US Election Results!

[chrisjpainter]

30 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

Sorted it for you!

If you're going to sort it, at least sort it with the grammar! 'I think it's AN unfair comment'.

You might disagree, but everything that I listed above is typical of your average despot. He isn't able to take it to the extent of Nazism (and no, I don't believe he'd want to, for the record!), but his actions and attitude towards those who disagree with him or worse, actively criticise him, is what you'd expect. 

He whips his real fanbase (as opposed to supporters) to a fever pitch, making them ignore fact or morality. 

Is he as bad as Hitler? Not even close. But some of what he says and does has similarities to Nazism tactics. We have to remember before the Holocaust, before World War 2, before mass concentration camps and ghettos, there was a man able to inspire millions with divisive language, who preyed on people's (occasionally reasonable) grievances and who sought to give a popularist movement political legitimacy. Then again that's typical of plenty of politicians - including members of the Left. All ANTIFA would like is someone to give them real political clout. So they can do the very lefty, inclusive, freedom-loving thing of banning everything the Right wants...No sign of fascism with them...much.

Edited November 14, 2020 by chrisjpainter

[grrclark]

31 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

If you're going to sort it, at least sort it with the grammar! 'I think it's AN unfair comment'.

You might disagree, but everything that I listed above is typical of your average despot. He isn't able to take it to the extent of Nazism (and no, I don't believe he'd want to, for the record!), but his actions and attitude towards those who disagree with him or worse, actively criticise him, is what you'd expect. 

He whips his real fanbase (as opposed to supporters) to a fever pitch, making them ignore fact or morality. 

Is he as bad as Hitler? Not even close. But some of what he says and does has similarities to Nazism tactics. We have to remember before the Holocaust, before World War 2, before mass concentration camps and ghettos, there was a man able to inspire millions with divisive language, who preyed on people's (occasionally reasonable) grievances and who sought to give a popularist movement political legitimacy. Then again that's typical of plenty of politicians - including members of the Left. All ANTIFA would like is someone to give them real political clout. So they can do the very lefty, inclusive, freedom-loving thing of banning everything the Right wants...No sign of fascism with them...much.

I wholeheartedly agree with both your posts and there is nothing remotely left wing about either.

[mick miller]

Who agrees with this;

If cheating, widespread or otherwise, is unearthed and the evidence is so overwhelming, whichever side has either lied or cheated should be prosecuted, locked up, prevented from having any involvement with politics OR large corporates again and that party, whether Democrat or Republican should have a root and branch purge to remove anyone associated with the deceit. 

 

This is just a ridiculous state of affairs. 

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, mick miller said:

the evidence is so overwhelming

You could not get agreement on the above.  My guess is that both side will be guilty to a degree - and at levels from voting locations, counts and upwards.  I cannot see how you could operate that.

It is in politicians nature to lie, cheat and deceive in order to get their way.  You could probably add a whole load of other undesirable characteristics into that list as well!

[London Best]

10 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

You could not get agreement on the above.  My guess is that both side will be guilty to a degree - and at levels from voting locations, counts and upwards.  I cannot see how you could operate that.

It is in politicians nature to lie, cheat and deceive in order to get their way.  You could probably add a whole load of other undesirable characteristics into that list as well!

Yep, politician is just a big word for liar.

[mick miller]

3 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

You could not get agreement on the above.  My guess is that both side will be guilty to a degree - and at levels from voting locations, counts and upwards.  I cannot see how you could operate that.

It is in politicians nature to lie, cheat and deceive in order to get their way.  You could probably add a whole load of other undesirable characteristics into that list as well!

Well, either the Trump campaign and GOP do have evidence, which is credible in a court of law or, they're massive frauds (as lots of folk like to believe).

If scenario a). The Clintons, Obamas and anyone else complicit with this alleged deceit (along with the technology providers, media outlets etc.) need to do some jail time. Scenario b) Trump and his cohorts get new outfits to match his complexion. Either way, the American people win.

[grrclark]

3 hours ago, mick miller said:

Who agrees with this;

If cheating, widespread or otherwise, is unearthed and the evidence is so overwhelming, whichever side has either lied or cheated should be prosecuted, locked up, prevented from having any involvement with politics OR large corporates again and that party, whether Democrat or Republican should have a root and branch purge to remove anyone associated with the deceit. 

 

This is just a ridiculous state of affairs. 

I think if there is sufficient proof that a court could reach a verdict that there was deliberate fraudulent activity then absolutely there should be a consequence.  If that fraud has been committed by an election authority or official then there should be a very severe penalty.

If there is evidence, sufficient for a court to reach a verdict, of systemic fraud by a political party then again there should be the severest consequences.

[mick miller]

Just now, grrclark said:

I think if there is sufficient proof that a court could reach a verdict that there was deliberate fraudulent activity then absolutely there should be a consequence.  If that fraud has been committed by an election authority or official then there should be a very severe penalty.

If there is evidence, sufficient for a court to reach a verdict, of systemic fraud by a political party then again there should be the severest consequences.

At last, we agree. The winners here NEED TO BE THE VOTERS, the American public. If there has been clear deception and stoking of extremists on either side those responsible need to pay the price. But no convenient patsies, the rot needs weeding out as far as it goes and those people need to be ruined. This farce cannot continue to be re-run again.

[grrclark]

5 minutes ago, mick miller said:

At last, we agree. The winners here NEED TO BE THE VOTERS, the American public. If there has been clear deception and stoking of extremists on either side those responsible need to pay the price. But no convenient patsies, the rot needs weeding out as far as it goes and those people need to be ruined. This farce cannot continue to be re-run again.

Absolutely no disagreement there.  If there is any rot in their voting system it needs to be sorted, if it is being deliberately abused there needs to be criminal consequence.

There will be individual issues that are genuine errors, no system can avoid that, but that will not be at a level that could sway the outcome.

While I genuinely believe that Trump is at it and making baseless allegations, it is not because of a partisan position by myself.  If there was proof that their system was sufficiently vulnerable, or corrupt, so as to change the outcome of a presidential vote then the consequence of that would be incredibly far reaching.

That is slightly different to the claims of social engineering (the Russian involvement or fake news) where people are convinced to vote one way or another, that isn't a systemic failure of the voting system, but it is failure of the media (mainstream or social) to be aware of that.

[chrisjpainter]

Just now, grrclark said:

I think if there is sufficient proof that a court could reach a verdict that there was deliberate fraudulent activity then absolutely there should be a consequence.  If that fraud has been committed by an election authority or official then there should be a very severe penalty.

If there is evidence, sufficient for a court to reach a verdict, of systemic fraud by a political party then again there should be the severest consequences.

Quite right. It's just that one by one, Trump's lawsuits are either getting booted out of court, or they're dropping them through lack of evidence. I particularly enjoyed this piece of dialogue from the suit about Pennsylvania not allowing Republican observers in, thus breaking the counting rules:

Judge Paul Diamond “Are your observers in the counting room?”
Trump's lawyer: “There’s a nonzero number of people in the room”* 

That's not really the same thing as 'No'.

So far, as of close of play, Friday. the challenges were at a 15-1 losing record. The sole win was to have observers (both Dem and GOP) closer in Pa than they were being allowed. More suits are coming this week and some are pending, but it's not a great record if you're looking to prove mass vote fraud. If there's such an overwhelming amount of evidence, why can't they prove their cases in court? They're either spectacularly incompetent, or clutching at straws.

 

*from the Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-election-legal-challenges/2020/11/14/904fbd04-25e2-11eb-a688-5298ad5d580a_story.html

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Well Donald has until January, wonder who will pack his bags for him?

[Rewulf]

2 hours ago, grrclark said:

That is slightly different to the claims of social engineering (the Russian involvement or fake news) where people are convinced to vote one way or another, that isn't a systemic failure of the voting system, but it is failure of the media (mainstream or social) to be aware of that.

Surely the media are more guilty of that than anybody ?
Inherently biased (one way or another) they are not adverse to some misdirection, blatant fake news, and often downright lies, to get their preferred candidate into a power position.
The question is, is this down to the media outlets preferred political stance of , A: Its owners. B: Its perceived audience ?
Or is it tied in with a business or ethical interest with one or more political parties ?

I think we can dispense with the idea that they are unbiased, as this is clearly fantasy.
What can be seen , is that often business interests acquire a media outlet to push their own business agendas, through favouritism of one or more political parties/ideologies.
This is probably the more stark in the US than here , but either way, the conflicts of interest are apparent ?

What is more grating is when you have an 'impartial' taxpayer funded network like the beeb, who clearly come down on a certain side, and is populated quite unashamedly by a certain side, pretending to speak without shame, of being fair to all parties.
When even the least politically minded can see that it isnt.

[grrclark]

11 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Surely the media are more guilty of that than anybody ?
Inherently biased (one way or another) they are not adverse to some misdirection, blatant fake news, and often downright lies, to get their preferred candidate into a power position.
The question is, is this down to the media outlets preferred political stance of , A: Its owners. B: Its perceived audience ?
Or is it tied in with a business or ethical interest with one or more political parties ?

I think we can dispense with the idea that they are unbiased, as this is clearly fantasy.
What can be seen , is that often business interests acquire a media outlet to push their own business agendas, through favouritism of one or more political parties/ideologies.
This is probably the more stark in the US than here , but either way, the conflicts of interest are apparent ?

What is more grating is when you have an 'impartial' taxpayer funded network like the beeb, who clearly come down on a certain side, and is populated quite unashamedly by a certain side, pretending to speak without shame, of being fair to all parties.
When even the least politically minded can see that it isnt.

I agree that commercial media are hugely influential on a political outcome, especially the tabloid press. It was often said that Rupert Murdoch was the kingmaker in the British politics.

As i said, it is a failure of the media, but it is also representative of our level of personal engagement in politics when we unthinkingly consume tabloid soundbites.

The big difference now is the increasing influence of social channels that are wholly unregulated, at least with the MSM you have a semblance of regulation and a code of conduct.

I'm not entirely convinced that the Beeb are wholly partial.  All sides want to cry foul on the Beeb for favouring the other party.  If you read the comments in the Guardian they will whine that the BBC is right leaning, if you read the comments in the Times they whine it is left leaning.  If you look at comments by Scottish Nationalists they think the BBC is a Tory unionist propaganda machine.  They can't all be right.

In the case of Brexit there was very much a BBC party line that was instigated by Kamal Ahmed, that is a point of record, and there is a diversity agenda which is again a point of record.

[Walker570]

I watched the Million March and it was 100% peaceful until the Democrat invoked Antifa brigade turned up with every intent of causing violence and trouble.  

The overweight lady is still practising her song.

[mick miller]

I saw that too. Relentless goading until, finally, some people just popped! Same tactic as sabs use, keep pushing, pushing, until someone snaps, then its cameras at the ready and edit out the first, goading, part.

 

[WalkedUp]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/30/donald-trump-coronavirus-chinese-lab-claim

Do you not all remember this? Trump said he had categoric proof and would be releasing it shortly. 6 months later, when he would have sold his own wife to save his skin and he still has no proof to show. 

No one knows who is right, all we can say is show us the evidence. 

[12gauge82]

The Georgia recount while unlikely to change the result at present, is throwing up some disturbing irregularities, so far 2500 uncounted ballots have been found with over two thirds in trumps favour, the winning margin was only 14k, I'm starting to think trumps accusations, while not yet showing fraud on a scale to change the result possibly have at least some merit. 

[chrisjpainter]

14 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

The Georgia recount while unlikely to change the result at present, is throwing up some disturbing irregularities, so far 2500 uncounted ballots have been found with over two thirds in trumps favour, the winning margin was only 14k, I'm starting to think trumps accusations, while not yet showing fraud on a scale to change the result possibly have at least some merit. 

It's going to take an awful lot of 800 vote margins to make even a dent in the overall result! That's why audits go on. It's also why recounts very rarely flip a state. This doesn't look like fraud - the numbers aren't big enough or in a significant area. Floyd County's going 70-30 for Trump anyway. Had it been in a county that had traditionally gone Trump, but suddenly turned up blue and then flipped back after a recount to the tune of thousands (not hundreds), or if something like this happened in several counties, it might be interesting. But a few hundred votes in a county Trump's already won? Not interesting...yet

[NoBodyImportant]

33 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

It's going to take an awful lot of 800 vote margins to make even a dent in the overall result! That's why audits go on. It's also why recounts very rarely flip a state. This doesn't look like fraud - the numbers aren't big enough or in a significant area. Floyd County's going 70-30 for Trump anyway. Had it been in a county that had traditionally gone Trump, but suddenly turned up blue and then flipped back after a recount to the tune of thousands (not hundreds), or if something like this happened in several counties, it might be interesting. But a few hundred votes in a county Trump's already won? Not interesting...yet

Liberals on Monday,  it’s only 2600 votes. Tuesday their like it’s only 1700 votes. On Wednesday they are like there is no fraud. 

[NoBodyImportant]

The craziest thing is republicans won big in the house and senate.  But apparently people voted Republican in the house but voted for Biden on the same ballot.  Nobody did that.  I promise it didn’t happen. 

Remember that dominion voting machines that got caught switching Trump votes to Biden?  Here is locations that also use Dominion 

[oowee]

It's getting tiring all of this endless blubbering. Lets have the evidence. 

Meanwhile back in reality the lives of your countrymen are being lost as a result of Trumps actions. 

[12gauge82]

56 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

It's going to take an awful lot of 800 vote margins to make even a dent in the overall result! That's why audits go on. It's also why recounts very rarely flip a state. This doesn't look like fraud - the numbers aren't big enough or in a significant area. Floyd County's going 70-30 for Trump anyway. Had it been in a county that had traditionally gone Trump, but suddenly turned up blue and then flipped back after a recount to the tune of thousands (not hundreds), or if something like this happened in several counties, it might be interesting. But a few hundred votes in a county Trump's already won? Not interesting...yet

I think you may have missed my point, I agree at the moment it doesn't look like enough to flip a vote, but it's only a very small sample so far, however two thirds of erroneous counting seems to have gone against trump of ballots checked, if that trend continues that's massive, time will tell but its a worrying start for me. 

6 minutes ago, oowee said:

It's getting tiring all of this endless blubbering. Lets have the evidence. 

Meanwhile back in reality the lives of your countrymen are being lost as a result of Trumps actions. 

What I've posted is hard evidence and not blubbering, I'm not for a second holding it up as evidence the entire vote was rigged, but it seems to show there has been at least some foul play, its not a good start anyway, although absolutely admittedly it's not yet wide spread fraud either. 

[chrisjpainter]

31 minutes ago, NoBodyImportant said:

The craziest thing is republicans won big in the house and senate.  But apparently people voted Republican in the house but voted for Biden on the same ballot.  Nobody did that.  I promise it didn’t happen. 

Remember that dominion voting machines that got caught switching Trump votes to Biden?  Here is locations that also use Dominion 

NO THEY DIDN'T!

This absurd rumour probably needs to die a death now. Too many people from both parties, as well as the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council, the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees and Republican secretaries of state to the list of people saying it's not true. Trump's own Department for Homeland Security is saying it's not true. 

Where did the map come from? I'm curious, as it shows Dominion being used in Texas, a state in which it's not certified to be used*.  There also seem to be plenty of Dominions in use in Missouri, Louisiana and Mississippi. Why aren't results there being scrutinised? 

 

*https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/laws/dominion.shtml

https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/forms/sysexam/voting-sys-bycounty.pdf

[WalkedUp]

Armed with all the money in the world, a huge legal team, the entire government machine and the only evidence is a handful of lost ballots out of 140 million? 

 

We have found this spoon, Sir! 

[figgy]

What it does is prove irregularities in the system. 

Gives trump ammo for his case. 

This voting system from a country that calls itself the lease of the free world is a complete joke.