Recommended Posts

This guy keeps making the news.

Not entirely sure what to make of him, on some level he's a good businessman but there's something off about him. I can't quite put my finger on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is his motivation? He could get into the news by doing good with his power and money but instead he is alienating whole voting blocks of people. I won't psychologize him to say he is full of rage or is seeking revenge (as evidenced by his 500 million dollar lawsuit against Univision for dropping his beauty pageant) but I will say he is pissed off. He wants specific issues discussed. His negatives will go up, in the long run, though a lot of Republicans were applauding his candor. He's the Miley Cyrus and Rhianna of right wing politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's the Miley Cyrus and Rhianna of right wing politics.

Right wing politics?

Really?

Can you give examples of his "right wing" politics?

Of course, that would be after you define "right wing politics."

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad RR opened this thread.

I had considered opening one on Trump and calling it "Hank Rearden for President."

People are currently reacting to Trump in the same manner they did Rearden in Atlas Shrugged. Here's a passage that captures some of it. Passengers are on a train.

An office building appeared, close to the tracks. The big neon sign on its roof lighted the interiors of the coaches as they went by. It said: REARDEN STEEL.

A passenger, who was a professor of economics, remarked to his companion, "Of what importance is an individual in the titanic collective achievements of our industrial age?" Another, who was a journalist, made a note for future use in his column: "Hank Rearden is the kind of man who sticks his name on everything he touches. You may, from this, form your own opinion about the character of Hank Rearden."

I love Donald Trump.

:smile:

Michael

EDIT: I moved this from Politics to Stumping in the Backyard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some posts from a different thread about Trump:
 

There are many reasons to hate Donald Trump, but I believe he will shake things up on a story-level. I doubt he will get the nomination, but you never know.
 
However, I saw Rachel Maddow talking about his announcement earlier, and she droned on, and on, and on, and on... Suddenly my ears perked up. Am I sensing fear? Sunuvabich. I am...
 
I don't think Rachel fears his candidacy qua candidacy, but she is in tune with the power of covert messages enough to know that when someone comes right out and says he is proud of his wealth, is loud about it, that he earned every penny of it through hard work and tough deal-making, and says this is the good and wants it for everybody, all that shaming the left likes to do goes right out the window.
 
Also, Trump is calling out the other Republican candidates to be plain-spoken, take stands, and be competent. After so much media manipulation, evasive answers and "control of the narrative," I believe this is an idea whose time has come with independent voters.
 
There are some other refreshing qualities about Trump, too. But I'm not stumping for him. While I don't think he will win, I do think his participation is going to drastically change the style of discourse in general on the Republican side--to plaintalk and a story that will resonate better with the average voter, one that is not so vulnerable to spinning by progressives. 
 
That's what I think Rachel is afraid of.
 
Michael

 
 

Somebody else sees what I see, Rush Limbaugh:
 
Trump's Message Will Resonate
 
I don't always agree with Rush, but he has a master's handle on his storyline.
 
And he knows what resonates.
 
Michael

 
 

According to the Clinton Foundation, Donald Trump is on their donor's list -- for more than $100,000.
 
The National Journal's Nora Kelly has a thoughtful piece called "Here's Why Donald Trump Will Actually Matter in 2016—and a Few Reasons Why He Won't" In it she details these points:

How he could affect the 2016 race
 

1. Trump could poll high enough to kick a more typical—if less famous—candidate off the Fox and CNN debate stages

2. A Trump candidacy is great news for the news.

3. In that way, he's able to throw the news cycle off track by vacuuming up airtime and making other candidates answer for him.


Why the Trump effect won't matter for very long
 

1. He's able to throw the news cycle off track by vacuuming up airtime and making other candidates answer for him.

2. Trump is essentially running for fun—and a possible ratings boost.

3. Seventy-four percent. That's the number of Republican voters who said in a March poll that they could never see themselves voting for Trump

 

 
 

William,
 
According to Rush, Trump donated more to the Democrats than he did to the Republicans.
 
But I don't think the gotcha storyline is going to be effective with him, his influence, or the wrecking ball he will wield on presidential narratives (Republican and Democrat). 
 
:smile:
 
In my view, it doesn't matter whether he gets the nomination or not. He will make media manipulation harder than it has been recently, and not just by sucking up airtime (Nora Kelly is engaged in wishful thinking here).
 
The American character has values like competence, pride in achievement, common sense, be a winner, etc., deeply embedded. Nobody would know that listening to American politicians these days, where the main themes are victimization and gotcha. I believe Trump is going to inject these other values back into the mainstream narrative. 
 
I'm actually looking forward to it--especially to the snark show and PC warriors when they slowly realize what's happening as they gradually become irrelevant. I don't think the process will go all the way to their full destruction, but the show sure promises to be entertaining. I love it when sanctimonious control freaks bomb.
 
:smile:
 
Michael

 
 

I caught several videos about Trump today.
 
The left and the big-government Republicans are really bothered by Trump. They are all talking the same crap, that Trump is going to spoil the race somehow. A distraction. Will hog the media.
 
Even Chuck Todd said Trump plays by his own set of rules. What rules? According to Todd, Trump will say anything on any media. He will say what's on his mind, regardless. And this isn't fair to others. 
 
Say what?
 
Yup.
 
That's his beef. That Trump doesn't try to deceive anyone about what he believes.
 
See here for the Todd video, but he's not the only person saying goofball things about Trump today. That is the gist underlying the criticism of all the others I heard today.
 
Trump was asked if his comments would hurt his chances. He said he tells the truth. If such truth hurts him, it hurts him. He's still going to say it.
 
How in hell is that a bad thing for anyone?
 
The media controllers claim this is the talk of a buffoon. But I bet a ton-load of people who were previously not sympathetic to Trump are suddenly listening--and it sounds good to them. Not enough to convince, not yet, but enough for them to think, "Wait a minute. I want to hear more from that guy." The media controllers know it, too.
 
I believe this is why I sense the fear in them.
 
Oh yeah. That and the fact Trump can fund his own campaign if he wishes. He has no need for old power structures and party bosses. He doesn't need their money.
 
Michael

 
 

It's coming faster than I imagined.
 

 
:smile:
 
Michael

 
 

It seems Trump really is worth about 8 billion bucks. As an announced candidate he has had to release his financials.
 
--Brant

 
 

Even O'Reilly's mouth is dropping open about Trump's honest bluntness:
 

 
:smile:
 
Michael

 
 

Michael:
 
I agree that he is completely outside the bureaucratic bullshit that has become the consultant communication with the potential electorate.
 
So be it.
 
Here is a simple truth.
 
The United States is a sovereign country.
 
We have a right, and a responsibility, Constitutionally, to seal and protect the individual citizen's borders.
 
If that was the only action that his candidacy effects then I am supportive of the position.
 
A...

 
 

Even Glenn Beck.
 

 
Poor Glenn. You're gonna have to swallow this one, dude. Trump is resonating with your own audience. The meekness message in Christianity that you have recently been preaching is not his thing, and it's only partially America's thing. The iconic American heartland good guy--which is your audience--is meek to his mother and mentors, but not toward bullies. And everything else is an adventure to him.
 
Kinda like Trump, in fact.
 
I predict Glenn will change his opinion over time. Even if he doesn't, I'm fine with it. I'm loving this Trump wrecking ball. 
 
I want more.
 
:smile:
 
Michael

 
 

Mikee suggested Walker as his pick for prez. Today I received a letter in my email from Walker saying he may run if he receives some financial support.
 
OK, Mikee. Scott and Carley. What will be some good convention and rally chants?
 
I think Trump WILL add to the campaign though never win the nomination. For Trump it may just be as revealing as his reasons for vanity license plates.
 
I listened to Trump's minute political radio spot for a while and came to the conclusion that he is a fascist. Those spots will now be replayed.

 
 

Even Hillary, implying Trump is partly responsible for SC shooting:
 
HILLARY: TRUMP MEXICAN ‘RAPIST’ REMARKS CAN ‘TRIGGER’ SHOOTINGS LIKE CHARLESTON
 
Which Trump duly mocked:
 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN RESPONDS TO HILLARY LINKING HIM TO SOUTH CAROLINA SHOOTING: ‘SHE MUST BE NERVOUS’
 
I wanted to embed the videos, but Breitbart makes it way too complicated and spammy.
 
Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is scary that I was contemplating starting a Trump thread also and making that link to Rearden.

Here is an interesting "fact" that has been referred to by a number of media folks:

It seems that Trumps employees never leave and their loyalty to him is unquestioned.

Trump is big on loyalty. His one criticism of Rubio, whom he states he does not know at a personal level, was his apparently disloyal break with Jeb Bush.

It is also fascinating that the marxist fellow traveler media attacks Trumps school records.

You remember how savagely they attacked O'bama and the fact that his school records are apparently a Top Secret National Security item that remains secret through today...

Oh, wait a minute, they did not ever mention his hidden school records...oops...

They do go after Trump's...

Donald Trump heard that President Obama "was a terrible student, terrible," who probably pulled a fast one to sneak into the halls of ivy, but Justin Elliott over at Salon isn't so sure the Donald should be chucking rocks inside his glass house. "Trump has allowed the media to report for years that he graduated first in his class at Wharton, despite strong evidence that this is not true," writes Elliott. Further, Trump didn't get a Wharton MBA, but rather a Wharton undergrad degree offered through UPenn.

http://www.newser.com/story/117767/donald-trump-college-he-probably-didnt-graduate-top-of-his-class-at-wharton.html

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The newest polling shows Trump in second place in the GOP line-up, displacing Cruz, Walker and Rubio from the heights of double-digit support among party members, according to CNN.

With nearly all of the expected 2016 presidential candidates formally in the race, a new CNN/ORC national poll finds two recent entrants to the GOP field on the rise, while Hillary Clinton maintains her position atop the Democratic field, though holding a slightly slimmer lead.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and businessman Donald Trump top the list of GOP presidential contenders following their back-to-back campaign launches in mid-June, and are the only two Republican candidates holding double-digit support among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.

For his part, Trump specifically responded to the poll results Wednesday afternoon saying the numbers are "representative of the response we are receiving from all over the country."


While Trump is batting well with Republicans in older demographics (the over 50 crowd), displacing the gents named above, his popularity in a match-up with Clinton shows his weakness.

Trump's competitiveness among those older and more conservative Republicans also helps explain Walker's and Rubio's declines. In April, 16% of Republicans age 50 or older backed Rubio, 14% Walker. Now, Rubio has just 6% among this group and Walker has 7%. Trump grew from 2% in May to 14% now.
How high can he go? How can he help change the weight of issues important to GOP voters, and how can he help the party win in November 2016?
trump_Polling_July3.png
Looking ahead to the general election, Clinton continues to hold significant leads over Bush (54% Clinton to 41% Bush) and Christie (56% Clinton to 37% Christie). She has also opened up wide leads over Rubio (56% Clinton to 39% Rubio) and Walker (57% Clinton to 38% Walker), as those two have slipped among independents. Clinton's clearest advantage, however, is over Donald Trump, 59% say they would vote for Clinton if the 2016 match-up were between her and Trump, 34% say they would back Trump.
If, as Michael suggests, every Trump 'blunder' (or sagacious interjection) kicks open the door to a free-er, more comprehensive and necessary debate -- on immigration foremost -- then of course Trump is a godsend to the GOP. On the other hand, there is a chance that the free and open discussion of 'taboo'-ish subjects strips away a wavering percentage of independents or fence-sitters. If the open-door fresh-air Trump effect 'works' on making the GOP the honest and forthright wing of debate, it can still backfire.
The economy, health care and terrorism remain dominant issues in Americans' minds as the 2016 election gets closer, with 88% calling the economy an extremely or very important issue, 83% rating health care that important and 81% calling terrorism a top issue.
Foreign policy follows, with 71% calling it deeply important, and about 6-in-10 each call illegal immigration (62%) and race relations (61%) important issues. Same-sex marriage rounds out the list with just 41% of Americans saying it's extremely or very important issue in their 2016 presidential vote.

I would like to see some more Objective-ish analyses of the Trump Effect. Will he continue to play the Mexican Card? How will the Mexican Card be played in the debates?

(I personally think that the Mexican Card was a spontaneous blunder, borrowed rhetoric from Ann Coulter, and is net negative for the GOP as a whole. It is likely that the anti-Mexican glow will also fall on the other candidates: who can dig up the quotes where Trump's card was countered by another primary candidate? It seems to me that if the others don't distance themselves from the wackier claims, they run the risk of incorporating the Trump Effect into their own political personas -- to their electoral detriment. It is probably a function of the Canada Effect that I find his remarks on Mexicans so clunky and tone-deaf.)

Trump shares a problem with Hillary Clinton: negative opinion. If the GOP can effect a further rise in her negatives, and add enough additional stink to her name, they have a better chance of nabbing the voter who always holds his nose in the ballot box. It will be hold your nose and D, or hold your nose and R. If Trump can infuse growth factors at the edge of support, and not merely get populist blood flowing among the already firmly Republican, then the R could win despite the stink surrounding his own name.

So, who gets the least stink-back from Trump? I'd guess Bush. If Trump goes all Mexican on him in the debates, surely Jeb is already rehearsing his contemptuous look and his version of Dude you are Muy Loco.

See, I can even make US politics boring. Zzzzzzzzzzz

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Michael for that video.

I had heard it on the radio and I thought his pointing out how unprofessional, uncaring and essentially anti-women the left is was perfectly delivered.

He has an annoying semantic habit of re-repeating his "points" which is more than likely his sales training.

Guy is a pleasure to listen to because underneath the comb over and the schmaltz** ... is hard unvarnished reality from which conclusions can, and should, be drawn.

A...

**

http://www.sadiesalome.com/recipes/schmaltz.html

Post Script: Ask any Ashkenazi Jew where you can still get Schmaltz on hot garlic bread...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, I can even make US politics boring. Zzzzzzzzzzz

You should lose the self effacing "stuff," since it is very unbecoming.

Here are some hints on analyzing US Presidential polling - CNN is the media arm of the Democratic Left Liberal base. Think Paul Begala.

You need to seek representative polling elsewhere.

Additionally, very few of these polls have much meaning now.

One Quinnipiac poll that I just noticed has an interesting drop in Evita's numbers.

Such a magna shift and the angular decline is a troubling trend for Evita's brown shirts.

However, she still receives 52 % in Iowa. Grandpa Al has 32 %. That is a loss of almost 1 pt per day for Evita,

Troubling.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

I'm going to give out a few ideas about why I think Trump's ratings will grow and grow and, unlike my earlier prediction, I now believe it is extremely viable he will get the candidacy.

1. The first deals with the nature of emotions. There are many forms of classifying them, but there is one particular way that is relevant here: valence and intensity.

The meaning of valence is a bit ambiguous as different people use it to mean different things, but in the way I use it here, it means the ability of an emotion to prompt action. So in this meaning, a positive high-valence emotion like excitement makes people want to jump up and down and hug strangers and so forth. A positive low-valence emotion like satisfaction makes people shut down and rest or bask. On the negative side, high-valence is rage and low-valence is sadness. Rage makes people want to kill and destroy whereas sadness shuts them down.

So how does this relate to Trump? I believe many conservative and libertarian folks simply don't vote at all, much less vote for Republican candidates. Why? Because the candidates aren't exciting. They are bland. Romney was bland as hell. He let Obama get away with the most absurd things that he should have been called on and tried to be above it all. Low valence.

Remember the appeal of Chris Christie at the time? People liked the fact that he told it as it was with brashness. High valence and high intensity.

Trump has this high-valence high-intensity appeal in spades. In short, he has a big fucking mouth and is not afraid to use it. And he will not back down like a Romney would. He smacks right back with a haymaker.

Believe me, this kind of thing brings out voters.

2. Trump was an early adopter for Mitt Romney in the last election. Romney still holds an enormous amount of sway with the Republican machine. Right now Romney is leaning toward Christie or Rubio or Bush, but I believe Republican primary voters, who tend to lean in the Tea Party direction, will reject Bush hands down even after he spends gobs of money trying to convince them he is actually conservative, and I am not so sure Christie and Rubio will be able to generate majority stats. This will leave Romney free to choose another.

Romney is a deal-maker. So is Trump. Both are rich. They run in the same economic circles. Etc. Etc. Etc.

So I believe Romney will ultimately throw his support behind Trump. And that means a good hunk of the Republican king-making machinery will go with it.

3. I hope this one doesn't sting too much, but there is the proven success of SJW (Social Justice Warrior) baiting as a marketing ploy. Here is an article that give this process better than I could:

Making The Trolls Pay: How One UK Company Made £1 Million In Four Days From Furious Social Justice Warriors
by Martin Daubney
27 Apr 2015
Breitbart

From the article:

Something subtle, yet powerful is happening in the ultra fast-moving, consumer-savvy world of internet-era marketing. In fact, it’s an idea so new, none of the marketing gurus I approached while writing this piece had even really thought about it.

It’s the joyous concept of turning furious Social Justice Warriors to your advantage – and harnessing their rage to make you piles of beautiful dosh.

It runs like this. Consumer A is offended by a product, a company or an advertisement for something they find misogynistic/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/racist/sizeist/whatever.

Consumer A – an Offendotron who would probably never even buy the product in question – rallies like-minded SJWs via an established, global network of Twitter outrage groups. Next, somebody inexorably starts a shaming Change.org petition, loudly calling for the product to be banned.

But here’s the rub: when you accuse a product of being homophobic, or promoting violence against women, or whatever’s on today’s rap sheet, you are basically accusing Consumer B – the product’s core customers – of thinking in the same way. And Consumer B starts to get indignant about it. So Consumer B leaps to the brand’s defence and rallies all other Consumer Bs out there – and two tribes go to a capitalistic war.

What follows is a user-generated marketing forest fire, often short-lived, intense and bloody.

Meanwhile, thousands of Consumer Cs – the majority of punters who’ve never even heard of the product before the protest erupted – are drawn in to the whirlwind, where they takes sides and retweet the offending product/artwork, variously condemning or supporting it, yet all the while generating fresh marketing content, and eyeballs, for the host company.

. . .

How the company behaves during the firestorm is vital: do they firefight, or fan the flames? Do they go all-in, check or fold? In basic terms we all understand: does a company SOGOTP (s**t or get off the potty)?

Vitally, how they weather the storm can make or break their reputation. And get this: those who stand up to the baying Offendotrons are winning.


Notice that Chick-Fil-A, which should have been buried because of the bad press on the owner's public statements about gay marriage, has now been ranked America’s Favorite Fast Food Chain by the American Customer Satisfaction Index (see here).

Unfortunately, in the first election against Obama, Sarah Palin let McCain's people muzzle her in the beginning and that was all the SJW people needed to brand her as a dingbat. When she started hitting back, it was too late. Then she compounded her image problem with quitting as governor. The kind of Americans I believe will support Trump hate quitters, even if they love Palin.

Trump is no quitter. In fact, he's a winner. He might be a bit obnoxious about tooting his own horn, but he builds shit and he wins. He certainly will not give SJW people a media calm in which to manipulate his image. So far, he has come right out hitting again and again. I believe he will keep doing that.

For example, when Don Lemon tried to get him on a victimization gotcha by talking about Latin women who get raped on the way to America (see here), Trump said, "Well, somebody's doing the raping, Don! I mean somebody's doing it! Who's doing the raping? Who's doing the raping?"

When you hit back like that, it doesn't matter if the gotcha folks think they actually did a gotcha. It sounds like common sense. And independent people love common sense.

The gotcha folks will never vote for Trump anyway, so he is happy to let them hate him. A good fight needs an enemy and they are serving as a perfect bad guy side for his target audience.

The SJW team might think they are dealing with a lightweight, but Trump has been hanging around with the very best in marketing talent for years. The SJW squad, and even major progressive media manipulators like Media Matters, might want to think again.

Time will tell if I am right.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a montage of Trump comments about immigrants cutely called "Outrage grows as Trump keeps talking about Mexicans."
 
However, I doubt this will provoke a general outrage if that is what the author intended. On the contrary, this is almost like propaganda for Trump in terms of his target audience.
 

 
CNN posted this video, with this very title, in the following article under a different title on the CNN website: 
 
Trump: San Francisco killing shows perils of illegal immigration
By Theodore Schleifer
July 3, 2015
CNN
 
From the article:
 

The shooting Wednesday evening of Kate Steinle on a city pier, police say, was committed by 45-year-old Francisco Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant and a repeat felon who had been deported five times to Mexico. Law enforcement officials told CNN that Sanchez was released by the San Francisco sheriff's department despite a request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for an immigration detainer.
 
"This senseless and totally preventable act of violence committed by an illegal immigrant is yet another example of why we must secure our border immediately," Trump said in a statement Friday. "This is an absolutely disgraceful situation and I am the only one that can fix it. Nobody else has the guts to even talk about it. That won't happen if I become President."

 
Since a lot of crimes are currently committed by illegal immigrants and I expect a lot more will be committed, Trump now has a drip drip drip feed to bait Social Justice Warriors with if he decides to use it. And I predict he will. The more the SJW folks try to call him a racist, the more they will have to reference his comments about crimes committed by illegal immigrants.

 

Three guesses what independent people will look at in these tirades, the same-old same-old racism mudslinging or the gift-that-keeps-on-giving reports of nonstop new crimes.

 

And three guesses how they will feel.

 

:smile:

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality is a tough Mistress/Master...

I believe that LA has the highest hit and run number in the country.

Coincidence?

People can't drive well because of the Hollywood glare?

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion on Trump at the propaganda mill.

 

 

I can't comment on Robert Costa, though. His input was the same thing as not being there. Sporadic shrill noise and that's all.

 

Joan Walsh blubbered all over herself in the progressive blinders-on snooty manner I suspect many on the left will do with Trump until it's too late. She simply doesn't accept the reality of his appeal and prefers to parrot her mental caricature of him. She literally thinks he suddenly turned into a racist because of her gotcha PC habit of judging people and, even more literally, can't imagine anyone intelligent liking him. She is totally into her core story and can't see anything else.

 

Poor Michael Steele is floundering about Trump. He doesn't really understand Trump's gut appeal about honest brash leadership that people crave as he tries to indirectly promote Jeb Bush and cautious speech.

 

Chris Matthews is the only one who has a clue about what is really going on in people's heads. He even realizes that Trump's boats are burned with Univision, NBC, Macy's, etc., cutting commercial ties, so Trump's now in the fight in for real and ain't going anywhere. 

 

And, as Matthews made it clear at the end with his birtherism comment, he's not feeling a thrill go up his leg. He sounded hateful and scared to my ear.

 

:smile:

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In one aggregation poll (I think it is Fox, Tucker Carlson didn't say), Trump is, as of today, the Republican front-leader, ahead of Jeb Bush.

 

Carlson mentioned it at the beginning of the following video:

 

 

I know, I know.

 

I'm going a bit overboard.

 

But I haven't felt this good about politics in a long time.

 

:smile:

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality is a tough Mistress/Master...

I believe that LA has the highest hit and run number in the country.

Coincidence?

People can't drive well because of the Hollywood glare?

A...

I didn't know anybody walked in LA to get hit in the first place.

--Brant

a revelation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality is a tough Mistress/Master...

I believe that LA has the highest hit and run number in the country.

Coincidence?

People can't drive well because of the Hollywood glare?

A...

I didn't know anybody walked in LA to get hit in the first place.

--Brant

a revelation

Um you can hit and run anything ... parked cars, moving cars ...

According to accident data collected from the Los Angeles Police Department, the California Highway Patrol, and the LA county sheriff’s office, approximately 200,000 hit-and run accidents occur in Los Angeles each year, and an estimated 4,000 of those resulted in injury or death. Throughout the United States, approximately 11 percent of traffic collisions on average are recorded as hit-and-run accident. The hit and run rate in Los Angeles, however, is reportedly more than four times the national average. In 2009, the most recent year for which these statistics are currently available, approximately 48 percent of all recorded traffic collisions were recorded as hit-and-run accidents. This rate has remained at a near constant level, researchers found, since at least 2001. In many cases, the driver at fault in these accidents is reportedly never caught, and in many other cases the driver does not serve any jail time after turning him- or herself in to authorities. Unless witnesses on the scene managed to record the driver’s license plate or there is incriminating evidence left behind at the time of the accident, law enforcement officers say they are mostly reliant on at-fault drivers confessing to the crime.The majority of the evidence in a hit-and-run accident officers say, is driven away from the scene of the crime.

http://www.otuslawgroup.com/2012/12/06/los-angeles-hit-and-run-rates-more-than-four-times-national-average/

flying-helicopter-smiley-emoticon.gif

anim_b1729b55-edce-2f34-c12b-ededf7.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality is a tough Mistress/Master...

I believe that LA has the highest hit and run number in the country.

Coincidence?

People can't drive well because of the Hollywood glare?

A...

I didn't know anybody walked in LA to get hit in the first place.

--Brant

a revelation

Um you can hit and run anything ... parked cars, moving cars ...

Thank goodness for the people.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even Jon Stewart gets what's going on.

 

 

With all his talent, and he is funny in this video, he is unable to understand why the PC Language Attack isn't working.

 

People know Trump has said often he loves Mexican people and they know the PC Police ignore this. People also know Trump employs a lot of Latinos. And, most of all, people know Trump is not a racist. Not really. It's stupid to even think he is.

 

So the attempt to brand him as a racist is ludicrous to everyone except those who want to control the speech of others through PC language. 

 

Since people are getting awfully sick of being accused of awful things they don't believe because of words they say sometimes, they love Trump standing up, digging in and refusing to apologize.

 

Stewart could have been much more effective neutralizing the effect of Trump had he satirized hypocrisy in those who support him, say, by showing them critical of Trump's position at one time in the past, then supportive of Trump's current attitude.

 

But Stewart doesn't get it, that all you have to do is stand firm when attacked unfairly (after it becomes obvious that an attack has crossed the line of reasonable) and you win.

 

Doesn't Stewart sound shrill in this video? To me, he sounds like a man who was accused by his wife of cheating, but denied it and tried to get off by saying the perfume smell on his underwear was from the toilet paper in a restaurant.

 

All Stewart could do was get louder and try to repeat himself. Then repeat some more. Slower. Louder. And again.

 

:smile:

 

You're sounding awfully lame all of a sudden, Jon.

 

I'm loving it.

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to leave a comment on record, too.

I would not want to be one of the businesses who cancelled contracts with Trump over PC bullshit should he become president.

I wonder how many government contracts would fly out the window...

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stewart is just saying what he knows his audience wants to say.

They're very concerned with any sort of expression of negativity. Stewart found the worst thing that Trump said and roasted it from several angles. He's used this tactic on other conservative politicians and journalists before.

But I do think Trump's statement was stupid. There's no need for a politician to express such negativity towards a country where more than 10% of the population traces it's origins back to. Furthermore the Mexican-American War was arguably the first unjustified War in US history (there were many other violent conflicts with Native Americans but none of them were declared wars). Mexico's original border went as far north as Oregon, so that influences a lot of people's perspective on the immigration situation. Ultimately Mexicans will integrate themselves into the USA more than they already have in the past. Just like every other group of people that has migrated into the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore the Mexican-American War was arguably the first unjustified War in US history (there were many other violent conflicts with Native Americans but none of them were declared wars). ..... Ultimately Mexicans will integrate themselves into the USA more than they already have in the past. Just like every other group of people that has migrated into the US.

This is not the -1840's.

There appears to be a lack of assimilation in particular subcultures.

Assuming that this is the same "type of immigrant" as pre-1965, is mistaken.

Finally, we controlled prior immigrants and our own sovereignty demands that we immediately act the same way.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stewart is just saying what he knows his audience wants to say.

They're very concerned with any sort of expression of negativity. Stewart found the worst thing that Trump said and roasted it from several angles. He's used this tactic on other conservative politicians and journalists before.

But I do think Trump's statement was stupid. There's no need for a politician to express such negativity towards a country where more than 10% of the population traces it's origins back to. Furthermore the Mexican-American War was arguably the first unjustified War in US history (there were many other violent conflicts with Native Americans but none of them were declared wars). Mexico's original border went as far north as Oregon, so that influences a lot of people's perspective on the immigration situation. Ultimately Mexicans will integrate themselves into the USA more than they already have in the past. Just like every other group of people that has migrated into the US.

Why stupid? Don't you have to know what he's about to make such an evaluation? If so, what is Trump about?

--Brant

so far I don't see a politician at all--I see a thick-skinned publicity hound out on the hunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Selene, there was minimal control of pre-1965 immigrants, almost all of those groups formed their own system of organized crime (Mafias if you will). Assimilation is subjective, the major difference between Latin Americans and European immigrants is physical in nature, they have different physical features because they have genes which originate in Europe as well as other regions where the Europeans are more genetically homogeneous

@Brant, maybe you're right that Trump uses presidential campaigns for publicity, but just recently he's suffered major losses because NBC dropped him. A lot of other people dropped him as well. Perhaps he doesn't care because he has enough money and connections that he can afford to lose some. But he's sacrificing a lot to make some statements that many people may think, but which are incredibly offensive to a relatively large portion of the US population. You can't get elected if you alienate too many people, and your business will also suffer. Trump has (cowardly, if you ask me) positioned himself in markets where there is minimal competition so he is relatively insulated from loss of revenue but in the long run his comment (the one Stewart obsesses over) will cost him more business than it gains him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Selene, there was minimal control of pre-1965 immigrants, almost all of those groups formed their own system of organized crime (Mafias if you will). Assimilation is subjective, the major difference between Latin Americans and European immigrants is physical in nature, they have different physical features because they have genes which originate in Europe as well as other regions where the Europeans are more genetically homogeneous

First, what do you mean by minimal control of pre-1965 immigrants?

Second, the "mafias" would equate to "criminal gangs?"

Third, the "major difference" between the Europeans who colonized Latin America and the Europeans who colonized North America how?

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now