No, losing a civil case because you can't keep your fat mouth shut defaming your rape victim should not be a reason to keep you off the ballot.
Being a traitorous foreign agent who tried to stay in power by overthrowing the government, however, should.
Exactly. I can't help but think this whole exchange was an attempt to muddy the waters on why he should be kept off the ballot (as you said, for trying to overthrow the government, not for being an asshole rapist):
When pressed further Sunday by host Kristen Welker on whether the recent ruling should disqualify Trump in the race, Haley said it’s up to the voters to decide.
“I don’t think he should be taken off the ballot. I think the American people will decide if he’s disqualifying or not. We don’t do that, Kristen, in America,” Haley responded. “Anybody that wants to run can run. And I think that’s really important. We have seen a lot of people try and infringe on our freedoms and our democracy.”
Remember, Haley has already said she would pardon Trump if she is elected. She's saying whatever she thinks will get those miscreants to not notice she's a brown woman and vote for her.
Yeah, good luck with that, Nikki. They’re stupid, yes, but they’re very good at racism and misogyny.
Yeah, being a rapist isn't enough, he's not some do-good Democrat. His constituents practically -expect- him to be a rapist.
“Anybody that wants to run can run. And I think that’s really important. We have seen a lot of people try and infringe on our freedoms and our democracy.”
Unless you're black. Then they'll try to make up lies about your birth certificate and also try to disqualify you for being born on an island (that is a full US state).
Anyone know if Nikki is on record at some point pushing birther conspiracies?
I am really glad she's attacking Trump now, but I think it's probably too late.
It's been really strange to me how the whole primary has been "well, you could vote for me, but there's no reason why you shouldn't vote for Trump!"
Why bother running if half your speaking time is dedicated to plugging your opponent?!
Christie was the only one that kinda went after him, but as much proven stuff there is to nail him on, they all just seemed so soft and weak. If I bought into any of their side of things, all they did was make Trump look like the pinnacle of being a modern Republican. At least he goes for it when he's out to take someone down.
Such a bizzare collection of candidates, sheesh!
The strangest was DeSantis who seemed like he really had a chance despite being pretty repulsive but he just wouldn't go after his main opponent ever. It's weird because he acted like he wanted to win.
Exactly!!!
It was like how Cruz kissed his ass after insulting his dad and his wife, but now they're ALL DOING IT. It's so freaking bizzare. And these are the people calling others cucks and simps! Your whole thing is being macho, and that you don't answer to anyone, and you're the dude that can put these tyrants in their place, blah blah, but then you end it by saying, "well but Mr Trump could do that way better than me, sorry Mr Trump, I know you did so much for us, I don't want to offend you!"
I just do not get the appeal of these people. I mean Joe doesn't get me revved up, but at least he comes out and says "yeah, I'm the man for the job. I'm gonna kick ass and eat ice cream on a train." If he came out and ended each speech saying "but don't forget about Hillary! She's still eligibile, too!" I'd be all WTF about that too.
Haley's the only one without kompromat
Or maybe just the least 😉
I wouldn't be so sure.
She's probably more used to rape- and death threats then her male colleagues.
Feels bad upvoting this, but it is a very good point.
It must be tough to walk that fine line of running an effective campaign against someone who is backed by the guy that holds all of your dirty secrets.
I wonder what Putins back up plan is if Trump is disqualified. He didn't seem to have a back up plan 3 years ago, ended up having to do the Ukraine thing anyway and really fumbled that. Would have been completely different with Trump in. But I have to assume he at least learned to have a back up plan this time.
And who knows where all the open windows are
Effective is funny word to use for any of them.
I think everyone in the GOP is surprised at how nutty all the MAGAts are. Anyone who challenges their God Emperor gets shouted at, SWATted, bad shit mailed to them, and generally slandered.
It even has affected the judges. Look at the one in Colorado who originally ruled on Trump's eligibility. He went out of his way to say that Trump engaged in insurrection, yet ruled that the Presidency wasn't covered by the 14th amendment, somehow. It makes no sense at all, unless you realize that judge probably realizes that if he ruled against Trump directly, he would have vigilante hit squads after him. So he made a ruling that at first glance favored Trump, but was guaranteed to be overturned on appeal, and since it's a higher court doing it, they have the budget for better security.
It has to be tough for these career politicians, who have worked their entire lives working their way up through the system, to get cock blocked by a guy who is likely senile and definitely dumb as a rock, but has their voters enthralled.
Too little too late. GOP voters don’t believe in democracy or independent judiciary anymore.
Or facts or reason.
How long before she pulls a Lindsey Graham and goes all MAGA again?
Haley's branding is fortunately, the anti-Trump Republicans. If she goes full MAGA, she basically loses the little bit of support she has remaining.
No MAGA-republican will vote for Haley when Trump is still in the running. Haley will know this.
Unless she thinks bending the knee again will be enough redemption for the magas. Not like they're known for long memories
I'll agree with Haley, I'm not sure if being a dogshit sleazebag warrants barring someone from office. It's a good thing that wasn't at all the point of this court case, and that the court of Colorado already determined he was a fucking traitor to the United States, which does warrant barring someone from office.
In her defense (*vomits quietly), it's really getting hard to keep track of all his legal proceedings.
Well, how about all the election interference? Should we allow someone who clearly acts like a fascist and tried to throw a coup back into office?
I don't think you read their whole comment.
Uh oh, say hello to the new Liz Cheney. She's be "RINOed" right ouf of the party for going against Dear Golden Leader.
I’m increasingly convinced that her strategy is to a) bet that Trump is going to jail, and b) stay active in the primary as long as she can so she’s the indisputable backup nominee when that happens.
deleted by creator
They threw their support behind him in 2020 because he was the incumbent. Same as the DNC did with Biden this time.
deleted by creator
No shit, sherlock
Yeah, but she also said she'd pardon him.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley said Sunday she “absolutely” trusts the jury in E. Jean Carroll defamation case against former President Trump but that the recent ruling should not bar him from the ballot.
On Friday, a jury ordered Trump to pay $83.3 million for defaming Carroll in 2019 when he denied the writer’s accusation he sexually assaulted her in the mid-1990s.
When pressed further Sunday by host Kristen Welker on whether the recent ruling should disqualify Trump in the race, Haley said it’s up to the voters to decide.
Haley’s defense of the jury’s verdict led to backlash from the Trump campaign.
Trump adviser Jason Miller posted an article from Semafor on X, formerly Twitter, with the headline, “Nikki Haley crosses the Rubicon.” The article described Haley’s comments on the jury verdict on “Meet the Press.”
“Congrats to @Semafor for correctly noting Nikki Haley just torpedoed her political future.
The original article contains 475 words, the summary contains 146 words. Saved 69%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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