The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:48 pm

No, I'm right there with you. The idea that she could have any influence over a Presidential election is downright terrifying.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:53 pm

Smoove_B wrote:I need to be honest, if Trump could help me see embedded Tweets on OO, I might vote for him. You have no idea how f'ing difficult this site has become to read in some threads because of it.

You aren't running Ghostery, are you?

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:03 pm

Nope. I posted here that it worked for a bit with my new computer, but then went back to not working at all. I can only assume it's something with Adblock Plus and/or No Script, however nothing I can find in any of the settings is obviously blocking the tweets. It's a good/bad thing.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:33 pm

Well, I don't run Firefox right now, but on Chrome I have the following being allowed through my blockers.

Twitter Button and Twitter Syndication on Ghostery
) , ) , ),) on UBlock Origin (an ad/misc blocker comparable to AdBlock)

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:31 pm

It's almost definitely one or both of them, that's probably seeing the tweet as a web beacon. You can probably change it in one of the settings to white list twitter (provided you don't mind them tracking what websites you view).

It would be nice if OO made, along with the embedded tweet, added a link to the tweet itself, so that anyone who is using a blocker will 1) realize theres a tweet and 2) be able to view the tweet without alternating the blocking software.

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:51 pm

I just wish they'd show on tapatalk.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Fri Sep 23, 2016 11:00 pm

Blackhawk wrote:Well, I don't run Firefox right now, but on Chrome I have the following being allowed through my blockers.

Twitter Button and Twitter Syndication on Ghostery
) , ) , ),) on UBlock Origin (an ad/misc blocker comparable to AdBlock)

Dammit, those were URLs. #*(##(

Anyway, I don't have the time to dig through the logs again, but everything had either the word 'twitter' or 'twimg' in it somewhere, although in some it was later in the URL.

milo · Post by **milo** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 1:01 am

LordMortis wrote:

It must have been someone who hates him. Any white supremacist who supports him would at least know the proper direction in which a Nazi Swastika is twisted.

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 7:47 am

The Cruz endorsement post (I guess we're doing Presidential endorsements via FB post now?), and it didn't make a damn bit of sense. He specifically mentions that he's endorsing Trump because of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. This would be the same Trump that wants to start rounding up journalists that disagree with him, and who proposed some kind of list for the Muslims, right?

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:53 am

Chaz wrote:The Cruz endorsement post (I guess we're doing Presidential endorsements via FB post now?), and it didn't make a damn bit of sense. He specifically mentions that he's endorsing Trump because of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. This would be the same Trump that wants to start rounding up journalists that disagree with him, and who proposed some kind of list for the Muslims, right?

Remember who we're talking about. Don't be fooled into thinking Cruz is the establishment, or even rational, alternative just because Trump had steered the reset point off into looney land. Cruz is as wing-nutty as they come.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:57 am

The endorsement makes more sense when you realize someone (or a group of someones) told him to get in line...or else. I'm still astounded he did it though.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:03 am

It's not surprising. Trump called him up and told him that Hillary was the one that insulted his wife and spread those rumors about his dad.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:09 am

A majority of voters say Donald Trump would allow the U.S. to default on its debt and that he would misuse the power of the presidency to punish his political opponents.

And nearly half of voters — 46 percent — say the GOP nominee would use a nuclear weapon to attack ISIS or another foreign enemy.

Among those who say they will vote for Trump, 48 percent say he’ll create a database to track Muslims; 36 percent say there will be race riots; 33 percent say the government would default on its debt; and 32 percent say Trump would punish his political opponents and authorize internment camps for illegal immigrants.

Only 22 percent of Trump supporters believe he will start a nuclear war.

link

"Only".

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:11 am

Their decisions to get on the bus or off the bus will follow individual Republicans long after Trump takes office/fades into a bad dream, and it's not clear now which is the politically savvier move.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:28 am

Feels like Cruz managed to find the worst of all possible worlds. If Trump wins Cruz will still be remembered in Trumpland for his heresy. If Trump loses he'll be remembered for his clearly craven endorsement.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:29 am

Defiant wrote:
A majority of voters say Donald Trump would allow the U.S. to default on its debt and that he would misuse the power of the presidency to punish his political opponents.

And nearly half of voters — 46 percent — say the GOP nominee would use a nuclear weapon to attack ISIS or another foreign enemy.

Among those who say they will vote for Trump, 48 percent say he’ll create a database to track Muslims; 36 percent say there will be race riots; 33 percent say the government would default on its debt; and 32 percent say Trump would punish his political opponents and authorize internment camps for illegal immigrants.

Only 22 percent of Trump supporters believe he will start a nuclear war.
link

"Only".

Absolutely terrifying.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:51 am

Yep terrifying - I'm a little sad that Fox wouldn't allow Mike Judge and Terry Crews to have their commercials featuring President Camacho. It seems pretty apropos now.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 12:50 pm

El Guapo wrote:Feels like Cruz managed to find the worst of all possible worlds. If Trump wins Cruz will still be remembered in Trumpland for his heresy. If Trump loses he'll be remembered for his clearly craven endorsement.

All will be forgiven when he's Trump's AG.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:15 pm

I've had plenty of elections where I strongly disagreed with the positions of one of the candidates, but I could always at least intellectually respect how somebody could rationally hold those beliefs and want to vote for that candidate. I can't do that this time. I find myself just absolutely filled with contempt with anyone who thinks that Trump would start a nuclear war, create internment camps or default on the debt and is still willing to vote for this clown. It really fills me with despair.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:17 pm

gbasden wrote:I've had plenty of elections where I strongly disagreed with the positions of one of the candidates, but I could always at least intellectually respect how somebody could rationally hold those beliefs and want to vote for that candidate. I can't do that this time. I find myself just absolutely filled with contempt with anyone who thinks that Trump would start a nuclear war, create internment camps or default on the debt and is still willing to vote for this clown. It really fills me with despair.

You don't understand. He's only going to do those things to the Bad Guys.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:19 pm

Holman wrote:
gbasden wrote:I've had plenty of elections where I strongly disagreed with the positions of one of the candidates, but I could always at least intellectually respect how somebody could rationally hold those beliefs and want to vote for that candidate. I can't do that this time. I find myself just absolutely filled with contempt with anyone who thinks that Trump would start a nuclear war, create internment camps or default on the debt and is still willing to vote for this clown. It really fills me with despair.
You don't understand. He's only going to do those things to the Bad Guys.

I honestly thought that people who thought like that were a lunatic fringe, not a majority of the Republican party.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:56 pm

gbasden wrote:I've had plenty of elections where I strongly disagreed with the positions of one of the candidates, but I could always at least intellectually respect how somebody could rationally hold those beliefs and want to vote for that candidate. I can't do that this time. I find myself just absolutely filled with contempt with anyone who thinks that Trump would start a nuclear war, create internment camps or default on the debt and is still willing to vote for this clown. It really fills me with despair.

This sums up my thinking exactly.

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 6:23 pm

Trump has invited Gennifer Flowers to attend the debate and she accepted.

WT actual F.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 6:38 pm

I can only think of two reason to do that, both despicable: 1) he wants to sit her near the front to try to distract Clinton or 2) he actually wants to mention her during the debates. What a complete scumbag.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 6:39 pm

Smoove_B wrote:The endorsement makes more sense when you realize someone (or a group of someones) told him to get in line...or else. I'm still astounded he did it though.

Cruz endorsed Trump because he's worried about 2018.

In 2014, Cruz was the most popular politician in Texas with a 47 percent approval rating, according to a PPP poll, even higher than Sen. John Cornyn (R) and Gov. Rick Perry (R). Yet a poll conducted by KTVT-CBS 11/Dixie Strategies this August found that Cruz’ support had cratered, with 52 percent of likely voters finding Cruz “very unfavorable” and only 34 percent finding him at all favorable.

Rick Perry, who endorsed Trump long ago, is considering a 2018 primary challenge to Cruz and polls well against him.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 6:42 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:I can only think of two reason to do that, both despicable: 1) he wants to sit her near the front to try to distract Clinton or 2) he actually wants to mention her during the debates. What a complete scumbag.

I don't think Clinton would be easily distracted by her, and I think mentioning her in the debates would likely backfire.

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 6:44 pm

Trying to embarass a woman by rubbing her husband's infidelities in her face is a sure fire way to win the coveted suburban woman vote.

I mean, the only ways this makes any sense is if Trump doesn't care about the election and just wants to indulge right wing fantasies for his future media empire, or if he's just trying to make this as much of a WWE grotesque spectacle to distract people from focusing on the substance of the debate.

Or he's just an asshole.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 6:55 pm

Holman wrote:Cruz endorsed Trump because he's worried about 2018.

From that article, there's this awesome post-script:

Cruz, at the Texas Tribune Festival on Saturday afternoon, said Hillary Clinton was unfit to be president. According to Rick Hasen, a professor of Law and Political Science at UC Irvine, Cruz refused to say whether Trump was fit to be president.

That's the Ted Cruz I was hoping for.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 6:59 pm

Captain Caveman wrote:I mean, the only ways this makes any sense is if Trump doesn't care about the election and just wants to indulge right wing fantasies for his future media empire, or if he's just trying to make this as much of a WWE grotesque spectacle to distract people from focusing on the substance of the debate.

It's a total dick-move, but I have to give him credit -- it's something the Clinton camp likely wasn't expecting and if there's even a slight chance it will ruffle her feathers, it would be worth it. He's already controlling the pre-debate narrative and getting the media all frothy over Bill and his infidelities. Last week it was her health, now it's a former mistress. I'm convinced he's knows exactly what he's doing. Also, he has to be getting some type of shadow-broker deal on the ad time for the debates...because ratings are going to be ridiculous.

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 7:26 pm

It's disgusting that society says that a woman's husband being unfaithful disqualifies her from being president, but it's not disqualifying for a man who has cheated on and divorced two former wives? I know it's because we live in a sexist society, but it makes me sick that he's getting away with capitalizing on it.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:12 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:I can only think of two reason to do that, both despicable: 1) he wants to sit her near the front to try to distract Clinton or 2) he actually wants to mention her during the debates. What a complete scumbag.

My understanding it was in response to something about Democrats putting Mark Cuban in the front row to get under Trump's skin. The Flowers thing was an "if they do" thing, or at least that is how I heard it.

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:27 pm

Chaz wrote:It's disgusting that society says that a woman's husband being unfaithful disqualifies her from being president, but it's not disqualifying for a man who has cheated on and divorced two former wives? I know it's because we live in a sexist society, but it makes me sick that he's getting away with capitalizing on it.

Not society. Only the fucktard portion of Trump supporters.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:39 pm

Chaz wrote:It's disgusting that society says that a woman's husband being unfaithful disqualifies her from being president, but it's not disqualifying for a man who has cheated on and divorced two former wives? I know it's because we live in a sexist society, but it makes me sick that he's getting away with capitalizing on it.

Well hopefully he's not getting away with it.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:40 pm

Rip wrote:
Ralph-Wiggum wrote:I can only think of two reason to do that, both despicable: 1) he wants to sit her near the front to try to distract Clinton or 2) he actually wants to mention her during the debates. What a complete scumbag.
My understanding it was in response to something about Democrats putting Mark Cuban in the front row to get under Trump's skin. The Flowers thing was an "if they do" thing, or at least that is how I heard it.

Except that it's not really a response in kind, but that's how the man-child operates.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:52 pm

Alefroth wrote:
Rip wrote:
Ralph-Wiggum wrote:I can only think of two reason to do that, both despicable: 1) he wants to sit her near the front to try to distract Clinton or 2) he actually wants to mention her during the debates. What a complete scumbag.
My understanding it was in response to something about Democrats putting Mark Cuban in the front row to get under Trump's skin. The Flowers thing was an "if they do" thing, or at least that is how I heard it.
Except that it's not really a response in kind, but that's how the man-child operates.

Responding in kind just makes you a loser like Romney.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 10:46 pm

They should put the woman Trump raped, as well as his numerous mistresses, in the front row so Melania can chill with women she has something in common with.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:20 pm

hepcat wrote:They should put the woman Trump raped, as well as his numerous mistresses, in the front row so Melania can chill with women she has something in common with.

Agreed, plus the fraud charges victims, plus the "mexican" judge, plus Ailes sitting with his arm around Drumpf's Daughter in the front row.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:52 pm

You're gunna need a bigger front row...

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sun Sep 25, 2016 2:10 am

Indeed, Trump is going to need a lot more tickets to put the families of all the people that blame Hillary for their loved ones deaths. Perhaps they need a bigger venue?

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Sun Sep 25, 2016 3:01 am

There it is.