Nikki Haley and the Shining City on a Hill

Ronald Reagan would vote for Nikki Haley over Donald Trump

The Iowa Caucuses are on Monday, four days from now, and its down to a two person races Nikki Haley versus Donald Trump.  Yes, Ron De Santis has not formally conceded yet, and he may even place second in Iowa, but his campaign is all washed up.  He invested a year and much more than $100 million on winning in Iowa, and he is going to lose big time to Trump.  He. will be lucky if he even places second.  And, after investing his whole campaign on winning Iowa, he has nowhere else to go.  De Santis is in a distant third place in New Hampshire and South Carolina.  The real question now is whether Haley can pull off an upset with strong finishes in New Hampshire and South Carolina.  With Chris Christie out of the race, my bet is that Haley will win an upset in New Hampshire just as 44 years ago Ronald Reagan won New Hampshire after George H.W. Bush won Iowa.

So, as a die hard Reaganite, I have to ask who would Ronald Reagan support in 2024 if he were still alive?  Reagan's view was that the United States was a beacon of liberty to the rest of the world -- a shining city on a hill, which was an example to every other country on earth.  Nikki Haley believes because she, like me, is the child of immigrants.  Our families came to the United States because it stood for freedom and democracy.  I thank God every day that I am an American and not an Italian, and I bet Nikki Haley thanks God every day that she is an American and not a citizen of India, a country which is backsliding into dictatorship.

Ronald Reagan would be thrilled that Nikki Haley wants to see freedom and democracy triumph in Ukraine.  Reagan worked hard to win the freedom for Central and Eastern Europe that Donald Trump wants to throw away.  Ronald Reagan would be repulsed by Trump's affection for dictators like Vladimir Putin who through Deutsche Bank bailed Trump out of many a business bankruptcy while offering him a Trump Hotel in Moscow.

I am going to quote below three paragraphs of Ronald Reagan's Farewell Address to the American people, which vividly show Nikki Haley's and Ronald Reagan's vision of America not isolated from the world but as the LEADER of the free world:

"And that's about all I have to say tonight, except for one thing. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the ``shining city upon a hill.'' The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.

And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was 8 years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home."

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don’t know how he managed it, but as I read Prof. Calabresi’s post the Star Spangled Banner started playing through the speakers on my computer, followed by America the Beautiful and God Bless America. I’ve got to find out how he does that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

That's peculiar, my computer was playing the Andrews Sisters singing, "Campbell's has pork, and Campbell's has beans, put 'em together and you've got Pork and Beans."

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

My computer played this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-eZvRVywrA

[M L]

A bald eagle just flew in through the window and is now standing regally on my desk.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My computer started playing Howie Carr's "Everything Free in America" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CI5ZM_xKnI

[Frank Drackman]

Amurica Peaked November 1985 when Ivan Drago arrived at the Ziegfeld Theater to fight Apollo Creed.

Super highways, coast to coast
Easy to get anywhere
On the transcontinental overload
Just slide behind the wheel
How does it feel

[Pre-Chorus]
When there's no destination - that's too far
And somewhere on the way
You might find out who you are

[Chorus]
Living in America - eye to eye, station to station
Living in America - hand to hand, across the nation
Living in America - got to have a celebration

Frank

[Longtobefree]

Odd. My computer isn't playing music at all, but "We won't get fooled again" is running through my head, along with Nikki saying we must all logoff, go get our government ID card and re-register in our documented real names before we can post anything ever again.

[Frank Drackman]

"45" was using "Won't get fooled again" at rallies way back in 2015. Darling Nikki's (why doesn't she use her real first name, Nimarata?) like a female Rafael Cruise, a more unlikeable Hillary Rodman, a stiffer Willard Romeney, and I don't trust any Politician who's afraid to go by their real first name.

Frank

[JasonT20]

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

Sorry, President Reagan would never support a bigger government swamp creature like Gov Haley. My guess is he would support Gov DeSantis, a rock solid, All American conservative, who gets results. Of course, you may be right, because Reagan gave us the Bushes and the subsequent RINO phenomenon.

[Bob from Ohio]

"My guess is he would support Gov DeSantis"

Agreed. DiSantis is a highly successful governor, Haley a do nothing one. [ok, she removed the Reb flag.]

Though he would vote for her in the general, but he would vote for Trump too.

[Krayt]

I don't think so. He was a border state governor, and the idea of crapping on "Mexicans" would have been foreign to him.

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

> she removed the Reb flag...
and that is why she is going to get stomped by Trump in the SC Republican primary on Feb 24 . Most SC voters give her credit for easing her State's agony after the church massacre, but that does not apply to committed GOP primary voters. Spouting a word salad to avoid mentioning slavery as the cause of the Civil War is not enough to compensate.
"I'm a good old rebel, and that's just what I am.
And for this Land of Freedom I do not give a damn.
I'm glad I fought against it. I only wish we won.
And I don't want no pardon for anything I done..."

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

> DiSantis is a highly successful governor...

(1) DiSantis started out brilliantly in the first year of Covid (2020), protecting those who needed protection (notably the elderly) while keeping as much of the State open as possible. Florida had a Covid death rate almost as low as California's, which had a strict lockdown. DiSantis was my favorite candidate for 2024.

(2) After the vaccines came out, however, DiSantis burnished far-right credentials by pandering to anti-vaxxers. California's Covid death rate was sharply cut by vaccination, while unvaccinated Florida's surged ahead.

(3) DiSantis's feud with Disney has gone on longer and farther than one would have expected from the business-savvy Reagan Administration.

[Sarcastr0]

Just stumbling from one cult of personality to another, and retconning the old one to have never been all that.

[Kleppe]

Reagan was an idealist so it would come as no surprise if he were to support Haley the idealist over Trump the realist. Reagan would probably support Hillary Clinton over Trump, too. But that ultimately would say more about Reagan than Trump.

[Martinned]

Reagan would probably support Hillary Clinton over Trump, too. But that ultimately would say more about Reagan than Trump.

Would it, though? If the man who was officially elected as the Greatest American of All Time preferred the candidate of the other party, wouldn't that say more about Trump?

[Brett Bellmore]

I actually doubt that Reagan would have supported Hillary over Trump.

First, Reagan was famous for his 11th commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." Hard to endorse the Democrat without violating that.

And as Reagan was a Hollywood star before he became a politician, he was a bit less moralistic than his public persona.

But, mostly, because Reagan would have had no reason to downplay how bad Hillary was. And she's pretty awful.

Now, if Trump had been running against a more routine Democrat? Eh, maybe. But Trump wouldn't have beaten a more routine Democrat, he needed somebody as unlikable as Hillary to pull off even a narrow victory.

[Frank Drackman]

or even more unlikeable like Common-law Harris to pull off a "yewge" Victory.

[JasonT20]

No Republican has ever violated the 11th Commandment as often or as thoroughly or in such personal terms as Trump. I don’t see Reagan honoring that principle and restraining himself from criticizing Trump, after all of that.

[Commenter_XY]

That is 100% true = No Republican has ever violated the 11th Commandment as often or as thoroughly or in such personal terms as Trump.

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

First, Reagan was famous for his 11th commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.”

What does that have to do with Trump?

[Stephen Lathrop]

The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

Winthrop was not a Pilgrim. He did not imagine, "a home that would be free." He did not put the word, "Shining," into his famous Biblically derived sermon.

Reagan's message is an exact 180 degree reversal of Winthrop's purpose and meaning. Reagan meant to assert a boastful superiority for American culture, a celebration of this nation's superiority compared to others—what jingoists have interpreted (by highjacking a term formerly connoting error instead of celebration) as American exceptionalism.

Winthrop's address was cautionary, and a call for humility. For Winthrop, the notion that the Puritan community was uplifted onto a metaphorical elevation was a peril, exposing the smallest deviation from God's will to rightful calumny from others, who would observe it even from afar. For Winthrop, Reagan's version— had Winthrop seen it—would have been a blasphemous horror. Here is what Winthrop actually said about the (not shining), "city upon a hill":

For wee must consider that wee shall be as a citty upon a hill. The eies of all people are uppon us. Soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our God in this worke wee haue undertaken, and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. Wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the wayes of God, and all professors for God's sake. Wee shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause theire prayers to be turned into curses upon us till wee be consumed out of the good land whither wee are a goeing.

Right wingers emulating Ronald Reagan have not given a damn whether the stories they tell about the past are lies. Whether by ignorance, malice, or neglect, Calabresi here continues that practice. He should be ashamed of himself.

[Krayt]

It isn’t as different as you think. Many have complained that the eyes of the world are on America, and when it does stupid shit, like torture people, claiming it isn’t because of shithead lawyers, those living oppressed see that as all systems go to their own tyrannical governments.

The shining city on the hill should be leading by example, because all eies are upon it, and not building tools of tyrants which just gives bad examples to the world. People who don’t need to merely imagine a boot stepping on a human face, forever.

[Frank Drackman]

Only reason Obama bin Laden is dead is they tortured KSM to get OBL's courier's phone number.

[Krayt]

Our statements are not in conflict.

[David Nieporent]

Reagan’s message is an exact 180 degree reversal of Winthrop’s purpose and meaning. Reagan meant to assert a boastful superiority for American culture, a celebration of this nation’s superiority compared to others—what jingoists have interpreted (by highjacking a term formerly connoting error instead of celebration) as American exceptionalism.

It makes sense that you think doing history is so hard, because you are an incompetent reader. As I've explained to you before and then you've run and hid as you always do, Reagan's message is not a reversal of Winthrop's purpose and meaning. It is a slightly different perspective, sure — the difference between the glass-is-half-empty and the glass-is-half-full — but they're both ultimately saying the same thing. And Reagan's usage was closer to the original Sermon on the Mount's than Winthrop's was.

[Stephen Lathrop]

And Reagan’s usage was closer to the original Sermon on the Mount’s than Winthrop’s was.

Thanks for endorsing my critique. It was Reagan who chose to cite Winthrop instead of the Bible. Then Reagan delivered his nonsense, and attributed it to Winthrop.

But for pity's sake Nieporent, the quotes are both in my comment. Anyone can see what Winthrop wrote, and that it is indeed the opposite of Reagan's meaning. What kind of rationalization are you up to? Are you trying to defend a foolish notion that Ronald Reagan, as a conservative icon, was historically attuned? Reagan became a conservative icon precisely because he did not give a damn about history—or, actually, any political topic at all except winning elections.

For extra points, you know where the notion of American exceptionalism first came from? Communists. Russian communists, who used the term as an epithet, to scold American communists who complained that political conditions in America were different, and the party line would not work in America. From there it evolved into a historians' notion, to designate a particular kind of chauvinistic error in American historical analysis. The Reagan distortions came late to the party.

[Kleppe]

"For extra points, you know where the notion of American exceptionalism first came from? Communists. Russian communists, who used the term as an epithet"

You'll be shocked to learn who coined the term "fake news"!

[David Nieporent]

But for pity’s sake Nieporent, the quotes are both in my comment. Anyone can see what Winthrop wrote, and that it is indeed the opposite of Reagan’s meaning.

Anyone can see what Winthrop wrote, and that it is not the opposite of Reagan's meaning. Winthrop — like the Sermon and Reagan — was saying, "The entire world can see you." Winthrop was saying "…so if you act badly it will reflect badly on you." Reagan and the Sermon were saying, "…so the whole world can see your goodness." Those are not "opposites."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember too that Boston then WAS a city on a hill (actually three) -- it was essentially an island surrounded by tidal marshlands. The hills would be cut down and used to fill in first Back Bay and then to extend the city out into the waterfront. Faneul Hall is on what was once the waterfront.

Boston was founded in 1630 -- there were other communities at the time, e.g. Salem, Plymouth and Winthrop warned that not only was the Lord but everyone else was watching them.

It was Oliver Cromwell who did in Winthrop and his dream because once Cromwell (and the Puritans) rose to power in England, there was no incentive for Puritans to leave England for Boston. Hence it was non-Puritans who did, and that quickly became problematic.

As did the Crown subsequently yanking the charter because it was felt that Massachusetts hadn't been properly loyal to the Crown during the Cromwell era, which it hadn't. Some argue that led to the Danvers (not Salem) Witch Hysteria starting in 1691.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What on earth is rightful calumny?

[Estragon]

“I thank God every day that I am an American and not an Italian, and I bet Nikki Haley thanks God every day that she is an American and not a citizen of India, a country with is backsliding into dictatorship.”

I am growing less certain about my ChatGPT theory. Although, one could direct it to throw in random typos.

[Estragon]

Could you really take con law from someone who says “I thank God every day… I am not an Italian”?

I take it back— it really is ChatGPT. There’s no way this person is teaching 1L con law… is there?

[Estragon]

“Ronald Reagan would be repulsed by Trump's affection for dictators like Vladimir Putin who through Deutsch Bank bailed Trump out of many a business bankruptcy”

Whoa, wait— what?

[Brett Bellmore]

They compete with each other in fantasizing how horrible Trump is, and then just proceed as though their fantasies were real and proven.

A lot of Russian money did end up flowing into his investments, but it appears to have been from Russians trying to get their assets out of Putin's reach, NOT from Putin himself.

[Frank Drackman]

Not sure I agree with your Police Work there, how many times did you hear Ronaldus and the other Repubiclowns with that "The Shah was our Friend!" Bullshit.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Democrats tend to confuse, perhaps deliberately, diplomacy and actually thinking the doggie is nice.

[Krayt]

It was the cold war. We learned the hard way through Cuba that dictators will orient to one side or the other, so might as well be us. Is this sufficient justification?

[gVOR08]

“ and I bet Nikki Haley thanks God every day that she is an American and not a citizen of India”. “I bet”? This post by Calebresi in praise of Nikki Haley seems to contain a lot of Reagan, and a lot of projection by Calebresi, and very little Haley.

[Mr. Bumble]

“ and I bet Nikki Haley thanks God every day that she is an American ...
But is she (natural born)?

[Martinned]

Yes

[Mr. Bumble]

Say the Dutch ex-pat living in the UK.

[Roger S]

No, Haley's parents were not citizens, at the time of her birth. She was an anchor baby.

[Brett Bellmore]

Anchor babies ARE natural born. If they weren't, they'd suck as anchors.

[nobody 2]

Well, it's a safe bet. I'm sure it's much harder to get bribes from US defense contractors if you're a citizen of India.

[Brett Bellmore]

For an endorsement, that sure was short on particulars. I vote on policy, not by imagining who past politicians I kind of liked would support today.

So, what are her policy positions you like?

[SimonP]

I vote on policy, not by imagining who past politicians I kind of liked would support today.

A Trump voter claiming he votes based on “policy” is laughable.

Trump doesn’t have “policies.” He has a Rorschach smear of freely-associated public statements into which one can read a wide range of possible “policies.” Is he for shoring up entitlement programs, or privatization? Does he support NATO, or not? What exactly is his immigration policy, beyond “we should have less of it”? Is he in favor of balancing the budget? What would he do about the current conflicts in the Middle East? He has as many views on these subjects as he has MAGA supporters.

Or – scratch that – he does have one “policy,” which all of his supporters acknowledge and support: “Retribution.”

[Brett Bellmore]

Not having policies you personally like, and not having policies, are hardly the same thing.

[SimonP]

Motivated reasoning has apparently pushed you so far up your own ass that you can't recognize when other people aren't reasoning similarly.

If you want to rebut my claims, you can point to evidence that Trump is actually committed to any particular policy platform. I'm familiar enough with what he says. What I'm not convinced of is that he has any interest in seeing any particular policy through to completion, beyond the need to survive a news cycle.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, if you said that Trump lacked any real political ideology, that he was largely driven by political expediency, I might largely agree with you.

But he didn't lack policies, such as attempting to secure our border with Mexico, digging in his heels on the expansion of federal regulation, promoting energy independence, reshoring industry... You just didn't LIKE his policies.

Policies and principles are not the same thing.

[SimonP]

My this standard, a president has "policies" just by sitting at his desk and letting the government do whatever it does.

Trump had a more draconian "policy" on migrants, but he didn't "secure our border with Mexico." He talked about doing that, but he didn't do anything but build a chunk of an ineffective wall. "Stopped by Congress," sure, but the difference between having policies and posturing to win a news cycle is that you sit down with opponents and negotiate. Trump doesn't care about "securing our border," and probably doesn't care all that much about migrants, either. Watch what happens if he tries to put all of them in camps. The business community will push back hard - no one wants a repeat of what's happening in Florida. He'll do something performative to satisfy people like you and then move on.

"Promoting energy independence" - no, you mean, "promoting drilling on federal land" and "eliminating the import of petroleum products." The US has been "energy independent" more during the Biden administration than it was under Trump, and this is due to transitioning away from reliance on oil and gas. (And we could make a lot more progress in this respect if we were more aggressive about moving away from single-occupancy vehicles for transportation in urban areas.) Trump doesn't give a shit about "energy independence," and I doubt he even knows what it technically means. He cares about oil production. And again, about that only insofar as it results in cheap gas prices, the primary barometer by which lunkheads like yourself evaluate economic health.

"Reshoring industry" - yeah, uh, what did he accomplish in that respect? Are you thinking of the flashy factory announcements that came to naught? The tariffs he imposed without legal justification and dropped in exchange for some deck chair re-arranging?

The point I'm making isn't, "Did things happen during the Trump administration" or "Are there things that Trump claimed to care about". The point I'm making is whether his actions meaningfully lined up with his so-called "policies" in a way that demonstrated an actual interest in accomplishing his stated ends, rather than an interest in winning news cycles. The only thing that he announced as happening that actually happened was his pledge to restrict the promulgation of new rules and regulations. (Itself an asinine goal, which hamstrings both assertions of new regulatory authority as well as attempts to reform statutory or regulatory over-reach.) Ironically, that was the only thing he promised to do that could happen without any involvement or attention from him. Everything else you've mentioned has been flim-flam.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump hardly just sat at his desk and let the government do what it wanted, though. There were many things he fought for, hard. (Not all of which I liked.)

“Trump had a more draconian “policy” on migrants:”

Drop the sneer quotes, it actually was a policy.

“but he didn’t “secure our border with Mexico.” He talked about doing that, but he didn’t do anything but build a chunk of an ineffective wall. “Stopped by Congress,” sure, but the difference between having policies and posturing to win a news cycle is that you sit down with opponents and negotiate.”

You can negotiate until you’re blue in the face, and you’re not getting anywhere if your negotiating partner isn’t willing. Congress wasn’t willing to allow that wall to be built. But you’ll notice he didn’t take no for an answer, and broke out the National Emergencies act, and started funding the wall from DOD funds. That’s not the act of somebody who doesn’t care if they do something.

He was effective enough at securing the border with Mexico to drive illegal immigration down to a fraction of what it was when he took office, just as Biden was effective enough at unsecuring the border to drive it up to ten times higher than when he took office, and keep it there. And you can see this is Biden policy, because when the states take up the slack, he tries to stop them. His policy is to maintain the border unsecured, just as Trump's was to secure it. Neither were fully successful, but both have policies.

Seriously, do you understand how stupid you come across, denying that Trump HAD policies? Like nobody could see that he had them, and was pursuing them?

You should settle for not liking them, or how he pursued them, and spare yourself the embarrassment.

[Sarcastr0]

So you like Trump on policy, but forgive him when rhetoric is all he delivers because it's not his fault.

This is not really making the case you vote on policy...

[Empty promises and populist rhetoric is not a policy.

Revenge on Democrats is also not a policy.]

[Brett Bellmore]

Why yes, when a President tries to do something, and Congress obstructs him, I don't blame the President for what Congress did.

[Stephen Lathrop]

That would make you an outlier among MAGA types in Congress. Their whole schtick seems to be to try to sabotage whatever a D president wants to do, in the hope that on Election Day they can flim-flam enough voters into believing the resulting chaos is the fault of the President. Among MAGAs a choice to sabotage the economy during a D presidential term is not even controversial; it is regarded as virtuous.

[Mr. Bumble]

Two points.
Something like 800 miles of border wall was part of the "Reagan Amnesty" and somehow Congress could never fund it. Trump got no help in his attempts to fulfill his promise to build the wall (which according ton critics don't work except when they do).

Multiple administrations promised to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem but never did. Trump fulfilled the promise and the promised turmoil never happened.

[SimonP]

You have to be a total novice in geopolitics to think that Trump's various actions in the Middle East didn't sow the seeds we are now reaping. Pulling out of the Iran deal? Assassinating the head of the IRGC? Moving the embassy to Jerusalem and rejecting Palestinian claims to East Jerusalem as the capitol of a future Palestinian state? The Abraham Accords not requiring action on Palestine from Israel?

Trump put all the pieces in place for the election of Raisi in Iran, the return of Netanyahu with an extremist government, a ramp-up in nuclear refinement by Iran, more proxy violence throughout the region. There is no October 7 without Trump's actions in the Middle East, just as there would not have been an invasion of Ukraine by Russia if Putin thought Trump would hold fast with our NATO allies. It is Trump's stupidity and weakness as a national leader that has brought us to where we are now, and the fact that he has a non-trivial chance of winning in November is prolonging and exacerbating current conflicts.

Re-elect him and see what happens in Taiwan and North Korea.

[David Nieporent]

Trump got no help in his attempts to fulfill his promise to build the wall

Um, since I'm older than 6 I remember that Trump's promise was that Mexico would pay for it.

[SimonP]

You can negotiate until you’re blue in the face, and you’re not getting anywhere if your negotiating partner isn’t willing. Congress wasn’t willing to allow that wall to be built.

Typical conservative, believes that "negotiating" means getting everything they want.

Trump illegally pulled DOD funds to "build the wall," and what he built wasn't effective. He didn't secure our border, at all. He basically took some money out of the DOD's wallet to achieve a political stunt. And it worked, too, because here you are, years later, citing it as a policy success.

He was effective enough at securing the border with Mexico to drive illegal immigration down to a fraction of what it was when he took office,...

Brett, you need to understand that I do not equivocate like you do. When you say "secure the border," I presume you mean implementing security measures at the border that block illegal immigration. I don't presume that you mean a more general reduction of immigration due to policies that "secure" nothing but rather impose significant disincentives on legal and illegal immigration.

And the difference actually matters, from a policy perspective. Because Trump's unilateral and largely illegal actions were, and could only be, temporarily effective in reducing overall immigration. That was the whole point. Trump wasn't trying to solve problems. He was trying to win a news cycle. If the courts declare that his wall funding was illegal, years after the photo ops have been done, who cares? If immigration snaps back after a change in administration results in an immigration system that follows the law, who cares?

That's the difference here. Trump used American power and wealth to make himself look good. Biden uses it to achieve policy goals.

[Magister]

Like the Republican platform of 2020, you don't seem to be listing any of those policies.

[Brett Bellmore]

Posted 39 minutes after I listed some of them, I notice...

The reason the Republican platform was not updated in 2020 was that the GOP establishment were trying to minimize Trump's influence on the party, to treat him as a temporary aberration that would soon be gone. They voted to retain the platform unchanged because otherwise he'd have input into the new platform.

[Magister]

I had not reloaded the page; it is probably a good idea to do so before submitting a comment, though. SimonP seems to have rebutted your list pretty thoroughly.

[bernard11]

So even a lot of Republicans don't like Trump's policies?

Else why would they object to him having input into the platform?

[David Nieporent]

Um, remember who you're talking to. Despite the fact that the GOP rolled over for Trump the moment he won the nomination in 2016 and opposed him only once — for about 5 minutes on 1/6/21 — in all the years since, Brett is convinced that they actually secretly opposed him and were working against him.

[Brett Bellmore]

You have a very selective memory, if you think that's the only time they opposed him.

[Krayt]

Inviting dictator tanks to run through Europe reclaiming the soviet empire is a policy you like?

Now's your chance to fight actual fascists with real power. "Gramps".

[Frank Drackman]

Less Immigration is a Policy, just like Parkinsonian Joe's Unlimited Immigration is.

[Sarcastr0]

You vote on negative partisanship. You think Dems are coordinated and not just bad but evil in their agenda.

Dress it up as policy if you want, but if you end up voting GOP no matter who because you only look left, that's not policy.

[Bob from Ohio]

Like you'd vote for a republican.

[SimonP]

Democrats vote for Republicans all the time. We voted for Eric Adams in NYC, for instance.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not like your mirror image, Brett. I look left, and I look right. I would vote Republican.

I like the more liberal baseline ideologies, but I'm not an anti-conservative. I like markets, am fine with guns, understand that there are costs both to the unregulated free market and to government intervention.
One of the neat things about federalism is state-level politics can be insulated to some extent from the federal populist red-meat show. So there are GOP governors I would absolutely vote for. They're not pure enough for the likes of you, of course.

Your politics are not the mirror of mine - yours have become driven largely by being anti-liberal, not by being conservative. You assume I'm just like that but reversed. But that's not true.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I would vote Republican."

Good ole gaslighto!

[Sarcastr0]

Tell me what I think, and when I say different call me a liar.

Do you have any evidence I'm lying, or just the usual 'everyone must be a shitty as me' thing you like to pull?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Do you have any evidence I’m lying,"'

Yes, 10 years of posting. Some on this very page.

[Sarcastr0]

Too many for you to actually point out, I'm sure.

Or maybe they all realty on your bare denial insistence like above.

[JasonT20]

It was Trump that broke my streak of voting for Republicans for President. The one Democrat I did vote for before 2016 I would switch if I could go back in time.

Reagan had famously said that the Democratic Party left him, rather than him leaving the party. The GOP that has existed for the last decade is not the same party I would sometimes support prior to that. Trump completed a shift from a party of ideas to a party of grievances that had been occurring since at least 1994.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It’s not if Ronald Reagan would vote for Niki Haley, but if anyone *today* would vote for Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a man of his times and the times were very different from today.

Reagan won the Cold War — he defeated an enemy that is no more real to us today than Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany was to people in 1980 — the Soviet Union imploded in 1989, the same 35 year distance between 1945 and 1980.

Reagan *did* associate with and prop up dictators — far more brutal dictators than Putin — and he did it for the greater good of leverage against the Evil Empire, the Soviet Union. And it was a very different world.

Would Reagan’s message be different today — possibly. But more likely he wouldn’t be relevant. But a better example is Abraham Lincoln who would not only be impeached in a heartbeat today, but removed from office by the Senate on likely the same day. Look at what Lincoln did in Maryland, suspending the writ of habeas corpus in Maryland (which was never in rebellion) and throwing everyone, including about half the state legislature, in jail. Today it wouldn’t even be Susan Collins but Ted Cruz saying that Donald Trump has gone way to far in doing that — but the GOP supported Lincoln at the time.

So no, I wouldn’t vote for Reagan (circa 1976 or circa 1980) today. We have different problems today.

And one thing about immigration — when it was people escaping from the Soviet Block — it was (a) people who LOVED America and who (b) wanted to be American — as well as (c) a propaganda victory in the cold war. Today it is none of these.

The people we are letting in seek merely to exploit this country and want to change it if not destroy it. They don’t even want to be Americans — they don’t imitate our clothing, they don’t imitate our culture, and don’t even learn our language. That’s the difference between now and then.

Back then, foreigners wanted our Levi jeans and our rock music cassettes. Not today…

[Krayt]

Trump's racism-infused border policy is, insofar as it's not racist, a thing of the far left, stopping immigration to stop undercutting union wages.

I'm not even sure he's deeply racist, just sort of a Machiavellian whatever works to get you power. Toss out "Mexican this" and "Mexican that", and people xenophobically eat it up. More votes.

I may be approaching Peak Cynicism here, help!

[Frank Drackman]

If you have this Monday off for the MLK Jr holiday (I don't) , thank Ronaldus Maximus.

[Moderation4ever]

Ronald Reagan was at heart an optimist, while Trump is a confidence man who plays on people's dark pessimistic side. The question is why in 1960 did the optimism of a young John Kennedy move people and again in 1980 the optimism of Ronald Reagan got him elected and yet today it is the pessimism that allows a person like Trump to lead in the Republican primary. My ancestors, John Kennedy's, Ronald Reagan's, and Nikki Halley's all came to this country for its optimism for the future. Yet today to many are turning inward to a dark future. People had a taste of that future from 2017 to 2021 and it will be no better with Trump in 2025. Halley or Biden may not be the best, but they are better.

[OtisAH]

His first (and second) campaign was just him calling America a trash palace and his inaugural included the phrase “American carnage.” And 35-40% of the country loves him for it. Btw, that’s the 35-40%of Americans who believe themselves to be True Patriots and who claim to love the USA despite there being no evidence to support their claims.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm a True Patriot who loves the USA and got shot at in combat (OK, by our own side, but that happens in real life) what did you ever do?

[JasonT20]

Personally, I blame Rush Limbaugh. (Not just him, but his style)

He rose to fame and success by always talking about the political opposition (Democrats and left wing figures) as being Enemies of the People. It was rush that turned conservative voters into anti government firebrands.

[Magister]

The anti-government part started with Reagan, though, who portrayed it as the problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, it started a lot further back than Reagan. While there's some question whether George Washington really said, "Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.", the sentiment goes back to the founding.

Patrick Henry verifiably said, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”

Federalist 51:

“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

The idea that government is very dangerous, must be tied down and limited, is foundational in America, as much as people who love big government like to characterize it as "anti-government" and "anarchist".

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, any theories on what, "interests," Patrick Henry had in mind?

[Sarcastr0]

The anti-government part started with Reagan, though, who portrayed it as the problem.

Nixon called liberals the problem

Goldwater started the small government as a policy plank all on it's own thing.

Both the FDR bios I've head postulate that court packing was the real impetus, alienating conservatives from the Dems into a reflexive anti-everything-FDR contingent that ended up becoming the GOP we see today.

[Magister]

Nixon, with wage-price controls? That Nixon? "We are all Keynesians now" Nixon? Sure, demonizing his political opponents was very Nixon.

Goldwater, soundly rejected by the electorate? He advocated small government but that didn't get any traction with voters until Reagan.

As with "the President is not an officer", you can find fringe voices saying it way back.

Opposing everything Democrats created (New Deal, Great Society, ACA) is certainly a staple of Republican rhetoric, but in 2015 Trump promised not to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; Republican voters seemed to like that. He did try to repeal the ACA, though, but it was because he was going to create something better, not because government was too big.

[Longtobefree]

"Nikki Haley thanks God every day that she is an American and not a citizen of India, a country with is backsliding into dictatorship."

Well, Steve, I'm thinking you might want to review a few of Biden's executive orders, and a few actions regarding emptying the SOR by selling it to Communist China, surveilling local school board meetings and Catholic services, and opening the southern border.

[David Nieporent]

You really need to get news from a reliable news source rather than OAN.

[OtisAH]

After his recent output “Calabresi”has become synonymous with “Blackman” to me. That is to say, “keep scrolling.” But I’m glad I stopped in because besides seeing Cold War babies wearing “I’d rather be Russian than a democrat,” the demotion of Santo Ronaldo Magnus di Sacramento is one of the wildest things I never expected to witness. And the moping about how he probably wouldn’t support Turnip is hilarious.

[Sarcastr0]

We know Calabresi can do worse, but this is not great. School starts soon, maybe that'll help.

Anyhow:
Reagan's view was that the United States was a beacon of liberty to the rest of the world

Reagan mostly was before my time, but his 'time for choosing' speech is a pretty scathing attack on his fellow Americans. I know morning in America and all that, but he always seemed pretty paranoid about liberals to me.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I can’t find it now, but when Lech Walesa came to him for food aid, there was a cartoon of Walesa standing before Reagan at his desk as Reagan looks at his application. “What?” Reagan says. “No death squads? No drug runners? What kind of freedom fighters are you anyway?” If you were around then, you’d know what he was talking about.

[Frank Drackman]

I was around then, and I don't know what you're talking about. I remember loads(emphasis on "Load") of DemoKKKrat Politicians making junkets to Nicaragua/Cuber and bloviating on what a paradise it was.

[Brett Bellmore]

My Rep at the time was "Comrade" Bonior; The dude literally got caught phoning the Sandinista government right after an intelligence briefing!

[Ed Grinberg]

“a pretty scathing attack on his fellow Americans”
“he always seemed pretty paranoid about liberals to me.”

And he was dead-right. Which is why, among Republican candidates, I look for the ones who are most clear-eyed about “liberals.”

[Sarcastr0]

Aren't you the guy that links VDARE?

I'm pretty pleased you're not a fan.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Neither Reagan nor Trump knew or knows what they are saying, or what they are doing. Along with George W. Bush they form a tableau of Republican incompetence.

[Frank Drackman]

Neither would jerk off while Amuricans are held hostage in Gaza like our current demented POTUS.

[Frank Drackman]

8 Amuricans are still being held hostage in Gaza, even the NY Times is reporting on it (well, more on how the families have the gall to run a commercial) why isn’t this reported on every day like they did with the Ear-Ron Hostages? Where are the SEALS, Delta Force, Jimmuh Cartuh (Expert in Hostage Rescue Missions) and it’s Day 98 if anyone besides me is keeping track.

Frank

[Ed Grinberg]

Do you think, under similar circumstances, Reagan would be talking about "rebuilding Gaza," which is all the Biden administration seems to be worried about? Hmmm...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Reagan re-activated the USS New Jersey with 16 inch guns, entire blocks in Beruit would disappear with each round.

Reagan would have her shelling Gaza...

[Frank Drackman]

Again, you're an Idiot, I mean, "Uninformed" and probably "Un-In-Uniformed" funny how peoples who never served in the Military are the Experts.
The guns on Battleships were designed to fight other Battleships, not to serve as Ersatz (love that word) Artillery, they shoot with a flat trajectory and are ineffective at longer distance.
That being said, it was worth reactivating them just to get that Cher Music Video. (True Story: most of the "Sailors" in that Video were Marines, the Director wanted everyone in Navy Uniforms)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Well you have to admit that they did look impressive (see Imperial ships in Star Wars). However even in WWII they were basically floating artillery after air power showed its ability to take out ships of all sizes.

[Bob from Ohio]

it was worth reactivating them just to get Under Siege.

[Missouri, not NJ though]

[apedad]

"I thank God every day that I am an American and not an Italian . . . . "

Funny . . . the Italians say the same thing about you.

[Frank Drackman]

You're actually right. Spent a year in Italy (Saudi Arabia or Italy? easy choice) Eye-talians "work" a 30 hr week at most, 2 months paid vacations, and their military's more a fashion statement than a serious fighting force. For all the talk about Germanys Autobahns, the Autostrada has faster, albeit less disciplined traffic without those annoying Polizei. And the women!
OK, the Nude Beaches are overrated, mostly German Pensioners with Striae
Too bad they got rid of the Lira, exchange rate was 1500/$, once you get above 50,000 Lira who knows how much you're spending?

Frank "Ciao"

[bernard11]

+1

[Brett Bellmore]

"The Iowa Caucuses are on Monday, four days from now, and its down to a two person races Nikki Haley versus Donald Trump. Yes, Ron De Santis has not formally conceded yet, and he may even place second in Iowa,"

It seems rather weird to declare Iowa a two person race between Trump and Haley, and with the very next breath admit that somebody else might beat her there. At present the polls are pointing to a high chance Trump gets an absolute majority of the vote there, while Haley and DeSantis are neck and neck at under 20%.

That brings us to South Carolina, Haley's home state, and Trump is currently looking like he'll get a majority, but Haley is cruising toward an unimpressive second place.

Haley is doing rather better in New Hampshire; She is unlikely to win there, but might manage to deny Trump a majority win.

Then we move onto Nevada, which Trump is totally dominating, but Haley might come in third.

And Michigan, where Trump is dominating, and Haley and DeSantis are neck and neck, and might manage to get into the double digits.

Haley seems to have settled in to being the choice for people who just don't like Trump, while DeSantis is attractive to people who DO like Trump, but can't do well so long as they have Trump available to vote for. Ramaswamy is running for VP.

I just don't see much prospect of her carrying ANY state, so long as Trump is available; DeSantis and Ramaswamy aren't splitting off enough of the Trump vote to allow here a plurality win, which is the best she's got a shot at.

And if something takes Trump out of the running, I think most of that vote will go to DeSantis and Ramaswamy, and Haley won't be winning anyway.

Basically it's just Trump's nomination, barring the Supreme court surprising everybody by endorsing taking him off the ballot, or a stroke or sniper's round. And it's hard to see a route to the nomination for Haley if Trump is taken out.

[SimonP]

It's true; Haley appeals only to serious Republican voters. The majority of Republican primary voters favor the candidate who throws the tantrum they all wish they could throw.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, DeSantis was interesting but it's clear there is no critical mass for 'like Trump but accomplished owning the libs stuff' when up against 'Trump, and he promises nothing useful only revenge.'

[SimonP]

The polling shows he's well liked by Trump supporters, just not preferred when up against Trump.

It's interesting, actually - the people in the race now are primarily either burnishing their credentials ahead of a run in 2028 or angling for some other job. But those who are seriously gunning for 2024 are doing so on the theory that something might take Trump out. The polling indicates that, if something were to take Trump out, Republican primary voters would likely prefer DeSantis as the alternative. But he appears likely to drop out of the race before we start seeing closure on whether Trump is in/out for the race. If Trump and DeSantis drop out/are taken out, that leaves Republican voters with Haley, who they don't want.

That would be fun to see.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can't see DeSantis dropping out prior to, at the earliest, the Supreme court ruling on the Section 3 issue. If the Court rules, as most expect, that Trump stays on the ballot, THEN DeSantis might drop out; He's free to run again 4 years from now, after all.

But it's too evident that he's the likely replacement for Trump for him to drop out earlier.

I seriously doubt the Court is going to waste any time ruling, and the Republican primaries could be decided by March.

So, what happens to Trump's delegates if he gets taken out of consideration? Are they free then, or redistributed to the 2nd place candidate in their state?

[Bob from Ohio]

At worst, the Supreme Court is not going to say Trump is disqualified, just that the states can independently determine it.

He's still getting nominated.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I agree with both of those statements.

[David Nieporent]

DeSantis has already severely damaged his brand, and his fundraising has dried up. If (if) he comes in third in Iowa, third in NH, third in SC… he's not going to be able to continue. His argument was that he was the electable version of Trump. If (if) he is consistently losing to Haley, he's toast.

[Brett Bellmore]

So long as Trump is in the running, nobody else is getting the nomination. If Trump is taken out, his support will go to DeSantis, and to a lesser extent Ramaswamy, and Haley comes in 2nd or third.

She only get the nomination if every other serious candidate is taken off the field, because she's got a ceiling, and it's not all that high. The only reason she's competitive with DeSantis is because she's getting almost all the anti-Trump vote. But the anti-Trump vote isn't big enough to win the nomination if there's anybody who isn't anti-Trump on the ballot.

[David Nieporent]

All of this is pulled out of your posterior. There's no evidence for any of it. Especially because, as I keep explaining to you, Haley — unlike Christie and Hutchinson (who's technically still in the race) — is not running as an anti-Trump candidate.

[JasonT20]

Let me just say how ridiculous it is to be talking about candidates being basically “done” and dropping out before any votes are held. And that is with the primaries taking 6 months to complete.

The utter stupidity of our elections in this regard persists only because most voters don’t seem to care enough to recognize it.

[myself]

I think the problem with DeSantis is he's too educated and rational to be credible.

The appeal of Trump is folks understand what's driving him. He gets all of his info from the same news media as everyone else, and he doesn't have much sophistication beyond that. So he feels trustworthy because we understand what motivates him, and even when he lies we understand why he lies (and the lies are never that sophisticated).

The trouble DeSantis has is the same as Ted Cruz had when challenging Trump, he's playing a role and everybody knows it. DeSantis is waging a war on Disney not because he's outraged at Disney, but because he wants to make national headlines. Same with all his other anti-woke policies, it's all about his political ambitions.

Voters realize his persona is mostly an insincere facade and they rightly don't trust him.

That's why Trump's example is pretty hard to follow, you not only need someone who's charismatic and accomplished enough to be credible, but also unsophisticated enough to be a rabid partisan.

[grb]

SimonP : “The majority of Republican primary voters favor the candidate who throws the tantrum they all wish they could throw”

Entertainment is always the deciding factor in today’s Right & GOP. Like spectators at a pro wrestling match, they want their tiny hearts pounding as they shriek at their cartoon villians and scream for their cartoon heroes. Politicians who can’t deliver entertainment are ultimately damned as “RINOs” or “squishes”, even when there’s scarely any substantive difference between them and their more performance-oriented bretheren.

Today’s “conservatives” went from enjoying a little theatrical spice in the early days of talk radio’s prominience, to getting infotainment 24/7 with Fox News, to an entirely consumer-based product now, where spectacle is the only point & any pol focused on actual legislative goals a mere extra on the set.

[Dr. Ed 2]

God help us if it is a sniper's round -- it would make 1968 look like a Sunday school picnic.

Without Trump, there is a good chance the Right would focus around some truly scary people, much as the Left did after Robert Kennedy's death.

[Estragon]

“focus around some truly scary people, much as the Left did after Robert Kennedy’s death.”

Hubert Humphrey?

[Magister]

They subsequently managed to elect Jimmy Carter, who did scare a rabbit away from his canoe.

[Frank Drackman]

and killed his neighbors cat, typical Jimmuh Cartuh incompetence, the cat was killing birds and Jimmuh wanted to "Scare" the poor feline with a pellet gun.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

God help us if it is a sniper’s round

Why do conservatives and faux libertarians spend so much time thinking about political violence, racial slurs, and transgender issues?

Or is it just the Volokh Conspiracy?

[Frank Drackman]

You tell us, Coach Sandusky, you’re the one who perseverates over imagined racial slurs, blathers about “replacement” and stomping peoples, never getting the Irony that Klingers/Bettors are slurs of a different sort. Of course what would you expect from a Disgraced mediocre coach from a mediocre team in a mediocre conference (Yes, the Big 10 (that hasn’t had 10 teams since…..) finally won a championship, SEC can't win every year (only 5 of the last 7) even the 1927 Yankees lost 44 games.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Like the Democrats weren't into scary people before that? FDR scared folks so badly that after he died they amended the Constitution to keep anybody from being President more than two terms. But they waited until he was safely dead...

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think you've established 'FDR was scary' as the only possible reason to want term limits for the Presidency in reaction to his tenure.

Who are these folks?

[David Nieporent]

It seems rather weird to declare Iowa a two person race between Trump and Haley, and with the very next breath admit that somebody else might beat her there. At present the polls are pointing to a high chance Trump gets an absolute majority of the vote there, while Haley and DeSantis are neck and neck at under 20%.

I think it was a confusingly worded sentence. I don't think he meant Iowa was a two-person race; I think he meant the GOP nomination was a two-person race.

[F.D. Wolf]

Fascinating. Who do you think William McKinley and Dwight Eisenhower would have voted for in this year's primary? One can practically see Calabresi at the piano, warbling, "We sure could use a man like Herbert Hoover again."

There were exactly twenty years between the time Dwight Eisenhower left the White House and Ronald Reagan entered it. And while the memory of Eisenhower was certainly regarded fondly by Republicans in 1980, no one was wistfully pining for "a man like Eisenhower." Because times change. The world changes. Just because something was a good policy in 1890 or 1980, doesn't necessarily mean it's a good policy today.

Between the presidential elections of 1952 and 1988, California voted for the Republican candidate nine of ten times. It has not voted for the Republican candidate since. Why? Reagan's 1986 amnesty. How are things going in the formerly Golden State? That is the fate if the whole country if illegal immigration is not checked. Gauzy visions of Ellis Island won't change reality.

As for Ukraine, putting aside for the moment if Donald Trump were President today, Russia would not have invaded it, I too would like to see Ukraine triumph. But it won't, and wishing and blank checks won't change that, and, frankly, it won't matter a whit to United States interests. Reagan didn't pour money into Afghanistan because the Mujaheddin were pillars of freedom. Six million Ukrainians have fled the country; 600,000 have died. The country has been decimated. I would have preferred to avoid that, and it could have been avoided. But, hey - "freedom".

[Estragon]

“As for Ukraine, putting aside for the moment if Donald Trump were President today, Russia would not have invaded it,”

The quality of comments around here may have dropped off over the years but the fan fiction is still top notch

[Bob from Ohio]

Did they invade during his first term?

[David Nieporent]

No, because they wanted to help him get reelected.

[Bob from Ohio]

Speaking of fan fiction.

[Sarcastr0]

“Key Judgment2: We assess that Russian President Putin authorized, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted, influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the US”

-2021 Intelligence Community Assessment Foreign Threats to the 2020 US Federal Elections

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/2021-intelligence-community-election-interference-assessment/abd0346ebdd93e1e/full.pdf

[Bob from Ohio]

Get better sources. Deep State propaganda.

[bernard11]

That you don't like hearing it doesn't make it " Deep State propaganda."

[Bob from Ohio]

No, but the attempts by elements of the "intelligence community" to get rid of Trump and boost Biden does.

The "laptop was not Hunters" letter was more interference than all the Russian bots together.

[NOVA Lawyer]

If you have to lie about the letter, you don't have a point.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, the Russians try to drag down whoever is on top at the moment, because their primary aim isn't controlling who is in power in the US, but instead trying to make the US ungovernable.

That's why, as soon as Trump won in 2016, the Russians started attacking him. Some of the big rallies against Trump after the election were actually organized by Russian intelligence!

Russians Staged Rallies For and Against Trump to Promote Discord, Indictment Says

"Russians accused of conspiring to help elect U.S. President Donald Trump allegedly staged rallies in key states to support him, including one in Florida in which someone was paid to portray Hillary Clinton in a prison uniform while standing in a cage built on a flatbed truck.

The Russians were also accused of promoting discord after the election by simultaneously holding New York rallies, one in support of Trump’s victory and another under the name “Trump is NOT my President!” according to an indictment released Friday by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller. There was a separate post-election, anti-Trump rally in Charlotte, North Carolina."

That's a point "Russian collusion" theorists avoid acknowledging: The Russians were playing both sides, they just wanted to 'raise the temperature', they didn't much care who came out on top as long as they had trouble governing.

It's all kind of silly, though, when you remember the scale of their efforts: It was spitting into a hurricane, compared to our domestic political expenditures and efforts.

[bernard11]

their primary aim isn’t controlling who is in power in the US, but instead trying to make the US ungovernable.

And trying to get Trump elected is part of that.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yes, Brett doesn't understand that they did care who won between Trump and Hillary and they got their man. They also wanted to up the discord, but that doesn't change the fact that they wanted Trump rather than Hillary or Biden. And the reasons are obvious for anyone who cares to see.

[myself]

a) They wanted Trump to get reelected.
b) There was a suspicion that Trump would leave NATO in a second term.

[Nige]

Oh boy what a miscalculation that turned out to be.

[myself]

Russia would not have invaded it, I too would like to see Ukraine triumph. But it won’t, and wishing and blank checks won’t change that, and, frankly, it won’t matter a whit to United States interests. Reagan didn’t pour money into Afghanistan because the Mujaheddin were pillars of freedom. Six million Ukrainians have fled the country; 600,000 have died. The country has been decimated. I would have preferred to avoid that, and it could have been avoided. But, hey – “freedom”.

How considerate of you, hanging Ukraine out to dry out of your great concern for them.

Too bad you weren't in charge during WWII: "It's not that I like Hitler, but liberating Europe is going to mean a lot of civilian deaths, better to make peace and leave the Nazi's in charge"

[ReaderY]

Trump, to the extent he can be said to have any principles at all, combines the America First isolationism of the pre-WWII Republican party with the nativism and racial politics of pre-WWII Democratic party.

In both respects, his thinking is far more in alignment with politicians of a century or so ago than with any major political figure of the Reagan era, of either party.

Comparing him to Reagan doesn’t even make any sense. Trump is nothing like Reagan.

More fundamentally, Reagan had principles, things he actually believed in rather than simply espoused for expediency. Agree with his principles or not, this alone made him totally unlike Trump, and is probably a bigger difference than any of the specifics.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Trump, to the extent he can be said to have any principles at all, combines the America First isolationism of the pre-WWII Republican party with the nativism and racial politics of pre-WWII Democratic party."

You have something on the first point. Trump thought the US had too much in the way of foreign entanglements, and should be working towards becoming self-sufficient as much as possible.

A goal which would not be achieved without some cost, but which would render the US much more resilient against foreign events.

On the latter point you're just projecting: The Democratic party is still the racially obsessed party in this country.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “On the latter point you’re just projecting: The Democratic party is still the racially obsessed party in this country”

Nope; you are. Today’s Republican Party is easily as “racially obsessed”, if not more so. Of course you don’t see that because White victimhood, White grievance and White Identity politics don’t count per Brett.

Everything White is normative in your eyes. It’s all those other races that are being so darn whiny & unreasonable.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Republicans use plenty of vile racial slurs, then get aggravated when people mention that conservatives and faux libertarians publish a huge volume of vile racial slurs, claiming 'you're always focusing on race and trying to divide people.'

Carry on, clingers. But only so far as better Americans permit, and not a step beyond. Thank you for your continuing compliance with the preferences of your betters.

[Sarcastr0]

A goal which would not be achieved without some cost, but which would render the US much more resilient against foreign events.

Even ignoring that the cost would be a lot of deaths around the world (and if you want to be consistent, the end of Israel), WW2 (and 9-11) taught us that entangled or not, we are not resilient to world events by pretending we're not involved in the world.

We're an empire, like it or not.
"Empire is now like a tyranny: it may have been wrong to take it; it is certainly dangerous to let it go."

[Bob from Ohio]

"end of Israel"

Islamic wet dream. All Israel kinda needs is the US veto. the money is just gravy.

No Arab country or Arab alliance can beat Israel.

[Sarcastr0]

I wouldn't want to put it to the test by America withdrawing from 'foreign entanglements.'

[NOVA Lawyer]

$3.3B per year and their military budget is $24B. That's a sizable chunk they'd have to make up. For a year, for a decade? They aren't sustainable without outside help.

"No Arab country or Arab alliance can beat Israel."

It's hubris like that which leads to losing wars.

[StonewallDeSoto]

Sorry but the uniparty consensus on open borders, endless wars, and social progressivism is slowly coming to an end. Reagan and Haley are indeed a good match, which is why I will never vote for Haley. Not to mention her eye-rolling girl power persona ripped from HRC--how could a man vote for something like that?

[F.D. Wolf]

Yesterday, Sen. Rand Paul (a man with something of a name in libertarian circles) said he would be making an announcement regarding the GOP primary. Apparently, he has launched a website:

https://nevernikki.net/

Nikki Haley is a libertarian's nightmare. Back in my day, libertarians actually opposed funding wars all over the world. Haley would enable the monstrous Security/Surveillance/Censorship State that is choking freedom to death. Even if you think Ukraine's territorial integrity is important, or importing unprecedented amounts of cheap labor is a good idea, this country has much bigger problems, and Nikki Haley will exacerbate them.

[M L]

Great statement from Paul, 100% agree. She is a horror show, worst of the R candidates by far. I’d take Bernie Sanders over her even though I don’t agree with him about much.

https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1745793258725224664

[David Nieporent]

Horseshoe theory strikes again!

[M L]

Nothing to do with policies, just seems like Bernie is his own man at least, preferable to a puppet or empty suit. Plus he would never be able to pass his tax dreams and such anyway.

[grb]

F.D. Wolf : "Nikki Haley is a libertarian’s nightmare"

I've always had three quibbles with Libertarianism. First, it's one of those ideologies whose appeal lies in providing sure easy answers to any question. As with Communism, you read the pamplet (five minutes tops), decide to believe, and suddenly every problem is resolved. Take any issue, cram it into the "insert here" opening, turn the crank and out pops an answer with mechanical assurance. Of course Libertarianism's mechanism is run by crude wooden gears hewn from rough lumber with a dull axe, but whatever.

Which brings us to the second issue: When this surefire answer-generating machine does face a hard choice, suddenly the answer comes by personal bias or whim. It's just like your hand on a Ouiji board's planchette inevitably guides you to the "right" answer.

Which brings us to Issue Three : So very often "Libertarianism" is just an empty term to dress-up normal Right-wing preferences, like the Beverly Hillbillies spruced-up in smart tuxedos & Gucci dresses. I don't claim that can't be an improvement, but it's only on the surface.

Seeing Haley described as a "libertarian’s nightmare" reminds me of all three quibbles....

[Don Nico]

To me, the city on the hill has always been the hog-butcher of the world, Chicago.
Richard J. Daley ran a damned good show. It was true democracy; your influence was directly proportional to how many votes you could deliver

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim

Pilgrim, Puritan . . . what's the difference?

The important point is that it wasn't over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

[Roger S]

Haley is a warmonger. Reagan would have understood that the Cold War is over, and not support the Ukraine War. Reagan rose to meet the challenges of the day. Haley cannot cope with any of them. She says dopey things all the time. She does not know what to do about our border crisis, foreign wars, economy, etc. Her whole candidacy if based on hoping she can slip in as an incompetent diversity candidate. She is not even a natural born American.

[Don Nico]

The Cold War persisted throughout the Reagan presidency. Reagan persisted in imperialistic war in Central America and launch the most intellectually dishonest defence program of that past 60 years, SDI.
As for your birther comment, it say all anyone needs to know about you.

[ReadMore]

Hey, this lawyer is voting for Nikki Haley!

Who fvcking cares?

[Frank Drackman]

He was John Kerry before he wasn't John Kerry.

[Kleppe]

Surely you understand I am talking about international relations when I referenced Hobbesian realism and Kantian idealism. This is undergrad stuff.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, she isn't natural born. Neither of her parents were US citizens at the time of her birth.
Don't think it matters though because I don't see her being the candidate and not likely to be the VP choice.

[Sarcastr0]

Shut up Birther.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, the internet isn't really eternal, right? And that this was nearly 40 years ago? But I found this:

FIERS DESCRIBES CIA'S EAVESDROPPING ON CONGRESSIONAL CALLS TO SANDINISTAS

"U.S. intelligence agencies monitoring Sandinista government communications in the 1980s intercepted private conversations involving five to seven members of Congress or their aides who were critical of U.S. policy, according to a former CIA officer, Alan D. Fiers.
...
Senate intelligence committee Chairman David L. Boren (D-Okla.) said yesterday he had asked the CIA for a full report on the operation, including names of any members whose conversations may appear in the reports and what happened to them. The New York Times, which reported on the intercepts last Sunday, cited two other examples: Rep. David E. Bonior (D-Mich.) and former House speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.)."

Congressional Record (Page 23723; "Reach Out And Touch A Commie")

"At one point some Administration officials proposed that members of Congress or their aides be prosecuted, former Administration officials said. Intelligence officers who sup-
ported the Administration's policies considered the conversations with the Sandinistas to be damaging breaches of national security, if not treasonous. But the prosecution idea was not pursued.
UNAWARE OF MONITORING
Former Reagan Administration officials said the lawmakers included Mr. Barnes, David E. Bonior of Michigan, now the third-
ranking Democrat in the House, "

That he'd actually been caught calling them right after intelligence briefings is my recollection, but as I said, the internet isn't really eternal and all knowing.

[Don Nico]

Exactly!

[Mr. Bumble]

From the link:
Natural born citizens have all the same privileges and responsibilities as other U.S. citizens except for U.S. presidential eligibility. To become the President or Vice President of the United States, a person must be a natural born citizen. This "Natural Born Citizen Clause" is located in Section 1 of Article 2 of the United States Constitution.

The Constitution does not expressly define “natural born” nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled precisely upon its meaning. There is some uncertainty over whether a person that is born outside the U.S. but still becomes a citizen at birth through a statute is a natural born citizen. One example is U.S. citizenship that immediately passes from the person's parents.

[M L]

The part you quoted, "and subject to its jurisdiction" unequivocally means something more than just subject to US laws, in the way that any visitor is subject to US laws. If you read US v. Wong, it says that you are subject to its jurisdiction if your parents have "domiciled" (i.e. taken up law permanent residence) in the US.

The first part, “A natural born citizen refers to someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth, and did not need to go through a naturalization proceeding later in life" seems correct though, so since Haley was a citizen at birth (regardless of whether the Constitution required her to be a citizen at birth) it seems she would be a natural born citizen. Above somebody said "natural born American" so I'm not sure what they were referring to.

[Mr. Bumble]

Had nothing to do with moving the embassy. But you be you.

[Nige]

Exactly. It was meaningless.

[Brett Bellmore]

True. Doesn't change the fact that her lack of a Y chromosome is her chief selling point. Her problem is that Republican primary votes don't care enough about that.

[Moderation4ever]

I like to second that sentiment. After WWII the GI bill help educate people and helped them buys houses. Those programs were pretty much exclusive to the white male. Farm program assistance while fine while black farmers were excluded. Immigration was seen as good until larger number of immigrants were people of color. Government programs deserve scrutiny but not because they are now open to a broader class of people.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're looking at an estimate of the accumulated total, I'm talking about the rate of influx.

During Biden administration

During Trump Administration

My apologies: Five times higher, not ten.

[bernard11]

If you read US v. Wong, it says that you are subject to its jurisdiction if your parents have “domiciled”

Does it?

Generally speaking, non-citizens must follow American laws when on American soil, so they are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the language of the Citizenship Clause. It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides – seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court, “. . . it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.”

[David Nieporent]

The part you quoted, “and subject to its jurisdiction” unequivocally means something more than just subject to US laws, in the way that any visitor is subject to US laws. If you read US v. Wong, it says that you are subject to its jurisdiction if your parents have “domiciled” (i.e. taken up law permanent residence) in the US.

If you read US v. Wong, you’d know there’s no such case, but rather the case is Wong Kim Ark.

And it’s true that WKA’s parents were domiciled in the U.S. at the time of his birth. But nothing in the case turned on that. Indeed, in surveying the scope of citizenship law it cites approvingly a British case that said:

“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”

[Krayt]

Border state Republicans work to make inroads with Latinos, unlike some others.

They come from corrupt countries, and look forward to low levels of corruption here, to make their own way and lives. Saying they come here to get on the dole, when the opposite is true, is magnificent bullshit.

One could play that angle, to make inroads.

[Frank Drackman]

You Spooks shoot at everybody, it's why everyone hates you.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Haley’s slightly older sister is ineligible to be president…Nikki Haley’s parents could have left America at any time and America would have had no jurisdiction over Nikki.

[Life of Brian]

If you read US v. Wong, you’d know there’s no such case, but rather the case is Wong Kim Ark.

And lawyers wonder why they get such a bad rap.

[M L]

After completing a vast historical survey of English common law of limited relevance and applicability (which was squarely rejected by the US even in the Declaration of Independence, as to its rules of subjectship and allegiance – a fact Justice Gray ignored), the opinion cites approvingly more relevant U.S. authority, for example:

“Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U. S. 356″

Setting aside any arguments about the reasoning and correctness of the majority in US v Wong (Kim Ark!) . . . any honest person has to admit that the issues of those who are (a) lawfully present but only temporarily visiting rather than taking up residence, or (b) unlawfully present in the US, are questions that were simply not reached by the holding of that case.

[M L]

"The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States . . ."

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Obama’s sister was born overseas and yet she was always an American citizen. Haley’s sister was born overseas and she wasn’t an American citizen at birth. Do you see the difference??

[JasonT20]

I would think that it has to be that someone is a citizen at birth, rather than being born in U.S. territory that makes one a “natural born” citizen. Otherwise, they would be ineligible if they were born overseas to a military family stationed there, or if they were born unexpectedly while the mother was on vacation outside the U.S., etc.

The reverse is not true though. Anyone born on U.S. territory IS a citizen because they didn’t want legislators inventing technicalities to deny people citizenship arbitrarily.

[Magister]

Excellent; I was expecting Tom the Dancing Bug's Boy President and his Imaginary Publicist, but that was even more fun.

[Magister]

Bonior, in a statement released by his office, said: "It is outrageous that these hard-liners who violated the law, sold arms to the ayatollah {of Iran} and lied to the American people should suggest that our efforts to bring democracy to Nicaragua were in any way inappropriate." He said the CIA had used "KGB tactics."

[Then-Rep. Michael Barnes (D-Md.)], reached by phone in London last night, said Casey had told him at their meeting that the CIA had intercepted a communication between the Nicaraguan embassy here and the foreign ministry in Managua which detailed [Barnes aide, Victor C.] Johnson's conversation with Nicaraguan officials.

The report quoted Johnson telling Nicaraguan officials that if they "wanted better relations with the United States, and particularly with Congress, they needed to improve their human rights record, open newspapers and take other steps of that kind," Barnes recalled.

"When Mr. Casey told me that, I said, good, that was a very appropriate message for Mr. Johnson, as a representative of our committee {House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Western Hemisphere affairs} to convey to the Nicaraguans."

Brett left out that part from that Washington Post article; the Reagan administration used this information to try to intimidate members of Congress, and it came out when members of that administration were being prosecuted over the Iran-Contra affair. The intercepted communications do not appear to be criminal; it seems unlikely that the administration would not have prosecuted Bonior if he was actually engaging in espionage.

And your information comes from Alan Fiers, who had earlier "pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from the Congress regarding secret efforts to aid the Nicaraguan Contra rebels." George H. W. Bush pardoned Fiers and many others from that scandal, while nobody needed to pardon Bonior.

[NOVA Lawyer]

So how confident are you in this comparison as a valid measure of effectiveness at the border?

Under Trump, the US averaged 64,507 apprehensions during his 48 months in office (your second link for 46 months + first link for final two months)).

Under Obama, the US averaged 44,957 encounters during his final 40 months in office (your second link).

By this metric, Trump increased the problem by 43%.

Alternatively, you just meant rate at beginning of term versus end of term. That's even worse for Trump (42,329 and trending down when he entered office, 78,414 and accelerating when he left office).

So, if anti-immigration is your issue and this is the metric you use to measure success (as you claim), you clearly preferred Obama and his policies to Trump and his policies. Who knew Brett was an Obama supporter?

I suspect he'll rightly say number of encounters is actually a stupid way to measure the effectiveness of Trump versus Obama in terms of managing the border. But then it's an equally stupid way to measure Trump versus Biden.

Don't use stupid measures of performance just because they support the narrative you want other people to believe that you believe.

I frankly don't believe you were ever dumb enough about statistics to believe they supported your narrative. Which is to say, I think you were dishonest with malicious intent the moment you started typing that comment. But restore my faith in humanity and tell me I am wrong and you were just that dumb about statistics.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett gaslighting us? That's never......oh, wait, he does it plenty.