Posted on 06/26/2016 3:38:19 PM PDT by ameribbean expat
"If there's no endorsement, then I would not invite them to speak," Trump said of other top Republicans in an interview with the New York Times.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Absolutely
See my question here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3443917/posts?page=160#160
Is this campaign the first time that phrase has been used?
Other than when there wasn’t a front runner/someone didn’t have enough delegates.
Thanks for the info & link!
If the two numbnuts are not going to endorse Trump, what is the purpose
of allowing them to speak at a nominating convention?
Tell me, I’d like to know.
Trump is going to have to watch out for whoever gets up to speak if they are not above reproach.
Trump isn’t going to go third party, there is no need.
He engineered a hostile takeover of the Republican Party, and is within weeks of closing the deal, a closing that will absolutely happen.
It’s his now.
The real purpose? Or the stated purpose? The real one is always self-serving. i suspect both of these numb-nuts would like nothing more than to torpedo Trump. The GOP was supposed to lose the presidential election in this round anyway.
I can imagine a variety of stated purposes. Comity, party unity, party platform.
I wouldn’t let them speak under any circumstances. At least without a transcript of their remarks. Trump shouldn’t give them the smallest opportunity to do damage.
“For a man with such a (supposedly) huge intellect, he showed a lot of nastiness toward Trump that was ill-timed, and woefully bereft of strategic gamesmanship. He seemed to constantly seize the moment to take the low road, when he had a clean shot at Trump’s ideological and policy flanks.”
+++
Our first clue of who Cruz was/is should have been his mean spirited supporters, here in FR and elsewhere.
They were a harbinger of what was to come with Cruz.
Thank you for the summary, I didn’t want to wade through the whole thing.
I am well aware of what presumptive means...and I am well aware that the delegates need to vote...
My questions were really rhetorical, and I find it interesting that most of the Trump supporters who were not strongly backing Cruz initially seem to get it...
...My beef is that no “presumptive nominee” has had to endure what Trump is going thru. Had ANY OTHER CANDIDATE WON besides Trump, I would wager that Cruz and Kasich would have wholeheartedly endorsed that candidate—presumptive or otherwise. Oh, and there would not be articles about delegate lawsuits and delegate mutinies...
All this distinction given between “presumptive nominee” and “nominee” is weasel talk on the part of partisan GOPE pols in my opinion.
From what you are saying, sine Cruz did not pledge to endorse/support the “presumptive nominee,” Cruz need not endorse anyone until AFTER the convention until AFTER Trump has won....Frankly, that makes no sense to me, and I would be interested to have folks ante in on whether historically delegates were released before during or after the convention and if endorsements are typically made before, during following the convention by other candidates.
I don’t recall a time in my adult lifetime when there was so much doubt regarding delegates voting for the clear front runner record vote-getter “presumptive nominee” representing the will of the electorate...
Again more weasel behavior on the part of politicians and partisans.
Question:
Before this campaign season, was a candidate, that had enough delegates to clinch the nomination, ever referred to as a “presumptive nominee”?
LOL I was just alluding to this ...Weaselly lawyer-speak so they can back out of their pledge if you ask me...
Jeanine could bring the whole house down.
‘Judge Jeanine Pirro’s Opening Statement June 25, 2016’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4mCRyedgbI
8 exciting minutes.
Sarah hadn’t gone around backstabbing Romney.
Big difference.
Fatal difference for Cruz, as it turns out.
I just keep remembering when these effete elites kept saying “ you have no choice you have to vote for X” so people held their nose and voted.
Now that the effete elites have to hold their noses, we find out they are nothing more that spoiled little crybaby hypocrites unworthy of any regard or respect.
>>constitutional conservative celebration<<
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Where does it mention GLOBALISM in the Constitution? I must have missed that part.
That’s probably the biggest reason he’s lyin’ Ted, because he is not really backing the Constitution — at least not the U.S. one.
The other reasons are all the ridiculous lies he told about Trump.
Oh . . . and his father was a pro-Castro Commie and crony with Lee Oswald.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.