The week after he moved into his apartment, one of the roommates came home a little bit drunk and went 1 block south. He was rescued by the police who investigated the crowd of people kicking and beating somebody on the ground. His jaw was broken in 2 places, and he had a couple of broken ribs.

There are safe places to be in Chicago. UIC (where Thrump’s rally was) is right in the middle of region that isn’t.
Parker’s judgement is wrong.

Y’know, when you spot an ambush, it isn’t cowardly to decline to walk into the ambush.

So you do “know” something about Chicago just as Parker does. I trust Parker’s judgment. And yet you still want to lord over all.

And it’s damned well about time. Those Trump supporters hadn’t arrived on the planet just in time to upset the establishment for the fun of it. It was they, the middle class, the blue collar working class, the producers who, for over thirty years, had the Establishment’s opinions (political correctness) and policies — a sometimes blind eye, often a wave of the hand to the greatest foreign invasion in the history of nations, foisted on them. And not only a substantial amount of Mexico’s dregs of society, but also Moslems, naturally, religiously, antagonistic toward America and its citizens but oddly, not much more so than the reprobates in sheep’s wool who’d been elected to represent the people and not the fanatasists and demolishers. So, good for them. No more listening. Let them listen. And if it pains them to do so… all the better.

What he found out about the electorate he was focus grouping for the GOP in 2012 was…

“They were contentious and argumentative. They didn’t listen to each other as they once had. They weren’t interested in hearing other points of view. They were divided one against the other, black vs. white, men vs. women, young vs. old, rich vs. poor. “They want to impose their opinions rather than express them,””
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-agony-of-frank-luntz/282766/

Sounds remarkably like how we describe Trump supporters.

i gave you links to the law, you give me argument by authority of your past…

wtf?

1) When she left goldman, the loan comes due
2) The limit is 50k – they got over a million
3) They are supposed to detail what this is so you and i cant argue about it (failure is a violation of election law)
4) The terms and interest amounts are also supposed to be reported (failure is a violation of election law)

your being a broker does not make you a lawyer
nor does that adress those points above
and i have more too… but those are enough.

the law is pretty clear… and if they needed defense in court, your point would be quite silly… judge, i used to be a broker years ago, so please forgive them the violations of election law!!!!!!!!!!

even sadder, the violations are what makes perfectly legal actions illegal!!!

and they are refusing to update those things with the right information, and have held out past the deadline.

please address the points. the law
i could care less if you were god in a past life
its not required in law, as you can fight pro se
i am quoting law, gave you links to the fec and the law, and what was a violation.. the failure to file correctly… and failure to update the filing to make it correct.

and there are specific things in election law under the FEC for spouses too as they are restricted like other people, not special as a wife.

yeah… hedge fund people can make huge amounts, and what they do is not easy. [i know, i wrote trading software as a quant with others before i made the idiotic mistake of moving to medical research]

if she was so rich, and the money is community property, why did he need a loan? why was it a margin loan, and why didnt they reveal that was the purpose of the loan? and why is it more than the limits? and how does that apply to citibank where she didnt work and loaned as well?
[edited for length by n-n]

no… but you reduced a list of things, including a cocain crack epidemic that murdered thousands and destroyed whole families to make the point…

think… neo would cut me down if i put 50 things up in one post… so you then get to claim focusing on one post as the sum total…

preponderance is from a lot of points put together, not one point… no one is asking you to do what idiocy you just talked against

i will give you 100 if you can find where i put up that as a single issue to change yoru mind? it was in response to blert who was trying to say, its ok, no problem, when its a violation of law, by a lawyer and his wife who both know those rules better than blert does.

the list is quite long:
1) failure to side with freedom of speech
2) failure to side with freedom of peaceful assembly
3) siding with those who are not peacefully assembling cause it supresses the rights of your opposition
hiring a dirty campaign manager after firing another dirty one (one for a lying video, the other hired despite lying in texas to win)
4) failing to file papers and get loan terms into the public transparency, but cruz people dont care about the rule of law, which is why they want a constitutional conservative who cant get filings right (funny, but it turned a legal action into a illegal action!)
5) failing to vote against liberal people and causes, like loretta lynch and common core appointee
6) hiring woolsey
7) hiring Elliot Abrams
8) Hiring neil bush

HOW can a man who wants to clean up washington hire the dirty?

i have at least another 20 points…
to ME they are important just as trumps hair, bombast, nd public image created by the lef tis important to you.

i have respected your choice, and frogs choice, and have asked to explain how this will work, but instead i have gotten no answer.

how can someone who stands against freedom of speech protect freedom of speech?

no answer. crickets… denial that he did that.
want a quote from him kasisch, etc?

bingo! but they are not educated by capitalists and understand things of that system from them, they are educated and take their position from socialism, and dont even know it.

which is why they side with cruz… and hate trump, trump is expressing, good or ill, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.

its offensive… especially if you were growing up the past 50 years and learned what was the right hting to choose from the left. must be poilished, cant say a bad thing about the opposition, and on and on.

which gave the elections of the past years mostly to the dems, as they were permitted to violate that, and say things like he is hilter, fascist, and nothing that has bearing…

they even controlled thinking to the point that somewho, democrats of the south became republicans and cant protest

they turned all white males into german nazis…
they turned all whites into racists…
they claim privelege (implying who they are going to clean out as kulaks when that comes)

and they think that believing that a man who didnt stand up for his oppositions constitutional rights would defend theirs… why? why is conditional constitutional protections even bad when its the will fo the mob?

they like to claim that trump makes a mob mentality, but thats not true at all.. he is trying to represent this huge number of people who cruz is not going to represent… if he was, he would not have sided with the protesters and attack trump..

they are communist the way stalin said, and they dont know it… and they are wiling to use disrespect, belittling, and their freedom of speech to ignore what others say when its not what they want, ignore their protests as valid, then wonder why they are siding with someone who isnt ignoring those people

so sad its depressing…
after years of such high moral rhetoric
its all out the window when tested!!!!
and they wont even see that!!!

speech that offends needs protection, so trumps offensive speech draws out who are really for the constitution and freedom, and who only sides with it when its the way they want it… including the not left

same with assembly… just as long as the unconstitutional attackers go after the guy they dont protect.

they are the same as that which they would claim to oppose… depressing.

Although I have to admit that the incredible obtuseness that seems to invade normally sensible people is beyond me. Nick Cater has an article in The Oz today on Donald Trump’s primary appeal is that he’s not a politician. This is his point:

The inconvenient truth for the political class is that in so far as Trump exploits hate, the principal object is not Hispanics, Muslims or homosexuals but them. The anger welling up from below is anger directed at urban sophisticates like themselves.

Americans regularly elect presidents who are not part of the political class. Eisenhower was the last, and military leaders are a consistent theme. It is executive experience that is valued, of which Obama has none at all while Trump has a lifetime of running things behind him. So for those who still don’t get it, here’s the list of policy issues that matter.

First border protection. Here’s an article by Victor Davis Hanson, who because he works for National Review, cannot actually say he supports Trump (similar to working for Murdoch), but read the article and imagine him voting for anyone else: The Weirdness of Illegal Immigration. Note the word “if” that runs through the para:

If the border were to be closed, if immigration laws were enforced, if there were some reduction in legal immigration, if entry were to be meritocratic, if we reverted to the melting-pot ideal of assimilation, if we cut —studies courses and jettisoned therapy and ideology for hard science, math, and English language, in just two decades one’s particular ancestry would become irrelevant – the image of Oaxaca would be analogous to having a grandfather from Palermo or cousin from the Azores. In other words, things would work out fine.

Second, the economy. Trump has spent a lifetime creating value for money. The American economy, like so many others, is being ruined by Keynesian Crony Capitalism, where the government decides how to use large proportions of our national savings and determines what ought to be built. The US is heading for a $20 trillion debt if it hasn’t reached it already. Is there seriously anyone else within a thousand miles of being electable who has a greater likelihood of getting the American economy on the right track?

Third, foreign policy. Trump wants to rebuild America’s national defence but is not in the business of nation building in third world countries. He will defend our interests, but with the additional thought that maybe those who America has been defending might chip in a bit in their own defence.

Fourth, he would get to choose the new justices for the Supreme Court. Fifth, he is not taken in by global warming. Sixth, he has the ability to achieve his agenda because he knows how to get things done. Seventh, he represents a return to traditional American values. Eighth, he opposes the thug tactics of the left. Ninth, he is the most non-politically correct politician in years and is unafraid of the American media.

Tenth, he is far and away more likely to win than any other Republican who might be nominated. Ted Cruz would lose to Hillary in a landslide and he is the only alternative. Trump is reconfiguring politics in a way that could renew the American system for a generation in the direction that might actually appeal to a conservative.

If you don’t get it, you don’t get it. But it really should not be that hard to see his appeal.

UPDATE: As for his attitude to violent protest, see this video of Ronald Reagan for a useful comparison. Thank you to Anne for the find.