Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » His Highness, King Donald the First, the Great Usurping Caesar

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited July 30 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » His Highness, King Donald the First, the Great Usurping Caesar, violator of the constitution is now talking about delaying the election

So it is safe to send children to schools but not for adults to vote?Gotta to love Trump's logic. https://t.co/hnMX4OLm2D

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 10,739
    Just to confirm, the US economy shank 32.9% annualised, i.e. it assumes that the Q2 rate of growth continues for a full year. We would report that as a ~8% drop, which is what it is.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,942
    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.
  • eekeek Posts: 8,645
    edited July 30
    As I posted before Trump can't delay the election, what he wants to do is call into question the legitimatise of the result and then use everything he can do to get courts to rule in his favour.

    The worst possible result for the USA isn't actually the Trump win a lot of people fear, it is a small Biden win that Trump then does everything he can do to question it and remain in power.

    If you though Chads and Florida in 2000 was bad I suspect we haven't seen anything yet.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 33,319
    Perhaps Trump will end up calling for his voters to boycott the elections.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,809

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Shouldn’t it be His Majesty anyway?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,942

    Perhaps Trump will end up calling for his voters to boycott the elections.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,942

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Shouldn’t it be His Majesty anyway?
    Well the original quote was 'His Highness'.

    I guess you can't trust Americans to get things right.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,942
    The Irish do know that this isn't a t20 match?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 953
    FPT
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.

    Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
    I see no scandal. It simply shows that Eton is a good school and should be encouraged to be as good as it can be so that the public sector can learn from it.
    Hilarious trolling.
    I dunno. If teachers were paid double what they are in the state sector and had a 1:7 SSR (without checking) I think many of our educational problems would disappear.
    Is that a policy you support then - you being paid double?
    I’d settle for that SSR myself.

    I’ve seen a lot of my colleagues head off to the independent sector over the years. Possibly half of the ones that don’t leave by retirement.
    Maybe not double (salary) but I will launch myself into your good books by saying that imo the transformation of teaching into a high status high pay profession to rank with law and medicine is my silver bullet along with 100% comps, no privates, resource skewed towards disadvantaged areas.

    "Mum, I've decided to become an investment banker."

    "Oh, Ok darling. I see."

    "You don't seem pleased."

    "It's not that. It's just that you're so bright and everything - me and your father were rather hoping you might aim a little higher than that. Try and get into teaching even."
    Unless you make all comps outstanding that is never happening, middle class parents will not touch inadequate or requires improvement comps with a bargepole
    They will need to elevate and keep their eyes on the prize.
    By sending their children private to a grammar or by buying a house in an outstanding comp or academy catchment area or going to church more often to get a vicar's note to get into one
    There will be little or none of that as I envisage things. Certainly no vicar involvement. What there will be is a transformed social and educational landscape.

    "Where did you go to school?"

    "Er, what do you mean? ... I went to school."

    THIS is the prize.
    I know, you want to abolish all private schools, grammar schools and religious schools.

    However to get true equality you will also have to abolish all outstanding or even just good comprehensives and academies too, we cannot have anyone getting an advantage now can we.

    Which would end up about as effective as abolishing Waitrose, Marks and Spencer and Sainsburys and making everyone shop at Lidl or Asda
    I prefer to focus on what is being created. Every child going to their excellent local school. All catered for and given the chance to blossom. Flexible. Diverse. All the angst and division around eduction that we see today eliminated along with its toxic propagation of class inequality. As I say - a great prize.

    "Where should we send Peter to school, honey?"
    "Er, what are you talking about, where? - he's going to school."
    "Oh right. So I guess we don't have to obsess about it for ages then."
    "Correct. Fancy a curry tonight?"
    Utter rubbish, by definition if you live in the posh part of town sending your child to the local school is far more likely to be to an excellent school than parents sending their children to the local school in the rough part of town.

    Plus if you order a curry from an excellent restaurant surely you must abolish that too as it is more expensive than the customers who have to buy from the far less good curry house down the road?
    You might view education as akin to the restaurant trade but I don't.

    Re your more serious point, you are missing 2 key parts of the proposed reform. (i) Resource will be heavily skewed to schools in disadvantaged areas. (ii) Teaching will be a 'creme de la creme' profession. You probably know the Eric Cantona beer advert? So it will like that with "farmer" replaced by "teacher".

    Upshot, struggling schools invested in very seriously and staffed (via incentives) with the best teachers. Better than those in "easier" environments. A few years of this and what we see is gaps closing. And as gaps close, behaviour duly changes and gaps close further. A virtuous circle replaces a vicious one.

    You can pump as much money into deprived areas and pay teacher 7 figure salaries and it wont make a bit of difference, failing schools are most often not down to teacher quality or administration though those can be contributory.

    Failing schools come mostly down to disengaged kids who don't see the point in education and parents that support that outlook. Changing that is something you have ruled out before.

    I went to such a school and the thing that kept me learning wasn't the teaching it was the other kids who not only didn't want to learn they were determined no one else should either.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,026

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,687
    FPT:

    IIRC Trump doesn't have the power to delay an election does he?

    It would require a constitutional amendment to change the election from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

    The constitution allows Congress to alter the election date, the date on which the electoral college meets to vote, and the date on which Congress meets to count the votes by ordinary legislation, so Trump would require the House to consent, which of course it wouldn't.

    Even with House buy-in for a change of dates, the constitution fixes the date that the Presidential term ends as January 20th, so any change of dates would still have to have the process completed by then.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,942
    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 74,050
    If President Trump was followed by an appointed President Pelosi the US would be closer to civil war than at any time since 1865, two more polarising presidents for liberals and conservatives it is hard to imagine
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,809

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 60,345
    edited July 30
    No matter what the legal niceties are, in order to pull a move like this, you need to have genuine popularity and/or control all of your countries apparatus of state. Putin right now has the popularity to bend the various apparatus of state towards him (even further). The Communist Party's grip on power in China is absolute, Xi controls that - so can do as he wills.

    Certain other historical leaders through a combination of fear and love have had the popularity/control over the population to do likewise.

    Trump simply isn't popular enough to pull this particular feat off, and he doesn't control the House of Representatives and/or SCOTUS. His oratory isn't up to the task to create a populist crusade to upend the constitution on this issue either.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,809
    rpjs said:

    FPT:

    IIRC Trump doesn't have the power to delay an election does he?

    It would require a constitutional amendment to change the election from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

    The constitution allows Congress to alter the election date, the date on which the electoral college meets to vote, and the date on which Congress meets to count the votes by ordinary legislation, so Trump would require the House to consent, which of course it wouldn't.

    Even with House buy-in for a change of dates, the constitution fixes the date that the Presidential term ends as January 20th, so any change of dates would still have to have the process completed by then.
    That date has been changed before: Lincoln only became President on March the 4th 1861.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,942

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    As I went to a state comp, I have no chance of guessing the source of the headline I’m afraid.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,809

    As I went to a state comp, I have no chance of guessing the source of the headline I’m afraid.

    To be fair, not many UK schools spend a lot of time on the intricacies of the American Civil War...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 7,372

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Is it Quietus?
    One of the few things Don couldn't be called.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,919
    HYUFD said:

    If President Trump was followed by an appointed President Pelosi the US would be closer to civil war than at any time since 1865, two more polarising presidents for liberals and conservatives it is hard to imagine

    Looking from the outside in, its difficult to see how anybody could unite the US in any meaningful way at the moment.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 11,928
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.

    Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
    I see no scandal. It simply shows that Eton is a good school and should be encouraged to be as good as it can be so that the public sector can learn from it.
    Hilarious trolling.
    I dunno. If teachers were paid double what they are in the state sector and had a 1:7 SSR (without checking) I think many of our educational problems would disappear.
    Is that a policy you support then - you being paid double?
    I’d settle for that SSR myself.

    I’ve seen a lot of my colleagues head off to the independent sector over the years. Possibly half of the ones that don’t leave by retirement.
    Maybe not double (salary) but I will launch myself into your good books by saying that imo the transformation of teaching into a high status high pay profession to rank with law and medicine is my silver bullet along with 100% comps, no privates, resource skewed towards disadvantaged areas.

    "Mum, I've decided to become an investment banker."

    "Oh, Ok darling. I see."

    "You don't seem pleased."

    "It's not that. It's just that you're so bright and everything - me and your father were rather hoping you might aim a little higher than that. Try and get into teaching even."
    Unless you make all comps outstanding that is never happening, middle class parents will not touch inadequate or requires improvement comps with a bargepole
    They will need to elevate and keep their eyes on the prize.
    By sending their children private to a grammar or by buying a house in an outstanding comp or academy catchment area or going to church more often to get a vicar's note to get into one
    There will be little or none of that as I envisage things. Certainly no vicar involvement. What there will be is a transformed social and educational landscape.

    "Where did you go to school?"

    "Er, what do you mean? ... I went to school."

    THIS is the prize.
    I know, you want to abolish all private schools, grammar schools and religious schools.

    However to get true equality you will also have to abolish all outstanding or even just good comprehensives and academies too, we cannot have anyone getting an advantage now can we.

    Which would end up about as effective as abolishing Waitrose, Marks and Spencer and Sainsburys and making everyone shop at Lidl or Asda
    I prefer to focus on what is being created. Every child going to their excellent local school. All catered for and given the chance to blossom. Flexible. Diverse. All the angst and division around eduction that we see today eliminated along with its toxic propagation of class inequality. As I say - a great prize.

    "Where should we send Peter to school, honey?"
    "Er, what are you talking about, where? - he's going to school."
    "Oh right. So I guess we don't have to obsess about it for ages then."
    "Correct. Fancy a curry tonight?"
    Utter rubbish, by definition if you live in the posh part of town sending your child to the local school is far more likely to be to an excellent school than parents sending their children to the local school in the rough part of town.

    Plus if you order a curry from an excellent restaurant surely you must abolish that too as it is more expensive than the customers who have to buy from the far less good curry house down the road?
    You might view education as akin to the restaurant trade but I don't.

    Re your more serious point, you are missing 2 key parts of the proposed reform. (i) Resource will be heavily skewed to schools in disadvantaged areas. (ii) Teaching will be a 'creme de la creme' profession. You probably know the Eric Cantona beer advert? So it will like that with "farmer" replaced by "teacher".

    Upshot, struggling schools invested in very seriously and staffed (via incentives) with the best teachers. Better than those in "easier" environments. A few years of this and what we see is gaps closing. And as gaps close, behaviour duly changes and gaps close further. A virtuous circle replaces a vicious one.

    You can pump as much money into deprived areas and pay teacher 7 figure salaries and it wont make a bit of difference, failing schools are most often not down to teacher quality or administration though those can be contributory.

    Failing schools come mostly down to disengaged kids who don't see the point in education and parents that support that outlook. Changing that is something you have ruled out before.

    I went to such a school and the thing that kept me learning wasn't the teaching it was the other kids who not only didn't want to learn they were determined no one else should either.
    Kinabalu's education plan is very 'if I just find a big enough paddle to smack people into place with, they. will. behave. as. I. want. them. to.' No doubt the mass exodus of rich people's kids to foreign schools would call for some sort of penalty, or the world at large would just be blamed for not following the same system.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 6,023

    As I went to a state comp, I have no chance of guessing the source of the headline I’m afraid.

    What really threw me was the reference to 'King' - no self-respecting Roman would ever use that term. Not of himself, and not if he didn't want to get instant regicide.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Shouldn’t it be His Majesty anyway?
    A fantasy book I read once, I think maybe by David Eddings, one of the characters found out about the death of their father by his father's physician greeting him as "Your Majesty".
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,832

    rpjs said:

    FPT:

    IIRC Trump doesn't have the power to delay an election does he?

    It would require a constitutional amendment to change the election from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

    The constitution allows Congress to alter the election date, the date on which the electoral college meets to vote, and the date on which Congress meets to count the votes by ordinary legislation, so Trump would require the House to consent, which of course it wouldn't.

    Even with House buy-in for a change of dates, the constitution fixes the date that the Presidential term ends as January 20th, so any change of dates would still have to have the process completed by then.
    That date has been changed before: Lincoln only became President on March the 4th 1861.
    Before the Civil War started. So Trump can't even rely on that route as a precedent to delay....
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,445
    Charlie Chaplin or Pompey (if you are going classical)
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,809

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
    Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,809

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Shouldn’t it be His Majesty anyway?
    A fantasy book I read once, I think maybe by David Eddings, one of the characters found out about the death of their father by his father's physician greeting him as "Your Majesty".
    Guardians of the West...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,942

    rpjs said:

    FPT:

    IIRC Trump doesn't have the power to delay an election does he?

    It would require a constitutional amendment to change the election from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

    The constitution allows Congress to alter the election date, the date on which the electoral college meets to vote, and the date on which Congress meets to count the votes by ordinary legislation, so Trump would require the House to consent, which of course it wouldn't.

    Even with House buy-in for a change of dates, the constitution fixes the date that the Presidential term ends as January 20th, so any change of dates would still have to have the process completed by then.
    That date has been changed before: Lincoln only became President on March the 4th 1861.
    Not quite, the date of the election remained the same, it was the date of the transfer or power that changed.

    Which IIRC was done on a bi-partisan approach.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 60,345

    HYUFD said:

    If President Trump was followed by an appointed President Pelosi the US would be closer to civil war than at any time since 1865, two more polarising presidents for liberals and conservatives it is hard to imagine

    Looking from the outside in, its difficult to see how anybody could unite the US in any meaningful way at the moment.
    This sort of move is much easier when a country is broadly united. Noone much likes him here, but Putin appears to me to be genuinely popular in Russia now for instance (Or the opposition too weak if you like).

    The Democrats are a strong enough opposition in the US that this sort of de facto 1 party state can't easily exist there.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 26,233
    The great embarrassment to the USA was the 2016 election.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 11,928
    edited July 30

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
    Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
    I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085

    rpjs said:

    FPT:

    IIRC Trump doesn't have the power to delay an election does he?

    It would require a constitutional amendment to change the election from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

    The constitution allows Congress to alter the election date, the date on which the electoral college meets to vote, and the date on which Congress meets to count the votes by ordinary legislation, so Trump would require the House to consent, which of course it wouldn't.

    Even with House buy-in for a change of dates, the constitution fixes the date that the Presidential term ends as January 20th, so any change of dates would still have to have the process completed by then.
    That date has been changed before: Lincoln only became President on March the 4th 1861.
    All Presidents of that era were.

    It was not changed by either the Presidency or Congress though, that was changed by the 20th Amendment.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,809

    rpjs said:

    FPT:

    IIRC Trump doesn't have the power to delay an election does he?

    It would require a constitutional amendment to change the election from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

    The constitution allows Congress to alter the election date, the date on which the electoral college meets to vote, and the date on which Congress meets to count the votes by ordinary legislation, so Trump would require the House to consent, which of course it wouldn't.

    Even with House buy-in for a change of dates, the constitution fixes the date that the Presidential term ends as January 20th, so any change of dates would still have to have the process completed by then.
    That date has been changed before: Lincoln only became President on March the 4th 1861.
    Not quite, the date of the election remained the same, it was the date of the transfer or power that changed.

    Which IIRC was done on a bi-partisan approach.
    Yes, that is what I was trying to say: obviously not clearly enough!
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,445

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Shouldn’t it be His Majesty anyway?
    A fantasy book I read once, I think maybe by David Eddings, one of the characters found out about the death of their father by his father's physician greeting him as "Your Majesty".
    I think that was Kheva, Rhodar's son.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,809

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
    Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
    I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.
    Likewise Anne and Victoria. But not Mary.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Shouldn’t it be His Majesty anyway?
    A fantasy book I read once, I think maybe by David Eddings, one of the characters found out about the death of their father by his father's physician greeting him as "Your Majesty".
    Guardians of the West...
    That's it. Would love to read it again now I've thought about it, not read Eddings since I was a teenager.
  • eekeek Posts: 8,645
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    If President Trump was followed by an appointed President Pelosi the US would be closer to civil war than at any time since 1865, two more polarising presidents for liberals and conservatives it is hard to imagine

    Looking from the outside in, its difficult to see how anybody could unite the US in any meaningful way at the moment.
    This sort of move is much easier when a country is broadly united. Noone much likes him here, but Putin appears to me to be genuinely popular in Russia now for instance (Or the opposition too weak if you like).

    The Democrats are a strong enough opposition in the US that this sort of de facto 1 party state can't easily exist there.
    For Putin the opposition is silent because Putin controls the media and his opposition is too divided to provide a united front.

    The one advantage of a two party system is that it's hard to sideline the opposition if it's obvious who that opposition is..
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,155
    edited July 30

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
    Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
    ISTR (when I say recall, I don't mean as eye witness) that there was some kind of furore about Edward I as there had been plenty of Edwards previously, including, of course, his intended namesake E the Confessor.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085

    rpjs said:

    FPT:

    IIRC Trump doesn't have the power to delay an election does he?

    It would require a constitutional amendment to change the election from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

    The constitution allows Congress to alter the election date, the date on which the electoral college meets to vote, and the date on which Congress meets to count the votes by ordinary legislation, so Trump would require the House to consent, which of course it wouldn't.

    Even with House buy-in for a change of dates, the constitution fixes the date that the Presidential term ends as January 20th, so any change of dates would still have to have the process completed by then.
    That date has been changed before: Lincoln only became President on March the 4th 1861.
    Not quite, the date of the election remained the same, it was the date of the transfer or power that changed.

    Which IIRC was done on a bi-partisan approach.
    I don't think so, I don't think anything was changed until the 20th Amendment.

    It would take a constitutional amendment, like the 20th, to change it again.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,445

    Kinabalu's education plan is very 'if I just find a big enough paddle to smack people into place with, they. will. behave. as. I. want. them. to.' No doubt the mass exodus of rich people's kids to foreign schools would call for some sort of penalty, or the world at large would just be blamed for not following the same system.

    A perennial problem with the lefties. They try and deal with the world as they it think it should be rather than how it actually is.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331
    It is hard even for a partisan to justify given that record.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,809

    rpjs said:

    FPT:

    IIRC Trump doesn't have the power to delay an election does he?

    It would require a constitutional amendment to change the election from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

    The constitution allows Congress to alter the election date, the date on which the electoral college meets to vote, and the date on which Congress meets to count the votes by ordinary legislation, so Trump would require the House to consent, which of course it wouldn't.

    Even with House buy-in for a change of dates, the constitution fixes the date that the Presidential term ends as January 20th, so any change of dates would still have to have the process completed by then.
    That date has been changed before: Lincoln only became President on March the 4th 1861.
    All Presidents of that era were.

    It was not changed by either the Presidency or Congress though, that was changed by the 20th Amendment.
    That’s the important bit: it would take a constitutional amendment to change the date of either the election or the inauguration.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 6,023

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
    Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
    I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.
    Er, we still haven't had an Elizabeth II, of the UK. There was an unholy fiddle when this was pointed out, belatedly, in 1952-3 - hence EIIR on pillar boxes south of the Border, but the accurate (to a Unionist) ER across Tweed. Ditto the careful use of the Arabic 2 rather than II in the Clyde-built QE2 - formally as successor to the previous ship of that name.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 7,372

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
    Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
    I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.
    Likewise Anne and Victoria. But not Mary.
    Isn't that cos of William and Mary?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Shouldn’t it be His Majesty anyway?
    A fantasy book I read once, I think maybe by David Eddings, one of the characters found out about the death of their father by his father's physician greeting him as "Your Majesty".
    Guardians of the West...
    Well how about that, and I'm less than a foot from that book at this very moment. (Literally, as my foot is resting on the shelf it is contained on).
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,919
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    If President Trump was followed by an appointed President Pelosi the US would be closer to civil war than at any time since 1865, two more polarising presidents for liberals and conservatives it is hard to imagine

    Looking from the outside in, its difficult to see how anybody could unite the US in any meaningful way at the moment.
    This sort of move is much easier when a country is broadly united. Noone much likes him here, but Putin appears to me to be genuinely popular in Russia now for instance (Or the opposition too weak if you like).

    The Democrats are a strong enough opposition in the US that this sort of de facto 1 party state can't easily exist there.
    What I mean is that right now Republicans are unlikely to be any more reconciled to a Biden presidency than democrats have been with a Trump one.

    The democrats and the media have questioned their own democratic process incessantly since 2016, after all.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 6,023
    dixiedean said:

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
    Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
    I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.
    Likewise Anne and Victoria. But not Mary.
    Isn't that cos of William and Mary?
    Having W & M also resolves the problem of there being the unaccointed for King William the Lion of Scotland - but this was forgotten when William "IV" was crowned.
  • eekeek Posts: 8,645
    FPT

    eek said:



    Round here they are none existant with the crap schools now in their third or fourth failing academic chain.

    And that's the point. Improving schools is hard, because a lot of the things that make a school good are outside the control of the school.
    The best local secondary school (Catholic) tried to support one of the continually failing other schools but sending in their best staff there (as head and senior leadership team) and they couldn't turn it around. Half the battle is that the school is too small, the other half is that any decent parents have moved heaven and earth to ensure their children are in other schools.

    It was hoped that the new estate on the edge of town would result in the parents improving but that lasted until the first court case which forced the other good local school (none Catholic) to expand it's intake just enough to take those children
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,919
    kle4 said:

    It is hard even for a partisan to justify given that record.
    Er....sorry?

    Trouble is, corona has been used as a reason to shut down all sorts of human activity in recent months, right?

    Its like with BLM protests. Ordinary human activity can go ahead when its human activity that suits our agenda.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 5,764
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.

    Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
    I see no scandal. It simply shows that Eton is a good school and should be encouraged to be as good as it can be so that the public sector can learn from it.
    Hilarious trolling.
    I dunno. If teachers were paid double what they are in the state sector and had a 1:7 SSR (without checking) I think many of our educational problems would disappear.
    Is that a policy you support then - you being paid double?
    I’d settle for that SSR myself.

    I’ve seen a lot of my colleagues head off to the independent sector over the years. Possibly half of the ones that don’t leave by retirement.
    Maybe not double (salary) but I will launch myself into your good books by saying that imo the transformation of teaching into a high status high pay profession to rank with law and medicine is my silver bullet along with 100% comps, no privates, resource skewed towards disadvantaged areas.

    "Mum, I've decided to become an investment banker."

    "Oh, Ok darling. I see."

    "You don't seem pleased."

    "It's not that. It's just that you're so bright and everything - me and your father were rather hoping you might aim a little higher than that. Try and get into teaching even."
    Unless you make all comps outstanding that is never happening, middle class parents will not touch inadequate or requires improvement comps with a bargepole
    They will need to elevate and keep their eyes on the prize.
    By sending their children private to a grammar or by buying a house in an outstanding comp or academy catchment area or going to church more often to get a vicar's note to get into one
    There will be little or none of that as I envisage things. Certainly no vicar involvement. What there will be is a transformed social and educational landscape.

    "Where did you go to school?"

    "Er, what do you mean? ... I went to school."

    THIS is the prize.
    I know, you want to abolish all private schools, grammar schools and religious schools.

    However to get true equality you will also have to abolish all outstanding or even just good comprehensives and academies too, we cannot have anyone getting an advantage now can we.

    Which would end up about as effective as abolishing Waitrose, Marks and Spencer and Sainsburys and making everyone shop at Lidl or Asda
    I prefer to focus on what is being created. Every child going to their excellent local school. All catered for and given the chance to blossom. Flexible. Diverse. All the angst and division around eduction that we see today eliminated along with its toxic propagation of class inequality. As I say - a great prize.

    "Where should we send Peter to school, honey?"
    "Er, what are you talking about, where? - he's going to school."
    "Oh right. So I guess we don't have to obsess about it for ages then."
    "Correct. Fancy a curry tonight?"
    Utter rubbish, by definition if you live in the posh part of town sending your child to the local school is far more likely to be to an excellent school than parents sending their children to the local school in the rough part of town.

    Plus if you order a curry from an excellent restaurant surely you must abolish that too as it is more expensive than the customers who have to buy from the far less good curry house down the road?
    You might view education as akin to the restaurant trade but I don't.

    Re your more serious point, you are missing 2 key parts of the proposed reform. (i) Resource will be heavily skewed to schools in disadvantaged areas. (ii) Teaching will be a 'creme de la creme' profession. You probably know the Eric Cantona beer advert? So it will like that with "farmer" replaced by "teacher".

    Upshot, struggling schools invested in very seriously and staffed (via incentives) with the best teachers. Better than those in "easier" environments. A few years of this and what we see is gaps closing. And as gaps close, behaviour duly changes and gaps close further. A virtuous circle replaces a vicious one.

    You can pump as much money into deprived areas and pay teacher 7 figure salaries and it wont make a bit of difference, failing schools are most often not down to teacher quality or administration though those can be contributory.

    Failing schools come mostly down to disengaged kids who don't see the point in education and parents that support that outlook. Changing that is something you have ruled out before.

    I went to such a school and the thing that kept me learning wasn't the teaching it was the other kids who not only didn't want to learn they were determined no one else should either.
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.

    Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
    I see no scandal. It simply shows that Eton is a good school and should be encouraged to be as good as it can be so that the public sector can learn from it.
    Hilarious trolling.
    I dunno. If teachers were paid double what they are in the state sector and had a 1:7 SSR (without checking) I think many of our educational problems would disappear.
    Is that a policy you support then - you being paid double?
    I’d settle for that SSR myself.

    I’ve seen a lot of my colleagues head off to the independent sector over the years. Possibly half of the ones that don’t leave by retirement.
    Maybe not double (salary) but I will launch myself into your good books by saying that imo the transformation of teaching into a high status high pay profession to rank with law and medicine is my silver bullet along with 100% comps, no privates, resource skewed towards disadvantaged areas.

    "Mum, I've decided to become an investment banker."

    "Oh, Ok darling. I see."

    "You don't seem pleased."

    "It's not that. It's just that you're so bright and everything - me and your father were rather hoping you might aim a little higher than that. Try and get into teaching even."
    Unless you make all comps outstanding that is never happening, middle class parents will not touch inadequate or requires improvement comps with a bargepole
    They will need to elevate and keep their eyes on the prize.
    By sending their children private to a grammar or by buying a house in an outstanding comp or academy catchment area or going to church more often to get a vicar's note to get into one
    There will be little or none of that as I envisage things. Certainly no vicar involvement. What there will be is a transformed social and educational landscape.

    "Where did you go to school?"

    "Er, what do you mean? ... I went to school."

    THIS is the prize.
    I know, you want to abolish all private schools, grammar schools and religious schools.

    However to get true equality you will also have to abolish all outstanding or even just good comprehensives and academies too, we cannot have anyone getting an advantage now can we.

    Which would end up about as effective as abolishing Waitrose, Marks and Spencer and Sainsburys and making everyone shop at Lidl or Asda
    I prefer to focus on what is being created. Every child going to their excellent local school. All catered for and given the chance to blossom. Flexible. Diverse. All the angst and division around eduction that we see today eliminated along with its toxic propagation of class inequality. As I say - a great prize.

    "Where should we send Peter to school, honey?"
    "Er, what are you talking about, where? - he's going to school."
    "Oh right. So I guess we don't have to obsess about it for ages then."
    "Correct. Fancy a curry tonight?"
    Utter rubbish, by definition if you live in the posh part of town sending your child to the local school is far more likely to be to an excellent school than parents sending their children to the local school in the rough part of town.

    Plus if you order a curry from an excellent restaurant surely you must abolish that too as it is more expensive than the customers who have to buy from the far less good curry house down the road?
    You might view education as akin to the restaurant trade but I don't.

    Re your more serious point, you are missing 2 key parts of the proposed reform. (i) Resource will be heavily skewed to schools in disadvantaged areas. (ii) Teaching will be a 'creme de la creme' profession. You probably know the Eric Cantona beer advert? So it will like that with "farmer" replaced by "teacher".

    Upshot, struggling schools invested in very seriously and staffed (via incentives) with the best teachers. Better than those in "easier" environments. A few years of this and what we see is gaps closing. And as gaps close, behaviour duly changes and gaps close further. A virtuous circle replaces a vicious one.

    You can pump as much money into deprived areas and pay teacher 7 figure salaries and it wont make a bit of difference, failing schools are most often not down to teacher quality or administration though those can be contributory.

    Failing schools come mostly down to disengaged kids who don't see the point in education and parents that support that outlook. Changing that is something you have ruled out before.

    I went to such a school and the thing that kept me learning wasn't the teaching it was the other kids who not only didn't want to learn they were determined no one else should either.
    Anecdote alert.

    I sent my eldest to the local primary - very good ratings. Close to private quality.

    There were 2 primaries in the catchment area. The outstanding one, and one that is shite, on just about every measure.

    The borough, as is common in London has no shortage of council estates.

    Some of those estates are so close to the high performing primary that they could throw a tennis ball into the play ground with ease. In fact some council houses back onto the school grounds.

    Yet nearly everyone in council housing sends their children to the poor performing primary. All the middle class parents send their children to the good one.

    What was interesting was talking to the couple of parents, form the estates, who "dared" to send their children to the successful school.

    They told me that they were told by their peers that

    "It isn't our school",
    "They won't like you there",
    "There is too much home work" - a couple of hours a week, tops. Plus reading books,
    "They are too strict on the uniform" - uniform was super cheap. What this actually meant was the fashionable trainers were not allowed.
    "They don't allow you to take the kids out of school early for holidays" - true(ish), I think.
    "The discipline is too strict" - disrupting classes wasn't allowed, and non-attendance was noted.

    The comment of the parents who sent their children anyway - they had no problems, and wanted the discipline. And the education.

    What was also interesting were their preconceptions of the middle class....
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085

    rpjs said:

    FPT:

    IIRC Trump doesn't have the power to delay an election does he?

    It would require a constitutional amendment to change the election from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

    The constitution allows Congress to alter the election date, the date on which the electoral college meets to vote, and the date on which Congress meets to count the votes by ordinary legislation, so Trump would require the House to consent, which of course it wouldn't.

    Even with House buy-in for a change of dates, the constitution fixes the date that the Presidential term ends as January 20th, so any change of dates would still have to have the process completed by then.
    That date has been changed before: Lincoln only became President on March the 4th 1861.
    All Presidents of that era were.

    It was not changed by either the Presidency or Congress though, that was changed by the 20th Amendment.
    That’s the important bit: it would take a constitutional amendment to change the date of either the election or the inauguration.
    I think the election can be changed (I don't think its set in the constitution but rather by law by Congress) but the inauguration date can't be. Inauguration Day is locked in as 20th January by the 20th Amendment, so only an Amendment could change that.

    There's really no point delaying the election if you can't delay inauguration day.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 5,549


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53592881


    Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,710
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.

    Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
    I see no scandal. It simply shows that Eton is a good school and should be encouraged to be as good as it can be so that the public sector can learn from it.
    Hilarious trolling.
    I dunno. If teachers were paid double what they are in the state sector and had a 1:7 SSR (without checking) I think many of our educational problems would disappear.
    Is that a policy you support then - you being paid double?
    I’d settle for that SSR myself.

    I’ve seen a lot of my colleagues head off to the independent sector over the years. Possibly half of the ones that don’t leave by retirement.
    Maybe not double (salary) but I will launch myself into your good books by saying that imo the transformation of teaching into a high status high pay profession to rank with law and medicine is my silver bullet along with 100% comps, no privates, resource skewed towards disadvantaged areas.

    "Mum, I've decided to become an investment banker."

    "Oh, Ok darling. I see."

    "You don't seem pleased."

    "It's not that. It's just that you're so bright and everything - me and your father were rather hoping you might aim a little higher than that. Try and get into teaching even."
    Unless you make all comps outstanding that is never happening, middle class parents will not touch inadequate or requires improvement comps with a bargepole
    They will need to elevate and keep their eyes on the prize.
    By sending their children private to a grammar or by buying a house in an outstanding comp or academy catchment area or going to church more often to get a vicar's note to get into one
    There will be little or none of that as I envisage things. Certainly no vicar involvement. What there will be is a transformed social and educational landscape.

    "Where did you go to school?"

    "Er, what do you mean? ... I went to school."

    THIS is the prize.
    I know, you want to abolish all private schools, grammar schools and religious schools.

    However to get true equality you will also have to abolish all outstanding or even just good comprehensives and academies too, we cannot have anyone getting an advantage now can we.

    Which would end up about as effective as abolishing Waitrose, Marks and Spencer and Sainsburys and making everyone shop at Lidl or Asda
    I prefer to focus on what is being created. Every child going to their excellent local school. All catered for and given the chance to blossom. Flexible. Diverse. All the angst and division around eduction that we see today eliminated along with its toxic propagation of class inequality. As I say - a great prize.

    "Where should we send Peter to school, honey?"
    "Er, what are you talking about, where? - he's going to school."
    "Oh right. So I guess we don't have to obsess about it for ages then."
    "Correct. Fancy a curry tonight?"
    Utter rubbish, by definition if you live in the posh part of town sending your child to the local school is far more likely to be to an excellent school than parents sending their children to the local school in the rough part of town.

    Plus if you order a curry from an excellent restaurant surely you must abolish that too as it is more expensive than the customers who have to buy from the far less good curry house down the road?
    You might view education as akin to the restaurant trade but I don't.

    Re your more serious point, you are missing 2 key parts of the proposed reform. (i) Resource will be heavily skewed to schools in disadvantaged areas. (ii) Teaching will be a 'creme de la creme' profession. You probably know the Eric Cantona beer advert? So it will like that with "farmer" replaced by "teacher".

    Upshot, struggling schools invested in very seriously and staffed (via incentives) with the best teachers. Better than those in "easier" environments. A few years of this and what we see is gaps closing. And as gaps close, behaviour duly changes and gaps close further. A virtuous circle replaces a vicious one.

    You can pump as much money into deprived areas and pay teacher 7 figure salaries and it wont make a bit of difference, failing schools are most often not down to teacher quality or administration though those can be contributory.

    Failing schools come mostly down to disengaged kids who don't see the point in education and parents that support that outlook. Changing that is something you have ruled out before.

    I went to such a school and the thing that kept me learning wasn't the teaching it was the other kids who not only didn't want to learn they were determined no one else should either.
    My wife had been spending a bit of time looking at the Michaela Community School. I know Katherine isn’t to everyone’s taste, but the results show that it is possible to engage with kids who would have failed at other schools
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331
    TOPPING said:

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
    Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
    ISTR (when I say recall, I don't mean as eye witness) that there was some kind of furore about Edward I as there had been plenty of Edwards previously, including, of course, his intended namesake E the Confessor.
    Clearly confusion. I think we tend to think of everything around monarchies as pretty set in stone, when even a concept like primogeniture really wasnt followed in a lot of places for a long time (and still isnt everywhere). Numbering an example where inconsistency is king.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,710

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Sounds like I Claudius
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331



    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53592881


    Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both

    I have little trouble believing c.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331

    rpjs said:

    FPT:

    IIRC Trump doesn't have the power to delay an election does he?

    It would require a constitutional amendment to change the election from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

    The constitution allows Congress to alter the election date, the date on which the electoral college meets to vote, and the date on which Congress meets to count the votes by ordinary legislation, so Trump would require the House to consent, which of course it wouldn't.

    Even with House buy-in for a change of dates, the constitution fixes the date that the Presidential term ends as January 20th, so any change of dates would still have to have the process completed by then.
    That date has been changed before: Lincoln only became President on March the 4th 1861.
    All Presidents of that era were.

    It was not changed by either the Presidency or Congress though, that was changed by the 20th Amendment.
    That’s the important bit: it would take a constitutional amendment to change the date of either the election or the inauguration.
    I think the election can be changed (I don't think its set in the constitution but rather by law by Congress) but the inauguration date can't be. Inauguration Day is locked in as 20th January by the 20th Amendment, so only an Amendment could change that.

    There's really no point delaying the election if you can't delay inauguration day.

    rpjs said:

    FPT:

    IIRC Trump doesn't have the power to delay an election does he?

    It would require a constitutional amendment to change the election from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

    The constitution allows Congress to alter the election date, the date on which the electoral college meets to vote, and the date on which Congress meets to count the votes by ordinary legislation, so Trump would require the House to consent, which of course it wouldn't.

    Even with House buy-in for a change of dates, the constitution fixes the date that the Presidential term ends as January 20th, so any change of dates would still have to have the process completed by then.
    That date has been changed before: Lincoln only became President on March the 4th 1861.
    All Presidents of that era were.

    It was not changed by either the Presidency or Congress though, that was changed by the 20th Amendment.
    That’s the important bit: it would take a constitutional amendment to change the date of either the election or the inauguration.
    I think the election can be changed (I don't think its set in the constitution but rather by law by Congress) but the inauguration date can't be. Inauguration Day is locked in as 20th January by the 20th Amendment, so only an Amendment could change that.

    There's really no point delaying the election if you can't delay inauguration day.
    Well if you think your opponent might die a month after the scheduled day perhaps. Sure the running mate woukd presumably step up but they might not get out the vote as well.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,809
    Carnyx said:

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
    Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
    I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.
    Er, we still haven't had an Elizabeth II, of the UK. There was an unholy fiddle when this was pointed out, belatedly, in 1952-3 - hence EIIR on pillar boxes south of the Border, but the accurate (to a Unionist) ER across Tweed. Ditto the careful use of the Arabic 2 rather than II in the Clyde-built QE2 - formally as successor to the previous ship of that name.
    The QE 2 was named after QE 2 not as the second ship named Elizabeth. As an aside the chairman of Cunard went to ask the king if he could name their new liner After the greatest queen ever in the tradition Of Cunard ships names ending in ia, the king replied that He would ask Mary when she came home but he was sure she would be delisted to have the shop named Mary.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,155
    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
    Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
    ISTR (when I say recall, I don't mean as eye witness) that there was some kind of furore about Edward I as there had been plenty of Edwards previously, including, of course, his intended namesake E the Confessor.
    Clearly confusion. I think we tend to think of everything around monarchies as pretty set in stone, when even a concept like primogeniture really wasnt followed in a lot of places for a long time (and still isnt everywhere). Numbering an example where inconsistency is king.
    Yes it really was a case of: King dies, then everyone who thinks they are eligible legs it to be the first to take over strategic locations eg Winchester, etc.
  • eekeek Posts: 8,645

    rpjs said:

    FPT:

    IIRC Trump doesn't have the power to delay an election does he?

    It would require a constitutional amendment to change the election from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

    The constitution allows Congress to alter the election date, the date on which the electoral college meets to vote, and the date on which Congress meets to count the votes by ordinary legislation, so Trump would require the House to consent, which of course it wouldn't.

    Even with House buy-in for a change of dates, the constitution fixes the date that the Presidential term ends as January 20th, so any change of dates would still have to have the process completed by then.
    That date has been changed before: Lincoln only became President on March the 4th 1861.
    All Presidents of that era were.

    It was not changed by either the Presidency or Congress though, that was changed by the 20th Amendment.
    That’s the important bit: it would take a constitutional amendment to change the date of either the election or the inauguration.
    I think the election can be changed (I don't think its set in the constitution but rather by law by Congress) but the inauguration date can't be. Inauguration Day is locked in as 20th January by the 20th Amendment, so only an Amendment could change that.

    There's really no point delaying the election if you can't delay inauguration day.
    This isn't about the election day, it's all about postal votes and at what point counting of them stops.

    Remember the US postal service isn't the greatest (it's snowed under with letters while Trump is trying to destroy it however he can) and a lot of ballot booths have been intentionally removed from democrat voting areas (especially in Republican States). So the more you can question the legitimatise of Postal votes (which are probably tending Democrat for the reasons above) the better the Republican party may do in States Trump needs to win.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 11,928
    Carnyx said:

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
    Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
    I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.
    Er, we still haven't had an Elizabeth II, of the UK. There was an unholy fiddle when this was pointed out, belatedly, in 1952-3 - hence EIIR on pillar boxes south of the Border, but the accurate (to a Unionist) ER across Tweed. Ditto the careful use of the Arabic 2 rather than II in the Clyde-built QE2 - formally as successor to the previous ship of that name.
    True. And if she'd been called Margaret (or Elizabeth had died, and Margaret had succeeded) she would be Margaret the nothing of England and Wales, and Margaret II of Scotland!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331
    edited July 30

    kle4 said:

    It is hard even for a partisan to justify given that record.
    Er....sorry?

    Trouble is, corona has been used as a reason to shut down all sorts of human activity in recent months, right?

    Its like with BLM protests. Ordinary human activity can go ahead when its human activity that suits our agenda.

    How arrogant of you to presume to know my agenda. And in fact it has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's agenda

    It was a pretty straightforward point. Yes coronavirus has curtailed many normal activities, but the point raised was that the USA has a history of not letting even civil war disrupt such things. Given that history and their law, it is exceedingly hard to see justification for it, even if a good idea since theyve set out that war nor disease should affect that to that degree.

    If the UK were to delay holding an election due to coronavirus it would a be a far different point as we have suspended elections during war for example.

    Try not seeing hidden motives. Though your attempt to shoehorn in BLM was worth a chuckle.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,710



    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53592881


    Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both

    Why would you only choose part of the disease cycle?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 20,282
    Desperate from Trump. Congress will never agree, rightly so. Hope he gets smashed by 10+ points and a landslide EC against him.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 6,023
    nichomar said:

    Carnyx said:

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
    Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
    I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.
    Er, we still haven't had an Elizabeth II, of the UK. There was an unholy fiddle when this was pointed out, belatedly, in 1952-3 - hence EIIR on pillar boxes south of the Border, but the accurate (to a Unionist) ER across Tweed. Ditto the careful use of the Arabic 2 rather than II in the Clyde-built QE2 - formally as successor to the previous ship of that name.
    The QE 2 was named after QE 2 not as the second ship named Elizabeth. As an aside the chairman of Cunard went to ask the king if he could name their new liner After the greatest queen ever in the tradition Of Cunard ships names ending in ia, the king replied that He would ask Mary when she came home but he was sure she would be delisted to have the shop named Mary.
    The QE2 may have been named "QE the Second" by HM but that was a slip of the tongue (?). My version is the official Cunartd one, I believe.

    But quite right about Queen Victoria/QM. THough I see Vicky got her Queen in the end, albeit one of the modern cruise ships!
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 5,549
    kle4 said:



    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53592881


    Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both

    I have little trouble believing c.
    Me too sadly. Although I am a political centrist, I have always believed the NHS is unjustifiably deified by the media, politicians and general public. "Applauding the NHS" seems as ridiculous as applauding the civil service or a pre-denationalised utility. It is a highly inefficient bureaucracy, and as I have long believed is inferior to most of the other healthcare systems in Europe. In practice, like other nationalised industries, it prioritises the interests of the staff over the consumer of the service aka The Patient.

    Sorry to trigger the folks that believe in the Holy Cow, but there we are!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,309
    The virus was a Chinese hoax for weeks, now it's so bad he thinks the election should be cancelled.

    How can any American who believes in a democratic republic vote for this whacko?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,832
    nichomar said:

    Carnyx said:

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
    Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
    I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.
    Er, we still haven't had an Elizabeth II, of the UK. There was an unholy fiddle when this was pointed out, belatedly, in 1952-3 - hence EIIR on pillar boxes south of the Border, but the accurate (to a Unionist) ER across Tweed. Ditto the careful use of the Arabic 2 rather than II in the Clyde-built QE2 - formally as successor to the previous ship of that name.
    The QE 2 was named after QE 2 not as the second ship named Elizabeth. As an aside the chairman of Cunard went to ask the king if he could name their new liner After the greatest queen ever in the tradition Of Cunard ships names ending in ia, the king replied that He would ask Mary when she came home but he was sure she would be delisted to have the shop named Mary.
    "but he was sure she would be delisted to have the shop named Mary"

    Is that a series of typos - or am I missing the joke?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 6,023
    edited July 30

    Carnyx said:

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
    Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
    I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.
    Er, we still haven't had an Elizabeth II, of the UK. There was an unholy fiddle when this was pointed out, belatedly, in 1952-3 - hence EIIR on pillar boxes south of the Border, but the accurate (to a Unionist) ER across Tweed. Ditto the careful use of the Arabic 2 rather than II in the Clyde-built QE2 - formally as successor to the previous ship of that name.
    True. And if she'd been called Margaret (or Elizabeth had died, and Margaret had succeeded) she would be Margaret the nothing of England and Wales, and Margaret II of Scotland!
    Indeed. We have a precedent in James VI and I - and a future one in William VI and V (edited!) (or the other way round depending where you are).
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,809
    Carnyx said:

    nichomar said:

    Carnyx said:

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
    Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
    I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.
    Er, we still haven't had an Elizabeth II, of the UK. There was an unholy fiddle when this was pointed out, belatedly, in 1952-3 - hence EIIR on pillar boxes south of the Border, but the accurate (to a Unionist) ER across Tweed. Ditto the careful use of the Arabic 2 rather than II in the Clyde-built QE2 - formally as successor to the previous ship of that name.
    The QE 2 was named after QE 2 not as the second ship named Elizabeth. As an aside the chairman of Cunard went to ask the king if he could name their new liner After the greatest queen ever in the tradition Of Cunard ships names ending in ia, the king replied that He would ask Mary when she came home but he was sure she would be delisted to have the shop named Mary.
    The QE2 may have been named "QE the Second" by HM but that was a slip of the tongue (?). My version is the official Cunartd one, I believe.

    But quite right about Queen Victoria/QM. THough I see Vicky got her Queen in the end, albeit one of the modern cruise ships!
    I was lucky enough to see the pre press release of pictures and plans for the QE2 as my dad was a Cunard master mariner, I’m sure the reference to name origin was in their but we are talking a very long time ago.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085

    Carnyx said:

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
    Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
    I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.
    Er, we still haven't had an Elizabeth II, of the UK. There was an unholy fiddle when this was pointed out, belatedly, in 1952-3 - hence EIIR on pillar boxes south of the Border, but the accurate (to a Unionist) ER across Tweed. Ditto the careful use of the Arabic 2 rather than II in the Clyde-built QE2 - formally as successor to the previous ship of that name.
    True. And if she'd been called Margaret (or Elizabeth had died, and Margaret had succeeded) she would be Margaret the nothing of England and Wales, and Margaret II of Scotland!
    No she would have been Margaret II.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,919
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    It is hard even for a partisan to justify given that record.
    Er....sorry?

    Trouble is, corona has been used as a reason to shut down all sorts of human activity in recent months, right?

    Its like with BLM protests. Ordinary human activity can go ahead when its human activity that suits our agenda.

    How arrogant of you to presume to know my agenda. And in fact it has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's agenda

    It was a pretty straightforward point. Yes coronavirus has curtailed many normal activities, but the point raised was that the USA has a history of not letting even civil war disrupt such things. Given that history and their law, it is exceedingly hard to see justification for it, even if a good idea since theyve set out that war nor disease should affect that to that degree.

    If the UK were to delay holding an election due to coronavirus it would a be a far different point as we have suspended elections during war for example.

    Try not seeing hidden motives. Though your attempt to shoehorn in BLM was worth a chuckle.
    I do not presume to know your agenda. As you say its beside the point.

    My point is simply that corona can and is be used to selectively control human activity based on agenda and not medicine.

    You rightly say that nothing has ever stopped US elections. But that goes for a whole host of other activities too, and they have been stopped or curtailed.

    Why are suddenly elections safer than shutting down bars or stopping people flying?

    The answer is that they may not be. It just suits someone's agenda. Not yours necessarily, I freely accept.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 6,023
    nichomar said:

    Carnyx said:

    nichomar said:

    Carnyx said:

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
    Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
    I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.
    Er, we still haven't had an Elizabeth II, of the UK. There was an unholy fiddle when this was pointed out, belatedly, in 1952-3 - hence EIIR on pillar boxes south of the Border, but the accurate (to a Unionist) ER across Tweed. Ditto the careful use of the Arabic 2 rather than II in the Clyde-built QE2 - formally as successor to the previous ship of that name.
    The QE 2 was named after QE 2 not as the second ship named Elizabeth. As an aside the chairman of Cunard went to ask the king if he could name their new liner After the greatest queen ever in the tradition Of Cunard ships names ending in ia, the king replied that He would ask Mary when she came home but he was sure she would be delisted to have the shop named Mary.
    The QE2 may have been named "QE the Second" by HM but that was a slip of the tongue (?). My version is the official Cunartd one, I believe.

    But quite right about Queen Victoria/QM. THough I see Vicky got her Queen in the end, albeit one of the modern cruise ships!
    I was lucky enough to see the pre press release of pictures and plans for the QE2 as my dad was a Cunard master mariner, I’m sure the reference to name origin was in their but we are talking a very long time ago.
    Oh yes, it was. I remember the press coverage. Must have been one of the last of the most prestigious Clyde-built ships.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,809

    nichomar said:

    Carnyx said:

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
    Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
    I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.
    Er, we still haven't had an Elizabeth II, of the UK. There was an unholy fiddle when this was pointed out, belatedly, in 1952-3 - hence EIIR on pillar boxes south of the Border, but the accurate (to a Unionist) ER across Tweed. Ditto the careful use of the Arabic 2 rather than II in the Clyde-built QE2 - formally as successor to the previous ship of that name.
    The QE 2 was named after QE 2 not as the second ship named Elizabeth. As an aside the chairman of Cunard went to ask the king if he could name their new liner After the greatest queen ever in the tradition Of Cunard ships names ending in ia, the king replied that He would ask Mary when she came home but he was sure she would be delisted to have the shop named Mary.
    "but he was sure she would be delisted to have the shop named Mary"

    Is that a series of typos - or am I missing the joke?
    Delighted and ship but today delisted quite possibly
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 230



    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53592881


    Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both

    d) The UK has more vulnerable people (particularly when it comes to weight related issues)
    e) The UK got a different strain to some other countries
    f) The UK was unlucky in that it didn't over-react when over-reacting turned out to be the correct choice
    g) Other countries had more concentrated outbreaks that led to them locking down earlier
    h) No conclusions can be fully drawn until a year after this is over


    And there's plenty more...




  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,309
    MaxPB said:

    Desperate from Trump. Congress will never agree, rightly so. Hope he gets smashed by 10+ points and a landslide EC against him.

    I fear it will need that to avert a civil war the way things are going.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,445
    kle4 said:



    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53592881


    Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both

    I have little trouble believing c.
    C) is the correct answer. The way that parts of the NHS have reacted, throwing non-COVID patients under the bus is the scandal that will be next on the list once the virus is under control.

    As for our "govt"... you elect a clown, you should expect a circus.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331
    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    CatMan said:

    Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.

    Idi Amin?
    Nope.
    Donald Duck?
    Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

    'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
    Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
    ISTR (when I say recall, I don't mean as eye witness) that there was some kind of furore about Edward I as there had been plenty of Edwards previously, including, of course, his intended namesake E the Confessor.
    Clearly confusion. I think we tend to think of everything around monarchies as pretty set in stone, when even a concept like primogeniture really wasnt followed in a lot of places for a long time (and still isnt everywhere). Numbering an example where inconsistency is king.
    Yes it really was a case of: King dies, then everyone who thinks they are eligible legs it to be the first to take over strategic locations eg Winchester, etc.
    I always like that John is reviled in stories for going against Richard, when IIRC all the sons of Henry II, including Richard, rebelled against their father(the elder ones did at the very least). His failures when actually king dont get much of a look in in pop culture.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,809

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    It is hard even for a partisan to justify given that record.
    Er....sorry?

    Trouble is, corona has been used as a reason to shut down all sorts of human activity in recent months, right?

    Its like with BLM protests. Ordinary human activity can go ahead when its human activity that suits our agenda.

    How arrogant of you to presume to know my agenda. And in fact it has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's agenda

    It was a pretty straightforward point. Yes coronavirus has curtailed many normal activities, but the point raised was that the USA has a history of not letting even civil war disrupt such things. Given that history and their law, it is exceedingly hard to see justification for it, even if a good idea since theyve set out that war nor disease should affect that to that degree.

    If the UK were to delay holding an election due to coronavirus it would a be a far different point as we have suspended elections during war for example.

    Try not seeing hidden motives. Though your attempt to shoehorn in BLM was worth a chuckle.
    I do not presume to know your agenda. As you say its beside the point.

    My point is simply that corona can and is be used to selectively control human activity based on agenda and not medicine.

    You rightly say that nothing has ever stopped US elections. But that goes for a whole host of other activities too, and they have been stopped or curtailed.

    Why are suddenly elections safer than shutting down bars or stopping people flying?

    The answer is that they may not be. It just suits someone's agenda. Not yours necessarily, I freely accept.

    What agenda could anyone have but to control the virus and save lives? Unless someone is making money out of this pandemic.
  • sladeslade Posts: 973
    Just voted in the Lib Dem leadership contest. Went for the safe choice.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 60,345
    MaxPB said:

    Desperate from Trump. Congress will never agree, rightly so. Hope he gets smashed by 10+ points and a landslide EC against him.

    The USA has far too many checks and balances to allow the sort of nonsense he's proposing. It'd be easier in this country I suspect...……...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085
    Separate Regnal numbers (like James VI and I) existed only when the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were different.

    UK Monarchs have only one Regnal number not different ones for England and Scotland. Her Majesty is QEII in Scotland despite there never having been a Scottish Queen Elizabeth.

    The higher Regnal number of the two is used if there's a clash. Hence a future Queen Margaret would be Queen Margaret II and there simply never would have been an English Queen Margaret.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 5,549



    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53592881


    Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both

    d) The UK has more vulnerable people (particularly when it comes to weight related issues)
    e) The UK got a different strain to some other countries
    f) The UK was unlucky in that it didn't over-react when over-reacting turned out to be the correct choice
    g) Other countries had more concentrated outbreaks that led to them locking down earlier
    h) No conclusions can be fully drawn until a year after this is over


    And there's plenty more...




    d) Possible, but also therefore relates to a), b) and c), but most likely not significant enough to account for the outright winner status in excess deaths.
    e) Scientifically implausible. A Trumpian type excuse that government might try because of b).
    f) Not unlucky, incompetent: see b)
    g) See b): Government had ample time to plan
    h) nonsense

    Plenty more.... denial and excuses from the government and NHS for years to come, yes of course. England has the highest excess deaths in Europe - fact. Our health and political system has been tested and found seriously wanting
  • FishingFishing Posts: 1,083
    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    Desperate from Trump. Congress will never agree, rightly so. Hope he gets smashed by 10+ points and a landslide EC against him.

    The USA has far too many checks and balances to allow the sort of nonsense he's proposing. It'd be easier in this country I suspect...……...
    We did it during the war by a simple Act of Parliament and I don't think anyone significant protested.
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,711



    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53592881


    Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both

    I would add that the general public have an element of responsibility to share. We get the NHS we pay for and the governments we vote for. We make individual chioces to wear masks, go to the pub, etc, etc
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085
    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    Desperate from Trump. Congress will never agree, rightly so. Hope he gets smashed by 10+ points and a landslide EC against him.

    The USA has far too many checks and balances to allow the sort of nonsense he's proposing. It'd be easier in this country I suspect...……...
    All it would take in this country is an Act of Parliament like in WWII.

    America didn't cancel it's elections for either World War or the Civil War.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 1,083
    Frankly America might be better if Trump was indeed King Donald, a constitutional monarch, and the government was run by somebody serious.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,942
    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    Desperate from Trump. Congress will never agree, rightly so. Hope he gets smashed by 10+ points and a landslide EC against him.

    The USA has far too many checks and balances to allow the sort of nonsense he's proposing. It'd be easier in this country I suspect...……...
    As we saw with prorogation, the Queen is just a parrot, doing whatever her PM told her to do, even if her PM was unelected.

    Thank God for an independent judiciary.
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,711
    slade said:

    Just voted in the Lib Dem leadership contest. Went for the safe choice.

    Jo Grimond is long dead I'm afraid!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085



    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53592881


    Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both

    d) The UK has more vulnerable people (particularly when it comes to weight related issues)
    e) The UK got a different strain to some other countries
    f) The UK was unlucky in that it didn't over-react when over-reacting turned out to be the correct choice
    g) Other countries had more concentrated outbreaks that led to them locking down earlier
    h) No conclusions can be fully drawn until a year after this is over


    And there's plenty more...




    i) The UK has different population density.
    j) The UK had more tourists in viral hotspots seeding this before it was known about.

    I'm sure there's more.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 6,023
    edited July 30

    Separate Regnal numbers (like James VI and I) existed only when the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were different.

    UK Monarchs have only one Regnal number not different ones for England and Scotland. Her Majesty is QEII in Scotland despite there never having been a Scottish Queen Elizabeth.

    The higher Regnal number of the two is used if there's a clash. Hence a future Queen Margaret would be Queen Margaret II and there simply never would have been an English Queen Margaret.

    But James VI and I was the King of one United Kingdom (Union of the Crowns, not Parliaments, but that is the bit that counts for regnal numbers.

    And on your logic the William of Orange, and the one that was a sailor in the RN, should be IV and V respectively.

    As for what happened after 1707, the typical Scottish Post Office Box shows that HM is QE [alone] in Scotland, and that [whoops - edit[ WAS a Government department.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 541
    edited July 30
    deleted block quote snafu
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085
    Scott_xP said:
    Is it morbid to ask if he was on the Dead Pool?
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,919
    The democrats have spent the last four years pouring a ton of scorn on the democratic process that elected their president. Could they really have done any more to delegitimise their own system?

    Now they are expect their opponents to abide by that process and system - in a close result?

    FFS.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331
    Carnyx said:

    Separate Regnal numbers (like James VI and I) existed only when the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were different.

    UK Monarchs have only one Regnal number not different ones for England and Scotland. Her Majesty is QEII in Scotland despite there never having been a Scottish Queen Elizabeth.

    The higher Regnal number of the two is used if there's a clash. Hence a future Queen Margaret would be Queen Margaret II and there simply never would have been an English Queen Margaret.

    But James VI and I was the King of one United Kingdom (Union of the Crowns, not Parliaments, but that is the bit that counts for regnal numbers.

    And on your logic the William of Orange, and the one that was a sailor in the RN, should be IV and V respectively.

    As for what happened after 1707, the typical Scottish Post Office Box shows that HM is QE [alone] in Scotland, and that [whoops - edit[ WAS a Government department.
    In fairness I dont think post boxes count definitively on proper usage, though clearly the rules were decided as they went along so any position could be right or wrong if we want.
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,711

    The democrats have spent the last four years pouring a ton of scorn on the democratic process that elected their president. Could they really have done any more to delegitimise their own system?

    Now they are expect their opponents to abide by that process and system - in a close result?

    FFS.

    The US is in a bad place - they desperately need to get rid of the incumbent but it is extraordinary that the alternative this time round is probably worse than Hilary Clinton. Beggars belief. It is a great country with millions of great people but I have no idea how they get out of this mess.
Sign In or Register to comment.