OV9

Are we not mentioning the thieves that run Scotland?

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2024 7:35 pm It looks like a collapse in the dems numbers is at least partially responsible. Turnout was low in general but the dems lost 14 mil votes compared to 2 mil or so for trump.

This is bothering me. The implication is that c. 14m people that voted for Biden last time decided to not vote at all this time ? In protest ? Without considering that not voting is effectively giving the other party an extra vote ? Without considering what's at stake here ??

I don't know how it would translate to seats but it would only have taken half of those 14m people to get up and vote for Harris to win the popular vote.

And I'm not suggesting outright election fraud, "losing" 10m ballot papers without a trace is really quite difficult to do, but targeted influence campaigns to persuade certain people that not voting is smart and clever... that's quite possible. And very anti-democratic.

I’m fully expecting the liberals to do their own version of stop the steal tbh.

They’ve already sunk to blatant racism because they’re mad at latinx people voting for trump.

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:12 am I’m fully expecting the liberals to do their own version of stop the steal tbh.

But this is the other way around. Trump wanted to ignore loads of valid but uncounted ballots. That's blatant and easy to resolve - just count them. This time the ballots were never placed. Short of re-running the whole election you can't go back and fix it.

Ascender wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:06 am

Broccers wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:58 pm

Ascender wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2024 3:05 pm He's a convicted rapist and sexual predator. The fact he could even run for President, let alone win, blows my mind.

Have you always been a left idiot Mike?

Yes, as seems to be the trend this week on social media and the Daily Mail, I'm now a woke, lefty idiot for not liking rapists.

Did you read my post above? I'm pretty sure you're not going to receive a writ through the post from Donald J but probably wise not to keep repeating libellous statements anyway!

GG. wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 2:59 pm

Ascender wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:06 am

Broccers wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:58 pm

Have you always been a left idiot Mike?

Yes, as seems to be the trend this week on social media and the Daily Mail, I'm now a woke, lefty idiot for not liking rapists.

Did you read my post above? I'm pretty sure you're not going to receive a writ through the post from Donald J but probably wise not to keep repeating libellous statements anyway!

Unfortunately sucked in by 'the news'.

GG. wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 2:59 pm

Ascender wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:06 am

Broccers wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:58 pm

Have you always been a left idiot Mike?

Yes, as seems to be the trend this week on social media and the Daily Mail, I'm now a woke, lefty idiot for not liking rapists.

Did you read my post above? I'm pretty sure you're not going to receive a writ through the post from Donald J but probably wise not to keep repeating libellous statements anyway!

Sorry, sexual abuse rather than rape wasn't it? I will adjust the post...

I thought the judge for his countersuit in that case did say that the rape allegation was "substantially true" before awarding the accuser significant damages for the said sexual abuse. And of course there's all the other allegations going back 40 years or so, but yeah, I'm sure he's a standup guy when it comes to his treatment of women.

Ascender wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 3:43 pm

GG. wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 2:59 pm

Ascender wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:06 am

Yes, as seems to be the trend this week on social media and the Daily Mail, I'm now a woke, lefty idiot for not liking rapists.

Did you read my post above? I'm pretty sure you're not going to receive a writ through the post from Donald J but probably wise not to keep repeating libellous statements anyway!

Sorry, sexual abuse rather than rape wasn't it? I will adjust the post...

I thought the judge for his countersuit in that case did say that the rap allegation was "substantially true" before awarding the accuser significant damages for the said sexual abuse. And of course there's all the other allegations going back 40 years or so, but yeah, I'm sure he's a standup guy when it comes to his treatment of women.

Were you a fan of stealing Jimmy Crankie?

To label people based on nothing you actually know is quite dangerous.

Ascender wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 3:43 pm

GG. wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 2:59 pm

Ascender wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:06 am

Yes, as seems to be the trend this week on social media and the Daily Mail, I'm now a woke, lefty idiot for not liking rapists.

Did you read my post above? I'm pretty sure you're not going to receive a writ through the post from Donald J but probably wise not to keep repeating libellous statements anyway!

Sorry, sexual abuse rather than rape wasn't it? I will adjust the post...

I thought the judge for his countersuit in that case did say that the rap allegation was "substantially true" before awarding the accuser significant damages for the said sexual abuse. And of course there's all the other allegations going back 40 years or so, but yeah, I'm sure he's a standup guy when it comes to his treatment of women.

I think we're heading into some complexities here which it would take a thorough reading of the case to disentagle but I think the comment around "substantial truth" was probably related to a counterclaim against Carroll for defamation in alleging rape, i.e. even though the jury did not conclude that Trump did rape her, he could not claim for defamation for the allegation of rape because it met the legal doctrine of being "substantially true", i.e. sexual assault close enough in kind to rape. Clearly these are points of civil law analysis in relation to that case and don't equate to the judge saying that the rape accusation was substantially true as you or I would think of it in relation to a criminal case. The fact that wikipedia quotes that "subtantial truth" comment without the context that it is a specific legal defence to defamation rather than a substantive judgment of the accusation being true shows how quickly things a judge has said can get misrepresented to lay persons.

I of course wholly agree with you in that clearly he is not and never has been of morally 'good' character, in his actions toward women, in business and in many other areas. Sadly that is not the required criteria for being a politician. I think to your main point though, would the American people have elected him if he had been criminally convicted of rape (or sexual assault)? I expect likely not. In the US legal system where people bring claims for compensation for opening a tin can incorrectly, they (rightly or wrongly) probably view these civil cases in a different light to how we do.

GG. wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 4:00 pm would the American people have elected him if he had been criminally convicted of rape (or sexual assault)? I expect likely not.

Would not surprise me if they would, US public opinion is clearly steered by other narratives and sources beyond the established instruments of government and society. Also he only needs to stay out of prison long enough for these narratives and sources to get him elected before he can declare himself innocent / immune and pretty much anything else.

I think right now he could probably say that yes he did all those things and he'd do them again because he's immune to everything and we'd still end up where we are now, so strong is the belief system he has generated in his followers.

If you extract all moral judgement, and fear for your own and your children's futures what he's achieved is actually quite unprecedented and remarkable. If the world survives and we don't start burning books, people will write books about how he did it.

I expect there is also a lot of consideration being given to whether they want a Republican or a Democrat head of state and they would vote Trump despite not liking Trump. People do that all over the world, not just in the US.

Many voted for Corbyn, for example, ignoring the fact he would sidle up to some pretty unpalatable people if he thought they were on the side of the 'oppressed', because they liked his socialist ideals (at least that's my analysis as I can't imagine many British people actively voted for him because he was willing to give a platform to Hamas).

There's always an unwavering base of course. In the analysis I've seen it seems like the economic failings of the current government was a key issue, as with all elections prevailing economic conditions are ignored and the incumbent is in trouble when conditions are unfavourable. Whilst I don't expect the entire electorate to acknowledge that, it is interesting just how many moralistic judgements are cast to one side if folks think they'll get an extra pound in their pocket.

Edit - I'm pretty sure if Trump said "I'm just going to print more money and give it to everyone, we'll all be millionaires!" it would be a MASSIVE vote winner.

... wouldn't be a lie either I suppose, if he can push inflation high enough, no reason why they can't all be millionaires.

Maybe the future of humanity is to vote for policies and not people or parties

I can't see how things will ever change/improve when things are so polarised and based on the personalities

Two things:

1) Biden did a speech today and I'd completely forgotten he existed
2) I reckon there's no way Harris will get another nomination in 2028, despite being a great candidate.

America is quite odd, having the new President wait until January before he can get to work.

I thought Harris was a shit candidate, the main reason for her being selected was to preserve donations for the campaign. Voters needed a clean break from Biden and Harris. It was no different to Rishi running for PM again, he kept talking about fixing problems, but every time he opened his mouth you couldn't help but think why he didn't implement those policies earlier.
She really fucked it by then saying she would have done anything different to Biden.

Gavster wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 6:34 pm I reckon there's no way Harris will get another nomination in 2028, despite being a great candidate.

In 2019 she dropped out even before the primaries due to a pretty complete lack of popular support. In any full race for the Democratic nomination she wouldn't have been picked anyway and was effectively only on the ballot by virtue of Biden's medical inability to continue and insufficient time to prepare anyone else. So yes, I don't think she'll get the nomination in 2028 either.

I think the Democrats will go back to a male candidate next time. Sadly the US electorate seem unwilling to vote for a woman.

Jobbo wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2024 8:03 am I think the Democrats will go back to a male candidate next time. Sadly the US electorate seem unwilling to vote for a woman.

Aspiring Dem leaders may as well start doing crime, it's not going to hurt their chances is it ?

popbitch wrote:It's tempting to think there's nothing you can say or do in America that will preclude you from taking office anymore – but it's not quite the case.

Despite Tuesday being a good night for the GOP across the board, one Republican who lost his race was Mark Robinson: candidate for Governor of North Carolina. In case you missed him, Robinson is the self-proclaimed Christian Conservative who was unveiled as a regular poster on the Nude Africa web forum – where he called himself a "Black Nazi", wrote in favour of reintroducing slavery and authored some highly explicit bumsex fantasies about his sister-in-law.

Praising Hitler and downplaying slavery didn't seem to scupper other Republicans' chances. So voters clearly must have objected to Robinson's erotic reminiscences of "pumping [his wife's sister's] dookychute" and having her shoot "a long hot stream of piss up in the air that covered my chest".

Still, Mark ended up with more than two million votes. Which is something for other aspiring Nazi-slave-piss-play enthusiasts to build upon for 2028.