Yes, sorry that's right. She is ethnically full Punjabi, but culturally pretty much 100% white.
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Yes, sorry that's right. She is ethnically full Punjabi, but culturally pretty much 100% white.
I'd wager there's a little bit of white in her, at least on Saturday nights.
badum-tish
badum-tish
Well she prefers Hardees to Sarson ka Saag, so you may be onto something.
I was thinking of her husband, to be fair.
She literally changed his first name because she didn't like it, and he went with it, so I'm not quite sure who is doing what to who in that marriage.
Hehehe.
Wtf?
To be fair they both swapped first and middle names.
MTG is punjabi? WTactualF!!
EDit: Oh Haley! lolz
EDit: Oh Haley! lolz
No, no, no. Nikki Haley.
Can you imagine if/when Trump picks Scott but they lose the general election? Then the two front runners for the GOP nomination in 2028 will be an Indian-American woman and an African-American man!
If Trump loses, he will be the frontrunner again in 2028 though, even if he is in prison.
Highly doubtful, he'll be kingmaker at best. The party doesn't like losers, he'll be 82 by the time of the 2028 election. Plus he's in so much legal jeopardy, both financial and criminal, there is no way he survives if he doesn't get elected this year.
The base will never abandon him, and they are more than enough for a primary victory.
Losing doesn't matter, their voters don't acknowledge that he lost in 2020, and they won't if he loses 24 either.
Disagree but I hope your right. There are still a lot of moderate republicans, they are the minority but a meaningful one. If Trump won the nomination again they would complety abandon the party. And it would be civil war up until then. Come the general election they probably won't vote Dem but they would stay home.
If changing my name would help me landing the jobs and money that she is getting, I would change my name to michael...feck, I would change it to Nikki
Fair, but would you demand your partner change theirs because you don’t like it?
I would frankly don't care, to be honest. I have several groups of friends that calls me different names and I react to all. Family members also they change my name. I am literally being called 5-6 different names every months and probably 10-15 throughout my life consistently. And I am talking variations of my name, not nicknames.
Also, I call my girlfriend for her full name and later I realized that all her friends call her for her short name. I will not change now to what she is most used because it doesn't bother her. it would be exactly the same. Bill = short name my girlfriend, Michael = full name of my girlfriend
If she would start calling me another name I couldn't care less either.
But this is me. I understand why it can be seen as hypocritical, but in the case of Nikki, it you tried to advance in a career that depends on fecking racists (Dems or Republicans) I would see the same. Is not her fault. is shitty racism in the country that made her change her name. Bill to Michael? The perception is there to on the seriousness of the name. For whatever feck up reason, Bill is perceived like a name for kids or for people that kept it. Michael sounds more professional. Is Absolutely Not true, but is the feck up optics that we all have ingrained. Or maybe is just me?
In the end, if you are trying to reach to the top of the political pyramid system of the US, you will do whatever it takes, and I am sure Nikki did/accept/omitted worse things than changing the name.
And sometimes i read here in the forum calling her Namrata like :"hahaha you are indian, you don't fool me" . There just there I know there is a racist. Refusing to call a person for the name that that person wants to be called for, is disgusting
"And there he is, my best black friend. He's great, ain't he? Great man. Loves America. Smart. Almost as smart as me, which is tremendous. Token... ah... Tim Scott!"
I wouldn’t count on those legal issues. He’s got enough of doubt in all cases and his buddies in the Supreme Court will come to save his day.
And in US politics, 82 is not that old.
I hope that's a joke considering it's nearly 5 years above US life expectancy
82 is a good fecking innings and way past the age you should even be considering one of the most stressful and important jobs in the world.
Yet again the US leads the world in complete batshittery and holds the fate of us all in the hands of old men who should be enjoying gardening or sitting down the pub and bitching about how everything was better in the old days.
The world has gone fecking mad, I tell ya.
I can't see even his buddies going as a far as saying a president is immune from prosecution which seems to be his main defence in at least one case
For example, military generals are required by US code to retire at age 64 and 4-star and 3-stars can be deferred to age 66 by SECEF and age 68 by POTUS. Yet politicians can serve and run up to their deathbed. Term limits and age maximums should have been put into the Constitution. The POTUS two-term limit was ratified in 1947 but I doubt congressional term limits will be approved anytime soon, not even in our lifetimes probably. People cling to the power and perks and they make the rules. Maybe the forefathers thought gentlemen ways would survive time.
Given the average lifespan when it was written would have been 60 odd it's not really surprising it isn't in it
And term limits? They should have ensured there were no political lifers seeking to profit and establish their own fiefdoms, power tenures, and whatnot. These were smart men and they actually did fiercely debate over term limits. Thomas Jefferson wrote that such failure to establish terms "will end in abuse." Some argued against term limits.
As for age, in more modern times there should be US codes for elected officials just like there are for military personnel. The forefathers found it necessary enough to establish a minimum POTUS age they very well could have capped an age even if it may have sounded kinda odd to say 60 when let's say xx% didn't reach that age.
The Consitution is a flawed and outdated document, term limits or lack therof is the least of its flaws, I can imaging Jefferson and his colleagues would be horrified as to how a lot of it is interpreted as gospel today, the second amendment being top of the list
As for today, the reality is that if one side wants something the other side will oppose it, doesn't matter what it is
I don't think any country considers the constitution more than a higher law that can be changed in certain circumstances. In US, even if can be changed through amendments, it seems that is some sort of magical sacred text. It is ridiculous
I would love Trump running again in 2028. Thus would mean he lost the general election in 2024 becoming a serial loser.
And then the most important elections of the history. Again. ChAina - Taiwan war edition
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...es-siena-poll-registered-voter-crosstabs.html
What on earth is going on with the polling? Dean Phillips has literally proven statistically in every god damn state that within Democratic circles no one will vote for him. Whom are NYT/Sienna talking to?
Some of it is odd. Claims that the leader at this stage in every poll summaray since 2004 has gone on to win - I'm 99% sure Trump wasn't leading Clinton at this stage. Further, this paragraph drives me insane:
"Plainly, he’s become a symbol of our political system’s decrepitude – a stand-in for all the old men in Washington who voters believe, rightfully, can’t or won’t do much to dramatically improve their lives. He’ll have to prove to voters that he’s capable of both dreaming and doing – to sell an ambitious vision of further material progress over the next four years, not woolly rhetoric about ending polarization and bringing serenity back to politics that will leave him looking dishonest and even more ineffectual when the tenor of political life remains the same, as it surely will."
It blows my mind that his legislative record is not a factor for voters. He's literally done more than almost any other first-term President for the average American than anyone in recent years, and no one cares. The US economy has done better than literally every other major economy in the world post-covid. The bi-partisan bills he's passed have been hugely consequential. His cabinet has quietly gotten on with most areas without fuss, and the government works again.
Yet he gets no credit for that. To be honest, if the Americna public just want to vote on vibes, then we deserve what we get.
Some might argue that the legislative record should be a factor for voters' assessment of the legislature.
This doesn't really matter. People probably have no idea what the economies of other countries are like. Why should they?
The issue of the economy is discussed in the article, economic conditions have clearly not been amazing for the majority of Biden's presidency.
That's a mistake. The point should be about winning the popular vote, not the election. As the Faris article notes, "in 2016, Hillary Clinton led Donald Trump by 3.4 points, according to the RealClearPolitics average, in a race she ultimately won nationally by 2.1 percent."
The broader point is that polls have some predictive value at this stage of the election.
Last edited:
I hope that's a joke considering it's nearly 5 years above US life expectancy
82 is a good fecking innings and way past the age you should even be considering one of the most stressful and important jobs in the world.
Yet again the US leads the world in complete batshittery and holds the fate of us all in the hands of old men who should be enjoying gardening or sitting down the pub and bitching about how everything was better in the old days.
The world has gone fecking mad, I tell ya.
He's already lost a 500m judgment, and a successful appeal doesn't seem likely. If he doesn't win the presidency this year he's probably going to be forced to liquid assets or file bankruptcy for the 7th time
Plus the electorate will have changed in four years millions of 14-17 year olds who can't vote now will be able to vote then, plus millions of 65+ voters who are overwhelmingly Trump supporters will have died.
It's now or never again for Trump.
This is my whole point. When you poll what voters think of his legislation, they overwhelmingly support it. (yes, Gaza excepted, which isn't really legislative) It reminds me a lot of the Trump voters saying how much they hate Obamacare but love the ACA.
Similarly, why should voters care about relative economic performance? That feels to me like something they hsould 100% care about. The latest NYTimes/Sienna poll had a massive uptick on people feeling good about the economy since November, but no uptick on Joe Biden's economic favourability.
The fact is, whether correctly or not, these polls show voters not responding to what Biden has actually done, but to how they feel about things. Personally I view it as a combination of the ridiculous media ecosystem and the the Biden PR team just being asleep at the wheel.
On virtually every economic indicator - even the bloody stock market which is the only thing Trump ever talked about - Biden's presidency has performed better than Trump's, even pre-covid. Even inflation has been tamed, and tamed faster and without the receission all other countries are seeing. And yet. AND YET. Trump hugely outperforms sentiment on ability to handle the economy, even amongst independents.
It's all a sham. Voters are ignorant, in the literal sense of the word. It's just like Brexit. We've dumbed down the elecorate to the point where who wins is just whoever looks better on stage, has a better instagram accont and has better PR around them. Oh and who can shamelessly lie and never care about it.
Voters are too stupid to understand the glory of Joe Biden.
Yup, basically this.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The NYTIMES/Siena poll only shows an uptick of 6% in the question "rate economic conditions today" compared to July (not November). That's basically nothing.
Link to poll.