• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Several states may "trump" Trump with new rules

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Looks like a few states are trying to cause some trouble for the Trump campaign.

South Carolina GOP has had a primary election rule that requires anyone who enters the primary would be required to support the eventual nominee (and not run as a 3rd party canditate). They have had this rule since BEFORE Donald Trump entered the fray.

However it appears that a few more states may now be joining South Carolina and putting this same policy in place.

Thoughts?
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Looks like a few states are trying to cause some trouble for the Trump campaign.

South Carolina GOP has had a primary election rule that requires anyone who enters the primary would be required to support the eventual nominee (and not run as a 3rd party canditate). They have had this rule since BEFORE Donald Trump entered the fray.

However it appears that a few more states may now be joining South Carolina and putting this same policy in place.

Thoughts?
I wonder how Constitutional this rule could be.

Or even enforceable.


That said, I hope the "Donald" doesn't split and go third party. It has never gone well.
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
Damn straight I got thoughts on this.

Just so long as I understand correctly, any state Repub committee that does not like a candidate or one or more on his views, can see fit to set up rules that preclude the candidate from running in that state. Unless, of course, the candidate renounces those views and falls in line with that state's so called conventional wisdom.

Seriously? Is this what this primary season is shaping up to be? Is this a part of Democratic Presidential process now? :whistling::glare::unsure:

What's next, I mean we're sliding on the slippery slope now, so lets just keep sliding. "I don't like your abortion stance, you are not eligible to run in my state now". Jeez.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I wonder how Constitutional this rule could be.

Or even enforceable.


That said, I hope the "Donald" doesn't split and go third party. It has never gone well.

I can't imagine the Constitution would ever come into play. These are party rules.

As for enforceable, that is another questioin. Can't imagine it could be enforced.


. . . Just so long as I understand correctly, any state Repub committee that does not like a candidate or one or more on his views, can see fit to set up rules that preclude the candidate from running in that state. Unless, of course, the candidate renounces those views and falls in line with that state's so called conventional wisdom. . .
Near as I can tell, each party is allowed to set their own rules. Asking candidates to support the eventual party nominee as a condition of running within the party doesn't seem unreasonable.

As noted, this is NOT a new 'anti-Trump' rule in South Carolina, but its likely that the other states are considering this for exactly that point, to force Trump to choose. Either he pledges to support the eventual nominee or he doesn't get to play within the GOP field. Their field, their rules.

Of course this also forces other candidates to make the same pledge.
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
I can't imagine the Constitution would ever come into play. These are party rules.

As for enforceable, that is another questioin. Can't imagine it could be enforced.



Near as I can tell, each party is allowed to set their own rules. Asking candidates to support the eventual party nominee as a condition of running within the party doesn't seem unreasonable.

As noted, this is NOT a new 'anti-Trump' rule in South Carolina, but its likely that the other states are considering this for exactly that point, to force Trump to choose. Either he pledges to support the eventual nominee or he doesn't get to play within the GOP field. Their field, their rules.

Of course this also forces other candidates to make the same pledge.

Oh, it does work both ways, does it not. Forces the other 16 to support Trump in the eventuality he wins the nomination. I am sure that would leave a very bad taste in more then a few mouths there. :yum:

As my Dad was always fond of saying, be careful what you wish for. It just may come true.
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Trump was on O Reilly after the debate and said in his own way that he would probably support the Repub nominee.

But if anyone said sure, I'll support the party nominee (fully believing it will be them) and that turns out not to be true what could the state do the the person who then organizes a 3rd party run?
 

Adillo303

Diesel Truck Fan
GOLD Site Supporter
It just makes me wonder. Why is his own party afraid of him? Could it be that the is the only person in the country that is able and willing to self finance an entire presidential campaign, thereby being the only person that could reach that office and owe no one? Woulden't that be a disaster? LOL

If ever anyone in this country needed proof that the political parties have no concern for the people, they now have it.
 

waybomb

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
I think what few liberal acquaintances I have may be correct. The Republican party is all but dead.

Do they have a compass of any sort? Magnetic, true, electronic, gyro, maybe use a sextant, something?
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
It just makes me wonder. Why is his own party afraid of him? Could it be that the is the only person in the country that is able and willing to self finance an entire presidential campaign, thereby being the only person that could reach that office and owe no one? Woulden't that be a disaster? LOL

If ever anyone in this country needed proof that the political parties have no concern for the people, they now have it.

Exactly. They are afraid of Trump. Afraid of his independence to the PACS and the RNC. He is his own man. They are not.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
I wonder how Constitutional this rule could be.

Or even enforceable.


That said, I hope the "Donald" doesn't split and go third party. It has never gone well.

I doubt that they GOP could make that stick. I can run as an independent if I so chose, and denying someone a Constitutional right after you rejected a candidate could not end well.

What the GOP should do, rather than figuring out how to get rid of Trump is to figure out why his message is so popular.
 

Adillo303

Diesel Truck Fan
GOLD Site Supporter
Interesting Jimbo - what you are saying is that the GOP could care less what the people want as long as a republican gets in office.
 

grizzer

New member
Similar to Podesta who moved out of the WH and back in with Hillary during the 2012 primaries and set up a corporation to run for POTUS spending millions to get enough signatures to allow the corporation to be on the ballot in states that require a general election ballot contain primary candidates only.

Just in case a state like Alabama found the usurper ineligible.

The corporation CEO remained un-named...

After Alabama supreme court cleared the usurper and got a nuclear power plant license,

Podesta moosied back into the WH.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Interesting Jimbo - what you are saying is that the GOP could care less what the people want as long as a republican gets in office.

That's what I'm saying. Not just a Republican, but an establishment Republican.

IMO. Boehnor, McConnell, and those politicians whut brung 'em there have as much to lose as the establishment Democrats in Congress.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
That's what I'm saying. Not just a Republican, but an establishment Republican.

IMO. Boehnor, McConnell, and those politicians whut brung 'em there have as much to lose as the establishment Democrats in Congress.

yup :clap:
 
Top