On Drudge Now!


#1

Establishment in DC will Support Hillery if Trump gets past GOP Convention torches & Pitchforks …:confused:


#2

Drudge is always the drama queen. Who gives a damn anyway?


#3

I’m sure folks who dig Rachel Maddow & Stephen Colbert & Chris Matthews don’t …


#4

I read the whole article. There are mixed opinions among the “donor class”. The bottom line is that if Trump really is serious and wins the nomination, he doesn’t need the donor class,

GOP donors wrestle with possibility of Trump nomination | TheHill


#5

GM, please at least give a link for such things. The story might be up on Drudge’s site for a couple of hours, or for several days. Also, it, currently, is midway in Drudge’s 3-column array of links, which means anyone looking for it will take half a minute or more scanning through headlines. Better still would be a quote of a few paragraphs of the article to give an idea of its topic and as stimuli for discussion.

GOP donors wrestle with possibility of Trump nomination
By Jonathan Swan
thehill.com
11/29/15

When asked who he would vote for if the presidential race comes down to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the former mayor of Los Angeles and a longtime Republican establishment figure, Dick Riordan, says: “I would probably go find a deserted island.”

“I think Hillary is disgusting,” said Riordan, a wealthy investor who has exceeded $500,000 in political donations throughout his career.

“And I think Trump is crazy,” Riordan added in a telephone interview Monday.
Riordan is not alone. In conversations over the past month, GOP establishment donors have confided to The Hill that for the first time in recent memory, they find themselves contemplating not supporting a Republican nominee for president.

Most, however, still believe that Trump will flame out before they have to face that decision.

And GM, please cool it with the personal insinuations. Personal sniping makes for boring reading for everyone else and detracts/distracts from discussion of the topics of threads.

Skeptic, the article to which GM’s OP referred is from The Hill. If you haven’t visited the DrudgeReport in the past 15 years or so, Drudge has done almost zero original content for at least that long. In the case of Drudge’s headline for The Hill’s article, it’s a reasonable summation of the article’s content. So your comment, “Drudge is always the drama queen,” is rather inapt.


#6

Yes well like you say, since there was no link…how to know? And Drudge does have a habit of juicing his headlines.


#7

You could have done what od and I both did, independently … go the Drudge’s site. And it’s called “sales talk”, in Drudge’s case, making stories sound interesting.


#8

[quote=“PeteS_in_CA, post:7, topic:47830”]
You could have done what od and I both did, independently … go the Drudge’s site. And it’s called “sales talk”, in Drudge’s case, making stories sound interesting.
[/quote]To me his “sales talk” is irritating when I click on a link and find it is once again much ado about nothing. I"d rather he use the original and more honest title.


#9

[quote=“PeteS_in_CA, post:7, topic:47830”]
You could have done what od and I both did, independently … go the Drudge’s site. And it’s called “sales talk”, in Drudge’s case, making stories sound interesting.
[/quote]So I went there and read it and much ado about nothing. Personally I think that Drudges title is misleading and the original and more boring title is accurate.