Forgive me if there's already a thread about this. I searched all forums and found none. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...te-2024-ronna-mcdaniel-rnc-chair/11354667002/ Are Republicans really okay with this? Maybe it's just me, but shouldn't their loyalty be to our Constitution? Why would they want their candidates to make such a promise? What if the eventual GOP nominee has been personally insulting and downright nasty to them? Why should they not simply leave the POTUS spot unmarked on their ballots? Who is going to make sure they keep that promise? How? Ballots are supposed to be secret. Are they also demanding that these candidates mark, then seal, their ballots in front of GOP ballot monitors? The GOP is really circling the drain.
The "loyalty pledge" is more for Trump's benefit than anyone else. Let's be honest here, if Trump loses the GOP nomination, does anyone reasonably expect Trump to honor that "pledge." For the others that may run against him, they will be extremely hesitant if they lose and will not support Trump in a carte blanche mode here. Hence, this pledge is a gimmick to get Trump the nomination and to force DeSantis not to really run.
We're you ok with it when the Democrats did it? https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/7005...-democratic-party-loyalty-pledge-for-2020-run
Unrelated "Whataboutism" from 4 Years Ago is all that there is to "contribute? Material wearing thin?:
Feeling threatened by a party head who is asking all candidates, win or lose, to pledge unity and comradery for the party's sake? What's unconstitutional about that?
I mean they are working to try to ban the Democratic Party, I really don’t expect anything less at this point.
Yet another EPICALLY- FAILED (Hey Lookie! "Whataboutism") Attempt at "Contribution"... Material Wearing Thin? I am sensing a pattern... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-for-michigan-b.608700/page-2#post-1074064898
That’s more an issue with the duopoly itself when one of the major parties has to allow a candidate that doesn’t align with them. A tad different than mandating no candidate can refuse to support the eventual winner or they can not participate.
Neither is good — both are very bad actually — but yes they are differeeeeeeeent (maybe by using your spelling it will allow us to communicate better)
From the 2020 Democratic Party Pledge: "accept the nomination of my Party" LINK: DNC Loyalty Pledge - DocumentCloud Remember, the pledge was made because Bernie Sanders had a large following. They wanted to ensure that if he did run has a part of the Democratic Party then he would BE a Democrat and support Democrats. They didn't want him using their resources only to turn around after losing the nomination and run as an Independent against them and draining away their votes between split Democratic Socialists vs Democratic Party. Additionally, they'd already made up their minds as to who was going to be nominated. And as usual they skillfully manipulated people into voting for Biden. So no, there really isn't any difference between this pledge being suggested by McDaniel and the 2020 Democratic Party Pledge. For the record, I think both pledges are stupid. But its their respective parties and like all private clubs, they can demand things of their members even if others disagree.
One was trying to control an outside “party” — the other is trying to control their own party. Until the US breaks free of the duopoly nothing will ever change.
I don't know. From my perspective both Bernie and Trump were outsiders to both their respective parties that they ran under. :shrug: Both have even threatened to run as Independents. As for breaking free of the duopoly, not going to happen. Its too embedded. Even if one of the current parties were to die and be replaced by another party, we'd still have a duopoly system. History shows that.
FYI, that was Bernie Sanders that made that pledge only, not the entire Democratic party. In addition, Sanders is a registered Independent.
Sanders only, eh? "The pledge Sanders signed was given to all active Democratic presidential campaigns last week."
Exactly, Dems have already done this. So by the OPs standard the dem party is circling the drain lol. Astounding the lack of self awareness much of the left has.
Duopoly is never going anywhere. And to demonstrate why, how about you Dems splinter off first and create a third party? The answer should be obvious.
It is more than just circling the drain. It i one of the first steps towards an authoritarian style regime. First the "pledge" of loyalty....... then comes some form of punishment for breaking the pledge........ then very gradually and insidiously things begin to change....and freedoms are eroded. "LOYALTY" is critical to dictators......... as that is how they gain more control over a population This is also how CULTS operate......
Not a legal document I'm sure, but doubt there's anything illegal about it either. All kinds of stupid, but nothing illegal. As Alwayssa pointed out, this is almost certainly all about Trump. If he's the nominee, McDaniel wants the rest of the pack to support him, and probably to some degree she's hoping it would mean Trump would support the nominee if it isn't him, which of course would never happen. He's going to tear down his fellow Republicans far more than the Democrats ever could during the primary race because that's his shtick. Does McDaniel not know who this man is, even after all this time? He could sign that pledge today and be wiping his rear-end with it tomorrow if it turns out not working in his favor. The Democrats don't seem to have anybody even remotely close to being a viable contender. Just Biden, and he's really pushing the boundaries of what you could call "viable". Our best hope for the future of this country is that one of the moderate Republicans who are likely to enter the race(Scott, Youngkin, Sununu) win out. Otherwise we end up with a Biden or even worse, another four years of Dumpsterfire Trump.
I am a staunch constitutional conservative and pretty much a Republican supporter, but the RNC chairman is whistling Dixie here. Maybe he forgot the 2016 primary debates when all Republican candidates were asked if they pledged to support the eventual candidate. Trump was the only one who did not raise his hand but in all likelihood would have supported a candidate other than himself. All the others raised their hand but all but one did not in fact support Trump as the candidate.
