Fake news on the BBC?

MakepeaceMakepeace Shipmate
edited November 2020 in Purgatory
Last week the BBC published an article, which had as its headline theme that, "Donald Trump has said he will leave the White House if Joe Biden is formally confirmed as the next US president."

The problem with this headline is that the article does not go on to explain why there was some doubt that Donald Trump may leave the White House if Joe Biden is formally confirmed as the next US president. The only quote from Trump himself in the article is:

Donald Trump has said he will leave the White House if Joe Biden is formally confirmed as the next US president:

He was asked whether he would agree to leave the White House if he lost the electoral college vote. "Certainly I will, certainly I will and you know that," he said.

I can't see any credible basis to the belief that Donald Trump might not leave the White House if Biden is formally confirmed. It is a sort of McCarthyism of the left.

I can understand why the Guardian and the Independent (the other left-wing news providers) participate in this sort of populist reporting because they want to sell newspapers and obtain advertising revenue.

What I can't understand is why the BBC would join in with this misleading journalism. The only reasons I can think of are that:

1. The BBC wants as many viewers as possible to justify its ongoing monopoly on the Licence fee; or

2. The BBC is trying to manipulate the more gullible members of the public.

This latter possibility is may be supported by the BBC's reporting on the 2016 referendum. I recall Newsnight interviewing older people and asking them questions like, "but do you really want to ruin the lives of younger people." and then interviewing some posh, middle class younger people who would talk about their fears of leaving the E.U. I don't recall them interviewing younger working class people, at least until after the referendum.

There has also been fake news on channel 4 last week. When it was announced that foreign aid funding would be reduced to 0.5% they repeatedly showed Boris Johnson saying, before the pandemic, that it would be 0.7%. Its as if Channel 4 are trying t manipulate people into thinking that those quotes were made during or after the pandemic or that the public shouldn't be expected to believe that the pandemic has made a material difference to public finances.

I fully appreciate that there is also fake news on the right. The reason that the fake news is coming from the left at the moment is because the right are in power. There was plenty of fake news about Tony Blair when he was in power (although thinking about it a fair amount of that also came form the left).

I don't believe that this is a left/right problem in journalism. I believe that this is an example of how our culture is being dumbed down. in spite of the high university participation levels the sophistication of political reporting and oratory is vastly reduced. Could you imagine a modern politician speaking like James Callaghan now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76ImzIwB1-k

«1345

Comments

  • That is not what "Fake news" means. Your complaint is about percieved bias.
  • Makepeace wrote: »
    The problem with this headline is that the article does not go on to explain why there was some doubt that Donald Trump may leave the White House if Joe Biden is formally confirmed as the next US president.
    The article assumes the reader hasn’t been in a coma for the last four years.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Dave W wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    The problem with this headline is that the article does not go on to explain why there was some doubt that Donald Trump may leave the White House if Joe Biden is formally confirmed as the next US president.
    The article assumes the reader hasn’t been in a coma for the last four years.

    Or even the last four weeks.

    Technically, Trump may not have previously refused to vacate the White House for a victorious Biden. However, his utter refusal to accept the results, while providing scant evidence of fraud, does raise questions about his commitment to the democratic process.

    So, it's not like the guys at the beeb just sat down and said "It would be great if we could do something to make Trump look like a dangerous authoritarian. Hey, I know, let's make up some crazy story implying that he's been refusing to leave the White House."
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    If launching frivolous law suits in many states that have been chucked out at the first hurdle and/or actually increased the majority for Biden do not count as such, I'm not sure what is evidence of refusal to accept the results. He has relied on "alternative facts" throughout his rule of lies and reality is biting him. He refuses to accept that. Therefore the real news in this is "conservative shill refuses to accept reality".
  • The replies above are all making the same point (apart from KarlLB). The above responses are conflating two different things:

    1. Trump's skepticism about the election result and his spurious challenges to it; and

    2. A completely unrelated belief that he may refuse to leave the White House if the official result is that he has lost.

    The first is legitimate news and I agree that it reflects badly on Donald Trump. ThunderBunk, you appear to acknowledge this distinction by stating that, "the real news is..."

    My issue here is the entirely unwarranted extension of the first to the second. The conflation of these separate issues above leads me to believe that McCarthyism is alive and well on this forum. Yes the first issue makes Trump look a little stupid, but he has the right to be skeptical and also to ask the courts to scrutinise the results. However, it is another thing altogether to suggest that Trump may be a dictator who intends to circumvent the rule of law. If he intended to ignore the rules of law why would he even use the courts? There is no evidence in support of the second belief and nothing said above convinces me that there is a valid basis to the BBC's headline. I appreciate that left-wing news media have the right to express their perceptions, however biased, but I personally prefer news reporting that is more robust and it is difficult to find that at the moment (I find the best reporting in the F.T). Also if the BBC is going to receive 100% of the licence fee it should promote unbiased reporting.
  • It wouldn't be news that he agreed to leave if there had been no doubts raised in every reputable news source (and Fox news). He's been denying that he lost since we knew the actual results and he's been claiming crookedness but can't show any evidence to support this view. Why would he be asked the question by a reporter if everyone assumed without thinking that he would vacate just as any defeated democratic leader in well-run democracies around the world?

    I didn't finish reading the ill-informed OP but it's nothing to do with any failing of BBC reporting just a failed understanding of reality on the part of the poster.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    The question as to whether Trump will leave the White House was around in the news media as far back as June, and with more intensity immediately after the election this month. Given that context the BBC’s story doesn’t seem odd.
  • Makepeace wrote: »
    The replies above are all making the same point (apart from KarlLB). The above responses are conflating two different things:

    1. Trump's skepticism about the election result and his spurious challenges to it; and

    2. A completely unrelated belief that he may refuse to leave the White House if the official result is that he has lost.

    I believe that Trump is an abomination. A completely unrelated belief is that the sun is shining today.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    I believe more than half the senior staff in the BBC news department have previously been members of their university student Conservative Parties or related organisations?

    The information on Brexit voting patterns by Lord Ashcroft, a conservative, shows that support for Brexit is mostly determined by education: the more educated showing least support for it. Younger people in general are better educated. (There is a slight link between wealth and support for Brexit in that wealth makes someone more likely to support Brexit but that is swamped by the fact that wealthier people are more likely to be better educated and so oppose Brexit.) So while the link between age and support for Brexit is not a direct causal link there is a strong correlation: on average a younger person is more likely to oppose Brexit.
    Nobody has as far as I know come up with any concrete reason to think Brexit will bring economic benefits to anybody in Britain except those few people, like Rees-Mogg and Farage, who are able to move capital and investment to short the British economy.

    The reason BBC reporting despite being staffed mostly by right-wingers appears to have a left-wing bias is because reality has a well-known left-wing bias. (With thanks to Stephen Colbert.)
  • Makepeace wrote: »
    The replies above are all making the same point (apart from KarlLB). The above responses are conflating two different things:

    1. Trump's skepticism about the election result and his spurious challenges to it; and

    2. A completely unrelated belief that he may refuse to leave the White House if the official result is that he has lost.

    The first is legitimate news and I agree that it reflects badly on Donald Trump. ThunderBunk, you appear to acknowledge this distinction by stating that, "the real news is..."

    My issue here is the entirely unwarranted extension of the first to the second. The conflation of these separate issues above leads me to believe that McCarthyism is alive and well on this forum. Yes the first issue makes Trump look a little stupid, but he has the right to be skeptical and also to ask the courts to scrutinise the results. However, it is another thing altogether to suggest that Trump may be a dictator who intends to circumvent the rule of law. If he intended to ignore the rules of law why would he even use the courts? There is no evidence in support of the second belief and nothing said above convinces me that there is a valid basis to the BBC's headline. I appreciate that left-wing news media have the right to express their perceptions, however biased, but I personally prefer news reporting that is more robust and it is difficult to find that at the moment (I find the best reporting in the F.T). Also if the BBC is going to receive 100% of the licence fee it should promote unbiased reporting.

    First off, I really don't think you know anything about McCarthyism. Secondly Trump has been making noises for months that he might refuse to accept the result of the election, to the point where senior members of his own party rebuked him. This isn't something made up by the media, this is based on what Trump has said. Now I'll concede that relying on the words coming out of Trump's mouth as indicators of future (or past) actions is roughly as effective as a ouija board but that's not quite "fake news". Lastly, the reports are given credence by the utter ludicrousness of the claims of fraud - the court challenges are not the actions of someone who thinks the cases can win on their merits, they're the actions of someone who thinks they've bought and paid for the highest court, who has one or more backup plans revolving around his very own stab-in-the-back myth. Now that could be prep for a 2024 run, an attempt to milk the red caps for cash while he can, or the springboard for the much-touted media venture, but it's hardly unfair or unreasonable to link them to Trump's earlier comments about not accepting the result.
  • Makepeace wrote: »
    The conflation of these separate issues above leads me to believe that McCarthyism is alive and well on this forum.
    McCarthyism again? Maybe you should look that word up.
    Yes the first issue makes Trump look a little stupid, but he has the right to be skeptical and also to ask the courts to scrutinise the results.
    He has no reason to be skeptical, and we have no particular reason to believe any word that comes out of the mouth of a prodigious liar. Of course this means his denial that he will continue his quixotic attempt to subvert election results is completely unreliable, but the BBC is a new organization, so they're pretty much limited to asking questions and reporting the answers.
  • just a failed understanding of reality on the part of the poster.

    Which part of reality have I failed to understand? The BBC article suggests that there was a chance that Trump may refuse to leave the White House if the official result is that Biden had won. I don't believe that this is a credible, evidence-based assertion. If there is evidence that he may not leave the White House if that is the official result then I would be grateful if you could refer me to it (for the avoidance of doubt I don't see it as credible just because Fox News said so).
  • BroJames wrote: »
    The question as to whether Trump will leave the White House was around in the news media as far back as June, and with more intensity immediately after the election this month. Given that context the BBC’s story doesn’t seem odd.

    I agree that it doesn't seem odd but is it too much to ask that the main implication is based on evidence?
  • tclune wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    The replies above are all making the same point (apart from KarlLB). The above responses are conflating two different things:

    1. Trump's skepticism about the election result and his spurious challenges to it; and

    2. A completely unrelated belief that he may refuse to leave the White House if the official result is that he has lost.

    I believe that Trump is an abomination. A completely unrelated belief is that the sun is shining today.

    Agreed.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    I believe more than half the senior staff in the BBC news department have previously been members of their university student Conservative Parties or related organisations?

    The information on Brexit voting patterns by Lord Ashcroft, a conservative, shows that support for Brexit is mostly determined by education: the more educated showing least support for it. Younger people in general are better educated. (There is a slight link between wealth and support for Brexit in that wealth makes someone more likely to support Brexit but that is swamped by the fact that wealthier people are more likely to be better educated and so oppose Brexit.) So while the link between age and support for Brexit is not a direct causal link there is a strong correlation: on average a younger person is more likely to oppose Brexit.
    Nobody has as far as I know come up with any concrete reason to think Brexit will bring economic benefits to anybody in Britain except those few people, like Rees-Mogg and Farage, who are able to move capital and investment to short the British economy.

    The reason BBC reporting despite being staffed mostly by right-wingers appears to have a left-wing bias is because reality has a well-known left-wing bias. (With thanks to Stephen Colbert.)

    Your post suggests that you believe that there is a realistic chance that Trump won't leave the White House if the official result is that Biden has won, although you don't actually say that. If you do believe that could you refer me to some evidence in support of it? The article that I've referred to does not provide any. I'm not suggesting that there isn't any evidence but if there is, then it is a journalistic failure to have not mentioned this.

  • Makepeace wrote: »
    tclune wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    The replies above are all making the same point (apart from KarlLB). The above responses are conflating two different things:

    1. Trump's skepticism about the election result and his spurious challenges to it; and

    2. A completely unrelated belief that he may refuse to leave the White House if the official result is that he has lost.

    I believe that Trump is an abomination. A completely unrelated belief is that the sun is shining today.

    Agreed.

    Oh, so Donald Trump is an abomination - but what you're outraged about is the thought that the BBC's reporting might imply that he's not entirely trustworthy?
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    The conflation of these separate issues above leads me to believe that McCarthyism is alive and well on this forum.
    McCarthyism again? Maybe you should look that word up.
    Yes the first issue makes Trump look a little stupid, but he has the right to be skeptical and also to ask the courts to scrutinise the results.
    He has no reason to be skeptical, and we have no particular reason to believe any word that comes out of the mouth of a prodigious liar. Of course this means his denial that he will continue his quixotic attempt to subvert election results is completely unreliable, but the BBC is a new organization, so they're pretty much limited to asking questions and reporting the answers.

    When I refer to McCarthyism I'm referring to the the paranoid mentality that takes something real and then exaggerates it into something far more sinister. The McCarthyites took the fact that there was a tiny minority of communists in 1950s America and exaggerated it into a paranoia that communists had infiltrated mainstream politics. I'm suggesting that this is similar because a legitimate belief that Trump is foolish in using legal means to challenge the election result into an exaggerated belief that he intends to use illegal means to challenge the result.
  • The speculation on the ends that Trump would take to remain POTUS is wide-spread. To accuse the BBC headline of being akin to McCarthyism is spurious and best and ahistorical.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Makepeace wrote: »
    Your post suggests that you believe that there is a realistic chance that Trump won't leave the White House if the official result is that Biden has won, although you don't actually say that. If you do believe that could you refer me to some evidence in support of it? The article that I've referred to does not provide any. I'm not suggesting that there isn't any evidence but if there is, then it is a journalistic failure to have not mentioned this.
    My post said nothing about Trump. If you can get from what I posted to a claim about there being a realistic chance Trump won't leave the White House then you can certainly get from the fact that Trump refuses to acknowledge the election result to the thought that it is a reasonable question to ask Trump what he would acknowledge.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    I heard the questions and answers, including the ones quoted by the BBC. Did you listen to everything Trump said, Makepeace? As is usual with him there were mixed signals.

    He certainly observed that an Electoral College vote for Biden would be a mistake. And the EC vote has to be confirmed by Congress.

    I think he could argue on the basis of everything he said that of course he would accept the EC vote once confirmed by Congress.

    That’s only my opinion of course but being certain about what Trump will do based on just one thing he said, in a press conference which was dominated by him crying fraud, is actually pretty trusting. He has a track record.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Someone could have argued before the election that there was no evidence Trump's officials would refuse to start the transfer process until a two or three weeks after the results were in.
  • Makepeace wrote: »
    just a failed understanding of reality on the part of the poster.

    Which part of reality have I failed to understand? The BBC article suggests that there was a chance that Trump may refuse to leave the White House if the official result is that Biden had won. I don't believe that this is a credible, evidence-based assertion. If there is evidence that he may not leave the White House if that is the official result then I would be grateful if you could refer me to it (for the avoidance of doubt I don't see it as credible just because Fox News said so).
    It is what he has implied since well before the election. The reason the question was asked of him is because of this. And because he is acting as no president ever has. The mechanisms for actually shifting presidents from the White House are largely customary and he has forsworn some of those customs already.
    A serious question was asked in an official press briefing by one of the most powerful men in the world on a topic that has been in the forefront of world news since the election at least and it is common journalistic practice to not give every detail of current and continuing massive news items.
    All that makes this post seem more like a "Why is the Marxist media so unfair?" thread than a reasoned inquiry.
    Despite reality having a leftwards bias, the Beeb manages to fight that to the benefit of the current, rightwards government often enough.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    tclune wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    The replies above are all making the same point (apart from KarlLB). The above responses are conflating two different things:

    1. Trump's skepticism about the election result and his spurious challenges to it; and

    2. A completely unrelated belief that he may refuse to leave the White House if the official result is that he has lost.

    I believe that Trump is an abomination. A completely unrelated belief is that the sun is shining today.

    Agreed.

    Oh, so Donald Trump is an abomination - but what you're outraged about is the thought that the BBC's reporting might imply that he's not entirely trustworthy?

    No, I don't believe that Trump is trustworthy I just don't believe that it is credible to believe that he intends to usurp democracy. Neither I am outraged by the BBC's reporting, but merely calling for a higher standard of journalism.
  • Caissa wrote: »
    The speculation on the ends that Trump would take to remain POTUS is wide-spread. To accuse the BBC headline of being akin to McCarthyism is spurious and best and ahistorical.
    Caissa wrote: »
    The speculation on the ends that Trump would take to remain POTUS is wide-spread. To accuse the BBC headline of being akin to McCarthyism is spurious and best and ahistorical.

    Yes but it is one thing to speculate on a forum and another thing entirely to report it as news.
  • The idea that Trump would not leave has been kicking around, esp. in the US media. He has been producing so many lies and crackpot tweets recently, that people expect anything of him, certainly refusing to accept that Biden has won, or that he got 80 million votes..
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    Your post suggests that you believe that there is a realistic chance that Trump won't leave the White House if the official result is that Biden has won, although you don't actually say that. If you do believe that could you refer me to some evidence in support of it? The article that I've referred to does not provide any. I'm not suggesting that there isn't any evidence but if there is, then it is a journalistic failure to have not mentioned this.
    My post said nothing about Trump. If you can get from what I posted to a claim about there being a realistic chance Trump won't leave the White House then you can certainly get from the fact that Trump refuses to acknowledge the election result to the thought that it is a reasonable question to ask Trump what he would acknowledge.

    Okay, so your point was about BBC reporting on Brexit? I'm not suggesting that the BBC couldn't legitimately report on assertions by economists that Brexit could be damaging. I was just referring to the fact that they had made some very obvious selection choices in their interviews, which failed to put an accurate picture forward. I'm merely asking that an argument prevail on its merits rather than by manipulation.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I heard the questions and answers, including the ones quoted by the BBC. Did you listen to everything Trump said, Makepeace? As is usual with him there were mixed signals.

    He certainly observed that an Electoral College vote for Biden would be a mistake. And the EC vote has to be confirmed by Congress.

    I think he could argue on the basis of everything he said that of course he would accept the EC vote once confirmed by Congress.

    That’s only my opinion of course but being certain about what Trump will do based on just one thing he said, in a press conference which was dominated by him crying fraud, is actually pretty trusting. He has a track record.

    Which part of his track-record involves him overthrowing the rule of law? The US has a robust constitution, which separates the judiciary, legislative and executive branches. Let's suppose that Trump did intend to overthrow the rule of law. The American system of governance would be far too robust to permit that to happen. One of my issues with the paranoia here is that it displays a lack of faith in democratic institutions to deliver on the will of the people in selecting their leader. As it happens I strongly doubt that Trump would overthrow the rules of law because he is a billionaire and the protection of private property enshrined in the US constitution is thus highly favourable to him. It would not be in his economic interests to instigate a revolution.
  • The idea that Trump would not leave has been kicking around, esp. in the US media. He has been producing so many lies and crackpot tweets recently, that people expect anything of him, certainly refusing to accept that Biden has won, or that he got 80 million votes..

    Yes and I understand the assertion that he is a crackpot. What I cannot see evidence for is that he is a despot. He may well be but I can't see any evidence in support of that. I mentioned in the OP a dumbing down of British media. The abandonment of the empirical method seems part of this to me. There is something very post-modern about not closely scrutinising evidence.
  • Makepeace wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    The conflation of these separate issues above leads me to believe that McCarthyism is alive and well on this forum.
    McCarthyism again? Maybe you should look that word up.
    Yes the first issue makes Trump look a little stupid, but he has the right to be skeptical and also to ask the courts to scrutinise the results.
    He has no reason to be skeptical, and we have no particular reason to believe any word that comes out of the mouth of a prodigious liar. Of course this means his denial that he will continue his quixotic attempt to subvert election results is completely unreliable, but the BBC is a new organization, so they're pretty much limited to asking questions and reporting the answers.

    When I refer to McCarthyism I'm referring to the the paranoid mentality that takes something real and then exaggerates it into something far more sinister.
    So you didn't look it up, then?
    Makepeace wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    tclune wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    The replies above are all making the same point (apart from KarlLB). The above responses are conflating two different things:

    1. Trump's skepticism about the election result and his spurious challenges to it; and

    2. A completely unrelated belief that he may refuse to leave the White House if the official result is that he has lost.

    I believe that Trump is an abomination. A completely unrelated belief is that the sun is shining today.

    Agreed.

    Oh, so Donald Trump is an abomination - but what you're outraged about is the thought that the BBC's reporting might imply that he's not entirely trustworthy?

    No, I don't believe that Trump is trustworthy I just don't believe that it is credible to believe that he intends to usurp democracy.
    That is exactly what he has tried to do with these preposterous court cases - demanding that the results of elections be thrown out without any evidence of fraud or other wrongdoing.
  • There certainly has been widespread fear that he will not step down voluntarily, therefore any evidence that he would is legitimate news.
  • NicoleMR wrote: »
    There certainly has been widespread fear that he will not step down voluntarily, therefore any evidence that he would is legitimate news.

    Bingo.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Makepeace wrote: »
    Which part of his track-record involves him overthrowing the rule of law? The US has a robust constitution, which separates the judiciary, legislative and executive branches.
    Trump and his allies have a record of trying to overcome the separation: of expecting the Department of Justice to act as the President's personal law firm; of dismissing officials who respect the separation; of having the leaders of the Senate consult with Trump on how to dismiss charges against him instead of trying them fairly; attempting to suborn electoral officials into refusing to certify results or casting out valid votes; and so on.
    As it happens I strongly doubt that Trump would overthrow the rules of law because he is a billionaire and the protection of private property enshrined in the US constitution is thus highly favourable to him. It would not be in his economic interests to instigate a revolution.
    Trump is a billionaire only so long as you ignore the debts he has run up and that are about to come due. He has it turns out every interest in debtors not having to pay creditors.
    However, that is, the more important point is that by continuing to cast doubt on the election without evidence he is denying the legitimacy of the system and thus doing exactly what you say he has no interest in doing.
  • Makepeace wrote: »
    As it happens I strongly doubt that Trump would overthrow the rules of law because he is a billionaire and the protection of private property enshrined in the US constitution is thus highly favourable to him. It would not be in his economic interests to instigate a revolution.

    Well, Trump probably wouldn't instigate the kind of rebellion that would lead to the abolition of private-property. More like one which would maintain private-property, but also keep him, personally, in power.

    FWIW, I think there's a pretty strong case to be made that Trump will, in fact, leave office on the date he is supposed to. However, given his recent statements and behaviour, I also don't think the BBC is wrong to query him about that.

  • Dave W wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    The conflation of these separate issues above leads me to believe that McCarthyism is alive and well on this forum.
    McCarthyism again? Maybe you should look that word up.
    Yes the first issue makes Trump look a little stupid, but he has the right to be skeptical and also to ask the courts to scrutinise the results.
    He has no reason to be skeptical, and we have no particular reason to believe any word that comes out of the mouth of a prodigious liar. Of course this means his denial that he will continue his quixotic attempt to subvert election results is completely unreliable, but the BBC is a new organization, so they're pretty much limited to asking questions and reporting the answers.

    When I refer to McCarthyism I'm referring to the the paranoid mentality that takes something real and then exaggerates it into something far more sinister.
    So you didn't look it up, then?
    Makepeace wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    tclune wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    The replies above are all making the same point (apart from KarlLB). The above responses are conflating two different things:

    1. Trump's skepticism about the election result and his spurious challenges to it; and

    2. A completely unrelated belief that he may refuse to leave the White House if the official result is that he has lost.

    I believe that Trump is an abomination. A completely unrelated belief is that the sun is shining today.

    Agreed.

    Oh, so Donald Trump is an abomination - but what you're outraged about is the thought that the BBC's reporting might imply that he's not entirely trustworthy?

    No, I don't believe that Trump is trustworthy I just don't believe that it is credible to believe that he intends to usurp democracy.
    That is exactly what he has tried to do with these preposterous court cases - demanding that the results of elections be thrown out without any evidence of fraud or other wrongdoing.

    No, that is a contradiction in terms. By bringing court cases he is asking the courts to ascertain whether there is any basis to his own paranoia that democratic processes have been circumvented. I'm sure he is mistaken but it is entirely in accordance with the rule of law that he ask a separate branch of government to scrutinise that. Usuroing democracy would entail overthrowing the rule of law. In a dicatorship there is no rule of rule if law, there is arbitrary rule by whimsicality.
  • NicoleMR wrote: »
    There certainly has been widespread fear that he will not step down voluntarily, therefore any evidence that he would is legitimate news.

    Yes, but it seems to me that this fear has been fueled by media reporting. The BBC could explain why the objective reality is that Trump would be extremely unlikely to try and remain in the White House. Instead thee reporting seems to me to fuel this sense of fear and insecurity.
  • There has certainly been a lot of wonderment on this board if Trump will leave the White House.

    Even in his answer, as I recall, he even said he will concede only if the Electoral College formally elects Biden, but then he said there is still a lot of time before that vote. And he is using that time to challenge the votes of several states, and he is trying to get the Republican lead legislatures of Michigan and Pennsylvania to throw out who the people have chosen as their electors.

    Even if he does vacate the White House by 20 January 2021 at 12:01 there is a lot of speculation about what his staff and he will do to sabotage the move-in for the next president. When Bill Clinton's staff moved out, some of them glued the drawers of their desks shut. More damage can be done even today.

    Nevertheless, it is good to see some conservative person willing to speak up on this board.
  • MakepeaceMakepeace Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    he is trying to get the Republican lead legislatures of Michigan and Pennsylvania to throw out who the people have chosen as their electors.


    This is the first evidence in support of the assertion that Trump does not intend to stand down even if Biden is officially declared as elected to be mentioned on this thread. I am not aware of this issue and it is not cited in the BBC article. I would be grateful if you could refer me to the source. As I've said before I am not in a position to say one way or the other what Trump's intentions are. My issue is that I have not seen any objective evidence cited in support of the assertion.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Makepeace wrote: »
    Okay, so your point was about BBC reporting on Brexit? I'm not suggesting that the BBC couldn't legitimately report on assertions by economists that Brexit could be damaging. I was just referring to the fact that they had made some very obvious selection choices in their interviews, which failed to put an accurate picture forward.
    You have to ask on the second attempt whether a post that uses the word 'Brexit' eight times was about Brexit? I am not convinced that your complaints that descriptions of the BBC reports as not based on evidence are altogether reliable.

    The point I was making in my post was that the selection choice you described on the whole was based on an accurate picture of support for Brexit. The data shows that the core support for Brexit is not working-class former Labour voters but comfortably off retired Conservative voters.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    [No, I don't believe that Trump is trustworthy I just don't believe that it is credible to believe that he intends to usurp democracy.
    That is exactly what he has tried to do with these preposterous court cases - demanding that the results of elections be thrown out without any evidence of fraud or other wrongdoing.
    This.

    Trump has made very clear that he has little use for the rule of law if it gets on his way, and he’s made very clear that he’d usurp democracy if he could do so. That robust democracy to which you refer has (so far) stopped him from succeeding, but not from trying. Trump has been doing all he can to damage that democracy for just own benefit.

  • Makepeace wrote: »
    Yes the first issue makes Trump look a little stupid, but he has the right to be skeptical and also to ask the courts to scrutinise the results.

    Most legal systems, including the American one, do not recognize a "right" to file frivolous lawsuits backed up by no evidence whatsoever. In fact, most legal systems, including the American one, have standards to prevent such lawsuits from going forward. It's particularly telling that Trump's legal team has denied that they're alleging fraud in court even when they'll do so on Twitter because making allegations in court for which you have no evidence can get a lawyer in serious trouble.

    Since you claim Donald Trump does have the right to file these suits, can you explain the evidence you find credible enough to support his claims?
    Makepeace wrote: »
    Which part of his track-record involves him overthrowing the rule of law?

    There's his fairly well known habit of telling his subordinates to ignore Congressional subpœnas, as one example. Campaign finance law violations in the form of hush money payments is another.
    Makepeace wrote: »
    The US has a robust constitution, which separates the judiciary, legislative and executive branches. Let's suppose that Trump did intend to overthrow the rule of law. The American system of governance would be far too robust to permit that to happen. One of my issues with the paranoia here is that it displays a lack of faith in democratic institutions to deliver on the will of the people in selecting their leader.

    An unsuccessful attempt by an American president to subvert democracy and remain in office after losing an election is:
    • still very bad and
    • still very newsworthy

    Can you explain why you disagree with this?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Makepeace

    He has been attacking the judiciary for their unfavourable decisions. One of his lawyers attacked a judge Trump appointed for an “activist judicial decision’. He has called Georgia’s elected SecState an enemy of the people for following Georgia election law to the letter.

    His mentality is win at all costs because he hates and fears losing.

    I have less confidence than you have, based on his recent behaviour.
  • Makepeace wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I heard the questions and answers, including the ones quoted by the BBC. Did you listen to everything Trump said, Makepeace? As is usual with him there were mixed signals.

    He certainly observed that an Electoral College vote for Biden would be a mistake. And the EC vote has to be confirmed by Congress.

    I think he could argue on the basis of everything he said that of course he would accept the EC vote once confirmed by Congress.

    That’s only my opinion of course but being certain about what Trump will do based on just one thing he said, in a press conference which was dominated by him crying fraud, is actually pretty trusting. He has a track record.

    Which part of his track-record involves him overthrowing the rule of law? The US has a robust constitution,
    Well, not perfectly. Much of it is based on interpretations which follows political lines more than it does anything else.
    Makepeace wrote: »
    which separates the judiciary, legislative and executive branches.
    Except it doesn't. This is the label, but it fails to match what is in the tin.
    Makepeace wrote: »
    Let's suppose that Trump did intend to overthrow the rule of law. The American system of governance would be far too robust to permit that to happen.
    Bush V Gore is ample evidence to the shaky nature of that system. As is the latest SCOTUS decision.
    Makepeace wrote: »
    No, that is a contradiction in terms. By bringing court cases he is asking the courts to ascertain whether there is any basis to his own paranoia that democratic processes have been circumvented.
    No, no he isn't. He is asking that they rule for him. He is not asking for them to evaluate the evidence, he is asking for them to unilaterally reject the legal vote.* His own lawyers admit in court, where lying has potential consequence, that the suits are not about fraud.

    *For legal reasons I will clarify that: I am not sure that he has said this explicitly, but it is the most reasonable interpretation of the lawsuits as written and as actually presented in court.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    Okay, so your point was about BBC reporting on Brexit? I'm not suggesting that the BBC couldn't legitimately report on assertions by economists that Brexit could be damaging. I was just referring to the fact that they had made some very obvious selection choices in their interviews, which failed to put an accurate picture forward.
    You have to ask on the second attempt whether a post that uses the word 'Brexit' eight times was about Brexit? I am not convinced that your complaints that descriptions of the BBC reports as not based on evidence are altogether reliable.

    The point I was making in my post was that the selection choice you described on the whole was based on an accurate picture of support for Brexit. The data shows that the core support for Brexit is not working-class former Labour voters but comfortably off retired Conservative voters.

    Yes, I see what you mean but my point in response is that the BBC depicted it as more of an age issue and ignored the social class issue. As I say the only young people that I saw interviewed were very posh. I guess it would be typical of a right-wing news organisation to ignore the working class.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Makepeace wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    he is trying to get the Republican lead legislatures of Michigan and Pennsylvania to throw out who the people have chosen as their electors.


    This is the first evidence in support of the assertion that Trump does not intend to stand down even if Biden is officially declared as elected to be mentioned on this thread. I am not aware of this issue and it is not cited in the BBC article. I would be grateful if you could refer me to the source. As I've said before I am not in a position to say one way or the other what Trump's intentions are. My issue is that I have not seen any objective evidence cited in support of the assertion.

    Makepeace:

    I don't do links on my cell, but do a google or a duckduck on the Associated Press article "GOP leaders in four states quash dubious Trump bid on electors".

    If I'm reading that article correctly, the idea has been promoted by other Republican politicians, among them the GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, though maybe not Trump directly. But still, if high-ranking officials in his own party have promoted the idea, that makes it fair-game to take into account when predicting his own intentions.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    Yes the first issue makes Trump look a little stupid, but he has the right to be skeptical and also to ask the courts to scrutinise the results.

    Most legal systems, including the American one, do not recognize a "right" to file frivolous lawsuits backed up by no evidence whatsoever. In fact, most legal systems, including the American one, have standards to prevent such lawsuits from going forward. It's particularly telling that Trump's legal team has denied that they're alleging fraud in court even when they'll do so on Twitter because making allegations in court for which you have no evidence can get a lawyer in serious trouble.

    Since you claim Donald Trump does have the right to file these suits, can you explain the evidence you find credible enough to support his claims?

    This is a silly question. It should be obvious that what I mean is that he has the right to ask the Court to scrutinise his claim. If his claim is indeed based on nothing more than paranoia then I have no doubt that a court could find that it has no jurisdiction to hear the case. My point is that the mere bringing of a court case does not in itself undermine the rule of law. It may well undermine his credibility.

  • Makepeace wrote: »
    No, I don't believe that Trump is trustworthy I just don't believe that it is credible to believe that he intends to usurp democracy.

    Trump's legal team has argued in Pennsylvania court that the state should throw out the results of their presidential election and declare him the winner. They've argued the same thing in Michigan and Arizona. That would seem to fit any reasonable definition of "usurping democracy".
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Makepeace

    He has been attacking the judiciary for their unfavourable decisions. One of his lawyers attacked a judge Trump appointed for an “activist judicial decision’. He has called Georgia’s elected SecState an enemy of the people for following Georgia election law to the letter.

    I agree that putting political pressure on those responsible for upholding the law would be evidence of an intention to not stand down. This is not mentioned in the BBC article and I'd be grateful to be referred to it.
  • Yes, but it seems to me that this fear has been fueled by media reporting.

    The media has been reporting what Trump has been doing and saying. It is this that has fueled the fears.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Makepeace wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Most legal systems, including the American one, do not recognize a "right" to file frivolous lawsuits backed up by no evidence whatsoever. In fact, most legal systems, including the American one, have standards to prevent such lawsuits from going forward. It's particularly telling that Trump's legal team has denied that they're alleging fraud in court even when they'll do so on Twitter because making allegations in court for which you have no evidence can get a lawyer in serious trouble.

    Since you claim Donald Trump does have the right to file these suits, can you explain the evidence you find credible enough to support his claims?
    This is a silly question. It should be obvious that what I mean is that he has the right to ask the Court to scrutinise his claim. If his claim is indeed based on nothing more than paranoia then I have no doubt that a court could find that it has no jurisdiction to hear the case. My point is that the mere bringing of a court case does not in itself undermine the rule of law. It may well undermine his credibility.

    Again, you seem to disagree with the legal system. The law's assumption is that bringing meritless and/or friviolous lawsuits does undermine the rule of law, by turning the courts into instruments of harassment and making mockery of the search for justice. That's why the vexatious litigant classification exists. Can you explain in greater depth why standards against frivolous lawsuits are "silly"?
Sign In or Register to comment.