-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Siam said in US Politics:
It'd be great Leadership from Joe if he publicly supported an investigation.
Would expose Trump's tactics and be a genuine first step to uniting the country. Take away the them and us rhetoric
I will admit that I think his acceptance has been a little early and doesn't acknowledge the recounts let alone the accusations.
Would have been good to urge the recounts to be done quickly at least.
Best way to combat the fraud accusations is to admit that no system is foolproof but that the weight of evidence and confidence amounts to no material effect.he's in a tough spot with the acceptance, if the vast majority of the press and calling him President Elect then he kind of needs to address it and cant really be see to be shying away from the big job
but yes, some comment about allowing all allegations to be swiftly/thoroughly addressed would be good
A statesman would remind everyone that the media don't have authority to call him president elect and urge the process on.
The people have ostensibly asked for a better leader, Joe is in a great position to show they've got one.
-
@Siam said in US Politics:
The people have ostensibly asked for a better leader, Joe is in a great position to show they've got one.
However, as a few pundits have said: the real issues don't magically go away with a change of President. If he takes residence at the WH in January, the first order of business is getting blamed for everything
-
@broughie said in US Politics:
@barbarian Probably because all the shenanigans seem to happen in the big cities which are almost 100% controlled by Democrats. Maybe if you lived here you might understand.
But correct me if I'm wrong (as you say, I don't live there)- voting administration would be controlled by state government, not city government.
So the Dems may control the cities, but do they have any control over the voting/counting infrastructure if they don't control the state legislature?
-
@Siam some might argue he's already well on his way on that front. Also wonder if he's seeing it as more appropriate to let the correct institutions/agencies take care of their knitting. I feel like he clearly and repeatedly talked about due process by the rules etc, etc so coming out to address concerns only adds fuel to the fire?
-
@Siam said in US Politics:
A statesman would remind everyone that the media don't have authority to call him president elect and urge the process on.
I don't think Biden is acting too hastily, it's convention for candidates to accept victory/defeat before it's official. It's been a close election but I think it's fair to act on the assumption there's been no widespread fraud, whilst also allowing any allegations to be investigated.
-
@barbarian said in US Politics:
@broughie said in US Politics:
@barbarian Probably because all the shenanigans seem to happen in the big cities which are almost 100% controlled by Democrats. Maybe if you lived here you might understand.
But correct me if I'm wrong (as you say, I don't live there)- voting administration would be controlled by state government, not city government.
So the Dems may control the cities, but do they have any control over the voting/counting infrastructure if they don't control the state legislature?
There were a stack of legal cases prior to polling day across a number of states, many initiated by the Democrats, around laws surrounding mail-in ballots. Not a lot of coverage on those.
-
@ACT-Crusader which is either business as usual for an election, but likely with added spice due to covid related behavior. Which would be another indication that all parties knew what was on the cards. Not the outcome but a handle on the increased volume of mail in vote.
-
@Paekakboyz said in US Politics:
@ACT-Crusader which is either business as usual for an election, but likely with added spice due to covid related behavior. Which would be another indication that all parties knew what was on the cards. Not the outcome but a handle on the increased volume of mail in vote.
Based on my study of US elections over the last 25 years, I donโt think it was business as usual. There are always legal cases particularly in certain districts where there are some unusual practices, but this time round it was significantly higher. Yes the Covid factor but some of the cases were pretty dubious particularly around verification waiving.
It all just adds to the intrigue ๐
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
If there is evidence of fraud, it'll be presented through the courts. That evidence will be worth discussing. I ignore pretty much anything Trump has to say as he's a blow hard, and isn't doing the process any favours with his statements.
Until we see the evidence, neither side of this argument can say whether there has been widespread fraud or not. It certainly won't be presented in the media (not appropriate, and even Fox News despise Trump so unlikely to be enthusiatically reported)
I'm curious how people could explain away this data from the NY times....
-
@Wairau said in US Politics:
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
If there is evidence of fraud, it'll be presented through the courts. That evidence will be worth discussing. I ignore pretty much anything Trump has to say as he's a blow hard, and isn't doing the process any favours with his statements.
Until we see the evidence, neither side of this argument can say whether there has been widespread fraud or not. It certainly won't be presented in the media (not appropriate, and even Fox News despise Trump so unlikely to be enthusiatically reported)
I'm curious how people could explain away this data from the NY times....
Interesting but there is a big logic leap. Confirmation bias?
-
@Wairau said in US Politics:
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
If there is evidence of fraud, it'll be presented through the courts. That evidence will be worth discussing. I ignore pretty much anything Trump has to say as he's a blow hard, and isn't doing the process any favours with his statements.
Until we see the evidence, neither side of this argument can say whether there has been widespread fraud or not. It certainly won't be presented in the media (not appropriate, and even Fox News despise Trump so unlikely to be enthusiatically reported)
I'm curious how people could explain away this data from the NY times....
I'm far too lazy to do even more work, but I explained the Pennsylvania situation earlier in detail, and since the data scientist didn't do any exploration of individual states to control for when they start counting mail in ballots, I can't give it much credence.
Speaking of limited credence, here's some reporting of various lawsuits: https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/donald-trumps-america/300154098/the-gop-and-trump-campaigns-allegations-of-election-irregularities-so-far-none-have-been-proved
Certainly some errors, but no evidence of fraud.
If anyone wants to get really conspiracy about it, obviously it's not the Democrats, it's the Republicans getting rid of Trump.
-
@barbarian Good question. I am pretty sure the local/county governments supervise the counting of ballots under their governance then provide results to the state. They are suppose to have representation by both parties present but is seems often this does not happen. It is suppose to be transparent but when you see windows covered up it begs the question. Also this year they extended acceptance of ballots after Nov 3 although these ballots were suppose to be set outside per the Supreme Court. The problem is that it has been suggested they were opened and mixed in with the rest so no one knows which ones came in the day after. The Supreme Court should not have allowed this extension but could rule on the validity of these ballots soon although the horse has bolted the barn now. The state legislature sets the rules but the secretary of state (Democrat) created her own rules in this instance allowing ballots to be accepted a couple days after the election. This will be the point argued by the republicans. It is a mess. Contrast PA to Republican lead Florida where the result was known that night. They never should have done this. There was no reason the accept ballots after the fact. People could vote early. Really no excuse for the chaos it has created.
-
@broughie a nice post that will be met by either: that's enough irregularities to prompt some sort of investigation, especially that bit about votes after an election
Or
Poor Broughie, might be in the States, but he doesn't know as much as me about the whole situation so still no need for an investigation.
๐ -
@broughie said in US Politics:
@barbarian Good question. I am pretty sure the local/county governments supervise the counting of ballots under their governance then provide results to the state. They are suppose to have representation by both parties present but is seems often this does not happen. It is suppose to be transparent but when you see windows covered up it begs the question. Also this year they extended acceptance of ballots after Nov 3 although these ballots were suppose to be set outside per the Supreme Court. The problem is that it has been suggested they were opened and mixed in with the rest so no one knows which ones came in the day after. The Supreme Court should not have allowed this extension but could rule on the validity of these ballots soon although the horse has bolted the barn now. The state legislature sets the rules but the secretary of state (Democrat) created her own rules in this instance allowing ballots to be accepted a couple days after the election. This will be the point argued by the republicans. It is a mess. Contrast PA to Republican lead Florida where the result was known that night. They never should have done this. There was no reason the accept ballots after the fact. People could vote early. Really no excuse for the chaos it has created.
Genuine question, did you actually see the voting centres with windows boarded up? I only ask because I tried really hard to find some footage earlier today on google, but failed!
-
@voodoo This is what I could find. CNN refers to it as right wing media but they have a left bias. These days trying to get truth is difficult and even google could be considered favorable to left wing thinking in promoting stories.
-
Just clarifying, weโre observers from both parties in the room? Or are they the ones outside being blocked
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
Just clarifying, weโre observers from both parties in the room? Or are they the ones outside being blocked
I saw that on TV the other night. The people you can see are members of the public who walked into the lobby area and started yelling at the staff counting. Madness
US Politics