[Hoot Gibson]

Well, you're seeing things that I certainly cannot see and I thought I was pretty bright. And Trump has no political performance as yet for you to judge.

Sure he has. Trump has been actively running for office for at least 10 months. He has run his campaign no differently than he has lived his life before he became a political candidate. Trump, like Obama believes that whatever comes out of his mouth will be accepted as wisdom. He tells so many whoppers and makes so many outrageous pronouncements, it is impossible to draTrump off the stage. Think about how absolutely ridiculous that proposal is. After 10 months of making up foreign policy as he goes, Trump says that Saudi Arabia, which gave birth to Al Queda, Osama Bin Laden, and 17 of the 19 terrorists who attacked this nation on 9/11, should have nuclear weapons, along with several other countries that do not already possess them.

Yet, Trump's statement about Saudi Arabia received very little notice in the media. Why? Because Trump has made so many blunders during the past week he has overwhelmed this country's system of holding politicians accountable for making insane statements. You can bet that encouraging Saudi Arabia to arm itself with nuclear weapons did not escape Hillary Clinton's attention.

After 10 months on the presidential campaign trail, Trump does not understand the issues that face this country as well as most of the people who interview him. Finally, after 10 months of campaigning, somebody has apparently persuaded Trump that consulting himself (and his "good brain") on matters of national security is not working. He was in Washington, DC, to assemble a foreign policy team yesterday.

When a man seeks to become leader of the free world, words matter. Being a U.S. President is a serious job. This is not a reality TV show, but Trump needs to stick to a script that projects an image of the seriousness of a grown up - not a many who just stumbles from one gaffe to another.

This country may not survive four more years of a thin skinned tyrant who refuses to take responsibility for his own words and actions. I remember how often Obama whined about unfair treatment by Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh during his presidency. I remember how Obama blamed his own poor performance on George W. Bush throughout his reign as "ruler" of this country. I remember you criticizing Obama for many of the same things that I did.

You are supporting a man who doe not apologize and refuses to take responsibility for his own words and actions. Holding Trump to a lower standard of morality, competence, and judgment than we would hold a career politician to, simply because he is not a career politician and he claims to be a conservative Republican is not something that I will do.

[Spirit100]

"The Woman must be punished!" - Drumpf on abortion

"Our troops will be replaced by nuclear weapons!" - Drumpfs foreign policy in Asia

I've given drumpf a lot of leash over the last couple months, however, this week the arse hat has gone over the edge.

Folks, if you cannot tell now this fool has been putting on the biggest con since the movie the "Sting."

Well I'd be happy to let you think W was at the wheel during his presidency and calling all the shots when in actuality it was Trick Dick Cheney toting the line and making a lot of $$$ for a small elite minority.

You'd be better off writing in your name for president. I'd put most of you up against any of these clowns and you'd win. Time for folks to effect change locally: city, county, state wide. High taxes with government abuse, poor accountability, and lack of common sense has a strangle hold on our society. We lost our freedom and liberties because we took them for granted and have let an oligarchy slowly chisel them away to serve their own interests.

New jobs, bank lending, education, and accountibility ( with a moral compass ) are key to getting our country in a better place. The 1% are laughing regardless because their interests are leveraged whoever wins the presidency. When people overcome the divisive crap and blame game...get back to dialogue, compromise, trust, work, and follow through progress will be made.

We aren't going to see that from the federal level. It must be grassroots and serve as an example to follow up the current "bought chain of command." I'm off my soapbox for now....geez why is it so hard to for folks not to see what is happening???

And for what's it worth I think RT, Hoot, 64, and RIUTG could easily improve on the bs we've witnessed over the last 10+ years. Granny would be a great Secretary of State. She'd have Putin bent over her knee and setting him straight in less than a year!!! :Thumbs:

[ekyswvahsfan]

I have enjoyed this board for some time. I resolved a long time ago to quit posting- took up too much time. This controversy regarding Trump has caused me to throw over my resolution. Never would have thought my first post would be on politics.

I live in Wise County, Virginia- about seven miles from the Kentucky line. My family has long been involved in politics in both Kentucky and Virginia. I am a former chairman of the Republican Party in Wise County and a former member of the State Central Committee of the Republican party in Virginia.

I Support Donald Trump. He offers the best hope for the economic survival of the people in these mountains. Free trade is destroying small town and rural America. The destruction by a misguided trade policy of the industrial base of the upper South is tragic. Consider the job losses in small town Kentucky.
Ted Cruz has no answer for this and he tries not to talk about it. He is a free trader. He calls himself a free market Conservative, but his version of Conservatism is just another bow before the altar of big business. His ties to corporate interests are strong and pervasive. This alone makes him unfit to be President.

This country needs a President who is not for the special interests- something a free trader can never be. Under no circumstances could I support a partisan of free trade. A friend of mine from Jenkins called freee traders "economic traitors". He was correct.

[64SUR]

"The Woman must be punished!" - Drumpf on abortion

"Our troops will be replaced by nuclear weapons!" - Drumpfs foreign policy in Asia

I've given drumpf a lot of leash over the last couple months, however, this week the arse hat has gone over the edge.

Folks, if you cannot tell now this fool has been putting on the biggest con since the movie the "Sting."

Well I'd be happy to let you think W was at the wheel during his presidency and calling all the shots when in actuality it was Trick Dick Cheney toting the line and making a lot of $$$ for a small elite minority.

You'd be better off writing in your name for president. I'd put most of you up against any of these clowns and you'd win. Time for folks to effect change locally: city, county, state wide. High taxes with government abuse, poor accountability, and lack of common sense has a strangle hold on our society. We lost our freedom and liberties because we took them for granted and have let an oligarchy slowly chisel them away to serve their own interests.
New jobs, bank lending, education, and accountibility ( with a moral compass ) are key to getting our country in a better place. The 1% are laughing regardless because their interests are leveraged whoever wins the presidency. When people overcome the divisive crap and blame game...get back to dialogue, compromise, trust, work, and follow through progress will be made.

We aren't going to see that from the federal level. It must be grassroots and serve as an example to follow up the current "bought chain of command." I'm off my soapbox for now....geez why is it so hard to for folks not to see what is
happening???

And for what's it worth I think RT, Hoot, 64, and RIUTG could easily improve on the bs we've witnessed over the last 10+ years. Granny would be a great Secretary of State. She'd have Putin bent over her knee and setting him straight in less than a year!!! :Thumbs:

Spirit100....I will except the democrat Nominee for president of the united state.

alute: TRT,HOOT,RUIUG get ready I have little money I'm only asking for $9.99 in donations from every single person in the United States. And yes I will consider Granny Bear for Secretary of State only if she change over to democrat before April 30,2016. :truestory:

[RunItUpTheGut]

Love him or hate him, he will be the Republican nominee.
Its pretty obvious now. If the RINOS want any say in the new government they better start kissing ass now. Remember, you don't have to vote for Trump in the general. But a no vote is a vote for Killary.

[RunItUpTheGut]

I have enjoyed this board for some time. I resolved a long time ago to quit posting- took up too much time. This controversy regarding Trump has caused me to throw over my resolution. Never would have thought my first post would be on politics.

I live in Wise County, Virginia- about seven miles from the Kentucky line. My family has long been involved in politics in both Kentucky and Virginia. I am a former chairman of the Republican Party in Wise County and a former member of the State Central Committee of the Republican party in Virginia.

I Support Donald Trump. He offers the best hope for the economic survival of the people in these mountains. Free trade is destroying small town and rural America. The destruction by a misguided trade policy of the industrial base of the upper South is tragic. Consider the job losses in small town Kentucky.
Ted Cruz has no answer for this and he tries not to talk about it. He is a free trader. He calls himself a free market Conservative, but his version of Conservatism is just another bow before the altar of big business. His ties to corporate interests are strong and pervasive. This alone makes him unfit to be President.

This country needs a President who is not for the special interests- something a free trader can never be. Under no circumstances could I support a partisan of free trade. A friend of mine from Jenkins called freee traders "economic traitors". He was correct.

The difference in people as pissed off at govt as I am and those who look only to participate this election cycle is our attitudes. I look at and watch anti Trump stuff all day long and it only grows my support for him. Its like looking at Hoot's sig. Meant to call out Trump for making fun of that guy, it only makes me laugh. I have no sympathy for anyone anymore. I could care less about the future, I am in it for the here and now. Until we eradicate liberals and liberalism from our society, we will never have a country that is fiscally and socially responsible.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Its also important to note that in the general election, polls don't mean anything.
Blue states will go blue and red will go red. We, as Kentuckians have no say so in this election.
Ohio, Florida, etc are all that matters. The rest are already decided.

[Hoot Gibson]

Polls matter very much in politics, which is why candidates spend millions paying for them. Trump is very well known to voters, as is Hillary. That means that moving up in the polls will be unusually difficult.

'Gut, I disagree with your Red State/Blue State analysis. What you said only applies if Republicans nominate a strong candidate. Trump would be a very weak candidate and even though he would be matched against another very weak candidate, Trump would lose in a landslide unless Hillary is indicted and jailed before the election.

The way that I see it, there would be no obvious lesser of two evils choice if Trump runs against Hillary this fall. Hillary should be behind bars and Trump should be in a padded cell.

[TheRealThing]

I have enjoyed this board for some time. I resolved a long time ago to quit posting- took up too much time. This controversy regarding Trump has caused me to throw over my resolution. Never would have thought my first post would be on politics.

I live in Wise County, Virginia- about seven miles from the Kentucky line. My family has long been involved in politics in both Kentucky and Virginia. I am a former chairman of the Republican Party in Wise County and a former member of the State Central Committee of the Republican party in Virginia.

I Support Donald Trump. He offers the best hope for the economic survival of the people in these mountains. Free trade is destroying small town and rural America. The destruction by a misguided trade policy of the industrial base of the upper South is tragic. Consider the job losses in small town Kentucky.
Ted Cruz has no answer for this and he tries not to talk about it. He is a free trader. He calls himself a free market Conservative, but his version of Conservatism is just another bow before the altar of big business. His ties to corporate interests are strong and pervasive. This alone makes him unfit to be President.

This country needs a President who is not for the special interests- something a free trader can never be. Under no circumstances could I support a partisan of free trade. A friend of mine from Jenkins called freee traders "economic traitors". He was correct.

I'm sure people on here know that I have posted on this at least a half dozen times, and the time frame for those posts has been something like the last two years now. But here goes again, and for those rolling their eyes I apologize. I still remember the sense of betrayal I felt when Ronald Reagan was there in support of the signing ceremony of NAFTA. Jimmy Carter was there too, and obviously the signer, Bill Clinton.

I didn't believe the hype then, and I don't believe it now (TPP). The jobs loss in this nation has been horrific, and when confronted about that little inconvenient tidbit, the free traders default comeback is "if not for free trade, an Apple IPhone would cost 2 thousand dollars." My response... who needs them? The wealth that was once visited upon the US Treasury is now cast to the four winds as governments of third world nations suddenly find themselves getting rich. And let's be honest here, the citizens of those nations still flounder in abject poverty.

And when Obama is gone and living on his estate in Hawaii, he won't give a flip about white poverty. Much less the nation which once led the world, and thanks largely to his efforts, by that time bereft of the energy needed to survive, or the industry needed to gear up should our military be called upon to defend us again.

[TheRealThing]

Polls matter very much in politics, which is why candidates spend millions paying for them. Trump is very well known to voters, as is Hillary. That means that moving up in the polls will be unusually difficult.

'Gut, I disagree with your Red State/Blue State analysis. What you said only applies if Republicans nominate a strong candidate. Trump would be a very weak candidate and even though he would be matched against another very weak candidate, Trump would lose in a landslide unless Hillary is indicted and jailed before the election.

The way that I see it, there would be no obvious lesser of two evils choice if Trump runs against Hillary this fall. Hillary should be behind bars and Trump should be in a padded cell.

And I disagree with your analysis. No Republican worth his salt will vote for a libertarian or a Democrat, much less Hillary. The red state train will still be pulling into the station.

[Hoot Gibson]

And I disagree with your analysis. No Republican worth his salt will vote for a libertarian or a Democrat, much less Hillary. The red state train will still be pulling into the station.

Let's look at the results in December. If you intended your remark as an insult, don't expect me to repay in kind. I see Trump as an existential threat to the Republican Party and to this country. The #NeverTrumpers will be doing you a favor by not voting for either liberal Democrat in November.

However, I am beginning to believe that Trump will not become the Republican nominee. Republicans will not nominate a sure loser if the party can figure out a way to avoid it. Cruz might lose to Hillary as well, but Republicans would stand a better chance of retaining control of the Senate if he is the nominee. If nothing else, Cruz will never embarrass the Republican Party the way that Trump has done and will continue to do if he is the nominee.

Here is another illustration of Trump embarrassing the Republican Party, American men, and our Founding Fathers, who must be spinning in their graves:

Trump: I'd pick justices who would look at Clinton's email scandal

Donald Trump on Wednesday fired back at Hillary Clinton, remarking that he would likely nominate Supreme Court justices who “would look very seriously at her email disaster.”

The former secretary of state has been under fire over her use of a private email server during her time at the State Department and called out the Republican front-runner in a speech Monday highlighting the impact the Supreme Court should have on this election. Clinton invoked Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. and asked Wisconsin voters what kind of justice a President Trump would nominate.

“Well, I’d probably appoint people that would look very seriously at her email disaster because it’s a criminal activity, and I would appoint people that would look very seriously at that to start off with,” Trump said in a phone interview with ABC's “Good Morning America.” “What she’s getting away with is absolutely murder. You talk about a case — now that’s a real case.”

The New York billionaire added, “If she’s able to get away with that, you can get away with anything.”

Trump has no more idea what role a Supreme Court Justice plays in our federal government than an average fourth grader.

[TheRealThing]

Let's look at the results in December. If you intended your remark as an insult, don't expect me to repay in kind. I see Trump as an existential threat to the Republican Party and to this country. The #NeverTrumpers will be doing you a favor by not voting for either liberal Democrat in November.

However, I am beginning to believe that Trump will not become the Republican nominee. Republicans will not nominate a sure loser if the party can figure out a way to avoid it. Cruz might lose to Hillary as well, but Republicans would stand a better chance of retaining control of the Senate if he is the nominee. If nothing else, Cruz will never embarrass the Republican Party the way that Trump has done and will continue to do if he is the nominee.

Here is another illustration of Trump embarrassing the Republican Party, American men, and our Founding Fathers, who must be spinning in their graves:



Trump has no more idea what role a Supreme Court Justice plays in our federal government than an average fourth grader.

Nah, if I had intended to insult you I might have said something like that was one of the more ridiculous things you have posted on here.

But you are finally facing up to the nastiness that will be headed Cruz's way if he somehow gets the nomination instead of the front runner. You and Karl Rove seem to be cohabiting the same corner these days. He just got through saying that with Trump and Cruz invoking such angst, we (the establishment) might be better off with a fresh face. Imagine that one now! I must have missed the fresh face option in times past. You're up on your convention rule book, ever see that one?

I never intended for things to become personal between us. You have your way of looking at things, and I have my own. Frankly, the only thing I've heard Trump say that was unacceptable in my mind is the deal with Japan and South Korea having their own nukes. I'd definitely give him a long blast on the wrong answer buzzer on that one. But, he will have national defense advisors to guide him. I would like to think that Jeff Sessions would line him out on such matters.

[ekyswvahsfan]

Ted Cruz will provide no more help than Trump to Republicans in close senate races. It is probable the Republicans will lose a net of two seats no matter who the nominee is.

Cruz will not carry a state above the Ohio or the Potomac- at least Trump has a chance of getting some blue collar votes in those states- Cruz has none. Cruz will lose Virginia and Florida in the South. The Pacific states are lost, with the exception of Alaska. He can carry eight or nine small Mountain and Plains states , but Trump would carry the same states.

It is ridiculous for Cruz supporters to claim he can run a better race than Trump. The latest polling indicates they are both are in the same percentile against Hillary.

Cruz has shown no ability to expand the Republican base. A great many Trump supporters I have spoken to will simply sit out the election- and a lot of these are normally straight-ticket Republicans. Cruz is a dead end for Republicans.

[Hoot Gibson]

Nah, if I had intended to insult you I might have said something like that was one of the more ridiculous things you have posted on here.

But you are finally facing up to the nastiness that will be headed Cruz's way if he somehow gets the nomination instead of the front runner. You and Karl Rove seem to be cohabiting the same corner these days. He just got through saying that with Trump and Cruz invoking such angst, we (the establishment) might be better off with a fresh face. Imagine that one now! I must have missed the fresh face option in times past. You're up on your convention rule book, ever see that one?

I never intended for things to become personal between us. You have your way of looking at things, and I have my own. Frankly, the only thing I've heard Trump say that was unacceptable in my mind is the deal with Japan and South Korea having their own nukes. I'd definitely give him a long blast on the wrong answer buzzer on that one. But, he will have national defense advisors to guide him. I would like to think that Jeff Sessions would line him out on such matters.

Once again, you are posting like Donald Trump tweets. You are either not being truthful, or you are posting out of ignorance. What have I posted that leads you to smear me by tarring me with the same brush as Karl Rove?

Karl Rove wants to change the rules to make it easier to deny Trump the nomination. In contrast, I have said that the GOP should leave the rules exactly as they are, including the requirement that the nominee win a minimum of 8 states and territories. If Trump cannot win a majority of the delegates on the first ballot, then he would have to persuade a majority of delegates to vote for him on a subsequent ballot. That is the rule now and it was the rule when Trump decided to run.

How would leaving the rules the same as they were when Trump entered the race be unfair to Trump? Do you believe that Karl Rove agrees with my position? I don't think you do. If so, then you are posting out of ignorance and did not intend your comment as an insult.

As for encouraging South Korea and Japan to arm themselves with nukes, you completely ignored Trumps even worse proposal to allow Saudi Arabia to do the same. Suggesting that another country governed by radical Islam should have the capability of detonating nuclear weapons in the Middle East is insane. Giving Trump a pass because he will have national defense advisers to guide him is a ridiculous comment.

Trump has been running for president for 10 months and his production rate of gaffes is an order of magnitude greater than Joe Biden has ever achieved. You and other Trump supporters are just making one excuse after another for Trump that neither of us have ever made for any other candidate.

Are we supposed to just wait until Donald Trump is elected before taking anything he says seriously? Are we to assume that after he is elected Trump will heed the advice of experts when he has shown no penchant for calm deliberation during this campaign? If so, then what is the point of having a campaign? We could just let celebrities declare themselves candidates and then immediately schedule elections before giving themselves time to make fools of themselves.

You cannot have it both ways. Either it would be wrong for the GOP to change its rules on nominations at the convention, which it has always done in the past, or it would be wrong if the GOP did not change its rules to crown Trump its nominee at the convention. Which do you want?

Please explain how it would be unfair to Donald Trump to leave the rules in place that were already in place at the time Trump declared himself a Republican candidate for the presidency.

[TheRealThing]

Once again, you are posting like Donald Trump tweets. You are either not being truthful, or you are posting out of ignorance. What have I posted that leads you to smear me by tarring me with the same brush as Karl Rove?

Karl Rove wants to change the rules to make it easier to deny Trump the nomination. In contrast, I have said that the GOP should leave the rules exactly as they are, including the requirement that the nominee win a minimum of 8 states and territories. If Trump cannot win a majority of the delegates on the first ballot, then he would have to persuade a majority of delegates to vote for him on a subsequent ballot. That is the rule now and it was the rule when Trump decided to run.

How would leaving the rules the same as they were when Trump entered the race be unfair to Trump? Do you believe that Karl Rove agrees with my position? I don't think you do. If so, then you are posting out of ignorance and did not intend your comment as an insult.

As for encouraging South Korea and Japan to arm themselves with nukes, you completely ignored Trumps even worse proposal to allow Saudi Arabia to do the same. Suggesting that another country governed by radical Islam should have the capability of detonating nuclear weapons in the Middle East is insane. Giving Trump a pass because he will have national defense advisers to guide him is a ridiculous comment.

Trump has been running for president for 10 months and his production rate of gaffes is an order of magnitude greater than Joe Biden has ever achieved. You and other Trump supporters are just making one excuse after another for Trump that neither of us have ever made for any other candidate.

Are we supposed to just wait until Donald Trump is elected before taking anything he says seriously? Are we to assume that after he is elected Trump will heed the advice of experts when he has shown no penchant for calm deliberation during this campaign? If so, then what is the point of having a campaign? We could just let celebrities declare themselves candidates and then immediately schedule elections before giving themselves time to make fools of themselves.

You cannot have it both ways. Either it would be wrong for the GOP to change its rules on nominations at the convention, which it has always done in the past, or it would be wrong if the GOP did not change its rules to crown Trump its nominee at the convention. Which do you want?

Please explain how it would be unfair to Donald Trump to leave the rules in place that were already in place at the time Trump declared himself a Republican candidate for the presidency.

LOL, I'm sure you post from a position of greater enlightenment than I. But no, I expect you to understand that you have one vote just as millions of other voters have one vote, and they have cast theirs for Trump. Who BTW, still has a reasonable chance to win the nomination outright.

[Hoot Gibson]

LOL, I'm sure you post from a position of greater enlightenment than I. But no, I expect you to understand that you have one vote just as millions of other voters have one vote, and they have cast theirs for Trump. Who BTW, still has a reasonable chance to win the nomination outright.

Lying and then refusing to apologize for the lie? That is not like you, TRT. That is what joining a cult does to a person. Not everybody who will be voting for Trump are behaving like cult members, but the number who are is alarming.

I have never, as Karl Rove has done, expressed any desire or support for the GOP handing the nomination to somebody who has not even been a candidate. In fact, I have explicitly stated that the choice should be made between Trump and Cruz.

I have also repeatedly said that Rove should have been fired after the 2012 election for his clownish behavior on election night. I criticized Fox News for hiring out of work politicians and likely presidential candidates like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee.

If you can't win a debate without fabricating your opponent's position, then you cannot win that debate. Ask yourself what is driving you to such extreme behavior.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Polls matter very much in politics, which is why candidates spend millions paying for them. Trump is very well known to voters, as is Hillary. That means that moving up in the polls will be unusually difficult.

'Gut, I disagree with your Red State/Blue State analysis. What you said only applies if Republicans nominate a strong candidate. Trump would be a very weak candidate and even though he would be matched against another very weak candidate, Trump would lose in a landslide unless Hillary is indicted and jailed before the election.

The way that I see it, there would be no obvious lesser of two evils choice if Trump runs against Hillary this fall. Hillary should be behind bars and Trump should be in a padded cell.

If anything, Trump has been the only one to change the red state/blue state debate. I confidently believe hes the only republican runner to put blue states into question. Killary sure as hell isn't putting red states into play.

And I just don't see how the polls matter. They were dead wrong on Romney, and they heavily favored Bush, who, as you put it, poured millions and millions into his campaign and never got any backing period.

Politics are changing. Republicans and Conservatives no longer belong to the same party IMHO. Republicans should be in the democrats and moderates party, left wing liberals should be in the communist party, and there should be a party created for the extreme right wingers like many of us are.

[RunItUpTheGut]

And I disagree with your analysis. No Republican worth his salt will vote for a libertarian or a Democrat, much less Hillary. The red state train will still be pulling into the station.

They can threaten all they want to, the Repubs will vote for Trump.
They know another 4 years of Clinton/Obama policies will finally spell the end for this country and its future.
Its all an act.

[Hoot Gibson]

If anything, Trump has been the only one to change the red state/blue state debate. I confidently believe hes the only republican runner to put blue states into question. Killary sure as hell isn't putting red states into play.

And I just don't see how the polls matter. They were dead wrong on Romney, and they heavily favored Bush, who, as you put it, poured millions and millions into his campaign and never got any backing period.

Politics are changing. Republicans and Conservatives no longer belong to the same party IMHO. Republicans should be in the democrats and moderates party, left wing liberals should be in the communist party, and there should be a party created for the extreme right wingers like many of us are.

Polls don't matter until candidates start campaigning. As elections approach, the polls are generally pretty accurate. My point is that once candidates' names and positions become well known, the poll numbers become harder to move. Trump and Clinton are very well known and it will be very difficult for him to overcome that deficit, IMO. Cruz and Kasich are not nearly as well known, and would be more likely to move up or down in the polls if either one of them is the nominee.

When I read Donald Trump's tweets criticizing Megyn Kelly and other women, it is hard to believe that he really wants to win the nomination. It makes no sense for a candidate who is doing so poorly among women voters to keep digging a deeper hole for himself. These personal vendettas against women are damaging his chances of winning the nomination and they will hurt him in the general campaign if he wins the nomination. He has been publicly feuding with Kelly for more than 200 days. Other feuds with women have been going on much longer.

It is very hard to sound intelligent in 140 characters or less. If Trump simply gave up Twitter until after the campaign, his chances of winning would improve significantly.

[TheRealThing]

Lying and then refusing to apologize for the lie? That is not like you, TRT. That is what joining a cult does to a person. Not everybody who will be voting for Trump are behaving like cult members, but the number who are is alarming.

I have never, as Karl Rove has done, expressed any desire or support for the GOP handing the nomination to somebody who has not even been a candidate. In fact, I have explicitly stated that the choice should be made between Trump and Cruz.

I have also repeatedly said that Rove should have been fired after the 2012 election for his clownish behavior on election night. I criticized Fox News for hiring out of work politicians and likely presidential candidates like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee.

If you can't win a debate without fabricating your opponent's position, then you cannot win that debate. Ask yourself what is driving you to such extreme behavior.

You really took offense at that Karl Rove remark huh? I did conflate your statements about Libertarians breaking the vote count record with rejecting the front runner if that person happens to be Donald Trump. I said you seem to be cohabiting the same corner with Rove, and I said that in a way that afforded you room for denial. I must say though, I thought you only called your staunch enemies liars. I can say however, that I've never called anyone on this site a liar and that includes you. If you weren't so blinded by ire, you'd have noticed that I took the edge off for you by asking if you agreed with me on the convention rules. I used to say that the country was likely too far gone to salvage and you used to take a more optimistic view. Now you're acting like it's over if we don't get Ted in there as President. I don't know, but I know corrupting the process won't serve us well either. These elections tend to come around every four years and we'll want things to be orderly and legal then too. You've not called for convention shenanigans, but you're okay with blocking Trump and I worry that voters will interpret that as disenfranchisement. And I worry about the fake protests which are reportedly funded by Soros.

There is no way that Democrats joining forces with Republicans to defeat the front runner for the nomination, is on the up and up.

And for purposes of your personal enlightenment cultists are normally associated with religious deviation. You seem to have gone completely around the bend with this Never Trump gig, and I don't understand it. My conversation with you has been with you. I get the impression that you feel you can sway this election somehow with what you say on here. As I have pointed out, the Kentucky caucuses are past and Trump won. The next time Kentuckians vote will be in the actual election this coming 8th day of November.

The problem from the establishment view is not merely their opposition to Trump. They hate Cruz even more and getting Trump out of the way won't help Cruz one bit, Lindsey Graham level endorsements notwithstanding. Are you seriously not worried about Cruz being up against the broom jockey? I am.

[Hoot Gibson]

You really took offense at that Karl Rove remark huh? I did conflate your statements about Libertarians breaking the vote count record with rejecting the front runner if that person happens to be Donald Trump. I said you seem to be cohabiting the same corner with Rove, and I said that in a way that afforded you room for denial. I must say though, I thought you only called your staunch enemies liars. I can say however, that I've never called anyone on this site a liar and that includes you. If you weren't so blinded by ire, you'd have noticed that I took the edge off for you by asking if you agreed with me on the convention rules. I used to say that the country was likely too far gone to salvage and you used to take a more optimistic view. Now you're acting like it's over if we don't get Ted in there as President. I don't know, but I know corrupting the process won't serve us well either. These elections tend to come around every four years and we'll want things to be orderly and legal then too. You've not called for convention shenanigans, but you're okay with blocking Trump and I worry that voters will interpret that as disenfranchisement. And I worry about the fake protests which are reportedly funded by Soros.

There is no way that Democrats joining forces with Republicans to defeat the front runner for the nomination, is on the up and up.

And for purposes of your personal enlightenment cultists are normally associated with religious deviation. You seem to have gone completely around the bend with this Never Trump gig, and I don't understand it. My conversation with you has been with you. I get the impression that you feel you can sway this election somehow with what you say on here. As I have pointed out, the Kentucky caucuses are past and Trump won. The next time Kentuckians vote will be in the actual election this coming 8th day of November.

The problem from the establishment view is not merely their opposition to Trump. They hate Cruz even more and getting Trump out of the way won't help Cruz one bit, Lindsey Graham level endorsements notwithstanding. Are you seriously not worried about Cruz being up against the broom jockey? I am.

Conflating two true statements does not turn an unrelated falsehood into the truth. Am I supposed to be thankful that you "afforded me room" to refute a lie? That is not a rational expectation on your part.

[TheRealThing]

Conflating two true statements does not turn an unrelated falsehood into the truth. Am I supposed to be thankful that you "afforded me room" to refute a lie? That is not a rational expectation on your part.

No, I expected you to snap out of your caustic conniption fit and realize that the people you're speaking to on here are your friends. But those expectations have since evaporated.

I know you want a libertarian in the White House. And I know ol Ted is the closest thing to a libertarian (with any sort of chance) to come along in this century. The only problem is that realistically he has no chance. Trump will finish with far more delegates than Cruz and regardless of raging personal chemical processes, that is the reality.

Trump will flatten the competition in New York, and California according to Clint Eastwood who said, "he will be nominated, and he will win." Those two states alone would bump Trump up over a thousand.

With the Trump bashing going on by Wisconsin media, it's difficult to say how many, but he will get delegates in the State and we'll have to see. I know what I'd be saying if I was advising the Trump campaign. Abortion is murder and it's just a sad state of affairs when one has to stop and remind folks about that. And I'd show the tape over and over that shows Fields walking along with Trump. I'd point out that her cadence looks smooth and when was the nearly being pulled down event? Many have tried, but in repeated viewings of all available tape, nobody can find anything remotely similar to her complaint.

[Hoot Gibson]

No, I expected you to snap out of your caustic conniption fit and realize that the people you're speaking to on here are your friends. But those expectations have since evaporated.

I know you want a libertarian in the White House. And I know ol Ted is the closest thing to a libertarian (with any sort of chance) to come along in this century. The only problem is that realistically he has no chance. Trump will finish with far more delegates than Cruz and regardless of raging personal chemical processes, that is the reality.

Trump will flatten the competition in New York, and California according to Clint Eastwood who said, "he will be nominated, and he will win." Those two states alone would bump Trump up over a thousand.

With the Trump bashing going on by Wisconsin media, it's difficult to say how many, but he will get delegates in the State and we'll have to see. I know what I'd be saying if I was advising the Trump campaign. Abortion is murder and it's just a sad state of affairs when one has to stop and remind folks about that. And I'd show the tape over and over that shows Fields walking along with Trump. I'd point out that her cadence looks smooth and when was the nearly being pulled down event? Many have tried, but in repeated viewings of all available tape, nobody can find anything remotely similar to her complaint.

Ted Cruz is not a libertarian. He is a constitutional conservative. I only commented that the Libertarian Party will set a record for votes if Trump is the nominee because a large number of conservatives will absolutely not vote for Trump in the general election. Whether the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, or some combination of parties is the beneficiary of a Trump nomination, the result will be the same. The people who are pushing to give Trump the nomination, regardless of whether he can win a majority of the delegates are working to hand the election to Hillary Clinton.

If Trump can win the nomination under the current rules, then that will be bad enough. If the rules are changed because of Trump's whining and threats, to make it easier for Trump to win, then there will be an even bigger backlash against the party. The most fair thing to do, IMO, would be to leave the rules as they were when the current campaign began. Between Trump and Cruz, most delegates at the convention and on the rules committee, so they should be able to block any rules changes that would allow the GOP to drop in a candidate like Paul Ryan and ignore primary results.

Trump should do well in his home state of New York, but I doubt that he breaks 50 percent. Trump is barely above 50 percent in the polls now and neither Cruz nor Kasich has spent much time campaigning there. Cruz should pick up delegates in upstate New York, as Trump will dominate the more liberal NYC region. As for California, Trump led Cruz by 1 point in the most recent poll. Cruz may not win California, but he should make a strong showing there.

If Trump does not win on the first ballot, it is unlikely that he will win the nomination at all. There will be more delegates opposed to Trump than who are willing to support him. As candidates have dropped out of the race, more voters have moved to Cruz than to Trump and Trump still has not won 50 percent of the vote anywhere. Trump needs to focus on winning 1,237 delegates and stop whining about getting cheated.

Nowhere is your pro-Trump bias more evident than in the case of Michelle Fields. Lewandowski claimed that he never touched Fields. Now, as somebody who has watched the tape repeatedly, are you prepared to say that Lewandowski did not touch Fields' arm? As for a smooth cadence, it looks to me like she was walking next to Trump in one frame, Lewandowski reached her, and then Trump was several steps ahead of her. What stopped her forward motion? The frame rate of the CCTV is so low, that I don't think anybody can tell how hard Lewandowski grabbed Fields. She was moving forward and then suddenly she wasn't. Her audio comments and her bruise support her version of the story and there was no way she could have anticipated that she was going to be grabbed.

If you cannot even admit that Lewandowski lied about not touching Fields in the face of clear video evidence, then there is something wrong. The law does not require Lewandowski to have thrown Fields to the ground or caused her to scream in pain, as Trump suggested. A conviction of batter only requires that Lewandowski touched her against her will. Do you think Fields wanted Lewandowski to grab her arm? Is it possible, in light of the low frame rate of the video that Fields was thrown off balance or stumbled? I think it is possible, but it is not necessary for the touching to constitute battery.

If Lewanowski had not called Fields delusional and denied touching her, and instead simply apologized, I doubt that any battery charge would have been filed. Fields not only lost her job, Fox News' Eric Bolling removed her from his Cashin In panel. Trump and Lewandowski made the incident national news and Trump is still talking about it. This is not the only incident in which Lewandowski has embarrassed the Trump campaign. If you are interested, you can lookup "Cheryl Jacobus," who accused Lewandowski and Trump lying about her job interview for the campaign. Of course, there is also the incident where Trump denied that Lewandowski touched a protester until a video surfaced showing him grabbing a guy by the collar.

Instead of letting Trump's lies throw you off the scent, focus on whether he has handled controversies involving his staff honestly. The charge against Lewandowski may not stick, but if the charge is dropped it will not absolve Lewandowski and Trump from lying about the incident. Fields may have lied or exaggerated, but she is not managing a campaign or running for president.

One last thing about Michelle Fields. Fields was employed by Breitbart News, which has been very pro-Trump and she was also a panelist on Cashin In, which is hosted by Eric Boling, who may be the most pro-Trump member of Fox News' staff. The people who suggested that Fields made everything up to get attention have not explained why somebody whose employers are so supportive of Trump would have made a phony allegation against the Trump campaign. She had nothing to gain by lying and everything to lose by saying anything at all.

BTW, Lewandowski's title has not changed, but his roles and visibility within the campaign has been reduced. My guess is that he is one strike away from being sidelined permanently.

[TheRealThing]

Ted Cruz is not a libertarian. He is a constitutional conservative. I only commented that the Libertarian Party will set a record for votes if Trump is the nominee because a large number of conservatives will absolutely not vote for Trump in the general election. Whether the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, or some combination of parties is the beneficiary of a Trump nomination, the result will be the same. The people who are pushing to give Trump the nomination, regardless of whether he can win a majority of the delegates are working to hand the election to Hillary Clinton.

If Trump can win the nomination under the current rules, then that will be bad enough. If the rules are changed because of Trump's whining and threats, to make it easier for Trump to win, then there will be an even bigger backlash against the party. The most fair thing to do, IMO, would be to leave the rules as they were when the current campaign began. Between Trump and Cruz, most delegates at the convention and on the rules committee, so they should be able to block any rules changes that would allow the GOP to drop in a candidate like Paul Ryan and ignore primary results.

Trump should do well in his home state of New York, but I doubt that he breaks 50 percent. Trump is barely above 50 percent in the polls now and neither Cruz nor Kasich has spent much time campaigning there. Cruz should pick up delegates in upstate New York, as Trump will dominate the more liberal NYC region. As for California, Trump led Cruz by 1 point in the most recent poll. Cruz may not win California, but he should make a strong showing there.

If Trump does not win on the first ballot, it is unlikely that he will win the nomination at all. There will be more delegates opposed to Trump than who are willing to support him. As candidates have dropped out of the race, more voters have moved to Cruz than to Trump and Trump still has not won 50 percent of the vote anywhere. Trump needs to focus on winning 1,237 delegates and stop whining about getting cheated.

Nowhere is your pro-Trump bias more evident than in the case of Michelle Fields. Lewandowski claimed that he never touched Fields. Now, as somebody who has watched the tape repeatedly, are you prepared to say that Lewandowski did not touch Fields' arm? As for a smooth cadence, it looks to me like she was walking next to Trump in one frame, Lewandowski reached her, and then Trump was several steps ahead of her. What stopped her forward motion? The frame rate of the CCTV is so low, that I don't think anybody can tell how hard Lewandowski grabbed Fields. She was moving forward and then suddenly she wasn't. Her audio comments and her bruise support her version of the story and there was no way she could have anticipated that she was going to be grabbed.

If you cannot even admit that Lewandowski lied about not touching Fields in the face of clear video evidence, then there is something wrong. The law does not require Lewandowski to have thrown Fields to the ground or caused her to scream in pain, as Trump suggested. A conviction of batter only requires that Lewandowski touched her against her will. Do you think Fields wanted Lewandowski to grab her arm? Is it possible, in light of the low frame rate of the video that Fields was thrown off balance or stumbled? I think it is possible, but it is not necessary for the touching to constitute battery.

If Lewanowski had not called Fields delusional and denied touching her, and instead simply apologized, I doubt that any battery charge would have been filed. Fields not only lost her job, Fox News' Eric Bolling removed her from his Cashin In panel. Trump and Lewandowski made the incident national news and Trump is still talking about it. This is not the only incident in which Lewandowski has embarrassed the Trump campaign. If you are interested, you can lookup "Cheryl Jacobus," who accused Lewandowski and Trump lying about her job interview for the campaign. Of course, there is also the incident where Trump denied that Lewandowski touched a protester until a video surfaced showing him grabbing a guy by the collar.

Instead of letting Trump's lies throw you off the scent, focus on whether he has handled controversies involving his staff honestly. The charge against Lewandowski may not stick, but if the charge is dropped it will not absolve Lewandowski and Trump from lying about the incident. Fields may have lied or exaggerated, but she is not managing a campaign or running for president.

One last thing about Michelle Fields. Fields was employed by Breitbart News, which has been very pro-Trump and she was also a panelist on Cashin In, which is hosted by Eric Boling, who may be the most pro-Trump member of Fox News' staff. The people who suggested that Fields made everything up to get attention have not explained why somebody whose employers are so supportive of Trump would have made a phony allegation against the Trump campaign. She had nothing to gain by lying and everything to lose by saying anything at all.

BTW, Lewandowski's title has not changed, but his roles and visibility within the campaign has been reduced. My guess is that he is one strike away from being sidelined permanently.

So, if I understand this correctly given that Trump were the nominee, all the Libertarians and perhaps the Rich Lowry types, are going to line up and vote for a guaranteed 3rd party loser. None the less, it is only the votes for Trump that will constitute votes for Hillary? On a different issue, I refuse to believe that all women will vote for Hillary, many cannot stand her.

But I agree with most of your post. I wasn't saying Lewandowski could not have handled things much much better. I would say he should be fired if proof emerges which shows his hand on her arm. Not because that is such an earthshaking trespass, but because that means he has lied publicly about the incident. Embellishing the situation on the part of Fields is just as dishonest. I saw the tape, Hannity for example claims to have watched it a hundred times and could not detect the incident. When somebody gets jerked so hard they barely manage to avoid hitting the deck, that would be somewhat discernible in his mind. So again, where is it that you've gotten this clear evidence from again? My leaning, is that he may have indeed touched her arm, but if there is clear evidence I have not heard of it.

The whole thing seemed out of character. I would have thought that Fields was asking campaign friendly questions and I didn't get why things went down as they did. Maybe she had an ax to grind and went off the reservation a little, who knows? And maybe Trump really likes Lewandowski, and when Trump asked him what happened Lewandowski lied to him too. Trump was in the lead and could not see what was going on behind him, all of which has served at bare minimum to put him in a very bad spot. I think at first it was just of case of Trump resisting when outsiders try to tell him how to run his own organization. So, when and if he sees that Lewandowski is guilty, I could see how Trump's admiration for him would do a nose dive.

[Hoot Gibson]

So, if I understand this correctly given that Trump were the nominee, all the Libertarians and perhaps the Rich Lowry types, are going to line up and vote for a guaranteed 3rd party loser. None the less, it is only the votes for Trump that will constitute votes for Hillary? On a different issue, I refuse to believe that all women will vote for Hillary, many cannot stand her.

But I agree with most of your post. I wasn't saying Lewandowski could not have handled things much much better. I would say he should be fired if proof emerges which shows his hand on her arm. Not because that is such an earthshaking trespass, but because that means he has lied publicly about the incident. Embellishing the situation on the part of Fields is just as dishonest. I saw the tape, Hannity for example claims to have watched it a hundred times and could not detect the incident. When somebody gets jerked so hard they barely manage to avoid hitting the deck, that would be somewhat discernible in his mind. So again, where is it that you've gotten this clear evidence from again? My leaning, is that he may have indeed touched her arm, but if there is clear evidence I have not heard of it.

The whole thing seemed out of character. I would have thought that Fields was asking campaign friendly questions and I didn't get why things went down as they did. Maybe she had an ax to grind and went off the reservation a little, who knows? And maybe Trump really likes Lewandowski, and when Trump asked him what happened Lewandowski lied to him too. Trump was in the lead and could not see what was going on behind him, all of which has served at bare minimum to put him in a very bad spot. I think at first it was just of case of Trump resisting when outsiders try to tell him how to run his own organization. So, when and if he sees that Lewandowski is guilty, I could see how Trump's admiration for him would do a nose dive.

If Trump is the nominee, he will almost certainly lose in November. Trump followers can ignore the poll results that Trump dislikes, but Trump has run a sleazy, negative campaign and alienated millions of Republican voters, especially women voters. More than 70 percent of all American women have a negative opinion of Trump. That is not a statistic that will magically disappear.

As for Fields, what difference does it makes whether she was asking Trump tough questions or not? Do tough questions warrant manhandling her to separate her from Trump? The video makes it very clear that Lewandowski stopped her forward advance. She did not just voluntarily stop walking forward. She was stopped. I think that even Trump still denies that Lewandowski grabbed Fields' arm. Trump has been arguing that Fields did not scream, so that proves Lewandowski did not hurt her.

Video, audio, a bruised forearm, and an eyewitness that corroborated Fields' story and yet you are quoting Sean Hannity, who has become a joke because of his biased Trump coverage to defend Lewandowski.

[jetpilot]

Let's look at the results in December. If you intended your remark as an insult, don't expect me to repay in kind. I see Trump as an existential threat to the Republican Party and to this country. The #NeverTrumpers will be doing you a favor by not voting for either liberal Democrat in November.

However, I am beginning to believe that Trump will not become the Republican nominee. Republicans will not nominate a sure loser if the party can figure out a way to avoid it. Cruz might lose to Hillary as well, but Republicans would stand a better chance of retaining control of the Senate if he is the nominee. If nothing else, Cruz will never embarrass the Republican Party the way that Trump has done and will continue to do if he is the nominee.

Here is another illustration of Trump embarrassing the Republican Party, American men, and our Founding Fathers, who must be spinning in their graves:



Trump has no more idea what role a Supreme Court Justice plays in our federal government than an average fourth grader.

First let me say I think you know I respect your opinion as much as anyone on here. But I see the Republican establishment as the existential threat to the Republican party. They have lost to Obama twice, then given him everything he wants without a fight. They are big spenders now. In my view they are just as incompetent/corrupt/power hungry as the Democrats. Worse, they show no ability to even beat a horrible candidate like Hillary. I have no more faith in them than Democrats. In fact, you really can't tell Republicans from Democrats in Washington DC. A vote for Donald Trump is a vote against Hillary, The Republican Establishment, Obama, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Chuck Schumer, Mitt Romney, and etc etc etc...Who in their right might could pass that up?:HitWall::HitWall::HitWall:

[Hoot Gibson]

First let me say I think you know I respect your opinion as much as anyone on here. But I see the Republican establishment as the existential threat to the Republican party. They have lost to Obama twice, then given him everything he wants without a fight. They are big spenders now. In my view they are just as incompetent/corrupt/power hungry as the Democrats. Worse, they show no ability to even beat a horrible candidate like Hillary. I have no more faith in them than Democrats. In fact, you really can't tell Republicans from Democrats in Washington DC. A vote for Donald Trump is a vote against Hillary, The Republican Establishment, Obama, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Chuck Schumer, Mitt Romney, and etc etc etc...Who in their right might could pass that up?:HitWall::HitWall::HitWall:

Under no circumstance will I vote for Donald Trump and there are millions of Republicans who feel the same as I do. I agree with what you are saying about the Republican and Democrat establishments being virtually indistinguishable, but even the GOPe has never managed to offer a worse candidate than Donald Trump. By no stretch of the imagination am I qualified to be president but I honestly believe that I have a deeper understanding of our Constitution, our justice system (including the Supreme Court) foreign policy, history, and geography that Trump has. There is no excuse for a presidential candidate to be as ignorant of critical issues as Trump.

I despise Hillary Clinton and believe that she belongs in a jail cell but she is far more knowledgeable and far more qualified to be president than Trump - and I do not consider Hillary qualified at all.

It takes an absolute moron to suggest that Saudi Arabia should be armed with nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia is governed by radical Muslims under sharia law. The government publicly beheads adulterers, converts to Christianity, and other "criminals." Minor crimes like theft are often punished by publicly lopping off the offenders hands and/or feet. 15 of the 19 9/11 attackers were born in Saudi Arabia, as was Bin Laden himself.

Arming Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons would make it an attractive target of ISIS and other terrorist organizations. How could an American presidential candidate make such a ridiculous suggestion?

Proposing nukes for South Korea and Japan was also a mistake, but I think a case can be made to support the proposal. There is no way any sane human being can make a good argument for arming Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons.

As with many of Trump's other ridiculous statements, Trump backed off of his original statement regarding Saudi Arabia, but then later said that they (Saudi Arabia) would eventually have nuclear weapons anyway.

Maybe I am worrying too much. After all, Trump has promised to become very presidential as soon as he dispenses with "leftovers" Cruz and Kasich, who he explains have not been very nice to him. So, as nasty as Trump has been to his fellow Republican candidates (and in some cases, to their wives), he is going to be so presidential in the general campaign against Hillary Clinton that he will be "boring." Does that explanation make sense to anybody? Does Trump expect Hillary Clinton to be nice to him, which will allow him to be presidential?

Trump supporters have an opportunity to strike at the GOPe without voting for an idiot. If they give Trump the 1,237 delegates that he needs to win the nomination, and Hillary Clinton becomes president, it will not be anybody's fault but Trump's, his supporters, and the GOPe, which tried to rig the process for a RINO. Trump is a RINO, just not the RINO that the GOPe had in mind.

Playing the Hillary card to scare people into voting for Trump is not going to work in November. Many of us are at least as scared of a Trump presidency as a Hillary presidency. Both of them would rather be our ruler than of our president. If I am going to be a subject of another imperial president, it will not be because I voted for my own subjugation.

[RunItUpTheGut]

There isn't a single politician in this country that I want to see reelected.
I want an entire new line up.

[TheRealThing]

If Trump is the nominee, he will almost certainly lose in November. Trump followers can ignore the poll results that Trump dislikes, but Trump has run a sleazy, negative campaign and alienated millions of Republican voters, especially women voters. More than 70 percent of all American women have a negative opinion of Trump. That is not a statistic that will magically disappear.

As for Fields, what difference does it makes whether she was asking Trump tough questions or not? Do tough questions warrant manhandling her to separate her from Trump? The video makes it very clear that Lewandowski stopped her forward advance. She did not just voluntarily stop walking forward. She was stopped. I think that even Trump still denies that Lewandowski grabbed Fields' arm. Trump has been arguing that Fields did not scream, so that proves Lewandowski did not hurt her.

Video, audio, a bruised forearm, and an eyewitness that corroborated Fields' story and yet you are quoting Sean Hannity, who has become a joke because of his biased Trump coverage to defend Lewandowski.

Trump will be the nominee.

You don't know if he will lose or not, I doubt that he will. Women voters will not vote for Hillary. Nobody said anything about tough questions from Fields. Video shows nothing, audio says nothing, tape clearly does show however that Fields certainly did not come anywhere near to being jerked down. I heard Trump say only this evening that he would have fired Lewandowski if he'd jerked her to the ground or nearly to the ground. I didn't quote Hannity, I said he says he watched the tape a hundred times and couldn't validate Field's claims.

Oh, and BTW. You're dreaming the impossible dream if you think there are millions of Republicans who feel the same way you do about Trump. They'll all come home and vote for Trump.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Trump will be the nominee.

You don't know if he will lose or not, I doubt that he will. Women voters will not vote for Hillary. Nobody said anything about tough questions from Fields. Video shows nothing, audio says nothing, tape clearly does show however that Fields certainly did not come anywhere near to being jerked down. I heard Trump say only this evening that he would have fired Lewandowski if he'd jerked her to the ground or nearly to the ground. I didn't quote Hannity, I said he says he watched the tape a hundred times and couldn't validate Field's claims.

Oh, and BTW. You're dreaming the impossible dream if you think there are millions of Republicans who feel the same way you do about Trump. They'll all come home and vote for Trump.

lol, dont forget TRT, the socialist party may elect senile ole Bernie.
The one thing downplaying the disgrace that is the RINOs and what they've done this election cycle is the fact that the self appointed female goddess in a pantsuit cant shake off a silly communist and his LGBQTDFB following.

I seen another "this is finally the end for Trump" article today. Dear god, he will be in his 7th year in office and they will still be writing articles on how he will lose the nomination nicker: