How dare you! My posts are fcking genius, and you should be grateful you get them for free.

Obviously I meant apart from yours.

Agree with the Sultan. We are deeply indebted to Zargof for so generously and freely sharing his genius with us.

Anyone care to comment on the WSJ article setting forth efforts to change the rules at the Republican convention that would allow all delegates to "vote their conscience" on the first ballot and perhaps deny Trump the nomination? Anti-Donald Trump Forces See Convention Coup as Within Reach - WSJ

The "never-Trump" people apparently believe that with the rule change only about 900 delegates would vote with Trump on the first round and thus open it up to a White Knight. Personally I think it's too late, would fuel the sense that the system is rigged, would tear the party apart and ensure Hillary's election. Maybe Mook planted the story. YMMV.

Joking aside, he and Leslie will be the two who post probably the most comprehensive responses in here.

I am not sure, as I'm not a Republican, but surely the GOP can choose whoever they want as their candidate? If they feel that Trump is the wrong choice, are they honor-bound to go with him?

I don't feel that Trump is going to be the nominee proper anyway, myself. Either by his own action, or that of the party, we'll have someone else running under the GOP ticket.

I don't think they have enough supporters to effect such a rule change. Another softer suggestion I saw (can't remember where, don't think it was official) was that nominees should release their tax returns before the first ballot. This both forces Trump to actually release his and allows the delegates to go "woah" as they did a little too late when Romney finally released his.

I think this was where I read it http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...eturns/490271/

I agree, the numbers aren't there for the anti-Trump movement.

Never Trump is never happening at the RNC - POLITICO

Another question would be what would Republican voters do if they did some how replace Trump? He won the nomination fair and square. He got the required number of delegates and got the majority (not sure if it was absolute or not) of voters. How can they justify delegitimizing what the voters wishes were? And if they did would the damage to the GOP be worse than what Trump is causing?

Agree with all you say. As a Republican I'd vote for the replacement, but, changing the rules now would rip the party apart and the Donald would take a large number of his supporters with him. Either he'd run as 3rd party ("they didn't treat him fairly") or if he didn't, a large number would sit this out in protest. For our sins, either Trump kills the Party or the Party kills the Party. Incompetent Brit assassins , the establishment should have hired a Pole for the job.

The choice isn't any better on the other side, but the Ds always circle the wagons and go for the win.

No matter who the replacement was? Cruz/Palin 2016!

There's always the theory that Trump just likes the winning part and doesn't actually want to be the nominee/president. Having won the nomination (yuge victory!) and seeing a landslide loss ahead backs out before getting bloodied, claiming he would have won against Hillary had he stayed in but *unexplained reason* means he can't.

The reason could be the Kochs et al. paid him a shit ton of money.

I wouldn't be particularly surprised to see a Ross Perot style withdrawal from the race.

Maybe feels the need to spend more time with his family? One could only hope.

Didn't he say he wanted to bone his daughter?

Don't Forget: Donald Trump Wants to Bang His Daughter-The Daily Show with Trevor Noah - Video Clip | Comedy Central

What's your problem? You seem to have come on here specifically to insult me and get me to respond to your drivel. I've tried to be nice to you and give you the benefit of the doubt but you continue to behave like a toddler. If you don't like me or my posts then just don't read them. It's not that difficult.

Leslie, Leslie, peace. I enjoy your posts at least as much as Zargof's and the Right Hon. sir_eckles', perhaps even more. I would never specifically seek to insult you and please pardon me for inadvertently offending you with my drivel.