Why won't Nikki Haley be the first female POTUS?

[Fudge Nuggets 19487]

16 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Now, I'm running for President because our country is heading down a path of doubt, division, and self-destruction I want in on grifting you stupid ass rubes too.

Fixed it for Nimarata.

[atomheartbevo 90692]

9 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Fixed it for Nimarata.

She's only 51, so I don't know why she wouldn't try and put some distance between herself and Trump - same goes for some of the others.  Running against Trump right now means you are tainted in the eyes of MAGA.

Except that if things keep going the way they are going demographics-wise, and the GQP keeps digging its hole, then it might be a while before a Republican is in the WH again.

[Js1 87326]

3 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28943]

7 hours ago, Blotto said:

You gotta admit, it was funny watching Pence try though

It looked more like Trump was the one who was trying.

[Blotto 24046]

5 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It looked more like Trump was the one who was trying.

 

[TheStoicPaisano 9958]

Trump treats inanimate objects like women.

 

[Biff Tannen 46234]

2 hours ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

Trump treats inanimate objects like women.

 

You don’t know shit Paisano

[mchookem 16813]

fucking fascist!

[Gatorubet 30819]

3 hours ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

Trump treats inanimate objects like women.

 

“A lot of people are saying, a lot of really smart people, the best people who know about things are saying that my orange mushroom will fit tightly in a flag grommet. They say.”

[WhatTheBuck 28943]

8 hours ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

Trump treats inanimate objects like women.

 

I’d say Mike Pence qualifies. 

[Ted Lange 16450]

 

[Ted Lange 16450]

[Biff Tannen 46234]

It’s hilarious that any of them think they are actual

serious candidates for the nomination.  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13747]

I give Haley credit that she's at least talking about actual issues like SS reform. https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/05/politics/nikki-haley-social-security-medicare-reform

She mentions adjustments like limiting benefits to the wealthy, increasing the age that younger workers will be able to pull benefits and changing how the annual increases are calculated.

Unfortunately there is no where in her discussion about the most obvious reform: increasing taxes. No one wants to pay more in taxes BUT we have a system that will soon pay out more than it receives and frankly no one wants to lower benefits especially for the retired and soon-to-be retired. FICA SS taxes don't even require that much of an increase to improve the #s.

But I can't imagine that any Republican could even come close to the phrase, increasing taxes, and not get run out of the party.

(Cue the folks who post about wanting to opt out of SS and/or investing the funds in the stock market)

[atomheartbevo 90692]

3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

But I can't imagine that any Republican could even come close to the phrase, increasing taxes, and not get run out of the party.

Trump could get away with it.  He'd never talk about it, but he absolutely could get away with it because his followers care more about him than any Republican/conservative beliefs.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13747]

6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Trump could get away with it.  He'd never talk about it, but he absolutely could get away with it because his followers care more about him than any Republican/conservative beliefs.

Or the GOP has to hide a tax increase under the guises of a tax cut. Some people had their tax raised with '17 Trump tax cuts.

And if we ultimately don't reform SS, it won't stop anyone from getting their SS checks in the 2030s. The govt will just print the money like they do with all of the other govt programs. The military doesn't stop receiving paychecks because we're running a deficit. Old people won't be any different. (I'll be in that 2030 group.)

[Red Five 41798]

37 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Trump could get away with it.  He'd never talk about it, but he absolutely could get away with it because his followers care more about him than any Republican/conservative beliefs.

"We love taxes, don't we folks. I'm gonna raise your taxes so high you won't even believe it."

(wild applause)

[SubliminalHorn 7012]

The people that rely on social security tho most are the ones who are most against making sure they will have it when they get older. How the GQP convinced their supporters to vote against their own self interests is fascinating 

[atomheartbevo 90692]

7 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

The people that rely on social security tho most are the ones who are most against making sure they will have it when they get older. How the GQP convinced their supporters to vote against their own self interests is fascinating 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13747]

4 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

The people that rely on social security tho most are the ones who are most against making sure they will have it when they get older. How the GQP convinced their supporters to vote against their own self interests is fascinating 

I don't know if this is entirely accurate. GQP break down govt paychecks into 2 categories: Welfare recipients (didn't earn the right to receive it) and social security (I paid into this and you won't touch a cent of this.)

I find that higher income folks want to opt out of the SS program because they very well may be able to earn more investment income on their own. Which may be true but govt programs are not about  the individuals making their own rules.  It would be like if I chose which property tax line items I was willing to pay depending on which services I use. "Sorry Port of Houston, I don't dock my container ships at your port therefore you won't get my tax dollars."  Govt tax programs don't work like that.

[elfenix 34804]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

She mentions adjustments like limiting benefits to the wealthy,

means testing is the camel's nose to killing the program.  also, it'll create gobs of paperwork eating up much or all of the savings, depending on exactly how it's structured.  we have a hard time valuing wealth aside from publicly traded paper and cash sitting in the bank. 

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Unfortunately there is no where in her discussion about the most obvious reform: increasing taxes. No one wants to pay more in taxes BUT we have a system that will soon pay out more than it receives and frankly no one wants to lower benefits especially for the retired and soon-to-be retired. FICA SS taxes don't even require that much of an increase to improve the #s.

the SS tax rate increased again and again and again until the greenspan commission set it (too) high back in the early 1980s. that created big social security surpluses (they should have reduced the rate afterward and continued to adjust as needed to keep the program on a long-run break even). those surpluses were useful for suppressing the debt held by the public figure at a time st. reagan was pushing for big deficits.  and now the rate hasn't budged in 40 years, which leaves people believing it is static. 

Edited December 5, 2023 by elfenix

[hornmpa96 2672]

The rate doesn’t have to be adjusted if the income cap is raised.

[Brisketexan 107060]

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Or the GOP has to hide a tax increase under the guises of a tax cut. Some people had their tax raised with '17 Trump tax cuts.

BINGO.  Middle-high earners (people who relied on SALT deductions the most) took it the most in the shorts.  The Trump tax cuts were a gift to the really rich.  That's it.  That's all they were.  They were a net negative to everyone else, both individually and collectively.

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

"We love taxes, don't we folks. I'm gonna raise your taxes so high you won't even believe it."

(wild applause)

Red Five gets how the cult works.  He could say "we're gonna raise taxes beyond any number you've ever heard of, AND, we're going to require you all to eat your own shit 3X a day!" and they'd fucking go nuts and be in tears of adoration as they should YES YES YES!

2 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

The rate doesn’t have to be adjusted if the income cap is raised.

Also a bingo.  And I say that as someone who would absolutely end up paying more, as my annual income is well above the cap amount.  I'm okay with that.  I live in a commonwealth, there is and must be an interest in the common good.  It is good for me, my society, and the society my children will inherit if the elderly don't have to eat dog food and can keep their lights on.

But of course, that's commie talk.  You can tell our system is working by how many desperate and starving old people we have while simultaneously minting oligarchs.

[Underdog 29249]

I'd love to get a tally of money wasted when these fools fold camp and grovel at the feet of Orange Jesus begging for forgiveness. 

[BamaATL 16593]

36 minutes ago, Underdog said:

I'd love to get a tally of money wasted when these fools fold camp and grovel at the feet of Orange Jesus begging for forgiveness. 

I just hope it bleeds the shit out the Koch family.  

[atomheartbevo 90692]

54 minutes ago, Underdog said:

I'd love to get a tally of money wasted when these fools fold camp and grovel at the feet of Orange Jesus begging for forgiveness. 

If they are smart, when they drop out, they'll either fade into the background, or do a lesser version of Christie (which wouldn't be hard *bad-a-bum*) and quietly criticize Trump and/or wait for him to lose again.  When he loses again, that'll be it - you'll see more Republicans openly come out and criticize him.  Hell, they are starting to already do that in Congress here and there, even if they don't exactly mention Trump by name.  But if you plan on running in 2028, the last thing you want to be seen doing is groveling at the feet of a two-time loser who cost the GOP a lot, and continues to divert their money/donations to himself.

17 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I just hope it bleeds the shit out the Koch family.  

It won't.  They probably aren't going to spend much this election cycle - they are lining up for 2028.  Haley is who they want, for a lot of reasons.  DeSantis blew his audition.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13747]

4 hours ago, elfenix said:

means testing is the camel's nose to killing the program.  also, it'll create gobs of paperwork eating up much or all of the savings, depending on exactly how it's structured.  we have a hard time valuing wealth aside from publicly traded paper and cash sitting in the bank. 

 

Means testing won't be as difficult to manage because it could be handled via your annual tax return. File in April, and you made X the previous year, including SS, then they apply a heavy tax to recoup the money and perhaps inform the SSA to stop/lower current payments.

However I have no doubt that means testing would be set up in a way that a very wealthy person will discover loop holes but the person who earns 75-100K per year in retirement could lose their SS benefits.

[HenryJames 67493]

 

[Gil Bang 26275]

she's an ugly, no-talent Norah Jones

[DigglerontheHoof 21565]

Worthless cunt. 

[Blotto 24046]

[Nice Guy Eddie 13747]

The refusal to say, slavery was the Civil War cause, is a weird aspect to the GOP. Nikki Haley is well aware slavery was the reason but being a GOP candidate does not allow her to say it. They cannot let go that slavery was really bad even for the time (1860) and that the South was traitorous to the US solely to maintain the bondage of others.

I'm sure it was posted here somewhere but over the last year, I saw a GOP person admit that slavery was the reason for the South's secession but it was states rights that caused to the Civil War. WTF. That's like saying that WW2 was not because Germany invaded Poland in '39 but rather it was the UK and France's insistence on maintaining Europe's established borders.

As an aside if I'm unfortunately around anyone that you can tell feels pride in the Confederacy, I purposefully call the Union Army, the United States Army. Don't let them off the hook by not acknowledging that the Confederacy was fighting against the United States. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13747]

And I fully expect that Haley will offer some condescending press release like the following: "Of course slavery, supported by the Democrat party, was a key issue that led to the Civil War. Everyone is aware of that. My campaign is focused on fixing the problems started by Joe Biden and not addressing gotcha questions by liberal agents planted in my town halls by George Soros."

[Mo Horn 8945]

32 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

And I fully expect that Haley will offer some condescending press release like the following: "Of course slavery, supported by the Democrat party, was a key issue that led to the Civil War. Everyone is aware of that. My campaign is focused on fixing the problems started by Joe Biden and not addressing gotcha questions by liberal agents planted in my town halls by George Soros."

Pretty damn close

Haley seeks to clarify Civil War comments as backlash mounts

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/28/politics/nikki-haley-civil-war-slavery

[tx 3 putt 78815]

 

[HornOnTheBayou 9076]

 

[BrickHorn 18466]

She’s using the same tactic all Republican liars use these days: wink to the extremists in vague terms, only later to use the vagueness to reframe her comments according to acceptable norms. That’s not leadership. It’s pandering to idiots while clinging to mainstream viability. 

Haley very clearly intended to excuse the Confederacy’s sins as a righteous fight against an oppressive government and for states’ and individual rights. Of course, the individuals she was talking about were white slaveholders. She was speaking directly to tired Southern apologetics. 

Now when rightly called out for her idiotic crap, she flips the message entirely as if she intended to criticize the tyranny of the Confederate states. That message is incoherent. No one from the rational / Unionist perspective has ever framed the Civil War as a dispute over tyranny or the southern states’ denial of free speech or the right to bear arms or whatever. It was about the fact that human beings were literally enslaved. 

tl;dr Haley is a gaslighting fuckstick.

[Paul Wesley 3313]

It's a simple question, Nikki.  Just say "slavery" and we'll move on.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19359]

Anyone that bleats that the Civil War was about State's Rights, ask them exactly what right the States that succeeded wanted to maintain.  The answer is, to continue to enslave people of color.

The answer boils down to slavery.  Anyone that tries to argue against that is an idiot.

Edited December 28, 2023 by PenelopeWitherspoon

[mdmost 44133]

Haley really is a moron. It's in the f'ing Declaration of Secession from her own f'ing state of South Carolina:

 [T]he State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act….

[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. . . .

Edited December 28, 2023 by mdmost

[4th&Five 42027]

 

[David Dennison 19574]

4 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Anyone that bleats that the Civil War was about State's Rights, ask them exactly what right the States that succeeded wanted to maintain.  The answer is, to continue to enslave people of color.

The answer boils down to slavery.  Anyone that tries to argue against that is an idiot.

Yeah, well, how come the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to the Border States, hmmmmm????? Abraham Lincoln didn't really want to free the slaves, did he? Sounds like the Great Emancipator just wanted to put the South under the yoke of the North, doesn't it????

[27-25 2088]

Alexander Stephens himself said slavery was the "cornerstone" of their beliefs causing the break.  The actual Confederates said the quiet part out loud.  There should be no debate or confusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

Shit like this leaves me to believe we may have reached (or already passed) the practical limits of human intelligence.  This is/was as good as it gets.  Happy Holidays!

[mdmost 44133]

Just now, 27-25 said:

Alexander Stephens himself said slavery was the "cornerstone" of their beliefs causing the break.  The actual Confederates said the quiet part out loud.  There should be no debate or confusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

Shit like this leaves me to believe we may have reached (or already passed) the practical limits of human intelligence.  This is/was as good as it gets.  Happy Holidays!

No, this really isn't about being stupid. It's about trying to deflect any criticism of our nation's past because that shoots holes in the idea of "American Exceptionalism" that the right desperately clings to. Well, except for when you can use past government actions to harm the other party you are going up against. 

[atomheartbevo 90692]

2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Haley very clearly intended to excuse the Confederacy’s sins as a righteous fight against an oppressive government and for states’ and individual rights. Of course, the individuals she was talking about were white slaveholders. She was speaking directly to tired Southern apologetics. 

The problem for her is she’s not running to be a governor of a former Confederate state, she’s running to be government of all 54 50.

And she’s saying this in New Hampshire, a state that produced some major abolitionists.

28 minutes ago, 27-25 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

Alexander Stephens himself said slavery was the "cornerstone" of their beliefs causing the break.  The actual Confederates said the quiet part out loud.  There should be no debate or confusion.

That’s something that pisses me off about the states’ rights idiots.  The actual people pushing secession in the 1850s/1860, who were drawing up the paperwork for secession, etc. were all publicly saying it was about slavery.

I’m surprised that Abbott never had this scrubbed from the Texas State Library site

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html

The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former as one of the co-equal States thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

[atomheartbevo 90692]

I wonder if Tom Cotton is opposed to Democrats yanking down statues of Democratic Confederate leaders?

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13747]

2 hours ago, mdmost said:

Haley really is a moron. It's in the f'ing Declaration of Secession from her own f'ing state of South Carolina:

 [T]he State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act….

[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. . . .

Conservatives now separate states' secession from the Civil War.  In reality it's no different than Hitler needing more room for Germans prior to WW2.  The causation of the 2 events (slavery secession to Civil War) cannot be denied. Or at least it cannot be denied by a reasonable person.

[tigol 2502]

Been going in politics since at least Truman vis-à-vis "Plausible Deniability".
We just put new names and definitions to the same tactics that's been used by politicians for the last 75 years, I guess.

Ah, yes, just business as usual. Nothing to see here. Move along, rubes.

[horn4life 3842]

I thought the clip of her talking commerce and government overreach, and individual freedom, as fucking hilarious as a response to what caused the Civil War.  The GOP [oliticians KNOW that they have to keep the racists in their party happy, and any mention of slavery is forbidden.  

Another perfect example of the elevation of stupidity as a necessity in the ranks of GOP politicians.  Haley's not stupid, but she has to act stupid, for her stupid constituents. 

[BamaATL 16593]

1 hour ago, horn4life said:

I thought the clip of her talking commerce and government overreach, and individual freedom, as fucking hilarious as a response to what caused the Civil War.  The GOP [oliticians KNOW that they have to keep the racists in their party happy, and any mention of slavery is forbidden.  

Another perfect example of the elevation of stupidity as a necessity in the ranks of GOP politicians.  Haley's not stupid, but she has to act stupid, for her stupid constituents. 

Gonna have to disagree a bit with you on this, she's fucking stupid.

But as to your other point, yeah that's true.