Nikki Haley's next move

[Lees]

None of that excuses hurling insults and threats instead of leading.

If we can find a conservative candidate that is a leader, that conservative love and moderates don't fear, and has a temperament that inspires confidence then we can win. If we can find that candidate then democrats can attack and insult all they want and it will not make a difference.
Unfortunately, Trump is not a good leader, moderates fear him, and even his supporters think he has a bad temperament. He has no self discipline and emotionally reacts to every little thing. His is sinking the republican party. Republicans should have a majority in the Senate and at least a 20 seat majority in the house. But Trumps hand picked candidates were terrible and lost in places that a good conservative republican candidate should have easily won.

If there is never a conservative president in America it will not be the democrats fault, it will be Republicans fault for having bad candidates that can't convince voters that conservatism is the best way to run the country.

We need to get back to Reagan's practical conservatism message instead of embracing Trump's Populism. Populism is great at stirring up radical followers, but it is based a person instead of an ideology.

Hurling insults and threats is all part of political leading. It has been for years. You're just looking for a 'swamp conservative'. There are both Republicans and Democrats who make up the swamp. You want to go back to the swamp days, when the Republican party was slowly changing to a liberal party. You want to go back so that both Democrat and Republican parties go down the toilet and take America with them.

Trump is a conservative candidate that is the leader. This is why both parties hate him. It's both Republicans and Democrats fault for not supporting Trump when he was president, and hindering him still from being president.

As I said, political parties change. Were you Democrat when the South was solid conservative and Democrat? Please answer.

Oh my,...Populism. In other words the choice of voters. Which the swamp fear. Oh, so now you want a 'person' instead of an 'ideology'. Yet you call Trump a 'cult leader' and his voters 'followers'. So who is your 'cult leader'? Who do you 'follow'? Who is your 'person'?

It's not Trump you and the swamp hate. It's the American voter. Those deplorables.

Lees

 

[Albion]

I'm a Conservative Republican. I'm Pro-Life, I believe in keeping taxes as low and in limited Federal government, I believe in a strong national defense and believe in freedom of Religion. Being a republican always meant that I stood for something.

But maybe you can appreciate why it is that people doubt such a claim about someone being a Conservative who favors lowering taxes, preserving freedom of religion, and etc. when the way the candidate who's most likely to win the presidency and do all those things is rejected simply because he talks like a smart-aleck in casual moments or when he's on the campaign trail.

And he is going to destroy the Republican party. Even if he wins this election his Presidency will be such a dumpster fire that Democrats will run the country for the next 15 years.

Don't overlook the fact that they have found a winning strategy and it's to destroy the Republican leader using every approach possible. They started in a milder way by doing unconscionable things to Reagan and Bush II, but now the technique has been expanded to where it's been shown to operate well with almost no restraints.

Thinking that Trump is a special, once in a lifetime, target, or that he's uniquely vulnerable to this sort of thing, is shortsighted.

We need to get back to Reagan's practical conservatism message instead of embracing Trump's Populism. Populism is great at stirring up radical followers, but it is based a person instead of an ideology.

Personally, I seriously doubt that the average American who wants peace abroad, normal immigration policies, a lower cost of living, freedom of religion, less government surveillance of innocent people's daily activities, AND who therefore supports a candidate who has actually produced in all those areas ought to be considered a cultist or a radical.

We need to get back to Reagan's practical conservatism message instead of embracing Trump's Populism. Populism is great at stirring up radical followers, but it is based a person instead of an ideology.

That sounds good, I suppose, but that's about all.

Once the opportunity has passed, and the opposition is then able to change all the election rules, jail or financially destroy as many supporters of the other party as possible, pack the Supreme Court, eliminate the Electoral College, and completely politicize the federal bureaucracy and military...no such candidate as you are looking forward to voting for will have a chance. Some people don't realize that there are elections in such countries as Russia and Iran. It's just that the rulers decide which candidate will be allowed to run, and then which candidate will be allowed to win.

 

[Josiah]

They attack every Republican President. Non have acted like him. Instead of responding to attacks with dignity and class he resorts to childish insults and threats. Some people see his childish insults (like calling NIkki Haley birdbrain or making fun of Chris Christie's weight) ) as a sign of strength, when they are really signs of weakness. A true leader can rise above the insults and attacks and make those doing the insults and attacks look foolish. If you want to win an argument prove you are right on the issues and that you opponent is wrong and how you will make a better more effective leader. He can't do that so he just hurls insults, and his followers lap it up. Hurling insults and threats is not leadership.

I'm a Conservative Republican. I'm Pro-Life, I believe in keeping taxes as low and in limited Federal government, I believe in a strong national defense and believe in freedom of Religion. Being a republican always meant that I stood for something.

Trump is not a republican, he is a cult leader. And he is going to destroy the Republican party. Even if he wins this election his Presidency will be such a dumpster fire that Democrats will run the country for the next 15 years. I for one, don't want to see democrats run the country for the next 15 years.

@Lanman87

I completely agree.....

I agree with and support Trump on issues..... as does Haley and most of the others who also ran for the nomination; issues has never been an issue. It's TRUMP. He is the issue. And yeah, as a Republican, as a Christian, as an adult - I'm embarrassed, genuinely embarrassed by this man (especially as our nation's president!). His kindergarten-like name calling, his childish personal insults, his comments about female genitals, his reputation for womanizing (and boasting about that), and yes his insisting he won the 2020 election (most learn around the age of 5 or 6 to be respectful losers). I recall his wife once telling reporters that she wished he'd stop posting on social media... yeah. Because what he posts if often embarrassing. I have a relative in Denmark with whom I keep in contact, and she says the news there LOVES to quote Trump and then laugh at loud at him.

And I'm really confused why the "Evangelical" community so passionately loves HIM (but not necessarily his views)... Twice divorced, thrice married (and lots of cheating), he claims to be Presbyterian but rarely worships anywhere and seems to know little about Christianity... I'm at a loss to know why so many "Evangelicals" love HIM so passionately. Yeah, at times it seems almost like a cult, a cult following. Kinda scary... in my long life, I've never witnessed anything remotely like this, at least not in the US.

I'd be slightly more accepting IF Trump was the only one with those views and policies... IF we had to put up with him to get those views on issues. But that's not the case. LOTS of respectable, adult Republicans are in 100% agreement with those views.



.



.

 

[Albion]

And I'm really confused why the "Evangelical" community so passionately loves HIM (but not necessarily his views)... Twice divorced, thrice married (and lots of cheating), he claims to be Presbyterian but rarely worships anywhere and seems to know little about Christianity... I'm at a loss to know why so many "Evangelicals" love HIM so passionately.

It's not that hard to appreciate. They know full well that some of his comments are embarrassing and some of his doings in private life--mainly long before he became a political figure--are cringeworthy. BUT he's running for president, not pastor. It's what his administrative policies have been and will be if re-elected that matter!

No other Republican in the race matches up, like it or not. And certainly not the only one still contesting Trump for the nomination who, for some unfathomable reason, gets almost a complete pass from people who are "shocked" by Trump's supposed immorality.

 

[tango]

None of that excuses hurling insults and threats instead of leading.

If we can find a conservative candidate that is a leader, that conservative love and moderates don't fear, and has a temperament that inspires confidence then we can win. If we can find that candidate then democrats can attack and insult all they want and it will not make a difference.
Unfortunately, Trump is not a good leader, moderates fear him, and even his supporters think he has a bad temperament. He has no self discipline and emotionally reacts to every little thing. His is sinking the republican party. Republicans should have a majority in the Senate and at least a 20 seat majority in the house. But Trumps hand picked candidates were terrible and lost in places that a good conservative republican candidate should have easily won.

If there is never a conservative president in America it will not be the democrats fault, it will be Republicans fault for having bad candidates that can't convince voters that conservatism is the best way to run the country.

We need to get back to Reagan's practical conservatism message instead of embracing Trump's Populism. Populism is great at stirring up radical followers, but it is based a person instead of an ideology.

I remember a quote from the early 2000s, that included lines like "if you think you can spend your money better than the government can then you are a Republican". Back from the days that California was a red state.

I think a large part of the problem is that fiscal mismanagement has created inflationary pressures that price young people out of ever-more things that were once taken for granted and they respond (understandably, given there's so little grasp of what is being done) by agreeing with the idea of taking from the people who have to provide for the people who don't. It's not a hugely radical hope to have somewhere to live where you can't be evicted for no reason and have to move, again, assuming you can find somewhere that's suitable.

 

[Lanman87]

It's not that hard to appreciate. They know full well that some of his comments are embarrassing and some of his doings in private life--mainly long before he became a political figure--are cringeworthy. BUT he's running for president, not pastor.

true. But, being President is also being the person representing our country to the world. In many cases demeanor and ability to articulate the position on the USA in a constructive manner are a very important function of the President. Trump fails miserably in that aspect.

 

[Lanman87]

I was 10 years old when Reagan became President in 1981. The first presidential election I voted in was 1988. It was for GHW Bush. I voted for and sometimes campaigned for every Republican until Trump.

 

[Lees]

As I said, political parties change. Were you Democrat when the South was solid conservative and Democrat? Please answer.

I was 10 years old when Reagan became President in 1981. The first presidential election I voted in was 1988. It was for GHW Bush. I voted for and sometimes campaigned for every Republican until Trump.

Who are you talking to? Are you scared to show? Why do you present my statements as yours? Seems to be a common theme on this forum...deception in the presentation of what one has said.

Ok. You don't know the history of the Republican party. I understand. Yet you claim you want to stand for the Republican party, but don't know anything about the Republican party.

You say you want to stand for something yet you don't know what you stand for. Typical swamp croaking. You didn't address my post #(21). You just tried to hide and croak.

So who did you vote for instead of Trump...? Biden?

Please correct your error in representing my statements as yours.

Lees

 

[Albion]

true. But, being President is also being the person representing our country to the world.

Okay. That's one way of looking at it, but you wondered why Evangelicals would support Trump who as president made religion something not to be afraid of mentioning in public and took a strong stand against all the attempts of recent days aimed at undermining freedom of religious expression.

To the best of my knowledge, Haley has no history as a serious defender of the faith or of the Constitutional right to one's religion. Worse, there are many who think she converted to Christianity herself simply in order to have a political future, much like the charge that she changed her name for the same reason.

In many cases demeanor and ability to articulate the position on the USA in a constructive manner are a very important function of the President. Trump fails miserably in that aspect.

If so, why was he able to keep us out of war as president while, at the same time, keeping our enemies contained? Huh?

He's the only president in recent history who did not get us participating in a new war somewhere or other on the globe. And if we took at Haley's record, she may know her way around the United Nations Organization but she's certainly not reluctant to go to war.

A Monmouth University/Washington Post poll of potential primary voters that was released this Monday showed that Trump is trusted on foreign policy over Haley by a margin of 57% to 32%.

 

[Lanman87]

Thinking that Trump is a special, once in a lifetime, target, or that he's uniquely vulnerable to this sort of thing, is shortsighted.

Trump brings a lot of it on himself. Reagan was attacked and demonized but you heard Reagan speak and saw how much he cared you knew it was a load of hogwash.

When you here Trump speak you realize they may be right about him. It he had a better disposition and more tact, and didn't react to every little attack, then the attacks against him wouldn't matter at all.

 

[Lanman87]

Ok. You don't know the history of the Republican party. I understand. Yet you claim you want to stand for the Republican party, but don't know anything about the Republican party.

Okay, let me rephrase. I stand for Reagan Republicanism which got its start with Barry Goldwater.

 

[Lanman87]

Oh my,...Populism. In other words the choice of voters.

That's just it. Populism might win one election but anger doesn't last. The 2022 midterm elections showed us that Trumps populism isn't sustainable.

The few republicans who did win were long time Republicans who ties to the Party (like Katie Britt in my state) . The MAGA candidates (Lake, Oz, Walker) were all winnable races had the republicans ran a traditional conservative instead of MAGA candidates.

To win an election you must win your party as well as win over some independents.

If Trump wins in November it will be because Biden is an even worse candidate that him and the independents stay home and don't vote for anyone.

 

[Lanman87]

So who did you vote for instead of Trump...? Biden?

I voted for Republicans in all my state wide and local elections and abstained from the Presidential ballot.

 

[Lanman87]

If so, why was he able to keep us out of war as president while, at the same time, keeping our enemies contained? Huh?

I will give Trump credit for the fight against Terror. He wasn't hesitate to kill Terrorist leaders.

But, I would also argue that Trumps' attitude toward Ukraine led up to the Russian invasion. Had Trump (and the West in general) armed Ukraine to the teeth and pushed NATO admission then Putin would have never invaded Ukraine. We knew years ago that Putin had his sights on Ukraine. Why we didn't sell them tanks and our excess F-16's (that were being replaced by the F-35) and train them how to use them is beyond me.

And Nikki Haley is 100% correct on Russia. We tired being isolationist before WWII and it didn't work. We can either arm Ukraine and have them fight Russia or we can end up in World War III. Hopefully, the Russians getting a taste of modern Western military capability has slowed down their plans to unify the Soviet Union countries to Russia. We aren't giving the Ukraine our latest tech and they were still able to fight Russia to a stalemate.

I'm scared to death that Trump would pull us out of NATO or not honor our NATO commitments. That would lead to WWIII faster than any other senario and we would end up in the War eventually anyway. Either that or end up as a puppet state to Russia/China. Or worst case, a nuclear war would break out and kill millions and send the survivors back to the stone age. That may happen anyway. But as of right now the Military power of the USA is what is keeping Russia out of NATO countries and keeping China out of Taiwan.

 

[Lanman87]

No other Republican in the race matches up, like it or not. And certainly not the only one still contesting Trump for the nomination who, for some unfathomable reason, gets almost a complete pass from people who are "shocked" by Trump's supposed immorality.

I disagree. I think if almost any of the other Republican Candidates in the 2016 election had won the nomination they would have easily defeated Clinton (who was the worst Democratic Candidate in decades) and would have accomplished as much or more than Trump as President. I also think they would have been a two term president.

I also think most of those Republican that ran against Trump this time would easily beat Biden in November. I also think that DeSantis, Haley, and Tim Scott would all be accomplish more as President in the next four years than Trump could/will. The main reason being that they have some tact and political savvy that Trump lacks. Another being that if Trump wins the Democrats will never support anything he does, even if it is not controversial. And Republicans we be so weak that they will not be able to offer any support. At least the other candidates would have been able to have a fresh start and an opportunity to reframe the issues.

 

[Lanman87]

Please correct your error in representing my statements as yours.

Sorry, I was responding on my phone.

 

[Albion]

Trump brings a lot of it on himself. Reagan was attacked and demonized but you heard Reagan speak and saw how much he cared you knew it was a load of hogwash.

But Reagan was not subjected to anything like that which has been thrown at Trump. Reagan's name was mispronounced. He was called a second-rate actor. And his policies were described as wrongheaded, etc.

Somewhere back in the Nixon era is probably where the politics of personal destruction became a standard policy, though, and it has only now reached all-out destruction.

It's also probably true to say that Reagan had a wonderful manner and sense of humor that many other politicians might wish for themselves, and that this did him a lot of good.

When you here Trump speak you realize they may be right about him. It he had a better disposition and more tact, and didn't react to every little attack, then the attacks against him wouldn't matter at all.

I find that analysis to be completely incorrect. Sorry.

 

[Albion]

That's just it. Populism might win one election but anger doesn't last. The 2022 midterm elections showed us that Trumps populism isn't sustainable.

When did the media, and then people in general, start using the word "populism" to mean something sinister rather what it actually means, do you think?
____________________________________________________

populism /pŏp′yə-lĭz″əm/

noun​

1. A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.
   
   
   

 

[Lanman87]

It's also probably true to say that Reagan had a wonderful manner and sense of humor that many other politicians might wish for themselves, and that this did him a lot of good.

A little off topic, but, policy aside, I think Reagan and Clinton were the two best politicians of my lifetime. They had a gift that most don't have. As a Republican it was one of the things I hated about Clinton. He would speak into the camera and "feel your pain". He understood that, in a President election, that the majority of people don't vote for "policy" they vote for empathy and confidence and "feelings".

Trump understands the same thing but he is tapping into and stirring up people's anger.

 

[Albion]

Trump understands the same thing but he is tapping into and stirring up people's anger.

So you think that it took some orator to make 3/4 of the public (according to current polling) believe that inflation, an unchecked invasion of our country, and a dismantling of all of our institutions...

is alarming to Americans, but instead that it has all simply been engineered by one politician??