Fake news on the BBC?

245

Comments

  • Furtive GanderFurtive Gander Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    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).
    I'm not going to waste much effort on this.

    He's a liar and a cheat, he claimed he'd win and then didn't by some margin - over five million votes more for Biden than trump and under the broken EC system lost that too by quite a margin (precise absolute figures to be confirmed).

    He still says through his lying teeth that he's won and everyone else is trying to steal it from him! What a bogus pile of crap he is - a scab on the arse of humanity.

    He said he's take it to the courts but they (law-abiding judges - even friendly Republicans) dismissed and metaphorically laughed at his (and his people's) feeble grasp of the standard of evidence required to contest a court case of an election result. He stoked up his stupid gullible supporters until they believe the election has been stolen from him! Credulous morons. He let it be known that he wouldn't give up and while he never actually said he's hole up in the White House (AFAIK) if the actual results went against him- but that's the underlying impression from someone so deluded, self-important and lacking connection with the real world.

    Do you really want to say he's been treated unfairly by the BBC (why pick them out from the huge raft of media sources and commenters ?) and there is no reason to think there was any doubt he'd concede and leave the WH with a friendly wave to the crowds as he takes his last publically-funded helicopter ride from the gounds?

    Really?

    Sorry everyone, I didn't intend to spend much effort or many words on the stupidity of Makepeace's post but I did.

  • Makepeace wrote: »
    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.

    Here ya go.
    President Donald Trump on Thursday called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger an "enemy of the people" as he continued to push baseless claims to explain his loss in the battleground state to Joe Biden.

    I am sorry to hear that you don't have access to Google.
  • Makepeace wrote: »
    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.
    No, that's not how lawsuits work - courts don't go off and look for evidence on their own.

    Again, he's trying to have election results overturned with no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing. I'm hoping he'll continue to be unsuccessful, but it's ludicrous to say that trying to subvert an election is somehow different from trying to undermine democracy.
  • 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).
    I'm not going to waste much effort on this.

    He's a liar and a cheat, he claimed he'd win and then didn't by some margin - over five million votes more for Biden than trump and under the broken EC system lost that too by quite a margin (precise absolute figures to be confirmed).

    He still says through his lying teeth that he's won and everyone else is trying to steal it from him! What a bogus pile of crap he is - a scab on the arse of humanity.

    He said he's take it to the courts but they (law-abiding judges - even friendly Republicans) dismissed and metaphorically laughed at his (and his people's) feeble grasp of the standard of evidence required to contest a court case of an election result. He stoked up his stupid gullible supporters until they believe the election has been stolen from him! Credulous morons. He let it be known that he wouldn't give up and while he never actually said he's hole up in the White House (AFAIK) if the actual results went against him- but that's the underlying impression from someone so deluded, self-important and lacking connection with the real world.

    Do you really want to say he's been treated unfairly by the BBC (why pick them out from the huge raft of media sources and commenters ?) and there is no reason to think there was any doubt he'd concede and leave the WH with a friendly wave to the crowds as he takes his last publically-funded helicopter ride from the gounds?

    Really?

    Sorry everyone, I didn't intend to spend much effort or many words on the stupidity of Makepeace's post but I did.

    No need to apologise. Eloquent, and right.
    :wink:
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Another story. One of Trump's allies in the Senate, according to the Republican Secretary of State of Georgia, asked him to throw out legal votes. I am not aware that Trump has expressed disapproval or condemnation of Graham's actions on his behalf.
  • MakepeaceMakepeace Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    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).

    Do you really want to say he's been treated unfairly by the BBC (why pick them out from the huge raft of media sources and commenters ?)

    The reason that I've singled out the BBC is that they are the largest broadcaster in the world because they are the only the only broadcaster in the world to have 100% of a large licence fee. As such I expect more than mimicry of Fox News. The standard of journalism at the BBC ought to be as high as it is at the Financial Times.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Makepeace wrote: »
    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.
    That may be in part due to the reluctance of working class people to talk to pollsters, journalists doing vox pops, and other people with clipboards.

    The data shows that if you have a random working class person and a random middle class person with equal levels of education the working class person is less likely to support Brexit. This is dominated by the facts that working class people in general get lower levels of education and people who have got lower levels of education are much more likely to support Brexit; but Brexit is not a working class cause as such.


  • Dave W wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    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.
    No, that's not how lawsuits work - courts don't go off and look for evidence on their own.

    Again, he's trying to have election results overturned with no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing. I'm hoping he'll continue to be unsuccessful, but it's ludicrous to say that trying to subvert an election is somehow different from trying to undermine democracy.

    It i not ludicrous. There is a clear distinction IMO between challenging an election result within the scope of the rule of law and rejection an official election result and thus attempting to overthrow the court of law.
  • And what Trump has been doing is using the veneer of law to make an unlawful attempt t overturn the election.
  • Makepeace wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    No, that's not how lawsuits work - courts don't go off and look for evidence on their own.

    Again, he's trying to have election results overturned with no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing. I'm hoping he'll continue to be unsuccessful, but it's ludicrous to say that trying to subvert an election is somehow different from trying to undermine democracy.
    It is not ludicrous. There is a clear distinction IMO between challenging an election result within the scope of the rule of law and rejection an official election result and thus attempting to overthrow the court of law.

    I think you're conflating "law" and "democracy" here. To take one obvious historical example, courts in the Jim Crow South routinely upheld state laws that disenfranchised black citizens. The fact that the mechanisms of law were used to achieve this anti-democratic result does not somehow make the effort democratic. See also South Africa (1910-1994).
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Also see Citizens United as a direct assault on democracy using the courts
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Makepeace wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    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.
    No, that's not how lawsuits work - courts don't go off and look for evidence on their own.

    Again, he's trying to have election results overturned with no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing. I'm hoping he'll continue to be unsuccessful, but it's ludicrous to say that trying to subvert an election is somehow different from trying to undermine democracy.

    It i not ludicrous. There is a clear distinction IMO between challenging an election result within the scope of the rule of law and rejection an official election result and thus attempting to overthrow the court of law.
    We know these cases to be bullshit, founded on nothing. Wanting to discard election results simply because you lost is absolutely undemocratic.

    Or is democracy another one of those words you use differently from everyone else?

    It seems to me the BBC has a much better grip on this than you do.
  • Makepeace wrote: »
    It is not ludicrous. There is a clear distinction IMO between challenging an election result within the scope of the rule of law and rejection an official election result and thus attempting to overthrow the court of law.
    The unspoken assumption there is that Trump’s court challenges are within the scope of the rule of law. I question whether that is a supportable assumption.

    As has been noted by many, he and his lawyers have failed to show even a colorable basis for the lawsuits that have been brought. Those lawsuits are not an appropriate use of the courts; they are in pretty clear violation of court rules. They are abuse of the courts with the specific goal of undermining democracy.

  • Furtive GanderFurtive Gander Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Makepeace wrote: »

    The reason that I've singled out the BBC is that they are the largest broadcaster in the world

    I don't believe that's the reason.

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Makepeace wrote: »
    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. ...
    @Makepeace I don't agree with you for the same reasons as several other posters don't. As a number of Shipmates have pointed out, several people in the media and elsewhere have publicly been voicing the fear for some months that even if Trump lost the election, he might not actually go. It's his statement that if he lost the electoral college vote, then he would go that is 'new news'.

    There is, though an additional reason why I disagree with you, why this isn't what you call fake news which I'm not sure anyone else has mentioned.

    Whether Trump does or doesn't leave the White House is neither true news or fake news until the 20th January. Until then, it is not news. It hasn't happened yet. It is a matter of speculation. Because of the train of events both before and since the election, this is still a legitimate area of speculation. Unusually, and unprecedentedly, as things are at the moment, either option is possible. Reporting in those terms is more legitimate than pretending in one's reporting that of course he will do what he's supposed to do.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Makepeace

    Following Croesos' link you might also want to take a look at this.

    The link is worth reading in full, but in particular this comment.
    The Trump legal team has already signaled its intention to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. "The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud," Trump's attorneys Jenna Ellis and Rudy Giuliani said on Twitter. "On to SCOTUS!"

    They are accusing a right wing Republican judge and Trump appointee of participating in a cover up. How is that not an attack on the judiciary?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Makepeace wrote: »
    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).

    Do you really want to say he's been treated unfairly by the BBC (why pick them out from the huge raft of media sources and commenters ?)

    The reason that I've singled out the BBC is that they are the largest broadcaster in the world because they are the only the only broadcaster in the world to have 100% of a large licence fee. As such I expect more than mimicry of Fox News. The standard of journalism at the BBC ought to be as high as it is at the Financial Times.
    (My bold)
    Here you go, though you’ll have to go through the paywall to see if the FT does more to justify the concern implicit in its headline that
    Donald Trump says he will leave office if Joe Biden’s victory is confirmed
    than the BBC does for its headline that
    Donald Trump has said he will leave the White House if Joe Biden is formally confirmed as the next US president.
  • Pangolin GuerrePangolin Guerre Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    I am, frankly, baffled by the genesis of this thread.

    It has been noted widely that Trump is no friend of democracy. At more than one rally, in response to chants of "Four more years!" Trump replied "Who knows? Maybe eight." Since that is explicitly in contradiction to the Constitution, it raises questions of Trump's observance of Constitutional norms. That he has block until a few days ago the Biden transition team from receiving briefings, it raises questions about how reluctant he might be to surrender office. That during the protests against police brutality and for BLM, security forces in unidentified uniforms bundled citizens into unidentified vehicles, that he had violently cleared the square in front of Saint John's Church for a pandering (and to my mind, blasphemous) photo op displays a dedication to his order rather than to law and order; for him, law does not enter into it. That he has defended the Proud Boys and their like as "fine people" and when pressed to condemn them during a Presidential debate told them to "Stand down and stand by" demonstrates his own tendencies - or, certainly, his willingness to use groups displaying those tendencies - which are fundamentally racist and hostile to liberal democracy. In his four years, he has repeatedly displayed disregard or outright hostility to the norms that are required for American democracy to function.

    If one is to be judged by the company one keeps, Trump and his circle's associations with Putin, Orban (both explicit proponents of "illiberal democracy"), MbS (director of radical surgery), Kim Jong Un, Erdogan, et al., have not covered themselves in honour.

    There is no paranoia here. Trump has a proven track record of lying, cheating, stealing, and using extra legal force when it avails itself. I have faith that American institutions will survive Trump, but there is minimising the damage he has inflicted (and may continue to inflict).

    Which brings me to you, Makepeace (a highly ironic name). Are you being wilful in your ignorance, or is there something in your posts that I'm missing? Or did you just post on the wrong board?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Pangolin Guerre

    Your last paragraph crosses the Commandment 3 line in that it moves from criticism of posts to personal disparagement.

    You can do that in Hell, but not in Purgatory.

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host
  • When Trump was interviewed on Fox News in July he was directly asked whether he would accept the results of the election (if he lost). He replied "I have to see," Trump replied. "I'm not going to just say yes. I'm not going to say no, and I didn't last time either." He echoed this several more times:

    Trump's responses

    This justifies the BBC's take - it hasn't come out of nowhere but is a direct result of what Trump himself has said. Back in July had he replied "Yes of course I would" this wouldn't have been a story. The fact that he has repeatedly refused to confirm that he would abide by the results of the election makes this a valid point to raise.
  • Makepeace and anyone else who's interested:

    --"Secret Service ‘will forcibly remove’ Trump from White House if he won’t leave" (Metro UK, drawing on other news sources).
    Anthony Scaramucci, the former White House communications director, told i News on Sunday that the Secret Service has made confidential plans in case Trump decides to extend his stay in the Oval Office ahead of the president’s inauguration in January.

    --"20 days of fantasy and failure: Inside Trump's quest to overturn the election" (Washington Post, via SF Gate).

    This is long. Goes over Nov. 3-23, 2020, in detail. Written in WaPo's quiet, readable, deliberate style. Worth a read, IMHO.

    Sample:
    The 20 days between the election on Nov. 3 and the greenlighting of Biden's transition exemplified some of the hallmarks of life in Trump's White House: a government paralyzed by the president's fragile emotional state; advisers nourishing his fables; expletive-laden feuds between factions of aides and advisers; and a pernicious blurring of truth and fantasy.
  • @Barnabas62 Your hostly admonition is duly noted. With apologies, my frustration got the better of me.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    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.

    Completely unrelated? Seriously?

    If you cannot see how there is a connection between "the election result" and "the official result" then I simply cannot help you.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Makepeace wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    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.
    No, that's not how lawsuits work - courts don't go off and look for evidence on their own.

    Again, he's trying to have election results overturned with no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing. I'm hoping he'll continue to be unsuccessful, but it's ludicrous to say that trying to subvert an election is somehow different from trying to undermine democracy.

    It i not ludicrous. There is a clear distinction IMO between challenging an election result within the scope of the rule of law and rejection an official election result and thus attempting to overthrow the court of law.

    And again, you're trying to tell us that "an election result" and "an official election result" are two completely different things.

    Which only makes sense if you have some notion that "an election result" is just something that an American TV network makes up. Not based on the reporting of vote counts by officials.

    "Official election results" are NOT determined by a court of law. They are determined by government officials. A court of law only gets involved when someone goes to court to try to throw into question the election result. There is nothing in the normal process of determining the result that involves a court.

    Your whole distinction is based on a fundamental mischaracterisation.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    .

    "Official election results" are NOT determined by a court of law. They are determined by government officials. A court of law only gets involved when someone goes to court to try to throw into question the election result. There is nothing in the normal process of determining the result that involves a court.

    Your whole distinction is based on a fundamental mischaracterisation.

    Exactly, and when a court does become involved, it can only make orders if there be evidence to support allegations. The allegations by themselves are meaningless.
  • ...which is what various judges have told T's legal team--sometimes very sternly.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Quite. And this is why trying to characterise Trump's existing unreasonable behaviour as fundamentally different from a projected future unreasonable behaviour makes no sense at all.

    The question about whether Trump would leave the White House is a perfectly understandable one, because it's simply a question about just how far his baseless intransigence goes. He has no factual basis for what he's doing now, so the question is: how far will he take a complete lack of facts?

    Even if he does agree to leave the White House, there's a significant risk that he will spend the next several years on a TV show bleating about how the Electoral College shouldn't have voted the way it did because he 'really' won the election and intimating that Biden's occupation of the White House is illegitimate.

    The man's entire psyche is built around not being a 'loser' in any form, and explaining any form of loss as someone else's fault. He's been claiming corruption for 4 fucking years since he lost the popular vote to Clinton, so it's entirely understandable to ask him: at what point will you stop?
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    I don’t know which Brexit interviews some on here we’re watching but there were plenty with young people on the BBC.
    The BBC is not left wing media. The right say it is too left and the left say it is too right.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Young people across the social divide, I may add
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Pangolin Guerre

    Thanks. Your frustration is understood.

    The eagle eyed among you may note that I have made a small change to the thread title, changing an exclamation mark to a question mark.

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host
  • Furtive GanderFurtive Gander Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    But he's focussing on one news source when they all - well, any reputable source says the same - but it looks like a complint about the BBC when it isn't. (Or is it?) Is that what annoys him, he doesn't like the BBC because he thinks they're lefties and this is the excuse: 'he picked one at random but went for the biggest!'

    Poppycock! He shoud if being honest (but merely mistaken IMO) be claiming that the news media are unfair to claim trump might be considering squatting in the White House.

    It's a thread with a bogus premise with still a misleading title.
  • Makepeace wrote: »
    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

    Your bizarre non-problem is fake news.
  • For reference, the pinko commies over at Forbes Magazine have compiled a timeline of all the elections Donald Trump has said were rigged or fixed. Basically any election he had some interest in that came out against him. The one that sticks out is:
    Nov. 2016
    Despite defeating Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College, Trump tweeted baseless allegations of “millions of FRAUD votes” and claiming, “Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California.”

    At stake was his contention that he'd won not just the electoral college but the popular vote as well. If Trump won't accept the results of an election that he won, why is it so hard to acknowledge that he's even less likely to do so for an election that he lost (bigly) given his past history of not accepting electoral outcomes he doesn't like?
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    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.
    No, that's not how lawsuits work - courts don't go off and look for evidence on their own.

    Again, he's trying to have election results overturned with no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing. I'm hoping he'll continue to be unsuccessful, but it's ludicrous to say that trying to subvert an election is somehow different from trying to undermine democracy.

    It i not ludicrous. There is a clear distinction IMO between challenging an election result within the scope of the rule of law and rejection an official election result and thus attempting to overthrow the court of law.

    And again, you're trying to tell us that "an election result" and "an official election result" are two completely different things.

    Which only makes sense if you have some notion that "an election result" is just something that an American TV network makes up. Not based on the reporting of vote counts by officials.

    "Official election results" are NOT determined by a court of law. They are determined by government officials. A court of law only gets involved when someone goes to court to try to throw into question the election result. There is nothing in the normal process of determining the result that involves a court.

    Your whole distinction is based on a fundamental mischaracterisation.

    I do not disagree that Trump would be sensible to accept the election unofficial election result. I just don't believe that there is the faintest chance that he will refuse to actually leave the White House, and I think that is very different to the bluff we are seeing now. Just like I didn't think there was the faintest chance that he would start a nuclear war with North Korea, and lo and behold he flew out to talk with Kim Jong Un in true Corbynista fashion. He's all bluff and bluster but when you get beneath the surface he is entrenched in the establishment. May be I am being overly optimistic. I'm sure that 1789 came as a great shock to the world, but I also note that the instigators were people whom the system had failed not those who had experienced the heights of success within it.

    In spite of the consensus in both the media and on this thread, that there is a realistic chance that Trump will refuse to stand down, I maintain my belief that that is nonsense.

    I admit that my comments about the BBC in the OP were unfair on reflection (except that I do think that like most of the British media they are staunchly pro-remain). One of the benefits of engaging in forums like this is to have your misconceptions proven wrong. but I stand by the main premise that Trump WILL leave the White House voluntarily and that there is no realistic doubt about that.

    The reference to fake news in the OP was meant to be a humorous allusion to Trump's own misuse of this phrase. I was surprised how seriously it was taken, and must admit to being slightly surprised by how seriously this thread has been taken. It was intended somewhat surrealistically, I had been reflecting on Salvador Dali prior to starting this thread (was also at the end of 14 days' self-isolation). Nonetheless there is some truth in surrealism and I believe that my optimism that Trump will voluntarily leave the White House is well-founded. I think that the fear about Trump many are now experiencing is actually a salient characteristic of the context of the pandemic. I'm not scared of the pandemic or of trump (but I wear a mask to protect those who are CEV or CV). On reflection I've read some William Faulkner recently too. Hardly surreal but somewhat stream of consciousness.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Makepeace wrote: »
    I do not disagree that Trump would be sensible to accept the election unofficial election result.

    Can you explain why the state of Pennsylvania certifying the results of its election is not a "official result"? Or Michigan or Georgia or . . . ?

    I suspect you're using "official" and "unofficial" in some idiosyncratic way that excludes what everyone else would consider official government actions.
  • We can add those to "McCarthyism" and "democracy."

    I think one of the reasons Trump's presidency has been so damaging is that so many conservatives have downplayed the threat, preferring instead to take any occasion to criticize the mainstream media they hate so much.
  • I don't understand what this failed neo-fascist is trying to achieve, apart from undermining democracy for his ego's sake, to have a fan base in retirement. What will the Elephant Party do? Continue the lie? Can't see it. They will regroup and get a faceless caretaker in for 8 years surely?
  • Dave W wrote: »
    We can add those to "McCarthyism" and "democracy."

    I think one of the reasons Trump's presidency has been so damaging is that so many conservatives have downplayed the threat, preferring instead to take any occasion to criticize the mainstream media they hate so much.
    It is sort of mad that Fox slides away from being mainstream media and that rich conservatives are somehow not elite.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Makepeace wrote: »
    ... I do not disagree that Trump would be sensible to accept the election unofficial election result. I just don't believe that there is the faintest chance that he will refuse to actually leave the White House, and I think that is very different to the bluff we are seeing now. ...
    @Makepeace I hope you are right. I suspect we all do. The point I was trying to get across, was a quite different one.

    It is that as yet, this has neither happened nor not happened. It's possible none of us will know for sure until the 20th of January. Your optimism doesn't make anyone else's pessimism fake news. Nor does it make it fake news for the BBC consider the possibility that he might not.

  • Makepeace wrote
    The reference to fake news in the OP was meant to be a humorous allusion to Trump's own misuse of this phrase. I was surprised how seriously it was taken, and must admit to being slightly surprised by how seriously this thread has been taken. It was intended somewhat surrealistically

    Frankly, this has a hollow ring to it. I think you are trying to backtrack when you found that most of us have serious concerns that Trump will voluntarily vacate the White House. We have seen Trump say one thing and do the other many times. There is practically no continuity between what he says and what he does. Often times, he will be recorded as saying something, and when asked about it he will say I never said that (gaslighting).

    We will really not know until he leaves the White House. But if I were a betting person, I do think someone will have to forcibly escort him from the people's house.
  • Makepeace wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    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.
    No, that's not how lawsuits work - courts don't go off and look for evidence on their own.

    Again, he's trying to have election results overturned with no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing. I'm hoping he'll continue to be unsuccessful, but it's ludicrous to say that trying to subvert an election is somehow different from trying to undermine democracy.

    It i not ludicrous. There is a clear distinction IMO between challenging an election result within the scope of the rule of law and rejection an official election result and thus attempting to overthrow the court of law.

    And again, you're trying to tell us that "an election result" and "an official election result" are two completely different things.

    Which only makes sense if you have some notion that "an election result" is just something that an American TV network makes up. Not based on the reporting of vote counts by officials.

    "Official election results" are NOT determined by a court of law. They are determined by government officials. A court of law only gets involved when someone goes to court to try to throw into question the election result. There is nothing in the normal process of determining the result that involves a court.

    Your whole distinction is based on a fundamental mischaracterisation.

    May be I am being overly optimistic. I'm sure that 1789 came as a great shock to the world, but I also note that the instigators were people whom the system had failed not those who had experienced the heights of success within it.

    1776, on the other hand, was very much instigated by the already wealthy and powerful.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    I do not disagree that Trump would be sensible to accept the election unofficial election result.

    Can you explain why the state of Pennsylvania certifying the results of its election is not a "official result"? Or Michigan or Georgia or . . . ?

    I suspect you're using "official" and "unofficial" in some idiosyncratic way that excludes what everyone else would consider official government actions.

    Yes, this is just another example of the same distinction I've been criticising. There is nothing "unofficial" about any of the counting reported on election night. There just isn't. It's government officials reporting the count as it progresses, and that's picked up by media organisations.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Makepeace wrote: »
    I'm sure that 1789 came as a great shock to the world, but I also note that the instigators were people whom the system had failed not those who had experienced the heights of success within it.
    This isn't true. The instigators of the 1789 revolution were successful lawyers or other local officials with a few members of the clergy and nobility mixed up with them. The leaders of the revolution going on were for the most part from the same background. That some of the factions successfully appealed to the Paris populace for support doesn't mean that the instigators were from that background.
    Nonetheless there is some truth in surrealism and I believe that my optimism that Trump will voluntarily leave the White House is well-founded.
    I confess to not seeing the logic in the connection between these two statements, nor to the relevance of Faulkner later on. Is this an attempt at surreal political commentary?

    I think it's unlikely that Trump will refuse to comply with the electoral college result: my sense of the man is that his willingness to take risks is entirely due to his inability to imagine the serious consequences of failure, and being forced out of the White House would be too humiliating if not open him to criminal charges. But that's optimism - as you say.
    I wonder: what would you count as evidence that Trump won't leave the White House, short of him barricading the doors and windows? Before the election, was there evidence that you would have accepted that his appointees wouldn't release funds to start the handover process or intelligence briefings for two to three weeks?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote
    The reference to fake news in the OP was meant to be a humorous allusion to Trump's own misuse of this phrase. I was surprised how seriously it was taken, and must admit to being slightly surprised by how seriously this thread has been taken. It was intended somewhat surrealistically

    Frankly, this has a hollow ring to it. I think you are trying to backtrack when you found that most of us have serious concerns that Trump will voluntarily vacate the White House. We have seen Trump say one thing and do the other many times. There is practically no continuity between what he says and what he does. Often times, he will be recorded as saying something, and when asked about it he will say I never said that (gaslighting).

    We will really not know until he leaves the White House. But if I were a betting person, I do think someone will have to forcibly escort him from the people's house.

    He'll only do that if he feels he has to continue lying for his supporters among the deluded masses. Or for kicks. What will Lincoln's party do regardless?
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »
    I'm sure that 1789 came as a great shock to the world, but I also note that the instigators were people whom the system had failed not those who had experienced the heights of success within it.
    This isn't true. The instigators of the 1789 revolution were successful lawyers or other local officials with a few members of the clergy and nobility mixed up with them. The leaders of the revolution going on were for the most part from the same background. That some of the factions successfully appealed to the Paris populace for support doesn't mean that the instigators were from that background.

    Yes. There's a received, conflationary image of the French Revolution of toothless Jacobins leading hardscrabble mobs of workers and peasants to storm the Bastille and then dragging Marie Antoinette from the palace to be guillotined during the Reign Of Terror after she said "Let them eat cake!"

    But in fact, at least in the early days, the Revolution was very much an upper middle-class affair, with that old bourgeois rallying cry, "No Taxes!", playing about a big a role as it did in the American War Of Independence. Even the Jacobins, often viewed as the far-left of the Revolution, are generally regarded as a bourgeois outfit, not some sort or proto-Bolshevik army.

    It's true, of course, that the French Revolution inspired more left-wing uprisings later on(including Haiti, crushed by the quasi-Revolutionary Napoleon), though the French themselves were drinking from more-or-less the same ideological well as the Americans had been in 1776, with its own source in the Glorious Revolution(technically non-violent, but a lot of people probably died to get there) of England in 1688.



  • JonahMan wrote: »
    When Trump was interviewed on Fox News in July he was directly asked whether he would accept the results of the election (if he lost). He replied "I have to see," Trump replied. "I'm not going to just say yes. I'm not going to say no, and I didn't last time either." He echoed this several more times:

    Trump's responses

    This justifies the BBC's take - it hasn't come out of nowhere but is a direct result of what Trump himself has said. Back in July had he replied "Yes of course I would" this wouldn't have been a story. The fact that he has repeatedly refused to confirm that he would abide by the results of the election makes this a valid point to raise.

    I'm hoping for an armed escort of black, LGBT marines and a load of black bin bags on the lawn.

    The whole thing is theatre to convince his base that he was robbed of the election. Setting himself up nicely for the next few years of GOP leadership, another Presidential bid and making trouble for the Biden administration.

    Asking whether he'd actually leave the White House peacefully - in light of his current behaviour, including refusing to sign off the Transition for weeks - is perfectly legitimate reporting not "fake news". "Fake news" is announcing the election result is fraudulent despite all evidence to the contrary.
  • Makepeace wrote: »

    The reason that I've singled out the BBC is that they are the largest broadcaster in the world

    And? If they don't suit your personal preferences for news-gathering don't watch them. Whether they're big or small doesn't affect your choices in this day and age of pressing a button on your tablet, to find the flavour that tickles your palate. People can make their own choices, right?

    BBC news has gone downhill, in my opinion, for some time now in terms of UK reporting (although the more independent world-service reportage remains more credible and informative). And sadly the rest of the world, in terms of news coverage, seems to have all but disappeared. But I put that down to its own confused identity of managing somehow to be the bete noir of both the right and the left!

    Most spectators of the American election would consider it a fair question: 'Is Trump going to leave peacefully, even at all, given he's been stating for months that if the results don't go his way, he won't accept them?' And if viewers are interested in an answer to that question - which seems logical, fair and implicit in the subject's own behaviours - it seems quite natural for a national news agency to pay them some attention, even if others don't see a connection. I remember, back in September, the American news stations clearly reporting on the potential process of ejecting an unwanted former President using national security forces should Trump make it difficult. It's kind of old news really for those of us who have been following this.

    It will be interesting to see if he capitulates as he should. It would seem very strange if a major news agency didn't also find that interesting.

  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Again the BBC being pro Brexit depends on where you stand. Many remainers said that the BBC gave more time to Brexiteers. It might be easier if it did come out on one side. But the funding means it has to do its best to remain neutral
  • Anselmina wrote: »
    Makepeace wrote: »

    The reason that I've singled out the BBC is that they are the largest broadcaster in the world

    And? If they don't suit your personal preferences for news-gathering don't watch them. Whether they're big or small doesn't affect your choices in this day and age of pressing a button on your tablet, to find the flavour that tickles your palate. People can make their own choices, right?

    BBC news has gone downhill, in my opinion, for some time now in terms of UK reporting (although the more independent world-service reportage remains more credible and informative). And sadly the rest of the world, in terms of news coverage, seems to have all but disappeared. But I put that down to its own confused identity of managing somehow to be the bete noir of both the right and the left!

    Most spectators of the American election would consider it a fair question: 'Is Trump going to leave peacefully, even at all, given he's been stating for months that if the results don't go his way, he won't accept them?' And if viewers are interested in an answer to that question - which seems logical, fair and implicit in the subject's own behaviours - it seems quite natural for a national news agency to pay them some attention, even if others don't see a connection. I remember, back in September, the American news stations clearly reporting on the potential process of ejecting an unwanted former President using national security forces should Trump make it difficult. It's kind of old news really for those of us who have been following this.

    It will be interesting to see if he capitulates as he should. It would seem very strange if a major news agency didn't also find that interesting.

    It went downhill with Hutton's whitewash of 28 January 2004. God agreed: it snowed in Milton Keynes when I heard it.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    There is nothing "unofficial" about any of the counting reported on election night. There just isn't. It's government officials reporting the count as it progresses, and that's picked up by media organisations.
    But (and I speak as an ignorant outsider), surely the "calling" of states by the media organisations is not official? Indeed, there were states that CNN called long before the BBC, which wanted a more certain result.

Sign In or Register to comment.