At one point I thought that Nikki Haley would be a good candidate from a demographic standpoint. To some degree I still do. Her immigrant heritage, sex, and skin color would blunt the typical leftist attacks on a GOP candidate. However the reported but unsubstantiated, revelation that she has allegedly had multiple affairs raises a big red flag with me.
1. The fact that she ran for office thinking that this information was not going to come out, indicates that her judgement is questionable.
2. Just like Clinton and Trump, I still believe that anyone who refuses to take their wedding vows seriously, will be less inclined to take their oath of office seriously.
3. As we've seen with multiple candidates, the US electorate has a surprising tolerance for adultery in it's presidential candidates. Given that, she probably could have been up front about this and gotten a pass.
4. I'm not suggesting that this alone is disqualifying. I am saying that my above concerns make a vote for Haley even less likely.
5. Not adultery related, but the fact that a democrat is one of her major donors also raises red flags.
18 comments:
I prefer angels and apostles (post resurrection apostles). Know any who seek political office?
I don't either.
That said, her salacious affairs are not as concerning as her other issues which have been presented in various places. I can provide some of it if necessary, but they were enough to have already compelled me to reject her as an option for me personally...unless somehow she manages to remain by November of this year, and I don't see that happening without assholes pretending Trump was guilty of any of the 91 charges politically put against him, or he dies of some age related health issue or knocked off by a lefty. Barring any of that stuff, she doesn't have an ice cube's chance in hell. There's also the issue of her eligibility. If indeed it's true her parents were not American citizens when she was born, she's more clearly ineligible than was Obama.
This was one of those things which is said to be widely known among political insiders, and yet I had never been aware of it until now. That should never be the case. The Dems don't care about such things, but we on the right find such things deplorable and a serious mark against a candidate which requires much to overcome. Trump's well known history in that regard has not had any parallel regarding his fidelity to his intentions as president, and the fact that he never sought to hide what was already exposed to his wives does make the situation different than Haley, who postured as more of an angelic figure. Trump never did. that doesn't excuse Trump's past adulteries, but it does mitigate this notion of him having a problem with truth.
But if this revelation results in less support for Haley, then the nation is well served by the news. Without it, we'd have been left with someone not right for the office anyway.
For the most part, I'm done commenting on your nonsense posts, but this...?
1. The fact that she ran for office thinking that this information was not going to come out, indicates that her judgement is questionable.
I had not heard anything about this. I'm guessing it's something mainly being talked about in far right extremist arenas. Doing a search for it, I find a couple of unproven allegations, which Haley denies and for which, as noted, there is NO proof.
It's literally a rumor.
AND YET, you and people like you saying "The fact that she ran for office thinking this information was not going to come out..." That WHAT was not going to come out? A salacious piece of gossip and slander?
And for Maga/Trump defenders to even DARE to raise this kind of thing, does no one see the hypocrisy and shamefulness of it.
Good God.
(and I know, I know, you're not saying this bit of gossip is true, just that your gossip that you're choosing to pass on MIGHT be true... Does that somehow make it not gossip? Do you not know that those who gossip and slander are not of the realm of God?)
"I had not heard anything about this. I'm guessing it's something mainly being talked about in far right extremist arenas. Doing a search for it, I find a couple of unproven allegations, which Haley denies and for which, as noted, there is NO proof."
Well, if Dan hasn't "heard anything about this", then it absolutely cannot be true.
"It's literally a rumor."
It may be, it may not be.
"AND YET, you and people like you saying "The fact that she ran for office thinking this information was not going to come out..." That WHAT was not going to come out? A salacious piece of gossip and slander?"
Yes, how absurd to think that someone would run for president with significant dirty laundry and think it wasn't going to come out. Regardless of what that dirty laundry is, the likelihood that it'll stay hidden is very low in our current climate. It's strange that you don't seem as bothered by the "gossip and slander" aimed at Trump by the Clinton campaign (back in the day), the MSM, and the DFL.
"And for Maga/Trump defenders to even DARE to raise this kind of thing, does no one see the hypocrisy and shamefulness of it."
It's shocking, but I'm pretty sure that you missed my point.
"(and I know, I know, you're not saying this bit of gossip is true, just that your gossip that you're choosing to pass on MIGHT be true... Does that somehow make it not gossip? Do you not know that those who gossip and slander are not of the realm of God?)"
This is out there, it's been reported, and we'll find out more as things progress. Much like we found out that the :gossip and slander about Trump that you passed on was actually all made up bullshit.
Again, congratulations on missing the point.
"For the most part, I'm done commenting on your nonsense posts, but this...?"
For the most part, I was quite cleat that my posts on 1 John were not something that I expected or wanted you to comment on, as it was more about the point that the context of the book doesn't support your claims. But the hubris of pretending like you not commenting is some huge deal on your part is most impressive.
The reality is that you can't defend your out of context, cherry picked, proof texts as being the primary focus of 1 John no matter how hard you try, so you choosing to do so isn't really something to be applauded.
Art,
My point was and is that extra marital affairs raise questions in my mind over the willingness of someone to keep their vows/oaths. If someone considers their wedding vow something to be ignored whenever it's convenient, then why would I believe that they'd treat any vow/oath any differently?
Obviously, the DFL has made it very clear that they don't give a rat's ass about marital fidelity in their candidates, and the GOP is pretty much sending the same message. Despite that, I see no problem with having things that I personally look at and make decisions based from. Obviously Haley has other problems from a GOP standpoint, obviously she also has some strengths as a candidate as well. (Mostly demographic in my mind, but still strengths).
Art,
Your continued insistence that there are no perfect people running for office is both repetitive, and pointless. Obviously there are no perfect people, and just as obviously, I am not holding out for a perfect person. What I am doing, is looking at what the various imperfect candidates have done or been reported to have done, and comparing them.
While, neither is perfect a candidate who has kept their wedding vow is more appealing than one who has not. Further, one who continually shows their disdain for their vows, wife, and family is less appealing than one who isn't a serial adulterer. One that can admit their failures, apologize, and repair their relationships is more appealing than one who won't acknowledge that cheating is wrong.
I can't stop you from applying this absurd and wrong standard to me, but I did want to point out that this type of thing reminds me of someone else.
Here are other problems with RINO Haley:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/01/nikki_haley_the_republican_candidate_for_democrats.html
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was not suggesting that Haley was without other problems, nor was I suggesting that I support her. I do think she has some demographic traits that might defuse some of the usual DFL complaints or demonstrate the hypocrisy of the DFL. It seems more and more clear that she's being bankrolled by DFL $$$ and is not the best choice. Better than Biden, sure, but that is such an incredibly low bar that it's not saying much.
It's much more of an example of why I don't trust people who've decided to break their wedding vow to keep their oath of office.
"Meanwhile, Trump's base of MAGA supporters has launched a new attack on his political rival, stemming from old rumors of Haley having two different affairs in the early 2000s. Haley firmly denied any accusations of unfaithfulness to her husband, Michael Haley, at the time that these rumors first surfaced.
The rumors were never proven and no significant new information has emerged about the old accusations, but that hasn't stopped Trump supporters from spreading them again."
Newsweek
These rumors are old rumors that were already reported on and with no proof to support them.
You're literally gossiping and spreading rumors, and doing so as if they were established fact.
Now, if you're okay with gossiping, well, that's on you. But don't act like you're not spreading unsubstantiated rumors.
Dan
As I've stated multiple times, and see it yet necessary to do so again, Trump's salacious past was off-putting for me in the primaries leading up to the 2016, which is why I voted for Cruz back then. To my chagrin...also due to his known association with the Clintons and no real political track record by which to make a good judgement...he won the nomination. From there it was a hold-the-nose situation as there was no other possible choice with any chance whatsoever to deny Clinton. None.
And since that time, we've seen no indication that Trump was engaging in the behavior which so offends us both, as he and Melania seem tight.
The difference here is that we knew about Trump, he didn't try to hide it or rationalize it as if he was some sort of modern progressive. What's said to have been common knowledge among the political class regarding Haley therefore becomes more problematic should more validation present itself.
I was not suggesting you demand perfect candidates, though imperfection looms large in your choices (not the same thing as it may appear). No. My point was simply no perfect candidate exists and with that we're left to make a choice nonetheless. It was also to preface my position that her known shortcomings are troubling enough to disqualify her in my opinion, without any need to consider the truth or falseness of these allegations. And again, she postures as a woman of character while hiding this and other issues which suggest otherwise. Not exactly uncommon in politics, though and thus, no angels among them.
Clearly, we both regard our wedding vows as sacrosanct. In this day and age, it's not as common as it ought to be. But the reality is that since so many do not understand what it means to take a vow or make a promise, many regard some promises as more or less worthy of keeping than others. Not so with me. Scripture clearly opposes that notion to the extent that we're admonished to avoid them, letting our yes mean yes and our no mean no. A vow or promise is not a covenant between an individual and the other with whom he expressed it, but a covenant between the individual and God that he will not break his word. That is, my promise or vow is a promise to God that I will do for the other person what I said I would do.
Regarding Dan's response, he once again proves his problem with rational thinking. Few who support Trump dismiss his adultery. That's just what Dan needs to believe in order to rationalize his unjust attitude toward them and Trump. It's another case of Dan inflating the seriousness of the crimes of his opponents while posturing he's among the morally superior despite the modern progressive's many debaucheries and brutalities.
His decision to reduce his visits here, as was his decision to almost never visit my blog, is not due to any true or serious problems with our manner or positions, but due to his inability to defend the non-defendable positions he promotes. He can't get away with abject, intentional lies falsehoods and misconceptions, he can't delete those who won't agree with him and he can't make assertions without support as he demands of others at his blog of lies. It's a blatant surrender to better positions and arguments for them, while he pretends he has the high ground.
The worst victim of his lies is his own self.
"These rumors are old rumors that were already reported on and with no proof to support them."
If you say so.
"You're literally gossiping and spreading rumors, and doing so as if they were established fact."
No. I'm actually using the recent reports about Haley to make the point that I believe that people who are willing to violate their wedding vows, are likely to not take other vows or oaths seriously.
"Now, if you're okay with gossiping, well, that's on you. But don't act like you're not spreading unsubstantiated rumors."
It's strange that you never once bitched this much about the unsubstantiated rumors about Trump that you swallowed whole when they were fed to you.
But, if it'll stop your whining and bitching, I'll edit the post.
This is what happens when you choose to miss the point being made, and focus on a point that you made up.
"I was not suggesting you demand perfect candidates,"
Yet strangely enough, it's a frequent refrain with you.
"though imperfection looms large in your choices (not the same thing as it may appear)."
Well, as it's necessary to differentiate between multiple "imperfect" choices, it seems like comparing their imperfections is a natural way to do so.
But you want to act as if multiple instances of open and notorious adultery from someone who's not ashamed of their behavior are just a minor "imperfection", go ahead. Hey 2 trillion a year added to the national debt (a rate significantly higher than anyone before him) is just a minor imperfection to you...
"No. My point was simply no perfect candidate exists and with that we're left to make a choice nonetheless."
Yes, and one potential criteria to make that choice is the ability of a particular candidate to keep their vows/oaths.
"Yet strangely enough, it's a frequent refrain with you."
Merely the logical conclusion when you focus only on the imperfections.
"But you want to act as if multiple instances of open and notorious adultery from someone who's not ashamed of their behavior are just a minor "imperfection", go ahead."
Putting words in my mouth, or simply ignoring the point I was making? It can be only one or the other.
"Hey 2 trillion a year added to the national debt (a rate significantly higher than anyone before him) is just a minor imperfection to you..."
You keep bringing this up as if I haven't also express my great disappointment with it. I think you can stop doing that now as if it's all he's ever done.
"Yes, and one potential criteria to make that choice is the ability of a particular candidate to keep their vows/oaths."
You're right. It's "ONE" potential criteria (actually, not "potential" since he did break his wedding vows), and it's importance was far greater during the primaries than when was in the general facing someone clearly dangerous to the nation, and now less so since he's proven his fidelity to the American people (as well as to Melania).
If I was ONLY focusing on imperfections, then it might be ONE possible logical conclusion. But I'm not, therefore it's not.
"Putting words in my mouth, or simply ignoring the point I was making"
"Imperfections" was your word, not mine. I'm merely pointing out the reality that I find people in general who engage in multiple instances of public adultery,and who seek to justify that adultery to be people I lose respect for and trust in.
" I think you can stop doing that now as if it's all he's ever done."
Speaking of putting words in people's mouths... You keep brushing off trump's problems as mere "imperfections", and acting as if I am seeking perfection in a candidate. My noting the (likely) single most damaging and long term negative policy action of Trump is focusing specifically on his policy failures. It's focusing on his failure to do what he campaigned on (failing to keep his campaign promise), but more so it's focusing on him doing the complete opposite of what he campaigned on dosing. Had Trump lowered spending, the deficit, the debt, by any amount I'd give him credit for at least making the attempt to keep his promises. Had Trump pushed for legislation, and vetoed spending bills, I'd give him credit for trying but being unable to overcome the legislature. Instead he increased the debt more per year than any other president. He was literally worse on this issue than Obama. The fact that he chooses not to address this failure, and to provide a detailed plan to avoid adding another 8 billion to the debt if he gets another term, is a legitimate policy concern and has little to do with his character. You may be content to simply believe that THIS TIME he'll actually do what he said, and that's fine. I'd prefer a little more substance.
I guess you finally admitting that it is reasonable to judge a presidential candidate on their prior behavior, especially when it comes to keeping their commitments, is one reasonable metric to use.
But again, even by your own words, you're indicating a demand for perfection. In this case, that he didn't perfectly fulfill every promise he made. It's not like he didn't fulfill any. Which president has a perfect record of fulfilling promises?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/1792466/exclusive-trump-list-shows-319-results-and-promises-kept-in-three-years/
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-honesty-trump-keeps-campaign-promises-presidential-truthfulness-1017-story.html
It's a legit debate over which promise is more important than another, or which unfulfilled promise is more detrimental than another. But it's a subjective thing to do (which doesn't make it wrong), as is debating whether one unfulfilled promise will do more harm than the good provided by promises kept.
I don't typically defer to Politifact, but this particular article adds some context regarding the debt and who raised it more. I still don't like how much Trump spent even without COVID spending, but such things are a joint effort always. Lots of factors must be weighed to justify casting blame. Again, I too would love to see the point addressed, but now that it's down to two candidates for the nomination, other considerations are as important.
As an aside, should Trump win the presidency in November, there's a real possibility correcting the failures of Biden and the Dems will be expensive as well, thus making it harder for Trump to end his term without more criticism of how much he added to the debt. And if he chooses to take bold action, the screaming will be heard on Jupiter.
But again, even by your own words, you're indicating a demand for perfection."
No, I'm not. The issue isn't as much about whether or not he fulfilled this promise, as the fact that he did exactly the opposite of what he promised. He literally took affirmative action that resulted in an outcomes that was the total opposite of his promises. As of this point, it's more about the fact that he hasn't acknowledged his utter failure of fiscal policy, or provided detailed plans explaining how he'll fix the problem this time around.
I'd argue that the effects of Trump's 8 trillion dollars of additional debt (as opposed to his promised reduction of the debt) are easily quantified. We can calculate how much additional interest will be accrued on Trump's debt. We can calculate how many generations of our ancestors will be saddled with Trump's debt. We can calculate how big a percentage of the budget will be taken up by the interest on the debt Trump added. In point of fact, Trump's fiscal promises are an excellent example of the cost of his failure to do what he promised, it's literally just mathing it out.
Now, you could say that it's not Trump's fault, congress spends the money. While that is True. The question then becomes why Trump didn't veto any/all of the spending bills, why Trump didn't negotiate better with congress, why Trump did nothing within his power to slow spending. Had he had vetoes overridden, bills voted down, that'd be one thing, but... Not only that, but if it's impossible for the president to control spending, why did he promise to do what he knew he couldn't do?
Really? There are more important considerations than US fiscal policy and how our debt is slowly strangling our economy?
I do like the fact that you're not only making excuses for Trump's failure to acknowledge the damage he did fiscally, you're also making excuses for why he'll fail to deal with the debt if he wins.
I know it's hard to understand, but if one of your major campaign focuses was on how easily you will deal with our fiscal/debt/deficit crisis, then assessing how you did on that issue is not only fair it's vital. Had he chosen to "take action" when he was actually president, this wouldn't be an issue.
I suspect, that if Trump wins in Nov and doesn't do what he said he would in his first campaign, that there'll be some trainers who'll be convinced that if only Trump could have a third term that he'd finally fix everything.
Post a Comment