So any surprises now require explicit dodginess (once it required 70 odd defectees, it kind of did anyway, but there was still [imo/nightmares] theoretically room to construct doubt)
Mitch McConnell, the Republican who runs the US Senate, congratulated Biden for his win on the Senate floor today, and has reportedly warned the rest of the Republicans against opposing the election results. This significantly reduces the odds that dodginess will rear its ugly head in this particular way.
Hmmm...I wonder if some of them might go ahead anyway, thinking McConnell is quite old, and that maybe they could knock him off his perch? To take it over themselves, of course.
Yes. As Dorian Gray said in "The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen": "Empires crumble. There are no exceptions."
However, I'd prefer us to take a very slow road. But work hard on becoming a better place, where everyone has enough and then some, and where everyone is treated well.
Especially in this post-Modern time, we don't have the luxury of requiring history to slow down to suit us ...
So any surprises now require explicit dodginess (once it required 70 odd defectees, it kind of did anyway, but there was still [imo/nightmares] theoretically room to construct doubt)
Mitch McConnell, the Republican who runs the US Senate, congratulated Biden for his win on the Senate floor today, and has reportedly warned the rest of the Republicans against opposing the election results. This significantly reduces the odds that dodginess will rear its ugly head in this particular way.
Hmmm...I wonder if some of them might go ahead anyway, thinking McConnell is quite old, and that maybe they could knock him off his perch? To take it over themselves, of course.
McConnell has a pretty good track record of maintaining caucus discipline when being obstructive and a truly terrible track record of maintaining caucus discipline when trying to pass legislation. Holding the line during the electoral vote count/certification seems more like the latter than the former. Remember it only takes one member of each House to contest an electoral vote and there are lots of House members already on record as champing at the bit to do this. What are the odds that no ambitious Republican senator who sees a future president staring back at him from the mirror will try to make name for himself this way with Trump's true believers? Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton? Thom Tillis?
The big reason McConnell doesn't want this to happen is that even though it only takes one member of each House to contest electoral vote(s) it requires a majority in both Houses to discard electoral vote(s), something that won't happen with Democrats controlling the House of Representatives. So the outcome of the election won't be changed, but a whole bunch of Congressional Republicans will be on record, specifically and personally by name, as supporting Trump's craziness (or not). Whether that will be an electoral boost in the long term is unknown, but McConnell doesn't seem to want to run that experiment.
Hmmm...I wonder if some of them might go ahead anyway, thinking McConnell is quite old, and that maybe they could knock him off his perch? To take it over themselves, of course.
McConnell has a pretty good track record of maintaining caucus discipline when being obstructive and a truly terrible track record of maintaining caucus discipline when trying to pass legislation. Holding the line during the electoral vote count/certification seems more like the latter than the former. Remember it only takes one member of each House to contest an electoral vote and there are lots of House members already on record as champing at the bit to do this. What are the odds that no ambitious Republican senator who sees a future president staring back at him from the mirror will try to make name for himself this way with Trump's true believers? Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton? Thom Tillis?
The big reason McConnell doesn't want this to happen is that even though it only takes one member of each House to contest electoral vote(s) it requires a majority in both Houses to discard electoral vote(s), something that won't happen with Democrats controlling the House of Representatives. So the outcome of the election won't be changed, but a whole bunch of Congressional Republicans will be on record, specifically and personally by name, as supporting Trump's craziness (or not). Whether that will be an electoral boost in the long term is unknown, but McConnell doesn't seem to want to run that experiment.
And they will be on record committing Sedition.
No, from the sounds of it, save for a few, most of the Republicans who signed the amicus brief supporting the Texas Lawsuit have started to recognize Biden as the president-elect.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Pretty much my reading, Croesos. I’m sure the GOP calculations in the minds of many remain the same. Let’s make a Democratic President look like an ineffective President. Having three quarters of the base think he’s an illegitimate President helps with that obstructiveness. That seems likely to be the thinking in the House. And it means they can stay onside with Trump and avoid alienating the part of the base that supports them in their own States/Districts. Kind of a win/win.
It is just possible that McConnell thinks there is something he and Biden may be able to do for the sake of the country. That may be me being naive of course. Or just hopeful.
Overt conduct, such as speech and organisation, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or rebellion against, established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws,
By that definition, several individuals have committed sedition multiple times over the past four years. It's high time we began to hold such people accountable for their crimes.
So any surprises now require explicit dodginess (once it required 70 odd defectees, it kind of did anyway, but there was still [imo/nightmares] theoretically room to construct doubt)
Mitch McConnell, the Republican who runs the US Senate, congratulated Biden for his win on the Senate floor today, and has reportedly warned the rest of the Republicans against opposing the election results. This significantly reduces the odds that dodginess will rear its ugly head in this particular way.
If the Senate is split 50/50 (actually 50/48+2), Kamala will become the President of the Senate in addition to being the Vice President. As President of the Senate, she will have quite a bit of power:
Important duties of the vice president, according to the Congressional Research Service, as presiding officer, include:
recognizing the first senator who seeks recognition to speak, with exceptions for priority given to party and committee leaders when managing legislation
recognizing members who wish to introduce bills from the floor, or to offer amendments and motions to bills being debated
ruling on points of order, with the advice of the parliamentarian, subject to appeal to the full Senate
enforcing voting and amending procedures
referring bills to committees, on the advice of the parliamentarian
These duties allow the vice president some discretion and influence over how the Senate operates. The Senate can overturn just about any ruling of the vice president, but assuming the vice president and a majority of senators agree on a matter, they will prevail.
Ummm...isn't the VP always president of the Senate? I think it goes with the territory, no matter how things are divvied up. I think other people often fill in, so the VP can do other things. But it's fundamentally art of the job--part of the checks and balances system.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
The odds are against the Democrats winning both seats. There is a thought too that McConnell is saying to the Georgia GOP voters that they must turn out and vote in the Senate run off election. Because Biden will be President, if both Georgia Senate seats go to the Democrats, then control will pass to them. That’s not the case if Trump somehow manages to stay in office.
That thought may influence some GOP voters to get out and vote, just in case.
The results of the envelope audit in Cobb County which Raffensperger has ordered will be known by the Senate Election Day. If that demonstrates that Biden’s win in Georgia was safe from suspected fraud, that should also encourage GOP voters that the election processes are OK.
If the Senate is split 50/50 (actually 50/48+2), Kamala will become the President of the Senate in addition to being the Vice President.
As @Golden Key says, Harris will be President of the Senate regardless of the partisan make-up of that body. It’s just that if the GOP controls the Senate, her role as President will be largely ceremonial, while if there’s a 50/50 split, she’ll have the tie-breaking vote.
Meanwhile, am I the only one who is somewhat uncomfortable with the way female candidates or elected officials are often referred to by their first names—Hillary, Kamala—when their male opponents or counterparts—Trump, Pence—are generally referred to by surname?
I get that with Hillary Clinton, use of the first name avoided confusion with Bill Clinton, but still.
Meanwhile, am I the only one who is somewhat uncomfortable with the way female candidates or elected officials are often referred to by their first names—Hillary, Kamala—when their male opponents or counterparts—Trump, Pence—are generally referred to by surname?
Meanwhile, am I the only one who is somewhat uncomfortable with the way female candidates or elected officials are often referred to by their first names—Hillary, Kamala—when their male opponents or counterparts—Trump, Pence—are generally referred to by surname?
It's infuriating.
It happens with male people of color too ... Waaay back during the Senate confirmation hearing for Clarence Thomas, his leading advocate was Sen. John Danforth (R., Missouri), who kept referring to him as "Clarence" ... rather than "Judge Thomas" ...
Agreed. There's definite shades of that misogynist moron that took a pop at Dr Biden in this use of language. Although there might also be a "uniqueness of name" thing - "Kamala" is less common than "Harris". I don't recall Sarah Palin being widely called "Sarah" when she was a VP candidate. In the UK, the PM is mostly "Boris" rather than "Johnson", which is partly his personality cult, and partly the fact that there are plenty of Johnsons, but only one Boris.
Sidney Powell has now said that Mitch McConnell is "married to China".
I feel bad for a lot of Chinese people and mixed-race couples who have to endure hearing that.
Mitch and Elaine are not among them.
The WalMart Family ...
I'm not sure I understand this comment. Had someone compared their marriage to WalMart?
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Sidney Powell is just one part of the Donald Trump malevolent tendency. Not worthy of serious attention.
What is definitely worth serious attention is the damage that President Trump can cause before he leaves or is dragged out of the White House. He has 35 days to do his worst. It seems very likely that he will try to do as much damage as possible and I’m not sure who or what will be able to control his malevolent and vengeful impulses.
Plus. ......
The nastier he gets, the more he will impact the news narrative. Which, unfortunately, seems to be his remaining aim now. He gave up functioning as a real President a long time ago. Functioning as a wrecking ball seems much more up his street.
We have referred to Biden by first name too. It seems that in American Politics formal titles and names reflect the perceived gap between the officeholder and the people. The closer a person is to the people, the more common the use of the first name. Obama was called by first name, so was Clinton, and even gold ol boy Bush (not senior, but definitely Junior) Eisenhower used his nickname to get voted in. Kenedy used his initials, but people also called him John. If Nixon's first familiar name was used, it was always with Tricky. Ford was Gerald. Carter was Jimmy. Reagan was Ronald. Forgot Johnson who was Lyndon Gore was Al. Cheney, though was first name, last name. We sometimes referred to Trump as The Donald more or less connecting him with Mafia titles.
We have referred to Biden by first name too. It seems that in American Politics formal titles and names reflect the perceived gap between the officeholder and the people. The closer a person is to the people, the more common the use of the first name. Obama was called by first name, so was Clinton, and even gold ol boy Bush (not senior, but definitely Junior) Eisenhower used his nickname to get voted in. Kenedy used his initials, but people also called him John. If Nixon's first familiar name was used, it was always with Tricky. Ford was Gerald. Carter was Jimmy. Reagan was Ronald. Forgot Johnson who was Lyndon Gore was Al. Cheney, though was first name, last name. We sometimes referred to Trump as The Donald more or less connecting him with Mafia titles.
Sorry, but I don’t by that. Yes, Eisenhower and Biden’s campaigns used “Ike” and “Joe” to project an image. And to be fair, I think Hillary Clinton’s campaign sometime used “Hillary” to project an image of accessibility.
But I’ve rarely heard anyone refer to Kennedy, Carter, Reagan or Obama simply as John, Jimmy, Ronald/Ronnie or Barack, and on the rare occasions I have heard it, it was intended to show lack of respect. I only heard Bill Clinton referred to simply as Bill as part of Bill and Hillary, which likewise was often intended to be disparaging. George W. Bush was sometimes called “W” to distinguish him from George H. W. Bush.
And I definitely never heard the news media refer to a president only by his first name, yet with regularity with they did and do refer to Hillary Clinton simply as Hillary.
And it was Ivana Trump who gave Donald Trump the nickname of “The Donald,” which long predates his political career.
We have referred to Biden by first name too. It seems that in American Politics formal titles and names reflect the perceived gap between the officeholder and the people. The closer a person is to the people, the more common the use of the first name. Obama was called by first name, so was Clinton, and even gold ol boy Bush (not senior, but definitely Junior) Eisenhower used his nickname to get voted in. Kenedy used his initials, but people also called him John. If Nixon's first familiar name was used, it was always with Tricky. Ford was Gerald. Carter was Jimmy. Reagan was Ronald. Forgot Johnson who was Lyndon Gore was Al. Cheney, though was first name, last name. We sometimes referred to Trump as The Donald more or less connecting him with Mafia titles.
Sorry, but I don’t by that. Yes, Eisenhower and Biden’s campaigns used “Ike” and “Joe” to project an image. And to be fair, I think Hillary Clinton’s campaign sometime used “Hillary” to project an image of accessibility.
But I’ve rarely heard anyone refer to Kennedy, Carter, Reagan or Obama simply as John, Jimmy, Ronald/Ronnie or Barack, and on the rare occasions I have heard it, it was intended to show lack of respect. I only heard Bill Clinton referred to simply as Bill as part of Bill and Hillary, which likewise was often intended to be disparaging. George W. Bush was sometimes called “W” to distinguish him from George H. W. Bush.
And I definitely never heard the news media refer to a president only by his first name, yet with regularity with they did and do refer to Hillary Clinton simply as Hillary.
And it was Ivana Trump who gave Donald Trump the nickname of “The Donald,” which long predates his political career.
Overt "familiarity" can breed contempt, or sometimes, express it ...
Thing is, first name usage involves the dropping of formality, and so is a feature both of affection and of contempt. You need to read the speaker and situation to tell which is meant,
Stetson and Stercus Tauri will recall Jack Layton (leader of the federal New Democratic Party, 2003-2011) often being referred to as "Jack" or in Québec as "le bon Jack". It was never used to demean him. Even dyed in the wool Conservatives used it with respect if not actual affection, especially when he was soldiering on in his last campaign.
--My own particular quirks in this area: When and where I grew up, only men were referred to by last name--even in the newspaper. Women mentioned in the paper were "Miss/Mrs. Someone".
So I've got that in the back in my mind, and have never quite dropped it. And it's a little uncomfortable for me to use just a last name for anyone. I tend to feel like using just a last name diminishes a person, and I marvel that men live with that. (Though they may not mind.) I often adapt to last name here, generally for politicians--particularly presidents-- though I occasionally try calling Obama just Barack. I respect and like him greatly. And I sometimes call Biden "Joe".
--Sometimes I use a person's first and last names.
--Of course, here I can use initials, which helps. And many famous people are known by initials: RBG (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg), JFK, RFK, LBJ, etc. And some are known by their first name, like Cher.
--I do lean towards using first names for women I particularly like or respect, sometimes ones I identify with or whose work I've found helpful. Kamala, for instance. It's not meant as any kind of disrespect.
--I call Hillary "Hillary". That's how she's known, and it's sort of her brand. I was thrilled to vote for her in 2016--both for herself and as woman candidate.
--Bill Clinton was often known as "Bill", and not just as part of "Bill and Hillary". George W. Bush was often known as "Dubya", a Texan pronunciation of his middle initial, to distinguish him from his dad. He's also known as "Bush 43", since he was the 43rd president. Abraham Lincoln was/is often known as "Abe".
--Members of Congress call each other by their titles in public. It does *not* guarantee respect.
Thing is, first name usage involves the dropping of formality, and so is a feature both of affection and of contempt. You need to read the speaker and situation to tell which is meant,
Yes. As Dorian Gray said in "The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen": "Empires crumble. There are no exceptions."
However, I'd prefer us to take a very slow road. But work hard on becoming a better place, where everyone has enough and then some, and where everyone is treated well.
Especially in this post-Modern time, we don't have the luxury of requiring history to slow down to suit us ...
Perhaps. But the kind of self-work the country needs to do, as I described above, would make the country and its actions better. That needs to be done, whether or not we continue to be a de facto empire. Empire or not, I really don't want to see the country come apart at the secessionist seams. I don't want violence. I don't want civil war in any form. Once was enough. Good came from the Civil War (abolition of slavery); but, in some ways, we're still fighting it (all the mistreatment of African Americans*; regional attitudes toward the CW how it played out; whether it was just; and what was left unsettled).
I agree with what mt said about wanting the US to retract its tentacles. For a long time, I've thought we should stop messing around in other countries, unless they really need our help and ask us to stay. No manipulating other countries and governments to get what we want. No coups. No more School of the Americas to teach dictators and their minions how to be more brutal. (It "closed", but reopened under another name.) Sort out which military outposts are actually needed for everyone's safety and which are political; find out what the locals want (AIUI Okinawa wants us out); figure out the right (not expedient) things to do; and do them.
*The issues of this year (BLM, pandemic, and IIRC the economy) were dealt with very well last night (12/18/20) on the TV shows "Station 19" and "Grey's Anatomy". (A "cross-over event" on the US ABC network.) Much of it is very hard to watch, and likely triggering for African Americans. It also makes very good points about what African Americans face. FWIW, YMMV.
Yes. As Dorian Gray said in "The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen": "Empires crumble. There are no exceptions."
However, I'd prefer us to take a very slow road. But work hard on becoming a better place, where everyone has enough and then some, and where everyone is treated well.
Especially in this post-Modern time, we don't have the luxury of requiring history to slow down to suit us ...
Perhaps. But the kind of self-work the country needs to do, as I described above, would make the country and its actions better. That needs to be done, whether or not we continue to be a de facto empire. Empire or not, I really don't want to see the country come apart at the secessionist seams. I don't want violence. I don't want civil war in any form. Once was enough. Good came from the Civil War (abolition of slavery); but, in some ways, we're still fighting it (all the mistreatment of African Americans*; regional attitudes toward the CW how it played out; whether it was just; and what was left unsettled).
I agree with what mt said about wanting the US to retract its tentacles. For a long time, I've thought we should stop messing around in other countries, unless they really need our help and ask us to stay. No manipulating other countries and governments to get what we want. No coups. No more School of the Americas to teach dictators and their minions how to be more brutal. (It "closed", but reopened under another name.) Sort out which military outposts are actually needed for everyone's safety and which are political; find out what the locals want (AIUI Okinawa wants us out); figure out the right (not expedient) things to do; and do them.
*The issues of this year (BLM, pandemic, and IIRC the economy) were dealt with very well last night (12/18/20) on the TV shows "Station 19" and "Grey's Anatomy". (A "cross-over event" on the US ABC network.) Much of it is very hard to watch, and likely triggering for African Americans. It also makes very good points about what African Americans face. FWIW, YMMV.
For now, The United States is the sole Global Imperial Super Power ... and not likely to give the attendant *power* advantages (military/economic/cultural) any more than we are likely to let go of Hawaii or Alaska or Puerto Rico ...
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Coupled with Michael Flynn’s incendiary comments about martial law and the blizzard of new Pentagon appointments, there may be more going on than just bloody minded obstruction. I would not be surprised if Trump is exploring ways of staying in command by force. I appreciate that is a pretty crazy idea but the President’s behaviour is looking increasingly unhinged. Divorced from reality and enabled in that by a number of really bad actors, in the media, in his legal
support and in Congress.
Coupled with Michael Flynn’s incendiary comments about martial law and the blizzard of new Pentagon appointments, there may be more going on than just bloody minded obstruction.
Flynn is sounding increasingly deranged, including announcing a 'digital soldier' program, and seeming to suggest that he's on the run from the deep state.
The Army should be worried about their selection/promotion process.
Comments
Mitch McConnell, the Republican who runs the US Senate, congratulated Biden for his win on the Senate floor today, and has reportedly warned the rest of the Republicans against opposing the election results. This significantly reduces the odds that dodginess will rear its ugly head in this particular way.
Especially in this post-Modern time, we don't have the luxury of requiring history to slow down to suit us ...
It will happen ... eventually ... especially as Russia reasserts and China becomes more and more Middle Earth ...
This is interesting.
The right wing media is willingly locking itself into MAGA mania.
You can turn from hero to villain overnight in the universe of alternative facts.
McConnell has a pretty good track record of maintaining caucus discipline when being obstructive and a truly terrible track record of maintaining caucus discipline when trying to pass legislation. Holding the line during the electoral vote count/certification seems more like the latter than the former. Remember it only takes one member of each House to contest an electoral vote and there are lots of House members already on record as champing at the bit to do this. What are the odds that no ambitious Republican senator who sees a future president staring back at him from the mirror will try to make name for himself this way with Trump's true believers? Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton? Thom Tillis?
The big reason McConnell doesn't want this to happen is that even though it only takes one member of each House to contest electoral vote(s) it requires a majority in both Houses to discard electoral vote(s), something that won't happen with Democrats controlling the House of Representatives. So the outcome of the election won't be changed, but a whole bunch of Congressional Republicans will be on record, specifically and personally by name, as supporting Trump's craziness (or not). Whether that will be an electoral boost in the long term is unknown, but McConnell doesn't seem to want to run that experiment.
And they will be on record committing Sedition.
No, from the sounds of it, save for a few, most of the Republicans who signed the amicus brief supporting the Texas Lawsuit have started to recognize Biden as the president-elect.
It is just possible that McConnell thinks there is something he and Biden may be able to do for the sake of the country. That may be me being naive of course. Or just hopeful.
Yeah, but Biden's white.
The Wikipedia entry for sedition is instructive, defining it as:
By that definition, several individuals have committed sedition multiple times over the past four years. It's high time we began to hold such people accountable for their crimes.
Having just been re-elected to a six year term in the Senate, Mitch isn't so worried about the Red Hat base ... for now ...
That thought may influence some GOP voters to get out and vote, just in case.
The results of the envelope audit in Cobb County which Raffensperger has ordered will be known by the Senate Election Day. If that demonstrates that Biden’s win in Georgia was safe from suspected fraud, that should also encourage GOP voters that the election processes are OK.
Meanwhile, am I the only one who is somewhat uncomfortable with the way female candidates or elected officials are often referred to by their first names—Hillary, Kamala—when their male opponents or counterparts—Trump, Pence—are generally referred to by surname?
I get that with Hillary Clinton, use of the first name avoided confusion with Bill Clinton, but still.
It's infuriating.
It happens with male people of color too ... Waaay back during the Senate confirmation hearing for Clarence Thomas, his leading advocate was Sen. John Danforth (R., Missouri), who kept referring to him as "Clarence" ... rather than "Judge Thomas" ...
I feel bad for a lot of Chinese people and mixed-race couples who have to endure hearing that.
Mitch and Elaine are not among them.
The WalMart Family ...
Agreed. There's definite shades of that misogynist moron that took a pop at Dr Biden in this use of language. Although there might also be a "uniqueness of name" thing - "Kamala" is less common than "Harris". I don't recall Sarah Palin being widely called "Sarah" when she was a VP candidate. In the UK, the PM is mostly "Boris" rather than "Johnson", which is partly his personality cult, and partly the fact that there are plenty of Johnsons, but only one Boris.
I'm not sure I understand this comment. Had someone compared their marriage to WalMart?
What is definitely worth serious attention is the damage that President Trump can cause before he leaves or is dragged out of the White House. He has 35 days to do his worst. It seems very likely that he will try to do as much damage as possible and I’m not sure who or what will be able to control his malevolent and vengeful impulses.
Plus. ......
The nastier he gets, the more he will impact the news narrative. Which, unfortunately, seems to be his remaining aim now. He gave up functioning as a real President a long time ago. Functioning as a wrecking ball seems much more up his street.
This makes a neat double entendre, with US colloquial usage in mind. Perhaps a neat summary of the UK Government too?
I am making the connection ..
But I’ve rarely heard anyone refer to Kennedy, Carter, Reagan or Obama simply as John, Jimmy, Ronald/Ronnie or Barack, and on the rare occasions I have heard it, it was intended to show lack of respect. I only heard Bill Clinton referred to simply as Bill as part of Bill and Hillary, which likewise was often intended to be disparaging. George W. Bush was sometimes called “W” to distinguish him from George H. W. Bush.
And I definitely never heard the news media refer to a president only by his first name, yet with regularity with they did and do refer to Hillary Clinton simply as Hillary.
And it was Ivana Trump who gave Donald Trump the nickname of “The Donald,” which long predates his political career.
Overt "familiarity" can breed contempt, or sometimes, express it ...
In my neck of the world formality often means contempt.
I just got Time Magazine's Person(s) of the Year issue. Both the President-elect and the Vice President-elect are referred to by first name
--My own particular quirks in this area: When and where I grew up, only men were referred to by last name--even in the newspaper. Women mentioned in the paper were "Miss/Mrs. Someone".
So I've got that in the back in my mind, and have never quite dropped it. And it's a little uncomfortable for me to use just a last name for anyone. I tend to feel like using just a last name diminishes a person, and I marvel that men live with that. (Though they may not mind.) I often adapt to last name here, generally for politicians--particularly presidents-- though I occasionally try calling Obama just Barack. I respect and like him greatly. And I sometimes call Biden "Joe".
--Sometimes I use a person's first and last names.
--Of course, here I can use initials, which helps. And many famous people are known by initials: RBG (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg), JFK, RFK, LBJ, etc. And some are known by their first name, like Cher.
--I do lean towards using first names for women I particularly like or respect, sometimes ones I identify with or whose work I've found helpful. Kamala, for instance. It's not meant as any kind of disrespect.
--I call Hillary "Hillary". That's how she's known, and it's sort of her brand. I was thrilled to vote for her in 2016--both for herself and as woman candidate.
--Bill Clinton was often known as "Bill", and not just as part of "Bill and Hillary". George W. Bush was often known as "Dubya", a Texan pronunciation of his middle initial, to distinguish him from his dad. He's also known as "Bush 43", since he was the 43rd president. Abraham Lincoln was/is often known as "Abe".
--Members of Congress call each other by their titles in public. It does *not* guarantee respect.
At your command*: :applause:
*Reference to the Cylons in the original "Battlestar Galactica' intended.
yes
Perhaps. But the kind of self-work the country needs to do, as I described above, would make the country and its actions better. That needs to be done, whether or not we continue to be a de facto empire. Empire or not, I really don't want to see the country come apart at the secessionist seams. I don't want violence. I don't want civil war in any form. Once was enough. Good came from the Civil War (abolition of slavery); but, in some ways, we're still fighting it (all the mistreatment of African Americans*; regional attitudes toward the CW how it played out; whether it was just; and what was left unsettled).
I agree with what mt said about wanting the US to retract its tentacles. For a long time, I've thought we should stop messing around in other countries, unless they really need our help and ask us to stay. No manipulating other countries and governments to get what we want. No coups. No more School of the Americas to teach dictators and their minions how to be more brutal. (It "closed", but reopened under another name.) Sort out which military outposts are actually needed for everyone's safety and which are political; find out what the locals want (AIUI Okinawa wants us out); figure out the right (not expedient) things to do; and do them.
*The issues of this year (BLM, pandemic, and IIRC the economy) were dealt with very well last night (12/18/20) on the TV shows "Station 19" and "Grey's Anatomy". (A "cross-over event" on the US ABC network.) Much of it is very hard to watch, and likely triggering for African Americans. It also makes very good points about what African Americans face. FWIW, YMMV.
"Pentagon officials reportedly 'stunned' as acting Defense secretary halts Biden transition briefings" (The Week, via Yahoo).
For now, The United States is the sole Global Imperial Super Power ... and not likely to give the attendant *power* advantages (military/economic/cultural) any more than we are likely to let go of Hawaii or Alaska or Puerto Rico ...
Coupled with Michael Flynn’s incendiary comments about martial law and the blizzard of new Pentagon appointments, there may be more going on than just bloody minded obstruction. I would not be surprised if Trump is exploring ways of staying in command by force. I appreciate that is a pretty crazy idea but the President’s behaviour is looking increasingly unhinged. Divorced from reality and enabled in that by a number of really bad actors, in the media, in his legal
support and in Congress.
Flynn is sounding increasingly deranged, including announcing a 'digital soldier' program, and seeming to suggest that he's on the run from the deep state.
The Army should be worried about their selection/promotion process.