LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksYeah I think the mail in ballot will heavily favour Bidden. SO I feel like the in person count will favour Trump, but as mail-in gets counted, it will shift more and more over to Trump.... Which will make it VERY interesting...
Yeah I think the mail in ballot will heavily favour Bidden. SO I feel like the in person count will favour Trump, but as mail-in gets counted, it will shift more and more over to Trump.... Which will make it VERY interesting...
Trump is also banging on about, postal votes delivered after poling day should not be counted, but the law in Pensylvania says as long as the postmark is dated upto the 3rd they should be counted. And seems like some USPS had not scanned many votes that were posted on time, and 300k votes (that were probably scewed towards Biden) may not be counted. Wait for this story to unfold, if voter fraud happened im betting it was from the Trump camp, after all "Losing isn't easy, not for me"
Im predicting the White House will be the venue for Waco siege II.
I predict they'll end that seige by inviting the British Army to go in and burn it down, as a nod to history!Originally Posted by j1979
_______________________________________________________________________
A lot of this stuff will likely go nowhere if there's no solid proof. Both sides are making their arguments and obviously they only really care about whatever benefits them. Any sense of true integrity here is largely lacking.
Every year voter fraud becomes a bigger and more visible issue. There's an apparent example of the Voting Dead doing the rounds on Twitter (https://twitter.com/fleccas/status/1324216584219623424). Something will have to be done about this soon, I expect - but will it work. The USA can't do bureaucracy - at all. I'm not sure they'll ever be able to have a solid voting system in place since any system will either be:
An attempt to stop people from voting (if you're on the left)
or
An invasion of privacy (if you're on the right).
So in good social media fashion, regardless of whether a matter is genuine or important, everyone will have a good moan, and then go back to normal - or if you're Antifa inclined - a nice riot.
USPS Ballot issue #1 - Slow Processing - FOX https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7Ey8Bz0q6s or MSNBC - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4jRSlKkbKM
USPS Ballot issue #2 - Alleged back-dating of ballots - 'Whistle-blower' video doing the rounds - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hthlV0cEK0
It occurs to me that this whole scenario can and should be avoided. Everyone has plenty of time to plan their voting - if they care about it. There is NO reason that with a little forethought everyone can know by what date their ballots need to arrive, and are then responsible to ensure they get their. Just like filing your taxes, make it a hard date. Get your ballots in by this date or you won't be able to vote that year. Why do governments, and people in general, have to complicate matters...
Last edited by Galant; 05-11-2020 at 03:33 PM.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
As far as I can tell, that's a long-standing argument about asking changes to local laws, in the run-up to an election. Republicans objected to the change, before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in it's favour (the 'it' being the change, not the Republican party) on the grounds that it favoured Democrats. But at the same time, the Republicans objected to opening more satellite voting stations, apparently because that also favoured Democrat's .... but would have made it easier for remote electors to vote without needing postal ballots in the first place. Democrats also tried to block a Green candidate for fear it might split the 'liberal' vote.
In other words, they're both at it, jockeying for advantage.
We could also argue that if Democrats can change the law 'cos it suits them, Republicans can challenge it, if it suits them. They cannot, as I understand it, go above the State supreme court as the change was state law and with no federal grounds to challenge it, the US Supreme Court won't (or can't) trample on "State's Rights".
But they can challenge results if there are grounds for claims, for instance, of voter fraud.
Both sides are only to willing to go to court when it suits them. For an example of 'boot on other foot', remember the "hanging chad" challenge that attempted to deny 'Dubyah' the White House by a similar challenge in Florida?
As far as I'm concerned, a pox on both their houses.
Personally, as a matter of principle, I'd have thought that whether ballots have to be in by voting day or by three days after was immaterial providing it's not monkeyed with for party purposes, which suggests it ought to be the same rule, nationally. But then, we're back to "state's rights" arguments, then.
A lesson learned from PeterB about dignity in adversity, so Peter, In Memorium, "Onwards and Upwards".
One things for certain this is going to linger on for weeks like a few mouldy potatoes buried deep within your kitchen somewhere
Oh I don't know. I reckon Trump would do a deal if it suited him.
Trump - Biden is just like Bart vs Martin right down to the recount
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0nz43dbHJM
Zhaoman (06-11-2020)
Gut instinct tells me that Trump will win, but at present it looks like Biden is on course!
Well I think your gut is wrong. I think there is zero chance Trump can win now. Biden only needs 6 more college votes, and he is all but certain to get 26 and probably Georgia too.
As Anderson Cooper puts it "obese turtle on his back, flailing in the hot sun"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bltIRGApig
It has huge implications for this country, no deal is effectivly over, and an EU extension will follow or a fair trade deal, no more Boris throwing toys out the pram with a tantrum over the negotiations. Populism is dying after it's high tide mark (never did win the popular vote), only problem is UK will now be left with a lame duck PM, and egg on it's face regarding it's Br-eggsit stratagy. Biden publically dislikes BoJo and privatly no doubt sees him as a buffoon. No US trade deal, and if the UK doesn't want to sink it better change tack soon.
But i doubt Trump will go quietly, he is too much of a narcisist for that. Hopefully, now we will also get to unravel the mystery of Epstein (might depend on how many democrats are immplicated too). But no doubt Trump will have a legal headache, Melania will leave him when she finds out he's been bunga bungaring with 12 yo girls, that's if he doen't try and cause a civil war.
All a bit tongue in cheek, but seriously there will be change, and Trump will be going down.
cheesemp (06-11-2020)
It may very well be Biden, nothing personal against him but I'm struggling to see what he could do with the current state of the US. The problems will take more than a few years to resolve
Dont jinx it. it is still a technical possibility that he could win.
For the results, it depends where you are looking. Many new outlets have not called the same states. The NYT and others including (i believe) the associated press have not called Arizona for Trump whereas the Guardian has. By their reconing, he only needs 6 points to reach 270. Tis means all he needs is Nevada or one of the other remaining ones and he has won. Most outlets but Biden at 253, meaning he still has a little way to go.
I just cannot believe haw stupid the electoral process is in the US, until recently, i just that it was the electoral college votes that counted. It is BUT (and someone correct me if i am wrong) if a state has for arguments sake 16 college votes (points) if one candidate wins more than the other, ALL of the points go to the mahority so if biden won 7 and trump won 9, trumpo would get all 16 as an example. Nuts! I dont get why it cannot simply be the person with the most individual votes wins.
While it's still (barely) technically possible that Trump wins, I'd entirely agree that, short of some radical revelation, it's vanishingly unlikely. By "radical revelation" I mean that, for example, the Trump campaign can actually come up with some hard evidence of "electoral fraud" and that, so far, has been spectacularly absent. All I see so far is large volumes of bluster, hot-air and seemingly baseless accusations.
Frankly, at this point, I'd be stunned if Biden lost. And I'm not convinced that that's what all the hot air and bluster is about. Call me cynical, but it wouldn't surprise me one tiny little bit if all this .... water-muddying - is more about setting up a situation for a deal that gives Trump benefits, like a no-prosecution deal - if he stops all the cobblers and goes quietly.
As for the Brexit stuff, I'm so bored rigid with that that I'm just waiting to see what actually happens, rather than speculating. Suffice it to say I don't see it your way. I think there is zero chance of an extension. Why? Two reasons. First, Boris is heavily dependent of Brexiteer support and both in the Parliamentary party and the wider country, that would be incendiary. Second, the single biggest effect of any extension will simply be to change when "5 to midnight" is, and therefore, when any deal happens, if it is going to.
As for an EU deal .... dunno. Jury is out. But not for much longer. And without an extension, it'll be done or not done long before Biden gets into power.
And I'm not convinced that Biden's stance will be as suggested. There's not much difference between Democrat and Republican views towards international trade. Both are similar on China, and both have objected to the EU's stance for decades. Remember the difference between pre-election rhetoric and post-winning pragmatics. A deal is likely, eventually, if it both suits both sides, and can be sold domestically by each. What might be dangerous is if there's an NI hard border, but even then, an independent UK stance isn't determined by the dictat of either the EU or the US president. If a UK PM has a choice of crossing the US president (who, in any event, is not the only arbiter of whether s deal occurs) or crossing those in the UK by whose support he remains in office, he's not going to commit domestic political suicide.
The same applies to UK interests on a US deal as it does with an EU deal - advantageous, beneficial and preferable, but not at any price.
And given that we'll know about the EU deal (if sny) pretty shortly anyway, because 5 minutes to midnight is getting pretty close, that's about as much as I can be bothered to say. Wait and see, because whatever happens will happen before much longer, whatever we all think about it.
A lesson learned from PeterB about dignity in adversity, so Peter, In Memorium, "Onwards and Upwards".
I seem to remember reading the electoral college stuff is historical to account for how slow transport and communication was 200 odd years ago (only sending one guy to vote). Its about as sensible as First past the post in the UK. It just never changes because it suits the political status quo.
Bear in mind that in the US, major broadcasters often "call it" for a given state well before the official result. There is a small group of big broadcasters (NBC, CNN, etc) that usually synchronise, but not all do, and not all the time. And there have been a few spectacular and rather embarrassing miscalls, too.
The ONLY reliable result is the official one, but that often comes hours, even sometimes days, (or even weeks) later and the broadcasters don't seem capable of waiting. In reality, they just don't want to be 'behind' the other news networks.
But there is also more than a hint of being quick to call it in favour of their preferred candidate, but much slower to call it if the other lot are in front.
To summarise, don't put too much faith in broadcasters calling it. They're not always right, and have their own agenda anyway.
A lesson learned from PeterB about dignity in adversity, so Peter, In Memorium, "Onwards and Upwards".
Agreed .... but, it's a bit more than just political status quo.
It's a dangerous precedent (over here) if one party were to change that, given the lack of formal constitutional protection, and to avoid risking tit-for-tat opportunistic changes every time government changes, there's a pretty strong convention to only do it with Broad concensus. Trouble is, everybody wants the version of change that suits them, and can't agree on a compromise.
And even when they do kind-of agree a compromise, they end up with ...., what did Cleggy call SAV? .... "a grubby little compromise", IIRC, because they wanted full-blooded AV but couldn't get it past Cameron, et.al., when it came to the referendum. So the LDs, despite preferring it to FPTP (because FPTP is unreasonably loaded in favour of the big two) had to somehow try to justify arguing for "the grubby little compromise" and hope nobody noticed. Small wonder the public said "Errr, NO."
Of course, then, having presented us with the alternative of status quo, or an overly-complex grubby little alternative, the "no" vote was taken by TPTB as a vote for no change, when in reality a lot of people (me included) voted no to that change, not for FPTP.
In other words, we can't even decide what the alternative option(s) should be, never mind whether to change to it or not.
A lesson learned from PeterB about dignity in adversity, so Peter, In Memorium, "Onwards and Upwards".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
