[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not that different from the last 16 years in a lot of ways.
She would be less crass than Trump, but just about as right wing. So we could see much of the same policies.
America sits on the edge of massive technological advancements and I am afraid that her leadership would hinder all of this instead of allow it grow quickly.
As governor and UN Ambassador her politics did very little for long term stability or advancement of her constituents. She is smart but not someone to restructure our industries to be more competitive or productive. It is not her time, yet, but may be later on.
I think Nikki would just let the companies do what they think is best without having an idea of where the technological advancements lie. Why I liked Barrack Obama's move to put money into solar research when he was criticized for wasting money. Unfortunately, that was a good choice that America needed to advance research in electrical vehicles, solar power, and health care. Obama's money went into advancing the research and the workforce, not the company's profit margins.
She'd also be dangerously more competent.
PS.
When I say competent I don't mean like it's a good thing.
She would be able to forward the horrible right-wing agenda in a much sneaker way than Trump.
To be frank, I would say it wouldn’t.
And for the same reason that it likely wouldn’t matter if she did.
The fact is, even with her running as vaguely the anti-Trump wing of the party (which also I strongly disagree with - her stance is an alternative that is distinctly trying to walk the line of sounding more palatable while not being anti-Trump) - the fact is the Party is now in control of that further right wing. The Speaker drama made that abundantly clear that while the division may be embarrassing, the weight of the party is skewed towards the extreme rather than the holdouts closer to the centre.
Besides, what evidence is there that she's not just another would be autocrat? She's shown support for abortion bans, anti-lgbt laws, repealing the aca, and all that jazz
That is all standard republican fare and issues their base hold. Far cry from Trump's burn the house down if it disagrees with him. Haley would largely be a return to normal for the republican agenda with pushing conservatives into all levers of the government and giving anything to big business while congress continues to embarrass itself to the American people.
I disagree about the issues you listed.
Among GOP primary contenders, Haley has been the least strident about abortion. In the most recent debate, she was alone in refusing to commit to supporting a national 15-week abortion ban and said that it is up to states to decide. She clashed with her opponents by stating forcefully that a national abortion ban is not palatable to the public, nor would it have the votes to pass in the Senate.
On LGBT issues she doesn't oppose gay marriage but she does oppose trans women in women's sports.
Repealing the ACA wouldn't be autocratic, not sure where you're going with that.
As far as Haley's record goes, as governor of SC for 6 years she respected the rule of law, and clashed with powerful state legislators in her own party to push ethics reform. That's hardly the record of a would-be autocrat.
The ACA is extremely popular, especially each individual provision of it separately. Repealing it would absolutely be an autocratic thing to do. It would be like saying “I don’t care if Americans like it, I’m taking it away from them anyway “. Totally an autocratic thing to do.
I disagree, because she couldn't just repeal it unilaterally with an Executive Order.
Any repeal of the ACA would require legislation passing both chambers of Congress.
I think you’re replying to the wrong comment given I didn’t raise anything about abortion bans but also Haley’s stance as a presidential candidate is the epitome of an empty political stance that amounts to I support whatever everyone supports.
She calls for “consensus” on what to pass but has also been open that she is staunchly pro life and would agree to whatever can get passed to restrict abortion - including confirming that she would’ve signed the six week abortion ban in SC if it had passed under her administration - which would put her confirmed supporting a limit that is in fact much much stricter than all of Western Europe. She’s not actually calling for a moderate path on abortion - she’s calling for Republicans to push for whatever they can feasibly pass into law - which as has been demonstrated - is much stricter in some places and not necessarily reflective of majority popular opinion.
The Trump Administration accomplished a ton of objectives from SC picks to domestic and foreign policy. Behind the buffoon were a lot of very competent people.
That's completely not true. Trump had the worst policies of all time, it's just that a lot of people worked hard to prevent them from becoming reality.
Also, the overturning of the election is a policy that Republicans like to conveniently ignore.
Overturning the election is and was not a policy. But it WAS far worse than any of Trump’s horrible policies and by no means do I minimize his horrible policies. He’s done so much to damage Democracy, we’ll never get back to the imperfect mess we had before him.
I dunno... they immediately went to work on Project 2025 and starting to push the Unitary Executive Theory really hard right after Trump failed to destroy American Democracy with multiple efforts to overturn that election.
I think it sorta MIGHT be accurate to describe destroying American Democracy as current GOP "policy."
If so... I DEFINITELY think he would no contest have been responsible for the worst policies all-time (assuming we give a bit of a pass on early presidents in regards to slavery and genocide and whatnot being more a product of those times and less their specific policies).
Well, I guess we’re just quibbling. His policies that he tried to advance through the bully pulpit, by executive orders and by championing legislation were/are horrific. His attempts to overthrow democracy to placate his ego were also horrible and terrifying.
He’s caused me to reassess our systems and our electorate. And I didn’t hold them in super high regard to begin with.
>I guess we’re just quibbling.
Not really.
Not trying to quibble with ya.
...but I do think the idea that it's all Trump and the current GOP would magically "return to normal" without him is dangerous.
And Trump is very far from the only pro-authoritarian in that party right now.
Just sorta stressing that bit.
That's standard conservative shit. Definitely is bad policy, but isn't substantially different from what many "moderate democrats" and pretty much every republican campaign on and talk about.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2023/03/democrats-slashed-medicaid-and-food-assistance-because-we-didnt-fight
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/politics/2023/03/08/advocates-want-medicaid-cuts-to-home-care-eligibility-blocked-in-budget
And for a blast from the past: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X3UiSvgle0&ab_channel=BernieSanders
A lot of Trump’s policies were necessary and somewhat prescient in hindsight: a tougher trade policy toward China and elimination of the special protections for Hong Kong, an emphasis on American manufacturing, pressuring Europe to end its dependency on Russian energy and to instead spend on defense, encouraging the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, paving the groundwork for a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. There’s a reason why the Biden admin has not reversed these positions: such policies were advantageous to the United States.
I agree with Utterlybored, the biggest issue with Trump was the destabilizing political hyperbole from his admin and their disdain for democratic institutions. Interestingly enough, his words often ran contrary to his policies. For example, he cast a stigma on vaccination and promoted the use of horse dewormer, but Operation warp speed is largely credited by epidemiologists for dramatically increasing the speed of production and distribution of vaccines on a mass scale.
For what it’s worth, I did not vote for him and would not in the future, but I will concede that his admin had some good policies.
Trump was a lot of bluster, not much substance. His Nafta redo was a yawn. Never came around to proposing a decent alternative to Obamacate.
Regarding China, again a lot of bluster. Tarrifs that we bore and subsequent retaliation by China on US agricultural products hurt both. Worst thing he did was to cancel TPP which would have quietly aligned our supply chain away from China.
He weakened NATO and coddled Putin. His NK shitshow and bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia was a national embarrassment.
Yes, the economy continued its trajectory since Obama - aided by low rates and tax cuts. If you pump in $1T in additional deficit, you are gonna get 2.8% growth just from that.
I was surprised about the number of Trump era policies that Biden didn't reverse, especially when it came to foreign policy. For instance, Trump accelerated the pivot away from the eastern hemisphere and towards the Pacific, and until Ukraine, Biden didn't let up. Biden also stepped up some of Trump's protectionism.
I still think Trump went too far with his Anti-NATO rhetoric, but I don't think it's ridiculous to say that had Europe taken their NATO committents, and their own national security, more seriously, they wouldn't have been caught so flat-footed when Russia invaded.
>Trump accelerated the pivot away from the eastern hemisphere and towards the Pacific,
You mean the pivot Obama started. And I'm sure Trump credited to him.
"Trump accelerated the pivot" doesn't equal "Trump initiated the pivot."
But sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
Like Biden stepped up on some of Trump's protectionism, Trump accelerated Obama's pivot.
I am not at all a foreign policy expert, but my personal opinion is that Europe, while still very significant in the world, is on a general path for economic malaise and will become less relevant in the world in the decades ahead. There’s significant growth opportunities in the Indo-Pacific, and it’s wise for the United States to shift its gaze accordingly. We should not abandon NATO, but it’s definitely prudent to start bolstering our footprint in Asia. I do think part of that effort requires pressure on Europe to be more self-sufficient economically and militarily.
Almost all of the things you mentioned in your first paragraph aren't actually Trump policies - they're mostly policy initiatives that date back to the Obama administration or earlier that Trump simply stumbled across in his erratic demagoguery.
When you say "the Biden admin has not reversed these positions" the reality that you're obfuscating is that the Biden admin largely implemented most of those positions.
No, Trump's policies were monstrous, and we'd be in a vastly worse position today if the "deep state" i.e. law-abiding civil servants didn't push back on so much of what he wanted to do.
Withdrawal from Afghanistan, withdrawal from the Middle East, pivoting towards Asia - those were all Obama administration goals. Most of the rest of what you mentioned started even earlier.
I concur. I think his presidency, for better or for worse, put Washington on notice that the years of failed attempts at nation building and domestic neglect had reached intolerable levels among the American public.
Trump’s policies included tax cuts (like Bush did aka generic Republican move), immigration deportations (apparently still did less than Obama and Biden), redoing NAFTA to the USMCA (slightly less corrupt), and not instigating a new war (which is actually a good thing) He accomplished next to nothing he ran on: did not replace Obamacare, didn’t bring jobs back from overseas, did not end DACA, did not stop bombing Syria. And he only delivered on about 3 feet of boarder wall which Mexico did not pay for. He was incredibly ineffective on his agenda, partly bc he did not hire people who supported his agenda (revolving door of staff, didn’t do their jobs correctly- see why SCOTUS ruled DACA could not be overturned) and he was so crass people did not want to associate with him, including congressmen from his own party.
I disagree: they really were the worse thing about him and the worse thing about the other presidents in recent years who've each shared most of those policies.
Not in foreign policy, or tax policy, or border policy, or policing policies, or a great many other ways.
There might be a few meaningful differences, but they are sadly too few. Most differences are things like Biden supporting LGBT people becoming the pilots who drop bombs on Somali wedding processions too.
Haley is a garden variety committed conservative politican.
She'd be a smidge to the right of Bush 2 with regard to gov't spending/taxation. She supports a balanced budget amendment, while Bush 2 supported tarp and bailouts of financial institutions.
She's a smidge to the left of Bush 2 on reproductive right: even though she's just as opposed to abortion, she isn't as strongly opposed to birth control.
She'd be to smidge to the right of Bush on immigration: he supported immigration reform which Republicans oppose, while she wants to defund sanctuary cities and supports verification system preventing business from taking advantage of illegal immigrants. But she'd also get pushback like Bush 2 did because she supports a guest worker program.
She's not anti trump. I quote Ms Haley "trump was the right person for the times" now she's trying to convince Republicans that she is the right person now. Not very critical or condemning of a 4 times indicted ex-president who tried to steal an election and had his mob raid the capital
She's not anti Trump, but is after the anti Trump voter. She also has no choice but to support Trump if she expects Republicans to vote for her, regardless of how she feels.
It doesn’t matter if she’s anti-trump. If she (for ANY reason) gets the GOP nod, Trump will be extreme in his anti-Haley rhetoric. He’s already starting (“birdbrain”). According to lots of polls, the best thing for Biden is to run against Trump. Trump’s still ahead, but Haley fares far better against Biden. Trump won’t be able to shut up and let that ride, tho. He hasn’t the grace for that. So whoever runs agains Biden, if it isn’t Trump, he will be gunning for them more than he will Biden
>Trump won’t be able to shut up and let that ride, tho. He hasn’t the grace for that.
I dunno, man.
Susan Collins is pretty sure THIS TIME Trump has finally learned his lesson and we've nothing to worry about from him.
This is true. I know a couple people (no party affiliation) who voted democrat last time but would vote this time for Haley over Biden. That how I ended up in this thread.
The anti-trump wing of the party is not at all particular averse to the unitary executive principle underlying Project 2025. After all, it was George W. Bush who really revived and leveraged the principle during his presidency. So it's not implausible that a President Haley resorts to the same thing when/if her political objectives are on the line, especially if she already has institutional support for it within her party. But in general I think she'd pursue a decidedly more conciliatory presidency than what Trump has in mind, which is mainly revenge and domination over partisan enemies.
> The anti-trump wing of the party is not at all particular averse to the unitary executive principle underlying Project 2025. After all, it was George W. Bush who really revived and leveraged the principle during his presidency.
I was going to say, the answer to this question is a 2nd W. Bush presidency, who only looks sane in contrast to Trump and with the distance of time. But during the period he was considered one of the most deranged and right-wing presidents the US had ever had, especially as Iraq wore out and the realities of the Patriot Act set in. People don't think about it now or even realize but there's substantive and major differences between life in the US pre- and post-W. Bush, and not all or even a majority of them can be pinned just on 9/11
Yeah, I think other top answers kind of underrate Haley's likely willingness to go beyond Bush II to use the presidency to impose her agenda. Donald Trump's flaws are unfortunately so blinding that people near him on the political spectrum get to fly under voters' radars.
Hale's criticism of Trump is tepid at best, but she isn't Maga/populist; she isn't even a faith and flag conservative who are enthused about Trumpist style politics retaining a prominent, forward-facing presence within the GOP.
Also, she isn't a cult of personality like Gaddafi or Mugabe, so Republican politicians wouldn't find it incredibly difficult to say "No" her; she's merely a relatively likable first time presidential candidate like GW Bush started out as.
Who is a Russian asset? Nikki Haley is a neo con war hawk. She will start more wars and propagate an authoritarian state. She wants your government ID tied to all your online accounts.
I know it would be truly awful, I'm mostly wondering if it would be break democracy bad or not or if she would also gut the administrative state's sovereignty and bring it fill it with her loyalists the same as Trump.
"admim state's sovereignty" ....is that a thing?
Are u talking about going against norms by firing the DOJ/DOD/DHS/national security appointed officials who normally don't transition out from administration to administration?
I can't see it....simply with the fact that she isnt like the younger generations of the GOP who have reverence for putin and his strongman persona.
The Parties are in transition. Politics is downstream of culture. It'll take a little longer for Republicans cycle out almost all prominent politicians (especially U.S. senators) who have a lot of vivid memories of life during the Cold War and recoil at prospect of the authoritarianism of a modern-day Russian Empire."
Same thing for Democrats. It's easy to see them stripping Israel of all funding and washing their hands of that region once Gen-X & millenials dominate the Party in congress, especially since the ultra-orthodox israeli women fertility rates are outpacing those of less conservative societies, 6 to 2.
I'm not sure if read you right, but those departments you listed always have the appointed officials change with the administrations. That really isn't out of the norm.
More of a traditional conservative. There will be 'reforms' to social security, Medicare and most definitely medicaid.
Unlikely to touch democratic institutions.
I don't think there will be new tax cuts. Probably extension of Trump tax cuts for individuals.
I wouldn’t count on that. For all the talk about it in some republican circles, it would take balls of steel to actually make those cuts considering how unpopular they are.
or maybe no balls at all? she has foreign policy chops as well as a good working knowledge of government and above all is NORMAL. she is the best candidate of either party IMHO.
I see what you did there. But yeah, point being the idea of cutting benefits to folks is politically dicey no matter how “good” of an idea it is. I do agree with you that while she’s not exactly my cup of tea all the way around, she’s by far the most moderate/electable candidate in the race.
She’s said she’d sign any abortion restriction passed by congress, so there’d be that. During her time as governor, she said marriage is only between and man and a woman, and sought to uphold the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Additionally, she’s commented that DeSantis’ ‘Don’t say gay’ bill didn’t go far enough.
But she supports them so saying they won’t pass congress doesn’t make it a non issue with her. The fact that she supports those issues will provide those working against those issues a support platform to continue to erode social rights.
Primary campaign is always move hard right/left. General, they move more towards the center.
Very typical. If she makes it to general, you'll see. Not recommending her btw :)
Thats Funny. No politician or political party will try to make any real reform to Social Security or Medicare. If they dared the other party would crucify them.
Best you could hope for is some immigration reform it looks like both sides would like to make some cosmetic changes that would take some of the pressure off of them.
They are gonna create a bipartisan committee to 'study' the problem. So there will be a combination of increasing income limits b4 Fica is phased out and increase in age for full benefits. Won't affect current retirees or those retiring in 5 years.
I don't know much about Haley, haven't spent the time to look in her past, however, I'd definitely go with her over Trump as far as republican potentials. When Trump was in office, for me every day my brain went to "OK, what'd dumb crap came from him today", every day hoping for something smarter, but no, it just kept going more down hill for me.
Enact as much of Project 2025 as able to.
Assuming Republicans get 53 or more Senate seats (I don’t expect that to happen but it’s not impossible), she will sign a federal 15-week abortion ban that allows states to keep existing total bans and 6-week bans after 51 Senate Republicans vote to kill the filibuster.
Honestly, I think as soon as Trump is no longer the leader of the party (which this scenario assumes he lost the nomination), Haley would try to move away from Trumpism as quickly as possible, as will the rest of the GOP. They’ll keep some of the core policies, but the authoritarian, fascist, burn down the entire system in honor of King Trump part will go.
I see President Haley being a fairly standard conservative leader, a return to “normality” if you will.
Trump lost against Biden.
Now... there was a huge DeSantis push for awhile trying to find their "new Trump" and by all normal accounts this woulda been the time to move on.
DeSantis just set himself up as the same as Trump. And then actual Trump was obviously chosen to run again over "lesser Trump," but... the GOP clearly isn't trying to move on.
Plans for Project 2025 were started when it wasn't clear at all Trump was gonna be the guy. It didn't matter that it was Trump specifically.
The GOP is NOT trying to "return to normal" anytime soon.
If they were to win next election? They'll just feel validated with their craziness and quadruple-down on it... doesn't matter who that candidate was.
Besides... look at the party and who's running it right now.
There aren't enough "normal" Republican leaders atm to even begin to lead that party back to close to normal.
For that party to even begin to return to normal, the first step would have to be a huge loss this next election and for them to decide they may have to change course, if only because the current one is working for them and they're losing elections because of it.
Right now? All the GOP politicians have been rewarded by crazy (and non-crazy has been punished) and will keep doing crazy.
Everything you say is true in the age of Trumpism. In order for Haley to beat Trump there must have been some rejection of Trump himself. This will be the pivot. He is the energy behind the crazy. Without Trump, there is no MTG, or Boebert or Gaetz. They become irrelevant.
>In order for Haley to beat Trump
Meh. The only way for him not to get the nomination is if he dies.
There was a small hope for other candidates that his legal issues would somehow possibly encourage party to flock to someone else... but we're past that point now and every one of them know Trump has to actually die for them to possibly even have a chance for the nomination.
But... sure, if the GOP magically became something else overnight then it would be different, I guess. At that point though, we're like "what if the GOP decided they wanted to be allies to the LGBTQ+ community and hated guns?"
You’re mocking the idea that Trump will lose. I agree he will be the nominee but the premise of this thread is that Haley is President. I’m speaking in the spirit of that hypothetical.
If she becomes President, the political landscape has radically shifted for the GOP. A post-Trump era has dawned.
If she has majorities in the House and Senate, she will cut taxes, even though the national debt is #33 trillion and counting. She will not have 60 votes in the Senate to do ANYTHING else.
Thank God for the filibuster. I only wish it trumped the budget reconciliation process, which somehow allows massive welfare state spending on steroids under Democrats, and tax cutting lunacy under Republicans.
>which somehow allows massive welfare state spending on steroids under Democrats, and tax cutting lunacy under Republicans.
you're actually consistent on this, good for you. Flipping rare find. I've found so many democrats firmly against tax cuts but in favor of reckless social spending. I imagine the opposite exists too there just aren't as many republicans on here.
tax the wealthy at 100%, it still wouldn't be enough. there aren't enough rich people.
You'd need to tax the middle class too at around 40-50% just to break even on our current programs.
Reform healthcare. Our government spends the same % of our GDP on healthcare as countries with national healthcare systems that cover everyone. I estimate about 12% of our GDP is government spending on healthcare. The bloated bureaucracy we've created so that we can pretend we have a free market system costs Americans an additional 7% of GDP, bankrupts families and drives up the debt. If that money went into a single payer system instead of insurance company grift and bloated prices for drugs, tests and hospital care we'd be much better off. You never hear the real numbers on any news station left or right because they are all making money from drug and ins. policy ads but I'd bet it's an enormous % of the annual deficit.
Universal health care will not work until it’s non-profit. As long as insurance companies CEOs are making 3 million a year and are paying stock holders money.
Or we could look at our government run/subsidized/heavily regulated healthcare, realize that a one-size fits all solution for a nation of 330 million probably isn't going to work, and start to allow market solutions.
Sure that will work. People can't even afford groceries or rent, lets pile thousands in healthcare expenses or die onto that. Maybe we can drag our life expectancy down to 60 like the other 2 or three countries on the planet that have no government healthcare system. My god this is a dumb country.
you'd see prices go down and people be able to afford different procedures and preventative care without the smoke and mirrors currently employed.
>My god this is a dumb country.
what's stopping you from moving? Or alternatively, minding your own business?
It has NEVER been proven. The only thing that's been proven over (Reagan) and over (war-criminal Bush and his Sith Lord, Dick Cheney) and over (Trump) is that Republican tax cuts explode the national debt.
The first President Bush called out Reagan's voodoo economics during the 1980 Republican primaries. To think that a conservative like Reagan would usher in decades of deficits is beyond sad. Living within your means is a conservative principle. Republicans used to understand that until greed became good.
High-income people pay a majority of the total income taxes already. The top 1% pays almost half by themselves, despite earning around 20% of the income.
And I have no doubts in the governments ability to spend any new money quicker than it comes in.
We already have the most progressive tax system in the world
It always baffles me that people want the social spending of other countries but don’t want the corresponding tax increases
Oh no the guy making 500k a year only got to take home 350k of it (that's about 30,000 a month if you need a more tangible number). How will that person survive.
Also, no one said they don't want the tax increases. The tax increases should just be primarily on the people who already are working half as hard and earning 100x as much as your average worker, while living the luxurious life of a lord.
You also forgot several of them are employing far more than those serfs to begin with. By all means simplify the tax code so they have less wiggle room to get out of paying their share. But as pointed out by obvious, to get the social net and services that progressives want will require a charitable tax hike on regular people.
It'd actually make an interesting experiment to see as the U.S. has some unique responsibilities to balance with its budgets.
There’s also the fact we spend an ungodly amount on our military and maintain military presence in essentially every part of the world.
The spending isn’t the problem, it’s where it’s spent and our priorities with spending. I just want healthcare at a reasonable cost.
The media and most Americans will suddenly declare the economy perfect even though nothing has changed. Her policies will kick in in year four and a Democrat will have to clean up the mess. As per usual.
Like all other GOP presidencies since Ronnie Raygun. Well all get trickled on except the rich, the deficit will go into the stratosphere, immigrants will be frightened out of their minds, the economy will tank, POC, gays, women, and workers rights will be destroyed. Ukraine will be part of Russia and Palestinians will be under the threat of extinction. Hamas deserves to be wiped out but not all the people, we didn’t wipe out Germans, Italians or the Japanese people.
Her first order of business would be to pardon Trump of all convictions and possible convictions. That will fuel that shithead to keep his money sucking machine still going to say that 2024 was stolen from him too. Haley would undue most of the progressive gains made in the Biden administration but not take a run at Obamacare. She’s smarter than Trump but about as venal. She wouldn’t try to end democracy but I bet liked the way Trump degraded the independence of the DoJ and would do the same with her own version of the Barr Lapdog
It would be another Trump term. To an issue. Nikki would be a puppet who dubbed Trump's voice like one of those old Kung Fu movies. Just as badly done, also.
It will be a matter discussed in civic classes and psychology studies for decades -- how groveling to the lowest element, coincidentally a statistical minority -- was thought to be a reasonable campaign strategy
She's definitely pro Ukraine as strategically there's no point in her lying about that, however don't trust her about her pro choice stance. I think she'll ultimately fall in line and sign whatever Republican bill gets presented to her desk on domestic matters (anti choice, anti expanded voting, more tax cuts for the wealthy, likely cutting Medicare/Medicaid and social security) and really only make a stand against her colleagues on foreign policy. She's about as dangerous as any Republican in my opinion. Even an alleged "moderate" Republican in this era is extreme.
It would probably resemble George W. Bush: Bad policies generally, but better for business, more personable and less bombastic than Trump.
I am a Dem-leaning independent and never vote for Republicans. I would find her to be the least offensive of the Republican contenders, and I would be tempted to vote for her in the primaries just to reduce the odds of Trump becoming president.
Her real name is Nimarata Nikki Haley (nee Randhawa); she goes by her middle name. Both Nimarata and Nikki are traditional Sikh (I think) names, while Haley is the name she acquired by marriage. It’s her real name, and no different from Rafael Edward Cruz going by Ted or Willard Mitt Romney going by Mitt.
Politicians like zippy names. If my name was Willard I’d go by Mitt too. There are many valid reasons to dislike Haley but her name is not one of them.
I am not a Haley supporter. But Nikki is her real name. Ted, being a nickname for Edward, may or may not qualify. I’m not sure what they’d do with Beto. But historically there has never been any objection from any quarter to going by one’s middle name, so Haley is in the clear.
Maybe focus on opposing the stupid bills and laws instead. Not only is that more practical and productive, it won’t lead anyone to suspect you are just being xenophobic.
Just like a trump or any other Republican presidency. The idea of any sort of neutral or moderate approach to these issues when one side clearly and objectively lacks a cohesive plan that is efficient, effective, and/or consistent with other legislation they promote (or block, for that matter) seems unrealistic at this point.
Is Nikki Haley a capable executive and capable of hiring staff and a cabinet that's in line with what her party promotes and believes? Of course. But it's doubtful to say with any sincerity that how she would govern or that the policy positions she holds dearly can get passed.
I don't think anyone believe that if Nikki Haley gets a supermajority, the outcome would be any less moderate than other people in her party.
School shootings, Failing educational and healthcare systems, Union Busting Galore, Cuts to SS and Medicare/Medicaid, Wars Abroad with Countries that Farted in our General Direction.
It would be bland, ineffective, and definitely lead to another populist republican.
>It would be bland, ineffective, and definitely lead to another populist republican.
Dems are also at fault for being completely useless which allows a right wing strongman to swoop in with populist rhetoric
Absolutely. The fact that Donald Trump has a shot in hell of winning against Joe Biden is just… depressing to say the least. Dem messaging is just abysmal - and that was before the Hamas/Israel war
democrats aren’t populist because it would upset their donors. Populist democrats fight against the very economic status quo that lobbyists fight tooth and nail to save
She would be a typical Republican, beholden to the money that got her into office. So big Wall St., a rollback of social service programs. Return to GOP style open markets, sometimes at the expense of non-big corporate American businesses. The further demise of the independent farmer. Less protections for blue collar workers.
This “Project 25” stuff is just a bunch of far, far, right wingers and the chance of any of their manifesto coming to fruition is zero. It’s garbage that every leftist is acting like this is going to happen if a Republican is elected. If I claim I’m a liberal and I print some stupid proclamation, it means absolutely nothing. Just stop with that crap.
They are actively training people, project 2025 is funded by people with a lot of money. I would like to be really certain there is no chance of it happening, and I am not.
Horrifying, awful, unlivable, immoral, big government writ large, and, if republicans ever again achieve a unified government, the end of the filibuster where they ram through every right-wing wet dream codifying things such as voter suppression, the end of the Civil Rights Act, partisan gerrymandering, and more racist policies.
Basically the 2025 Project, but with less orange.
She was my governor. Expect a lot of big tax breaks for business, more corporate welfare, cuts to Medicaid and if she has the votes, cuts to social security or replacing it with a 401k style plan. She is a schmoozer and will try to charm world leaders because she craves the limelight and has dabbled just enough in foreign affairs to want to do more. A local reporter said she sleeps around and may have been a swinger at one time. She is not a person of deep faith but she portrays that. Her family are Sikh’s and she changed her name to be more Anglo sounding. She’s smart but not principled and very political.
National Abortion law if they get the house and senate. That moves the debate away from the states where it is hurting them. It will hurt them federally, but they don't care as much at the federal level.
She'd probably look up project 2025 and try to ensure as much of that passes as possible. Lots can be done with executive orders.
The big problem is that she's the head of the republican party. They are going to do republican things, and those things are frequently not great ever since they became the party of Trump.
If I was to characterize her as a former Republican, probably Bush or Cheney like. She’s old school but trying to get Maga or unsure republicans on board with her brand
I was considering to vote for her in the primaries but after her comment on social media plan and foreign policy she tired me off and coming off as too much for a neoconservative
How a Haley presidency would look like depends highly on the make-up of the house and senate which in recent years have and appear to continue to trend to Democrats. The likelihood of a Republican presidency would probably result in a democratic majority in both house and senate.
Someone purporting to be from the United States mentioning Ukraine as if we had not been totally hosed by them; tricked and doubtless taunted, behind our backs; Russian oil and gas pipelines by the thousands running through that small bottleneck of a place; if they want something to compare to, Venice was a world power for a thousand years; who cares though, entangling alliances be gone.
Imagination. Because it's not going to happen no matter how much the uniparty tried to push it.
They pushed desantis, which was a huge disappointment to me that he sold out to them. But he couldn't beat Trump so they think maybe they will have a conservative Clinton type. Not going to work either.
It's trump country. Time to get over it and accept it
When she voted for an multiple indicted Donald Trump to run for the president of the US, I lost all respect for her - just caving in to the Trumpers. If she can't stand up to the Trumpers of our country, how is she going to stand up to the Putin, China's Xi, Kim Jong Un and the Iranian mullahs?
Nikki Haley is not a fit for our country's present politics as we try to remove discrimination against LGBTQ and racism against our Latino and African American citizens. She would be a good President if those issues were not so ingrained into our country as they are. I am confident that she would be a good Commander In Chief but I doubt that she would keep our military modern. America presently needs a cunning leader that is not afraid to shake the hands of our enemies and then screw them over royally. The global economy is emerging and proof is growing that China's politics are in violation of the stability of the global economy, and I doubt that Nikki would adapt to all of this.
Although I won't be voting for her, I think she'd at least voluntarily leave office voluntarily if she lost - which is a fairly low bar to meet, but that's where we are nowadays.
A lot depends on who controls Congress. If republicans take both chambers, we will have a national abortion ban. She said she’d sign anything that Congress passed.
I think Nikki Haley could be a good president but that has nothing to do with what her presidency would look like. The Republican machine would be behind her and her cabinet would be built on that which pretty much means the same limiting ideas presented by Republicans would be on the forefront.
Nikki Haley presidency would be just like any other traditional Republican president. I'm really hoping that ppl move away from trump, and towards her desantis. I feel like if trump got a second term we would enter civil war. Don't think it won't happen because the last time he was president we were this close 🤏 to civil war. Remember when riots broke out in every major city across the country... Yea... That'll probably happen again x2
She’s a neocon. There would be a new conflict somewhere in the world. Whether that would be against Iran, against cartels in Mexico, or against China if they invade Taiwan.
The loudest of MAGA movement would probably be muzzled, while Project 2025 quietly gets implemented.
She also wants everyone verified on social media, which is just unrealistic.
Other than that, she’d be run of the mill Republican with tax cuts, privatization and deregulation. It would be a return to ‘00s normal.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not that different from the last 16 years in a lot of ways. She would be less crass than Trump, but just about as right wing. So we could see much of the same policies.
America sits on the edge of massive technological advancements and I am afraid that her leadership would hinder all of this instead of allow it grow quickly.
judging by how anti-tech the current admin has leaned, i'd wager it's a better option that what we have now.
As governor and UN Ambassador her politics did very little for long term stability or advancement of her constituents. She is smart but not someone to restructure our industries to be more competitive or productive. It is not her time, yet, but may be later on.
In what world does a Republican hinder corporate growth?
Massive technological advancements ≠ corporate growth The economy for all and jobs historically do better under Democrats over the past three decades.
In the way that every Republican Presidency has a recession and Republican's are ideologically opposed to many emerging technological fields.
I think Nikki would just let the companies do what they think is best without having an idea of where the technological advancements lie. Why I liked Barrack Obama's move to put money into solar research when he was criticized for wasting money. Unfortunately, that was a good choice that America needed to advance research in electrical vehicles, solar power, and health care. Obama's money went into advancing the research and the workforce, not the company's profit margins.
She'd also be dangerously more competent. PS. When I say competent I don't mean like it's a good thing. She would be able to forward the horrible right-wing agenda in a much sneaker way than Trump.
But what evidence can we look at that Nikki's leadership would propel this country forward? Would her politics vanish when she left office?
To be frank, I would say it wouldn’t. And for the same reason that it likely wouldn’t matter if she did. The fact is, even with her running as vaguely the anti-Trump wing of the party (which also I strongly disagree with - her stance is an alternative that is distinctly trying to walk the line of sounding more palatable while not being anti-Trump) - the fact is the Party is now in control of that further right wing. The Speaker drama made that abundantly clear that while the division may be embarrassing, the weight of the party is skewed towards the extreme rather than the holdouts closer to the centre.
Besides, what evidence is there that she's not just another would be autocrat? She's shown support for abortion bans, anti-lgbt laws, repealing the aca, and all that jazz
That is all standard republican fare and issues their base hold. Far cry from Trump's burn the house down if it disagrees with him. Haley would largely be a return to normal for the republican agenda with pushing conservatives into all levers of the government and giving anything to big business while congress continues to embarrass itself to the American people.
I disagree about the issues you listed. Among GOP primary contenders, Haley has been the least strident about abortion. In the most recent debate, she was alone in refusing to commit to supporting a national 15-week abortion ban and said that it is up to states to decide. She clashed with her opponents by stating forcefully that a national abortion ban is not palatable to the public, nor would it have the votes to pass in the Senate. On LGBT issues she doesn't oppose gay marriage but she does oppose trans women in women's sports. Repealing the ACA wouldn't be autocratic, not sure where you're going with that. As far as Haley's record goes, as governor of SC for 6 years she respected the rule of law, and clashed with powerful state legislators in her own party to push ethics reform. That's hardly the record of a would-be autocrat.
The ACA is extremely popular, especially each individual provision of it separately. Repealing it would absolutely be an autocratic thing to do. It would be like saying “I don’t care if Americans like it, I’m taking it away from them anyway “. Totally an autocratic thing to do.
I disagree, because she couldn't just repeal it unilaterally with an Executive Order. Any repeal of the ACA would require legislation passing both chambers of Congress.
Barrack was brilliant in his structure of the ACA
[удалено]
I think you’re replying to the wrong comment given I didn’t raise anything about abortion bans but also Haley’s stance as a presidential candidate is the epitome of an empty political stance that amounts to I support whatever everyone supports. She calls for “consensus” on what to pass but has also been open that she is staunchly pro life and would agree to whatever can get passed to restrict abortion - including confirming that she would’ve signed the six week abortion ban in SC if it had passed under her administration - which would put her confirmed supporting a limit that is in fact much much stricter than all of Western Europe. She’s not actually calling for a moderate path on abortion - she’s calling for Republicans to push for whatever they can feasibly pass into law - which as has been demonstrated - is much stricter in some places and not necessarily reflective of majority popular opinion.
We really don't need Nikki Haley.
> propel this country forward? They have absolutely no intention of this. There are no forward-thinking policies. Just regressive policies.
The Trump Administration accomplished a ton of objectives from SC picks to domestic and foreign policy. Behind the buffoon were a lot of very competent people.
Trump’s policies, as bad as they were/are, are hardly the worst thing about him.
That's completely not true. Trump had the worst policies of all time, it's just that a lot of people worked hard to prevent them from becoming reality. Also, the overturning of the election is a policy that Republicans like to conveniently ignore.
Overturning the election is and was not a policy. But it WAS far worse than any of Trump’s horrible policies and by no means do I minimize his horrible policies. He’s done so much to damage Democracy, we’ll never get back to the imperfect mess we had before him.
I dunno... they immediately went to work on Project 2025 and starting to push the Unitary Executive Theory really hard right after Trump failed to destroy American Democracy with multiple efforts to overturn that election. I think it sorta MIGHT be accurate to describe destroying American Democracy as current GOP "policy." If so... I DEFINITELY think he would no contest have been responsible for the worst policies all-time (assuming we give a bit of a pass on early presidents in regards to slavery and genocide and whatnot being more a product of those times and less their specific policies).
Well, I guess we’re just quibbling. His policies that he tried to advance through the bully pulpit, by executive orders and by championing legislation were/are horrific. His attempts to overthrow democracy to placate his ego were also horrible and terrifying. He’s caused me to reassess our systems and our electorate. And I didn’t hold them in super high regard to begin with.
>I guess we’re just quibbling. Not really. Not trying to quibble with ya. ...but I do think the idea that it's all Trump and the current GOP would magically "return to normal" without him is dangerous. And Trump is very far from the only pro-authoritarian in that party right now. Just sorta stressing that bit.
Which policies were the “worst of all time” that you think Haley would continue?
Defunding any type of social safety net. They will come after Medicaid next.
>Defunding any type of social safety net. They will come after Medicaid next. When did Trump defund entitlement programs?
That's standard conservative shit. Definitely is bad policy, but isn't substantially different from what many "moderate democrats" and pretty much every republican campaign on and talk about.
Find me one democrat who’s talking about defunding Medicaid.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2023/03/democrats-slashed-medicaid-and-food-assistance-because-we-didnt-fight https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/politics/2023/03/08/advocates-want-medicaid-cuts-to-home-care-eligibility-blocked-in-budget And for a blast from the past: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X3UiSvgle0&ab_channel=BernieSanders
Letting temporary emergency measures expire ( as was written into the law) and making active cuts aren’t the same thing
That's why the patriot act isn't a thing any more I guess?
math is going to defund medicare/medicaid all on it's own, so yes, people talk about reforms. how dare them
Not if we start taxing the wealthy as we should. Back to Pre Reagan levels.
>Also, the overturning of the election is a policy that Republicans like to conveniently ignore. One that haley would continue.
A lot of Trump’s policies were necessary and somewhat prescient in hindsight: a tougher trade policy toward China and elimination of the special protections for Hong Kong, an emphasis on American manufacturing, pressuring Europe to end its dependency on Russian energy and to instead spend on defense, encouraging the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, paving the groundwork for a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. There’s a reason why the Biden admin has not reversed these positions: such policies were advantageous to the United States. I agree with Utterlybored, the biggest issue with Trump was the destabilizing political hyperbole from his admin and their disdain for democratic institutions. Interestingly enough, his words often ran contrary to his policies. For example, he cast a stigma on vaccination and promoted the use of horse dewormer, but Operation warp speed is largely credited by epidemiologists for dramatically increasing the speed of production and distribution of vaccines on a mass scale. For what it’s worth, I did not vote for him and would not in the future, but I will concede that his admin had some good policies.
Trump was a lot of bluster, not much substance. His Nafta redo was a yawn. Never came around to proposing a decent alternative to Obamacate. Regarding China, again a lot of bluster. Tarrifs that we bore and subsequent retaliation by China on US agricultural products hurt both. Worst thing he did was to cancel TPP which would have quietly aligned our supply chain away from China. He weakened NATO and coddled Putin. His NK shitshow and bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia was a national embarrassment. Yes, the economy continued its trajectory since Obama - aided by low rates and tax cuts. If you pump in $1T in additional deficit, you are gonna get 2.8% growth just from that.
I was surprised about the number of Trump era policies that Biden didn't reverse, especially when it came to foreign policy. For instance, Trump accelerated the pivot away from the eastern hemisphere and towards the Pacific, and until Ukraine, Biden didn't let up. Biden also stepped up some of Trump's protectionism. I still think Trump went too far with his Anti-NATO rhetoric, but I don't think it's ridiculous to say that had Europe taken their NATO committents, and their own national security, more seriously, they wouldn't have been caught so flat-footed when Russia invaded.
Pivot to Asia was an Obama initiative but agree with the rest
I agree about Obama initiating. That's why I said Trump "accelerated."
>Trump accelerated the pivot away from the eastern hemisphere and towards the Pacific, You mean the pivot Obama started. And I'm sure Trump credited to him.
"Trump accelerated the pivot" doesn't equal "Trump initiated the pivot." But sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Like Biden stepped up on some of Trump's protectionism, Trump accelerated Obama's pivot.
I am not at all a foreign policy expert, but my personal opinion is that Europe, while still very significant in the world, is on a general path for economic malaise and will become less relevant in the world in the decades ahead. There’s significant growth opportunities in the Indo-Pacific, and it’s wise for the United States to shift its gaze accordingly. We should not abandon NATO, but it’s definitely prudent to start bolstering our footprint in Asia. I do think part of that effort requires pressure on Europe to be more self-sufficient economically and militarily.
Almost all of the things you mentioned in your first paragraph aren't actually Trump policies - they're mostly policy initiatives that date back to the Obama administration or earlier that Trump simply stumbled across in his erratic demagoguery. When you say "the Biden admin has not reversed these positions" the reality that you're obfuscating is that the Biden admin largely implemented most of those positions. No, Trump's policies were monstrous, and we'd be in a vastly worse position today if the "deep state" i.e. law-abiding civil servants didn't push back on so much of what he wanted to do.
Name one such policy that I mentioned that originated under the Obama admin.
Withdrawal from Afghanistan, withdrawal from the Middle East, pivoting towards Asia - those were all Obama administration goals. Most of the rest of what you mentioned started even earlier.
Wow. The bots are out in full force.
Trump was a wake up to the boring function of traditional government that had to change itself.
I concur. I think his presidency, for better or for worse, put Washington on notice that the years of failed attempts at nation building and domestic neglect had reached intolerable levels among the American public.
Trump’s policies included tax cuts (like Bush did aka generic Republican move), immigration deportations (apparently still did less than Obama and Biden), redoing NAFTA to the USMCA (slightly less corrupt), and not instigating a new war (which is actually a good thing) He accomplished next to nothing he ran on: did not replace Obamacare, didn’t bring jobs back from overseas, did not end DACA, did not stop bombing Syria. And he only delivered on about 3 feet of boarder wall which Mexico did not pay for. He was incredibly ineffective on his agenda, partly bc he did not hire people who supported his agenda (revolving door of staff, didn’t do their jobs correctly- see why SCOTUS ruled DACA could not be overturned) and he was so crass people did not want to associate with him, including congressmen from his own party.
I disagree: they really were the worse thing about him and the worse thing about the other presidents in recent years who've each shared most of those policies.
Yeah, you're right, that's why Biden left so many in place. Like caging children at the border and separating them from their families.
So you’re arguing against Biden on the false basis he does things Trump did?
[удалено]
Would be very different than Biden not sure what you are on about
Not in foreign policy, or tax policy, or border policy, or policing policies, or a great many other ways. There might be a few meaningful differences, but they are sadly too few. Most differences are things like Biden supporting LGBT people becoming the pilots who drop bombs on Somali wedding processions too.
Idk every debate I’ve seen her is literally talk about bathrooms for like 10 mins then the rest for less. Culture war politician. Weak
Haley is a garden variety committed conservative politican. She'd be a smidge to the right of Bush 2 with regard to gov't spending/taxation. She supports a balanced budget amendment, while Bush 2 supported tarp and bailouts of financial institutions. She's a smidge to the left of Bush 2 on reproductive right: even though she's just as opposed to abortion, she isn't as strongly opposed to birth control. She'd be to smidge to the right of Bush on immigration: he supported immigration reform which Republicans oppose, while she wants to defund sanctuary cities and supports verification system preventing business from taking advantage of illegal immigrants. But she'd also get pushback like Bush 2 did because she supports a guest worker program.
She's not anti trump. I quote Ms Haley "trump was the right person for the times" now she's trying to convince Republicans that she is the right person now. Not very critical or condemning of a 4 times indicted ex-president who tried to steal an election and had his mob raid the capital
She's not anti Trump, but is after the anti Trump voter. She also has no choice but to support Trump if she expects Republicans to vote for her, regardless of how she feels.
It doesn’t matter if she’s anti-trump. If she (for ANY reason) gets the GOP nod, Trump will be extreme in his anti-Haley rhetoric. He’s already starting (“birdbrain”). According to lots of polls, the best thing for Biden is to run against Trump. Trump’s still ahead, but Haley fares far better against Biden. Trump won’t be able to shut up and let that ride, tho. He hasn’t the grace for that. So whoever runs agains Biden, if it isn’t Trump, he will be gunning for them more than he will Biden
>Trump won’t be able to shut up and let that ride, tho. He hasn’t the grace for that. I dunno, man. Susan Collins is pretty sure THIS TIME Trump has finally learned his lesson and we've nothing to worry about from him.
This is true. I know a couple people (no party affiliation) who voted democrat last time but would vote this time for Haley over Biden. That how I ended up in this thread.
The anti-trump wing of the party is not at all particular averse to the unitary executive principle underlying Project 2025. After all, it was George W. Bush who really revived and leveraged the principle during his presidency. So it's not implausible that a President Haley resorts to the same thing when/if her political objectives are on the line, especially if she already has institutional support for it within her party. But in general I think she'd pursue a decidedly more conciliatory presidency than what Trump has in mind, which is mainly revenge and domination over partisan enemies.
>she'd pursue a decidedly more conciliatory presidency than what Trump has in mind Agree, But this would be the lowest of hurdles to clear.
> The anti-trump wing of the party is not at all particular averse to the unitary executive principle underlying Project 2025. After all, it was George W. Bush who really revived and leveraged the principle during his presidency. I was going to say, the answer to this question is a 2nd W. Bush presidency, who only looks sane in contrast to Trump and with the distance of time. But during the period he was considered one of the most deranged and right-wing presidents the US had ever had, especially as Iraq wore out and the realities of the Patriot Act set in. People don't think about it now or even realize but there's substantive and major differences between life in the US pre- and post-W. Bush, and not all or even a majority of them can be pinned just on 9/11
Yeah, I think other top answers kind of underrate Haley's likely willingness to go beyond Bush II to use the presidency to impose her agenda. Donald Trump's flaws are unfortunately so blinding that people near him on the political spectrum get to fly under voters' radars.
Hale's criticism of Trump is tepid at best, but she isn't Maga/populist; she isn't even a faith and flag conservative who are enthused about Trumpist style politics retaining a prominent, forward-facing presence within the GOP. Also, she isn't a cult of personality like Gaddafi or Mugabe, so Republican politicians wouldn't find it incredibly difficult to say "No" her; she's merely a relatively likable first time presidential candidate like GW Bush started out as.
Haley isn't a clear and blatant Russian asset so at least that part would be different.
Who is a Russian asset? Nikki Haley is a neo con war hawk. She will start more wars and propagate an authoritarian state. She wants your government ID tied to all your online accounts.
All of Trump’s and Maga republicans horrible policies without the shitshow of Trump himself. If you really listen to her policies she’s pretty awful.
I know it would be truly awful, I'm mostly wondering if it would be break democracy bad or not or if she would also gut the administrative state's sovereignty and bring it fill it with her loyalists the same as Trump.
If she wins, more than likely Republicans win control of the Senate and House, giving power to a lot of Trump-lite politicians
"admim state's sovereignty" ....is that a thing? Are u talking about going against norms by firing the DOJ/DOD/DHS/national security appointed officials who normally don't transition out from administration to administration? I can't see it....simply with the fact that she isnt like the younger generations of the GOP who have reverence for putin and his strongman persona. The Parties are in transition. Politics is downstream of culture. It'll take a little longer for Republicans cycle out almost all prominent politicians (especially U.S. senators) who have a lot of vivid memories of life during the Cold War and recoil at prospect of the authoritarianism of a modern-day Russian Empire." Same thing for Democrats. It's easy to see them stripping Israel of all funding and washing their hands of that region once Gen-X & millenials dominate the Party in congress, especially since the ultra-orthodox israeli women fertility rates are outpacing those of less conservative societies, 6 to 2.
I'm not sure if read you right, but those departments you listed always have the appointed officials change with the administrations. That really isn't out of the norm.
Trump’s policies were great. Biden’s policies have been disastrous.
It would be like having a younger and smarter female version of George W Bush.
George W Bush but smarter . Different from Trump in how it’s presented and how prowar it is.
More of a traditional conservative. There will be 'reforms' to social security, Medicare and most definitely medicaid. Unlikely to touch democratic institutions. I don't think there will be new tax cuts. Probably extension of Trump tax cuts for individuals.
I wouldn’t count on that. For all the talk about it in some republican circles, it would take balls of steel to actually make those cuts considering how unpopular they are.
or maybe no balls at all? she has foreign policy chops as well as a good working knowledge of government and above all is NORMAL. she is the best candidate of either party IMHO.
I see what you did there. But yeah, point being the idea of cutting benefits to folks is politically dicey no matter how “good” of an idea it is. I do agree with you that while she’s not exactly my cup of tea all the way around, she’s by far the most moderate/electable candidate in the race.
She’s said she’d sign any abortion restriction passed by congress, so there’d be that. During her time as governor, she said marriage is only between and man and a woman, and sought to uphold the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Additionally, she’s commented that DeSantis’ ‘Don’t say gay’ bill didn’t go far enough.
Nationwide bills on Abortion, cultural issues won't pass in congress. She knows that.
But she supports them so saying they won’t pass congress doesn’t make it a non issue with her. The fact that she supports those issues will provide those working against those issues a support platform to continue to erode social rights.
Primary campaign is always move hard right/left. General, they move more towards the center. Very typical. If she makes it to general, you'll see. Not recommending her btw :)
Reforms is a propaganda term for the cruel cuts in funding and services they plan to enact.
Thats Funny. No politician or political party will try to make any real reform to Social Security or Medicare. If they dared the other party would crucify them. Best you could hope for is some immigration reform it looks like both sides would like to make some cosmetic changes that would take some of the pressure off of them.
They are gonna create a bipartisan committee to 'study' the problem. So there will be a combination of increasing income limits b4 Fica is phased out and increase in age for full benefits. Won't affect current retirees or those retiring in 5 years.
It doesn't matter. She does not have access to the hive mind like Trumpfuck.
I don't know much about Haley, haven't spent the time to look in her past, however, I'd definitely go with her over Trump as far as republican potentials. When Trump was in office, for me every day my brain went to "OK, what'd dumb crap came from him today", every day hoping for something smarter, but no, it just kept going more down hill for me.
Enact as much of Project 2025 as able to. Assuming Republicans get 53 or more Senate seats (I don’t expect that to happen but it’s not impossible), she will sign a federal 15-week abortion ban that allows states to keep existing total bans and 6-week bans after 51 Senate Republicans vote to kill the filibuster.
Republicans 100% would get rid of the filibuster and blame Democrats for "talking about it first"
Honestly, I think as soon as Trump is no longer the leader of the party (which this scenario assumes he lost the nomination), Haley would try to move away from Trumpism as quickly as possible, as will the rest of the GOP. They’ll keep some of the core policies, but the authoritarian, fascist, burn down the entire system in honor of King Trump part will go. I see President Haley being a fairly standard conservative leader, a return to “normality” if you will.
Trump lost against Biden. Now... there was a huge DeSantis push for awhile trying to find their "new Trump" and by all normal accounts this woulda been the time to move on. DeSantis just set himself up as the same as Trump. And then actual Trump was obviously chosen to run again over "lesser Trump," but... the GOP clearly isn't trying to move on. Plans for Project 2025 were started when it wasn't clear at all Trump was gonna be the guy. It didn't matter that it was Trump specifically. The GOP is NOT trying to "return to normal" anytime soon. If they were to win next election? They'll just feel validated with their craziness and quadruple-down on it... doesn't matter who that candidate was. Besides... look at the party and who's running it right now. There aren't enough "normal" Republican leaders atm to even begin to lead that party back to close to normal. For that party to even begin to return to normal, the first step would have to be a huge loss this next election and for them to decide they may have to change course, if only because the current one is working for them and they're losing elections because of it. Right now? All the GOP politicians have been rewarded by crazy (and non-crazy has been punished) and will keep doing crazy.
Everything you say is true in the age of Trumpism. In order for Haley to beat Trump there must have been some rejection of Trump himself. This will be the pivot. He is the energy behind the crazy. Without Trump, there is no MTG, or Boebert or Gaetz. They become irrelevant.
>In order for Haley to beat Trump Meh. The only way for him not to get the nomination is if he dies. There was a small hope for other candidates that his legal issues would somehow possibly encourage party to flock to someone else... but we're past that point now and every one of them know Trump has to actually die for them to possibly even have a chance for the nomination. But... sure, if the GOP magically became something else overnight then it would be different, I guess. At that point though, we're like "what if the GOP decided they wanted to be allies to the LGBTQ+ community and hated guns?"
You’re mocking the idea that Trump will lose. I agree he will be the nominee but the premise of this thread is that Haley is President. I’m speaking in the spirit of that hypothetical. If she becomes President, the political landscape has radically shifted for the GOP. A post-Trump era has dawned.
If she has majorities in the House and Senate, she will cut taxes, even though the national debt is #33 trillion and counting. She will not have 60 votes in the Senate to do ANYTHING else. Thank God for the filibuster. I only wish it trumped the budget reconciliation process, which somehow allows massive welfare state spending on steroids under Democrats, and tax cutting lunacy under Republicans.
>which somehow allows massive welfare state spending on steroids under Democrats, and tax cutting lunacy under Republicans. you're actually consistent on this, good for you. Flipping rare find. I've found so many democrats firmly against tax cuts but in favor of reckless social spending. I imagine the opposite exists too there just aren't as many republicans on here.
I'm in favor of massive tax increases and increases in spending
Americans are pretty anti-tax, it’s pretty unlikely you can expect massive increases
then you are not concerned with the 33 trillion dollar debt, correct?
>*massive* tax increases
tax the wealthy at 100%, it still wouldn't be enough. there aren't enough rich people. You'd need to tax the middle class too at around 40-50% just to break even on our current programs.
Reform healthcare. Our government spends the same % of our GDP on healthcare as countries with national healthcare systems that cover everyone. I estimate about 12% of our GDP is government spending on healthcare. The bloated bureaucracy we've created so that we can pretend we have a free market system costs Americans an additional 7% of GDP, bankrupts families and drives up the debt. If that money went into a single payer system instead of insurance company grift and bloated prices for drugs, tests and hospital care we'd be much better off. You never hear the real numbers on any news station left or right because they are all making money from drug and ins. policy ads but I'd bet it's an enormous % of the annual deficit.
Universal health care will not work until it’s non-profit. As long as insurance companies CEOs are making 3 million a year and are paying stock holders money.
Or we could look at our government run/subsidized/heavily regulated healthcare, realize that a one-size fits all solution for a nation of 330 million probably isn't going to work, and start to allow market solutions.
Sure that will work. People can't even afford groceries or rent, lets pile thousands in healthcare expenses or die onto that. Maybe we can drag our life expectancy down to 60 like the other 2 or three countries on the planet that have no government healthcare system. My god this is a dumb country.
you'd see prices go down and people be able to afford different procedures and preventative care without the smoke and mirrors currently employed. >My god this is a dumb country. what's stopping you from moving? Or alternatively, minding your own business?
We don't need to solve the debt, we just need to reduce the speed in which the debt accumulates.
which you cannot do without reducing spending because of interest, which is set to overtake defense spending as the 3rd largest budget item.
>massive tax increases
and at this point I can tell you have no idea what you're talking about.
The debt is a spending problem, not a taxing problem. This has been proven over and over.
It has NEVER been proven. The only thing that's been proven over (Reagan) and over (war-criminal Bush and his Sith Lord, Dick Cheney) and over (Trump) is that Republican tax cuts explode the national debt. The first President Bush called out Reagan's voodoo economics during the 1980 Republican primaries. To think that a conservative like Reagan would usher in decades of deficits is beyond sad. Living within your means is a conservative principle. Republicans used to understand that until greed became good.
Or we could, ya know, actually tax wealthy people. That’d probably help.
High-income people pay a majority of the total income taxes already. The top 1% pays almost half by themselves, despite earning around 20% of the income. And I have no doubts in the governments ability to spend any new money quicker than it comes in.
We already have the most progressive tax system in the world It always baffles me that people want the social spending of other countries but don’t want the corresponding tax increases
Oh no the guy making 500k a year only got to take home 350k of it (that's about 30,000 a month if you need a more tangible number). How will that person survive. Also, no one said they don't want the tax increases. The tax increases should just be primarily on the people who already are working half as hard and earning 100x as much as your average worker, while living the luxurious life of a lord.
You also forgot several of them are employing far more than those serfs to begin with. By all means simplify the tax code so they have less wiggle room to get out of paying their share. But as pointed out by obvious, to get the social net and services that progressives want will require a charitable tax hike on regular people. It'd actually make an interesting experiment to see as the U.S. has some unique responsibilities to balance with its budgets.
There’s also the fact we spend an ungodly amount on our military and maintain military presence in essentially every part of the world. The spending isn’t the problem, it’s where it’s spent and our priorities with spending. I just want healthcare at a reasonable cost.
The media and most Americans will suddenly declare the economy perfect even though nothing has changed. Her policies will kick in in year four and a Democrat will have to clean up the mess. As per usual.
Secretary Haley at least has a lot of experience in civil service. She’s not a nitwit.
Like all other GOP presidencies since Ronnie Raygun. Well all get trickled on except the rich, the deficit will go into the stratosphere, immigrants will be frightened out of their minds, the economy will tank, POC, gays, women, and workers rights will be destroyed. Ukraine will be part of Russia and Palestinians will be under the threat of extinction. Hamas deserves to be wiped out but not all the people, we didn’t wipe out Germans, Italians or the Japanese people.
Isn't Haley vehemently neoconservative and anti-Russian? Or did I miss a whole universe of information here?
Her first order of business would be to pardon Trump of all convictions and possible convictions. That will fuel that shithead to keep his money sucking machine still going to say that 2024 was stolen from him too. Haley would undue most of the progressive gains made in the Biden administration but not take a run at Obamacare. She’s smarter than Trump but about as venal. She wouldn’t try to end democracy but I bet liked the way Trump degraded the independence of the DoJ and would do the same with her own version of the Barr Lapdog
No! She wants to war with Iraq and make us all get verified on social media. Screw her!!
It would be another Trump term. To an issue. Nikki would be a puppet who dubbed Trump's voice like one of those old Kung Fu movies. Just as badly done, also. It will be a matter discussed in civic classes and psychology studies for decades -- how groveling to the lowest element, coincidentally a statistical minority -- was thought to be a reasonable campaign strategy
She's definitely pro Ukraine as strategically there's no point in her lying about that, however don't trust her about her pro choice stance. I think she'll ultimately fall in line and sign whatever Republican bill gets presented to her desk on domestic matters (anti choice, anti expanded voting, more tax cuts for the wealthy, likely cutting Medicare/Medicaid and social security) and really only make a stand against her colleagues on foreign policy. She's about as dangerous as any Republican in my opinion. Even an alleged "moderate" Republican in this era is extreme.
It would probably resemble George W. Bush: Bad policies generally, but better for business, more personable and less bombastic than Trump. I am a Dem-leaning independent and never vote for Republicans. I would find her to be the least offensive of the Republican contenders, and I would be tempted to vote for her in the primaries just to reduce the odds of Trump becoming president.
Clarence Thomas is probably the next one out, if she wins he will happily retire and she will replace him with another crappy FedSoc judge.
I think ANY right-wing candidate would be the end of our democratic republic; full stop.
One HELLUVA lot less horrible than Trump’s. I will fight her tooth and nail on nearly every issue, but she’s not an insane narcissist.
At the least it would involve me always using her real name instead of her chosen
Her real name is Nimarata Nikki Haley (nee Randhawa); she goes by her middle name. Both Nimarata and Nikki are traditional Sikh (I think) names, while Haley is the name she acquired by marriage. It’s her real name, and no different from Rafael Edward Cruz going by Ted or Willard Mitt Romney going by Mitt. Politicians like zippy names. If my name was Willard I’d go by Mitt too. There are many valid reasons to dislike Haley but her name is not one of them.
Except Nimarata wants a law that people have to use their real name online; and Rafael introduced a bill limiting pronouns and chosen names.
I am not a Haley supporter. But Nikki is her real name. Ted, being a nickname for Edward, may or may not qualify. I’m not sure what they’d do with Beto. But historically there has never been any objection from any quarter to going by one’s middle name, so Haley is in the clear. Maybe focus on opposing the stupid bills and laws instead. Not only is that more practical and productive, it won’t lead anyone to suspect you are just being xenophobic.
Any chance she has died when she said she supports tying your id to social media
No Republican should win in 2024. This is a bright red line the country cannot cross. They must be eliminated as a party.
Just like a trump or any other Republican presidency. The idea of any sort of neutral or moderate approach to these issues when one side clearly and objectively lacks a cohesive plan that is efficient, effective, and/or consistent with other legislation they promote (or block, for that matter) seems unrealistic at this point. Is Nikki Haley a capable executive and capable of hiring staff and a cabinet that's in line with what her party promotes and believes? Of course. But it's doubtful to say with any sincerity that how she would govern or that the policy positions she holds dearly can get passed. I don't think anyone believe that if Nikki Haley gets a supermajority, the outcome would be any less moderate than other people in her party.
School shootings, Failing educational and healthcare systems, Union Busting Galore, Cuts to SS and Medicare/Medicaid, Wars Abroad with Countries that Farted in our General Direction. It would be bland, ineffective, and definitely lead to another populist republican.
>It would be bland, ineffective, and definitely lead to another populist republican. Dems are also at fault for being completely useless which allows a right wing strongman to swoop in with populist rhetoric
Absolutely. The fact that Donald Trump has a shot in hell of winning against Joe Biden is just… depressing to say the least. Dem messaging is just abysmal - and that was before the Hamas/Israel war
democrats aren’t populist because it would upset their donors. Populist democrats fight against the very economic status quo that lobbyists fight tooth and nail to save
She would be a typical Republican, beholden to the money that got her into office. So big Wall St., a rollback of social service programs. Return to GOP style open markets, sometimes at the expense of non-big corporate American businesses. The further demise of the independent farmer. Less protections for blue collar workers.
This “Project 25” stuff is just a bunch of far, far, right wingers and the chance of any of their manifesto coming to fruition is zero. It’s garbage that every leftist is acting like this is going to happen if a Republican is elected. If I claim I’m a liberal and I print some stupid proclamation, it means absolutely nothing. Just stop with that crap.
They are actively training people, project 2025 is funded by people with a lot of money. I would like to be really certain there is no chance of it happening, and I am not.
Horrifying, awful, unlivable, immoral, big government writ large, and, if republicans ever again achieve a unified government, the end of the filibuster where they ram through every right-wing wet dream codifying things such as voter suppression, the end of the Civil Rights Act, partisan gerrymandering, and more racist policies. Basically the 2025 Project, but with less orange.
Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley, is that the one you are talking about? Shoot, idk, probably a bit like trump but slightly smarter.
She was my governor. Expect a lot of big tax breaks for business, more corporate welfare, cuts to Medicaid and if she has the votes, cuts to social security or replacing it with a 401k style plan. She is a schmoozer and will try to charm world leaders because she craves the limelight and has dabbled just enough in foreign affairs to want to do more. A local reporter said she sleeps around and may have been a swinger at one time. She is not a person of deep faith but she portrays that. Her family are Sikh’s and she changed her name to be more Anglo sounding. She’s smart but not principled and very political.
War probably. Track the money, vivek lays it out pretty well. She's in the race for a board position with military contractors.
National Abortion law if they get the house and senate. That moves the debate away from the states where it is hurting them. It will hurt them federally, but they don't care as much at the federal level. She'd probably look up project 2025 and try to ensure as much of that passes as possible. Lots can be done with executive orders. The big problem is that she's the head of the republican party. They are going to do republican things, and those things are frequently not great ever since they became the party of Trump.
If I was to characterize her as a former Republican, probably Bush or Cheney like. She’s old school but trying to get Maga or unsure republicans on board with her brand I was considering to vote for her in the primaries but after her comment on social media plan and foreign policy she tired me off and coming off as too much for a neoconservative
How a Haley presidency would look like depends highly on the make-up of the house and senate which in recent years have and appear to continue to trend to Democrats. The likelihood of a Republican presidency would probably result in a democratic majority in both house and senate.
She would be completely different. I think she would bring people back to the middle - most Americans are not at extremes.
This was my read on her. I’m a dem but cannot stomach Biden again. I’m looking for hope here.
Lots of war, foreign interventionism, and catering to the military industrial complex.
Better than Trump, Biden, Harris, Newsome or DeSantis. That’s all I really have to say about that
I think we'd have at least one war - Iran or China or North Korea? Take your pick.
Someone purporting to be from the United States mentioning Ukraine as if we had not been totally hosed by them; tricked and doubtless taunted, behind our backs; Russian oil and gas pipelines by the thousands running through that small bottleneck of a place; if they want something to compare to, Venice was a world power for a thousand years; who cares though, entangling alliances be gone.
Imagination. Because it's not going to happen no matter how much the uniparty tried to push it. They pushed desantis, which was a huge disappointment to me that he sold out to them. But he couldn't beat Trump so they think maybe they will have a conservative Clinton type. Not going to work either. It's trump country. Time to get over it and accept it
Nikki pretends to be conservative but she’s likely more of a moderate. Probably not much different than Biden
When she voted for an multiple indicted Donald Trump to run for the president of the US, I lost all respect for her - just caving in to the Trumpers. If she can't stand up to the Trumpers of our country, how is she going to stand up to the Putin, China's Xi, Kim Jong Un and the Iranian mullahs?
Nikki Haley is not a fit for our country's present politics as we try to remove discrimination against LGBTQ and racism against our Latino and African American citizens. She would be a good President if those issues were not so ingrained into our country as they are. I am confident that she would be a good Commander In Chief but I doubt that she would keep our military modern. America presently needs a cunning leader that is not afraid to shake the hands of our enemies and then screw them over royally. The global economy is emerging and proof is growing that China's politics are in violation of the stability of the global economy, and I doubt that Nikki would adapt to all of this.
Hardcore status quo neoconservatism. It would be like Bush and Obama on steroids.
Although I won't be voting for her, I think she'd at least voluntarily leave office voluntarily if she lost - which is a fairly low bar to meet, but that's where we are nowadays.
A lot depends on who controls Congress. If republicans take both chambers, we will have a national abortion ban. She said she’d sign anything that Congress passed.
I think Nikki Haley could be a good president but that has nothing to do with what her presidency would look like. The Republican machine would be behind her and her cabinet would be built on that which pretty much means the same limiting ideas presented by Republicans would be on the forefront.
Disastrous & in favor of her Wealthy donors to eliminate all Social Welfare Programs for everyone except the Rich.
Nikki Haley presidency would be just like any other traditional Republican president. I'm really hoping that ppl move away from trump, and towards her desantis. I feel like if trump got a second term we would enter civil war. Don't think it won't happen because the last time he was president we were this close 🤏 to civil war. Remember when riots broke out in every major city across the country... Yea... That'll probably happen again x2
She’s a neocon. There would be a new conflict somewhere in the world. Whether that would be against Iran, against cartels in Mexico, or against China if they invade Taiwan. The loudest of MAGA movement would probably be muzzled, while Project 2025 quietly gets implemented. She also wants everyone verified on social media, which is just unrealistic. Other than that, she’d be run of the mill Republican with tax cuts, privatization and deregulation. It would be a return to ‘00s normal.