Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
I'm sorry @rcs1000 but US democracy has been damaged from 2016 when we had the whole "the election was stolen" narrative then but from the other side. Two impeachment trials later, the constant claims that Trump was Putin's man in the White House, the claims his Presidency was illegitimate etc etc. Just because many of those making the claims had degrees from the Ivy League and spoke in quiet and methodical tones doesn't mean they weren't dangerous and eroded democratic trust.
Hillary Clinton conceded that she had lost the US Presidential election.
While there was whingeing about whether Russia had attempted to sow division in the US (which, by the way, they also do by amplifyng BLM stuff too, so this is hardly one way), there was no attempt to claim by the candidate that the votes cast were invalid.
There is no equivalence here, and your attempt to claim it is staggering.
Just because you claim something is staggering doesn't mean it is.
Right from the get go, it was suggested Russia got Trump elected and that was a line of enquiry pursued throughout the years, even when the evidence was increasingly questioned. There are plenty more where these came from:
You seem to have the view that just because Hillary Clinton conceded meant she accepted the result and didn't claim the election was stolen. That is rot. She clearly was saying her victory was "stolen" in 2019.
Just accept it - the Democrats were banging on about a stolen election for 4 years.
As with most Trumpism there is just enough truth to make it dangerous.
Did Clinton moan and call it stolen? Yes Did she refuse to concede or the Democrats refuse to handover power in normal timescales? No Did they make a concerted attempt to overturn the electoral vote and leave the Presidency to party hacks? No
There is no equivalence, if Trump was just saying he won and left it at that, it would be a minor grumble, it is the attack on voting as the final decider of the presidency that is the difference. You were telling us this was Trump's plan on election night!
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
I'm sorry @rcs1000 but US democracy has been damaged from 2016 when we had the whole "the election was stolen" narrative then but from the other side. Two impeachment trials later, the constant claims that Trump was Putin's man in the White House, the claims his Presidency was illegitimate etc etc. Just because many of those making the claims had degrees from the Ivy League and spoke in quiet and methodical tones doesn't mean they weren't dangerous and eroded democratic trust.
Hillary Clinton conceded that she had lost the US Presidential election.
While there was whingeing about whether Russia had attempted to sow division in the US (which, by the way, they also do by amplifyng BLM stuff too, so this is hardly one way), there was no attempt to claim by the candidate that the votes cast were invalid.
There is no equivalence here, and your attempt to claim it is staggering.
Just because you claim something is staggering doesn't mean it is.
Right from the get go, it was suggested Russia got Trump elected and that was a line of enquiry pursued throughout the years, even when the evidence was increasingly questioned. There are plenty more where these came from:
You seem to have the view that just because Hillary Clinton conceded meant she accepted the result and didn't claim the election was stolen. That is rot. She clearly was saying her victory was "stolen" in 2019.
Just accept it - the Democrats were banging on about a stolen election for 4 years.
As with most Trumpism there is just enough truth to make it dangerous.
Did Clinton moan and call it stolen? Yes Did she refuse to concede or the Democrats refuse to handover power in normal timescales? No Did they make a concerted attempt to overturn the electoral vote and leave the Presidency to party hacks? No
There is no equivalence, if Trump was just saying he won and left it at that, it would be a minor grumble, it is the attack on voting as the final decider of the presidency that is the difference. You were telling us this was Trump's plan on election night!
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
If there was a serious claim to be made, it could be resolved in court and that would be fine (aside from the SC having had an appointment rushed through specifically for the election with no recusal). That is not what is egregious, it is the proposed replacement of the voters intentions by party hacks. That is just cheating pure and simple. Threats and attempts of cheating should be viewed as seriously as successful cheating.
It seems very simple to me. There is plenty of time before the handover. Let the vote be tested during that time. It can be verified if people cast two votes across state or district lines, or absentee as well as on the day. If the Dems won fairly and squarely, this process will strengthen their legitimacy.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
Brexit -- Andrew Neil's interview with Sir Ivan Rogers yesterday has been uploaded as a separate video. 14 mins.
Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK's permanent representative to the EU from 2013 to 2017, tells Andrew Neil that any Brexit deal will be shallow. He also says that their relationship could be characterised as '200 years of misreadings', and that David Cameron was forced to call a referendum after France and Germany tried to block a British veto.
They didn't try to block a British veto; they succeeding in rendering the threat of a veto irrelevant by negotiating an intergovernmental Eurozone treaty instead of doing it across the whole EU.
Incidentally, Ivan Rogers is not at all the arch-Remainer of legend. He just happened to have been talking sense about Brexit.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless, shows that this is not the sort of thing anyone would do.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
Yes, in theory both sides would legally challenge when they have concerns about things like fraudulent votes. But after weeks with nothing significant to back up those claims, it rather shows that they are using the process to delay and frustrate, not expose actual concerns. Or else they would have been validated by now by proving something.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
I'm sorry @rcs1000 but US democracy has been damaged from 2016 when we had the whole "the election was stolen" narrative then but from the other side. Two impeachment trials later, the constant claims that Trump was Putin's man in the White House, the claims his Presidency was illegitimate etc etc. Just because many of those making the claims had degrees from the Ivy League and spoke in quiet and methodical tones doesn't mean they weren't dangerous and eroded democratic trust.
Hillary Clinton conceded that she had lost the US Presidential election.
While there was whingeing about whether Russia had attempted to sow division in the US (which, by the way, they also do by amplifyng BLM stuff too, so this is hardly one way), there was no attempt to claim by the candidate that the votes cast were invalid.
There is no equivalence here, and your attempt to claim it is staggering.
Just because you claim something is staggering doesn't mean it is.
Right from the get go, it was suggested Russia got Trump elected and that was a line of enquiry pursued throughout the years, even when the evidence was increasingly questioned. There are plenty more where these came from:
You seem to have the view that just because Hillary Clinton conceded meant she accepted the result and didn't claim the election was stolen. That is rot. She clearly was saying her victory was "stolen" in 2019.
Just accept it - the Democrats were banging on about a stolen election for 4 years.
As with most Trumpism there is just enough truth to make it dangerous.
Did Clinton moan and call it stolen? Yes Did she refuse to concede or the Democrats refuse to handover power in normal timescales? No Did they make a concerted attempt to overturn the electoral vote and leave the Presidency to party hacks? No
There is no equivalence, if Trump was just saying he won and left it at that, it would be a minor grumble, it is the attack on voting as the final decider of the presidency that is the difference. You were telling us this was Trump's plan on election night!
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
I'm sorry @rcs1000 but US democracy has been damaged from 2016 when we had the whole "the election was stolen" narrative then but from the other side. Two impeachment trials later, the constant claims that Trump was Putin's man in the White House, the claims his Presidency was illegitimate etc etc. Just because many of those making the claims had degrees from the Ivy League and spoke in quiet and methodical tones doesn't mean they weren't dangerous and eroded democratic trust.
Hillary Clinton conceded that she had lost the US Presidential election.
While there was whingeing about whether Russia had attempted to sow division in the US (which, by the way, they also do by amplifyng BLM stuff too, so this is hardly one way), there was no attempt to claim by the candidate that the votes cast were invalid.
There is no equivalence here, and your attempt to claim it is staggering.
Just because you claim something is staggering doesn't mean it is.
Right from the get go, it was suggested Russia got Trump elected and that was a line of enquiry pursued throughout the years, even when the evidence was increasingly questioned. There are plenty more where these came from:
You seem to have the view that just because Hillary Clinton conceded meant she accepted the result and didn't claim the election was stolen. That is rot. She clearly was saying her victory was "stolen" in 2019.
Just accept it - the Democrats were banging on about a stolen election for 4 years.
As with most Trumpism there is just enough truth to make it dangerous.
Did Clinton moan and call it stolen? Yes Did she refuse to concede or the Democrats refuse to handover power in normal timescales? No Did they make a concerted attempt to overturn the electoral vote and leave the Presidency to party hacks? No
There is no equivalence, if Trump was just saying he won and left it at that, it would be a minor grumble, it is the attack on voting as the final decider of the presidency that is the difference. You were telling us this was Trump's plan on election night!
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
If there was a serious claim to be made, it could be resolved in court and that would be fine (aside from the SC having had an appointment rushed through specifically for the election with no recusal). That is not what is egregious, it is the proposed replacement of the voters intentions by party hacks. That is just cheating pure and simple. Threats and attempts of cheating should be viewed as seriously as successful cheating.
It seems very simple to me. There is plenty of time before the handover. Let the vote be tested during that time. It can be verified if people cast two votes across state or district lines, or absentee as well as on the day. If the Dems won fairly and squarely, this process will strengthen their legitimacy.
I find it hard to credit that you believe that. Have the various baseless accusations which have been thrown out of court as without evidence or merit stopped Trump from claiming the vote in those states was rigged? Of course it hasn't.
The accusation in itself is the point, as even if nothing serious emerges (as everyone sensible acknowledges in a huge election there will be errors in places), people have been told it is rigged and they believe it. Conspiracy theorists don't suddenly wake up wake up when facts show they believe a lie, and courts and officials saying the vote was legitimate won't persuade Trump and his supporters, and this it won't strengthen anything. I think you know that perfectly well.
According to the government those in Tier 2 must leave the pub or restaurant immediately they finish their meal.
No loitering for coffee or a postprandial brandy, unless you want the rozzers to feel your collar. The clink of your households synchronised cutlery on the fine porcelain plates must herald a dash for the door.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
According to the government those in Tier 2 must leave the pub or restaurant immediately they finish their meal.
No loitering for coffee or a postprandial brandy, unless you want the rozzers to feel your collar. The clink of your households synchronised cutlery on the fine porcelain plates must herald a dash for the door.
Brexit -- Andrew Neil's interview with Sir Ivan Rogers yesterday has been uploaded as a separate video. 14 mins.
Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK's permanent representative to the EU from 2013 to 2017, tells Andrew Neil that any Brexit deal will be shallow. He also says that their relationship could be characterised as '200 years of misreadings', and that David Cameron was forced to call a referendum after France and Germany tried to block a British veto.
They didn't try to block a British veto; they succeeding in rendering the threat of a veto irrelevant by negotiating an intergovernmental Eurozone treaty instead of doing it across the whole EU.
Incidentally, Ivan Rogers is not at all the arch-Remainer of legend. He just happened to have been talking sense about Brexit.
He didn't have the people skills.
Thats right, he told people the truth about the complexity of Brexit negotiations and they flipped their wigs. They couldn't handle the truth.
No, he wasn't able to form close personal relationships with those that mattered and influence them accordingly.
It's no good just saying you "tell truth to power". It's how you do it and when you do it, and to what degree, that matters.
Even highly experienced and professional diplomats couldn't get through the thick skulls of the Brexiteers.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Just watching the week old prog on the story of Covid from the beginning. What an indictment of the government and several advisors. It ought to be career ending for many of them if it hasn't been.
"Stopping crowds going to sporting events would just send people into pubs. It would be a big mistake' (woman on Sage committee)
I visited lots of corona virus patients in hospital and shook hands with everybody (Boris Johnson)
Brexit -- Andrew Neil's interview with Sir Ivan Rogers yesterday has been uploaded as a separate video. 14 mins.
Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK's permanent representative to the EU from 2013 to 2017, tells Andrew Neil that any Brexit deal will be shallow. He also says that their relationship could be characterised as '200 years of misreadings', and that David Cameron was forced to call a referendum after France and Germany tried to block a British veto.
They didn't try to block a British veto; they succeeding in rendering the threat of a veto irrelevant by negotiating an intergovernmental Eurozone treaty instead of doing it across the whole EU.
Incidentally, Ivan Rogers is not at all the arch-Remainer of legend. He just happened to have been talking sense about Brexit.
He didn't have the people skills.
Thats right, he told people the truth about the complexity of Brexit negotiations and they flipped their wigs. They couldn't handle the truth.
No, he wasn't able to form close personal relationships with those that mattered and influence them accordingly.
It's no good just saying you "tell truth to power". It's how you do it and when you do it, and to what degree, that matters.
Yes and no.
There's no question that those who sought Remain before 2016, or a close relationship with the EU after 2016 have been rubbish at the soft power, making personal connections, setting the mood music stuff. And that's a massive failing on our part.
But there's also an objective reality.
The rules of international trade aren't entirely like the laws of physics, but they still exist. Just because a lot of establishment politicians were smug and aloof, or Ivan Rogers wasn't good at relationships, doesn't change the truth of the situation- that the UK is in a terrible pickle, because we voted for something whose detail wasn't well defined, depends on other nations being foolishly generous to us and so probably can't be delivered.
OK, Ivan Rogers and TMay weren't up to delivering that message to the Conservative party, let alone the 52% who needed to hear it. But I wonder if Blair-in-his-pomp could have done that either.
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
I'm sorry @rcs1000 but US democracy has been damaged from 2016 when we had the whole "the election was stolen" narrative then but from the other side. Two impeachment trials later, the constant claims that Trump was Putin's man in the White House, the claims his Presidency was illegitimate etc etc. Just because many of those making the claims had degrees from the Ivy League and spoke in quiet and methodical tones doesn't mean they weren't dangerous and eroded democratic trust.
Hillary Clinton conceded that she had lost the US Presidential election.
While there was whingeing about whether Russia had attempted to sow division in the US (which, by the way, they also do by amplifyng BLM stuff too, so this is hardly one way), there was no attempt to claim by the candidate that the votes cast were invalid.
There is no equivalence here, and your attempt to claim it is staggering.
Just because you claim something is staggering doesn't mean it is.
Right from the get go, it was suggested Russia got Trump elected and that was a line of enquiry pursued throughout the years, even when the evidence was increasingly questioned. There are plenty more where these came from:
You seem to have the view that just because Hillary Clinton conceded meant she accepted the result and didn't claim the election was stolen. That is rot. She clearly was saying her victory was "stolen" in 2019.
Just accept it - the Democrats were banging on about a stolen election for 4 years.
As with most Trumpism there is just enough truth to make it dangerous.
Did Clinton moan and call it stolen? Yes Did she refuse to concede or the Democrats refuse to handover power in normal timescales? No Did they make a concerted attempt to overturn the electoral vote and leave the Presidency to party hacks? No
There is no equivalence, if Trump was just saying he won and left it at that, it would be a minor grumble, it is the attack on voting as the final decider of the presidency that is the difference. You were telling us this was Trump's plan on election night!
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
I'm sorry @rcs1000 but US democracy has been damaged from 2016 when we had the whole "the election was stolen" narrative then but from the other side. Two impeachment trials later, the constant claims that Trump was Putin's man in the White House, the claims his Presidency was illegitimate etc etc. Just because many of those making the claims had degrees from the Ivy League and spoke in quiet and methodical tones doesn't mean they weren't dangerous and eroded democratic trust.
Hillary Clinton conceded that she had lost the US Presidential election.
While there was whingeing about whether Russia had attempted to sow division in the US (which, by the way, they also do by amplifyng BLM stuff too, so this is hardly one way), there was no attempt to claim by the candidate that the votes cast were invalid.
There is no equivalence here, and your attempt to claim it is staggering.
Just because you claim something is staggering doesn't mean it is.
Right from the get go, it was suggested Russia got Trump elected and that was a line of enquiry pursued throughout the years, even when the evidence was increasingly questioned. There are plenty more where these came from:
You seem to have the view that just because Hillary Clinton conceded meant she accepted the result and didn't claim the election was stolen. That is rot. She clearly was saying her victory was "stolen" in 2019.
Just accept it - the Democrats were banging on about a stolen election for 4 years.
As with most Trumpism there is just enough truth to make it dangerous.
Did Clinton moan and call it stolen? Yes Did she refuse to concede or the Democrats refuse to handover power in normal timescales? No Did they make a concerted attempt to overturn the electoral vote and leave the Presidency to party hacks? No
There is no equivalence, if Trump was just saying he won and left it at that, it would be a minor grumble, it is the attack on voting as the final decider of the presidency that is the difference. You were telling us this was Trump's plan on election night!
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
If there was a serious claim to be made, it could be resolved in court and that would be fine (aside from the SC having had an appointment rushed through specifically for the election with no recusal). That is not what is egregious, it is the proposed replacement of the voters intentions by party hacks. That is just cheating pure and simple. Threats and attempts of cheating should be viewed as seriously as successful cheating.
It seems very simple to me. There is plenty of time before the handover. Let the vote be tested during that time. It can be verified if people cast two votes across state or district lines, or absentee as well as on the day. If the Dems won fairly and squarely, this process will strengthen their legitimacy.
1. It is statistically incredibly unlikely that either party could be 4% ahead nationally and not win the Presidency. So either fraud is so widespread as to significantly affect the national vote (which would be extraordinary), or it isn't likely to have occurred.
2. It's very easy to see if there's been fraud on any meaningful scale: compare the results in the disputed places to 2016, and then compare them to the national results. If the Democrats performed markedly better compared to 2016 in these places, then that would be cause to investigate. And here's the problem with (2). The number of Democrat votes increased less in these disputed places than nationally.
I find it hard to credit that you believe that. Have the various baseless accusations which have been thrown out of court as without evidence or merit stopped Trump from claiming the vote in those states was rigged? Of course it hasn't.
The accusation in itself is the point, as even if nothing serious emerges (as everyone sensible acknowledges in a huge election there will be errors in places), people have been told it is rigged and they believe it. Conspiracy theorists don't suddenly wake up wake up when facts show they believe a lie, and courts and officials saying the vote was legitimate won't persuade Trump and his supporters, and this it won't strengthen anything. I think you know that perfectly well.
I think you are failing to understand the nature of people. There are not 'conspiracy theorists' who are deranged and fall beneath the standard of intelligence of the rest of us, and PBers, who are reasonable and capable of discerning the truth.
There are communities of people, like us, living their perspective on the truth, and speaking to those of like mind. There are whole groups of entirely reasonable people who *know*, don't think, but *know* that this election was rigged, and it's not because they're deluded, it's because they're looking at the facts that support their argument, and people who share their views, that we totally miss. They would despair of our brainwashed blind ignorance as much as we would of theirs.
I have not read the lawsuits recently filed by Sidney Powell in Michigan and Georgia, but I have read a short summary of them in the following Twitter thread (which I would imagine is more than most of PB has done!). I think this is a worthwhile summary of where the Republicans are at with what happened, and as I said, I don't see how it can hurt to make sure this is checked, and adjustments (should there be any) are made to ensure the validity of the vote: https://twitter.com/pnjaban/status/1331850866442190850
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
"verifying the signatures on the ballots" -
Under state law, the identification or signature of voters is checked twice during the absentee voting process, and an accepted ballot can’t be traced back to a signed envelope once the two are separated. The process protects ballot secrecy.
It's NOT possible to undo this step after a ballot has been either accepted or passed for cure/rejected (Not sure which is state law). It's like trying to take eggs out of a cake. The lunatics in the GOP know this which is why they're banging on about it because it's simply an impossible step to take.
People who vote in two states. I watched the Clark county, NV certification meeting. They mentioned potential double voting, the votes were excluded and they said they'd go after anyone who might do this. It's taken very seriously - Raffensberger and Kemp (GA SoS/Governor) have said they'll prosecute anyone who does this too. Everyone is looking out for this.
"or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? "
Anyone who voted absentee then believed it hadn't reached destination for whatever reason was required to fill in a provisional ballot. These are the last to be checked and counted. Anyone who filled a normal ballot would be in deepest shit. Cases of this are rare but they do occasionally happen and perpetrators ARE prosecuted. There isn't a remote chance, or more importantly any evidence this has gone on on any sort of scale to change hundreds let alone tens of thousands of votes.
Brexit -- Andrew Neil's interview with Sir Ivan Rogers yesterday has been uploaded as a separate video. 14 mins.
Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK's permanent representative to the EU from 2013 to 2017, tells Andrew Neil that any Brexit deal will be shallow. He also says that their relationship could be characterised as '200 years of misreadings', and that David Cameron was forced to call a referendum after France and Germany tried to block a British veto.
They didn't try to block a British veto; they succeeding in rendering the threat of a veto irrelevant by negotiating an intergovernmental Eurozone treaty instead of doing it across the whole EU.
Incidentally, Ivan Rogers is not at all the arch-Remainer of legend. He just happened to have been talking sense about Brexit.
He didn't have the people skills.
How do you know? Have you met him?
I know people that know him. They rate him as a first rate intellect. That certainly comes over in his speeches.
"Severely obese people with BMIs over 40 should get a Covid vaccine BEFORE millions of healthy Brits aged 50 to 65, official guidance confirms
Official advice says morbidly obese people should be included in 'at-risk' group One in eight adults in UK are classed as morbidly obese – the fattest category Morbidly people are almost twice as likely to die from Covid, hospital data shows"
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
"verifying the signatures on the ballots" -
Under state law, the identification or signature of voters is checked twice during the absentee voting process, and an accepted ballot can’t be traced back to a signed envelope once the two are separated. The process protects ballot secrecy.
It's NOT possible to undo this step after a ballot has been either accepted or passed for cure/rejected (Not sure which is state law). It's like trying to take eggs out of a cake. The lunatics in the GOP know this which is why they're banging on about it because it's simply an impossible step to take.
People who vote in two states. I watched the Clark county, NV certification meeting. They mentioned potential double voting, the votes were excluded and they said they'd go after anyone who might do this. It's taken very seriously - Raffensberger and Kemp (GA SoS/Governor) have said they'll prosecute anyone who does this too. Everyone is looking out for this.
"or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? "
Anyone who voted absentee then believed it hadn't reached destination for whatever reason was required to fill in a provisional ballot. These are the last to be checked and counted. Anyone who filled a normal ballot would be in deepest shit. Cases of this are rare but they do occasionally happen and perpetrators ARE prosecuted. There isn't a remote chance, or more importantly any evidence this has gone on on any sort of scale to change hundreds let alone tens of thousands of votes.
I am happy to be educated on the complications inherent in signature verification by someone who clearly knows more about it than I do.
However, the basic point still more than stands. If the election results in the contested states is subjected to every possible scrutiny, and fraudulent votes (potentially from both camps) are removed from the totals, there is no loser. Apart from the loser obviously.
Betfair simply need to explain what the phrase 'projected EC votes' means, and how it can mean something other than 'Winner under state certified results'.
It doesn't and it can't but they're switching it from projected to actual because of Trump's shenanigans.
And, quietly, because they're making a mint from it.
Yet they're still saying that "‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market".
Absolutely.
Hypothetically if Trump were to win court cases striking out enough "illegal" Biden votes then Trump would become the certified winner of those states. Trump would become the projected winner. Under Betfair's rules Trump would become the winner, before the Electoral College votes and without faithless electors.
Spot on, Philip, and you grasp a point that many here miss - and so do Betfair.
In a sense it doesn't really matter who becomes President. All that matters is who was the projected winner. That is a known known, and has been known for some weeks. The Electoral College can elect who they like, it wouldn't alter the result under the rules as originally stated by Betfair.
As you indicate, a substantial shift in votes deemed legal by the courts might cause the projected winner to change and might cause some headscratching, although I think the right answer would be to pay out on the first projected winner. Since Trump has lost so emphatically in the courts so far and is running out of claims, we don't need to go there though.
However nothing should be allowed to disguise the fact that Betfair have moved the goalposts.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
"verifying the signatures on the ballots" -
Under state law, the identification or signature of voters is checked twice during the absentee voting process, and an accepted ballot can’t be traced back to a signed envelope once the two are separated. The process protects ballot secrecy.
It's NOT possible to undo this step after a ballot has been either accepted or passed for cure/rejected (Not sure which is state law). It's like trying to take eggs out of a cake. The lunatics in the GOP know this which is why they're banging on about it because it's simply an impossible step to take.
People who vote in two states. I watched the Clark county, NV certification meeting. They mentioned potential double voting, the votes were excluded and they said they'd go after anyone who might do this. It's taken very seriously - Raffensberger and Kemp (GA SoS/Governor) have said they'll prosecute anyone who does this too. Everyone is looking out for this.
"or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? "
Anyone who voted absentee then believed it hadn't reached destination for whatever reason was required to fill in a provisional ballot. These are the last to be checked and counted. Anyone who filled a normal ballot would be in deepest shit. Cases of this are rare but they do occasionally happen and perpetrators ARE prosecuted. There isn't a remote chance, or more importantly any evidence this has gone on on any sort of scale to change hundreds let alone tens of thousands of votes.
"Severely obese people with BMIs over 40 should get a Covid vaccine BEFORE millions of healthy Brits aged 50 to 65, official guidance confirms
Official advice says morbidly obese people should be included in 'at-risk' group One in eight adults in UK are classed as morbidly obese – the fattest category Morbidly people are almost twice as likely to die from Covid, hospital data shows"
Very satirical, but this is a highly contagious virus and people need advising accordingly.
I thought this was very 1950s public service announcement
"Women carry the burden of creating and maintaining family traditions and activities at Christmas.
"Messaging should be supportive of women adapting traditions and encouraging those around them to share the burden and to be supportive of any alterations to adapt for Covid-19 restrictions."
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
I'm sorry @rcs1000 but US democracy has been damaged from 2016 when we had the whole "the election was stolen" narrative then but from the other side. Two impeachment trials later, the constant claims that Trump was Putin's man in the White House, the claims his Presidency was illegitimate etc etc. Just because many of those making the claims had degrees from the Ivy League and spoke in quiet and methodical tones doesn't mean they weren't dangerous and eroded democratic trust.
Hillary Clinton conceded that she had lost the US Presidential election.
While there was whingeing about whether Russia had attempted to sow division in the US (which, by the way, they also do by amplifyng BLM stuff too, so this is hardly one way), there was no attempt to claim by the candidate that the votes cast were invalid.
There is no equivalence here, and your attempt to claim it is staggering.
Just because you claim something is staggering doesn't mean it is.
Right from the get go, it was suggested Russia got Trump elected and that was a line of enquiry pursued throughout the years, even when the evidence was increasingly questioned. There are plenty more where these came from:
You seem to have the view that just because Hillary Clinton conceded meant she accepted the result and didn't claim the election was stolen. That is rot. She clearly was saying her victory was "stolen" in 2019.
Just accept it - the Democrats were banging on about a stolen election for 4 years.
As with most Trumpism there is just enough truth to make it dangerous.
Did Clinton moan and call it stolen? Yes Did she refuse to concede or the Democrats refuse to handover power in normal timescales? No Did they make a concerted attempt to overturn the electoral vote and leave the Presidency to party hacks? No
There is no equivalence, if Trump was just saying he won and left it at that, it would be a minor grumble, it is the attack on voting as the final decider of the presidency that is the difference. You were telling us this was Trump's plan on election night!
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
I'm sorry @rcs1000 but US democracy has been damaged from 2016 when we had the whole "the election was stolen" narrative then but from the other side. Two impeachment trials later, the constant claims that Trump was Putin's man in the White House, the claims his Presidency was illegitimate etc etc. Just because many of those making the claims had degrees from the Ivy League and spoke in quiet and methodical tones doesn't mean they weren't dangerous and eroded democratic trust.
Hillary Clinton conceded that she had lost the US Presidential election.
While there was whingeing about whether Russia had attempted to sow division in the US (which, by the way, they also do by amplifyng BLM stuff too, so this is hardly one way), there was no attempt to claim by the candidate that the votes cast were invalid.
There is no equivalence here, and your attempt to claim it is staggering.
Just because you claim something is staggering doesn't mean it is.
Right from the get go, it was suggested Russia got Trump elected and that was a line of enquiry pursued throughout the years, even when the evidence was increasingly questioned. There are plenty more where these came from:
You seem to have the view that just because Hillary Clinton conceded meant she accepted the result and didn't claim the election was stolen. That is rot. She clearly was saying her victory was "stolen" in 2019.
Just accept it - the Democrats were banging on about a stolen election for 4 years.
As with most Trumpism there is just enough truth to make it dangerous.
Did Clinton moan and call it stolen? Yes Did she refuse to concede or the Democrats refuse to handover power in normal timescales? No Did they make a concerted attempt to overturn the electoral vote and leave the Presidency to party hacks? No
There is no equivalence, if Trump was just saying he won and left it at that, it would be a minor grumble, it is the attack on voting as the final decider of the presidency that is the difference. You were telling us this was Trump's plan on election night!
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
If there was a serious claim to be made, it could be resolved in court and that would be fine (aside from the SC having had an appointment rushed through specifically for the election with no recusal). That is not what is egregious, it is the proposed replacement of the voters intentions by party hacks. That is just cheating pure and simple. Threats and attempts of cheating should be viewed as seriously as successful cheating.
It has been resolved in court. Over thirty times now. Trump lost.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
"verifying the signatures on the ballots" -
Under state law, the identification or signature of voters is checked twice during the absentee voting process, and an accepted ballot can’t be traced back to a signed envelope once the two are separated. The process protects ballot secrecy.
It's NOT possible to undo this step after a ballot has been either accepted or passed for cure/rejected (Not sure which is state law). It's like trying to take eggs out of a cake. The lunatics in the GOP know this which is why they're banging on about it because it's simply an impossible step to take.
People who vote in two states. I watched the Clark county, NV certification meeting. They mentioned potential double voting, the votes were excluded and they said they'd go after anyone who might do this. It's taken very seriously - Raffensberger and Kemp (GA SoS/Governor) have said they'll prosecute anyone who does this too. Everyone is looking out for this.
"or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? "
Anyone who voted absentee then believed it hadn't reached destination for whatever reason was required to fill in a provisional ballot. These are the last to be checked and counted. Anyone who filled a normal ballot would be in deepest shit. Cases of this are rare but they do occasionally happen and perpetrators ARE prosecuted. There isn't a remote chance, or more importantly any evidence this has gone on on any sort of scale to change hundreds let alone tens of thousands of votes.
I am happy to be educated on the complications inherent in signature verification by someone who clearly knows more about it than I do.
However, the basic point still more than stands. If the election results in the contested states is subjected to every possible scrutiny, and fraudulent votes (potentially from both camps) are removed from the totals, there is no loser. Apart from the loser obviously.
Will you condemn the moves to override the election result as opposed to contest them in court?
In reality the contesting is mostly to provide "legitimacy" (political cover) to overriding the vote.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
"verifying the signatures on the ballots" -
Under state law, the identification or signature of voters is checked twice during the absentee voting process, and an accepted ballot can’t be traced back to a signed envelope once the two are separated. The process protects ballot secrecy.
It's NOT possible to undo this step after a ballot has been either accepted or passed for cure/rejected (Not sure which is state law). It's like trying to take eggs out of a cake. The lunatics in the GOP know this which is why they're banging on about it because it's simply an impossible step to take.
People who vote in two states. I watched the Clark county, NV certification meeting. They mentioned potential double voting, the votes were excluded and they said they'd go after anyone who might do this. It's taken very seriously - Raffensberger and Kemp (GA SoS/Governor) have said they'll prosecute anyone who does this too. Everyone is looking out for this.
"or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? "
Anyone who voted absentee then believed it hadn't reached destination for whatever reason was required to fill in a provisional ballot. These are the last to be checked and counted. Anyone who filled a normal ballot would be in deepest shit. Cases of this are rare but they do occasionally happen and perpetrators ARE prosecuted. There isn't a remote chance, or more importantly any evidence this has gone on on any sort of scale to change hundreds let alone tens of thousands of votes.
I am happy to be educated on the complications inherent in signature verification by someone who clearly knows more about it than I do.
However, the basic point still more than stands. If the election results in the contested states is subjected to every possible scrutiny, and fraudulent votes (potentially from both camps) are removed from the totals, there is no loser. Apart from the loser obviously.
There is a big problem though. Ballots I believe aren't identifiable back to individual electors, only envelopes are - or else the ballot wouldn't be 'secret' ? Once the ballot is removed from the envelope it is comingled. Specifically even if the out of state voters point raised is true, how can you identify WHO those voters voted for ? I don't believe you can - also it's a point of how the election was conducted. It's not fraud so not grounds for vitiating the election.
Courts will hear this, and so far they haven't found anything for Trump - and plenty of these courts have Trump's appointees. It's various GOP legislatures taking these arguments, unproved in court and running with them to attempt to stick their own slate of electors in which is the real danger to US democracy.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
"verifying the signatures on the ballots" -
Under state law, the identification or signature of voters is checked twice during the absentee voting process, and an accepted ballot can’t be traced back to a signed envelope once the two are separated. The process protects ballot secrecy.
It's NOT possible to undo this step after a ballot has been either accepted or passed for cure/rejected (Not sure which is state law). It's like trying to take eggs out of a cake. The lunatics in the GOP know this which is why they're banging on about it because it's simply an impossible step to take.
People who vote in two states. I watched the Clark county, NV certification meeting. They mentioned potential double voting, the votes were excluded and they said they'd go after anyone who might do this. It's taken very seriously - Raffensberger and Kemp (GA SoS/Governor) have said they'll prosecute anyone who does this too. Everyone is looking out for this.
"or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? "
Anyone who voted absentee then believed it hadn't reached destination for whatever reason was required to fill in a provisional ballot. These are the last to be checked and counted. Anyone who filled a normal ballot would be in deepest shit. Cases of this are rare but they do occasionally happen and perpetrators ARE prosecuted. There isn't a remote chance, or more importantly any evidence this has gone on on any sort of scale to change hundreds let alone tens of thousands of votes.
I am happy to be educated on the complications inherent in signature verification by someone who clearly knows more about it than I do.
However, the basic point still more than stands. If the election results in the contested states is subjected to every possible scrutiny, and fraudulent votes (potentially from both camps) are removed from the totals, there is no loser. Apart from the loser obviously.
Yes that's already been done by the election process.
The GOP argument is not being made in good faith. Giving credence to them, when people are in detail explaining to to you exactly how they are not grounded in reality and literally asking for the impossible, is a terrible look.
"Severely obese people with BMIs over 40 should get a Covid vaccine BEFORE millions of healthy Brits aged 50 to 65, official guidance confirms
Official advice says morbidly obese people should be included in 'at-risk' group One in eight adults in UK are classed as morbidly obese – the fattest category Morbidly people are almost twice as likely to die from Covid, hospital data shows"
I love the way it says "healthy Brits" - appears pointless because everyone involved is a Brit, but being the DM is a nod to the fact that BAME people are especially prone to morbid obesity.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
"verifying the signatures on the ballots" -
Under state law, the identification or signature of voters is checked twice during the absentee voting process, and an accepted ballot can’t be traced back to a signed envelope once the two are separated. The process protects ballot secrecy.
It's NOT possible to undo this step after a ballot has been either accepted or passed for cure/rejected (Not sure which is state law). It's like trying to take eggs out of a cake. The lunatics in the GOP know this which is why they're banging on about it because it's simply an impossible step to take.
People who vote in two states. I watched the Clark county, NV certification meeting. They mentioned potential double voting, the votes were excluded and they said they'd go after anyone who might do this. It's taken very seriously - Raffensberger and Kemp (GA SoS/Governor) have said they'll prosecute anyone who does this too. Everyone is looking out for this.
"or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? "
Anyone who voted absentee then believed it hadn't reached destination for whatever reason was required to fill in a provisional ballot. These are the last to be checked and counted. Anyone who filled a normal ballot would be in deepest shit. Cases of this are rare but they do occasionally happen and perpetrators ARE prosecuted. There isn't a remote chance, or more importantly any evidence this has gone on on any sort of scale to change hundreds let alone tens of thousands of votes.
Oh, facts. You can prove anything with facts.
As I said above, I'm more than happy to accept facts. It also appears to be a fact that 23,000+ people cast absentee ballots in Georgia, whilst being registered on the National Change of Address database as having moved out of the state. I see no harm in that being investigated. https://twitter.com/pnjaban/status/1331850872947572736
Very simple to check, and if it's wrong, it's wrong. If it takes more votes off the Republicans, than the Dems, that's fair too.
Betfair simply need to explain what the phrase 'projected EC votes' means, and how it can mean something other than 'Winner under state certified results'.
It doesn't and it can't but they're switching it from projected to actual because of Trump's shenanigans.
And, quietly, because they're making a mint from it.
Yet they're still saying that "‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market".
Absolutely.
Hypothetically if Trump were to win court cases striking out enough "illegal" Biden votes then Trump would become the certified winner of those states. Trump would become the projected winner. Under Betfair's rules Trump would become the winner, before the Electoral College votes and without faithless electors.
Spot on, Philip, and you grasp a point that many here miss - and so do Betfair.
In a sense it doesn't really matter who becomes President. All that matters is who was the projected winner. That is a known known, and has been known for some weeks. The Electoral College can elect who they like, it wouldn't alter the result under the rules as originally stated by Betfair.
As you indicate, a substantial shift in votes deemed legal by the courts might cause the projected winner to change and might cause some headscratching, although I think the right answer would be to pay out on the first projected winner. Since Trump has lost so emphatically in the courts so far and is running out of claims, we don't need to go there though.
However nothing should be allowed to disguise the fact that Betfair have moved the goalposts.
Has Betfair opened itself up to another class of legal complaint? Moving the goalposts will not change the result (barring an Act of God) so all Betfair has done is introduce a delay in settling on Biden.
But look at the stakes involved. If the big boys are throwing seven-figure stakes around then even at today's low interest rates, six weeks' delay in settling must be worth a couple of grand. Enough to sue?
"Severely obese people with BMIs over 40 should get a Covid vaccine BEFORE millions of healthy Brits aged 50 to 65, official guidance confirms
Official advice says morbidly obese people should be included in 'at-risk' group One in eight adults in UK are classed as morbidly obese – the fattest category Morbidly people are almost twice as likely to die from Covid, hospital data shows"
Andrew Bridgen: "We've basically been chained to the fate of Leicester even though my seat doesn't even border Leicester,"
"There's no hope for my constituents – even if we get our rate down to nothing, we'll still be tied to Leicester. Let those who have tiers shed them."
Telegraph.
NW Leics does have a rate above the English average:
Yikes, 300. What the hell is he complaining about?
Plenty of whinging from Kent too. Not sure of the grounds.
More Tory MPs whose seats are plague-free moaning about being lumped in with the nearest urban area where the virus roams free.
The worst affected area in Kent being so notoriously urban, of course, that its council leader is a farmer who chairs the Rural Committee at the Local Government Association.
"Severely obese people with BMIs over 40 should get a Covid vaccine BEFORE millions of healthy Brits aged 50 to 65, official guidance confirms
Official advice says morbidly obese people should be included in 'at-risk' group One in eight adults in UK are classed as morbidly obese – the fattest category Morbidly people are almost twice as likely to die from Covid, hospital data shows"
I love the way it says "healthy Brits" - appears pointless because everyone involved is a Brit, but being the DM is a nod to the fact that BAME people are especially prone to morbid obesity.
Presumably the vaccination effort is all residents regardless of nationality?
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
"Severely obese people with BMIs over 40 should get a Covid vaccine BEFORE millions of healthy Brits aged 50 to 65, official guidance confirms
Official advice says morbidly obese people should be included in 'at-risk' group One in eight adults in UK are classed as morbidly obese – the fattest category Morbidly people are almost twice as likely to die from Covid, hospital data shows"
I love the way it says "healthy Brits" - appears pointless because everyone involved is a Brit, but being the DM is a nod to the fact that BAME people are especially prone to morbid obesity.
Presumably the vaccination effort is all residents regardless of nationality?
Betfair simply need to explain what the phrase 'projected EC votes' means, and how it can mean something other than 'Winner under state certified results'.
It doesn't and it can't but they're switching it from projected to actual because of Trump's shenanigans.
And, quietly, because they're making a mint from it.
Yet they're still saying that "‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market".
Absolutely.
Hypothetically if Trump were to win court cases striking out enough "illegal" Biden votes then Trump would become the certified winner of those states. Trump would become the projected winner. Under Betfair's rules Trump would become the winner, before the Electoral College votes and without faithless electors.
Spot on, Philip, and you grasp a point that many here miss - and so do Betfair.
In a sense it doesn't really matter who becomes President. All that matters is who was the projected winner. That is a known known, and has been known for some weeks. The Electoral College can elect who they like, it wouldn't alter the result under the rules as originally stated by Betfair.
As you indicate, a substantial shift in votes deemed legal by the courts might cause the projected winner to change and might cause some headscratching, although I think the right answer would be to pay out on the first projected winner. Since Trump has lost so emphatically in the courts so far and is running out of claims, we don't need to go there though.
However nothing should be allowed to disguise the fact that Betfair have moved the goalposts.
Has Betfair opened itself up to another class of legal complaint? Moving the goalposts will not change the result (barring an Act of God) so all Betfair has done is introduce a delay in settling on Biden.
But look at the stakes involved. If the big boys are throwing seven-figure stakes around then even at today's low interest rates, six weeks' delay in settling must be worth a couple of grand. Enough to sue?
I think Betfair are now vulnerable on a number of counts, including the one you mention.
We have pondered mightily on here the reason why the odds on Biden remained so high for so long after the result became obvious to a blind man. Betfair and traders would have known that the company intended to change the rules of settlement. Had you and I known that the ECV Meeting on Dec 14th would be the critical determinant in respect of the date and manner of settling the market, we might have restrained ourselves in lumping on Sleepy Joe. Makes a differences.
Betfair are dishonest agents in this matter.
I expect the ECV will confirm Biden as President and we will be paid out in accordance with the amended rules on the 14th, a good month after we should have been. Betfair will get away with it. All we can do is close our accounts and not touch them again.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
Everything will have been done in Georgia specifically to make the election as secure (At the expense of some accessibility) as possible. The GOP (Which Kemp and Raffensberger belong to) take election security very seriously indeed. They're not going to have anything in place that makes it easier for the Democrats to win. Raffensberger voted for Donald Trump. It's been a clean election if likely slightly bias against the Democrats.
"Severely obese people with BMIs over 40 should get a Covid vaccine BEFORE millions of healthy Brits aged 50 to 65, official guidance confirms
Official advice says morbidly obese people should be included in 'at-risk' group One in eight adults in UK are classed as morbidly obese – the fattest category Morbidly people are almost twice as likely to die from Covid, hospital data shows"
I love the way it says "healthy Brits" - appears pointless because everyone involved is a Brit, but being the DM is a nod to the fact that BAME people are especially prone to morbid obesity.
Presumably the vaccination effort is all residents regardless of nationality?
Everyone who is eligible for NHS treatment, so yes, a lot of non British permanent residents.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
Thanks for that link - I won't be reading that, not tonight near bedtime anyway. I am happy to engage with a summary of the main points if you can be bothered to make one (no worries if you can't), but that is a long article, and the style is of a short novel rather than a report (where one can read the basic points at the top and decide whether to dive deeper). I find those quite frustrating to read, even if I start from a basis of agreement.
Article regarding the 'Fake Voter Fraud Scandal' notwithstanding, if it is fake, and can be shown to be such, let it be shown to be so. Once again, I can see no issue with eliminating fake voters. If there was no systemic voter fraud on one side, small numbers will be removed from both, and the result will be strengthened.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
Thanks for that link - I won't be reading that, not tonight near bedtime anyway. I am happy to engage with a summary of the main points if you can be bothered to make one (no worries if you can't), but that is a long article, and the style is of a short novel rather than a report (where one can read the basic points at the top and decide whether to dive deeper). I find those quite frustrating to read, even if I start from a basis of agreement.
Article regarding the 'Fake Voter Fraud Scandal' notwithstanding, if it is fake, and can be shown to be such, let it be shown to be so. Once again, I can see no issue with eliminating fake voters. If there was no systemic voter fraud on one side, small numbers will be removed from both, and the result will be strengthened.
In which case, you do not deserve to be taken. seriously on the matter. I am done responding to you.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
Betfair will be crapping themselves now that the ECV do go ahead and vote in Biden as President. Imagine their position if they perversely voted for Trump. What would Betfair do?
Would they pay out on Biden, in accordance with their original rules?
Or on Trump in accordance with the revised rules, notwithstanding that the original rules specified its position in respect of 'faithless electors'?
Either way they would be bound to face claims from the losers. I would certainly claim if they paid out on Trump.
They really have stuffed up on this. Makes you wonder who is running the show and whether they have the faintest clue about the betting business.
Andrew Bridgen: "We've basically been chained to the fate of Leicester even though my seat doesn't even border Leicester,"
"There's no hope for my constituents – even if we get our rate down to nothing, we'll still be tied to Leicester. Let those who have tiers shed them."
Telegraph.
NW Leics does have a rate above the English average:
Yikes, 300. What the hell is he complaining about?
Plenty of whinging from Kent too. Not sure of the grounds.
More Tory MPs whose seats are plague-free moaning about being lumped in with the nearest urban area where the virus roams free.
The worst affected area in Kent being so notoriously urban, of course, that its council leader is a farmer who chairs the Rural Committee at the Local Government Association.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
"verifying the signatures on the ballots" -
Under state law, the identification or signature of voters is checked twice during the absentee voting process, and an accepted ballot can’t be traced back to a signed envelope once the two are separated. The process protects ballot secrecy.
It's NOT possible to undo this step after a ballot has been either accepted or passed for cure/rejected (Not sure which is state law). It's like trying to take eggs out of a cake. The lunatics in the GOP know this which is why they're banging on about it because it's simply an impossible step to take.
People who vote in two states. I watched the Clark county, NV certification meeting. They mentioned potential double voting, the votes were excluded and they said they'd go after anyone who might do this. It's taken very seriously - Raffensberger and Kemp (GA SoS/Governor) have said they'll prosecute anyone who does this too. Everyone is looking out for this.
"or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? "
Anyone who voted absentee then believed it hadn't reached destination for whatever reason was required to fill in a provisional ballot. These are the last to be checked and counted. Anyone who filled a normal ballot would be in deepest shit. Cases of this are rare but they do occasionally happen and perpetrators ARE prosecuted. There isn't a remote chance, or more importantly any evidence this has gone on on any sort of scale to change hundreds let alone tens of thousands of votes.
I am happy to be educated on the complications inherent in signature verification by someone who clearly knows more about it than I do.
However, the basic point still more than stands. If the election results in the contested states is subjected to every possible scrutiny, and fraudulent votes (potentially from both camps) are removed from the totals, there is no loser. Apart from the loser obviously.
Will you condemn the moves to override the election result as opposed to contest them in court?
In reality the contesting is mostly to provide "legitimacy" (political cover) to overriding the vote.
Yes, and I have done so upthread. The election is the only plebiscite to have taken place - it's entirely illegitimate to ignore it and just do whatever one likes.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
Yeah but the quality of the cases presented so far has been so poor that it's surprising Trump hasn't been cited as a vexatious litigant. I doubt the cases for Michigan and Georgia are any stronger.
According to the government those in Tier 2 must leave the pub or restaurant immediately they finish their meal.
No loitering for coffee or a postprandial brandy, unless you want the rozzers to feel your collar. The clink of your households synchronised cutlery on the fine porcelain plates must herald a dash for the door.
Lucky bastards, in my village (Tier 3) we have eat and drink in the bus shelter outside the pub on bleak rainy winter nights.
It takes me back to my youth...
Some of my best noshes were from a fish & chip van in the middle of nowhere (on motorbike or cycle) in the Cambridge area Do chippie vans still exist?. I could never pass one by.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
Thanks for that link - I won't be reading that, not tonight near bedtime anyway. I am happy to engage with a summary of the main points if you can be bothered to make one (no worries if you can't), but that is a long article, and the style is of a short novel rather than a report (where one can read the basic points at the top and decide whether to dive deeper). I find those quite frustrating to read, even if I start from a basis of agreement.
Article regarding the 'Fake Voter Fraud Scandal' notwithstanding, if it is fake, and can be shown to be such, let it be shown to be so. Once again, I can see no issue with eliminating fake voters. If there was no systemic voter fraud on one side, small numbers will be removed from both, and the result will be strengthened.
In which case, you do not deserve to be taken. seriously on the matter. I am done responding to you.
OK - I admit I find being obliged to read start to finish a very long piece of polemic at 9.45pm to be a slightly unreasonable demand to 'be taken seriously' on any subject, but as you wish.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
Both of which have been certified. By Republicans.
Brexit -- Andrew Neil's interview with Sir Ivan Rogers yesterday has been uploaded as a separate video. 14 mins.
Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK's permanent representative to the EU from 2013 to 2017, tells Andrew Neil that any Brexit deal will be shallow. He also says that their relationship could be characterised as '200 years of misreadings', and that David Cameron was forced to call a referendum after France and Germany tried to block a British veto.
They didn't try to block a British veto; they succeeding in rendering the threat of a veto irrelevant by negotiating an intergovernmental Eurozone treaty instead of doing it across the whole EU.
Incidentally, Ivan Rogers is not at all the arch-Remainer of legend. He just happened to have been talking sense about Brexit.
He didn't have the people skills.
How do you know? Have you met him?
I know people that know him. They rate him as a first rate intellect. That certainly comes over in his speeches.
I have met him a few times and had a chat with him about you-know-what. I don't think there is anybody with a deeper understanding of the issues on either side of the channel. The government cast him aside because they can't handle hearing the truth.
The Betfair difficulty is that its rules of the bet are ambiguous. "Projected Electoral College votes" is simply uncertain in its meaning - compare it for clarity say with "Actual Electoral College votes cast". Also ambiguous is "Any subsequent events such as a 'faithless elector' will have no effect.....'. The ambiguity here is that it may mean that certain sorts of subsequent event makes no difference, or it could mean that no subsequent events can make any difference. It's a farrago of drafting. No wonder they called lawyers in. With million at stake and a Trumpian candidate the time to call the lawyers in was before the rules were drafted.
And it looks bonkers to pay out on X winning the presidential race when actually Y becomes the next president - which is what the rules appear to allow.
If only when we came out of lockdown #1, we had gone to tier system and stuck to it all year....
And if only there had been some objective criteria published for which Tier an area would be in. Enabling folk to have some incentives to work towards/avoid. We are of course promised them now...
According to the government those in Tier 2 must leave the pub or restaurant immediately they finish their meal.
No loitering for coffee or a postprandial brandy, unless you want the rozzers to feel your collar. The clink of your households synchronised cutlery on the fine porcelain plates must herald a dash for the door.
Lucky bastards, in my village (Tier 3) we have eat and drink in the bus shelter outside the pub on bleak rainy winter nights.
It takes me back to my youth...
Some of my best noshes were from a fish & chip van in the middle of nowhere (on motorbike or cycle) in the Cambridge area Do chippie vans still exist?. I could never pass one by.
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
I'm sorry @rcs1000 but US democracy has been damaged from 2016 when we had the whole "the election was stolen" narrative then but from the other side. Two impeachment trials later, the constant claims that Trump was Putin's man in the White House, the claims his Presidency was illegitimate etc etc. Just because many of those making the claims had degrees from the Ivy League and spoke in quiet and methodical tones doesn't mean they weren't dangerous and eroded democratic trust.
Hillary Clinton conceded that she had lost the US Presidential election.
While there was whingeing about whether Russia had attempted to sow division in the US (which, by the way, they also do by amplifyng BLM stuff too, so this is hardly one way), there was no attempt to claim by the candidate that the votes cast were invalid.
There is no equivalence here, and your attempt to claim it is staggering.
Just because you claim something is staggering doesn't mean it is.
Right from the get go, it was suggested Russia got Trump elected and that was a line of enquiry pursued throughout the years, even when the evidence was increasingly questioned. There are plenty more where these came from:
You seem to have the view that just because Hillary Clinton conceded meant she accepted the result and didn't claim the election was stolen. That is rot. She clearly was saying her victory was "stolen" in 2019.
Just accept it - the Democrats were banging on about a stolen election for 4 years.
As with most Trumpism there is just enough truth to make it dangerous.
Did Clinton moan and call it stolen? Yes Did she refuse to concede or the Democrats refuse to handover power in normal timescales? No Did they make a concerted attempt to overturn the electoral vote and leave the Presidency to party hacks? No
There is no equivalence, if Trump was just saying he won and left it at that, it would be a minor grumble, it is the attack on voting as the final decider of the presidency that is the difference. You were telling us this was Trump's plan on election night!
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
I'm sorry @rcs1000 but US democracy has been damaged from 2016 when we had the whole "the election was stolen" narrative then but from the other side. Two impeachment trials later, the constant claims that Trump was Putin's man in the White House, the claims his Presidency was illegitimate etc etc. Just because many of those making the claims had degrees from the Ivy League and spoke in quiet and methodical tones doesn't mean they weren't dangerous and eroded democratic trust.
Hillary Clinton conceded that she had lost the US Presidential election.
While there was whingeing about whether Russia had attempted to sow division in the US (which, by the way, they also do by amplifyng BLM stuff too, so this is hardly one way), there was no attempt to claim by the candidate that the votes cast were invalid.
There is no equivalence here, and your attempt to claim it is staggering.
Just because you claim something is staggering doesn't mean it is.
Right from the get go, it was suggested Russia got Trump elected and that was a line of enquiry pursued throughout the years, even when the evidence was increasingly questioned. There are plenty more where these came from:
You seem to have the view that just because Hillary Clinton conceded meant she accepted the result and didn't claim the election was stolen. That is rot. She clearly was saying her victory was "stolen" in 2019.
Just accept it - the Democrats were banging on about a stolen election for 4 years.
As with most Trumpism there is just enough truth to make it dangerous.
Did Clinton moan and call it stolen? Yes Did she refuse to concede or the Democrats refuse to handover power in normal timescales? No Did they make a concerted attempt to overturn the electoral vote and leave the Presidency to party hacks? No
There is no equivalence, if Trump was just saying he won and left it at that, it would be a minor grumble, it is the attack on voting as the final decider of the presidency that is the difference. You were telling us this was Trump's plan on election night!
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
If there was a serious claim to be made, it could be resolved in court and that would be fine (aside from the SC having had an appointment rushed through specifically for the election with no recusal). That is not what is egregious, it is the proposed replacement of the voters intentions by party hacks. That is just cheating pure and simple. Threats and attempts of cheating should be viewed as seriously as successful cheating.
It seems very simple to me. There is plenty of time before the handover. Let the vote be tested during that time. It can be verified if people cast two votes across state or district lines, or absentee as well as on the day. If the Dems won fairly and squarely, this process will strengthen their legitimacy.
1. It is statistically incredibly unlikely that either party could be 4% ahead nationally and not win the Presidency. So either fraud is so widespread as to significantly affect the national vote (which would be extraordinary), or it isn't likely to have occurred.
2. It's very easy to see if there's been fraud on any meaningful scale: compare the results in the disputed places to 2016, and then compare them to the national results. If the Democrats performed markedly better compared to 2016 in these places, then that would be cause to investigate. And here's the problem with (2). The number of Democrat votes increased less in these disputed places than nationally.
I think statistics across Presidential elections are of limited value here. These are momentous events that come around rarely.
I agree that taking an educated overview can be a very good indicator of whether fraud has taken place. However, 'meaningful scale' is doing some very heavy lifting. Biden's winning margin in Georgia was 12,300 odd. That isn't particularly large scale within the context of the State.
Concerning the vaccine I can visualize a short story in which a vain person who fills forms out with a slight readjustment of her/his age downward and so misses out on an early vaccination, and ….
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
Yeah but the quality of the cases presented so far has been so poor that it's surprising Trump hasn't been cited as a vexatious litigant. I doubt the cases for Michigan and Georgia are any stronger.
Perhaps not, but you won't even find a summary of the salient points in our media, which is why you must turn to Trumpite Twitter.
The article majors on Sidney Powell being a crazy conspiracy theorist, and that her lawsuit is littered with typos (this is something we desperately needed to know because??) etc. etc. There's next to zero discussion of the salient points, and there certainly isn't a link to the document, which is publicly available.
Not useful either from an informational, or betting standpoint.
Our government appears belatedly to be fumbling its way to this conclusion on testing.
Rethinking Covid-19 Test Sensitivity — A Strategy for Containment https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2025631?query=featured_home ... The tests we need are fundamentally different from the clinical tests currently being used, and they must be evaluated differently. Clinical tests are designed for use with symptomatic people, do not need to be low-cost, and require high analytic sensitivity to return a definitive clinical diagnosis given a single opportunity to test. In contrast, tests used in effective surveillance regimens intended to reduce the population prevalence of a respiratory virus need to return results quickly to limit asymptomatic spread and should be sufficiently inexpensive and easy to execute to allow frequent testing — multiple times per week. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 appears to occur days after exposure, when the viral load peaks.4 This timing increases the importance of high test frequency, because the test must be used at the beginning of an infection to stop onward spread, and reduces the importance of achieving the very low molecular limits of detection of the standard tests.
By several criteria, the benchmark standard clinical polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) test fails when used in a surveillance regimen. After collection, PCR samples typically require transport to a centralized lab staffed by experts, which drives up costs, drives down frequency, and can delay results by one or more days. The cost and effort required to get tested with a standard test mean that most people in the United States have never received one, and slow turnaround times mean that even when the current surveillance approach does identify infected people, they can still spread the infection for days before notification, which limits the impact of isolation and contact tracing....
After spending £12bn on a testing, track and trace system based almost entirely on PCR.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
Thanks for that link - I won't be reading that, not tonight near bedtime anyway. I am happy to engage with a summary of the main points if you can be bothered to make one (no worries if you can't), but that is a long article, and the style is of a short novel rather than a report (where one can read the basic points at the top and decide whether to dive deeper). I find those quite frustrating to read, even if I start from a basis of agreement.
Article regarding the 'Fake Voter Fraud Scandal' notwithstanding, if it is fake, and can be shown to be such, let it be shown to be so. Once again, I can see no issue with eliminating fake voters. If there was no systemic voter fraud on one side, small numbers will be removed from both, and the result will be strengthened.
In which case, you do not deserve to be taken. seriously on the matter. I am done responding to you.
OK - I admit I find being obliged to read start to finish a very long piece of polemic at 9.45pm to be a slightly unreasonable demand to 'be taken seriously' on any subject, but as you wish.
Hasn’t Georgia already carried out a full audit? Did that not do enough?
Concerning the vaccine I can visualize a short story in which a vain person who fills forms out with a slight readjustment of her/his age downward and so misses out on an early vaccination, and ….
Even if the roll out goes great, the media will run all sorts of edge case stories where somebody had changed their name or their gender or they moved one day before some date that was used to determine a particular list and that's before you get to the idiots who will turn up at a centre and make a huge scene that they definitely should get it despite having not replied to a letter or booked via the website.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
Thanks for that link - I won't be reading that, not tonight near bedtime anyway. I am happy to engage with a summary of the main points if you can be bothered to make one (no worries if you can't), but that is a long article, and the style is of a short novel rather than a report (where one can read the basic points at the top and decide whether to dive deeper). I find those quite frustrating to read, even if I start from a basis of agreement.
Article regarding the 'Fake Voter Fraud Scandal' notwithstanding, if it is fake, and can be shown to be such, let it be shown to be so. Once again, I can see no issue with eliminating fake voters. If there was no systemic voter fraud on one side, small numbers will be removed from both, and the result will be strengthened.
In which case, you do not deserve to be taken. seriously on the matter. I am done responding to you.
OK - I admit I find being obliged to read start to finish a very long piece of polemic at 9.45pm to be a slightly unreasonable demand to 'be taken seriously' on any subject, but as you wish.
Hasn’t Georgia already carried out a full audit? Did that not do enough?
I think he’s arguing in bad faith at this point. It’s not worth the effort.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
Thanks for that link - I won't be reading that, not tonight near bedtime anyway. I am happy to engage with a summary of the main points if you can be bothered to make one (no worries if you can't), but that is a long article, and the style is of a short novel rather than a report (where one can read the basic points at the top and decide whether to dive deeper). I find those quite frustrating to read, even if I start from a basis of agreement.
Article regarding the 'Fake Voter Fraud Scandal' notwithstanding, if it is fake, and can be shown to be such, let it be shown to be so. Once again, I can see no issue with eliminating fake voters. If there was no systemic voter fraud on one side, small numbers will be removed from both, and the result will be strengthened.
In which case, you do not deserve to be taken. seriously on the matter. I am done responding to you.
OK - I admit I find being obliged to read start to finish a very long piece of polemic at 9.45pm to be a slightly unreasonable demand to 'be taken seriously' on any subject, but as you wish.
Hasn’t Georgia already carried out a full audit? Did that not do enough?
Evidently some people think not, and if the audit missed the fact that 23,000 voted after moving out of the state, and significant numbers more voted without a genuine address (PO boxes, shopping centres etc.), I can see their point.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
Yeah but the quality of the cases presented so far has been so poor that it's surprising Trump hasn't been cited as a vexatious litigant. I doubt the cases for Michigan and Georgia are any stronger.
Perhaps not, but you won't even find a summary of the salient points in our media, which is why you must turn to Trumpite Twitter.
The article majors on Sidney Powell being a crazy conspiracy theorist, and that her lawsuit is littered with typos (this is something we desperately needed to know because??) etc. etc. There's next to zero discussion of the salient points, and there certainly isn't a link to the document, which is publicly available.
Not useful either from an informational, or betting standpoint.
The Betfair difficulty is that its rules of the bet are ambiguous. "Projected Electoral College votes" is simply uncertain in its meaning - compare it for clarity say with "Actual Electoral College votes cast". Also ambiguous is "Any subsequent events such as a 'faithless elector' will have no effect.....'. The ambiguity here is that it may mean that certain sorts of subsequent event makes no difference, or it could mean that no subsequent events can make any difference. It's a farrago of drafting. No wonder they called lawyers in. With million at stake and a Trumpian candidate the time to call the lawyers in was before the rules were drafted.
And it looks bonkers to pay out on X winning the presidential race when actually Y becomes the next president - which is what the rules appear to allow.
Indeed. Projected...by whom? The networks, presumably. But what if they project things differently? Who decides what the projection consensus is?
‘Voters, not lawyers, choose the president’: Appeals court shoots down Trump suit in Pennsylvania https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/27/appeals-court-trump-campaign-pennsylvania-440813 A federal appeals court panel forcefully rejected the Trump campaign’s effort to throw out millions of Pennsylvania ballots, declaring its allegations of misconduct meritless and its suggested remedies as “breathtaking” and undercut by a lack of evidence.
“Voters, not lawyers, choose the President. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections,” Judge Stephanos Bibas — an appointee of President Donald Trump — wrote for the three-judge 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals panel composed entirely of GOP appointees. Bibas’ opinion, delivered just after noon Friday, rejected the campaign’s appeal of a district court ruling that similarly shredded the suit.
Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani has previously indicated he intends to bring this suit to the Supreme Court. And campaign attorney Jenna Ellis confirmed this is their intention in a Twitter post Friday.
“ The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud,” Ellis said, in a perplexing reference to the three Republican-appointed judges. “We are very thankful to have had the opportunity to present proof and the facts to the PA state legislature.”
Still, the unceremonious, unanimous rejection of the case by a panel of GOP appointees suggests the case may get a chilly reception from the Supreme Court, since justices often look to dissenting opinions from their ideological peers as fodder for interest at the high court.
Much of the appeals court panel’s ruling read like a rebuke of Giuliani for the Trump campaign’s legal tactics. Bibas repeatedly emphasized that Giuliani and the campaign never actually alleged voter fraud in this suit, despite their heated public rhetoric....
Andrew Bridgen: "We've basically been chained to the fate of Leicester even though my seat doesn't even border Leicester,"
"There's no hope for my constituents – even if we get our rate down to nothing, we'll still be tied to Leicester. Let those who have tiers shed them."
Telegraph.
NW Leics does have a rate above the English average:
Yikes, 300. What the hell is he complaining about?
Plenty of whinging from Kent too. Not sure of the grounds.
More Tory MPs whose seats are plague-free moaning about being lumped in with the nearest urban area where the virus roams free.
The worst affected area in Kent being so notoriously urban, of course, that its council leader is a farmer who chairs the Rural Committee at the Local Government Association.
Pretty much worst area in England now.
It must be all those boat people crossing the channel from the Covid calamities of France and Belgium
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
Thanks for that link - I won't be reading that, not tonight near bedtime anyway. I am happy to engage with a summary of the main points if you can be bothered to make one (no worries if you can't), but that is a long article, and the style is of a short novel rather than a report (where one can read the basic points at the top and decide whether to dive deeper). I find those quite frustrating to read, even if I start from a basis of agreement.
Article regarding the 'Fake Voter Fraud Scandal' notwithstanding, if it is fake, and can be shown to be such, let it be shown to be so. Once again, I can see no issue with eliminating fake voters. If there was no systemic voter fraud on one side, small numbers will be removed from both, and the result will be strengthened.
In which case, you do not deserve to be taken. seriously on the matter. I am done responding to you.
OK - I admit I find being obliged to read start to finish a very long piece of polemic at 9.45pm to be a slightly unreasonable demand to 'be taken seriously' on any subject, but as you wish.
Hasn’t Georgia already carried out a full audit? Did that not do enough?
Evidently some people think not, and if the audit missed the fact that 23,000 voted after moving out of the state, and significant numbers more voted without a genuine address (PO boxes, shopping centres etc.), I can see their point.
I seem to recall that the last time they claimed to have found thousands of out of state voters, it turned out they were military personnel who were well within their rights to do so. That may have been Nevada rather than Georgia, but I'd expect Georgia's military population is probably pretty big.
The fact remains that if the Georgia state apparatus was going to rig the election they wouldn't have done it for Biden: it takes a special type of conspiracy theorist to think that this is plausible.
Just remember that this is the suit from someone that Trump disavowed for being too extreme and who Tucker Carlson (sp?) on Fox called out as being unbelievable: and he is someone who takes UFO sightings seriously.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
Yeah but the quality of the cases presented so far has been so poor that it's surprising Trump hasn't been cited as a vexatious litigant. I doubt the cases for Michigan and Georgia are any stronger.
Perhaps not, but you won't even find a summary of the salient points in our media, which is why you must turn to Trumpite Twitter.
The article majors on Sidney Powell being a crazy conspiracy theorist, and that her lawsuit is littered with typos (this is something we desperately needed to know because??) etc. etc. There's next to zero discussion of the salient points, and there certainly isn't a link to the document, which is publicly available.
Not useful either from an informational, or betting standpoint.
The above allegation is simple, and easy to test, and totally different from hard to prove theories about voting machines etc. I am sure (genuinely) that this is because he ran out of time, but I would have been interested to know what he'd have made of it.
Madness. Starking raving madness. None of this needed to have happened if Johnson and Cummings hadn't started briefing about 'saving xmas' several weeks ago.
Comments
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
Yes, in theory both sides would legally challenge when they have concerns about things like fraudulent votes. But after weeks with nothing significant to back up those claims, it rather shows that they are using the process to delay and frustrate, not expose actual concerns. Or else they would have been validated by now by proving something.
https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1326726256365203456
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
The accusation in itself is the point, as even if nothing serious emerges (as everyone sensible acknowledges in a huge election there will be errors in places), people have been told it is rigged and they believe it. Conspiracy theorists don't suddenly wake up wake up when facts show they believe a lie, and courts and officials saying the vote was legitimate won't persuade Trump and his supporters, and this it won't strengthen anything. I think you know that perfectly well.
BBC News - UK's EU ambassador tells colleagues to challenge 'muddled thinking'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38503020
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
"Stopping crowds going to sporting events would just send people into pubs. It would be a big mistake' (woman on Sage committee)
I visited lots of corona virus patients in hospital and shook hands with everybody (Boris Johnson)
There's no question that those who sought Remain before 2016, or a close relationship with the EU after 2016 have been rubbish at the soft power, making personal connections, setting the mood music stuff. And that's a massive failing on our part.
But there's also an objective reality.
The rules of international trade aren't entirely like the laws of physics, but they still exist. Just because a lot of establishment politicians were smug and aloof, or Ivan Rogers wasn't good at relationships, doesn't change the truth of the situation- that the UK is in a terrible pickle, because we voted for something whose detail wasn't well defined, depends on other nations being foolishly generous to us and so probably can't be delivered.
OK, Ivan Rogers and TMay weren't up to delivering that message to the Conservative party, let alone the 52% who needed to hear it. But I wonder if Blair-in-his-pomp could have done that either.
And yet it moves.
2. It's very easy to see if there's been fraud on any meaningful scale: compare the results in the disputed places to 2016, and then compare them to the national results. If the Democrats performed markedly better compared to 2016 in these places, then that would be cause to investigate. And here's the problem with (2). The number of Democrat votes increased less in these disputed places than nationally.
There are communities of people, like us, living their perspective on the truth, and speaking to those of like mind. There are whole groups of entirely reasonable people who *know*, don't think, but *know* that this election was rigged, and it's not because they're deluded, it's because they're looking at the facts that support their argument, and people who share their views, that we totally miss. They would despair of our brainwashed blind ignorance as much as we would of theirs.
I have not read the lawsuits recently filed by Sidney Powell in Michigan and Georgia, but I have read a short summary of them in the following Twitter thread (which I would imagine is more than most of PB has done!). I think this is a worthwhile summary of where the Republicans are at with what happened, and as I said, I don't see how it can hurt to make sure this is checked, and adjustments (should there be any) are made to ensure the validity of the vote: https://twitter.com/pnjaban/status/1331850866442190850
Under state law, the identification or signature of voters is checked twice during the absentee voting process, and an accepted ballot can’t be traced back to a signed envelope once the two are separated. The process protects ballot secrecy.
It's NOT possible to undo this step after a ballot has been either accepted or passed for cure/rejected (Not sure which is state law). It's like trying to take eggs out of a cake.
The lunatics in the GOP know this which is why they're banging on about it because it's simply an impossible step to take.
People who vote in two states. I watched the Clark county, NV certification meeting. They mentioned potential double voting, the votes were excluded and they said they'd go after anyone who might do this. It's taken very seriously - Raffensberger and Kemp (GA SoS/Governor) have said they'll prosecute anyone who does this too. Everyone is looking out for this.
"or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? "
Anyone who voted absentee then believed it hadn't reached destination for whatever reason was required to fill in a provisional ballot. These are the last to be checked and counted. Anyone who filled a normal ballot would be in deepest shit. Cases of this are rare but they do occasionally happen and perpetrators ARE prosecuted. There isn't a remote chance, or more importantly any evidence this has gone on on any sort of scale to change hundreds let alone tens of thousands of votes.
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/
Official advice says morbidly obese people should be included in 'at-risk' group
One in eight adults in UK are classed as morbidly obese – the fattest category
Morbidly people are almost twice as likely to die from Covid, hospital data shows"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8994363/Severely-obese-people-Covid-vaccine-elderly-Brits.html
However, the basic point still more than stands. If the election results in the contested states is subjected to every possible scrutiny, and fraudulent votes (potentially from both camps) are removed from the totals, there is no loser. Apart from the loser obviously.
In a sense it doesn't really matter who becomes President. All that matters is who was the projected winner. That is a known known, and has been known for some weeks. The Electoral College can elect who they like, it wouldn't alter the result under the rules as originally stated by Betfair.
As you indicate, a substantial shift in votes deemed legal by the courts might cause the projected winner to change and might cause some headscratching, although I think the right answer would be to pay out on the first projected winner. Since Trump has lost so emphatically in the courts so far and is running out of claims, we don't need to go there though.
However nothing should be allowed to disguise the fact that Betfair have moved the goalposts.
--AS
I thought this was very 1950s public service announcement
"Women carry the burden of creating and maintaining family traditions and activities at Christmas.
"Messaging should be supportive of women adapting traditions and encouraging those around them to share the burden and to be supportive of any alterations to adapt for Covid-19 restrictions."
Trump lost.
In reality the contesting is mostly to provide "legitimacy" (political cover) to overriding the vote.
Specifically even if the out of state voters point raised is true, how can you identify WHO those voters voted for ? I don't believe you can - also it's a point of how the election was conducted. It's not fraud so not grounds for vitiating the election.
Courts will hear this, and so far they haven't found anything for Trump - and plenty of these courts have Trump's appointees.
It's various GOP legislatures taking these arguments, unproved in court and running with them to attempt to stick their own slate of electors in which is the real danger to US democracy.
The GOP argument is not being made in good faith. Giving credence to them, when people are in detail explaining to to you exactly how they are not grounded in reality and literally asking for the impossible, is a terrible look.
Very simple to check, and if it's wrong, it's wrong. If it takes more votes off the Republicans, than the Dems, that's fair too.
But look at the stakes involved. If the big boys are throwing seven-figure stakes around then even at today's low interest rates, six weeks' delay in settling must be worth a couple of grand. Enough to sue?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/24/michigan-election-trump-voter-fraud-democracy-440475
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
We have pondered mightily on here the reason why the odds on Biden remained so high for so long after the result became obvious to a blind man. Betfair and traders would have known that the company intended to change the rules of settlement. Had you and I known that the ECV Meeting on Dec 14th would be the critical determinant in respect of the date and manner of settling the market, we might have restrained ourselves in lumping on Sleepy Joe. Makes a differences.
Betfair are dishonest agents in this matter.
I expect the ECV will confirm Biden as President and we will be paid out in accordance with the amended rules on the 14th, a good month after we should have been. Betfair will get away with it. All we can do is close our accounts and not touch them again.
The GOP (Which Kemp and Raffensberger belong to) take election security very seriously indeed. They're not going to have anything in place that makes it easier for the Democrats to win. Raffensberger voted for Donald Trump. It's been a clean election if likely slightly bias against the Democrats.
Some in the media are acting like 5 year olds denied an ice cream.
Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
Article regarding the 'Fake Voter Fraud Scandal' notwithstanding, if it is fake, and can be shown to be such, let it be shown to be so. Once again, I can see no issue with eliminating fake voters. If there was no systemic voter fraud on one side, small numbers will be removed from both, and the result will be strengthened.
I am done responding to you.
Betfair will be crapping themselves now that the ECV do go ahead and vote in Biden as President. Imagine their position if they perversely voted for Trump. What would Betfair do?
Would they pay out on Biden, in accordance with their original rules?
Or on Trump in accordance with the revised rules, notwithstanding that the original rules specified its position in respect of 'faithless electors'?
Either way they would be bound to face claims from the losers. I would certainly claim if they paid out on Trump.
They really have stuffed up on this. Makes you wonder who is running the show and whether they have the faintest clue about the betting business.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1332168171822977024
By Republicans.
And it looks bonkers to pay out on X winning the presidential race when actually Y becomes the next president - which is what the rules appear to allow.
We are of course promised them now...
I agree that taking an educated overview can be a very good indicator of whether fraud has taken place. However, 'meaningful scale' is doing some very heavy lifting. Biden's winning margin in Georgia was 12,300 odd. That isn't particularly large scale within the context of the State.
Take this article in the Indy: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/trump-lawyer-sidney-powell-georgia-lawsuit-b1762391.html
The article majors on Sidney Powell being a crazy conspiracy theorist, and that her lawsuit is littered with typos (this is something we desperately needed to know because??) etc. etc. There's next to zero discussion of the salient points, and there certainly isn't a link to the document, which is publicly available.
Not useful either from an informational, or betting standpoint.
Rethinking Covid-19 Test Sensitivity — A Strategy for Containment
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2025631?query=featured_home
... The tests we need are fundamentally different from the clinical tests currently being used, and they must be evaluated differently. Clinical tests are designed for use with symptomatic people, do not need to be low-cost, and require high analytic sensitivity to return a definitive clinical diagnosis given a single opportunity to test. In contrast, tests used in effective surveillance regimens intended to reduce the population prevalence of a respiratory virus need to return results quickly to limit asymptomatic spread and should be sufficiently inexpensive and easy to execute to allow frequent testing — multiple times per week. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 appears to occur days after exposure, when the viral load peaks.4 This timing increases the importance of high test frequency, because the test must be used at the beginning of an infection to stop onward spread, and reduces the importance of achieving the very low molecular limits of detection of the standard tests.
By several criteria, the benchmark standard clinical polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) test fails when used in a surveillance regimen. After collection, PCR samples typically require transport to a centralized lab staffed by experts, which drives up costs, drives down frequency, and can delay results by one or more days. The cost and effort required to get tested with a standard test mean that most people in the United States have never received one, and slow turnaround times mean that even when the current surveillance approach does identify infected people, they can still spread the infection for days before notification, which limits the impact of isolation and contact tracing....
After spending £12bn on a testing, track and trace system based almost entirely on PCR.
Did that not do enough?
It wasn't.
It’s not worth the effort.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1332441248913874948?s=09
TLDR: He's not impressed.
Edit: This is just the first three hours btw...
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/27/appeals-court-trump-campaign-pennsylvania-440813
A federal appeals court panel forcefully rejected the Trump campaign’s effort to throw out millions of Pennsylvania ballots, declaring its allegations of misconduct meritless and its suggested remedies as “breathtaking” and undercut by a lack of evidence.
“Voters, not lawyers, choose the President. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections,” Judge Stephanos Bibas — an appointee of President Donald Trump — wrote for the three-judge 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals panel composed entirely of GOP appointees. Bibas’ opinion, delivered just after noon Friday, rejected the campaign’s appeal of a district court ruling that similarly shredded the suit.
Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani has previously indicated he intends to bring this suit to the Supreme Court. And campaign attorney Jenna Ellis confirmed this is their intention in a Twitter post Friday.
“ The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud,” Ellis said, in a perplexing reference to the three Republican-appointed judges. “We are very thankful to have had the opportunity to present proof and the facts to the PA state legislature.”
Still, the unceremonious, unanimous rejection of the case by a panel of GOP appointees suggests the case may get a chilly reception from the Supreme Court, since justices often look to dissenting opinions from their ideological peers as fodder for interest at the high court.
Much of the appeals court panel’s ruling read like a rebuke of Giuliani for the Trump campaign’s legal tactics. Bibas repeatedly emphasized that Giuliani and the campaign never actually alleged voter fraud in this suit, despite their heated public rhetoric....
The fact remains that if the Georgia state apparatus was going to rig the election they wouldn't have done it for Biden: it takes a special type of conspiracy theorist to think that this is plausible.
Just remember that this is the suit from someone that Trump disavowed for being too extreme and who Tucker Carlson (sp?) on Fox called out as being unbelievable: and he is someone who takes UFO sightings seriously.
https://twitter.com/pnjaban/status/1331850872947572736
The above allegation is simple, and easy to test, and totally different from hard to prove theories about voting machines etc. I am sure (genuinely) that this is because he ran out of time, but I would have been interested to know what he'd have made of it.