this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
472 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19142 readers
3397 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The pledge includes a clause saying that the candidate will support the eventual GOP nominee.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nightwingdragon 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Looking at it objectively, he actually shouldn't be participating in the debates anyway. He has an insurmountable lead that's growing by the day, and his next challenger is struggling to hold on to double digits. He gains absolutely nothing by participating in the debates, and puts himself at risk by participating in a debate where literally every other candidate would be dogpiling on him hoping to trip him up.

Now granted, he wouldn't sign that loyalty pledge and may not even participate in the debates for his own self-serving reasons, but those reasons and legitimate political strategy just happen to align right now. Even if he didn't have his own self-serving reasons, most political advisors would be advising him to do the same thing anyway.

[–] aidan 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Furthermore- how can you go from debating and vilifying these people then pledging to vote for them?

[–] Nightwingdragon 9 points 1 year ago

Furthermore- how can you go from debating and vilifying these people then pledging to vote for them?

Eh, that's been a part of the election cycle for as long as I can remember. Virtually every failed candidate ends up falling in line behind whoever the nominee is. The whole act politicians pull off during the primaries is just that -- an act. It's like professional wrestling -- they only hate each other when the story calls for it.

[–] ManosTheHandsOfFate 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Chris Christie appears to be running on a platform of wanting to debate Trump. There's no doubt that he would annihilate Trump in a debate given the chance.

[–] madcaesar 1 points 1 year ago

🤣 This assumes either one of them would debate in good faith...

You can't win debates against someone who lies and flips as easily as he breathes.

Even if Chris made a good point, Trump would just call him a fat low energy dickhead and the MAGAairheads would cheer and see it as a win.