Posted on 04/02/2016 1:29:04 PM PDT by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
I would imagine that the contract Trump signed is pretty close to what the other candidates signed. Could you post any copy of that contract you might have?
And who will be your leader in 2020?
“I was listening to the C-SPAN call in show recently and a black woman called in to say she was supporting Bernie Sanders. She went on to say if Sanders doesn’t get the Democratic nomination, she was going to vote for Trump. She made it absolutely clear she wouldn’t support Clinton or any other DC insider.”
Yeah. This is a real thing.
A lot of Bern-outs like Trump, after Sanders.
That actually should tell us something about Trump.
“Could you post any copy of that contract you might have?”
All of the candidates signed the same pledge. All three remaining candidates have now repudiated the pledge for their respectively stated reasons. See:
278063135 RNC Loyalty Pledge
http://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=2329583-278063135-rnc-loyalty-pledge
Pledge
I, [blank], 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.
I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party.
Candidate Signature Candidate Name
Witnessed by Chairman Reince Priebus Date
No. Go figure it out yourself. Never mind. Go for the Cruz/Ryan ticket and get back to us in two years.
“That actually should tell us something about Trump.”
Actually, I have to agree with your statement, but not for the likely reason/s you intended to imply. All across the political spectrum from the far right conservatives to the far left socialist, but not the communists; the voters want to send a message to all of the Establishment politicians of the Democrat and Republican parties that they want jobs, earned income, a halt and reversal of rampant illegal immigration, and unfair international trade. These voters are saying they will revolt and deny their vote to any Establishment politician who they feel cannot be trusted to fix these problems. The voters are fed up with broken promises and will break the parties if necessary to make the political leaders to listen to them.
You were the guy who said this: "They should have circled the wagons around Trump, advised him and encouraged", and I responded that you don't do that until a guy has actually won the nomination. Prior to that, you can try to take him out. You pointing out in response that "Romney was not a candidate" is irrelevant, because it was all those "not-candidates" you were claiming should have "circle the wagons" around Trump before he won the nomination.
Palin's been going hard after Cruz for nearly two months, and she's not a candidate either. Shouldn't she be "circling the wagons" around Cruz?
Some of you guys want your prize before you've actually won. If Trump wins the nomination, then that's the point at which people should rally around him. Not before. And if he is subject to ad hominem attacks (regardless of source) like he made against other candidates before winning the nomination, he's got no grounds to complain.
Cruz and Kasich are being coy about supporting the GOP nominee, Donald has repudiated the entire agreement and threatens going 3rd party.
Supporting each other is small potatoes compared to going 3rd party. In exchange for the candidates’ agreeing to abide with those 2 rules the Republican Party allows the candidate to represent the party in the nominating process for President. Contractually any candidate who breaks he agreement could have their delegates rejected at the convention.
Not so smart Donald.
That is absolutely the best humor I have witnessed you originating, FRiend!
I completely agree with everything you said in this post. They've been truly despicable, and these scum should all be thoroughly rejected in every possible way in the future.
It’s required that all parties honor the terms for an agreement, or it’s void.
Nice try.
“Cruz and Kasich are being coy about supporting the GOP nominee, Donald has repudiated the entire agreement and threatens going 3rd party.”
The RNC started this business of reneging on the Pledge the moment the ink was dried on the pledges. The RNC has been breaching the agreement in particular ever since Mitt Romney et al let it be known they were looking for any means whatsoever change the rules at the National Convention to make it possible to take the nomination away from Trump and run Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, or someone else at any cost. As soon as they did so, Donald Trump did not owe them anything further whatsoever with respect to the pledge they trashed in an attempt to trap Trump into a one-sided obligation. Unfortunately for them, this is just the kind of one-sided foul play that Trump is campaigning about with respect to negotiating fair trade agreements. Play by the rules, or else he will do what is right to seek retribution for the treacherous breach of the agreement. The voters supporting him will love to see Trump fight back against that kind of treachery at any cost. They’re thoroughly fed up with Romney, Boehner, Ryan, Priebus, and the rest of them.
“Supporting each other is small potatoes compared to going 3rd party.”
Sure its big potatoes, when you have Mitt Romney and Ted Cruz saying they would vote or like Hillary Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama more than they would vote for Donald Trump. It can hardly be any worse than that and killed any obligations whatsoever towards a pledge the GOPe elite have already thoroughly disavowed long before Trump made his decision.
“In exchange for the candidates’ agreeing to abide with those 2 rules the Republican Party allows the candidate to represent the party in the nominating process for President. Contractually any candidate who breaks he agreement could have their delegates rejected at the convention.”
Yes, but it is an empty threat when the RNC is already unmasked and engaged in stealing the delegates already pledged to Donald Trump in places like Louisiana, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and so forth.
“Not so smart Donald.”
Trump pursued about the only real opportunity the RNC would allow; and that is to provoke the RNC into demonstrating just how corrupt it is when it deliberately loses to a Democrat rather than allow an outsider like himself to become the new leader of the GOP and win an election. That was his original purpose, winning or losing the election. So far, he is accomplishing that goal quite well. To top it off, he has a real chance to win the General Election, if he can keep the GOPe elite from stealing the primaries and their delegates.
“Talk about dense...
You were the guy who said this: “They should have circled the wagons around Trump, advised him and encouraged”, and I responded that you don’t do that until a guy has actually won the nomination.”
Lol, and I’m telling you that that is a DUMB strategy for GOPe if they want to WIN in nov
But you’re too stupid to comprehend it:
Your theory:
GOPe should sabotage its frontfunner because he hasn’t yet won the nomination.
Then this:
“Palin’s been going hard after Cruz for nearly two months, and she’s not a candidate either. Shouldn’t she be “circling the wagons” around Cruz?”
Palin is not GOPe and is a Trump SUPPORTER.
Romney is GOPE, and isn’t supporting anyone.
“And if he is subject to ad hominem attacks (regardless of source) like he made against other candidates before winning the nomination, he’s got no grounds to complain.”
The attacks are part of the game, but ignoring the voters is not.
And Romney’s actions to undermine a very popular frontrunner, and the GOPe’s plan to nominate some voteless idiot, is going to lose.
And your support of all this is helping Hillary.
Brilliant, just brilliant.
Trump is "very popular" among a distinct minority of voters. Most of the rest seem to dislike/despise him. A few weeks ago, I had hope that he was turning a corner, and really might be able to turn himself into a decent general election candidate. Then he retweeted that picture, screwed up on abortion, and that all went to hell.
I personally am convinced now that he is most likely to be crushed in November, and he'll take down a lot of GOP members of Congress with him. So I've gone from reluctantly accepting his candidacy, to thinking we have to get that idiot out of there. I'll admit there is a theoretical possibility that, if he stays off Twitter permanently and stops sabotaging his own general-election chances, that maybe he can partially recover from this. Maybe keeping his nose clean and some fortuitous outside events can give him a slugger's chance in November. If he repairs enough of that damage and closes the gap with Hillary, then maybe it won't be worth the turmoil to deny him the nomination.
But the "Trump will fix this" is too leaky a boat for me to have any faith, so I'm hedging my bets, and want to keep him as far from 1237 as possible to give the party flexibility going into the convention. If he's done a good job at rehabbing his images, or if he just wins it anyway, fine. But as of now, I think he'll get crushed in November so I want to keep options open.
And your support of all this is helping Hillary.
And I think nominating Trump is the surest way to hand the election over not just to her, but to give a major boost to Democrats running for Congress.
Given Trump's command in the delegate race, I was rather desperately hoping it wouldn't come to this. But he just can't resist alienating everyone except his most ardent supporters. Even Gingrich (particularly) and Coulter, both of whom swam upstream to support Trump, have been taken aback by his latest antics. And Trump being Trump, I don't think it'll be more than a temporary haitus until he does it again.
So you see, I don't want to lose to Hillary either. We just see the odds differently.
The problem you have with your entire premise is the fact that the behavior of the Democrats is the exact opposite of what your bogus polls cited say they should be doing.
Actions speak louder then BS Polls. They fear Trump.
"Trump is "very popular" among a distinct minority of voters."
I see the all the time from posters here and talk-show hosts there, but it really doesn't fly. If Trump is popular among a "distinct minority", what does that say about Cruz and/or Kasich, who have less votes than Trump? And I don't put much stock in the "liability" factor. Cruz is highly disliked as well. Hillary is disliked. I'd say most politicians are disliked to a large extent by the very nature of being a politician. I'm not electing a neighbour or buddy, I'm electing someone who can get the job done.
You don't like the polls, so they're bogus. You're just seeing what you want to see. The polls seem to reflect what I personally hear from other voters I know, so I don't really have any reason not to believe them, especially since they've generally been consistent regardless of who is doing them.
But beyond that, I assume your logic is that if Trump is really that bad a candidate, the Democrats would want him to win the nomination, and therefore wouldn't be criticizing him so much. There are two logical problems with that.
The first is that people aren't always free to act as strategically as you think they should. At this point, the Democrats are still locked in a primary fight. Trump's statements have become so prominent that the Democrats are forced to comment on them. And to satisfy their own base, and to appeal to their own voters, they have to come out swinging against him. Attacking Trump gains them goodwill with their own primary voters. Hillary, in particular, is attempting to establish herself as the presumptive nominee, and part of the way she conveys that is by attacking the GOP frontrunner.
The other problem is that they may well have concluded that Trump is going to be the nominee, so the "let's hope they nominate the worst candidate" time has passed. They're going after Trump now because they want to set such a strong negative image in the minds of the voters that Trump has no hope of repairing it.
Either way, them attacking Trump does not prove he's the most electable Republican. That's a silly conclusion born out of pure pro-Trump bias.
It means that they have fewer people who consider them their first choice. But there is nothing logically inconsistent with a candidate being the first choice of a plurality, but the last choice of a majority. That tends to be what happens with polarizing candidates.
I stated a logical argument, You responded with a logical fallacy. If What you claimed was true they would be helping Trump not fighting him with lies smears and establishment games.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.