Too late for that. She already said she would vote for him even if he was convicted of a felony. Sure she could have changed her mind, but it's not like that Trump got suddenly and substantially worse since the summer. (He's been terrible for a long time now)
She'll flip back.
You know she will
Genuinely convinced that she’s only staying in the race because;
She’s pissed off Donnie and the MAGAs so a cabinet slot or ambassadorship is out - what’s her angle otherwise?
Being the lead Never Trumper is a great spot to be in if Trump loses again.
It's incredibly abnormal that Trump stayed powerful in the party after losing a presidential race. Historically, Republicans turn to the 2nd place candidate from 4 years before. Romney was 2nd place in 2008. McCain was 2nd in 2000.
Oooh good point, orient herself so if the RNC reorients away from Trump, she’s ‘ready and willing’ to lead - or a figurehead for the factional schism if they do decide to stick to the MAGA lunacy?
Trump was a very abnormal president, in that he was openly racist and an absolutely shit person, instead of just being a racist shit person behind closed doors or through innuendo.
Apparently the republican base was just looking for a racist and all around horrible person, so trump has become a political lich. No matter how many times we defeat the dementia ridden fuck or the dipshits he promotes, the brainless base brings him back.
I'm just curious how long it will take the puppet masters of the republican party to either force through another candidate regardless of the base's wants, or just abandon the party and try to elevate a new party to replace them.
If she’s genuine, I could see her still believing that once Trump is out of the party for good that the republicans will go back to be regular conservatives and she’ll be welcomed in that party for 2028/32.
Personally I think the party is now too deep into MAGA to ever come back without some major restructuring.
Yeah, no matter what, her staying front and center to the bitter end helps her in the inevitable* 2028 election.
(*) my usual caveat: inevitable IFF Trump fails to establish a Putin-esque perpetual dictatorship in the US.
"loose" is for cannons and morals. "lose" is what she's probably going to do with respect to the Republican nomination.
If you want to stay out of trouble, not getting a cabinet position in a trump administration is a good thing. Besides, it's not like she doesn't have other options, she can go back to telling Boeing they don't really need to use that many bolts to attach doors to planes.
Is it dark money if it is trying to prevent a dictator from taking over?
Is it bad if we subvert democracy to save ‘democracy’?
Yes.
Citizens United is a train wreck, and “playing the game to change the system” gives the practice legitimacy and signals this practice is accepted by the party leadership. “Money as Speech” is a terrible concept, hiding the sources and distribution of that money from scrutiny or audit is a horrible practice
It’s black hat or at least dark gray hat method of fighting for a candidate from the opposite party. Why note spend it convincing the young Dems who claim to not want Biden, how not voting will fucking them.
Please split the republican vote please split the republican vote ple
I'm going to need a republican to explain this stuff to me.
So y'all making pledges? You know cults do that.
February 2023
RNC Chair: All candidates will pledge to support GOP nominee ahead of debate
https://www.axios.com/2023/02/26/rnc-chair-candidates-support-gop-nominee-debate
Trump: make me.
The parties run their own primaries however they want. They don't even need to have a vote at all, in fact at least the Democrats party leaders used to just select the person who is running in the general election. Over the years the Democrats have handed more of the power over to their base.
So that being said, Republicans can run their primary however they wish and can make this a requirement for getting on stage in the debates.
Money says she's gonna do it anyway
She never needed to be bound to do so
I am pretty confident we can all guess how that would go. Still, I don't think we live in the world where that question needs to be asked. I am totally fine with Republican candidates wasting their money but that seems to be all she's accomplishing by staying in the race at this point.
It’s the Koch Bros. money she’s wasting, not her own. I’m happy to let her separate those assholes from their money for as long as possible.
I heard her speak recently, and it was fucking awful.
Worse than the rambling lunatic Trump?
She's better for overall stability than Trump, but in practice just as bad on the domestic policy she would enable. Probably more competent than Trump in terms of working with Congress and getting her regressive agenda passed, which could make her more dangerous there. She is not a good option.
I was referring to her speaking ability that OP commented on. I personally think you have to be insane to support any Republican candidate.
I have no illusions that her policies would be much better than Trumps, perhaps without the autocratic tendencies.
I was referring to her talking style. The speech I heard a minute of was completely wooden, patronising, and stilted.
I hope she does follow through just to see someone have a backbone in that party. I'm tired of furrowed brows and bootlicking
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Ambassador Nikki Haley no longer feels bound by a pledge made to the Republican National Committee that she would support the GOP presidential nominee, she said in an interview that aired Sunday.
Asked by NBC News’ “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker, “So you’re no longer bound by that pledge?” Haley responded that she was not obligated to endorse former President Donald Trump if he becomes the Republican nominee.
Asked why abortion shouldn’t be a decision made by people and their doctors, Haley argued that the issue should be decided at the state level.
Her remarks come after the Alabama Supreme Court last month decided that embryos are people, making access to IVF uncertain in that state.
Just days later, Alabama’s House and Senate passed Republican-proposed bills intended to protect IVF.
Last week, Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss., blocked legislation that would have created federal protections for IVF nationwide, calling the measure “vast overreach.”
The original article contains 792 words, the summary contains 153 words. Saved 81%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News