What about public schools, education spending etc
I do like the fact the FL has no income tax like TX. I wish AZ would go that route. We did reduce it to 2.5% but still filing hassle. I’d much rather have property taxes which I can control with house size etc. and less filing hassle.
McCarthy follows through on his promise. A good idea to give it to the highest rated cable news show
“I think the American public should actually see all what happened instead of a report that’s written for a political basis,” McCarthy said while adding he wanted to “be very thoughtful” about releasing the footage.
Well, now it’s happening. And despite initial reports at the time saying that there were 14,000 hours of footage from cameras around the Capitol complex set to be released, it turns out there’s more — much more — and Speaker McCarthy is giving it exclusively to Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
I dont know. This pretty much guarantees that whatever is reported will be considered inherently false by half the country. It’s a tough proposition, since many of the more liberal media outlets would produce the same response.
The left-wing news media would ignore it just like they have shadow banned the Twitter files.
It is interesting that the politicized Department of Justice seems to be prosecuting this fairly. Must be some 3-D chess going on here.
Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. Manchin and Sinema are falling right in line with the Democrats on the radical judicial nominees.
On the other hand, it could be a fun election in 2024.
Edit. The Democrats can use the same slogan with Biden-Harris
Wait a minute - so after dismissing all those “ridiculous” and “unfair” claims about his health and his fitness to serve, PA’s new Senator was hospitalized a month after taking office? And will soon be (or has already) crossed the point of spending more of his term in the hospital than on Capital Hill?
Why has the regime not pulled the plug on him so to speak? The Democrat governor of Pennsylvania could appoint another Democrat who is presumably more fit to serve. Surely it cannot be that it would be embarrassing to them. They can rely on the left media to cover for them and even drum up sympathy for the lump.
Edit. Maybe Gisele would raise a fuss? Last I heard she was in Canada
Because it’d be practically impossible to cover up the fact they insisted so adamently that he was fit to serve, only to declare him unfit 2 months after taking office. It would give their opposition one hell of a handicap when it comes to any health concern claims in future elections.
Do you mean like it was practically impossible to cover up the fact they insisted so adamantly that
The left media will try to shadow ban this. It will be interesting to see if it works
The Fox News host will air five stories culled from the footage Monday and Tuesday nights, countering the overblown “insurrection” narrative the Democrats and their media toadies have been pushing since Day One.
Edit.
Carlson’s team has been meticulous about anticipating security concerns and the footage they use will be vetted by the House before it airs.
More on the unconstitutional abomination of ranked choice and all mail-in voting
Hans von Spokosvsky, a former Federal Election Commissioner, points out another problem with ranked-choice voting: voter exhaustion.
The 2010 mayor’s race in Oakland, California, took 10 rounds of vote tabulation to get a winner. The ultimate winner received less than a quarter of the first-round votes, yet managed to pile up a 1.9% margin of victory in the final round.
The Associated Press reports that front-runners in ranked-choice contests often wind up losing in later rounds because “a substantial number of voters either cannot or choose not to rank multiple candidates.” Many “opt to cast a vote for their top choice, neglecting to rank anyone else.”
That’s just a stupid conclusion. The only possible way for a front runner to fall behind is because voters do rank multiple candidates. They just arent ranking them in the order you want them to.
What this does show, when this happens, is that the front runner is only the front runner because the opposition vote is split due to the wide field of candidates. Eliminate the multiple candidates in a traditional election, and that split vote will still consolidate behind the opposing candidate. Just like it does in the final round of a ranked choice election…
That is a function entirely dependant on the number of candidates. That isnt a flaw, it’s the result of there being more than 2 choices to narrow down. No matter how many rounds there may be, the final round reflects the result of a ‘traditional’ vote in an election between those two candidates. All earlier rounds are merely the traditional primary process running in conjuction with the election instead of independently.
All the outrage over ranked choice voting is because it takes the power away from the power brokers. Period. No matter how that outrage is dressed up, and no matter how many people fall for the faux-outrage charade.
That is certainly not my problem with rank choice voting. My objection is that, as the article mentions and you ignore, it is too hard for ordinary voters to implement. It assumes a perfectly rational diligent voter who selects all possible ranked choices. Voters are not like that and rank choice voting gives perverse results. By that I mean the “winner” is someone who the plurality of voters did not select in the first place.
The article mentions and you also ignore, RCV is strongly favored by leftists and opposed by conservatives. The left knows it is a way for them to rig elections.
Here is the full video of the program last night. It gives shocking evidence of the lies by Democrats and their left-wing media. One segment shows the infamous cow head helmet wearing shaman meekly walking through the Capitol escorted by police. Another segment shows Officer Sicknick vigorously walking around after the Democrats said he was murdered.
Yes, it states that voters are too lazy or stupid to rank multiple options. Which was the subject of my first comment, the exact opposite of ignoring it. It establishes the piece as mindless rabblerousing. Seriously, I’m surprised you have bought into it so hard.
You mean, no different than any traditional election with more than 2 candidates (one from each of the two major parties)? The difference being that in a ranked choice vote, those third-party candidate voters can still support a winner, while in a traditional election third-party votes can only play spoiler by syphoning support away from the two main candidates. The final round of a ranked choice vote is a traditional vote with two candidates - the only difference is that it was whittled down to 2 candidates in real time, rather than being done in advance.
What you continue to ignore is that ranked choice is the only way for a third party or secondary candidate to gain any sort of traction in an election. It gives all candidates a fair shot, while avoiding splitting the vote and allowing someone on the other side to backdoor their way to victory.
We need to stick with the time tested party based primary with winners going on to the general election system that’s been used throughout the history of our country. It has served us well and it it is a system that ordinary voters have shown they understand. If voters want to vote for a Third party then so be it. They have to accept the consequences of their choice.
Ranked choice voting is much more complex than our system and any software engineer will tell you that complexity leads to instability. I would add it is an opportunity for villains to game the system and cheat.
So stop objecting to the voting system, and just say you prefer the 2-party system that has become entrenched in our politics. Which also means you support the power brokers, who dictate which two candidates are options.
Ranked choice isnt complex just because you declare it’s complex. “1.) Who is your first choice? 2.) Who is your second choice? 3.) Who is your third choice?” It’s pretty simple and self-explanatory unless you are intentionally trying to muck it up. From experience, I know for a fact that 6 year olds can grasp that concept with ease. Because it’s often how we decide where to go for dinner. Hell, most of the time they will, entirely unprompted, say “I really want to go to X, but Y is my second choice.” Looky at that, another ranked choice vote being cast…
Explain how. Because, again, declaring it so doesnt make it so. Let alone moreso than how the system is gamed already.
Why? The current system allows third parties to rise if the voters support them. Imposing a complex rank choice system takes away the ability of voters to ignore third parties. It forces them to vote for them as one of their choices even though they do not want to.
Ranked choice isnt complex just because you declare it’s complex. “1.) Who is your first choice? 2.) Who is your second choice? 3.) Who is your third choice?” It’s pretty simple and self-explanatory unless you are intentionally trying to muck it up.
Of course it is complex. Compare that to our current system where your only decision is which candidate to vote for. What if I do not want to vote for anyone else?
Explain how. Because, again, declaring it so doesnt make it so.
Look at the example cited in the article. In Oakland the rank choice system went down 10 levels but many people only made one choice. Unknowingly, they disadvantaged their chosen candidate.
I’ve no experience with ranked choice in elections, so please excuse the possible ignorance of this question. The above quoted statement and question implies that you cannot vote for just one candidate. Is your ballot ignored if you only vote for one candidate?
