At this point, any attempt to pardon the insurrectionists, though possible, will just feed into T's impeachment trial. As a betting person, I think T is just going to throw everyone under the bus.
At this point, any attempt to pardon the insurrectionists, though possible, will just feed into T's impeachment trial. As a betting person, I think T is just going to throw everyone under the bus.
At this point, any attempt to pardon the insurrectionists, though possible, will just feed into T's impeachment trial. As a betting person, I think T is just going to throw everyone under the bus.
You mean his illegal usurpation of White House residency with the help of his Russian pals is history. And please, let's stop calling him president.
Well, here’s the problem with that as I see it. He received the most votes in the Electoral College, and the Electoral College’s vote was certified by Congress. As a result, he was sworn in as president on January 20, 2016. That made him president, whether we like it or not—and I most certainly do not.
Yes, there is some reason to believe that the general election was tainted or influenced by Russian interference. (There is, so far as I know, no evidence that the actual vote was manipulated in any way.) Be that as it may, he was elected by the Electoral College, and we’ve seen what happens when people want to deny that that’s how it works.
Sorry, but I really don’t have any time for denying that Trump was president, and I’m not going to label him as anything other than “president”—unless it’s to attach an adjective like “awful” or “despicable.”
He received the most votes in the Electoral College, and the Electoral College’s vote was certified by Congress. As a result, he was sworn in as president on January 20, 2016. . . . I really don’t have any time for denying that Trump was president, and I’m not going to label him as anything other than “president”—unless it’s to attach an adjective like “awful” or “despicable.”
But I was going to say when Truth broke in
With all her matter-of-fact about the ice-storm
I should prefer to have some boy bend them
I don't have any time to claim that the Electoral College vote was honest, that Congress' certification of same was valid, or that he was in fact president. Nor do I have time to claim that Pope Leo X actually believed that if people gave the Church enough money, he could sell them an indulgence.
I don’t see any reason to call any ex president ‘president’. It’s an odd custom.
Most things are customs, and most customs are odd.
It is customary that we call people "Mr Biden" and "Ms Harris" rather than "Joe" and "Kamala". There's a lot of history embedded in that custom, but it's just custom - there's not a better "reason" for it than that's just what we do in English.
I'm sure you can think of a number of people who by custom retain the titles associated with their job after they retire. Retired doctors often still call themselves "Doctor". Retired army officers are known by their ranks. Calling an ex-president "President" isn't very different from that.
Technically, there is only one President at a time. Former presidents are not entitled to be addressed by their former title. It is honorific. However, Trump may even lose that title if he is convicted in the Senate.
In the US, the only retired commissioned officers that can be addressed by their former rank are Majors and above. I think in the enlisted ranks it is only those who have achieved a master rank.-
Retired doctors often still call themselves "Doctor".
Because they still retain the degree of M.D. that they strove so hard to earn. Also, even though retired, they could still dianose illness, write prescriptions, etc. if they had to or wanted to.
Biden in his inauguration speech referred to President Carter.
And rightly so. A good, honest, honorable man even though his presidency was, when all is said and done, a failure. He also accomplished much good in the years following his presidency.
Retired doctors often still call themselves "Doctor".
Because they still retain the degree of M.D. that they strove so hard to earn. Also, even though retired, they could still dianose illness, write prescriptions, etc. if they had to or wanted to.
The honorific "Dr." does customarily go with the M.D., but retired physicians must keep up their medical licenses if they want to practice medicine in any way. The honorific is entirely separate from what they are allowed to do.
Because they still retain the degree of M.D. that they strove so hard to earn. Also, even though retired, they could still dianose illness, write prescriptions, etc. if they had to or wanted to.
Most medical doctors in the UK don't have doctorates. They're still called doctors.
There are lots of doctors at one time. There are many generals at one time. There is only one president at any one time. The cases are different.
There's only one President, and that's currently Mr. Biden. Nobody thinks that by calling him "President Obama", you think that Mr. Obama is still the president, any more than by calling the late Queen Mother "Queen Elizabeth", you thought she was The Queen.
Jimmy Carter is our best ex-president. And he set a good example for later ex-presidents--particularly taken up by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and (surprisingly) George W. Bush.
There's only one President, and that's currently Mr. Biden. Nobody thinks that by calling him "President Obama", you think that Mr. Obama is still the president
Yes, Carter did a lot in peace negotiations, election monitoring, and Habitat for Humanity building. Clinton has a large charitable foundation. He and Bush had been tasked by Obama to head up aid to Haiti after the earthquake. Bush has done a lot for Wounded Warriors programs, often selling paintings of soldiers who were killed in action. Obama has a foundation that encourages community volunteering. We will see what Biden will do when he completes his term.
There's only one President, and that's currently Mr. Biden. Nobody thinks that by calling him "President Obama", you think that Mr. Obama is still the president, any more than by calling the late Queen Mother "Queen Elizabeth", you thought she was The Queen.
The cases are not so different.
Err, actually when the late Queen Mother was alive she was referred to as "Queen Elizabeth" to distinguish her from The Queen.
There's only one President, and that's currently Mr. Biden. Nobody thinks that by calling him "President Obama", you think that Mr. Obama is still the president, any more than by calling the late Queen Mother "Queen Elizabeth", you thought she was The Queen.
The cases are not so different.
Err, actually when the late Queen Mother was alive she was referred to as "Queen Elizabeth" to distinguish her from The Queen.
More usually she was referred to either as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, or as just the Queen Mother.
There's only one President, and that's currently Mr. Biden. Nobody thinks that by calling him "President Obama", you think that Mr. Obama is still the president, any more than by calling the late Queen Mother "Queen Elizabeth", you thought she was The Queen.
The cases are not so different.
Err, actually when the late Queen Mother was alive she was referred to as "Queen Elizabeth" to distinguish her from The Queen.
That would totally fail to distinguish her for me, since I was under the impression that The Queen was Queen Elizabeth. II if needed to be distinguished from the Tudor one.
Actually, I was really confused as a child.
There'd been a QEI, the current Queen was QEII (also a boat, but that was just added confusion). The Queen mother was referred to as Queen Elizabeth, so my young brain naturally assumed that the Queen mother was Queen Elizabeth I. I did wonder how she'd lived so long and why she wasn't still queen, but the logic seemed unassailable.
There's only one President, and that's currently Mr. Biden. Nobody thinks that by calling him "President Obama", you think that Mr. Obama is still the president, any more than by calling the late Queen Mother "Queen Elizabeth", you thought she was The Queen.
The cases are not so different.
Err, actually when the late Queen Mother was alive she was referred to as "Queen Elizabeth" to distinguish her from The Queen.
That would totally fail to distinguish her for me, since I was under the impression that The Queen was Queen Elizabeth. II if needed to be distinguished from the Tudor one.
Actually, I was really confused as a child.
There'd been a QEI, the current Queen was QEII (also a boat, but that was just added confusion). The Queen mother was referred to as Queen Elizabeth, so my young brain naturally assumed that the Queen mother was Queen Elizabeth I. I did wonder how she'd lived so long and why she wasn't still queen, but the logic seemed unassailable.
If you want to go down this rabbit hole, the boat was named for Queen Elizabeth II rather than being the second boat (ship) to bear the name "Queen Elizabeth"
Of course if you really want to have fun, there's a certain amount of controversy about regnal numbers. Scotland has never had a Queen Elizabeth before... so arguably she is Elizabeth I of Scotland...
There is a resolution to all this. But to return to the topic at hand: English monarchs is probably a good analogy to look to given how much English law influenced the US constitutional design.
No one gets confused when people talk of Queen Victoria or King Henry VIII. And we only have one monarchs at a time. It makes sense to talk about the administrations of President Reagan or President Clinton in the past tense...
My understanding is that the official line on regnal numbering is that the monarch gets the next number following the highest attained in either England, Scotland or the United Kingdom. We would have a Henry IX, James VIII, Alexander III...
My understanding is that the official line on regnal numbering is that the monarch gets the next number following the highest attained in either England, Scotland or the United Kingdom. We would have a Henry IX, James VIII, Alexander III...
This is the rule that has been stated. We currently have no prospect of needing to apply this rule. The cynic in me suspects that the royals will avoid naming any babies in the possible line of succession with any of the names where the Scots regnal numbers are higher.
My understanding is that the official line on regnal numbering is that the monarch gets the next number following the highest attained in either England, Scotland or the United Kingdom. We would have a Henry IX, James VIII, Alexander III...
This is the rule that has been stated. We currently have no prospect of needing to apply this rule. The cynic in me suspects that the royals will avoid naming any babies in the possible line of succession with any of the names where the Scots regnal numbers are higher.
I wouldn't be surprised if every subsequent monarch takes a regnal name that has already been in use since the act of union - all the Kings will be George (Edward is a no-go), all the Queens will be Victoria or Elizabeth. Problem solved.
I wouldn't be surprised if every subsequent monarch takes a regnal name that has already been in use since the act of union - all the Kings will be George (Edward is a no-go), all the Queens will be Victoria or Elizabeth. Problem solved.
There are other options. For kings you have William. Possibly Charles as well, since the numbering is the same in England as it is in Scotland. For queens there's Anne. Plus a whole host of names that haven't been used by either dynasty, like Rupert or Tiffany.
I wouldn't be surprised if every subsequent monarch takes a regnal name that has already been in use since the act of union - all the Kings will be George (Edward is a no-go), all the Queens will be Victoria or Elizabeth. Problem solved.
There are other options. For kings you have William. Possibly Charles as well, since the numbering is the same in England as it is in Scotland. For queens there's Anne. Plus a whole host of names that haven't been used by either dynasty, like Rupert or Tiffany.
Charles is out because of the association with beheading (apparently). I did think about Anne but I think it's an unlikely choice. I'll grant that I'd forgotten William IV.
Anne may have been unspectacular as a monarch but arguably unspectacular was what the nations needed just then.
One could make the case that her sister Mary redeemed her name, and the numbering is the same.
I wouldn't be surprised if every subsequent monarch takes a regnal name that has already been in use since the act of union - all the Kings will be George (Edward is a no-go), all the Queens will be Victoria or Elizabeth. Problem solved.
There are other options. For kings you have William. Possibly Charles as well, since the numbering is the same in England as it is in Scotland. For queens there's Anne. Plus a whole host of names that haven't been used by either dynasty, like Rupert or Tiffany.
Queen Tiffany sounds quite nice. Almost as good as Princess Bubblegum.
Comments
I thought he already had!
I read he kissed and made up with Bannon today.
(Where's our vomit smiley?)
In view of the Styx exchanges I’m going to pardon this thread for 24 hours for final comments.
New serious discussion threads relating to ex President Trump are of course welcome. But his Presidency is a matter of history.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Yes, there is some reason to believe that the general election was tainted or influenced by Russian interference. (There is, so far as I know, no evidence that the actual vote was manipulated in any way.) Be that as it may, he was elected by the Electoral College, and we’ve seen what happens when people want to deny that that’s how it works.
Sorry, but I really don’t have any time for denying that Trump was president, and I’m not going to label him as anything other than “president”—unless it’s to attach an adjective like “awful” or “despicable.”
As in Average Joe...
Where's Robert Frost when we need him so badly?
I don't have any time to claim that the Electoral College vote was honest, that Congress' certification of same was valid, or that he was in fact president. Nor do I have time to claim that Pope Leo X actually believed that if people gave the Church enough money, he could sell them an indulgence.
If people have to use it they should say ‘disgraced ex president trump’. imo
Most things are customs, and most customs are odd.
It is customary that we call people "Mr Biden" and "Ms Harris" rather than "Joe" and "Kamala". There's a lot of history embedded in that custom, but it's just custom - there's not a better "reason" for it than that's just what we do in English.
I'm sure you can think of a number of people who by custom retain the titles associated with their job after they retire. Retired doctors often still call themselves "Doctor". Retired army officers are known by their ranks. Calling an ex-president "President" isn't very different from that.
In the US, the only retired commissioned officers that can be addressed by their former rank are Majors and above. I think in the enlisted ranks it is only those who have achieved a master rank.-
Because they still retain the degree of M.D. that they strove so hard to earn. Also, even though retired, they could still dianose illness, write prescriptions, etc. if they had to or wanted to.
And rightly so. A good, honest, honorable man even though his presidency was, when all is said and done, a failure. He also accomplished much good in the years following his presidency.
The honorific "Dr." does customarily go with the M.D., but retired physicians must keep up their medical licenses if they want to practice medicine in any way. The honorific is entirely separate from what they are allowed to do.
Most medical doctors in the UK don't have doctorates. They're still called doctors.
There's only one President, and that's currently Mr. Biden. Nobody thinks that by calling him "President Obama", you think that Mr. Obama is still the president, any more than by calling the late Queen Mother "Queen Elizabeth", you thought she was The Queen.
The cases are not so different.
And John Tyler had the worst post-presidency of any American president . . . so far.
What a delightful strawman you have discovered.
Note that Hillary's supporters, furious as we were/are, did not pull the crap that T's supporters did.
AFZ
This link just links back to this page.
Oh bugger. Let me try that again:
On the other hand, I think that Trump has a big post-Presidency future in Unicor.
I promise, it's worth waiting for.
AFZ
Err, actually when the late Queen Mother was alive she was referred to as "Queen Elizabeth" to distinguish her from The Queen.
More usually she was referred to either as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, or as just the Queen Mother.
That would totally fail to distinguish her for me, since I was under the impression that The Queen was Queen Elizabeth. II if needed to be distinguished from the Tudor one.
Actually, I was really confused as a child.
There'd been a QEI, the current Queen was QEII (also a boat, but that was just added confusion). The Queen mother was referred to as Queen Elizabeth, so my young brain naturally assumed that the Queen mother was Queen Elizabeth I. I did wonder how she'd lived so long and why she wasn't still queen, but the logic seemed unassailable.
If you want to go down this rabbit hole, the boat was named for Queen Elizabeth II rather than being the second boat (ship) to bear the name "Queen Elizabeth"
Of course if you really want to have fun, there's a certain amount of controversy about regnal numbers. Scotland has never had a Queen Elizabeth before... so arguably she is Elizabeth I of Scotland...
There is a resolution to all this. But to return to the topic at hand: English monarchs is probably a good analogy to look to given how much English law influenced the US constitutional design.
No one gets confused when people talk of Queen Victoria or King Henry VIII. And we only have one monarchs at a time. It makes sense to talk about the administrations of President Reagan or President Clinton in the past tense...
YMMV of course.
AFZ
This is the rule that has been stated. We currently have no prospect of needing to apply this rule. The cynic in me suspects that the royals will avoid naming any babies in the possible line of succession with any of the names where the Scots regnal numbers are higher.
I wouldn't be surprised if every subsequent monarch takes a regnal name that has already been in use since the act of union - all the Kings will be George (Edward is a no-go), all the Queens will be Victoria or Elizabeth. Problem solved.
There are other options. For kings you have William. Possibly Charles as well, since the numbering is the same in England as it is in Scotland. For queens there's Anne. Plus a whole host of names that haven't been used by either dynasty, like Rupert or Tiffany.
Charles is out because of the association with beheading (apparently). I did think about Anne but I think it's an unlikely choice. I'll grant that I'd forgotten William IV.
Didn't stop Charles II, and he was a lot closer to said beheading, both temporally and by relation.
One could make the case that her sister Mary redeemed her name, and the numbering is the same.
300 years later, they issued a commemorative 50p piece, and I recall having to explain to a bewildered colleague just who Mary II had been...
She was, as enny fule kno, the female half of the Orange which ruled England from 1688.
There's the issue of it being army slang for a posh and somewhat clueless officer.
(Hint for those unaware - they are definitely NOT pronounced as they look)