The Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade

newyorkguy said:
trump signed a loyalty oath in 2015. On September 3, 2015 CNN (among others) reported:
Click to expand...

And then he totally reneged on that on live TV at the first debate.


I think the highlighted part above was the key then, as it is now. That the Republican leadership is looking for a way to prevent having trump launch a third party campaign if he fails to win the GOP nomination to run for president in 2024. Having trump run as a third party presidential candidate -- the MAGA Party? -- would almost certainly destroy the Republicans' chances of having their candidate elected president in 2024. Worrying that if trump fails to win the party's nomination he will then proceed to destroy the party's chances in 2024 seems like a legitimate worry. Remember what Tucker Carlson said? donald trump is "the undisputed world champion" for "destroying things."

Republicans thinking they can control trump by having him sign a piece of paper is ludicrous. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.
Click to expand...

He doesn't even need to run as a third party. He can just sit from the sidelines and talk crap about the candidate. Even if he does go out and endorse the candidate, his die hards won't fall in line. He can't even control his base, much less the GOP establishment.
 
Short term "A Loyalty Oath" that is absolutely in no way meant to actually inspire loyalty and is meant to serve as a way to expel anyone who breaks the only two rules the Republican Party has ("Acknowledge that Facts Exist" and "Acknowledge that Base Human Decency Is Worth Doing") sounds right up their alley though.
 
Those fascists! Whoever heard of requiring a loyalty oath?

The Democratic National Committee is increasing pressure on its presidential candidates to commit to campaign actively for the party’s nominee in 2020, going beyond a previous loyalty pledge for White House hopefuls.
Click to expand...

Previous loyalty pledge you say? Yep:

Perez already has required candidates to pledge explicitly to support the nominee. Candidates also have been asked to help the party raise money and, as a condition of getting the DNC’s national voter file, pledge to give back the additional data they gather on voters once they drop out of the presidential race.
Click to expand...

You may all slink away, muttering about how this is different because it's the Republicans.
 
Last edited:
Perfect whataboutism. You've totally caught us. Argument over. Everything the Republicans are doing is okay now. Well done.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Perfect whataboutism. You've totally caught us. Argument over. Everything the Republicans are doing is okay now. Well done.
Click to expand...

... and quite a difference because the GOP is insisting on the oath as a prerequisite for running as opposed to asking unsuccessful candidates to support the successful candidate.
 
What's the enforcement mechanism for a loyalty oath? Does the signer agree to pay a fee if they violate it? Forfeit their tickets to the box social? Get sued for damages? Charged with a crime?

Or is the only consequence "some people will say bad things about you"? Because I'm pretty sure that a) that's going to happen regardless, and b) that's not something that stops many politicians.

A loyalty oath isn't worth the paper it's printed on, in any circumstances. People who care about keeping their word don't need it in writing. People who don't care about keeping their word aren't going to stick to it just because it's in writing unless there is an enforcement mechanism where the penalty of violation is a worse outcome for them than keeping their word would be.
 
The Don said:
... and quite a difference because the GOP is insisting on the oath as a prerequisite for running as opposed to asking unsuccessful candidates to support the successful candidate.
Click to expand...

Read the article again and I'm not seeing this "quite a difference" of which you speak; perhaps you could point it out for me? Keep in mind the article was written in November 2019, well before the primaries even started; in other words, the Democrats' (previous) loyalty oath was a prerequisite for running. The "asking" candidates to support the successful nominee was a proposed further requirement:

Perez is asking all candidates to commit, like Obama, to serve as surrogates, with a focus on battleground states in the weeks after the July 13-16 nominating convention in Milwaukee. And Perez wants each campaign, as candidates drop out, to designate a senior adviser to serve as a liaison to help the national party use the vestiges of individual candidates’ campaigns to build out Democrats’ general election campaign.
Click to expand...
 
Brainster said:
Read the article again and I'm not seeing this "quite a difference" of which you speak; perhaps you could point it out for me? Keep in mind the article was written in November 2019, well before the primaries even started; in other words, the Democrats' (previous) loyalty oath was a prerequisite for running. The "asking" candidates to support the successful nominee was a proposed further requirement:
Click to expand...

Well, for one, the word "oath" is in your linked article exactly 0 times.

Anyways, the main issue with the GOP oath, is that they appear to want everyone to abide by it. Except Trump. Because they know he won't.
 
A trump spokesperson has already said that if trump wins the nomination trump will accept the result.
“President Trump will support the Republican nominee because it will be him,” a campaign spokesperson told CNN in response to McDaniel’s prediction there’d be a loyalty pledge required of candidates. CNN report
Click to expand...
Recall Kari Lake? She was asked, "Will you accept the results of the 2022 election? She answered the same way: "When I win the 2022 election I will accept the result." Then she didn't win the 2022 election and she didn't accept the result.
 
TragicMonkey said:
What's the enforcement mechanism for a loyalty oath? Does the signer agree to pay a fee if they violate it? Forfeit their tickets to the box social? Get sued for damages? Charged with a crime?

Or is the only consequence "some people will say bad things about you"? Because I'm pretty sure that a) that's going to happen regardless, and b) that's not something that stops many politicians.

...snip
Click to expand...

I think the only thing being held over their heads is the ability to participate in the Republican debates.
 
slyjoe said:
I think the only thing being held over their heads is the ability to participate in the Republican debates.
Click to expand...

Trump skipped a debate in 2016 and held his own klan rally on the same night. He even had the lesser candidates who failed to qualify for the debate show up. He doesn't care.
 
surrogate said:
He might sign it, but there is no way in hell he would abide by it.
Click to expand...

He'll sign it, then rip it up, then claim he never signed it, then mumble about how of course he signed it, then say he signed a pledge-he never gave his word, then say the pledge of allegiance, then sign a MAGA hat, and claim it's all a plot by Never-Trumpers.

And then his followers will insist that he be allowed to debate because he signed the pledge, and then vote for him when he runs as an independent, claiming he never signed the pledge.
 
This oath thing is supposed to be a ticket to enter the debate event. No oath signature, no admittance. But everyone knows that if Trump thinks he owns the debate, he will just push past the bouncer and grab the debate by the pussy. He is the Major ________ de Coverley of this little farce.

So all that this oath nonsense is going to achieve is showing how utterly clueless, naive and pointless Rona McDaniel is.
 
Such a pledge would not be worth the toilet paper it was written on.

I doubt any of the MAGANUT candidates would support a non-MAGANUT candidate if they won the nomination.
 
Brainster said:
\


You may all slink away, muttering about how this is different because it's the Republicans.
Click to expand...

I don't think an actual signed oath is really the Democratic Party style. As to aesthetics anyway. Sounds inconsistent with liberal ideals of freedom and all that.

They will however endlessly criticize those that show in their minds insufficient loyalty and claim they are working for the GOP and are responsible when the party loses no matter how they vote. Aid and comfort to the enemy, I guess.

So totally different.
 
smartcooky said:
Such a pledge would not be worth the toilet paper it was written on.

I doubt any of the MAGANUT candidates would support a non-MAGANUT candidate if they won the nomination.
Click to expand...

Didn't Elmer Fud Stewart Rhodes thy this with the Constitution as well, we saw how well he ke0t that Oath on January 6th 2021. The same will happen here.
 
JoeMorgue said:
//Insert my standard rant that Primaries literally only make one single ounce of sense if they are party leadership telling the party street level voters who to vote for and any and every attempt to present it as working the other way is stupid.//
Click to expand...

Ah yes. Famously, the GOP leadership was very much in the tank for Trump to be the nominee back in the 2016 primary season. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom