RNC Chairman: Party could penalize former GOP candidates who don't endorse Donald Trump

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said Sunday that it's high time for Donald Trump's former primary challengers to come on board and support his campaign—and suggested there could be trouble for them in 2020 or 2024 if they don't.

“Those people need to get on board,” he told CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “And if they're thinking they're going to run again someday, I think that we're going to evaluate the process – of the nomination process and I don't think it's going to be that easy for them.”
Source

Having a political party try to coerce its members into endorsing certain people makes me think they're acting more like organized crime than a legitimate institution. Who can take any 'endorsements' that come as a result of threats seriously, anyway?

This is one reason I would never join a political party. Being forced to endorse someone is nonsensical to me. An endorsement has to be genuine or it's a lie. The fact that people put up with that kind of stuff proves to me that they're unethical.

a reply to: Profusion

When they join said political party and accept monies, official affiliation, and everything else that goes with it, they agree to support their party's candidate(s). It's kind of two-faced to want to be associated with a party but not accept the party's official candidate. If they don't want to endorse Donald J Trump they should leave the Republican Party and find one better suited for them. I hear the Dems may have some openings.

a reply to: Profusion

Coerce?

They signed a pledge. It's in writing. They're breaking a deal they made, a very public one at that.

It'd help if you actually understood the chain of events before starting a thread on it.

a reply to: Profusion

after Trump wins they'll be penalized alright!

a reply to: Profusion

Party Before Country. They don't care what happens to the people... As long as their party is in charge.

a reply to: MysticPearl

Can you debunk the following? In the article below you have a legal expert saying, "But this whole exercise, including Trump's outlandish notion that this is a question of honor, given his own past statements, makes them all look foolish." He's saying that the pledge looks foolish which is exactly what I wrote.

Was the pledge binding?

Experts previously told PolitiFact Florida in May that the pledge was essentially a promise by a candidate. But it’s not the same thing as a legal contract.

"The pledge is no more binding than any other politician's promise: It is enforceable through the public's future support or lack thereof for the person making the pledge," said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California.
Did Ted Cruz pledge to back the Republican nominee?

Are they going to not let them sit at the table with the cool kids?

There may be some interesting lawsuits next go round.

It's not a matter of coercing or forcing. It's a matter of support. If you and I are both in a party (OK: Neither of us are.) and you sign a pledge to back the nominee, then go back on it, I'm going to remember that you did that, especially when you come back to me in four years wanting my unequivocal support for you. I'm not required to give you that support. You have to convince me you are worthy of it. Given your past history I am less likely to support you this time around. THAT'S how it could hurt someone like Cruz, who is not well-liked in the GOP anyway.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Yep.

What yous ay is absolutely true and was verified by the DNC leaks.

a reply to: Phage

Their party.

Their rules.

What's good for the DNC is good for the GOp.

That is why I have been independent/unaffiliated.

a reply to: Profusion

With Hillary, she has full support of the establishment but her problem is getting Bernie supporters to back her.

With Trump, he has full support, mostly, from the conservative voters but his problem is getting establishment republicans to back him.

What a wacky, wacky, election cycle this is!

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Profusion

With Trump, he has full support, mostly, from the conservative voters but his problem is getting establishment republicans to back him.

It's the "establishment Republicans" that conservatives are mad at. If they didn't pee their pants every time Obama said "boo!", Trump wouldn't have been embraced so enthusiastically by conservative voters. He is as much a "protest" candidate against the Republican establishment, as he is the natural alternative to Hillary and her party.

Thank goodness Donald Trump came along, or we'd be stuck with the establishment's #1 choice...Jeb Bush. I doubt if he could beat Hillary.

QUESTION: Why is it that when I post a message, the gray box has a line in it that says, "Sending a Private Message Alert"??!!

a reply to: carewemust

If anyone thinks Trump is anti establishment than they're not seeing the whole picture. Chances are, those who won't back him are doing it because their conscious tells them to. Trump was never the answer to Clinton. He's a so called billionaire who is just as corrupt as any politician who only wants to be president to make Trump great again. He doesn't give a poop about you and America. He doesn't have a plan and when he talks about his great plans he says so at a third grade level while providing zero substance, mostly ignorance and lies.

Why does Trump talk like a little kid? Only two possibilities, he's not very bright or he believes he's talking to voters who aren't very bright.

There's only one republican I can think of that would have been Hillary's true alternative and that's Rand Paul but conservative voters gave us a reality TV star instead who treated the primaries like a reality TV show. Derp, derp, derp.

ANSWER: I dunno, but it's always said that and from time to time when I read it I too wonder where my PM is! There is no spoon and there is no PM!

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Their party. Their rules.

But what are those rules concerning "defection." Are they threatening to change them after the fact?

Like I said, there could be some interesting lawsuits.

a reply to: Profusion

Why would I need to debunk that?

These men gave their word. They signed their names. They did so publicly. Now they aren't living up to their word and a man is only as good as his word.

Whether it's legally binding in a court of law is different. And what kind of sorry standard is that?

a reply to: MysticPearl

And what kind of sorry standard is that?

You understand that we are talking about politicians, right?

This is why the RNC is no better than the DNC.

originally posted by: Phage
Are they going to not let them sit at the table with the cool kids?

I think this is entirely aimed at John Kasich. He is a necessary link for the Trump/Pence ticket to carry Ohio, and thus far he has done everything he can to attack the positions that Trump espouses by campaigning with Obama supporters for the enactment of TTP.

There are a few others who could be named, but it all looks like a bullseye painted around Kasich.

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: Profusion

Coerce?

They signed a pledge. It's in writing. They're breaking a deal they made, a very public one at that.

It'd help if you actually understood the chain of events before starting a thread on it.

Speaking of chain of events the candidate was also very public about breaking a pledge.

Eve the Bern dropped his political stance against Hillary and went with party lines. It is always the thing to do. These Repubs not pledging support are just "sore losers" . Trump burned em a new one , and they are still a hurtin