The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Assessing the GOP Presidential Candidates Ten Days Before the Iowa Caucuses
Nikki Haley is libertarianism's best bet.
I consider myself to be a libertarian conservative with a Reaganite view of foreign policy. The Iowa Caucuses are now only ten days away, and it is appropriate to evaluate the merits of some of the Republican presidential primary contenders at this time given my viewpoints. I will comment on what I think are the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate given my own political philosophical perspective.
Donald Trump. Donald Trump was in many ways a very successful President, but the economic boom experienced during his presidency was significantly fueled by massive deficit spending and over-borrowing. Trump has a history as a businessman of driving his companies into bankruptcy and of being rescued by loans from the Deutsche-Bank that may well have come from his good buddy Vladimir Putin. A re-elected President Trump might very well drive the federal government into bankruptcy and that is something all voters should worry about. Vladimir Putin will not, and cannot afford to, bail out a bankrupt U.S. federal government.
I happen to think that Donald Trump should not be barred from 2024 election ballots. I also think the Jack Smith prosecution of Trump is unconstitutional. But, I do not think Trump should be re-elected President because of the way he behaved between Election Day 2020 and January 6, 2021.
The President has the high duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and Trump failed to do this after he lost the 2020 presidential election. Trump badgered his own loyal Vice President Mike Pence to violate federal election law by denying the validity of electoral votes cast for Joe Biden in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia. Instead of taking care that the federal election laws be faithfully executed, Trump tried to bludgeon his own Vice President into violating them. When that did not work, Trump assembled a mob in front of the Ellipse at the White House and urged them to march on Capitol Hill and to "fight" to take our country back. As a direct result of the riot, which Donald Trump incited, five people died and more than one hundred were injured. For the first time in 234 years of American history, there was not a peaceful transfer of power following a presidential election.
Trump watched all of this unfold for two and one half hours on television at the Oval Office. He knew then that he had the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He also knew that a simple Tweet from him would have instantly ended the riot. He knew that he had the power to stop the riot by calling out the national guard. He even knew that some rioters were calling for the hanging of Vice President Mike Pence to which he reportedly said that maybe Mike Pence deserves to hang.
Finally, after two-and one-half hours Trump urged the mob to peacefully leave the Capitol, and it did. That mob was under Donald Trump's total control, and he had a duty to take care that federal law be faithfully executed. But, instead of owning up to that duty Trump allowed a deadly riot to unfold, which he could have instantly stopped had he wanted to do so at any time.
In the wake of this, I wrote an op-ed calling for Trump's second impeachment and urged the Senate to permanently bar him from ever holding office again. The Senate was too scared of Trump and of his Proud Boy and Oath-keeper thugs to do its duty. And, so now we see Trump leading President Biden in some polls in the race to be re-elected President.
Now it is time for Iowa voters to do their duty. They ought to vote against Donald Trump ten days from now when the caucuses happen. Donald Trump quite simply cannot be trusted to do his duty as President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Voters must therefore do their duty and vote for someone else.
Again, I am not an advocate of keeping Donald Trump off of election ballots. I do not believe that the riot by unarmed Americans for two and one-half hours in one city was an "Insurrection" like the Civil War. I also think that the Jack Smith prosecutions of Donald Trump are unconstitutional. Two wrongs do not make a right. And, I firmly believe that criminal defendants deserve to be protected by the Constitution, however, vile their misconduct may be. If Trump is convicted of something, I am all in favor of commuting his sentence to house arrest at Mar-a-Lago in the winter and Bedminster in the summer so long as a condition of his commutation is that he agrees not to communicate in any way with the American people or with foreign dictators while under house arrest.
What is important is that the American people make sure that Trump is a two time loser at the polls. Beyond that, the man should be allowed to fade into history and the United States should move on.
Nikki Haley has proven herself to be a formidable debater. She knows how to go for the jugular in a disarming but very effective way. Steve Matthews, who I worked very closely with in the Meese Justice Department, which appointed some libertarian conservative judges, tells me that Haley did a superb job as Governor of South Carolina, including on judicial selection. Haley's experience as a former Governor is sorely needed as former Senator Joe Biden's stumbling presidency illustrates. Haley was a good administrator as Governor, and her campaign shows that she knows how to stay focused on her own message and not to be distracted from it as too often happens with Donald Trump. She is also a generation younger than Trump, and it is again time, as President John F. Kennedy said in his Inaugural Address, for the torch to be passed to a new generation.
Haley's two year stint as Ambassador to the United Nations makes her the only candidate other than Donald Trump with foreign policy experience in the race. Haley's support of Ukraine and of the Reaganite post Cold War settlement in Europe makes me strongly prefer her to Trump and DeSantis and Ramaswamy. The United States worked hard under President Reagan and the senior President Bush to bring freedom to the captive nations of Central and Eastern Europe. To throw that all away because of an inexplicable fascination with pleasing President Vladimir Putin would be a serious mistake. If Putin succeeds in Ukraine, he will try next to conquer the Baltic Republics or Poland. Better to stop him now by financing the Ukrainian military and not putting U.S. troops on the ground than to deal with Russia destroying the NATO alliance. I do not think our support of Ukraine should involve putting troops on the ground, nor am I against a ceasefire with the current borders rather than Ukraine returning to its pre-2014 borders. But, I greatly admire Haley's willingness to stand up for the idea that the United States is a shining city on a hill and a beacon of liberty to all nations as Ronald Reagan used to say. We need Nikki Haley's moral clarity infused into our foreign policy.
I also admire Haley because she wants to cut the size of the government by cutting federal government spending, as Ronald Reagan did, rather than growing the federal government bigger, as Donald Trump did. Federal overspending and reckless borrowing poses a huge longterm threat to private property. For this reason alone, libertarians should take Haley seriously as a candidate.
Finally, I think Haley's position of no federal law on abortion but a six-week limit on abortion in her home state of South Carolina is one that can realistically allow her to win. As a woman, Haley is uniquely positioned to bring back to the GOP those republican women who have been alienated by the overturning of Roe v. Wade, an egregiously wrong Supreme Court precedent. Obviously, Nikki Haley would be both the first woman and the first Asian-American to be elected President. As a first generation American, Nikki Haley loves this country from the bottom of her heart just as I also do as a first generation American.
On the negative side of things, Nikki Haley has not been very specific about her domestic policy agenda other than to say she wants to cut spending. She would benefit from issuing a Contract with America that would spell out ten big things she wants to accomplish in domestic policy if elected President. That strategy worked for Newt Gingrich in 1994, and it might work as well for Nikki Haley right now as well.
Ron DeSantis. I am not, as a libertarian conservative, a supporter of Florida Governor Ron De Santis. His efforts to use government power in a blunt way against a private business, the Walt Disney Company, are repulsive to everything I believe in. While I dislike the woke DEI industry, I do not think government power should be employed against it except in government schools and institutions where it should not be tolerated. DeSantis has no foreign policy record, unlike Haley or Trump, and the ideas he has put forward on foreign policy advocating isolationism seem to me to be idiotic in a highly interdependent globalized world. De Santis does not support Ukraine at all in its battle for freedom against Russian invaders, and I think his election as president would invite a Chinese invasion of Taiwan and invasions by Russia of the Baltic countries and possibly Poland.
DeSantis started his presidential campaign with a huge monetary advantage over Nikki Haley, but he ran his campaign so badly that he is now falling into third place in national polls. If he were to run the country as badly as he has run his own campaign, we should all be very worried about electing him. He is also in my view a bad debater who might not be able to nail Joe Biden for all the many mistakes he has made.
The best case in favor of voting for DeSantis is that he does not carry the baggage that Trump does, but he appeals to MAGA voters who might not go for Nikki Haley. So far that argument, however, has not been selling.
Chris Christie. Chris Christie accomplished little as Governor of New Jersey, and he became ensnared in the Bridgegate Scandal in which one of his staff members and political appointees colluded to create traffic jams near the George Washington Bridge, possibly as a retributive attack on a Democratic Mayor who had opposed Christie's 2013 Gubernatorial election. There was evidence Christie might have known about the Bridgegate plot. While it appears that no laws were broken, the misuse of gubernatorial power by Christie's aides leaves me unwilling to trust him with the far greater power of the presidency.
Moreover, Christie said the whole reason for his candidacy in the first place was to stop Trump, and if that were so Christie ought to drop out now to give Nikki Haley a clear shot at beating Trump in the New Hampshire primary. Christie stubbornly refuses to do that. One is left to conclude that Christie is a narcissist who merely wants the power and glory of the presidency to satisfy his own vanity and not to make this country a better place. After Barack Obama and Donald Trump, the last thing this country needs in its next President is yet another narcissist.
Vivek Ramaswamy. Nikki Haley memorably said of Ramaswamy that every time he talked, she felt a little bit dumber, and I must confess that that was exactly my own experience. His attack on Haley's daughter led Haley quite rightly to call him "scum." He has even more extreme isolationist views of foreign policy than do Donald Trump and Ron De Santis. I could never vote for any ticket that Ramaswamy was on even as only the Vice Presidential candidate.
Iowa voters will have to weigh all of these considerations ten days from now when the caucuses are held. I hope my own thoughts about these five candidates are helpful in making a decision.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'll lay some fairly serious odds that this extensive... post will be received somewhat better than the ones about Thomas.
But given the prolix vehemence, I fear the magnitude of the explosion that might occur inside the man's cranium if Ms. "moral clarity" ends up as Mr. "Putin-buddy's" running mate as she presently refuses to rule out.
If he had said that Hailey was an incorruptible genius and perfect in every way there might actually be the same level of pushback.
I also don't understand why you think it'd be impossible to handle someone you like selling out for a sniff of power.
Nimarata Hussein Haley is not a natural born citizen because both her parents were foreigners when they crapped out their little anchor baby. Does it make sense that her slightly older sister is definitely ineligible because she was crapped out in Canaduh?? Of course not, neither are eligible to be president just like their fellow anchor babies Kamala and Marco Rubio.
That's right. Not eligible to be President. Also she is a warmonger and a sellout. The opposite of America First. And a moron. Not in the same league as the other candidates.
Roger S is a Nazi. Which is why he uses the pro-Nazi slogan America First.
Calling people who love their country above all others "Nazis" is ... scummy.
Not kind or gentle.
.
In no rational universe does "selling out for a sniff of power" jive with "moral clarity."
Everyone has moral clarity before they sell out.
Except for those that never have it at all, but so what? Your thesis was that Calabresi would still weally, weally wike her even if she were to sell out (by [re]attaching herself to the candidate he despises, no less). That doesn't pass the sniff test.
No, my thesis is that his head wouldn't explode..
What the fuck is with the baby talk, you in second grade?
It's almost as if there are folks who judge the content of the article, rather than just engaging in knee-jerk attacks.
This version of Calabresi is much more reasonable than the version posting Clarence Thomas hagiographies. I still disagree with his political priorities but I'm heartened that he sees the danger in Trump and even DeSantis winning the next election.
Nonsense. Calabresi is just another lying Heritage nut. He, and his foundation's stance pre-Dobbs was:
"Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to correct a grave constitutional error and overturn Roe v. Wade, returning abortion policy to the states and the American people."
Now the Supreme Court having done exactly that and the resulting tremendous damage to Republican causes across the nation, this rat has the temerity to say today above:
"Haley is uniquely positioned to bring back to the GOP those republican women who have been alienated by the overturning of Roe v. Wade, an egregiously wrong Supreme Court precedent."
You're a fucking liar, Calabresi.
What is the lie?
"I also admire Haley because she wants to cut the size of the government by cutting federal government spending, as Ronald Reagan did, rather than growing the federal government bigger, as Donald Trump did."
Cutting the size of government by putting the TSA in every school, and monitoring social media to be sure everyone is using their own name?
The UN is not foreign policy experience, it is a training ground for corruption.
(just to name three reasons I will not vote for her)
Yeah, any similarities between Haley and libertarianism is purely accidental.
” For the first time in 234 years of American history, there was not a peaceful transfer of power following a presidential election.”
BULLSHYTE!!!!!
Professor Calabresi may be a brilliant law professor but he is a lousy historian if he honestly thinks that is true. Has he ever heard of something called the US Civil War?!? Yes, states actually seceded in the transfer of power from Buchanan to Lincoln — it led to four of *the* most bloodiest years this country has ever seen, with something like 2.5% of the entire population dying.
Did 7 Million Americans die because Brandon became President?!?
Or is he aware of the bad blood between Adams and Jefferson in 1801? He ever hear of something called the “Alien & Sedition Acts”? Or the Impeachment of Samuel Chase? Or the facts behind _Marbury v. Madison_? (You’d think a law professor would know this…)
I’m not going to get into who was in the right because I think they were BOTH in the wrong, but I digress.
The following Presidents did NOT “peacefully transfer power” to their successors, i.e. did not attend his inauguration:
1: John Adams. 2: John Quincy Adams. Bad blood between him & Jackson went back to the so-called “corrupt bargain” of 1824. 3: Martin Van Buren (Harrison died 31 days later). 4: Andrew (*not* Lyndon) Johnson. 5: Richard Nixon (who was en flight to California when his resignation took effect at noon).
I’m not sure about Buchanan, but this is over 10% of the US Presidents who did NOT hand over the reigns to their successor. Trump wasn’t the only one.
And as to riotous supporters, did he ever hear of Andrew Jackson’s inauguration? Far more damage was done to the White House than was done to the Capitol — FAR more…
And as to violence in the Capitol — how about the Congressmen who were SHOT (one nearly killed) by folks with some issue involving Puerto Rico back in the 1950s, or those who detonated explosives (bombs going “bang”) 20 years later. That actually was worse than an out of control frat party….
LEARN YOUR HISTORY….
states actually seceded in the transfer of power from Buchanan to Lincoln
LEARN YOUR HISTORY….
Seven states seceded between Lincoln's election and his March 4th inauguration. Let's also not forget the plot to kill Lincoln as he switched trains in Maryland, and to install former VP John Breckinridge as President.
As to Harrison, what I should have mentioned is that his death 31 days into office, combined with Tyler not being a Whig, sorta toned down the bad blood but the 1840 election had been the first truly ugly national one in the country. The 1884 Blane v. Cleveland election was even uglier -- "Burn this Letter Blane" versus "Ma, Ma, Where's my Pa" Cleveland.
Wait, was there violence from those states before the April attack on Fort Sumter? Maybe Dr. Ed 2 will excerpt more of his alternate history fan fiction in a subsequent comment.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-unsuccessful-plot-to-kill-abraham-lincoln-2013956/
Does an attempt to assassinate the incoming President count?
1) 82nd Airborne not involved.
2) Buchanan's administration had nothing to do with it, and appeared as determined as others to preserve the United States.
3) Although Breckenridge later joined the Confederate Army, but does not appear involved in the assassination plot.
So, I'd say no. Generally assassinations would not be such examples unless they involved the preceding administration.
The fascist Business Plot also would not have affected the peaceful transfer of power if it had been implemented (which would have been after Roosevelt took office), even though it would have been a close cousin to Trump's attempted coup.
Hillary, General; don't forget Hillary.
Can you get any fucking stupider if you tried? "Did not attend his inauguration" is not "i.e." "did not peacefully transfer power."
Did I miss the part about Trump having the 82nd Airborne attempt a coup on January 20, 2021?
Stop being asinine....
It only precludes a peaceful transition of power if the 82nd Airborne is involved? Trump allies floated a lot of stupid ideas, and maybe they just decided that one just wouldn't have worked, because (most of) the military would not cooperate with Trump's insurrection. So Trump summoned a mob.
I'm not sure what is "libertarian" about fueling the futile war in Ukraine, but that is definitely the issue which arouses the most passion for her. Back in my day, libertarians were non-interventionists who criticized limitless funding of wars of dubious benefit to Americans. I myself prefer the relative peace the world enjoyed during the Trump administration.
If by "libertarian", one means tax cuts for the very wealthy and corporations, then Haley likely is the best candidate. But on the issue of civil liberties, particularly reigning in the ever-growing Security State whose censorship, surveillance, and oppression of its real and perceived domestic opponents has reached literally Orwellian proportions, Haley will only allow things to become worse.
Supporting the Ukraine against Russian invasion is “futile”.
Would supporting Poland against Russian invasion also be “futile”?
This is what Sean Davis calls the "Neoconservative Paradox". Russia is perpetually on the verge of defeat in Ukraine, while also simultaneously on the verge of invading and conquering Europe. (Just one last $100 billion will do the trick. No, this time we really mean it).
Poland is a NATO member, with which we have treaty obligations. Ukraine is not. Russia is not going to invade Poland, and if it did, NATO would decimate it.
So . . . Russia can take over any country it wants except those in NATO.
This argument did not fly well in 1939.
"So . . . Russia can take over any country it wants except those in NATO."
If we have no alliance with them...basically.
Lots of bad things happen in the world. Cannot fix all of them. Cannot even fix most of them.
You are very bad at national security.
Yah, borders halfway around the globe are the only ones the self-proclaimed Thuper Thmart Nathunal Thecurity crowd cares about.
Yeah, moron. We learned that lesson last century.
Learned to underfund and largely ignore our own borders, whilst shoveling money into Northrop/Lockheed/Raytheon's latest pet project faster than coal in a quad-engine freight train? Please go on.
Gasp! LoB hates capitalism!
If the United States goes back on the assurances given to Ukraine to get it to give up nuclear weapons, then nobody should ever trust US assurances again. Every country for itself does seem a very libertarian attitude.
One mark of an adult is that you can trust his word.
Trump, and his Republican Party, are not adults.
Any thoughts on Democrats abandoning S. Vietnam after years of assurances of support?
People should have doubted our word LONG ago.
Gotta break it to you: We long since passed the point where nobody should trust US assurances. That bridge has been crossed and burnt behind us.
And I say that as somebody who thinks it is actually pretty important that we help Ukraine.
Well, yes, because any given election year a Tump could be elected who does not care about agreements or treaties ot alliances or laws in general or any sort of intenational order and stability.
Why would Poland, or Russia, have any confidence in that?
Poland is a NATO member, with which we have treaty obligations. Ukraine is not. Russia is not going to invade Poland, and if it did, NATO would decimate it. -- here is the full quote
If you're asking about military capacity, then I would say yes, in a straight-up conventional battle (emphasis on conventional), NATO would absolutely devastate Russia on the battlefield. The Russians know it too. Russia has lost more than 20% of their combat power in 2 years, just going by raw numbers of armored vehicles, tanks and artillery. Nobody really knows how many have been killed in UKR, but it is a hell of a lot. NATO trains, has superior equipment, has dramatically increased readiness across the board.
And the front line countries like Poland take military readiness VERY seriously. If Russia couldn't steamroller Ukraine, they'd run into a brick wall in Poland.
That's what the RS-28's are for, knocking down brick walls.
If Trump is reelected he will probably pull out of NATO. That will make a yuuuge difference in any response to Russian aggression against a NATO member. Also remember that he trusts Putin over our own intelligence services, for reasons both hidden and out in the open.
If NATO states will not honor the treaty (and, make no bones about it, they have not and will not), we SHOULD leave. Treaties are not one-way streets.
Have alliances with states who will carry their own weights and allow the rest to drift away.
You don't understand the NATO institution at all. It's not some pot of money, it is a coalition. It can do things the US alone could not, or could not without a lot of blood and treasure.
And the world is more stable for it.
Finland is doing joint exercises and spending money ant time to make their equipment interoperable with NATOs right now.
You remind me of those pro-Nazi 'America First' people who ended up becoming reactionary anti-Communists to the point of fascism to no one's surprise.
Despite what Donald Trump told you, there is no provision in the NATO treaty that requires member states to pay a specific amount of money to NATO. Nobody isn't honoring the treaty.
No, but thanks for playing
I can see that my comment was a big ambiguous; I have no doubt that NATO would annihilate Russia in any conventional conflict. (I mean, nuclear too, but both sides would be annihilated.) I meant, why should Poland or Russia have any confidence that NATO would act?
Poland is a NATO signatory. We have US troops right on the border, alongside the Poles. That ends the argument, to me.
This is another in the line of arguments from Trump supporters that invoke the resilience of institutions, as protection against outcomes that Trump might otherwise bring about, while Trump is known for his efforts to undermine those institutions.
Russia steers clear of invading the Baltics or Poland in a scenario where Putin believes that the US would back a strong military response from NATO. Putin would expect that under Biden, Haley, Christie, and probably DeSantis. He would not expect that under Trump or Vivek. Indeed, he would plan on their not intervening, as the Ukraine war plan itself has helped to show. Putin wanted to invade Ukraine while Trump was president, and his current strategy - seeking to outlast American support for Ukrainian resistance - is not-so-coincidentally tied to the timing of the American election. That is, I am sure that Putin is waiting to decide his next move - peace talks or continued attacks - based on what happens here in November.
Trump has amply demonstrated that he has neither the interest nor the skill to coordinate a military response among NATO members to protect its eastern flank. An invasion of a country that he has spent most of his adult life thinking of - if at all - as part of the USSR is not going to be compelling, for him. He'll say: Why do I care about Estonia? It's time for Europe to pay for European security. Vivek would do the same, if for different reasons (i.e., he's probably bought and paid for).
"Putin wanted to invade Ukraine while Trump was president"
....yet he did not. Odd. Perhaps having some image of some level of resolute toughness helps.
Toughness? Don't be ridiculous. What was Trump going to do? Bang his chest and shout? He would have handed Ukraine over on a platter.
BS rhetoric about "toughness" is nonsense. Biden is being tougher than Trump would have thought about being. It's the right that is backing down.
I don't know if you noticed, but Trump lost an election.
I don't buy it.
Are those unwilling to back Ukraine going to be ready to back Poland, or are they going to make the same arguments there, treaty or not?
What if defending Poland costs even more, and possibly involves putting in troops?
Trump has even talked of withdrawing from NATO.
'Ukraine is not.'
I wonder what is is about Ukraine that would make it undesireable for someone like Putin to control. What strategic resource. What global supply is currently being threatened at a time when other factors threatening the supply worldwide are starting to kick in.
At least Iraq had a huge underperforming oil industry which is why Bush invaded Iraq. Ukraine simply has people that have a traditional relationship with Russia. So Putin wants a market to sell Ladas and Yotaphones and Irkut MC-21. Like the vast majority of people on the earth people want BMWs and iPhones and to fly in a Boeing or Airbus.
But defense spending as a % of GDP isn’t up since 2019. Neocons goal is always to jack up defense spending which hasn’t happened.
Yes
By “peace” do you mean helping Saudi Arabia slaughter tens of thousands of Yemenis?? Or do you not consider Yemenis “human”? And under Biden we are at 0 combat deaths a year while under Trump it was the same as Obama got it to in 2015 and so averaged 15 a year.
Yes, Yes, and looks like you don't consider the Marines killed at Kabul International Airport in 2021 to be “Combat” deaths.
Trump didn’t get us out of Afghanistan and so we had combat deaths in 2021. We didn’t have any hostile action deaths in 2022 because Biden finished the job Trump started.
The best thing about DeSantis was his attacking public health officials during the pandemic led to the deaths of white trash…he did what Malcom X and Farrakhan could only dream of doing—kill whitey!
It’s unusual because haters are almost always right wingers. And there’s Arthur but I take him as a senile relic of a once thoughtful commenter.
Left wingers do have a self awareness. And I as a left winger are muting you as of now.
(Do right wingers ever mute right wingers?)
"SBF," who used to go by "Sebastian Cremmington" around here, is not a left-winger. He's some bizarre incel Trumpkin supporter who has a weird grudge against the Bushes and every Republican who doesn't support Trump.
Thank you! I was trying to remember who he was....
(mainly by recalling who had that wierd Rick Santorum fetish)
Correct, I said every state should pass Bella’s Law—if a fetus is as fucked up as Bella Santorum then the mother should be permitted to abort it.
I have heterodox views…I believe we have a RKBA but it doesn’t come from the 2A. I believe climate change is a hoax but I think diesel and coal should be banned. I think same sex marriage is great while I think heterosexual marriage should be ruled unconstitutional.
As a general philosophical point:
Is there anything more laughably pathetic than the pride of a troll?
I’m not a troll…I just realized I will never change anyone’s opinions about anything and so there is no reason to be civil.
Your belief that the sole purpose of civility is to manipulate people would be another of those heterodox views.
Yes, actually. I have a few more of what you would call right wingers muted than left wingers.
Capt Crisis asked:
I'm not a right-winger personally, but I would be surprised if numerous folks on the right of the political spectrum didn't regularly & consistently mute the rotating cast of usernames with an yuuuge obsession about gay men and an inability to tell the VC from pr0nhub and/or Grindr.
“Donald Trump. Donald Trump was in many ways a very successful President”
He was the first President who had never read the Constitution, was not aware that there are three branches of government, and thought that the President was a dictator. Such could not be said even of people like Andrew Johnson.
He shrank from almost every challenge he faced. The only exception was the Covid vaccine, where he energized his big business buddies, and after it was achieved, he ran away from it. When he mentioned the vaccine in speeches, and got booed, he stopped taking about it. He was a coward, and I don’t think our system of government ever contemplated that it would be headed by an immature, spoiled adolescent. Donald Trump is not a mature adult.
And he was still better than George W Bush.
I said through 2016, and still say, Trump was the perfect candidate for people who have no idea what the president does, as he had no idea either. And after four years in the job, still doesn't.
and he did a better job than "W", Barry Hussein Osama, or Parkinsonian Joe.
He definitely did better than Bush. As more time passes Obama’s presidency looks better and better…and I say that as someone that wasn’t a big Obama supporter.
"I happen to think that Donald Trump should not be barred from 2024 election ballots. I also think the Jack Smith prosecution of Trump is unconstitutional. But, I do not think Trump should be re-elected President because of the way he behaved between Election Day 2020 and January 6, 2021." So you think Trump did very bad things, but nobody should do anything about it?
Demoncrats believe if you kill tons of people, attack government buildings, and literally seize and hold territory for weeks/months as a outright explicitly proclaimed sovereign entity, isn't 'insurrection' for the people they support. So I don't see why not acting at the speed some people prefer to stop the Jan 6th picnic and trying to convince Pence to make a decision he's literally specifically empowered to make is an 'insurrection'.
Not a serious, or even adult, or even in touch with reality response.
We weren't talking about you.
There's a pretty big gulf between "bad" and "criminal", and another similarly sized one between "criminal" and "constitutionally disqualifying". Trump literally COULD murder somebody on 5th avenue with cameras running, and it wouldn't have any constitutional implications for his qualification for office. Andrew Jackson can assure you on that point.
Nor, as Trump pointed out, have much effect on his base, until they decided to paint the victim as a trans antifa drag queen palgiarist, and then it would be an act of such supreme heroism it would be credited with saving the Reoublic.
Fifteen minutes of reading this post has made me 37% more racist toward Italians
Well you are racist towards conservatives blacks too, so hardly a surprise.
There is a certain class of progressives that believe racism is the worst thing in the world, unless directed toward conservatives.
They also believe homophobia is the second worst thing in the world, unless its directed toward gay conservatives.
Any thoughts you have enough courage to express concerning conservatives — including some of the law professors who operate this blog — who sputter with outrage concerning antisemitism (genuine or confected) except when the bigot is a conservative?
The bigotry is much of what dooms conservatives in the culture war. Which is great! Bigots deserve to lose, and America is great because decades and centuries of evidence establish that our bigots do not win.
People who object to how often I mention this blog’s bigotry are invited to line up in alphabetical order and kiss my ass. I don’t like bigots. Neither, apparently, does UCLA.
That's what I thought.
The (alleged) opposition to bigotry among this blog's law professors and right-wing fans flutters predictably with the partisan winds.
Principle seems to be a luxury conservatives can't afford as they attempt to avoid being routed at the marketplace of ideas and in the modern American culture war.
I'd have thought it was obvious, by my comment is a reference to the silly claim made by Calabresi's preferred candidate that "for every 30 minutes that someone watches TikTok every day they become 17% more antisemitic." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/07/nikki-haley-tiktok-antisemitism-hamas. I've got no idea what you're going on about.
She (?) hates Jews, too.
Hating Jews is when you oppose Israel's subjugation and wholesale massacre of Palestinians, according to tedious halfwit David Nieporent.
That's right; you were making nasty comments about the families of dead Israeli soldiers trying to preserve their family lines because you oppose Israel's subjugation of Palestinians.
Do you oppose Israel's subjugation of Palestinians?
Or do you stand with conservative fans and practitioners of immoral, violent, superstition-addled right-wing belligerence.
Correct, I've made comments poking fun at Israel's practice of extracting semen from the bodies of IDF militants killed in Gaza (though any nastiness is inherent in the practice itself). What of it? It's funny. And it doesn't detract from the core issue of Israel subjugating and mass-murdering Palestinians.
any random 5 minutes of watching local news makes me 1,000,000,000,0000,000,000 % more race-ist against Afro-Amuricans.
That would explain your affinity for a blog that habitually publishes vile racial slurs (amid an incessant stream of other bigoted content of varied flavors).
Would you say Prof. Volokh published too many racial slurs last year, not enough racial slurs, or just the right amount for your taste?
Trump's my last choice. Well except for Christie.
Ramaswamy is too young, has no experience, and is probably too smart to realize how much he doesn't know.
DeSantis is probably my first choice. He is too provocative, but he's has absolutely the best education policy, Florida's ranking especially in 4th grade reading and math is among the top in the nation. They're 2nd to Massachusetts in terms of percentage of students performing above the NAEP standard for reading.
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/states/achievement/?grade=4
I had hopes for Haley, but she seems both a gaff machine, and a squish. But I do prefer her to Trump.
Christie is disqualified because he is a gun grabber. He has no respect for the Constitution.
I could definitely vote for Pence, but he dropped out. I definitely respect his unwavering adherence to the constitutional order on Jan. 6th., and before and after.
I would put that Texas preacher dude even below Christie. A lot of polls don't even ask about him, and I had never heard of him until I went looking yesterday for other candidates in the GOP Iowa caucuses.
Otherwise I broadly agree with you: DeSantis, Haley, Ramaswamy, Trump(, Hutchinson), Christie(, Binkley). None of them are very inspiring, sadly, but at least most of them have previous experience governing -- and not from their basements.
More like Vivfake Ramaswampy.
Kaz, I have a somewhat similar assessment of the candidates, but a very different kind of question. As an aside, Governor Christie lost my vote in the People's Republic of NJ when he said 'libertarians are dangerous', and the implication was not a good one. At the time, I said, "Whoa".
Totally agree about VP Pence and his unwavering adherence to constitutional order. He was a good man who stood up and did the right thing at a time when America really needed it. Wow. We really need more of that, generally. The country owes him a debt of gratitude.
My very different kind of questions. Why did POTUS Trump get elected in the first place? Why does POTUS Trump command a substantial lead in the Team R primary polls for a shot at a second term? What animated tens of millions of Americans to support him then, and now?
On its surface, it is plainly irrational that Team R would run a twice-impeached POTUS to be re-elected for a second term of office. Think about human historians in the year 2524. What will they say about this period of time, the people and its leaders. They will say we were crazy. The question is why?
"Why did POTUS Trump get elected in the first place?"
He got the nomination because the alternatives were establishment Republicans, and the Republican voting base hates their own establishment with a passion.
He won the general election because the Democrats for some reason (She corrupted the DNC and rigged the process...) thought it was a good idea to nominate an utterly unlikeable candidate with a decades long reputation for corruption. Almost anybody else the Democrats might have nominated would have beaten Trump. Even Bernie, as horrible a President as he'd have been.
Trump is twice acquitted of impeachment charges his own party thought bogus. That's not the sort of thing that hurts you politically.
All the more traditional/establishment candidates also split that vote. If Cruz or Rubio or Paul -- or, hell, almost anyone in the field -- had been running 1-on-1 against Trump, he would not have been nominated.
Brett, you need something that connects more viscerally. I recently received an email that might explain it. I am going to ‘pull a lathrop’ and post a small wall of text. This was a useful analogy, I thought, to explain the emotional motivation.
You’ve been on vacation for two weeks, you come home, and your basement is infested with raccoons. Hundreds of rabid, messy, mean raccoons have overtaken your basement. You want them gone immediately. You call the city, 4 different exterminators, but nobody can handle the job. But there is this one guy and he guarantees you to get rid of them, so you hire him. You don’t care if the guy smells, you don’t care if the guy swears, you don’t care if he’s an alcoholic, you don’t care how many times he’s been married, you don’t care if he voted for Obama, you don’t care if he has a plumber’s crack, you simply want those raccoons gone! You want your problem fixed! He’s the guy. He’s the best. Period! (so he says).
The tens of millions who support POTUS Trump are sick of politicians, sick of the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and sick of illegals. They just want this thing fixed. Trump may not be a saint, but he doesn’t have lobbyist money holding him, he doesn’t have political correctness restraining him, all you know is that he has been very successful, a good negotiator, he has built a lot of things, and he’s also not a cowardly politician. And he says he’ll fix it.
They believe him because he is too much of an egotist to be proven wrong or looked at and called a liar. They just want those raccoons gone, out of the house, NOW.
This made sense to me at an emotional level. I think it captures the essence of the feeling that these tens of millions of people have.
What do you think? Good analogy? Bad?
Edit did not work...text should be italicized all the way through NOW (the full quote).
They just want this thing fixed. Trump may not be a saint, but he doesn’t have lobbyist money holding him, he doesn’t have political correctness restraining him, all you know is that he has been very successful, a good negotiator, he has built a lot of things, and he’s also not a cowardly politician. And he says he’ll fix it.
WTF is it they want "fixed?" And why do they think Trump can fix anything? Because he says so? You believe that?
very successful, a good negotiator,
I don't think he's been "very successful." When you start with $400M and don't pay your bills you don't need to be very smart to make more. Though you can throw some of it away with serial bankruptcies.
And I happen to have some excellent information on a major real estate transaction of his. Suffice it to say, he didn't get a good deal.
I buy the analogy. Many working-class folks feel abandoned. The economic outlook for their kids is worse them for themselves. And, no one has an answer. Trump is charismatic, a celebrity, promises to fix things, and rails against immigrants.
Trump’s results are charitably underwhelming (the problem is largely intractable as a consequence of globalization and automation which are positives for most people). Yet, they stick with him no matter what (it was the swamp that prevented him from fixing things and then stole the election from him).
It would be nice if they woke up and realized Trump doesn't give a shit about them and can't help.
'Many working-class folks feel abandoned'
Most of Trump's support comes from people at the higher end of the middle class, non-college educated, business owners. People flew to Jan 6th on private jets. What it is, exactly, they are concerned about is unclear to me, but it doesn't seem to be any sort of demand for, say, pragmatic economically sound fiscal policies that would benefit businesses, promote competition and create opportunities for young people starting their own businesses. Nor did they seem interested in examining Trump's business history through their own experienced eyes. So, honestly, Trump not giving a shit about them might actually be beside the point.
You made me go back and look at some numbers and sure enough you are right, it’s education not income that was the best predictor of Trump’s strength relative to Romney’s. At the end of article, Silver presents some possible explanations that seem to make sense. Roughly, you have blue-collar workers with good incomes (similar to, but not quite what I called the working class) and cultural/racial/media grievances. Both might feel Trump will fix the raccoons.
Josh R...When I read the rabid racoons in the basement analogy, I said: That's it.
Truns out your rabid raccoon guy was another rabid raccoon in a trenchcoat. It was a terrible disguise, but it fooled you guys.
'They just want this thing fixed'
The best cons are where the marks con themselves.
'but he doesn’t have lobbyist money holding him'
Does Trump, by any chance, have any billionaire donors? Did Trump, by any chance, receive millions through his hotels and business from China and Saudi Arabia? And how do you know he didn't have any lobbyist money holding him?
'This made sense to me at an emotional level'
It would have to, wouldn't it, because it makes no sense whatsoever on any other level.
No, it doesn't make any logical sense and it is full of incredibly stupid assumptions, but I think it is sadly a pretty good analogy. That's what has me concerned.
We live with a large number of people who vote entirely on emotion and with no better grasp of the Constitution or how government works than Donald Trump. And, perhaps worst, they are dumb enough to believe a buffoon who says he alone can fix things.
.
Why do Republicans and conservatives disdain modern America?
It is the rejection of racism? The mainstream's preference for reason, education, and the reality-based world over superstition, ignorance, and MAGA-QAnon delusion?
Is it the diminishing embrace of superstition-driven gay-bashing and transphobia? The exclusion of creationism, prayer, and fairy tales from legitimate classrooms?
Is it resentment toward the success of (1) our strongest research and teaching institutions and (2) our educated, modern, strong communities at the expense of conservatives' low-quality, nonsense-teaching schools and Republicans' desolate, can't-keep-up communities?
I have concluded that conservative partly perceive modern America as a flaming hellscape because they recognize better Americans have rejected conservatives' stale, ugly thinking; culture war casualties resent the victors and abhor all of this damned progress.
In part, though, it's just a disingenuous depiction designed to try to buy a few more moments of political and culture relevance for clingers as they move toward replacement.
I can't answer what attracted people to Trump in the first place, because he didn't attract me. I was from the beginning to the end a diehard Cruz supporter, and while I was somewhat disappointed, I understand when he made his peace with Trump.
As the election came around, I was undecided, I briefly considered the Libertarian the forgettable Gary Whatshisname, but he was more liberal than libertarian and a loon.
I also briefly, to my shame, considered voting for Hillary, mainly because I was worried about Trump's foreign policy experience, ironically that turned out to be one of his major strengths.
I ended up voting for Trump because I figured if I was going to cast a protest vote I should vote for the protest candidate. I didn't expect him to win.
I came around on Trump when he came into office because he actually tried to implement his campaign promises: renegotiating NAFTA, building the wall, etc. I also was a big fan of the corporate tax cut, there is no possible justification of a 35% corporate tax rate (or personal tax rate either for that matter).
I was of course very disappointed in Trump's reaction to the 2020 election, while I was fraud curious, and still am, there was not even close to enough evidence that there was enough fraud to swing 3 states. Nevada in particular was never going to be overturned, and without Nevada he'd never get to 270. There was never near enough evidence in Georgia and Arizona either, and both had GOP state officials.
But that said, I don't have a lot of trepidation of a 2nd Trump term, he's term limited out, and nearing 80, and despite the hyperbole and his own occasional rhetoric, he didn't actually govern as an authoritarian. But he will need more support from the mainline GOP or business leaders to make sure he has a more competent executive team if he does win a second term. He's not a good judge of character nor did he have a lot to choose from in building his administration.
"ironically that turned out to be one of his major strengths."
Be serious.
Was it his wanting to invite the Taliban to Camp David?
Was it his embarrassing love letters with one of the most brutal dictators which lead to a meaningless (for the U.S.) meeting which in which Kim got plenty and the U.S. nothing?
Was it pulling out of the Iran deal which essentially gave away our down payment and which definitely accelerated their nuclear program?
Was it trusting Putin more than the U.S. intelligence agencies? Or saying Crimea belonged to Russia anyway and inviting them back into the G7/8?
Do you think Mexico paid for a border wall? lol
Or you maybe you mean getting his son-in-law a sweet investment management gig in exchange for rehabilitating MBS? That one was at least a success for Trump.
Take a look at world opinion of Trump and the U.S. after Trump, it isn't a pretty sight. He made things worse. The world knows it. That you think his foreign policy was a bright spot is concerning.
RE: I could definitely vote for Pence, but he dropped out. I definitely respect his unwavering adherence to the constitutional order on Jan. 6th., and BEFORE and after.
>>>>
Mike Pence did NOT make a statement
after the Electoral College met on Dec 14, 2020
…. certifying Joe Biden’s win.
* Sen Mitch McConnell did, unequivocally.
* Sen Cornyn did, kind of.
* Sen Graham hedged his bets,
keeping his head firmly up tЯump’s backside.
That's right, Pence supported the House rejecting the electoral votes. If Trump was an insurrectionist, then so was Pence.
You misunderstand Pence’s roll in presiding over the House and Senate as badly as Trump did. Pence had no vote, had no authority to make any rulings other than enforcement of established rules.
If members of the house object to electoral votes, then he has no discretion, he has to follow the law and established rules. The two bodies adjourned to their chambers, rejected the challenges and resumed the joint sessions in conformance with the law and long established rules.
You might point to a clause in the Constitution that even suggests that Pence as either VP or President of the Senate had any obligation or duty to make any sort of a statement based on unofficial news reports that the Electors had met and voted for Biden.
The “Constitutional order” which Pence upheld rigorously is the Electoral College meets, votes:
"which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;–the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted".
Officially he doesn't know who won until he unseals the votes Jan. 6th.
That's the constitutional order, not reacting to possibly erroneous news reports.
I've long regarded the end of Pence's Presidential prospects as the worst fallout from January 6th. He's be a breath of fresh air as a President.
Not sure I agree with you on your Police Work there
.
Thank you for the disaffected, obsolete, bigoted, autistic, delusional, antisocial, worthless, backwater, right-wing perspective.
"The best case in favor of voting for DeSantis is that he does not carry the baggage that Trump does, but he appeals to MAGA voters who might not go for Nikki Haley. So far that argument, however, has not been selling."
Trump, Vivek, and DeSantis are all appealing to the same block of voters, who want a President like Trump. This block is most of the Republican base, and most of it is going to Trump so long as he's available.
Cristy is appealing to... OK, nobody.
And Haley is appealing to anti-Trump Republicans. Which maybe gets her a larger share of the Republican vote than DeSantis can get with Trump in the race, but it isn't enough to even make her a plurality winner of the nomination.
This race isn't going to settle out until Trump's fate is settled, one way or another. If he's not eliminated from the race, he IS going to be the nominee, barring some medical event or assasination.
Yeah, it’s another cult of personality like with the Jesus lover, Bush. Remember that the same people that support Trump supported Bush sending their kids overseas to slaughter innocent Muslims while he shipped their jobs to China.
And what’s undermining DeSantis is having to look at Laxalt and seeing Senator Domenici raw dogging his mother at the Senate Republican Christmas party…that can’t be unseen. 😉
Yes, agree = This race isn’t going to settle out until Trump’s fate is settled, one way or another. If he’s not eliminated from the race, he IS going to be the nominee, barring some medical event or assassination.
SCOTUS hearing arguments in a month and a subsequent decision will resolve some questions.
"As a direct result of the riot, which Donald Trump incited, five people died and more than one hundred were injured."
I'm sure you're aware that you'd really have a hard time justifying that "incited" under Brandenburg. Particularly since the riot started before Trump was done speaking, among people who didn't attend his speech, and people have been convicted of pre-planning it.
And 4 of them died of natural causes, did you maybe forget that?
Incited has a definition outside of that particular Supreme Court case, turns out.
Cool story. Which of those definitions do you believe to have legal significance in this circumstance, and why?
'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
The OP says nothing about legal significance mattering in his judgement.
You did read the OP, right?
'before Trump was done speaking,'
Obviously, nobody'd heard a peep from him prior to that speech.
I'd like to know the grounds on which Calabresi thinks Obama is a narcissist. You know, aside from his being "articulate".
Simple.
Obama never ever used the phrase , "I made a mistake" It was always mistakes were made.
‘We tortured some folks’ may be not great phrasing, but it shows you’re full of it.
And if you want to specify the narrow standard of specifically not saying the magic words 'I made a mistake,' that is a standard no politician could follow; that's not the kind of people we elect.
And, no, knee jerk opposition to politicians aside, not every politician is a narcissist.
Look, the man has never, ever taken personal responsibility for errors. He could never say "We made a mistake.." That is a character flaw. If you can't realize that. too bad for you.
Do yourself a favor look in the mirror and practice saying, "I failed when i did..." It will do you good.
Look, the man has never, ever taken personal responsibility for errors
You're making up a special standard to get angry at.
When has a President last taken personal responsibility like that?
Now apply that standard to Trump.
He could never even get as far as "mistakes were made", to even acknowledge the existence of a mistake in the first place.
Obama takes personal responsibility
Think we're going to need more than the careful use of the passive voice to diagnose narcissism.
.
The likelihood that this partisan assertion is true resembles the likelihood that the imaginary voice in the sky you perceive as a god is real. A vanishingly remote longshot, against an overwhelming likelihood it's pure bullshit.
Carry on, clingers.
So now you don't even disagree or agree, you just say something that amounts to 'How about you and him fight" 🙂
Narcissist is one of the most common descriptors of O for about 20 years
"“This is a guy, you look at every one of his speeches, even the way he introduces high officials — I’d like to introduce my secretary of state. He once referred to ‘my intelligence community.’ And in one speech, I no longer remember it, ‘my military.’ For God’s sake, he talks like the emperor, Napoleon,” "
Bwaah-hah-hah, snort, eyeball-roll.
One single screed from Charles Krauthammer, penned in 2014, does not remotely support to "Narcissist is one of the most common descriptors of O for about 20 years."
And do note the 2014 date: penned before Donald "my generals" Trump, for whom the phrase narcissist actually is commonly used.
Pro tip: look up projection. Every accusation is a confession.
Plus, you do know that 2014 is not "20 years ago", right? FFS, maybe try having enough pride and/or brains not to lie about easily-checked stuff like that.
More than 4 years with Trump and then he notices someting off?
Mike, Nikki, and many others just don't know when they're reading too much praise from the non-functioning
PS : Mike's boss hog cycle sure didn't give him a boost
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/4543f6c5bcd0a58392b03f8fdd19b962b3e730f9/825_67_3227_1938/master/3227.jpg?width=1200&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=4de3f4950ce9267c3f1d147af1023fe8
I agree with the author. There is little doubt that Nikki Halley is the best Republican choice. Her critics pick on little things that one could find in almost any candidate. Nikki Halley also has the best shot to win the Presidency for the Republicans. Finally, she could reset the Republican party back to true conservatism and in doing so to elements of libertarianism.
There's no question among people who aren't going to vote Republican anyway that she's the best Republican choice. There's a lot of doubt about that among Republicans. I mean, she's polling at only about 23% in her home state.
In order to win as a Republican candidate, she does have to first win the primary, and has to actually be LIKED by Republicans.
Is the problem that she is not liked by Republicans or rather they are caught up in supporting a cultist figure. There is a question of will people vote the same as they tell pollsters or will they make more reasoned votes. So, if you remove Trump from the field Nikki Halley seem to be the best choice.
I don't know what Republicans will actually do at the polls, but I hope they will make a better choice than Trump. A matchup between Joe Biden and Nikki Halley would make for an interesting election. A rematch of 2020 will be as sad as the original.
Note that the data cited by Brett is not that she is not liked by Republicans, but simply that Trump is preferred. In fact, she has a high net favorability rating among Republicans.
I don't mean that she's personally disliked, I mean that she's not what Republicans want for a President. In any race where there's a plausible "Trumpy" candidate available, she's going to lose, because that's the sort of candidate most Republicans want at this point.
I don't mean that, if all the candidates went down in a plane, and she was the only survivor, Republicans would refuse to vote for her. They would. But they're not going to nominate her if they have another choice more like Trump.
In fact, that is not consistent with the data; there are other choices more like Trump, and she is clearly ahead of one and could be ahead of the other. The only thing that's clear is that the GOP electorate prefers Trump himself — not people "like" Trump — to Haley.
"So, if you remove Trump from the field Nikki Halley seem to be the best choice."
Again, except that the choice will be made by Republicans, so she's not getting the nomination.
I mean, from a Republican standpoint, Tulsi Gabbard is just transparently a better nominee than Biden. If Democrats nominated her instead of Biden, I'd be rather hard put to cast a lesser evil vote for Trump.
But we both know that ain't happening, actual Democrats aren't that fond of her.
Same thing with Haley and Republicans. Being popular with the opposing party only matters once you get the nomination, it's no help before that.
The thing is that Nikki Halley is not popular with Democrats. From an election standpoint Trump is the preferred Democratic candidate. Halley strength is that she would get most Republican votes, bring home never Trumper and get a fair share of independents. In 2020 Trump did worse than Republicans in general. Many straight Republican tickets skipped the Presidential vote. That may well happen again in 2024. Nikki would not have that problem.
"Come on, Charlie Brown -- you put up the candidate we say gives you the best chance of winning, and we'll vote for them!"
Tulsi Gabbard hates Democrats, which is the main thing that Republicans like.
But leaning on her to show how open minded you are...does not to that.
She's also a disaffected, antisocial, contrarian, inept asshole, which is a strong natural draw among right-wing misfits and especially faux libertarian culture war rejects.
You really need to qualify this with criteria. She is the most electable Republican candidate because she will appeal to swing voters and hard-core MAGAs would vote for her too if the only other choice was a Democrat, but to get there she first has to win the nomination. So yes, she is the best choice in the general, but not in the primaries.
So one of your premises for disqualifying Donald Trump was that he didn't send a simple Tweet.
Ok, but he did, Twitter censored it. He sent a video message asking people to stand down and go home.
Just a little truth this Saturday morning I thought you should know.
This might surprise you, but some of us are capable of telling time and noticing a giant gap of several hours where Trump didn't do jack shit other than egging on his army of dipshits.
Don't come back until you're willing to tell the truth.
Further, those of us with memories longer than those of goldfish remember that Trump's family members, aides, and allies (including those besieged by his supporters on J6) were begging him to say something during that time to call it off, and he refused.
Pierce, reading is fundamental. What the OP actually says is:
Come back and comment when you've read and understood the entire thing.
"Just a little truth", my posterior orifice.
Haley wants to install some form of the TSA in the public schools.
One wonders which party label it is that she thinks she’s running under.