Trump says he won't sign Republican loyalty pledge, flouting debate requirement

Ramaswamy. Anyone but a career politician.

 

Biden's been advancing the goals of the "new world order" just fine. But if it's thought that election fraud can't get him in again, then Gavin's always on the bench.

Nah, it's the cocktail club snob Republicans who are toxic.

Too general of a statement to mean anything.

I think Trump can beat either of them, but no other R's can beat either of them.

I really don't see any difference between a communist and another communist.

She's a corrupt RINO. Hard pass for me.

 

I'm not a Trump supporter. But Trump makes a good point. It's actually anti democratic to have such a requirement in place. All Americans can vote for who they want.

 

I agree with that sentiment, but why did the GOP put in place to begin with?

 

I don't know. And I'm a Republican.

 

Yes but not all of them can participate in the debates. Why can't a political party cull the herd for reasons of practicality? It doesn't interfere with the candidates' appearance on the ballots. Also note that there is no consequence for promising to vote for the party nominee and not doing so. Elections are done in private.

 

To cull the herd. Too many candidates for a practical debate.

 

Nah, they have other ways of doing that.

 

Because the RNC wanted Jeb! (and then Ted!) to win in 2016 (and now Ron! to win in 2024), so they wanted to make Trump look "disloyal" by bringing up the 'loyalty pledge' question in an early debate and having Trump singled out as the only one who wouldn't "pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee"... as if that's a bad thing.

It didn't work then, and it's REALLY not working now... I mean, how silly does it look to an average joe when the RNC makes a loyalty pledge a requirement in order to be on the debate stage and then Asa Nobody and Krispy Kreme visibly/openly refuse to pledge support for Trump if he's the nominee... They don't adhere to their own pledge, nor do they take their own pledge seriously, so why should I?

In that same vein, I'm really considering a "vote out the incumbent" mindset if there is no MAGA candidate running in that particular race. If the Uniparty doesn't care whether a D or an R is the representative, why should I?

D's in charge is a 'play button' at best and a 'fast forward' button at worst towards globalism and towards "elitist haves vs pleb have nots" ... R's in charge is a 'pause button' at best and a 'slow-mo button' at worst towards the very same end. What is needed is a rewind button from that destructive end... and I believe that to be MAGA.

 

IOW, the whole RNC "pledge" thing is stupid as ****.

 

The pledge was not about "culling the herd". It was about singling Trump out as "disloyal". It didn't work because voters don't care because voters are sick of RNC corruption just as much as they are of DNC corruption. In fact, they generally want someone who opposes both of the corrupt major political parties.

 

... such as implementing rules that favor their chosen club candidate.

 

the pledge should say they agree to support anyone that wins that signed the pledge.. or it means nothing

 

Newsom would be MUCH WORSE than Biden. He will be able to sell his communist vision to the general public and make it sound good. Newsom has been a disaster in California and will be devastating for the whole country. If you like sky high taxes, homelessness, wide spread drug abuse and one political party with no debate on the issues, Newsom is your candidate. Look at California and imagine that for the whole country.

The country is infected with three cancers, Biden, Newsom and Trump.

 

I don't actually blame him for not wanting to sign such an agreement. His disloyalty to the party doesn't really bother me. His disloyalty to the country does.

 

I blame the RNC for that. And, yes, Trump is a traior.

 

Can't blame you. I initially planned on both keeping my GOP party registration and voting in the GOP primaries, but I don't even think that's worth it anymore. Christie is the only remotely sane one, and he stands no chance (though if I do vote in the primaries, it will be for him). I respect Pence for standing up for his Constitutional duties, but it was way too close of a call . . . he was looking for an excuse not to do that. Haley would likely pivot toward sanity if she won the nomination, but insanity is a requirement to win the nomination.

No one in US history has done more to try to overthrow democracy than Trump has, and he remains the leader of the party. I'm not tickled by the Dems, but they seem the only viable option, and I'm not voting 3rd party again if my choices are between Biden and Trump again. I made that mistake before. I won't make it again.

 

She’s certainly more respectable than Trump. Republicans have bad policy ideas, but at least she wouldn’t be an embarrassment every time she opens her mouth like many others such as Trump.

 

What are the "bad policy ideas?"

Biden is "the best president dirty money can buy." From then on, it gets worse.

Biden is the worst president in history.

 

Unlike Trump, Biden never tried to overthrow democracy. Plus, there is no evidence he was in any way bribed by "dirty money." Hell, the Saudi government OPENLY BRAGGED ABOUT HAVING KUSHNER IN THEIR BACK POCKET. And both he and Trump have gotten a huge payday from the Saudi government.

 

Oh please. I get he's not a dynamic world changer, he's a pretty average politician. Of course I said that about Obama, but in retrospect he was exceptional in some ways, just not hard-handed enough against republicans. He tried to make friends with rabid dogs instead of twisting arms to get stuff done.

As far as bad policy ideas, I'm mostly liberal, so figure that one out. Republicans are wrong about taxes, regulation, and especially and most clearly social policy. I'm glad we're past the neocon days, but Trump's foreign policy was basically insane. Love despots who hate us because they respect Trump's cajones, while disrespecting actual strategic allies, lol.

But yeah, rooting for Haley because it's about time republicans nominate somebody worthy of respect. Not a bloodthirsty cowboy with speech issues or a narcissistic caricature of a corrupt businessman.

 

Yes, I understand. You believe that the Liberal Democrats in Washington have all the right ideas. I had that mindset in the 1970s. Of course back then, "Liberal" met guys like Hubert Humphrey, William Proxmire and George McGovern. McGovern was headed toward full socialism. He was as far left as it got.

You think that capitalism sucks because it's dog eat dog. The trouble is socialism sucks too because it's also dog eat dog. The trouble is you can't get away from a corrupt socialist government. They control or want to control everything. The leadership takes that good stuff for themselves and leave the people with the crumbs. It happens every time.

The leadership thinks they have all the answers and don't give the people, who might have some great ideas, a chance. That's why Communist China has to depend on stealing our technology. Their system kills innovative thought and progress.

 

Doesn't seem similar to me. I used to be a liberal libertarian when I was first interested in policy in late middle school, and have always gone with the policies I think were right. It just so happens that my conclusions have drawn me more left over time. I don't believe things just because politicians say them. I do tend to believe scientific experts, though.

I don't particularly love socialism or capitalism. I think they are each tools, and people will behave predictably depending upon incentives. Pure capitalism or pure socialism are both bad because not every issue is best addressed by the same tool, to oversimplify it. Regulated capitalism is best for most things, and the government can incentivize good behavior. A more socialist approach works for specific sectors/subsectors such as the delivery of healthcare and education, and the development of grand new technologies that aren't so market driven. Why? In healthcare, for example, profit in healthcare delivery does not improve outcomes. People don't necessarily need more care, they need appropriate care. People don't shop around in a health emergency. Insurance doesn't profit better by making sure people get the right care, only less, provided their image compared to competitors is maintained. In contrast, for most products, companies do better when they make good products that people want and supply and demand work normally.

Innovative thought is certainly a reason to keep capitalism in the toolkit. But it's not a religion, it's a tool. For all policy questions, determine what the incentives are, and align them with the behavior that does the most good and respects people's rights.

 

I used to think that I was a "liberal libertarian" too, but that is really an oxymoron. The two are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum. There might be liberals who believe in some freedoms, but they are becoming a dying breed in the Democrat Party. CONTROL is now the goal of the progressive Democrats.

 

Both parties are 99% in agreement on going to war, so sign up with one and you might as well sign up with
the other. For democracy to work there has to be a real choice.

It will be obvious looking back, but maybe learn a bit from the past:

In the vote for the war in Vietnam the Senate had two opposing votes
and the House passed it unanimously.

The war in Afghanistan was passed in Senate 98 for, 2 absent,
in the House 420 for, 1 against.