Blog powered by Typepad

« I lunched not wisely but too well! | Main | 'Only in America', er, well, mostly in America! »

Sunday, 04 October 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

What if no one accepts the election result?

We (in the UK) should be used to that........

2014 Euro elections (UKIP took seats and worried Cameron).
2015 GE (Tories win majority on promise of referendum)
2916 Referendum itself. Leave won.
2017 GE (Two parties promising to honour result get 83% of vote.)
2019 Euro elections (Brexit Party wins.).
2019 GE (Labour vote collapses after they backslide).

The argument about the EU is over because the British Public made its instructions clear, repeatedly. Given 40 years and all the money in the world, the EU still could not sell itself to Britons for many reasons, but the outcome is all the same: Remain Lost SIX times, & still the political class are doing their best to ignore democratic result(s).

Depends on what the final result is by way of the size of victory either way. One political party has already shown its true colors by forming a Resistance and engaging in a coup against the elected President. So they are known. The other party...probably won't go that direction. But if we do then it is our turn and Justified.

This is why when asked to denounce his Brownshirts Proud Boys, Trump wouldn't do it and told them to "stand by". He might be a clown, but he's a clown with a talent for destroying democracy.

Bob, that is just jackassery. Refusal to accept the 2016 results complete with a full blown Resistance that included tampering with the Electoral College vote and then a set up for a coup by the outgoing Pres and his WH team plus the FBI along with some willing media-- that is how democracy is destroyed.

What Whitewall said. It should be within the capabilities of most political scientists to work out what would happen if a group of people don't accept the election result, because a group of people didn't accept the last one.

But the question is poorly framed. It won't happen that "no-one accepts the election result". About half the electorate will, and personally I hope it is the half that has the (legal) guns and grows all the food.

I have to admit to being off the mark. It should be Blackshirts, since Donnie is a jackass version of Benito.

2014 Euro elections (UKIP took seats and worried Cameron).. So what? They didn't get anywhere like a majority.
2015 GE (Tories win majority on promise of referendum). So what? That's not the outcome of an in/out poll or referendum, is it?
2916 Referendum itself. Leave won..
And since the 2017 GE they've voted against Brexit and for Remain in every poll bar one.
2017 GE (Two parties promising to honour result get 83% of vote.) So there was no real choice, then how does this weigh in favour of Brexit?
2019 Euro elections (Brexit Party wins.) Remain never showed up, so hardly indicative of the sentiment of the British people who've voted Remain in every poll bar one since the 2017 GE.
2019 GE (Labour vote collapses after they backslide).. Vote collapses because the great majority didn't want a Socialist nutjob in the top job - but now they've got one anyway the polls have switched back to Labour.

Every poll of the British peeps since the 2017 GE bar one shows the majority in favour of Remain.

Whatever Blighty's democracy is, the last thing that can be said of it is that it represents the will of the people.



Opinion polls where only a few thousand at most take part are one thing. Actual votes, where millions get to put their x in the box, are another matter entirely.

Even now at this eleventh hour the EU regime cannot get it that the UK is leaving their project. All their threatening that the UK could not survive without them has been lost in space. The last three years has proven that the EU are a dictatorship. So Bob go tell that to the Spartans.

How many times did you read about, or watched on tv, the Proud Boys going around burning, looting and murdering, only to be stopped by the peaceful, law supporting, antifa or BLM members?
No matter who wins the American election, I fear there will be a civil war, starting off politically, but quickly descending into armed conflict. In the meantime, that man's man Putin will occasionally stop listening to his Judy Garland records to have a good laugh, probably with Xi Jing Ping Pong joining in.


"The vast majority of Black Lives Matter protests—more than 93%—have been peaceful, according to a new report published Thursday by a nonprofit that researches political violence and protests across the world."

Most reports I've seen blame violence on outside groups, not BLM members.

In the mean time, our tin-plated Mussolini winks and nods to right wing militia groups, and encourages violence at rallies:

"Kentucky Federal Judge rejected to dismiss the claim from three protesters at a 2016 Trump rally that then candidate Trump provoked violence with his rhetoric to have them removed.

U. S. District Judge David J. Hale ruled in a March 31 opinion that he is rejecting requests from Trump and his supporters named as defendants in the case to dismiss the charges brought by three rally protesters because there was precedent of violence at previous Trump rallies, and Trump was inciting violence by ordering the removal of protesters."

There aren't large enough numbers in right wing militias to put up any sort of credible armed conflict.


But the question is poorly framed. It won't happen that "no-one accepts the election result". About half the electorate will, and personally I hope it is the half that has the (legal) guns and grows all the food.

The right wing groups have plenty of illegal guns. Instead of handguns they prefer converted semi-autos. Most food is now produced by large corporations:

"... the U.S. faces an "eroding middle" when it comes to farming, and that a small number of large farm operations "produces the vast majority of the nation's food."

Bob's emulating the legacy media line I suppose, in some ways, is kinda impressive given there's still a bunch of people who believe that bullshit.

Just a glance at who the leader of the group is should be sufficient to allow a judgement as to whether he's, at least, a white supremacist.

"The vast majority of Black Lives Matter protests—more than 93%—have been peaceful."

True those are "oldish" reports - not then included were the post-verdict Louisville "mostly peaceful riots and killings" but the thing is, sure, tossing out that 93% number can make it seem comforting but I would submit, that 7% left out of the mix is decidedly un-comfortable.

Our resident pooh pooher I suppose would be just like that MSDNC reporter (Velshi - either his first or last name, I dunno) Anyway the guy looked ridiculous reporting from the scene - with a totally engulfed in flames, low-income intended residential housing apartments in the background telling his audience:

"I would not characterize the crowds here as generally unruly."

When you're right, you're right, JK. The Proud Boys have changed. They used to be closely identified with white nationalists, but have made their tent a little bigger by letting a black guy named Enrique join. Maybe I'm too cynical, but that just might be a marketing ploy. Regardless, they're still a nasty bunch:

"This is a group that bears many of the hallmarks of a gang," Meredith Weisel, D.C. associate regional director for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), said.

The ADL calls the Proud Boys a hate group.

"We would describe them as a violent, nationalist, Islamaphobic, transphobic, misogynist, anti-Semitic group," Weisel said."

The ADL huh ...

Their criteria's kinda like the SLPC's ain't it?

Bob,this BLM movement is not kosher. What is their gripe in life when blacks tend to kill and end lives of others. Is poverty an excuse?

"The Proud Boys have changed. They used to be closely identified with white nationalists, but have made their tent a little bigger by letting a black guy named Enrique join."

Might take a little closer look into the numbers Bob.

Meanwhile on the topic of actual white supremacists. Crickets.

That one's for you David.


You've probably never been pulled over by a traffic cop for driving while black. Or been kept out of certain neighborhoods by redlining. Or warehoused in massive "public housing". Or be in a group that has a chronically higher unemployment rate than other groups. Or been considered 3/5 of a human being in the past. Or been forced to attend a school that's inferior because of the way schools are funded in America. Etc., etc.

Maybe you don't have anything to complain about, but maybe they do. Know what I mean?


I'll take a page out of your book and just dismiss your source. Twitchy is a Twitter site founded by right wing commentator Michelle Malkin. Anything on it is a lie.

As for the Proud Boys being the equivalent of Blackshirts for Ill Duce, let's roll the tape:


I was off point where BLM is concerned. Here's just one more example:

"Texas police officer arrested on suspicion of murder in fatal shooting of Jonathan Price [a black man]

The Texas Rangers’ preliminary investigation found that Wolfe City police officer Shaun Lucas’ use of deadly force against Price was not “objectionably reasonable.”

Bob, I have been pulled over by the white police. They are not armed. We do not have many black police officers in Scotland.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)