Invasion of US Capitol building

[Droogs]

My mum's biggest gripe with the BBC news is that they interview people who are either BAME, "common" or "stupid". She thinks only well educated white people should be consulted for an opinion. So yes, the BBC can't possible please everyone.

That's not to say they don't hold bias - Laura Kuenssberg seems to have a gripe with the government because her questioning sometimes goes beyond being firm into the realms of aggressive, although in all fairness that's just how I read her manner, maybe others won't see it that way (objectively I mean, not people who sit there thinking "yeah stuff it to those Tory bar stewards Laura").

However bias isn't of the BBC itself, it's held by the individual presenters.

Up here in the land of her birth, most people I know regard LK as working for the Boris Broadcasting Corporation and before that was seen as being TMs gob. she is view by most in scotland as a Tory sicophantic stooge. during the election, during discussions about who the jurnos would vote for nearly all said she'd vote tory

strange how views differ on the other side of the border.

 

[Jake]

There was some vote fraud, and (I think) fifteen court cases were prepared. The courts, including the Supreme Court, declined to hear fourteen of them, so whatever evidence there may have been wasn't legally tested

There were over fifty - all of them were lost - and none of the lawyers who brought them were prepared to actually stand up and say in court there was fraud (where they would have faced consequences if they had lied to a court rather than the public).

 

[Phil Pascoe]

In view of the history of postal voting fraud and of university students openly being made aware of the fact (encouraged) they could vote twice, maybe we do not occupy the high ground.

 

[NormanB]

Up here in the land of her birth, most people I know regard LK as working for the Boris Broadcasting Corporation and before that was seen as being TMs gob. she is view by most in scotland as a Tory sicophantic stooge. during the election, during discussions about who the jurnos would vote for nearly all said she'd vote tory

strange how views differ on the other side of the border.

That’s an enlightening perspective.
There is one thing for sure that while we can blame politicians at every turn of this unfolding pandemic (btw that approach achieves nowt). It has exposed to full gaze the completely inadequate (and rather stupid) journalist who dominate our airwaves. Many of the questions they ask politicians are just so inept and crass that it makes you cringe ( even from those I thought were credible journos in the past)I am under warning from SWMBO to stop shouting at the TV.

 

[D_W]

In view of the history of postal voting fraud and of university students openly being made aware of the fact (encouraged) they could vote twice, maybe we do not occupy the high ground.

This is more likely here, too, but quite often snowbirds who go to a winter home and get an absentee ballot and vote in their state of residence. Democrats in Chicago were fairly famous for pulling voting cards for people who didn't show up to supplement the vote, but I'd guess they were looking to get local results (Chicago was a big mob city) more than national. I haven't heard of any of the systemic stuff in my lifetime, but to have the odd person who lives in two states say they voted twice isn't unheard of. One would guess those types balance each other out party wise.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

There were over fifty - all of them were lost - and none of the lawyers who brought them were prepared to actually stand up and say in court there was fraud (where they would have faced consequences if they had lied to a court rather than the public).

That's not quite correct. The Courts did decline to hear some cases, and there was some video evidence and personal testimony. Whether that would have amounted to enough to change the results of State ballots is not known, and probably now never will be. Doesn't matter now, anyway.

It always seemed to me to be something of a 'shouting and arm waving' exercise, anyway. I very much doubt there has ever been an American presidential election without some fraud, despite which America, in general, seems to survive and thrive.

 

[Jacob]

Up here in the land of her birth, most people I know regard LK as working for the Boris Broadcasting Corporation and before that was seen as being TMs gob. she is view by most in scotland as a Tory sicophantic stooge. during the election, during discussions about who the jurnos would vote for nearly all said she'd vote tory

strange how views differ on the other side of the border.

It's a widely held view south of the border too!
Basically a very "establishment" figure, dyed in the wool, not her fault - she didn't choose her background poor thing - she's just a bit short of the necessary to be able to think herself out of it, which isn't good for a supposedly objective journalist
Just been reading Robert Fisk "The Great War for Civilisation" for balance!

 

[Woody2Shoes]

.......
It's almost as if someone truly wants different sections of Americans at each other's throats. Who would benefit from that?

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin ?
Xi Jinping ?
Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei ?
Kim Jong-Un ?
.......

 

[Jake]

That's not quite correct. The Courts did decline to hear some cases,

They declined to hear them in the sense of finding that the case was inarguable, legally and evidentially incoherent. It is called striking out a hopeless case which is so hopeless it is just a waste of the court's time. What I said was precisely correct, although the lawyers submitted (rubbish contrived) evidence, none of them was actually willing to say in front of a judge that the evidence they had to support their case demonstrated fraud.

and there was some video evidence and personal testimony. Whether that would have amounted to enough to change the results of State ballots is not known, and probably now never will be.

See above, the cases were so hopeless they were struck out. That's the most epic way to fail in a law suit. It really is quite difficult to achieve not getting over the hurdle of having an arguable case. Lawyers have been and will be referred for professional conduct sanctions for bringing them. One of the bases for that is they submitted doctored video as evidence. The rest of the evidence was a complete joke. Many of the cases were heard (and dismissed) by republican judges (including the Supreme Court case you mentioned), and defended by republican state officials.

It was a propaganda campaign not a legal campaign. Seems to have fooled you.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

It was a propaganda campaign not a legal campaign. Seems to have fooled you.

That is rude and un-called for. I have not disputed the results of the election, unlike those bringing legal cases.

 

[Jake]

That is rude and un-called for. I have not disputed the results of the election, unlike those bringing legal cases.

You were trying to say there was evidence which the courts refused to look at, when there was no real evidence and that is why the cases failed.

It worked, they pulled the wool over your eyes. That's what they set out to do. Sorry, it wasn't intended to be rude, just factual.

 

[thetyreman]

 

[Blackswanwood]

 

[Ring]

President Trump for another 4 years . Lets wait and see on the 20th if there even is an inauguration !! Somehow i don’t think there will be ! But that’s just my view.

 

[billw]

President Trump for another 4 years . Lets wait and see on the 20th if there even is an inauguration !! Somehow i don’t think there will be ! But that’s just my view.

Not just you, also the view of a lot of unhinged people too.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

You were trying to say there was evidence which the courts refused to look at, when there was no real evidence and that is why the cases failed.

It worked, they pulled the wool over your eyes. That's what they set out to do. Sorry, it wasn't intended to be rude, just factual.

No wool pulled over my eyes. At no point have I suggested "the election was stolen" or any other of the various slogans and tropes trotted out.

There was evidence of fraud. There's always fraud. (There is in UK elections, too - hence the need to re-arrange postal voting provision a few years ago, and as Phil Pascoe pointed out, students able to vote twice and even being encouraged to do so by some people.) Had you actually bothered to read my comments, I said that it probably didn't amount to enough to affect the outcome, and that the whole legal challenge thing seemed to me to be more about shouting and arm-waving.

I repeat - saying that I was fooled was wrong, rude and uncalled for.

 

[Noel]

President Trump for another 4 years . Lets wait and see on the 20th if there even is an inauguration !! Somehow i don’t think there will be ! But that’s just my view.

What do you think will happen before or on the 20th that would halt the swearing in ceremony?

 

[Jake]

I repeat - saying that I was fooled was wrong, rude and uncalled for.

You can repeat it all you like, but the fact that you repeated the trope (and are still trying to do that) that there was evidence of fraud that the courts refused to look at is evidence that you were gulled by their propaganda campaign.

 

[Jake]

What do you think will happen before or on the 20th that would halt the swearing in ceremony?

Round 2 presumably, per Parler. Might be met with a more heavy duty response this time though.

 

[D_W]

What do you think will happen before or on the 20th that would halt the swearing in ceremony?

Nothing - the capitol is open to the public on any given day. When they have an inauguration, anyone not cleared ahead of time will not be allowed anyone near it. Congress doesn't get remotely close to the same protection that the President does, and secret service and fbi details will be quicker to the trigger.