Why would you want her to sign whatever that lands in her desk? That's absurd. What if the bill, you know, isn't good? What if the bill has legal pitfalls that would be disastrous for the state? And seeing as how we aren't legal scholars I would say our opinions really don't mean jack but you and other like you sit behind your keyboard and claim she is a traitor because she didn't sign the first bill that she got. A bill she got from a state congress that refuses to budge on any change regardless of how painfully obvious it is that it would do more harm than good. She asked for very specific changes that would not have nullified collegiate sports and would have guaranteed protection of k-12 bit the state congress if full of idiots that would rather let the bill expire than amend a few vague points. Why aren't you pointing your finger at the south Dakota congress? If the state congress is being shit then her only option is to make executive orders.
And how is one of the orders shit when both orders are identical? They both say literally the same thing but are based on different existing titles because k-12 is completely different than collegiate sports and is regulated in vastly different ways.
Never said she was a traitor. Disappointment, yes, but she is no traitor. Look, I didn't make the rules. She said she would sign a bill, she got a bill, by all accounts it was a good bill. Perhaps not perfect, but good. She sent it back because in her opinion she would get sued for it. She is plattempting to avoid litigation, proactively planning on losing that litigation on a law that has overwhelming support in her state and her state legislature. And then, and this is what gets to me the most, she sent the bill back to her legislature, effectively vetoing it, but not actually vetoing it. I'm seeing the same deceptive maneuvers that I have come to expect from the establishment. This isn't even about the actual issue. I don't live in her state, this bill or her executive orders have no effect on me. This is a litmus test. Is she MAGA or is she establishment. And this is an establishment move. At least have the stones to veto the bill and clearly spell out why. If it's the fault of the legislature, make them own it. That's what Trump would do. If she's unwilling or unable to fight a friendly legislature, what do you think she'll do if elected president? She is throwing cover on it with her executive orders, but I no longer trust her. And I previously held her in high regard. But I also used to hold Nikki! in high regard as well.
Those of us that knew Haley did not so maybe once again you don't understand what it is you are watching, right? I still don't see you hold the state congress to the fire like you and other are holding norm to the fire. It was not a good bill by all accounts, evidenced by the failure to override.
It wasn't just her opinion. She conferred with many others in the bill. She isn't just hanging out alone buddy. You are clearly incapable of critical thinking. Good luck to you.
OK, whatever you say. I'll take someone who fights and not one who rolls over. I made that pretty clear. Not interested in another establishment candidate, we have plenty of those. And she hasn't proven that she is willing to fight, much less that she isn't one of them. Take care.
Why would you want her to sign whatever that lands in her desk? That's absurd. What if the bill, you know, isn't good? What if the bill has legal pitfalls that would be disastrous for the state? And seeing as how we aren't legal scholars I would say our opinions really don't mean jack but you and other like you sit behind your keyboard and claim she is a traitor because she didn't sign the first bill that she got. A bill she got from a state congress that refuses to budge on any change regardless of how painfully obvious it is that it would do more harm than good. She asked for very specific changes that would not have nullified collegiate sports and would have guaranteed protection of k-12 bit the state congress if full of idiots that would rather let the bill expire than amend a few vague points. Why aren't you pointing your finger at the south Dakota congress? If the state congress is being shit then her only option is to make executive orders.
And how is one of the orders shit when both orders are identical? They both say literally the same thing but are based on different existing titles because k-12 is completely different than collegiate sports and is regulated in vastly different ways.
Never said she was a traitor. Disappointment, yes, but she is no traitor. Look, I didn't make the rules. She said she would sign a bill, she got a bill, by all accounts it was a good bill. Perhaps not perfect, but good. She sent it back because in her opinion she would get sued for it. She is plattempting to avoid litigation, proactively planning on losing that litigation on a law that has overwhelming support in her state and her state legislature. And then, and this is what gets to me the most, she sent the bill back to her legislature, effectively vetoing it, but not actually vetoing it. I'm seeing the same deceptive maneuvers that I have come to expect from the establishment. This isn't even about the actual issue. I don't live in her state, this bill or her executive orders have no effect on me. This is a litmus test. Is she MAGA or is she establishment. And this is an establishment move. At least have the stones to veto the bill and clearly spell out why. If it's the fault of the legislature, make them own it. That's what Trump would do. If she's unwilling or unable to fight a friendly legislature, what do you think she'll do if elected president? She is throwing cover on it with her executive orders, but I no longer trust her. And I previously held her in high regard. But I also used to hold Nikki! in high regard as well.
Those of us that knew Haley did not so maybe once again you don't understand what it is you are watching, right? I still don't see you hold the state congress to the fire like you and other are holding norm to the fire. It was not a good bill by all accounts, evidenced by the failure to override.
It wasn't just her opinion. She conferred with many others in the bill. She isn't just hanging out alone buddy. You are clearly incapable of critical thinking. Good luck to you.
OK, whatever you say. I'll take someone who fights and not one who rolls over. I made that pretty clear. Not interested in another establishment candidate, we have plenty of those. And she hasn't proven that she is willing to fight, much less that she isn't one of them. Take care.