Haley posted this support for mass rioting (what else could it mean?) about a month after the bad cop Derek Chauvin helped an overdosing career crook to his demise (or not) while George Floyd was over-dosing on a cocktail of drugs, including fentanyl. Three days earlier, the mass Black Lives Matter protests had begun under the unjustified assumption that Floyd’s death was a racial crime. In Minneapolis on May 26, 2020, the “mostly peaceful” protests turned to vandalism and arson. Her tweets were also among the many statements from public officials that predetermined Chauvin’s guilt, making certain that he would not get a fair trial (and he didn’t.)
To Haley’s credit, she hasn’t take down either pandering tweet (yet), but I regard it as further evidence that she is a weasel, and will say and “believe” whatever seems beneficial to her career calculations at the time.
Ethics Alarms 
Am I correct that you are referring to the phrase “In order to heal, it needs to be personal and painful for everyone”?
I suppose I can see how someone might interpret that as a call to rioting, but is it possible that she merely meant that we should take such a death to heart, rather than acting out violently?
Don’t panic, AMG, but I agree with you. And I see nothing in the other tweet that ought even to be controversial. Chauvin was indeed a “bad cop,” and deserved punishment. She didn’t call for him to be charged with murder. Getting fired and losing his pension is still punishment.
Curmie, you must concede, mustn’t you?, that public officials declaring that anyone has engaged in wrongdoing before a fair investigation has taken place is unethical. It was the “Police brutality” narrative that attached to Chauvin before the full coroner’s report or any of the details of Floyd’s self-poisoning were revealed that made “an example ” of him long before the facts were in.
I’m not sure how much this matters, but I don’t think Haley would have been considered a public official in May 2020, when she made that post. In May 2020, she was a former public official who retained a large platform and hoped to regain her public-official status in the future.
It’s a good point. What do we call these perpetual candidates and seekers of power and influence when they are between jobs/
There was the video, which was damning irrespective of other considerations. And she seems to me to be condemning the violence, with a reminder of the presence of good cops and the injunction against adding to the tragedy. I suppose the “personal and painful” comment could be interpreted to be about race, but I don’t see that it needs to be read that way.
She gets a raised eyebrow but not a condemnation from me.
Personally, I find that statement to be overwhelmingly obnoxious. Demanding that “everyone” feel the same way about something is just about the most obnoxious thing I can think of. Who made Nikki Haley the emotion police? I can look at an event and find it to be wrong without it being painful. Why on earth would someone wish pain on an entire population? The demands for viewpoint uniformity and thought control are disgusting. Nikki Haley is not a god to decree my emotional state on anything.
In addition to being obnoxious, it is also a horrible idea to attempt to inflame the emotions of an entire country to implement change. You don’t put people into an emotional tizzy and then make changes to laws unless you are attempting to exploit a crisis to do things people would not ordinarily allow you to do. Logic, reason, and careful consideration of second order consequences is the proper way to implement change.
I’m sick of people spewing emotional vomit like it is a rational argument. If you want to persuade people of something try making persuasive arguments instead of throwing a temper tantrum, making arbitrary demands about how people must feel, and calling everyone who disagrees with you names. If a politician cannot come up with an argument more persuasive than one a toddler would make, they don’t need to be elected.
Bingo.
Agreed, NP. The whole lot of them should give a second’s thought to what they are posting online. Our intrepid Ethics Alarmist has repeatedly said that public figures should not post on Twitter (X). That is absolutely correct. The limitations of the site prevent any kind of deep thinking, and in fact, encourages meaningless postings. But, I would also suggest that public figures should off social media entirely (Trump?).
jvb
My fault: I should have highlighted the timing. The first protest that had turned violent and destructive was three days earlier, and it was heating up. Many on the Right were condemning the protests, while people like Kamala Harris and other Democrats were evoking the “Burn, baby, burn!” vibes of the Sixties. I just added the “context” of Haley’s tweets to the post.
Yes that’s obviously what she meant since many in the black community were feeling pain from Floyd’s death.
I am with you. I have read those tweets over several times and I just don’t see what Jack sees in them. Yeah, it could be better, but I do not read any endorsement of rioting and violence in them.
That Tweet doesn’t support mass rioting at all. It’s asking for sympathy, accountability, and speedy trials for bad cops.
Keep spinning. The tweet came exactly as the protests were turning into riots (I thought everyone remembered the timing, and that was dumb: I added the dates to the post just now.) Context, as Claudine Gay might say. I’m sure your spin (and Curmie’s above) will be how Haley defends those tweets now, but feeling sympathy isn’t feeling personal “pain.” Why should everyone share the “pain” of every police interaction with a perp that goes sideways? What was special about this one? Haley was literally saying that everyone needed to suffer as a consequence, and that’s the sick logic behind such freak-outs. Protests like the BLM rioting are always aimed at hurting the rest of the public by making life miserable. That’s what Haley was endorsing…kid yourself if you must, but don’t try to kid me, please. The protests were just turning violent, and Haley tweeted her approval, endorsement and support. Had she tweeted that before the violence started, I’d grant you at least ambiguity. Not on May 29. Uh-uh. No way.
Imagine if, a day before the Capitol riot, Trump had tweeted, “The theft of the 2020 election is personal and painful for many. In order for our nation to heal, it needs to be personal and painful for members of Congress as well.”
That would be cited as evidence that Trump incited the riot.
I’m confused, you’re not arguing Halley is responsible for the riots right?
She can show support for Floyd, ask for police accountability, and public sympathy without supporting riots.
That’s all her Tweet was.
If you want to be consistent, the DOJ and the mainstream media should hold Haley just as responsible for the George Floyd riots as they hold Trump responsible for the J6 riot.
More, if we’re paying any attention to words, which Bob clearly doesn’t want to do. Trump was inciting the riot because in his case, saying his followers should “fight” for their principles must literally have meant going into physical combat, but when Haley called for the need for the public to feel “pain,” she obviously meant “sympathy.”
So your opinion is that when she said “people should feel pain” she’s referring to actual pain like in a riot or physical pain?
You can believe that if you want, but it doesn’t make it true and in MY opinion, the actual normal way to interpret what she meant is emotional pain felt by his death.
To assume she meant people should feel physical pain, but not emotional pain is insane to me.
I’m with Jack on this one. Several conservative pundits commented on it at the time, and her remarks were not countered by any immediate clear condemnation of the Floyd riots. She was parsing her words carefully, virtue signaling to the left while trying to maintain some plausible deniability of it with the right. As Jack said, she’s a weasel and untrustworthy.
“The tweet came exactly as the protests were turning into riots (I thought everyone remembered the timing, and that was dumb: I added the dates to the post just now.)”
Irrelevant to what her tweet actually meant and not some made up meaning you’re giving it.
“but feeling sympathy isn’t feeling personal “pain.”
Sure it is.
“Why should everyone share the “pain” of every police interaction with a perp that goes sideways?”
She didn’t say that.
“What was special about this one?”
A lot. It was different for a lot of people too. Not for you obviously.
“Haley was literally saying that everyone needed to suffer as a consequence, and that’s the sick logic behind such freak-outs. “
No she didn’t say that. She said everyone should be sympathetic.
“Protests like the BLM rioting are always aimed at hurting the rest of the public by making life miserable. “
Ok? I also don’t agree.
“That’s what Haley was endorsing…”
No she wasn’t.
“kid yourself if you must, but don’t try to kid me, please. “
Ditto.
“The protests were just turning violent, and Haley tweeted her approval, endorsement and support.”
Support of violent protests? No she didnt.
“Had she tweeted that before the violence started, I’d grant you at least ambiguity. Not on May 29. Uh-uh. No way.”
Any tweet posted right after the riots means you support riots?
No. You’re mind reading which I thought you were against when it’s attributed to Trump.
Irrelevant to what her tweet actually meant and not some made up meaning you’re giving it.
Of course it’s relevant. She began by referring to the rioting, and instead of condemning it, she weasel-worded general approval.
“but feeling sympathy isn’t feeling personal “pain.”
Sure it is.
Just contradicting everything isn’t an argument, Bob. (See the appropriate Monty Python skit) Id Haley meany sympathy, she would have said sympathy. She was reacting to the riots, and choosing language to signal support. Pretty clear.
She didn’t say that. She picked a single police encounter in a local jurisdiction that ended in tragedy and said everyone needed to feel “pain” because of it. Why? Because it had been chosen by an anti-cop, anti-white organization to exploit. There was no other reason to distinguish it from police shootings or other controversial episodes. Again, she was trying to carefully walk both sides of a controversy.
“What was special about this one?” A lot. It was different for a lot of people too. Not for you obviously.
“A lot” isn’t an answer. “Different for a lot of people” isn’t an explanation. This is no way to make a case.
No she didn’t say that. She said everyone should be sympathetic.
!!! She didn’t say anything about “sympathy.” She advocated personal pain. Personal pain is suffering. Riots don’t cause sympathy, they cause uninvolved members of the public pain.
“Protests like the BLM rioting are always aimed at hurting the rest of the public by making life miserable. “Ok? I also don’t agree.
What don’t you agree with? That’s a fact. Such protests call for attention by disrupting daily life. “I don’t agree” isn’t an argument.
“That’s what Haley was endorsing…”No she wasn’t.
She was literally saying the the public needed to be harmed, as in “pain.” Again, saying “No” isn’t an argument. It’s just obstinacy.
“kid yourself if you must, but don’t try to kid me, please. “
Ditto.
Bob, you’ve provided nothing approaching a substantive argument, except claiming that Haley was calling for sympathy rather than pain, when she never mentioned sympathy and used the word “pain.”
Support of violent protests? No she didnt.
Writing this requires a deliberate attempt to ignore the context of the tweets.
“Had she tweeted that before the violence started, I’d grant you at least ambiguity. Not on May 29. Uh-uh. No way.”
Any tweet posted right after the riots means you support riots?
Thus violating the “Don’t put words in my mouth” EA commenting rule. A tweet during an emotion-fraught controversy with alleged
racial conflict that says “The public needs to feel pain” is risking being understood to encourage violence. Yes.
No. You’re mind reading which I thought you were against when it’s attributed to Trump.
We are not discussing Trump. We are discussing a too-cute-by half set of tweets that 1) appeared to say Floydophiles causing the public “pain” was “needed,” and that an officer needed to be made an example of before the facts had been established.
Now answer “No we’re not.” This is non-constructive commenting.
You have your opinions that have no supporting evidence, and I have mine.
For instance:
“She began by referring to the rioting, and instead of condemning it, she weasel-worded general approval”
All of this is your opinion and I disagree with your analysis.
She did not begin her tweet by referring to the rioting. The evidence I have is…her tweet where she doesn’t reference the rioting in any way.
I see no reason why offering support for Floyd, wanting sympathy, and asking for police accountability 4 days after Floyd died means you support riots.
There’s no connection there.
What broke her heart, Bob? What had occurred on the 29th? It wasn’t Floyd’s death: that was earlier.
This last comment is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming. Sympathy is not a synonym for pain, or vice-versa. Suffering is.
“What broke her heart, Bob?“
George Floyd’s death, obviously.
“Sympathy is not a synonym for pain, or vice-versa.”
That’s good, because she nor I never said that it was.
She’s saying the personal pain felt should be felt by everyone…
Everyone should be sympathetic towards that pain.
No, Bob. Floyd died on May 25th. Haley went away for a couple of days, and the rioting had started intensifying by the 29th. Her email says that she came back to news that broke her heart–which could not have been what occurred before she left.
You’re talking gibberish and contradicting yourself. And wasting my time.
“No, it isn’t” is not a very good rebuttal to an argument. It only takes the opposite position without adding anything of value.
jvb
I’m offering my opinion as a rebuttal to Jack’s opinion.
Seems fair to me.
And argument with no evidence doesn’t need evidence to refute.
Clearly she didn’t mean “Riot in Nikki’s backyard tonight yo hommie bros!”
It’s them weasle words again. She meant it to get support in the minds of the rioters that they were morally superior because of their pain – solidarity. But she never referred to physical pain, RIGHT.
But how am I, a pasty white guy going to feel pain relative to St. Floyd’s demise?
“…and speedy trial for bad cops.”
WHAT? I don’t see any such guarantee in the Constitution.
Is a (fair and unbiased) jury the body to decide (after a fair trial) whether the “ACCUSED” is a person guilty of a proven crime ??
Derek Chauvin was “toast” by the MSM, Black Lives Matter, and too many politicians, before he ever went to his (unfair) trial.
If you’ve never been accused in a court of law for something you never did, then please give a bit more honest consideration to others who are, before you pen (and own) a comment on EA. Please.
Doing otherwise is unethical.
My whole take on the Republican field:
Trump: Trump
DeSantis; Trump-lite
Haley: The military-industrial complex candidate, supported because the mainstream Republicans and the legacy media are afraid of Trump and DeSantis. This is why DeSantis’ better than expected 2nd place finish was evidence he needed to drop out and Haley’s 3rd place finish was evidence that she is a winner.
Ramaswamy: A troll, possibly planted to draw support off Trump and then do a 180 on his positions if he ever gets into a position of power. Maybe he is just trying to build a base of support for a new business venture. There probably is a market for a conservative-friendly beer or Wal-Mart/ Target competitor, or bank.
Ramaswamy dropped out after the Iowa Caucus and is fully supporting Trump. If he was planted to draw support away from Trump, he’s doing a poor job of it.
To me, everyone who commented on Twitter and elsewhere about the Floyd incident was wrong. The video we all saw was but a snippet in time taken by someone with an agenda to either protect or disparage the officers. The evidence that existed at the time available and distributed to the public was at best limited and provided an editorialized perspective.
We have courts to determine what the facts are and when we choose to ignore the very processes necessary for a well functioning democratic republic we threaten that democracy.
As far as I am concerned those who engage in violence or imply that violence is an answer when an perceived offense occurs are the real present danger to our democratic republic.