496
Trump’s ‘achilles heel’? Haley’s refusal to drop out infuriates ex-president
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
496 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19119 readers
5050 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If I had to wager, her plan may be to stay in to the end despite losing every primary, just in case something goes south for Trump legally. Trouble is, he's going to savage her politically and many of his supporters will never vote for her
Sure. On the other hand...
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article284562880.html
Yeah this is my understanding.
I don't really understand it (despite everyone explaining it n times) but if the GOP want to win all they need to do is field a young candidate.
So it all comes down to “do Republicans want to win badly enough that they can suppress their racism and misogyny and vote for a woman of color”. Republicans like winning, but NEVER bet against racism and misogyny with that crew.
Also, a large fraction of the base WILL vote for Trump, and only Trump, whether he’s on the ballot or not, which hurts Haley. And there’s no evidence that the R’s have won over a single new voter since 2020, when they lost.
This all turns on how badly Biden does with HIS base, and that is currently pretty worrying. Democratic voters like unproductive petulance at least as much as Republican voters like racism and misogyny.
Biden definitely hasn't been unproductive. He just hasn't been loud enough about his accomplishments.
Biden's exceeded my expectations... it's just no one knows him as anything other than "The guy who sniffs hair"
If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?
Yea
I have a non-Biden non-trump candidate now I’m good
I think she's wrong though. If she were to win, Trump would run an an independent and split the wingnut vote.
Hell, it's likely she'll pull votes from the Left who just wanna see a woman president, Identity Politics isn't just a word ya know
Shes got the Koch billion dollar donation network behind her. I think her plan is to make as much of their money as possible, which they are glad to give to have a possible president directly in their pocket.
So what you are saying is we have found the only non trump anti genocide candidate?
And it pisses him off more?
I’m off to donate to her campaign
Yeah.... no... https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/15/nikki-haleys-israel-advocacy-defined-her-tenure-at-un-advocates
No offense but I don’t trust aljazeera on anything involving Israel, their other reporting tends to be fairly good though.
Literally 2 seconds of Googling- https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2023/10/20/nikki-haley-says-she-would-support-israel-strengthen-u-s-military-as-president/
Let me guess, you don't trust an Iowa newspaper to accurately report on what Nikki Haley said while she was campaigning in Iowa.
Nicely cited. Didn't even need the snarky jab chaser lol.
He's not very wrong about Al Jazeera's editorial bent.
The Al Jazeera article had direct quotes from Haley. Unless your argument is that Al Jazeera fabricates such quotes, and I don't think there is any evidence they do that, the criticism was wrong.
Nope, I agree that AJ article is well written and on point.
My feeling about AJ is they seem to have a background editorial agenda in general.
And that's plenty ok, IMO. Just good to keep in mind.
https://kbin.social/m/[email protected]/t/793847/-/comment/4828421
Thank you for a source that wasn’t aljazeera.
Come on squid, me, you, and pugjesus all have slightly different feelings but we pretty much agree on a lot.
Why make it personal?
I was polite and only asked for a source that was too close to the subject and would undoubtedly have a large amount of bias on this subject .
I know for a fact that you are better than this.
Because acting like the source that gives direct quotes is too biased to trust those quotes is silly. Especially when you're talking about Al Jazeera, not Newsmax.
I don’t trust their “quotes” not to be false and I do not feel like taking the time to cross verify with other trusted sources.
Once again, aljazeera is fine for things not relating to Israel, I just don’t trust them on this subject.