Poll: did Trump really win the 2020 election?

[smf]

The Electoral College enables less populous areas to have a bigger influence on national policy

You keep repeating this, but when I looked at the figures for the example you gave then it was the other way round, the less populated area had a smaller influence.

Margaret Thatcher didn't decide to close any mines, there were some mines that were scheduled to be closed as they had become unprofitable due to how much coal had been removed. This had happened before she came into power, the miners then all decided to shut down the mines themselves & there was nothing she could do. By the time the miners returned to work there were no customers for their coal any more.

Her only input was that she'd built up a reserve of coal in case there was a strike. The previous prime minister had been caught without a plan and that bought down his government. The government privatized the remaining mines in the 90's and they've all closed now.

There is even a disparity between north and south wales, the north mostly didn't support the strike while the south mostly did.

When you give a disproportionate amount of power to one group then it causes problems. It was in the miners interest to not go on strike.

The only winner was the union leader, who the union has had to sue because of he basically stole from them.

 

[Esjay131]

This poll is as rigged as the election, you don't condense all of the Biden support in to one option with a leading declaration then split the Trump support 3 ways.

Just do some basic math and add the votes up.

 

[Foxi4]

You keep repeating this, but when I looked at the figures for the example you gave then it was the other way round, the less populated area had a smaller influence.

Margaret Thatcher didn't decide to close any mines, there were some mines that were scheduled to be closed as they had become unprofitable due to how much coal had been removed. This had happened before she came into power, the miners then all decided to shut down the mines themselves & there was nothing she could do. By the time the miners returned to work there were no customers for their coal any more.

Her only input was that she'd built up a reserve of coal in case there was a strike. The previous prime minister had been caught without a plan and that bought down his government. The government privatized the remaining mines in the 90's and they've all closed now.

There is even a disparity between north and south wales, the north mostly didn't support the strike while the south mostly did.

When you give a disproportionate amount of power to one group then it causes problems. It was in the miners interest to not go on strike.

The only winner was the union leader, who the union has had to sue because of he basically stole from them.

Ahistoric nonsense and further evidence that talking to you is a waste of time. You're uninformed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25549596

I won't be wasting more breath on you.

 

[elk1007]

The truth is that there is widespread voter fraud. Who knows if its enough to flip the electoral college, though.

Biden voters should want an honest election also.
I fear that, in reality, nobody has faith or respect for our countries election process; they'll complain if their candidate loses, legitimate or not.

 

[smf]

Ahistoric nonsense and further evidence that talking to you is a waste of time. You're uninformed.

You can't read and yet I'm uninformed. Margaret Thatcher didn't decide to close any mines.

The new chairman of the board, Ian MacGregor, now meant to go further.

"Mr MacGregor had it in mind over the three years 1983-85 that a further 75 pits would be closed... There should be no closure list, but a pit-by-pit procedure.

Meanwhile they were developing new mines.

The 1974 Plan of Coal produced in the aftermath of the 1972 miners' strike envisaged that the coal industry would replace 40 million tons of obsolete capacity and ageing pits while maintaining its output.[12] By 1983, the NCB would invest £3,000 million on developing new collieries.[13]

Which doesn't fit your simplistic narrative of a prime minister who closed the mines to crush the unions at all.

I'm beginning to understand how you come to so many incorrect conclusions.

 

[notimp]

Which doesn't fit your simplistic narrative of a prime minister who closed the mines to crush the unions at all.

Em - you close down all mines (say because they are old), then you wait until unions are defunded and become derelict. Then you found new mining ventures?

Seems like a pretty good way to get rid of union influence to me..

Just as a hypothetical - I dont know the case.

 

[smf]

Em - you close down all mines (say because they are old), then you wait until unions are defunded and become derelict. Then you found new mining ventures?

Seems like a pretty good way to get rid of union influence to me..

Just as a hypothetical - I dont know the case.

Arthur Scargill was very much like Trump, a crook who is good at whipping up a crowd.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ion-pay-for-london-flat-for-life-8428774.html

I'm sure the miners thought that was the plan, but from the numbers it doesn't seem plausible.

There were 174 mines, even with 75 closed they still had a lot of mines and miners.

https://www.ncm.org.uk/downloads/104/The_1984-5_Miners__Strike_Resource__hi_res_.pdf

Ian MacGregor closed factories and made redundancies. By 1983, British Steel had become more profitable. His next role, in 1983, was head of the National Coal Board (NCB). To make the coal industry profitable, he cut jobs and closed pits. This ultimately led to the 1984-85 Miners’ Strike, for which no agreement was ever reached. Ian MacGregor retired from the NCB in 1986.

On 3 March 1985 NUM delegates voted ninety-eight to ninety-one to call off the Strike. By 17 March 1985, the strike was over and the miners returned to work without a settlement. The NCB closed twenty five pits

Closing profitable mines only to re-open them later doesn't make financial sense. It's not that easy from a practical point of view and all your customers go elsewhere.

 

[notimp]

Didnt look into it, but thanks for posting the src.

 

[smf]

The truth is that there is widespread voter fraud. Who knows if its enough to flip the electoral college, though.

What do you class as wide spread?
My understanding is that widespread fraud would be enough to flip the electoral college.

Would you class 1 vote in every state as widespread?

How have you determined that it is the "truth"?

I fear that, in reality, nobody has faith or respect for our countries election process; they'll complain if their candidate loses, legitimate or not.

This is the first time that the incumbent president had used months of drumming into people that there would be voter fraud to try to derail the process. Without him doing that then there would be far more respect for the result. It's no surprise that loads of people believe there is fraud, he deliberately undermined faith in the process so that he could cling onto power.

 

[Foxi4]

You can't read and yet I'm uninformed. Margaret Thatcher didn't decide to close any mines.

The new chairman of the board, Ian MacGregor, now meant to go further.

"Mr MacGregor had it in mind over the three years 1983-85 that a further 75 pits would be closed... There should be no closure list, but a pit-by-pit procedure.

Meanwhile they were developing new mines.

The 1974 Plan of Coal produced in the aftermath of the 1972 miners' strike envisaged that the coal industry would replace 40 million tons of obsolete capacity and ageing pits while maintaining its output.[12] By 1983, the NCB would invest £3,000 million on developing new collieries.[13]

Which doesn't fit your simplistic narrative of a prime minister who closed the mines to crush the unions at all.

I'm beginning to understand how you come to so many incorrect conclusions.

Trade unions of miners and steel workers, among other unions in the heavy industry sector, were considered a radical threat to the government at the time. This is clear if you read John Redwood's memo addressed to Thatcher, describing the protests as a "radical strategy" of the "far-left" aimed at challenging the government. They were afraid of getting ousted.

https://www.channel4.com/news/by/pa...cial-papers-confirm-strikers-worst-suspicions

The aim was always to make union workers destitute, maximise closures, gradually shift to cheaper, imported coal and steel and remove said threats from the picture.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/03/thatcher-labour-miners-enemy-within-brighton-bomb

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...s-strike-thatcher-real-enemy-within-extremism

Nice Wikipedia copy-paste though, it's a good thing Tories are so diligent that they even file documents they're not supposed to file - that way they end up in the National Archive and we can all read what they were actually up to, albeit 30 years later.

Let's collect all the facts here - the government, under Thatcher's leadership, openly lied to the public about plans to close 20 pits when they always aimed at 70-odd, and presumably more in the future. They were also considering the use of the British army to disperse the strikes by force should they refuse to concede.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23518589

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/03/margaret-thatcher-secret-plan-army-miners-strike

Thatcher deliberately mislead the Parliament and the public by claiming that NUM was exaggerating the extent of planned closures when in actuality they were not - she was at those meetings, fully aware of the plans and had rubber-stamped them at the time. In other words, she lied.

I don't even disagree with the notion that economically unviable pits should've been closed and the industry needed to be privatised and restructured, but certainly not like this. I'm also not a fan of trade unions, or socialists in general - as far as I'm concerned, you can seal them inside the pit that's being closed and you won't hear complaints from me.

With that said, British heavy industry was cudgeled to death, leading to a decreased energy security, mass lay-off and a diminished standard of living, not just in Wales, but also in Scotland and Ireland. This is an undisputed fact. Big England has decided that small Wales, Scotland and Ireland needed a little "push" to change their economic landscape and the plan didn't quite work out as intended, or maybe it did - I maintain the latter is the case. It's hilarious to me that you're slurping the Tory Kool-aid this hard, the handling of the situation by Thatcher's government is universally panned as an unmitigated disaster that smothered large swathes of British heavy industry that will *never* return.

It's a real shame all the good conservatives climbed aboard boats in the 18th century and left for greener pastures, perhaps if some stayed behind the UK wouldn't be so horrifically mismanaged under the watchful eyes of clowns. Have fun with them.

 

[smf]

https://www.channel4.com/news/by/pa...cial-papers-confirm-strikers-worst-suspicions

The aim was always to make union workers destitute, maximise closures, gradually shift to cheaper, imported coal and steel and remove said threats from the picture.

You've probably not checked the date on your evidence, that was during the strike.

She put pressure on the miners to end the strike so they would go back to work. If she wanted all the mines closed, then letting the miners stay on strike would have been a much simpler alternative.

But buying coal from abroad when your own miners are striking is not evidence that she closed mines to destroy the unions.

 

[Foxi4]

You've probably not checked the date on your evidence, that was during the strike.

She put pressure on the miners to end the strike so they would go back to work. If she wanted all the mines closed, then letting the miners stay on strike would have been a much simpler alternative.

But buying coal from abroad when your own miners are striking is not evidence that she closed mines to destroy the unions.

Of course it was during the strike, she wanted to get past the picket line and get the coal required to maintain energy security. The *whole point* of having that picket was to prevent that from happening. This is like, Baby's First Protest, Volume 1. Redwood is very clear in the interview - the prevailing belief in the cabinet was that the strikes were a strategy to undermine the government, which is also why plans were drafted to brand Labour as enemies of the state. This is not rocket science, the whole thing was political to a huge extent.

 

[smf]

Of course it was during the strike, she wanted to get past the picket line and get the coal required to maintain energy security. The *whole point* of having that picket was to prevent that from happening. This is like, Baby's First Protest, Volume 1.

Your argument was she closed mines to break the unions.
Here she is trying to open them.

 

[elk1007]

What do you class as wide spread?
My understanding is that widespread fraud would be enough to flip the electoral college.

Would you class 1 vote in every state as widespread?

How have you determined that it is the "truth"?



This is the first time that the incumbent president had used months of drumming into people that there would be voter fraud to try to derail the process. Without him doing that then there would be far more respect for the result. It's no surprise that loads of people believe there is fraud, he deliberately undermined faith in the process so that he could cling onto power.

A single fraudulent ballot does not indicate widespread voter fraud. Also, a single fraudulent ballot won't turn a non-fraudulent election into a fraudulent one. Therefore, there is no widespread voter fraud.

 

[Foxi4]

Your argument was she closed mines to break the unions.
Here she is trying to open them.

Under conditions unacceptable by the miners, see edit above. This was less about the miners staying at work and more about access to a commodity.

 

[smf]

A single fraudulent ballot does not indicate widespread voter fraud. Also, a single fraudulent ballot won't turn a non-fraudulent election into a fraudulent one. Therefore, there is no widespread voter fraud.

Well I wondered if the term "wide spread" was being used to mean "it happens in every state" rather than "it happens a lot in one state".

This was less about the miners staying at work and more about access to a commodity.

Is that unreasonable? If you phone your boss and refuse to work and refuse to let anyone else do the work then they are going to try to work round you.

That doesn't justify your original point "In the mid-1980's Margaret Thatcher dismantled the Welsh mining industry during her fight against trade unions,".

She can't be dismantling it and trying to get the mines open at the same time, all while investing money into creating new mines.

You could say she was trying to transform the industry and the miners ultimately caused their own demise by resisting the plans. If it hadn't been for Arthur Scargill then we'd have a coal industry to close down due to climate change.

 

[Foxi4]

Is that unreasonable? If you phone your boss and refuse to work and refuse to let anyone else do the work then they are going to try to work round you.

That doesn't justify your original point "In the mid-1980's Margaret Thatcher dismantled the Welsh mining industry during her fight against trade unions,". She can't be dismantling it and trying to get the mines open a the same time.

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The objective of eliminating trade unions or diminishing the threat they posed to the Tory government is wholy separate from the long-term objective of closing down the mining sector. There's a big difference between coping with a planned closure over a course of many years, a scenario which gives you time to secure other sources of a given resource, and being suddenly cut off from all supply without notice, which leaves you with your pants all the way down at your ankles. Also, the right to peaceably assemble and redress grievances with the government is paramount and integral to a Democratic society - I thought you'd be a fan of that. A man of many contradictions, it seems.

You could say she was trying to transform the industry and the miners ultimately caused their own demise by resisting the plans. If it hadn't been for Arthur Scargill then we'd have a coal industry to close down due to climate change.

I very much doubt that Margaret Thatcher went on a date with The Doctor and used the Tardis to figure that one out, but in the hypothetical scenario that the mines would've survived (they wouldn't, that was never the goal), coal and other fossil fuels are still necessary and irreplaceable resources in all sorts of manufacturing, not just in the energy sector. In order to be independent, any sovereign country should endeavour to have a local stockpile and/or mining operation on the back burner for a rainy day. You can't replace oil with a solar panel when you're making conventional plastics, you can't add wind to iron to make steel. That's neither here nor there though.

 

[TomSwitch]

Maybe Trump cheated but didn't managed to cheat more powerfully?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

yes thank you... it was triggered, TRUMP even mentioned it in the 2016 Republican primaries that it was rigged...
NEVERMIND the Fact that Trump is only claim rigged in states he is losing in .. or the fact that He would of known it was rigged since 2016 and never did anything in 4 years. Or the fact He originally claimed it was rigged in a REPUBLICAN primaries (it was still the DEMS), or the fact Republican won offices in areas he lost... that does not matter.. When Trump cries WOLLLFFF.. I mean cries Rigged ...the town should listen does matter its the 10,000 tweet.

Definitely rigged otherwise Trump's cheat would have worked. It is after all the most powerful cheat in the world.

 

[smf]

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The objective of eliminating trade unions or diminishing the threat they posed to the Tory government is wholy separate from the long-term objective of closing down the mining sector.

Of course she wanted rid of the unions, because in the 1970's the unions had destroyed the UK. We were selling substandard goods which the workers wanted to be paid over the odds for. The problem was caused by a power inbalance (like the one you favor in the electoral college)

You haven't proved there was a long term plan to close all 174 mines.

There's a big difference between coping with a planned closure over a course of many years, a scenario which gives you time to secure other sources of a given resource, and being suddenly cut off from all supply without notice, which leaves you with your pants all the way down at your ankles.

Are you talking about the miners who closed the mines or the governments plans to close the mines?
The government coped with the miners who closed the mines as they had other opportunities available, albeit at a higher cost.

If they had been able to close the unprofitable mines without the strikes then the pace would be dictated by the ability to increase production at other mines and develop new ones.

Also, the right to peaceably assemble and redress grievances with the government is paramount and integral to a Democratic society - I thought you'd be a fan of that. A man of many contradictions, it seems.

Tell the people who continued working that the strikers were peaceably assembling.

Their right to protest does not override anyone elses right to not protest.

 

[TomSwitch]

Everything depends on your definition of "cheating". The rules surrounding voting laws, and mail-in ballots specifically, were gradually changed over the course of 2019, culminating in the permission for late-arriving ballots, in some cases without a postmark. As far as I'm concerned, the framers of the constitution established an Election Day, not an Election Month, and they did so in a time when voters would travel by horse and buggy over treacherous terrain in order to vote - I don't think the current situation is even remotely on the same level as far as obstacles go. There is no constitutionally enshrined duty to vote in America - you vote on Election Day or you choose to vote by mail at an earlier date - early enough to account for delivery. If you didn't make it before the deadline, I don't see why the state should make any concessions to tabulate your vote - you were late, sorry. If the election was fair and by the book, it would've been done and dusted on the day.

That’s neither here nor there though - I think we saw a historic turnout and both candidates did exceptionally well within their respective camps. Trump may have lost as far as the current count is concerned, but I'm quite satisfied with the huge gains made in the house and senate, which leads me to believe that his mission of changing the direction and tenor of political discourse in America was a success, which is all I had ever hoped for. It was good to see the White House be a house of the people for four years, now it can be the house of the establishment politicians again, but you can't turn the cultural shift around anymore, which is a good thing. I suspect we will see similar gains in 2022, and if the GOP stumbles upon a good candidate, 2024 is going to be interesting.

In regards to fraud, I think it's childish to believe that no fraud at all has occurred - people cheat at parlor games where the stakes are almost nothing, anyone who thinks that no cheating takes place when the stakes are astronomical is a fool. Whether or not it was isolated instances by rogue actors or a co-ordinated effort is not for me to decide - any allegations of fraud should be investigated, even if only to maintain the public's trust in the system.

Do I think the election results can be overturned? I don't think so, at least not based on the current legal challenges. Trump's team would have to establish that the tabulation system was unreliable from a technical standpoint, and as such, its tabulation cannot be trusted, which would be a huge feat. Some of the "glitches" certainly point to that conclusion, but one would have to show that these problems occurred in multiple locations - I'm sure not all of the miscalculations were caught there and then.

In any case, it sure was a tight election season. Highly entertaining and full of twists and turns, that's for certain.

Trump's last resort. Admit that Trump has cheated and therefore the election result is not valid. Let's redo the election with his more powerful cheat 2.0