Nov 2020
1:27pm, 18 Nov 2020
36,485 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
That's right WS, but so are Johnson and Cummings! Johnson is a gift to cartoonists, I would have thought!  G
|
Nov 2020
1:39pm, 18 Nov 2020
12,277 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Trump *must* ask for a recount in Wisconsin by 5pm CST this evening (11pm GMT) if he is going to. The certification of WI results gave Biden a ~20k+ lead. And the Trump campaign will have to pay upfront. I'd guess that they don't end up asking for one. Neither in WI or in GA (which also certifies today and will end up with a ~13k Biden lead). The PA case yesterday is going nowhere, and despite Guiliani banging on about fraud and generally being racist towards Philadelphia in his statements actually stated "this is not a fraud case" which is what the Trump lawyers in AZ said too (that case was dismissed I think). What they're actually sueing for is 2 people who weren't given the chance to "cure" their signatures on postal votes. Except they're not sueing the republican leaning counties that the people who are complaining live in, they're instead sueing the Democrat run counties *because those counties allowed voters to cure their ballots (allowed under PA law as from my reading of things)* - and therefore (the Trump campaign argument goes), every single "cured" ballot must be thrown out. Which is (a) an incredible argument in the first place, (b) would affect some Trump voters more and (c) wouldn't effect enough ballots to change the result. |
|
Nov 2020
1:42pm, 18 Nov 2020
12,278 posts
|
rf_fozzy
And in Michigan, 2 Republicans in a particular county wouldn't certify the election results in that county (not that it would have mattered - it could have been done by the state), because there are some minor issues (affecting ~10s of votes) with the results from Detroit. But the statement they released said something about that they'd certify any results, but not Detroit. Which was *very* dog whistley. If not racist. (Detroit is majority black) |
|
Nov 2020
1:43pm, 18 Nov 2020
12,279 posts
|
rf_fozzy
They've sinced backed down and certified the results.
|
Nov 2020
1:50pm, 18 Nov 2020
12,705 posts
|
larkim
HG - the thing is I actually believe that Corbyn is not antisemitic at all and is fundamentally utterly opposed to antisemitism. He is just a terrible communicator in the context of being politically savvy and understanding how the media will construe his words. And he's also super loyal to other powerful figures on the left. So he says things which will not enrage them, at the cost of gifting open goals to done of the media who want to portray him in a particular way. Maybe I'm wrong about him and in private he does talk about some Jewish capitalist conspiracy theory nonsense after a couple of glasses of wine at a dinner party, and of course there is the absolute problem of being able to debate and advocate about the Israel / Palestine issues without linking the state of Israel to the Jewish faith and people, but my sense all along had been that Corbyn is a decent, appropriately principled person with appalling leadership and media handling skills, which is why I'd take the softer option with him. Starmer though knows him better and I trust his judgement over mine!! |
|
Nov 2020
2:01pm, 18 Nov 2020
12,280 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Larkim - that's also my impression of Corbyn, but he made this situation for himself - all he had to do when the human rights investigation report came out was to say *nothing* or "no comment" - instead he came out and undermined that report saying it was all political. If he'd come out and said (as he's said before) - "I oppose Antisemitism and will look carefully at the report" etc then he wouldn't have been disciplined. Starmer has *no* choice - in the end this is one of the major issues that he's going to be judged on. He can't let him back in and I'm a bit surprised the NEC did - if they'd had any brains, they could have postponed the case until the independent tribunal that they're supposed to be setting up could have heard the case. The calculation is how many on the hard/far left will go into a total strop about it and never vote for Labour again (realistically how many I don't know) - some of those who aren't happy will still vote labour - versus how many were alienated by the whole antisemitism issue and so didn't vote Labour in 2019 (and how many of these voted Tory/Lib Dem? etc) As for that FB link earlier - my question is are all those people real? I've seen a similar link earlier that was posted by Ian Dunt showing a FB thread reactions to Starmer visiting a synagogue the other day, and many of those all seem odd. I do wonder if these are prime targets for bot farms? |
|
Nov 2020
2:02pm, 18 Nov 2020
36,486 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Not disagreeing larkim. I suspect Corbyn is as egalitarian as they come. But as a leader, and now an ex-leader, still with media value (or cost) to the Labour party, he has to be "on message". And that's one thing he isn't! I think there *is* a significant issue, from what I've read, of some in the Labour party confusing anti-Israel (acceptable) political position with anti-all Israel supporting, non-political community (i.e. the Jewish community) = bad (imho!) G
|
Nov 2020
2:05pm, 18 Nov 2020
16,927 posts
|
Chrisull
fozzy - sounds like the Republican canvassers were claiming they were threatened and that's why they changed their minds (which ain't right either, if true - but you know nothing more snowflakey than the ones who go around crying snowflake). Sigh. But yes 146,000 majority is a wipe out for Trump and was predicted by the polls, only the most paranoid choose to believe the result doesn't confirm that. How canvassers could believe otherwise is staggering. But then people choose not to believe they're dying from covid, while in hospital dying from covid.... so nothing surprises me. Giuliani has been a laughing stock in Pennsylvania, one commentator saying "he didn't try to answer any of the questions, and sounded like he didn't understand them most of the time". But you can bet the Trumpsters are going "he's socking it to them". Most of them don't get "law" it seems. Starmer didn't intend to let Corbyn back in. The NEC let him back in, and if Starmer's General Secretary hadn't accidentally overlooked it - it could have been prevented from going to the NEC. No one wins here. |
|
Nov 2020
2:10pm, 18 Nov 2020
16,928 posts
|
Chrisull
Separately on MSM. There is at one level it is good. People used to take the papers/TV as gospel, and the Murdoch/Dacres of this world have long since wielded too much power. Critical thinking and getting people to engage with resources and question them is good.... BUT it does seem to have flipped the other way. ALL media is biased, it is impossible to be anything but, even when trying it's best to be non-partisan. That isn't a problem in itself, as long you are aware of any likely bias and factor it in when reading it. I mean historians have been doing this for centuries. And sometimes, when you go back to Norman times, for some years only two records exist, one being written by the church lackies, and another by the Queen. It doesn't mean people have to throw everything out. I mean I think everyone here would look at stuff the Sun, Mail or Telegraph post through sceptical eyes. And rightfully so. But they still all publish good journalism. (And the likes of the Guardian or BBC can be very,very bad) And at the very least give you a feel of what "the other side" is thinking. |
Nov 2020
2:15pm, 18 Nov 2020
3,240 posts
|
J2R
Great article on MSM, BBC, bias here: medium.com
|
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Dec 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018