RNC - what a s**t show

[heironymouspasparagus]

Of course you didn't Google his name. A Pulitzer prize winning investigative journalist who asked these questions a year ago before the primaries. Did you read the questions? Or are you letting your hate for Hillary interfere with your usual insightful analysis?

I ran into a sewage situation like this in New Jersey - near Atlantic City about 1982.  Was offered a bribe to make the meters read a 'special' number, just like this.  (I didn't take it, unlike the participants in this story.)

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/071316/how-donald-trump-tried-cash-dumping-sewage-hudson-river.asp

[Conan71]

Of course you didn't Google his name. A Pulitzer prize winning investigative journalist who asked these questions a year ago before the primaries. Did you read the questions? Or are you letting your hate for Hillary interfere with your usual insightful analysis?

I dislike Trump every bit as much, if not more, than I dislike HRC.  I thought he was funny at first and simply stirring the bucket in the GOP.  Then he started winning delegates.  I honestly did not think the electorate could be so stupid to fall for his rhetoric as being serious or as having any qualifications to lead the U.S.

First problem with your post is:  you didn't link to anything showing 21 questions at least not that I could find.  Your link had more links to several reviews and cover shots.

Secondly, why didn't he publish any of this a year ago?  Oh right, because there's a motive in publishing it now.  Sorry, that smacks of a complete lack of journalistic ethics if it could have been published prior to the primaries.  I have no idea if that would have made a difference, it appears the majority of the electorate is voting based on emotion rather than intellect these days in order to end up with two such detestable candidates for POTUS.

[Hoss]

I dislike Trump every bit as much, if not more, than I dislike HRC.  I thought he was funny at first and simply stirring the bucket in the GOP.  Then he started winning delegates.  I honestly did not think the electorate could be so stupid to fall for his rhetoric as being serious or as having any qualifications to lead the U.S.

First problem with your post is:  you didn't link to anything showing 21 questions at least not that I could find.  Your link had more links to several reviews and cover shots.

Secondly, why didn't he publish any of this a year ago?  Oh right, because there's a motive in publishing it now.  Sorry, that smacks of a complete lack of journalistic ethics if it could have been published prior to the primaries.  I have no idea if that would have made a difference, it appears the majority of the electorate is voting based on emotion rather than intellect these days in order to end up with two such detestable candidates for POTUS.

Not trying to defend this guy here, but maybe he didn't publish because, like you, and like so many of us, he didn't take his candidacy seriously?

Just puttin' that out there.

[AquaMan]

I dislike Trump every bit as much, if not more, than I dislike HRC.  I thought he was funny at first and simply stirring the bucket in the GOP.  Then he started winning delegates.  I honestly did not think the electorate could be so stupid to fall for his rhetoric as being serious or as having any qualifications to lead the U.S.

First problem with your post is:  you didn't link to anything showing 21 questions at least not that I could find.  Your link had more links to several reviews and cover shots.

Secondly, why didn't he publish any of this a year ago?  Oh right, because there's a motive in publishing it now.  Sorry, that smacks of a complete lack of journalistic ethics if it could have been published prior to the primaries.  I have no idea if that would have made a difference, it appears the majority of the electorate is voting based on emotion rather than intellect these days in order to end up with two such detestable candidates for POTUS.

If your complaint is my ineptness in posting the wrong link, I can handle that. I'm overwhelmed at the moment. But its hard to question his ethics with his background of investigative journalistic excellence. Those 21 questions were available a year ago all over the net, prior to the primaries. Some of them I saw on PBS documentaries. More importantly, lots of New York businessmen and politicians are aware of these issues. They also thought he would go nowhere. When good men do nothing....

As far as the majority of the electorate voting on emotion, that's a pretty sweeping indictment. Trump supporters admire him because he says out loud what they think and are afraid to say. They abhor the elitism that education and wealth can breed, education and wealth they don't have. New Hillary supporters suddenly are aware of the true nature of Republican conservatism and its failure to keep a Trump from leading their party. That seems to me be an intellectual choice.

As usual, maybe some leftover republicanism in your blood, you attack the messenger rather than the messages. Give me some time. I'll find the links.

[AquaMan]

They go back as far as July 10, 2015,
www.alternet.org/21-questions-donald-trump
ww.nationalmemo.com/21-questions-for-donald-trump
https://www.facebook.com/theharryshearer/posts/1182434358439459
www.democracynow.org/.../david_cay_johnston_21_questions_for

From the New Yorker, "On July 10th of last year, six days before Donald Trump confirmed rumors that he was entering the 2016 Presidential race, David Cay Johnston, a Pulitzer Prize–winning investigative reporter, published a piece at The National Memo that was headlined "21 Questions For Donald Trump."

[Townsend]

ROMNEY!  ROMNEY!  ROMNEY!

Senior GOP Officials Exploring Options if Trump Drops Out

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senior-gop-officials-exploring-options-trump-drops/story?id=41089609

Republican officials are exploring how to handle a scenario that would be unthinkable in a normal election year: What would happen if the party's presidential nominee dropped out?

ABC News has learned that senior party officials are so frustrated — and confused — by Donald Trump's erratic behavior that they are exploring how to replace him on the ballot if he drops out.

So how would it work?

First, Trump would have to voluntarily exit the race. Officials say there is no mechanism for forcing him to withdraw his nomination. (Trump has not given any indications that he no longer wants to be his party's nominee.)

Then it would be up to the 168 members of the Republican National Committee to choose a successor, though the process is complicated.

One Republican legal expert has advised party officials that, for practical reasons, Trump would have to drop out by early September to give the party enough time to choose his replacement and get the next nominee's name on the ballot in enough states to win.

[AquaMan]

Or, they could take someone currently enticing to moderate republicans, like say....Johnson? That gives them time to work on downticket races and blame the Donald for losing the presidency. If he should win, fine. Rebuild the party.

[Hoss]

ROMNEY!  ROMNEY!  ROMNEY!

Senior GOP Officials Exploring Options if Trump Drops Out

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senior-gop-officials-exploring-options-trump-drops/story?id=41089609

I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't his plan all along.  How I wish Mom AND my grandmother was here to see this.  Both of them would be smiling ear to ear.

[erfalf]

Or, they could take someone currently enticing to moderate republicans, like say....Johnson? That gives them time to work on downticket races and blame the Donald for losing the presidency. If he should win, fine. Rebuild the party.

I don't know how many ballots Johnson is already on, but could the party not just swing their financial weight behind him?

[AquaMan]

According to the rules, they could. The republican national committee could choose on their own a replacement (no mention of party affiliation) or reconvene the convention (not likely) and have the states re-vote. Lots of different permutations of how this could unfold.

The original players are still available and have viable organizations: Cruz, Kasich, Bush, et al.

[rebound]

I don't know how many ballots Johnson is already on, but could the party not just swing their financial weight behind him?

Libertarian party is on the ballot in all 50 states.  First time ever.

I can't see the GOP doing it, but yeah, if the big players started backing Johnson (who was a Republican), I could see him winning the whole thing.  Once people thought he was "legitimate", it would be a really interesting race.   But Trump would keep his hard-core supporters and the question would be if Johnson could pull enough Dems over to beat Hillary.

[Conan71]

Fantasy talk, it'll never happen.

[rebound]

Fantasy talk, it'll never happen

Agreed.  But wouldn't that just be amazing?  Fun to think about.

[Conan71]

If your complaint is my ineptness in posting the wrong link, I can handle that. I'm overwhelmed at the moment. But its hard to question his ethics with his background of investigative journalistic excellence. Those 21 questions were available a year ago all over the net, prior to the primaries. Some of them I saw on PBS documentaries. More importantly, lots of New York businessmen and politicians are aware of these issues. They also thought he would go nowhere. When good men do nothing....

As far as the majority of the electorate voting on emotion, that's a pretty sweeping indictment. Trump supporters admire him because he says out loud what they think and are afraid to say. They abhor the elitism that education and wealth can breed, education and wealth they don't have. New Hillary supporters suddenly are aware of the true nature of Republican conservatism and its failure to keep a Trump from leading their party. That seems to me be an intellectual choice.

As usual, maybe some leftover republicanism in your blood, you attack the messenger rather than the messages. Give me some time. I'll find the links.

No, nothing against you.  I simply find investigative books timed around elections as participating in electioneering- acting as a shill, if you will.  When I studied journalism, I apparently took the ethics of editorializing vs. presentation of facts too serious.  Too many writers and pundits blur those lines these days.  Delving into his 21 questions and the tone it is written in, he's got an axe to grind with Trump.  Good for him.  Electioneering books are a weird OCD thing with me.

[Conan71]

Agreed.  But wouldn't that just be amazing?  Fun to think about.

It's a perfect example of unsubstantiated chatter being blasted out as headlines.  The basis for much of this appears to have occurred prior to the convention, not since the convention, other than Obama calling for GOP leaders to drop their endorsements.

This whole election thus far is a flaming bag of sh!t.