Nikki For President

[beej]

I think she is running for 2 3 reasons:
Money
Money
To be VP

she could make a lot more money in the private sector than she can as president, even if you count money from speeches and book writing, post presidency.

[Jeff]

she could make a lot more money in the private sector than she can as president, even if you count money from speeches and book writing, post presidency.

I mean donation money.

[YoDoug]

she could make a lot more money in the private sector than she can as president, even if you count money from speeches and book writing, post presidency.

It's about increasing her personal brand value. The higher she climbs the national political theater, the more influence she will garner, the more money she will make in the private sector.

[YoDoug]

what lead you to that conclusion?

Her wishy washy support for Trump, her past endorsements and alliances with Romney, etc.

[Del.]

Her wishy washy support for Trump, her past endorsements and alliances with Romney, etc.

I liked her wishy washy support of Trump   She speaks her mind.

[YoDoug]

My concern is that she would be R party first, not voters first. There are very few Republicans politicians that are willing to speak out and go against the party to put the voters first. What is good for the party is not always good for the people. The party is led by the big donors. They call the shots and they direct policy and direction of the party based on their wealth and power. She has not said or done anything to make me believe she would stand up for the voters in opposition to the party.

[beej]

My concern is that she would be R party first, not voters first. There are very few Republicans politicians that are willing to speak out and go against the party to put the voters first. What is good for the party is not always good for the people. The party is led by the big donors. They call the shots and they direct policy and direction of the party based on their wealth and power. She has not said or done anything to make me believe she would stand up for the voters in opposition to the party.

and yet, if someone does do that, you call them a RINO. Insinuating that being republican is the most important thing of all.

[Leehound]

I really wasn't expecting this much negativity towards her. She seems to be well spoken and thoughtful and was a successful governor and the View doesn't like her (a big plus). But I am not going to rely on someone from YouTube to form my opinion. Until Desantis throws his hat in the ring, I will be watching her closely. Actually I really like the idea of a Desantis/Haley ticket.

[YoDoug]

and yet, if someone does do that, you call them a RINO. Insinuating that being republican is the most important thing of all.

Following conservative republican principals in both speech and policy is the key. Rinos run their campaigns on these ideals but then when they get elected do the bidding of the R party leaders, aka, big donors and special interests. The Republican party leadership has lost their way when it comes to traditional R party values. They are no longer concerned with being the party of smaller gov and more local gov control. Romney, Haley, et al, would sell out your job/privacy/freedom/security, etc in a heartbeat if their big donors deemed it necessary.

To be truthful, both parties are exactly the same in this manner. It is the unfortunate results of a two party system. The party (big donors) become more important than the voter.

[neurosis]

She seems to be well spoken

Well that's her problem   

If she want's to win the vote of the Trumpsters, she's going to have to start insulting peoples wives and make fun of disabled people.

Joking of course.

[beej]

Following conservative republican principals in both speech and policy is the key. Rinos run their campaigns on these ideals but then when they get elected do the bidding of the R party leaders, aka, big donors and special interests. The Republican party leadership has lost their way when it comes to traditional R party values. They are no longer concerned with being the party of smaller gov and more local gov control. Romney, Haley, et al, would sell out your job/privacy/freedom/security, etc in a heartbeat if their big donors deemed it necessary.

To be truthful, both parties are exactly the same in this manner. It is the unfortunate results of a two party system. The party (big donors) become more important than the voter.

I'm still not following the logic, Romney and McCain have both frustrated the Hell out of me. but it seems like they'd do better with donors, if they would get in line and vote like the republicans want them to vote. During McCain's president primary campaign, he got to the point where he was famously carrying his own luggage and flying coach because his campaign ran out of money from Big donors. it wasn't until he started to win some state primaries that the money started to flow again. And when he voted against getting rid of Obamacare, which also frustrated the Hell out of me. He only had a few months to live. So he was clearly acting on conscious alone and not what his donors were going to do for him.

I don't think you can throw the RINO term around loosely and still say that you want candidates who put people before party. It's a non congruent logic.

[JParis]

It's a non congruent logic.

Careful, you'll confuse them 

[RobertELee]

Well that's her problem   

If she want's to win the vote of the Trumpsters, she's going to have to start insulting peoples wives and make fun of disabled people.

Joking of course.

And if a Demonrat wants to win the vote they're gonna have to start talking racist and sniffing on little kids.

Kidding of course......

[YoDoug]

I'm still not following the logic, Romney and McCain have both frustrated the Hell out of me. but it seems like they'd do better with donors, if they would get in line and vote like the republicans want them to vote. During McCain's president primary campaign, he got to the point where he was famously carrying his own luggage and flying coach because his campaign ran out of money from Big donors. it wasn't until he started to win some state primaries that the money started to flow again. And when he voted against getting rid of Obamacare, which also frustrated the Hell out of me. He only had a few months to live. So he was clearly acting on conscious alone and not what his donors were going to do for him.

I don't think you can throw the RINO term around loosely and still say that you want candidates who put people before party. It's a non congruent logic.

First, McCain voting against repealing Obamacare was just a big FU to Trump. As for him not having money while he was struggling in the primaries to going to having full support is really irrelevant. He didn't win so we don't know how beholden he was to the party and donors if had won. Also, long term senators in heavy red or blue states don't have the same game to play as new senators or those highly competitive states.

As for the big donors, party, etc. The traditional ideas of who the big donors are and what they want doesn't apply anymore. The corporations of yesterday are now global multi-nationals. Their interests do not align with the party principals of the past and do not align with the best interests of American people. The world has changed and so has American politics. I see a whole lot of people that think the old ways still apply. Almost every Democrat I know over the age of 30 is a moderate, JFK type of Dem. They refuse to believe the party has steered hard left. The same goes for most older R's I talk with. They refuse to see how the party has changed and doesn't represent the ideals they once did. When the party claims to be conservative and espouses traditional R values but acts to support the changing desires of their big donors and interest that is the quintessential definition of RINO. As Gcode loves to say that SMIT has his rose colored glasses to not see the truth, the same goes for R voters that refuse to see how the party has changed. 

[beej]

First, McCain voting against repealing Obamacare was just a big FU to Trump. As for him not having money while he was struggling in the primaries to going to having full support is really irrelevant. He didn't win so we don't know how beholden he was to the party and donors if had won. Also, long term senators in heavy red or blue states don't have the same game to play as new senators or those highly competitive states.

As for the big donors, party, etc. The traditional ideas of who the big donors are and what they want doesn't apply anymore. The corporations of yesterday are now global multi-nationals. Their interests do not align with the party principals of the past and do not align with the best interests of American people. The world has changed and so has American politics. I see a whole lot of people that think the old ways still apply. Almost every Democrat I know over the age of 30 is a moderate, JFK type of Dem. They refuse to believe the party has steered hard left. The same goes for most older R's I talk with. They refuse to see how the party has changed and doesn't represent the ideals they once did. When the party claims to be conservative and espouses traditional R values but acts to support the changing desires of their big donors and interest that is the quintessential definition of RINO. As Gcode loves to say that SMIT has his rose colored glasses to not see the truth, the same goes for R voters that refuse to see how the party has changed.

I'm trying to follow you, but quite honestly you're just all over the place. You complain that the parties have changed, but then you refer to the "Old Big Government republicans".  You want small government republicans but you defend Trump who wanted a 2 trillion dollar infrastructure bill,https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718677236/trump-and-democrats-agree-on-2-trillion-for-infrastructure-but-not-on-how-to-pay

signed trillions in spending on checks to all of us who didn't even need the money for covid
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531632-trump-signs-relief-bill-despite-criticism/

and wanted to spend even more, than conservative republicans were balking at. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/22/trump-calls-covid-relief-bill-unsuitable-and-demands-congress-add-higher-stimulus-payments.html

And you ignore all of that to complain about "Big Government Bush." Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like just mostly liked the fact that he was better at the Bully Pulpit than Bush was. Which if that's the case, that's fine, but so far you logic for liking one over the other, is all over the place.