Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

My bet that Trump won’t concede – politicalbetting.com

1234568»

Comments

  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Only two options here, both of which include Laura Kuenssburg is an absolute joke of a journalist.

    Firstly, Either this story is bollox, Carrie Symonds has no Government role and her view are of no consequence, let alone should be being reported breathlessly as pivotal by the BBC's chief political correspondent. This is just gossip peddling.

    Or this story is accurate, Carrie Symonds now has the power to block key Government appointments, in which case THAT should be the story, not who gets appointed to the role.
    Actually to be fair to Carrie, she's a former SPAD/Comms person.

    She used to be Head of Comms for the Tory party as well.

    I think she might talking from a professional POV,
    So?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868
    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    kinabalu said:

    Biden could shut this down by calling for a full audit of the votes in the disputed states.

    If there is no fraud he will be totally vindicated and it will well and truly be the end of Trump.

    Or of course Trump & Co could accept the clear result of a clearly free and fair election.

    This would also "shut it down" and tbf is what usually happens in a democracy.
    Yes. The idea that the winner should give ground on this makes no sense. The loser concedes.

    At this point Biden is well within his rights to go scorched earth on Trump supporters.
    What do you mean by "go scorched earth" on Trumpers?

    I viscerally like the sound of that but it's a sensitive situation.
    Promise a reckoning for all of those Trump people who are denying the legitimacy of the election result. It is getting ridiculous and the muddying of waters over democratic legitimacy by major Republican players needs to be stopped in its tracks.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    Scott_xP said:
    It's all just a political game to them. The fact that the game has real world consequences for businesses everywhere, and that the detail matters, is of no consequence.

    It's like HYUFD banging on about "the polls" on the back of huge generalisations and cliches.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,381
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    And no one cares, or if they do cannot do anything about it. China has gambled that they are strong enough to clamp the fist, and been proven right.
    There can therefore be no complaints from Beijing if Westminster blocks indyref2 next year if the SNP get a Holyrood majority, given that would be a much less authoritarian response than Beijing has taken with anti Beijing forces in Hong Kong.

    Much less authoritarian response? For all Johnson's faults, and there are many, I don't believe he is considering anything like Xi Jinping levels of aggressive authoritarian suppression...yet.

    Does Boris know you are pumping out oppressive rhetoric in the name of the party of government? He should be told.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Only two options here, both of which include Laura Kuenssburg is an absolute joke of a journalist.

    Firstly, Either this story is bollox, Carrie Symonds has no Government role and her view are of no consequence, let alone should be being reported breathlessly as pivotal by the BBC's chief political correspondent. This is just gossip peddling.

    Or this story is accurate, Carrie Symonds now has the power to block key Government appointments, in which case THAT should be the story, not who gets appointed to the role.
    Johnson has one of exactly two motivations for everything he does: people pleasing and spite.

    Given recent events Johnson is probably on an intensive ingratiation campaign with CS so she may have more heft than usual.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,124
    He's not so dim as to give his client's case an extra evidential burden. The court's remedy for cock-up is likely to be the same as for conspiracy, and he doesn't have to prove any mala fides.

    If he can get the court to declare error, the internet will translate 'error' to 'sneaky Dems fraudin' y'all votes, and the legacy media covered it up'.

    The R litigation strategy is to find a few instances of error or voter fraud on which they can hang a wider narrative of "Biden cheated you, CNN helped".
  • MangoMango Posts: 1,019
    Andy_JS said:

    Talking of concessions, Neil Kinnock never formally conceded the 1992 election to John Major. He gave a speech to party workers at 5am on election night but didn't mention John Major or the election result directly. He just said people deserved better than what they'd got.

    Well we did deserve a lot better.

    Be nice if it happened some time.
This discussion has been closed.