ‘for five minutes’ in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC’s birthday in 2011,” an employee at The Clinton Foundation said to numerous aides, including Doug Brand. “Qatar would welcome our suggestions for investments in Haiti — particularly on education and health. They have allocated most of their $20 million but are happy to consider projects we suggest. I’m collecting input from CF Haiti team.”

But the "article" lacks an important element - any EVIDENCE that Qatar (or any other entity named) actually obtained an audience with Bill Clinton from it's donation. And even if it did, Bill Clinton was not the Secretary of State - Hillary was.

So, again, no evidence. And, again, repeat a lie often enough...

 

 

 

 

Here's the actual audio of Hillary Clinton laughing, to prove how the aforementioned hot garbage accusations are in fact, hot garbage.

 

What I found weird about that video is how much her accent has changed. I think she purposely tried to make it less southern once they were done with Arkansas.

 

Other way around. She adopted a more southern accent after living in Arkansas a few years (after Bill was defeated after his first term as Governor), as well as adopting the Clinton surname. Prior to that, she was Hillary Rodham. She made both changes because Arkansans felt that she was too much a Yankee and too much a feminist. Arkansans are not the most advanced or tolerant people.

 

 

Oh right... I knew she wasn't from there but kinda forgot, heh.

 

So in other words....she's faker than a three dollar bill.

 

Eh, no more than most politicians. Over the last 25 years or so, part of my work has required that I interact with politicians of both parties, from Congress to the local level. I can't begin to tell you how many pull the accent bit in the south. One of the weirdest aspects of it is when they appear in person, the accent gets thicker. When they go on TV or radio, it often fades quite a bit. I think the former is to make them appear less intimidating and "more like us" when a more personal connection is needed; the latter is to impart that they are not rubes that are completely unqualified for the job.

Hillary is certainly no saint, and given her desire for a "sphere of privacy" the last thing she should have ever done is run for office, but there is some truth to the claims that anyone subjected to the level and length (in terms of years) of scrutiny she has endured would reveal at least as many flaws as can be found in Hillary. But consider - for much of that time, Republicans/Conservatives have controlled all three branches of government; have spent tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of dollars; and have engaged in repetitive investigations that they completely controlled...and have accomplished absolutely nothing in terms of findings against Hillary. That means that either Republicans/Conservatives are the stupidest, most inept and incompetent people alive or that Hillary really has run a pretty clean ship.

I can actually go with either - but statistically speaking, what are the odds that someone has repeatedly and constantly committed wrong-doing and no one (even will all the resources listed above) can prove it? In other words, the odds (and the lack of findings) point to the fact that while she may not rate high on the "likeability" meter, she isn't the corrupt anti-Christ that is alleged.

 

Here's the actual audio of Hillary Clinton laughing, to prove how the aforementioned hot garbage accusations are in fact, hot garbage.

 

 

What I found weird about that video is how much her accent has changed. I think she purposely tried to make it less southern once they were done with Arkansas.

Other way around. She adopted a more southern accent after living in Arkansas a few years (after Bill was defeated after his first term as Governor), as well as adopting the Clinton surname. Prior to that, she was Hillary Rodham. She made both changes because Arkansans felt that she was too much a Yankee and too much a feminist. Arkansans are not the most advanced or tolerant people.

Because Newt is a paragon of virtue...

Trump Campaign Pulls Out of Virginia, Reallocates Resources to More Competitive Battleground States

The move effectively concedes the state and its 13 electoral votes to the Democratic presidential ticket of Hillary Clinton and former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, who’s now the state’s junior U.S. senator.