|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 11 2016 22:24 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 22:22 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2016 22:19 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 11 2016 13:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2016 12:57 Plansix wrote:
It's fine. Most democrats seem to be in support of the platform and the push for the minimum wage increase. Took a while to get there ($15 over $12), I remember being told multiple times it was a bad idea. What about TPP and the Palestinian people amendments? It's kind of a shitty idea, but if the Democratic platform is going to be aspirational then it's whatever. $15/hr is really good money in some places and for some people, and very bad for certain kinds of businesses with tight margins like mom and pop grocery stores. People do often forget that the party platforms are aspirational and it is things that the party would like to accomplish, rather mandates they must follow. I edited to put aspiration in quotation marks. The Dems want s a higher minimum wage, but slapping on an arbitrary and likely (economically) harmful $15/hr number just doesn't seem like a good idea. I would have preferred really strong language about a livable wage indexed for cost of living and inflation which I think most people can agree is the ultimate goal. That said since it won't hinder or harm the party I can live with it.
Its one of the problems with federal minimum wage hikes. They are 100% necessary, but North Dakota and New York City are two very separate places. I really wish I could trust our government to come up with a tier system based on cost of living that wouldn’t be abused. But I don’t trust them at all. My family’s business would be hurt by a $15 hike, but they also know it could be over a decade before its increased again.
|
On July 11 2016 22:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 22:24 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 11 2016 22:22 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2016 22:19 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 11 2016 13:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2016 12:57 Plansix wrote:
It's fine. Most democrats seem to be in support of the platform and the push for the minimum wage increase. Took a while to get there ($15 over $12), I remember being told multiple times it was a bad idea. What about TPP and the Palestinian people amendments? It's kind of a shitty idea, but if the Democratic platform is going to be aspirational then it's whatever. $15/hr is really good money in some places and for some people, and very bad for certain kinds of businesses with tight margins like mom and pop grocery stores. People do often forget that the party platforms are aspirational and it is things that the party would like to accomplish, rather mandates they must follow. I edited to put aspiration in quotation marks. The Dems want s a higher minimum wage, but slapping on an arbitrary and likely (economically) harmful $15/hr number just doesn't seem like a good idea. I would have preferred really strong language about a livable wage indexed for cost of living and inflation which I think most people can agree is the ultimate goal. That said since it won't hinder or harm the party I can live with it. Its 15 on the platform to appease Bernie supporters. I don't expect Hillary to aim for 15 at all. (she campaigned on 12 for example).
Oh 100%. I'm still going to be a curmudgeon about it, I haven't had my Monday morning coffee yet.
|
Donald Trump's campaign unveiled two hires to its communications team on Monday, further adding to the presumptive Republican nominee's push toward his general election contest against Hillary Clinton.
Bryan Lanza, who most recently served as communications director for the conservative non-profit Citizens United, will serve as deputy communications director for surrogates, the campaign said. "Mr. Lanza’s focus will be on organizing and mobilizing Trump supporters in an effective way that allows Mr. Trump’s America First message to resonate with voters," according to the announcement. Kevin Kellems, the Trump campaign's director for surrogates, resigned earlier this month, calling it a "brief" and "interesting experience."
Trump is also bringing on Steven Cheung as rapid response director, whose job the announcement says will be to keep "the campaign up to date on breaking news and pushing back on false or unbalanced reporting." Cheung, who the campaign notes in its announcement worked most recently as the director of communications and public affairs for the Ultimate Fighting Championship, has also worked on several Senate and gubernatorial campaigns, as well as the John McCain-Sarah Palin GOP ticket in 2008.
"These additions to the campaign will be critical to spreading Mr. Trump’s message and defeating Hillary Clinton in November," the campaign said in its announcement. "The Trump Campaign will continue to build out the communications team as we head toward November 8th."
Source
|
To be honest, I think Bernie himself knows they are likely only to get $12. But is working by barter rules of shoot high, settle for what you are happy with. I would rather they got for $15, get $12 than shoot for $12 and only get $10.
Edit: LOL. Trump hires people who lost the last couple elections. I guess the people who were big earners during the Rove era still need to make a pay day.
|
On July 11 2016 14:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 14:12 Mohdoo wrote:On July 11 2016 12:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm curious what Hillary supporters are thinking about the Dem platform? Looks good to me. I had no confidence in Bernie's ability to lead. His ideas are great, which is essentially the platform. Bernie's ideas with Clinton's muscle gets an A+ from me. If she used her muscle to try to stop most of the changes, what makes you think she would push for it in office?
She is someone who does whatsneeds to be done and doesn't really give a fuck about other people. If the platform has support, she'll do it. If it doesn't, she won't. It's no different that gay marriage. She is an accomplished, strong person who will do things that are advantageous to herself and the party. I think a minimum wage increase, if allowed, would be tremendously good for Democrats long term and she knows that. That's big for not just her but everyone.
If the minimum wage increase is shown to be effective after the lowest point in the Republican party, it has potential to serve as somewhat of a death blow. I dig it.
|
On July 11 2016 23:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 14:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2016 14:12 Mohdoo wrote:On July 11 2016 12:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm curious what Hillary supporters are thinking about the Dem platform? Looks good to me. I had no confidence in Bernie's ability to lead. His ideas are great, which is essentially the platform. Bernie's ideas with Clinton's muscle gets an A+ from me. If she used her muscle to try to stop most of the changes, what makes you think she would push for it in office? She is someone who does whatsneeds to be done and doesn't really give a fuck about other people. If the platform has support, she'll do it. If it doesn't, she won't. It's no different that gay marriage. She is an accomplished, strong person who will do things that are advantageous to herself and the party. I think a minimum wage increase, if allowed, would be tremendously good for Democrats long term and she knows that. That's big for not just her but everyone. If the minimum wage increase is shown to be effective after the lowest point in the Republican party, it has potential to serve as somewhat of a death blow. I dig it.
I don't think she's quite that realpolitiky. She has a very strong practical bent, but also is pretty liberal- she just doesn't wear her heart on her sleeve the way Liz Warren and Bernie do. She used to and she's been relentlessly burned for it. It's no wonder she isn't as open about it. Imagine if they had to deal with the shit she's gotten since the 80's.
Don't forget she ran to the left of Obama in '08. And as to gay marriage (or rather gay rights) she and Bill were far ahead of the curve.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
A majority of Americans disapproves of the FBI's recommendation not to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime over her handling of email while secretary of state, and a similar number in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll say the issue leaves them worried about how she'd handle her responsibilities as president if elected.
Most also say the email controversy won't affect their vote choice in the presidential election. But more say it leaves them less rather than more likely to support Clinton, 28 percent vs. 10 percent.
...
Overall, 56 percent disapprove of FBI Director James Comey's recommendation not to charge Clinton, while just 35 percent approve. Similarly, 57 percent say the incident makes them worried about how Clinton might act as president if she were elected, with most very worried about it. Just 39 percent feel the issue isn't related to how she'd perform as president.
...
As mentioned, partisanship heavily influences perceptions in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates. Nearly nine in 10 Republicans disagree with the FBI's decision and say it worries them about what she’d do if she became president.
Democrats see things very differently, but with less unanimity –- about two-thirds approve of the decision not to charge Clinton and think the issue is unrelated to what she'd do as president. But three in 10 of Clinton’s own party faithful think she should have been charged.
Further, as noted, political independents side more with Republicans on the issue, with roughly six in 10 saying the FBI was wrong and that the issue raises worries about Clinton as president.
...
Forty-five percent of Republicans say the issue makes no difference in their vote -– likely meaning they wouldn't have voted for Clinton anyway -– while another 47 percent say it makes them less apt to support her. Among Democrats, the email issue makes no difference to three-quarters, and 16 percent say it's strengthened their support (likely given that she wasn't charged) -– but one in 10 say they're less likely to vote for her because of it.
Most independents, 58 percent, say the issue won't influence their choice, but those who say it's made them less likely to support Clinton far outnumber those who say it's made them more apt to vote for her, 33 percent vs. 5 percent.
This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cell phone from July 6-7, 2016, among a random national sample of 519 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 5 points. The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by SSRS of Media, Pa. See details on the survey’s methodology here.
Source
|
WASHINGTON ― Next week, the party of “four score and seven years ago” and “Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall” is set to become the party of I’m building a wall and the judge is Mexican.
Real estate developer-turned-reality TV star Donald Trump, barring an unlikely revolt by convention delegates in the coming days, will officially become the Republican nominee for president of the United States.
The party founded to abolish slavery, and which five decades ago became the home of modern conservatism, will be led for at least the next four months, and possibly the next eight years, by a bullying entertainer with a checkered business record, little apparent knowledge or interest in governing, a long history of insults toward women and marginalized ethnic groups, and a professed admiration for dictators.
“The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of conservative principles. What’s happening right now is a meltdown of the Republican Party,” said New Jersey’s Steve Lonegan, who supported Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s bid for the nomination and is now running a super PAC to help party activists trying to strip Trump of the nomination at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.
“We’re going to be looking at this for years, trying to understand this,” he added. “It will be analyzed in the books for a decade or two or three.”
Republicans like Lonegan, of course, have a more immediate question: What now?
How does a party that sent Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan to the Oval Office retake control from a man who has compared his fears of venereal diseases with fighting in a war and who accused the last Republican president of intentionally lying to the country to win support for an invasion ― but who went on to win the nomination anyway?
“I cannot in good conscience support someone that I know will be a disaster for our nation and our party,” said Beau Correll, a Virginia convention delegate who is suing that state to invalidate a law requiring him to vote according to the result of the March 1 primary, which Trump won.
“If we continue with Trump, it’s going to be total annihilation,” he said.
Many Republicans also worry that Trump’s disorganized campaign and high disapproval ratings make a victory all but impossible, but others have an even more fundamental concern.
Source
|
On July 11 2016 23:27 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 23:23 Mohdoo wrote:On July 11 2016 14:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2016 14:12 Mohdoo wrote:On July 11 2016 12:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm curious what Hillary supporters are thinking about the Dem platform? Looks good to me. I had no confidence in Bernie's ability to lead. His ideas are great, which is essentially the platform. Bernie's ideas with Clinton's muscle gets an A+ from me. If she used her muscle to try to stop most of the changes, what makes you think she would push for it in office? She is someone who does whatsneeds to be done and doesn't really give a fuck about other people. If the platform has support, she'll do it. If it doesn't, she won't. It's no different that gay marriage. She is an accomplished, strong person who will do things that are advantageous to herself and the party. I think a minimum wage increase, if allowed, would be tremendously good for Democrats long term and she knows that. That's big for not just her but everyone. If the minimum wage increase is shown to be effective after the lowest point in the Republican party, it has potential to serve as somewhat of a death blow. I dig it. I don't think she's quite that realpolitiky. She has a very strong practical bent, but also is pretty liberal- she just doesn't wear her heart on her sleeve the way Liz Warren and Bernie do. She used to and she's been relentlessly burned for it. It's no wonder she isn't as open about it. Imagine if they had to deal with the shit she's gotten since the 80's. Don't forget she ran to the left of Obama in '08. And as to gay marriage (or rather gay rights) she and Bill were far ahead of the curve.
I am purposefully distinguishing between what I think she believes and wants and what she will put time into. I don't think Clinton will spend her time chasing dreams like Bernie and I think that's a good thing. She is clearly holding progressive views and is not just someone who wanted power and chose to be a Democrat.
I think she will surprise people by how ambitious her plans are. But I also don't take her as the type to waste time with protest bullshit. She will get the most progressive stuff she can, but she won't waste our time with stuff that has no chance. Bernie would stick to fighting for what he believes, regardless of if it had a chance. That makes him an idiot in my eyes and I am glad Clinton is the one fighting for minimum wage instead of him.
|
On July 11 2016 23:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON ― Next week, the party of “four score and seven years ago” and “Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall” is set to become the party of I’m building a wall and the judge is Mexican.
Real estate developer-turned-reality TV star Donald Trump, barring an unlikely revolt by convention delegates in the coming days, will officially become the Republican nominee for president of the United States.
The party founded to abolish slavery, and which five decades ago became the home of modern conservatism, will be led for at least the next four months, and possibly the next eight years, by a bullying entertainer with a checkered business record, little apparent knowledge or interest in governing, a long history of insults toward women and marginalized ethnic groups, and a professed admiration for dictators.
“The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of conservative principles. What’s happening right now is a meltdown of the Republican Party,” said New Jersey’s Steve Lonegan, who supported Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s bid for the nomination and is now running a super PAC to help party activists trying to strip Trump of the nomination at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.
“We’re going to be looking at this for years, trying to understand this,” he added. “It will be analyzed in the books for a decade or two or three.”
Republicans like Lonegan, of course, have a more immediate question: What now?
How does a party that sent Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan to the Oval Office retake control from a man who has compared his fears of venereal diseases with fighting in a war and who accused the last Republican president of intentionally lying to the country to win support for an invasion ― but who went on to win the nomination anyway?
“I cannot in good conscience support someone that I know will be a disaster for our nation and our party,” said Beau Correll, a Virginia convention delegate who is suing that state to invalidate a law requiring him to vote according to the result of the March 1 primary, which Trump won.
“If we continue with Trump, it’s going to be total annihilation,” he said.
Many Republicans also worry that Trump’s disorganized campaign and high disapproval ratings make a victory all but impossible, but others have an even more fundamental concern. Source
Trumps inability to win over core members of the GOP is an ongoing fascination. For a guy who claims to be an amazing "deal maker", he doesn't seem to be able to convince them that he is right for the GOP.
|
On July 12 2016 00:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 23:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― Next week, the party of “four score and seven years ago” and “Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall” is set to become the party of I’m building a wall and the judge is Mexican.
Real estate developer-turned-reality TV star Donald Trump, barring an unlikely revolt by convention delegates in the coming days, will officially become the Republican nominee for president of the United States.
The party founded to abolish slavery, and which five decades ago became the home of modern conservatism, will be led for at least the next four months, and possibly the next eight years, by a bullying entertainer with a checkered business record, little apparent knowledge or interest in governing, a long history of insults toward women and marginalized ethnic groups, and a professed admiration for dictators.
“The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of conservative principles. What’s happening right now is a meltdown of the Republican Party,” said New Jersey’s Steve Lonegan, who supported Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s bid for the nomination and is now running a super PAC to help party activists trying to strip Trump of the nomination at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.
“We’re going to be looking at this for years, trying to understand this,” he added. “It will be analyzed in the books for a decade or two or three.”
Republicans like Lonegan, of course, have a more immediate question: What now?
How does a party that sent Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan to the Oval Office retake control from a man who has compared his fears of venereal diseases with fighting in a war and who accused the last Republican president of intentionally lying to the country to win support for an invasion ― but who went on to win the nomination anyway?
“I cannot in good conscience support someone that I know will be a disaster for our nation and our party,” said Beau Correll, a Virginia convention delegate who is suing that state to invalidate a law requiring him to vote according to the result of the March 1 primary, which Trump won.
“If we continue with Trump, it’s going to be total annihilation,” he said.
Many Republicans also worry that Trump’s disorganized campaign and high disapproval ratings make a victory all but impossible, but others have an even more fundamental concern. Source Trumps inability to win over core members of the GOP is an ongoing fascination. For a guy who claims to be an amazing "deal maker", he doesn't seem to be able to convince them that he is right for the GOP.
From all the insider information we get, it seems like Trump let's people know he is the new king of the party and that they need to obey him and support his message. People laugh, stand up, and leave tj room.
|
On July 12 2016 00:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 00:08 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2016 23:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― Next week, the party of “four score and seven years ago” and “Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall” is set to become the party of I’m building a wall and the judge is Mexican.
Real estate developer-turned-reality TV star Donald Trump, barring an unlikely revolt by convention delegates in the coming days, will officially become the Republican nominee for president of the United States.
The party founded to abolish slavery, and which five decades ago became the home of modern conservatism, will be led for at least the next four months, and possibly the next eight years, by a bullying entertainer with a checkered business record, little apparent knowledge or interest in governing, a long history of insults toward women and marginalized ethnic groups, and a professed admiration for dictators.
“The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of conservative principles. What’s happening right now is a meltdown of the Republican Party,” said New Jersey’s Steve Lonegan, who supported Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s bid for the nomination and is now running a super PAC to help party activists trying to strip Trump of the nomination at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.
“We’re going to be looking at this for years, trying to understand this,” he added. “It will be analyzed in the books for a decade or two or three.”
Republicans like Lonegan, of course, have a more immediate question: What now?
How does a party that sent Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan to the Oval Office retake control from a man who has compared his fears of venereal diseases with fighting in a war and who accused the last Republican president of intentionally lying to the country to win support for an invasion ― but who went on to win the nomination anyway?
“I cannot in good conscience support someone that I know will be a disaster for our nation and our party,” said Beau Correll, a Virginia convention delegate who is suing that state to invalidate a law requiring him to vote according to the result of the March 1 primary, which Trump won.
“If we continue with Trump, it’s going to be total annihilation,” he said.
Many Republicans also worry that Trump’s disorganized campaign and high disapproval ratings make a victory all but impossible, but others have an even more fundamental concern. Source Trumps inability to win over core members of the GOP is an ongoing fascination. For a guy who claims to be an amazing "deal maker", he doesn't seem to be able to convince them that he is right for the GOP. From all the insider information we get, it seems like Trump let's people know he is the new king of the party and that they need to obey him and support his message. People laugh, stand up, and leave tj room.
Yeah, I don’t think he fully grasps that winning the nomination for a single election does not entitle him to control of the entire party. Especially when he goes around insulting senior members of that party publicly for not agreeing with every single thing he says.
|
On July 12 2016 00:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 00:08 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2016 23:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― Next week, the party of “four score and seven years ago” and “Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall” is set to become the party of I’m building a wall and the judge is Mexican.
Real estate developer-turned-reality TV star Donald Trump, barring an unlikely revolt by convention delegates in the coming days, will officially become the Republican nominee for president of the United States.
The party founded to abolish slavery, and which five decades ago became the home of modern conservatism, will be led for at least the next four months, and possibly the next eight years, by a bullying entertainer with a checkered business record, little apparent knowledge or interest in governing, a long history of insults toward women and marginalized ethnic groups, and a professed admiration for dictators.
“The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of conservative principles. What’s happening right now is a meltdown of the Republican Party,” said New Jersey’s Steve Lonegan, who supported Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s bid for the nomination and is now running a super PAC to help party activists trying to strip Trump of the nomination at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.
“We’re going to be looking at this for years, trying to understand this,” he added. “It will be analyzed in the books for a decade or two or three.”
Republicans like Lonegan, of course, have a more immediate question: What now?
How does a party that sent Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan to the Oval Office retake control from a man who has compared his fears of venereal diseases with fighting in a war and who accused the last Republican president of intentionally lying to the country to win support for an invasion ― but who went on to win the nomination anyway?
“I cannot in good conscience support someone that I know will be a disaster for our nation and our party,” said Beau Correll, a Virginia convention delegate who is suing that state to invalidate a law requiring him to vote according to the result of the March 1 primary, which Trump won.
“If we continue with Trump, it’s going to be total annihilation,” he said.
Many Republicans also worry that Trump’s disorganized campaign and high disapproval ratings make a victory all but impossible, but others have an even more fundamental concern. Source Trumps inability to win over core members of the GOP is an ongoing fascination. For a guy who claims to be an amazing "deal maker", he doesn't seem to be able to convince them that he is right for the GOP. From all the insider information we get, it seems like Trump let's people know he is the new king of the party and that they need to obey him and support his message. People laugh, stand up, and leave the room.
These politicians know that a few months he will be gone or at worst after 8 years. Meanwhile they will stay in power for decades.
They don't need Trump, he needs them and I guess that is not a negotiation position Trump is familiar with. He is normally the boss who can fire people who don't play along.
|
I mean his meeting with the Republican members of Congress had a bunch of simply saying "uh yeah not going to go to that", him being openly antagonistic, and saying he wanted to protect article 12 of the constitution.
I think at this point it's quite possible that Trump has a higher chance of not being the nominee than being elected president.
|
On July 12 2016 00:18 ticklishmusic wrote:
I mean his meeting with the Republican members of Congress had a bunch of simply saying "uh yeah not going to go to that", him being openly antagonistic, and saying he wanted to protect article 12 of the constitution.
I think at this point it's quite possible that Trump has a higher chance of not being the nominee than being elected president.
Every time I have this thought, I realize they have no one else. In order to win, they would need a really strong candidate if they are openly defying the voters. I don't think they'll risk a good candidate on this year.
|
But their problem is still the same, Trump won the GOP primaries. That's their voting base and nothing else. What do they do to expand, immigration reform, can't do that boomers will leave. Global Warming is real? Nope Evangelicals will revolt.
|
On July 12 2016 00:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 00:18 ticklishmusic wrote:
I mean his meeting with the Republican members of Congress had a bunch of simply saying "uh yeah not going to go to that", him being openly antagonistic, and saying he wanted to protect article 12 of the constitution.
I think at this point it's quite possible that Trump has a higher chance of not being the nominee than being elected president. Every time I have this thought, I realize they have no one else. In order to win, they would need a really strong candidate if they are openly defying the voters. I don't think they'll risk a good candidate on this year.
And if they had a *really strong candidate* Trump wouldn't be the nominee 
|
It comes from decades of promising the base things they will never be able to deliver. They could never overturn Roe v Wade, but promised it anyways. They want to repeal the ACA, which will only happen if the democrats all get the flu for a month. Weirdly enough, Reagan is the best remembered of the recent Republicans, but sided with democrats on immigration and other social issues. But they don’t celebrate him for that.
It is an inherit problem with a conservative party if the leadership doesn’t tell its base what issues they can fight for. The hard line on immigration and refusing to accept anything but mass deportation basically assures they cannot control the executive branch.
|
Anti-abortion groups have been stating that the won't support Trump if he selects Mike Flynn as VP already.
|
House Speaker Paul Ryan will speak at the Republican National Convention despite months of ups and downs with the Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump, an exclusive interview with Politico reveals.
While Ryan is the chairman of the convention, his speaking role was never certain.
Politico reports that Ryan will be writing the speech himself, it will only be 10 minutes, and it will be focused on unifying the GOP.
“I want to talk about our ideas, our solutions and how our party should unite…around our common principles and how we apply those principles to problems," Ryan told Politico.
Ryan had held off endorsing Trump for several weeks after Trump officially clinched the nomination, citing concerns about Trump's tone and attitude. In May, Ryan finally endorsed Trump, but he continued to have to answer for some of Trump's bombastic remarks.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
