GOP Loyalty Oath

[Guest]

Okay, we are not allowed to talk about specific candidates in this forum... so keep that in mind.

 

But I would love to see several - if not all - of the candidates refuse to sign this Pledge.  Republicans and Democrats are dead in the water.  It is time for somebody to run against the both of them if their supporters are not listened to.  Ross Perot did not give you Bill Clinton.  Stupid Republican policies gave you Bill Clinton.

 

Candidates that are going against the establishments - like Tea Party Candidates and the like, should run outside the GOP shadow!

[pkstpaul]

I'd be happy to run outside the GOP shadow and I'd be happy to see the GOP go the way of the Whigs. They are selling out our country. Last time they came to power, they were the ones to run up the debt with every political payout they waited 30 years to make. Then George W. gave the Dems everything they wanted for six years thinking he would be their friend, only to be stabbed in the back, repeatedly. It is time for a change from the establishment.

 

Oh, and it was the establishment that put McCain up against Obama. Remember picking Dole to run just because he was the "establishment" candidate"?

Edited September 3, 2015 by pkstpaul

[Vort]

I'd be happy to run outside the GOP shadow and I'd be happy to see the GOP go the way of the Whigs.

 

I would be happy to see the Republican party die off if it were replaced by something significantly better. What would fill the void? I don't see Libertarians as being "significantly better". And the Democrats are significantly worse.

[Crypto]

I haven't seen libertarians actually hold office before. They might or might not be better, often depends on the topic. IMO

[Guest]

I would be happy to see the Republican party die off if it were replaced by something significantly better. What would fill the void? I don't see Libertarians as being "significantly better". And the Democrats are significantly worse.

 

 

Tea Party should be their own party.

[Guest]

...

But I would love to see several - if not all - of the candidates refuse to sign this Pledge.  Republicans and Democrats are dead in the water.  It is time for somebody to run against the both of them if their supporters are not listened to.  ...

Candidates that are going against the establishments - like Tea Party Candidates and the like, should run outside the GOP shadow!

 

 

If your wish were granted and *all* the candidates refused to sign the pledge, it might have a progressive (no pun intended) impact on the GOP establishment.  Or the establishment might simply find a new candidate and strike a deal. But candidates who try to go it alone against the establishment usually strike the general citizenry as too unsatisfactorily extreme to elect. And the apparent thinking behind that reality goes for the country at large and what we often say we want vs. how we vote and what we vote for.  I mean unless huge numbers of the populace vote at the same time to effect specific changes (whether at local, state, or national levels) such as term limits, contribution limits, or whatever change you believe would benefit the country, then the changes just don't happen.  So the GOP and the Democrat parties don't change because they actually in my opinion reflect the general populace. 

[cdowis]

I believe that signing the pledge is a requirement in some states to run in the primary.  It forced the issue for a certain individual who cannot be named (Hint: think of the icon of Moroni), and I understand that Moroni's icon signed it recently.

 

(I'm either going to get 'like this' or warning points on this post)

Edited September 3, 2015 by cdowis

[Average Joe]

Loyalty oaths to party before country sounded good to the communists and Nazis.

 

and remember boys and girls

 

If voting could really make a change the government wouldn't encourage you to do it.

[Palerider]

I think all the parties running need to be involved in the debates ....My opinion.

[Guest]

If your wish were granted and *all* the candidates refused to sign the pledge, it might have a progressive (no pun intended) impact on the GOP establishment. Or the establishment might simply find a new candidate and strike a deal. But candidates who try to go it alone against the establishment usually strike the general citizenry as too unsatisfactorily extreme to elect. And the apparent thinking behind that reality goes for the country at large and what we often say we want vs. how we vote and what we vote for. I mean unless huge numbers of the populace vote at the same time to effect specific changes (whether at local, state, or national levels) such as term limits, contribution limits, or whatever change you believe would benefit the country, then the changes just don't happen. So the GOP and the Democrat parties don't change because they actually in my opinion reflect the general populace.

Now is the time. The people are ready to jump ship the minute they find a "non-establishment" person to make a go of it. The way I see it, we can have a 4-way going on... A socialist, a democrat, a republican, and a ....(tea partier? Libertarian? Conservative? Angry-vote-gatherer?)

[Guest]

Now is the time. The people are ready to jump ship the minute they find a "non-establishment" person to make a go of it. The way I see it, we can have a 4-way going on... A socialist, a democrat, a republican, and a ....(tea partier? Libertarian? Conservative? Angry-vote-gatherer?)

 

Forgive me for my failure to understand the metaphor of jumping ship in this context. I say that because unless I'm mistaken we already have (on paper at least) over 200 officially recognized political parties in the United States. Doesn't that demonstrate to us that after all the culture of this country is [essentially psychologically] tied to a two-party-system?  The other parties may do a little good for garnering attention to various issues, but they don't truly make a difference. I don't see how you can claim that now is the time. (Forgive me, too, if I come across as cynical, because I don't mean to.)

[Just_A_Guy]

In spite of my contempt for the Republican Party establishment, I'm actually a lukewarm supporter of the loyalty oath so long as the party leadership doesn't use backroom tactics to ensure the nomination of their own favorite. 

 

The whole idea of a political party, is that we try to accomplish our agenda together.  If, as a candidate, you want the party to serve you by giving you exposure, access to fundraising networks, and general prestige; you need to be willing to reciprocate by using your own exposure, access to fundraising networks, and prestige to support the party's candidate if you yourself aren't so fortunate as to get the nomination.  You expect the team to take bullets for you; you'd better be ready to take a few for the team as well.

 

I say, if you wanna run as an independent--do it from the get-go.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Palerider]

Regardless of an oath ....if one decides to run as Independent then he or she should do so.

[hagoth]

I would be happy to see the Republican party die off if it were replaced by something significantly better. What would fill the void?...

How about the Constitution Party?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_%28United_States%29

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

 

I had a neighbor in Salt Lake County in Utah who ran for office with that party.

Edited September 5, 2015 by hagoth

[Palerider]

How about the Constitution Party?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_(United_States)

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

 

I had a neighbor in Salt Lake County in Utah who ran for office with that party.

That's one of the parties that should be allowed in the debates as well as all the others.

[cdowis]

Regardless of an oath ....if one decides to run as Independent then he or she should do so.

 

Of course, and that's called politics.  And if we elect someone who would break their oath, we will get exactly what we deserve.

 

"If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan."

Edited September 5, 2015 by cdowis

[Palerider]

Of course, and that's called politics.  And if we elect someone who would break their oath, we will get exactly what we deserve.

 

"If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan."

Yea....but when I signed it I and my fingers crossed behind me back.

[mirkwood]

Now is the time. The people are ready to jump ship the minute they find a "non-establishment" person to make a go of it. The way I see it, we can have a 4-way going on... A socialist, a democrat, a republican, and a ....(tea partier? Libertarian? Conservative? Angry-vote-gatherer?)

 

Actually many of us have been saying that for 3 or 4 elections now. 

[kapikui]

In spite of my contempt for the Republican Party establishment, I'm actually a lukewarm supporter of the loyalty oath so long as the party leadership doesn't use backroom tactics to ensure the nomination of their own favorite. 

 

The whole idea of a political party, is that we try to accomplish our agenda together.  If, as a candidate, you want the party to serve you by giving you exposure, access to fundraising networks, and general prestige; you need to be willing to reciprocate by using your own exposure, access to fundraising networks, and prestige to support the party's candidate if you yourself aren't so fortunate as to get the nomination.  You expect the team to take bullets for you; you'd better be ready to take a few for the team as well.

 

I say, if you wanna run as an independent--do it from the get-go.

 

While I'm still not sure I like the idea of a loyalty oath, This was a rather good argument. 

[Palerider]

Oaths and contracts are meant to be broken ..... Lol

[prisonchaplain]

I strongly support the two-party system.  Further, what a sad, sorry state of affairs when a major candidate for a major political party holds very public negotiations for terms that would result in him pledging to actually align with :::cough::: his party.  We all have choices, and a party is not a person, so the blame for this does not some entity called a political party.

[mrmarklin]

If the Republicans get elected, look for a certain nominee front runner to have a high profile position. That's if he doesn't win outright.:-)

[Traveler]

I do not support our two party system. I do not support any particular party. I wish there was no such thing as a political party. I do not believe that in any society of G-d there is place for any political party. I have allegiance to G-d and country but non to any political party and I have grown weary of elected officials and also and especially bureaucrats that feel politics are important.

As far as I am concerned a loyalty oath should be to citizens not ever to a political party. I do not believe in any individual that puts party first – especially for the sake of a citizen election and choice in candidates. I do not consider that loyalty to any party to be beneficial – I consider loyalty to party to be somewhat traitorous. The only purpose and reason for a political party is to oppress others of their liberty.

All that said – sadly I also believe that our two party system is about the best we can hope for from government and citizens having say in preventing governments from getting out of control. The best we hope for in politics is failing us.

Or as Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst kind of government ever devised or thought up by men – that is excepting all the others.”

[Guest MormonGator]

It's odd that a party that claims to support "individual rights' would make someone sign a loyalty oath.