What do you think the odds are that the republican establishment will be able to weasel Paul Ryan in ahead of Trump or Cruise?

I believe that even the best of the political analyst cannot answer your question.

Like many I wanted a "do over" because the news media & RNC setting up debates used something actually very useless "poll numbers" to decide. The voters never really got a chance to hear from all of the candidates.

The news media handling the debates did a lousy job because they tried to make it about them and so their questioning was planned to secure higher ratings rather than substantive responses from candidates. Its also part of the reason Trump's tirades dominated much of the time.

I have been saying all during this campaign that I was longing for a "Hail Mary" to occur at the Republican Convention. However if it does the certainty is that Trump will not go quietly into the night.

Trump could have been a good candidate because his attacks on political correctness and hypocrisy among the political class was refreshing. However for whatever organic reason he is energy out of control which was quite surprising for me because you would have thought that such a successful businessman would be just the opposite.

I still believe that there is a hidden agenda behind Trump's run for president. There are red flags all over his campaign but only time will reveal the true answer?

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

What do you think the odds are that the republican establishment will be able to weasel Paul Ryan in ahead of Trump or Cruise?

Nope, it won't be Ryan. It will be Kasich. If Trump gets the delegates he needs, they will leave him alone. But, he if doesn't get exactly the amount needed, they will nominate Kasich to beat Hillary or Sanders, depending on whether or not Hillary gets indicted before the convention. And if they nominate Kasich, Trump will back him......guaranteed.

Originally Posted by Guest

I believe that even the best of the political analyst cannot answer your question.

Like many I wanted a "do over" because the news media & RNC setting up debates used something actually very useless "poll numbers" to decide. The voters never really got a chance to hear from all of the candidates.

The news media handling the debates did a lousy job because they tried to make it about them and so their questioning was planned to secure higher ratings rather than substantive responses from candidates. Its also part of the reason Trump's tirades dominated much of the time.

I have been saying all during this campaign that I was longing for a "Hail Mary" to occur at the Republican Convention. However if it does the certainty is that Trump will not go quietly into the night.

Trump could have been a good candidate because his attacks on political correctness and hypocrisy among the political class was refreshing. However for whatever organic reason he is energy out of control which was quite surprising for me because you would have thought that such a successful businessman would be just the opposite.

I still believe that there is a hidden agenda behind Trump's run for president. There are red flags all over his campaign but only time will reveal the true answer?

Personal Best Regards:

It's fun to guess.

Isn't it too late to go third party?

Was that the GOP plan all along?

Originally Posted by Guest

What do you think the odds are that the republican establishment will be able to weasel Paul Ryan in ahead of Trump or Cruise?

When I saw the term "weasel" used, I immediately thought you were speaking of the Clintons, especially Slick Willy, but not excluding Killary.

Originally Posted by Guest

Nope, it won't be Ryan. It will be Kasich. If Trump gets the delegates he needs, they will leave him alone. But, he if doesn't get exactly the amount needed, they will nominate Kasich to beat Hillary or Sanders, depending on whether or not Hillary gets indicted before the convention. And if they nominate Kasich, Trump will back him......guaranteed.

worth reading
Donald Trump admits tweet about Cruz

Originally Posted by Guest

When I saw the term "weasel" used, I immediately thought you were speaking of the Clintons, especially Slick Willy, but not excluding Killary.

I believe weasel was meant to suggest steal or sneak. Also, are you aware how childish you sound when you use the terms like slick willy or Killary? You lose all credibility even if you had something interesting to say. (Ya, I know, small odds)

When the republican establishment tries to circumvent the will of the republican voters what it's really saying is they agree with independents and democrats in thinking the Tea Party is full of wack jobs. Sure the Tea ******* were useful for republicans to get elected but governing is too complicated for the simple minded / back and white thinking Tea *******.

When the republican establishment tries to circumvent the will of the republican voters what it's really saying is they agree with independents and democrats in thinking the Tea Party is full of wack jobs. Sure the Tea Bagers were useful for republicans to get elected but governing is too complicated for the simple minded / back and white thinking Tea Bagers.

Originally Posted by Guest

worth reading
Donald Trump admits tweet about Cruz

Here is the tweet referenced in the provided link:

Originally Posted by Guest

I believe weasel was meant to suggest steal or sneak. Also, are you aware how childish you sound when you use the terms like slick willy or Killary? You lose all credibility even if you had something interesting to say. (Ya, I know, small odds)

I would have to really drop pretty low to compete for the credibility level of a liberal. Interesting that you don't dispute the subject of the post, just the term I used to describe the scumbags. I bet you thought that I was concerned about my credibility with you, huh? Obviously, you found the comment "interesting" enough to submit a reply. Have a great day.

Originally Posted by Guest

worth reading
Donald Trump admits tweet about Cruz

A little off thread, no?

Originally Posted by Guest

When the republican establishment tries to circumvent the will of the republican voters what it's really saying is they agree with independents and democrats in thinking the Tea Party is full of wack jobs. Sure the Tea Bagers were useful for republicans to get elected but governing is too complicated for the simple minded / back and white thinking Tea Bagers.

Can anyone make sense of that post? I bet this illiterate is voting for Hillary or Sanders.

Originally Posted by Guest

Can anyone make sense of that post? I bet this illiterate is voting for Hillary or Sanders.

I believe you made a typographical error in your post. You MEANT to say, "I bet this informed citizen is going to cast their vote for the next President of the USA which will be either Sen. Sanders or Sec. Clinton."

Originally Posted by Guest

When the republican establishment tries to circumvent the will of the republican voters what it's really saying is they agree with independents and democrats in thinking the Tea Party is full of wack jobs. Sure the Tea Bagers were useful for republicans to get elected but governing is too complicated for the simple minded / back and white thinking Tea Bagers.

So you think anybody that disagrees with your party is a tea party follower.

Well that ertainly makes one's limited, but incorrect view, easier to deal with.

We know, your job is to aggrivate. Accuracy about anything stated by you is purely coincidental. Especially with such a limited outlook.