Trump has said that he will not commit to supporting the eventual GOP nominee for president if he loses in the primaries. It seems reasonable to conclude that this will likely influence a number of Trump's followers to follow his example.
Strangely enough, those of us who support other candidates in the primaries are told that if we don't support Trump (if he's the nominee) are regularly told that not voting for Trump means that we are responsible for Biden winning.
So, if Trump isn't the nominee and if Biden wins, wouldn't that mean that Trump and those who follow his example have responsibility for Biden's win?
3 comments:
Kinda convoluted post here, my friend. Here's the thing: the issue isn't necessarily Trump's failure to commit to supporting whomever wins the nomination. There seems a necessary question to have answered, which is why he won't commit? Choosing to refuse such a committal doesn't mean he won't support the eventual nominee not named Donald Trump. It means he won't commit to supporting just anyone simply because of the R behind the name.
Personally, I would expect every candidate to support whomever wins the nomination. I would hope that such a person wouldn't be just a party hack favored by the worst elements of the party. Yet still, would that jackass still be better than whomever wins the Dem nomination? Given what a low bar that would be, I would suggest the answer is "yes", but by how much? I'm thinking a Chris Christie would be a major problem, because since he came on the scene, he's been a disappointment in so many ways.
But there's no reason Trump wouldn't support DeSantis or Ramaswamy, for example. I don't see him withholding support. That would raise the question of whether or not he truly cares about America more than he cares about winning the nomination. Naturally that means he regards himself as the best option for the nation...that the nation will best be served by his winning the nomination. Which of the rest of the field does not feel the same about themselves? It's easy to make the pledge when you think you'll be the winner. I say it takes some character to withhold a pledge on the premise of "if you don't think I deserve your support, don't give it" . Don't pledge if you don't believe I'm deserving. Don't pledge if you really don't think I'm good enough to support if I end up being the people's choice.
The bottom line is that I would hope that one would support the eventual nominee without the need for a public pledge. But imagine making such a pledge and then later a nominee who seems likely to win is found to be a scumbag.
As for me as one who believes it's Trump's gig to lose and that from among the rest of the field, he's the only proven option, I'd have no problem supporting whomever wins the nomination over any of the morons the Demoronic Party nominates. The chances of a Chris Christie winning is roughly zero, and thus I believe the other possibilities not name Trump are viable and superior to any Dem option, because Dems are proven morons and a real danger to our future.
At the same time, I think it's far more important to get a pledge from everyone not named Trump and everyone not supportive of his candidacy to support Trump if he wins the nomination. Those asshats who didn't vote, or voted third party, write in or, God help them, actually voted for Biden rather than Trump are complicit in bringing about our current suffering. They need to commit to voting for Trump if he's our nominee. No more of this bullshit "voting for Trump is an affront to God" or similar crap. Voting for Trump doesn't displease God when the alternative is what we have now. How could it possibly?
Now, the reality is that if Trump isn't the nominee and Biden wins, then the reason is Dem cheating...just like last time. If Biden's the guy for the Dems, there's no way he should win even if our worst GOP option wins the nomination (that isn't Trump). He couldn't have won fairly the first time around given his incompetence through almost fifty years in government, versus Trump's beneficially effective four years. Thus, with his complete failure as president and the obvious harm which has resulted from his stolen win, a Biden win means the nation has a death wish.
Speaking of convoluted. Suggesting that Trump refusing to commit to supporting a GOP candidate not himself, means that he might support the GOP candidate is quite a Danlike move.
You're core argument since Trump lost in 202 is that those who didn't vote for him as the GOP nominee, bear responsibility for the Biden administration. IF that is True, then Trump's failure to support the GOP nominee (and the likelihood that his minions will follow his example) guarantees a DFL win in 2024. In that case, Trump would be (by your logic) responsible for the loss.
Again, to suggest that it shows "character" to not support the GOP nominee (after claiming that any GOP nominee is better than the DFL alternative) seems contradictory.
Beyond that, the same old litany of tired talking points is getting old. If showing character means NOT supporting a GOP candidate who an individual believes of unworthy of support, then that should be applied equally. Unfortunately, you're proposing a different measure when it comes to Trump.
" Suggesting that Trump refusing to commit to supporting a GOP candidate not himself, means that he might support the GOP candidate is quite a Danlike move."
Not at all. In fact, it suggests just the opposite. Were I to know with absolute certainty all running against me are people of high character, a pledge to support the eventual winner not named Marshal Art would be easy to do but at the same time obviously unnecessary, unless someone dared to think I'd not vote if I lost. Given that, like Trump, I care about my country, there's no way I would NOT support the winner in such a circumstance.
But a pledge forces me to support someone who I might have rational fear is of low character and bad for the nation, even though that person is of my party. While the spin is that not pledging is a sign Trump cares only for himself, I believe it's a rational course of action which indicates the nation is more important to him than the party. And yeah...I don't believe he wouldn't support a DeSantis, Ramaswamy or even a Christie should one of these people beats him out for the nomination.
What I don't believe is that each of them would be as willing to put the nation first if Trump won. Christie has been aggressive in his opposition to another Trump presidency. Even if he took the pledge, can we be certain he's support Trump if Trump should win the nomination? Why should we believe any of them would when voting is private?
"Again, to suggest that it shows "character" to not support the GOP nominee (after claiming that any GOP nominee is better than the DFL alternative) seems contradictory."
My objection is the principle of demanding candidates make such a pledge, not that they shouldn't support the eventual GOP nominee. The distinction should be stark to you. To put it another way, when asked if I would pledge to support whoever beats me for the nomination, my answer would be, "What makes you think I wouldn't? Who are you to demand that I make such a promise?"
More important to the future of the nation is that those eligible to vote would pledge in their hearts to vote for whomever wins the GOP nomination...specifically if it's Trump, because it's highly likely that too many chose not to, as we know of at least one blogger buddy and his son. Now look where we are! Thus,
"Unfortunately, you're proposing a different measure when it comes to Trump."
Either we all pledge or we recuse ourselves from demanding candidate pledge. If you can reject Trump due to character or whatever, then why must Trump pledge to ignore his sense of the winner's faults?
We've already made that kind of choice with our primary vote. The general election requires a different attitude. If Trump wins the nomination, I'm voting for him. If it's DeSantis, I'm voting for him. If Vivek...so on and so on (Please God, don't let it be Chris Christie! He shouldn't even be running!)
Post a Comment