Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Maybe not changed for the positive since then

Trump and his legal team, by not taking this to court, have conceded...

The "court of public opinion" is another matter! But most of us remember OJ Simpson's case.

It's because there was nothing to take to court.

A preacher preaches...and that excuses your presumption?! Same concocted delusion, different flavor...

...Is ad hominem all you got?

My mention of the "court of public opinion" was not an argument, but commentary:

Most people believe Simpson was guilty...

Many believe Gore won the 2000 election...

Many believe Hillary won the 2016 election...

Stoppering your ears may prevent you from hearing, but is that rational?

Are you denying that she is a White House aide, spiritual advisor to Donald Trump? Or are you saying something like "Never mind that she is among the top representatives of Team Trump, it's ad hominem because her position is irrelevant when talking about patterns of behaviour in Team Trump!" Geez.

Simpson was not a presidential candidate, and his stuff actually went through court. The court decided that he was "responsible" to the extent of all his wealth. He escaped prison only because of technicalities

Trump is just a sore loser, worse than Hillary.

Quote from: ersi on 2020-11-22, 01:02:31

Are you denying that she is a White House aide, spiritual advisor to Donald Trump? Or are you saying something like "Never mind that she is among the top representatives of Team Trump, it's ad hominem because her position is irrelevant when talking about patterns of behaviour in Team Trump!" Geez.

You think she's Rasputin? Geez, indeed!
What policies do you think she promoted? She's a White House aide in the same way that Billy Graham was, for presidents of both parties... You'd take her odd behavior as evidence of Trump's unfitness for office?

Quote from: ersi on 2020-11-22, 01:02:31

Simpson was not a presidential candidate, and his stuff actually went through court. The court decided that he was "responsible" to the extent of all his wealth. He escaped prison only because of technicalities

I agree Simpson wasn't a presidential candidate... His "stuff" went through two different courts. Those "technicalities" you mention include a jury verdict after state prosecution. The civil action -as often happens- was punitive and based on a "well, gee, it looks like" standard. Much more like the court of popular opinion...

Quote from: ersi on 2020-11-22, 01:02:31

Trump is just a sore loser, worse than Hillary.

That may prove to be the case: We'll have to wait five years or more to find out, and Hillary will have to admit that she lost fair and square in the mean time... (If you believe she will, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I could sell you -- cheap! )

Nice use of the No True Scotsman fallacy, BTW. ("Nobody competent is saying...")

I also like the promises you ignore... The Wall was, pre-Trump, a Democrat priority! Or did you forget?

Nice use of the No True Scotsman fallacy, BTW. ("Nobody competent is saying...")

I also like the promises you ignore... The Wall was, pre-Trump, a Democrat priority! Or did you forget?

You seriously need to get a clue how informal fallacies work. Namely, the point - in this case whether the "Scotsman" is true or not - is either relevant to the issue or not. If relevant, then there is no fallacy.

In this case, the overwhelming majority of Americans are under the collective delusion that they are popularly electing the president. Since the actual procedure is that the Electoral College elects the president, the deluded Americans can be dismissed and there is no fallacy in dismissing them.

I am well aware that a hundred years ago KKK was a Democrat thing. Now it is a Repub thing.

 
So, you were actually saying that the Democrats are incompetent?

The successes of the Trump administration are exceptional! Hence, you (and the Dems) ignore them; or, worse, denigrate them...

The delusion that the people elect the president is an all-American thing, not restricted to Democrats or Republicans.

I in fact named his "successes".

You of course refer to the media's mistaken impression. "Reliable sources," eh?

Quote from: ersi on 2020-11-23, 21:03:27

I in fact named his "successes".

Do tell: Where?

Lowering tax rates, specially corporate rates.
Rescinding unnecessary or over-reaching federal rule-makings.
Appointing federal judges who have traditional views on their role in our system.
Removing the U.S. from unwise and unconstitutionally assumed pacts, such as the Iran Nuclear deal and the Paris Climate Agreement...

Back when you were bitching and moaning about the structure and strictures of the EU you seemed to yearn for subsidiarity... What's changed? Oh: Bad Man Orange! You've caught a disease for which you will not accept a cure...

I look forward to your reactions to the Biden administration's actions.

No, my point is never subsidiarity for its own sake.

Specifically his campaign promises just a few posts back. Those were at least extraordinary.

(from the San Francisco Chronicle's LETTERS TO THE EDITOR section, Monday 20/11/23)
Denial of reality

  For the past four years, many of us have been trying to figure out just how firm a grip President Trump has on the Republicans in Congress. Over the past 10 days, we have found the answer the grip is sufficiently strong to turn all but a few of them into traitors.
  There is no other way to describe their refusal to recognize Joe Biden as the president-elect and to assist him by making a successful transfer of power than to call it treason.
  These Republicans are not only endangering our national security, but they are also contributing to tens of thousands of COVID-19 deaths that might have been prevented by proper coordination between the existing government agencies and the incoming administration.
  Sadly, many people who were elected to be our leaders have chosen instead to be members of a cult that denies reality and threatens to destroy our democracy.

(signed: Peter Hanauer, Berkeley)

Quote from: ersi on 2020-11-23, 23:03:11

No, my point is never subsidiarity for its own sake.

For its own sake? What bosh is that? It's for the sake of comportment with human nature

...and your estimation of Biden's intentions (and abilities) is cartoonish. But cheer up! The Democrat party is poised for a revamping...

I think it's really Kamala Harris who will do the governing.

But I'd meant to give some reasons for why I and many others believe Harris will be horrible as president.

you have not given any reasons why Trump is so great, even though you adamantly believe he is

As with your "reading" of the Chico, CA article, you've missed the point: I don't think Trump is great... I think he has altered our political landscape for the better, in terms that conservatives should appreciate.

Do note: The professor is aware that had it not been for the Corona virus Trump would have won handily...

That point is just a nuance, no real difference

Considering that we are talking about a dude who had just been struck with impeachment, what do you think it says about the American system?

Not handily, but simply won, probably.