[Cboldt]

I just read the NYT piece in its entirety. It reads as though Trump and the RNC are in harmony about presenting a united front. Trump has a point, those who refuse to honor their own personal "support the nominee" pledge should not be allowed on stage. They can;t be counted on to deliver a unifying message. I'm sure what he says is literally accurate, he would not invite them, not at the moment, and not in advance as part of planning the show.

I'm also sure that the ultimate decision is made by some sort of undefined committee, a group of people. Trump's vote is clear. The others can countermand.

[Balding_Eagle]

Thank you for the summary, I didn’t want to wade through the whole thing.

[StAnDeliver]

"I just read the NYT piece in its entirety. It reads as though Trump and the RNC are in harmony about presenting a united front. Trump has a point, those who refuse to honor their own personal "support the nominee" pledge should not be allowed on stage. They can;t be counted on to deliver a unifying message. I'm sure what he says is literally accurate, he would not invite them, not at the moment, and not in advance as part of planning the show."

This is so much more about Manafort not allowing an Eastwood-type 12-minute 'empty chair' improv fiasco (with Mitten's cadre hilariously pulling their hair out by the roots backstage after the fifth minute interminable minute ticked by) and so little about anything else.