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)
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!