Ultimately all joking aside, I think one has to decide which candidates, if any, to take seriously. I've got the opinion that people should be retweeting or linking to any articles/links/tweets of obvious liars and conspiracy nuts like MTG, Matt G. or Trump.
I wouldn't vote for anyone who is an apologist for Trump's actions. And I wouldn't vote for anyone who essentially laughs it off with a "you can't take what he says literally". But I do think that there is an argument that IF there is anyone out there -- and I will admit at this point it's a pretense more than a reality -- who wants to come up with a fiscally and ethical response to Democratic policies -- they can't hammer Trump if they want to get elected. Ultimately, in states like Texas that aren't going to be blue for a while, the question is whether Republican representatives can be less odious.
I doubt it, but I do think the country would be better served by focusing on the folks who are carrying the lies forward, more so than those who are mostly forgiving the past. As I said, I wouldn't vote for either, but I do think it's worth making the distinction.
Note: I don't know a damn thing about Haley, so I'm not making a statement either way. I will state that if someone told me I had to defend her fitness to govern over Trumps, I'd err on her side.