September 3, 2015

Trump signs the loyalty pledge!

"I, Donald Trump, affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for President of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is."

64 comments:

tim in vermont said...

He shouldn't have done it. Don't let the Liliputions slip their bonds onto you! Screw them!

Original Mike said...

Huh? Endorsing the nominee doesn't preclude him from running himself third party, does it?

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

What's with the exclamation point?

Bob Ellison said...

Brett Baier on FNC said this morning that Trump was probably about to sign. He said today's Trump/Priebus meeting would not have been on the schedule unless Trump had already committed to signing. Presumably Baier has good sources. He's also an astute analyst. He's the one who asked the opening "Who among you will commit to support" question at the first debate that forced this thing upon Trump and the RNC.

Brando said...

Fraud! This is exactly what an establishment RINO would do!

Time to find a new hero. What's Pat Buchanan doing these days?

Bob Ellison said...

Original Mike, that'd go down well.

"I want that person over there to be President, but I'm running anyway. Vote over there, but if you don't, vote for me, maybe! Yay!"

rhhardin said...

I don't see why endorsement is wanted. Just no third party run.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Original Mike,

I think it does, if he doesn't want to make himself a laughingstock. Candidates who outright endorse their own opponents don't go very far in general.

AReasonableMan said...

Loyalty tests? Have we entered a new cold war without me being told?

Original Mike said...

"What's with the exclamation point?"

That's simple. His threat to run 3rd party was a nuclear hand grenade. It would give us President Clinton (or Sanders, or Biden). Apparently (though I'm skeptical at the moment) he has renounced this threat and that's a big deal (hence the exclamation point).

Tari said...

Who sues him for what damages if he breaches the pledge? How much teeth does that really have?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Original Mike said...

Huh? Endorsing the nominee doesn't preclude him from running himself third party, does it?

If you read the linked article, the pledge goes on to say that he will not run as an independent nor as the candidate for any other party. ( Actually the pledge goes on to say that whether you read the linked article or not. )

EDH said...

rh beat me to it.

I can see swearing off a 3rd party challenge.

But don't you want to seem to support the party candidate by choice, not obligation?

Original Mike said...

"I think it does, if he doesn't want to make himself a laughingstock."

It's my impression he doesn't give a rat's ass about that.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

It would be easy enough to get out of that pledge, I would think. Trump would need a story as to why he is running as a third party candidate anyway, and that story would also serve for why he broke the pledge. The voters a third party candidacy would pull off would not regard breaking a pledge to a political party they may not even be a member of as important. And Trump can always give a "Jeb Bush is a lousy candidate but still better than Hillary Clinton" speech.

Original Mike said...

"If you read the linked article, the pledge goes on to say that he will not run as an independent nor as the candidate for any other party."

Thanks.

garage mahal said...

Sellout!

Hagar said...

It would take extraordinary circumstances for trump to break that pldge and get away with it, but then this does seem to be extraordinary times we are living in.

Brando said...

Yeah, this obviously has no teeth. Does anyone think for a minute that if Trump violated the pledge and went third party, his supporters would hold it agaisnt him? It's not like he has a long reputation for sticking to any ideals and keeping his word. In fact, it's his outright contempt for such things (and the GOP in particular) that his supporters like about him.

I can see why that appeals to them--here's a guy who keeps mocking the stuffed shirt GOP, which is letting him run circles around them. And all Jeb can come up with is some feeble argument that Trump is "not a conservative"--as if that matters to the Trumpists?

Original Mike said...

"Have we entered a new cold war without me being told?"

Most people figure out the important stuff for themselves.

Brando said...

"It would take extraordinary circumstances for trump to break that pldge and get away with it, but then this does seem to be extraordinary times we are living in."

Why would those circumstances have to be extroardinary? All he has to say is "I don't follow silly pledges" and that'll be enough reason.

Of course, these pledges are silly precisely because they have no teeth. I wouldn't blame any candidate for refusing to sign anything like this, or the "I'll never raise taxes" pledge.

mikeyes said...

On the other hand, if he wins the nomination, the others will have to endorse him!

Paddy O said...

"I will endorse the Republican candidate from my lands in the North. I will gain Democrats favor by condemning it and ordering opposed from my lands in the south."

Original Mike said...

@Paddy O: Love it.

Nonapod said...

As I've said before, it doesn't matter. He may as well sign it, he can always break it later, his supporters won't care either way. Trump could commit murder on live TV and his supporters would still think he was awesome.

Bob Boyd said...

A third party candidate is a candidate who will lose.
Trump doesn't want to spend all that money, his own money, put his brand on the line, spend all that time and effort then lose by choice and be remembered as a spoiler.
If he agrees to support the party's nominee, the party is also agreeing to support him if he is the leader.

tds said...

Some people are seemingly not aware of a passive-aggressive endorsement.

Eric said...

mikeyes said it
"On the other hand, if he wins the nomination, the others will have to endorse him!"

Bob Boyd said...

If Trump said I won't commit to supporting another Republican he is effectively declaring himself to already be a third party candidate.

machine said...

classic gop move...thx for the giggles

Mac McConnell said...

In some states the Republican primaries are private affairs ran and paid for by the state parties. If the pledge is not signed a candidate doesn't get on the ballot.

damikesc said...

Nothing makes a party look better than forcing somebody to sign a form demanding allegiance.

No need to actually make the party worth belonging to.

The GOP is trying to keep him off primary ballots.

Again, he isn't my favorite, but seriously, fuck the Republican Party.

Brando said...

"Nothing makes a party look better than forcing somebody to sign a form demanding allegiance."

Nothing about this year suggests the GOP is in a state of good health, at least at the national level.

It may be better off breaking up into a two-party coalition.

Bob Ellison said...

Coach, I promise to play my best and try to win as long as you let me pitch. But if you pull me, I'm gonna go play for the other team.

buwaya said...

"Have we entered a new cold war without me being told?"

Its been going on for a while.

Luke Lea said...

It is all in the timing. I am starting to think Trump may be a political genius.

damikesc said...

Nothing about this year suggests the GOP is in a state of good health, at least at the national level.

It may be better off breaking up into a two-party coalition.


One party would have all the money. The other would have the votes. Neither would survive long, but the one with the votes has a better shot.

Republican leadership seems pissy that people expect them to do what they campaigned on and stop thinking of excuses why they cannot. Democrats, for their faults, get shit done.

I now support Trump because I watched the Senate leadership give Iran the nuclear bomb to simply be able to campaign and fundraise about how bad it was.

I watched them promise to make Democrats make "tough votes", then decide to not do that after all because...reasons.

I watched as the Senate tried, repeatedly --- and will likely succeed THIS time --- to get the Export-Import bank passed because, darn it, GE and Boeing need a bit more taxpayer money. The House is shooting it down, but Boehner will end up giving it to him when he decides it's not worth the fight.

I watched the Senate twist arms to get a rather bad trade deal passed.

I watched the leadership promise to fight Obama's immigration policy --- by deciding to put a gun in their mouths and daring Obama to make them pull it. Great job, guys! No, cannot possibly just not fund the bullshit, no sir.

I also watched as the SCOTUS case about Obamacare seemed in doubt story after story about the leadership's plan to REPLACE THE SUBSIDIES IF THEY WERE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And I had zero doubt they'd do exactly that.

I then noticed how well they can twist arms and get stuff done when they want it to be done. And I realized that for all of the comments about how Trump isn't a conservative (which he isn't) --- the Republican leadership is worse. Worlds worse. They don't often say mean things about Democrats but DAMN do they not like conservatives (compare Boehner's comments about Obama and Cruz).

Is Trump conservative? No.

I doubt most Republicans are as is, though.

Is he a better leader than, say, Boehner? Fuck yes.

Fuck them. If Boehner and McConnell died tomorrow, the country would be improved.

Paul said...

On the other hand, if he wins the nomination, the others will have to endorse him!"

Exactly. He fully expects to be the nominee (I believe he's right) and this is political jujitsu.

traditionalguy said...

He is a loyal man. What else did we expect?

Trump said that "that he had never had anyone spend $50,000,000 on negative ads against him. We will see what happens. But Bush would be better off spending it on positive ads about himself because if Trump's supporters leave Trump they won't go to Bush."

That was a restatement of the case for Bush losing as if Trump had gone third party, but now that Trump has so much support it applies to the situation.

David said...

This means he's serious. Can he win? I've moved from "no chance" to "it could happen."

Cacimbo Cacimbo said...

Wonder if Bush will endorse Trump en espanol on Univision when Trump wins?

Bay Area Guy said...

It's a smart move. It shows that he's not a saboteur or a shill for Hillary.

As he gets closer to the actual voting, Trump will tone down the rhetoric to be seen as "more presidential." Mark my words.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Wow. That's one hell of a pledge! The RNC needs to change its name to "politburo". No wonder non-rank-and-file Republicans hate their "establishment" so damn much.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Loyalty tests? Have we entered a new cold war without me being told?

Close. But the RNC is far-right-wing (Welcome, Xenophobes!) and the American people are getting ever more restless and skeptical of the idea that we need to be on 24/7 vigilance footing against an Islamic take-over of America. Instead the RNC is all about figuring out which part of the Middle East to turn into Baltimore next. But the pledge does have a certain "ring" to it. I think they might have gotten their inspiration here. It goes something like this:

"Ich schwöre bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, daß ich dem Führer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit für diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen."

No dissent within party ranks tolerated!

Rhythm and Balls said...

The "loyalty pledge" has been updated since its original forms. The current RNC version is much more "democracy-friendly". You only swear loyalty to the party if you ran as a candidate in it, rather than blindly applying it to all citizens like the Reich had originally intended.

It's Reince's Reich now. We just live in it. (Or gladly observe its insanity from outside).

Matt said...

ARM and Ritmo... Democrats have loyalty oaths too. It is not unique to Republicans. Of course, you both knew that. Why let the truth get in the way of taking a shot at Republicans, right?

Rhythm and Balls said...

I know of no such thing. If they exist, show me. And the most popular non-Republican running today is an Independent from Vermont who's known as a "socialist", as if the party of one of our greatest presidents, FDR, should acquiesce to Republican shame over the word. But he does note how ridiculous that is and does what he can to remain an outsider, even if that means not being a lobbying-oriented corporatist shill. So I hardly see the equivalence.

But this is all moot anyway. Trump is pretty much a single-issue nativist candidate whose only known positions in politics outside of xenophobia were laudatory of Democrats. Once you scratch the surface and get your TRUMP WALL built, the SCOTUS slamming his denial of the 14th amendment, apparently he'll just want to enact your opposition's policies. Which would only be like the biggest irony, ever. And prove for once and all just how truly stupid, pointless and full-of-it the right-wing in America really is and will always be.

I mean, come on. What Republican (other than Trump) actually understands that "stupid" is, properly speaking, an insult, and not a compliment. A party so enamored of ignorance should be skeptical about a guy whose go-to insult is "stupid". Ordinarily they'd call Trump condescending... and mean to speak negatively about their candidates' most cherished of traits.

Matt said...

Here ya go!

Here is an example of one...

http://polkdemocrats.org/pdf/2011%20Florida%20Democratic%20Party%20Loyalty%20Oath.pdf

Even better, Democrats used them to keep a candidate out of their Texas primary just seven years ago.

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2009/03/kucinich_loses_lawsuit_texas_c.html

Read that headline...

"Kucinich loses lawsuit: Texas court upholds Democrats' loyalty oath"

I'll teach you how to google stuff one day so you don't keep looking foolish.

Michael said...

"No dissent within party ranks tolerated!"

This is stupid on stilts. More than a dozen candidates with a wide variety of views. Compare and contrast.

Rhythm and Balls said...

First off, when it comes to Texas, I don't rule out any sort of mischief - party affiliation notwithstanding. In Texas all bets are off as far as I'm concerned.

Second, the first PDF made reference to being, if I'm not mistaken, an electoral college member. That's a totally different issue in my book. Members of the electoral college are supposed to reflect the vote that goes to their candidate. It's the last semblance of democratic reality when it comes to presidential elections and I consider that a matter of vote integrity.

Lastly, I don't care for the DNC and their bullshit, either - or even two-party bullshit nonsense generally.

Michael said...

Self-avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)16%
has put the powers that be in the Democrat Party at ease by saying that if he doesn’t beat Hillary Clinton and win the Democrat nomination in the upcoming primaries, he won’t try a third party run for 2016.

Rhythm and Balls said...

More than a dozen candidates with a wide variety of views. Compare and contrast.

Oh!

You mean, Michael, the way Trump is obviously a secret Democrat, just of the variety from long-ago before it was purged of Dixiecrats and banished them to the Republicans?

Yes, I see what you mean. That is a huge variation from traditional Republican thinking. Other than, of course, the immigrant hatred - which is strong enough among voting Republicans to eclipse all other issues, apparently.

Thanks for the explanation, Kind Sir!

P.S. He's rolling you guys worse than logs on Class VI rapids. Enjoy the nausea and vomiting when you're done digesting your Wunder-Kandidat!

Michael said...

R&B

Long way until one candidate will emerge. They will have been tested.

Hillary never once marked the top secret emails she sent as Top Secret. I will hand you that. She seems too to be beefing up.

LOL

Matt said...

So, in just the matter of minutes, you went from Republicans are Nazis because of loyalty oaths to, well, a lot of equivocating on loyalty oaths. If the Republicans are like the Nazis because of loyalty oaths, are not the Democrats also like Nazis, Ritmo. Be consistent and principled like you pretend to be!

'It's Texas.' No, it's DEMOCRATS! They forced Kucinich off the ballot with their insistence he sign a loyalty oath. Doesn't that make them Nazis in your estimation?

Are you claiming Texas Democrats like Wendy Davis are not representative of Democrats' values and positions?

Re-read the oath. It makes no reference to being just for members of the electoral college, which, of course, you know as evidenced by your qualifiers around your bogus claim. It says "...that I am qualified under the Constitution and Laws of the State of Florida and the Charter and Bylaws of the Florida Democratic Party to hold the office I am seeking, or to which I have been elected..." I have never heard a member of the electoral college as holding office.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Michael - here's a variety of views: I differ greatly from you in that I can honestly identify Hillary Clinton as a greatly flawed, and perhaps even fatally flawed candidate - let alone her lack of any personal integrity.

Whereas you will blow sunshine up as many politicans' asses and the asses of their followers as it takes to prevent yourself from admitting what their obvious weaknesses are.

I don't doubt that you know which asses to kiss. I'm just glad to point out when all that buttering up and phoniness does a disservice to the country.

You're welcome.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Matt, you lied. You read just as easily as I did the part that said "a qualified elector", but found a mysterious way to leave it out of your quote, for some reason.

Now, I admit to being no pundit-guru but do have some understanding of the word "elector". Do you? Is it different from the meaning we know of as it is used in the Electoral College and other forms of indirect democracy?

I am not being inconsistent. I am being completely consistent about electors showing integrity to the vote that decides in favor of the candidate they were chosen to elect.

If that is how Republicans are using their "oath", then that's fine too. But I wouldn't know. I'm just going off the texts of these weird documents, and one sure sounded a heck of a lot more Wehrmacht in its conciseness than some others.

Matt said...

Ritmo, thank you for clarifying your reading of the text of the loyalty oath. I re-read it as well and agree with your interpretation of it. I was confused by the extra verbiage that seemed beyond the 'hey, you are an elector, you must vote for our party's candidate'. The extra requirements did not seem consistent with what an elector needs to do.

Considering that, I recant calling you a liar about that specific part of our exchange.

With that out of the way, tell me, how is what the Republicans doing more Nazi like than what the Democrats did with Kucinich. Be specific. What the hell does "a lot more Wehrmecht in its conciseness" even mean? That statement reads to me (and I imagine, others) like you are pulling shit out of your ass. Concise means "giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive". I can't recall ever hearing anyone say, "Those damn Nazis and their conciseness!"

In what way does the oath the Professor quoted differ substantively from what the Democrats expected of Kucinich?

Why not acknowledge that your attack was unjust and without merit? Why continue as a bullshit troll?

EDIT: for confusing typo.

Michael said...

R&B


My my, boy. You sure are some mind reader, some deep thinker and some stereotyper. You don't' know a fucking thing about much of anything, much less my opinions on politicians.

Your thin education shines there in the shallows. It gives itself away. You are not the right sort, son. A way you will never be as the man said.

Original Mike said...

"I'll teach you how to google stuff one day so you don't keep looking foolish."

Yeah, good luck with that.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Hi Matt - It appears we both stand corrected. I apologize for what I said and if these oaths are substantively similar for both parties then I'm happy to call the Democrats a bunch of Nazis as well for similarly prosecuting them, especially if done beyond the purpose of holding an electoral college (or equivalent) official to their promise. I think the only reason this reads so differently is the press that the RNC and Don's run has made out of forcing the issue. These stories about Kucinich etc., were definitely not as prominent, but that doesn't make them any different if true.

Matt said...

Thank you for your response, Ritmo.

Sebastian said...

@Brando: "Nothing about this year suggests the GOP is in a state of good health, at least at the national level."

Not saying the GOP is healthy, but "nothing" is an overstatement: biggest Congressional majority since 1920s, strongest and most diverse field of candidates in ages, strongest control at state level in decades (which matters nationally), plus O has left Dems in weaker position.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Anytime.

mikee said...

The Republican Establishment now, hopefully, will feel safe in getting this clown off the national stage. Finally.

Hillary will still win, if the "Hillary in Prison 2016" bumper stickers aren't prophetic, but it won't be by a landslide as it would be against Trump.