It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP Loyalty Pledges Have Been Abandoned.

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
This is really ridiculous.


(CNN)The ironclad commitment each Republican presidential candidate gave to support the party's nominee -- no matter who that may be -- is no more.

Donald Trump and Ohio Gov. John Kasich explicitly renounced the commitment they'd made last fall, while Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said he'd have a hard time supporting Trump. The comments, which could reshape an already raucous GOP primary race, came during a town hall in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, one week ahead of the state's key primary.

Link


Of course the pledge was always just another political dirty trick played on voters.

Donald never intended to support the GOP nominee — and the GOP knew it back when these pledges were signed. In fact, I would say that FOX News was in on the hinky shenanigans that went on when Trump BACKDATED his loyalty pledge on September 3, 2015. See my blog post here on that political dirty trick: Trump & Priebus, Sitting In A Tree

In my opinion, It’s always been the plan for democrats to win — Congress is chomping at the bit for another huge spending plan and a huge tax hike so that the federal government can be as big and powerful, as possible.

So, I predict that we’ll see a contested GOP convention and Trump will break from the party to split the conservative vote so badly, democrats will win with a mandate to spend, spend, spend. It’s not enough that they simply win — they want a mandate.

I personally think 'The Chosen One' is Bernie — the most profit and power can be gained from his plan if Congress is corrupt enough with their spending. And Congress is pretty darned corrupt. But I am open to the idea that it could be Hillary.

However, I honestly don’t believe the DNC is banking on Hillary with her email scandal and *ahem* ‘unpredictable’ investigation that could land her with an indictment. Why would they take that risk?

Of course we all know that Hillary will never see prison, but this email scandal has been an anchor on her campaign.

Unfortunate for Hillary really just means FORTUNATE FOR BERNIE. That’s nothing to sneeze at.

These two parties scheme against voters, not against each other. Their records prove it despite all the smoke & mirrors marketing they do thanks to a complicit media.

The voters are going to lose again. They’ve been set-up.

I understand my take is not very popular, so have at it, ATS.



edit on 30-3-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
delete
edit on -050012pm3kpm by Ohanka because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka

Why'd you delete? I thought it was a perfectly fine comment.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I find the concept of supporting someone who ran against you a minute ago as somewhat...awkward...insincere looking...like a theater it is.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Agree. It always seemed like a silly show for voters to me.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

But some much of this show is considered compulsory folklore...sometimes I wonder...do the powers that be think we are that stupid...or do the know for a fact.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: MotherMayEye

But some much of this show is considered compulsory folklore...sometimes I wonder...do the powers that be think we are that stupid...or do the know for a fact.


They know for a fact that the party divide is so strong, the hate democrats have for republicans (and vice versa) is plenty to keep voters stupid. Works like a charm, every time.
edit on 30-3-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Party loyalty pledge should have never happened...

I have no use for anyone that will pledge loyalty to the party... while running for office.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Party loyalty pledge should have never happened...

I have no use for anyone that will pledge loyalty to the party... while running for office.


Oh it was always just a way to convince voters that Trump, etc... once planned to not throw the race to democrats. But they always planned to throw this race.

Republicans will profit just like democrats from a huge spending plan and ginormous federal government -- in dollars and power.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No doubt... thats why I am so confuzzled that so many seemingly intelligent people will still vote for one of these nitwits because of the letter next to their name... rather than the content of their character.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Politics is a high stakes game, and this year the stakes are really high. Our country is about to either continue the status quo of appeasement, corruption and graft (Hillary), or turn socialist and watch America slide into the pit (Bernie), or Become Great Again (Trump), or clean up Washington (Cruz). Loyalty pledges are just window dressing and if it isn't matching the decor, take them away.

There are checks and balances in the Legislative and Judicial branches, so whoever gets in won't have total free rein.

I personally think it might be Joe Biden stepping in. Hillary is looking shaky.
edit on 30-3-2016 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
Politics is a high stakes game, and this year the stakes are really high. Our country is about to either continue the status quo of appeasement, corruption and graft (Hillary), or turn socialist and watch America slide into the pit (Bernie), or Become Great Again (Trump), or clean up Washington (Cruz). Loyalty pledges are just window dressing and if it isn't matching the decor, take them away.

There are checks and balances in the Legislative and Judicial branches, so whoever gets in won't have total free rein.

I personally think it might be Joe Biden stepping in. Hillary is looking shaky.


Appreciate your take.

Congress always feigns gridlock to give Americans the crappiest, most watered-down legislation that does no good for the People, but lines the pockets of the elite. It's their 'thing.'
edit on 30-3-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I find the concept of supporting someone who ran against you a minute ago as somewhat...awkward...insincere looking...like a theater it is.


Kinda like how Kerry and Edwards were basically at each others throats one minute, and in the next they were running mates.

Political theatre is political theatre.

Never forget what we see isn't what is going on behind the scenes.

Another example of this was GW and Clinton acting like they were besties during the Hati relief.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

Another example of this was GW and Clinton acting like they were besties during the Hati relief.


Well, they probably are besties. Bill did Bush Sr. a huge favor blocking investigations into the drug-running out of Mena when he was governor of Arkansas.

Political enemies? That's the theater.




posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Anyone signing a pledge to support the party nominee is a fairly repugnant idea. I don't have any issue with losing candidates supporting people they were campaigning against in the primaries but pledging to support any person — for no reason other than that person is the party's nominee — is crossing a line. It amounts to a declaration that the good of the party comes before the good of the nation.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Anyone signing a pledge to support the party nominee is a fairly repugnant idea. I don't have any issue with losing candidates supporting people they were campaigning against in the primaries but pledging to support any person — for no reason other than that person is the party's nominee — is crossing a line. It amounts to a declaration that the good of the party comes before the good of the nation.


Absolutely.

And yet they orchestrated it all anyway. Why? So that voters would look back on it and think..."Gee, at one time they all intended to support one another. It may have all fallen apart now, but those pledges are proof it wasn't the plan all along."

But it was the plan all along.

There could be $18 trillion on the table. Of course there has always been a plan.
edit on 30-3-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Well, boo hiss. My thread must suck.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

This is only stating the obvious at this point. I absolutely loath Trump and even I can see that honoring that pledge with what the GOP is trying to do to him would be dumb on his part.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MotherMayEye

This is only stating the obvious at this point. I absolutely loath Trump and even I can see that honoring that pledge with what the GOP is trying to do to him would be dumb on his part.


Well, that's not what I stated.

So, I don't think that's obvious.

ETA: Ha! Let me clarify my meaning: I do think it's obvious, and that is one of many reasons why I think it's all theater.

What's really going on is not the narrative being sold.
edit on 30-3-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
From the beginning the "pledge" was a way to corral Trump and that is the only one it was for. It was to be used against him should he decide to run as a third party candidate later after the GOP used their political machine against him (as they have).

Now they can wave it around and say he is a "deal breaker" on every channel and the typical American voters will eat it up.

The entire system is a sham.

My candidate is out so I am free to "hate" on all the remaining duds.

The dems have by far the funniest one to watch:
Bernie is roaring daily how Hillary is in the tank for the big banks and must be stopped - but he'll vote for her.

The Repubs aren't any better:
Cruz is slinging pictures of Trumps wife and then crying that families are off limits - and the media ignores his affairs (except to parade those that want the time to deny the allegations or blame Trump)

Captain Potato (Kasich) has made it to the final three by remaining silent and now that he has to say something says everything the Democrats want to hear. He has less than 10% of the Republican vote but claims he is the one that can win the general election in November.

The GOP actually came out today and said they want to change the 8 state majority requirement for nomination at the convention. The reason that they gave (no BS) "That was to stop the grassroots campaign of Ron Paul and it simply isn't needed this year".

Did anyone really think these people were worried about a "loyalty pledge"?
edit on 30-3-2016 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join