xkcd: I Love the 20s

[Lynn McGuire]

xkcd: I Love the 20s
https://xkcd.com/2249/

Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !

Explained at:
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2249:_I_Love_the_20s

BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years. Amazing. Both saw combat and thought they would never
make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the Pacific.

Lynn

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
https://xkcd.com/2249/
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2249:_I_Love_the_20s

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years. Amazing. Both saw combat and thought they would never
make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the Pacific.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
https://xkcd.com/2249/
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2249:_I_Love_the_20s

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years. Amazing. Both saw combat and thought they would never
make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the Pacific.

Yup. A.D. started at year one, not year zero.

And yes I know, many people are now using C.E. instead of A.D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

Sue me, I am a Christian and prefer the reverence of A.D. even though I
do not speak or read Latin.

Lynn

[Mark Jackson]

Yup.  A.D. started at year one, not year zero.

And B.C. started at year 1 (and counts backwards) - but astronomers have
a different system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_year_numbering

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
https://xkcd.com/2249/
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2249:_I_Love_the_20s

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years. Amazing. Both saw combat and thought they would never
make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the Pacific.

Yup. A.D. started at year one, not year zero.
And yes I know, many people are now using C.E. instead of A.D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era
Sue me, I am a Christian and prefer the reverence of A.D. even though I
do not speak or read Latin.

So am I, and I do know Latin, but I'm willing to use a secular
term in order not to get in anybody's face. (Note that A.D. 1 is
some number of years off, four is the usual number suggested,
because Dionysius Exiguus "Skinny Dennis" didn't know as much
history as he thought he did.)

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
https://xkcd.com/2249/
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2249:_I_Love_the_20s

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years. Amazing. Both saw combat and thought they would never
make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the Pacific.

Yup. A.D. started at year one, not year zero.
And yes I know, many people are now using C.E. instead of A.D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era
Sue me, I am a Christian and prefer the reverence of A.D. even though I
do not speak or read Latin.

So am I, and I do know Latin, but I'm willing to use a secular
term in order not to get in anybody's face. (Note that A.D. 1 is
some number of years off, four is the usual number suggested,
because Dionysius Exiguus "Skinny Dennis" didn't know as much
history as he thought he did.)

I heard as many as 30 years off. I hope we get a FAQ book when we get
to Heaven.

Lynn

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 16:44:51 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
https://xkcd.com/2249/
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2249:_I_Love_the_20s

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years. Amazing. Both saw combat and thought they would never
make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the Pacific.

Yup. A.D. started at year one, not year zero.
And yes I know, many people are now using C.E. instead of A.D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era
Sue me, I am a Christian and prefer the reverence of A.D. even though I
do not speak or read Latin.

So am I, and I do know Latin, but I'm willing to use a secular
term in order not to get in anybody's face. (Note that A.D. 1 is
some number of years off, four is the usual number suggested,
because Dionysius Exiguus "Skinny Dennis" didn't know as much
history as he thought he did.)

I heard as many as 30 years off. I hope we get a FAQ book when we get
to Heaven.

Any idea what the argument for 30 might be?

Six is what I have usually heard.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 16:44:51 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
https://xkcd.com/2249/
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2249:_I_Love_the_20s

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years. Amazing. Both saw combat and thought they would never
make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the Pacific.

Yup. A.D. started at year one, not year zero.
And yes I know, many people are now using C.E. instead of A.D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era
Sue me, I am a Christian and prefer the reverence of A.D. even though I
do not speak or read Latin.

So am I, and I do know Latin, but I'm willing to use a secular
term in order not to get in anybody's face. (Note that A.D. 1 is
some number of years off, four is the usual number suggested,
because Dionysius Exiguus "Skinny Dennis" didn't know as much
history as he thought he did.)

I heard as many as 30 years off. I hope we get a FAQ book when we get
to Heaven.

Any idea what the argument for 30 might be?
Six is what I have usually heard.

Nope, just a random conversation or a preacher's claim in the distant
past.

Lynn

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
https://xkcd.com/2249/
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2249:_I_Love_the_20s

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years. Amazing. Both saw combat and thought they would never
make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the Pacific.

Yup. A.D. started at year one, not year zero.
And yes I know, many people are now using C.E. instead of A.D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era
Sue me, I am a Christian and prefer the reverence of A.D. even though I
do not speak or read Latin.

So am I, and I do know Latin, but I'm willing to use a secular
term in order not to get in anybody's face. (Note that A.D. 1 is
some number of years off, four is the usual number suggested,
because Dionysius Exiguus "Skinny Dennis" didn't know as much
history as he thought he did.)

Does anyone?

[Moriarty]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
https://xkcd.com/2249/
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2249:_I_Love_the_20s

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years. Amazing. Both saw combat and thought they would never
make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the Pacific.

Yup. A.D. started at year one, not year zero.
And yes I know, many people are now using C.E. instead of A.D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era
Sue me, I am a Christian and prefer the reverence of A.D. even though I
do not speak or read Latin.

So am I, and I do know Latin, but I'm willing to use a secular
term in order not to get in anybody's face. (Note that A.D. 1 is
some number of years off, four is the usual number suggested,
because Dionysius Exiguus "Skinny Dennis" didn't know as much
history as he thought he did.)

Dennis the Short actually! Stephen Jay Gould wrote a typically marvelous essay on him and his efforts to reform the calendar. It's called <googles> "Dousing Diminutive Dennis's Debate".

https://web.archive.org/web/20020721062122/http://www.dilettantepress.com/Essayisthtdocs/Stephen_Jay_Gould.html

An excerpt:

"Dionysius's legacy has provided little but trouble. First of all, he didn't even get the date right, for Herod died in 750 A.U.C. Therefore, if Jesus and Herod overlapped (and the gospels will have to be drastically revised if they did not), then Jesus must have been born in 4 B.C. or earlier--thus granting the bearer of time's title several years of life before the inception of his own era!"

-Moriarty

[Robert Woodward]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
https://xkcd.com/2249/
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2249:_I_Love_the_20s

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years. Amazing. Both saw combat and thought they would never
make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the Pacific.

Yup. A.D. started at year one, not year zero.
And yes I know, many people are now using C.E. instead of A.D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

I have always considered C.E. to be Christian Era.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
https://xkcd.com/2249/
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2249:_I_Love_the_20s

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years. Amazing. Both saw combat and thought they would never
make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the Pacific.

Yup. A.D. started at year one, not year zero.
And yes I know, many people are now using C.E. instead of A.D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

I have always considered C.E. to be Christian Era.

It stands for "Common Era." Just so you know.

[Robert Woodward]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
https://xkcd.com/2249/
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2249:_I_Love_the_20s

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years. Amazing. Both saw combat and thought they would never
make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the Pacific.

Yup. A.D. started at year one, not year zero.
And yes I know, many people are now using C.E. instead of A.D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

I have always considered C.E. to be Christian Era.

It stands for "Common Era." Just so you know.

I know very well what most people call it (note the name of the
wikipedia article). However, I consider using "Common Era" to be an act
of intellectual cowardice. It is one thing not to shove something into
somebody's face (i.e., AD = in the year of our Lord); it is something
quite different to refuse to acknowledge the origin of the dating system.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
https://xkcd.com/2249/
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2249:_I_Love_the_20s

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years. Amazing. Both saw combat and thought they would never
make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the Pacific.

Yup. A.D. started at year one, not year zero.
And yes I know, many people are now using C.E. instead of A.D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

I have always considered C.E. to be Christian Era.

It stands for "Common Era." Just so you know.

I know very well what most people call it (note the name of the
wikipedia article). However, I consider using "Common Era" to be an act
of intellectual cowardice. It is one thing not to shove something into
somebody's face (i.e., AD = in the year of our Lord); it is something
quite different to refuse to acknowledge the origin of the dating system.

...which wasn't God. And anyway ecumenicism is
a refusal to acknowledge God, by definition. :-)

[Kevrob]

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
https://xkcd.com/2249/
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2249:_I_Love_the_20s

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years. Amazing. Both saw combat and thought they would never
make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the Pacific.

Yup. A.D. started at year one, not year zero.
And yes I know, many people are now using C.E. instead of A.D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

I have always considered C.E. to be Christian Era.

It stands for "Common Era." Just so you know.

I know very well what most people call it (note the name of the
wikipedia article). However, I consider using "Common Era" to be an act
of intellectual cowardice. It is one thing not to shove something into
somebody's face (i.e., AD = in the year of our Lord); it is something
quite different to refuse to acknowledge the origin of the dating system.

It'd be one thing if the initials "B.C." stood for "Anno ante
nativitatem Iesu" - (in the year before the birth of Yeshu'a) -
and didn't include a "faith statement" referring to this possibly
legendary person as a christ/messiah and a "lord." "Common era"
was not dreamed up recently by folks solely trying to be multi-
cultural, though that is part of it.

[quote]

The expression has been traced back to 1615, when it first appeared in a
book by Johannes Kepler as the Latin usage "annus aerae nostrae vulgaris,"
and to 1635 in English as "Vulgar Era". The term "Common Era" can be found
in English as early as 1708, and became more widely used in the mid-19th
century by Jewish religious scholars. In the later 20th century, the use of
CE and BCE was popularized in academic and scientific publications as a
culturally neutral term. It is also used by some authors and publishers who
wish to emphasize sensitivity to non-Christians by not explicitly referencing
Jesus as "Christ" and Dominus ("Lord") through use of the abbreviation "AD".

[/quote] from the Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

I wouldn't go onto the stacks at libraries, rubbing out
all references to BC/AD and replace them with BCE/CE,
in some retroactive, Stalinist/Maoist/Ingsoc fit.

Submitted, in this, the 243rd year of the Republic.
(Or the 244th, come July?)

Kevin R
a.a #2310

[Walter Bushell]

Post by Lynn McGuire
Yup. A.D. started at year one, not year zero.
And yes I know, many people are now using C.E. instead of A.D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era
Sue me, I am a Christian and prefer the reverence of A.D. even though I
do not speak or read Latin.
Lynn

You could use AP for After Present. Present is defined as 1950. Last
year was -69 AP.

[Peter Trei]

Post by Walter Bushell

Post by Lynn McGuire
Yup. A.D. started at year one, not year zero.
And yes I know, many people are now using C.E. instead of A.D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era
Sue me, I am a Christian and prefer the reverence of A.D. even though I
do not speak or read Latin.
Lynn

You could use AP for After Present. Present is defined as 1950. Last
year was -69 AP.

There's also the Holocene Calendar, in which this is the year 12020. It has the advantage that all historical dates are positive numbers.

Pt

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
https://xkcd.com/2249/
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2249:_I_Love_the_20s

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

It’s a question of both math and idiom. The 2020s began yesterday. The
203rd decade won’t begin until next year. In English, we normally speak
of the 3rd millennium and the 21st century, both of which began in 2001,
but we virtually never speak of the 203rd decade. Other languages have
other habits.

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years. Amazing. Both saw combat and thought they would never
make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the Pacific.

[Joe Bernstein]

[1] So how many presidents first elected in a 6 year have been re-
elected? 1796 - no. 1816 - N/A. 1836 - no. 1856 - no. 1876 - no.
1896 - McKinley is our first winner. 1916 - N/A. 1936 - N/A, but he

this is also wrong.

-- JLB

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Why?
I remember being told the 21st century didn't begin until 2001, so it
isn't just millennia, but I'm not at all sure I believe it of
centuries, and only believe it of millennia with difficulty. (Most
eras, in this sense, don't live a thousand years. So it isn't silly
to say a first millennium is qualitatively, and perhaps
quantitatively, different.)

It’s not about millennia, centuries, or decades. It’s about the words used.

The 3rd millennium began in 2001. So did the 21st century and the 201st
decade, because the first millennium, the first century, and the first
decade all began with the year 1.

On the other hand, the 2 thousands the 20 hundreds, and the twenty-zeros
(or twenty-aughties) all began in 2000.

So the twenty-twenties begin with 2020, but the 203rd decade begins with
2021.

I find it *very* hard to accept that we should bother with this kind
of imbecilic precision with respect to decades, and would need a
*much* better reason than "So the first decade comes out right."
Nobody born in the first decade is around to argue the point, so why
should I care? Is there *any* better reason than that?
2010 - After the recession. The Tea Party started, quoth English
Wikipedia, in 2009, Occupy not until 2011, so that could go
either way. On balance, though, I think 2010 is in the
2010s. Internationally, the Arab Spring didn't start until
*December* 2010, which argues for linking 2010 to the 2000s in
at least some countries.
2000 - Before 9/11, and before the recession. Clinton is still
president. Linking it to the 1990s makes sense.
1990 - First Iraq war. Before the recession. Linking it to the
1980s makes sense.
1980 - Carter is still president (this works every other time), the
hostages are still in Iran, near as I can tell stagflation
continued. We tend to stereotype the 1970s with stuff from
their first half, but linking 1980 to the late 1970s makes
sense.
1970 - The early 1970s are in many ways an outgrowth of the late
1960s; I don't see any obvious dividing line to put 1970 on
one side of.
1960 - Eisenhower is still president. None of the stuff we think of
as the 1960s is happening yet. This already starts to change
in 1961, Kennedy changing our approaches to both Vietnam and
civil rights. Linking it to the 1950s makes sense.
1950 - Not sure. McCarthy gets started in early 1950, though, which
argues for linking it to the 1950s.
1940 - The US is still at peace, so for us, obviously, linking it to
the 1930s makes sense. For most of the world, the same
argument links 1940, the first full year of WWII, to the 1940s.
The most obvious exception is the USSR, which wasn't at *peace*
in 1940 but whose war changed enormously in 1941. Oh, and OK,
"Roosevelt is still president" doesn't mean much, so no, it
doesn't *always* work every other time. [1]
1930 - The Depression started in 1929. Linking 1930 to the 1930s is
a no-brainer everywhere the effects of the stock market crash
mattered.
1920 - Wilson is still president. Economic problems related to the
end of WWI, the Spanish flu, and the Red Scare all continued,
making a link to the 1910s pretty obvious.
So this is six out of ten that clearly, for the US, link to the
previous decade better than to the succeeding one.
But that still isn't going to keep me from thinking and saying that
we're in the 2020s now.
Joe Bernstein
[1] So how many presidents first elected in a 6 year have been re-
elected? 1796 - no. 1816 - N/A. 1836 - no. 1856 - no. 1876 - no.
1896 - McKinley is our first winner. 1916 - N/A. 1936 - N/A, but he
was still re-elected in 1940. 1956 - N/A. 1976 - no. 1996 - N/A.
2016 - remains to be seen, but the historical record doesn't look
promising.
Other first years - 2. 1792 - yes. 1812 - N/A. 1832 - N/A.
1852 - no. 1872 - N/A. 1892 - no. 1912 - yes. 1932 - yes, and how!
1952 - yes. 1972 - N/A. 1992 - yes. 2012 - N/A. Rather better.
4. 1804 - N/A. 1824 - no. 1844 - no. 1864 - N/A. 1884 - yes,
sorta. 1904 - no. 1924 - no. 1944 - N/A. 1964 - no. 1984 - yes.
2004 - yes. Also better.
8. 1808 - yes. 1828 - yes. 1848 - died. 1868 - yes. 1888 - no.
1908 - no. 1928 - no. 1948 - no. 1968 - yes. 1988 - no. 2008 -
yes. Rather better.
0. 1800 - yes. 1820 - no. 1840 - died. 1860 - yes. 1880 -
died. 1900 - N/A. 1920 - died. 1940 - N/A, but he was still re-
elected in 1944. 1960 - died. 1980 - yes. 2000 - yes. So this is
a good cohort for re-election, but also by far the most dangerous
cohort (besides 1840, 1880, 1920 and 1960, the presidents elected in
1860, 1900, and 1940 died in office). Huh. Since we seem hell-bent
on electing a septuagenarian this time, 2020 may revive that
tradition.

[Kevrob]

1970 - The early 1970s are in many ways an outgrowth of the late
1960s; I don't see any obvious dividing line to put 1970 on
one side of.

Have you ever heard the expression, "The 60s died at Kent State?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

The Cambodian incursion was in 1970, which matches to the 60s.
But Nixon had started "Vietnamization," which aligns to the 70s.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamization

[quote]

April 30, 1969 - U.S. troop levels peak at 543,400. There have been
33,641 Americans killed by now, a total greater than the Korean War.

...

July 8, 1969 - The very first U.S. troop withdrawal occurs as 800 men
from the 9th Infantry Division are sent home. The phased troop
withdrawal will occur in 14 stages from July 1969 through November 1972.

...


December 22, 1970 - The Cooper-Church amendment to the U.S. defense
appropriations bill forbids the use of any U.S. ground forces in Laos
or Cambodia.

American troop levels drop to 280,000 by year's end.

...

April 30, 1971 - The last U.S. Marine combat units depart Vietnam.

[/quote]

https://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1969.html

By the end of 1970, US ground troop involvement in Vietnam wasn't
over, but you could see it from there/then. In February, the Gates
Commission recommended an end to the draft. Two Republican Senators,
Hatfield of Oregon and Goldwater of Arizona, submitted a bill to end'
the draft.

https://www.nytimes.com/1971/01/20/archives/bill-to-end-draft-is-backed-by-hatfield-and-goldwater.html

The selective service law was extended, but new draftees weren't
being sent to Vietnam, and actually inducted anyone ended in `73,
My birth cohort was the last group to have numbers drawn in the
draft lottery started in late 1969.

[quote]

The draft numbers issued from 1972 to 1975 were not used to call any
men into service as the last draft call was on December 7, and authority
to induct expired July 1, 1973.

[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_lottery_(1969)#Aftermath_and_modification

As the 1960s slid into the `70s, one was much less likely to
be sent to Vietnam, even if one were drafted. The removal of the
threat of being sent into combat was a deathstroke to mass anti-war
protest.

On a cultural note, The last Beatles studio album, "Let it Be," was
released in mid-1970, though the tracks were recorded in 1969.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_discography#Studio_albums

Kevin R

[Joe Bernstein]

Post by Kevrob

1970 - The early 1970s are in many ways an outgrowth of the late
1960s; I don't see any obvious dividing line to put 1970 on
one side of.

Have you ever heard the expression, "The 60s died at Kent State?"

Inconveniently in May.

Post by Kevrob
As the 1960s slid into the `70s, one was much less likely to
be sent to Vietnam, even if one were drafted. The removal of the
threat of being sent into combat was a deathstroke to mass anti-war
protest.
On a cultural note, The last Beatles studio album, "Let it Be," was
released in mid-1970, though the tracks were recorded in 1969.

So it sounds like we have to split 1970. The first half of the year
was part of the 1960s, the second half part of the 1970s. This isn't
any way to run a dividing line.

-- JLB

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by Kevrob

1970 - The early 1970s are in many ways an outgrowth of the late
1960s; I don't see any obvious dividing line to put 1970 on
one side of.

Have you ever heard the expression, "The 60s died at Kent State?"

Inconveniently in May.

Post by Kevrob
As the 1960s slid into the `70s, one was much less likely to
be sent to Vietnam, even if one were drafted. The removal of the
threat of being sent into combat was a deathstroke to mass anti-war
protest.
On a cultural note, The last Beatles studio album, "Let it Be," was
released in mid-1970, though the tracks were recorded in 1969.

So it sounds like we have to split 1970. The first half of the year
was part of the 1960s, the second half part of the 1970s. This isn't
any way to run a dividing line.

Maybe because dividing lines usually aren't so sharp and dividing as we
want them to be? ;)

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 21:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Why?
I remember being told the 21st century didn't begin until 2001, so it
isn't just millennia, but I'm not at all sure I believe it of
centuries, and only believe it of millennia with difficulty. (Most
eras, in this sense, don't live a thousand years. So it isn't silly
to say a first millennium is qualitatively, and perhaps
quantitatively, different.)
I find it *very* hard to accept that we should bother with this kind
of imbecilic precision with respect to decades, and would need a
*much* better reason than "So the first decade comes out right."
Nobody born in the first decade is around to argue the point, so why
should I care? Is there *any* better reason than that?
2010 - After the recession. The Tea Party started, quoth English
Wikipedia, in 2009, Occupy not until 2011, so that could go
either way. On balance, though, I think 2010 is in the
2010s. Internationally, the Arab Spring didn't start until
*December* 2010, which argues for linking 2010 to the 2000s in
at least some countries.
2000 - Before 9/11, and before the recession. Clinton is still
president. Linking it to the 1990s makes sense.
1990 - First Iraq war. Before the recession. Linking it to the
1980s makes sense.
1980 - Carter is still president (this works every other time), the
hostages are still in Iran, near as I can tell stagflation
continued. We tend to stereotype the 1970s with stuff from
their first half, but linking 1980 to the late 1970s makes
sense.
1970 - The early 1970s are in many ways an outgrowth of the late
1960s; I don't see any obvious dividing line to put 1970 on
one side of.
1960 - Eisenhower is still president. None of the stuff we think of
as the 1960s is happening yet. This already starts to change
in 1961, Kennedy changing our approaches to both Vietnam and
civil rights. Linking it to the 1950s makes sense.
1950 - Not sure. McCarthy gets started in early 1950, though, which
argues for linking it to the 1950s.
1940 - The US is still at peace, so for us, obviously, linking it to
the 1930s makes sense. For most of the world, the same
argument links 1940, the first full year of WWII, to the 1940s.
The most obvious exception is the USSR, which wasn't at *peace*
in 1940 but whose war changed enormously in 1941. Oh, and OK,
"Roosevelt is still president" doesn't mean much, so no, it
doesn't *always* work every other time. [1]
1930 - The Depression started in 1929. Linking 1930 to the 1930s is
a no-brainer everywhere the effects of the stock market crash
mattered.
1920 - Wilson is still president. Economic problems related to the
end of WWI, the Spanish flu, and the Red Scare all continued,
making a link to the 1910s pretty obvious.
So this is six out of ten that clearly, for the US, link to the
previous decade better than to the succeeding one.
But that still isn't going to keep me from thinking and saying that
we're in the 2020s now.
Joe Bernstein
[1] So how many presidents first elected in a 6 year have been re-
elected? 1796 - no. 1816 - N/A. 1836 - no. 1856 - no. 1876 - no.
1896 - McKinley is our first winner. 1916 - N/A. 1936 - N/A, but he
was still re-elected in 1940. 1956 - N/A. 1976 - no. 1996 - N/A.
2016 - remains to be seen, but the historical record doesn't look
promising.
Other first years - 2. 1792 - yes. 1812 - N/A. 1832 - N/A.
1852 - no. 1872 - N/A. 1892 - no. 1912 - yes. 1932 - yes, and how!
1952 - yes. 1972 - N/A. 1992 - yes. 2012 - N/A. Rather better.
4. 1804 - N/A. 1824 - no. 1844 - no. 1864 - N/A. 1884 - yes,
sorta. 1904 - no. 1924 - no. 1944 - N/A. 1964 - no. 1984 - yes.
2004 - yes. Also better.
8. 1808 - yes. 1828 - yes. 1848 - died. 1868 - yes. 1888 - no.
1908 - no. 1928 - no. 1948 - no. 1968 - yes. 1988 - no. 2008 -
yes. Rather better.
0. 1800 - yes. 1820 - no. 1840 - died. 1860 - yes. 1880 -
died. 1900 - N/A. 1920 - died. 1940 - N/A, but he was still re-
elected in 1944. 1960 - died. 1980 - yes. 2000 - yes. So this is
a good cohort for re-election, but also by far the most dangerous
cohort (besides 1840, 1880, 1920 and 1960, the presidents elected in
1860, 1900, and 1940 died in office). Huh. Since we seem hell-bent
on electing a septuagenarian this time, 2020 may revive that
tradition.

Well, that /would/ make the "0" class the winners in terms of being
"President for Life". A title and status Trump was wishing for at one
time, IIRC.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 21:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Why?
I remember being told the 21st century didn't begin until 2001, so it
isn't just millennia, but I'm not at all sure I believe it of
centuries, and only believe it of millennia with difficulty. (Most
eras, in this sense, don't live a thousand years. So it isn't silly
to say a first millennium is qualitatively, and perhaps
quantitatively, different.)
I find it *very* hard to accept that we should bother with this kind
of imbecilic precision with respect to decades, and would need a
*much* better reason than "So the first decade comes out right."
Nobody born in the first decade is around to argue the point, so why
should I care? Is there *any* better reason than that?
2010 - After the recession. The Tea Party started, quoth English
Wikipedia, in 2009, Occupy not until 2011, so that could go
either way. On balance, though, I think 2010 is in the
2010s. Internationally, the Arab Spring didn't start until
*December* 2010, which argues for linking 2010 to the 2000s in
at least some countries.
2000 - Before 9/11, and before the recession. Clinton is still
president. Linking it to the 1990s makes sense.
1990 - First Iraq war. Before the recession. Linking it to the
1980s makes sense.
1980 - Carter is still president (this works every other time), the
hostages are still in Iran, near as I can tell stagflation
continued. We tend to stereotype the 1970s with stuff from
their first half, but linking 1980 to the late 1970s makes
sense.
1970 - The early 1970s are in many ways an outgrowth of the late
1960s; I don't see any obvious dividing line to put 1970 on
one side of.
1960 - Eisenhower is still president. None of the stuff we think of
as the 1960s is happening yet. This already starts to change
in 1961, Kennedy changing our approaches to both Vietnam and
civil rights. Linking it to the 1950s makes sense.
1950 - Not sure. McCarthy gets started in early 1950, though, which
argues for linking it to the 1950s.
1940 - The US is still at peace, so for us, obviously, linking it to
the 1930s makes sense. For most of the world, the same
argument links 1940, the first full year of WWII, to the 1940s.
The most obvious exception is the USSR, which wasn't at *peace*
in 1940 but whose war changed enormously in 1941. Oh, and OK,
"Roosevelt is still president" doesn't mean much, so no, it
doesn't *always* work every other time. [1]
1930 - The Depression started in 1929. Linking 1930 to the 1930s is
a no-brainer everywhere the effects of the stock market crash
mattered.
1920 - Wilson is still president. Economic problems related to the
end of WWI, the Spanish flu, and the Red Scare all continued,
making a link to the 1910s pretty obvious.
So this is six out of ten that clearly, for the US, link to the
previous decade better than to the succeeding one.
But that still isn't going to keep me from thinking and saying that
we're in the 2020s now.
Joe Bernstein
[1] So how many presidents first elected in a 6 year have been re-
elected? 1796 - no. 1816 - N/A. 1836 - no. 1856 - no. 1876 - no.
1896 - McKinley is our first winner. 1916 - N/A. 1936 - N/A, but he
was still re-elected in 1940. 1956 - N/A. 1976 - no. 1996 - N/A.
2016 - remains to be seen, but the historical record doesn't look
promising.
Other first years - 2. 1792 - yes. 1812 - N/A. 1832 - N/A.
1852 - no. 1872 - N/A. 1892 - no. 1912 - yes. 1932 - yes, and how!
1952 - yes. 1972 - N/A. 1992 - yes. 2012 - N/A. Rather better.
4. 1804 - N/A. 1824 - no. 1844 - no. 1864 - N/A. 1884 - yes,
sorta. 1904 - no. 1924 - no. 1944 - N/A. 1964 - no. 1984 - yes.
2004 - yes. Also better.
8. 1808 - yes. 1828 - yes. 1848 - died. 1868 - yes. 1888 - no.
1908 - no. 1928 - no. 1948 - no. 1968 - yes. 1988 - no. 2008 -
yes. Rather better.
0. 1800 - yes. 1820 - no. 1840 - died. 1860 - yes. 1880 -
died. 1900 - N/A. 1920 - died. 1940 - N/A, but he was still re-
elected in 1944. 1960 - died. 1980 - yes. 2000 - yes. So this is
a good cohort for re-election, but also by far the most dangerous
cohort (besides 1840, 1880, 1920 and 1960, the presidents elected in
1860, 1900, and 1940 died in office). Huh. Since we seem hell-bent
on electing a septuagenarian this time, 2020 may revive that
tradition.

Well, that /would/ make the "0" class the winners in terms of being
"President for Life". A title and status Trump was wishing for at one
time, IIRC.

"was"?

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 10:01:44 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 21:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Why?
I remember being told the 21st century didn't begin until 2001, so it
isn't just millennia, but I'm not at all sure I believe it of
centuries, and only believe it of millennia with difficulty. (Most
eras, in this sense, don't live a thousand years. So it isn't silly
to say a first millennium is qualitatively, and perhaps
quantitatively, different.)
I find it *very* hard to accept that we should bother with this kind
of imbecilic precision with respect to decades, and would need a
*much* better reason than "So the first decade comes out right."
Nobody born in the first decade is around to argue the point, so why
should I care? Is there *any* better reason than that?
2010 - After the recession. The Tea Party started, quoth English
Wikipedia, in 2009, Occupy not until 2011, so that could go
either way. On balance, though, I think 2010 is in the
2010s. Internationally, the Arab Spring didn't start until
*December* 2010, which argues for linking 2010 to the 2000s in
at least some countries.
2000 - Before 9/11, and before the recession. Clinton is still
president. Linking it to the 1990s makes sense.
1990 - First Iraq war. Before the recession. Linking it to the
1980s makes sense.
1980 - Carter is still president (this works every other time), the
hostages are still in Iran, near as I can tell stagflation
continued. We tend to stereotype the 1970s with stuff from
their first half, but linking 1980 to the late 1970s makes
sense.
1970 - The early 1970s are in many ways an outgrowth of the late
1960s; I don't see any obvious dividing line to put 1970 on
one side of.
1960 - Eisenhower is still president. None of the stuff we think of
as the 1960s is happening yet. This already starts to change
in 1961, Kennedy changing our approaches to both Vietnam and
civil rights. Linking it to the 1950s makes sense.
1950 - Not sure. McCarthy gets started in early 1950, though, which
argues for linking it to the 1950s.
1940 - The US is still at peace, so for us, obviously, linking it to
the 1930s makes sense. For most of the world, the same
argument links 1940, the first full year of WWII, to the 1940s.
The most obvious exception is the USSR, which wasn't at *peace*
in 1940 but whose war changed enormously in 1941. Oh, and OK,
"Roosevelt is still president" doesn't mean much, so no, it
doesn't *always* work every other time. [1]
1930 - The Depression started in 1929. Linking 1930 to the 1930s is
a no-brainer everywhere the effects of the stock market crash
mattered.
1920 - Wilson is still president. Economic problems related to the
end of WWI, the Spanish flu, and the Red Scare all continued,
making a link to the 1910s pretty obvious.
So this is six out of ten that clearly, for the US, link to the
previous decade better than to the succeeding one.
But that still isn't going to keep me from thinking and saying that
we're in the 2020s now.
Joe Bernstein
[1] So how many presidents first elected in a 6 year have been re-
elected? 1796 - no. 1816 - N/A. 1836 - no. 1856 - no. 1876 - no.
1896 - McKinley is our first winner. 1916 - N/A. 1936 - N/A, but he
was still re-elected in 1940. 1956 - N/A. 1976 - no. 1996 - N/A.
2016 - remains to be seen, but the historical record doesn't look
promising.
Other first years - 2. 1792 - yes. 1812 - N/A. 1832 - N/A.
1852 - no. 1872 - N/A. 1892 - no. 1912 - yes. 1932 - yes, and how!
1952 - yes. 1972 - N/A. 1992 - yes. 2012 - N/A. Rather better.
4. 1804 - N/A. 1824 - no. 1844 - no. 1864 - N/A. 1884 - yes,
sorta. 1904 - no. 1924 - no. 1944 - N/A. 1964 - no. 1984 - yes.
2004 - yes. Also better.
8. 1808 - yes. 1828 - yes. 1848 - died. 1868 - yes. 1888 - no.
1908 - no. 1928 - no. 1948 - no. 1968 - yes. 1988 - no. 2008 -
yes. Rather better.
0. 1800 - yes. 1820 - no. 1840 - died. 1860 - yes. 1880 -
died. 1900 - N/A. 1920 - died. 1940 - N/A, but he was still re-
elected in 1944. 1960 - died. 1980 - yes. 2000 - yes. So this is
a good cohort for re-election, but also by far the most dangerous
cohort (besides 1840, 1880, 1920 and 1960, the presidents elected in
1860, 1900, and 1940 died in office). Huh. Since we seem hell-bent
on electing a septuagenarian this time, 2020 may revive that
tradition.

Well, that /would/ make the "0" class the winners in terms of being
"President for Life". A title and status Trump was wishing for at one
time, IIRC.

"was"?

It's been three seconds.

The focus of his attention has moved on to something else.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 10:01:44 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 21:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Why?
I remember being told the 21st century didn't begin until 2001, so it
isn't just millennia, but I'm not at all sure I believe it of
centuries, and only believe it of millennia with difficulty. (Most
eras, in this sense, don't live a thousand years. So it isn't silly
to say a first millennium is qualitatively, and perhaps
quantitatively, different.)
I find it *very* hard to accept that we should bother with this kind
of imbecilic precision with respect to decades, and would need a
*much* better reason than "So the first decade comes out right."
Nobody born in the first decade is around to argue the point, so why
should I care? Is there *any* better reason than that?
2010 - After the recession. The Tea Party started, quoth English
Wikipedia, in 2009, Occupy not until 2011, so that could go
either way. On balance, though, I think 2010 is in the
2010s. Internationally, the Arab Spring didn't start until
*December* 2010, which argues for linking 2010 to the 2000s in
at least some countries.
2000 - Before 9/11, and before the recession. Clinton is still
president. Linking it to the 1990s makes sense.
1990 - First Iraq war. Before the recession. Linking it to the
1980s makes sense.
1980 - Carter is still president (this works every other time), the
hostages are still in Iran, near as I can tell stagflation
continued. We tend to stereotype the 1970s with stuff from
their first half, but linking 1980 to the late 1970s makes
sense.
1970 - The early 1970s are in many ways an outgrowth of the late
1960s; I don't see any obvious dividing line to put 1970 on
one side of.
1960 - Eisenhower is still president. None of the stuff we think of
as the 1960s is happening yet. This already starts to change
in 1961, Kennedy changing our approaches to both Vietnam and
civil rights. Linking it to the 1950s makes sense.
1950 - Not sure. McCarthy gets started in early 1950, though, which
argues for linking it to the 1950s.
1940 - The US is still at peace, so for us, obviously, linking it to
the 1930s makes sense. For most of the world, the same
argument links 1940, the first full year of WWII, to the 1940s.
The most obvious exception is the USSR, which wasn't at *peace*
in 1940 but whose war changed enormously in 1941. Oh, and OK,
"Roosevelt is still president" doesn't mean much, so no, it
doesn't *always* work every other time. [1]
1930 - The Depression started in 1929. Linking 1930 to the 1930s is
a no-brainer everywhere the effects of the stock market crash
mattered.
1920 - Wilson is still president. Economic problems related to the
end of WWI, the Spanish flu, and the Red Scare all continued,
making a link to the 1910s pretty obvious.
So this is six out of ten that clearly, for the US, link to the
previous decade better than to the succeeding one.
But that still isn't going to keep me from thinking and saying that
we're in the 2020s now.
Joe Bernstein
[1] So how many presidents first elected in a 6 year have been re-
elected? 1796 - no. 1816 - N/A. 1836 - no. 1856 - no. 1876 - no.
1896 - McKinley is our first winner. 1916 - N/A. 1936 - N/A, but he
was still re-elected in 1940. 1956 - N/A. 1976 - no. 1996 - N/A.
2016 - remains to be seen, but the historical record doesn't look
promising.
Other first years - 2. 1792 - yes. 1812 - N/A. 1832 - N/A.
1852 - no. 1872 - N/A. 1892 - no. 1912 - yes. 1932 - yes, and how!
1952 - yes. 1972 - N/A. 1992 - yes. 2012 - N/A. Rather better.
4. 1804 - N/A. 1824 - no. 1844 - no. 1864 - N/A. 1884 - yes,
sorta. 1904 - no. 1924 - no. 1944 - N/A. 1964 - no. 1984 - yes.
2004 - yes. Also better.
8. 1808 - yes. 1828 - yes. 1848 - died. 1868 - yes. 1888 - no.
1908 - no. 1928 - no. 1948 - no. 1968 - yes. 1988 - no. 2008 -
yes. Rather better.
0. 1800 - yes. 1820 - no. 1840 - died. 1860 - yes. 1880 -
died. 1900 - N/A. 1920 - died. 1940 - N/A, but he was still re-
elected in 1944. 1960 - died. 1980 - yes. 2000 - yes. So this is
a good cohort for re-election, but also by far the most dangerous
cohort (besides 1840, 1880, 1920 and 1960, the presidents elected in
1860, 1900, and 1940 died in office). Huh. Since we seem hell-bent
on electing a septuagenarian this time, 2020 may revive that
tradition.

Well, that /would/ make the "0" class the winners in terms of being
"President for Life". A title and status Trump was wishing for at one
time, IIRC.

"was"?

It's been three seconds.
The focus of his attention has moved on to something else.

*snicker* Yabut....

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 21:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Why?
I remember being told the 21st century didn't begin until 2001, so it
isn't just millennia, but I'm not at all sure I believe it of
centuries, and only believe it of millennia with difficulty. (Most
eras, in this sense, don't live a thousand years. So it isn't silly
to say a first millennium is qualitatively, and perhaps
quantitatively, different.)
I find it *very* hard to accept that we should bother with this kind
of imbecilic precision with respect to decades, and would need a
*much* better reason than "So the first decade comes out right."
Nobody born in the first decade is around to argue the point, so why
should I care? Is there *any* better reason than that?
2010 - After the recession. The Tea Party started, quoth English
Wikipedia, in 2009, Occupy not until 2011, so that could go
either way. On balance, though, I think 2010 is in the
2010s. Internationally, the Arab Spring didn't start until
*December* 2010, which argues for linking 2010 to the 2000s in
at least some countries.
2000 - Before 9/11, and before the recession. Clinton is still
president. Linking it to the 1990s makes sense.
1990 - First Iraq war. Before the recession. Linking it to the
1980s makes sense.
1980 - Carter is still president (this works every other time), the
hostages are still in Iran, near as I can tell stagflation
continued. We tend to stereotype the 1970s with stuff from
their first half, but linking 1980 to the late 1970s makes
sense.
1970 - The early 1970s are in many ways an outgrowth of the late
1960s; I don't see any obvious dividing line to put 1970 on
one side of.
1960 - Eisenhower is still president. None of the stuff we think of
as the 1960s is happening yet. This already starts to change
in 1961, Kennedy changing our approaches to both Vietnam and
civil rights. Linking it to the 1950s makes sense.
1950 - Not sure. McCarthy gets started in early 1950, though, which
argues for linking it to the 1950s.
1940 - The US is still at peace, so for us, obviously, linking it to
the 1930s makes sense. For most of the world, the same
argument links 1940, the first full year of WWII, to the 1940s.
The most obvious exception is the USSR, which wasn't at *peace*
in 1940 but whose war changed enormously in 1941. Oh, and OK,
"Roosevelt is still president" doesn't mean much, so no, it
doesn't *always* work every other time. [1]
1930 - The Depression started in 1929. Linking 1930 to the 1930s is
a no-brainer everywhere the effects of the stock market crash
mattered.
1920 - Wilson is still president. Economic problems related to the
end of WWI, the Spanish flu, and the Red Scare all continued,
making a link to the 1910s pretty obvious.
So this is six out of ten that clearly, for the US, link to the
previous decade better than to the succeeding one.
But that still isn't going to keep me from thinking and saying that
we're in the 2020s now.
Joe Bernstein
[1] So how many presidents first elected in a 6 year have been re-
elected? 1796 - no. 1816 - N/A. 1836 - no. 1856 - no. 1876 - no.
1896 - McKinley is our first winner. 1916 - N/A. 1936 - N/A, but he
was still re-elected in 1940. 1956 - N/A. 1976 - no. 1996 - N/A.
2016 - remains to be seen, but the historical record doesn't look
promising.
Other first years - 2. 1792 - yes. 1812 - N/A. 1832 - N/A.
1852 - no. 1872 - N/A. 1892 - no. 1912 - yes. 1932 - yes, and how!
1952 - yes. 1972 - N/A. 1992 - yes. 2012 - N/A. Rather better.
4. 1804 - N/A. 1824 - no. 1844 - no. 1864 - N/A. 1884 - yes,
sorta. 1904 - no. 1924 - no. 1944 - N/A. 1964 - no. 1984 - yes.
2004 - yes. Also better.
8. 1808 - yes. 1828 - yes. 1848 - died. 1868 - yes. 1888 - no.
1908 - no. 1928 - no. 1948 - no. 1968 - yes. 1988 - no. 2008 -
yes. Rather better.
0. 1800 - yes. 1820 - no. 1840 - died. 1860 - yes. 1880 -
died. 1900 - N/A. 1920 - died. 1940 - N/A, but he was still re-
elected in 1944. 1960 - died. 1980 - yes. 2000 - yes. So this is
a good cohort for re-election, but also by far the most dangerous
cohort (besides 1840, 1880, 1920 and 1960, the presidents elected in
1860, 1900, and 1940 died in office). Huh. Since we seem hell-bent
on electing a septuagenarian this time, 2020 may revive that
tradition.

Well, that /would/ make the "0" class the winners in terms of being
"President for Life". A title and status Trump was wishing for at one
time, IIRC.

Not at one time, all the time. He may have only *mentioned* it
at one time.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 21:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Why?
I remember being told the 21st century didn't begin until 2001, so it
isn't just millennia, but I'm not at all sure I believe it of
centuries, and only believe it of millennia with difficulty. (Most
eras, in this sense, don't live a thousand years. So it isn't silly
to say a first millennium is qualitatively, and perhaps
quantitatively, different.)
I find it *very* hard to accept that we should bother with this kind
of imbecilic precision with respect to decades, and would need a
*much* better reason than "So the first decade comes out right."
Nobody born in the first decade is around to argue the point, so why
should I care? Is there *any* better reason than that?
2010 - After the recession. The Tea Party started, quoth English
Wikipedia, in 2009, Occupy not until 2011, so that could go
either way. On balance, though, I think 2010 is in the
2010s. Internationally, the Arab Spring didn't start until
*December* 2010, which argues for linking 2010 to the 2000s in
at least some countries.
2000 - Before 9/11, and before the recession. Clinton is still
president. Linking it to the 1990s makes sense.
1990 - First Iraq war. Before the recession. Linking it to the
1980s makes sense.
1980 - Carter is still president (this works every other time), the
hostages are still in Iran, near as I can tell stagflation
continued. We tend to stereotype the 1970s with stuff from
their first half, but linking 1980 to the late 1970s makes
sense.
1970 - The early 1970s are in many ways an outgrowth of the late
1960s; I don't see any obvious dividing line to put 1970 on
one side of.
1960 - Eisenhower is still president. None of the stuff we think of
as the 1960s is happening yet. This already starts to change
in 1961, Kennedy changing our approaches to both Vietnam and
civil rights. Linking it to the 1950s makes sense.
1950 - Not sure. McCarthy gets started in early 1950, though, which
argues for linking it to the 1950s.
1940 - The US is still at peace, so for us, obviously, linking it to
the 1930s makes sense. For most of the world, the same
argument links 1940, the first full year of WWII, to the 1940s.
The most obvious exception is the USSR, which wasn't at *peace*
in 1940 but whose war changed enormously in 1941. Oh, and OK,
"Roosevelt is still president" doesn't mean much, so no, it
doesn't *always* work every other time. [1]
1930 - The Depression started in 1929. Linking 1930 to the 1930s is
a no-brainer everywhere the effects of the stock market crash
mattered.
1920 - Wilson is still president. Economic problems related to the
end of WWI, the Spanish flu, and the Red Scare all continued,
making a link to the 1910s pretty obvious.
So this is six out of ten that clearly, for the US, link to the
previous decade better than to the succeeding one.
But that still isn't going to keep me from thinking and saying that
we're in the 2020s now.
Joe Bernstein
[1] So how many presidents first elected in a 6 year have been re-
elected? 1796 - no. 1816 - N/A. 1836 - no. 1856 - no. 1876 - no.
1896 - McKinley is our first winner. 1916 - N/A. 1936 - N/A, but he
was still re-elected in 1940. 1956 - N/A. 1976 - no. 1996 - N/A.
2016 - remains to be seen, but the historical record doesn't look
promising.
Other first years - 2. 1792 - yes. 1812 - N/A. 1832 - N/A.
1852 - no. 1872 - N/A. 1892 - no. 1912 - yes. 1932 - yes, and how!
1952 - yes. 1972 - N/A. 1992 - yes. 2012 - N/A. Rather better.
4. 1804 - N/A. 1824 - no. 1844 - no. 1864 - N/A. 1884 - yes,
sorta. 1904 - no. 1924 - no. 1944 - N/A. 1964 - no. 1984 - yes.
2004 - yes. Also better.
8. 1808 - yes. 1828 - yes. 1848 - died. 1868 - yes. 1888 - no.
1908 - no. 1928 - no. 1948 - no. 1968 - yes. 1988 - no. 2008 -
yes. Rather better.
0. 1800 - yes. 1820 - no. 1840 - died. 1860 - yes. 1880 -
died. 1900 - N/A. 1920 - died. 1940 - N/A, but he was still re-
elected in 1944. 1960 - died. 1980 - yes. 2000 - yes. So this is
a good cohort for re-election, but also by far the most dangerous
cohort (besides 1840, 1880, 1920 and 1960, the presidents elected in
1860, 1900, and 1940 died in office). Huh. Since we seem hell-bent
on electing a septuagenarian this time, 2020 may revive that
tradition.

Well, that /would/ make the "0" class the winners in terms of being
"President for Life". A title and status Trump was wishing for at one
time, IIRC.

Not at one time, all the time. He may have only *mentioned* it
at one time.

I'd suggest it to God to arrange it ASAP, but
that would leave us Mike Pence, and that's scary too.
Also, I'm technically an atheist, by which I mean
I generally don't worship gods. But perhaps He and I
could make an exception.

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 16:53:27 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 21:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Why?
I remember being told the 21st century didn't begin until 2001, so it
isn't just millennia, but I'm not at all sure I believe it of
centuries, and only believe it of millennia with difficulty. (Most
eras, in this sense, don't live a thousand years. So it isn't silly
to say a first millennium is qualitatively, and perhaps
quantitatively, different.)
I find it *very* hard to accept that we should bother with this kind
of imbecilic precision with respect to decades, and would need a
*much* better reason than "So the first decade comes out right."
Nobody born in the first decade is around to argue the point, so why
should I care? Is there *any* better reason than that?
2010 - After the recession. The Tea Party started, quoth English
Wikipedia, in 2009, Occupy not until 2011, so that could go
either way. On balance, though, I think 2010 is in the
2010s. Internationally, the Arab Spring didn't start until
*December* 2010, which argues for linking 2010 to the 2000s in
at least some countries.
2000 - Before 9/11, and before the recession. Clinton is still
president. Linking it to the 1990s makes sense.
1990 - First Iraq war. Before the recession. Linking it to the
1980s makes sense.
1980 - Carter is still president (this works every other time), the
hostages are still in Iran, near as I can tell stagflation
continued. We tend to stereotype the 1970s with stuff from
their first half, but linking 1980 to the late 1970s makes
sense.
1970 - The early 1970s are in many ways an outgrowth of the late
1960s; I don't see any obvious dividing line to put 1970 on
one side of.
1960 - Eisenhower is still president. None of the stuff we think of
as the 1960s is happening yet. This already starts to change
in 1961, Kennedy changing our approaches to both Vietnam and
civil rights. Linking it to the 1950s makes sense.
1950 - Not sure. McCarthy gets started in early 1950, though, which
argues for linking it to the 1950s.
1940 - The US is still at peace, so for us, obviously, linking it to
the 1930s makes sense. For most of the world, the same
argument links 1940, the first full year of WWII, to the 1940s.
The most obvious exception is the USSR, which wasn't at *peace*
in 1940 but whose war changed enormously in 1941. Oh, and OK,
"Roosevelt is still president" doesn't mean much, so no, it
doesn't *always* work every other time. [1]
1930 - The Depression started in 1929. Linking 1930 to the 1930s is
a no-brainer everywhere the effects of the stock market crash
mattered.
1920 - Wilson is still president. Economic problems related to the
end of WWI, the Spanish flu, and the Red Scare all continued,
making a link to the 1910s pretty obvious.
So this is six out of ten that clearly, for the US, link to the
previous decade better than to the succeeding one.
But that still isn't going to keep me from thinking and saying that
we're in the 2020s now.
Joe Bernstein
[1] So how many presidents first elected in a 6 year have been re-
elected? 1796 - no. 1816 - N/A. 1836 - no. 1856 - no. 1876 - no.
1896 - McKinley is our first winner. 1916 - N/A. 1936 - N/A, but he
was still re-elected in 1940. 1956 - N/A. 1976 - no. 1996 - N/A.
2016 - remains to be seen, but the historical record doesn't look
promising.
Other first years - 2. 1792 - yes. 1812 - N/A. 1832 - N/A.
1852 - no. 1872 - N/A. 1892 - no. 1912 - yes. 1932 - yes, and how!
1952 - yes. 1972 - N/A. 1992 - yes. 2012 - N/A. Rather better.
4. 1804 - N/A. 1824 - no. 1844 - no. 1864 - N/A. 1884 - yes,
sorta. 1904 - no. 1924 - no. 1944 - N/A. 1964 - no. 1984 - yes.
2004 - yes. Also better.
8. 1808 - yes. 1828 - yes. 1848 - died. 1868 - yes. 1888 - no.
1908 - no. 1928 - no. 1948 - no. 1968 - yes. 1988 - no. 2008 -
yes. Rather better.
0. 1800 - yes. 1820 - no. 1840 - died. 1860 - yes. 1880 -
died. 1900 - N/A. 1920 - died. 1940 - N/A, but he was still re-
elected in 1944. 1960 - died. 1980 - yes. 2000 - yes. So this is
a good cohort for re-election, but also by far the most dangerous
cohort (besides 1840, 1880, 1920 and 1960, the presidents elected in
1860, 1900, and 1940 died in office). Huh. Since we seem hell-bent
on electing a septuagenarian this time, 2020 may revive that
tradition.

Well, that /would/ make the "0" class the winners in terms of being
"President for Life". A title and status Trump was wishing for at one
time, IIRC.

Not at one time, all the time. He may have only *mentioned* it
at one time.

I'd suggest it to God to arrange it ASAP, but
that would leave us Mike Pence, and that's scary too.
Also, I'm technically an atheist, by which I mean
I generally don't worship gods. But perhaps He and I
could make an exception.

The thought of Pence, a presumably /competent/ Republican who might
actually /do/ something, and who would be able to run as an incumbent
in both 2020 and 2024, has long seemed to me the best argument
/against/ impeaching Trump.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 16:53:27 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 21:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Why?
I remember being told the 21st century didn't begin until 2001, so it
isn't just millennia, but I'm not at all sure I believe it of
centuries, and only believe it of millennia with difficulty. (Most
eras, in this sense, don't live a thousand years. So it isn't silly
to say a first millennium is qualitatively, and perhaps
quantitatively, different.)
I find it *very* hard to accept that we should bother with this kind
of imbecilic precision with respect to decades, and would need a
*much* better reason than "So the first decade comes out right."
Nobody born in the first decade is around to argue the point, so why
should I care? Is there *any* better reason than that?
2010 - After the recession. The Tea Party started, quoth English
Wikipedia, in 2009, Occupy not until 2011, so that could go
either way. On balance, though, I think 2010 is in the
2010s. Internationally, the Arab Spring didn't start until
*December* 2010, which argues for linking 2010 to the 2000s in
at least some countries.
2000 - Before 9/11, and before the recession. Clinton is still
president. Linking it to the 1990s makes sense.
1990 - First Iraq war. Before the recession. Linking it to the
1980s makes sense.
1980 - Carter is still president (this works every other time), the
hostages are still in Iran, near as I can tell stagflation
continued. We tend to stereotype the 1970s with stuff from
their first half, but linking 1980 to the late 1970s makes
sense.
1970 - The early 1970s are in many ways an outgrowth of the late
1960s; I don't see any obvious dividing line to put 1970 on
one side of.
1960 - Eisenhower is still president. None of the stuff we think of
as the 1960s is happening yet. This already starts to change
in 1961, Kennedy changing our approaches to both Vietnam and
civil rights. Linking it to the 1950s makes sense.
1950 - Not sure. McCarthy gets started in early 1950, though, which
argues for linking it to the 1950s.
1940 - The US is still at peace, so for us, obviously, linking it to
the 1930s makes sense. For most of the world, the same
argument links 1940, the first full year of WWII, to the 1940s.
The most obvious exception is the USSR, which wasn't at *peace*
in 1940 but whose war changed enormously in 1941. Oh, and OK,
"Roosevelt is still president" doesn't mean much, so no, it
doesn't *always* work every other time. [1]
1930 - The Depression started in 1929. Linking 1930 to the 1930s is
a no-brainer everywhere the effects of the stock market crash
mattered.
1920 - Wilson is still president. Economic problems related to the
end of WWI, the Spanish flu, and the Red Scare all continued,
making a link to the 1910s pretty obvious.
So this is six out of ten that clearly, for the US, link to the
previous decade better than to the succeeding one.
But that still isn't going to keep me from thinking and saying that
we're in the 2020s now.
Joe Bernstein
[1] So how many presidents first elected in a 6 year have been re-
elected? 1796 - no. 1816 - N/A. 1836 - no. 1856 - no. 1876 - no.
1896 - McKinley is our first winner. 1916 - N/A. 1936 - N/A, but he
was still re-elected in 1940. 1956 - N/A. 1976 - no. 1996 - N/A.
2016 - remains to be seen, but the historical record doesn't look
promising.
Other first years - 2. 1792 - yes. 1812 - N/A. 1832 - N/A.
1852 - no. 1872 - N/A. 1892 - no. 1912 - yes. 1932 - yes, and how!
1952 - yes. 1972 - N/A. 1992 - yes. 2012 - N/A. Rather better.
4. 1804 - N/A. 1824 - no. 1844 - no. 1864 - N/A. 1884 - yes,
sorta. 1904 - no. 1924 - no. 1944 - N/A. 1964 - no. 1984 - yes.
2004 - yes. Also better.
8. 1808 - yes. 1828 - yes. 1848 - died. 1868 - yes. 1888 - no.
1908 - no. 1928 - no. 1948 - no. 1968 - yes. 1988 - no. 2008 -
yes. Rather better.
0. 1800 - yes. 1820 - no. 1840 - died. 1860 - yes. 1880 -
died. 1900 - N/A. 1920 - died. 1940 - N/A, but he was still re-
elected in 1944. 1960 - died. 1980 - yes. 2000 - yes. So this is
a good cohort for re-election, but also by far the most dangerous
cohort (besides 1840, 1880, 1920 and 1960, the presidents elected in
1860, 1900, and 1940 died in office). Huh. Since we seem hell-bent
on electing a septuagenarian this time, 2020 may revive that
tradition.

Well, that /would/ make the "0" class the winners in terms of being
"President for Life". A title and status Trump was wishing for at one
time, IIRC.

Not at one time, all the time. He may have only *mentioned* it
at one time.

I'd suggest it to God to arrange it ASAP, but
that would leave us Mike Pence, and that's scary too.
Also, I'm technically an atheist, by which I mean
I generally don't worship gods. But perhaps He and I
could make an exception.

The thought of Pence, a presumably /competent/ Republican who might
actually /do/ something, and who would be able to run as an incumbent
in both 2020 and 2024, has long seemed to me the best argument
/against/ impeaching Trump.

But what if we can get Pence in the impeachment too....

[J. Clarke]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:50:46 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 16:53:27 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 21:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Why?
I remember being told the 21st century didn't begin until 2001, so it
isn't just millennia, but I'm not at all sure I believe it of
centuries, and only believe it of millennia with difficulty. (Most
eras, in this sense, don't live a thousand years. So it isn't silly
to say a first millennium is qualitatively, and perhaps
quantitatively, different.)
I find it *very* hard to accept that we should bother with this kind
of imbecilic precision with respect to decades, and would need a
*much* better reason than "So the first decade comes out right."
Nobody born in the first decade is around to argue the point, so why
should I care? Is there *any* better reason than that?
2010 - After the recession. The Tea Party started, quoth English
Wikipedia, in 2009, Occupy not until 2011, so that could go
either way. On balance, though, I think 2010 is in the
2010s. Internationally, the Arab Spring didn't start until
*December* 2010, which argues for linking 2010 to the 2000s in
at least some countries.
2000 - Before 9/11, and before the recession. Clinton is still
president. Linking it to the 1990s makes sense.
1990 - First Iraq war. Before the recession. Linking it to the
1980s makes sense.
1980 - Carter is still president (this works every other time), the
hostages are still in Iran, near as I can tell stagflation
continued. We tend to stereotype the 1970s with stuff from
their first half, but linking 1980 to the late 1970s makes
sense.
1970 - The early 1970s are in many ways an outgrowth of the late
1960s; I don't see any obvious dividing line to put 1970 on
one side of.
1960 - Eisenhower is still president. None of the stuff we think of
as the 1960s is happening yet. This already starts to change
in 1961, Kennedy changing our approaches to both Vietnam and
civil rights. Linking it to the 1950s makes sense.
1950 - Not sure. McCarthy gets started in early 1950, though, which
argues for linking it to the 1950s.
1940 - The US is still at peace, so for us, obviously, linking it to
the 1930s makes sense. For most of the world, the same
argument links 1940, the first full year of WWII, to the 1940s.
The most obvious exception is the USSR, which wasn't at *peace*
in 1940 but whose war changed enormously in 1941. Oh, and OK,
"Roosevelt is still president" doesn't mean much, so no, it
doesn't *always* work every other time. [1]
1930 - The Depression started in 1929. Linking 1930 to the 1930s is
a no-brainer everywhere the effects of the stock market crash
mattered.
1920 - Wilson is still president. Economic problems related to the
end of WWI, the Spanish flu, and the Red Scare all continued,
making a link to the 1910s pretty obvious.
So this is six out of ten that clearly, for the US, link to the
previous decade better than to the succeeding one.
But that still isn't going to keep me from thinking and saying that
we're in the 2020s now.
Joe Bernstein
[1] So how many presidents first elected in a 6 year have been re-
elected? 1796 - no. 1816 - N/A. 1836 - no. 1856 - no. 1876 - no.
1896 - McKinley is our first winner. 1916 - N/A. 1936 - N/A, but he
was still re-elected in 1940. 1956 - N/A. 1976 - no. 1996 - N/A.
2016 - remains to be seen, but the historical record doesn't look
promising.
Other first years - 2. 1792 - yes. 1812 - N/A. 1832 - N/A.
1852 - no. 1872 - N/A. 1892 - no. 1912 - yes. 1932 - yes, and how!
1952 - yes. 1972 - N/A. 1992 - yes. 2012 - N/A. Rather better.
4. 1804 - N/A. 1824 - no. 1844 - no. 1864 - N/A. 1884 - yes,
sorta. 1904 - no. 1924 - no. 1944 - N/A. 1964 - no. 1984 - yes.
2004 - yes. Also better.
8. 1808 - yes. 1828 - yes. 1848 - died. 1868 - yes. 1888 - no.
1908 - no. 1928 - no. 1948 - no. 1968 - yes. 1988 - no. 2008 -
yes. Rather better.
0. 1800 - yes. 1820 - no. 1840 - died. 1860 - yes. 1880 -
died. 1900 - N/A. 1920 - died. 1940 - N/A, but he was still re-
elected in 1944. 1960 - died. 1980 - yes. 2000 - yes. So this is
a good cohort for re-election, but also by far the most dangerous
cohort (besides 1840, 1880, 1920 and 1960, the presidents elected in
1860, 1900, and 1940 died in office). Huh. Since we seem hell-bent
on electing a septuagenarian this time, 2020 may revive that
tradition.

Well, that /would/ make the "0" class the winners in terms of being
"President for Life". A title and status Trump was wishing for at one
time, IIRC.

Not at one time, all the time. He may have only *mentioned* it
at one time.

I'd suggest it to God to arrange it ASAP, but
that would leave us Mike Pence, and that's scary too.
Also, I'm technically an atheist, by which I mean
I generally don't worship gods. But perhaps He and I
could make an exception.

The thought of Pence, a presumably /competent/ Republican who might
actually /do/ something, and who would be able to run as an incumbent
in both 2020 and 2024, has long seemed to me the best argument
/against/ impeaching Trump.

But what if we can get Pence in the impeachment too....

Well, if it works as well as impeaching Trump has then it looks like
Republicans until 2032.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:55:56 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:50:46 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

<snippo>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
The thought of Pence, a presumably /competent/ Republican who might
actually /do/ something, and who would be able to run as an incumbent
in both 2020 and 2024, has long seemed to me the best argument
/against/ impeaching Trump.

But what if we can get Pence in the impeachment too....

Well, if it works as well as impeaching Trump has then it looks like
Republicans until 2032.

Another reason I never thought it was a good idea.
What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

Many still have a hard time accepting that the Republican party has so
blithely tossed aside even the illusion that they are trying to do what
is best for the country or even the possibility of looking at, let alone
considering, any evidence of wrong-doing.

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 15:34:50 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

On Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:55:56 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:50:46 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

<snippo>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
The thought of Pence, a presumably /competent/ Republican who might
actually /do/ something, and who would be able to run as an incumbent
in both 2020 and 2024, has long seemed to me the best argument
/against/ impeaching Trump.

But what if we can get Pence in the impeachment too....

Well, if it works as well as impeaching Trump has then it looks like
Republicans until 2032.

Another reason I never thought it was a good idea.
What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

Many still have a hard time accepting that the Republican party has so
blithely tossed aside even the illusion that they are trying to do what
is best for the country or even the possibility of looking at, let alone
considering, any evidence of wrong-doing.

Some independents may have that problem, but, as the situation gets
clearer, that will change.

I have long noted (elsewhere) that Trump /is/ uniting the country, one
group at a time -- uniting it against himself and the Republican
Party.

[J. Clarke]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:19:33 -0800, Paul S Person

On Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:55:56 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:50:46 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

<snippo>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
The thought of Pence, a presumably /competent/ Republican who might
actually /do/ something, and who would be able to run as an incumbent
in both 2020 and 2024, has long seemed to me the best argument
/against/ impeaching Trump.

But what if we can get Pence in the impeachment too....

Well, if it works as well as impeaching Trump has then it looks like
Republicans until 2032.

Another reason I never thought it was a good idea.
What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

Well, therein lies the problem. It appears that the Democrats have
for the most part taken leave of their senses.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:19:33 -0800, Paul S Person

On Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:55:56 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:50:46 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

<snippo>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
The thought of Pence, a presumably /competent/ Republican who might
actually /do/ something, and who would be able to run as an incumbent
in both 2020 and 2024, has long seemed to me the best argument
/against/ impeaching Trump.

But what if we can get Pence in the impeachment too....

Well, if it works as well as impeaching Trump has then it looks like
Republicans until 2032.

Another reason I never thought it was a good idea.
What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

Well, therein lies the problem. It appears that the Democrats have
for the most part taken leave of their senses.

Pelosi is appeasing President-In-Waiting AOC 2025.

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:28:37 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:19:33 -0800, Paul S Person

On Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:55:56 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:50:46 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

<snippo>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
The thought of Pence, a presumably /competent/ Republican who might
actually /do/ something, and who would be able to run as an incumbent
in both 2020 and 2024, has long seemed to me the best argument
/against/ impeaching Trump.

But what if we can get Pence in the impeachment too....

Well, if it works as well as impeaching Trump has then it looks like
Republicans until 2032.

Another reason I never thought it was a good idea.
What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

Well, therein lies the problem. It appears that the Democrats have
for the most part taken leave of their senses.

Pelosi is appeasing President-In-Waiting AOC 2025.

In that case, more derangement is evident.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:28:37 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:19:33 -0800, Paul S Person

On Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:55:56 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:50:46 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

<snippo>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
The thought of Pence, a presumably /competent/ Republican who might
actually /do/ something, and who would be able to run as an incumbent
in both 2020 and 2024, has long seemed to me the best argument
/against/ impeaching Trump.

But what if we can get Pence in the impeachment too....

Well, if it works as well as impeaching Trump has then it looks like
Republicans until 2032.

Another reason I never thought it was a good idea.
What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

Well, therein lies the problem. It appears that the Democrats have
for the most part taken leave of their senses.

Pelosi is appeasing President-In-Waiting AOC 2025.

In that case, more derangement is evident.

There is way more derangement to come in the future.

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 20:20:56 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:28:37 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:19:33 -0800, Paul S Person

On Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:55:56 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:50:46 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

<snippo>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
The thought of Pence, a presumably /competent/ Republican who might
actually /do/ something, and who would be able to run as an incumbent
in both 2020 and 2024, has long seemed to me the best argument
/against/ impeaching Trump.

But what if we can get Pence in the impeachment too....

Well, if it works as well as impeaching Trump has then it looks like
Republicans until 2032.

Another reason I never thought it was a good idea.
What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

Well, therein lies the problem. It appears that the Democrats have
for the most part taken leave of their senses.

Pelosi is appeasing President-In-Waiting AOC 2025.

In that case, more derangement is evident.

There is way more derangement to come in the future.

So basically the Democratic leadership is in meltdown mode?

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 20:20:56 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:28:37 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:19:33 -0800, Paul S Person

On Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:55:56 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:50:46 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

<snippo>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
The thought of Pence, a presumably /competent/ Republican who might
actually /do/ something, and who would be able to run as an incumbent
in both 2020 and 2024, has long seemed to me the best argument
/against/ impeaching Trump.

But what if we can get Pence in the impeachment too....

Well, if it works as well as impeaching Trump has then it looks like
Republicans until 2032.

Another reason I never thought it was a good idea.
What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

Well, therein lies the problem. It appears that the Democrats have
for the most part taken leave of their senses.

Pelosi is appeasing President-In-Waiting AOC 2025.

In that case, more derangement is evident.

There is way more derangement to come in the future.

So basically the Democratic leadership is in meltdown mode?

What Democratic leadership ?

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/01/10/whos-running-the-democrat-party/

Lynn

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 20:20:56 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:28:37 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:19:33 -0800, Paul S Person

On Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:55:56 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:50:46 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

<snippo>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
The thought of Pence, a presumably /competent/ Republican who might
actually /do/ something, and who would be able to run as an incumbent
in both 2020 and 2024, has long seemed to me the best argument
/against/ impeaching Trump.

But what if we can get Pence in the impeachment too....

Well, if it works as well as impeaching Trump has then it looks like
Republicans until 2032.

Another reason I never thought it was a good idea.
What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

Well, therein lies the problem. It appears that the Democrats have
for the most part taken leave of their senses.

Pelosi is appeasing President-In-Waiting AOC 2025.

In that case, more derangement is evident.

There is way more derangement to come in the future.

So basically the Democratic leadership is in meltdown mode?

What Democratic leadership ?
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/01/10/whos-running-the-democrat-party/

Yeah, Rush Limbaugh is a reliable source...

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 20:20:56 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:28:37 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:19:33 -0800, Paul S Person

On Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:55:56 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:50:46 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

<snippo>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
The thought of Pence, a presumably /competent/ Republican who might
actually /do/ something, and who would be able to run as an

incumbent

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
in both 2020 and 2024, has long seemed to me the best argument
/against/ impeaching Trump.

But what if we can get Pence in the impeachment too....

Well, if it works as well as impeaching Trump has then it looks like
Republicans until 2032.

Another reason I never thought it was a good idea.
What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

Well, therein lies the problem. It appears that the Democrats have
for the most part taken leave of their senses.

Pelosi is appeasing President-In-Waiting AOC 2025.

In that case, more derangement is evident.

There is way more derangement to come in the future.

So basically the Democratic leadership is in meltdown mode?

What Democratic leadership ?
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/01/10/whos-running-the-democrat-party/

Yeah, Rush Limbaugh is a reliable source...

He's a decent political analyst. Like the UK press, he has a 'side',
but so what.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 20:20:56 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:28:37 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:19:33 -0800, Paul S Person

On Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:55:56 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:50:46 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

<snippo>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
The thought of Pence, a presumably /competent/ Republican who might
actually /do/ something, and who would be able to run as an

incumbent

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
in both 2020 and 2024, has long seemed to me the best argument
/against/ impeaching Trump.

But what if we can get Pence in the impeachment too....

Well, if it works as well as impeaching Trump has then it looks like
Republicans until 2032.

Another reason I never thought it was a good idea.
What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

Well, therein lies the problem. It appears that the Democrats have
for the most part taken leave of their senses.

Pelosi is appeasing President-In-Waiting AOC 2025.

In that case, more derangement is evident.

There is way more derangement to come in the future.

So basically the Democratic leadership is in meltdown mode?

What Democratic leadership ?
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/01/10/whos-running-the-democrat-party/

Yeah, Rush Limbaugh is a reliable source...

He's a decent political analyst. Like the UK press, he has a 'side',
but so what.

Yeah, the guy who says there's no global warming, there was no effect from CFCs on the ozone layer, reckons that there are more forests now than when the europeans arrived in the US, supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and claimed that there were WMDs, thinks the torture there isn't worth worrying about, reckons that the US intelligence agencies fabricated evidence of WMDs to hurt Bush, reckoned that Obama wouldn't win an election, said that he "hopes he fails", reckons that the CDC is lying about Ebola and that it's spreadable by Aerosole, believes in the deep state opposing Trump, reckons that the democrates are trying to remove elections, reckons that shutting the border with mexico completely is a good idea, reckons that the investigations of Flynn and Manafort were orchestrated by Obama and count as a coup d'etat, reckons that Papadopoulos was entrapped by the FBI, reckons that Trump lost the popular vote due to illegal immigrants voting, reckons that Trump's withholding agreed military aid to Ukraine was perfectly legitimate, reckons that Trump trying to get an investigation into Biden announced was fine, claims that the Charlottesville violence was driven by BLM, Antifa and Robert Cremer, that the police response was sabotaged by Terry McAuliffe to launch a presidential campaing, that it was part of a campaign by 'international financers' like Soros to start a second civil war, claimed that the mail bombing attacks in 2018 were false flags - continuing it after Cesar Sayoc, a registered republican who's plead guilty, was arrested, claims that the Christchurch mosque shootings might have been a false flag operation, suggests that the existance of Gorillas disproves evolution, that Ted Kennedy sent a letter to Yuri Andropov seeking to undercut President Reagan, that President Obama was trying to make circumcision compulsory, criticising the initiative against Joseph Kony and the LRA without even checking what they've done, claimed that Michael J Fox was acting or not taking his medication to exaggerate his symptoms for an add, claimed that anybody from the military arguing that they should get out of Iraq was a phony soldier, called somebody arguing for contraceptives to be covered by health insurance a slut and a prostitute etc

is a decent political analyst with a side...

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 20:20:56 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:28:37 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:19:33 -0800, Paul S Person

On Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:55:56 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:50:46 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

<snippo>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
The thought of Pence, a presumably /competent/ Republican

who might

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
actually /do/ something, and who would be able to run as an

incumbent

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
in both 2020 and 2024, has long seemed to me the best argument
/against/ impeaching Trump.

But what if we can get Pence in the impeachment too....

Well, if it works as well as impeaching Trump has then it

looks like

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Republicans until 2032.

Another reason I never thought it was a good idea.
What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the

process in the

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

Well, therein lies the problem. It appears that the Democrats have
for the most part taken leave of their senses.

Pelosi is appeasing President-In-Waiting AOC 2025.

In that case, more derangement is evident.

There is way more derangement to come in the future.

So basically the Democratic leadership is in meltdown mode?

What Democratic leadership ?

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/01/10/whos-running-the-democrat-party/

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Paul S Person
Yeah, Rush Limbaugh is a reliable source...

He's a decent political analyst. Like the UK press, he has a 'side',
but so what.

Yeah, the guy who says there's no global warming, there was no effect
from CFCs on the ozone layer, reckons that there are more forests now
than when the europeans arrived in the US, supported the invasion of
Iraq in 2003 and claimed that there were WMDs, thinks the torture there
isn't worth worrying about, reckons that the US intelligence agencies
fabricated evidence of WMDs to hurt Bush, reckoned that Obama wouldn't
win an election, said that he "hopes he fails", reckons that the CDC is
lying about Ebola and that it's spreadable by Aerosole, believes in the
deep state opposing Trump, reckons that the democrates are trying to
remove elections, reckons that shutting the border with mexico
completely is a good idea, reckons that the investigations of Flynn and
Manafort were orchestrated by Obama and count as a coup d'etat, reckons
that Papadopoulos was entrapped by the FBI, reckons that Trump lost the
popular vote due to illegal immigrants voting, reckons that Trump's
withholding agreed military aid to Ukraine was perfectly legitimate,
reckons that Trump trying to get an investigation into Biden announced
was fine, claims that the Charlottesville violence was driven by BLM,
Antifa and Robert Cremer, that the police response was sabotaged by
Terry McAuliffe to launch a presidential campaing, that it was part of a
campaign by 'international financers' like Soros to start a second civil
war, claimed that the mail bombing attacks in 2018 were false flags -
continuing it after Cesar Sayoc, a registered republican who's plead
guilty, was arrested, claims that the Christchurch mosque shootings
might have been a false flag operation, suggests that the existance of
Gorillas disproves evolution, that Ted Kennedy sent a letter to Yuri
Andropov seeking to undercut President Reagan, that President Obama was
trying to make circumcision compulsory, criticising the initiative
against Joseph Kony and the LRA without even checking what they've done,
claimed that Michael J Fox was acting or not taking his medication to
exaggerate his symptoms for an add, claimed that anybody from the
military arguing that they should get out of Iraq was a phony soldier,
called somebody arguing for contraceptives to be covered by health
insurance a slut and a prostitute etc
is a decent political analyst with a side...

Yep.

[o***@gmail.com]

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 20:20:56 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:28:37 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:19:33 -0800, Paul S Person

On Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:55:56 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:50:46 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

<snippo>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
The thought of Pence, a presumably /competent/ Republican who might
actually /do/ something, and who would be able to run as an

incumbent

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
in both 2020 and 2024, has long seemed to me the best argument
/against/ impeaching Trump.

But what if we can get Pence in the impeachment too....

Well, if it works as well as impeaching Trump has then it looks like
Republicans until 2032.

Another reason I never thought it was a good idea.
What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

Well, therein lies the problem. It appears that the Democrats have
for the most part taken leave of their senses.

Pelosi is appeasing President-In-Waiting AOC 2025.

In that case, more derangement is evident.

There is way more derangement to come in the future.

So basically the Democratic leadership is in meltdown mode?

What Democratic leadership ?
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/01/10/whos-running-the-democrat-party/

Yeah, Rush Limbaugh is a reliable source...

He's a decent political analyst. Like the UK press, he has a 'side',
but so what.

Yeah, the guy who says there's no global warming, there was no effect from CFCs on the ozone layer, reckons that there are more forests now than when the europeans arrived in the US, supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and claimed that there were WMDs, thinks the torture there isn't worth worrying about, reckons that the US intelligence agencies fabricated evidence of WMDs to hurt Bush, reckoned that Obama wouldn't win an election, said that he "hopes he fails", reckons that the CDC is lying about Ebola and that it's spreadable by Aerosole, believes in the deep state opposing Trump, reckons that the democrates are trying to remove elections, reckons that shutting the border with mexico completely is a good idea, reckons that the investigations of Flynn and Manafort were orchestrated by Obama and count as a coup d'etat, reckons that Papadopoulos was entrapped by the FBI, reckons that Trump lost the popular vote due to illegal immigrants voting, reckons that Trump's withholding agreed military aid to Ukraine was perfectly legitimate, reckons that Trump trying to get an investigation into Biden announced was fine, claims that the Charlottesville violence was driven by BLM, Antifa and Robert Cremer, that the police response was sabotaged by Terry McAuliffe to launch a presidential campaing, that it was part of a campaign by 'international financers' like Soros to start a second civil war, claimed that the mail bombing attacks in 2018 were false flags - continuing it after Cesar Sayoc, a registered republican who's plead guilty, was arrested, claims that the Christchurch mosque shootings might have been a false flag operation, suggests that the existance of Gorillas disproves evolution, that Ted Kennedy sent a letter to Yuri Andropov seeking to undercut President Reagan, that President Obama was trying to make circumcision compulsory, criticising the initiative against Joseph Kony and the LRA without even checking what they've done, claimed that Michael J Fox was acting or not taking his medication to exaggerate his symptoms for an add, claimed that anybody from the military arguing that they should get out of Iraq was a phony soldier, called somebody arguing for contraceptives to be covered by health insurance a slut and a prostitute etc
is a decent political analyst with a side...

https://www.constant-content.com/content-writing-service/2017/10/11-tips-for-editing-your-own-writing/

[J. Clarke]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 22:15:18 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 20:20:56 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:28:37 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:19:33 -0800, Paul S Person

On Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:55:56 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:50:46 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

<snippo>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
The thought of Pence, a presumably /competent/ Republican who might
actually /do/ something, and who would be able to run as an incumbent
in both 2020 and 2024, has long seemed to me the best argument
/against/ impeaching Trump.

But what if we can get Pence in the impeachment too....

Well, if it works as well as impeaching Trump has then it looks like
Republicans until 2032.

Another reason I never thought it was a good idea.
What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

Well, therein lies the problem. It appears that the Democrats have
for the most part taken leave of their senses.

Pelosi is appeasing President-In-Waiting AOC 2025.

In that case, more derangement is evident.

There is way more derangement to come in the future.

So basically the Democratic leadership is in meltdown mode?

What Democratic leadership ?
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/01/10/whos-running-the-democrat-party/

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a
Democrat." -- Will Rogers

Another one that seems curiously relevant, also from Will Rogers:
"Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If
they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans."

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:23:52 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 20:20:56 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:28:37 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:19:33 -0800, Paul S Person

On Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:55:56 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:50:46 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

<snippo>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
The thought of Pence, a presumably /competent/ Republican who might
actually /do/ something, and who would be able to run as an incumbent
in both 2020 and 2024, has long seemed to me the best argument
/against/ impeaching Trump.

But what if we can get Pence in the impeachment too....

Well, if it works as well as impeaching Trump has then it looks like
Republicans until 2032.

Another reason I never thought it was a good idea.
What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

Well, therein lies the problem. It appears that the Democrats have
for the most part taken leave of their senses.

Pelosi is appeasing President-In-Waiting AOC 2025.

In that case, more derangement is evident.

There is way more derangement to come in the future.

So basically the Democratic leadership is in meltdown mode?

Well, why not?

The Republicans melted down long ago, and look how well that worked
for /them/!

[h***@gmail.com]

On Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:55:56 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:50:46 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

<snippo>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
The thought of Pence, a presumably /competent/ Republican who might
actually /do/ something, and who would be able to run as an incumbent
in both 2020 and 2024, has long seemed to me the best argument
/against/ impeaching Trump.

But what if we can get Pence in the impeachment too....

Well, if it works as well as impeaching Trump has then it looks like
Republicans until 2032.

Another reason I never thought it was a good idea.
What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

If the Senate refuses to take witnesses they can reduce pressure on themselves.
It's a lot harder to vote to acquit if witnesses in his meetings have said "Trump said he wanted dirt on Biden and decided to pressure the Ukraine" than if they don't get to testify.
(And if you think that testimony is unlikely you've got to ask yourself why anybody would be stopping them testifying if there's nothing to the charges)

As it is currently the GOP is going towards elections either
a) having a blatant lack of investigation into credible cases of a president abusing his power
or
b) having to do a legitimate investigation and either voting to acquit whatever they find or having the possibility of having enough evidence that they have to convict.

Note that this is not solely a political issue but a question of whether the GOP can be trusted to carry out their duties rather than be lapdogs for Trump and McConnell.

[David DeLaney]

What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

... Precedent.

Dave, we are STILL building America. It is an ongoing process, and requires
oversight at every level

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 17:19:41 -0600, David DeLaney

Post by David DeLaney

What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

... Precedent.
Dave, we are STILL building America. It is an ongoing process, and requires
oversight at every level

We are /following/ the Clinton precedent: charges which, even if true,
aren't much (*), then a cursory Senate trial (**). It's too late to
avoid setting a precedent here!

Everything the Republicans have said about this being a /political/
operation appears to be correct; but then, so was the Clinton
impeachment (indeed, the Whitewater investigation) purely political,
so, again, the precedent has already been set. By Republicans, who are
now whining because it is being applied against their man, Trump.

* except the obstruction of justice charge; but that will be hard to
prove without evidence; just as taking the 5th is /not/ proof of
guilt, so invoking "executive privilege" at every point (and promoting
an excessively liberal [yes, liberal: a conservative form would be
much more restricted in application] form of it) only makes Trump
/look/ guilty

** actually, I expected the Senate to convict Clinton, as they
appeared to have enough votes but, of course, that Republican Party
was not /entirely/ as ideological as the current Republican Party

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 09:52:31 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 17:19:41 -0600, David DeLaney

Post by David DeLaney

What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

... Precedent.
Dave, we are STILL building America. It is an ongoing process, and requires
oversight at every level

We are /following/ the Clinton precedent: charges which, even if true,
aren't much (*), then a cursory Senate trial (**). It's too late to
avoid setting a precedent here!
Everything the Republicans have said about this being a /political/
operation appears to be correct; but then, so was the Clinton
impeachment (indeed, the Whitewater investigation) purely political,
so, again, the precedent has already been set. By Republicans, who are
now whining because it is being applied against their man, Trump.

I see few Republicans whining. The Republican attitude at this point
is "bring it". The Democrats are the ones doing the whining because
they know that their impeachment has been a big flop.

[Joe Bernstein]

Post by Paul S Person
but, of course, that Republican Party

[i.e., in 1998]

Post by Paul S Person
was not /entirely/ as ideological as the current Republican Party

Say *what* ?

The current Republican Party is much more *partisan* than that of
22 years ago, but more *ideological* ? Which ideology is that?
Monarchism?

-- JLB

[Kevrob]

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by Paul S Person
but, of course, that Republican Party

[i.e., in 1998]

Post by Paul S Person
was not /entirely/ as ideological as the current Republican Party

Say *what* ?
The current Republican Party is much more *partisan* than that of
22 years ago, but more *ideological* ? Which ideology is that?
Monarchism?

1998 was a dividing line between the very ideological speakership
of fanboy turned Representative Newt Gingrich. Reprimanded by the House
for misusing donations for a tax exempt course, Newt gave way to the much
more predictable Dennis Haestert, who, when out of office was convicted
on bank structuring charges, with the withdrawals in question funding
hush money payments to victims of child molestation.

Family values!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert

After Hastert, the Dems took the House, and Nancy Pelosi served
as Speaker for two terms.

The current GOP House members aren't ideological in the same
way as the 1990s Republicans, who were the "sons and daughters"
of Reagan and Goldwater, but also included many a "Main Street/
Chamber of Commerce" type who would have been happy with another
Ike - "Bob Michel" Republicans. Michel was the pre-Gingrich Minority
Leader, but never Speaker. The Reaganites weren't anti-immigration.
They were, for good or ill, "internationalist" Cold Warriors.
Reagan's support of bills like the 1986 Simpson–Mazzoli Act is
loathed by the Trumpers, derided as "amnesty." "Liberal Republicans"
of the Rockefeller/Percy/Weld strain have faded into a remnant,
with Weld running last time for VP as a Libertarian and Lincoln
Chaffee turning independent and now joining the LP. He's testing
the waters for a Presidential run.

Monarchism, or "the Imperial Presidency" as Schlesinger called
it, is a good description for Trumpism. One is either a "King's
Man" or beyond the pale. Trump hates Pelosi and Schumer, true,
but he also loathes GOP "Never-Trumpers." Some of them could
vote for a candidate who had his platform, but won't due to his
disgusting lack of morality. NATIONAL REVIEW accommodated itself
to Trump. THE WEEKLY STANDARD stood up to him, and died.

I'm so ideological that I quit the GOP when Ford lost to Carter.
I've been a Libertarian ever since. Folks like Rand Paul have
enough local support to stick with the Republicans, but Justin
Amash (I-MI) quit. If you don't support Trump, the "faithful"
back in your district will field a primary challenger, and threaten
your phony-baloney job! This is closer to a "cult of personality"
than actual commitment to a philosophy or issues set.

Actual ideologues in the GOP put up with this because they
care most about SCOTUS appointments, and other Federal judgeships.
They'd be happy to ditch The Donald if they could keep getting
the folks they like on the bench.

Kevin R

[o***@gmail.com]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by Paul S Person
but, of course, that Republican Party

[i.e., in 1998]

Post by Paul S Person
was not /entirely/ as ideological as the current Republican Party

Say *what* ?
The current Republican Party is much more *partisan* than that of
22 years ago, but more *ideological* ? Which ideology is that?
Monarchism?

1998 was a dividing line between the very ideological speakership
of fanboy turned Representative Newt Gingrich. Reprimanded by the House
for misusing donations for a tax exempt course, Newt gave way to the much
more predictable Dennis Haestert, who, when out of office was convicted
on bank structuring charges, with the withdrawals in question funding
hush money payments to victims of child molestation.
Family values!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert
After Hastert, the Dems took the House, and Nancy Pelosi served
as Speaker for two terms.
The current GOP House members aren't ideological in the same
way as the 1990s Republicans, who were the "sons and daughters"
of Reagan and Goldwater, but also included many a "Main Street/
Chamber of Commerce" type who would have been happy with another
Ike - "Bob Michel" Republicans. Michel was the pre-Gingrich Minority
Leader, but never Speaker. The Reaganites weren't anti-immigration.
They were, for good or ill, "internationalist" Cold Warriors.
Reagan's support of bills like the 1986 Simpson–Mazzoli Act is
loathed by the Trumpers, derided as "amnesty." "Liberal Republicans"
of the Rockefeller/Percy/Weld strain have faded into a remnant,
with Weld running last time for VP as a Libertarian and Lincoln
Chaffee turning independent and now joining the LP. He's testing
the waters for a Presidential run.
Monarchism, or "the Imperial Presidency" as Schlesinger called
it, is a good description for Trumpism. One is either a "King's
Man" or beyond the pale. Trump hates Pelosi and Schumer, true,
but he also loathes GOP "Never-Trumpers." Some of them could
vote for a candidate who had his platform, but won't due to his
disgusting lack of morality. NATIONAL REVIEW accommodated itself
to Trump. THE WEEKLY STANDARD stood up to him, and died.
I'm so ideological that I quit the GOP when Ford lost to Carter.
I've been a Libertarian ever since. Folks like Rand Paul have
enough local support to stick with the Republicans, but Justin
Amash (I-MI) quit. If you don't support Trump, the "faithful"
back in your district will field a primary challenger, and threaten
your phony-baloney job! This is closer to a "cult of personality"
than actual commitment to a philosophy or issues set.
Actual ideologues in the GOP put up with this because they
care most about SCOTUS appointments, and other Federal judgeships.
They'd be happy to ditch The Donald if they could keep getting
the folks they like on the bench.
Kevin R

Well.......

1. Opinions are one thing

2. JUDGE MUCH ???

[Kevrob]

Post by o***@gmail.com

Post by Kevrob

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by Paul S Person
but, of course, that Republican Party

[i.e., in 1998]

Post by Paul S Person
was not /entirely/ as ideological as the current Republican Party

Say *what* ?
The current Republican Party is much more *partisan* than that of
22 years ago, but more *ideological* ? Which ideology is that?
Monarchism?

1998 was a dividing line between the very ideological speakership
of fanboy turned Representative Newt Gingrich. ...

[snip]

Post by o***@gmail.com

Post by Kevrob
Actual ideologues in the GOP put up with this because they
care most about SCOTUS appointments, and other Federal judgeships.
They'd be happy to ditch The Donald if they could keep getting
the folks they like on the bench.
Kevin R

Well.......
1. Opinions are one thing

Yes, like certain bodily apertures..

Post by o***@gmail.com
2. JUDGE MUCH ???

In regard to politics, all the time!
Voters are supposed to use their judgment.

I might have voted "not guilty" on Hastert's jury re:
the restructuring charges, but a schoolteacher/coach
rogering minor students in his charge?!!

It would have been much the worse for him had I been
empaneled on that case!

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310

[David DeLaney]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by David DeLaney

What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

... Precedent.
Dave, we are STILL building America. It is an ongoing process, and requires
oversight at every level

We are /following/ the Clinton precedent: charges which, even if true,
aren't much (*),

...

...

The obstruction is there in the evidence gathered by THEIR side, let alone
the side I'm on. He keeps DOING it and/or trying to. It's like he doesn't
really understand how the criminal justice system, or the laws it upholds,
WORK. or something.

And if asking a foreign power to interfere in our Presidential election process
(which, mind, he's done BEFORE in public, in a well-known video clip) is "not
much", I'm afraid I shall have to ask you to step out of whatever version of
America you're using, cuz it's broken.

Post by Paul S Person
then a cursory Senate trial (**).

That trial had witnesses, and four YEARS of investigation involved, and they
got him for lying to Congress about part of the initial proceedings.

Getting Trump on lying to Congress is trivial, just have to examine his tweets,
for one. (And stay away from the bits where he says he's not responding, cuz
after that he ALWAYS responds.)

... I miss having a President who actually knew about consequences for doing
stuff, and took them into account when speaking or acting.

Post by Paul S Person
Everything the Republicans have said about this being a /political/
operation appears to be correct; but then, so was the Clinton
impeachment (indeed, the Whitewater investigation) purely political,
so, again, the precedent has already been set. By Republicans, who are
now whining because it is being applied against their man, Trump.

There's politics in it, sure. But this one also has a healthy dose of "Normal
people don't DO that" and "You do know the law says you can't do THAT, right?",
which doesn't seem to have been a factor in any of the previous ones.

Dave, can't say what the current surreality index is, because my meter blew out
early in 2016

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Paul S Person

Post by David DeLaney

What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

... Precedent.
Dave, we are STILL building America. It is an ongoing process, and requires
oversight at every level

We are /following/ the Clinton precedent: charges which, even if true,
aren't much (*),

...
...
The obstruction is there in the evidence gathered by THEIR side, let alone
the side I'm on. He keeps DOING it and/or trying to. It's like he doesn't
really understand how the criminal justice system, or the laws it upholds,
WORK. or something.
And if asking a foreign power to interfere in our Presidential election process
(which, mind, he's done BEFORE in public, in a well-known video clip) is "not
much", I'm afraid I shall have to ask you to step out of whatever version of
America you're using, cuz it's broken.

Post by Paul S Person
then a cursory Senate trial (**).

That trial had witnesses, and four YEARS of investigation involved, and they
got him for lying to Congress about part of the initial proceedings.
Getting Trump on lying to Congress is trivial, just have to examine his tweets,
for one. (And stay away from the bits where he says he's not responding, cuz
after that he ALWAYS responds.)
... I miss having a President who actually knew about consequences for doing
stuff, and took them into account when speaking or acting.

Post by Paul S Person
Everything the Republicans have said about this being a /political/
operation appears to be correct; but then, so was the Clinton
impeachment (indeed, the Whitewater investigation) purely political,
so, again, the precedent has already been set. By Republicans, who are
now whining because it is being applied against their man, Trump.

There's politics in it, sure. But this one also has a healthy dose of "Normal
people don't DO that" and "You do know the law says you can't do THAT, right?",
which doesn't seem to have been a factor in any of the previous ones.
Dave, can't say what the current surreality index is, because my meter blew out
early in 2016

Bill Clinton was impeached by the USA House of Representatives for lying
(perjury) in a Federal civil trial which he lost. Clinton was furthered
disbarred by Arkansas State Bar and removed from the SCOTUS list of
lawyers for lying in that same trial. Clinton had appeared before
SCOTUS several times while he was the Arkansas Attorney General.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton%E2%80%93Lewinsky_scandal#Perjury_charges
and "Clinton Fined $90,686 for Lying in Paula Jones Case"
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-jul-30-mn-61021-story.html

How many trials has Trump been judged with perjury in ?

Lynn

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Paul S Person

Post by David DeLaney

What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

... Precedent.
Dave, we are STILL building America. It is an ongoing process, and requires
oversight at every level

We are /following/ the Clinton precedent: charges which, even if true,
aren't much (*),

...
...
The obstruction is there in the evidence gathered by THEIR side, let alone
the side I'm on. He keeps DOING it and/or trying to. It's like he doesn't
really understand how the criminal justice system, or the laws it upholds,
WORK. or something.
And if asking a foreign power to interfere in our Presidential election process
(which, mind, he's done BEFORE in public, in a well-known video clip) is "not
much", I'm afraid I shall have to ask you to step out of whatever version of
America you're using, cuz it's broken.

Post by Paul S Person
then a cursory Senate trial (**).

That trial had witnesses, and four YEARS of investigation involved, and they
got him for lying to Congress about part of the initial proceedings.
Getting Trump on lying to Congress is trivial, just have to examine his tweets,
for one. (And stay away from the bits where he says he's not
responding, cuz
after that he ALWAYS responds.)
... I miss having a President who actually knew about consequences for doing
stuff, and took them into account when speaking or acting.

Post by Paul S Person
Everything the Republicans have said about this being a /political/
operation appears to be correct; but then, so was the Clinton
impeachment (indeed, the Whitewater investigation) purely political,
so, again, the precedent has already been set. By Republicans, who are
now whining because it is being applied against their man, Trump.

There's politics in it, sure. But this one also has a healthy dose of "Normal
people don't DO that" and "You do know the law says you can't do THAT, right?",
which doesn't seem to have been a factor in any of the previous ones.
Dave, can't say what the current surreality index is, because my meter blew out
  early in 2016

Bill Clinton was impeached by the USA House of Representatives for lying
(perjury) in a Federal civil trial which he lost.  Clinton was furthered
disbarred by Arkansas State Bar and removed from the SCOTUS list of
lawyers for lying in that same trial.  Clinton had appeared before
SCOTUS several times while he was the Arkansas Attorney General.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton%E2%80%93Lewinsky_scandal#Perjury_charges
and "Clinton Fined $90,686 for Lying in Paula Jones Case"
   https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-jul-30-mn-61021-story.html
How many trials has Trump been judged with perjury in ?

The SUCCESSFUL Mob Boss never goes to trial. ;)

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Paul S Person

Post by David DeLaney

What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

... Precedent.
Dave, we are STILL building America. It is an ongoing process, and requires
oversight at every level

We are /following/ the Clinton precedent: charges which, even if true,
aren't much (*),

...
...
The obstruction is there in the evidence gathered by THEIR side, let alone
the side I'm on. He keeps DOING it and/or trying to. It's like he doesn't
really understand how the criminal justice system, or the laws it upholds,
WORK. or something.
And if asking a foreign power to interfere in our Presidential election process
(which, mind, he's done BEFORE in public, in a well-known video clip) is "not
much", I'm afraid I shall have to ask you to step out of whatever version of
America you're using, cuz it's broken.

Post by Paul S Person
then a cursory Senate trial (**).

That trial had witnesses, and four YEARS of investigation involved, and they
got him for lying to Congress about part of the initial proceedings.
Getting Trump on lying to Congress is trivial, just have to examine his tweets,
for one. (And stay away from the bits where he says he's not responding, cuz
after that he ALWAYS responds.)
... I miss having a President who actually knew about consequences for doing
stuff, and took them into account when speaking or acting.

Post by Paul S Person
Everything the Republicans have said about this being a /political/
operation appears to be correct; but then, so was the Clinton
impeachment (indeed, the Whitewater investigation) purely political,
so, again, the precedent has already been set. By Republicans, who are
now whining because it is being applied against their man, Trump.

There's politics in it, sure. But this one also has a healthy dose of "Normal
people don't DO that" and "You do know the law says you can't do THAT, right?",
which doesn't seem to have been a factor in any of the previous ones.
Dave, can't say what the current surreality index is, because my meter blew out
early in 2016

Bill Clinton was impeached by the USA House of Representatives for lying
(perjury) in a Federal civil trial which he lost. Clinton was furthered
disbarred by Arkansas State Bar

he was suspended from practicing for 5 years, he hadn't practiced law since 83

Post by Lynn McGuire
and removed from the SCOTUS list of
lawyers for lying in that same trial. Clinton had appeared before
SCOTUS several times while he was the Arkansas Attorney General.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton%E2%80%93Lewinsky_scandal#Perjury_charges
and "Clinton Fined $90,686 for Lying in Paula Jones Case"
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-jul-30-mn-61021-story.html
How many trials has Trump been judged with perjury in ?

Did Clinton ever settle a class action for $25 million and boast that it was a small fraction of the potential award?
Trump has settled and/or lost 100s of cases including

Trump initially came to public attention in 1973 when he was accused by the Justice Department of violations of the Fair Housing Act in the operation of 39 buildings. The Department of Justice said that black "testers" were sent to more than half a dozen buildings and were denied apartments, but a similar white tester would then be offered an apartment in the same building.[9] The government alleged that Trump's corporation quoted different rental terms and conditions to blacks and made false "no vacancy" statements to blacks for apartments they managed in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island.

Trump settled the charges out of court in 1975 without admitting guilt

In 1988, the Justice Department sued Trump for violating procedures related to public notifications when buying voting stock in a company related to his attempted takeovers of Holiday Corporation and Bally Manufacturing Corporation in 1986. On April 5, 1988, Trump agreed to pay $750,000 to settle the civil penalties of the antitrust lawsuit.

In late 1990, Trump was sued for $2 million by a business analyst for defamation, and Trump settled out of court.[20] Briefly before Trump's Taj Mahal opened in April 1990, the analyst had said that the project would fail by the end of that year. Trump threatened to sue the analyst's firm unless the analyst recanted or was fired.

Trump Taj Mahal declared bankruptcy in November 1990, the first of several such bankruptcies.[22] After, the NYSE ordered the firm to compensate the analyst $750,000; the analyst did not release the details of his settlement with Trump.[23]

In 1991, one of Trump's casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, was found guilty of circumventing state regulations about casino financing when Donald Trump's father bought $3.5 million in chips that he had no plans to gamble. Trump Castle was forced to pay a $30,000 fine under the settlement, according to New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement Director Jack Sweeney. Trump was not disciplined for the illegal advance on his inheritance, which was not confiscated.

In 2000, Donald Trump paid $250,000 to settle fines related to charges brought by New York State Lobbying Commission director David Grandeau. Trump was charged with circumventing state law to spend $150,000 lobbying against government approval of plans to construct an Indian-run casino in the Catskills, which would have diminished casino traffic to Trump's casinos in Atlantic City

In 2009, Trump was sued by investors who had made deposits for condos in the canceled Trump Ocean Resort Baja Mexico.[84] The investors said that Trump misrepresented his role in the project, stating after its failure that he had been little more than a spokesperson for the entire venture, disavowing any financial responsibility for the debacle.[85] Investors were informed that their investments would not be returned due to the cancellation of construction.[84] In 2013, Trump settled the lawsuit with more than one hundred prospective condo owners for an undisclosed amount.

and that's before current allegations that he's used completely different values for assets on advertising to potential clients, loan applications and tax...

[Robert Woodward]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Paul S Person

Post by David DeLaney

What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

... Precedent.
Dave, we are STILL building America. It is an ongoing process, and requires
oversight at every level

We are /following/ the Clinton precedent: charges which, even if true,
aren't much (*),

...
...
The obstruction is there in the evidence gathered by THEIR side, let alone
the side I'm on. He keeps DOING it and/or trying to. It's like he doesn't
really understand how the criminal justice system, or the laws it upholds,
WORK. or something.
And if asking a foreign power to interfere in our Presidential
election process (which, mind, he's done BEFORE in public, in a
well-known video clip) is "not much", I'm afraid I shall have to
ask you to step out of whatever version of America you're using,
cuz it's broken.

Post by Paul S Person
then a cursory Senate trial (**).

That trial had witnesses, and four YEARS of investigation involved,
and they got him for lying to Congress about part of the initial
proceedings.
Getting Trump on lying to Congress is trivial, just have to examine
his tweets, for one. (And stay away from the bits where he says
he's not responding, cuz after that he ALWAYS responds.)
... I miss having a President who actually knew about consequences
for doing stuff, and took them into account when speaking or
acting.

Post by Paul S Person
Everything the Republicans have said about this being a /political/
operation appears to be correct; but then, so was the Clinton
impeachment (indeed, the Whitewater investigation) purely political,
so, again, the precedent has already been set. By Republicans, who are
now whining because it is being applied against their man, Trump.

There's politics in it, sure. But this one also has a healthy dose
of "Normal people don't DO that" and "You do know the law says you
can't do THAT, right?", which doesn't seem to have been a factor in
any of the previous ones.
Dave, can't say what the current surreality index is, because my meter blew out
early in 2016

Bill Clinton was impeached by the USA House of Representatives for lying
(perjury) in a Federal civil trial which he lost. Clinton was furthered
disbarred by Arkansas State Bar and removed from the SCOTUS list of
lawyers for lying in that same trial. Clinton had appeared before
SCOTUS several times while he was the Arkansas Attorney General.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton%E2%80%93Lewinsky_scandal#Perjury_charges
and "Clinton Fined $90,686 for Lying in Paula Jones Case"
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-jul-30-mn-61021-story.html
How many trials has Trump been judged with perjury in ?

The charges in Trump's impeachment are more serious than for Clinton's
impeachment. They are also more serious than the charges would had been
if Nixon had been impeached.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Paul S Person

Post by David DeLaney

What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

... Precedent.
Dave, we are STILL building America. It is an ongoing process, and requires
oversight at every level

We are /following/ the Clinton precedent: charges which, even if true,
aren't much (*),

...
...
The obstruction is there in the evidence gathered by THEIR side, let alone
the side I'm on. He keeps DOING it and/or trying to. It's like he doesn't
really understand how the criminal justice system, or the laws it upholds,
WORK. or something.
And if asking a foreign power to interfere in our Presidential
election process (which, mind, he's done BEFORE in public, in a
well-known video clip) is "not much", I'm afraid I shall have to
ask you to step out of whatever version of America you're using,
cuz it's broken.

Post by Paul S Person
then a cursory Senate trial (**).

That trial had witnesses, and four YEARS of investigation involved,
and they got him for lying to Congress about part of the initial
proceedings.
Getting Trump on lying to Congress is trivial, just have to examine
his tweets, for one. (And stay away from the bits where he says
he's not responding, cuz after that he ALWAYS responds.)
... I miss having a President who actually knew about consequences
for doing stuff, and took them into account when speaking or
acting.

Post by Paul S Person
Everything the Republicans have said about this being a /political/
operation appears to be correct; but then, so was the Clinton
impeachment (indeed, the Whitewater investigation) purely political,
so, again, the precedent has already been set. By Republicans, who are
now whining because it is being applied against their man, Trump.

There's politics in it, sure. But this one also has a healthy dose
of "Normal people don't DO that" and "You do know the law says you
can't do THAT, right?", which doesn't seem to have been a factor in
any of the previous ones.
Dave, can't say what the current surreality index is, because my meter blew out
early in 2016

Bill Clinton was impeached by the USA House of Representatives for lying
(perjury) in a Federal civil trial which he lost. Clinton was furthered
disbarred by Arkansas State Bar and removed from the SCOTUS list of
lawyers for lying in that same trial. Clinton had appeared before
SCOTUS several times while he was the Arkansas Attorney General.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton%E2%80%93Lewinsky_scandal#Perjury_charges
and "Clinton Fined $90,686 for Lying in Paula Jones Case"
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-jul-30-mn-61021-story.html
How many trials has Trump been judged with perjury in ?

The charges in Trump's impeachment are more serious than for Clinton's
impeachment. They are also more serious than the charges would had been
if Nixon had been impeached.

You know, that is a subjective judgement.

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:08:53 -0800, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Paul S Person

Post by David DeLaney

What is /really/ puzzling is all the hysteria over the process in the
Senate. No sane person expects the Senate to convict, so who cares
what the process looks like?

... Precedent.
Dave, we are STILL building America. It is an ongoing process, and requires
oversight at every level

We are /following/ the Clinton precedent: charges which, even if true,
aren't much (*),

...
...
The obstruction is there in the evidence gathered by THEIR side, let alone
the side I'm on. He keeps DOING it and/or trying to. It's like he doesn't
really understand how the criminal justice system, or the laws it upholds,
WORK. or something.
And if asking a foreign power to interfere in our Presidential
election process (which, mind, he's done BEFORE in public, in a
well-known video clip) is "not much", I'm afraid I shall have to
ask you to step out of whatever version of America you're using,
cuz it's broken.

Post by Paul S Person
then a cursory Senate trial (**).

That trial had witnesses, and four YEARS of investigation involved,
and they got him for lying to Congress about part of the initial
proceedings.
Getting Trump on lying to Congress is trivial, just have to examine
his tweets, for one. (And stay away from the bits where he says
he's not responding, cuz after that he ALWAYS responds.)
... I miss having a President who actually knew about consequences
for doing stuff, and took them into account when speaking or
acting.

Post by Paul S Person
Everything the Republicans have said about this being a /political/
operation appears to be correct; but then, so was the Clinton
impeachment (indeed, the Whitewater investigation) purely political,
so, again, the precedent has already been set. By Republicans, who are
now whining because it is being applied against their man, Trump.

There's politics in it, sure. But this one also has a healthy dose
of "Normal people don't DO that" and "You do know the law says you
can't do THAT, right?", which doesn't seem to have been a factor in
any of the previous ones.
Dave, can't say what the current surreality index is, because my meter blew out
early in 2016

Bill Clinton was impeached by the USA House of Representatives for lying
(perjury) in a Federal civil trial which he lost. Clinton was furthered
disbarred by Arkansas State Bar and removed from the SCOTUS list of
lawyers for lying in that same trial. Clinton had appeared before
SCOTUS several times while he was the Arkansas Attorney General.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton%E2%80%93Lewinsky_scandal#Perjury_charges
and "Clinton Fined $90,686 for Lying in Paula Jones Case"
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-jul-30-mn-61021-story.html
How many trials has Trump been judged with perjury in ?

The charges in Trump's impeachment are more serious than for Clinton's
impeachment. They are also more serious than the charges would had been
if Nixon had been impeached.

The actual charges are "abuse of power" and "obstructing Congress".

The charges against Clinton were "perjury" and "obstructing justice".

There were no actual charges against Nixon, "obstruction of justice",
"abuse of power", "contempt of Congress", "war powers", and
"emoluments and tax fraud" were on the table but he bailed before
there was a vote so we'll never know which if any would actually have
been brought.

[Kevrob]

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:08:53 -0800, Robert Woodward

[snip]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Robert Woodward
The charges in Trump's impeachment are more serious than for Clinton's
impeachment. They are also more serious than the charges would had been
if Nixon had been impeached.

The actual charges are "abuse of power" and "obstructing Congress".
The charges against Clinton were "perjury" and "obstructing justice".
There were no actual charges against Nixon, "obstruction of justice",
"abuse of power", "contempt of Congress", "war powers", and
"emoluments and tax fraud" were on the table but he bailed before
there was a vote so we'll never know which if any would actually have
been brought.

A grand jury did not indict Nixon, but named him an "unindicted
co-conspirator" in the Watergate burglary cover-up.

https://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/07/archives/jury-named-nixon-a-coconspirator-but-didnt-indict-st-clair-confirms.html

That hasn't happened to Trump, even if it should have.

Kevin R - neither "blue" nor "red."

[Peter Trei]

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:08:53 -0800, Robert Woodward

[snip]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Robert Woodward
The charges in Trump's impeachment are more serious than for Clinton's
impeachment. They are also more serious than the charges would had been
if Nixon had been impeached.

The actual charges are "abuse of power" and "obstructing Congress".
The charges against Clinton were "perjury" and "obstructing justice".
There were no actual charges against Nixon, "obstruction of justice",
"abuse of power", "contempt of Congress", "war powers", and
"emoluments and tax fraud" were on the table but he bailed before
there was a vote so we'll never know which if any would actually have
been brought.

A grand jury did not indict Nixon, but named him an "unindicted
co-conspirator" in the Watergate burglary cover-up.
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/07/archives/jury-named-nixon-a-coconspirator-but-didnt-indict-st-clair-confirms.html
That hasn't happened to Trump, even if it should have.

However, he was "Individual 1" in the Mueller probe.

pt

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:08:53 -0800, Robert Woodward

[snip]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Robert Woodward
The charges in Trump's impeachment are more serious than for Clinton's
impeachment. They are also more serious than the charges would had been
if Nixon had been impeached.

The actual charges are "abuse of power" and "obstructing Congress".
The charges against Clinton were "perjury" and "obstructing justice".
There were no actual charges against Nixon, "obstruction of justice",
"abuse of power", "contempt of Congress", "war powers", and
"emoluments and tax fraud" were on the table but he bailed before
there was a vote so we'll never know which if any would actually have
been brought.

A grand jury did not indict Nixon, but named him an "unindicted
co-conspirator" in the Watergate burglary cover-up.
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/07/archives/jury-named-nixon-a-coconspirator-but-didnt-indict-st-clair-confirms.html
That hasn't happened to Trump, even if it should have.

However, he was "Individual 1" in the Mueller probe.
pt

So what ?

Lynn

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:08:53 -0800, Robert Woodward

[snip]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Robert Woodward
The charges in Trump's impeachment are more serious than for Clinton's
impeachment. They are also more serious than the charges would had been
if Nixon had been impeached.

The actual charges are "abuse of power" and "obstructing Congress".
The charges against Clinton were "perjury" and "obstructing justice".
There were no actual charges against Nixon, "obstruction of justice",
"abuse of power", "contempt of Congress", "war powers", and
"emoluments and tax fraud" were on the table but he bailed before
there was a vote so we'll never know which if any would actually have
been brought.

A grand jury did not indict Nixon, but named him an "unindicted
co-conspirator" in the Watergate burglary cover-up.
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/07/archives/jury-named-nixon-a-coconspirator-but-didnt-indict-st-clair-confirms.html
That hasn't happened to Trump, even if it should have.

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-named-as-co-conspirator-to-a-crime-by-prosecutors-11687574

[Kevrob]

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:08:53 -0800, Robert Woodward

[snip]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Robert Woodward
The charges in Trump's impeachment are more serious than for Clinton's
impeachment. They are also more serious than the charges would had been
if Nixon had been impeached.

The actual charges are "abuse of power" and "obstructing Congress".
The charges against Clinton were "perjury" and "obstructing justice".
There were no actual charges against Nixon, "obstruction of justice",
"abuse of power", "contempt of Congress", "war powers", and
"emoluments and tax fraud" were on the table but he bailed before
there was a vote so we'll never know which if any would actually have
been brought.

A grand jury did not indict Nixon, but named him an "unindicted
co-conspirator" in the Watergate burglary cover-up.
That hasn't happened to Trump, even if it should have.

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-named-as-co-conspirator-to-a-crime-by-prosecutors-11687574

That's a prosecutor's opinion, and is of less weight
than a report from a grand jury that accompanied indictments.

If the special prosecutor were of the opinion that President Nixon
could be indicted, he would have urged the GJ to do so. Mueller
didn't quite get there.

[quote]

Mueller said his team "did not reach a determination as to whether
the president committed a crime."

[/quote]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-mueller-clarifies-answer-on-indicting-trump

Kevin R

[J. Clarke]

Post by Kevrob

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:08:53 -0800, Robert Woodward

[snip]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Robert Woodward
The charges in Trump's impeachment are more serious than for Clinton's
impeachment. They are also more serious than the charges would had been
if Nixon had been impeached.

The actual charges are "abuse of power" and "obstructing Congress".
The charges against Clinton were "perjury" and "obstructing justice".
There were no actual charges against Nixon, "obstruction of justice",
"abuse of power", "contempt of Congress", "war powers", and
"emoluments and tax fraud" were on the table but he bailed before
there was a vote so we'll never know which if any would actually have
been brought.

A grand jury did not indict Nixon, but named him an "unindicted
co-conspirator" in the Watergate burglary cover-up.
That hasn't happened to Trump, even if it should have.

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-named-as-co-conspirator-to-a-crime-by-prosecutors-11687574

That's a prosecutor's opinion, and is of less weight
than a report from a grand jury that accompanied indictments.
If the special prosecutor were of the opinion that President Nixon
could be indicted, he would have urged the GJ to do so. Mueller
didn't quite get there.
[quote]
Mueller said his team "did not reach a determination as to whether
the president committed a crime."
[/quote]
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-mueller-clarifies-answer-on-indicting-trump

I think that somebody is way behind the times.

Trump has been impeached.
The articles of impeachment have been sent to the Senate.
The charges he faces are the ones in the articles of impeachment and
_only_ those charges until he is found guilty in the Senate and
removed from office or his term of office expires and he fails of
reelection or his second term expires, whichever comes first.

[Joe Bernstein]

Post by J. Clarke
Trump has been impeached.
The articles of impeachment have been sent to the Senate.
The charges he faces are the ones in the articles of impeachment and
_only_ those charges until he is found guilty in the Senate and
removed from office or his term of office expires and he fails of
reelection or his second term expires, whichever comes first.

Um. I know it's US Department of Justice policy not to charge a
sitting president, but can't he still face state charges? I thought
it was pretty obvious that the New York State Attorney General was
desperate to indict him. There was speculation that this was part
of the reason for his changing his official residence to Florida.

-- JLB

[J. Clarke]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 05:20:12 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by J. Clarke
Trump has been impeached.
The articles of impeachment have been sent to the Senate.
The charges he faces are the ones in the articles of impeachment and
_only_ those charges until he is found guilty in the Senate and
removed from office or his term of office expires and he fails of
reelection or his second term expires, whichever comes first.

Um. I know it's US Department of Justice policy not to charge a
sitting president,

That's not "policy". The President is in command of the Department of
Justice. It can't charge anybody with anything if the President says
not to. It can try, but whoever does it will be out on his butt for
insubordination.

Post by Joe Bernstein
but can't he still face state charges?

Only if he wants to. What is a state going to do, start a civil war?
They can't detain him. They may be able to do something to his
personal property that is located within their state or lock up his
friends and relatives but they can't do anything to him personally.
They can _try_ but if they do they'll find out that they are
outnumbered and outgunned.

Post by Joe Bernstein
I thought
it was pretty obvious that the New York State Attorney General was
desperate to indict him.

He can indict away. King Canute could give orders to the tide too.
That doesn't mean that either actually has any effect.

Post by Joe Bernstein
There was speculation that this was part
of the reason for his changing his official residence to Florida.

Might have been, but that doesn't have anything to do with the ability
of the state to arrest the President.

[Kevrob]

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 05:20:12 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by J. Clarke
Trump has been impeached.
The articles of impeachment have been sent to the Senate.
The charges he faces are the ones in the articles of impeachment and
_only_ those charges until he is found guilty in the Senate and
removed from office or his term of office expires and he fails of
reelection or his second term expires, whichever comes first.

Um. I know it's US Department of Justice policy not to charge a
sitting president,

That's not "policy". The President is in command of the Department of
Justice. It can't charge anybody with anything if the President says
not to. It can try, but whoever does it will be out on his butt for
insubordination.

Post by Joe Bernstein
but can't he still face state charges?

Only if he wants to. What is a state going to do, start a civil war?
They can't detain him. They may be able to do something to his
personal property that is located within their state or lock up his
friends and relatives but they can't do anything to him personally.
They can _try_ but if they do they'll find out that they are
outnumbered and outgunned.

Post by Joe Bernstein
I thought
it was pretty obvious that the New York State Attorney General was
desperate to indict him.

He can indict away. King Canute could give orders to the tide too.
That doesn't mean that either actually has any effect.

Post by Joe Bernstein
There was speculation that this was part
of the reason for his changing his official residence to Florida.

Might have been, but that doesn't have anything to do with the ability
of the state to arrest the President.

"Charge" is not arrest. State officials could wait until Trump is out
of office to arraign him. They wouldn't be "arresting the President,"
then. Then there's this:.

[quote]

If prosecutors wanted to bring charges against the president after
he left office, they would need to determine whether the statute
of limitations for the applicable crime permitted that. But even if
the statute of limitations has run, a court could preserve charges
that have otherwise expired through equitable tolling — a judicial
suspension of the statute of limitations, devised by courts to yield
fair and just results.

[/quote]

https://www.lawfareblog.com/equitable-tolling-and-prosecution-president

NY, once Trump is ensconced at Mar-a-Lago, could extradite him.
Won't that court battle be fun!

I agree that Trump's impeachment is "part of his permanent record."
I also think that an increased frequency of impeachments, going
from "only ever one" to "but for Nixon's resignation, once a
generation" will inevitably lessen the stigma, especially if the
Senate lets Trump off.

I have little hope that McConnell will fail to whip at least
34 Senators to vote "not guilty." A President Pence would be
more conventional, but I still wouldn't vote for him.

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310

[J. Clarke]

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 05:20:12 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by J. Clarke
Trump has been impeached.
The articles of impeachment have been sent to the Senate.
The charges he faces are the ones in the articles of impeachment and
_only_ those charges until he is found guilty in the Senate and
removed from office or his term of office expires and he fails of
reelection or his second term expires, whichever comes first.

Um. I know it's US Department of Justice policy not to charge a
sitting president,

That's not "policy". The President is in command of the Department of
Justice. It can't charge anybody with anything if the President says
not to. It can try, but whoever does it will be out on his butt for
insubordination.

Post by Joe Bernstein
but can't he still face state charges?

Only if he wants to. What is a state going to do, start a civil war?
They can't detain him. They may be able to do something to his
personal property that is located within their state or lock up his
friends and relatives but they can't do anything to him personally.
They can _try_ but if they do they'll find out that they are
outnumbered and outgunned.

Post by Joe Bernstein
I thought
it was pretty obvious that the New York State Attorney General was
desperate to indict him.

He can indict away. King Canute could give orders to the tide too.
That doesn't mean that either actually has any effect.

Post by Joe Bernstein
There was speculation that this was part
of the reason for his changing his official residence to Florida.

Might have been, but that doesn't have anything to do with the ability
of the state to arrest the President.

"Charge" is not arrest. State officials could wait until Trump is out
of office to arraign him. They wouldn't be "arresting the President,"
then. Then there's this:.
[quote]
If prosecutors wanted to bring charges against the president after
he left office, they would need to determine whether the statute
of limitations for the applicable crime permitted that. But even if
the statute of limitations has run, a court could preserve charges
that have otherwise expired through equitable tolling — a judicial
suspension of the statute of limitations, devised by courts to yield
fair and just results.
[/quote]
https://www.lawfareblog.com/equitable-tolling-and-prosecution-president
NY, once Trump is ensconced at Mar-a-Lago, could extradite him.
Won't that court battle be fun!
I agree that Trump's impeachment is "part of his permanent record."
I also think that an increased frequency of impeachments, going
from "only ever one" to "but for Nixon's resignation, once a
generation" will inevitably lessen the stigma, especially if the
Senate lets Trump off.
I have little hope that McConnell will fail to whip at least
34 Senators to vote "not guilty." A President Pence would be
more conventional, but I still wouldn't vote for him.

I think before we go too far afield here, I should ask a question. Do
you know the word "melan'ti", which comes from the Liaden language?

If not, it might be worthwhile for you to if you are so inclined read
"The Dragon Variation" by Sharon Lee and Steve Miller.

The reason I say this is that if we can talk in terms of melan'ti it
might be possible to avoid talking past each other, which appears to
be what is happening.

[Kevrob]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 05:20:12 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by J. Clarke
Trump has been impeached.
The articles of impeachment have been sent to the Senate.
The charges he faces are the ones in the articles of impeachment and
_only_ those charges until he is found guilty in the Senate and
removed from office or his term of office expires and he fails of
reelection or his second term expires, whichever comes first.

Um. I know it's US Department of Justice policy not to charge a
sitting president,

That's not "policy". The President is in command of the Department of
Justice. It can't charge anybody with anything if the President says
not to. It can try, but whoever does it will be out on his butt for
insubordination.

Post by Joe Bernstein
but can't he still face state charges?

Only if he wants to. What is a state going to do, start a civil war?
They can't detain him. They may be able to do something to his
personal property that is located within their state or lock up his
friends and relatives but they can't do anything to him personally.
They can _try_ but if they do they'll find out that they are
outnumbered and outgunned.

Post by Joe Bernstein
I thought
it was pretty obvious that the New York State Attorney General was
desperate to indict him.

He can indict away. King Canute could give orders to the tide too.
That doesn't mean that either actually has any effect.

Post by Joe Bernstein
There was speculation that this was part
of the reason for his changing his official residence to Florida.

Might have been, but that doesn't have anything to do with the ability
of the state to arrest the President.

"Charge" is not arrest. State officials could wait until Trump is out
of office to arraign him. They wouldn't be "arresting the President,"
then. Then there's this:.
[quote]
If prosecutors wanted to bring charges against the president after
he left office, they would need to determine whether the statute
of limitations for the applicable crime permitted that. But even if
the statute of limitations has run, a court could preserve charges
that have otherwise expired through equitable tolling — a judicial
suspension of the statute of limitations, devised by courts to yield
fair and just results.
[/quote]
https://www.lawfareblog.com/equitable-tolling-and-prosecution-president
NY, once Trump is ensconced at Mar-a-Lago, could extradite him.
Won't that court battle be fun!
I agree that Trump's impeachment is "part of his permanent record."
I also think that an increased frequency of impeachments, going
from "only ever one" to "but for Nixon's resignation, once a
generation" will inevitably lessen the stigma, especially if the
Senate lets Trump off.
I have little hope that McConnell will fail to whip at least
34 Senators to vote "not guilty." A President Pence would be
more conventional, but I still wouldn't vote for him.

I think before we go too far afield here, I should ask a question. Do
you know the word "melan'ti", which comes from the Liaden language?

I searched a bit and found:

[quote]

Melant'i

A great deal of the Liaden culture centers on melant'i. Part of this
concept is roughly analogous to personal honor or good manners: a person
of impeccable melant'i will behave in a certain way, in a given situation.
It is also used to distinguish between a person's different roles in life.
If one is speaking to a shipmate in one's role as an officer of the ship,
one uses a particular mode to cue the shipmate as to the formality of the situation, and is said to be expressing one's melant'i as that officer. If,
on the other hand, one is speaking to the same shipmate, but in the role
of daughter, one uses a different mode and is expressing the melant'i as
a family member. Different levels of formality, and actions, will be
appropriate in each case.

[/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liaden_universe#Melant%27i

Also https://liaden.fandom.com/wiki/Liaden_Tenets

Post by J. Clarke
If not, it might be worthwhile for you to if you are so inclined read
"The Dragon Variation" by Sharon Lee and Steve Miller.
The reason I say this is that if we can talk in terms of melan'ti it
might be possible to avoid talking past each other, which appears to
be what is happening.

So, should Trump be ousted for his lack of this quality? :)

Kevin R

[J. Clarke]

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 05:20:12 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by J. Clarke
Trump has been impeached.
The articles of impeachment have been sent to the Senate.
The charges he faces are the ones in the articles of impeachment and
_only_ those charges until he is found guilty in the Senate and
removed from office or his term of office expires and he fails of
reelection or his second term expires, whichever comes first.

Um. I know it's US Department of Justice policy not to charge a
sitting president,

That's not "policy". The President is in command of the Department of
Justice. It can't charge anybody with anything if the President says
not to. It can try, but whoever does it will be out on his butt for
insubordination.

Post by Joe Bernstein
but can't he still face state charges?

Only if he wants to. What is a state going to do, start a civil war?
They can't detain him. They may be able to do something to his
personal property that is located within their state or lock up his
friends and relatives but they can't do anything to him personally.
They can _try_ but if they do they'll find out that they are
outnumbered and outgunned.

Post by Joe Bernstein
I thought
it was pretty obvious that the New York State Attorney General was
desperate to indict him.

He can indict away. King Canute could give orders to the tide too.
That doesn't mean that either actually has any effect.

Post by Joe Bernstein
There was speculation that this was part
of the reason for his changing his official residence to Florida.

Might have been, but that doesn't have anything to do with the ability
of the state to arrest the President.

"Charge" is not arrest. State officials could wait until Trump is out
of office to arraign him. They wouldn't be "arresting the President,"
then. Then there's this:.
[quote]
If prosecutors wanted to bring charges against the president after
he left office, they would need to determine whether the statute
of limitations for the applicable crime permitted that. But even if
the statute of limitations has run, a court could preserve charges
that have otherwise expired through equitable tolling — a judicial
suspension of the statute of limitations, devised by courts to yield
fair and just results.
[/quote]
https://www.lawfareblog.com/equitable-tolling-and-prosecution-president
NY, once Trump is ensconced at Mar-a-Lago, could extradite him.
Won't that court battle be fun!
I agree that Trump's impeachment is "part of his permanent record."
I also think that an increased frequency of impeachments, going
from "only ever one" to "but for Nixon's resignation, once a
generation" will inevitably lessen the stigma, especially if the
Senate lets Trump off.
I have little hope that McConnell will fail to whip at least
34 Senators to vote "not guilty." A President Pence would be
more conventional, but I still wouldn't vote for him.

I think before we go too far afield here, I should ask a question. Do
you know the word "melan'ti", which comes from the Liaden language?

[quote]
Melant'i
A great deal of the Liaden culture centers on melant'i. Part of this
concept is roughly analogous to personal honor or good manners: a person
of impeccable melant'i will behave in a certain way, in a given situation.
It is also used to distinguish between a person's different roles in life.
If one is speaking to a shipmate in one's role as an officer of the ship,
one uses a particular mode to cue the shipmate as to the formality of the situation, and is said to be expressing one's melant'i as that officer. If,
on the other hand, one is speaking to the same shipmate, but in the role
of daughter, one uses a different mode and is expressing the melant'i as
a family member. Different levels of formality, and actions, will be
appropriate in each case.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liaden_universe#Melant%27i
Also https://liaden.fandom.com/wiki/Liaden_Tenets

Post by J. Clarke
If not, it might be worthwhile for you to if you are so inclined read
"The Dragon Variation" by Sharon Lee and Steve Miller.
The reason I say this is that if we can talk in terms of melan'ti it
might be possible to avoid talking past each other, which appears to
be what is happening.

So, should Trump be ousted for his lack of this quality? :)

You should read enough of the stories to see how it works. It is not
possible to lack melan'ti. It is not a "quality", but a way of
looking at things. You have at least one melan'ti, so do I, so does
everybody. Most of us have more than one. As an exercise, try to
enumerate yours.

[Kevrob]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob
So, should Trump be ousted for his lack of this quality? :)

You should read enough of the stories to see how it works. It is not
possible to lack melan'ti. It is not a "quality", but a way of
looking at things. You have at least one melan'ti, so do I, so does
everybody. Most of us have more than one. As an exercise, try to
enumerate yours.

Sociologists refer to status and role. his just seems like a
highly stylized version of that.

If you have a point to make, please make it.

Kevin R

[Alan Baker]

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob
So, should Trump be ousted for his lack of this quality? :)

You should read enough of the stories to see how it works. It is not
possible to lack melan'ti. It is not a "quality", but a way of
looking at things. You have at least one melan'ti, so do I, so does
everybody. Most of us have more than one. As an exercise, try to
enumerate yours.

Sociologists refer to status and role. his just seems like a
highly stylized version of that.
If you have a point to make, please make it.
Kevin R

Amen.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob
So, should Trump be ousted for his lack of this quality? :)

You should read enough of the stories to see how it works. It is not
possible to lack melan'ti. It is not a "quality", but a way of
looking at things. You have at least one melan'ti, so do I, so does
everybody. Most of us have more than one. As an exercise, try to
enumerate yours.

Sociologists refer to status and role. his just seems like a
highly stylized version of that.
If you have a point to make, please make it.

The thing is, I can't make the point with English. I need to use this
Liaden word. Or spend a lot of other words explaining a concept.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob
So, should Trump be ousted for his lack of this quality? :)

You should read enough of the stories to see how it works. It is not
possible to lack melan'ti. It is not a "quality", but a way of
looking at things. You have at least one melan'ti, so do I, so does
everybody. Most of us have more than one. As an exercise, try to
enumerate yours.

Sociologists refer to status and role. his just seems like a
highly stylized version of that.
If you have a point to make, please make it.

The thing is, I can't make the point with English. I need to use this
Liaden word. Or spend a lot of other words explaining a concept.

If you can't express it in English then you don't understand it.
And you're trying to duck the actual topic of discussion

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob
So, should Trump be ousted for his lack of this quality? :)

You should read enough of the stories to see how it works. It is not
possible to lack melan'ti. It is not a "quality", but a way of
looking at things. You have at least one melan'ti, so do I, so does
everybody. Most of us have more than one. As an exercise, try to
enumerate yours.

Sociologists refer to status and role. his just seems like a
highly stylized version of that.
If you have a point to make, please make it.

The thing is, I can't make the point with English. I need to use this
Liaden word. Or spend a lot of other words explaining a concept.

If you can't express it in English then you don't understand it.
And you're trying to duck the actual topic of discussion

Que sera, sera.

[Kevrob]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by h***@gmail.com
If you can't express it in English then you don't understand it.
And you're trying to duck the actual topic of discussion

Que sera, sera.

QSS has it's own little "Darmok"-style story behind it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Que_Sera,_Sera_(Whatever_Will_Be,_Will_Be)

Use of the phrase in English dating from the 16th century
leads me to ask if this is part of the language, per Nicoll's
vocabulary maxim?

Kevin R

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob
So, should Trump be ousted for his lack of this quality? :)

You should read enough of the stories to see how it works. It is not
possible to lack melan'ti. It is not a "quality", but a way of
looking at things. You have at least one melan'ti, so do I, so does
everybody. Most of us have more than one. As an exercise, try to
enumerate yours.

Sociologists refer to status and role. his just seems like a
highly stylized version of that.
If you have a point to make, please make it.

The thing is, I can't make the point with English. I need to use this
Liaden word. Or spend a lot of other words explaining a concept.

If you can't express it in English then you don't understand it.
And you're trying to duck the actual topic of discussion

Que sera, sera.

"It was evidently formed by a word-for-word mistranslation of English "What will be will be"
So yeah, you can express the meaning of it in English

But the idea that a made up word in a science fiction series explains a lack of communication between two people and English can't do it is pretty dubious

[Kevrob]

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob
So, should Trump be ousted for his lack of this quality? :)

You should read enough of the stories to see how it works. It is not
possible to lack melan'ti. It is not a "quality", but a way of
looking at things. You have at least one melan'ti, so do I, so does
everybody. Most of us have more than one. As an exercise, try to
enumerate yours.

Sociologists refer to status and role. his just seems like a
highly stylized version of that.
If you have a point to make, please make it.

The thing is, I can't make the point with English. I need to use this
Liaden word. Or spend a lot of other words explaining a concept.

If you can't express it in English then you don't understand it.
And you're trying to duck the actual topic of discussion

Que sera, sera.

"It was evidently formed by a word-for-word mistranslation of English "What will be will be"
So yeah, you can express the meaning of it in English
But the idea that a made up word in a science fiction series explains a lack of communication between two people and English can't do it is pretty dubious

Maybe he'll grok that, maybe not. :)

Kevin R

[J. Clarke]

Post by Kevrob

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob
So, should Trump be ousted for his lack of this quality? :)

You should read enough of the stories to see how it works. It is not
possible to lack melan'ti. It is not a "quality", but a way of
looking at things. You have at least one melan'ti, so do I, so does
everybody. Most of us have more than one. As an exercise, try to
enumerate yours.

Sociologists refer to status and role. his just seems like a
highly stylized version of that.
If you have a point to make, please make it.

The thing is, I can't make the point with English. I need to use this
Liaden word. Or spend a lot of other words explaining a concept.

If you can't express it in English then you don't understand it.
And you're trying to duck the actual topic of discussion

Que sera, sera.

"It was evidently formed by a word-for-word mistranslation of English "What will be will be"
So yeah, you can express the meaning of it in English
But the idea that a made up word in a science fiction series explains a lack of communication between two people and English can't do it is pretty dubious

Maybe he'll grok that, maybe not. :)

I grok it just fine. I just would prefer that someone who claims to
be a fan learn the concept from the original source and not from me.

The thing is I don't really care if we communicate about Trump. He'll
fall or not as the case may be, and eventually his term(s) will expire
and then we'll have some other bumbling incompetent making a mess of
things.

[Kevrob]

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by J. Clarke
Trump has been impeached.
The articles of impeachment have been sent to the Senate.
The charges he faces are the ones in the articles of impeachment and
_only_ those charges until he is found guilty in the Senate and
removed from office or his term of office expires and he fails of
reelection or his second term expires, whichever comes first.

Um. I know it's US Department of Justice policy not to charge a
sitting president, but can't he still face state charges? I thought
it was pretty obvious that the New York State Attorney General was
desperate to indict him. There was speculation that this was part
of the reason for his changing his official residence to Florida.

That, and Florida has no personal income tax.

The NY AG may well be waiting for the impeachment process to conclude
before charging Trump or his businesses in state courts.

Kevin R

[Kevrob]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:08:53 -0800, Robert Woodward

[snip]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Robert Woodward
The charges in Trump's impeachment are more serious than for Clinton's
impeachment. They are also more serious than the charges would had been
if Nixon had been impeached.

The actual charges are "abuse of power" and "obstructing Congress".
The charges against Clinton were "perjury" and "obstructing justice".
There were no actual charges against Nixon, "obstruction of justice",
"abuse of power", "contempt of Congress", "war powers", and
"emoluments and tax fraud" were on the table but he bailed before
there was a vote so we'll never know which if any would actually have
been brought.

A grand jury did not indict Nixon, but named him an "unindicted
co-conspirator" in the Watergate burglary cover-up.
That hasn't happened to Trump, even if it should have.

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-named-as-co-conspirator-to-a-crime-by-prosecutors-11687574

That's a prosecutor's opinion, and is of less weight
than a report from a grand jury that accompanied indictments.
If the special prosecutor were of the opinion that President Nixon
could be indicted, he would have urged the GJ to do so. Mueller
didn't quite get there.
[quote]
Mueller said his team "did not reach a determination as to whether
the president committed a crime."
[/quote]
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-mueller-clarifies-answer-on-indicting-trump

I think that somebody is way behind the times.
Trump has been impeached.
The articles of impeachment have been sent to the Senate.
The charges he faces are the ones in the articles of impeachment and
_only_ those charges until he is found guilty in the Senate and
removed from office or his term of office expires and he fails of
reelection or his second term expires, whichever comes first.

Impeachment is a _political_ not a criminal process.
I was discussing the relative seriousness of the legal
jeopardy Nixon was in, v Trump. It was Nixon's judgment
that he could not survive an trial before a Senate that was
split 54-44 for the Dems (55-45 after accounting for Jim
Buckley and Harry Bird.) Barry Goldwater and some others told
him the GOP members would not save him.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/azdc/2014/08/03/goldwater-rhodes-nixon-resignation/13497493/

Now, do I think Trump deserves to be convicted? Maybe, but
perhaps not for what he has been charged with, as of yet.

Here's one reason:

https://www.fff.org/2019/05/20/impeach-trump-but-only-for-the-right-reason/

We could wait forever for that, though.

Kevin R

[J. Clarke]

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:08:53 -0800, Robert Woodward

[snip]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Robert Woodward
The charges in Trump's impeachment are more serious than for Clinton's
impeachment. They are also more serious than the charges would had been
if Nixon had been impeached.

The actual charges are "abuse of power" and "obstructing Congress".
The charges against Clinton were "perjury" and "obstructing justice".
There were no actual charges against Nixon, "obstruction of justice",
"abuse of power", "contempt of Congress", "war powers", and
"emoluments and tax fraud" were on the table but he bailed before
there was a vote so we'll never know which if any would actually have
been brought.

A grand jury did not indict Nixon, but named him an "unindicted
co-conspirator" in the Watergate burglary cover-up.
That hasn't happened to Trump, even if it should have.

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-named-as-co-conspirator-to-a-crime-by-prosecutors-11687574

That's a prosecutor's opinion, and is of less weight
than a report from a grand jury that accompanied indictments.
If the special prosecutor were of the opinion that President Nixon
could be indicted, he would have urged the GJ to do so. Mueller
didn't quite get there.
[quote]
Mueller said his team "did not reach a determination as to whether
the president committed a crime."
[/quote]
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-mueller-clarifies-answer-on-indicting-trump

I think that somebody is way behind the times.
Trump has been impeached.
The articles of impeachment have been sent to the Senate.
The charges he faces are the ones in the articles of impeachment and
_only_ those charges until he is found guilty in the Senate and
removed from office or his term of office expires and he fails of
reelection or his second term expires, whichever comes first.

Impeachment is a _political_ not a criminal process.
I was discussing the relative seriousness of the legal
jeopardy Nixon was in, v Trump. It was Nixon's judgment
that he could not survive an trial before a Senate that was
split 54-44 for the Dems (55-45 after accounting for Jim
Buckley and Harry Bird.) Barry Goldwater and some others told
him the GOP members would not save him.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/azdc/2014/08/03/goldwater-rhodes-nixon-resignation/13497493/
Now, do I think Trump deserves to be convicted? Maybe, but
perhaps not for what he has been charged with, as of yet.
https://www.fff.org/2019/05/20/impeach-trump-but-only-for-the-right-reason/
We could wait forever for that, though.

You clearly don't understand the process when you say "impeachment is
a political process" and then "Nixon could not survive a trial in the
Senate".

The impeachment is analogous to an indictment. It sets the charges.
Once the charges are set then the accused is tried on those charges.
And the trial, in the Senate, is also a _political_ not a criminal
process.

As for your "one reason", that was May 20, 2019. You seem to be
unaware of the event of December 18, 2019
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-is-impeached-by-the-house-creating-an-indelible-mark-on-his-presidency/2019/12/18/501bcab2-2105-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html>
which renders moot speculation by "The Future of Freedom Foundation"
whatever that might be.

The charges have been brought. This is no longer a matter of
speculation, it is now history. Unless he is impeached again there
won't be more charges. His jeopardy is of being convicted of those
charges.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 21:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Why?
I remember being told the 21st century didn't begin until 2001, so it
isn't just millennia, but I'm not at all sure I believe it of
centuries, and only believe it of millennia with difficulty. (Most
eras, in this sense, don't live a thousand years. So it isn't silly
to say a first millennium is qualitatively, and perhaps
quantitatively, different.)
I find it *very* hard to accept that we should bother with this kind
of imbecilic precision with respect to decades, and would need a
*much* better reason than "So the first decade comes out right."
Nobody born in the first decade is around to argue the point, so why
should I care? Is there *any* better reason than that?
2010 - After the recession. The Tea Party started, quoth English
Wikipedia, in 2009, Occupy not until 2011, so that could go
either way. On balance, though, I think 2010 is in the
2010s. Internationally, the Arab Spring didn't start until
*December* 2010, which argues for linking 2010 to the 2000s in
at least some countries.
2000 - Before 9/11, and before the recession. Clinton is still
president. Linking it to the 1990s makes sense.
1990 - First Iraq war. Before the recession. Linking it to the
1980s makes sense.
1980 - Carter is still president (this works every other time), the
hostages are still in Iran, near as I can tell stagflation
continued. We tend to stereotype the 1970s with stuff from
their first half, but linking 1980 to the late 1970s makes
sense.
1970 - The early 1970s are in many ways an outgrowth of the late
1960s; I don't see any obvious dividing line to put 1970 on
one side of.
1960 - Eisenhower is still president. None of the stuff we think of
as the 1960s is happening yet. This already starts to change
in 1961, Kennedy changing our approaches to both Vietnam and
civil rights. Linking it to the 1950s makes sense.
1950 - Not sure. McCarthy gets started in early 1950, though, which
argues for linking it to the 1950s.
1940 - The US is still at peace, so for us, obviously, linking it to
the 1930s makes sense. For most of the world, the same
argument links 1940, the first full year of WWII, to the 1940s.
The most obvious exception is the USSR, which wasn't at *peace*
in 1940 but whose war changed enormously in 1941. Oh, and OK,
"Roosevelt is still president" doesn't mean much, so no, it
doesn't *always* work every other time. [1]
1930 - The Depression started in 1929. Linking 1930 to the 1930s is
a no-brainer everywhere the effects of the stock market crash
mattered.
1920 - Wilson is still president. Economic problems related to the
end of WWI, the Spanish flu, and the Red Scare all continued,
making a link to the 1910s pretty obvious.
So this is six out of ten that clearly, for the US, link to the
previous decade better than to the succeeding one.
But that still isn't going to keep me from thinking and saying that
we're in the 2020s now.
Joe Bernstein
[1] So how many presidents first elected in a 6 year have been re-
elected? 1796 - no. 1816 - N/A. 1836 - no. 1856 - no. 1876 - no.
1896 - McKinley is our first winner. 1916 - N/A. 1936 - N/A, but he
was still re-elected in 1940. 1956 - N/A. 1976 - no. 1996 - N/A.
2016 - remains to be seen, but the historical record doesn't look
promising.
Other first years - 2. 1792 - yes. 1812 - N/A. 1832 - N/A.
1852 - no. 1872 - N/A. 1892 - no. 1912 - yes. 1932 - yes, and how!
1952 - yes. 1972 - N/A. 1992 - yes. 2012 - N/A. Rather better.
4. 1804 - N/A. 1824 - no. 1844 - no. 1864 - N/A. 1884 - yes,
sorta. 1904 - no. 1924 - no. 1944 - N/A. 1964 - no. 1984 - yes.
2004 - yes. Also better.
8. 1808 - yes. 1828 - yes. 1848 - died. 1868 - yes. 1888 - no.
1908 - no. 1928 - no. 1948 - no. 1968 - yes. 1988 - no. 2008 -
yes. Rather better.
0. 1800 - yes. 1820 - no. 1840 - died. 1860 - yes. 1880 -
died. 1900 - N/A. 1920 - died. 1940 - N/A, but he was still re-
elected in 1944. 1960 - died. 1980 - yes. 2000 - yes. So this is
a good cohort for re-election, but also by far the most dangerous
cohort (besides 1840, 1880, 1920 and 1960, the presidents elected in
1860, 1900, and 1940 died in office). Huh. Since we seem hell-bent
on electing a septuagenarian this time, 2020 may revive that
tradition.

Well, that /would/ make the "0" class the winners in terms of being
"President for Life". A title and status Trump was wishing for at one
time, IIRC.

Not at one time, all the time. He may have only *mentioned* it
at one time.

Only if he is capable of sustained thought, a fact most definitely not
in evidence.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 21:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 16:23:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
Yes, I know that the decade does not really start until the "1" year.
But, we are here now with the prefix !

I thought that only applied to millennia ... but I suppose the same
reasoning applies to centuries and decades.

Why?
I remember being told the 21st century didn't begin until 2001, so it
isn't just millennia, but I'm not at all sure I believe it of
centuries, and only believe it of millennia with difficulty. (Most
eras, in this sense, don't live a thousand years. So it isn't silly
to say a first millennium is qualitatively, and perhaps
quantitatively, different.)
I find it *very* hard to accept that we should bother with this kind
of imbecilic precision with respect to decades, and would need a
*much* better reason than "So the first decade comes out right."
Nobody born in the first decade is around to argue the point, so why
should I care? Is there *any* better reason than that?
2010 - After the recession. The Tea Party started, quoth English
Wikipedia, in 2009, Occupy not until 2011, so that could go
either way. On balance, though, I think 2010 is in the
2010s. Internationally, the Arab Spring didn't start until
*December* 2010, which argues for linking 2010 to the 2000s in
at least some countries.
2000 - Before 9/11, and before the recession. Clinton is still
president. Linking it to the 1990s makes sense.
1990 - First Iraq war. Before the recession. Linking it to the
1980s makes sense.
1980 - Carter is still president (this works every other time), the
hostages are still in Iran, near as I can tell stagflation
continued. We tend to stereotype the 1970s with stuff from
their first half, but linking 1980 to the late 1970s makes
sense.
1970 - The early 1970s are in many ways an outgrowth of the late
1960s; I don't see any obvious dividing line to put 1970 on
one side of.
1960 - Eisenhower is still president. None of the stuff we think of
as the 1960s is happening yet. This already starts to change
in 1961, Kennedy changing our approaches to both Vietnam and
civil rights. Linking it to the 1950s makes sense.
1950 - Not sure. McCarthy gets started in early 1950, though, which
argues for linking it to the 1950s.
1940 - The US is still at peace, so for us, obviously, linking it to
the 1930s makes sense. For most of the world, the same
argument links 1940, the first full year of WWII, to the 1940s.
The most obvious exception is the USSR, which wasn't at *peace*
in 1940 but whose war changed enormously in 1941. Oh, and OK,
"Roosevelt is still president" doesn't mean much, so no, it
doesn't *always* work every other time. [1]
1930 - The Depression started in 1929. Linking 1930 to the 1930s is
a no-brainer everywhere the effects of the stock market crash
mattered.
1920 - Wilson is still president. Economic problems related to the
end of WWI, the Spanish flu, and the Red Scare all continued,
making a link to the 1910s pretty obvious.
So this is six out of ten that clearly, for the US, link to the
previous decade better than to the succeeding one.
But that still isn't going to keep me from thinking and saying that
we're in the 2020s now.
Joe Bernstein
[1] So how many presidents first elected in a 6 year have been re-
elected? 1796 - no. 1816 - N/A. 1836 - no. 1856 - no. 1876 - no.
1896 - McKinley is our first winner. 1916 - N/A. 1936 - N/A, but he
was still re-elected in 1940. 1956 - N/A. 1976 - no. 1996 - N/A.
2016 - remains to be seen, but the historical record doesn't look
promising.
Other first years - 2. 1792 - yes. 1812 - N/A. 1832 - N/A.
1852 - no. 1872 - N/A. 1892 - no. 1912 - yes. 1932 - yes, and how!
1952 - yes. 1972 - N/A. 1992 - yes. 2012 - N/A. Rather better.
4. 1804 - N/A. 1824 - no. 1844 - no. 1864 - N/A. 1884 - yes,
sorta. 1904 - no. 1924 - no. 1944 - N/A. 1964 - no. 1984 - yes.
2004 - yes. Also better.
8. 1808 - yes. 1828 - yes. 1848 - died. 1868 - yes. 1888 - no.
1908 - no. 1928 - no. 1948 - no. 1968 - yes. 1988 - no. 2008 -
yes. Rather better.
0. 1800 - yes. 1820 - no. 1840 - died. 1860 - yes. 1880 -
died. 1900 - N/A. 1920 - died. 1940 - N/A, but he was still re-
elected in 1944. 1960 - died. 1980 - yes. 2000 - yes. So this is
a good cohort for re-election, but also by far the most dangerous
cohort (besides 1840, 1880, 1920 and 1960, the presidents elected in
1860, 1900, and 1940 died in office). Huh. Since we seem hell-bent
on electing a septuagenarian this time, 2020 may revive that
tradition.

Well, that /would/ make the "0" class the winners in terms of being
"President for Life". A title and status Trump was wishing for at one
time, IIRC.

Not at one time, all the time. He may have only *mentioned* it
at one time.

Only if he is capable of sustained thought, a fact most definitely not
in evidence.

He's successfully pulled off some sustained cons in his business life so
I'd have to say he is capable of sustained thought about something when
he sees himself making progress at boosting himself. And he does keep
circling back to the same issues as President.

[BCFD36]

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
   https://xkcd.com/2249/

[stuff deleted]

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years.  Amazing.  Both saw combat and thought they would never
make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the Pacific.
Lynn

I have known several WWII vets over the years. First was a neighbor when
we lived in Houston. He said to my Dad one time that he had no desire to
go back to Europe. He had already seen it from behind an M-1. His
platoon was one to liberate one of the "camps". He wouldn't talk about it.

I worked with a guy in 1976 when I was working at Marriot's Great
America in Santa Clara who had been on Guadalcanal. Ok guy. But I
wondered why was a guy his age working for $4.25/hr on the grave shift?
By then I was smart enough not to ask.

As an EMT I had a patient one night that had been on Tarawa. I saw the
award on the wall.

I had another elderly man back in 2013, on June 7th. I wrote the
following on Facebook:
"We just ran a call with a 91 y.o. gentleman. I wonder where he was 69
years ago today. Was he coming ashore in the 4th or 5th wave at Omaha
Beach, or maybe pushing toward in toward the hedgerow country? Maybe he
was slogging it out in Marshalls, the Gilberts, or the Marianas. He
could have even been in the Aleutians fighting the Japanese and the
mosquitos. 200000 men went ashore at Normandy. I wish he could talk so
we could say thank you."

[Jay E. Morris]

Post by BCFD36

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
    https://xkcd.com/2249/

[stuff deleted]

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years.  Amazing.  Both saw combat and thought they would
never make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the
Pacific.
Lynn

I have known several WWII vets over the years. First was a neighbor
when we lived in Houston. He said to my Dad one time that he had no
desire to go back to Europe. He had already seen it from behind an
M-1. His platoon was one to liberate one of the "camps". He wouldn't
talk about it.
I worked with a guy in 1976 when I was working at Marriot's Great
America in Santa Clara who had been on Guadalcanal. Ok guy. But I
wondered why was a guy his age working for $4.25/hr on the grave
shift? By then I was smart enough not to ask.
As an EMT I had a patient one night that had been on Tarawa. I saw the
award on the wall.
I had another elderly man back in 2013, on June 7th. I wrote the
"We just ran a call with a 91 y.o. gentleman. I wonder where he was 69
years ago today. Was he coming ashore in the 4th or 5th wave at Omaha
Beach, or maybe pushing toward in toward the hedgerow country? Maybe
he was slogging it out in Marshalls, the Gilberts, or the Marianas. He
could have even been in the Aleutians fighting the Japanese and the
mosquitos. 200000 men went ashore at Normandy. I wish he could talk so
we could say thank you."

I had a friend who was liberated from Stalag 14 or 18 by USA troops in
1945, I cannot remember.  He told me stories about the camp one day.
None were good.  His B-17 was shot down on its second trip over Germany
in 1943 or 1944.  He was the captain because he was two weeks older than
the copilot.  He was 6 ft 4 inches and 108 lbs coming out of the camp.
When I knew him, he was 350 lbs and did not care.
Lynn

Father. Tech-sgt engineer on C-47. Shot down over France after D-Day.
M1911 ripped through the pocket of his coveralls when chute opened. Shot
at a few times but not hit and managed to evade back to friendly lines.

Never talked about it. I read the after action report in a book his unit
put out at one of their reunions.

I still have the D-Ring from his chute.

He'd be 104 this year.

[BCFD36]

Post by BCFD36

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
    https://xkcd.com/2249/

[stuff deleted]

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years.  Amazing.  Both saw combat and thought they would
never make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the
Pacific.
Lynn

I have known several WWII vets over the years. First was a neighbor
when we lived in Houston. He said to my Dad one time that he had no
desire to go back to Europe. He had already seen it from behind an
M-1. His platoon was one to liberate one of the "camps". He wouldn't
talk about it.
I worked with a guy in 1976 when I was working at Marriot's Great
America in Santa Clara who had been on Guadalcanal. Ok guy. But I
wondered why was a guy his age working for $4.25/hr on the grave
shift? By then I was smart enough not to ask.
As an EMT I had a patient one night that had been on Tarawa. I saw the
award on the wall.
I had another elderly man back in 2013, on June 7th. I wrote the
"We just ran a call with a 91 y.o. gentleman. I wonder where he was 69
years ago today. Was he coming ashore in the 4th or 5th wave at Omaha
Beach, or maybe pushing toward in toward the hedgerow country? Maybe
he was slogging it out in Marshalls, the Gilberts, or the Marianas. He
could have even been in the Aleutians fighting the Japanese and the
mosquitos. 200000 men went ashore at Normandy. I wish he could talk so
we could say thank you."

I had a friend who was liberated from Stalag 14 or 18 by USA troops in
1945, I cannot remember.  He told me stories about the camp one day.
None were good.  His B-17 was shot down on its second trip over Germany
in 1943 or 1944.  He was the captain because he was two weeks older than
the copilot.  He was 6 ft 4 inches and 108 lbs coming out of the camp.
When I knew him, he was 350 lbs and did not care.
Lynn

You probably understood that the camp liberated was not full of POWs but
Jews, Gypsies, etc. Chances of getting killed in a B-17/24/25/26 or the
other bombers were higher than getting on the ground in 1943 and '44. I
cannot imagine.

[Paul S Person]

Post by BCFD36

Post by BCFD36

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
    https://xkcd.com/2249/

[stuff deleted]

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years.  Amazing.  Both saw combat and thought they would
never make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the
Pacific.
Lynn

I have known several WWII vets over the years. First was a neighbor
when we lived in Houston. He said to my Dad one time that he had no
desire to go back to Europe. He had already seen it from behind an
M-1. His platoon was one to liberate one of the "camps". He wouldn't
talk about it.
I worked with a guy in 1976 when I was working at Marriot's Great
America in Santa Clara who had been on Guadalcanal. Ok guy. But I
wondered why was a guy his age working for $4.25/hr on the grave
shift? By then I was smart enough not to ask.
As an EMT I had a patient one night that had been on Tarawa. I saw the
award on the wall.
I had another elderly man back in 2013, on June 7th. I wrote the
"We just ran a call with a 91 y.o. gentleman. I wonder where he was 69
years ago today. Was he coming ashore in the 4th or 5th wave at Omaha
Beach, or maybe pushing toward in toward the hedgerow country? Maybe
he was slogging it out in Marshalls, the Gilberts, or the Marianas. He
could have even been in the Aleutians fighting the Japanese and the
mosquitos. 200000 men went ashore at Normandy. I wish he could talk so
we could say thank you."

I had a friend who was liberated from Stalag 14 or 18 by USA troops in
1945, I cannot remember.  He told me stories about the camp one day.
None were good.  His B-17 was shot down on its second trip over Germany
in 1943 or 1944.  He was the captain because he was two weeks older than
the copilot.  He was 6 ft 4 inches and 108 lbs coming out of the camp.
When I knew him, he was 350 lbs and did not care.
Lynn

You probably understood that the camp liberated was not full of POWs but
Jews, Gypsies, etc. Chances of getting killed in a B-17/24/25/26 or the
other bombers were higher than getting on the ground in 1943 and '44. I
cannot imagine.

Nice try. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag

"In Germany, stalag (/'stælæg/; German: ['?talak]) was a term used for
prisoner-of-war camps. Stalag is a contraction of "Stammlager", itself
short for Kriegsgefangenen-Mannschaftsstammlager."

So, yes, if he was in a Stalag he was in a POW camp.

The Jews, Gypsies, etc were in the /extermination/ camps.


Cornelius Ryan's /The Last Battle/ records an incident where POWs
(Americans), being evacuated from the front lines by the Germans, are
attacked by (American) planes because they looked like a military
column.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by BCFD36

Post by BCFD36

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
    https://xkcd.com/2249/

[stuff deleted]

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years.  Amazing.  Both saw combat and thought they would
never make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the
Pacific.
Lynn

I have known several WWII vets over the years. First was a neighbor
when we lived in Houston. He said to my Dad one time that he had no
desire to go back to Europe. He had already seen it from behind an
M-1. His platoon was one to liberate one of the "camps". He wouldn't
talk about it.
I worked with a guy in 1976 when I was working at Marriot's Great
America in Santa Clara who had been on Guadalcanal. Ok guy. But I
wondered why was a guy his age working for $4.25/hr on the grave
shift? By then I was smart enough not to ask.
As an EMT I had a patient one night that had been on Tarawa. I saw the
award on the wall.
I had another elderly man back in 2013, on June 7th. I wrote the
"We just ran a call with a 91 y.o. gentleman. I wonder where he was 69
years ago today. Was he coming ashore in the 4th or 5th wave at Omaha
Beach, or maybe pushing toward in toward the hedgerow country? Maybe
he was slogging it out in Marshalls, the Gilberts, or the Marianas. He
could have even been in the Aleutians fighting the Japanese and the
mosquitos. 200000 men went ashore at Normandy. I wish he could talk so
we could say thank you."

I had a friend who was liberated from Stalag 14 or 18 by USA troops in
1945, I cannot remember.  He told me stories about the camp one day.
None were good.  His B-17 was shot down on its second trip over Germany
in 1943 or 1944.  He was the captain because he was two weeks older than
the copilot.  He was 6 ft 4 inches and 108 lbs coming out of the camp.
When I knew him, he was 350 lbs and did not care.
Lynn

You probably understood that the camp liberated was not full of POWs but
Jews, Gypsies, etc. Chances of getting killed in a B-17/24/25/26 or the
other bombers were higher than getting on the ground in 1943 and '44. I
cannot imagine.

Nice try. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag
"In Germany, stalag (/'stælæg/; German: ['?talak]) was a term used for
prisoner-of-war camps. Stalag is a contraction of "Stammlager", itself
short for Kriegsgefangenen-Mannschaftsstammlager."
So, yes, if he was in a Stalag he was in a POW camp.
The Jews, Gypsies, etc were in the /extermination/ camps.
Cornelius Ryan's /The Last Battle/ records an incident where POWs
(Americans), being evacuated from the front lines by the Germans, are
attacked by (American) planes because they looked like a military
column.

I don't remember much of what Tom told me but I do remember one item,
"it was a good day when the potato soup actually had potatoes in it".

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:55:09 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by BCFD36

Post by BCFD36

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
    https://xkcd.com/2249/

[stuff deleted]

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years.  Amazing.  Both saw combat and thought they would
never make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the
Pacific.
Lynn

I have known several WWII vets over the years. First was a neighbor
when we lived in Houston. He said to my Dad one time that he had no
desire to go back to Europe. He had already seen it from behind an
M-1. His platoon was one to liberate one of the "camps". He wouldn't
talk about it.
I worked with a guy in 1976 when I was working at Marriot's Great
America in Santa Clara who had been on Guadalcanal. Ok guy. But I
wondered why was a guy his age working for $4.25/hr on the grave
shift? By then I was smart enough not to ask.
As an EMT I had a patient one night that had been on Tarawa. I saw the
award on the wall.
I had another elderly man back in 2013, on June 7th. I wrote the
"We just ran a call with a 91 y.o. gentleman. I wonder where he was 69
years ago today. Was he coming ashore in the 4th or 5th wave at Omaha
Beach, or maybe pushing toward in toward the hedgerow country? Maybe
he was slogging it out in Marshalls, the Gilberts, or the Marianas. He
could have even been in the Aleutians fighting the Japanese and the
mosquitos. 200000 men went ashore at Normandy. I wish he could talk so
we could say thank you."

I had a friend who was liberated from Stalag 14 or 18 by USA troops in
1945, I cannot remember.  He told me stories about the camp one day.
None were good.  His B-17 was shot down on its second trip over Germany
in 1943 or 1944.  He was the captain because he was two weeks older than
the copilot.  He was 6 ft 4 inches and 108 lbs coming out of the camp.
When I knew him, he was 350 lbs and did not care.
Lynn

You probably understood that the camp liberated was not full of POWs but
Jews, Gypsies, etc. Chances of getting killed in a B-17/24/25/26 or the
other bombers were higher than getting on the ground in 1943 and '44. I
cannot imagine.

Nice try. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag
"In Germany, stalag (/'stælæg/; German: ['?talak]) was a term used for
prisoner-of-war camps. Stalag is a contraction of "Stammlager", itself
short for Kriegsgefangenen-Mannschaftsstammlager."
So, yes, if he was in a Stalag he was in a POW camp.
The Jews, Gypsies, etc were in the /extermination/ camps.
Cornelius Ryan's /The Last Battle/ records an incident where POWs
(Americans), being evacuated from the front lines by the Germans, are
attacked by (American) planes because they looked like a military
column.

I don't remember much of what Tom told me but I do remember one item,
"it was a good day when the potato soup actually had potatoes in it".

You might find it interesting to google "Colditz". There has been
quite a lot written about it from both sides, a board game created,
and several movies and TV productions made.

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:15:17 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:55:09 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by BCFD36

Post by BCFD36

Post by Lynn McGuire
xkcd: I Love the 20s
    https://xkcd.com/2249/

[stuff deleted]

Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, I know two people, both men and WWII vets, who will be 100 in a
couple of years.  Amazing.  Both saw combat and thought they would
never make it out of the war, especially the B-24 copilot in the
Pacific.
Lynn

I have known several WWII vets over the years. First was a neighbor
when we lived in Houston. He said to my Dad one time that he had no
desire to go back to Europe. He had already seen it from behind an
M-1. His platoon was one to liberate one of the "camps". He wouldn't
talk about it.
I worked with a guy in 1976 when I was working at Marriot's Great
America in Santa Clara who had been on Guadalcanal. Ok guy. But I
wondered why was a guy his age working for $4.25/hr on the grave
shift? By then I was smart enough not to ask.
As an EMT I had a patient one night that had been on Tarawa. I saw the
award on the wall.
I had another elderly man back in 2013, on June 7th. I wrote the
"We just ran a call with a 91 y.o. gentleman. I wonder where he was 69
years ago today. Was he coming ashore in the 4th or 5th wave at Omaha
Beach, or maybe pushing toward in toward the hedgerow country? Maybe
he was slogging it out in Marshalls, the Gilberts, or the Marianas. He
could have even been in the Aleutians fighting the Japanese and the
mosquitos. 200000 men went ashore at Normandy. I wish he could talk so
we could say thank you."

I had a friend who was liberated from Stalag 14 or 18 by USA troops in
1945, I cannot remember.  He told me stories about the camp one day.
None were good.  His B-17 was shot down on its second trip over Germany
in 1943 or 1944.  He was the captain because he was two weeks older than
the copilot.  He was 6 ft 4 inches and 108 lbs coming out of the camp.
When I knew him, he was 350 lbs and did not care.
Lynn

You probably understood that the camp liberated was not full of POWs but
Jews, Gypsies, etc. Chances of getting killed in a B-17/24/25/26 or the
other bombers were higher than getting on the ground in 1943 and '44. I
cannot imagine.

Nice try. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag
"In Germany, stalag (/'stælæg/; German: ['?talak]) was a term used for
prisoner-of-war camps. Stalag is a contraction of "Stammlager", itself
short for Kriegsgefangenen-Mannschaftsstammlager."
So, yes, if he was in a Stalag he was in a POW camp.
The Jews, Gypsies, etc were in the /extermination/ camps.
Cornelius Ryan's /The Last Battle/ records an incident where POWs
(Americans), being evacuated from the front lines by the Germans, are
attacked by (American) planes because they looked like a military
column.

I don't remember much of what Tom told me but I do remember one item,
"it was a good day when the potato soup actually had potatoes in it".

You might find it interesting to google "Colditz". There has been
quite a lot written about it from both sides, a board game created,
and several movies and TV productions made.

/Stalag 17/ and /The Great Escape/ also involve German POW camps.

Among others, including the TV series /Hogan's Heroes/.

[BCFD36]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by BCFD36
You probably understood that the camp liberated was not full of POWs but
Jews, Gypsies, etc. Chances of getting killed in a B-17/24/25/26 or the
other bombers were higher than getting on the ground in 1943 and '44. I
cannot imagine.

Nice try. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag
"In Germany, stalag (/'stælæg/; German: ['?talak]) was a term used for
prisoner-of-war camps. Stalag is a contraction of "Stammlager", itself
short for Kriegsgefangenen-Mannschaftsstammlager."

My neighbor was not referring to a Stalag. He was referring to a labor
camp or death camp. I don't know which one.

[J. Clarke]

Post by BCFD36

Post by Paul S Person

Post by BCFD36
You probably understood that the camp liberated was not full of POWs but
Jews, Gypsies, etc. Chances of getting killed in a B-17/24/25/26 or the
other bombers were higher than getting on the ground in 1943 and '44. I
cannot imagine.

Nice try. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag
"In Germany, stalag (/'stælæg/; German: ['?talak]) was a term used for
prisoner-of-war camps. Stalag is a contraction of "Stammlager", itself
short for Kriegsgefangenen-Mannschaftsstammlager."

My neighbor was not referring to a Stalag. He was referring to a labor
camp or death camp. I don't know which one.

You stated "I had a friend who was liberated from Stalag 14 or 18 by
USA troops in 1945, I cannot remember." Are you now changing your
story?

[Paul S Person]

Post by BCFD36

Post by Paul S Person

Post by BCFD36
You probably understood that the camp liberated was not full of POWs but
Jews, Gypsies, etc. Chances of getting killed in a B-17/24/25/26 or the
other bombers were higher than getting on the ground in 1943 and '44. I
cannot imagine.

Nice try. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag
"In Germany, stalag (/'stælæg/; German: ['?talak]) was a term used for
prisoner-of-war camps. Stalag is a contraction of "Stammlager", itself
short for Kriegsgefangenen-Mannschaftsstammlager."

My neighbor was not referring to a Stalag. He was referring to a labor
camp or death camp. I don't know which one.

OK, looks like I missed the thread there.

My apologies.

[BCFD36]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by BCFD36
My neighbor was not referring to a Stalag. He was referring to a labor
camp or death camp. I don't know which one.

OK, looks like I missed the thread there.
My apologies.

Ok, I will let it go this time. Just this once. Otherwise I might have
to get stern with you.