funhusker

My vote for Hillary is a vote "against Trump". Trump's "deal breakers" for me... 1. He will willingly and knowingly single out a religion and deprive them of their FIRST Amendment rights. 2. He will voluntarily commit non-debatable war crimes such as capturing and torturing the families of terrorists. 3. China has used him as an example of why democracy doesn't work and North Korea has endorsed his campaign. 4. He insists a "simple wall" will stop all immigration ills and he thinks the American public is naive enough to think Mexico will pay for it. 5. He has no filter. If he thinks it's okay to make insuations about the size of his penis during a Presidential debate, I have no reason to have faith in his private conversations with world leaders. 6. He thinks China created climate change. . 7. He thinks Obama isn't an American citizen, birth certificate be damned. 8. I could keep going...I wish I could find "deal breakers" in his policies, but we've yet to see them. Yes, he wants to cut taxes, but what programs will be up for sacrifice. Yes he wants to defeat ISIS, but how will he do more than is currently being done without boots on the ground. He said he wants to rebuild the infrastructure, how will this be paid for? Where does he stand on education? Bottom line: many people, even Trump himself, has said a vote for Hillary is a vote for a third term for Obama. At this point, even though Obama's Presidency doesn't lack faults, I would not hesitate to take a third term of economic growth (albeit slow), aggressive assault on terrorist groups without "boots on the ground", and a hope that everyone, no matter their identity, will be able to have the freedom to pursue their dreams. Hillary is not an ideal candidate because of the baggage she carries (whether she truly deserves it or not is a topic for another thread), Bernie was way to far left to be an ideal candidate. If either party would put up a "centrist" candidate I would have voted for them. Hell, I voted in the Republican primary to vote Kasich. If Kasich would have been the Republican nominee, I would have voted for him. As far as the duties of President and what the office can achieve, I believe Kasich and Clinton would be very similar. However, one would be much easier to stomach...

What I am really afraid of is that the Disney PR department nixed the mention of "alligator" to not scare away tourists. I have no evidence of this, just speculation I've thought the exact same thing. This line of thinking goes along with the man that fell into the hot spring at Yellowstone. If the sign read "waters are heated by super volcano, stay on path" he hopefully would have thought twice, however, the hundreds of thousands of tourists to Yellowstone might not be there in the first place...

...and you (and a couple of others here) are a predisposed victim hoping that if we disarm everybody else you can hide in a sea of other victims in waiting and that would be fair. As it is now, you are voluntarily abrogating your right and duty to self defense for you and for those around you, and that no doubt impacts your self esteem and gives you a little twinge of guilt that you don't have the courage or won't make the effort to protect yourself and others. There, enough for one night. We all have something to think about and I am sure my opinions and ideas will be valued at the same level as I hold those of the dissenting side of the debate. The hilarious thing about this reply is you're projecting a bunch of opinions onto me that I don't have. I value some people's opinions on both sides of the argument, but I don't value yours because you make crap up and then state it as fact, over and over. That being said, assuming I decided to not own a gun, what you said is not logical. Let's say you're standing in a crowd of 100 people and you know 1 person has to get killed by an attacker with a gun. In that case what you've said is fine. You're hoping you're lucky or that someone has a gun they can use to kill the attacker. That's not reality though. Reality is that we're not under constant attack by guns. Most people don't need them. Not because they're letting someone else save them but because they'll never been in a situation where anyone near them needs to have a gun. Also, contrary to what you've posted, most people who want regulation just simply want it to be harder to get them. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to own guns themselves. I don't even necessarily believe in what those politicians are fighting for. I think some of it's been said here already (but you clearly haven't read any of the thread considering what you think my stance to be) but there are problems with not allowing people on the terror watch list to buy guns. Off the top of my head - it lets them know they're on the terror watch list. Kind of hard to get intelligence on someone once they've figured that out. To the first bold - This whole thread is about opinions, even what I have stated and more importantly everything you just said. There are no facts that more gun control would do anything at all, but that doesn't stop the forum dems/libs from thinking it must be done, infringement be damned! To the second bold - I would love to see your numbers on "most people", or are you talking about just in this thread. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks The following article lists several polls and other points. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jan/05/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-say-claim-90-support-gun-background/

Let me be clear, I do not want to see Trump as President of the United States. But, am I the only anti-Trump that wants to get a hand on one of those hats when this clusterf*** of an election cycle is over? It would kind of be like getting a salad fork from the Titanic... I have absolutely zero desire to have one of those ugly friggen hats in my house. I would never ever wear it! Just pull it out to share an important histroy lesson with my grandkids...

I intended for my comment to be more critical of the appropriation of his funds. The fact that he has spent more money on hats ($1.54 million profit, although a decent fundraiser, isn't going to do much in helping him catch Hillary) than things that will actually help in getting him elected combined (data management, online marketing, etc)

208k on hats? Is he planning on sending one to each household in America or something? Isn't that proof that he might not be the business/financial mastermind that so many claim him to be???

Let me be clear, I do not want to see Trump as President of the United States. But, am I the only anti-Trump that wants to get a hand on one of those hats when this clusterf*** of an election cycle is over? It would kind of be like getting a salad fork from the Titanic...

I certainly agree with the that, I'm just not sure it's more beneficial to focus on that than the actual issue. Can you imagine if the reaction to something awful a Christian did was "hey, Muslims can be shitheads too!". While that's certainly true, it wouldn't be helpful in understanding the actual processes that led to the heinous act. I agree 100%. Focusing on the religion of a "psycho" may help determine some of the "superficial" aspects like "who he targets" and "who he claims allegiance to" but it doesn't solve the real issue of how can a person be so disconnected. Brings us all the way back, why does it matter if a terrorist is called Muslim or not? Regarding the bolded: if Muslims made up the majority of the population and wanted to keep Christians out of the country and put FBI agents in churches, I think it would get the same reaction, and rightfully so.

Right, and we have no problem discussing how insane it is when it comes to Christianity. Why isn't it considered equally insane when legitimate criticisms of Islam are conflated with demonizing Muslim people as a whole? Why that double standard? No one is saying the ideas of some Muslims on homosexuality arent't an issue. It is no more okay for a Muslim to wish death upon gays than for a Christian. We are simply recognizing it is an issue found in other religions, namely the predominant religion in the United States. The religion that many people claim our nation was founded on. I don't think you have to go too far in the P&R forums to find threads where people point out the ridiculousness of painting Christians with a broad brush in any of the LGBT threads....

Mandatory background check for all gun sales in a 50 state common database, along with not selling guns to people on a terror watchlist, and researching the effects of mental health on gun violence will in no way affect the freedoms of Americans (well I guess as long as those Americans aren't terrorists, career criminals, or mentally unstable). This is what most of us want, to be free and at least have the illusion that the government cares about the people that vote them into office. edit: I know it was mentioned earlier about "how would you begin to determine who is unstable or not?". That is a valid point, but I think everyone agreed that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. A good start would be to actually allow the CDC and others to research what causes the mental stress in people like the Orlando, Newtown, Colorado Springs, Virginia Tech shooter. And also study the mental state of gang violence and what may or may not give them the drive to shoot people. Taking away everyone's guns isn't the answer, probably why no one is even suggesting it. But pretending it is a problem that we "just have to deal with" is disgusting. Thousands of young people are dying every year, thousands more are going to prison for a large chunk of their lives. Hundreds of innocents die each year, whether they are targets of a crazyperson or just happened to be sitting on the wrong porch during a drive-by shooting. I think everyone agrees that a person has to be "sick in the head" to take another life outside of war (btw, the research might even help in the fight against PTSD). This "illness" is affecting all of us, shouldn't we at least try to figure out why people do these things? Then we can come up with a gun policy that might actually have a chance of working.

That's ridiculous. The U.S. has been raining death on 'radical Islam' for a long time, and will continue to do so regardless of who is President. The reason you don't feed into the anti-Islam rhetoric is because this is also a war of ideas. If you truly believe that radicalization is the problem and not Islam, then you fight against that. America has been killing Muslisms for so long that it's awful easy to convince Muslisms that the West is out to get them. ISIS feeds on that. No thanks on giving them an assist. It's not ridiculous. If the President is a smart man, he can easily call out Radical Islam while not referring to all Muslims. These same Islamic terrorists are killing tons of gays in Iran and the middle east as well. In order to beat the enemy, you have to define them and understand what drives them. Like calling them "radical terrorists" that will be eliminated????

No words for this douche. What was he right about? That terrorism is bad and wants to kill people? No sh#t, Trump. Did the shooter recently fly into the country and tell customs he was a Muslim? Was the shooter a Syrian refugee? Did the shooter gain access to Florida by crossing the Mexican border? If the answer to any of those questions is "yes" then I'll think about lightening up. But I'm guessing this is just Trump practicing auto-fellatio

I want a horse-drawn cannon!

It seems you're arguing against points he didn't make and ignoring points he did. I'd recommend listening again. I listened 3 times.

Yes, it is a problem. However, not just a Muslim problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIlPdyrvEfw

There is a lot to touch on from that video. So I'm just going to go for a few... 1. No one, not even Obama, has said ISIS is not made up of people claiming to be Muslims. What he, and others, have said is that their version of Islaam has no place in this world and is misrepresentative of the 100's of millions of Muslims that make up the rest of the Muslim population. 2. If the Quran truly teaches violence in every context, why do 85% (number is from the video) of Muslims worldwide believe Islaam promotes peace? 3. The man's analogy about "bald white men" was a fun thought experiment. If his scenario is true, should constitutional rights be stripped from all bald white men? Should they be detained and kicked off planes for doing math? Should they have their homes vandalized because of their hair style? I thought it was funny how he added the "swastika" tattoo qualifier in the middle; there is a big difference between a bald man in a suit and tie, and a bald man wearing a wife beater to show off his Nazi tattoos. Same goes for Islam, a big difference between the Muslim buying baseball tickets online and a Muslim using Google to make bombs: but people will just see a "brown guy on a laptop" and not even take the time to ask him what he's working on. And yes, I do believe if there was a depressed bald white man with no friends and looking to find a group of people who will make him feel "validated" versus a group of people who make him feel worthless and evil. Not a very big percentage at all, but some. ISIS isn't trying to recruit every Muslim child, they are recruiting the "misplaced" and "vulnerable". They are recruiting the people in the "grey zone" mentioned in the OP.

I don't think it's hate. I think it's cynicism. I can sort of understand it; things aren't perfect, there's a feeling that we have little individual influence over changing that, so why not blow things up and watch what happens? ...I'm kind of on the other side there, though. That's a little too counter-intuitive to me. Sure, I think we could survive the tumult, and maybe there's an argument that long term there are positive changes to either come or get accelerated by the process. You know, out of the ashes of a forest fire springs life anew. But clearly, I think, let's avoid the forest fire if we can ... A controlled burn is one thing. Throwing smoldering cigarette butts in all directions surrounding a Boy Scout Camp is another.

I have an inherent distrust of such articles, especially during campaign season. Call it the Duke Rape Case hangover. I was sure those guys were guilty, because the details in the well-researched article were overwhelming. Then the truth came out and I felt like an idiot. I'm trying not to make that mistake again. If it turns out the story is true, my patience on the due diligence and waiting for Trump's response won't have harmed anyone. I know what you saying, Knapp, but these cases DO exist. That is what the article(s) is about. In a previous post you mentioned Trumps focus on the "bottom line" and these tactics might have been the cheaper option for him. I agree with that; I believe he defaulted on payments for financial reasons. What is going to "come to light" after these stories is which scenario is true: 1) Trump is a greedy businessman with zero ethics and looking to maximize his investments no matter the impact on others, 2) Trump isn't as successful as he claims, and was forced to "negotiate" lower costs to stay in business himself, 3) Trump is broke and doesn't have the money at all, 4) he isn't a good "businessman" at all and completely forgot to pay a bunch of people and to try and save face he opts to look like a super shrewd negotiator, or 5) something else. No matter what, Trump knows these claims exist and I'm guessing he was hoping they wouldn't come up. The interesting part is how he will try to defend it in a way that will fall in line with the "character" of Donald Trump: Successful Businessman and Presidential Nominee.

People sometimes call me an Iowa apologist on here because I call out the baseless and pointless sh#t talking about them. They were a really good team that played their style of football, played the schedule they were given, and didn't go 12-0 by accident. That championship game against MSU was an incredible slugfest. They deserved what they received and earned their place by playing clean football and creating opportunities. I would like to have a season like theirs. However, I just believe they were the worst of the "best" and I don't think they can replicate, nor build off last season. I don't think they will replicate 12-0, but I think they get to 10 wins which will most likely get them to the CC Game. I would much rather the Huskers be the "worst of the best" than the "best of the worst" like last season....

Here's the thing Shark. Trump has people in his past that claim he is generous, honorable, and a great man. There are also people that despise him. The same goes for Hillary, she has people that can't speak well enough about her, and also a bunch of detractors. If you are relying on what others think of them as "private people" then you are going to be chasing your tail until November. These two are running very public campaigns in totally different fashions. They are giving you every opportunity to view first hand how they handle people, interviewers, and public policy. There is and will be plenty of evidence to allow you to form your own opinion. Relying on testimony of friends and family about candidates is pointless.

As I've stated before, this election is about the worse of two evils. On the one hand you have a bully and blowhard outside the political system that has a history of getting results. On the other hand you have a pathological liar who has spent her career inside the system and has little to show for it. Both candidates are deeply flawed when it comes to their character, and the election will come down to whether Americans want an insider or outsider. That's the thing. What you see on TV and what the media advertises about Trump isn't who he is. There have been countless people who have come forward who have either worked for Trump, worked with him, or been around him, and all of them that I've heard have said that he's one of the most generous, respectful people they've ever met. I tend to listen to those opinions about a persons character before I would ever listen to someone in the media, or a career politician. I prefer to make my own educated decision based on what I see and what I read about in unbiased sources. And on top of that - My gut. Which has been right (not a placebo controlled trial) at least 95% of the time. Not on the supposed rumbles of people who may or may not have met the man behind closed doors on a good day. Why would you think that after he's elected suddenly we'll see this alter ego Trump? The worst in people comes out in stressful times, and it won't get less stressful for him if elected. I can't understand valuing someones opinion, (who you don't know from a hole in the wall) over documented instances and what you can see if you turn on a television or computer. If your mom or your 2nd grade teacher said she'd met him and he was wonderful that's one thing, but random folks - none of which will stand up and say it proudly? Nope. PS, my uncles friend's cousin met Mother Theresa and said she was an absolute loud mouth bully. It's true. One of the other nuns that lived with her said it too. My mechanic told me his neighbor told him so. Why would I not take into account people who have worked along side him and say that he is one of the most respectful, generous people they have ever met? The best example would be from all the women in the smear article from the NYT. They were all quoted out of context, and they all came out and said nothing but good things about him. On top of that, I look at how much his family loves and respects him, and how well he has raised them to be successful business people as well. Ivanka especially is an extremely impressive individual. Finally, the stresses? Really? He has been in high pressure situations his whole life and made out pretty well. I have absolutely zero concern about him handling stress. Yeah.....his wives love and respect him so much they didn't want to be married to him anymore. Who knows what the story is there? Frankly, it's none of our business. Most people wouldn't know, but there is added stress to a marriage when one or both of the spouses is building a business, and in this case, multiple businesses. It's awfully easy to sit on the sideline and criticize, but fact of the matter is, very few people would have been able to accomplish what he has throughout his life. So we should leave what happens between a man and wife out of politics? Noted.

As I've stated before, this election is about the worse of two evils. On the one hand you have a bully and blowhard outside the political system that has a history of getting results. On the other hand you have a pathological liar who has spent her career inside the system and has little to show for it. Both candidates are deeply flawed when it comes to their character, and the election will come down to whether Americans want an insider or outsider. That's the thing. What you see on TV and what the media advertises about Trump isn't who he is. There have been countless people who have come forward who have either worked for Trump, worked with him, or been around him, and all of them that I've heard have said that he's one of the most generous, respectful people they've ever met. I tend to listen to those opinions about a persons character before I would ever listen to someone in the media, or a career politician. I prefer to make my own educated decision based on what I see and what I read about in unbiased sources. And on top of that - My gut. Which has been right (not a placebo controlled trial) at least 95% of the time. Not on the supposed rumbles of people who may or may not have met the man behind closed doors on a good day. Why would you think that after he's elected suddenly we'll see this alter ego Trump? The worst in people comes out in stressful times, and it won't get less stressful for him if elected. I can't understand valuing someones opinion, (who you don't know from a hole in the wall) over documented instances and what you can see if you turn on a television or computer. If your mom or your 2nd grade teacher said she'd met him and he was wonderful that's one thing, but random folks - none of which will stand up and say it proudly? Nope. PS, my uncles friend's cousin met Mother Theresa and said she was an absolute loud mouth bully. It's true. One of the other nuns that lived with her said it too. My mechanic told me his neighbor told him so. Don't forget there are also people that worked for him that said he made them uncomfortable about their weight, people in his own campaign who said he won't listen to reason, and don't forget about the hundreds of contractors that have negative comments on Trump's ability to pay for their work. His past girlfriends, who lived a lavish lifestyle I'm sure, and people who work for Trump that fit his personal tastes have glowing reviews of him. But I'm not interested in "hanging out" with Trump on a personal level or working for Trump Organization, my only relationship with him will be through the public. And his "public persona" comes across as baffoonish (is that a word?).

Not sure I follow. They aren't going to sell single game tickets because they plan on selling out with season ticket holders. Oregon fans get allotted a certain number that they can buy through their ticket office in the visiter's section. They aren't being required to by Nebraska season tickets to come to see the game. I'm saying the university is requiring husker fans, who want to buy tickets for the Oregon game, to purchase season tickets. They will not be selling single-game tickets for that game, yet single game tickets will be available for all other games. if true, that is pure bullsh#t! Go up about halfway up and read the discussion. It's true, and it's not bullsh#t...

It took you until May 25th to call him a demagogue? Try to keep up Knapp

I agree with this 100%, especially if the student has no idea what they want to be when they "grow up".