That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
You aren't running Ghostery, are you?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.
Dammit, those were URLs. #*(##(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)
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.LordMortis wrote:
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.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?
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.
linkAmong 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.
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.linkAmong 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.
"Only".
All will be forgiven when he's Trump's AG.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.
You don't understand. He's only going to do those things to the Bad Guys.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.
I honestly thought that people who thought like that were a lunatic fringe, not a majority of the Republican party.Holman wrote:You don't understand. He's only going to do those things to the Bad Guys.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.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.
Cruz endorsed Trump because he's worried about 2018.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.
Rick Perry, who endorsed Trump long ago, is considering a 2018 primary challenge to Cruz and polls well against him.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.
I don't think Clinton would be easily distracted by her, and I think mentioning her in the debates would likely backfire.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.
From that article, there's this awesome post-script:Holman wrote:Cruz endorsed Trump because he's worried about 2018.
That's the Ted Cruz I was hoping for.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Not society. Only the fucktard portion of Trump supporters.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.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.
Except that it's not really a response in kind, but that's how the man-child operates.Rip wrote: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.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.
Responding in kind just makes you a loser like Romney.Alefroth wrote:Except that it's not really a response in kind, but that's how the man-child operates.Rip wrote: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.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.
Agreed, plus the fraud charges victims, plus the "mexican" judge, plus Ailes sitting with his arm around Drumpf's Daughter in the front row.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.