Condi Rice says No to possible VP nod fromTrump

[Correll]

Trump will not concede.

I don't think he will be in the general election so the point is moot.

The Party will have to bite the bullet and deny him the nomination as un-electable.

At that point, we will find out if Condi's declaration is due to Trump, or is more of the Sherman-esque variety.

He is more electable than some "Free Trade/pro-Amnesty " candidate that won't give White Working Class dems a reason to cross party lines.

 

[martybegan]

Trump will not concede.

I don't think he will be in the general election so the point is moot.

The Party will have to bite the bullet and deny him the nomination as un-electable.

At that point, we will find out if Condi's declaration is due to Trump, or is more of the Sherman-esque variety.

He is more electable than some "Free Trade/pro-Amnesty " candidate that won't give White Working Class dems a reason to cross party lines.

I think that if the Republicans run another guy, the person will borrow some of Trumps meat and drink, but will not go all the way.

 

[Correll]

Condi gave a "fuck you" to Donnie right up front.

No, she didn't.

It is interesting that you feel a need to lie about someone you claim can't win...

 

[Correll]

Trump will not concede.

I don't think he will be in the general election so the point is moot.

The Party will have to bite the bullet and deny him the nomination as un-electable.

At that point, we will find out if Condi's declaration is due to Trump, or is more of the Sherman-esque variety.

He is more electable than some "Free Trade/pro-Amnesty " candidate that won't give White Working Class dems a reason to cross party lines.

I think that if the Republicans run another guy, the person will borrow some of Trumps meat and drink, but will not go all the way.

And how convincing will that be to Rust Belt dems?

It's not convincing to me as a Rust Belt republican.

 

[martybegan]

Trump will not concede.

I don't think he will be in the general election so the point is moot.

The Party will have to bite the bullet and deny him the nomination as un-electable.

At that point, we will find out if Condi's declaration is due to Trump, or is more of the Sherman-esque variety.

He is more electable than some "Free Trade/pro-Amnesty " candidate that won't give White Working Class dems a reason to cross party lines.

I think that if the Republicans run another guy, the person will borrow some of Trumps meat and drink, but will not go all the way.

And how convincing will that be to Rust Belt dems?

It's not convincing to me as a Rust Belt republican.

And that's the problem, however Trump still loses the upper-middle-lower-upper class vote that typically goes Republican, so the question is will the Rust Belt Dems make up for it?

 

[Correll]

Trump will not concede.

I don't think he will be in the general election so the point is moot.

The Party will have to bite the bullet and deny him the nomination as un-electable.

At that point, we will find out if Condi's declaration is due to Trump, or is more of the Sherman-esque variety.

He is more electable than some "Free Trade/pro-Amnesty " candidate that won't give White Working Class dems a reason to cross party lines.

I think that if the Republicans run another guy, the person will borrow some of Trumps meat and drink, but will not go all the way.

And how convincing will that be to Rust Belt dems?

It's not convincing to me as a Rust Belt republican.

And that's the problem, however Trump still loses the upper-middle-lower-upper class vote that typically goes Republican, so the question is will the Rust Belt Dems make up for it?

Those votes should come back IF the Party starts challenging the Fear Mongering and Race Baiting from the Dems instead of supporting them.

I refuse to believe that upper middle class and upper class voters WANT working class and lower middle class voters to have stagnate wages forever.

Ask them, do they really want American workers competing on a "level playing field" with literal slave labor?


That's what you call, A RHETORICAL QUESTION.

 

[martybegan]

I don't think he will be in the general election so the point is moot.

The Party will have to bite the bullet and deny him the nomination as un-electable.

At that point, we will find out if Condi's declaration is due to Trump, or is more of the Sherman-esque variety.

He is more electable than some "Free Trade/pro-Amnesty " candidate that won't give White Working Class dems a reason to cross party lines.

I think that if the Republicans run another guy, the person will borrow some of Trumps meat and drink, but will not go all the way.

And how convincing will that be to Rust Belt dems?

It's not convincing to me as a Rust Belt republican.

And that's the problem, however Trump still loses the upper-middle-lower-upper class vote that typically goes Republican, so the question is will the Rust Belt Dems make up for it?

Those votes should come back IF the Party starts challenging the Fear Mongering and Race Baiting from the Dems instead of supporting them.

I refuse to believe that upper middle class and upper class voters WANT working class and lower middle class voters to have stagnate wages forever.

Ask them, do they really want American workers competing on a "level playing field" with literal slave labor?


That's what you call, A RHETORICAL QUESTION.

Yes, most of the upper-middle-lower-upper republicans skew to liberal policies when called on it. Maybe that's why it may be time for another Party. I know the Whigs name is still available.

 

[chikenwing]

Condoleezza Rice 'not interested' in being Trump's vice president | Fox News':

Ha Ha.....No Republican that wants a political future will attach him/herself to Donnie.

Since when does the left give a crap what she does or doesn't do.you bigots on the left did nothing but deride her when she was part of the bush WH.
now somthing she had said no to several times befor.
Trying to gin up some special meaning from this is rather desperate and hypocritical.

 

[Correll]

He is more electable than some "Free Trade/pro-Amnesty " candidate that won't give White Working Class dems a reason to cross party lines.

I think that if the Republicans run another guy, the person will borrow some of Trumps meat and drink, but will not go all the way.

And how convincing will that be to Rust Belt dems?

It's not convincing to me as a Rust Belt republican.

And that's the problem, however Trump still loses the upper-middle-lower-upper class vote that typically goes Republican, so the question is will the Rust Belt Dems make up for it?

Those votes should come back IF the Party starts challenging the Fear Mongering and Race Baiting from the Dems instead of supporting them.

I refuse to believe that upper middle class and upper class voters WANT working class and lower middle class voters to have stagnate wages forever.

Ask them, do they really want American workers competing on a "level playing field" with literal slave labor?


That's what you call, A RHETORICAL QUESTION.

Yes, most of the upper-middle-lower-upper republicans skew to liberal policies when called on it. Maybe that's why it may be time for another Party. I know the Whigs name is still available.

Loyalty and consideration for fellow Americans is not a "liberal policy".

All Americans' interests should be considered in crafting policy, and the Working Class and the lower Middle Class have been left out of that equation for quite some time now.


THe "Free Trade" we have with the rest of the world is not really "Free Trade".

It has plenty of rules, and they are mostly slanted against US.

 

[martybegan]

I think that if the Republicans run another guy, the person will borrow some of Trumps meat and drink, but will not go all the way.

And how convincing will that be to Rust Belt dems?

It's not convincing to me as a Rust Belt republican.

And that's the problem, however Trump still loses the upper-middle-lower-upper class vote that typically goes Republican, so the question is will the Rust Belt Dems make up for it?

Those votes should come back IF the Party starts challenging the Fear Mongering and Race Baiting from the Dems instead of supporting them.

I refuse to believe that upper middle class and upper class voters WANT working class and lower middle class voters to have stagnate wages forever.

Ask them, do they really want American workers competing on a "level playing field" with literal slave labor?


That's what you call, A RHETORICAL QUESTION.

Yes, most of the upper-middle-lower-upper republicans skew to liberal policies when called on it. Maybe that's why it may be time for another Party. I know the Whigs name is still available.

Loyalty and consideration for fellow Americans is not a "liberal policy".

All Americans' interests should be considered in crafting policy, and the Working Class and the lower Middle Class have been left out of that equation for quite some time now.


THe "Free Trade" we have with the rest of the world is not really "Free Trade".

It has plenty of rules, and they are mostly slanted against US.

I think you mis-understood. Your bourgeois Republicans we are referencing go Pro-Amnesty when pushed because they skew more "liberal" when it comes to certain policies.

Most of them are Prog-ish socially, but have a smattering of economic common sense.

Free Trade to me is less on issue than unrestrained illegal immigration.

 

[Correll]

And how convincing will that be to Rust Belt dems?

It's not convincing to me as a Rust Belt republican.

And that's the problem, however Trump still loses the upper-middle-lower-upper class vote that typically goes Republican, so the question is will the Rust Belt Dems make up for it?

Those votes should come back IF the Party starts challenging the Fear Mongering and Race Baiting from the Dems instead of supporting them.

I refuse to believe that upper middle class and upper class voters WANT working class and lower middle class voters to have stagnate wages forever.

Ask them, do they really want American workers competing on a "level playing field" with literal slave labor?


That's what you call, A RHETORICAL QUESTION.

Yes, most of the upper-middle-lower-upper republicans skew to liberal policies when called on it. Maybe that's why it may be time for another Party. I know the Whigs name is still available.

Loyalty and consideration for fellow Americans is not a "liberal policy".

All Americans' interests should be considered in crafting policy, and the Working Class and the lower Middle Class have been left out of that equation for quite some time now.


THe "Free Trade" we have with the rest of the world is not really "Free Trade".

It has plenty of rules, and they are mostly slanted against US.

I think you mis-understood. Your bourgeois Republicans we are referencing go Pro-Amnesty when pushed because they skew more "liberal" when it comes to certain policies.

Most of them are Prog-ish socially, but have a smattering of economic common sense.

Free Trade to me is less on issue than unrestrained illegal immigration.

We need them to win, and we can get them, if we can successfully challenge the Left's narrative.

And I agree about Immigration being more important than trade, but both are important and together they are a powerful draw for working class white dems.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Condi gave a "fuck you" to Donnie right up front.

No, she didn't.

It is interesting that you feel a need to lie about someone you claim can't win...

Sure, she did. If you don't get metaphor, then is your problem.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And that's the problem, however Trump still loses the upper-middle-lower-upper class vote that typically goes Republican, so the question is will the Rust Belt Dems make up for it?

Those votes should come back IF the Party starts challenging the Fear Mongering and Race Baiting from the Dems instead of supporting them.

I refuse to believe that upper middle class and upper class voters WANT working class and lower middle class voters to have stagnate wages forever.

Ask them, do they really want American workers competing on a "level playing field" with literal slave labor?


That's what you call, A RHETORICAL QUESTION.

Yes, most of the upper-middle-lower-upper republicans skew to liberal policies when called on it. Maybe that's why it may be time for another Party. I know the Whigs name is still available.

Loyalty and consideration for fellow Americans is not a "liberal policy".

All Americans' interests should be considered in crafting policy, and the Working Class and the lower Middle Class have been left out of that equation for quite some time now.


THe "Free Trade" we have with the rest of the world is not really "Free Trade".

It has plenty of rules, and they are mostly slanted against US.

I think you mis-understood. Your bourgeois Republicans we are referencing go Pro-Amnesty when pushed because they skew more "liberal" when it comes to certain policies.

Most of them are Prog-ish socially, but have a smattering of economic common sense.

Free Trade to me is less on issue than unrestrained illegal immigration.

We need them to win, and we can get them, if we can successfully challenge the Left's narrative.

And I agree about Immigration being more important than trade, but both are important and together they are a powerful draw for working class white dems.

Because your candidate can't control his mouth, you can't get the votes you need. This is generational as much as anything else: the millennials and younger genx'rs realize how false is your narratie.

 

[Correll]

Those votes should come back IF the Party starts challenging the Fear Mongering and Race Baiting from the Dems instead of supporting them.

I refuse to believe that upper middle class and upper class voters WANT working class and lower middle class voters to have stagnate wages forever.

Ask them, do they really want American workers competing on a "level playing field" with literal slave labor?


That's what you call, A RHETORICAL QUESTION.

Yes, most of the upper-middle-lower-upper republicans skew to liberal policies when called on it. Maybe that's why it may be time for another Party. I know the Whigs name is still available.

Loyalty and consideration for fellow Americans is not a "liberal policy".

All Americans' interests should be considered in crafting policy, and the Working Class and the lower Middle Class have been left out of that equation for quite some time now.


THe "Free Trade" we have with the rest of the world is not really "Free Trade".

It has plenty of rules, and they are mostly slanted against US.

I think you mis-understood. Your bourgeois Republicans we are referencing go Pro-Amnesty when pushed because they skew more "liberal" when it comes to certain policies.

Most of them are Prog-ish socially, but have a smattering of economic common sense.

Free Trade to me is less on issue than unrestrained illegal immigration.

We need them to win, and we can get them, if we can successfully challenge the Left's narrative.

And I agree about Immigration being more important than trade, but both are important and together they are a powerful draw for working class white dems.

Because your candidate can't control his mouth, you can't get the votes you need. This is generational as much as anything else: the millennials and younger genx'rs realize how false is your narratie.

If that was true, you and your lib media allies would not spend so much time lying.

 

[BIG YANK BAL 1976]

Yes, most of the upper-middle-lower-upper republicans skew to liberal policies when called on it. Maybe that's why it may be time for another Party. I know the Whigs name is still available.

Loyalty and consideration for fellow Americans is not a "liberal policy".

All Americans' interests should be considered in crafting policy, and the Working Class and the lower Middle Class have been left out of that equation for quite some time now.


THe "Free Trade" we have with the rest of the world is not really "Free Trade".

It has plenty of rules, and they are mostly slanted against US.

I think you mis-understood. Your bourgeois Republicans we are referencing go Pro-Amnesty when pushed because they skew more "liberal" when it comes to certain policies.

Most of them are Prog-ish socially, but have a smattering of economic common sense.

Free Trade to me is less on issue than unrestrained illegal immigration.

We need them to win, and we can get them, if we can successfully challenge the Left's narrative.

And I agree about Immigration being more important than trade, but both are important and together they are a powerful draw for working class white dems.

Because your candidate can't control his mouth, you can't get the votes you need. This is generational as much as anything else: the millennials and younger genx'rs realize how false is your narratie.

If that was true, you and your lib media allies would not spend so much time lying.

Bullshit, and the RepubliCON, Conservative fox news assholes never lie huh?? yea right

 

[Correll]

Loyalty and consideration for fellow Americans is not a "liberal policy".

All Americans' interests should be considered in crafting policy, and the Working Class and the lower Middle Class have been left out of that equation for quite some time now.


THe "Free Trade" we have with the rest of the world is not really "Free Trade".

It has plenty of rules, and they are mostly slanted against US.

I think you mis-understood. Your bourgeois Republicans we are referencing go Pro-Amnesty when pushed because they skew more "liberal" when it comes to certain policies.

Most of them are Prog-ish socially, but have a smattering of economic common sense.

Free Trade to me is less on issue than unrestrained illegal immigration.

We need them to win, and we can get them, if we can successfully challenge the Left's narrative.

And I agree about Immigration being more important than trade, but both are important and together they are a powerful draw for working class white dems.

Because your candidate can't control his mouth, you can't get the votes you need. This is generational as much as anything else: the millennials and younger genx'rs realize how false is your narratie.

If that was true, you and your lib media allies would not spend so much time lying.

Bullshit, and the RepubliCON, Conservative fox news assholes never lie huh?? yea right

Want to cut and paste the complete quote where Trump said all Mexicans are racist?

Didn't think so.

 

[BIG YANK BAL 1976]

Trump will not concede.

I don't think he will be in the general election so the point is moot.

The Party will have to bite the bullet and deny him the nomination as un-electable.

At that point, we will find out if Condi's declaration is due to Trump, or is more of the Sherman-esque variety.

The party will not ditch him, and deny him the nomination simply because he passed the 1237 mark, how are they going to steal it from him??

How is he unelectable when he beat 13 other people running against him, and had about roughly 13 Million + votes in the primaries..

If they deny, him his supporters will burn down Cleveland, I don't think the party wants to go down that road.

Who will they put in his place, Hillary will kill Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich Or anyone they wanna stick in his place..

I'm not voting for the asshole, but it's a little late in the game for substitution.

 

[BIG YANK BAL 1976]

I think you mis-understood. Your bourgeois Republicans we are referencing go Pro-Amnesty when pushed because they skew more "liberal" when it comes to certain policies.

Most of them are Prog-ish socially, but have a smattering of economic common sense.

Free Trade to me is less on issue than unrestrained illegal immigration.

We need them to win, and we can get them, if we can successfully challenge the Left's narrative.

And I agree about Immigration being more important than trade, but both are important and together they are a powerful draw for working class white dems.

Because your candidate can't control his mouth, you can't get the votes you need. This is generational as much as anything else: the millennials and younger genx'rs realize how false is your narratie.

If that was true, you and your lib media allies would not spend so much time lying.

Bullshit, and the RepubliCON, Conservative fox news assholes never lie huh?? yea right

Want to cut and paste the complete quote where Trump said all Mexicans are racist?

Didn't think so.

What difference does that make Mexicans hate him and are not voting for him anyways...

He's probably gonna lose California (a state he thinks he has a chance)by 20-30 points!! LOL,....

 

[martybegan]

Trump will not concede.

I don't think he will be in the general election so the point is moot.

The Party will have to bite the bullet and deny him the nomination as un-electable.

At that point, we will find out if Condi's declaration is due to Trump, or is more of the Sherman-esque variety.

The party will not ditch him, and deny him the nomination simply because he passed the 1237 mark, how are they going to steal it from him??

How is he unelectable when he beat 13 other people running against him, and had about roughly 13 Million + votes in the primaries..

If they deny, him his supporters will burn down Cleveland, I don't think the party wants to go down that road.

Who will they put in his place, Hillary will kill Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich Or anyone they wanna stick in his place..

I'm not voting for the asshole, but it's a little late in the game for substitution.

The celebrity effect gave him wins, however I don't see that carrying over enough into the general election, especially once the Dems really start laying into him.

And anyone they put in his place has the advantage of not being under the gun for the past 2-3 months.

The fact you won't vote for him proves the point.

 

[Correll]

We need them to win, and we can get them, if we can successfully challenge the Left's narrative.

And I agree about Immigration being more important than trade, but both are important and together they are a powerful draw for working class white dems.

Because your candidate can't control his mouth, you can't get the votes you need. This is generational as much as anything else: the millennials and younger genx'rs realize how false is your narratie.

If that was true, you and your lib media allies would not spend so much time lying.

Bullshit, and the RepubliCON, Conservative fox news assholes never lie huh?? yea right

Want to cut and paste the complete quote where Trump said all Mexicans are racist?

Didn't think so.

What difference does that make Mexicans hate him and are not voting for him anyways...

He's probably gonna lose California (a state he thinks he has a chance)by 20-30 points!! LOL,....

You attacked my claim that the leftist media lies.

So, I asked you to support, what imo, is one of the most important lies that they have told.

You failed to do so.

Want to prove Trump wrong?

Prove that the media was not lying.