Jump to content

SackMan518

Members
  • Content Count

    8,427
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

Everything posted by SackMan518

  1. Short answer, yes but I don't think it will be stunning. Are we being set up for another stunning Trump win? With five months until the election, things couldn’t look any worse for the president of the United States. His approval rating is down to 40%. People are getting tired of his antics and the insults he hurls at his opponents. The media is increasingly confident that, come November, the voters will elect a new chief executive. This might sound like June 2020, but I’m actually referring to June 1948 — when President Harry Truman, a Democrat, was running to keep his job against Republican Thomas Dewey. The similarities between the 1948 and 2020 elections are striking. Like President Trump, Truman often ruffled feathers with his salty language. At one point, Truman even described Dewey as a fascist, a term not taken lightly just three years after World War II. Just as with Trump, the media described Truman as desperate and unhinged. They mocked him for the more than 8,000 empty chairs at a speech he gave in Nebraska — presaging the coverage of Trump’s recent speech in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Almost everyone thought Truman would lose, including the president’s mother-in-law. A Newsweek poll reported 50 out of 50 politicos predicting a Dewey victory. But on Nov. 3, 1948, the world woke up to the stunning news that Truman had won. The experts were left struggling to make sense of how they got it so wrong. Today, we’re seeing poll after poll showing Trump trailing former Vice President Joe Biden. In the echo chamber of cable news and social media, there’s a growing consensus that Trump is headed for humiliating defeat. Are the pundits right, or are we moving toward another stunning win by a beleaguered incumbent? Could history be repeating itself? The 1948 election warns us that an upset is very possible. There are two dynamics at work in 2020 that were decisive that fateful year. The first is political staying power. Prior to 1948, the Democrats had won four straight presidential elections. Many observers assumed that they were due for a loss, especially with the GOP’s large gains in the 1946 midterm elections. The media, however, underestimated the strength of the Democrats’ New Deal coalition. While commentators were thinking in terms of political cycles and party turnover, they failed to consider the New Deal’s long-term appeal for its constituents. Today’s pundits might be making the same mistake with Trump’s 2016 coalition. Throughout the Mueller investigation, the impeachment process, the pandemic, and record unemployment, Trump’s approval rating in the RealClearPolitics average has remained surprisingly consistent (around the mid-to-low 40s), showing that at least 4 out of 10 people support the president regardless of whatever the opposition throws up. That may not be sufficient to guarantee victory, but it’s a precious asset in a general election — especially with Democratic enthusiasm for Biden comparatively low. The second factor is that people often vote for incumbent presidents based on certain intangibles (leadership skills or likability) despite the candidate’s perceived flaws or policy disagreements. The Washington Post alluded to this phenomenon after Truman’s victory: “The American people admire a man with courage even though they don’t always agree with him.” The voters might even give the opposing party control of Congress during the midterm elections to check that president, but they will still reelect a flawed incumbent because of their supposed charisma (see Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) or boldness (see Truman). Like Trump, Truman was seen as a fighter who was not afraid to go against the political establishment. And like Biden, Dewey was an uninspiring candidate who, because of overconfidence, played it safe and limited his public appearances. It is possible that in a dangerous and unpredictable world, voters will prefer a feisty and aggressive Trump over a lackluster Biden. Despite all of this, Biden could still win in November. But if history can teach us anything, it is that the experts can get it wrong. We don’t even have to go back to 1948. Exactly four years ago (in June 2016), Hillary Clinton led Trump in the polls by 5 percentage points. The night before the election, the intelligentsia was still confidently predicting a Clinton win. The next day, Trump stunned the world.
  2. Just to be clear for all you Kap supporters out there. Colin Kaepernick said it himself: His kneeling was meant to disrespect our nation itself Ex-quarterback Colin Kaepernick tweeted an Independence Day message reminding us that he always was a radical leftist, America-hating agitator. His national anthem stunt always was about deliberately dishonoring flag and country. Oh, and NFL superstar Drew Brees merits an apology from all those who criticized his original, thoughtful statement about why he would always stand for the anthem. “We reject your celebration of white supremacy and look forward to liberation for all,” tweeted Kaepernick about the Fourth of July, because, he said, “black people have been dehumanized, brutalized, criminalized and terrorized by America for centuries and are expected to join your commemoration of independence, while you enslaved our ancestors.” This precisely echoes the original reason he gave for beginning his protests at NFL games in 2016. “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” he said then. This was not a protest against police violence and racism that just happened to occur during the anthem; it was specifically targeted at the anthem and flag so as to blame the country as such for the ills Kaepernick was protesting. The message was not that the nation per se had a flawed past and that vestiges remained in some people’s hearts and minds in a way that even well-intentioned laws and institutions had not yet eradicated. No, the message was that the institutions themselves were deliberately racist and oppressive and that the nation itself was unworthy of pride. So, yes, all of this “kneeling during the anthem” stuff was and is about “disrespecting the flag of the United States of America.” Everybody knows it. It is precisely and intentionally about that. If it were just about protesting racism and police misconduct, Kaepernick wouldn't say things like that. Also, there would be plenty of other ways to make that point without intruding on what always had been an aspirationally unifying civic ritual. As longtime sports columnist Jason Whitlock (who is black) wrote this week in disgust at Kaepernick, “It’s a divisive hot take packaged as righteous indignation.” Since then, Kaepernick has kept up a steady drumbeat of anti-American and even pro-communist statements and actions. He particularly likes radical-tinged clothing, such as socks depicting cops as pigs and a shirt proudly portraying Malcolm X meeting with Cuban mass murderer Fidel Castro, whom he complimented because of Cuba’s supposedly enlightened policies supporting education. He is likewise prone to sporting paraphernalia of the equally brutal and repressive Che Guevara. Four years ago, after the brief reign of players kneeling during the national anthem, most teams and players came to a worthy compromise: kneeling before the anthem but standing during it. That way, they emphasized the distinction between protesting racism and misconduct, on one hand, and insulting the nation itself, on the other. The clear recognition was that kneeling during the anthem itself would mean the latter. It was that understanding to which Brees, who had worthily joined the pre-anthem kneelers, was referring when he said he would never disrespect the flag or nation by refusing to stand at attention during the anthem. He then went on to express solidarity with those demanding fuller realization of civil rights. It was a reasonable stance then, completely unworthy of the abuse he suffered for it. Now comes Kaepernick with his new tweet asserting that Independence Day itself is a celebration of “white supremacy.” He is wrong now, and he was wrong in 2016. Anyone who joins his movement to kneel during the national anthem will continue to acquiesce in the fiction that this good nation is inherently unjust.
  3. Never give one inch to these fascist, techno-terrorists or they'll take 50 miles and honestly these people don't have a stomach for the fight so they'll move on to an easier target after a week and then happily buy those Goya products.
  4. Don't forget Biden's new $700M "Buy America" plan which is a rehash of an Obama failed campaign promise.
  5. Oh hey... remember that Steele guy? British court rules against Christopher Steele, orders damages paid to businessmen named in dossier British judge ruled Wednesday that Christopher Steele violated a data privacy law by failing to check the accuracy of information in his infamous dossier, ordering the former spy’s firm to pay damages to two businessmen he wrongly accused of making illicit payments in Russia. Justice Mark Warby of the High Court of England and Wales ordered Steele’s firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, to pay a modest 18,000 English pounds – about $22,596 in American currency – each to Petr Aven and Mikhail Fridman as compensation for a violation of Britain’s Data Protection Act 1998 . Warby ruled that while Steele had a national security interest to share his intelligence with U.S. and British authorities, several of the allegations in Memo 112 of the Steele dossier were “inaccurate or misleading as a matter of fact.” The judge ruled Steele violated the law by failing to aggressively check the accuracy of one claim accusing Aven and Fridman of making illicit payments to Russia President Vladimir Putin before distributing it to various U.S. and British figures, including the FBI. “That is an allegation of serial criminal wrongdoing, over a prolonged period. Even in the limited and specific context of reporting intelligence for the purposes I have mentioned, and despite all the other factors I have listed, the steps taken to verify that proposition fell short of what would have been reasonable,” Warby ruled. “The allegation clearly called for closer attention, a more enquiring approach, and more energetic checking,” the judge added. The ruling involves a long-discredited claim in Steele’s dossier – repeatedly used by U.S. news media – that Russia’s Alfa Bank, connected to Aven and Fridman, was transmitting secret messages between Moscow and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. The FBI concluded the computer pings were not nefarious messages but rather routine behavior most likely connected to email spam. Special Counsel Robert Mueller told Congress last year he did not believe the allegations. Fridman hailed the ruling in a statement. “We are delighted with the outcome of this case and that Mr Justice Warby has determined what we have always known to be the case – that the contents of Memorandum 112 are inaccurate and misleading," he said. "Ever since these odious allegations were first made public in January 2017, my partners and I have been resolute and unwavering in our determination to prove that they are untrue, and through this case, we have finally succeeded in doing so.” Though a matter of British law, the ruling is likely to have impact as well in the United States, where the Justice Department continues to investigate the actions of the FBI in the Russia collusion probe, including its interactions with Steele and agents' honesty with the FISA court. The judge ruled that in Memo 112, one of several that made up Steele's dossier, there were six factually inaccurate or unproven claims that Steele provided from his alleged intelligence sources including that: the businessmen did not do favors for or receive favors from Putin as the memo claimed; Fridman and Aven did not provide informal foreign policy advice to the Russian leader as Steele alleged; Fridman did not meet with Putin in September 2016 as claimed by Steele's source; the businessman did not bribe Putin when he was Deputy Mayor of St Petersburg; And Fridman and Aven did not do Putin’s political bidding as the dossier alleged. The ruling further accentuates that much of the Steele dossier contained unproven Internet rumor or false information, some possible from Russian intelligence, as the Justice Department inspector general concluded last December. Nonetheless, the FBI used evidence from Steele's dossier to support a warrant targeting Trump campaign figures in four occasions, claiming to the court that agents had verified the information. The judge also concluded that Steele's notes of his first interaction with the FBI about the dossier on July 5, 2016 made clear that his ultimate client for his research project was Hillary Clinton's campaign as directed by her campaign law firm Perkins Coie. The FBI did not disclose that information to the court. The supposition that the Clinton campaign was the ultimate client "is in line with the FBI Note of 5 July 2016, which records Mr. Steele telling the FBI that Orbis had been instructed by Mr. [Glenn] Simpson of Fusion and 'Democratic Party Associates' but that 'the ultimate client were (sic) the leadership of the Clinton presidential campaign.' The FBI Note also indicates that Mr Steele had been told by that stage that Mrs Clinton herself was aware of what Orbis had been commissioned to do," Warby concluded. "I have little reliable evidence as to who exactly was the Ultimate Client, but I have enough to find that Perkins Coie were instructed by one or more people or organizations within the upper echelons of the Democratic Party, concerned to ensure Hillary Clinton’s election as President." the judge added.
  6. He's not too old to be President but cognitively he's not fit for the job plus he's been a politician longer than I've been alive and hasn't done jack. So there's that.
  7. I watch it on my PC and haven't tried it on an iPad or anything though but that's probably possible.
  8. No one wants to go back to the jungle and apparently camping and state parks are activities enjoyed by white supremacists now. America's national parks face existential crisis over race: A mostly white workforce, visitation threatens parks' survival and public health "The outdoors and public lands suffer from the same systemic racism that the rest of our society does," said Joel Pannell, associate director of the Sierra Club, which is leading an effort to boost diversity in the wilderness and access to natural spaces. New government data, shared first with ABC News, shows the country's premier outdoor spaces -- the 419 national parks -- remain overwhelmingly white. Just 23% of visitors to the parks were people of color, the National Park Service found in its most recent 10-year survey; 77% were white. Minorities make up 42% of the U.S. population. "That tells me that we've got a lot of work to do," said David Vela, acting director of the National Park Service. "I feel like nature is a right to everyone, and we should all feel safe enough to experience it," said Lauren Gay, a Tampa, Florida, mother who chronicles her experiences as a woman of color in the wilderness on her blog and podcast "Outdoorsy Diva." "We need better ways to cope with stress, to cope with some level of trauma. We all have some level, honestly, of PTSD from a lot of the things we've lived through as people of color -- and nature is a way to do that," Gay said. Ambreen Tariq, creator of the "Brown People Camping" social media campaign, learned to camp with her family in Minnesota after they emigrated to the U.S. from India. She now advocates for representation of families like hers and people of color to enjoy the outdoors. "The future of our country is more and more diverse, ... we're going to have more people of color in this country than white people, but our parks, our green spaces, our conservation spaces, those demographics are remaining white. What does that mean for the future of our land, for environmentalism? We need everyone to experience and then love the land so that they will stay and fight," Tariq said. "So you think the parks are at risk? Absolutely. The parks are at risk, just like every other natural resource in this country. Land, water, air. These are resources to be preserved. And it not just takes money. It takes people fighting for it," she continued. Still, racial profiling and stereotyping remain a big concern for Tariq and many people of color in the outdoors. "When I was a child, I felt like an outsider trying to gain entrance, except now I am American and this is my country," she said. However, when she camps or hikes as an adult, Tariq said she still faces assumptions that she doesn't belong and a sense of "imposter syndrome" and fear -- even facing questions from rangers about whether she has followed park rules when she doesn't see white visitors asked the same questions.
  9. The NBA I gave up on in the 90s and this year I have committed to spending zero dollars on NFL merchandise, subscriptions, or game tickets.
  10. I posted this some time ago but not many took it seriously so here it again. What Is ‘Brown Communism’? A new political alliance is forming out of the spatterings of gutter vomit that is globalism. This motley crew of grifters, race-baiters, religious fundamentalists, social justice warriors and other shit-stirrers are united by little apart from their hatred of the white man, but they are united under one ideology. This article describes what will become one of the foremost hate ideologies of the 21st century – Brown Communism. Original Communism began in Europe after the 1848 publication of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This short tract summarised the basic tenets of Communism. Among others, this includes the ideas that history is the story of class struggle, that private property should be abolished and that Communism is explicitly a globalist movement. Like all other hate ideologies, Communism needed an enemy. In the case of the original European Communism, the enemy was the bourgeoisie – the men of silver, or what we would today call the middle class. The original Communism appealed explicitly to the men of iron, or the working class whose labour built the factories and railways of the Industrial Revolution. It told a story about how the men of silver had stolen the rightful wealth of the men of iron, who were fortunate that the men of gold (Communists) had enlightened them as to who the true enemy was. After uniting under the wise and benevolent guidance of the Communists, the working-class would come to reclaim their rightful property and rightful position in society. Brown Communism is a very similar memeplex. The difference is that, instead of appealing to the Western working class, it appeals to non-whites as a quasi-racial bloc. Its major proponents are usually young/youngish women such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar in America, and Golriz Ghahraman and Marama Davidson in New Zealand. In the case of Brown Communism, the enemy is the white man. The basic story is the same as regular Communism – evil, intelligent people have tricked the good-natured but naive worker out of his wealth – but the white man has replaced the bourgeoisie, and the non-white has replaced the proletariat. All of the honest labour is done by non-white people, according to this mindset, while whites cheat and swindle unearned income. The means of production have been replaced here by land. ‘Seizing the means of production’ now means the same thing as opening the borders (this leads to one major point of disagreement between Brown Communism and non-white nativist movements). Jumping the border is equated to a revolutionary act, like occupying a Police station, the border being a delineation of property and therefore bourgeois. Brown Communists have no time for the argument that mass immigration of cheap labour should be restricted to shore up working-class wages. As long as a brown person wins and a white person loses, it’s all good. The irony, of course, is that holding this position causes Brown Communists to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the same capitalists that the original Communists rejected. In Brown Communism, white people are the kulaks. The greater wealth of white people has nothing to do with valuing education or working hard – it’s simply been stolen from the non-whites (Asian people are also kulaks, but as of yet there is no mass immigration into Asian countries. With Chinese involvement in Africa now imperial in all but name, chances are good that Brown Communism will come to China in the future). This means that the property of white people, being the neo-bourgeoisie, can fairly be expropriated. This is achieved in two major ways: immigration (as mentioned above), which serves to share the social capital of Western societies, and taxation, which serves to share the financial capital. Much of the electoral appeal of Brown Communists comes from their promises to tax “the rich” (i.e. the kulaks) and to redistribute this windfall to non-whites. This is achieved by means of a long march through the institutions – in other words, to strive for high positions in government, academia and media and to use those positions to benefit the ideology and its supporters. Brown Communists try to get into Government and use their influence there to agitate for open borders and shifting the tax burden to rural areas (where white people live). Opening the borders also has the ancillary effect of increasing the voter base. Because the sort of person who votes for a communist movement very seldom has the initiative to get a degree and go through regular immigration channels, Brown Communists consider raising the refugee quota to be of utmost importance. A central tenet of Brown Communism is that all of the ills of the world can be traced back to white people. The white man replaces the devil as the font of all evil. His pale hand lies behind all suffering on Earth. This means that the ultimate origins of all underachievement by non-white people can be traced back to the malicious actions of whites at some point. If Africans score poorly on IQ tests, this is because the tests are biased to favour whites on account of white racism. And if Japanese people score higher than whites, thus proving the tests are not biased, then the lower performance of Africans is due to the poverty inflicted upon them by whites. And if poverty can be accounted for by an analysis of variance that proves most of the difference comes from genetic causes, then you are a racist. Another central tenet of Brown Communism is that any of the property of white people can be fairly expropriated by non-whites at any time. In the same way that the kulaks were believed to be hoarding all the wealth to the detriment of the common good, and therefore that it was righteous for the masses to confiscate it, so too Brown Communists feel about the wealth of white people. Only in Zimbabwe and South Africa (thus far) have Brown Communists achieved so much power that they were able to expropriate white people directly, but in many places they are able to do so indirectly. In almost every Western country, taxation acts to ensure a net transfer of wealth from whites to non-whites. Brown Communists who achieve government in the West inevitably seek to both raise the tax burden on whites (thus expropriating them) and to increase welfare spending on non-whites. Essentially, Brown Communism is an anti-white movement that is every bit as much a resentment-fuelled slave morality as the original Communism. Not only does it use the same narratives as Communism, but it appeals to the same sort of rejects and misfits who cannot find a place in decent society. The only major difference is that it explicitly rejects the white working class, and embraces non-white people of all but the most egregiously aristocratic bent. This ideology will inevitably continue to rise in the West as the West continues to become more polarised along racial lines. If the social democratic movements keep demonising white people, they will keep losing support among the white working class. Those working-class people, finding that mainstream conservatism also rejects them, may find they have no other home but fascism.
  11. Wow, I hope that is back loaded with incentives. That's an insane amount of money and time to invest in one single player as good as he is.
  12. Interesting info for any of you suburbanites thinking of voting for Biden. This AFFH over reach will basically put public housing in the middle of your communities or you will face even more federal financial punishment. Hey Suburban Voters, Joe Biden's Housing Policies Will Ruin Your Communities A significant number of commentators have posited that the 2020 election will be won or lost in the suburbs. For some reason, these suburban voters seem to be signaling that they want Joe Biden to take their guns away, raise their taxes, and cause massive job losses in industries related to oil and gas. Or perhaps they are super excited about having a cognitively impaired leader of the free world. Hard to tell. However, my bet is if they figured out Joe Biden was planning on destroying their communities, they might be a little more attuned to their self-interest. Joe Biden has signed on to a plan that will take local control away from community planning using federal funding as leverage. Stanley Kurtz at National Review is ringing the alarm bell. An Obama-era regulation that has not been rolled back by the Trump administration is about to weaponized in a significant way if Democrats gain power. The regulation could lead to such considerable wealth redistribution, Kurtz wrote an entire book about it. Recall, if Democrats take control of the Senate, they intend to end the filibuster. If they maintain control of the House and Biden wins the presidency, there will be no way for Republicans to stop this power grab. It will necessarily put all community planning in the hands of the federal government. They, not the local city councils and county officials, will determine the zoning laws that govern suburban communities to achieve their progressive vision of equity and environmental policies. From Kurtz: I’ve been studying Joe Biden’s housing plans, and what I’ve seen is both surprising and frightening. I expected that a President Biden would enforce the Obama administration’s radical AFFH (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) regulation to the hilt. That is exactly what Biden promises to do. By itself, that would be more than enough to end America’s suburbs as we’ve known them, as I’ve explained repeatedly here at NRO. What surprises me is that Biden has actually promised to go much further than AFFH. Biden has embraced Cory Booker’s strategy for ending single-family zoning in the suburbs and creating what you might call “little downtowns” in the suburbs. Combine the Obama-Biden administration’s radical AFFH regulation with Booker’s new strategy, and I don’t see how the suburbs can retain their ability to govern themselves. It will mean the end of local control, the end of a style of living that many people prefer to the city, and therefore the end of meaningful choice in how Americans can live. Shouldn’t voters know that this is what’s at stake in the election? The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulation, AFFH for short, is like Affirmative Action for community planning. According to Kurtz, there are three elements to the strategy that effectively integrate the suburbs with their urban neighbors: Use a kind of quota system to force “economic integration” on the suburbs, pushing urban residents outside of the city Close down suburban growth by regulating development, restricting automobile use, and limiting highway growth and repair, thus forcing would-be suburbanites back to the city Use state and federal laws to force suburbs to redistribute tax revenue to poorer cities in their greater metropolitan region Initially, the AFFH used HUD grants to bring suburban communities into compliance. Local communities could make a decision not to pursue these grants and retain local control of zoning. However, Biden has signed on to a plan that goes even further to enforce this vision. Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) has proposed withholding federal transportation grants communities use to repair highways. This funding would be nearly impossible for communities to forego. This policy position is stunning in the wake of a pandemic that has Americans questioning urban living. The real estate site Suburban Jungle saw a four-fold increase in traffic during the pandemic when cities were hardest hit. The impact of rioting and escalating violence is yet to be seen. Cities that stayed shut down longer than outlying areas are also running into financial problems due to lost revenue. Now businesses large and small may not recover from the looting and destruction of the recent riots. Some of them are relocating out of destroyed downtown areas or will not reopen. On its face, this policy, with the enhancement proposed by Booker, shreds several levels of the federalist system. Residents will lose all control over the design of their communities. Some of the most heated debates in city councils across the country are related to zoning. What is built where is a big deal for may communities. AFFH will end that debate. Of course, suburban voters should know the intentions and outcomes of these policies. There is no way the corporate media is going to tell them. Kurtz told us why in an article from 2015: It’s difficult to say what’s more striking about President Obama’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation: its breathtaking radicalism, the refusal of the press to cover it, or its potential political ramifications. The danger AFFH poses to Democrats explains why the press barely mentions it. This lack of curiosity, in turn, explains why the revolutionary nature of the rule has not been properly understood. Ultimately, the regulation amounts to back-door annexation, a way of turning America’s suburbs into tributaries of nearby cities. As noted, the impact of this radically progressive policy would put the suburban vote at risk for Democrats. This reaction is why the Trump campaign must make the housing policy a big issue in the next few months. President Trump needs to direct HUD Secretary Ben Carson to gut the AFFH immediately and remove any federal leverage over zoning that still exists. Discrimination in housing is already illegal as it should be. Americans should have a wide range of choices about the type of communities they live in. The utopian idea that the federal government can create “fair” or “equitable” communities is utter garbage. President Trump and Republicans need to say this clearly and often. Educate your neighbors in outlying areas. It is imperative those in affected communities understand the control they will be giving up over the small towns and suburbs where they live.
  13. Police: 2 women hit by car on Seattle highway amid protest SEATTLE (AP) — A 27-year-old man drove a car onto a closed freeway in Seattle early Saturday and barreled through a panicked crowd of protesters, critically injuring two women, officials said. Dawit Kelete of Seattle drove the car around vehicles that were blocking Interstate 5 and sped into the crowd about 1:40 a.m., according to a police report released by the Washington State Patrol. Video taken at the scene by protesters showed people shouting “Car! Car!” before fleeing the roadway. Summer Taylor, 24, of Seattle, was in critical condition while Diaz Love, 32, of Portland, Oregon, was upgraded to serious condition in the intensive care unit, Harborview Medical Center spokeswoman Susan Gregg said. Love was filming the protest in a nearly two-hour-long Facebook livestream captioned “Black Femme March takes I-5” when the video ended abruptly; with about 15 seconds left, shouts of “Car!” can be heard as the camera starts to shake before screeching tires and the sound of impact are heard. A graphic video posted on social media showed the white Jaguar racing toward a group of protesters who are standing behind several parked cars, set up for protection. The car swerves around the other vehicles and slams into the two women, sending them flying into the air. The driver, who was alone, fled the scene after hitting the protesters, Trooper Chase Van Cleave told The Associated Press. One of the protesters got in a car and chased the driver for about a mile. He was able to stop him by pulling his car in front of the Jaguar, Van Cleave said.
×
×
  • Create New...