placeholder

First off, despite what most Americans believe, it still means that rightwing violence is a greater threat to Americans than is Muslim violence. And there's this: "For instance, only 9 percent of Americans overall and only 13 percent of Republicans say they “completely” agree in the necessity of taking violent actions if political leaders fail." https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/after-the-ballots-are-counted-conspiracies-political-violence-and-american-exceptionalism/ About 25% of the voting age population is republican. That would come to about 65 million people. So, 13% of that figure would come to about 8.4 million people. About 2 million muslims in america are of voting age. So, if you were to do the math, you would find very little difference in the likelihood of muslims or extreme right wing Republicans as being a terroristic threat. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find a figure assaying how much more likely it would be for evangelical Christians to support violence. But given that they are more even likely than other Republicans to support such lunacy as QAnon, I don't think it's unreasonable to posit QAnon supporting evangelicals pose an even greater danger. https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/after-the-ballots-are-counted-conspiracies-political-violence-and-american-exceptionalism/

Extremism in the United States Despite fears that extremism is on the rise in the United States, right-wing extremism is far more prevalent than jihadi terrorism. From 2011 to 2020, 20 percent of extremist-related killings were caused by someone affiliated with Islamist extremism, and three quarters of extremist-related killings were carried out by someone affiliated with right-wing extremism. Overall, there have been relatively few terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 1970. https://www.statista.com/statistics/667929/terrorists-in-the-us-since-911-year-and-gender/

Here's pretty much the same story from the Washington Times, a right wing media source. Ya got a problem with them, too? Rep. James Comer says he ‘can’t track down’ top informant in Biden family probe House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said Sunday that congressional investigators probing President Biden’s family over foreign influence-peddling allegations have lost contact with a leading informant. The Kentucky Republican and other top GOP lawmakers in the House have alleged that Mr. Biden’s family members, including his son Hunter, received millions of dollars from foreign entities in China and Romania, including when Mr. Biden was vice president. “Well, unfortunately, we can’t track down the informant,” Mr. Comer said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo.” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/may/14/rep-james-comer-says-he-cant-track-down-top-inform/

You found the one questionable item in the list. He made 3 claims about the elections that were false He made 2 claims about borders and immigration that were false. He made 2 claims about illegal possession of documents that were false. And a false about abortion. And these weren't the only falsehoods. For instance he claimed during the CNN Townhall that he was referring to stars' being entitled to be sexually aggressive and that he didn't consider himself a star. Yet during the deposition he said exactly that. He claimed his tax cuts were the biggest in history. Fortunately, they were not.

If you mean that not raising the debt ceiling is more of a concern, than you have a point. But if you mean that the fact that there are deficits is more of a concern, you got any evidence for that?

I do wonder what would be a longer list: the false things Trump asserted or the true things.

Yes everybody lies. But frequency counts. And when someone repeatedly tells bald-faced lies, as Trump did during the townhall, that's a remarkable achievement. FactChecking Trump’s CNN Town Hall https://www.factcheck.org/2023/05/factchecking-trumps-cnn-town-hall/

Yes, given how the past belies the Republicans alleged concerns about the deficit, that's probably the only route you can take. Because since the high level of the deficit problem is entirely due to Republican tax cuts starting with Reagan and the big lie that supported them, if one were to consider the past. the sensible course would be to undo those tax cuts.

Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_the_United_Kingdom_rejoining_the_European_Union_(2020–present) There's a table below the graph that gives the source of each poll. As for people who thought it was a mistake to leave in the first place: https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/#:~:text=Share of people who think,or wrong decision 2020-2023&text=As of April 2023%2C 53,it was the right decision.

Or call the Republicans' bluff. They've certainly had no problems with deficits when Republicans held the Presidency,. The problem with the Repubicans' plan is that deficits aren't really high on the lost of concerns of most Americans.

Well, procedural issues would not be about the jury's verdict.

Got a link to back that up?

Ukraine's Storm Shadow Missiles Are A Big Problem For Russia "As to how the Storm Shadow will be employed, that’s unclear, although Wallace seemed to indicate that it would be air-launched, and not adapted for a ground launcher. He said that part of the reason for the time it has taken to get the missile to Ukraine was due to “working out if it was technically feasible” to integrate them on unfamiliar aircraft." https://news.yahoo.com/ukraines-storm-shadow-missiles-big-171346915.html

Since we don't know by what criteria the jury made its decision, your comments about what their decision meant are speculate. What we do know is is that Donald Trump denied that there was any sort of physical contact between him and Carroll. And the jury unequivocally rejected that. It took the 3 hours to come up with the verdict and that included a lunch break.

NIce try. Maybe if you had started with correction it would be believable. And what makes your point even more ridiculous is that not even Republicans claim that it wouldn't pay for itself. Their claim is that the increased funding would be used to go after middle class people. Because, ya know, the Democrats want to commit electoral suicide.

For starters you could believe the right wing fanatic supporters of the invasion who have milblogs. They haven't been real happy about how the Russian effort is going for quite a while now.

Even if it was not possible for you to see that my comments about the "Marxists at Fox News" concede that the CBO is nonpartisan, it's utterly irrelevant to the fact that Fox News reports that the CBO is nonpartisan. Which is clearly the case since it strongly challenged Biden's numbers about what net revenue could be expected from the increased funding of the IRS. You're the one who accused the CBO of biased based on nothing at all. And you've still got nothing.

Presumably videos taken of the altercation have the time encoded in them.

Because she challenged Trump's on his falsehoods?

You may not believe this but there are lots of people who post here saying words to the effect that they don't like Trump but...

Depends on at what point the first call was made. And what you fail to note is that 2 other men had Neelys legs pinned.

As I said there is also an emergency cord (or maybe buttons now) on the train. And what about that situation required immediately putting him in a chokehold and holding it for 15 minutes. 15 minutes!

Kinda easy to do it before. No indication that it was an emergency. Also pulling the emergency cord on the train

The US has had other hybrid town hall events which had both questions posed by reporters and by members of the audience. If this fit the classical definition of a town hall event then members of the audience wouldn't be vetted on the basis of their political leanings.