Patterico's Pontifications

1/31/2024

Nikki Haley On A State’s Right To Secede

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:31 pm



[guest post by Dana]

In an interview with The Breakfast Club, Republican candidate Nikki Haley was asked about states being able to secede – specifically Texas, in light of the border crisis:

Speaker 3
Would you use force against Texas if they tried to secede over the board issue? Because I remember in twenty ten you said you U has states should have the right to secede.

Speaker 1
Do you still believe that.

HALEY:
I believe in states rights. I believe that everything should be as close to the people to decide. We know that’s not going to happen. That’s not the issue, but I do think, like right now, it’s a good issue on state’s rights. Biden won’t secure the border. If Governor Abbott goes and puts that fencing up there to keep people out. He has to protect Texans. When I was governor, I had to protect South Carolina, and you do whatever it takes to protect your people and keep them safe. If Biden’s saying no, cut that fence, I mean, a state has the ability to do these things because states rights do matter, and I think that states need to be able to do that.

Speaker 1
Would you use force against Texas if they ever try to succeed?

HALEY:
Use force against them? No, we don’t ever use force against our own Americans.

Speaker 3
Okay, I got it. I don’t mean like military or anything like that. I’m just talking about, like, would you be strong against them doing that?

HALEY:
I mean, I think you know, states are going to make decisions, but let’s talk about what’s reality. Texas isn’t going to succeed and succeed. I mean, that’s not something that they’re going to do.

Speaker 1
So why did you say you believe in that in two ten?

HALEY:
What was the context of it.

Speaker 1
I think you said you believe that states have the right to secede. That’s what you said. You believe the states of the United States have the right to seceed [sic] community.

HALEY:
I think that they do. I mean the Constitution says that. I think states have the right to make the decisions that their people want to make. I mean they do. In South Carolina, we said we didn’t want Syrian refugees. We said we didn’t want Guantana Mobay [sic] prisoners. We said those things. South. I do think that laws should be made as close to the people as possible because it empowers the people. If Texas decides they want to do that, they can do that. But I don’t think that if that whole state says we don’t want to be part of America anymore, I mean, that’s their decision to make. But I don’t think government needs to tell people how to live, how to do anything. I mean, I think that we need to let freedom live and [sic].

(Light edits made to simplify Questioner and Haley.)

–Dana

128 Responses to “Nikki Haley On A State’s Right To Secede”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (8e902f)

  2. Something wrong in this post

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  3. The gist of what she said (at your link) is that she feels that states DO have the right to secede, but that she really doesn’t expect the federal system to get so far off the rails that it is necessary. But, should it happen nevertheless, the use of force to keep them in the Union would be wrong. Self-determination is important in the modern world.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  4. Her answer (again, at the link) is thoughtful and complete, in an age when some demand simple declarative knee-jerk answers that comport to what we heard in grammar school. You may not like her answer, but her courage to give it is a plus in my book.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  5. <blockquote>Something wrong in this post

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 1/31/2024 @ 12:34 pm

    Yeah, what Haley said about secession.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  6. And by implication she says states have the right to defy the courts.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  7. The Civil War settled the question of “could States secede?”.

    That answer is affirmatively “no”.

    whembly (5f7596)

  8. @6

    And by implication she says states have the right to defy the courts.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/31/2024 @ 12:47 pm

    That leads to a sort of Constitutional Crisis™ that brings serious chaos.

    whembly (5f7596)

  9. Kevin M (ed969f) — 1/31/2024 @ 12:42 pm

    What is the constitutional mechanism for secession?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  10. Haley is fishing for the “good old boy” vote in South Carolina and other Southern states. But she can’t out fish Trump, who leads in those states (Texas +63; Virginia +59, both Super Tuesday states) by large margins. This interview, along with her Civil War statements (also endorsing “states rights”), will certainly damage her in the Super Tuesday states of Vermont, Minnesota, Maine, and Massachusetts.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  11. From the Dubuque Herald, Nov 1860

    “The Constitution of the United States provides that it may be amended, and prescribes how this may be done, but it does not, as it exists now, contemplate its own destruction, nor a dissolution of the Government of which it is the living evidence. Constitutionally, there can be no such thing as secession of a State from the Union.

    But it does not follow that because a State cannot secede constitutionally, it is obliged under all circumstances to remain in the Union. There is a natural right, which is reserved by all men, and which cannot be given to any Government, and no Government can take it away. It is the natural right of a people to form a Government for their mutual protection, for the promotion of their mutual welfare, and for such other purposes as they may deem most conducive to their mutual happiness and prosperity; but if for any cause the Government so formed should become inimical to the rights and interests of the people, instead of affording protection to their persons and property, and securing the happiness and prosperity, to attain which it was established, it is the natural right of the people to change the Government regardless of Constitutions.”

    https://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/teaching-resources-for-historians/sixteen-months-to-sumter/newspaper-index/dubuque-herald/can-a-state-constitutionally-secede

    The argument sounds fair to me. There is no constitutional mechanism to secede. But if a state believes that the federal government is no longer protecting its property from foreign invasion, it would have a natural and moral right to seek a new government. Now one would imagine that there would be a whole lot of discussion before Texas would initiate leaving…and how “leaving” would even work in terms of assets and obligations. Would the US launch military operations against Texas to prevent it from “leaving” vice…you know…trying to address the border?

    It’s really inconceivable. Win elections and you can change policy at the border. I would be interested in how Trump and Biden would answer this. Probably the best answer would be that as President I would ensure that the border was secured and that no state would want to leave. Republicans have a common interest here. Maybe turn the question, would you attack California if it attempted to secede because of extreme border security and federal abortion policies? Even there, it still rings absurd to me.

    Personally, I do believe the questions that matter have to do with how Presidents will respond to crises. What specifically in their government experience has prepared them to make decisions if we face a financial, foreign, biological, or environmental crisis? But a big part of the answer is that you will discuss it with your closest advisors, prepare a plan, and bring in the Congress. Part of being a leader is to find good solutions, no matter where they come from. This hypothetical needs to be shaken out. I think we have bigger fish to fry….

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  12. Kevin @ 2, what is “wrong” in this post?

    Dana (8e902f)

  13. …the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia set it to rest when he asked by a screenwriter in 2006 whether there was a legal basis for secession. In his response, he wrote: “The answer is clear,” Scalia wrote. “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”

    Good information here.

    Dana (8e902f)

  14. Gov. Kirsti Noem puts Texas in its place at the beginning:

    Republican South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem claimed (last) Friday that Texas was a signatory of a U.S. founding document many decades before Texas was granted statehood. …….

    ………
    Texas and those 13 original colonies would’ve never signed the treaty that formed the first constitution of the United States if they didn’t think their right to protect themselves and defend their own people was protected. So, what Joe Biden is doing is threatening our state sovereignty.

    By “first constitution,” Noem was presumably referring to the Articles of Confederation, which were signed in 1777 by the 13 existing states that declared independence from Britain the previous year. Texas was not admitted to the Union until 1845. The Articles of Confederation dissolved when the Constitution went into effect in 1789. Subsequently, states do not sign onto the Constitution as a precondition for admission into the Union. Congress simply votes on whether to admit new states.

    What is it about Governors and the lack of historical knowledge? It sounds like they are faking history to make a political point. Shocking!

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  15. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the post. Haley simply repeats her answer to the first question as her answer to the follow up question.

    nk (3930e1)

  16. I think a state has aright to refuse to admit people that Congress has not naturalized in some way, (and equally to admit and give state ID to) but it can’t control the actual border if the federal government is there. It cannot make treaties or conduct foreign relations or regulate foreign commerce.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  17. Nikki Haley will issue a walk back clarification, “I really didn’t mean it, of course the Civil War was about slavery” statement within 24 hours.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  18. The justification for discarding the Articles of Confederation, in violation of its own terms was that “We the People” were doing it – and it ratified by special elections to conventions.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  19. Haley is just trying to avoid losing any votes. And she’s tangling herself up a bit to anyone who pays attention to her answers, but few do and most forgive her.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  20. Abraham Lincoln did not use force against South Carolina for seceding, (or pretending to secede) but for firing on Ft. Sumter.

    Whether a state that seceded was in or out of the Union was never clearly resolved, I think.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  21. My advice to Nikki is the advice Nancy Reagan gave in another context.

    “Just say no.”

    Appalled (6f4cc7)

  22. whembly (5f7596) — 1/31/2024 @ 12:50 pm

    The Civil War settled the question of “could States secede?”.

    And also slavery, but not the right to vote.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  23. The Khalistan movement is a separatist movement seeking to create a homeland for Sikhs by establishing an ethno‐religious sovereign state called Khalistan (lit. ’land of the Khalsa’) in the Punjab region.[2] The proposed boundaries of Khalistan vary between different groups; some suggest the entirety of the Sikh-majority Indian state of Punjab, while larger claims include Pakistani Punjab and other parts of North India such as Chandigarh, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh.[3] Shimla and Lahore have been proposed as the capital of Khalistan.[4][5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement

    Is that her backup plan in case she does not become President of the United States? President of Khalistan?

    I’m telling you, comrades, we really got us some real wieners in this election. Oscar Mayer, pure beef, pork and chicken.

    nk (5efd28)

  24. Whether a state that seceded was in or out of the Union was never clearly resolved, I think.

    Yes, it has, in a case involving Texas’s war debts that I cannot be bothered to look up. In fact, the Court ruled that Texas had never even seceded from the Union because there is no such thing as secession from the Union.

    nk (5efd28)

  25. Here is what was actually said in the interview:

    Questioner:

    Would you use force against Texas if they tried to secede over the board issue? Because I remember in twenty ten you said you U has states should have the right to secede.

    Do you still believe that?

    Nikki Haley:

    I believe in states rights. I believe that everything should be as close to the people to decide. We know that’s not going to happen. That’s not the issue, but I do think, like right now, it’s a good issue on state’s rights. Biden won’t secure the border. If Governor Abbott goes and puts that fencing up there to keep people out. He has to protect Texans. When I was governor, I had to protect South Carolina, and you do whatever it takes to protect your people and keep them safe. If Biden’s saying no, cut that fence, I mean, a state has the ability to do these things because states rights do matter, and I think that states need to be able to do that.

    Questioner:

    Would you use force against Texas if they ever try to succeed?

    Nikki Haley:

    Use force against them? No, we don’t ever use force against our own Americans.

    Questioner:

    Okay, I got it. I don’t mean like military or anything like that. I’m just talking about, like, would you be strong against them doing that?

    Nikki Haley:

    I mean, I think you know, states are going to make decisions, but let’s talk about what’s reality. Texas isn’t going to succeed and succeed. I mean, that’s not something that they’re going to do.

    Questioner:

    So why did you say you believe in that in 2010?

    Nikki Haley:

    What was the context of it?

    Questioner:

    I think you said you believe that states have the right to secede. That’s what you said. You believe the states of the United States have the right to seceed community.

    Nikki Haley:

    I think that they do. I mean the Constitution says that. I think states have the right to make the decisions that their people want to make. I mean they do. In South Carolina, we said we didn’t want Syrian refugees. We said we didn’t want Guantana Mobay prisoners. We said those things. South. I do think that laws should be made as close to the people as possible because it empowers the people. If Texas decides they want to do that, they can do that. But I don’t think that if that whole state says we don’t want to be part of America anymore, I mean, that’s their decision to make. But I don’t think government needs to tell people how to live, how to do anything. I mean, I think that we need to let freedom live.

    Clearly Dana had a editor accident.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  26. Yeah, what Haley said about secession.

    As I said in #4:

    Her answer (again, at the link) is thoughtful and complete, in an age when some demand simple declarative knee-jerk answers that comport to what we heard in grammar school. You may not like her answer, but her courage to give it is a plus in my book.

    And I was thinking about Rip’s predictable response when I posted that.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  27. What is the constitutional mechanism for secession?

    C’ ya.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  28. Kevin @ 2, what is “wrong” in this post?

    It’s got a lot of repeat and is missing the money quote. See 25.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  29. What was resolved in the Civil War was that it was acceptable for a nation to forcibly put down secession. In 1861.

    Today? Right at this moment we are sending arms to Ukraine, which the Russians consider a secessionist region. Over the years, we have supported (successful) separation movements in Bangladesh, Columbia, most of colonial Spain, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Sudan and contemplated the same elsewhere, such as in Iraq.

    If US policy on the subject has any coherence, it is towards self-determination. How could we send tanks into Texas or California when our position worldwide is to promote that?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  30. Joe Flipping Biden wanted to break Iraq up into Sunni, Shi’ite and Kurd.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  31. I believe in the tooth fairy and am far more likely to get a quarter under my pillow then nikki haley becoming president. The people who agree with that will be voting for trump.

    asset (0e3cff)

  32. That Haley is not giving the brain-dead answer that everyone seems to think is required shows to me that she has a first-order mind and that others do not.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  33. Does anyone not see cognitive dissonance in the idea that the USA could put down local self-determination by force of arms, when we LOUDLY proclaim that as a basic human right throughout the world?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  34. What is the constitutional mechanism for secession?

    The Constitution does not say that states, once admitted, cannot secede.

    What it does say is this:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the text. Therefore it remains a reserved right of the States, or possibly the People. Congress had an opportunity to pass an anti-secession amendment in 1866, but did not.

    Yeah, sure, there are numerous court cases that say that the Union is “indestructable” or otherwise indissoluable, but really does Texas seceding destroy the Union? It’s killing 50,000 Texans to get them back in the fold something the United States wants to actually do?

    (Cue music from Hamilton)

    In any event, the US has abandoned that principle everywhere else in the world, so it’s gonna be pretty poor form to try to enforce it here.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  35. The Soviet Union did not break up by way of secession. Its Duma got together and formally declared that it no longer existed as a nation. Then its constituent federal republics formed new nations, with Russia as the biggest and most powerful holding on to the perquisites of the former Soviet Union.

    nk (5efd28)

  36. Fine, now do Panama.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  37. Or Eritrea, or Bangladesh, or East Timor, or South Vietnam, or South Korea, or most of colonial Africa, or any of the other places where US influence has supported secession. A UN mandate doesn’t make it any better.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  38. Ugh. Thx, Kevin. I see now. I’ve corrected the text. I was trying to minimize the time stamp and interviewers while accurately presenting the text. Got a bit mixed up. I blame the editor!

    Dana (8e902f)

  39. Given the fact that the United States endured over 1,000,000 casualties (pn both sides) to preserve the Union during the Civil War shows what lengths it would go to prevent “self-determination” by the Confederate slave empire.

    Seriously, is this a hill that Haley wants to die on? She is depending on moderate to liberal voters in upcoming primaries-do you think this will help her?

    I almost want Haley to win the nomination to hear her defend this and her past statements defending secession and the Confederate flag during a general election debate.

    Comedy Gold!

    Over the years, we have supported (successful) separation movements in Bangladesh, Columbia, most of colonial Spain, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Sudan and contemplated the same elsewhere, such as in Iraq.

    If US policy on the subject has any coherence, it is towards self-determination.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 1/31/2024 @ 2:41 pm

    Only when it is in the US interest. To paraphrase Lord Palmerston, The US has no eternal principles or policies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  40. Fine, now do Panama.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 1/31/2024 @ 3:14 pm

    Supporting Panamanian independence had nothing to do with principles of self-determination but had everything to do with a canal.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  41. prevent “self-determination” by the Confederate slave empire.

    And there you have the operative words. The war, in the end, was about slavery, not the Union. As I think you’ve repeatedly said. Without the slavery issue, secession never would have happened.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  42. I almost want Haley to win the nomination to hear her defend this and her past statements defending secession and the Confederate flag during a general election debate.

    Wait. Aren’t you the guy who attacked her repeatedly for pulling down that flag? Again you want to have it both ways.

    Only when it is in the US interest.

    And killing a lot of Americans so that Texas or California will be forced to stay in the Union is in our interests? How? Bonus question: How did Tienanmen Square help China? Would 50 times the number of deaths have helped more?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  43. Supporting Panamanian independence had nothing to do with principles of self-determination but had everything to do with a canal.

    So, principles, sminciples, it’s Calvinball! Trump must be your guy, because he thinks like that, too.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  44. > which the Russians consider a secessionist region

    The Russians have no *legal* basis for that. Under the USSR, Russia and Ukraine were seperate Republics. When the USSR dissolved, Russia and Ukraine had equal legal standing.

    > Bangladesh

    Note that the US was *opposed* to that secession because it split our semi-ally (Pakistan) into two countries. *India* supported that secession, with assistance from the USSR.

    I agree that as a matter of law there is no reason why a state could not secede. I think as a practical matter the civil war established that the US will not allow it to happen, and I don’t see why we would be more likely to allow it now — when it would be substantially more difficult to make work as a practical matter — than we were then.

    aphrael (71d87c)

  45. Thank you for the corrected post, Dana. My apologies to you and Kevin for the bum steer from me.

    No, I doan theenk so I vote for a senora who theenk America should be like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Not Panama even.

    nk (15e006)

  46. I think as a practical matter the civil war established that the US will not allow it to happen, and I don’t see why we would be more likely to allow it now

    Would the carnage of the Civil War — 2% of the population dead (6 million) — be acceptable?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  47. My how people do get upset when orthodoxy is challenged.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  48. And there you have the operative words. The war, in the end, was about slavery, not the Union. As I think you’ve repeatedly said. Without the slavery issue, secession never would have happened.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 1/31/2024 @ 3:38 pm

    Not according to Haley. With her (current and past) comments on secession, she still believes the Civil War was about “freedom” and “the role of government”, which she only walked back under pressure. That shows two things: her historical ignorance and the fact she folds easily under pressure. She was arguing that states had the right to allow the enslavement of other people.

    “I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run,” she responded. “The freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do. ……”

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  49. Prediction: If Trump is elected in 2024, the entire West Coast will consider secession, and Trump will be exceptionally ham-handed in response.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  50. Prediction: If Trump is elected in 2024, the entire West Coast will consider secession, and Trump will be exceptionally ham-handed in response.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 1/31/2024 @ 3:55 pm

    With your track record of predictions, I feel pretty safe it won’t happen.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  51. @48:

    Well, you could spin her words that way, but I could just as easily argue that the Union response what what was about freedom, and that the federal government should have a stronger role when it came to basic rights.

    It’s not for nothing that the Civil War is sometimes called the Second Founding by people like Eric Foner.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  52. Via the Texas Tribune

    In the 1869 case Texas v. White, the court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas Legislature — even if ratified by a majority of Texans — were “absolutely null.”

    When Texas entered the Union, “she entered into an indissoluble relation,” Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote for the court. “All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.”

    Chase added: “The ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law.”

    steveg (262fe9)

  53. With your track record of predictions, I feel pretty safe it won’t happen.

    With your track record of boring and stultifying lack of imagination, I’m not surprised you say that. There have been petition drives in CA over the last decade or so to set up for that.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  54. In 1869, there was a manifest need to declare that the Union was acting lawfully in putting down the secession. What did you expect them to say? That Lincoln had killed hundreds of thousands unlawfully?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  55. Texans could always say the hell with Salmon P Chase even if he is on the $10,000 bill and vote to leave anyway, try to force concessions peacefully

    steveg (262fe9)

  56. I think the Breakfast Club meant to say:

    HALEY:

    I mean, I think you know, states are going to make decisions, but let’s talk about what’s reality. Texas isn’t going to secede and succeed. I mean, that’s not something that they’re going to do.

    I also think it meant Guantanamo Bay prisoners not Guantana Mobay prisoners.

    DRJ (c92fda)

  57. Actually,my corrections are what I think Haley meant. I have no clue if the Breakfast Club understood her points.

    DRJ (c92fda)

  58. With your track record of boring and stultifying lack of imagination, I’m not surprised you say that. There have been petition drives in CA over the last decade or so to set up for that.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 1/31/2024 @ 4:00 pm

    That has been going on since before California became a state, and have gone absolutely nowhere. Actually most of the petition drives aren’t for secession, but dividing California into multiple states, which is an even deeper pipedream.

    “Boring and stultifying lack of imagination” means I look at the facts and work from there, not spitballing unreasonable and unworkable fantasies.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  59. Actually,my corrections are what I think Haley meant. I have no clue if the Breakfast Club understood her points.

    Certainly the transcriber did not.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  60. During the first Trump administration, there were a series of Initiatives (that went nowhere) to establish a President of California and establish a procedure for independence. At the same time, attempts to institute a wealth tax, with exit penalties for current residents, were circulated.

    Yes, they went nowhere. But given Trump and all the fear regarding him, I expect to see more of this should he win.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  61. I suspect that Haley, not being sure that Trump will take her back as a remorseful handmaiden, still hopes that he will take her for VP as impeachment insurance. I won’t be sure until she serenades him from outside his window:

    Caro mio, why
    Must we say goodbye?

    nk (15e006)

  62. Impeachment insurance? MTG would be that, but Haley? Are you saying that Trump’s cult would fear Haley? If so, why not pick Liz?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  63. What I find amazing is that with Donald Trump the likely nominee, someone else thinking outside the box would be an issue. Trump cannot even find the box, and would deny it WAS the box if you showed it to him.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  64. > Would the carnage of the Civil War — 2% of the population dead (6 million) — be acceptable?

    If it were sold to Trumpists as a way to punish the evil libtards that have gotten in the way of Trump? Absolutely. There’s no doubt in my mind that the trumpists *active here* would end up supporting it if sold that way.

    aphrael (71d87c)

  65. > With your track record of predictions, I feel pretty safe it won’t happen.

    If Trump is re-elected with both houses of Congress in Republican hands, there is going to be strong support for this, *especially* if the Congress passes a national abortion ban.

    aphrael (71d87c)

  66. This is what can happen when your Civil War history unit was called “The War of Northern Aggression.”

    If she had wanted to be looking toward the future instead of appeasing the past, she could’ve said something along the lines of “Based on the lack of prohibition in the Constitution, if all parties were motivated, I believe it would be possible to come up with a path to secession. However, I also think it would be sufficiently complicated and expensive that it would not be in any way beneficial for the seceding party and is nothing something that would actually happen.” Now she may have been aiming at something like that, but she failed to get there. IDK what is going on with her prep people. They have to know that similar questions are going to be coming, why don’t they have answers primed for them?

    Nic (896fdf)

  67. Nic (896fdf) — 1/31/2024 @ 6:44 pm

    That is an excellent answer, Nic.

    norcal (e16ad1)

  68. Haley could’ve just said she’d rather deal with current issues than a hypothetical on the extremely unlikely scenario of secession, and of more importance are reforms for the southern border and assisting allies such as Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  69. The issue of secession was settled on july 3 1863 at cemetery ridge gettysburg pennsylvania by northern bayonets. Biden should show steel to texas secessionists.

    asset (07282f)

  70. @norcal Thanks!

    @Paul That’s would’ve worked too.

    Nic (896fdf)

  71. I actually like haley :but she is desperate to not be crushed by trump in south carolina. When you are desperate you do desperate things.

    asset (07282f)

  72. Haley could’ve just said she’d rather deal with current issues

    But gotchas always make it to the top of the question lists.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  73. The issue of secession was settled on july 3 1863 at cemetery ridge gettysburg pennsylvania by northern bayonets. Biden should show steel to texas secessionists.

    If it was San Francisco area wokesters opting out of Trumpistan, would you argue that they should be put to the sword?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  74. About the sic’s in the transcript: these are transcriber mistakes, not Haley’s. Typical problem with homonyms and automated transcriptions.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  75. “State’s rights” is Confderate cant. And the bird whose brain she has in the oxpecker.

    Whatever. I was never going to vote for her anyway.

    nk (892872)

  76. in is

    nk (892872)

  77. “State’s rights” is Confderate cant

    The more woke say “federalism.” Like when they talk about how their state supports abortion rights.

    Whatever. I was never going to vote for her anyway.

    You were going to vote for Biden from the start. Trump is just the excuse.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  78. Mr Whembly wrote:

    The Civil War settled the question of “could States secede?”.

    That answer is affirmatively “no”.

    I encountered a lot of blowback here for my position that “might makes right,” in that the government in power can enforce what it believes to be right, to the point people are propagandized to accept it . . . which is exactly what the War of Northern Aggression proved. But if the question is, “Should the states have the right to secede,” the answer the United States has supported, outside of our borders, has been yes. The US remained officially neutral concerning the secession of Biafra from Nigeria, supported the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan, and instigated the separation of Panama from Columbia. We supported the secession of the various Soviet Republics. The “indissoluble union” of which the Supreme Court spoke in Texas v White (1868) is not something we see other nations as having.

    Even God allows for the indissoluble union of marriage to be dissolved in the case of adultery. (Mark 19:9)

    But even with the current government committing adultery against citizens, by having intercourse with illegal immigrants, states cannot divorce themselves from the United States?

    As a practical matter, a state couldn’t secede, due to the too great entanglements with the federal government. We have all been taxed for Social Secuity and Medicare, and let’s face it: no state’s citizens would agree to secession if the retirement programs for which the public had been taxed all of their working lives were to be taken away because the federal government did not agree to the secession. We have other issues, primarily that the states which have balanced budget requirements have, in effect, passed their budget deficits on to the federal government through the continual payment of the feds for projects which should otherwise be state functions. Any state which seceded would have to raise taxes, a lot, to cover those things its citizens want, and for many states, that tax increase would be greater than the federal taxes of which they had been relieved.

    Dana (bacf72)

  79. If Trump is re-elected with both houses of Congress in Republican hands, there is going to be strong support for (California secession), *especially* if the Congress passes a national abortion ban.

    aphrael (71d87c) — 1/31/2024 @ 5:58 pm

    That may be, but since at best a peaceful secession would require approval by Congress (just as it is to create new states), it is unlikely to happen. See Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

    New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

    Secession fantasy camp. 🤣

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  80. Nic (896fdf) — 1/31/2024 @ 6:44 pm

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d) — 1/31/2024 @ 6:53 pm

    Your proposed responses wouldn’t serve as dog whistles to the Lost Causers in South Carolina and other Southern states.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  81. Your proposed responses wouldn’t serve as dog whistles to the Lost Causers in South Carolina and other Southern states.

    Both of them?

    Really, there are LOTS more reasons to talk about “state’s rights” (aka federalism) than some 160 old lost war.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  82. Really, there are LOTS more reasons to talk about “state’s rights” (aka federalism) than some 160 old lost war.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/1/2024 @ 10:27 am

    Yet Haley is the one who continues to defend “some 160 old lost war.”

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  83. Could someone answer this?

    Why didn’t the Radical Republicans, who had 3/4ths control of each house of Congress, put up a “No Secession” amendment, or add it to the rest of the whereases in the 15th?

    Clearly the matter was in question prior to Lincoln’s election. Buchanan was willing to accept the secession. Why didn’t they drive a nail into the coffin in 1866, if it was so bloody obvious that secession should be banned?

    I’d love to see some research on the topic. My guess is that there were substantial objections.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  84. > New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

    I don’t see how that applies? It says nothing about this issue whatsoever.

    aphrael (71d87c)

  85. add it to the rest of the whereases in the 15th?

    um, 14th. Right after the debt thing, they could have said “No secession!” but they didn’t.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  86. One objection to the bar on secession is here:

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    Is this now retconned?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  87. @86

    Is this now retconned?

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/1/2024 @ 10:52 am

    Yes, when the Union won the Civil War, and subsequent court cases.

    But, all of this is philosophically an academic discussion. There’s no basis in reality this would happen in the real world.

    The chances that a succession would be allowed is about the same chance that the Electoral College would be repealed.

    In short… not a chance in hell.

    whembly (5f7596)

  88. Supreme Court precedent on the secession issue is found in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) (which Kentucky Dana alludes to):

    The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to “be perpetual.” And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union.” It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

    But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that “the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,” and that, “without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.” [Footnote 12] Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.

    Appalled (df46d2)

  89. There’s no basis in reality this would happen in the real world.

    You’re lacking imagination!

    /sarcasm

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  90. > New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

    I don’t see how that applies? It says nothing about this issue whatsoever.

    aphrael (71d87c) — 2/1/2024 @ 10:33 am

    I was drawing a parallel. As I originally said (in full):

    That may be, but since at best a peaceful secession would require approval by Congress (just as it is to create new states), it is unlikely to happen. See Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

    New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  91. Very good discussion on the Constitutional arguments regarding secession:

    https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/14735/did-the-founding-fathers-believe-that-states-had-the-right-to-secede

    The Core Secessionist Augment:
    In the Constitution succession is not disallowed, and thus by the tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. Secessionists have a rational argument.

    Case to Preserve the Union:
    From a historical perspective however, warnings come down to us in the federalists papers that dissolution of the Union is among the worst things the founding fathers could envision. Hamilton (NY), Madison(VA) and Jay(NY- latter first Supreme Court Chief Justice) all agree that if the Union dissolved it would condemn the resulting parties to fight 1000 years of wars along competing religious, economic, and social values; just as European history demonstrated in the preceding centuries.

    If the practical case against secession is so strong, why not pass an amendment today? Such as:

    “No state, once admitted to the Union, may secede therefrom without the agreement of 2/3rds of each House of Congress.”

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  92. But, all of this is philosophically an academic discussion. There’s no basis in reality this would happen in the real world.

    Which was Haley’s first and second answer.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  93. Yes, White (1869). Unanimous. But really, what else were they going to do? “Ooops, the war was wrong?”

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  94. Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/1/2024 @ 10:52 am

    The Declaration of Independence (as far as I know) is a philosophical statement, but not enforceable as a matter of law.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  95. If the practical case against secession is so strong, why not pass an amendment today? Such as:

    “No state, once admitted to the Union, may secede therefrom without the agreement of 2/3rds of each House of Congress.”

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/1/2024 @ 11:18 am

    Because MAGA Republicans would vote against it.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  96. Currently, 3/4ths of the states may secede at any time, although that’s more like “may eject up to 1/4th of the states.”

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  97. The Declaration of Independence (as far as I know) is a philosophical statement, but not enforceable as a matter of law.

    It was also the nation’s ideological foundation, and continues to be so.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  98. Why is it only or most relevant for Haley to answer tedious hypotheticals?

    Again, isn’t it obvious that a lot of discussion would have to happen before a President might be confronted with whether to initiate a Civil War to prevent a Texas-Exit (or Texit). It doesn’t seem like a good-faith discussion, so why do we nit-pick her answer?

    The reality is that she is far more detail aware (smarter) than Trump and far more able to process facts and reasonably convey those facts to others (smarter) than Trump. If cognition is your thing, then she is leaps and bounds better than Trump who would likely spin Texit as somehow being all about him or maybe proposing using his beautiful military and “his” generals to squash it. Her policy and understanding of Ukraine is smarter and more forward-looking than Trump’s. That alone should be the consensus reason why Republicans should prefer her over whatever drives Trump’s fascination with Putin.

    Focusing on someone who is allegedly so far behind in the polls and destined to be knocked out in SC or shortly after is bizarre….though maybe a little telling. The boys club is threatened. How dare she!? She’s mocked if she doesn’t hit Trump; she’s mocked when she does. Sounds like a woman problem with a bunch of mansplaining….

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  99. @78 What about the people in the state. It is most unlikely the majority of people in a southern state would want secession. Gerrymandered legislature and executive who get elected by suppressing the vote of those who would vote against them is not the will of the people. Southern states are stopping the voters from voting on abortion as their voters can’t be trusted. Kevin m brought up san francisco and “woksters” wanting to secede from trumpistan. The majority of bay area residence would not.

    asset (526847)

  100. It doesn’t seem like a good-faith discussion, so why do we nit-pick her answer?

    More to the point, why did the interviewer have to ask the question 3 times, after she twice said it was wildly unlikely and tried to move on.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  101. Yeah, that’s what I’m looking for in a President. Someone willing to give away pieces of the country for the votes of would-be traitors and rebels.

    The correct answer was: “We don’t have an Iron Curtain. Anybody who does not want to be an America is free to leave. But the land stays.”

    nk (2a5c7f)

  102. *be an American*

    nk (2a5c7f)

  103. @101 Another thought crime by a Republican. Hand wringing about a ridiculous hypothetical while our territorial integrity is being tossed away daily is an image only lacking Nero on a fiddle.

    lloyd (0b5c94)

  104. Hand wringing

    More like the TV sci-fi discussion on the Open Thread, lloyd. Critique about the plot and dialog in the charade which is the Republican national primary.

    Haley is no contender. She is Trump’s Margaret Dumont.

    nk (2103c4)

  105. #104 — That makes Trump Groucho, nk, and that’s just not acceptable. He’s more Mike Mazurski. (Plus, Madame Dumont is not as cute as lace pants.)

    Appalled (b5dec0)

  106. @100

    It doesn’t seem like a good-faith discussion, so why do we nit-pick her answer?

    More to the point, why did the interviewer have to ask the question 3 times, after she twice said it was wildly unlikely and tried to move on.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/1/2024 @ 10:55 pm

    Welcome to bs reporting that only seems to mainly hit those candidates in GOP party.

    It’s the media trying to take bad faith interpretation. That’s all.

    It’s how Trump’s “there’s good people on both sides” comments was inferred to include the white supremacist and was made into a story, when in the same breath, he wasn’t talking about them.

    whembly (5f7596)

  107. #100 — Nikki Haley, when she answers these questions, is likely regurgitating what she was taught about the Civil War in Bamberg, SC. Since Civil War scholarship has not been part of any of her jobs, she hasn’t unlearned the pro-Confederate patriotism of a small South Carolina school system.

    I understand why this becmes a political football — while not much caring about it.

    #106 — Why make this about Trump? He always let’s us know when he’s been treated unfairly.

    Appalled (b5dec0)

  108. “Haley is no contender. She is Trump’s Margaret Dumont.”

    What would make her a contender — being a kamikaze like Christie? Being a contender means having the fundraising appeal and enough support to outlast all of the other contenders. Check.

    She is now hitting Trump harder….both on his mental competency and his legal issues. She confronts a GOP base that knows Trump and, for many, think that all criticism of Trump has no basis. They are bubble brain-washed. Going negative on Trump makes you the enemy. She is working on persuadable Republicans with the “half-Liz”. The battle remains normal vs abnormal. If people choose abnormal, that’s on them.

    Blaming a normal Republican for not beating an abnormal Republican because she singlehandedly can’t de-cultify the GOP seems misplaced. Christie’s “full-Liz” didn’t work. DeSantis going to the Right of Trump didn’t work. Ramaswamy playing Trump’s gimp didn’t work. Anyone who pretends that there was some magic campaign-trail speech that would break the cult is not showing their work….

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  109. Did you know that South Carolina threatened to secede in 1832?

    The controversial and highly protective Tariff of 1828 was enacted into law during the presidency of John Quincy Adams. The tariff was strongly opposed in the South, since it was perceived to put an unfair tax burden on the Southern agrarian states that imported most manufactured goods. The tariff’s opponents expected that Jackson’s election as president would result in a significant reduction of it. When the Jackson administration failed to take any action to address their concerns, South Carolina’s most radical faction began to advocate that the state nullify the tariff. They subscribed to the legal theory that if a state believed a federal law unconstitutional, it could declare the law null and void in the state. In Washington, an open split on the issue occurred between Jackson and Vice President John C. Calhoun, a native South Carolinian and the most effective proponent of the constitutional theory of state nullification.

    On July 1, 1832, before Calhoun resigned the vice presidency to run for the Senate, where he could more effectively defend nullification, Jackson signed into law the Tariff of 1832. This compromise tariff received the support of most Northerners and half the Southerners in Congress. South Carolina remained unsatisfied, and on November 24, 1832, a state convention adopted the Ordinance of Nullification, which declared that the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina after February 1, 1833. South Carolina initiated military preparations to resist anticipated federal enforcement

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis

    In its attempts to have other Southern states join in nullification, South Carolina met with total failure. On March 1, 1833, Congress passed the Force Bill. South Carolina’s isolation, coupled with Jackson’s determination to employ military force if necessary, ultimately forced South Carolina to retreat. But, with the help of Sen. Henry Clay of Kentucky, a moderate tariff bill more acceptable to South Carolina also was passed on March 1. The South Carolina convention responded on March 15 by rescinding the Ordinance of Nullification but three days later maintained its principles by nullifying the Force Bill.

    The nullification crisis made President Jackson a hero to nationalists. But Southerners were made more conscious of their minority position and more aware of their vulnerability to a Northern majority as long as they remained in the union.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/nullification-crisis/Jacksons-Proclamation-to-the-People-of-South-Carolina

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  110. Why is it only or most relevant for Haley to answer tedious hypotheticals?
    ……..
    Focusing on someone who is allegedly so far behind in the polls and destined to be knocked out in SC or shortly after is bizarre….though maybe a little telling. The boys club is threatened. How dare she!? She’s mocked if she doesn’t hit Trump; she’s mocked when she does. Sounds like a woman problem with a bunch of mansplaining….

    To her credit, Haley conducts interviews while Trump does not; but it has nothing to do with the fact she’s a woman. She’s the number two candidate in a two-person race, so of course she wants the attention. And it’s not like she hasn’t expressed these opinions before; she has a history of justifying secession and the Confederacy. She is dog whistling the good ol’ boys in South Carolina and other states that she is one of them.

    Does Haley really think these comments will attract the moderate to liberal voters she needs? Another unforced error.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  111. Haley’s effort is to make the GOP wary of nominating Trump by emphasizing that he has no chance of winning the general election. His age, his misogyny, his outbursts and his myriad legal entanglements make him — according to Haley — a poor choice for Republicans.

    Her problem is that Trump’s base is more interested in performance than in winning, and they will say with a straight face that it’s all rigged anyway.

    This latter attitude is probably more of a problem that Trump himself, as Trump will pass from the scene eventually but the cynicism is destructive in itself.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  112. Secession fever.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  113. Does Haley really think these comments will attract the moderate to liberal voters she needs?

    She will get those regardless if the other choice is Donald Trump.

    What she *might* get is some Trumpish fence-straddlers who are concerned more about Biden getting re-elected than they are about giving Trump the bully pulpit. So, she wades into these SOUTH CAROLINA issues, in advance of the critical SOUTH CAROLINA primary, to remind the good ol’ boys that she’s not a New York billionaire like the Don.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  114. Secession fever.

    LOL. Won’t happen! Somebody told me so!

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  115. Why does Joe Rogan do what he does?


    Joe Rogan Gets New Spotify Deal Worth Up to $250 Million

    Spotify has reached a new deal with star podcaster Joe Rogan that will allow his hit show to be distributed broadly.

    Rogan’s fresh deal, estimated to be worth as much as $250 million over its multiyear term, involves an upfront minimum guarantee, plus a revenue sharing agreement based on ad sales.

    Under the new licensing agreement, Spotify will sell ads for and distribute “The Joe Rogan Experience” across several podcast platforms, including in a video format on YouTube, the company said Friday. Under his previous deal, the show was exclusive to Spotify.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  116. …..to remind the good ol’ boys that she’s not a New York billionaire like the Don.

    Despite being financed by New York billionaires.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  117. Despite being financed by New York billionaires.

    So is Trump. California billionaires, too.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  118. Haley’s dig at DeSantis, who brought up the money issues was apt: Until they turned off the money hose, DeSantis was happy with his backers. Then it was all sour grapes.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  119. Despite being financed by New York billionaires.

    So is Trump. California billionaires, too.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/2/2024 @ 9:44 am

    So what? Your point in post 113 was that Haley was “remind(ing) the good ol’ boys that she’s not a New York billionaire like the Don, despite the fact that Haley’s benefactors are New York billionaires. Without them, Haley wouldn’t have a campaign at all at this stage.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  120. Secession fever.

    LOL. Won’t happen! Somebody told me so!

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/2/2024 @ 9:40 am

    Secession by any state won’t happen; but that fact won’t stop others from tilting at windmills.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  121. Haley didn’t bring up secession, the questioner did. It’s not like this is a dog whistle she can’t wait to blow.

    It’s in her best interest to get off of fringe questions. I sense she tried. Am I concerned that she will do nothing to prevent Texas from seceding? No. That’s silly talk. I much more care about her plans for NATO, Ukraine, Iran, and immigration. But frankly when the choice is Trump, Biden, or her….it’s a non-choice. I trust she will pick good people and return us to a more normal Republican administration that will put America out front yet reflect the lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan. She continues to represent the best opposition vote to Trump…and a remnant of normalcy.

    People are free to take their balls and go home. But now is the time to show MAGA how much of the GOP is uncomfortable with Trump. If 30% can become 40%, that exhibits more leverage and more hope for an eventual new base. Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  122. Haley didn’t bring up secession, the questioner did. It’s not like this is a dog whistle she can’t wait to blow.

    Haley may not have controlled the question, but she certainly had a choice in her response, which showed she was willing to blow that dog whistle. As I noted, she reiterated a long held position on secession, so I give her credit for being consistent with what she said in her previous political campaigns.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  123. @115

    Why does Joe Rogan do what he does?

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/2/2024 @ 9:43 am

    He’s a great conversationalist with a broad range of topics.

    Good for him.

    whembly (5f7596)

  124. How many people do you know who care about how a President will respond to a hypothetical secession scenario? Personally I put the number at zero. Again, the whole purpose of this is not really to have a meaningful policy discussion. It’s to make it appear that Haley is a closet racist or wants to appeal to racists. It seems like a silly narrative to me given Trump’s overt appeals to white nationalists. Again, ignoring the house fire to complain about the crabgrass.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  125. Mr M suggested:

    “No state, once admitted to the Union, may secede therefrom without the agreement of 2/3rds of each House of Congress.”

    Since the Constitution specifies that Congress can admit new states, and consent to a partition of states with a simple majority vote, why should it take a 2/3 supermajority of each House to allow a state to secede?

    Dana (bacf72)

  126. Why not? Keep it up and I’ll make it 3/4ths.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  127. Haley may not have controlled the question, but she certainly had a choice in her response, which showed she was willing to blow that dog whistle.

    And she chose a different response TWICE, but the questioner pounded on it until he had the sound-bite he was looking for.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  128. So what? Your point in post 113 was that Haley was “remind(ing) the good ol’ boys that she’s not a New York billionaire like the Don, despite the fact that Haley’s benefactors are New York billionaires. Without them, Haley wouldn’t have a campaign at all at this stage.

    No, everything after “despite” was YOUR point, which is what I was responding to. You can’t throw in a non sequitur, then call MY response the non sequitur.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

Leave a Reply


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1087 secs.