Yes, that's the slogan. It was the year of the first Jacobite rising, so the stuff about the Church and the King was important. Why the trade part was so important I'm not sure.
I just want the Tories to propose an alternative plan to Labour’s. I think they all agree money needs to be raised but from where?
The Tories are unlikely to make detailed pledges until required to produce an election manifesto, which should surprise no-one. Odds on when they do, their platform will consist of trickle down economics - tax cuts for the wealthy, which will somehow magically make us all better off - paid for with all out war on all social security claimants (except pensioners, obviously.)
It won't work for anyone except the rich but that's who the Conservative Party exist to empower. However, if, as seems likely, Labour ends up delivering another whole Parliament of wage suppression and falling living standards then, irrespective of whether this is accompanied by an arrest in the decline of the state and perhaps improvements in some areas such as healthcare, it has a good chance of success. If working people are offered little beyond five more years of shit sandwiches and empty promises of jam tomorrow, Labour will be out on its ear, in like fashion to what's just happened to the Democratic Party.
Yes, that's the slogan. It was the year of the first Jacobite rising, so the stuff about the Church and the King was important. Why the trade part was so important I'm not sure.
Having 99% of Hollywood millionaire celebs preaching at you to vote Dem must grate a little, if you're not doing too well financially. A small easy win for the Dems might be to knock celebrity endorsements on the head.
The billionaire Donald Trump was endorsed by Elon Musk, who hopes one day to be the richest man on Mars.
So he wants to be an illegal alien - again?
One thing that will come up in Trumps presidency is this.
Using the rules on Planetary Protection, there is a strong group who want to try and ban any landing on Mars that isn’t “decontaminated” to a very exacting standard.
The standard is largely bullshit, but that’s another conversation.
It involves autoclaving the entire vehicle (why using renetry heat doesn’t count for this is a question that is refused to be answered). And you can’t autoclave Starship - too big.
Interestingly, the Mars Sample return is hitting similar problem.
So a decision that will be made is whether the Planetary Protection types get their vision of nothing much on Mars - forever. Or whether the first Starship landings occur before the end of the decade
As JJ noted, it's more about settling the question of whether there was life on Mars ... before we introduce life on Mars.
Which many of the more…. cultist Planetery Protection types seem to want to put off forever. Finding if there is life or not, that is.
Vocal opposition to experiments capable of finding life is telling.
The most farcical bit is the bizarre attitude to Mars Sample Return. Which won’t be fully sterilised, under current plans. But it has a waiver or 2, so that’s OK…
"cultist Planetery Protection types seem to want to put off forever. "
LOL. No. Simply, no.
I want missions to go ahead. But if there is life on Mars (or elsewhere...) I want to be able to find it, and tell it is distinct. Having people who can advise missions on how best to prevent contamination is a great idea. Missions can still go ahead, but risks are reduced. Not removed, as the only way of doing this is doing nothing; but reduced. And some relatively simple processes can reduce risks by orders of magnitude.
I could easily say the anti-PP people are simply uninterested in astrobiology and science.
Have you actually met some of these people? I have.
Quite a few say that they will never accept a crewed landing on Mars. Full stop. By anyone.
When you ask them about the sterilisation level of the helicopter, they get all upset. It’s a naughty question, apparently.
And their concerns will be listened to, and possibly ignored. But their concerns may also inform, and lead to a better mission. But don't pretend that all PP people are like that, by a long shot.
You seem to hold PP in utter contempt; which is really anti-science.
Ask some European scientists about their conversations with NASA over planetary protection. WTAF is a common response. Also “this makes no sense - this will contaminate like crazy”.
It’s rather like the personal behaviours that stalled US space suit development for decades. I mean, when you have people claiming that the results from scientific trials should discarded, because the astronauts taking part in the trials must have been lying in their official, written reporting…. That’s definitely zany.
Name some to ask, please.
What stalled US spacesuit development was funding. Bridenstine described it thusly: every few years NASA would start a program to develop a new space suit. They would develop concepts (and there are plenty of those on the web, such as the Z1 and Z2, the Constellation suit, etc, ...), and when it got to the expensive parts of the program, it would get canned as replacements for the current designs were not seen as critical. Then, a year or two later, a new program would be started, only to get canned a few years later. Bridenstine said that all the money spent on the initial concept stages over the last couple of decades would have been more than enough to get new suits.
So from what I've heard and read, the problem was nothing to do with what you've said above, but more to do with the fact that new suits were not seen as being key, given the Shuttle / ISS ones were still usable and good enough.
(I really hope Bridenstine is appointed again by Trump as NASA administrator, and far better than his successor. He was very good. But I think he had a falling out with the orange one.)
The suits on ISS are old and becoming dangerous. An astronaut nearly drowned in one, a couple of years back
These are litterally 1970s designs. And not new manufacture either. So most of the people who worked on the design are retired or even dead. Most of the sub contractors are gone. So they cannibalise one suit to keep others going.
The problem dates back to at least the 90s. New designs were produced and then stalled by the Space Suit group within NASA. Who took the position that any change to the existing suits was bad.
The craziest one is the repeated suit give completions. Which involve building and testing new designs of gloves. Complete with actual demonstrations of the gloves. Followed by the Space Suit group saying that they can’t be used or taken any further. Meanwhile, it is not uncommon for astronauts to *lose fingernails* because of damage caused by the current gloves…
Qatar withdraws as mediator between Israel and Hamas, reports say
Qatar has withdrawn as the mediator in ceasefire and hostage release talks between Israel and Hamas, reports say.
It comes after senior US officials reportedly said Washington would no longer accept the presence of Hamas representatives in Qatar, accusing the Palestinian group of rejecting fresh proposals for an end to the war in Gaza.
Anonymous diplomatic sources told the AFP and Reuters news agencies that Hamas's political office in Doha "no longer serves its purpose" due to "a refusal to negotiate a deal in good faith".
I thought Qatar had started effectively expelling Hamas officials from the country? Looks like everyone has had enough of Hamas.
No doubt Israel will be closely following where they head next. Surprised if it is not Tehran
All this has rather backfired on the Hamas multi-millionaires.....I presume they will either go to Turkey because they have lots of their wealth stashed there, but where they will have to be constantly looking over their shoulder or to somewhere lovely like Iran or Syria (and the men from Mossad can still get you).
Seems more likely that the US no longer wants them around, I'd guess they will go to Iran. The ever dangled ceasefire is dead and presumably the hostages are not coming back alive.
I suspect that very few if any hostages are still alive. All the mumbling of previous deals over the past few months, release of alive hostages seems to be replaced by more ambiguous language. And obviously big boss man was found and killed out in the open without any human shields.
Who if any one really knows?
Fragmented groups will have little ability to phone home without interception so no politico will know. The tunnels could be anywhere with most probably under the debris fields. And as the Israelis have controlled the territory for the last 6 months and have found very little, this seems unlikely to change.
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
Edit - Manchester Cathedral is also quite an impressive building, as an ex-collegiate church, and is bang in the centre.
Manchester also has a decent Cafe and some volunteer cleaners who I swear are there 24/7*.
* I've randomly wandered in every so often (may be 11am, may be 5pm) when visiting to see the same group of ladies cleaning* / chatting to anyone passing..
IIRC Manchester Cathedral has interesting roof angels. Not as good as the roof bosses of Norwich, but you need a reflecting telescope to see those properly.
Today's photo quota - Manchester Cathedral roof angel, playing an instrument that looks like a pipeless version of the bagpipes, with a wind bag under the arm.
There are 14 of them dating to the late 15C playing wind and stringed instruments.
"Four Pompeii victims were found in 1974 in what is known as the "House of the golden bracelet." Three (two adults and one child) were found at the foot of a staircase leading to a garden and the seafront. Archaeologists thought this was likely a father, mother, and their child because of the arrangement of the bodies, as well as a golden bracelet worn on the arm of one of the bodies. But it wasn't possible to definitely determine the sex of any of the bodies. The hypothesis was that the trio had taken shelter in the stairwell but were killed when it collapsed. A fourth body of a child, about age 4, was found nearby, presumed to have died while trying to escape to the garden.
This new DNA analysis showed that this conventional interpretation was incorrect. All the bodies were male, including the one with the golden bracelet, and none of them were genetically related."
Yes, that's the slogan. It was the year of the first Jacobite rising, so the stuff about the Church and the King was important. Why the trade part was so important I'm not sure.
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
Edit - Manchester Cathedral is also quite an impressive building, as an ex-collegiate church, and is bang in the centre.
Manchester also has a decent Cafe and some volunteer cleaners who I swear are there 24/7*.
* I've randomly wandered in every so often (may be 11am, may be 5pm) when visiting to see the same group of ladies cleaning* / chatting to anyone passing..
IIRC Manchester Cathedral has interesting roof angels. Not as good as the roof bosses of Norwich, but you need a reflecting telescope to see those properly.
Today's photo quota - Manchester Cathedral roof angel, playing an instrument that looks like a pipeless version of the bagpipes, with a wind bag under the arm.
There are 14 of them dating to the late 15C playing wind and stringed instruments.
I recently went into Buckden Church, just off the A1 in Cambridgeshire, and was wowed by the orchestral angels that greet you. Quite a sight. I as told that they are believed to be the figures of actual 15th-Century parishioners.
"Four Pompeii victims were found in 1974 in what is known as the "House of the golden bracelet." Three (two adults and one child) were found at the foot of a staircase leading to a garden and the seafront. Archaeologists thought this was likely a father, mother, and their child because of the arrangement of the bodies, as well as a golden bracelet worn on the arm of one of the bodies. But it wasn't possible to definitely determine the sex of any of the bodies. The hypothesis was that the trio had taken shelter in the stairwell but were killed when it collapsed. A fourth body of a child, about age 4, was found nearby, presumed to have died while trying to escape to the garden.
This new DNA analysis showed that this conventional interpretation was incorrect. All the bodies were male, including the one with the golden bracelet, and none of them were genetically related."
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
From my perspective Coventry is a small city. My sister lives there - you can walk across the centre in 15 minutes. Wakefield is even smaller.
A story about Wakefield. I once went there and parked in a nice little landscaped car park near the centre, noting the relation to the spire of the cathedral over the rooftops.
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
"Four Pompeii victims were found in 1974 in what is known as the "House of the golden bracelet." Three (two adults and one child) were found at the foot of a staircase leading to a garden and the seafront. Archaeologists thought this was likely a father, mother, and their child because of the arrangement of the bodies, as well as a golden bracelet worn on the arm of one of the bodies. But it wasn't possible to definitely determine the sex of any of the bodies. The hypothesis was that the trio had taken shelter in the stairwell but were killed when it collapsed. A fourth body of a child, about age 4, was found nearby, presumed to have died while trying to escape to the garden.
This new DNA analysis showed that this conventional interpretation was incorrect. All the bodies were male, including the one with the golden bracelet, and none of them were genetically related."
Hmm. Two small boys and two adult men.
It could mean anything; and that's sorta the point of the article: using modern mores and culture to make assumptions about people and cultures that were quite different.
It's probably as simple as people in the street running into the nearest building, or friends/slaves/neighbours together.
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
From my perspective Coventry is a small city. My sister lives there - you can walk across the centre in 15 minutes. Wakefield is even smaller.
A story about Wakefield. I once went there and parked in a nice little landscaped car park near the centre, noting the relation to the spire of the cathedral over the rooftops.
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
Thomas Frank, who has spent the last twenty years warning this would happen, writes in NY Times.
"This was worth pointing out because working people were once the heart and soul of left-wing parties all over the world. It may seem like a distant memory, but not long ago, the left was not a movement of college professors, bankers or high-ranking officers at Uber or Amazon. Working people: That’s what parties of the left were very largely about. The same folks who just expressed such remarkable support for Donald Trump."
"I have been writing about these things for 20 years, and I have begun to doubt that any combination of financial disaster or electoral chastisement will ever turn on the lightbulb for the liberals."
Currently 51% in a 2 horse race, made up of his base and a sprinkling of swing or newly aligned voters, to give a 3% majority. In a time when virtually all incumbent Governments are having their vote share reduce.
Half of the voters opting for that walking shitshow is pretty remarkable, tbf.
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
Edit - Manchester Cathedral is also quite an impressive building, as an ex-collegiate church, and is bang in the centre.
Manchester also has a decent Cafe and some volunteer cleaners who I swear are there 24/7*.
* I've randomly wandered in every so often (may be 11am, may be 5pm) when visiting to see the same group of ladies cleaning* / chatting to anyone passing..
IIRC Manchester Cathedral has interesting roof angels. Not as good as the roof bosses of Norwich, but you need a reflecting telescope to see those properly.
Today's photo quota - Manchester Cathedral roof angel, playing an instrument that looks like a pipeless version of the bagpipes, with a wind bag under the arm.
There are 14 of them dating to the late 15C playing wind and stringed instruments.
I recently went into Buckden Church, just off the A1 in Cambridgeshire, and was wowed by the orchestral angels that greet you. Quite a sight. I as told that they are believed to be the figures of actual 15th-Century parishioners.
As soon as the Democrats start attacking Trump they’ve already lost. They need to get over it.
They should be worried about facing JD Vance. He’s genuinely impressive.
I genuinely do not think attacking Trump is the problem. The man is a misogynist, an oaf, corrupt, dishonest, a convicted felon, an absolute disgrace to the office he has now won for the second time.
The problem is finding ways to appeal to those short of a college level education. To address their concerns rather than the concerns of the professional classes such as identity as @MaxPB points out, gender and race. Concerns like the price of groceries, the shortage of housing, the depression of wages by international and immigrant competition, the cost of medical care, etc etc. And the real challenge is to do this without sounding patronising, superior or simply no understanding of how hard life is for the only moderately skilled worker in the USA.
It is bizarre that this half of America finds something more credible and easy to relate to in Trump than in the Democratic party. But it is a fact and until they find ways to address that fact they are going to struggle. 2020 Biden, with his blue collar, union links could do it enough. Harris, despite some policies specifically directed towards this group, did not.
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
Edit - Manchester Cathedral is also quite an impressive building, as an ex-collegiate church, and is bang in the centre.
Manchester also has a decent Cafe and some volunteer cleaners who I swear are there 24/7*.
* I've randomly wandered in every so often (may be 11am, may be 5pm) when visiting to see the same group of ladies cleaning* / chatting to anyone passing..
IIRC Manchester Cathedral has interesting roof angels. Not as good as the roof bosses of Norwich, but you need a reflecting telescope to see those properly.
Today's photo quota - Manchester Cathedral roof angel, playing an instrument that looks like a pipeless version of the bagpipes, with a wind bag under the arm.
There are 14 of them dating to the late 15C playing wind and stringed instruments.
I recently went into Buckden Church, just off the A1 in Cambridgeshire, and was wowed by the orchestral angels that greet you. Quite a sight. I as told that they are believed to be the figures of actual 15th-Century parishioners.
One thing that is widely under-appreciated is that many in Ukrainian gov institutions preferred a Trump victory over Harris
Like the majority of US voters on other issues, they were exasperated with the status quo (a losing trajectory) and wanted it shaken up one way or another
From the discussions on third term possibilities the other day, one thing occurred to me that I'd quite like put to bed. Whilst the intent of the 22nd Amendment is obvious, could a compliant Supreme Court bypass it by looking at the exact wording?
What I'm thinking about is the immediately obvious "swap President and VP on the ticket." That is, a Vance/Trump ticket, with Vance resigning the day after inauguration (and could then be appointed VP by a succeeding Trump). Because the 22nd states that "no-one can be elected to the office of President more than twice."
Nothing about succeeding outwith election, like Ford, LBJ, Truman, Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt, Arthur, Johnson, Fillmore, Tyler - albeit some later won election as President, but all initially succeeded without being elected to the office of President. And, of course, what if it went further? Is an ex-President actually prohibited from any office in the line of succession? There seems to be no written legal rule saying "Oh, we'll skip over the Attorney General if it gets that far and a term-limited ex-President is doing the job." Maybe there is and I don't know about it?
"Ah, but you can't run as VP if you're term-limited out as President."
Can't you? The 12th Amendment states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." A term-limited President is still constitutionally eligible to be President, as long as he or she gets there without having to be elected. Via a tragedy taking out everyone to the Secretary of Education, for example, and that person being an ex-President. Or anywhere else in the line of succession, for that matter.
And being elected VP does not count as election to be President - otherwise every VP who has been elected on a ticket twice would be ineligible to even run once as President (including Biden, Gore, Bush senior, and Nixon before their first (or only) runs). The implication of the wording that you can serve up to 2 years of someone else's term before your first election as President underlines that.
So - while it looks overwhelmingly obvious that the 22nd Amendment intends for no-one to be President for more than eight (or ten) years, and the implication that serving more than two years of someone else's term invalidates one of those two allowed elections underlines it - it isn't explicit on it. So a compliant SCOTUS could say "technically, the law allows that."
I mean the entire ruling on Presidential Immunity looks similarly bad, so it wouldn't even be the most strained the Roberts Court has been, in my view. So - I'd like someone to tell me that there IS an explicit prohibition that stops that interpretation, because all I've done is wikipedia'd it. (In any case, I reckon it's far more likely that Trump gets 25th'd by Vance long before this even becomes a prospect)
I'd say it's simpler then that. The text states that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..." but it doesn't say that such a person cannot be nominated for election, and cannot have their name on the ballot paper. Nor does it say that such a person cannot be inaugurated to be President.
Now, if Trump is on the ballot paper, and people vote for him, at what point does the Supreme Court intervene?
The electoral votes reach Congress in early January, and maybe Congress rejects those votes because it would be unconstitutional for those votes to elect Trump for a third term. But then, no-one else has 270 electoral votes either, so the choice of President goes to the House. Is the House then free to select Trump as President? Would that count as electing him, or would that process come under some other name?
The common-sense interpretation of the 22nd amendment is obvious, and perhaps this would all be a step too far, but I reckon Trump will announce an intention to run for a third term pretty early - in part because it allows him to continue to raise campaign funds, in part because it would send Democrats completely insane, because even raising the question acts as a loyalty test for Republicans, and it possibly staves off the point at which, as a second term President, he becomes a lame duck.
Trump bent the reality field sufficiently that a majority of Republican politicians had to bend the knee and deny his 2020 defeat, and denied his attempts to overturn the result of that election by means of fraud and violence. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that he could bend reality that they would feel bound to deny the plain intent of the 22nd amendment?
As soon as the Democrats start attacking Trump they’ve already lost. They need to get over it.
They should be worried about facing JD Vance. He’s genuinely impressive.
I genuinely do not think attacking Trump is the problem. The man is a misogynist, an oaf, corrupt, dishonest, a convicted felon, an absolute disgrace to the office he has now won for the second time.
The problem is finding ways to appeal to those short of a college level education. To address their concerns rather than the concerns of the professional classes such as identity as @MaxPB points out, gender and race. Concerns like the price of groceries, the shortage of housing, the depression of wages by international and immigrant competition, the cost of medical care, etc etc. And the real challenge is to do this without sounding patronising, superior or simply no understanding of how hard life is for the only moderately skilled worker in the USA.
It is bizarre that this half of America finds something more credible and easy to relate to in Trump than in the Democratic party. But it is a fact and until they find ways to address that fact they are going to struggle. 2020 Biden, with his blue collar, union links could do it enough. Harris, despite some policies specifically directed towards this group, did not.
As Clinton (B) said 'It's the economy, stupid'.
And we had repeated examples, on CNN and other reputable sources of people from all communities saying that it was about the economy.
The US used to be very cheap for some basic things. Post COVID inflation has killed that. Suddenly dining out is more like the UK - a serious amount of cash for a family of four etc. Groceries is another one.
These are things people do every day - they hit hard….
O/T but interesting pieces on hospital food, one by a m other seriously upset at the problems of keeping her small daughter properly fed at a time when she really needed good nutrition during chemotherapy and a transplant:
IMO that piece suffers from ingrowing, kneejerk disregard for the UK, and massive extrapolation of a small sample of anecdata. I'm not convinced of an argument that includes statements such as 'my portion did not look nutricious'. IMO the article should be on Mumsnet, not the Guardian.
It's the same mistake that Danny Boyle made when he glorified the NHS in the 1950s at the 2012 Olympic Opening. He ignored that that was also the era of iron lungs and tens of thousands of people locked up in mental asylums for decades, with no hope of escape.
The author demands more meals to her personal specification, then complains about the quantities of food thrown away. If they are to have her ideal set of ingredients to hand, then that will increase food waste, They can't have it both ways, I think she is mainly an activist for cooking from scratch - but how would that work effectively, and would we all be willing to pay for it?
It also ignores that there is much very good food and food choices in the NHS, and it is very variable by hospital trust. Mine is quite impressive, and has an extensive selection of choices. But then we mainly have single rooms, as well.
Looks OK, doesn't it. One problem is that it has to be brought to the ward, often from some way away, but that's the nature of the beast.
My view is that it does the job, and meets needs well for the establishment. There is enough variety to cover a variety of meals over perhaps a week, and various dietary options if a Dietician is involved, plus a decent selection of deliberately healthy options such as fresh fruit and salads. In extremis certain foods can even be prescribed.
I had a stretch of 19 days in there in the last 2 years, and it was OK.
If anyone wants something else, there is a Marks & Spencer with a normal cold takeaway range, and a volunteer cafe.
And if you are me you would just breeze into a staff or public cafeteria, just daring the place to tell you to leave.
I’m on my 4th city in 4 days and enjoying comparing them. Today it’s Cardiff, then Swansea.
I wrote of the lack of centrepiece cathedrals in British cities. Well this one is of course centred on a castle, but the degree to which the principality stadium dominates the very centre of the city is quite unique. Slap bang in the middle.
I rather like Cardiff. The nightlife was by far the rowdiest and most joyous of the cities I’ve visited this week. Proper Magalluf-on-Taff.
Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.
Wasn’t Tim referring to the lack of centrepiece cathedrals in major cities, seem to recall he gave a nod to cathedral cities as “large towns” with a cathedral which is true really.
Portsmouth is a large city with a prominent Cathedral. Arguably that has been 'industrialised' since Drake's time and earlier by being a major base of the navy.
Nottingham is an important city with no old Cathedral, though the Roman Catholics have a pleasant neo-Gothic one built in the 1840s. Possibly also Newcastle, which is an upgraded parish church. And Sheffield. And Derby. I'm not sure about Leicester. These are all Dioceses created as part of Victorian population growth, and the corollary of the empty monumental wool churches, where the population has left, not arrived.
Don't underestimate parish church cathedrals - some of them are magnificent. I'd put both Derby and Sheffield on that list.
Not modern cathedrals I'd put Liverpool and Coventry at the top of that list, with Coventry on a pinnacle that equals almost anything from the medieval period. Lutyens' Liverpool is a last gasp of medievalism.
For "Cathedrals" in indutrial revolution cities, I'd suggest the place is occupied by those great Victorian town halls - Bradford, Manchester, and others have this phenomenon. In Nottingham they built it on half of the medieval marketplace.
I was going to make the same point as you do in your last paragraph. In the great industrial cities, civic pride in the form of town halls and other civic buildings outgunned religious pride. Leeds town hall, magnificent, is also worth a mention.
Manchester City Hall is a thing of beauty, as is the John Rylands Library.
Impossible to believe but Rochdale too.
Continuing this conversation, I just don't understand why that's impossible to believe.
If someone finds that impossible to believe, it is down to their own ignorance or narrowmindedness - entirely to do with the individual being a chump, not to do with Rochdale.
Such chumps need to be forced to visit the Wakefield Piece Hall, or something similar such as the Boots D10 factory in Beeston, Nottingham.
One of the things I'm most surprised by is how much better Trump has been doing in Dem strongholds. California and New York both saw 5% swings in favour of Trump, this is what is most surprising to me. I'd have expected liberal states to be more heavily against him this time but pick up enough in the swing states to still win the EC. In fact Trump has just seen a 4-5% swing to him over the whole nation, not just in marginal states.
I think it just shows that the Trump message resonated across the whole country, even where there's no resources put into a ground campaign Trump has performed well.
Probably in Blue States, wokeism begins to grate with a lot of voters.
By the same token, note how voters don't give a shit about Israel/Palestine.
One thing that is widely under-appreciated is that many in Ukrainian gov institutions preferred a Trump victory over Harris
Like the majority of US voters on other issues, they were exasperated with the status quo (a losing trajectory) and wanted it shaken up one way or another
I was predicting a Ukrainian pivot after a Trump win. By inauguration day they will have found Hunter Biden’s laptop, I’ll bet….
One of the things I'm most surprised by is how much better Trump has been doing in Dem strongholds. California and New York both saw 5% swings in favour of Trump, this is what is most surprising to me. I'd have expected liberal states to be more heavily against him this time but pick up enough in the swing states to still win the EC. In fact Trump has just seen a 4-5% swing to him over the whole nation, not just in marginal states.
I think it just shows that the Trump message resonated across the whole country, even where there's no resources put into a ground campaign Trump has performed well.
Probably in Blue States, wokeism begins to grate with a lot of voters.
By the same token, note how voters don't give a shit about Israel/Palestine.
Until they do. The same claim can be made about our membership of the European Union, until they did...
One of the things I'm most surprised by is how much better Trump has been doing in Dem strongholds. California and New York both saw 5% swings in favour of Trump, this is what is most surprising to me. I'd have expected liberal states to be more heavily against him this time but pick up enough in the swing states to still win the EC. In fact Trump has just seen a 4-5% swing to him over the whole nation, not just in marginal states.
I think it just shows that the Trump message resonated across the whole country, even where there's no resources put into a ground campaign Trump has performed well.
Probably in Blue States, wokeism begins to grate with a lot of voters.
By the same token, note how voters don't give a shit about Israel/Palestine.
There were one or two counties with a notably high vote for Stein, presumed to be due to Gaza, but I don't think you can say it had a major impact on the election result.
From the discussions on third term possibilities the other day, one thing occurred to me that I'd quite like put to bed. Whilst the intent of the 22nd Amendment is obvious, could a compliant Supreme Court bypass it by looking at the exact wording?
What I'm thinking about is the immediately obvious "swap President and VP on the ticket." That is, a Vance/Trump ticket, with Vance resigning the day after inauguration (and could then be appointed VP by a succeeding Trump). Because the 22nd states that "no-one can be elected to the office of President more than twice."
Nothing about succeeding outwith election, like Ford, LBJ, Truman, Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt, Arthur, Johnson, Fillmore, Tyler - albeit some later won election as President, but all initially succeeded without being elected to the office of President. And, of course, what if it went further? Is an ex-President actually prohibited from any office in the line of succession? There seems to be no written legal rule saying "Oh, we'll skip over the Attorney General if it gets that far and a term-limited ex-President is doing the job." Maybe there is and I don't know about it?
"Ah, but you can't run as VP if you're term-limited out as President."
Can't you? The 12th Amendment states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." A term-limited President is still constitutionally eligible to be President, as long as he or she gets there without having to be elected. Via a tragedy taking out everyone to the Secretary of Education, for example, and that person being an ex-President. Or anywhere else in the line of succession, for that matter.
And being elected VP does not count as election to be President - otherwise every VP who has been elected on a ticket twice would be ineligible to even run once as President (including Biden, Gore, Bush senior, and Nixon before their first (or only) runs). The implication of the wording that you can serve up to 2 years of someone else's term before your first election as President underlines that.
So - while it looks overwhelmingly obvious that the 22nd Amendment intends for no-one to be President for more than eight (or ten) years, and the implication that serving more than two years of someone else's term invalidates one of those two allowed elections underlines it - it isn't explicit on it. So a compliant SCOTUS could say "technically, the law allows that."
I mean the entire ruling on Presidential Immunity looks similarly bad, so it wouldn't even be the most strained the Roberts Court has been, in my view. So - I'd like someone to tell me that there IS an explicit prohibition that stops that interpretation, because all I've done is wikipedia'd it. (In any case, I reckon it's far more likely that Trump gets 25th'd by Vance long before this even becomes a prospect)
I'd say it's simpler then that. The text states that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..." but it doesn't say that such a person cannot be nominated for election, and cannot have their name on the ballot paper. Nor does it say that such a person cannot be inaugurated to be President.
Now, if Trump is on the ballot paper, and people vote for him, at what point does the Supreme Court intervene?
The electoral votes reach Congress in early January, and maybe Congress rejects those votes because it would be unconstitutional for those votes to elect Trump for a third term. But then, no-one else has 270 electoral votes either, so the choice of President goes to the House. Is the House then free to select Trump as President? Would that count as electing him, or would that process come under some other name?
The common-sense interpretation of the 22nd amendment is obvious, and perhaps this would all be a step too far, but I reckon Trump will announce an intention to run for a third term pretty early - in part because it allows him to continue to raise campaign funds, in part because it would send Democrats completely insane, because even raising the question acts as a loyalty test for Republicans, and it possibly staves off the point at which, as a second term President, he becomes a lame duck.
Trump bent the reality field sufficiently that a majority of Republican politicians had to bend the knee and deny his 2020 defeat, and denied his attempts to overturn the result of that election by means of fraud and violence. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that he could bend reality that they would feel bound to deny the plain intent of the 22nd amendment?
De jure vs de facto.
In a mature democracy we focus on the de jure while ignoring the de facto.
From the discussions on third term possibilities the other day, one thing occurred to me that I'd quite like put to bed. Whilst the intent of the 22nd Amendment is obvious, could a compliant Supreme Court bypass it by looking at the exact wording?
What I'm thinking about is the immediately obvious "swap President and VP on the ticket." That is, a Vance/Trump ticket, with Vance resigning the day after inauguration (and could then be appointed VP by a succeeding Trump). Because the 22nd states that "no-one can be elected to the office of President more than twice."
Nothing about succeeding outwith election, like Ford, LBJ, Truman, Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt, Arthur, Johnson, Fillmore, Tyler - albeit some later won election as President, but all initially succeeded without being elected to the office of President. And, of course, what if it went further? Is an ex-President actually prohibited from any office in the line of succession? There seems to be no written legal rule saying "Oh, we'll skip over the Attorney General if it gets that far and a term-limited ex-President is doing the job." Maybe there is and I don't know about it?
"Ah, but you can't run as VP if you're term-limited out as President."
Can't you? The 12th Amendment states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." A term-limited President is still constitutionally eligible to be President, as long as he or she gets there without having to be elected. Via a tragedy taking out everyone to the Secretary of Education, for example, and that person being an ex-President. Or anywhere else in the line of succession, for that matter.
And being elected VP does not count as election to be President - otherwise every VP who has been elected on a ticket twice would be ineligible to even run once as President (including Biden, Gore, Bush senior, and Nixon before their first (or only) runs). The implication of the wording that you can serve up to 2 years of someone else's term before your first election as President underlines that.
So - while it looks overwhelmingly obvious that the 22nd Amendment intends for no-one to be President for more than eight (or ten) years, and the implication that serving more than two years of someone else's term invalidates one of those two allowed elections underlines it - it isn't explicit on it. So a compliant SCOTUS could say "technically, the law allows that."
I mean the entire ruling on Presidential Immunity looks similarly bad, so it wouldn't even be the most strained the Roberts Court has been, in my view. So - I'd like someone to tell me that there IS an explicit prohibition that stops that interpretation, because all I've done is wikipedia'd it. (In any case, I reckon it's far more likely that Trump gets 25th'd by Vance long before this even becomes a prospect)
I'd say it's simpler then that. The text states that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..." but it doesn't say that such a person cannot be nominated for election, and cannot have their name on the ballot paper. Nor does it say that such a person cannot be inaugurated to be President.
Now, if Trump is on the ballot paper, and people vote for him, at what point does the Supreme Court intervene?
The electoral votes reach Congress in early January, and maybe Congress rejects those votes because it would be unconstitutional for those votes to elect Trump for a third term. But then, no-one else has 270 electoral votes either, so the choice of President goes to the House. Is the House then free to select Trump as President? Would that count as electing him, or would that process come under some other name?
The common-sense interpretation of the 22nd amendment is obvious, and perhaps this would all be a step too far, but I reckon Trump will announce an intention to run for a third term pretty early - in part because it allows him to continue to raise campaign funds, in part because it would send Democrats completely insane, because even raising the question acts as a loyalty test for Republicans, and it possibly staves off the point at which, as a second term President, he becomes a lame duck.
Trump bent the reality field sufficiently that a majority of Republican politicians had to bend the knee and deny his 2020 defeat, and denied his attempts to overturn the result of that election by means of fraud and violence. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that he could bend reality that they would feel bound to deny the plain intent of the 22nd amendment?
I think some States have a rule that you can't be on the ballot paper if you're not eligible for election. ISTR this was what forced the Supreme Court to rule on the 14th Amendment thingy.
But it does look clear that the VP route is viable. The constitutional scholars are definitely split on it. Some say that the intention is obvious ("nope, sod off, don't try that crap with us"), others that the reading is explicit ("It doesn't say 'eligible for the office' it says 'elected to the office,' and they actually removed 'eligible' from the draft to replace it with 'electable,' and they're not synonyms, so there")
However, we're looking at a subtly different point to that of the constitutional scholars. Not whether it is valid, but whether a compliant SCOTUS could rule that it is valid. And, unfortunately, even those who say "Nope, sod off with those shenanigans" say that one thing isn't ambiguous:
"If anyone tried this, it would for sure end up at the Supreme Court. Because that’s who decides conflicts within the Constitution."
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
May I mention the help the Guardian gave to Trump? Or is that out of bounds? The persistent hostility of that newspaper to any American leader to the right of Bernie Sanders -- regardless of the success or failure of their policies -- influenced American journalists, who became less and less trusted as a result. (Take a look at the Pew studies to see just how deep that distrust is,)
Did that have an impact,?
Would the U.K. politicians and staffers, of all parties, going over to campaign for Harris also be counterproductive. I know how dim a view I’d take of it if someone from an overseas political party turned up on my doorstep to tell me how to,vote.
I think this is an absolute nothingburger.
It's just standard procedure both ways that a few chose to weaponise as a vapid talking point because they have nothing substantive to say.
One of the things I'm most surprised by is how much better Trump has been doing in Dem strongholds. California and New York both saw 5% swings in favour of Trump, this is what is most surprising to me. I'd have expected liberal states to be more heavily against him this time but pick up enough in the swing states to still win the EC. In fact Trump has just seen a 4-5% swing to him over the whole nation, not just in marginal states.
I think it just shows that the Trump message resonated across the whole country, even where there's no resources put into a ground campaign Trump has performed well.
Probably in Blue States, wokeism begins to grate with a lot of voters.
By the same token, note how voters don't give a shit about Israel/Palestine.
Until they do. The same claim can be made about our membership of the European Union, until they did...
One of the things I'm most surprised by is how much better Trump has been doing in Dem strongholds. California and New York both saw 5% swings in favour of Trump, this is what is most surprising to me. I'd have expected liberal states to be more heavily against him this time but pick up enough in the swing states to still win the EC. In fact Trump has just seen a 4-5% swing to him over the whole nation, not just in marginal states.
I think it just shows that the Trump message resonated across the whole country, even where there's no resources put into a ground campaign Trump has performed well.
Probably in Blue States, wokeism begins to grate with a lot of voters.
By the same token, note how voters don't give a shit about Israel/Palestine.
There were one or two counties with a notably high vote for Stein, presumed to be due to Gaza, but I don't think you can say it had a major impact on the election result.
It's probably an issue that exercises 10-15% of voters very strongly, who make a lot of noise about it, but not for the reasons they think; it happens because it touches fundamental erogenous zones for them about class, colour, capitalism and colonialism with some age-old prejudices mixed, and plenty of bad behaviour to validate it.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
Well, I’ve spent a large part of today driving around the main roads, backroads and lanes of South Wales.
I’m very disappointed to note that I didn’t manage to drive on a single one of those legendary 20mph roads on any of my journeys, having to content myself with spotting a couple up narrow residential streets.
From the discussions on third term possibilities the other day, one thing occurred to me that I'd quite like put to bed. Whilst the intent of the 22nd Amendment is obvious, could a compliant Supreme Court bypass it by looking at the exact wording?
What I'm thinking about is the immediately obvious "swap President and VP on the ticket." That is, a Vance/Trump ticket, with Vance resigning the day after inauguration (and could then be appointed VP by a succeeding Trump). Because the 22nd states that "no-one can be elected to the office of President more than twice."
Nothing about succeeding outwith election, like Ford, LBJ, Truman, Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt, Arthur, Johnson, Fillmore, Tyler - albeit some later won election as President, but all initially succeeded without being elected to the office of President. And, of course, what if it went further? Is an ex-President actually prohibited from any office in the line of succession? There seems to be no written legal rule saying "Oh, we'll skip over the Attorney General if it gets that far and a term-limited ex-President is doing the job." Maybe there is and I don't know about it?
"Ah, but you can't run as VP if you're term-limited out as President."
Can't you? The 12th Amendment states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." A term-limited President is still constitutionally eligible to be President, as long as he or she gets there without having to be elected. Via a tragedy taking out everyone to the Secretary of Education, for example, and that person being an ex-President. Or anywhere else in the line of succession, for that matter.
And being elected VP does not count as election to be President - otherwise every VP who has been elected on a ticket twice would be ineligible to even run once as President (including Biden, Gore, Bush senior, and Nixon before their first (or only) runs). The implication of the wording that you can serve up to 2 years of someone else's term before your first election as President underlines that.
So - while it looks overwhelmingly obvious that the 22nd Amendment intends for no-one to be President for more than eight (or ten) years, and the implication that serving more than two years of someone else's term invalidates one of those two allowed elections underlines it - it isn't explicit on it. So a compliant SCOTUS could say "technically, the law allows that."
I mean the entire ruling on Presidential Immunity looks similarly bad, so it wouldn't even be the most strained the Roberts Court has been, in my view. So - I'd like someone to tell me that there IS an explicit prohibition that stops that interpretation, because all I've done is wikipedia'd it. (In any case, I reckon it's far more likely that Trump gets 25th'd by Vance long before this even becomes a prospect)
I'd say it's simpler then that. The text states that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..." but it doesn't say that such a person cannot be nominated for election, and cannot have their name on the ballot paper. Nor does it say that such a person cannot be inaugurated to be President.
Now, if Trump is on the ballot paper, and people vote for him, at what point does the Supreme Court intervene?
The electoral votes reach Congress in early January, and maybe Congress rejects those votes because it would be unconstitutional for those votes to elect Trump for a third term. But then, no-one else has 270 electoral votes either, so the choice of President goes to the House. Is the House then free to select Trump as President? Would that count as electing him, or would that process come under some other name?
The common-sense interpretation of the 22nd amendment is obvious, and perhaps this would all be a step too far, but I reckon Trump will announce an intention to run for a third term pretty early - in part because it allows him to continue to raise campaign funds, in part because it would send Democrats completely insane, because even raising the question acts as a loyalty test for Republicans, and it possibly staves off the point at which, as a second term President, he becomes a lame duck.
Trump bent the reality field sufficiently that a majority of Republican politicians had to bend the knee and deny his 2020 defeat, and denied his attempts to overturn the result of that election by means of fraud and violence. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that he could bend reality that they would feel bound to deny the plain intent of the 22nd amendment?
We’re overthinking this for 2 reasons: 1. Trump is the living embodiment of Hailsham’s Elected Dictatorship. He can simply run and nobody is going to stop him. Congress? Both houses are his. The courts? He owns the Supreme Court who will simply throw anything out trying to stop him 2. He is already showing signs of decay. Will he make it to a 2028 election without being Biden’d?
One of the things I'm most surprised by is how much better Trump has been doing in Dem strongholds. California and New York both saw 5% swings in favour of Trump, this is what is most surprising to me. I'd have expected liberal states to be more heavily against him this time but pick up enough in the swing states to still win the EC. In fact Trump has just seen a 4-5% swing to him over the whole nation, not just in marginal states.
I think it just shows that the Trump message resonated across the whole country, even where there's no resources put into a ground campaign Trump has performed well.
Probably in Blue States, wokeism begins to grate with a lot of voters.
By the same token, note how voters don't give a shit about Israel/Palestine.
There were one or two counties with a notably high vote for Stein, presumed to be due to Gaza, but I don't think you can say it had a major impact on the election result.
It's probably an issue that exercises 10-15% of voters very strongly, who make a lot of noise about it, but not for the reasons they think; it happens because it touches fundamental erogenous zones for them about class, colour, capitalism and colonialism with some age-old prejudices mixed, and plenty of bad behaviour to validate it.
Dunno, I’ve seen more of the internal organs of Palestinian kids on twitter in the last year than I ever want to see again. That’s a pretty simple reason for me giving a shit about Israel/Palestine.
One thing that is widely under-appreciated is that many in Ukrainian gov institutions preferred a Trump victory over Harris
Like the majority of US voters on other issues, they were exasperated with the status quo (a losing trajectory) and wanted it shaken up one way or another
The democrats have failed to give Ukraine the tools to finish the job for 2 and a half years. And consequently, there is fatigue in Ukraine and popular support for the war is declining. So what were people expecting to change if Harris was elected? It seems like there was no strategy other than to hope that Russia collapses... which has repeatedly failed to happen, and indeed, it looks like Ukraine is vulnerable and cannot keep fighting indefinetely. I don't understand why people are demanding adherance to this 'strategy'.... because it seems to just lead to failure.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
Even if removed by the 25th, he’ll still have been elected twice…
From the discussions on third term possibilities the other day, one thing occurred to me that I'd quite like put to bed. Whilst the intent of the 22nd Amendment is obvious, could a compliant Supreme Court bypass it by looking at the exact wording?
What I'm thinking about is the immediately obvious "swap President and VP on the ticket." That is, a Vance/Trump ticket, with Vance resigning the day after inauguration (and could then be appointed VP by a succeeding Trump). Because the 22nd states that "no-one can be elected to the office of President more than twice."
Nothing about succeeding outwith election, like Ford, LBJ, Truman, Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt, Arthur, Johnson, Fillmore, Tyler - albeit some later won election as President, but all initially succeeded without being elected to the office of President. And, of course, what if it went further? Is an ex-President actually prohibited from any office in the line of succession? There seems to be no written legal rule saying "Oh, we'll skip over the Attorney General if it gets that far and a term-limited ex-President is doing the job." Maybe there is and I don't know about it?
"Ah, but you can't run as VP if you're term-limited out as President."
Can't you? The 12th Amendment states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." A term-limited President is still constitutionally eligible to be President, as long as he or she gets there without having to be elected. Via a tragedy taking out everyone to the Secretary of Education, for example, and that person being an ex-President. Or anywhere else in the line of succession, for that matter.
And being elected VP does not count as election to be President - otherwise every VP who has been elected on a ticket twice would be ineligible to even run once as President (including Biden, Gore, Bush senior, and Nixon before their first (or only) runs). The implication of the wording that you can serve up to 2 years of someone else's term before your first election as President underlines that.
So - while it looks overwhelmingly obvious that the 22nd Amendment intends for no-one to be President for more than eight (or ten) years, and the implication that serving more than two years of someone else's term invalidates one of those two allowed elections underlines it - it isn't explicit on it. So a compliant SCOTUS could say "technically, the law allows that."
I mean the entire ruling on Presidential Immunity looks similarly bad, so it wouldn't even be the most strained the Roberts Court has been, in my view. So - I'd like someone to tell me that there IS an explicit prohibition that stops that interpretation, because all I've done is wikipedia'd it. (In any case, I reckon it's far more likely that Trump gets 25th'd by Vance long before this even becomes a prospect)
I'd say it's simpler then that. The text states that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..." but it doesn't say that such a person cannot be nominated for election, and cannot have their name on the ballot paper. Nor does it say that such a person cannot be inaugurated to be President.
Now, if Trump is on the ballot paper, and people vote for him, at what point does the Supreme Court intervene?
The electoral votes reach Congress in early January, and maybe Congress rejects those votes because it would be unconstitutional for those votes to elect Trump for a third term. But then, no-one else has 270 electoral votes either, so the choice of President goes to the House. Is the House then free to select Trump as President? Would that count as electing him, or would that process come under some other name?
The common-sense interpretation of the 22nd amendment is obvious, and perhaps this would all be a step too far, but I reckon Trump will announce an intention to run for a third term pretty early - in part because it allows him to continue to raise campaign funds, in part because it would send Democrats completely insane, because even raising the question acts as a loyalty test for Republicans, and it possibly staves off the point at which, as a second term President, he becomes a lame duck.
Trump bent the reality field sufficiently that a majority of Republican politicians had to bend the knee and deny his 2020 defeat, and denied his attempts to overturn the result of that election by means of fraud and violence. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that he could bend reality that they would feel bound to deny the plain intent of the 22nd amendment?
I think some States have a rule that you can't be on the ballot paper if you're not eligible for election. ISTR this was what forced the Supreme Court to rule on the 14th Amendment thingy.
But it does look clear that the VP route is viable. The constitutional scholars are definitely split on it. Some say that the intention is obvious ("nope, sod off, don't try that crap with us"), others that the reading is explicit ("It doesn't say 'eligible for the office' it says 'elected to the office,' and they actually removed 'eligible' from the draft to replace it with 'electable,' and they're not synonyms, so there")
However, we're looking at a subtly different point to that of the constitutional scholars. Not whether it is valid, but whether a compliant SCOTUS could rule that it is valid. And, unfortunately, even those who say "Nope, sod off with those shenanigans" say that one thing isn't ambiguous:
"If anyone tried this, it would for sure end up at the Supreme Court. Because that’s who decides conflicts within the Constitution."
As I have posted before on PB, and usually get howled down a little, there is no way on God's green earth that Trump is not going to be actively working for a way around the two term limit from day one. Everyone knows his character.
The only way he now intends to leave the WH is when he passes.
Now maybe the Founding Fathers did build a constitution that will stop him doing is worst outrages but there is no doubt in my mind that he will try.
And if it ends up at 'his' Supreme Court then I'm sure he'll be just fine.
One thing that is widely under-appreciated is that many in Ukrainian gov institutions preferred a Trump victory over Harris
Like the majority of US voters on other issues, they were exasperated with the status quo (a losing trajectory) and wanted it shaken up one way or another
The democrats have failed to give Ukraine the tools to finish the job for 2 and a half years. And consequently, there is fatigue in Ukraine and popular support for the war is declining. So what were people expecting to change if Harris was elected? It seems like there was no strategy other than to hope that Russia collapses... which has repeatedly failed to happen, and indeed, it looks like Ukraine is vulnerable and cannot keep fighting indefinetely. I don't understand why people are demanding adherance to this 'strategy'.... because it seems to just lead to failure.
They had to overcome resistance from the Republicans to provide enough tools to start the job let alone finish it.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
IRELAND ELECTION REPORT First full day of the election campaign.
This day has been dominated by Fine Gael's plan to cut VAT on the hospitality sector to 11% (paid for in part by an increase in the VAT rate elsewhere to 11%). Many other parties (Sinn Fein, Labour, etc) back the hospitality industry's call for a 9% VAT rate, with the Social Democrats drawing a distinction between small hospitality venues (like West Cork cafes as run by local failed local election candidates for leader Holly Cairn's old seat on the council) and larger venues like hotels (like the hotel run by leader Holly Cairn's husband). Fianna Fail finds itself in the unusual position of calling for fiscal sanity. Simon Harris went to a livestock market (because everyone knows he's a townie and a stranger to rural Ireland), while Micheál Martin had a Covid vaccination, which is nice for him, I guess, but a bit late to benefit from any increased immunity for most of the remaining 19 days of the election campaign.
There have been no new polls since the 2nd November poll which had, with changes on GE2020: FG 26 (+5), FF 20 (-2), SF 18 (-7), Independents 16 (+2), SD 6 (+3), GRN 4 (-3), Lab 4 (nc), Aon 3 (+1), etc, etc...
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
Such as, for example, having all his rivals shot, which we know the SCOTUS are cool about.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
Edit - Manchester Cathedral is also quite an impressive building, as an ex-collegiate church, and is bang in the centre.
Manchester also has a decent Cafe and some volunteer cleaners who I swear are there 24/7*.
* I've randomly wandered in every so often (may be 11am, may be 5pm) when visiting to see the same group of ladies cleaning* / chatting to anyone passing..
IIRC Manchester Cathedral has interesting roof angels. Not as good as the roof bosses of Norwich, but you need a reflecting telescope to see those properly.
Today's photo quota - Manchester Cathedral roof angel, playing an instrument that looks like a pipeless version of the bagpipes, with a wind bag under the arm.
There are 14 of them dating to the late 15C playing wind and stringed instruments.
I recently went into Buckden Church, just off the A1 in Cambridgeshire, and was wowed by the orchestral angels that greet you. Quite a sight. I as told that they are believed to be the figures of actual 15th-Century parishioners.
One of the things I'm most surprised by is how much better Trump has been doing in Dem strongholds. California and New York both saw 5% swings in favour of Trump, this is what is most surprising to me. I'd have expected liberal states to be more heavily against him this time but pick up enough in the swing states to still win the EC. In fact Trump has just seen a 4-5% swing to him over the whole nation, not just in marginal states.
I think it just shows that the Trump message resonated across the whole country, even where there's no resources put into a ground campaign Trump has performed well.
Probably in Blue States, wokeism begins to grate with a lot of voters.
By the same token, note how voters don't give a shit about Israel/Palestine.
There were one or two counties with a notably high vote for Stein, presumed to be due to Gaza, but I don't think you can say it had a major impact on the election result.
It's probably an issue that exercises 10-15% of voters very strongly, who make a lot of noise about it, but not for the reasons they think; it happens because it touches fundamental erogenous zones for them about class, colour, capitalism and colonialism with some age-old prejudices mixed, and plenty of bad behaviour to validate it.
Dunno, I’ve seen more of the internal organs of Palestinian kids on twitter in the last year than I ever want to see again. That’s a pretty simple reason for me giving a shit about Israel/Palestine.
That's a pretty simple reason for not being on twitter.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
Could Trump stand as VP at the next election and then have the president bumped off when he wins and take over?
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
From my perspective Coventry is a small city. My sister lives there - you can walk across the centre in 15 minutes. Wakefield is even smaller.
A story about Wakefield. I once went there and parked in a nice little landscaped car park near the centre, noting the relation to the spire of the cathedral over the rooftops.
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
Could Trump stand as VP at the next election and then have the president bumped off when he wins and take over?
Doesn’t have to be violent, the president could just resign.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
He can't be elected VP either (12th Amendment), and once you get down to thinking he can succeed via being Speaker of the House or even something lower... nah.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
He can't be elected VP either (12th Amendment), and once you get down to thinking he can succeed via being Speaker of the House or even something lower... nah.
The 12th amendment talks about eligibility to be president, not to be elected president.
Not that clear. Even constitutional scholars disagree. Ineligible to BE President is not synonymous with not being able to be ELECTED President. That one going into it in depth emphasised that the original draft said that a two term President was ineligible to be President again, but this was removed (after three attempts) and replaced with the existing text on election rather than eligibility. Several people have become President without being elected to the office first.
The only thing about it that they do agree on is that SCOTUS would need to rule on it if any term-limited Presidents tried to run for VP.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
He can't be elected VP either (12th Amendment), and once you get down to thinking he can succeed via being Speaker of the House or even something lower... nah.
The 12th amendment talks about eligibility to be president, not to be elected president.
Which is the same thing, and it's circular reasoning to pretend otherwise.
After the Electoral College votes, he'll have been elected president twice, and that rules him out from the 2028/9 Electoral College electing him president or VP. And if he tries to claim otherwise, he'll lose enough support from his own side that he will get nowhere.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
He can't be elected VP either (12th Amendment), and once you get down to thinking he can succeed via being Speaker of the House or even something lower... nah.
The 12th amendment talks about eligibility to be president, not to be elected president.
Which is the same thing, and it's circular reasoning to pretend otherwise.
After the Electoral College votes, he'll have been elected president twice, and that rules him out from the 2028/9 Electoral College electing him president or VP. And if he tries to claim otherwise, he'll lose enough support from his own side that he will get nowhere.
No, it’s not the same. The 22nd amendment even talks about “holding the office” in other parts. If they had meant holding the office, they would have used that phrase.
Not that clear. Even constitutional scholars disagree. Ineligible to BE President is not synonymous with not being able to be ELECTED President. That one going into it in depth emphasised that the original draft said that a two term President was ineligible to be President again, but this was removed (after three attempts) and replaced with the existing text on election rather than eligibility. Several people have become President without being elected to the office first.
The only thing about it that they do agree on is that SCOTUS would need to rule on it if any term-limited Presidents tried to run for VP.
So given how the SCOTUS has been stacked by Trump that probably won't be an issue.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
He can't be elected VP either (12th Amendment), and once you get down to thinking he can succeed via being Speaker of the House or even something lower... nah.
The 12th amendment talks about eligibility to be president, not to be elected president.
Which is the same thing, and it's circular reasoning to pretend otherwise.
After the Electoral College votes, he'll have been elected president twice, and that rules him out from the 2028/9 Electoral College electing him president or VP. And if he tries to claim otherwise, he'll lose enough support from his own side that he will get nowhere.
No, it’s not the same. The 22nd amendment even talks about “holding the office” in other parts. If they had meant holding the office, they would have used that phrase.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
He can't be elected VP either (12th Amendment), and once you get down to thinking he can succeed via being Speaker of the House or even something lower... nah.
The 12th amendment talks about eligibility to be president, not to be elected president.
Which is the same thing, and it's circular reasoning to pretend otherwise.
After the Electoral College votes, he'll have been elected president twice, and that rules him out from the 2028/9 Electoral College electing him president or VP. And if he tries to claim otherwise, he'll lose enough support from his own side that he will get nowhere.
No, it’s not the same. The 22nd amendment even talks about “holding the office” in other parts. If they had meant holding the office, they would have used that phrase.
Only in the context of the grandfather clause.
Nope, it’s in the first part:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Note how the concepts of holding the office, acting as president, and electing president are distinct? And @Andy_Cooke’s comment notes that the original draft did exclude someone elected twice from being president, but it was changed to excluding them from being elected instead.
"Some advocates of the two-time-Presidents-cannot-run-for-VP position invoke the canon of constitutional interpretation that focuses on the primacy of ordinary meaning. According to this argument, a prior-two-term President is “ineligible to the office of President”—and thus not “eligible” to be Vice-President under the Twelfth Amendment—because common usage indicates that someone who cannot be elected to an office is ineligible for it.
...
the drafters easily could have written the Twenty Second Amendment to say “[n]o person shall be eligible” rather than “[n]o person shall be elected.” Indeed, there was no reason for them not to do so if they wished to impose an ineligibility rule. The framers of the Twenty Second Amendment, however, chose not to draft its text that way. For this simple reason, the Twenty-Second Amendment should be read to have a different effect than Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 with respect to the Twelfth Amendment.
...
Proponents of the two-time-Presidents-cannot-run position might challenge this line of analysis as unduly nitpicky... But even if this claim might have merit in other contexts, there is no reason to apply it when the constitutional drafters specifically considered and then repudiated the ready alternative of parallel word usage. Here, the finalized text of the Twenty-Second Amendment did not spring out of thin air. It came into being only after a series of prior Twenty-Second Amendment drafts were put forward. And each of those earlier drafts specifically and tellingly used the term “eligible” or “ineligible,” in contrast to the final draft in which the word “elected” was substituted ... But even on its face, this shift in wording signaled a shift in meaning. Well-settled principles dictate, after all, that courts “will not assume that Congress intended ‘to enact statutory language that it has earlier discarded in favor of other language.’ ... The key point is plain to see: It is strained in the extreme to say that the Twenty-Second Amendment established a rule of ineligibility for purposes of the Twelfth Amendment when Congress, in forging the final version of the Twenty-Second Amendment, chose to jettison the very language on which the argument for ineligibility based on the Twelfth Amendment hinges."
Personally, I agree that it's dodgy as hell. But if constitutional scholars disagree, then SCOTUS can rule otherwise.
Not that clear. Even constitutional scholars disagree. Ineligible to BE President is not synonymous with not being able to be ELECTED President. That one going into it in depth emphasised that the original draft said that a two term President was ineligible to be President again, but this was removed (after three attempts) and replaced with the existing text on election rather than eligibility. Several people have become President without being elected to the office first.
The only thing about it that they do agree on is that SCOTUS would need to rule on it if any term-limited Presidents tried to run for VP.
So given how the SCOTUS has been stacked by Trump that probably won't be an issue.
The thing about supreme court justices is once they're there, the president has no power over them.
Not that clear. Even constitutional scholars disagree. Ineligible to BE President is not synonymous with not being able to be ELECTED President. That one going into it in depth emphasised that the original draft said that a two term President was ineligible to be President again, but this was removed (after three attempts) and replaced with the existing text on election rather than eligibility. Several people have become President without being elected to the office first.
The only thing about it that they do agree on is that SCOTUS would need to rule on it if any term-limited Presidents tried to run for VP.
So given how the SCOTUS has been stacked by Trump that probably won't be an issue.
‘Stacked’ implies some kind of improper process, rather than the ordinary replacement of Supreme Court justices in the normal way.
I am going to make a bold prediction. Donald Trump will not become the next US President. I think that his health problems will catch up with him and he will be forced to stand down before January. What odds can I get??
I am going to make a bold prediction. Donald Trump will not become the next US President. I think that his health problems will catch up with him and he will be forced to stand down before January. What odds can I get??
I'll give you 5:1 if you like.
Bet voided if you go to America and hang out on any grassy knolls ...
One thing that is widely under-appreciated is that many in Ukrainian gov institutions preferred a Trump victory over Harris
Like the majority of US voters on other issues, they were exasperated with the status quo (a losing trajectory) and wanted it shaken up one way or another
The democrats have failed to give Ukraine the tools to finish the job for 2 and a half years. And consequently, there is fatigue in Ukraine and popular support for the war is declining. So what were people expecting to change if Harris was elected? It seems like there was no strategy other than to hope that Russia collapses... which has repeatedly failed to happen, and indeed, it looks like Ukraine is vulnerable and cannot keep fighting indefinetely. I don't understand why people are demanding adherance to this 'strategy'.... because it seems to just lead to failure.
Are you arguing that things couldn't be any worse for Ukraine? If so, I disagree.
One of the things I'm most surprised by is how much better Trump has been doing in Dem strongholds. California and New York both saw 5% swings in favour of Trump, this is what is most surprising to me. I'd have expected liberal states to be more heavily against him this time but pick up enough in the swing states to still win the EC. In fact Trump has just seen a 4-5% swing to him over the whole nation, not just in marginal states.
I think it just shows that the Trump message resonated across the whole country, even where there's no resources put into a ground campaign Trump has performed well.
Probably in Blue States, wokeism begins to grate with a lot of voters.
By the same token, note how voters don't give a shit about Israel/Palestine.
There were one or two counties with a notably high vote for Stein, presumed to be due to Gaza, but I don't think you can say it had a major impact on the election result.
I am going to make a bold prediction. Donald Trump will not become the next US President. I think that his health problems will catch up with him and he will be forced to stand down before January. What odds can I get??
So he ends up tucked away in Mar-a-Lago for “health reasons”. With no visitors. And very reluctantly Vance agrees to step up?
Surely that would be easier to do *after* Trump is sworn in?
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
He can't be elected VP either (12th Amendment), and once you get down to thinking he can succeed via being Speaker of the House or even something lower... nah.
The 12th amendment talks about eligibility to be president, not to be elected president.
Which is the same thing, and it's circular reasoning to pretend otherwise.
After the Electoral College votes, he'll have been elected president twice, and that rules him out from the 2028/9 Electoral College electing him president or VP. And if he tries to claim otherwise, he'll lose enough support from his own side that he will get nowhere.
No, it’s not the same. The 22nd amendment even talks about “holding the office” in other parts. If they had meant holding the office, they would have used that phrase.
Only in the context of the grandfather clause.
Nope, it’s in the first part:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Note how the concepts of holding the office, acting as president, and electing president are distinct? And @Andy_Cooke’s comment notes that the original draft did exclude someone elected twice from being president, but it was changed to excluding them from being elected instead.
So you're claiming that the 22nd Amendment is effectively a nullity?
I take the latter point, but that change really just enables someone who's term-limited as president to still be in the cabinet.
Also, in the real world if there's any suggestion that there are shenanigans planned to circumvent the term limits, the Dems will win a landslide. Lawfare against Trump didn't work; neither would lawfare by him.
I am going to make a bold prediction. Donald Trump will not become the next US President. I think that his health problems will catch up with him and he will be forced to stand down before January. What odds can I get??
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
He can't be elected VP either (12th Amendment), and once you get down to thinking he can succeed via being Speaker of the House or even something lower... nah.
The 12th amendment talks about eligibility to be president, not to be elected president.
Which is the same thing, and it's circular reasoning to pretend otherwise.
After the Electoral College votes, he'll have been elected president twice, and that rules him out from the 2028/9 Electoral College electing him president or VP. And if he tries to claim otherwise, he'll lose enough support from his own side that he will get nowhere.
No, it’s not the same. The 22nd amendment even talks about “holding the office” in other parts. If they had meant holding the office, they would have used that phrase.
Only in the context of the grandfather clause.
Nope, it’s in the first part:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Note how the concepts of holding the office, acting as president, and electing president are distinct? And @Andy_Cooke’s comment notes that the original draft did exclude someone elected twice from being president, but it was changed to excluding them from being elected instead.
So you're claiming that the 22nd Amendment is effectively a nullity?
I take the latter point, but that change really just enables someone who's term-limited as president to still be in the cabinet.
Also, in the real world if there's any suggestion that there are shenanigans planned to circumvent the term limits, the Dems will win a landslide. Lawfare against Trump didn't work; neither would lawfare by him.
At his last rally he said "I won't ever be doing this again". People always read too much into his comments (like shooting Liz Cheney) but this time they ignore what he said.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
He can't be elected VP either (12th Amendment), and once you get down to thinking he can succeed via being Speaker of the House or even something lower... nah.
The 12th amendment talks about eligibility to be president, not to be elected president.
Which is the same thing, and it's circular reasoning to pretend otherwise.
After the Electoral College votes, he'll have been elected president twice, and that rules him out from the 2028/9 Electoral College electing him president or VP. And if he tries to claim otherwise, he'll lose enough support from his own side that he will get nowhere.
No, it’s not the same. The 22nd amendment even talks about “holding the office” in other parts. If they had meant holding the office, they would have used that phrase.
Only in the context of the grandfather clause.
Nope, it’s in the first part:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Note how the concepts of holding the office, acting as president, and electing president are distinct? And @Andy_Cooke’s comment notes that the original draft did exclude someone elected twice from being president, but it was changed to excluding them from being elected instead.
So you're claiming that the 22nd Amendment is effectively a nullity?
I take the latter point, but that change really just enables someone who's term-limited as president to still be in the cabinet.
Also, in the real world if there's any suggestion that there are shenanigans planned to circumvent the term limits, the Dems will win a landslide. Lawfare against Trump didn't work; neither would lawfare by him.
At his last rally he said "I won't ever be doing this again". People always read too much into his comments (like shooting Liz Cheney) but this time they ignore what he said.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
He can't be elected VP either (12th Amendment), and once you get down to thinking he can succeed via being Speaker of the House or even something lower... nah.
The 12th amendment talks about eligibility to be president, not to be elected president.
Which is the same thing, and it's circular reasoning to pretend otherwise.
After the Electoral College votes, he'll have been elected president twice, and that rules him out from the 2028/9 Electoral College electing him president or VP. And if he tries to claim otherwise, he'll lose enough support from his own side that he will get nowhere.
No, it’s not the same. The 22nd amendment even talks about “holding the office” in other parts. If they had meant holding the office, they would have used that phrase.
Only in the context of the grandfather clause.
Nope, it’s in the first part:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Note how the concepts of holding the office, acting as president, and electing president are distinct? And @Andy_Cooke’s comment notes that the original draft did exclude someone elected twice from being president, but it was changed to excluding them from being elected instead.
So you're claiming that the 22nd Amendment is effectively a nullity?
I take the latter point, but that change really just enables someone who's term-limited as president to still be in the cabinet.
Also, in the real world if there's any suggestion that there are shenanigans planned to circumvent the term limits, the Dems will win a landslide. Lawfare against Trump didn't work; neither would lawfare by him.
No, not a nullity, just that it only makes it much more difficult for a twice-elected person to become president again, rather than making it impossible.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
He can't be elected VP either (12th Amendment), and once you get down to thinking he can succeed via being Speaker of the House or even something lower... nah.
The 12th amendment talks about eligibility to be president, not to be elected president.
Which is the same thing, and it's circular reasoning to pretend otherwise.
After the Electoral College votes, he'll have been elected president twice, and that rules him out from the 2028/9 Electoral College electing him president or VP. And if he tries to claim otherwise, he'll lose enough support from his own side that he will get nowhere.
No, it’s not the same. The 22nd amendment even talks about “holding the office” in other parts. If they had meant holding the office, they would have used that phrase.
Only in the context of the grandfather clause.
Nope, it’s in the first part:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Note how the concepts of holding the office, acting as president, and electing president are distinct? And @Andy_Cooke’s comment notes that the original draft did exclude someone elected twice from being president, but it was changed to excluding them from being elected instead.
So you're claiming that the 22nd Amendment is effectively a nullity?
I take the latter point, but that change really just enables someone who's term-limited as president to still be in the cabinet.
Also, in the real world if there's any suggestion that there are shenanigans planned to circumvent the term limits, the Dems will win a landslide. Lawfare against Trump didn't work; neither would lawfare by him.
At his last rally he said "I won't ever be doing this again". People always read too much into his comments (like shooting Liz Cheney) but this time they ignore what he said.
Ah, so he’s abolishing elections? That circumvents the 22nd amendment entirely!
One thing that is widely under-appreciated is that many in Ukrainian gov institutions preferred a Trump victory over Harris
Like the majority of US voters on other issues, they were exasperated with the status quo (a losing trajectory) and wanted it shaken up one way or another
The democrats have failed to give Ukraine the tools to finish the job for 2 and a half years. And consequently, there is fatigue in Ukraine and popular support for the war is declining. So what were people expecting to change if Harris was elected? It seems like there was no strategy other than to hope that Russia collapses... which has repeatedly failed to happen, and indeed, it looks like Ukraine is vulnerable and cannot keep fighting indefinetely. I don't understand why people are demanding adherance to this 'strategy'.... because it seems to just lead to failure.
Are you arguing that things couldn't be any worse for Ukraine? If so, I disagree.
Of course they could be worse. But why has the west wasted the opportunity to deal a hammer blow to a major adversary?
One thing that is widely under-appreciated is that many in Ukrainian gov institutions preferred a Trump victory over Harris
Like the majority of US voters on other issues, they were exasperated with the status quo (a losing trajectory) and wanted it shaken up one way or another
The democrats have failed to give Ukraine the tools to finish the job for 2 and a half years. And consequently, there is fatigue in Ukraine and popular support for the war is declining. So what were people expecting to change if Harris was elected? It seems like there was no strategy other than to hope that Russia collapses... which has repeatedly failed to happen, and indeed, it looks like Ukraine is vulnerable and cannot keep fighting indefinetely. I don't understand why people are demanding adherance to this 'strategy'.... because it seems to just lead to failure.
Are you arguing that things couldn't be any worse for Ukraine? If so, I disagree.
Of course they could be worse. But why has the west wasted the opportunity to deal a hammer blow to a major adversary?
Not that clear. Even constitutional scholars disagree. Ineligible to BE President is not synonymous with not being able to be ELECTED President. That one going into it in depth emphasised that the original draft said that a two term President was ineligible to be President again, but this was removed (after three attempts) and replaced with the existing text on election rather than eligibility. Several people have become President without being elected to the office first.
The only thing about it that they do agree on is that SCOTUS would need to rule on it if any term-limited Presidents tried to run for VP.
So given how the SCOTUS has been stacked by Trump that probably won't be an issue.
‘Stacked’ implies some kind of improper process, rather than the ordinary replacement of Supreme Court justices in the normal way.
The Republicans did rather make the rules up with the Merrick Garland nomination - a 9 month wait for a Republican President, while RBJ's replacement took a month before Biden got in.
A lesson of how a written constitution is not always a safeguard. If America ever does become a dictatorship, it will likely be with the consent of the House, Senate and Supreme Court.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
He can't be elected VP either (12th Amendment), and once you get down to thinking he can succeed via being Speaker of the House or even something lower... nah.
The 12th amendment talks about eligibility to be president, not to be elected president.
Which is the same thing, and it's circular reasoning to pretend otherwise.
After the Electoral College votes, he'll have been elected president twice, and that rules him out from the 2028/9 Electoral College electing him president or VP. And if he tries to claim otherwise, he'll lose enough support from his own side that he will get nowhere.
No, it’s not the same. The 22nd amendment even talks about “holding the office” in other parts. If they had meant holding the office, they would have used that phrase.
Only in the context of the grandfather clause.
Nope, it’s in the first part:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Note how the concepts of holding the office, acting as president, and electing president are distinct? And @Andy_Cooke’s comment notes that the original draft did exclude someone elected twice from being president, but it was changed to excluding them from being elected instead.
So you're claiming that the 22nd Amendment is effectively a nullity?
I take the latter point, but that change really just enables someone who's term-limited as president to still be in the cabinet.
Also, in the real world if there's any suggestion that there are shenanigans planned to circumvent the term limits, the Dems will win a landslide. Lawfare against Trump didn't work; neither would lawfare by him.
That assumes that the shenanigans are limited only to term-limits.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
He can't be elected VP either (12th Amendment), and once you get down to thinking he can succeed via being Speaker of the House or even something lower... nah.
The 12th amendment talks about eligibility to be president, not to be elected president.
Which is the same thing, and it's circular reasoning to pretend otherwise.
After the Electoral College votes, he'll have been elected president twice, and that rules him out from the 2028/9 Electoral College electing him president or VP. And if he tries to claim otherwise, he'll lose enough support from his own side that he will get nowhere.
No, it’s not the same. The 22nd amendment even talks about “holding the office” in other parts. If they had meant holding the office, they would have used that phrase.
Only in the context of the grandfather clause.
Nope, it’s in the first part:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Note how the concepts of holding the office, acting as president, and electing president are distinct? And @Andy_Cooke’s comment notes that the original draft did exclude someone elected twice from being president, but it was changed to excluding them from being elected instead.
So you're claiming that the 22nd Amendment is effectively a nullity?
I take the latter point, but that change really just enables someone who's term-limited as president to still be in the cabinet.
Also, in the real world if there's any suggestion that there are shenanigans planned to circumvent the term limits, the Dems will win a landslide. Lawfare against Trump didn't work; neither would lawfare by him.
That assumes that the shenanigans are limited only to term-limits.
Well, there's really two different groups of shenanigans: bending and twisting the rules; and outright illegality. There are certainly enough senior GOP people who expect to have a run at the White House in 2028 to forestall the second group, and almost certainly the first group.
It's way more likely Trump serves less than 8 years as president than more than 8 years.
What are the issues around several European countries making decisions in parallel and moving to implement? Are there any issues?
Obviously Putin's patsies in the new USA Government will start mouthing threats and throwing tantrums.
But if they want to isolate themselves from Europe 1920s (I think) style, then the corollary is that expect European countries to start taking decisions for themselves.
Was it the same plan that led him to lie about his trip to Durham and Barnard Castle?
It's well corroborated.
You see, having had experience of Cummings' bizarre behaviour of the last decade and a half, I'd probably assume he was lying even if the Archangel Gabriel corroborated him.
I don't think it's deliberate. Just like Trump, he moulds a strange alternate reality around him that he fervently believes is true. But it does mean he's just somebody to be ignored.
Comments
Edit: presumably ephemera so not often preserved? Or are there lots all over the UK?
It won't work for anyone except the rich but that's who the Conservative Party exist to empower. However, if, as seems likely, Labour ends up delivering another whole Parliament of wage suppression and falling living standards then, irrespective of whether this is accompanied by an arrest in the decline of the state and perhaps improvements in some areas such as healthcare, it has a good chance of success. If working people are offered little beyond five more years of shit sandwiches and empty promises of jam tomorrow, Labour will be out on its ear, in like fashion to what's just happened to the Democratic Party.
These are litterally 1970s designs. And not new manufacture either. So most of the people who worked on the design are retired or even dead. Most of the sub contractors are gone. So they cannibalise one suit to keep others going.
The problem dates back to at least the 90s. New designs were produced and then stalled by the Space Suit group within NASA. Who took the position that any change to the existing suits was bad.
Hard suits - bad. Mechanical counter pressure - bad. Partial mechanical counter pressure gloves bad…..
The craziest one is the repeated suit give completions. Which involve building and testing new designs of gloves. Complete with actual demonstrations of the gloves. Followed by the Space Suit group saying that they can’t be used or taken any further. Meanwhile, it is not uncommon for astronauts to *lose fingernails* because of damage caused by the current gloves…
Fragmented groups will have little ability to phone home without interception so no politico will know. The tunnels could be anywhere with most probably under the debris fields. And as the Israelis have controlled the territory for the last 6 months and have found very little, this seems unlikely to change.
Today's photo quota - Manchester Cathedral roof angel, playing an instrument that looks like a pipeless version of the bagpipes, with a wind bag under the arm.
There are 14 of them dating to the late 15C playing wind and stringed instruments.
Source: https://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/03/38/51/3385139_2f2e16af.jpg
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/11/dna-shows-pompeiis-dead-arent-who-we-thought-they-were/
"Four Pompeii victims were found in 1974 in what is known as the "House of the golden bracelet." Three (two adults and one child) were found at the foot of a staircase leading to a garden and the seafront. Archaeologists thought this was likely a father, mother, and their child because of the arrangement of the bodies, as well as a golden bracelet worn on the arm of one of the bodies. But it wasn't possible to definitely determine the sex of any of the bodies. The hypothesis was that the trio had taken shelter in the stairwell but were killed when it collapsed. A fourth body of a child, about age 4, was found nearby, presumed to have died while trying to escape to the garden.
This new DNA analysis showed that this conventional interpretation was incorrect. All the bodies were male, including the one with the golden bracelet, and none of them were genetically related."
"would not surprise me if Nicholls went through the card at Wincanton today, will certainly win most of them "
He scored 5 from 7
5 fold return on my Super Heinz
Cheers
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
I nearly died of embarrassment.
It's probably as simple as people in the street running into the nearest building, or friends/slaves/neighbours together.
One thing that is widely under-appreciated is that many in Ukrainian gov institutions preferred a Trump victory over Harris
Like the majority of US voters on other issues, they were exasperated with the status quo (a losing trajectory) and wanted it shaken up one way or another
Now, if Trump is on the ballot paper, and people vote for him, at what point does the Supreme Court intervene?
The electoral votes reach Congress in early January, and maybe Congress rejects those votes because it would be unconstitutional for those votes to elect Trump for a third term. But then, no-one else has 270 electoral votes either, so the choice of President goes to the House. Is the House then free to select Trump as President? Would that count as electing him, or would that process come under some other name?
The common-sense interpretation of the 22nd amendment is obvious, and perhaps this would all be a step too far, but I reckon Trump will announce an intention to run for a third term pretty early - in part because it allows him to continue to raise campaign funds, in part because it would send Democrats completely insane, because even raising the question acts as a loyalty test for Republicans, and it possibly staves off the point at which, as a second term President, he becomes a lame duck.
Trump bent the reality field sufficiently that a majority of Republican politicians had to bend the knee and deny his 2020 defeat, and denied his attempts to overturn the result of that election by means of fraud and violence. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that he could bend reality that they would feel bound to deny the plain intent of the 22nd amendment?
The US used to be very cheap for some basic things. Post COVID inflation has killed that. Suddenly dining out is more like the UK - a serious amount of cash for a family of four etc. Groceries is another one.
These are things people do every day - they hit hard….
I had a stretch of 19 days in there in the last 2 years, and it was OK.
If anyone wants something else, there is a Marks & Spencer with a normal cold takeaway range, and a volunteer cafe.
And if you are me you would just breeze into a staff or public cafeteria, just daring the place to tell you to leave.
If someone finds that impossible to believe, it is down to their own ignorance or narrowmindedness - entirely to do with the individual being a chump, not to do with Rochdale.
Such chumps need to be forced to visit the Wakefield Piece Hall, or something similar such as the Boots D10 factory in Beeston, Nottingham.
Shocker!!
In a mature democracy we focus on the de jure while ignoring the de facto.
I believe Germany in 1933 made a similar mistake.
But it does look clear that the VP route is viable. The constitutional scholars are definitely split on it. Some say that the intention is obvious ("nope, sod off, don't try that crap with us"), others that the reading is explicit ("It doesn't say 'eligible for the office' it says 'elected to the office,' and they actually removed 'eligible' from the draft to replace it with 'electable,' and they're not synonyms, so there")
That one I mentioned earlier (https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2011&context=fac_artchop ) goes into these arguments in both directions.
However, we're looking at a subtly different point to that of the constitutional scholars. Not whether it is valid, but whether a compliant SCOTUS could rule that it is valid. And, unfortunately, even those who say "Nope, sod off with those shenanigans" say that one thing isn't ambiguous:
"If anyone tried this, it would for sure end up at the Supreme Court. Because that’s who decides conflicts within the Constitution."
It's just standard procedure both ways that a few chose to weaponise as a vapid talking point because they have nothing substantive to say.
Just look at how heavily negative Kamala is too pro-Palestine or Kamala is too pro-Israel is as a reason of relative importance to swing voters. Right at the bottom: https://blueprint2024.com/polling/why-trump-reasons-11-8/
It's an issue that bothers progressive activists, freaks and obsessives. No-one else.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/08/politics/pentagon-officials-discussing-trump/index.html
‘So, have England learned how to close a tight test match?”
Mark
No Mark, they have not.
I’m very disappointed to note that I didn’t manage to drive on a single one of those legendary 20mph roads on any of my journeys, having to content myself with spotting a couple up narrow residential streets.
I was mis-sold by PB.
1. Trump is the living embodiment of Hailsham’s Elected Dictatorship. He can simply run and nobody is going to stop him. Congress? Both houses are his. The courts? He owns the Supreme Court who will simply throw anything out trying to stop him
2. He is already showing signs of decay. Will he make it to a 2028 election without being Biden’d?
The only way he now intends to leave the WH is when he passes.
Now maybe the Founding Fathers did build a constitution that will stop him doing is worst outrages but there is no doubt in my mind that he will try.
And if it ends up at 'his' Supreme Court then I'm sure he'll be just fine.
@DHSCgovuk
as Lead Non-Exec Board Member.
As Health Secretary, Alan’s reforms delivered the shortest waiting times and highest patient satisfaction in the history of the NHS.
His unique expertise and experience will be invaluable.
https://x.com/wesstreeting/status/1855183786641625300
https://x.com/United24media/status/1854849886467846212
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
First full day of the election campaign.
This day has been dominated by Fine Gael's plan to cut VAT on the hospitality sector to 11% (paid for in part by an increase in the VAT rate elsewhere to 11%). Many other parties (Sinn Fein, Labour, etc) back the hospitality industry's call for a 9% VAT rate, with the Social Democrats drawing a distinction between small hospitality venues (like West Cork cafes as run by local failed local election candidates for leader Holly Cairn's old seat on the council) and larger venues like hotels (like the hotel run by leader Holly Cairn's husband). Fianna Fail finds itself in the unusual position of calling for fiscal sanity. Simon Harris went to a livestock market (because everyone knows he's a townie and a stranger to rural Ireland), while Micheál Martin had a Covid vaccination, which is nice for him, I guess, but a bit late to benefit from any increased immunity for most of the remaining 19 days of the election campaign.
There have been no new polls since the 2nd November poll which had, with changes on GE2020:
FG 26 (+5), FF 20 (-2), SF 18 (-7), Independents 16 (+2), SD 6 (+3), GRN 4 (-3), Lab 4 (nc), Aon 3 (+1), etc, etc...
Even constitutional scholars disagree.
Ineligible to BE President is not synonymous with not being able to be ELECTED President.
That one going into it in depth emphasised that the original draft said that a two term President was ineligible to be President again, but this was removed (after three attempts) and replaced with the existing text on election rather than eligibility. Several people have become President without being elected to the office first.
The only thing about it that they do agree on is that SCOTUS would need to rule on it if any term-limited Presidents tried to run for VP.
After the Electoral College votes, he'll have been elected president twice, and that rules him out from the 2028/9 Electoral College electing him president or VP. And if he tries to claim otherwise, he'll lose enough support from his own side that he will get nowhere.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Note how the concepts of holding the office, acting as president, and electing president are distinct? And @Andy_Cooke’s comment notes that the original draft did exclude someone elected twice from being president, but it was changed to excluding them from being elected instead.
"Some advocates of the two-time-Presidents-cannot-run-for-VP position invoke the canon of constitutional interpretation that focuses on the primacy of ordinary meaning. According to this argument, a prior-two-term President is “ineligible to the office of President”—and thus not “eligible” to be Vice-President under the Twelfth Amendment—because common usage indicates that someone who cannot be elected to an office is ineligible for it.
...
the drafters easily could have written the Twenty Second Amendment to say “[n]o person shall be eligible” rather than “[n]o person shall be elected.” Indeed, there was no reason for them not to do so if they wished to impose an ineligibility rule. The framers of the Twenty Second Amendment, however, chose not to draft its text that way. For this simple reason, the Twenty-Second Amendment should be read to have a different effect than Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 with respect to the Twelfth Amendment.
...
Proponents of the two-time-Presidents-cannot-run position might challenge this line of analysis as unduly nitpicky... But even if this claim might have merit in other contexts, there is no reason to apply it when the constitutional drafters specifically considered and then repudiated the ready alternative of parallel word usage.
Here, the finalized text of the Twenty-Second Amendment did not spring out of thin air. It came into being only after a series of prior Twenty-Second Amendment drafts were put forward. And each of those earlier drafts specifically and tellingly used the term “eligible” or “ineligible,” in contrast to the final draft in which the word “elected” was substituted
...
But even on its face, this shift in wording signaled a shift in meaning. Well-settled principles dictate, after all, that courts “will not assume that Congress intended ‘to enact statutory language that it has earlier discarded in favor of other language.’
...
The key point is plain to see: It is strained in the extreme to say that the Twenty-Second Amendment
established a rule of ineligibility for purposes of the Twelfth Amendment when Congress, in forging the final version of the Twenty-Second Amendment, chose to jettison the very language on which the argument for ineligibility based on the Twelfth Amendment hinges."
Personally, I agree that it's dodgy as hell. But if constitutional scholars disagree, then SCOTUS can rule otherwise.
Bet voided if you go to America and hang out on any grassy knolls ...
If so, I disagree.
Surely that would be easier to do *after* Trump is sworn in?
I take the latter point, but that change really just enables someone who's term-limited as president to still be in the cabinet.
Also, in the real world if there's any suggestion that there are shenanigans planned to circumvent the term limits, the Dems will win a landslide. Lawfare against Trump didn't work; neither would lawfare by him.
A lesson of how a written constitution is not always a safeguard. If America ever does become a dictatorship, it will likely be with the consent of the House, Senate and Supreme Court.
The spurned special adviser constructed an elaborate plan to force the prime minister out of No 10 by getting him to lie over lockdown parties
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/boris-johnson-dominic-cummings-partygate-video-85h8x3lqm
Was it the same plan that led him to lie about his trip to Durham and Barnard Castle?
It's way more likely Trump serves less than 8 years as president than more than 8 years.
What are the issues around several European countries making decisions in parallel and moving to implement? Are there any issues?
Obviously Putin's patsies in the new USA Government will start mouthing threats and throwing tantrums.
But if they want to isolate themselves from Europe 1920s (I think) style, then the corollary is that expect European countries to start taking decisions for themselves.
So let's do it.
I don't think it's deliberate. Just like Trump, he moulds a strange alternate reality around him that he fervently believes is true. But it does mean he's just somebody to be ignored.