Is Trump on the brink of another run for president?
By: Jonathan Allen (NBC News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Link copied June 5, 2022, 8:30 AM UTC By Jonathan Allen
WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump is bored at Mar-a-Lago and anxious to get back in the political arena — as a candidate, not a kingmaker — according to his advisers, who are divided over whether he should launch a third bid for the presidency as early as this summer.
While many Trump confidants believe he should wait until after November's midterm elections — and caution that he has not yet made a final decision about running — some say he could move more quickly to harness supporters and deny fuel to the busload of GOP hopefuls in his rearview mirror.
"I've laid out my case on why I think he should do it," said longtime Trump adviser Jason Miller, who traveled with the former president to a rally in Wyoming over Memorial Day weekend. "I think that there being clarity about what his intentions are [is important] so he can start building that operation while it's still fresh in people's minds and they're still active — a lot of that can be converted into 2024 action."
A second adviser, who believes Trump should pause until the more traditional post-midterm period, said the former president, famous for his lack of impulse control, is nonetheless likely to jump in "sooner rather than later."
Both said Trump has gathered a wide range of views.
One question is "whether he can sort of suppress his excitement about a 2024 rematch and not, say, go ahead and put that statement out … and waits for a big event, a big speech to do it," the second adviser said. "A betting person says he's doing it, and he also wants to crowd out the rest of the field."
Two people in Trump's orbit told NBC News they had been asked informally to hold July 4 as a date for a possible announcement, but Miller — noting that Trump hasn't yet decided to run — said it is "not true" that the day has been reserved, even unofficially, for a launch.
Taylor Budowich, a spokesperson for Trump, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the divide.
Trump's decision, and its timing, promise to define the playing field for Republicans' efforts to oust President Joe Biden in 2024, and there is reason for him to feel greater urgency in recent weeks.
While he casts a longer shadow over his party than that of any former president in modern times, the footsteps of 2024 Republican hopefuls are growing louder. Several of them have visited early primary states, endorsed candidates in the midterms or delivered high-profile speeches designed to elevate their standing in the party.
That pack includes Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, and Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
There is also an emerging dynamic in which his favorites in multi-candidate races often fail — win or lose — to finish with as much as one-third of the vote. Some Republican operatives see that as a sign that his influence on the GOP electorate has diminished, to say nothing of his standing with a broader public that voted him out of office less than two years ago.
Perhaps more important, Trump is frustrated by the ennui of engaging mostly through midterm endorsements for candidates he hardly knows, especially when — as has happened in several recent high-profile primaries — they lose.
But as much as Trump is tantalized by President Joe Biden's struggles in office — and his own impatience — there are plenty of reasons to hold off, Trump allies and Republican strategists say.
If Trump announces a bid, his campaign committee will be subject to hard-money fundraising limits and a technical ban on coordinating with his Save America PAC. He would also undoubtedly focus public attention away from Republicans running in midterm races, potentially hurting the party's candidates in swing districts and states. And he might inadvertently aid Biden by giving the president a contrast point.
"The clearest, cleanest path is to have a cage-match rematch," the second adviser said. "If you have that rematch too early, it could actually help Biden a little bit. ... Trump in modest doses has been good for Trump."
There is precedent for a once and possibly future president, and for the prospect of a Trump-Biden rematch. In 1892, former President Grover Cleveland defeated President Benjamin Harrison, who had unseated Cleveland in 1888.
That was one of six times in U.S. history that a candidate tried to unseat the incumbent president who beat him four years earlier, not counting the elections George Washington won before parties were organized. The first was in 1800, when Thomas Jefferson avenged his loss at the hands of President John Adams. The most recent: Dwight Eisenhower's consecutive wins over Democrat Adlai Stevenson II in 1952 and 1956.
In four of the six contests, the challenger won.
In recent months, Trump has teased audiences at his rallies by suggesting that he will, in fact, run in 2024.
"The truth is: I ran twice, I won twice and I did much better the second time," Trump said at a March rally in Georgia, repeating the lie that he was victorious in 2020. "And now we just may have to do it again."
For now, he is soliciting and receiving counsel, both on whether he should run and, if he does, when he should jump in.
"He always seeks advice from the unlikeliest of places and a very wide pool of voices," said Miller, who declined to go into the details of his own discussions with Trump on the matter. "I very much want him to run again in 2024."
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
78 visitors
If Trump decides to run for president , he will be the Republican nominee. He wont need to be overwhelmingly popular, all he will need is to be more popular among the Republican primary voters than any of the other candidates. This is a lock.
Trump will get at least a third of the vote in every primary state, and none of the others can reach that number. GOP primaries are winner take all.
Does anyone seriously believe that DeSantis, Pence, Pompeo, Haley, Cotton or Cruz can individually get more Republican base votes than Trump, particularly once Trump starts lying about them, which he will surely do.
Republicans have set this monster into perpetual motion and have no chance of stopping it.
Don't get your hopes up John. Trump's fragile base is continuing to crumble.
As Joe continues to make people believe he is out of touch with absolutely no plan to address the issues and has nothing other than blaming them on others I think the best he can hope for is if Trump wins the nomination. If he does it will be up to how many independents can hold their nose and vote for him. As Joe continues to shit the bed (and his pants) more and more will be able to do that. It is good to see his base eroding though, I would rather he did not run. If Ron is nominated I think there is a greater chance of a Republican president unless Joe actually does something to help the country or the Dems nominate someone else completely (although I am not sure who that would be).
A Trump nomination would be a huge boost for the Democratic Party.
One thing nice about the English language is that fat chance and slim chance mean the same thing.
Is it safe to read Newsweek again?
DeSantis has more support than Trump and will be your next president.
Trump will be great as an advisor, just to see leftists be triggered for 8 more years.
Priceless fun!!!
The chances of Trump becoming DeSantis' "adviser" are slim and none, and slim has left the building.
Have you heard about the straw poll in Colorado?
"DENVER – Gov. Ron DeSantis once again swept a straw poll for 2024 presidential candidates at a Colorado conservative conference Saturday, beating out former former President Donald Trump and other possible contenders.
The attendees of the Western Conservative Summit, organized by the Centennial Institute, a think tank associated with Colorado Christian University, approved of a potential DeSantis candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination at 71%, with Trump coming in at 67%.
The straw poll was conducted based on an "approval" system, which allowed attendees to vote for more than one candidate that they could support."
And of course, there is a lot of time for some investigator, somewhere, to dig up something on Trump. Either way the left better start smearing DeSantis.
DeSantis is doing a fine job of that by himself.
"DeSantis is doing a fine job of that by himself."
Exactly. The moron has been appealing to his rabid base all along with the non-existent CRT nonsense and other non-existent threats. He appeals to his rabid base and no one else.
The GoP has demonstrably lost its collective mind. Clearly, the GoP continues with Trump as its leader and would almost certainly nominate him if he decides to run. Thus it is up to the Ds to put forth a solid candidate.
And just who would that be?
I am waiting to see like everyone else.
Speculate. I am interested to know
Why? I have no special influence. If I had some notion, which I do not at this point, what difference would it make?
Biden is a bad choice; I wanted him to serve one term and give the D and R parties a chance to get their acts together and not deliver a repeat of 2020 and 2016. Harris would be an abysmal choice. The Ds need to go outside those two just as the Rs need to go outside of Trump and Trump sycophants.
The progress thus far is not impressive.
Let me correct you. "Biden WAS a bad choice".
My statement is correct. We were talking about the choice for 2024.
The Ds could put up Jesus Christ, they will lose based on their performance.
When any one needs the truth run far far away from TDS drivel like this article.
When one tells a lie- tell a fucking whopper. Only the TDS driven will nod their heads in agreement over this one.
Compare that to the human fuck up machine Democrats and the left put into the Oval Office.
No Democrats are seeking Brandon's endorsement; because he is the worst president in the history of the US. (Jimmy Carter would like to truly thank Brandon for removing his name from that award.) The media can play it off as Brandon not wanting to get involved; truth is no one wants him involved. Remember the Virginia races he an Harris campaigned in; the Democrats lost votes when they showed up? It was the last act of desperate Democrats that knew they were going to lose.
Democrats had better start concentrating on the human fuck up machine they put in the Oval Office. "But Trruuummmmpppppp!!!!!!" will not save them during midterms; or in 2024.
Do you want Trump to be PotUS again??
I know I personally do not want Trump to run again and would not vote for him if he did. It is time for newer younger blood.
Sounds like you voted for Biden just because he's "not Trump". How stupid is that?
Not as stupid as someone who wants to vote for Trump in 2024.
I would have voted for a glass of cold spit to get the dumpster fire that is Trump out of office. So far, Biden has not performed badly in comparison.
I don't recall anybody saying they would.
And like I said, that's pretty stupid.
Nope. It was incredibly smart thing to do. Trump is no longer president. We have a sane, cogent and knowledgeable president now.
Trump should have been impeached when he fired Comey and said he did it because he did not want to be investigated. Clear and irrefutable evidence of obstruction of justice. The administration and its leader only got worse after that. He never seemed to realize that he was elected and not king.
Actually, I considered Biden worse than Trump. I voted 3rd party.
Actually, Biden has performed very badly. Just in ways different than Trump.
And yet, the left is STILL crying about him relentlessly.
Who? Let us know when this person arrives.
Let me know when that evidence arrives. So far, none of that was proven.
I know. Low unemployment, inflation under control, securing the southern border, no increased threats from Russia, China or N. Korea. Gas prices were below $2. The horror of it all.
I would rather have someone who respects the constitution than someone who wants to be president for life and obviously has no respect for anyone or anything except himself.
The president has little if any control over inflation. If you want to blame any group, blame the producers who raised their prices to increase their profit margins and not as a function of increased production cost. They are the ones who are most culpable for any inflation not caused as an extenuation of the pandemic.
Gas prices? Talk to the producers and the futures traders. They are the ones who set prices. Once again, not the president.
The southern border should be opened to all immigrants. The inspection of goods crossing the border should remain as it is.
The threats are in your head, put there by trump to make you dance to his tune.. or, maybe he just started humming to the tune of hate, fear and division that runs through the moneyed classes, and they eventually joined in with the chorus of "Dixie".
And yet you support the Democrats.
odd that it didn't start until Biden signed the EO's. But hey, lets blame Putin.
odd that it didn't start until Biden signed the EO's. But hey, lets blame Putin.
You say you would rather have someone who respects the constitution then make that stupid ass statement?
Sorry you feel that way.
Go on and continue to prove that you have no clue as to how the world works.
You haven't proven me wrong.
You have not proven yourself correct.
Trump admitted that he fired Comey because he would not call off his investigation of Flynn and "t he Russia thing".
That is obstruction of justice. Case Closed. Others followed, too.
The fact that he was able to stay in office is testament to a flawed group of politicians in Washington. Trump said that he was going to drain the swamp, but really all he wanted to do is put more nasty creatures in it, the nastiest of which was himself.
I have more than one friend who was born on September 11th. Saying that Biden caused inflation or the price of gas to go up is like saying that the horrible tragedy of 9/11 happened because it was their birthday. Just because two things happen to coincide does not mean that one caused the other.
As for R's and D's, I do not support either. I just tend to, at the current time dislike D's less than I dislike R's.
He proves it every day
Only the true TDS victims would credit the former POTUS with some sort of political
prowess for backing incumbents like Rand Paul in the primaries.../s
None of these sound like good options.
Compared to joe they run from good to acceptable to still better than joe
Cruz better than Joe? Josh Hawley? Tom Cotton? Nutjobs.
Other than Cruz as a long shot I don't think the others would have a prayer. Still don't think they would do as much damage as Joe. So yea, better than joe. Lesser of two evil
I am not a fan of Joe yet what makes me look like I am defending him is the complete kneejerk reactions I hear from most conservatives.
Contrary to how some believe, he does not control inflation or the price of oil.
DeSantis is nothing more than another trump.
Haley is too wishy washy and I don't think would even make it out of the primaries.
I agree except with the part about DeSantis; Trump is in a class of his own.
The scary part is, DeSantis is smarter than trump.
I saw a prediction a while back. Someone said a person would come along with the 'Charisma' of trump yet with the brains of a genius. Could be our downfall. Sort of like a rise of an evil dictator.
I find Trump to be extraordinarily strange; he is not your ordinary narcissist — his level of lying and narcissism are beyond anything I have observed in my life. I think it would be a welcome relief to just get back to the typical lying sack of shit narcissist politician.
DeSantis doesnt appeal to any sort of sophisticated thinking, his appeal is to Trumpsters who may think the old guy is slipping. There wont be enough of them to win it for DeSantis.
DeSantis has positioned himself as the reactionaries' leading culture warrior.
I might be able to get behind Haley but I need to hear her on the issues. Tom Cotton is definitely a NO just because he sucks donkey dicks (meaning he's a horse's ass and too damn selfish to be anybody's leader)
In a strange way, I was hoping the republicans would put up someone good.
I think there is still too much trumpism in the party right now.
Isn't Cotton your guy? Haha
Unfortunately he is
OMG! We actually agree on something. Well there is a first ye for everything
The traitor should be in jail by then.
For what?
What charges have been filed and by whom?
What is wrong with you?
I might ask you the same question.
Do you care at all about the republic? Trump tried to overthrow it. He deserves an orange jumpsuit for that, not a chance at another term in office as if nothing ever happened.
The main thing many reactionaries care about is confirmed in Comment 1.2 above:
For many a reactionary mind there is no deeper craving than a perverse desire to sate their hatred and rage.
How much time do you have?
So did Clinton.
Complete and total nonsense.
You never answered bugsy's question in 5.1. While your at it please provide proof from a reliable source. Include the dates of his trial and the conviction date.
As guilty as you claim Trump is
Your comment is not even remotely close to reality.
What on Earth are you talking about? No candidate for PotUS in our nation's history has come even close to the actions taken by Trump while a sitting PotUS after losing the election. He is in a league of his own. How can you not see this?
Why do people like you attempt (in futility) to defend Trump?
The Clinton campaign tried to go against both federal and state election laws by attempting to bribe electoral college electors to be faithless and to vote for her instead of Trump. There were riots in several cities across the country demanding that the legal results of the election be overturned in her favor. She never condemned those riots.
I am not trying to defend him. I am just don't like anyone to be call a criminal and especially a traitor without solid evidence of the crime and a conviction for it. Trump has never been tried in a criminal action nor has he been convicted of anything criminal. If you have info that is different please show it. Just because you on the left say it does not make it so
Where have I deemed Trump a traitor? Get a clue.
Even if your allegations were true, they do not compare to what Trump did after losing the election.
No, the Clinton campaign did not try "to go against state and federal laws by attempting to bribe electoral college electors".
No, there were not "riots in several cities across the country demanding that the legal results of the election be overturned".
Just because reactionaries say it does not make it so.
Take a look at 5.1.13
Just because you have a poor memory and do not remember things does not mean they didn't really happen.
Where is your proof, why haven't you given it to the FBI?
If you did, why hasn't the FBI filed charges against Trump?
It was an editorial you not necessarily a you personally.
Uhm uhm uhm uhmmmm..........................................................
But Trump!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[✘]
[✘]
I didn't even mention TDS.
Weird.
You replied to me arkpdx. When someone replies directly to me I (like most everyone) assume their comment applies to what I have written.
Your fantasies didn't happen no matter how much you pretend they did.
Something like that would be well-documented, so go ahead and show us some of the reporting on it. Post some links.
I won't hold my breath because I know it's a goddamn lie, and not the first time you've told it. Why do you keep telling lies?
Well that's the English language for you
My god. How can you possibly be under the impression that Trump didn't try to overturn the presidential election and usurp power? I mean, seriously... HOW?
Here's something I had bookmarked and handy, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted time on this stupidity. It's the Senate Judiciary report from last October. It mostly focuses on Trumps efforts with the DOJ and doesn't cover the full extent of his treachery, but it's a good start:
Full Report
If the almost 400 page report is too much, then here's the summarized chronology of key events from it:
Appendix A
Be sure to watch the public hearings starting on Thursday for what should be a broader, more up to date accounting of his attempted autocoup.
But somehow I suspect that even that won't be enough for certain people. Alternate-reality cult thinking is hard to break through.
AKA stubborn ignorance. Basically forming a belief based on group-think and historical bias and engaging confirmation bias to ensure the belief survives all facts and logic to the contrary.
And with an entire universe of propagandistic media reinforcing it on a daily basis, making billions in the process.
Thus no surprise why so many in Russia think Putin is acting honorably to destroy a Nazi threat.
That makes no sense whatsoever in the context of TiG's post.
Links? Oh, and remember your 'reliable source' thingy please.
I will start providing links when I start seeing the ones I asked the lefties for.
So you're a 'Do as I say, not as I do' kinda guy. Got ya.
That's what it's all about. The country could blow itself up but the righties got to trigger leftists.
Childish and petty
Yeah, we've been hearing that for years now and nobody has provided any evidence of why.
Nobody has provided any evidence? Are you kidding? Have you been under a rock for the past year and a half? Even Trump himself spoke recently at a rally about how Pence should have "overturned the election" for him.
Weren't you an Army lifer? Didn't you take several reenlistment oaths to support and defend the Constitution? Well, Trump tried to subvert the Constitution and illegally usurp power – as a sitting president, no less (who also took an oath).
I know it. You know it. Trump knows it. The whole friggin' world knows it.
But if you need a refresher, tune in Thursday night for the start of the public hearings.
Truth.
Excellent comments on here by you, Dig.
I guess you don't quite grasp the need for evidence to back up an accusation, have a trial and get a conviction. The left has been rallying against Trump for over 4 years. There has been no evidence presented to back up ANY of the accusations. Hence, no trials, no convictions.
Now quit with the tiresome "He did it" bullshit and present some actual evidence. I'm sure the partisan shit show Pelosi is running would love to see some actual evidence.
So that's the new time for The View?
How did he do that? HE did nothing of the sort. That you and others have that wet dream (and so did he according to you) doesn't make it so.
No evidence will suffice to those with blinders on.
All your denials (projection, deflection, and denial) doesn't make it NOT SO.
Profound nonsense.
[Deleted]
There are a half dozen or so right wingers here who do NOTHING but make the most vague declarations possible on behalf of Trump and the rest of MAGA. They "debate" without even the slightest use of facts, links or quotes, or even decent rhetoric, yet demand to be taken seriously and not as trolls.
Meanwhile very few people call them out to any substantial degree. What are we doing here?
[Deleted - falsified quotation]
Mainly whining.
Yes, that's all you and your buddies have.
There have been 2 impeachments AND 2 trials.
And ZERO convictions.
Based on ZERO evidence (don't know why that is so hard for your to understand) and ZERO convictions. You seem to forget the "impeachments" were partisan bullshit. Democrats were (and are still) pissed they lost to the FNG and tried (and FAILED) to unseat a duly elected President.
Like the song says '2 out of 3 ain't bad'.
None of it's hard for me to understand Jeremy. I fully understand the fact that your comment proves that you're in denial.
That's YOUR opinion.
Ya they made up that whole 'soliciting election interference by a foreign government' and 'inciting an insurrection' thingys. /s
Apparently it is.
Now you're coming to reality. We can't forget the Russian Collusion conspiracy theory, and the "Pee Tapes" and a few other things.
Again, you opinion.
No, I'm laughing at the ridiculousness of your comments.
When I read that it was my SECOND laugh out loud of the morning - it was too late to be my first.
Trump believes that repeating a lie often enough and with conviction gains the same effect as if the lie were the truth. Unfortunately, he is not entirely wrong there.
And yet you and others on the left repeat the lie that Trump committed treason. Just because you say it does notMake it fact
You clearly do not have clue one of my position. Don't presume. I have never stated that Trump committed treason. What I have stated, clearly, is that Trump tried to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution:
Buy a vowel. Operate based on facts rather than a flawed stereotype-based speculation.
The problem for America is not that Trump is such an incorrigible liar, the problem is that there are so many Americans who believe him.
I guess he figures that it worked for Hitler and Goebbels, so it should work for him - and as you said, it DOES.
Sometimes I think Americans are very stupid. Trump has repeatedly showed everyone what he is, and we still see massive denial from the right.
In July of 2016 Trump asked Russia to help him by finding Hillary Clinton's missing emails. Nooooooooooooo, said the right, he would never do that. It was a "joke". Three years later he asked the same of the president of Ukraine and was impeached for it. Quite the joke. Then earlier this year Trump did it again, asking Vladimir Putin to release supposed dirt on Joe and Hunter Biden, and this time during a time period that Russia was attacking Ukraine. This is a pattern of behavior that shows he was guilty of this back in 2016. No joke.
Much the same with the "voter fraud" allegations. Back in 2016 Trump said the only way he could lose was if the Democrats cheated. Sounds familiar doesnt it? Very few paid attention , which allowed him to go through the same charade after he DID lose in 2020. His saying the same thing 6 years ago that he claimed in 2020 IS evidence of his lying. A pattern. He wil do the same thing in 2024 if permitted.
Americans are stupid.
Trump is a traitor. He betrayed the principles of his high office and that makes him a traitor. We have been over this already.
Its sad that your only defense of Trump is that he's never been convicted. Al Capone murdered people that he never was convicted for. Lack of criminal conviction is not proof of innocence.
Why we have to go over and over and over this same shit with you people is a long lasting mystery.
"Americans are stupid."
Those who voted for trumpturd sure as hell are.
The attempted usurpation of power in a constitutional republic is a treasonous act, an attempted overthrow of constitutional governance.
Just sayin'.
I was deliberately sticking with what he wrote to force the point of presumption on his part.
I have no patience for the stereotype-based presumption that occurs so often.
People believed Biden and look where we are now. Things wére much better during Trump. During the Trump term inflation was not over 8% and gas was reasonably priced.
No Joe, no matter how much you say it, Inflation and gas prices are Putin's doing. The blame is all yours
LOL. And when Obama was POTUS there was no hundreds of thousands of deaths from Covid-19 and no BLM protests and no storming the Capitol Building.
How cute. You called the BLM riots protests. When are Burning buildings, Looting and Murder part of a "protest".
It should also be noted that the left showed their support of the Burn, Loot, Murder Riots. And now look at what is being "investigated".
Your comment deliberately misses the point of mine, but as Rhett Butler said, "Frankly....I don't give a damn".
Exactly, Obama not only protected Americans, he protected the world from COVID-19, then Trump took his eyes off China...
Yes, beware the YELLOW PERIL!!!!! There are getting to be so few places to deflect to....
You linked Obama and COVID-19, I didn't.
When you willing play down a riot, your credibility goes with it.
Pure and unadulterated distortion of BLM protests. Thousands of protests were carried out with no "Burning buildings, Looting (or) Murder".
But what the hell, just throw them all in a bucket cause you need something to bitch about.
When you cannot see that millions of people were enjoined in peaceful protest, the world is a poorer place.
93% of BLM protests were peaceful.
Nothing else in American society devolves into mass violence so often.
Is that what you call what happened in Minneapolis, Kenosa and every other place BLM showed up?
So what is your point? 93% of the protests had no violence at all. The rest had some violence occur at sometime during the day of and related somehow to the protest.
The question to ask is,"Why?" The answers to that question vary, but IMO most will hinge on the fact that 152 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, a police officer in the USA knelt on a black man's neck until he was dead without it ever occurring to the officer that he would face any repercussions for his actions. The reason for his thinking? He thought that his brotherhood would protect him. That is textbook systemic, because he thought the system would protect him. This is what all of the protestors were about.
Protests occur because of a perceived systemic failure. I would contend that all riots are a result of a severe systemic failure. In the case of 2020, this systemic failure was given breath by the person who had his breath, and his life, taken for the sake of a counterfeit twenty.
So to all the people who want to claim that all protestors (and their causes) are bad because some of them do bad things I have two things to say to them.
Case in point.
That BLM protests are among the most commonly violent things in American society. They are certainly one of the most violent things we actually tolerate.
93% is a phenomenally low number, compared to any organized, non-criminal gathering of Americans. Literally nothing else breaks into violence one out of every 14 times it happens.
Imagine if NFL games resulted in riots with the same frequency? That would be one every week in some major city in America. The league would be disbanded.
The answer to the question "why" is always speculative and driven heavily by the pre-established bias of the person answering the question, as you demonstrate here:
You make several assertions here, and to your credit, you identify them as your opinion. But in terms of what we can actually state to be factual....
That doesn't mean they aren't frequently violent.
I hope we're not pretending riots are also not violent. I'm also not sure that most Americans feel that "systemic failure" of one form or another is justification for burning, looting, or otherwise destroying small businesses.
The math is damning. The average BLM protest during 2020 (including all the ones where no violence was reported) resulted in $750,000 worth of damage. The overwhelmingly vast majority of this was not targeted at police stations or courthouses or other "hard" targets. It was inflicted on average Americans who have never committed an act of violence against anyone, minority or otherwise.
I'm very sure the victims of all of these "mostly peaceful" protests would say the same things to you. They have more right to say it, BTW.
Actually, there were tens of MILLIONS of them.
The highest estimate I can find for ALL of the BLM protests resulted in about $2 BILLION in damage.
The 93% data you repeated is based on 7750 BLM protests in the US.
The CORRECT math is then about $258,000 in damage per protest.
That juxtaposed with the estimated $1.5 MILLION worth of property damage on Jan. 6th.
Unlikely. What's your source?
In any case, it emphasizes my point that he can't possibly know "what they were about".
The data as originally released referred to locations, which numbered between 2000 and 2500. Accepting your modification, it's still an outrageous and indefensible number. At no point can anything that averages a quarter million dollars of damage every time it happens be considered "peaceful". The very idea is ridiculous.
I've not heard anyone attempt to defend the DC riots as "peaceful protests".
Fact-checking claim about deaths, damage from Black Lives Matter protests (statesman.com)
Actually, all it emphasizes it that your claim was wrong.
The 'data as originally released' that resulted in the 93% is about number of protests , NOT number of locations. I haven't modified anything, you have...tried.
BTFW, why are you so desperate to ignore the FACT that less than 17% of the protests that occurred during a very short period caused that damage?
Meh..... One liberal source claiming but not actually citing another (historically unreliable) liberal source has polling data with a 70% variance is suspicious at best. Any actual information on these supposed NYT polls and their methodology?
Not if you were remotely paying attention to his point or mine. If there is no way he can know the minds of tens of thousands of people (which he can't), there is sure as fuck no way he can know the minds of tens of millions.
I think if you'll review, you'll find that we're talking about 7%, not 17%. You'll also find I've not made the assertion you're claiming I have. Re-read, recalculate, pay attention, and let's see if you can do better.
You asked for a source, I gave you one.
Can you refute the content Jack?
Did you notice that there are multiple links in that article to the data it contains?
Here's one from July, 2020:
Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
I address YOUR claim and it's WRONG.
Yes, 7%.
You'll find that I didn't claim that you made an assertion Jack.
Ditto.
And I asked for clarification. As one does in civilized conversation.
If I haven't made an assertion, how could it be wrong? Your logic isn't any better than your math.
Bullshit. You posted:
Why post a lie? I gave you what you asked for. Just stop.
If posting a lie about what you asked is what you consider to be a 'civilized conversation', I'll take a pass.
Oh my bad Jack, based on your following comments, I thought that you agreed that your 'tens of thousands' statement was uninformed.
Yours is no better than the veracity of your comments.
*sigh*
You are soooooo determined to pick a ridiculous, nonsensical fight you can't keep track of what was actually said.
Read it again.
You posted a statistic. I asked for your source. You cited a source. I asked for clarification about your source. In what universe does any of that constitute a lie? That's just utter fucking batshit.
If you'll review the conversation... you will find....
My "tens of thousands" reference was used to demonstrate the foolishness of one person (in this case Thomas) who's never met most of those people being able to state authoritatively what they were all thinking. Were there more than "tens of thousands"? Very probably. And every person we add makes the likelihood that one person can accurately describe all of them more unlikely. If there were really tens of millions, his claims are literally 1000x more stupid.
You are soooo determined to pretend that you're always correct that you refuse to acknowledge facts.
No need.
I posted a correction of the statistic that you got wrong.
No, you dissed my source. Then you asked for information on a completely different source.
I think that it's obvious Jack. You did NOT ask for clarification about my source.
I pointed out that there were links to the data in the link I provided. Have you availed yourself of the information Jack and if so, what say you about it?
You seem to be expert in bullshit.
Our conversation started @ https://thenewstalkers.com/john-russell/group_discuss/15860/is-trump-on-the-brink-of-another-run-for-president#cm1805178,">
Thomas hasn't been part of it.
It's hilarious how you can be so wrong in so many different and creative ways, all because you get your knickers in a twist and won't read carefully.
Depending on the time and place of the protest, millions of people went to the BLM protests that had no violent actions occur. So, in effect you are saying that all of these people really should just have stayed home.
These millions of people enjoined in peaceful protest is the basic fact you willingly ignore because it does not fit your narrative. You say that people should stay home and not attend because "it might get violent" rather than leaving at a daylight hour or when told to disperse.
Your willing blind spot is noted.
There is a difference between a protest and a riot. You willingly conflate the two in defense of your narrative. I think you need to think about that fact and what it says about you as a person.
Do cite me saying so. And when you cannot, kindly agree to stop misrepresenting my views.
I have made no comment on whether people should have participated or not.
I'm saying....again... that statistically BLM protests were one of the most violent things in American culture. I am saying ....again... that any other type of gathering that turned violent with such a high frequency would be condemned and outlawed. Further, the organizers of any such events would be held liable for their negligence.... which is what you call it when you know something is very likely to go very wrong and you do it anyway.
Given that, I think the obvious conclusions are a) people should not have committed those acts of violence.. and b) people should stop trying to pretend this was not a violent movement.
You desperately cling to a hyper-idealized view of these events, so I suspect you will continue to pretend. But the statistics make that naivete all the more foolish.
Do cite me saying that. Again, I would ask you to stop misrepresenting my views.
Are you trying to say that there were no riots or violence during the BLM protests or are you trying to say that just because 5here were some that weren't violent that okays and negates those that were?
It's probably the dumbest defense of anything I've seen. Protests to "Stop the Steal" were proportionally less violent. No one justifies January 6th by pointing to all the election protests that didn't turn violent.
Riot = Bad, not protected speech
Protest = protected speech
What I am saying is that there were thousands of protests and of those 93% of them saw no violence. The other 7% saw violence (meaning some physical manifestation of violent activity by one or more people that required the use of police to control) at some point during the period of time that the protest was going on. Looking at these protests we can see that,as a general rule, the violent actions did not start until the evening. Several reports note that it was like a changing of the guard when night fell, with the peaceful protestors leaving and the younger, more brash and confrontational people showing up. These were the people who were ready to riot.
So, in answer to your false dichotomy presenting question: Neither.
It is disgraceful that as a nation we have people who feel so dissociated from the "American Dream" that they would feel it necessary to riot. A riot is an indication of a societal failure.
I would be curious to know what you believe these events achieved.
7.1.10
From the article Supreme Murder Plot And The Reckless Rhetoric
After reading this, it should be obvious to most people that you were not only against the riots but the protests as well and because,"... they were fully aware had a high probability of devolving into rioting and looting ." The inference to draw from this statement and the rest of your commentary is that you think the protestors should have stayed home instead of going to the BLM protest.
If you go to a protest and it's peaceful, fine. If you go and it turns violent, you should leave. If huge numbers of those protests start turning violent, yes, you should stop going.
How is that not obvious?
Then you're wrong Jack. Historically, there are far more violent times in American 'culture'. I'm old enough to remember civil unrest in the 60's and 70's. I'm also well read enough to recognize that some hard core violence went down in this country since it's inception.
I agree.
I also agree.
This definition of "huge numbers" and what is considered "violent" is where you slip into ambiguity.
Why did I reference that finding? Because it, and numerous other similar findings across numerous other surveys and analyses, point to the fact that minorities in the US are bothered and harassed at a much higher rate than whites.
But wait, there's more. According to a Harvard Radcliff study:
Further:
97.7% had no injuries.... I suppose that 2.3% is still rather large, and 3.7% caused property damage, well oh, the humanity, it is not at all the cities on flame that some here claim. Juxtaposed with the other studies showing defacto racial bias in law enforcement, I think that it could have been much worse.
What have the BLM protests achieved? They have raised awareness of systemic racism in the USA. Slowly, with spits, starts, and backsliding, we are working towards equality. IMO, we've a long way to go.
It's not ambiguous.
Because you're trying to justify the violence of the group you like?
How...precisely....does burning down small businesses alleviate that problem?
Now we're getting somewhere. Let's keep in mind that the 2.3% is the assertion of a group of highly biased researchers and the article conveniently omits any actual data. But even if we take them at her word, it's a very high number.
Easy to say when it's not your property. But $2 billion is a lot of it.
That's a massive rationalization. The January 6 riots could have been much worse, too. We're not going to excuse those, either.
Oh dear God. Just stop. Don't say "raising awareness". "Raising awareness" is what tedious idiots claim after they realize their collective tantrum didn't accomplish anything. The implication here is that people didn't already know, which is the stupidest idea ever. Michael Brown? Freddie Gray? Rodney King? Arthur McDuffie? How far back do we want to go?
People knew. People have literally known for centuries.
Are we working on it? We seem to kinda have a proven cycle of not working on it. Some black guy gets killed by police => it goes on the news => people get outraged => they protest, riot or do any of the other laughable things that make no difference (like changing a FB profile photo or painting some slogan on a street) => they lose interest and go back to their lives => nothing gets done => return to step 1.
What are we actually doing that tangibly makes life safer for minorities? How are we going to measure that?
Certainly not by sitting on our collective asses and waiting for something to change, something or someone to "do something"
People like you, who justify inaction and write voluminous posts railing against the violence when they could be out showing solidarity with folks who, by your own admission, are discriminated against, overtly, covertly and systemically.
If the killing, the nonchalant murder of a black man while people are standing there telling him to get off, the man himself pleading with his last breaths to get off, isn't enough to stir you to actively say that something needs to be done, to feel like getting up and screaming at the officer to get off his neck,...... I don't know I just don't know
You say people know, but they don't. They sit around and watch TV or you tube, and just like you said, they revert to their comfortable ways and Forget about George Floyd, Amadou Diallo because those uppity protestors finally went home. That is unless the protestors don't protest. Then we don't even get to learn their names. Protestors are the only reason we learn their names in the first place.
Explain how "waiting for something to change, something or someone to do something" while walking around shouting is better.
You clearly don't know any people like me.
You're missing the point entirely. I'm not justifying inaction. I'm identifying it. Yours. Protesting is not "action". I know you want to think it is, but it's not. Walking around shouting does not actually reduce systemic discrimination. Nobody but you cares about your "show of solidarity", especially when their city is on fire.
Something needs to be done. And it needs to be something more effective than a tantrum. And make no mistake, it's not a protest, it's a tantrum.
An actual protest has a measurable, defined, desired outcome. It targets people with the power to produce that outcome, but who have refused to do so.
Who is your mayor? Who is your congressman? Your Governor? Do they know what your desired outcome is? Do you want better police training? What? What is it you actually want to see done that will actually make the streets safer for black men? If you don't have any good ideas, have you demanded that your elected officials come up with one?
Did you get a hundred or so of your protester friends together and demand a town hall meeting with your congressman? Or your mayor? Or even the chief of police? Have you even asked them to enact whatever it is you want done? How will you measure their progress? Do they know what targets you expect them to meet?
Have you bothered to work through any of that? Or do you just wander around screaming like until somebody guesses what you want? You realize that's what toddlers do.
They just do. They're not morons.
I could turn most of your questions around and ask the same of you.
If, knowing what a protest "is" , why did you choose to, instead of joining with them, clarifying their message, pointing out to them the things that you pointed out for me to do, just sit by and watch?
I mean, if you're so smart and all, why did you not help them? Why castigate me if you believed in the ultimate message of don't kill us?? That is why they were protesting. Why did you not get your friends together and and take the actions? Were you afraid? Were you not in agreement with the stated message?
It is not through sitting at your device and condemning the protests because "they were doing it wrong " that change occurs. It is when we all change ourselves that change happens. The only way to make people see the need of change is unfortunately to keep the item of concern in front of the people whose minds need changing. Otherwise, those not directly affected have the tendency to not do anything.