Was Jan 6th An Insurrection ? See What CBS Poll Revealed
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-6I 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"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...Regard the last paragraph, yeah, they All do that don't they. Even the Fox article with the complaint pushed their agenda.
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.
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.As always your wonderful common sense wins the day... Are you sure you are not just a bit of a conservative? LOL
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.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.
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.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.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.
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.'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.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.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.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.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.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.
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."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.And someday we hope you learn the difference between the words protesting and rioting. Protesting - what Harris supported. Rioting - what she condemned.
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.
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.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.We have a totally different opinion on what KH did. And in regard to protesters versus rioters, the police arrested lawbreakers. And I'll do ya one better. I did not support any of the protests that turned into riots. If they would have remained peaceful, that would have said a lot, but most did not.
Again I am in no way giving KH a break due to her color. Her color has nothing to do with my view of her careless tweet. To be honest, my view of KH is that she is a woman that is not at all intelligent enough to hold the position of VP. Again nothing to do with her color, just her past job performance, and current lack of handling her job.
You can offer the definition of the word insurrection all you please. IMO, it was a protection of the election that got out of hand, and many American's were peaceful. FBI found no indication of a planned anything.
I never denied there was violence on Jan 6, and condemned it, and hoped all that broke the law would be arrested, and given their days in court, and punished as a judge saw fit. Which is being done. The violence was a protest against the election and the certification of the election.
American citizens have every right to protest at the Capitol, they did not have the right to be violent, as also applies to the summer of love protesters." Portland Protesters Smash Federal Courthouse Doors, Set Fire to U.S. Flag" last I knew a Federal Court House is a seat of our federal Government, no less important than the Capitol.
https://www.newsweek.com/portland-prote … ag-1575635
Southern California Man Pleads Guilty After Attempting to Set Fire to Federal Courthouse During Portland Protest
https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/sout … use-during
So are you denying that protesters night after night tried to destroy a federal courthouse? Was this an insurrection? LOL Are you in denial? LOL, You're being hypocritical at best.
Do you understand the difference between a riot and an insurrection? LOL
I say both were due to a bunch of lawbreakers that came to riot not protest. A protest that got out of hand due to some that came to fight.
Just my view, I am not into drama or conspiracy, as some here tend to be.
And again the FBI has found they thus far found no evidence of planning... Sorry about that.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5 … jan-6-plot
"Despite the adoption of the term by many in the media, there has been a growing disconnect with the actual cases in court. Indeed, a new report from Reuters disclosed that the FBI has apparently struggled to support the account of a coordinated “insurrection” on Jan. 6. Reuters’s FBI sources said that, despite months of intense investigation, they could find "scant evidence" of any "organized plot" and instead found that virtually all of the cases are “one-offs.” One agent explained, “Ninety to 95 percent of these are one-off cases. Then you have 5 percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."
So take up your argument of the Jan 6 protest being an insurrection with the FBI. No one as of yet has been charged with an insurrection. You may need to just stick with facts until more is known about the day. I know you have said numerous times I do not know the meaning of insurrection --- I have every confidence the FBI and DOJ do know the definition of the term. So I would appreciate it until one of our law enforcement agencies arrest someone for committing an insurrection you don't use the term. I consider anyone that makes such a claim is promoting propaganda.
"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."
Totally my opinion.It's not opinion to note that you changed the word protester to rioter. That's what makes you a liar. You lied about what she said. When a white person changes a black person's words as a means of making them appear in support of violent crime, there are racial overtones in play. When the topic of discussion where that change is made is social justice - hence race and racism - that certainly adds to the veracity.
'The violence was a protest against the election and the certification of the election'...by the government. Hence, the literal definition of an insurrection. And it doesn't take people being convicted to fit the definition of something. When rioters attacked buildings in the summer, I previously noted in threads here those instances could also be considered acts of insurrection, despite your lack of noting or remembering that and then fabricating a claim hypocrisy.
And the FBI is not the only group reporting on the planning of the violence of January 6. Expand your views as new information is coming out daily about all the planning, let alone people being charged with conspiracy - which is another word for....planning.As I said it was my opinion. I will be honest and make every attempt not to insult you. We in no respect have the same ideologies in regards to anything". Or do I feel the need to change my opinion in regards to this subject? I would feel less intelligent if placate.
I will let you follow the daily garbage on the leaks. I will wait for the end results. Just don't need to look around for tidbits that as a rule make me SMH and say --- and what does this prove. So have at it --- lol
Also, there is the poll that was the subject of my thread. This poll appears to put your opinion in regard to calling the Jan 6 protest an insurrection.
"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."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."
But that is not true. It wasn't a favorite because it wasn't a choose-one-option question. It was a Yes or No in each of the statements. I mean, according to the poll I saw. Plus, the statements are not mutually exclusive.
By the way, that was 1 of 23 questions. So yes, the media does distort and push agendas. And in this case, I believe you fell for it.
But now that this poll is so important... I liked these results. LOL
Let's hope he (and his crazies) get the memo.I can't argue, you made a good point And I am with the 62%. I don't feel the country needs any more turmoil, and one thing for sure Trump running in 2024 would bring a Sh-- a load of turmoil.
I would say Trump has about a 30% support base in America.
Almost 1 out of every 3 Americans would prefer Trump over anyone.
Trump did have something like 75 million people vote for him after all.
I don't think the Biden Administration has done anything to diminish that.
I think much of what I have seen (which is very little, just glossing headlines mostly as I try to ignore this never ending deluge of political idiocy that has been pushing people to be against one another) has only stirred the pot, Biden's words (what little I've seen) only work to bring the matter to a boil rather than move on from it.
I have to assume this effort by the MSM and by the Biden Administration is a conscious and deliberate one, or perhaps it is just because they exist in a "echo chamber" a "social clique" of sorts, they only see the things the way they want to see them because anyone that has an opinion or viewpoint counter to their own is character assassinated or de-platformed, cast out of the "group think", labeled, ignored, ridiculed.
Still, no matter how much they do of that, it seems Trump has a solid base of about a third of the country supporting him, while I would say Biden and the Democrats also have about a third of the country supporting them, with the remainder of Americans being stuck in the middle and thoroughly sick of both sides... perhaps buying into none of it, and preferring we be rid of all of them.
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.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.
". . . 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.
GAActually, 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.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.I agree that it is up to the judges to set bail by the degree of the crime, no argument there. My view is that this group paid high bail and let out some violent men that perhaps the bail was set high by a judge to keep them behind bars.
The main point I hoped to make was -- I feel that it would have been more prudent for Kamala Harris to research a group she was going to support. Many politicians in my view jump on a "bandwagon" before knowing where that bandwagon has been. In my eyes, it showed poor judgment. She had no idea actually who they would be bailing out or who they had bailed out in the past.You did indeed list dates in your post. My oversight.
Do you have the list of violent people charged that MFF bailed out prior to Harris lending them her support? Because like I have said in my argument, they seemed to have expanded who they bailed out right after being criticized by the right-wing media, and then recorrected when they saw the outcomes of those choices in the months after some of those violent men committed additional acts while out on bail.They did expand on how many they bailed out, and paid some very large bails due to the money they raised over the 2020 summer.
I a not sure it would be easy to determine who they were bailing out from 2016. I do know they did not have a large budget. But KH knew they were an organization that paid bails for those that could not afford bails.
Let's face it the media did a hit job on her for her tweet. Was it poor judgment for a politician, I think so. I don't think she considered her tweet as nothing more than an innocent tweet. But were the optics good? Did she use good judgment?I think if it were fair to accuse Harris of supporting an organization that bailed out violent criminals, there should have been the knowledge of their history of doing so prior to her support.
If they chose after her support to do that, that is the organization's change. So to be fair, you should be blaming them then. The timing absolutely matters.I see your point, and actually, I can agree she had no idea what they would do in the future. The media did a job on her.
I will always argue when someone claims that Harris' intent was to bail out violent criminals. The fact remains though that her public support led to the financing to be able to do so. So, there is culpability in cause and effect, even though the intent is dubious. I'd have to concede that.
I think we pretty much agree on this one. Just think if the media did not make such a big deal of this, it would not have been tossed around on social media. Because more likely she thought she was doing a good thing.
Well damn . . . three different perspectives finding common ground.
I don't trust VP. Harris. My perception of her character doesn't trust or like her. But I am aware of that bias and don't discuss her personally. Even so, I think the Right's charges are purely political stuff.
As you guys agree, I think her only culpability, (mistake), is her political choice of participation, associating her name with it in expectation of personal political gain. Nothing new there.
GA
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.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.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.
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?One could make the case that the anti-Trump base is larger than both the Trump base or Democratic base by now.
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.
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.htmlIn 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.
GAPerhaps, 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.
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.
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=vMm5HfxNXY4That'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.
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.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.
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.Maybe off tangent yet an observation. I think a lot of his voting base saw him as rebel against the system and love the way he told others to stick it. Remember all the derogatory nick names, the condescending interruptions during debates, and his hooray I will save you rhetoric.
Kinda' like those that love the Raiders and have for years. Or, the Muhammad Ali approach. He was a iconic hero to part of his base who don't trust government any longer that was or is suppressing them and their ideals of lifestyle and life in general. In other words he was doing what many want to do and tell their boss to go to H***.. And, it only takes that portion to help him get elected.Plus in my view, he promised to blow it all up, and rebuild it to suit American's first... His agenda was attractive to many and still is. Especially at this point, we have someone in the White House to compare Trump to. Many just are not satisfied with returning to the status quo. It would seem we went from someone who ate Wheaties in the AM, to someone that eats cream of wheat.
This was the HUGE mistake made by the establishment, putting Biden, a cronies crony into the WH and the incompetent Harris as his back-up.
They could have given the people a real leader, someone with some moral fiber and able to speak coherently... Tulsi Gabbard would have been excellent and brought much needed new blood leadership.
Instead they wheeled out Clinton to destroy her, and buried her before she could gain too much popularity.
Biden will be the catalyst that brings about their downfall more likely than the one who restores the status quo.
If not a bullseye that's close to it.
I would add that number is growing, the discontent and disalusioned with their government will be too numerous if the economy turns bad... Jan 6 might look like a kids tantrum on the playground compared to what might come.
I don't find it difficult to understand at all. Trump spoke to the people in their language. His rough, straight forward, talk appealed to them and made it seem he is one of them. He didn't use the sly, incomplete, round-about talk of the politicians and he made promises people believed. No one believes the promises of politicians; it is commonly accepted that they are made only to garner votes and political candidates have no intention of following through.
Trump was also not a politician, and it showed. Loudly. People are sick of politicians and their fake speeches and promises - Trump was different and it appealed.
Bottom line is that whether you liked Trump, whether you believed him or not, whether you found him to be insufferable and too far removed from the aristocracy or not, a very large number of people chose him simply because he was different and that difference just might have been what our country needed. Certainly the same old, same old is getting us nowhere as the conditions the common people are living in are deteriorating (or so the perception is). And that produced votes and will again.As to how... It's simple enough, those who voted for him believe the system to be broken, the political class a bunch of liars and abusers of power.
Trump was an outsider. He pointed out the truth that the Swamp was out to screw them, control them, take what freedoms and wealth left that they have from them.
That is why those cronies in DC despised him, he constantly exposed their corruption and lies... The country has become divided into those who accept the Establishment and it's corruption or are blind to it (IE if you think CNN is news and not messaging propaganda you are blind to a great deal) and those who are more awake to the manipulations and corruption in DC.
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.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.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.'
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.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.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.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.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.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.”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.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?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.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.The Vaccines are loosing their power.
Stiil
Watchout, for Homeland Security for what is next.I could easily list plenty of cases where the affidavits were scrutinized and found not to be credible and that elections experts explained what was seen by uninformed poll watchers. So that point is just a failure to accept the decisions. Yes, others were filed after the election and sought to disenfranchise people who voted under a certain set of rules, after the fact. The logic of those filings made zero sense.
Cyber Ninjas filed their report and Maricopa County addressed each claim as a falsehood in a recent report. Again, where is your link to their report? A lack of acceptance from the actual elections experts and a deference to a company who just shuttered their doors.
As for Lott, his work was analyzed:
Andrew C. Eggers, Haritz Garro, Justin Grimmer
Published 2021
In a recent paper, 1 John Lott Jr. claims to find evidence of anti-Trump fraud in the absentee counting procedure in Fulton County, Georgia, and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Using Lott’s own data, we show that his claims are utterly baseless. Lott uses an unusual estimation strategy that suffers from a subtle but fundamental flaw: his conclusions about fraud in Fulton and Allegheny counties are entirely dependent on the completely arbitrary order in which pairs of precincts in other counties are entered in the dataset. When we rerun Lott’s analysis using an alternative but equally justifiable coding rule, the evidence for anti-Trump fraud in these two counties entirely disappears. When we replace Lott’s unusual specification with a more standard estimation strategy, we find absolutely no evidence of fraud. In short, Lott’s (2020) analysis provides no evidence of anything distinctive or suspicious about the absentee ballot results in either Fulton County or Allegheny County. ∗ We thank John Lott for sharing his data on the same day we made the request.
You claim that changing elections laws is unconstitutional and illegal but that is just a falsehood. In 2018, then Gov. Rick Scott unilaterally changed mail-in voting standards prior to an election due to Hurricane Michael. In July of 2020, Gov. Greg Abbott, without his legislature, unilaterally extended early voting by six days. The notion that in times of emergency, state officials lack the power to alter election processes is just plain false. Something you either haven't researched or haven't accepted as common practice.
And I could easily debunk every one of your other claims in those other states, but as we've seen by your consistent posts, you will fail to accept the simplicity with which each one can be proven false.
This is what I mean by your own reality not based in facts. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary that you do not accept. There's no helping people this far into such cultish behavior.I could supply literally hundreds of links proving fraud.
Lets just discuss ONE state. Pennsylvania. What would be the reason to change the rules on their mail-in ballots in the way they did unless fraud was their intention. Read what they did. Try to explain why those changes were necessary if not as a way for the Democrats to commit fraud.Certainly many mail-in voters, due to the pandemic, were going to be first time voters by that method. Not rejecting those votes due to inexperience during a pandemic makes some sense to ensure that the state was not denying people their Constitutional rights.
And the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Pennsylvania in allowing one change, to allow mail in ballots to be counted as long as they are postmarked by Nov. 3. Are you saying that the US Supreme Court was promoting fraud? That you can claim illegality when the Supreme Court ruled legality is a great example of the denial of reality.
And like I noted, many other GOP Governors have altered mail-in ballot voting unilaterally in the past. Suddenly, people like you are calling it fraud, when it had been used in a previous election by the GOP and even in this one by multiple GOP Governors.
Did Abbott and Rick Scott commit fraud? Is that what you are also implying? That you only choose the battleground states to lob your fraud claims while exempting the numerous GOP won states undermines your point. Also, completely omitting the history of states legally having the ability to modify election law during a state of emergency is just your fabricating some new standard that has always been allowed.I still think counting a mail in ballot without a signature is a green light for election fraud. I also think counting a ballot with a signature that doesn't match the one on voter registration is a green light for fraud. I also think counting a mail in ballot without a post mark is also a green light for fraud.
All recount efforts in Pennsylvania have been stalled by the Democrat counties who refuse to turn over their mail-in ballots for recount. This causes suspicion of fraud.
Remember, President Donald Trump was winning in Pennsylvania until the mail-in ballots were counted.
So, it's difficult to believe fraud didn't take place with the mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania.
I will also say if there is a committed formed in the US Congress to investigate fraud in the 2020 election...ALL states voting should be reviewed.There was no evidence of fraud in Pennsylvania.
Most of the votes counted that day were cast in person, and two-thirds of them were for Mr. Trump. That’s in part because he spent months falsely attacking mail-in voting as susceptible to widespread fraud, which discouraged his supporters from using the method. Biden and Democrats encouraged their supporters to vote by mail, and in the end, Biden won more than three-quarters of Pennsylvania’s mail ballots.
In-person votes are counted more quickly than mail ballots. So Trump’s early “lead” meant nothing other than that most votes for him were counted earlier than votes for Biden.
We were all warned of the "Blue mirage" and the "red mirage"
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e … t-n1245925Yes the media programmed their viewers for what they knew was going to happen very well.
In America that is what the MSM is for, to shape people's opinions and beliefs, those who are open to such programming anyways, and they don't hide that fact.Or it was common sense that when Trump tells his followers to do something, they comply. While the Democrats chose to not congregate in long voter lines during a pandemic as Biden urged them to avoid in line with the public health guidelines.
Whatever, you live in NY right?
Enjoy that Democrat controlled land of liberty, it's ever rising taxes and ever growing list of regulations and restrictions.
You don't have to worry about the evil Republicans coming to ruin your wonderful state, which is a beacon that businesses flock to and the educated Middle Class workers are swarming to get to.Taxes that pay for one of the best cities in the country and some amazing state parks, which I do often enjoy. You sure can enjoy those algae blooms and smelly waterways of Florida. I was down there for six months right by where you have your ninth career choice and couldn't find an educated middle class at all.
Which city in NY is what you consider one of the best in the country?
I wouldn't put one of them in the top 50, but that's just me. I have been fortunate enough to travel much of this country to gain some perspective.
Or maybe they just simply reported the clearly defined process for how votes are counted in each state?
Why does everything have to be twisted into a conspiracy?
Again, how does this coordination take place? The heads of all mass media get together and jointly decide how they're going to spin something? Or You're implying that they are somehow in coordination to provide cover for whoever is committing the actual large-scale voter fraud on the ground? And how does that coordination happen? And why, with the countless investigations across multiple states as well as Mr Trump's own DOJ, Has this not been uncovered?
"he spent months falsely attacking mail-in voting as susceptible to widespread fraud"
No, he spent months accurately saying the mail-in voting in Pennsylvania is susceptible to fraud.
When you don't have to match signature from mail-in ballots with a person's voter registration. That makes it susceptible to fraud.
When you don't require a post mark on a mail-in ballot for it to be counted. That makes it susceptible to fraud.
When you count mail-in ballots with NO signature, THAT makes it susceptible to fraud.
So, President Donald Trump was absolutely correct. The Pennsylvania laws changed for the 2020 election concerning mail-in ballots makes the susceptible to fraud.
Now, of course, when asked for a recount of these mail-in ballots, Pennsylvania democrat counties are refusing to cooperate.
It just seems like they wanted to keep their fraud with the mail-in ballots away from the public eye.
Not surprise. It's the democrat way.
Come 2024 I do not expect to see Trump run.
I think who-ever runs, will be considered a far better alternative to Biden should Biden run again.
The country is tired of him already, despite what support is provided to him by most of the media... I can only imagine how unpopular he and Harris will be by 2024.
As you know, the man can't fill a small auditorium for a Town Hall meeting, he is probably the least popular President we have had in decades, certainly going back as far as I can remember... the man has no charisma and no ability to hold an audience... heck the guy can't string together a series of coherent sentences.
Three more years of Biden will bring a wave of discontent that will lead to overwhelming support for who-ever runs against him. You just might see 100 million votes go to who-ever his opponent is.As someone who is involved with the Republican party I can tell you, if President Donald Trump wants the nomination, it will be his.
If not, I would like to see Ted Cruz be given serious consideration.You'd still back Cruz after the humiliation he suffered this week? If Cruz were elected, it'd be a shadow government run by Tucker Carlson and Cruz made that clear as day to everyone in America this week.
Compared to what we have now, which is what, in your opinion?
Not sure you have the liberal media running Biden. So a bit of conflating there.
I just wanted you to explain what we have now in the Biden Administration, what you think it stands for, etc.
You're very good at telling us how bad Trump is, so you should be equally good at telling us all the wonderful things Biden has done and what he stands for.Why would I do that when you won't agree with any of it? Seems futile. Plus, we have a whole thread going with thousands of responses that do just that. Just go read that one.
Right, I take that to say you are very good at being negative and denigrating anything or anyone you don't like, but speaking positively about the alternative, pointing out their good qualities and why we should support them is beyond you.
Right, I take that to say you are too lazy to go look at the many positive comments I have made in the easily accessible other and more popular thread on the topic. I do like how you immediately went to a negative though in much the same way you accused me of doing just the same thing.
As to your city claim, you're not the only well-traveled human in this country, much to your own dismay, apparently. Nor is your own singular opinion proof of much when you consider how many people polled agree with me on the topic.NY as a State, and city, had its best days long ago.
https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-cit … ews-report
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mayrarodri … 69ea7516f8
https://nypost.com/2020/08/13/new-yorks … he-nation/
https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu … -in-nation
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/23/economy/ … index.html
https://nypost.com/2017/02/20/this-nyc- … he-nation/
https://www.metro.us/nyc-and-philly-ran … pollution/
https://spoilednyc.com/new-york-highest … e-america/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxes/c … r-BB1fzeP9
New York has the most expensive housing, with the average cost of a home at $1,901,222. Rent in New York City is one of the highest in the country, with an average rent of $3,667 for a two-bedroom.
NY has some of the worst, most miserable winter weather, roads, airports, its a wonderful place indeed, may you enjoy it, I'll stick with Florida's sunny weather, low taxes, cheap electricity, etc.
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.
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.Anyone can find negatives about other states. It's not that hard:
https://floridaphoenix.com/blog/yet-ano … -spending/
https://www.floridapolicy.org/posts/flo … r-fairness
https://www.newsweek.com/florida-worst- … try-794175
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/stat … in-america
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opin … 790602002/
https://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/ne … a-job.html
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state … est-states
https://claudepeppercenter.fsu.edu/flor … -services/
https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/arc … says-study
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/546 … kin-cancerWell, 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.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.
"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.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.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.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.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.
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.....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.
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.
Related Discussions
- 172
Has Donald Trump Killed the So-Called Republican Party?
by Scott Belford 6 months ago
In my opinion, yes - the Republican Party no-longer exists today even though Trump followers incorrectly refer to themselves as Republicans.Let me open this discussion with a short tutorial of the Republican Party (now keep in mind, the Party title has no bearing on the Party philosophy and any...
- 72
First Successful Legislative Filibuster Mounted By the GOP Minority
by Sharlee 3 years ago
The GOP Held Strong Using The First Filibuster To Stop The Democrats Cold In Their Tracks May 28, 2021 --- "Senate Republicans on Friday halted an effort to form a bipartisan Jan. 6 commission to investigate the Capitol attack, marking the first successful legislative filibuster...
- 1121
Jan 6th Hearings Are Approaching Will You Be Tuning In?
by Sharlee 23 months ago
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol will hold the first of at least a half-dozen public hearings this week, having already promised stunning revelations that would lay bare just how dangerously close the U.S. came to losing its democracy. So, will you tune in? ...
- 45
More Republicans than Democrats would stay and fight if US is invaded
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
I didn't need a poll to know this one. BUT a Quinnipiac University Poll has proven the obvious. If the United States is invaded by a foreign power, most Democrats would run and most Republicans would stay and fight. When people have to face real-world consequences for their...
- 82
Tennessee insurrection by liberals?
by Readmikenow 17 months ago
Gun control activists storm Tennessee State Capitol in Nashville after 'Trans Shaman' joined occupation of Kentucky legislature - as fears of a left-wing uprising loom ahead of Trans Day of VengeanceGun control activists were seen storming Tennessee's State Capitol Thursday amid rising fears of a...
- 293
Can Donald Trump be Tried as a Terrorist?
by Scott Belford 3 years ago
Personally, I think he can.The definition of a terrorist is "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.". Clearly, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and al Qaeda and the Taliban fit that definition. But...