I know you're anti-Trump but would you at least concede that if they "steal" the nomination from him that it would pull the curtains back on the fraud to the public, thus being a very positive development?
I believe this is looking at things the wrong way.
The masses have a rough idea that the system is corrupt. The problem is that they don't know what is the correct alternative. The fact that many are cheering on Trump in the first place is evidence of this.
When the masses understand that it is government regulations and the creation of power centers that are the problems, the correct solution, freedom and limited to no government, will follow.
Further, at such time, exposure of corruption won't be necessary. People will understand that getting rid of the central power points is the solution.
Getting the masses riled up over stolen nominations will do little. They will be angry, but so what?
At most, they will form a third party headed by an "honorable" man, that is a central planner wearing a different suit. The people need to understand the benefits of liberty and we are far from such a point in time.
And he also writes:
Roger Stone said (on Alex Jones Wednesday March 30 2016) that Trump donated to the Clinton foundation and thus has legal standing to sue for money laundering ("largest money laundering scheme in history", according to Stone). If he is able to expose Hillary (even if, as Stone says, Obama pardons her and puts in Biden) would you say would still be a net positive?Well, I do like to see my rulers occupied. So if she is sued when in office, that's a minor plus. But it has little, to zero, to do with the masses gaining an appreciation of liberty.