August 28, 2015

Should Donald Trump pledge to support the GOP nominee?

He's going to have to decide, because it's required to enter the South Carolina GOP primary.
“I don’t make commitments and break them,” Mr. Trump said after speaking at an event here hosted by local chambers of commerce. If he violates the contract, he said, “they should sue. I would go before the court and say, ‘I’m guilty.’ ”

Disputing a Huffington Post report that suggested he was assuring local party leaders that he would sign the pledge, he insisted, “I haven’t told anybody that.”

76 comments:

Scott said...

"Should Donald Trump pledge to support the GOP nominee?"

Only if he isn't a total selfish shit.

Jim in St Louis said...

Is Bernie Sanders a registered Democrat? Should he be asked to pledge to support the Dem nominee?

Bay Area Guy said...

Yes, he should. It would dispel any concern that he is cleverly trying to disrupt the GOP race for the benefit of Hillary.

rhhardin said...

Support, no. Non-third-party, yes.

JAORE said...

The Donald may have said, "No" because it advances his bargaining position. By the very threat of a third party run he causes concerns for the GOP that may gain him advantages in whatever game he has in mind. With Trump the key word is ALWAYS negotiation.

Hagar said...

Is the South Carolina Republican Party a private organzation or a public one?

It seems to me that the political parties are so heavily regulated that they must be considered public entities, and if so, the SC Party has no business setting such requirements.

The American Whigs held a convention and expelled President John Tyler from their party, but that was 170 years ago.
Today, I do not think a party organization can stop anyone, such as Michael Bloomberg, f. ex., from registering with the party and running as one of them though he/she by no means subscribe to the party platform.

Big Mike said...

YES!!!

Next question

Jack Wayne said...

Doesn't it depend on what the word "support" means?

Nonapod said...

If he signs and then goes back on his word I'm not convinced it would negatively effect his poll numbers, nothing else seems to have. He's changed positions on a zillion things but his supporters don't care. He could probably declare he's a Satanist and his poll numbers would rise.

Saint Croix said...

Good for South Carolina!

Alexander said...

Trump's entire appeal is that he is not part of the same old GOP establishment. That he's in fact making them look like the ineffectual cucks that they are.

So yes, if he wants to undermine his entire base of support, then he absolutely should pledge that, should he not be nominated, he will unreservedly support a candidate his supporters despise.

It's funny how the guy leading the polls has so many people concerned that he might not poll well with Republicans if he doesn't do the opposite of what he's been doing so far!

But what do I know. Donald's the one trumping everyone so far, so I'll assume he knows what he's doing. Keep at it, you magnificent fellow!

Lyssa said...

If he signs and then goes back on his word I'm not convinced it would negatively effect his poll numbers, nothing else seems to have.

Yeah, I thought that it would really hurt him when he refused to say that at the debate, but it hasn't at all; if anything, it helped. It seems likely that he could take the pledge if he needs to to get on the ballot, ignore it, and, if he gets sued later (how would you ever determine damages?), just pay it off as an efficient breach. Heck, with the numbers that he's polling lately, it almost seems like he could give SC a pass and not have it hurt him much.

I have absolutely no idea what is going to happen on either side of the primary this go round.

Paul said...

Absolutely not. He stands for the rejection of politics as usual or he stands for nothing at all.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I'm pretty bad at just about everything I do but so far I've done an excellent job of not giving a rip about Donald Trump, and it's been decades.

I know he's a wealthy real estate developer, a collector of trophy wives, a blowhard, and a reality TV personality, and he's presently a player in presidential politics.

But that's about it.

Well, not quite. I know what he looks like and I could pick him out of a lineup, if I had to, and that should count for something.

JAORE said...

FWIW I am NOT a fan of Trump. But I hate the SC litmus test.

Plus the slippery slope and all. What other tests could (either) party apply?

Pro-choice pledge or OUT?
Pro life or OUT?
Pro religious freedom?
Anti-gun/pro gun (e.g. assault weapon ban).

Matthew Sablan said...

Part of politics is being a team player. If Trump wants a career in politics, he should. If he wants to make a statement, he shouldn't.

AReasonableMan said...

Could he be supportive of the GOP nominee, 'he's a fine fellow', while still running an independent campaign?

Thorley Winston said...

“I don’t make commitments and break them,” Mr. Trump said after speaking at an event here hosted by local chambers of commerce.

Which explains the multiple bankruptcies and divorces

Michael K said...

California has destroyed its political culture by going to a non-partisan primary (non-Republican is closer) and that will run the state into bankruptcy only 20 years after governor George Duekmajian ran a surplus and established a "Rainey Day Fund" for the next recession.

An amazing turnaround. Sanity to insanity and the "primary " is part of it. The only "Republican" who could win such an "election" would be a celebrity like Arnold who failed big time.

dc said...

What is the legal penalty if you swear not to run and then run as a third party candidate?

Sammy Finkelman said...

Hagar said...8/28/15, 8:55 AM

Is the South Carolina Republican Party a private organzation or a public one?

A private organization, (except when conducting using state resources to conduct elections.

The Supreme Court ruled that way in 1972 after Hubert Humplrey challenged the awarding of delegates to McGovern in the Illonois delegation even though McGovern's delegates lost by a fair vote to ones selected by the Daley machine. (The reason was quotas. Since then, each candidate, in states where indiividual delegates are on the balllot, makes sure to include the minimum number of blacks and woman and whatever, or the state delegation is balanced off later where additional delegates are picked. This is in the Democratic Party)

I think the exact boundariies are a little bit unclear, but a state, while it can regulate elections, cannot regulate a national party convention, or caucuses. That is why state rules about winner take all primaries are not honored by the Demoocratic Party since 1972. The Republicans always or usually, honor them.

In Kentucky we had a situation here the Kentucky Republican Party voted not to use the primary, because the time frame for running for the u.s. Senate overlapped with the presidential race, and in Kentucky (unlike some other states like Delaware or Connecticut or Wisconsin or Texas) a person cannot run for two positions at the same time. Maybe in some states there is an exception for president or vice president.

Rand Paul's campaign agreed to pay for the caucus.

Note: Delaware had Biden also running for the U.S> senate in 2008, Conecticut had Lieberman in 2000, Wisconsin had Paul Tyuan running for Congress in 2012. Texas had Lyndon Johnson running for the U.s. Senate in 1960 and Lloyd Bentsen in 1988. But Hubert Humphrey (D-Minn) and Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz) had to leave the senate in 1964

John McCain was up for re-election in 2004, thus avoiding aconflict both in 2000 and 2008.

Bob Dole wasn't even up for re-election in 1996 but for some stupid reason decided to resign from the Senate.

Alexander said...

Presumably less than the legal penalty if you swear to uphold the constitution of the United States and don't.

So he shouldn't really worry about that.

Sammy Finkelman said...

The American Whigs held a convention and expelled President John Tyler from their party, but that was 170 years ago.

1845?? Don't you mean 1844? Tyler was a Democrat. he was alays a Democrat, bu the was on the ticket woth William Henry Harrison (instead of a leader like Henry Clay) in attempt to win the 1840 election - the one that added the word Okay to the English language (and all other languages as well around the world, eventually)

The 1840 election was the last election in which slavery was not an issue.

Today, I do not think a party organization can stop anyone, such as Michael Bloomberg, f. ex., from registering with the party and running as one of them though he/she by no means subscribe to the party platform.

Well, Trump might go to court - but that itself would tell you something.

The pledge is unenforceable anyway. Trump could sign it and break it.


MikeR said...

The country desperately needs any Republican president right now, regardless of which one. Any candidate who has the slightest doubt about that - as Trump does - is so far from the mainstream that he should be rejected out of hand.

Peter said...

Trump will pledge if it's to his advantage to do so, and will then break the pledge if he perceives that's to his advantage.

He's Trump; that's how he's always negotiated. An agreement with him is never final or binding on him if he thinks he can still get more.

The question is, what's the public's reaction to this Trumpiness going to be? On one hand much of the public despise dealing with those who behave like this, but others admire those who can do this and get away with it.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Trump could say:

"I didn't THINK I would run as a third party candidate."

The penalty is only in public opinion. Which, presumabbly, he wouldn't want to diminish.

EDH said...

Does Trump have to "support"? Can he merely not oppose, as in run against?

traditionalguy said...

Surprise, surprise. The GOP does not want Trump to attend their Party.

He is too common for their taste. He appeals to too many groups using a promise of success. The rubes don't understand that the middle class American Dream has been sold out and shall never be allowed to come back.

MountainJohn said...

I would ask the SC Republican Party (and the RNC) if they will pledge to support as their candidate whoever wins the greatest number of delegates during the primaries and caucuses.

Paul said...

I wonder how many of the candidates who raised their hands in the debate will refuse to support Trump should he be the nominee?

Anglelyne said...

Alexander: Trump's entire appeal is that he is not part of the same old GOP establishment. That he's in fact making them look like the ineffectual cucks that they are.

OT, but I enjoy the "cuckservative" meme, because a) it's an exquisitely accurate (and precise!) slur, but also because b) it replaces fuzzier slurs that are not quite on-target and which tend to trigger the usual suspects into boring deflectionary orgies PC sanctimony.

E.g., if you call their candy-ass selves "pussies" or "faggots", they'll start droning on about how "we have no room in Conservatism(tm) for misogynists or the LGBTXYZ intolerant!", which is extremely boring. With "cuck" and its derivatives, they're pretty much reduced to the verbal equivalents of blinking and staring and fish-mouth gawping, which is a break from the tedium. Early on a lame attempt was made to frame the slur as somehow "racist" (that's all they know; it didn't work), which was a highly entertaining go-round in itself.

SteveR said...

Trump wins if he wins and he also wins if Hillary wins, anyone else would be a question. He's more or less using the Republican Party nominating process for personal gain, until he translates great sounding ideas, about China and Mexico, for instance, into concrete policy proposals, I'm not getting on his train. Bashing the establishment, is easy.

Bobby said...

Michael K,

California passed Proposition 14- the open primary measure- by initiative in 2010, and it took effect in 2011, meaning that it has only impacted the state assembly and state senate races of 2012 and 2014 (plus any special elections called through the present day). That limited time duration alone suggests that it's unlikely to have been a part of the surplus-to-deficit problem.

However, according to usgovernmentrevenue.com, California's Gross Public Debt actual reported (state and local) in billions USD:

1990 (last year of Deukmeijan's tenure): $93.6
1994 (last year of Wilson's 1st term): $140.94
1998 (last year of Wilson's 2nd term): $161.49
2002 (last year of Davis's 1st term): $209.67
2003 (last year of Davis's 2nd term): $246.88
2006 (last year of Schwarznegger's 1st term): $300.67
2010 (last year of Schwarznegger's 2nd term): $405.55
2012 (last year for which actual reported is available): $419.75

All intervening years are available on their website and you can sort through it as desired and even graph it against GDP or federal numbers. However, it is clear that California's surplus-to-deficit problem occurred well before Proposition 14 was put on the ballot, and that- because it's only affected the 2012-present electons, one cannot give it much credit/blame for the budget surplus/deficit. Perhaps you can predict that it will make the deficit even worse in the coming years- that may or may not be accurate as any prediction is- but saying the open primary is part of the historical deficit problem is quite ingenuous.

Zeb Quinn said...

Here be the deal about Trump. Karl Rove and the rest of the the mainstream Republicans are going to do whatever is necessary to make sure they serve up another helping of the $hit sandwich named Bush (again). Getting rid of Trump seems to be a thing they believe they need to do to get that done, so if they want to do that to ensure Bush, I'll oppose it on those general principles. It has little to do with supporting Trump, per se. But I do like some of the things Trump says, and that he has NO FEAR in saying them. But what I REALLY LIKE is the way he gets both liberals' AND mainstream RINO Republicans' blood pressure up there to where their faces turn red and that little vein on their forehead starts to pulsating. So he brings that added entertainment value too. He can stay around as long as he wants in my book, as a Repub or 3rd party.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Paul

"I wonder how many of the candidates who raised their hands in the debate will refuse to support Trump should he be the nominee?"

It's a fair question. It really should be a mutual pledge. Trump pledges to support the GOP nominee, if he loses; they pledge to support Trump, if he wins the nomination.

Sebastian said...

"Trump could sign it and break it."

Count on it.

By the way, what is he going to do with his assets and business interests if he even comes close to being elected? If they go into some sort of blind trust, how can the manager avoid trading on his name for Trump's benefit? As far as I can tell, the name is a big chunk of the business. How is his "empire" going to be run without him?

Writ Small said...

Trump is a great negotiator and his best leverage is the threat of being a Perot-like spoiler. A lot of Trump skeptics are holding their fire against him for this reason. Trump and many of his supporters come across as unhinged and/or immature at times, but it is that very unpredictability that makes the implied spoiler threat credible. Trump will not relinquish this leverage until he thinks he's got enough momentum such that the blackmail is no longer necessary.

CJinPA said...

“I don’t make commitments and break them,” Mr. Trump said.

Funny, because I just visited my uncle who worked on some of Trump's properties in Atlantic City. Trump would simply refuse to pay bills that he knew would cost more to recoup through litigation. In the case of my uncle's architecture form, around $500,000.

Even more funny, he said "That Puerto Rican overcharged me." Meaning my uncle, who is of German/Irish ancestry, but sports a good tan.

That said, I love that this lying SOB is shaking things up and speaking up for the folks who have been told to 'Sit down and shut up.'

Hagar said...

"Democracy is the system by which the people get the government they want - and they deserve to get it - good and hard!"

In a way, something like that may be sort of what the people are trying to tell the party establishments with both the Trump and Bernie things. If you people can't do better than this, we will just vote for these guys!

CarlF said...

“I don’t make commitments and break them,” said the man who four times had big business bankruptcies.

Achilles said...

No he shouldn't. If the establishment somehow gets Rubio or Bush nominated why would he support them? Why should any of us support them? It is clear now that the National Republican Party has more in common with Democrats and keeping the DC gravy train going than it has in common with the rest of the rest of the country.

If the GOP nominates someone who is going to implement amnesty and keep federal dollars going to organizations like planned parenthood and the NLRB what is the point? It is long past time for the GOP to go the way of the whigs.

Achilles said...

Bay Area Guy said...
@Paul

"I wonder how many of the candidates who raised their hands in the debate will refuse to support Trump should he be the nominee?"

"It's a fair question. It really should be a mutual pledge. Trump pledges to support the GOP nominee, if he loses; they pledge to support Trump, if he wins the nomination."

Romney and the GOP spent more time and vitriol trashing the republican field than he spent on Obama. Obamacare was the biggest issue in the race and we nominated the guy who designed it and tested it out for christ's sake.

We noticed and stayed home. The GOP is not representative of it's base anymore. One way or another the establishment has to go.

traditionalguy said...

The analogy of Trump with Napoleon Bonaparte is catching on. They both were super smart outsiders and realists who surveying the disaster after the Revolution became nationalists first. They then ruled as Democratic autocrats using plebiscites approving or disapproving of fait Accomplis HUGE governmental actions...like winning trade and/or other wars against the enemies of France/the USA.

Beldar said...

"I don't make commitments and break them."

Says the man who defaulted on -- who either couldn't pay or simply wouldn't pay -- the $40M personal guarantee he gave during the construction of his signature hotel in Chicago.

Says the man who's taken bundles of cross-collateralized businesses through bankruptcy four separate times, leaving behind investors and unsecured creditors in his wake to the tune of billions of dollars, leaving them either complete wiped out or else forced to take less than $0.01 in the dollar. Says Trump: "These lenders aren't babies. These are total killers. These are not the nice, sweet little people that you think, OK?" Well, that probably aptly describes secured creditor Carl Icahn, who made out reasonably well from Trump's last wave of bankruptcies. But the Atlantic City electric utility got stiffed to the tune of more than $3M -- guess who paid that? (Ratepayers.) The casino's trade creditors -- the local Coca-Cola bottler, the local linen supply companies, Cisco Foods and other food and produce suppliers, all got less than one cent on the dollar. Guess who paid for that? Other consumers. Every one of Trump's four waves of corporate bankruptcies has been paid for by the American public. That's the kind of brilliant management we can expect from Donald Trump.

Paul said...

"It's a fair question. It really should be a mutual pledge. Trump pledges to support the GOP nominee, if he loses; they pledge to support Trump, if he wins the nomination."

Except they, not he, already made that pledge.

Bobby said...

Doesn't matter, Beldar. Trump is saying what his supporters want to hear. That his established personal record runs counter to what he's currently saying means little to them so long as he continues to say what they want to hear. The environmentalists are the same way with Al Gore, right?

Anglelyne said...

Beldar: Every one of Trump's four waves of corporate bankruptcies has been paid for by the American public. That's the kind of brilliant management we can expect from Donald Trump.

And I'd be shocked to learn that his construction projects weren't staffed to the gills with illegal labor.

So I guess the difference between Trump and the usual suspects is that he's one of the "privatize the profit, socialize the cost" primary actors, instead of one of their tools. Maybe some voters would just prefer to eliminate the middle-man when they're getting screwed on election day, lol.

grackle said...

Funny, because I just visited my uncle who worked on some of Trump's properties in Atlantic City.

The above is playfully called “anecdata” and doesn’t signify anything one way or another.

Says the man who's taken bundles of cross-collateralized businesses through bankruptcy four separate times …

Has Trump broken any laws? If so he belongs in court or behind bars. But until he is indicted for something ... I’ll pass on the condemnations of his business transactions.

Readers, there’s a tactic sometimes employed by weak debaters. They’ll take something that is ordinary and commonplace and try to elevate it into something ominous and damaging to anyone they oppose. Here’s only a partial list of bankruptcies in the last few years from a list entitled the 20 Largest Corporate Bankruptcies:

Lehman brothers, General Motors, Chrysler, Texaco, CIT Group …

Should we also condemn these giant corporations who operate today without reproach? Go to the URL listed below and scroll down to the chart.

http://tinyurl.com/nptp7pb

That's the kind of brilliant management we can expect from Donald Trump.

Trump affiliates went bankrupt 4 times and Trump still comes out on top with 10 billion in personal assets. For me this financial factoid means Trump is a winner and an expert negotiator. Perhaps he can take the policy disasters that has dogged the Obama administration and lessen their negative impact.

Brando said...

It doesn't matter what he pledges--his word isn't worth squat, and his supporters wouldn't care what he pledges or whether he breaks such pledges.

The Clintons' little secret weapon is working marvelously, so it'll be wonderfully ironic if she loses her own party's nomination and cannot benefit from what's happening to the GOP.

bbkingfish said...

I think it's great that the GOP would feel forced to have their own candidates sign a loyalty oath.

These guys are so crooked that they know they can't even trust themselves.

eric said...

The GOP has two things going for it these days.

1) They aren't the Democrats.
2) ???

Not really sure what the second thing is, I'm sure it's there though.

Which means they've been reduced to a single argument, if you don't vote for me, you're voting for the Democrat!!

This is why Trump shouldn't sign the pledge. It's time to break this argument into pieces. Party loyalty is for losers. Why should he promise to vote for Jeb Bush if Jeb wins the Primary? I wouldn't expect the other candidates to promise to vote for Trump.

But really, what other argument do they have these days?

Gotta vote for the most electable candidate, right? And they're going to tell us who that is, don't worry.

Thorley Winston said...

It doesn't matter what he pledges--his word isn't worth squat, and his supporters wouldn't care what he pledges or whether he breaks such pledges.

His supporters are no doubt assuming that that when he breaks his word, it will be to screw over the other guy instead of them. A sentiment that was probably shared at one time by his first two wives and numerous vendors.


Beldar said...

@ grackle: How many of those companies went through bankruptcy four times? Not even the airlines have managed that.

When the fact that he's not in prison is the best you can say for Trump's business career -- except for repeating his own ridiculous fantasy that he's worth $10B (no financial analyst puts it at even 40% of that) -- you might want to wonder whether there might somewhere, in the entire United States, be someone more competent and truthful to trust with the future of the country.

Beldar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nichevo said...

If there were, he should have entered the race by now. If Trump is a loser but he wins, he's not a loser.

You can be as distressed by the Trump phenomenon as you like. To beat him you need someone better. Still waiting..

Beldar said...

I do grant that whether he's worth the $10B he claims or the much lower numbers that the evidence can actually support, he has been a spectacularly successful con man.

Just ask all those creditors who he left behind in the wake of his bankruptcies.

The reason that the lenders who financed the Chicago building insisted on a $40M personal loan guarantee from Trump -- which was peanuts compared to the overall financing required for the project -- is that they specifically wanted him to have some personal skin in the game. Since he flirted on the edges of personal bankruptcy when his companies went through their first wave, he's gotten better lawyers, and he's gotten somewhat smarter (or, perhaps, more sly), and since then he's mostly just gambled with other people's money. The financiers on that building in Chicago -- who were certainly aware of all his previous waves of corporate bankruptcies -- thought that if they could get him to put his personal credibility on the line via his personal guarantee, that might make him ashamed to break his companies' corporate promises.

But you can't shame the shameless.

Did you support John Dillinger for secretary of the treasury? Because he certainly knew a lot about banks and money.

Beldar said...

@ Nichevo: There are 17 announced candidates for the GOP nomination. Although I have no trouble ranking them in terms of my own personal preference, I'd prefer any of them to Donald Trump.

Michael K said...

"I think it's great that the GOP would feel forced to have their own candidates sign a loyalty oath.

These guys are so crooked that they know they can't even trust themselves."

Says the Hillary voter.

I have a post at Chicagoboyz that summarizes my sentiments.

Nichevo said...

Yes, Beldar, but you don't have 60 million votes, so you have to get other people to agree with you. I think you should realize now that no amount of criticism is going to destroy or even deflect Trump, so you can't beat something with nothing so you're going to have to find a bigger better something. Let the 17 do something, it's not your job. If they can't beat Trump, how do they beat HRC?

Achilles said...

Thorley Winston said...
"It doesn't matter what he pledges--his word isn't worth squat, and his supporters wouldn't care what he pledges or whether he breaks such pledges.

His supporters are no doubt assuming that that when he breaks his word, it will be to screw over the other guy instead of them. A sentiment that was probably shared at one time by his first two wives and numerous vendors."

Beldar said...
"I don't make commitments and break them.

...

Every one of Trump's four waves of corporate bankruptcies has been paid for by the American public. That's the kind of brilliant management we can expect from Donald Trump."


You guys probably supported Romney too. It is OK that Romney wrote and passed Obamacare and signed it into law as Governor. Then as primary candidate personally trashed and slimed every other potential nominee with huge sums of money from the donor/party class.

Republicans first even if they don't really stand for anything. We can't even get baby harvesters defunded.

Matt said...

Trump will be the nominee so he doesn't need to answer it since he will obviously be supporting himself.

Beldar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Beldar said...

At the moment, Trump's in a 17-way tie with all the other candidates: Trump and Jim Gilmore both have exactly zero delegates. Trump and Lindsey Graham have both won exactly zero primaries. Trump and Bobby Jindal have both had exactly zero primary voters cast a ballot for them.

This is fine for Trump, though, because this is all about improving the value of his only real asset, which is the "Trump Brand." For a con man, all publicity is good publicity. He's perfectly happy to do outrageous things, stupid things -- like insulting NASCAR at his rally in Alabama last week -- just for the publicity it gets him.

Don't confuse that with winning the nomination or the election.

grackle said...

@ grackle: How many of those companies went through bankruptcy four times? Not even the airlines have managed that.

Yet Trump DID manage it. If only Obama could negotiate as well.

When the fact that he's not in prison is the best you can say for Trump's business career

If Trump has broken laws then get on the horn and get someone to indict him. Otherwise you are stuck with accusing Trump of something that is commonplace even among the largest business entities in the world.

… except for repeating his own ridiculous fantasy that he's worth $10B (no financial analyst puts it at even 40% of that) --

Readers do we really believe that a personal income and asset document submitted by Trump would not be closely scrutinized by his opposition? Except for the commentor where is the outcry of fraud from the financial experts? The answer is: It does not exist except in the mind of the commentor.

Did the commentor provide a link or URL so the readers could see the evidence of his assertion? Nope. Is that surprising? Nope.

My first choice is Carly Fiorina but I hate to see the anti-Trumpsters unfairly dump on Trump and besides … it’s so easy to take down the ad hominem that is the largest part of the Trump criticism.

Zeb Quinn said...

Someone seems to be forgetting 40% of $10bil is still $4bil. Not chump change. Also people posing as lawyers beclown themselves talking about bankruptcy as if it's fraud or welching on their debts. Both parties to every contract know or should know that there is a bankruptcy code out there acting as one's final backstop. Many rich people, especially speculators, use it like a tool, including bigger billionaires than Trump. Paul Allen, for instance.

Beldar said...

@ grackle: I assume anyone reading this has access to Google. Try "Trump net worth" and read the links from Fortune, Investors Business Daily, Forbes, Fox Business News, Money Magazine, etc.

Dude, you don't want to play the "document your sources" game with me. I can bury you.

Beldar said...

By the way: In political discussions, where the candidate's character and truthfulness is spectacularly relevant -- or in Trump's case, his lack thereof -- it's not "ad hominem" to attack him for those failings.

When commenters here write nasty things about each other, that is ad hominem, and yes, it's one of Trump's favorite practices -- he makes personal attacks immediately, in juvenile and often obscene terms, on everyone who questions him or disagrees with him.

I don't know you, you don't know me, and neither of us is running for president. But Trump is a reality TV star; his fortune is based on that, and most of his income since his last wave of bankruptcies has come from his reality TV show appearances, his beauty pageants, and, especially, his licensing of the Trump name on projects in which he has little or no equity. He's trying to use his claimed competence as a business executive as a political asset now -- hence his claim, in Prof. Althouse's post, that he doesn't "make commitments and break them." That's one of the most spectacular lies he's ever told. It ought to be pointed out.

Beldar said...

I suppose it's technically "ad hominem" to point out the candidate's flaws; I ought to have said it's essential ad hominem, and when directed at the candidates, nothing to be apologetic for.

Michael K said...

"but saying the open primary is part of the historical deficit problem is quite ingenuous."

No, it is part of the California problem which is that the state is no longer financially viable. Democrats are responsible.

One example. That was last year.

This is Oregon and he now has an alliance with an idiot State Senator who is his creature.

rcocean said...

Of course he should "Pledge" aka promise not to run as a 3rd party. And then if the RINO's treat him badly or nominate someone like Yeb, he should break his promise and run 3rd party.

IOW, he should "promise" but keep that "Promise" the same way Bush-I did with "Read my lips, no knew taxes" or McCain did with "Build the dang fence" or Rubio did when he joined the Amnesty gang of 8, or like Bill and Hillary do pretty much every day.

I think the RINO's understand that promises are made to be broken because a situation changes. So Trump should 'promise' but then break it under certain conditions (not made public of course).

Brando said...

Ok, can someone please define "RINO"? Because if it means "actually liberal" then please explain why a guy who is fine with legal abortion, race-based affirmative action, tax hikes, single payer systems for health care reform, and crony capitalism is not a "RINO." Trump fans have lost the right to ever use that term and still be taken seriously.

Yes, I get it, I'm all "establishment" because I don't drink the Trump Kool Aid but try for a moment to address what I'm saying on the merits--explain why Trump is a true conservative worthy of anyone's attention and it's his critics who are RINOs. I genuinely want to know and will consider any serious explanation.

rcocean said...

And as a side note I'm completely uninterested what Liberal Democrats like Brando or "Fill-in the Blank" think about Republicans or Conservative politics.

Yes, we know. You don't Trump or anyone else. Yawn. Or you're "Concerned". Double Yawn.

Anglelyne said...

Brando: Yes, I get it, I'm all "establishment" because I don't drink the Trump Kool Aid...

Nah, you're not "establishment". I think you're an honest fellow who seems a bit clueless about about the real nature of our one party state. That makes you keep mistaking a real-time re-alignment fueled by cynicism as "Kool Aid".

...but try for a moment to address what I'm saying on the merits--explain why Trump is a true conservative worthy of anyone's attention and it's his critics who are RINOs.

He isn't, and, afaik, doesn't claim to be, and furthermore, I doubt anybody who's a Trump supporter really gives a shit. People are passionate about different issues, and don't necessarily find their concerns reflected in the "liberal" and "conservative" platforms offered by the U.S.'s sclerosing, corrupt political parties.

E.g., it should be obvious by now that immigration restrictionists, "traditional marriage" advocates, opponents of racial preferences, or any of the other myriad "conservative issue" types who who wandered into the Republican tent in the past, are never, ever going to get any satisfaction from the party. Furthermore, there is a resurgent "populist right" whose views have always been at odds with the "globalist right" that has been ascendent for decades now. They have no reason to prefer the "conservatism" of globalists, neo-cons, and Republican crony-capitalists to Trump's social liberalism and Democratic crony-capitalistism.

The only people beating the "no true conservative" drum are stale old Republican streetwalkers like George Will, who stopped paying any attention to the world outside of Conservatism, Inc. headquarters sometime in the early aughties. Trump isn't some Hitlerian demagogue (geez, the drama queens out there) any more than he's a savior or the man-on-horseback. His "phenomenon" could disappear in a puff tomorrow. But he's a marker of a real re-alignment.

Because if it means "actually liberal" then please explain why a guy who is fine with legal abortion, race-based affirmative action, tax hikes, single payer systems for health care reform, and crony capitalism is not a "RINO." Trump fans have lost the right to ever use that term and still be taken seriously.

Fair enough. It is kinda of stupid to carry on about "RINOs" when "Republican" and "RINO" have become synonymous. I'll avoid RINO and just stick with "asshole" in future.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Probably not. It may come as news to Republicans that subservience and group conformity is not admirable American traits, but obviously not to Trump or to anyone else.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I think it's great that the GOP would feel forced to have their own candidates sign a loyalty oath.

These guys are so crooked that they know they can't even trust themselves.


LOL. Too true, too true.

grackle said...

… explain why Trump is a true conservative …

To those searching for an ideologue: Trump isn’t one. And read about the “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy at Wiki:

http://tinyurl.com/cenh4dq

And I'd be shocked to learn that his construction projects weren't staffed to the gills with illegal labor.

Illegal aliens on Trump’s staff? I doubt it. On the other hand just about every subcontractor(not Trump who is NOT a subcontractor), on ANY sizeable construction project, especially in the Southwest, probably has a gaggle of illegals swinging a hammer and shovel for them. The subs like the illegals because they work harder for the same pay as the legal help.

I do grant that whether he's worth the $10B he claims or the much lower numbers that the evidence can actually support, he has been a spectacularly successful con man.

One man’s successful “con man” is another man’s successful businessman. Depends on whether you dislike Trump, I suppose.

@ grackle: I assume anyone reading this has access to Google. Try "Trump net worth" and read the links from Fortune, Investors Business Daily, Forbes, Fox Business News, Money Magazine, etc.

Expect us to do your homework for you? Not likely. Provide the links and “bury” us, dude.

By the way: In political discussions, where the candidate's character and truthfulness is spectacularly relevant -- or in Trump's case, his lack thereof -- it's not "ad hominem" to attack him for those failings.

True, in most cases around the blogs ad hominem is the rule of the day for anti-Trumpsters. And I find it enjoyable to debate them. But not the above comment. Rather it is an ordinary canard from a commentor who believes that bankruptcies are proof of something. But his basic debate problem is that many of the most respected businesses in the USA have also gone through bankruptcy.

However, I agree there’s absolutely no need for the commentor to be “apologetic.” We can all see and understand for ourselves his transparent bias against Trump.

”Trump pledges to support the GOP nominee, if he loses; they pledge to support Trump, if he wins the nomination."

Except they, not he, already made that pledge.


Really? Rand Paul has pledged to support Trump? I missed that one. Back it up with a link if it’s true.

… he's mostly just gambled with other people's money …

So did the heads of Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Texaco, CIT Group, etc. ad infinitum. They ALL gamble with “other people's money.” And none of them went to the poor house after their companies bankrupted. Double standard, much?