Nikki Haley launches presidential campaign, challenging Trump for GOP nomination

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

His background is Italian.

In the modern US that's white.

 

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/173298

 

I stand corrected, led astray by the Spanish name.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

I stand corrected, led astray by the Spanish name.

 

@ozimoron

 

Stop digging....

[KhunLA]

18 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

His background is Italian.

In the modern US that's white.

 

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/173298

Yes ... from wiki:

"All of DeSantis's great-grandparents immigrated from Southern Italy[a] during the first Italian diaspora. His parents and all of his grandparents were born and grew up in Western Pennsylvania and Northeast Ohio'

[EVENKEEL]

5 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

It's time the "More maga than thou"  flub from Florida came to the same realization and dropped out as well.

I wouldn't expect foreigners to remember names. It would be nice to have Haley vs numpty joe.

[Tug]

3 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

I wouldn't expect foreigners to remember names. It would be nice to have Haley vs numpty joe.

Oh I donno I think Mr oozy pegged that little authoritarian quite well!

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

I wouldn't expect foreigners to remember names. It would be nice to have Haley vs numpty joe.

Haley could win that one, as she would get 100% Republican support.

[Berkshire]

13 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

I wouldn't expect foreigners to remember names. It would be nice to have Haley vs numpty joe.

If a Republican were to become POTUS, I'd much prefer Haley over Trump.  She's much more qualified and sane.  Although she'd do better than Trump with moderates and independents, I don't think the MAGA base would come out for her.  Aside from their racist bent, they're also a rather misogynist bunch.

[earlinclaifornia]

If she does beat Trump in NH I don't think the Republican party would ever nominate a female. Also, now Trump has branded her for good.

Trump Campaign Brands Nikki Haley 'RINO' And Unleashes New Tax-Related Nickname, As She Gains Ground In Republican Presidential Nomination Polls For 2024 Election - Benzinga

[EVENKEEL]

7 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

If she does beat Trump in NH I don't think the Republican party would ever nominate a female.

That's a very narrow minded view of the GOP. But, in the end what's important is that numpty joe and cackling kamala are gone.

[bamnutsak]

Trump has fired up the Birther canon and is aiming it at Nikki Haley.

 

 

Trump promotes 'totally baseless' birther conspiracy theory against Nikki Haley

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-promotes-baseless-birther-conspiracy-theory-nikki-haley-rcna133166

 

[ozimoron]

Trump has ensured that if he doesn't get the nomination, the GOP will be wiped out.

[earlinclaifornia]

3 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

That's a very narrow minded view of the GOP. But, in the end what's important is that numpty joe and cackling kamala are gone.

It is very true that it is narrow minded, we agree on that. You're not wanting Trump as your able to accept beating Biden is more important. 

[earlinclaifornia]

South Carolina 2024: Trump Leads Haley in South Carolina by 29-points - Emerson Polling (emersoncollegepolling.com)

[Tug]

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Trump has ensured that if he doesn't get the nomination, the GOP will be wiped out.

They have allready had a pretty good start wiping out the GOP allready lol 😂 

[EVENKEEL]

34 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

It is very true that it is narrow minded, we agree on that. You're not wanting Trump as your able to accept beating Biden is more important. 

Word games? really, that's the best you got.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

That's a very narrow minded view of the GOP. But, in the end what's important is that numpty joe and cackling kamala are gone.

 

Talks about 'very narrow minded', then goes for the 'numpty joe and cackling kamala' bit.

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, KhunLA said:

I haven't followed any of it, especially the debates.  I was really surprised Christie even considered running.   Easy target for Trump to pick apart, and he certain couldn't run on his record as 2 term governor.

To me it looked like Christie only turned up to diss Trump.

[Tug]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

To me it looked like Christie only turned up to diss Trump.

To expose trump 

[KhunLA]

15 minutes ago, Tug said:

To expose trump 

As if MSM needs any help dissing him 

[impulse]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

To me it looked like Christie only turned up to diss Trump.

 

That, or it looked to me like a sad attempt to stay relevant.  Keep those speaking engagements and fat consulting contracts flowing in for another decade...

Regarding Haley vs DeSantis, neither one has a chance if Trump is in it.  And while Trump is still in it, we'll never get a true measure of their relative polling.  I suspect that Trump supporters would more likely migrate to DeSantis than Haley if Trump exits the race.  Fair assessment or not, she's the candidate of the entrenched class, the Swamp.

 

I think either one would be foolish to drop out before the end. 

 

 

[placeholder]

19 hours ago, impulse said:

 

That, or it looked to me like a sad attempt to stay relevant.  Keep those speaking engagements and fat consulting contracts flowing in for another decade...

Regarding Haley vs DeSantis, neither one has a chance if Trump is in it.  And while Trump is still in it, we'll never get a true measure of their relative polling.  I suspect that Trump supporters would more likely migrate to DeSantis than Haley if Trump exits the race.  Fair assessment or not, she's the candidate of the entrenched class, the Swamp.

Does supporting more tax cuts for the "entrenched class" count as opposing the Swamp?

 

Behind closed doors, Trump eyes second round of corporate tax cuts
Publicly, the Trump campaign is saying its priority is tax relief for working-class families and small businesses

https://archive.ph/cDZmb#selection-371.0-375.113

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/01/12/trump-tax-cuts-2024/

[impulse]

14 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Does supporting more tax cuts for the "entrenched class" count as opposing the Swamp?

 

Behind closed doors, Trump eyes second round of corporate tax cuts
Publicly, the Trump campaign is saying its priority is tax relief for working-class families and small businesses

https://archive.ph/cDZmb#selection-371.0-375.113

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/01/12/trump-tax-cuts-2024/

 

In a global economy, is it better to just let Ireland get all those companies and jobs with their super-low tax rate, or would it be better to reduce US corporate tax rates to incent companies to move those jobs back to the USA? 

 

I don't claim to know the truth, (we're bombarded with propaganda from both sides, often masquerading as scholarly studies) but many of the studies I've seen show that lower corporate tax rates result in more jobs, more products being made in the USA, better trade balance, and ultimately, more tax revenue.  Hopefully, they target those tax breaks toward productive enterprises and not to the importers, the banksters and the money changers. 

 

And it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if they imposed stiff tariffs on goods and services from, for example, Ireland who are gaming the system.  Just to level the field.

 

[candide]

4 hours ago, impulse said:

 

In a global economy, is it better to just let Ireland get all those companies and jobs with their super-low tax rate, or would it be better to reduce US corporate tax rates to incent companies to move those jobs back to the USA? 

 

I don't claim to know the truth, (we're bombarded with propaganda from both sides, often masquerading as scholarly studies) but many of the studies I've seen show that lower corporate tax rates result in more jobs, more products being made in the USA, better trade balance, and ultimately, more tax revenue.  Hopefully, they target those tax breaks toward productive enterprises and not to the importers, the banksters and the money changers. 

 

And it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if they imposed stiff tariffs on goods and services from, for example, Ireland who are gaming the system.  Just to level the field.

 

Well, it didn't really work this way last time. Contrary to Trump's initial claim, the cost of tax cuts was not compensated by enough extra growth and tax revenues (nor did the Bush tax cuts).

 

Actually, low tax policies only work for small countries.

 

You could have added: not to companies which used tax cuts to buy back their shares in order to increase the value of stock options, but there wouldn't be much companies left.

[impulse]

1 hour ago, candide said:

You could have added: not to companies which used tax cuts to buy back their shares in order to increase the value of stock options, but there wouldn't be much companies left.

 

On that, we agree.   That's one reason I don't get all excited when the market goes up.

 

[Danderman123]

6 hours ago, impulse said:

 

In a global economy, is it better to just let Ireland get all those companies and jobs with their super-low tax rate, or would it be better to reduce US corporate tax rates to incent companies to move those jobs back to the USA? 

 

I don't claim to know the truth, (we're bombarded with propaganda from both sides, often masquerading as scholarly studies) but many of the studies I've seen show that lower corporate tax rates result in more jobs, more products being made in the USA, better trade balance, and ultimately, more tax revenue.  Hopefully, they target those tax breaks toward productive enterprises and not to the importers, the banksters and the money changers. 

 

And it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if they imposed stiff tariffs on goods and services from, for example, Ireland who are gaming the system.  Just to level the field.

 

Wow. You took the blue pill.

 

Lower corporate taxes = less investment. The largest US corporate investment came when the Eisenhower administration imposed a 91% marginal tax rate. 

 

You really don't understand any of this.

[placeholder]

7 hours ago, impulse said:

 

In a global economy, is it better to just let Ireland get all those companies and jobs with their super-low tax rate, or would it be better to reduce US corporate tax rates to incent companies to move those jobs back to the USA? 

 

I don't claim to know the truth, (we're bombarded with propaganda from both sides, often masquerading as scholarly studies) but many of the studies I've seen show that lower corporate tax rates result in more jobs, more products being made in the USA, better trade balance, and ultimately, more tax revenue.  Hopefully, they target those tax breaks toward productive enterprises and not to the importers, the banksters and the money changers. 

 

And it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if they imposed stiff tariffs on goods and services from, for example, Ireland who are gaming the system.  Just to level the field.

 

Can you share with us some of those studies? Because there's no proof for it in any data that I've seen. Whether it was the Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, or the Trump tax cuts, there was no noticeable effect on GDP. In fact, the only time that the economy experienced a sharp out-of-trend jump was after the Clinton tax increases of 1993.  One noticeable effect of these tax cuts is increasing income inequality.

[EVENKEEL]

World News is lagging behind in the news dept. Almost like nobody is home.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/12/2024 at 8:16 PM, impulse said:

 

That, or it looked to me like a sad attempt to stay relevant.  Keep those speaking engagements and fat consulting contracts flowing in for another decade...

Regarding Haley vs DeSantis, neither one has a chance if Trump is in it.  And while Trump is still in it, we'll never get a true measure of their relative polling.  I suspect that Trump supporters would more likely migrate to DeSantis than Haley if Trump exits the race.  Fair assessment or not, she's the candidate of the entrenched class, the Swamp.

 

I think either one would be foolish to drop out before the end. 

 

 

I've said it before, but my preference would be for Trump to bow out gracefully, but if that doesn't happen, it's likely at least one of the 90 odd court cases might just get lucky and he can't stand.

My preference would be DeSantis, obviously.

 

The only reason I have for wanting Trump to win is revenge on Biden and his cronies, and seeing the snowflakes melt down, and that isn't really a good reason to subject all of us to a repeat of the first time. Also, since Gaza happened, I don't want someone as POTUS that is likely even more pro Israel than Biden.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Wow. You took the blue pill.

 

Lower corporate taxes = less investment. The largest US corporate investment came when the Eisenhower administration imposed a 91% marginal tax rate. 

 

You really don't understand any of this.

LOL, you say that as if you do, and as usual you provide no proof of what you claim as fact.

Till you do, my default on anything you say is that you are making it up.

[impulse]

19 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Lower corporate taxes = less investment. The largest US corporate investment came when the Eisenhower administration imposed a 91% marginal tax rate. 

 

If that's true (and I'm not claiming to know), you need to remember that was before globalization and all the trade barriers came down, so it wasn't feasible to invest in overseas plants (and jobs and...)  You couldn't build stuff overseas and afford the import duties even if you could get past trade barriers.  Also, it was before shipping containers took off, revolutionizing international movement of goods.

 

Today, if they implemented a 91% marginal tax rate, every company would move production jobs overseas.  They'd take their profits in the low tax locations and their US distribution arms (because that's all they'd have in the USA) would just break even so they still wouldn't pay tax.

 

Edit:  And as I recall, Eisenhower inherited the high marginal tax rate.  It was FDR that called in all his rich buddies after the depression and told them, "you broke the economy, now you're going to have to pay for the mess you made".