320

Nikki Haley Flails When Confronted by Her Own Secession Comments (www.thedailybeast.com)

submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The GOP candidate had said last week that states could secede if they felt the need to do so.

Nikki Haley, fresh off her Civil War history refresher on this week’s Saturday Night Live, appeared to remember what the Constitution allowed when it comes to state secession: nothing.

Haley again walked back her comments saying states could choose if they wanted to secede from the U.S., telling CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday that she didn’t believe the Constitution afforded them that right. It came days after she told radio host Charlamagne tha God that states like Texas could “make the decisions that their people want to make.”

“According to the Constitution, they can’t,” Haley told CNN. “What I think they have the right to do is have the power to protect themselves and do all that. Texas has talked about that for a long time. The Constitution doesn’t allow for that.”

The GOP presidential candidate then tried to pivot to why Texas would consider such an option, citing Gov. Greg Abbott’s frustration with the Biden administration’s handling of the Southern border and the state’s desire to protect itself.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] wick@lemm.ee -2 points 9 months ago

What about this is flailing? She said no like 2-3 times and didn't say anything else contradictory in the interview. Now idk wtf she actually said on that podcast because the reporter didn't press her on it or quote her, if she did contradict herself then it's the reporter that fumbled and I'd be way madder about that.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 months ago

Now [I don't know] [what the fuck] she actually said on that podcast

Here's a thought.

because the reporter didn't press her on it or quote her,

Not a requirement when the interviewer knows of it and the audience should too.

[but] if she did contradict herself then it's the reporter [who] fumbled

The reporter doesn't make her say one thing one day and another thing the next (with no explanation for the volte-turn). She's done that all her own, but for someone to point out the obvious and land her in the hot seat of her own waffling creation.

Flip-flopping used to be a death knell for a campaign: John Kerry, Julia Jilliard, Gordon Brown, and some Toole from Canada, all lost because they couldn't be consistent.

While she is the least-bad option for the degenerates she'd lead, this kind of stupidity could end her career at the helm like it almost did George HW 'no new taxes' Bush.

[-] wick@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago

The audience shouldn't be expected to know jack shit. That's the most autist take imaginable, to expect all people to know all relevant things before it's even known to be relevant.

You still haven't shown me where she "flailed" in this interview btw, just a bunch of whiny bitching about grammar and past elections.

this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024

320 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19097 readers

1662 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News