The "establishment" are the rich people. These are the greedy Chamber of Commerce people who only care about money. They like illegal immigration because it dilutes the labor pool and allows their companies to keeps the cost of labor low. They are also big proponents of free trade, which allows them further reduce labor costs by moving their factories overseas. The only color these people see is green and they are often social moderates.
The "base" are the white people without a 4 year college degree. These people are competing directly with minorities and immigrants for jobs and educational opportunities and they resent any shift toward pluralism that comes at their expense. Their place in society is no longer as secure as it was for their ancestors and they are fearful and angry about change. These people are big believers of the status quo and have been screaming for economic relief from illegal immigrants for decades to no avail.
As the farm communities of the mid-west collapsed in the 1980's and the manufacturing sector innovated or moved offshore due to free trade agreements in the 1990's, the base voted with the establishment, and against their economic interests, in the belief that the establishment would, at least, pursue their social agenda of ending illegal immigration, stopping abortion, and preventing gay marriage. But they still hoped they would become rich and join the establishment themselves, one day.
What we're seeing now is the populist anger that inevitably results when the base realizes that the establishment is completely full of shit. They have not passed a single item on the Republican social agenda, while also offering no opportunities for economic advancement. Haley fits this mold perfectly. She looked good while giving a vapid speech. That's what they wanted. Nobody in the establishment cares that her record as governor remains unblemished with legislative accomplishment. Truthfully, she would make an awful Vice President and I'll believe she's "transformed" when she expands medicaid coverage in South Carolina.
Trump, on the other hand, is an absolutely brilliant politician. He's offered a simple solution that everyone in the country can understand. He's going to build the wall. The base immediately sees a politician who is willing to do something tangible and concrete for them for the first time in 35 years. And while he might be mean and crass, they know Trump is telling them the truth and, call them crazy, they would rather have the truth than to continue to get pissed on by the establishment and told that it's raining.
Personally, I'm hoping for a Bernie-Trump matchup that gives the American people a true choice about the direction of the country.
He's the front runner of the fringe — big difference. And he has proven that he doesn't care about the team, only himself. He has no track record as a politician or even, gasp, a Republican. Under other circumstances, Trump would have run as a Democrat.
Didn't she attack her own party's front runner? How is that supporting the team, unless the "team" is a group that doesn't represent the will of the voters.
I will say I'm going to have to agree with Nofaith a bit: while it is unsurprising that she'd get some backlash for not rah-rah-rahing whatever nonsense everyone with an (R) after their name has ever said, the level of hate and discontent thrown at her is even higher than I imagined. So much anger, pouting, and passionate defense of Donald Trump. Teeth gnash, tears and spittle fly, angry emojis all over the place. Who cares that she bashed the President, inveighed against illegal immigrants, made it clear that Syrian refugees aren't welcomed, and that trickle-down economics is still the way to go? RINOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
It is pretty hilarious.
'Liberals were going to hate it no matter what because they had already been told to believe the speech and her are evil.'
Liberals hate her because she has no problem giving hundreds of millions to corporations, but refuses TAXES WE HAVE ALREADY PAID in the form of medicaid expansion in some hamfisted principled stand that harms the poor.
Fuck her. Fuck everything about her. She is awful.
I think that one of the problems here may be in defining the Republican base as a subset of Republicans who actually hate all other Republicans. A base technically should be made of those who always support the "team." It would be wise if more Republicans began to view their base as their supporters, not the members of the fifth column within their own party whose only allegiance is to perpetual outrage. We've also erred in viewing grassroots support in the party as that fickle faction that supports whoever hates the federal government the most, and doesn't turn out on election day, instead of those people who work ceaselessly in the trenches.
I'm no Republican, but it seems like Nikki Haley falls in that no-man's land between Tea Party activism and Establishment Republicanism. Maybe at one time that seemed to be a wise bet, and maybe in the future it will be again, but for now, the Republican base seems to have only one word for politicians like Haley: Sellout.
Thank you, Chris Haire. You got this exactly right.
I think it is hilarious that she managed to tick off both sides by having what was a relatively conciliatory, not overly combative speech that talked about coming together on things that we know we can all agree on and spread the blame around for the current mess in DC. Liberals were going to hate it no matter what because they had already been told to believe the speech and her are evil. But the negative reaction from the conservative side was not expected to the degree that I have seen.
"Personally, I believe the transformation is genuine."
Is this an Andy Borowitz article? No other explanation for it. Am I wrong or wasn't this new and kinder Haley the same one refusing to accept Syrian refugees.
Puh-lease, genuine my ass. Its political maneuvering, plain and simple, guided every step of the way. Also...where is the real Chris Haire?
Ummmm....where is the real Chris Haire....
Politicians got us here, not Trump, and when Nikki loses her job, she will have to live like us, so please your donors, and deny your populous in your state voting Trump..
"Whether or not the shooting was legally justified is up to the prosecutor, the defense, judge and jury to decide."
Speaking of low information....
Thank you for making my point about low information crowd, any amount of actual facts and evidence will not matter, you have been told what to believe are the facts and if there is one thing that low information people are actually good at it is sticking to what they believe no matter what, accurate or not.
Scott physically attacked the officer and while he was running away there were tazer darts stuck in the officer that were being drug, along with the unfired cartridge, by Scott.
Whether or not the shooting was legally justified is up to the prosecutor, the defense, judge and jury to decide. But, the point I originally made was that no matter what the outcome is the low information crowd has already decided without even looking at the details that are out there, much less the ones that will be revealed at the trial. The comments here have proven that to be true.
The low information crowd spent too much time looking at the cop mowing down a fleeing, unarmed man who was fleeing and not armed while at a distance from the cop mowing him down. Y'all need to spend more time thinking about Officer Slager's feelings, and how a man can just have a bad, mowing-fleeing-suspects-down kind of day once in a while and yet be totally innocent of any sort of "crime" you liberals might dream up.
Did I mention that the deceased was behind on child support? Because that's somehow relevant, remember! Also, while Michael Slager is perfectly sane now, perfectly sane before this traffic stop, and seemed pretty damned malicious while shooting an unarmed, fleeing suspect at a distance, his actions showed that he was not a sane man acting in malice, but instead an insane man acting out of kindness.
n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.
Read more: http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?sel…
If you believe this situation fits this definition you are proving my point better than I ever could. As I said, however, the minds have been made up. No matter what bonafide legal argument is made and what facts are presented, valid or not, he has been declared guilty of murder and any verdict less than that will cause the low information crowd to riot.
You are ALL missing the point.
"if he has an all black or democrat filled jury"
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2017,
Charleston City Paper