Trump's net worth would be much higher now had he put the wealth he inherited into index funds rather than in bankrupting casinos. He is a showman - has achieved carnival barker level there and that showmanship has saved him from his bigly mistakes in more fundamental aspects of business acumen.
I once thought he had good business acumen, but then I turned 24.
Trump's net worth would be much higher now had he put the wealth he inherited into index funds rather than in bankrupting casinos. He is a showman - has achieved carnival barker level there and that showmanship has saved him from his bigly mistakes in more fundamental aspects of business acumen.
I once thought he had good business acumen, but then I turned 24.
Trump's net worth would be much higher now had he put the wealth he inherited into index funds rather than in bankrupting casinos. He is a showman - has achieved carnival barker level there and that showmanship has saved him from his bigly mistakes in more fundamental aspects of business acumen.
In fairness, very few people were putting their money into index funds. As well, buying an index fund doesn't actually generate new economic growth like the active pursuit of enterprise can.
Not everyone can inherit a few hundred million, and draw upon loans from wealth siblings, and eventually end up a billionaire. It certainly takes some set of skills.
You could learn some of those skills at Trump University. Trump endorses it.
At least it was intellectually honest. Look J, considering your rampant hyperbole involving almost everything ( this is required because right wing politics right now is predicated on hyperbole), I think you can take a little of mine and still consider my general point serious. I wouldn't want this man running anything of mine.
In fairness, very few people were putting their money into index funds. As well, buying an index fund doesn't actually generate new economic growth like the active pursuit of enterprise can.
Not everyone can inherit a few hundred million, and draw upon loans from wealth siblings, and eventually end up a billionaire. It certainly takes some set of skills.
You could learn some of those skills at Trump University. Trump endorses it.
At least it was intellectually honest. Look J, considering your rampant hyperbole involving almost everything ( this is required because right wing politics right now is predicated on hyperbole), I think you can take a little of mine and still consider my general point serious. I wouldn't want this man running anything of mine.
He's okay but the democrats could do America a favor and not nominate him. I don't think the country (or even the world?) holds LA in high regard and the homeless situation has exploded during Garcetti's tenure. Beating him would be a cake walk for Trump. It would take just one ad featuring traffic, pollution, and homeless tent cities to nail that coffin shut. LA voters don't generally like him (he won re-election by a massive margin but turnout was massively low) and I'm guessing they'd go with a stronger candidate like Kamala in a primary just like they eschewed loyalty to ex-mayor Villaraigosa and voted for Newsom in the 2018 governor primary. Overall, Garcetti would be a weak candidate and I doubt he'd make it to New Hampshire anyway.
Without knowing anything about the political climate of LA:
Usually when voter turnout was "massively low" it is the Republicans who "won by a massive margin", not the Democrats. I know you're telling the truth, but still, this is remarkable in itself.
Yeah the republican party barely exists in Los Angeles and Garcetti's challenger was a fellow democrat. I'm not sure exactly what low turnout means in this case, but I'd make the point that he can hardly claim widespread popularity or an electoral mandate when turnout was only 20% even if he won by over 80%. Most likely, he was able to mobilize a few enthusiastic allies while no one else really cared.
Yeah the republican party barely exists in Los Angeles and Garcetti's challenger was a fellow democrat. I'm not sure exactly what low turnout means in this case, but I'd make the point that he can hardly claim widespread popularity or an electoral mandate when turnout was only 20% even if he won by over 80%. Most likely, he was able to mobilize a few enthusiastic allies while no one else really cared.
20% is actually a pretty strong turnout for a local only election. The city up the road from mine schedules their elections on an off Tuesday in the spring just like LA does and they seldom break 10%.
True though 20% is still kind of low for LA. Clicking through the wikipedia articles for the last several elections, turnout over 30% seems common and has approached 40%. The 2009 election saw 17.9%. In the context of local elections, these might all be high numbers. But either way, the point I'm trying to make is that Garcetti winning 80% doesn't exactly mean universal acclaim.
True though 20% is still kind of low for LA. Clicking through the wikipedia articles for the last several elections, turnout over 30% seems common and has approached 40%. The 2009 election saw 17.9%. In the context of local elections, these might all be high numbers. But either way, the point I'm trying to make is that Garcetti winning 80% doesn't exactly mean universal acclaim.
I think turnout in LA city elections is mostly driven by what propositions are on the ballot. I can't really recall a mayor's race that was considered competitive enough to be all that interesting happening for a long time. Nobody was really driven to turn out for Villaraigosa in 2009, because no one could really imagine a scenario where he would lose, and there weren't any really interesting propositions on the ballot. Your point is still valid, in that 80% of a low turnout certainly isn't "universal approval," but LA is actually too big for the "suppress the turnout and bring in the crony vote" strategy. Even a 20% turnout is hundreds of thousands of voters.
In Lancaster there are about 90,000 voters, so suppression down to about 10% means about nine thousand votes cast. The mayor owns about four thousand crony votes, so as long as he gets a ten percent cut of the remaining free votes he's pretty much even. Throw in that he sponsors at least three "competitors" to split up the opposition vote and he is unbeatable even though he is pretty much universally despised. That's how that strategy works, but it would be very hard to scale it up to work in Los Angeles.
Yeah and to clarify by "allies" I didn't mean crony vote. More just whatever demographics were enthusiastic about him (I'm having a hard time finding data on this) and no one else cared enough.
Yeah and to clarify by "allies" I didn't mean crony vote. More just whatever demographics were enthusiastic about him (I'm having a hard time finding data on this) and no one else cared enough.
Usually an incumbent mayor will face a lot more enthusiasm from enemies than allies. Take that 2009 election for example. The only challenger creating any kind of buzz was a right wing extremist who called moderate Republicans RINOs but recognized that LA wouldn't elect a Republican so declared himself "independent;" basically, a well financed @onejayhawk. The mayor sounded the alarm a couple times that if everyone just stayed home and counted on him somehow winning without them there could be a disaster, but no one really took that possibility seriously. You see the turnout. It was a record low, but every right wing nutbag in the city turned out on election day in hopes that it would be low enough.
How would you describe his "running the country"? Are you talking about his staffing government agencies? Proposing legislation? Inspiring people? Setting out new policies at home and for foreign relations? Please explain what you mean. Thanks.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
