It is sickening to see such a difference in candidates for the GOP. A traitor vs. a credible politician who —as much as one can expect of a politician these days— seems genuinely concerned about serving the American people and would serve as a respectable face for the USA.
Nikki Haley is done. She has run a timid campaign and has been utterly unable to create a sizable anti Trump coalition within the GOP voter base. It is only partially her fault though, the MAGA base is more concerned with "retribution" and "owning the libs" than they are with putting forth a credible , sane, candidate. Better luck next time Nikki.
Well Nikki is not the nominee yet but I am hoping she will be. If she does. Though it does appear that she will be running against Joe Biden, traitor extrodinaire.
"I was the proud daughter of Indian immigrants. Not black, not white. I was different," she says. "But my mom would always say, 'Your job is not to focus on the differences, but the similarities.'"-Nikki Haley (Campaign Ad: "Strong and Proud")
Nikki Haley is described as a person of colorcontemporarily by pundits and media writers. And yet, she has an ad, "Strong and Proud," out where she (yet) insist on ignoring the value of association to 'running' as a person of color. Sure, it's no big deal, but one has to ask the question about. . . silence:
If being a person of color is "no big deal," why must Nikki Haley use a pet/short form of her name (1), and why can't she just go with her ethnic background in politics (2)?
After-all, should she become president her ethnicity and heritage will be front and center in the "first president-woman of color" category (whether she likes it that way or not).
Nimarata Nikki Randhawa Haley is quite difficult for the typical American to remember. This is very likely about marketing. One does not want people stumbling over a candidate's name or being unable to remember the name when speaking about how she impressed them.
Actually, I am consistent in not caring about the usage of her middle name, "Nikki" -it is her name coupled with her freedom to be called what she wishes. But, I think I read or heard some belt-way pundit or several describe her as being "too cute by half" when she tried and failed with the slavery question/answer. She is doing it again with this ad. People of Color are 'strong and proud' too. Indeed, when I saw the "Strong and Proud" ad (it is 99.9 brilliant) by Nikki's campaign for president. . . just reading the title of it gave me an impression it was her heritage that she was going to "celebrate" (albeit, baby steps) in some measure inside it.
My surprise was this: "Not black, not white. . . I was different." Emphasis on the unspecified difference and the lack of clarifying what makes her. . .different.
Don't get me wrong, when I sat down to write these sets of comments (so far). . . I was not planning on taking this tack with Nikki. But, I, it, by seeing the ad while looking into her real age 'captured' my attention.
And then there is this: The unspecified "ditching" of Kamala Harris as a boogey. . .woman without any follow-up to why we should fear V. P. Harris as a possible president. Afterall, V.P. Harris has been one-step off the presidency for nearly four years now already. . . and the world has not exploded by her proximity or placement in the White House, Senate, or Oval Office.
My understanding is that she was called Nikki as a child, and has just continued using the nickname, which isn't uncommon. I imagine Biden's first name is actually Joseph, but nobody calls him that. Al Gore is actually Albert. Bill Clinton is William.
We know all of those men as their nicknames, to the point that it would feel a bit awkward using their full names.
So, yeah, marketing and memorability.
I have to say, though, I do think a sizable portion of the GOP wouldn't have a favorable view or her if she were called "Nimrata".
Fitzgerald might lead to JFK but JFK did not go by Fitzgerald so John Kennedy is easy enough. Maybe JFK was to distance himself from his Dad's past?
Richard or Dick Nixon is easy.
Gerald Ford is easy.
Ronald Reagan is easy.
Harry Truman is easy.
Your examples, are all names that would be familiar to the average American. Lyndon is the most unusual but still not all that unfamiliar.
Nimarata Nikki Randhawa Haley
Nimarate is not familiar.
Randhawa is not familiar and even more difficult to say/remember
Going by Nikki Haley makes sense. Starting as a child up through running for office.
Barack Hussein Obama would be a better example. He mostly went by Obama or Barack Obama. Barack is the more difficult to remember, but even that is easier than Nimarata or Randhawa.
Nikki Haley is described as a person of colorcontemporarily by pundits and media writers.
I wouldn't describe her as "a person of color". It seems quite obvious to me that she'swhat people commonly refer to as "White".
But I don't care what people call her. I don't care what "race" she is, nor what name she prefers, nor what name people on NT decide she should use-- even after all this serious discussion.
If being a person of color is "no big deal," why must Nikki Haley use a pet/short form of her name (1), and why can't she just go with her ethnic background in politics (2)?
Well, whatever she finally decides to do, let's just hope she does what we here on NT decide-- because we know better than her what's right!-
After-all, should she become president her ethnicity and heritage will be front and center in the "first president-woman of color" category (whether she likes it that way or not).
Aside what color we here decide she is, don't forget if she were to become president, aside from her color, the pronounciation of her name (and whether of not she pronounces it the way we want her too)-- the fact is she will be the first female president. ,
No, but I can access ABC News, CBS News, npr, USA Today, CTV (Canada Television News) and a lot of other sources. Perhaps the CNN story has been repeated on one of those.
Not only does Haley match up better against Biden, but she would help the GOP return to some level of normalcy which is a far cry better than the irrational dysfunction that exists today.
Strange how so many in the GOP just jump on the Trump bandwagon without (apparently) the slightest foresight for the good of their party. Nixon was a bad stain but the GOP acted to cut him off. The GOP, with Nixon, retained party dignity. Trump's stain is substantially worse and the entire GOP is saturated with it.
Worse still, the current GOP apparently is okay with this as their legacy — knowingly nominating a traitor who attempted to steal a presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement. A PotUS who violated his oath of office by attempting to circumvent the CotUS and attack the foundation of democracy — the will of the electorate. And possibly, the distinction of nominating a convicted felon.
Worse still, the current GOP apparently is okay with this as their legacy
And so, from impeachment to impeachment, from incitement of insurrection (a violation of the constitution. A supposedly constitutional "do not go there" zone), to 91 charges in courts of law, to skipping every "off-ramp" fashioned for removing a "bad stain," the GOP has cast off all the "better matches" off its island. . . except Haley and Trump. And, Trump as a reality tv host, understands what it takes to decide what talent makes a winner in a competition. Watch this space: Tuesday, January 23, 2024.
The GOP/MAGAs have the 'hots' for Donald J.Trump like nobody has ever had the hots for another person!
Not only does Haley match up better against Biden, but she would help the GOP return to some level of normalcy which is a far cry better than the irrational dysfunction that exists today.
Nikki Haley would be of more help to down ballot Republicans than Trump. I don't see independents allowing Republicans to control Congress with Trump in the White House. So, Trump on the ballot favors down ballot Democrats. Of course the unbiased liberal press won't really talk about down ballot races until the election is over.
Worse still, the current GOP apparently is okay with this as their legacy — knowingly nominating a traitor who attempted to steal a presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement. A PotUS who violated his oath of office by attempting to circumvent the CotUS and attack the foundation of democracy — the will of the electorate. And possibly, the distinction of nominating a convicted felon.
That's the narrative pushed by the unbiased liberal press. We are only allowed to hear what the unbiased liberal press allows us to hear.
It's like the removal of Kevin McCarty as Speaker. Only 8 Republicans voted to vacate the chair, 210 Republicans voted to keep McCarthy. But the unbiased liberal press tells the lie that Republicans removed McCarthy and the public accepts that as gospel. What the unbiased liberal press told the public just ain't so.
The real truth is Trump tried to undermine the legitimacy of the Biden Presidency just at Democrats did to Trump. There is absolutely no way that Trump could have overturned the 2020 election. Trump did not lead an armed rebellion, Trump did call out the military, Trump did not attempt a coup. Trump made specious legal arguments and attempted to use the courts just like Democrats have done for decades. How the hell is that an insurrection? But the unbiased liberal press tells the lie and public believes the lie because that's what the public wants to believe. Doesn't the public believing that lie suggest that the public wants someone to actually overthrow the government?
That's the narrative pushed by the unbiased liberal press.
It is not a "narrative", it is reality.
Trump made specious legal arguments and attempted to use the courts just like Democrats have done for decades. How the hell is that an insurrection?
The insurrection was the armed breaking and entering of the Capitol to disrupt an active Congress that was executing the process of the peaceful transfer of power. Trump's role in the insurrection is the topic of debate. The insurrection itself is obvious.
That's the narrative pushed by the unbiased liberal press. We are only allowed to hear what the unbiased liberal press allows us to hear.
Funny, when folks on the left do it (remember they shut down courthouses and destroyed police departments) the press calls it mostly peaceful demonstrations and when folks on the right do it then it is an insurrection. And once again in the middle there is the word "riot" which is the actual word that should be used in both cases.
There's an 'article' about how the Capitol Police failed on 1/6 and that 'an unknown threat is imminent, when not if', when 1/6 was incited by a known threat, the former 'president' and maga and how to stop that from happening again.
Yeah, right. And Nancy Pelosi's shit smells like pistachio sorbet.
The insurrection was the armed breaking and entering of the Capitol to disrupt an active Congress that was executing the process of the peaceful transfer of power. Trump's role in the insurrection is the topic of debate. The insurrection itself is obvious.
So, who forced these armed insurrectionists to leave the Capitol building so the Senate could certify votes that were impossible to certify?
Why was Mike Pence hiding in a closet instead of calling in the National Guard? Pence was President of the Senate, after all. And the separation of powers means the President can't interfere with Congressional business.
The Senate can convene anywhere. The building is just for show. Pence could have convened the Senate in a parking garage and certified the vote. But Pence was too busy hiding in a closet.
There's lies, damned lies, and news reported by the unbiased liberal press. And we're supposed to believe conspiracy theories are irrational because those telling the lies have some sort of credentials? Just because the unbiased liberal press says it doesn't mean it's the truth.
No point discussing this if you are going to deny reality.
There is no denying that the GOP is knowingly nominating a traitor who attempted to steal a presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement. A PotUS who violated his oath of office by attempting to circumvent the CotUS and attack the foundation of democracy — the will of the electorate. And possibly, the distinction of nominating a convicted felon.
I find it a bit off-putting that two brown women of South Asian descent and one of them being Nikki Haley is calling out Kamala Harris without any mention of what is meritless about V.P. Harris. Why does Haley cast doubt on her 'sister' without making a case against her? Also, it is a spoken rule in presidential politics to never punch down. . . it is interestingly curious and maybe crazy as a fox. . .or just plain confusing that Haley is using AGEISM (and "death-wishing") in a strategy of dismissing Biden and singling out the Vice-President as though she, Haley, is running again a V.P.
Both, the death-wishing and the punching down effect can backfire on Haley. . . that is, should she reach the General Election.
That could be a point involved here: 1. Some matters transcend politics. 2. Nikki Haley is 'punching down.' 3. Ageism is looked down on.
Incidentally, Haley should take stock of all the 80 plus people in the republican party and in this country whom will frown upon her negativity about them. It's a rather "touchy" subject amongst the elderly.
Reagan quipped that he would not hold his opponent's youth again him and supposedly that settled this line of 'attack'. . .but here it comes again.
Then there is one more obvious consideration: Too much of a deal is made about age in this case. . . because presidents are surrounded by support staff in a host of matters anyway. It is not ever just a one-man or one-woman 'position.' Despite appearances to the public.
I know what you mean and partially agree. That said, they are running anyway and ageism is a 'thing' in our country to be avoided or. . .not exploited. Besides, it's constitutional for the two mento run as there is no cut-off age in the document for the office. And, ironically, guess which one of the men would likely be the first to file a lawsuit in court if needed on account of age: Trump, of course!
And, if republicans are going to be consistent. . .then merit is what counts here. . . not how old the president becomes.
Thanks, this is for the sake of argument and 'real' talk. Good night, TiG!
The establishment Democrats will be working hard to undermine Nikki Haley. Democrats are supposed to elect the first woman President. In the apparently unlikely event that Nikki Haley becomes the Republican candidate, don't be surprised if Democrats push Joe Biden to resign so Kamala Harris can claim the title of first woman President.
[deleted]
Nikki Haley should appeal to the Democrat base; the party has primed the base to support a woman candidate. So, expect the Democrat politics to get ugly if (when) Nikki Haley begins to successfully challenge that old, unsteady fella.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
It is sickening to see such a difference in candidates for the GOP. A traitor vs. a credible politician who —as much as one can expect of a politician these days— seems genuinely concerned about serving the American people and would serve as a respectable face for the USA.
Nikki Haley is done. She has run a timid campaign and has been utterly unable to create a sizable anti Trump coalition within the GOP voter base. It is only partially her fault though, the MAGA base is more concerned with "retribution" and "owning the libs" than they are with putting forth a credible , sane, candidate. Better luck next time Nikki.
Yeah, but I am still going to do my part and vote for her.
Well Nikki is not the nominee yet but I am hoping she will be. If she does. Though it does appear that she will be running against Joe Biden, traitor extrodinaire.
Nikki Haley is described as a person of color contemporarily by pundits and media writers. And yet, she has an ad, "Strong and Proud," out where she (yet) insist on ignoring the value of association to 'running' as a person of color. Sure, it's no big deal, but one has to ask the question about. . . silence:
If being a person of color is "no big deal," why must Nikki Haley use a pet/short form of her name (1), and why can't she just go with her ethnic background in politics (2)?
After-all, should she become president her ethnicity and heritage will be front and center in the "first president-woman of color" category (whether she likes it that way or not).
Nimarata Nikki Randhawa Haley is quite difficult for the typical American to remember. This is very likely about marketing. One does not want people stumbling over a candidate's name or being unable to remember the name when speaking about how she impressed them.
Actually, I am consistent in not caring about the usage of her middle name, "Nikki" -it is her name coupled with her freedom to be called what she wishes. But, I think I read or heard some belt-way pundit or several describe her as being "too cute by half" when she tried and failed with the slavery question/answer. She is doing it again with this ad. People of Color are 'strong and proud' too. Indeed, when I saw the "Strong and Proud" ad (it is 99.9 brilliant) by Nikki's campaign for president. . . just reading the title of it gave me an impression it was her heritage that she was going to "celebrate" (albeit, baby steps) in some measure inside it.
My surprise was this: "Not black, not white. . . I was different." Emphasis on the unspecified difference and the lack of clarifying what makes her. . .different.
Don't get me wrong, when I sat down to write these sets of comments (so far). . . I was not planning on taking this tack with Nikki. But, I, it, by seeing the ad while looking into her real age 'captured' my attention.
And then there is this: The unspecified "ditching" of Kamala Harris as a boogey. . .woman without any follow-up to why we should fear V. P. Harris as a possible president. Afterall, V.P. Harris has been one-step off the presidency for nearly four years now already. . . and the world has not exploded by her proximity or placement in the White House, Senate, or Oval Office.
My understanding is that she was called Nikki as a child, and has just continued using the nickname, which isn't uncommon. I imagine Biden's first name is actually Joseph, but nobody calls him that. Al Gore is actually Albert. Bill Clinton is William.
We know all of those men as their nicknames, to the point that it would feel a bit awkward using their full names.
So, yeah, marketing and memorability.
I have to say, though, I do think a sizable portion of the GOP wouldn't have a favorable view or her if she were called "Nimrata".
Yes, I agree, prejudice plays a role too.
She has gone by the name Nikki all her life, I think.
It seems "Nikki" is short for NImrata.
But how about Lyndon Baines Johnson? John Fitzgerald Kennedy? Richard Milhouse Nixon? Gerald Rudolph Ford? Ronald Wilson Reagan? Harry S. Truman?
LBJ, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Truman?
Going by Nikki Haley makes sense. Starting as a child up through running for office.
Barack Hussein Obama would be a better example. He mostly went by Obama or Barack Obama. Barack is the more difficult to remember, but even that is easier than Nimarata or Randhawa.
I wouldn't describe her as "a person of color". It seems quite obvious to me that she'swhat people commonly refer to as "White".
But I don't care what people call her. I don't care what "race" she is, nor what name she prefers, nor what name people on NT decide she should use-- even after all this serious discussion.
If being a person of color is "no big deal," why must Nikki Haley use a pet/short form of her name (1), and why can't she just go with her ethnic background in politics (2)?
Well, whatever she finally decides to do, let's just hope she does what we here on NT decide-- because we know better than her what's right!-
After-all, should she become president her ethnicity and heritage will be front and center in the "first president-woman of color" category (whether she likes it that way or not).
Aside what color we here decide she is, don't forget if she were to become president, aside from her color, the pronounciation of her name (and whether of not she pronounces it the way we want her too)-- the fact is she will be the first female president. ,
Well, that's assuming she has the good sense to limit her preferred "pronouns" to "she/her.
Hopefully she will have the good sense not to insist on being called "They/them" ...or something equally stupid!
Did anyone notice that misspelling Nikki's name is kinki?
Well, I had to say SOMETHING. I couldn't open the youtube seed.
Can you access CNN?
No, but I can access ABC News, CBS News, npr, USA Today, CTV (Canada Television News) and a lot of other sources. Perhaps the CNN story has been repeated on one of those.
What's kinki about it?
It seems like an honest mistake!
Just changes the order of the letters.
I’m not thrilled with the prospect of a President Harris but it would still be better than a President Haley.
Not only does Haley match up better against Biden, but she would help the GOP return to some level of normalcy which is a far cry better than the irrational dysfunction that exists today.
Strange how so many in the GOP just jump on the Trump bandwagon without (apparently) the slightest foresight for the good of their party. Nixon was a bad stain but the GOP acted to cut him off. The GOP, with Nixon, retained party dignity. Trump's stain is substantially worse and the entire GOP is saturated with it.
Worse still, the current GOP apparently is okay with this as their legacy — knowingly nominating a traitor who attempted to steal a presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement. A PotUS who violated his oath of office by attempting to circumvent the CotUS and attack the foundation of democracy — the will of the electorate. And possibly, the distinction of nominating a convicted felon.
And so, from impeachment to impeachment, from incitement of insurrection (a violation of the constitution. A supposedly constitutional "do not go there" zone), to 91 charges in courts of law, to skipping every "off-ramp" fashioned for removing a "bad stain," the GOP has cast off all the "better matches" off its island. . . except Haley and Trump. And, Trump as a reality tv host, understands what it takes to decide what talent makes a winner in a competition. Watch this space: Tuesday, January 23, 2024.
The GOP/MAGAs have the 'hots' for Donald J.Trump like nobody has ever had the hots for another person!
Nikki Haley would be of more help to down ballot Republicans than Trump. I don't see independents allowing Republicans to control Congress with Trump in the White House. So, Trump on the ballot favors down ballot Democrats. Of course the unbiased liberal press won't really talk about down ballot races until the election is over.
That's the narrative pushed by the unbiased liberal press. We are only allowed to hear what the unbiased liberal press allows us to hear.
It's like the removal of Kevin McCarty as Speaker. Only 8 Republicans voted to vacate the chair, 210 Republicans voted to keep McCarthy. But the unbiased liberal press tells the lie that Republicans removed McCarthy and the public accepts that as gospel. What the unbiased liberal press told the public just ain't so.
The real truth is Trump tried to undermine the legitimacy of the Biden Presidency just at Democrats did to Trump. There is absolutely no way that Trump could have overturned the 2020 election. Trump did not lead an armed rebellion, Trump did call out the military, Trump did not attempt a coup. Trump made specious legal arguments and attempted to use the courts just like Democrats have done for decades. How the hell is that an insurrection? But the unbiased liberal press tells the lie and public believes the lie because that's what the public wants to believe. Doesn't the public believing that lie suggest that the public wants someone to actually overthrow the government?
It is not a "narrative", it is reality.
The insurrection was the armed breaking and entering of the Capitol to disrupt an active Congress that was executing the process of the peaceful transfer of power. Trump's role in the insurrection is the topic of debate. The insurrection itself is obvious.
Funny, when folks on the left do it (remember they shut down courthouses and destroyed police departments) the press calls it mostly peaceful demonstrations and when folks on the right do it then it is an insurrection. And once again in the middle there is the word "riot" which is the actual word that should be used in both cases.
There's an 'article' about how the Capitol Police failed on 1/6 and that 'an unknown threat is imminent, when not if', when 1/6 was incited by a known threat, the former 'president' and maga and how to stop that from happening again.
Easy solution - don't vote for the traitor.
Yeah, right. And Nancy Pelosi's shit smells like pistachio sorbet.
So, who forced these armed insurrectionists to leave the Capitol building so the Senate could certify votes that were impossible to certify?
Why was Mike Pence hiding in a closet instead of calling in the National Guard? Pence was President of the Senate, after all. And the separation of powers means the President can't interfere with Congressional business.
The Senate can convene anywhere. The building is just for show. Pence could have convened the Senate in a parking garage and certified the vote. But Pence was too busy hiding in a closet.
There's lies, damned lies, and news reported by the unbiased liberal press. And we're supposed to believe conspiracy theories are irrational because those telling the lies have some sort of credentials? Just because the unbiased liberal press says it doesn't mean it's the truth.
Such a classy opening line regarding Ms. Pelosi
The rest is your usual projection, denial, and alternate universe/facts
“The building is just for show.”
The Capitol, the House of the People, a sanctuary that was built on a foundation of our American principles is ‘just for show’ ?
That is so far off the rails…and anyone voting that up should be ashamed.
Any patriots out there care to comment?
No point discussing this if you are going to deny reality.
There is no denying that the GOP is knowingly nominating a traitor who attempted to steal a presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement. A PotUS who violated his oath of office by attempting to circumvent the CotUS and attack the foundation of democracy — the will of the electorate. And possibly, the distinction of nominating a convicted felon.
I find it a bit off-putting that two brown women of South Asian descent and one of them being Nikki Haley is calling out Kamala Harris without any mention of what is meritless about V.P. Harris. Why does Haley cast doubt on her 'sister' without making a case against her? Also, it is a spoken rule in presidential politics to never punch down. . . it is interestingly curious and maybe crazy as a fox. . .or just plain confusing that Haley is using AGEISM (and "death-wishing") in a strategy of dismissing Biden and singling out the Vice-President as though she, Haley, is running again a V.P.
Both, the death-wishing and the punching down effect can backfire on Haley. . . that is, should she reach the General Election.
Politicians never speak highly of their competition.
That could be a point involved here: 1. Some matters transcend politics. 2. Nikki Haley is 'punching down.' 3. Ageism is looked down on.
Incidentally, Haley should take stock of all the 80 plus people in the republican party and in this country whom will frown upon her negativity about them. It's a rather "touchy" subject amongst the elderly.
Reagan quipped that he would not hold his opponent's youth again him and supposedly that settled this line of 'attack'. . .but here it comes again.
Then there is one more obvious consideration: Too much of a deal is made about age in this case. . . because presidents are surrounded by support staff in a host of matters anyway. It is not ever just a one-man or one-woman 'position.' Despite appearances to the public.
Both Biden and Trump are too old to be PotUS. It is entirely reasonable for Haley to point that out.
I know what you mean and partially agree. That said, they are running anyway and ageism is a 'thing' in our country to be avoided or. . .not exploited. Besides, it's constitutional for the two men to run as there is no cut-off age in the document for the office. And, ironically, guess which one of the men would likely be the first to file a lawsuit in court if needed on account of age: Trump, of course!
And, if republicans are going to be consistent. . .then merit is what counts here. . . not how old the president becomes.
Thanks, this is for the sake of argument and 'real' talk. Good night, TiG!
The establishment Democrats will be working hard to undermine Nikki Haley. Democrats are supposed to elect the first woman President. In the apparently unlikely event that Nikki Haley becomes the Republican candidate, don't be surprised if Democrats push Joe Biden to resign so Kamala Harris can claim the title of first woman President.
[deleted]
Nikki Haley should appeal to the Democrat base; the party has primed the base to support a woman candidate. So, expect the Democrat politics to get ugly if (when) Nikki Haley begins to successfully challenge that old, unsteady fella.
That is unremarkably dense and insulting, but. . .expected.