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

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

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

williamglenn said:

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I

The Irish do know that this isn't a t20 match?

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

Idi Amin?

CatMan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

Idi Amin?

Nope.

TheScreamingEagles said:

CatMan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

Idi Amin?

Nope.

Donald Duck?

rpjs said:

FPT:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

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

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

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

That date has been changed before: Lincoln only became President on March the 4th 1861.

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

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

Is it Quietus?
One of the few things Don couldn't be called.

Pagan2 said:

FPT

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

kinabalu said:

ydoethur said:

kamski said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Carnyx said:

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

Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?

I see no scandal. It simply shows that Eton is a good school and should be encouraged to be as good as it can be so that the public sector can learn from it.

Hilarious trolling.

I dunno. If teachers were paid double what they are in the state sector and had a 1:7 SSR (without checking) I think many of our educational problems would disappear.

Is that a policy you support then - you being paid double?

I’d settle for that SSR myself.

I’ve seen a lot of my colleagues head off to the independent sector over the years. Possibly half of the ones that don’t leave by retirement.

Maybe not double (salary) but I will launch myself into your good books by saying that imo the transformation of teaching into a high status high pay profession to rank with law and medicine is my silver bullet along with 100% comps, no privates, resource skewed towards disadvantaged areas.

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

"Oh, Ok darling. I see."

"You don't seem pleased."

"It's not that. It's just that you're so bright and everything - me and your father were rather hoping you might aim a little higher than that. Try and get into teaching even."

Unless you make all comps outstanding that is never happening, middle class parents will not touch inadequate or requires improvement comps with a bargepole

They will need to elevate and keep their eyes on the prize.

By sending their children private to a grammar or by buying a house in an outstanding comp or academy catchment area or going to church more often to get a vicar's note to get into one

There will be little or none of that as I envisage things. Certainly no vicar involvement. What there will be is a transformed social and educational landscape.

"Where did you go to school?"

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

THIS is the prize.

I know, you want to abolish all private schools, grammar schools and religious schools.

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

Which would end up about as effective as abolishing Waitrose, Marks and Spencer and Sainsburys and making everyone shop at Lidl or Asda

I prefer to focus on what is being created. Every child going to their excellent local school. All catered for and given the chance to blossom. Flexible. Diverse. All the angst and division around eduction that we see today eliminated along with its toxic propagation of class inequality. As I say - a great prize.

"Where should we send Peter to school, honey?"
"Er, what are you talking about, where? - he's going to school."
"Oh right. So I guess we don't have to obsess about it for ages then."
"Correct. Fancy a curry tonight?"

Utter rubbish, by definition if you live in the posh part of town sending your child to the local school is far more likely to be to an excellent school than parents sending their children to the local school in the rough part of town.

Plus if you order a curry from an excellent restaurant surely you must abolish that too as it is more expensive than the customers who have to buy from the far less good curry house down the road?

You might view education as akin to the restaurant trade but I don't.

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QENzkzKshpQ

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

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

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

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

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

Shouldn’t it be His Majesty anyway?

A fantasy book I read once, I think maybe by David Eddings, one of the characters found out about the death of their father by his father's physician greeting him as "Your Majesty".

Charlie Chaplin or Pompey (if you are going classical)

Philip_Thompson said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

Shouldn’t it be His Majesty anyway?

A fantasy book I read once, I think maybe by David Eddings, one of the characters found out about the death of their father by his father's physician greeting him as "Your Majesty".

Guardians of the West...

contrarian said:

HYUFD said:

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

Looking from the outside in, its difficult to see how anybody could unite the US in any meaningful way at the moment.

This sort of move is much easier when a country is broadly united. Noone much likes him here, but Putin appears to me to be genuinely popular in Russia now for instance (Or the opposition too weak if you like).

The Democrats are a strong enough opposition in the US that this sort of de facto 1 party state can't easily exist there.

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CatMan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

Idi Amin?

Nope.

Donald Duck?

Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'

Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.

I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

rpjs said:

FPT:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

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

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

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

That date has been changed before: Lincoln only became President on March the 4th 1861.

Not quite, the date of the election remained the same, it was the date of the transfer or power that changed.

Which IIRC was done on a bi-partisan approach.

Yes, that is what I was trying to say: obviously not clearly enough!

https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/1288833456642895879

Fysics_Teacher said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

Shouldn’t it be His Majesty anyway?

A fantasy book I read once, I think maybe by David Eddings, one of the characters found out about the death of their father by his father's physician greeting him as "Your Majesty".

Guardians of the West...

That's it. Would love to read it again now I've thought about it, not read Eddings since I was a teenager.

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CatMan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

Idi Amin?

Nope.

Donald Duck?

Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'

Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.

ISTR (when I say recall, I don't mean as eye witness) that there was some kind of furore about Edward I as there had been plenty of Edwards previously, including, of course, his intended namesake E the Confessor.

Luckyguy1983 said:

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

A perennial problem with the lefties. They try and deal with the world as they it think it should be rather than how it actually is.

Philip_Thompson said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

rpjs said:

FPT:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

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

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

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

That date has been changed before: Lincoln only became President on March the 4th 1861.

All Presidents of that era were.

It was not changed by either the Presidency or Congress though, that was changed by the 20th Amendment.

That’s the important bit: it would take a constitutional amendment to change the date of either the election or the inauguration.

Fysics_Teacher said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CatMan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

Idi Amin?

Nope.

Donald Duck?

Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'

Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.

I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.

Likewise Anne and Victoria. But not Mary.

Isn't that cos of William and Mary?

Pulpstar said:

contrarian said:

HYUFD said:

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

Looking from the outside in, its difficult to see how anybody could unite the US in any meaningful way at the moment.

This sort of move is much easier when a country is broadly united. Noone much likes him here, but Putin appears to me to be genuinely popular in Russia now for instance (Or the opposition too weak if you like).

The Democrats are a strong enough opposition in the US that this sort of de facto 1 party state can't easily exist there.

What I mean is that right now Republicans are unlikely to be any more reconciled to a Biden presidency than democrats have been with a Trump one.

The democrats and the media have questioned their own democratic process incessantly since 2016, after all.

FPT

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

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

And that's the point. Improving schools is hard, because a lot of the things that make a school good are outside the control of the school.

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

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

Pagan2 said:

FPT

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

kinabalu said:

ydoethur said:

kamski said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Carnyx said:

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

Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?

I see no scandal. It simply shows that Eton is a good school and should be encouraged to be as good as it can be so that the public sector can learn from it.

Hilarious trolling.

I dunno. If teachers were paid double what they are in the state sector and had a 1:7 SSR (without checking) I think many of our educational problems would disappear.

Is that a policy you support then - you being paid double?

I’d settle for that SSR myself.

I’ve seen a lot of my colleagues head off to the independent sector over the years. Possibly half of the ones that don’t leave by retirement.

Maybe not double (salary) but I will launch myself into your good books by saying that imo the transformation of teaching into a high status high pay profession to rank with law and medicine is my silver bullet along with 100% comps, no privates, resource skewed towards disadvantaged areas.

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

"Oh, Ok darling. I see."

"You don't seem pleased."

"It's not that. It's just that you're so bright and everything - me and your father were rather hoping you might aim a little higher than that. Try and get into teaching even."

Unless you make all comps outstanding that is never happening, middle class parents will not touch inadequate or requires improvement comps with a bargepole

They will need to elevate and keep their eyes on the prize.

By sending their children private to a grammar or by buying a house in an outstanding comp or academy catchment area or going to church more often to get a vicar's note to get into one

There will be little or none of that as I envisage things. Certainly no vicar involvement. What there will be is a transformed social and educational landscape.

"Where did you go to school?"

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

THIS is the prize.

I know, you want to abolish all private schools, grammar schools and religious schools.

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

Which would end up about as effective as abolishing Waitrose, Marks and Spencer and Sainsburys and making everyone shop at Lidl or Asda

I prefer to focus on what is being created. Every child going to their excellent local school. All catered for and given the chance to blossom. Flexible. Diverse. All the angst and division around eduction that we see today eliminated along with its toxic propagation of class inequality. As I say - a great prize.

"Where should we send Peter to school, honey?"
"Er, what are you talking about, where? - he's going to school."
"Oh right. So I guess we don't have to obsess about it for ages then."
"Correct. Fancy a curry tonight?"

Utter rubbish, by definition if you live in the posh part of town sending your child to the local school is far more likely to be to an excellent school than parents sending their children to the local school in the rough part of town.

Plus if you order a curry from an excellent restaurant surely you must abolish that too as it is more expensive than the customers who have to buy from the far less good curry house down the road?

You might view education as akin to the restaurant trade but I don't.

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QENzkzKshpQ

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

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

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

Pagan2 said:

FPT

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

kinabalu said:

ydoethur said:

kamski said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Carnyx said:

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

Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?

I see no scandal. It simply shows that Eton is a good school and should be encouraged to be as good as it can be so that the public sector can learn from it.

Hilarious trolling.

I dunno. If teachers were paid double what they are in the state sector and had a 1:7 SSR (without checking) I think many of our educational problems would disappear.

Is that a policy you support then - you being paid double?

I’d settle for that SSR myself.

I’ve seen a lot of my colleagues head off to the independent sector over the years. Possibly half of the ones that don’t leave by retirement.

Maybe not double (salary) but I will launch myself into your good books by saying that imo the transformation of teaching into a high status high pay profession to rank with law and medicine is my silver bullet along with 100% comps, no privates, resource skewed towards disadvantaged areas.

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

"Oh, Ok darling. I see."

"You don't seem pleased."

"It's not that. It's just that you're so bright and everything - me and your father were rather hoping you might aim a little higher than that. Try and get into teaching even."

Unless you make all comps outstanding that is never happening, middle class parents will not touch inadequate or requires improvement comps with a bargepole

They will need to elevate and keep their eyes on the prize.

By sending their children private to a grammar or by buying a house in an outstanding comp or academy catchment area or going to church more often to get a vicar's note to get into one

There will be little or none of that as I envisage things. Certainly no vicar involvement. What there will be is a transformed social and educational landscape.

"Where did you go to school?"

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

THIS is the prize.

I know, you want to abolish all private schools, grammar schools and religious schools.

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

Which would end up about as effective as abolishing Waitrose, Marks and Spencer and Sainsburys and making everyone shop at Lidl or Asda

I prefer to focus on what is being created. Every child going to their excellent local school. All catered for and given the chance to blossom. Flexible. Diverse. All the angst and division around eduction that we see today eliminated along with its toxic propagation of class inequality. As I say - a great prize.

"Where should we send Peter to school, honey?"
"Er, what are you talking about, where? - he's going to school."
"Oh right. So I guess we don't have to obsess about it for ages then."
"Correct. Fancy a curry tonight?"

Utter rubbish, by definition if you live in the posh part of town sending your child to the local school is far more likely to be to an excellent school than parents sending their children to the local school in the rough part of town.

Plus if you order a curry from an excellent restaurant surely you must abolish that too as it is more expensive than the customers who have to buy from the far less good curry house down the road?

You might view education as akin to the restaurant trade but I don't.

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QENzkzKshpQ

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

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

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

Anecdote alert.

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

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

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

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

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

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

They told me that they were told by their peers that

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

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

What was also interesting were their preconceptions of the middle class....

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


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

TheScreamingEagles said:

CatMan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

Idi Amin?

Nope.

Sounds like I Claudius

Philip_Thompson said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

rpjs said:

FPT:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

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

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

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

That date has been changed before: Lincoln only became President on March the 4th 1861.

All Presidents of that era were.

It was not changed by either the Presidency or Congress though, that was changed by the 20th Amendment.

That’s the important bit: it would take a constitutional amendment to change the date of either the election or the inauguration.

I think the election can be changed (I don't think its set in the constitution but rather by law by Congress) but the inauguration date can't be. Inauguration Day is locked in as 20th January by the 20th Amendment, so only an Amendment could change that.

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

Philip_Thompson said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

rpjs said:

FPT:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

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

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

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

That date has been changed before: Lincoln only became President on March the 4th 1861.

All Presidents of that era were.

It was not changed by either the Presidency or Congress though, that was changed by the 20th Amendment.

That’s the important bit: it would take a constitutional amendment to change the date of either the election or the inauguration.

I think the election can be changed (I don't think its set in the constitution but rather by law by Congress) but the inauguration date can't be. Inauguration Day is locked in as 20th January by the 20th Amendment, so only an Amendment could change that.

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

Well if you think your opponent might die a month after the scheduled day perhaps. Sure the running mate woukd presumably step up but they might not get out the vote as well.

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CatMan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

Idi Amin?

Nope.

Donald Duck?

Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'

Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.

ISTR (when I say recall, I don't mean as eye witness) that there was some kind of furore about Edward I as there had been plenty of Edwards previously, including, of course, his intended namesake E the Confessor.

Clearly confusion. I think we tend to think of everything around monarchies as pretty set in stone, when even a concept like primogeniture really wasnt followed in a lot of places for a long time (and still isnt everywhere). Numbering an example where inconsistency is king.

Yes it really was a case of: King dies, then everyone who thinks they are eligible legs it to be the first to take over strategic locations eg Winchester, etc.

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CatMan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

Idi Amin?

Nope.

Donald Duck?

Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'

Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.

I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.

Er, we still haven't had an Elizabeth II, of the UK. There was an unholy fiddle when this was pointed out, belatedly, in 1952-3 - hence EIIR on pillar boxes south of the Border, but the accurate (to a Unionist) ER across Tweed. Ditto the careful use of the Arabic 2 rather than II in the Clyde-built QE2 - formally as successor to the previous ship of that name.

True. And if she'd been called Margaret (or Elizabeth had died, and Margaret had succeeded) she would be Margaret the nothing of England and Wales, and Margaret II of Scotland!

Nigel_Foremain said:

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


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

Why would you only choose part of the disease cycle?

nichomar said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CatMan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

Idi Amin?

Nope.

Donald Duck?

Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'

Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.

I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.

Er, we still haven't had an Elizabeth II, of the UK. There was an unholy fiddle when this was pointed out, belatedly, in 1952-3 - hence EIIR on pillar boxes south of the Border, but the accurate (to a Unionist) ER across Tweed. Ditto the careful use of the Arabic 2 rather than II in the Clyde-built QE2 - formally as successor to the previous ship of that name.

The QE 2 was named after QE 2 not as the second ship named Elizabeth. As an aside the chairman of Cunard went to ask the king if he could name their new liner After the greatest queen ever in the tradition Of Cunard ships names ending in ia, the king replied that He would ask Mary when she came home but he was sure she would be delisted to have the shop named Mary.

The QE2 may have been named "QE the Second" by HM but that was a slip of the tongue (?). My version is the official Cunartd one, I believe.

But quite right about Queen Victoria/QM. THough I see Vicky got her Queen in the end, albeit one of the modern cruise ships!

The virus was a Chinese hoax for weeks, now it's so bad he thinks the election should be cancelled.

How can any American who believes in a democratic republic vote for this whacko?

Luckyguy1983 said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CatMan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

Idi Amin?

Nope.

Donald Duck?

Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'

Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.

I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.

Er, we still haven't had an Elizabeth II, of the UK. There was an unholy fiddle when this was pointed out, belatedly, in 1952-3 - hence EIIR on pillar boxes south of the Border, but the accurate (to a Unionist) ER across Tweed. Ditto the careful use of the Arabic 2 rather than II in the Clyde-built QE2 - formally as successor to the previous ship of that name.

True. And if she'd been called Margaret (or Elizabeth had died, and Margaret had succeeded) she would be Margaret the nothing of England and Wales, and Margaret II of Scotland!

Indeed. We have a precedent in James VI and I - and a future one in William VI and V (edited!) (or the other way round depending where you are).

Luckyguy1983 said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CatMan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

Idi Amin?

Nope.

Donald Duck?

Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'

Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.

I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.

Er, we still haven't had an Elizabeth II, of the UK. There was an unholy fiddle when this was pointed out, belatedly, in 1952-3 - hence EIIR on pillar boxes south of the Border, but the accurate (to a Unionist) ER across Tweed. Ditto the careful use of the Arabic 2 rather than II in the Clyde-built QE2 - formally as successor to the previous ship of that name.

True. And if she'd been called Margaret (or Elizabeth had died, and Margaret had succeeded) she would be Margaret the nothing of England and Wales, and Margaret II of Scotland!

No she would have been Margaret II.

nichomar said:

Carnyx said:

nichomar said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CatMan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

Idi Amin?

Nope.

Donald Duck?

Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House

'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'

Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.

I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.

Er, we still haven't had an Elizabeth II, of the UK. There was an unholy fiddle when this was pointed out, belatedly, in 1952-3 - hence EIIR on pillar boxes south of the Border, but the accurate (to a Unionist) ER across Tweed. Ditto the careful use of the Arabic 2 rather than II in the Clyde-built QE2 - formally as successor to the previous ship of that name.

The QE 2 was named after QE 2 not as the second ship named Elizabeth. As an aside the chairman of Cunard went to ask the king if he could name their new liner After the greatest queen ever in the tradition Of Cunard ships names ending in ia, the king replied that He would ask Mary when she came home but he was sure she would be delisted to have the shop named Mary.

The QE2 may have been named "QE the Second" by HM but that was a slip of the tongue (?). My version is the official Cunartd one, I believe.

But quite right about Queen Victoria/QM. THough I see Vicky got her Queen in the end, albeit one of the modern cruise ships!

I was lucky enough to see the pre press release of pictures and plans for the QE2 as my dad was a Cunard master mariner, I’m sure the reference to name origin was in their but we are talking a very long time ago.

Oh yes, it was. I remember the press coverage. Must have been one of the last of the most prestigious Clyde-built ships.

Nigel_Foremain said:

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


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

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


And there's plenty more...

kle4 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

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


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

I have little trouble believing c.

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

As for our "govt"... you elect a clown, you should expect a circus.

contrarian said:

kle4 said:

contrarian said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/1288833456642895879

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

Er....sorry?

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

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

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

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

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

Try not seeing hidden motives. Though your attempt to shoehorn in BLM was worth a chuckle.

I do not presume to know your agenda. As you say its beside the point.

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

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

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

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

What agenda could anyone have but to control the virus and save lives? Unless someone is making money out of this pandemic.

MaxPB said:

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

The USA has far too many checks and balances to allow the sort of nonsense he's proposing. It'd be easier in this country I suspect...……...

Flatlander said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

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


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

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


And there's plenty more...

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

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

Frankly America might be better if Trump was indeed King Donald, a constitutional monarch, and the government was run by somebody serious.

Flatlander said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

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


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

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


And there's plenty more...

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

I'm sure there's more.

deleted block quote snafu

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

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

FFS.