Too lazy to create a new thread, after earlier (IIRC) pointing out this thread has expired?

Yup!
But of course people need a place to vent their spleen... So, consider this an open-ended receptacle.

Update: I'm listening to Giuliani's press conference (on the radio)... My take: The remedy he appears to be asking isn't available -- not in the venue where he's pleading! So, I'll offer my congratulations to President-elect Biden. 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.

Maybe not changed for the positive since then Oakdale!

Maybe not changed for the positive since then

In some ways...

Referring to Bahrain's and UAE's normalization of relations with Israel, a New York Times writer, Isabel Kershner, writes "The normalization deals were struck during the waning days of the Trump administration to notch final foreign policy achievements just before the Nov. 3 U.S. election." I can't remember the last time I read a Times story that didn't editorialize its content; specially not when Trump was concerned. Or Israel: Some people still refer to the paper as the Duranty Times...with good reason!
(You might enjoy a new movie coming out after Christmas, Mr. Jones.)

The problem with Giuliani's contentious list of offenses isn't that he's wrong. It's that our system has no way to do anything other than prevent such abuses from happening again. (Even that might not happen.)
The situation is not clear-cut like the 2000 election, where Florida's Supreme Court attempted to change election law to favor Al Gore over George W. Bush... The U.S. Supreme Court had an appropriate remedy there: Stop the extra-legal re-counts and have the winner certified. (A lot of people seem to forget that Gore didn't concede until Dec.13!) This time a finer point of "unequal treatment" underlies the fraud.

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.

Instead of stupid arguments like the "court of public opinion" or "do you think the media should pick the president?", just remember how last elections went. Last elections would have been much more justifiably contested.

Trump, true to his character, is bluffing without any substance. Only his fans do not know his character.

It is easy ersi to fool Americans and their wonky system illustrates that well.

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

Gee... What is it called, when prejudice overcomes reason?

Yes, probably something like this. Team Trump is all prejudice, no reason.

According to Trump's spiritual advisor, victory will arrive by angelic reinforcement.

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

The charismatic movement is odd, indeed! But there's never been a shortage of "crazy" in religious circles. (Consider Black Liberation Theology!) 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...
Stacy Abrams believes she won Georgia's gubernatorial election last go-round...
Many will believe Trump won the 2020 election...

Stoppering your ears may prevent you from hearing, but is that rational? Patience is a virtue and despair is a sin. (I suppose you refute that, in similar fashion.) Both the relevant courts and public opinion will have their say. And -in good time- the truth will out, no?

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

...Is ad hominem all you got?

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.

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

Overall, defective commentary, because

Most people believe Simpson was guilty...

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.

Many believe Gore won the 2000 election...

He won the popular vote, as did Hillary. Nobody competent is saying that the popular vote should guarantee you presidency in USA, but losing the popular vote in the given states by the margin that Trump lost it will lose the presidency so decisively that there is no rational reason to contest the results. Hillary conceded swiftly despite having won the popular vote. Trump is just a sore loser, worse than Hillary.

Many believe Hillary won the 2016 election...

She won the popular vote.

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

You really don't care about rational. You only care about stoppering your ears.

For fun, shall we also review how Trump fulfilled his promises?
- Build a border wall against Mexico
- Make Mexico pay for it
- Jail crooked Hillary

What do you say, how did it go?

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?

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...

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?

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?

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...

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...")

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

Another point that you fail to get: I am not on the side of the Democrats. Let them rot along with the Republicans. If both sides made the promises, then both sides have failed. Doesn't matter who made the promises first.

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

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.

The popular vote -in each state- chooses the electors pledged to a candidate. (The state legislatures have the authority to approve the electors; the national legislature, the House of Representatives, has the authority to accept the states' electors...) In this case the Democrats have consistently complained that the winner in the Electoral College didn't win the nation-wide popular vote... So, you were actually saying that the Democrats are incompetent? Why didn't you just say so?!
I'd agree; but for different reasons.

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

Ah! Another swerve (as RJ would call it...): Because BLM and other anti-American fascists promote racism for their own ends doesn't justify presuming Republican support for the KKK. The only reason Republicans are called racist is that they are not anti-American fascists... IOW, they support our constitution and its founding principles.
Which are anathema to such groups!
The Dems are more malleable... As long as they wield power, they'll say anything to appease the malcontents.

The successes of the Trump administration are exceptional! Hence, you (and the Dems) ignore them; or, worse, denigrate them...
But subsidiarity is still a crucial part of the system in the U.S., even if so-called progressive decry it. And the Trump administration has performed more in keeping with such than others have, in generations...

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

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

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

I in fact named his "successes". You have not named one.

You were too incompetent to talk to already a number of posts back. Bless your heart.

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

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

Your sarcasm is typical of many Europeans, ersi. Or is such generalization only permitted to you?

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...

I'm always skeptical of any argument that requires the first premise "In a perfect world..." Trump's gamesmanship in economic bargains is understandable. (He's not a doctrinaire conservative or libertarian.) It's a major factor in his populism. (I know the term's pejorative connotations, but I don't accept them as essential; you're familiar with the term "accidental," re: definition?)
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.

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

My main sources are actual Americans such as yourself and SF plus a host more on online forums and IRC. Media only corroborates this picture. If it didn't, I would not refer to the media.

I in fact named his "successes".

Do tell: Where?

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

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...

A little while ago (this century, that is), W touted the same "successes", so there is absolutely nothing extraordinary about this. Raising and lowering taxes, revamping some federal rules, appointing judges, creating and undermining international pacts - this happens with each and every president.

So, first, none of this is extraordinary. And looking closer, none of these is a success of any degree. But there's no need to go into detail because you fail miserably enough already on the general level.

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...

No, my point is never subsidiarity for its own sake. EU unrealistically assumes it has principles, but it doesn't, so no particular principle can work when it comes to EU. My point is that if it is in the interests of EU to e.g. resist Russia's encroachment, then it is also in the interests of EU to pay attention to the interests of the member countries who live next door to Russia and who know Russia best. EU should not allow Putin to have German and French industrial interests on the hook.

But realistically, EU keeps showing it has no idea of common interest, particularly when it comes to geopolitics. Germany and France use their leverage to further their own specific economic interests over everybody else's existential rights, destroying any sense of the union, so this union must eventually fail, as proven by EU's consistent inability to deter abuses by both US and Russia, and inability to respond reasonably to accute crises that require a response, e.g. the Syrian and African refugees.

Thankfully EU is not a country, at least not in that sense. UK demonstrated it is possible to get out of it in peacetime. In a next actual crisis, everybody will have more determination to just ignore the directives from Brussels as appropriate and the thing will fall apart. It will be tough to depart from the euro currency, but it must be done when the government attached to the euro is a bone-headed idiot.

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

I already know yours: The Biden administration may do some perfectly bipartisan things, but your holy banner will forever be blind partisanship.

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

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

Apparently you'd focus on his rhetoric regarding our control of our southern border... I'd agree it's important. You'd say no progress has been made; we'd disagree on that. But time will tell...
What else have you mentioned?

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

Thought you'd get a kick out of this:

(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)

Mind you, this is about three weeks before the Electoral College meets...

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

For the sake of comportment with human nature? What the bosh is that? Of course, no elaboration will ever be forthcoming from you. You just stick to your unstated premises no matter how ludicrously flawed they are.

As to subsidiarity, you brought it up, not me. It was never among my premises or principles, stated or unstated.

You like playing with hidden cards. But from my perspective, as long as your cards are hidden, you are not even participating in the game.

...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. Trump, with all his noise, was safely ignored for most intents and purposes. Biden will be much more easily ignored, because he won't be noisy.

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

I hope you're wrong: She was my state's Attorney General and then its junior Senator...
['Fraid you're gonna have to wait till tomorrow for more from me... ]

Okay, so it's a little later than tomorrow... I had a wonderful Thanksgiving celebration, complete with three generations of my clan!

For ersi's benefit, I'll start with a link to an article I just finished! (He's said he never reads articles I link to, because I should present enough of the text to let him think he's read it -- without the bother... ) For those who might be interested, the writer analyzes the reasons for Trump's loss of the election, and he does so without pulling any punches!

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

But for fun, some verse by Thomas Hood:

"No warmth, no cheerfulness, no healthful ease, No comfortable feel in any member. No shade, no shine, no butterflies, no bees, No fruits, no flowers, no leaves, no birds, -- Novermber!"

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

And then you do not do that. The same way as you have not given any reasons why Trump is so great, even though you adamantly believe he is, with faith in some "extraordinary achievements" that you are unable to name (the things you named were trivialities that every president does, and every president other than Trump does better).

And your links do not qualify as any sort of discussion. I in fact clicked your latest link just to confirm that I was 100% right in dismissing it. Yes, again I was 100% right and you did not deserve any benefit of the doubt.

Chico, California, was definitely not the reason for Trump's 2016 win nor his 2020 loss. Nor was it the reason for his totally failed administration. The reason is that his narcissism hit the right spot at the right time, but narcissism alone (which is all he's got) does not carry too far.

Think what you will of the following professor dude and his method, but he gets his predictions right. Learn some better political analysis than "it's because of Chico, California."

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.
Lichtman is a smart and engaging political historian. But his focus is on the horse race aspects of elections. What he touts (pun intended) is predictive efficacy of a system. Were I a gambler at the track, I'd certainly buy his tip sheet! But -to stay with the analogy- I'm more interested in the breeding and training of the animals...
Cole's exemplar aligns with my concerns. And with those of many in the conservative wing of the Republican Party.

Do note: The professor is aware that had it not been for the Corona virus Trump would have won handily...
This is too good not to pass on: I just heard Matt Gaetz on TV say, "Obama got the honeymoon. Donald Trump got the acrimonious divorce and the alimony payments. And Biden got the make-up sex..."
(Extra credit question: What was he talking about?)