2016 What’s Wrong With Hillary?

[CrusaderFrank]

A better question is what is right with the Hildabeast, in my lifetime I can't recall a more flawed candidate

Goldman Sachs disagrees

 

[hunarcy]

Here is a good read on Mrs Tulza Clinton. Remember not many months ago Trump was written off as not having a chance? Things change, maybe not as much as Mrs. Clinton's positions, but they change.

Right or left this pretty much spells out the problem with a lying Mrs. Clinton. The added bonus is that it will be a break from the apparently new MEME handed out by the DNC, praising socialism.

What’s Wrong With Hillary?

A snippet from the article:

In another era, there wouldn’t be much a problem with that label. FDR and JFK had little problem overcoming the burden of wealth and to-the-manor born privilege, and there was a time when “Experience Counts” was actually a campaign slogan (albeit for Nixon in 1960). The problem for Clinton, however, is that, should she be facing Donald Trump, she would be facing an opponent who may be uniquely capable of turning her experience into a liability … not to mention exploiting her other vulnerabilities.

As the notion of a Trump nomination has morphed from ludicrous to probable, analysts left and right have come to something of a consensus. Whether it’s Charles Murray in the Wall Street Journal, speaking for conservatives, or Thomas Frank in the Guardian, opining for liberals, the analysis focuses on the large cohort of Americans who have been effectively shut out of the economy for two decades or more. Trump’s feral insight has been to play on these grievances with a message that defines the cause—and the villains—in unmistakable terms.

We’ve been played for suckers by foreign countries, by our incompetent leaders, by politicians who serve the elite, and who do the bidding of the insiders. We’re letting our worst enemies gain footholds across the Middle East. I don’t need their money; I can’t be bought. And the very crudeness of my language, the threats, even the bullying, tells you I have the stones to take these people on. And if the “experts” think I don't know what I’m talking about—how have the “experts” done in Iraq, in Libya, in protecting the jobs and incomes of regular Americans?



Read more: What’s Wrong With Hillary?
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Silly Freewill. The GOP is working harder to shut trump down than the DNC is. They know he will never be president, but if he gets the nomination, it will destroy the GOP for decades

I agree Trump is unelectable ... even running against Hillary (assuming she capitalizes on Bernie's enthusiasm). But, I think nominating Trump is the only way to break the establishment's stranglehold on conservatism. They are not fiscal conservatives, and they are attracting workers' soley on social issues, but the irony is that the same can be said of the Donald. Perhaps the gop could actually nominate a conservative next time around.

The "unelectable" Trump might win if he runs against Hillary, who I think is TRULY unelectable on the national stage.

 

[bendog]

A better question is what is right with the Hildabeast, in my lifetime I can't recall a more flawed candidate

Goldman Sachs disagrees

The funny thing is the GOP appears to be trying to fix this thing to run the guy who literally has his balls held in trust by Goldman Sachs.

 

[mudwhistle]

Here is a good read on Mrs Tulza Clinton. Remember not many months ago Trump was written off as not having a chance? Things change, maybe not as much as Mrs. Clinton's positions, but they change.

Right or left this pretty much spells out the problem with a lying Mrs. Clinton. The added bonus is that it will be a break from the apparently new MEME handed out by the DNC, praising socialism.

What’s Wrong With Hillary?

A snippet from the article:

In another era, there wouldn’t be much a problem with that label. FDR and JFK had little problem overcoming the burden of wealth and to-the-manor born privilege, and there was a time when “Experience Counts” was actually a campaign slogan (albeit for Nixon in 1960). The problem for Clinton, however, is that, should she be facing Donald Trump, she would be facing an opponent who may be uniquely capable of turning her experience into a liability … not to mention exploiting her other vulnerabilities.

As the notion of a Trump nomination has morphed from ludicrous to probable, analysts left and right have come to something of a consensus. Whether it’s Charles Murray in the Wall Street Journal, speaking for conservatives, or Thomas Frank in the Guardian, opining for liberals, the analysis focuses on the large cohort of Americans who have been effectively shut out of the economy for two decades or more. Trump’s feral insight has been to play on these grievances with a message that defines the cause—and the villains—in unmistakable terms.

We’ve been played for suckers by foreign countries, by our incompetent leaders, by politicians who serve the elite, and who do the bidding of the insiders. We’re letting our worst enemies gain footholds across the Middle East. I don’t need their money; I can’t be bought. And the very crudeness of my language, the threats, even the bullying, tells you I have the stones to take these people on. And if the “experts” think I don't know what I’m talking about—how have the “experts” done in Iraq, in Libya, in protecting the jobs and incomes of regular Americans?



Read more: What’s Wrong With Hillary?
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Silly Freewill. The GOP is working harder to shut trump down than the DNC is. They know he will never be president, but if he gets the nomination, it will destroy the GOP for decades

I agree Trump is unelectable ... even running against Hillary (assuming she capitalizes on Bernie's enthusiasm). But, I think nominating Trump is the only way to break the establishment's stranglehold on conservatism. They are not fiscal conservatives, and they are attracting workers' soley on social issues, but the irony is that the same can be said of the Donald. Perhaps the gop could actually nominate a conservative next time around.

Trump is more electable then anyone else in the field. You just fear him more than anyone else, so you want him gone.

 

[bendog]

Here is a good read on Mrs Tulza Clinton. Remember not many months ago Trump was written off as not having a chance? Things change, maybe not as much as Mrs. Clinton's positions, but they change.

Right or left this pretty much spells out the problem with a lying Mrs. Clinton. The added bonus is that it will be a break from the apparently new MEME handed out by the DNC, praising socialism.

What’s Wrong With Hillary?

A snippet from the article:

In another era, there wouldn’t be much a problem with that label. FDR and JFK had little problem overcoming the burden of wealth and to-the-manor born privilege, and there was a time when “Experience Counts” was actually a campaign slogan (albeit for Nixon in 1960). The problem for Clinton, however, is that, should she be facing Donald Trump, she would be facing an opponent who may be uniquely capable of turning her experience into a liability … not to mention exploiting her other vulnerabilities.

As the notion of a Trump nomination has morphed from ludicrous to probable, analysts left and right have come to something of a consensus. Whether it’s Charles Murray in the Wall Street Journal, speaking for conservatives, or Thomas Frank in the Guardian, opining for liberals, the analysis focuses on the large cohort of Americans who have been effectively shut out of the economy for two decades or more. Trump’s feral insight has been to play on these grievances with a message that defines the cause—and the villains—in unmistakable terms.

We’ve been played for suckers by foreign countries, by our incompetent leaders, by politicians who serve the elite, and who do the bidding of the insiders. We’re letting our worst enemies gain footholds across the Middle East. I don’t need their money; I can’t be bought. And the very crudeness of my language, the threats, even the bullying, tells you I have the stones to take these people on. And if the “experts” think I don't know what I’m talking about—how have the “experts” done in Iraq, in Libya, in protecting the jobs and incomes of regular Americans?



Read more: What’s Wrong With Hillary?
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Silly Freewill. The GOP is working harder to shut trump down than the DNC is. They know he will never be president, but if he gets the nomination, it will destroy the GOP for decades

I agree Trump is unelectable ... even running against Hillary (assuming she capitalizes on Bernie's enthusiasm). But, I think nominating Trump is the only way to break the establishment's stranglehold on conservatism. They are not fiscal conservatives, and they are attracting workers' soley on social issues, but the irony is that the same can be said of the Donald. Perhaps the gop could actually nominate a conservative next time around.

The "unelectable" Trump might win if he runs against Hillary, who I think is TRULY unelectable on the national stage.

The only way either one of them has a chance is each other.

 

[eddiew]

A better question is what is right with the Hildabeast, in my lifetime I can't recall a more flawed candidate

lol coming from a vile dishonest hate filled republican ,,that's funny,,,,,,,,,,but expected

Still going for the personal attack because you have no facts? I had hoped you would have upped your game since P2K

Hunarcy What facts ?? All you have to do is listen to the leading clown of your party and his 2 wannabesThere is nothing there except hate for obama hate for hillary hate for dems ,,BTW I remember you too from P2k....you haven't changed either Still support bushs war based on bs??

Eddie, I was ALWAYS nice to you as you know. But, you lead off with a personal attack because you have nothing else so say. You did it with sassy, you're doing it with me. It's just so...disappointing.

Hunarcy ,,your first post to me was ""still going for the personal attacks"" I posted nothing to you and if I believe it's time that dems stop turning the other cheek then so be it

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A better question is what is right with the Hildabeast, in my lifetime I can't recall a more flawed candidate

Goldman Sachs disagrees

The funny thing is the GOP appears to be trying to fix this thing to run the guy who literally has his balls held in trust by Goldman Sachs.

LOL Based on what???

 

[bendog]

A better question is what is right with the Hildabeast, in my lifetime I can't recall a more flawed candidate

Goldman Sachs disagrees

The funny thing is the GOP appears to be trying to fix this thing to run the guy who literally has his balls held in trust by Goldman Sachs.

LOL Based on what???

His wife, fool.

 

[mudwhistle]

A better question is what is right with the Hildabeast, in my lifetime I can't recall a more flawed candidate

Goldman Sachs disagrees

The funny thing is the GOP appears to be trying to fix this thing to run the guy who literally has his balls held in trust by Goldman Sachs.

Hillary??????

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A better question is what is right with the Hildabeast, in my lifetime I can't recall a more flawed candidate

Goldman Sachs disagrees

The funny thing is the GOP appears to be trying to fix this thing to run the guy who literally has his balls held in trust by Goldman Sachs.

LOL Based on what???

His wife, fool.

You're not making a lick of sense. Goldman Sachs owns Trump's wife???

 

[Freewill]

What is your evidence of the first accusation? It appears to me to be just a repeat of the left wing meme. It is the democrats that have already rigged the election in favor of Mrs Tulza Clinton. This is a clear example of how liberals double speak. THEY rig the election then they get you to believe that the GOP are the ones doing EXACTLY what they are doing.

I will give the left wing credit, they know propaganda. Of course owning the MSM doesn't hurt.

My evidence is their actual statements. The statements of the other candidates. Kasich said yesterday morning that he's going to win Ohio and force a Brokered Convention. The key is that they openly admitting to a conspiracy to keep Trump below 1237 delegates and changing the rules so that any candidate or non-candidate will have an equal chance of winning the nomination regardless how many states they won.

What Katich said may be more wishful thinking then actually the GOP trying to stop Trump. IF there is no clear winner in the first round of voting, as the primary vote dictates, then the delegates are free to vote for someone else. THAT is the process. THAT is not the democrat process. Their superdelegates are able to vote for whomever whenever, even if they pledge themselves before the primaries.

Who admitted to changing the rules? Not the chairman he said the opposite.

And you trust him?
RNC Rule Makes 2016 Difficult for Non-Establishment Candidates

And your point is what? Yes, there are rules that run the nomination. The rules you point out were made before Trump ever started running and they DON'T ensure the establishment candidate wins. The rules might make it harder for a favorite southern candidate to win but that could be changed by those in the south changing the day they vote.

So what you posted and what i posted are both true but the one you posted has nothing to do with the RNC stealing the nomination from Trump.

Are you trying to say the GOP isn't determined to steal the election from T-rump? There have been more than enough public statements by leading Republicans to prove they are.

Quote them as I quoted the chairman of the RNC.

 

[mudwhistle]

My evidence is their actual statements. The statements of the other candidates. Kasich said yesterday morning that he's going to win Ohio and force a Brokered Convention. The key is that they openly admitting to a conspiracy to keep Trump below 1237 delegates and changing the rules so that any candidate or non-candidate will have an equal chance of winning the nomination regardless how many states they won.

What Katich said may be more wishful thinking then actually the GOP trying to stop Trump. IF there is no clear winner in the first round of voting, as the primary vote dictates, then the delegates are free to vote for someone else. THAT is the process. THAT is not the democrat process. Their superdelegates are able to vote for whomever whenever, even if they pledge themselves before the primaries.

Who admitted to changing the rules? Not the chairman he said the opposite.

And you trust him?
RNC Rule Makes 2016 Difficult for Non-Establishment Candidates

And your point is what? Yes, there are rules that run the nomination. The rules you point out were made before Trump ever started running and they DON'T ensure the establishment candidate wins. The rules might make it harder for a favorite southern candidate to win but that could be changed by those in the south changing the day they vote.

So what you posted and what i posted are both true but the one you posted has nothing to do with the RNC stealing the nomination from Trump.

Are you trying to say the GOP isn't determined to steal the election from T-rump? There have been more than enough public statements by leading Republicans to prove they are.

Quote them as I quoted the chairman of the RNC.

The RNC chairman paints a rosey picture, but he's never gonna tell you what they're planning.

 

[BULLDOG]

Here is a good read on Mrs Tulza Clinton. Remember not many months ago Trump was written off as not having a chance? Things change, maybe not as much as Mrs. Clinton's positions, but they change.

Right or left this pretty much spells out the problem with a lying Mrs. Clinton. The added bonus is that it will be a break from the apparently new MEME handed out by the DNC, praising socialism.

What’s Wrong With Hillary?

A snippet from the article:

In another era, there wouldn’t be much a problem with that label. FDR and JFK had little problem overcoming the burden of wealth and to-the-manor born privilege, and there was a time when “Experience Counts” was actually a campaign slogan (albeit for Nixon in 1960). The problem for Clinton, however, is that, should she be facing Donald Trump, she would be facing an opponent who may be uniquely capable of turning her experience into a liability … not to mention exploiting her other vulnerabilities.

As the notion of a Trump nomination has morphed from ludicrous to probable, analysts left and right have come to something of a consensus. Whether it’s Charles Murray in the Wall Street Journal, speaking for conservatives, or Thomas Frank in the Guardian, opining for liberals, the analysis focuses on the large cohort of Americans who have been effectively shut out of the economy for two decades or more. Trump’s feral insight has been to play on these grievances with a message that defines the cause—and the villains—in unmistakable terms.

We’ve been played for suckers by foreign countries, by our incompetent leaders, by politicians who serve the elite, and who do the bidding of the insiders. We’re letting our worst enemies gain footholds across the Middle East. I don’t need their money; I can’t be bought. And the very crudeness of my language, the threats, even the bullying, tells you I have the stones to take these people on. And if the “experts” think I don't know what I’m talking about—how have the “experts” done in Iraq, in Libya, in protecting the jobs and incomes of regular Americans?



Read more: What’s Wrong With Hillary?
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Silly Freewill. The GOP is working harder to shut trump down than the DNC is. They know he will never be president, but if he gets the nomination, it will destroy the GOP for decades

I agree Trump is unelectable ... even running against Hillary (assuming she capitalizes on Bernie's enthusiasm). But, I think nominating Trump is the only way to break the establishment's stranglehold on conservatism. They are not fiscal conservatives, and they are attracting workers' soley on social issues, but the irony is that the same can be said of the Donald. Perhaps the gop could actually nominate a conservative next time around.

The GOP has become a caricature of what they once were, and have been needing a restart for a long time. I just hope they re-embrace the integrity they once had.

 

[BULLDOG]

My evidence is their actual statements. The statements of the other candidates. Kasich said yesterday morning that he's going to win Ohio and force a Brokered Convention. The key is that they openly admitting to a conspiracy to keep Trump below 1237 delegates and changing the rules so that any candidate or non-candidate will have an equal chance of winning the nomination regardless how many states they won.

What Katich said may be more wishful thinking then actually the GOP trying to stop Trump. IF there is no clear winner in the first round of voting, as the primary vote dictates, then the delegates are free to vote for someone else. THAT is the process. THAT is not the democrat process. Their superdelegates are able to vote for whomever whenever, even if they pledge themselves before the primaries.

Who admitted to changing the rules? Not the chairman he said the opposite.

And you trust him?
RNC Rule Makes 2016 Difficult for Non-Establishment Candidates

And your point is what? Yes, there are rules that run the nomination. The rules you point out were made before Trump ever started running and they DON'T ensure the establishment candidate wins. The rules might make it harder for a favorite southern candidate to win but that could be changed by those in the south changing the day they vote.

So what you posted and what i posted are both true but the one you posted has nothing to do with the RNC stealing the nomination from Trump.

Are you trying to say the GOP isn't determined to steal the election from T-rump? There have been more than enough public statements by leading Republicans to prove they are.

Quote them as I quoted the chairman of the RNC.

Not my job to educate you about what your own party leaders are saying.

 

[Freewill]

What Katich said may be more wishful thinking then actually the GOP trying to stop Trump. IF there is no clear winner in the first round of voting, as the primary vote dictates, then the delegates are free to vote for someone else. THAT is the process. THAT is not the democrat process. Their superdelegates are able to vote for whomever whenever, even if they pledge themselves before the primaries.

Who admitted to changing the rules? Not the chairman he said the opposite.

And you trust him?
RNC Rule Makes 2016 Difficult for Non-Establishment Candidates

And your point is what? Yes, there are rules that run the nomination. The rules you point out were made before Trump ever started running and they DON'T ensure the establishment candidate wins. The rules might make it harder for a favorite southern candidate to win but that could be changed by those in the south changing the day they vote.

So what you posted and what i posted are both true but the one you posted has nothing to do with the RNC stealing the nomination from Trump.

Are you trying to say the GOP isn't determined to steal the election from T-rump? There have been more than enough public statements by leading Republicans to prove they are.

Quote them as I quoted the chairman of the RNC.

Not my job to educate you about what your own party leaders are saying.

I am not a registered republican. And if you are going to try and educate us by making pronouncements. I don't think it wrong to expect you to back those pronouncements. So since I can't prove what you say it right then I have to dismiss it as just the meme that is going around, gossip level stuff.

 

[BULLDOG]

Here is a good read on Mrs Tulza Clinton. Remember not many months ago Trump was written off as not having a chance? Things change, maybe not as much as Mrs. Clinton's positions, but they change.

Right or left this pretty much spells out the problem with a lying Mrs. Clinton. The added bonus is that it will be a break from the apparently new MEME handed out by the DNC, praising socialism.

What’s Wrong With Hillary?

A snippet from the article:

In another era, there wouldn’t be much a problem with that label. FDR and JFK had little problem overcoming the burden of wealth and to-the-manor born privilege, and there was a time when “Experience Counts” was actually a campaign slogan (albeit for Nixon in 1960). The problem for Clinton, however, is that, should she be facing Donald Trump, she would be facing an opponent who may be uniquely capable of turning her experience into a liability … not to mention exploiting her other vulnerabilities.

As the notion of a Trump nomination has morphed from ludicrous to probable, analysts left and right have come to something of a consensus. Whether it’s Charles Murray in the Wall Street Journal, speaking for conservatives, or Thomas Frank in the Guardian, opining for liberals, the analysis focuses on the large cohort of Americans who have been effectively shut out of the economy for two decades or more. Trump’s feral insight has been to play on these grievances with a message that defines the cause—and the villains—in unmistakable terms.

We’ve been played for suckers by foreign countries, by our incompetent leaders, by politicians who serve the elite, and who do the bidding of the insiders. We’re letting our worst enemies gain footholds across the Middle East. I don’t need their money; I can’t be bought. And the very crudeness of my language, the threats, even the bullying, tells you I have the stones to take these people on. And if the “experts” think I don't know what I’m talking about—how have the “experts” done in Iraq, in Libya, in protecting the jobs and incomes of regular Americans?



Read more: What’s Wrong With Hillary?
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Silly Freewill. The GOP is working harder to shut trump down than the DNC is. They know he will never be president, but if he gets the nomination, it will destroy the GOP for decades

I agree Trump is unelectable ... even running against Hillary (assuming she capitalizes on Bernie's enthusiasm). But, I think nominating Trump is the only way to break the establishment's stranglehold on conservatism. They are not fiscal conservatives, and they are attracting workers' soley on social issues, but the irony is that the same can be said of the Donald. Perhaps the gop could actually nominate a conservative next time around.

Trump is more electable then anyone else in the field. You just fear him more than anyone else, so you want him gone.

I'm sure hundreds of people agree with you. In a country of millions, that might not be enough

 

[BULLDOG]

And you trust him?
RNC Rule Makes 2016 Difficult for Non-Establishment Candidates

And your point is what? Yes, there are rules that run the nomination. The rules you point out were made before Trump ever started running and they DON'T ensure the establishment candidate wins. The rules might make it harder for a favorite southern candidate to win but that could be changed by those in the south changing the day they vote.

So what you posted and what i posted are both true but the one you posted has nothing to do with the RNC stealing the nomination from Trump.

Are you trying to say the GOP isn't determined to steal the election from T-rump? There have been more than enough public statements by leading Republicans to prove they are.

Quote them as I quoted the chairman of the RNC.

Not my job to educate you about what your own party leaders are saying.

I am not a registered republican. And if you are going to try and educate us by making pronouncements. I don't think it wrong to expect you to back those pronouncements. So since I can't prove what you say it right then I have to dismiss it as just the meme that is going around, gossip level stuff.

Who cares if you are a registered republican? It's not my fault you are embarrassed to own up it, but if you vote republican, you are republican.

 

[mudwhistle]

What Katich said may be more wishful thinking then actually the GOP trying to stop Trump. IF there is no clear winner in the first round of voting, as the primary vote dictates, then the delegates are free to vote for someone else. THAT is the process. THAT is not the democrat process. Their superdelegates are able to vote for whomever whenever, even if they pledge themselves before the primaries.

Who admitted to changing the rules? Not the chairman he said the opposite.

And you trust him?
RNC Rule Makes 2016 Difficult for Non-Establishment Candidates

And your point is what? Yes, there are rules that run the nomination. The rules you point out were made before Trump ever started running and they DON'T ensure the establishment candidate wins. The rules might make it harder for a favorite southern candidate to win but that could be changed by those in the south changing the day they vote.

So what you posted and what i posted are both true but the one you posted has nothing to do with the RNC stealing the nomination from Trump.

Are you trying to say the GOP isn't determined to steal the election from T-rump? There have been more than enough public statements by leading Republicans to prove they are.

Quote them as I quoted the chairman of the RNC.

Not my job to educate you about what your own party leaders are saying.

What they're doing is what we need to watch. They floated a Brokered Convention to see what kind of response it would get. It got an angry response.

 

[mudwhistle]

Here is a good read on Mrs Tulza Clinton. Remember not many months ago Trump was written off as not having a chance? Things change, maybe not as much as Mrs. Clinton's positions, but they change.

Right or left this pretty much spells out the problem with a lying Mrs. Clinton. The added bonus is that it will be a break from the apparently new MEME handed out by the DNC, praising socialism.

What’s Wrong With Hillary?

A snippet from the article:

In another era, there wouldn’t be much a problem with that label. FDR and JFK had little problem overcoming the burden of wealth and to-the-manor born privilege, and there was a time when “Experience Counts” was actually a campaign slogan (albeit for Nixon in 1960). The problem for Clinton, however, is that, should she be facing Donald Trump, she would be facing an opponent who may be uniquely capable of turning her experience into a liability … not to mention exploiting her other vulnerabilities.

As the notion of a Trump nomination has morphed from ludicrous to probable, analysts left and right have come to something of a consensus. Whether it’s Charles Murray in the Wall Street Journal, speaking for conservatives, or Thomas Frank in the Guardian, opining for liberals, the analysis focuses on the large cohort of Americans who have been effectively shut out of the economy for two decades or more. Trump’s feral insight has been to play on these grievances with a message that defines the cause—and the villains—in unmistakable terms.

We’ve been played for suckers by foreign countries, by our incompetent leaders, by politicians who serve the elite, and who do the bidding of the insiders. We’re letting our worst enemies gain footholds across the Middle East. I don’t need their money; I can’t be bought. And the very crudeness of my language, the threats, even the bullying, tells you I have the stones to take these people on. And if the “experts” think I don't know what I’m talking about—how have the “experts” done in Iraq, in Libya, in protecting the jobs and incomes of regular Americans?



Read more: What’s Wrong With Hillary?
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Silly Freewill. The GOP is working harder to shut trump down than the DNC is. They know he will never be president, but if he gets the nomination, it will destroy the GOP for decades

I agree Trump is unelectable ... even running against Hillary (assuming she capitalizes on Bernie's enthusiasm). But, I think nominating Trump is the only way to break the establishment's stranglehold on conservatism. They are not fiscal conservatives, and they are attracting workers' soley on social issues, but the irony is that the same can be said of the Donald. Perhaps the gop could actually nominate a conservative next time around.

Trump is more electable then anyone else in the field. You just fear him more than anyone else, so you want him gone.

I'm sure hundreds of people agree with you. In a country of millions, that might not be enough

He got more votes than anyone else so far.....I tend to listen to them....not somebody who opposes him.

 

[BULLDOG]

And you trust him?
RNC Rule Makes 2016 Difficult for Non-Establishment Candidates

And your point is what? Yes, there are rules that run the nomination. The rules you point out were made before Trump ever started running and they DON'T ensure the establishment candidate wins. The rules might make it harder for a favorite southern candidate to win but that could be changed by those in the south changing the day they vote.

So what you posted and what i posted are both true but the one you posted has nothing to do with the RNC stealing the nomination from Trump.

Are you trying to say the GOP isn't determined to steal the election from T-rump? There have been more than enough public statements by leading Republicans to prove they are.

Quote them as I quoted the chairman of the RNC.

Not my job to educate you about what your own party leaders are saying.

What they're doing is what we need to watch. They floated a Brokered Convention to see what kind of response it would get. It got an angry response.

Whatever you do is your call. The GOP has become trash, and has been needing change for a long time.