grrclark

I agree Chris. The response from the 4 swing states was very pointed as well. I half expect to wake up tomorrow to the news that the supreme court has refused to hear the case, although they may string it out for a day. I also expect that to be a 9-0 decision too. What comes next for The Donald if this was the “Big One”? Some of his tweets today could almost be called an incitement for public unrest or violence. Sad to say, but i wouldn’t be surprised to hear of some of the state/election officials in the 4 swing states being attacked or murdered.

So will the Texas AG's petition to the Supreme Court be the pivotal moment in Trump's campaign to reverse the election result? Trump has described this as the "Big One" and has intervened as a private citizen in the petition. Will SCOTUS dismiss this as there is no additional evidence beyond that which has already been thrown out at a state level? Will SCOTUS allow the petition to move to a proceeding and potentially allow different State's to disenfranchise millions of voters in other states? Will SCOTUS take an unprecedented decision in allowing the motion to stand and effectively overturning the political will of the US electorate? Will SCOTUS effectively put themselves in a position where the basis of federal independence in the US is cast aside as a consequence of their intervention? Is this really a pitch by the AG of Texas to receive a presidential pardon, a quid pro quo deal? If it is dismissed will Trump finally concede the election in a dignified way or will he continue to fight on with ever increasing desperation? If it is dismissed will Trump's supporters finally accept they have been stitched up like a kipper and make to look foolish by believing the vainglory of their orange idol?

Thanks Pushkin. There are many Trump fanboys on here, although your name was not on my mental list as being one of them so no offence intended or hopefully taken. The popularity of Trump or otherwise doesn’t influence my thoughts on the election fraud piece. It’s a good discussion in it’s own right though. What i have not yet seen from any who advance the theory it was a fraud was why has none of the things that they cite as evidence stood up in court. Why when in court do his legal team not assert fraud and instead argue about relatively small procedural technicalities, but seek to invalidate the votes of millions. Undoubtably they are trying to change the election outcome in the courts (and failing), but they are not trying to change it by proving fraud, I would like someone who believes the fraud story to tell me why that is.

Well said.

Where did you look to find your truth Pushkin? The reality is that the majority of commentary available is partial, it is either pro Trump and if you’re a Trump fan you’re going to believe that, or it is anti Trump and if you don’t like him that is what you will choose to believe. When making an assessment about whether the election result was a massive systemic fraud i’m not making that with any partiality, i genuinely don’t care. I’m looking at it objectively, not a single bit of evidence put forward as being proof of large scale organised fraud has stood up in court, not a single bit. More than 40 separate hearings across multiple states and heard by a broad church of judges of both Republican and Democrat bias. Not even Trump’s own legal team are prepared to state under oath in the courtroom that they are alleging fraud. Why do you think that is? Why did his attorney general and close ally say that there was no proof of large scale systemic fraud? Despite the frankly incoherent ramblings of Trump’s fan boys I look at the reality of that situation and make a decision based on that. No more no less. Absolutely no evidence presented in court to state there is a burden of proof in support of his claims of the election being rigged. Why not? There is a bit of me genuinely hopes there is some smoking gun or some real genuine proof of the untoward at a massive level, because that would make for epic watching, but it just isn’t going to happen. If Trump is successful in having anything overturned it will be small scale and on the basis of some obscure technicality and it wont change the outcome of the race. Meanwhile today in the US 3000 people died of Covid and the president apparently has nothing to say on that, other than Rudy caught the “China virus”. Still tweeting how he “WON BIG”. He’ll still tweet that after he has left the White House, even after all his court cases have been dismissed, even after every official body states there was no fraud and still tens of millions will believe him. I daresay a good many of his fanboys on PW will believe it too.

Amazing how so many things put forward by Trump’s cadre supposedly PROVE fraud, yet not a single one of these things has actually held up in court. Not a single one substantiated in court, despite what some graph theory experts might say, whatever a graph theory expert is. Why could that be Trumpophiles? Reckon it’s maybe not actually substantive proof? When actually questioned in court, under oath, by the judge even Giuliani said he was not alleging fraud, but was advancing a technical argument on process. Why could that be Trumpophiles? Why would Trump’s $20k per day lawyer scream fraud in TV interviews and the media, but when under oath he says the opposite? Of the almost 50 legal challenges by Trump and/or his supporters he has won one which was a minor technical victory. He has had more than 30 dismissed, many by judges he appointed. I believe 12 cases are still in process. With this massive cannon of evidence and proof why would all these challenges be dismissed across multiple states? Could it be that actually there is no actual evidence of proof? His own attorney general and avowed supporter has dismissed all the claims advanced so far as indicating no large scale evidence of fraud. The Election service have said the same as has the head of Homeland Security who was of course was sacked for having the temerity to speak against his boss. Why would that be, why would these very senior officials who are part of Trump’s own administration say there is no evidence of fraud? Could it be they actually have integrity and are honouring their duty of service to their country? Curious how the first re-count in Georgia confirmed the result of the ballot, I reckon the second one will too. The video above has been dismissed by the two republican state officials. According to those republicans the video shows what you would expect to see as part of the process. The scrutineering had been done and the ballot papers, that had been checked and observed by republicans, are placed in the sealed containers (not suitcases), the ballot papers are then scanned to do the actual count. The workers in the office know the process is being monitored by video. Not being a US election official or observer i don’t know what is normal or not, willing to place a bet that until this video appeared neither did anybody else on PW. Of course if this is the genuine smoking gun that Giuliani alleges we wont have long to wait before the biggest political scandal in US history blows up. I’m not holding my breath however, but it will be amazing to watch if it does happen. So far i’ve seen the claims that the postal service, UPS, Dominion, dozens of judges, state officials, Directors of Federal organisations, almost every established and credible international media source, the entire democrat party, a number of republican senators and state governors, and millions of the US populace are guilty of a grand conspiracy, but only in 4 states. Who coordinated this amazing conspiracy across all these disparate entities and kept it secret? Was it “Sleepy Joe” from his basement? Maybe it was the megalomaniacal marxist mastermind Kamala! If they can orchestrate and manage fraud on that scale with such precision across so many entities I reckon the country will be in very capable hands. All the while Trump and his very well paid help are of course the unambiguous source of the truth, honesty, decency and integrity. If this exemplar of integrity knew the US electoral system was such a hotbed of fraud why has he done nothing to fix it in the 4 years under his Presidency? Too busy building a few extra miles of fence maybe?

Stormy Daniels did.... Being serious, I agree the comments from Fauci are political.

The UK is a leading player on the global stage in pharmacology and pharmaceutical development so may explain why we could approve so quickly. It saddens me that so many of us fail to appreciate just how much brilliant talent and knowledge we have in this country. We are first on approving the Pfizer vaccine, but Russia and China have already approved other vaccinations. On Thalidomide, if folk are really interested have a read on the history of the approval of that drug and all the mistakes that were made with its use during pregnancy; the drug company knew. It is an interesting story and the lessons of that scandal have been reflected in drug testing regimes in the 60-70 years since then. Thalidomide is still used as to treat some skin disease and particular cancers. It also makes me laugh that so many of those who bang on about the Covid vaccine being an unknown quantity for long term health will happily be puffing away on fags, cigars or a pipe when there are very well known long term health impacts. Likewise with anyone who is very overweight or drinks too much booze.

🤣🤣 Yes he is. A very forgetful one (topical satire that is)

There is much talk that it is a facade, i’ve even heard mutterings from relatively senior figures in the Scottish Government (non MSPs), but they are as predisposed to salacious gossip as anybody else. There are a few, which seems to be odd given the nature of this community, but as has been said there is no shortage of oddity surrounding the SNP. There has been some talk towards more of a federalist arrangement between the UK home nations, but nothing other than independence (regardless of the cost) will satisfy the fervent supporters of nationalism.

It is very much a heart versus head argument, it’s more extreme than Brexit though. Agreed on higher education and research, but it desperately needs to change to realise its potential. It used to be very good, but education in general in Scotland has slipped. There are pockets of brilliance of course, but there is an awful lot of mediocrity making up the numbers. She is focussed on independence Gordon and her cabinet are light weight. It is very much a party that revolves around the leader, quite cultish. As regards her smarts look at her public satisfaction ratings relative to BoJo on covid. Statistically Scotland is marginally worse for deaths and our care home deaths were a real shocker, yet she portrays that image of being on top, that caring humility and empathy. All rubbish of course, but she is a very good and shrewd politician. Again, not really something to boast about, being a great snake oil seller. Relative to England the Scottish NHS does perform slightly better I think, but it’s not something to boast about. Education is much of a muchness across Scotland and England. Neither are spectacular. If some in the party had their way Salmond would be back now. I think she needs to depart the top job first though.

Like any negotiator she would try to do the best by her own side I guess. And no, she is far from being thick, she is a very smart and shrewd operator, as was her predecessor. They are/were big political fish in a very small pond. She is driven by ideology and if she gets the result she wants then she will slink off satisfied without any great regard for the consequence. I have said it before, if Scotland did vote for independence, ironically, the folk who will lose out the most are so many of those who are so vocal in favour of it. I wont really lose out, i'll probably do very well out of it in short to medium term from the multiple opportunities it would bring as part of the transition even if it comes with a much bigger tax burden, but I will be in the minority. Still wouldn't vote for it.

Serious answer as requested. On the basis of the current Scottish public spending profile then there is no economic argument advanced by the SNP that would permit that level of spend without running a significant structural deficit. So to answer your question Ditchy, on a like for like spending basis the money would have to come from borrowing. As it happens that is no different to the UK on both counts, we (UK) spend more than we earn and we fill the gap by borrowing. The difference of course is related to the UK's current ability to borrow relative to an iScotland. For those in England, and particularly the usual suspects on every PW thread on this subject, who proclaim that the Scot's are a millstone around England's neck and we only survive thanks to England's handouts; If Scotland cuts loose then England still runs a significant structural deficit and your borrowing costs will ramp up significantly too so don't be kidding yourself on that you are going to be much better off, you're not. You'll be worse off too. Scotland's secession from the UK would significantly impact on the rUK balance of trade and have a much bigger impact on the rUK balance sheet when the discussion turned to divvying up the UK assets, i.e. the maritime exclusive economic zones of both UK waters c. 300k sq.mi and the much larger c.2,300k sq.mi of UK overseas dependent territories, same goes for the actual overseas territory land masses, the associated mineral, oil & gas rights with them, the share of the real estate value of UK embassies, etc. In short rUK would have much less collateral and a poorer net cash position to borrow against, hence borrowing costs would rise, leading to more pennies servicing the debt and further reduction in public spend. As for Europe, the current SNP policy, post secession, of Sterlingisation will prohibit entry to the EU, not because of politics and what the Spanish might say, but because it is actually against current EU treaty and as we have seen through the Brexit negotiations the EU are not keen to breach treaties. For those that might be interested this is covered in the Accession (Copenhagen) Criteria. The nationalists argue that the criteria is not absolute and there can be a negotiated pathway, however significantly more likely that the newest member states that had to conform to the accession criteria would veto any entry long before Spain did on the basis of the Catalan question. I personally think the Spanish issue is much less relevant than many believe. So the bigger question is how could iScotland prosper? By becoming much less dependent on public sector income, by becoming a low tax low regulation economy, by a dramatic shift in the profile of our education to encourage entrepreneurism, by dramatically increasing our productivity efficiency and taking advantage of the productivity surplus capacity, by radically overhauling our healthcare and social welfare programme to significantly reduce the level of non contributory populace from the near 25% it is at right now. Of course absolutely none of that is part of any agenda of the nationalists, instead their own growth commission report suggested 10 years of significant austerity to get to a point of parity of income versus expenditure. With the right policies and social outlook it would take 2 generations to get to the point where iScotland could be in a significantly better place than it is now and I wholeheartedly believe it could be a very prosperous small nation, but sadly the narrative of the current nationalist campaign doesn't talk about realities, it is content to let people believe in disingenuous fantasy.

Sorry for your loss Moondoggy.

The wind chill at 180mph would be quite something, although I guess adrenaline keeps you warm.

His second goal in that same game was sublime and demonstrated why he was one of the best ever, if not the best, to play the game. A desperately flawed individual for sure, but a phenomenal footballing talent.

Yes, Trump’s style of approach and public conduct will certainly be remembered much more than the substance of his delivery. It is a shame, despite his odious character I liked how he shook up the established political firmament. It never r eally hurts when established and tired institutions are forced to take a look at themselves and how they operate. Like you I did have an open mind about the claims of the election being rigged, but very early on when there was a storm of hysteria on Twitter and in the Trump friendly media, but little substance being presented to back it up, i thought it was a charade. Also the scale of what was being claimed was so significant that it just stopped being plausible. The fact that he had started to seed the idea with the same slogans and strap-lines before the election also made it feel so much more contrived. I see that while still vowing to fight on he is gradually conceding and not blocking so much of the transitional activities. His last acts may be signing many pardons for perjury for those who took a shilling to sign affidavits in support of the campaign. (Said tongue in cheek....ish)

There really was an inevitable conclusion to all of this, shouting as loud as they could about how the whole thing was rigged, but when a bright light was shone on them in the many court settings they withered. Will he concede or will he string it out right to the bitter end? The question is now, how long until Trump starts to call out that he was hugely mislead by his legal team and how they have played it all wrong, their incompetence as well as all the systemic fraud has cost him? Powell was well and truly thrown under the bus.

The point is parents and grand parents should be free to make their own choice. I wholeheartedly agree.

What a bizarre post. Do you take it as a personal attack on your belief system or you that others disagree that the election has not been rigged? Last time I checked everything that Trump and the associated campaigns have put in front of the courts as evidence has been thrown out by the same courts as being baseless, ergo there is no evidence, just rhetoric and conjecture. Plenty big statements outside the court claiming this and that, so far nothing presented inside the courts. I am also completely open minded as to whether there was a nationwide, concerted coordinated systemic rigging of the election, but other than Trump and his lackeys screaming out that there has been, no evidence of that has been presented to any court. None. On that basis i’m playing the odds to say there is none, i am genuinely completely ambivalent about a Trump or Biden presidency. Plenty procedural challenges, almost all thrown out as well, but absolutely hee haw corroborated evidence regarding fraud. Even life long Republican judges appointed by Trump have dismissed petitions by Trump on the basis of no credible evidence. Trump’s tweets or Giuliani’s TV rants don’t count as evidence, they are designed to stir up emotions of his supporters. It’s working very well too.

Thanks Chris for that summary, well done for investing your time in watching the diatribe by RG and summarising. Despite what you have put forward and the incontrovertible evidence of Trump’s claims being dismissed by the courts as having no standing or basis, people will believe what they want to. They see a powerful figure on TV that they respect or value, they then swallow everything that is said without any critical consideration because it aligns with what they think. it is far easier to con someone than convince them they are being conned. The Trump campaign is now starting to pivot to try and influence the state electors In a different way, hoping that he will get them to vote against the wishes of the electorate when the electoral college meets. I really don’t know if Trump thinks he can somehow still stay President through this, he wont, but i am much more certain that he is trying to sow such massive discord through the electorate, that he will continue to pump over the next 4 years from the side lines, because he wants another shot at the title in 2024, or more likely he wants his son to have a shot at it then. Trump is playing the long game and he is going to do huge damage to America in doing it, all for the benefit of his own ego.

Nope.

Monbiot is one of those journalists who revels in hurling rocks at anything and everything whilst never having to stand behind anything that he offers as a solution. So easy to criticise when you don't actually have to make a decision.

I absolutely do not despair at all at a relaxing of restrictions for Christmas. I don't think that allowing family get togethers will have an appreciable rise in infection rates either. We are still a fundamentally Christian country and even where we have become much less religious our traditions are still based on many of the Christian premises (I daresay someone will wish to remind me how Christmas is really pagan, etc), that is why we have holidays at Easter and Christmas. For a great many people Christmas does mean something special, particularly the family element, and to not be able to indulge in that after a year of significant restriction of liberties and freedoms I think is too much. If Christmas to you is just about X Boxes or whatever then that speaks to your materialism, for so many people it isn't about that at all. Families have had to watch relatives languish in care homes without being able to visit, they have had to witness relatives endure isolation in thier own homes with a decline of their well being, especailly elderly and vulnerable relatives. Why on earth would we choose to volunteer to place even more emotional hardship on individuals at a time of year that is especially poignant to many. Many people will not have the luxury of another Christmas beyond this one, many more will make a choice to undertake their own risk evaluation of whether getting together with their family at Christmas is worth the risk to them for the sake of one more Christmas together, they are grown ups and should be allowed to do so without any fear of intervention by the state. The mere fact that we are even countenancing a law that should preclude us from spending a Christmas Day together with our familes, let alone advocating for it, I find incredibly discomforting.

These are both true. If folk are really interested there are loads of articles about the stages of cognitive development in the adolescent brain and what those changes can mean in practical behaviours. It is really quite fascinating if you're inclined that way but dreadfully dull if you're not.