Was Jan 6th An Insurrection ? See What CBS Poll Revealed

Jump to Last Post 1-9 of 9 discussions (119 posts)
  1. Sharlee01 profile image84
    Sharlee01posted 11 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/15846710.png

    The liberal network appeared selective when highlighting its poll asking, 'What happened at the Capitol.

    CBS News buries poll result showing strong bipartisan agreement Jan. 6 was 'a protest that went too far."

    "A poll released this week by CBS News is drawing scrutiny on the one-year anniversary of the Jan. 6 riot on Capitol Hill.

    The poll, conducted by CBS News and YouGov from Dec. 27-Dec. 30 asked Americans "What happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021?"

    Descriptions of what happened are also similar to how they were a year ago after it happened," CBS News wrote in its article on Sunday. "People widely call it a protest that went too far, but how much further becomes more partisan. Most Americans — including most Democrats, but just a fifth of Republicans — call it an insurrection and describe it as an attempt to overturn the election and the government."

    The graphic presented four options to the question as well as the results broken down by party affiliation. 85% of Democrats viewed Jan. 6 as "an insurrection" or "trying to overthrow" the government while only 21% and 18% of Republicans agreed respectively. Meanwhile, the graphic showed that 47% of Republicans viewed Jan. 6 as "patriotism" and 56% viewed it as "defending freedom," something less than 13% of Democrats agreed with. The margin of error was plus or minus 2.6 points.

    While CBS acknowledged in its report that Americans "widely call it a protest that went too far," the liberal network significantly downplayed the bipartisan nature of that response.

    For starters, "a protest that went too far" was the overwhelming favorite of the 2,046 Americans who were polled with 76% agreeing with that characterization of Jan. 6. The second most popular result was "trying to overturn the election and keep Donald Trump in power" with 63%. Both of those options were omitted in the graphic bolstered by CBS. Meanwhile, "an insurrection," which came at a distant third with 55% of Americans was kept in the graphic among the others which polled even less popular.

    Among those who said Jan. 6 was "a protest that went too far," a whopping 80% were Republicans and 69% were Democrats. Those who described themselves as Trump voters felt that way even more so with 84% while 70% of Biden voters felt the same.

    Notably, 80% of independents also described Jan. 6 as a "protest that went too far" while only 56% said it was "an insurrection."

    Critics panned CBS News for how the Jan. 6 poll was presented.

    CBS News did this poll & one question they asked was if the folks being polled considered the Capitol riot to be "a protest that went too far." CBS must not have liked the results… so they just didn’t include it in the graphic," Washington Examiner reporter Jerry Dunleavy tweeted.

    "IMO, ‘trying to overthrow the govt’ and ‘an insurrection’ is just as dumb as the other two options," Daily Caller editor-in-chief Geoffrey Ingersoll wrote. "These are all highly flawed political caricatures (cooked up by CBS journos) that Americans should not have to choose between."

    "actual out-loud-laugh at the options here," Washington Examiner commentator Becket Adams reacted. "

    Others blasted the network for not even including "riot" as an option for polled Americans.

    The most accurate description (something along the lines of ‘violent riot’) isn't even an option on this poll," Tablet Magazine's Noam Blum wrote. "This type of poor methodology leads to a ‘circling the wagons’ effect that just spits out partisan results almost regardless of the question itself."

    In your view,  was it a protest that went too far?
    Do you believe the violence at the Capitol was an insurrection a true attempt to overturn the election and the government.?

    Source ---   https://www.foxnews.com/media/cbs-poll-jan-6

    1. tsmog profile image76
      tsmogposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      I very much think in the minds of the majority of the rioters thought it was to "Stop the Steal" by interfering with Congress completing their process of certifying the count. I don't see them there to have a picnic. Do you?

      Legally insurrection is very difficult to prove from what I have read thus the reason why there have been no charges for it, yet that does not mean further charges can't be brought. What seems to be at issue is intent and planned.

      Intent means getting in the minds of the rioters. So, far those that have been charged say they got caught up in the moment while remembering they have lawyers advising them. As has been pointed out in the forums elsewhere the FBI has proclaimed there was no formal organization for an insurrection that they know of at this point.

      The legal definition for insurrection can be found at the following links. Reading both does give me pause to ponder.

      USLegal
      https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/insurrection/

      Blacks Law Dictionary
      https://thelawdictionary.org/insurrection/

      To be fair and get some context I sought out the CBS article linked below and I see it had nothing really to do with insurrection, so why was that so important to Fox? Don't you just love the media outlet wars with an aim at their readers/viewers emotions?

      CBS News poll: A year after Jan. 6, violence still seen threatening U.S. democracy, and some say force can be justified

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        "I very much think in the minds of the majority of the rioters thought it was to "Stop the Steal" by interfering with Congress completing their process of certifying the count. I don't see them there to have a picnic. Do you?"

        I agree, have the same view.

        "Legally insurrection is very difficult to prove from what I have read thus the reason why there have been no charges for it, yet that does not mean further charges can't be brought. What seems to be at issue is intent and planned.'

        100% agree...

        IT seems a bit of overkill to have a Congressional investigation in the light of it would every hard to prove any intent to plan an insurrection. Unless there is some form of evidence. I tend to trust the FBI and respect their assessment of what they discovered. They are still along with the DOJ pursuing to investigate. I think if there is any there, there, they will uncover it.

        Yes, I was going to post the CNBC article with all the charts but had hoped to show what the media does when they need to distort and push an agenda.  They don't like it, just cut it...

        1. tsmog profile image76
          tsmogposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Regard the last paragraph, yeah, they All do that don't they. Even the Fox article with the complaint pushed their agenda.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            You got it. I had hoped to start a lively conversation. Hey, it's a new year! Happy New Year!

      2. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Tsmog, after reading your CBS news poll, you have to ask yourself what kinds of people are anxious to forgo the democratic process to get their desired outcome?

        I have always said of the Right that the time is coming where democracy will become inconvenient relative to maintaining the power and control that they craved. As long as they could feign democratic processes and maintain the status quo at the same time, it all worked. But changing demographics and realities on the ground force them to either acquiesce to the changes or embrace undemocratic solutions to maintain power. We are seeing that latter alternative now.

    2. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      It was more than a riot, the rabble involved haven't the brains to really pose a threat on a national scale. The temerity of the attack, the extensive injuries to police as explained by President Biden in a speech earlier today, the confederate banners, the trashy soiling of facilities in the Senate building, th threats against duly elect d members of congress, made this an incident for the history books, like no other.

      The theme being to upset the standard electoral process just because their man did not win. These people are not deserving respect as adults but instead are just overgrown toddlers in their respective high chairs.

      Definitely more than a riot, but falls short a serious insurrection attempt.

      Oh, BTW, that is a great graphic you came up with.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        As always your wonderful common sense wins the day... Are you sure you are not just a bit of a conservative? LOL

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          "Are you sure you are not just a bit of a conservative? LOL"

          Now, that's not funny......

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Oh well... Needed to take the place of a cup of coffee and give you a jolt.  LOL

      2. Ken Burgess profile image86
        Ken Burgessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        The important thing is that is broken down by racial lines.

        Much like the Tea Party "revolt" that came into existence after the passing of the ACA which swept the Democrats out of power in 2010 was eventually labeled as extremists and racists.

        In order to maintain the status quo, the sides must remain divided, the messaging must be driven home daily in the MSM. 

        If by some horrible act of fortune people were to ever put aside their grievances, their beliefs that this inequitable system is based on race (and sex) they might collectively come together to hold the crony elites accountable and overthrow the whole system, overrunning the Halls of Congress in unification and mutual support akin to a "We the People" moment that sparked this Nation's Independence.

        This is almost certainly an impossibility in today's world of instant information and lack of privacy.  I am certain that if in the 1700s they had the ability to travel the span of the ocean in mere hours and instantly relay a message from one continent to the other in a fraction of a second there would have never been a 1776.

        Fortunately we can be free of concern for any such disruption today, the worst we have to contend with is a few looney tunes that might storm the halls of Congress taking selfies and wearing odd clothing, looking like characters from a Comedy come to life.  The days of true armed insurrection and militias are long over.

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Have to ask you Ken, how does race figure into the riotous behavior of that day?

          The "Tea Party" did not attack the Senate building.

          If the "people's" grievances are valid, do they not have the continued right to announce them as such and have them addressed using lawful machinery made available for that purpose? I will call to account any and all that are found responsible for the grievances, regardless of where it leads.

          The riot was one of despotism led by a President who wanted to neutralize to rightful choice of the American people to retain power to himself, with many useful idiots willing to play along, fortunately Mike Pence did not. Such a subversion of our political system is more involved than just an issue of race.

          I am not so sure that the dangers of insurrection by determined Rightwingers to have their way contrary to the wishes of the majority is abated.

  2. Live to Learn profile image61
    Live to Learnposted 11 months ago

    I am so sick of the idea that taking your grievances to the government is somehow more heinous than taking your grievances to the streets and hurting average Americans. When the government fails us and someone speaks up, I don’t want to hear a bunch of whiny, self important, narcissistic law makers act as if they are better than the rest of America.

    Did any of them see this?
    https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status … 60096?s=21
    Did any of them suffer the trauma this woman did?

    Did the left complain about this when it happened?
    https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/14 … 330886?s=2
    Or this

    https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/14 … 74081?s=21

    Or did the left complain about law enforcement trying to maintain order?

    The left has lost all credibility. The rank  and file of the left are so willfully clueless it has become tiresome.

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      First, who exactly are the "left" you speak of?  This term is so general and so over used to describe thoughts or behaviors to a large mass of people. Please elaborate on this group. Who is their leader, their organizer and so forth.
      Second, your argument is overly simplistic to the point of being insulting to the average citizen.
      Please, don't assume that we need all events to be filed under "right" "  or "wrong" 
      Most of us have the intelligence  to sort out situations as more than clear-cut all or nothing events.
      I, As well as most Americans can view All of the events you listed as equally heinous.  We aren't ranking them or excusing violence  for certain causes.
      So go ahead and take your grievance to government, But while you're there do not beat police officers with flagpoles, or spray them with bear spray.
      Go ahead and have your sanctioned protest in your city for whatever you want to protest but do not cause violence or property damage.
      It's that simple and the majority of us know it's that simple. Don't insult or belittle our ability to look at all these situations critically and to be able to hold ALL as equally heinous in our minds. Yes, We have the ability to do that.
      It's extremely insulting that you or others suggest  that a large group of people (the "left")  accept or condone violence toward others for a cause. It's misguided, overly simplistic, immoral and actually just  sickening.

      1. Live to Learn profile image61
        Live to Learnposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        The left would be the politicians on the left of the aisle in Washington. You are welcome to review their public statements.

        Of course no one should have entered the capital but, other than that, I think it is grossly blown out of proportion. The only person who died was an unarmed woman in the protest. No lawmakers were ever in any danger, that has been shared but hundreds of American citizens have been accosted in other riots, businesses have been burned and those rioters were bailed out while, from what I’ve seen those who took part in the Jan 6 th protests, many have been treated like political prisoners while none have been charged with insurrection.

        Had there been an insurrection I’m sure da’s  would have no problem bringing charges for that crime.

        What we are witnessing is political theater. Nothing more.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      I am so glad you brought up the 2020 riots, the destruction, the death,  the scars these rioters left on so many lives. And yes, many of the Democrats, as well as bias-leaning Democrat media, ignored much of the people that were hurt, lost loved ones, and the destruction the rioters left them to live with.  Were there any investigations into the many riots that plagued the Nation? No. We had the current VP asking to contribute funds to an organization to bail rioters out of jail. 

      We watched our law enforcement told to stand down and let these rioters do whatever they wanted to do, take beatings, have projectiles thrown at them. I will never forget them trying to Burn St. Johns and try to break through the law enforcement to try and get to the White House...

      And yes that it was very clear we had many American's support this kind of lawbreaking, applauded it.  Many of the same that were outraged at the protest that turned into many rioting at the Capitol.

      In my entire life, I have never, I mean never witnessed such hypocrisy.  Anyone that supported the 2020 uprising, and now shows disdain for the Capitol riot in my view is discussing hypocrats.  I agree they are very tiresome and clearly clueless.

      1. Valeant profile image87
        Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        'We had the current VP asking to contribute funds to an organization to bail rioters out of jail.'

        And again, this is a straight up lie.  She posted her support for the fund to bail out those protesting on the ground and had condemned those who riot and loot on multiple occasions.  The fund, after being criticized by the right-wing media, then expanded bail options to more violent offenders after the fact.

        Every time you post this lie, I will call you out on it.  Every. Single. Time.

        And it's sad that you cannot discern that much of the left actually did speak out against the looting and rioting, asking for accountability for those crimes.  The left supported the protesting because it was needed for accountability to prevent another senseless murder of an unarmed person in the streets.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          https://twitter.com/kamalaharris/status … 43?lang=en
          Fact --- "If you’re able to, chip in now to the
          @MNFreedomFund
          to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota."

          She also added her tweet to her facebook page ---
          https://www.facebook.com/KamalaHarris/p … 194687923/

          In my view, she assisted in collecting funds to bail out rioters that she had no idea what these people were arrested for, what crime...

          Please read my statement --  My statement --We had the current VP asking to contribute funds to an organization to bail rioters out of jail.
          This statement is factual.

          I simply offered a factual tweet, and Facebook post where she asked for people to donate to an organization that was bailing out protesters at that time, that were arrested in the riots. Her request was very clear --- " to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota".

          You may not like my comment, but I certainly did not lie. You are adding context that is not in my post in regard to Harris. She may have gone on and made other statements after her tweet or before her tweet. This in no respect takes away from her tweeted request.

          Yes, I have posted the Harris tweet before and accompanied it with a link to her comment. It is a fact she tweeted that statement. 

          You have expanded on my statement. I gave an example of ONE incident of what I look at as a poor decision on her part.

          " She posted her support for the fund to bail out those protesting on the ground and had condemned those who riot and loot on multiple occasions.  "

          This is not evident in her tweet... You seem to be reading into her tweet. I have never heard her even walk back this tweet or go into any depth of her thoughts when she made it.

          Perhaps you can offer a statement of her walking back THAT TWEET.

          I am sure she may have gone on to condemn the riots as more the summer went on, more were killed, and more destruction of the many cities was occurring. My God, she is a politician and she flips flops as necessary. This does not forgive her asking for cash to bail out rioters in Minn...

          So you can call me a liar, you frequently do. Hopefully, anyone else that reads my comment will see the context, and respect that I now have offered links to the actual statement/tweet.

          1. Valeant profile image87
            Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            And as I've noted previously, the Kamala Harris tweet was on June 1, the day after a very large group of peaceful protesters were arrested on I-35.  They were not rioters, not looters and went very quietly when confronted by police.

            Every time you make your salacious claim, you leave out all reference of the timing of Harris' post and what else was happening at the time.

            And even though Harris says 'those protesting on the ground,' your racism shows when you straight up lie and change the wording to rioters as you did in your post.  That you assume peaceful protesters must be rioters is your being either ignorant to your racism or proud of it.  The fact we've now had this conversation in three separate threads and you refuse to change your views about this only cements which it is in my own mind.

            Either way, it has no place on this site.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              I have no problem with KH  statements whatever they are... I will certainly take your word that you posted a positive statement she made in regard to a given protest. However, she also offered that tweet, the Minn riots were violent, destructive in the very time period she made that tweet. Sorry, this is just factual. I am not in any respect not disputing KH may have at some point condemned the violence that went on for that entire summer. I am simply stating what she did early on when in Minn we had an out-of-control situation. Where in the tweet does she say "those protesting on the ground" You are reading in something that is not present. "If you’re able to, chip in now to the@MNFreedomFundto help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota."

              Perhaps you need to produce the statement you speak of, as well as the date she said it.

              There were also many peaceful protesters at the Jan 6th riot.

              I am not sure why you feel her tweet should not be provided as a source on a political forum?   Her post is available on Facebook and Twitter, not sure why you feel it should be removed here on HP?

              Just because you don't care for me presenting the statement will never take away the fact that she said it. She may have well made many other statements in regard to the summer protests.  I presented her statement that suited a point I was making. It suited my context. You need to read the entire conversation I was responding to. We were conversing about the 2020 riots.

              "I am so glad you brought up the 2020 riots, the destruction, the death,  the scars these rioters left on so many lives. And yes, many of the Democrats, as well as bias-leaning Democrat media, ignored much of the people that were hurt, lost loved ones, and the destruction the rioters left them to live with.  Were there any investigations into the many riots that plagued the Nation? No. We had the current VP asking to contribute funds to an organization to bail rioters out of jail. "

              I hate to tell you, opinions will vary on this forum, you have no right to dictate anyones' views, just because you disagree. I object to being called a liar. But, I consider the source and let you rip.

              If II post something that I use another statement I as a rule post a link to that quote.  I will continue to do that. You may want to do the same.

              1. Valeant profile image87
                Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                https://twitter.com/kamalaharris/status … 43?lang=en
                It's the same link you posted, but apparently I read it.  Where in there does it say rioters?  The date is clear at the bottom - June 1.

                And I have no problem with you presenting her statement.  But when you change what is said and misinterpret peaceful protesters as rioters, I find that to be racism.

                Yes, there were many peaceful protesters at the January 6 insurrection.  And if Trump had said he loved only the peaceful ones and condemned the violent ones, perhaps people might view him a little differently.  Since that is exactly what Harris did.  Protesters - good.  Rioters - bad.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  I say the protest turned into full-out riots. My opinion, my right.  And in reality, I don't care what you think about yours any more than you care about mine.

                  And my comment had nothing to do with KH race. She is by no means off-limits due to her race.

                  I am still waiting for links to walking back her statement or denouncing the Minn riots.

          2. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            During 2020, Kamala Harris tweeted support for a fund that puts up bail money for people whom a judge decides it is safe to let out of jail. The logic is— if a person is a danger to the community while awaiting trial or sentencing, that person should be in jail. If not, the person should not be in jail.


            But we have a system across the country that keeps many people who are not a threat in jail, sometimes for weeks or months or years, because they’re not rich and can’t afford to pay bail is messed up. It’s unjust and expensive for us as tax payers, though the bail bond industry and the for-profit prison industry loves it.. (I hope you’re tracking with me, so far.)

            So, Republicans went nutty over this Harris’s tweet. Senator Tom Cotton tweeted:

            “Kamala Harris helped violent rioters in Minnesota get out of jail to do more damage.”

            — Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), in an Aug. 30 tweet over a June 1 tweet by Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) seeking donations for the Minnesota Freedom Fund

            And  Mr. Trump, as President, said:

            “they’re getting them out of jail. Looters —  Kamala, urged their supporters to do the same thing.”

            So, the Washington Post has a fact-checker column, and it looked into all of this.

            The trouble is — people can’t read WaPo articles without a subscription. So, I’ll try to summarize, and provide key quotes.

            The article emphasized that the Minnesota fund for which Harris tweeted had been a small operation, helping people with minor cases without much money coming through it for years, though her tweet got it more attention. When defendants show up for their hearings, the money MFF puts up goes back into its fund. The article says that 13 Biden campaign staffers, out of 2,000 had contributed to MFF. The campaign did not organize them to do so or tell them to do so. It points out that few people arrested in Minnesota needed help with bail money.

            According to an accounting by the American Bail Coalition, verified by The Fact Checker with a review of Hennepin County jail records, all but three of the 170 people arrested during the protests between May 26 and June 2 were released from jail within a week. Of the 167 released, only 10 had to put up a monetary bond to be released; in most cases, the amounts were nominal, such as $78 or $100. In fact, 92 percent of those arrested had to pay no bail — and 29 percent of those arrested did not face charges. (The American Bail Coalition is a trade group of insurance companies who profit from underwriting bail bonds.)

            The article says several people MFF helped during the protests have been accused of violent crimes. It includes an MFF statement:

            “MFF believes that every individual who has been arrested by the police is innocent until proven guilty, and if a judge deems them eligible for bail, they should not have to wait in jail simply because they don’t have the same income or resources as others with more privilege.”

            The article talks about someone not involved with protests who committed a violent crime after MFF posted bail, and how the organization wants to help provide resources for those they bail out, (housing, counseling, etc) which will make them less likely to commit desperate acts. The fact-checker takes issue with Senator Tom Cotton saying she gave money for people to get out on bail and “do more damage,” since that did not happen with protesters in Minnesota.

            Moreover, it turns out the MFF was only a bit player in the release of people charged during the protests. The vast majority of people — 92 percent — had to pay no bail. So both Cotton and Trump are wrong to suggest that the donations led to the release of many protesters or rioters.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              "During 2020, Kamala Harris tweeted support for a fund that puts up bail money for people whom a judge decides it is safe to let out of jail. The logic is— if a person is a danger to the community while awaiting trial or sentencing, that person should be in jail. If not, the person should not be in jail."

              Oh and you have personal confirmation on this was her thought?  Produce a quote where this was her intent.

              I am not interested in comparing tweets. I used one particular tweet in a comment responding to a  conversation.  Her tweet added context to my comment.  My opinion --- Which I have a right to.  I found her support to bail out rioters that were arrested for committing some form of crime at the Minn riots inappropriate.   That's my view,  I disagree with all surrounding fluff. You are playing the "let's compare game".

              I can assure you I know why we have bail available to people that break the law.

              1. Valeant profile image87
                Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                And someday we hope you learn the difference between the words protesting and rioting.  Protesting - what Harris supported.  Rioting - what she condemned.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Any sources?

                  1. Valeant profile image87
                    Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Look above.  And can you provide a source that shows Harris saying she wanted to bail out rioters?  Because those protesting on the ground, as was the exact text of her tweet that you and I have now both posted in this thread does not mean rioters.

                2. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  The conversation I was having where I used the quote was in regards to the violence that these protests turned into.  Ultimately violence was occurring in the days she asked to donate to bail out people that were arrested. This indicates support to bail out protesters that participated in the riots and were arrested.  And the context in which I used her tweet backed my thought up.

                  And ya know what, I object to anyone using the word "insurrection" in regard to Jan 6th. I feel that has in no way been proved in any respect, and it slanders many good citizens that attend the president rally, a man they voted for and supported.

                  So, I will say at this point you appear to be lying when you use the word insurrection as you and some others do here. So, how did you put it to me?

                  "And someday we hope you learn the difference between the words protesting and rioting.  Protesting - what Harris supported.  Rioting - what she condemned."

                  And someday we hope you learn the difference between the words insurrection and rioting.  Protesting -  many at the Capitol were there to peacefully protest.

                  I am sick of the hypocrisy and fluffy rhetoric that I see at HP, Just saying.

                  1. Valeant profile image87
                    Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    When someone says to bail out protesters and you change their words to rioters, that's all on you, not her.  Like I said, you seeing people protesting social justice as rioters, or make an assumption that a woman of color must be supporting illegal activities is pretty darned racist.

                    And when I claim that January 6 was an insurrection, I have listed the definition of what an insurrection is when I make it.  A violent uprising against the government.  I freely admit that there were peaceful people at the rally at the Ellipse.  Once they were directed to march to the Capitol, by Trump mind you and not those that organized the rally - it stopped being a rally.

                    Are you in denial there was violence on January 6?
                    Are you in denial that that violence was aimed at our government?

                    If there is no denial, then it is you that does not understand the difference between a riot and an insurrection.   As nouns the difference between insurrection and riot is that insurrection is an organized opposition to an authority; a mutiny; a rebellion while riot is wanton or unrestrained behavior; uproar; tumult.

                    And I am still waiting for you to provide a statement where Harris said to assist rioters.

            2. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Minnesota Freedom Fund bailed are known for not only bailing out protesters that were arrested but these men that committed more violent crimes that were not accociated with the riots. --- Perhaps she needed to do some research before us[porting this organization?

              " A bail fund promoted by Vice President Kamala Harris helped lead to the release of an alleged Minneapolis domestic abuser — who has been charged with murder in a road-rage slaying.

              George Howard, 48, was charged with two counts of second-degree murder for allegedly shooting Luis Damian Martinez Ortiz, 38, during a road-rage incident on Interstate 94 in Minneapolis on Aug. 29, KSTP reported.

              Surveillance video reportedly showed Ortiz getting out of his blue BMW and approaching Howard’s white Volvo before Howard shot the other man and fled. Ortiz died from a gunshot wound to the chest, officials said.

              Just weeks earlier, Howard, a Minneapolis man barred from having a firearm due to previous convictions, was released on Aug. 11 on $1,500 bond in a domestic assault case after being jailed on Aug. 5, Hennepin County records show. He was bailed out by the Minnesota Freedom Fund — which was touted last year by Harris."
              https://nypost.com/2021/09/08/bail-fund … th-murder/


              "A man who was twice bailed out of jail in separate cases by a fund supported by Vice President Kamala Harris has been arrested again while under investigation for another possible case, Minnesota prosecutors said."

              "According to the Hennepin County Attorney's office, Thomas Moseley, 29, had been arrested and released in cases involving allegations that include damaging a police precinct in August and rioting in December. He was arrested again on Jan. 27, just 22 days after his latest release. During that span, he is also suspected of trying to illegally purchase a gun, and officers are investigating that matter."
              https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bail-f … as-moseley

              "According to statements of probable cause, obtained by the Daily Caller, Donavan Dexter Boone, 31, allegedly broke into his son’s mother’s apartment and strangled her in front of her young children."

              "Davlin Devonte Gates, 28, also allegedly strangled a woman, just days after they moved in together."

              "Marcus Marshun Butler, 40, also allegedly assaulted his girlfriend, and Tyrone Thomas Shields, 53, allegedly left a “larger than golf sized bump” on his wife’s head, the outlet reported."

              "Reece Omaur Bonneville, 29, allegedly assaulted his partner and two officers who came to arrest him. Matthew Owens Earl Thompson, 29, allegedly “pushed his way” into his partner’s house.  The six criminals were all bailed out by the MFF, the Caller reported."
              https://www.the-sun.com/news/1520376/bl … la-harris/

              And for the judges, I would hope they set the bails high on this bunch. But whatever he set  Minnesota Freedom Fund paid that bail.   

              In my opinion, I find her support for Minnesota Freedom Fund a real character flaw.  I feel protests that turned violent at night were lawbreakers.   She put her support behind people that clearly broke the law or they would not have been arrested. No matter what the charge, they found themselves arrested and in jail for breaking the law.

              I am very much against making excuses for someone that breaks the law or supports someone that possesses the ideology that it's Ok to break the law.

              1. Valeant profile image87
                Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                And all of those examples leave out the dates, which all happened after the fund was criticized by right-wing media and then were pressured to spend their funding - expanding their choices to more violent offenders.

                1. GA Anderson profile image90
                  GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  ". . . expanding their choices to violent offenders."

                  That doesn't sound like much of a defense for the group's actions. It also sounds familiar; more money than they need for their purpose, so just change the purpose.

                  GA

                2. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Actually, some of my examples have dates. However, what does it matter? My point is that the group did and may still bail out some violent criminals. Do you not see where perhaps Harris should have researched this group, and what type of criminals they were bailing out, before putting her reputation on the line?  I mean I think it shows a real lack of common sense.

                  Could one not assume due to her supporting a group that bails out violent offenders, that she shared their ideologies?

                  You do realize this group has been around since 2016 and had been bailing out many lawbreakers, before and after the Minn protests that occurred in 2020.  It is very evident when KH gave them her support they derived a huge amount of funds and did bail out more lawbreakers that required higher bonds.

                  1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                    Fayetteville Fayeposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Shouldn't this be an issue of judges and the system in which they operate that dictates  how they determine bail or no bail based on each individual's case? 
                    I think this is beyond Kamala  Harris or any organization that helps with or provides bail for an individual in which the bail has been determined by a judge.  A judge that has essentially determined it is okay for this individual to be a free member of society through paying their determined bail.

      2. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Moral people do not support violence of any kind. I absolutely believe that we have moral people across the entire political spectrum.  Do we have citizens who believe violence is justified for a cause? Yes of course we do. But do these people belong to one particular party affiliation more than another? I don't think so. This is an over generalization used to politicize issues.
        Protests happened across the country in 2020. Some led to violence and property destruction while others did not. As far as investigations into any of these riots, well that would be a local issue. The federal government did send in national guard to protect federal buildings but that's as far as they can go. We did have a few protests here in our  city but our police force handled it effectively and competently. I feel for those cities who did not experience the same type of response from their local government. At the same time that isn't my issue. People need to tend to their own backyards. Sometimes there is an over focus on the federal government. All of our lives are much more affected by our local governing bodies.
        But that just isn't as exciting for media outlets that are broadcast nationwide.
        Most of us can easily hold disdain for both groups that  wreaked havoc and violence on our local city streets as well as for those who did the same at the capitol. 
        It's not an "either/or"  or a one is more justified than the other for logical, thinking people. 
        I can't understand why people want to continue to divide in this way.  Honestly it's very insulting to those of us who see violence as equally wrong in both situations and we are the majority.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          As my OP indicates the dived is not as deep as one would think... The polls show the majority of American's (in the poll) felt the Capitol attack was a protest that got out of hand.

          I have faith common sense is alive and well.

        2. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Sorry, but I still think that you are wrong in giving moral equivalency to both sides.

          What was the "Stop the Steal"?

          What was stolen?

          Trump said that it was stolen without a bit of evidence supporting it, being shot down by every impartial arbiter saying that his complaint had no merit.

          So based on the ravings of one man, all these people saw fit to gather, without evaluating the truth and objectivity of Trump's complaint and his naturally being motivated to get a second term.

          Then Trump badgers his Vice President to go beyond the traditional decorum of presiding in the count of electors, throwing the entire process into the waste basket without a substantial basis outside of Trump's desires and loathsome accusations?

          I remember how Al Gore gracefully submitted to the Supreme Court when he lost in 2000 by 500 some votes, while Trump tries to upend the process when he lost by 7 million.

          These protesters were supposedly working/middle class people that I would presume would not just fly off the handle based of specious evidence. What were they really there for?

          Many said that the "other side" would have done the same, but that is just speculation as I have not seen it.

          There is no moral equivalency between political ideologies as to what was attempted on January 6, 2021, with the support and cooperation of Donald Trump and many who would see the democratic process put aside just to elevate one man. Those that downplay it, have a direct role in it or support the "leader" while claiming not to support his "style"have to be considered disingenuous. It all comes out the same in the wash. For me, that dividing  line is more like a chasm.

  3. Valeant profile image87
    Valeantposted 11 months ago

    Insurrection.

    - A rising or rebellion of citizens against their government, usually manifested by acts of violence

    Was there violence?  Yup.
    Did some citizens rise against their government's legitimate process for duly electing their leaders?  Yup.

    There are some things that push this past a riot for me.  Many riots have destruction and looting associated with them, not an occupation.  The seeking of specific government officials to cause violence to is another.  Lastly, the timing of the event to coincide with the government certifying the electoral count and causing the end to the peaceful transfer of powerful can be seen as an attack on democracy itself.

    Got to say though, one of your better topics that I think would make an excellent Hub.  January 6:  Riot or Insurrection?

  4. Valeant profile image87
    Valeantposted 11 months ago

    One could make the case that the anti-Trump base is larger than both the Trump base or Democratic base by now.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image86
      Ken Burgessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      You could make that argument, but I think it is only one realized in the minds of those who have a devotion to supporting the Democrats or the various progressive and establishment components that fall within its tent.

      1. Valeant profile image87
        Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Many on both sides of the aisle chose the establishment components over the authoritarian regime in 2020 and we would likely see that same outcome repeated in 2024 after the events of January 6 unfolded.

  5. Valeant profile image87
    Valeantposted 11 months ago

    Voters in North Carolina are going to push to see if it qualified as an insurrection to disqualify Madison Cawthorne as a candidate for re-election:

    The 1868 amendment says no one can serve in Congress “who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

    The written challenge says the events on Jan. 6, 2021 “amounted to an insurrection” and that Cawthorn’s speech at the rally supporting President Donald Trump, his other comments and information in published reports provide a “reasonable suspicion or belief” that he helped facilitate the insurrection and is thus disqualified.

    “The importance of defending the bedrock constitutional principle that oath breakers who engage in insurrection cannot be trusted in future office is essential to maintain,” Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech for People, a national election and campaign finance reform group backing the challenge election, told The Associated Press.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/north-caroli … 54057.html

    1. GA Anderson profile image90
      GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      In a flash of Deja Vu I saw an image of what the definition of "is" is. In your case, it seems to be the meaning of "engaged" and how that meaning would apply to various circumstances.

      Imagine the scale of possible degrees of engagement; from the painted horned guy to the Trump guy that attended the rally but did not follow to the Capital to the `facilitators' that may not have stormed the building but did things to aid and promote it to the pro-Trump guy that tweets patriotic screeds to the guy that gives that guy a ride to anyone that even . . . Do you get the idea?

      Removing any partisan aspect, to me, just 11 people promoting this claim really means one or two influential people promoting an interpretation, (or an agenda?),  As one of the names mentioned in association with the claim is an ex-state Supreme Court justice the odds seem good that this will be a case of Deja Vu—What the definition of "engaged" is. But even before that consideration, there must be a legal finding of insurrection. And that hasn't happened, (yet?).

      I think it is an obvious over-reach that should be examined and discredited as such. I think it's a politically-motivated activity that would love to win its point but is almost as happy just for the publicity.

      GA

      1. Valeant profile image87
        Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Perhaps, but as many note, no legal case has used the charge of sedition or insurrection.  Perhaps that is the goal in itself, to get it in court records that it can be seen as such to finally get people to understand that it wasn't just a guided tour of the Capitol on January 6.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          You may be right, but I doubt it.  More likely, IMO, is that the goal is to remove any and all people even remotely associated with Trump from the political scene. That has been a major goal since he was elected and I see no reason to think it has changed.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image86
            Ken Burgessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Correct.

            Ultimately it all boils down to what Trump REPRESENTED... the discontent of many millions of Americans with their government.

            Cripes... Michael Moore understood what Trump represented before the election results were counted. (see below)

            The misguided belief that most of the "Left" seem to have, is that by hunting down Trump and his supporters and politically castigating them or exempting them from all future political activity it will make the problem go away, it will NOT.

            This problem is rooted in a failed political system, one that over the course of the last 30 years has done much to sell out the American people, from NAFTA to Glass Steagall from the unaffordable ACA to efforts to Mandate Vaccines the betrayal of the "elite ruling class" has become more and more obvious to more and more Americans.

            Trump is not the cause of the chaos of the last few years... he is a symptom, and you can remove the tumor that is Trump, but that will not cure the Cancer that is eating away at the system.

            Whatever you think about Jan 6th... or a year's worth of rioting in city streets that worked up to it... its nothing, its a drop in the bucket to the disruption and violence we will see in America if the economy falters, if the dollar goes the way of the Weimar Republic.

            Arguably the most significant reason why the Weimar Republic failed was the economic collapse of 1929 when a wheel barrel full of dollars couldn't buy them a loaf of bread.

            Its why the decisions to deny Oil production efforts here in America, and the efforts to villainize the likes of Tesla (Musk) while lauding the antiquated fossil fuel loving GM (Barra), and the efforts to Mandate Vaccines throughout the workforce are nothing short of economic suicide on a National scale.

            And should we fall into a Depression, you can bet you will be thinking fondly back to days when Trump's tweets were all you had to worry about.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMm5HfxNXY4

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              That's the way I see it as well, right down the line.  Trump was not the villain he's made out to be; he was but a symptom of a vast discontent of our political system.  And still is, with a very strong base.  Should we continue on the path we have chosen, the destruction of our economy, trade, failed immigration policies and other items, we can reasonably expect to see Trump back in 2024.  I would prefer someone else, but I'm one of those that think we cannot continue on the course our current politicians have set us to travel.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image86
                Ken Burgessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                A fair evaluation, I for one do not think Trump is the answer, but with no alternative to lead the growing number of discontented and disillusioned Americans, it may come to that.

                Valeant's reply (above) to the last post I made is a fair example of the disconnect and delusion those who support and represent "the Left" have.

                As I said, that Michael Moore clip explains fully why Trump got elected, and those people that elected him have not gone away, their numbers are only growing, and no amount of State Propaganda (aka CNN, MSNBC, etc,) or rhetoric from politicians like Pelosi or Biden is going to change that.

                The economy is the critical element, how it fairs will speak a great deal to not just how politics shift come 2024... but whether the political system as we know it survives past 2024.

                I have seen nothing done by the Biden Administration that does anything to strengthen the economy.  Almost every action taken, from Mandated Vaccine efforts to restricting oil production, does harm.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  You're right again - your link explains Trump's election very well.  I've been saying that for years now; people didn't vote for him because they like him - they voted for him because he was different than the career politicians and is on their side.  And they will do so again, particularly if (when) the economy is still tanking in 2 more years.  And it will be because, as you point out, everything Biden and the Democrats are doing is causing harm, not good.

                  1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                    Fayetteville Fayeposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    they voted for him because he was different than the career politicians and is on their side.

                    I've always found it very difficult to understand how Mr. Trump gained any  support of the working  class. The views of working-class people are so foreign to that universe of  New York elites that he is solidly a member.  How can he be "on their side?"  I'd suggest that he was not and is unable to really even comprehend what the working class experience even is. Now This can be said of many politicians these days but I've always found it perplexing how so many middle class and below embraced a millionaire New York businessman (a failed one at that).  I think that the only "side" Mr Trump has ever shown himself to be on is that of his own.

                    I think he did see the raw frustration of blue-collar and middle-class voters who rallied to his candidacy. But  In my opinion, the working class was ultimately betrayed by Mr Trump. He was a carefully crafted political illusion propelled by those who bought in.

  6. Valeant profile image87
    Valeantposted 11 months ago

    It has nothing to do with being discontent with your government.  Plenty of people on both sides of the aisle have points of discontent with the government.

    It has to do with being programmed and led to violence against that government because of your discontentedness.  Of being lied to that reality is not real.  Of the join us or being our enemy mentality - the turning of one American against each other.  Of undermining decency and democracy itself.

    Those are the ideals of Trumpism that many want to see excised from what is left of the Republican Party.  People like Madison Cawthorne who use violent rhetoric and deny the basic facts that the 2020 election was both free and fair.

    There is a point I like to make now to offset a key talking point that many battleground states changed their elections procedures in the runup to the 2020 election due to a pandemic without the permission of their state legislatures.  That that somehow violates the Constitution.  Well, it wasn't six states, it was 30 states.  In fact, in July, Texas Governor Greg Abbott changed his own elections laws unilaterally to allow six extra days of early voting.  His state then tried to sue the battleground states for doing exactly the same thing he did and claiming that to be against the Constitution.  In 2018, when Hurricane Michael hit Florida, then Gov. Rick Scott made changes to his states election procedure to affect mail in voting and make it more lenient.

    This argument that suddenly making small modifications to election procedures during an emergency is either illegal or not currently standard practice is the lie they sold and that so many bought without realizing that it's standard practice and many states even have it written into their laws allowing it.

    It's these kinds of false claims that create new and violent realities of turning a large segment of the citizenry against their own government that wants us to remove those that continue to use such tactics.

    Go ahead and be discontented.  Run for office.  Hold peaceful protests.  And maybe you end up being right that the next depression leads to more violence since we did see a spike in large cities during the recent economic crisis during the Covid shutdowns and beyond.  But for those that promote that violence, those people have no place in elected office.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      I haven't followed this particular complaint as well as I could have, but what I have heard is not what you report.  There was no complaint (that I know of) that the changes violated the Constitution; the complaint was always that the changes violated state constitutions.  Your example of Gov. Scott may be such a case in that he may have had complete authority, under his state constitution to make the changes he did, but some of the states also made changes that were not allowed under that state's constitution. 

      Or so the claims I've heard went.  And perhaps they were wrong, perhaps the people that made changes did have the authority, but nowhere have I heard that any changes violated our national Constitution.

      1. Valeant profile image87
        Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Then you need to do more research, as usual.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Pennsylvania

        'Filed by Texas State Attorney General Ken Paxton on December 8, 2020, under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, Texas v. Pennsylvania alleged that Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin violated the United States Constitution by changing election procedures through non-legislative means.'

  7. Valeant profile image87
    Valeantposted 11 months ago

    The reality was that after four years of Trump chaos, massive government turnover, inhumane policies, attacking anyone who disagreed with him, record deficits, net negative job gains and the blatant lawlessness of his administration, someone that actually knew how to govern was something the American people craved.  Finding a trustworthy moderate that could appeal to moderate conservatives wasn't a mistake at all.

    What will be the mistake is when Trump announces his run for Presidency because he craves the attention - not because he wants to actually govern - and gets the GOP nomination.  That will turn all moderates back to whoever the Democrats put up, even if it's a used tampon.  That used tampon will do less damage to America than a second Trump term.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image86
      Ken Burgessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Biden was a stooge that the Establishment/DNC knew would do exactly what they wanted, that was why he was selected... they felt the likes of Gabbard was too stubborn and independent, they didn't want to contend with another billionaire going rogue that could potentially have been Bloomberg and they didn't want another populist ala Sanders... they wanted someone steeped in DC corruption.

      What it took to remove Trump was a world pandemic used to justify lockdowns in most States that were economic suicide, a year's worth of rioting and many years worth of extremely negative media coverage from 75% of all news sources... as well as Social Media shutting down his and his supporters platforms and practically silencing a sitting President.

      Ultimately... it took almost breaking the Nation apart to get enough people to be in favor of his removal.

      But none of the problems have been solved with his removal.

      All the issues that led to his being elected remain.

      Many of them will be considerably worse come 2024.

      I have seen nothing that shows the economy will improve, that gas prices will go down, that prices in grocery stores will stop rising.

      People have short memories... but that can be a two edged sword.

      People can also be made to remember how things were under Trump before the pandemic... and for many voters the economy had never been so good as it was in 2018-2019.

      Gas was cheaper than it had been in decades, wages were going up like they hadn't in 30 years, taxes were lowered, and food costs were low.

      1. Valeant profile image87
        Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        True, there were some strong years if you can ignore the massive deficit spending that paid for the tax cuts for the wealthy that got us there.

        People might have short memories, but Trump's complete mismanagement of the pandemic will linger.  In a time of crisis, he lied to America and failed miserably in putting public health before his own interests of being re-elected. 

        And when America determined he was not fit for office, he tried in every way possible to subvert the Constitution to remain in power.  Blackmailing a foreign country to fabricate an investigation that got him impeached, lying about there being fraud, and then inciting an attack on our country. 

        His base may want the better times he provided for three years for them, and them alone, but the rest of the country still sees his many failings and lawlessness as completely disqualifying from any future office.

        And if this last year has been any indication of four more years of Trump, constant retaliation against perceived wrongs and an unending attempt to rewrite the true history of his failings is not something many will want to give him.  As much as the right will want to see those retaliations, the left will rise up to see that the truth of his absolute demolition in the 2020 elections remains as the true outcome.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image86
          Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Valeant you fail to understand that the viewpoints you constantly espouse, especially about Trump, are only held by "the Left"... the more hardcore of that wing at that.

          For the other 70% of America, they don't share that view.  Not that I pay much attention, but recent polls prove this out. About 70% of the country doesn't think Jan 6th is worth making a big deal about, about 70% now feel the country was better under Trump pre-pandemic, etc.

          That is part of short-term memory... only those that are firmly entrenched on "the Left" that buy into what the likes of CNN and the NY Times feeds them, buy into the Trump is bad and Biden is good narrative.

          1. Readmikenow profile image94
            Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Ken,

            You are absolutely right.  Most Americans prefer President Donald Trump over biden.

            "After President Joe Biden's approval rating plummeted over the course of 2021, the commander-in-chief is starting out the new year trailing former President Donald Trump by nearly 5 points in a hypothetical 2024 matchup, according to an average of recent polls.

            Biden, 79, and the White House have said multiple times that the president plans to seek another term in the 2024 election. Although Trump, 75, has repeatedly hinted at the possibility that he will again run for the Republican nomination in the next election, he has not officially confirmed his future political plans. However, polling suggests the former president would be well-positioned to defeat the current president."

            https://www.newsweek.com/biden-starts-2 … ls-1664829

            I don't think the democrats realize that the biden harris administration is the driving force in the popularity of President Donald Trump.  Without them, he may not get so much attention.

            1. Valeant profile image87
              Valeantposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              I'm not the only one thinking it didn't matter who ran against Trump.  From the NPR interview he ended early:

              Trump bragged that he got more votes than any sitting president, and wondered aloud how Joe Biden could have beaten him.

              “How come Biden couldn’t attract 20 people for a crowd? How come when he went to speak in different locations, nobody came to watch, but all of a sudden he got 80 million votes? Nobody believes that, Steve," Trump said. "Nobody believes that.”

              “If you’ll forgive me," Inskeep replied, "maybe because the election was about you.”

              1. Readmikenow profile image94
                Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                I respect your reply.

                I also believe there are still millions of people who believe that there was significant fraud in the 2020 election.  The biden administration has done nothing to prove them wrong.  The concerns of millions of American citizens are being ignored.  You can't simply tell millions of people, they're wrong and expect them to accept it.  Telling them what they believe is a big lie only throws gas on the fire.  Fraud investigations are still taking place all over the country.  Thing that are found are ignored or quickly discounted.  This isn't something that just happened in one place, it happened in several places. 

                The ONLY way to have millions of Americans believe biden is a legitimate president is to conduct an investigation similar to the January 6 investigation, only have a bipartisan group do it.

                If not, a good percentage of Americans will continue to believe biden is a fraudulent president.  They will continue to put massive pressure on their representatives to go against biden.

                The numbers are not at all good for democrats for the midterms.  This issue is a major contributing factor.  By doing nothing, or ignoring their concerns, biden is making their suspicions on this issue seem right.

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  The onus to prove the validity of the 2020 election is certainly in no way on President Biden. Mr Trump's fraud allegations have been litigated and all the courts available to him. His own DOJ, William Barr I sure the country that there was no fraud.
                  What do you think of congressional committee is going to turn up that multiple recounts in several contested states has not?

                2. Valeant profile image87
                  Valeantposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Those concerns have been addressed.  They were addressed by the courts.  They were addressed by the DOJ, by Homeland, by elections experts, by recounts.  Shoot, even Cyber Ninjas validated Biden's win.

                  When concerns are raised, they are explained.  Those explanations do not seem to make it back into the right wing media vacuum or do not get accepted.

                  Once that failure to accept reality is shown, why on Earth would anyone waste another moment indulging a false reality.  The same people who think Biden is illegitimate are the same people who only listen to Trump.  So, until he states Biden is duly elected, they won't believe it.  And everyone knows that Trump's narcissism will prevent him from accepting that he lost to Biden.  It's a full on cult at this point being headed by a very mentally ill human being and supplemented by well-organized media.

                  You want Biden and Congress to prove something that does not exist - that there was no fraud.  Yet, every evaluation of the 2020 election has already proven it.  We are all still waiting for any credible examples of fraud that even justify spending another dime on a wasteful venture of taxpayer money.  And we have yet to see it.

                  What this has shown many of us is that that group of people denying the validity of the 2020 election should not be anywhere near an elected public office.  If you're willing to deny reality for political gain, you should be unfit for office.

                  1. Readmikenow profile image94
                    Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    You are forgetting many details.

                    "addressed by the courts"

                    Most of the lawsuits were thrown out for administrative errors.  No one court ever listened to the merits of the case.  Many of them were filed too late because Democrats were not forthcoming with the necessary information.

                    "Cyber Ninjas validated Biden's win"

                    Actually they didn't.  The report showed some real serious concerns.  This is without the cooperation of Maricopa county.  The recount couldn't be done properly because Maricopa County held back, stalled or refused to provide information requested by the Arizona state senate.

                    The Department of Justice?

                    "A researcher at the Department of Justice on Tuesday released a 25-page report indicating a high probability of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. World-renown economist John Lott Ph.D., examined election results from Pennsylvania and Georgia, as well as potential election fraud in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin.

                    “This paper’s approach allows us to quantify how large a potential problem vote fraud and other abnormalities might be in the 2020 election,” Dr. Lott wrote."

                    https://themichiganstar.com/2020/12/31/ … nsylvania/

                    Homeland Security?

                    They sent out a press release stating 2020 was the most secure election on record.  They provided no information as to how or why they came to that conclusion.  They've provided no details just made a statement.

                    I'll just talk about the election fraud in the state of Pennsylvania.  The laws were changed before the election to eliminate ALL safeguards associated with mail in ballots.

                    "What did the Democrats do? They said well you know what, we have a good idea.

                    14 months ago in the state of Pennsylvania, if you sent in a ballot without a signature, the ballot would be discarded. If it was counted, that would be criminal fraud.

                    14 months ago in the state of Pennsylvania, if you sent in a ballot with a signature that didn’t match the signature that they had on file, that would be discarded, if it was counted, that would be criminal fraud.

                    14 months ago in the state of Pennsylvania, if you sent in a ballot beyond election day, it wouldn’t be counted, if it was, that would be fraud.

                    If you sent in a ballot without a postal date stamped on it, it wouldn’t be counted, and if it was, that would be fraud.

                    Or, if you sent in a ballot where they couldn’t tell what the date was, if there was a smudge on the ink, it wouldn’t be counted, and if it was counted, that would be fraud.

                    All of those ballots today, count. They were all counted in Pennsylvania, because of unconstitutional and illegal changes that were made by officials, quote, unquote, “officially,” by individuals in Pennsylvania.

                    This is probably why Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro said President Trump would lose the state before a single vote was counted.

                    This is not touching Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin.  Fraud in Georgia was much more blatant.

          2. Valeant profile image87
            Valeantposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Actually, the polling is saying much the opposite about the work the January 6 Committee is doing.  It's only about a third of the GOP that supports the work the January 6 Committee is doing which speaks to your own isolation inside your media bubble in thinking that you are in the majority on this issue.

            https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/0 … ans-526092

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/bowmanmars … 02bf971816

            https://www.axios.com/jan-6-poll-axios- … 2c5a9.html

            So while you can claim I hold 'hardcore' views on Trump and his failings.  I think I'm pretty much sitting in the majority of the Democratic viewpoint and on the side of the majority of America.

            And looking at polling, Biden's polling is following the same post-election trend as each of the last four Presidents' polling was at this time in their presidency.  This is the new norm.  And while you think much of the country will ignore the final year of Trump's presidency, I definitely disagree.  Biden is far from a perfect president and not many on the left want to see him run again in 2024, but he is definitely an improvement over the chaos and partisanship we saw for four years under Trump.

  8. Valeant profile image87
    Valeantposted 10 months ago

    Conspiracy theorist and pillow maven Mike Lindell made one of his wildest claims yet.

    “We already have all the pieces of the puzzle,” Lindell said on Real America’s Voice this week. “We have enough evidence to put everybody in prison for life, 300-and-some million people.”

    The U.S. population is estimated at 330 million.

    It’s not clear how much the “and some” in Lindell’s claim represents, but even at 300 million, that’s nearly everyone in the nation over the age of 5.


    - Maybe you're being lied to.  Just saying.

  9. Valeant profile image87
    Valeantposted 10 months ago
    1. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Well, I thought I'd just jump in here for a minute.

      I'm not a big fan of New York politics.

      I agree you can find problems with all states.

      As someone who enjoys the outdoors, the state of New York has plenty to offer.  The finger lakes, the Catskills are absolutely beautiful in the summer and fall months.  The Adirondacks are also beautiful.

      I may not like New York politics, but I think the outdoors wilderness is incredible.

      I like anything in New York outside of NYC.  I KNOW there are many New Yorker's who feel the same way.

      1. Valeant profile image87
        Valeantposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Yeah, I'm a 46er...done all 46 of the high peaks up in the Adirondacks and a few down in the Catskills.  NYC is good in small doses for the major attractions, zoos, shopping, arts, diversity and theater.  We have higher taxes, but if you've lived here your whole life, you see what you get for those taxes in places like the Adirondacks and NYC.  Same goes for the winter weather, if you're a New Yorker, you know how to enjoy it instead of getting a very similar climate year round, not to mention the views in the fall when the leaves change.

        1. Readmikenow profile image94
          Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          "done all 46 of the high peaks up in the Adirondacks and a few down in the Catskills"

          I think people who don't know the outdoors in New York will realize this is quite an accomplishment.

          I think it is impressive.

          Now, back to arguing about politics.

        2. Ken Burgess profile image86
          Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          I lived there for 10 years, and fortunately I have lived plenty of other places as well.

          Florida does just fine for Nature trails, parks, recreation, the arts, diversity, etc. ... each and every category, other than mountain trails you can find here.

          We have THREE theatres within a half-hours drive of  where I live (not including Orlando) their productions are just as good as any I saw on Broadway.  In fact they are more enjoyable because there is no "trip into the city"  there is no "winter weather" and the ability to get to know the "neighbors" is real.

          We have everything you can find in NY, and we have the Kennedy Space Center, all the attractions in Orlando from SeaWorld to Universal Studios, and so much more.

          1. Valeant profile image87
            Valeantposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            I equate a trip into the city with a trip into Orlando.  The traffic around Disney is right on par with the traffic in and around NYC, having flown into Orlando three times a year for the past seven years.

            And while there is no winter weather, the summer weather is downright oppressive during the mid-afternoon with the heat and humidity.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image86
              Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Its oppressive to you because you are not acclimated to living here.

              I found Summer weather to be oppressive in NY because one day it would be 90 degrees and the next day 60.  Mosquitoes are much worse in NY, Ticks with Lime Disease, I could go on and on, there is nothing NY has that I would prefer over Florida.

              My wife believed like you did, before we made the move down here, now she would never go back... the idea of dealing with being buried under snow six months of the year and living with grey skies overhead up to nine months a year is absolutely abhorrent to her today.

              And no... Orlando on its worst day is nothing like NY... not the traffic, not the tolls, not the pollution, not the prices.

              1. Valeant profile image87
                Valeantposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Coming from someone who frequents both cities often, trust me, they both have tolls and serious traffic issues.  I'll give you the pollution, but Orlando certainly does not have the quality of housing inside the city that New York does, so comparing prices seems like comparing apples and oranges.

              2. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Ken, I overheard the conversation and I have to say, as Florida transplants, it has been as nice as you say.

                There are probably more older people proportionately here, with only Arizona as a close rival. A warm climate with little snow and ice is more than just a perk when you get older. It has a low cost of living relative to other parts of the country. I was astounded that a middle class resident can afford to buy a house here with a swimming pool. I thought that only rich people could afford swimming pools, try buying an affordable house in California?

                Being from the Mountain West, anything East of the Mississippi is humid. But as you say, you get used to it. And right now ''this is the best time of year in Central Florida. 

                The downside is that it is a little rednecky, I have seen within a half mile radius of my home three properties with a flagpole holding the Stars and Stripes and immediately below a "Let's go Branden" banner flying high in the breeze. Coming from relatively liberal Denver, people on the left were much more discrete about displaying political preferences on their vehicles or property. I always get the distinct impression that if I would dare have a Anti-Trump decal on my car, it would be vandalized. 

                Then there is the Mother Nature hassle of the hurricane threats and these awful hurricane plates that you take up and down. But each and every part of the country has its own weather related terror unique to them.

                So, now, back to our program.....

                1. Ken Burgess profile image86
                  Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  All true.

                  After living on the West Coast for a couple of years I remember doing the cross country drive and when I got within about 50 miles of the Mississippi it was like hitting a literal wall of humidity, and that humidity encompasses everything east of it, all the way to the ocean.

                  That said, if you live on the coastline of Florida, more specifically Central Florida Space Coast area, there is no issue with humidity except on the rarest of days.  This is usually the case whenever you live near the ocean, the temperature is more moderate, the humidity is less severe, etc.

                  Hurricanes are no stranger to NY anymore, they are just as likely to head up that way, or anywhere in between, as they are to hit Florida these days.

                  In the last ten years more hurricanes have gone further north than have come in and hit the east coast of Florida.  This is a trend I suspect will become more the norm as weather patterns become more extreme due to climate change.

                  As I noted, Florida lacks for nothing, other than Mountains and bad winter weather. But the upside is not just great weather, it is low taxes, low cost of living, and in these days of pandemics, little or no restrictions on living your life.

      2. Ken Burgess profile image86
        Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        The focus was on the City(s) of New York and the politics and taxes.

        However if you want to talk about nature, I will take Florida's warm weather and coastlines every time without hesitation.  I have no desire to ever live through a northern winter again, this I realize is a personal preference.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)