That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
The only thing I know of is more allusion.Holman wrote:So... did anything come out yesterday suggesting that this was anything but a smear?
Yes, the National Enquirer has broken some genuine scandals in the past, but some of the newsier types yesterday were quick to point out that NE has lost the talent that made those stories possible. And apparently the current owner of the Enquirer is a long-time Trump ally.
Fortunately, it isn't like any anonymous tool could claim to be Anonymous, right?LordMortis wrote:The only thing I know of is more allusion.Holman wrote:So... did anything come out yesterday suggesting that this was anything but a smear?
Yes, the National Enquirer has broken some genuine scandals in the past, but some of the newsier types yesterday were quick to point out that NE has lost the talent that made those stories possible. And apparently the current owner of the Enquirer is a long-time Trump ally.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/03/21 ... age-video/
I rather doubt Anon is allowing itself to be a tool of Trump, but who knows? They're really independent cells aren't they?
I have no idea. I'd think that falsely claiming to be them would inspire a vendetta that would ruin lives but I really have no idea how they work. Do they even know or care if someone someone falsely claims to be acting on their behalf?Max Peck wrote:Fortunately, it isn't like any anonymous tool could claim to be Anonymous, right?
That was yours? I assumed you were linking it. Very funny!PLW wrote:I was so proud of my Enquirer photoshop.
Actually he flubbed the last line and said, "Better dead than Ted." I guess that works in the general election.gilraen wrote:Bill Maher: "Better Ted Than Dead"
I would assume that if there were any substance to this that there would be more on this by now. So I'm guessing not.Holman wrote:So... did anything come out yesterday suggesting that this was anything but a smear?
Yes, the National Enquirer has broken some genuine scandals in the past, but some of the newsier types yesterday were quick to point out that NE has lost the talent that made those stories possible. And apparently the current owner of the Enquirer is a long-time Trump ally.
Really? I get a much more McCarthian vibe from Ted than Costello...and for the gravy, both Cruz and McCarthy were both seemingly despised by almost everyone.tgb wrote:Women have always had a thing for Abbott & Costello.RunningMn9 wrote:Forget sleeping with him. How could that dude find six other people who could stand to be in close proximity to him for any reason?YellowKing wrote:How could that dude find SIX women who wanted to sleep with him? The mind reels.
In interviews this week, Cruz has repeatedly invoked the RNC's rule 40b, which allows candidates to be nominated only if they've won total delegate majorities in eight states or more. That rule, hastily written in 2012 after then-Rep. Ron Paul of Texas nearly grabbed enough wins to be nominated, is now favored by allies of both Cruz and Donald Trump as a way of making Kasich — or any establishment "savior" — irrelevant.
"I think that would be a terrible idea for the Washington power brokers to change the rules, because they’re unhappy with the candidates who the voters are voting for," Cruz told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Tuesday. "It was the Washington establishment that put this rule in place. So now when the Washington establishment candidates are losing, they want to change the rules to try to parachute in some candidate who hasn’t earned the votes of the people. That is nothing short of crazy."
...
That was a slight mangling of the rule, though it went uncorrected onstage. In rule 40b, it is not enough for a candidate to have won the popular vote in eight states. He must have won a majority of pledged delegates — something tied to the seemingly capricious standards of each primary.
Trump has crossed that threshold. Cruz has not. He has won in nine states, but in three — Alaska, Iowa, and Oklahoma — he won only pluralities of delegates. Even if he won Wisconsin, current polling in upcoming states suggests that Cruz may not meet the 40b standard until May's contests in states such as Indiana and Nebraska.
But Kasich, who is optimistic about winning states later in April, would struggle to win outright majorities in eight of them. By insisting that rule 40b is immutable, Cruz is signaling to later-state voters that any Kasich victories would be nullified by the convention, raising the possibility of a sitting governor of Ohio being kept from the table at a nominating contest in Cleveland.
Isgrimnur wrote:Content to let the delegates handle Trump for him, Cruz goes after Kasich:
In interviews this week, Cruz has repeatedly invoked the RNC's rule 40b, which allows candidates to be nominated only if they've won total delegate majorities in eight states or more. That rule, hastily written in 2012 after then-Rep. Ron Paul of Texas nearly grabbed enough wins to be nominated, is now favored by allies of both Cruz and Donald Trump as a way of making Kasich — or any establishment "savior" — irrelevant.
"I think that would be a terrible idea for the Washington power brokers to change the rules, because they’re unhappy with the candidates who the voters are voting for," Cruz told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Tuesday. "It was the Washington establishment that put this rule in place. So now when the Washington establishment candidates are losing, they want to change the rules to try to parachute in some candidate who hasn’t earned the votes of the people. That is nothing short of crazy."
...
That was a slight mangling of the rule, though it went uncorrected onstage. In rule 40b, it is not enough for a candidate to have won the popular vote in eight states. He must have won a majority of pledged delegates — something tied to the seemingly capricious standards of each primary.
Trump has crossed that threshold. Cruz has not. He has won in nine states, but in three — Alaska, Iowa, and Oklahoma — he won only pluralities of delegates. Even if he won Wisconsin, current polling in upcoming states suggests that Cruz may not meet the 40b standard until May's contests in states such as Indiana and Nebraska.
But Kasich, who is optimistic about winning states later in April, would struggle to win outright majorities in eight of them. By insisting that rule 40b is immutable, Cruz is signaling to later-state voters that any Kasich victories would be nullified by the convention, raising the possibility of a sitting governor of Ohio being kept from the table at a nominating contest in Cleveland.
Makes sense. That is who I gave my vote to. Though I have severe doubts about his ability to win the general.YellowKing wrote:My ultra-conservative stepdad has fallen into lockstep behind Cruz. Not surprising, since he also falls squarely into the evangelical camp. I don't think Cruz was his first choice, or even second or third, but he's certainly not going to give his vote to a liberal like Trump.
How is it a "win" when everybody loses? Do you know what "win" means?Rip wrote:Makes sense. That is who I gave my vote to. Though I have severe doubts about his ability to win the general.YellowKing wrote:My ultra-conservative stepdad has fallen into lockstep behind Cruz. Not surprising, since he also falls squarely into the evangelical camp. I don't think Cruz was his first choice, or even second or third, but he's certainly not going to give his vote to a liberal like Trump.
I will reluctantly vote for Trump and I think he may well have the best chance to give the Republicans a win.
A win's a win baby!
You don't think that it's both creepy and awkward?GreenGoo wrote:eh? That seems like a nice picture.
Maybe I need context.
Ridiculous when you talk about the untold misery the collapse of our economy would bring.Rip wrote:Sometimes you must go back to go forward.
Does that mean I can count on seeing you stroll the streets of Chicago with one of those "The End is Near" billboards on and nothing else if Trump gets elected?Jeff V wrote:Ridiculous when you talk about the untold misery the collapse of our economy would bring.Rip wrote:Sometimes you must go back to go forward.
You think I'd be able to afford a billboard, much less a train ticket downtown? Forget about driving, as gas will only be affordable by the uber rich as foreign oil sources are closed to us.Rip wrote:Does that mean I can count on seeing you stroll the streets of Chicago with one of those "The End is Near" billboards on and nothing else if Trump gets elected?Jeff V wrote:Ridiculous when you talk about the untold misery the collapse of our economy would bring.Rip wrote:Sometimes you must go back to go forward.
Yea, that foreign oil, we don't need it anymore.Jeff V wrote:You think I'd be able to afford a billboard, much less a train ticket downtown? Forget about driving, as gas will only be affordable by the uber rich as foreign oil sources are closed to us.Rip wrote:Does that mean I can count on seeing you stroll the streets of Chicago with one of those "The End is Near" billboards on and nothing else if Trump gets elected?Jeff V wrote:Ridiculous when you talk about the untold misery the collapse of our economy would bring.Rip wrote:Sometimes you must go back to go forward.
Oh, so an expansion of big government?Rip wrote:As far as the employment goes, I wouldn't worry too much. We will need lots of military men and folks to guard and paint walls and such.
Oh no, he will privatize most of it so we can feel good about it, like the prisons.gbasden wrote:Oh, so an expansion of big government?Rip wrote:As far as the employment goes, I wouldn't worry too much. We will need lots of military men and folks to guard and paint walls and such.
"Brownshirts - good jobs at good wages!"
