American Election

Because that was also the result of a free and fair vote that many would have been quite happy to re run or in the LibDems case ignore it altogether as if if never happens.
Thank God no one was killed but there were idiots on the streets from both sides, maybe if we were allowed to carry a weapon there might have been deaths over here, it got very passionate on here, my point wasnt about deaths or law and order but that as you state a mob were happy to try and overturn a democratic vote that should have been accepted by both sides.

 

There's a big difference between the two, Dave. The Brexit vote was a referendum, not a regular general election with a fixed period outcome. Those arguing for another Brexit referendum mostly did so on the basis that the situation had changed in a number of ways two years on from the referendum and believed that a majority of the country no longer supported leaving the EU. Obviously I know you disagree with that viewpoint, but whether one agrees with it or not, it's a very different thing from saying that the general election was rigged or that the counting was erroneous or deliberately crooked, as Trump has done.
Our 2017 General Election was a close run thing. If the election period had been of normal length there is a good chance that Labour would have won and May would have been out on her ear. But you didn't hear Labour claiming that it was rigged. You're comparing apples with pears. Trump knows full well that he lost the election, and so do those who have supported his false claims. He/they were just determined to hang onto power by any means necessary.

 

One thing Trump should have done in his time in office, as we should do, is to stop all but essential postal voting, it's rigged on a massive scale both here and in the USA..

 

Without turning this into another Brexit thread I don't think that's completely the case.

Those arguing for another referendum were simply people who had voted the other way initially and were finding ways to say things had change, but things always change. People were pushing for a second referendum the day after the result came in!

The similarity here is that there were people within power who would do anything to stop the process being completed. All the shenanigans in parliament using whatever powers necessary to stop and delay were a clear subversion of a democratic vote.

Thankfully we never got to the stage that they have in the US but when trust in the democratic process is broken chaos is the only thing that can follow. When that happens it doesn't matter which way you voted in the first place.

 

It was the first Presidential election that has used postal voting for the general electorate in U.S history, Trump was against it from the beginning saying it was open to fraud and gerrymandering ( As happened in the UK until it was changed )
Having said that without evidence he should have accepted defeat gracefully

 

But where is the evidence for that? Trump brought over 60 legal suits to court and couldn't produce a scintilla of evidence of fraud or irregularities. They were all dismissed for lack of evidence.
I know there have been some instances in Bradford of fathers commandeering the whole family's postal ballots to ensure that they all vote for his preference. But that doesn't extrapolate to being 'rigged on a massive scale'. The vast majority of postal votes around the country are just ordinary people voting individually in a perfectly normal manner. There is no evidence of any widespread or significant voter fraud here and none of the main political parties have shown any recent concern about it. So where do you get the idea that it's a big problem?

 

The principle are the same no matter how you want to spin it Steve, both votes allowing the electorate to chose the President in the US election and in our case to remain or leave the EU.
You say things had changed your correct the Tories got back in with a far bigger majority although we heard on the likes of Question Time of how the electorate had changed their mind, many posting similar on here they were so out of touch with the real world, they were BOTH as YungNath put it "results of free and fair elections" irrelevant of what the vote was for.

 

I disagree. I accept that arguing for another referendum to take place can be seen as an undemocratic move - although that's not what Jacob Rees-Mogg said before the 2016 referendum when he advocated a second, confirmatory, referendum before any deal was signed.
However, it is very different from saying that the vote which has already taken place was rigged and should therefore be ignored. No one was arguing that the 2016 referendum should simply be discounted or ignored.

If Trump could have produced any credible evidence of voter fraud in specific electoral districts then the remedy would have been to re-run the election in those specific districts. But, firstly, he never provided a shred of evidence of significant voter fraud. And secondly, he was asking entire states to simply ignore the results of ballots and declare him the winner in those states, regardless of the votes cast. And when they wouldn't do that he decided to set a mob on parliament to stop them ratifying his defeat.

 

Correct.
Let's be honest - the only reason that the Republican Party isn't keen on postal votes is because they know that a majority of postal voters vote Democrat.
The GOP has been a minority party for the last two decades. It has lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections. Its core support base - white rural Americans - is dwindling and is outnumbered by urban liberals and non-white voters, both of whom tend to vote Democrat. That demographic trend is set to continue.
The GOP and their supporters see their beliefs and conservative way of life as the 'true American way' and somehow sacrosanct. They strongly resent the fact that liberals and non-white people have an increasing influence on US culture. So they systematically engage in a variety of practices at State level which are designed to make it as hard as possible for non-white voters to vote. Restricting postal ballots is just one of the methods they use to try to reduce the Democrat vote.
Trump knew full well that in a pandemic the most sensible way to vote is by post and that Democrat voters would do this in greater numbers, which is why he spent the last 6 months casting aspersions on postal voting, so he could cry 'Fraud' if he lost. All utterly predictable.

 

You post it could be seen "as an undemocratic move", if we hadn't given the Tories a massive majority some would still be using the same old argument, you only won it by just over a million, many who voted leave have changed their minds blah blah blah, the vast majority of leavers knew that was never the case.
As I posted not accepting the referendum vote was part of a manifesto pledge that the LibDems stood on, at least they made it plain to anyone who was prepared to vote for them that what they would implement it and make it null and void, we've been through this debate many times the remainers lost the referendum but never accepted it, the Republicans lost the American election and wouldn't accept it, no doubt Trump didn't help with some of his comments but they were BOTH democratic decisions taken by the electorate of both countries.

 

They have used postal voting in some states but in this election it was expanded to all states, But I believe I am right that due to covid ANYONE could register to vote by post and that became a massive increase on past elections, This has not been the case in the past Presidential elections where some States were reluctant, Of course Absentee, Military and overseas has alway been by post

 

You mean to tell me that 40.000 good folk got off their arse in 2019 to vote for this moron...?
Labour
Diane Abbott

• Votes:39,972
• Vote share %:70.3
• Vote share change:-4.8

 

Yes

 

Someone was killed, Jo Cox, no less a sitting MP. I think we forget this too often and/or dismiss it as a one off or a lone wolf.

 

I agree in part around the right of large corporations to decide who they provide a platform - this has the potential to be problematic, however this isn’t a free speech issue - which relates specifically to being legally allowed to say what you like.

That said, media of all kinds has been able to provide or remove platforms almost at will throughout history. If a newspaper refuses to report what Trump says, is this as concerning?

Social media has muddied the waters slightly, but there are clearly stated rules set out by these providers that have quite clearly been broken by Trump on many, many occasions. His actions have consequences, and as far as I’m concerned, this is one of them.

 

A newspaper is different. They have editorial responsibility for the contents.

Twitter isn't, they are simply a platform with no editorial responsibility. A point they themselves has argues with success in the past.

I haven't actually looked into this but which specific rules did he break?

 

Going back to my original reply to YungNath I stand by my comment , "There were many who wanted to overturn the result of a free and fair vote from June 2016, by making the electorate vote again .

That reply was with regards the ordinary man/woman in the street who had voted leave/remain not a nutter like Thomas Mair who mental issues and was into the far right activities like the National front, National Vangard, and the English Defence League Alliance thank goodness it was an isolated case.

 

Incitement of violence. Simples.

 

That's it, is it? That's your evidence that postal voting was rigged on a massive scale and should be banned? The fact that you don't like Diane Abbott and can't believe that there are actually many in her constituency who do?
I see your Diane Abbott and raise you Gavin Williamson.