arrowsmith

I don’t disagree with you. What you seem to be implying, and what I took issue with, was you equating the Clinton impeachment with a theoretical Biden impeachment. President Clinton was a genuine sexual predator who, if he had been a CEO, would have been removed for such an egregious abuse of power. I don’t think the lie rose to the level of impeachment but it was not an entirely trumped up witch hunt as a Biden impeachment would likely be.

Also he lied during a deposition involving his civil suit regarding Paula Jones, not Whitewater. Her attorneys were attempting to show a pattern of abusive sexual behavior toward subordinates. Seems material to me.

You’re rather proving the point aren’t you? You made the point that impeaching President Biden for no reason at all would be akin to the impeachment of President Clinton. I disagreed and pointed out that the House of Representatives had ample reason to indict him. The facts of the case were such that he was acquitted during his trial. They are not comparable.

A person being deposed is at their leisure to refuse to answer a question during a deposition and he ought to have. It would have saved us a lot of grief. They are not entitled to lie when asked a question they find untoward. Still perjury. Still a crime.

You seem to be operating under the popular error that President Clinton was impeached for getting a bj from an intern. He was not. He was impeached for lying about it - during a deposition. Like it or not that’s perjury which is in fact a crime. Whether he ought to have been impeached for committing said crime is a different question. If President Biden is in fact impaired that does not fall under the umbrella of impeachment. That’s why we have the 25th amendment, to rectify this oversight.

Both of the websites you mentioned actually prove my point. The news article is clear that the UN Ambassador has been cabinet level at the behest of the president at various points. The White House website lists all of those positions last in order of presidential succession because they aren’t in succession. A better thing to look at would be the process by which the Department of Homeland Security was erected and a cabinet position created (in presidential succession) not a cabinet level position which is obviously more impermanent. Furthermore, the White House website lists the Chief of Staff (!) as a cabinet position, he does not run an executive department and is not confirmed by the senate. Cabinet level in terms of privilege, sure, actual member of a cabinet, no.

As much as I hate disagreeing with you that is not entirely correct. The Ambassador to the UN, the head of the OMB, etc. are not and never were cabinet officials. They have been at various points, including now, cabinet level positions. This gives them certain legal abilities which other heads of executive departments lack but which the president for one reason or another may wish them to have - and the president gives this to them by fiat. However, to be a proper cabinet department it’s head must be in the line of presidential succession as defined by the 25th amendment and must be erected by congress. Various departments have been created and made proper cabinet departments over time (energy, va, homeland security), some have been split or combined (health, education & welfare), some have been renamed (war became defense), and some have been demoted entirely (post office). This means that the individuals you mentioned, while an interesting category worthy of discussion, do not fit the parameters above. Carter only has four cabinet officials still living, but seven cabinet level officials. Perhaps this seems to be a distinction without a difference it may be, but it remains a distinction we make.

The question becomes will he outlive them all?

I cannot stand President Carter. His ignorance, naïveté, bad judgement, and general weakness are directly responsible for a great number of global (and local) ills we are still dealing with today. The fact that he has become a folk-hero of sorts is bizarre to me; he is the beginning of the demystification of the presidency which allowed for later abhorrent holders of that office. His general kumbaya, 70’s, utopian, world peace attitude is feeble and generally celebrated only by other products of that era reliving the halcyon days of the high water mark of the 60s. For the record I am not some anti-democratic Trump supporter - merely someone who doesn’t think Jimmy Carter is the big toothed, peanut farming, second coming of Christ.

Agreed but at some point there will have to be a distinction made between uniformed veterans vs partisans/resistance fighters. There will claimants to the latter long after the last verifiable veteran dies.

You are quite correct. Also too be considered, a decent number of teenagers lied about their age in order to enlist. In the US we have combat veterans born later than 1927, I would imagine the same is true in the UK.

And that makes him a candidate for 2023 how?

With the death of Canadian bishop Laurent Noel there are now a mere six Second Vatican Council Fathers and none from North America or Oceania. Francis Cardinal Arinze 90 (last to later be named a cardinal, last native African representative) Luigi Bettazzi 99 (last representative of a European diocese, though Verstraete is Belgian he administered an African diocese) Alphonsus Mathias 94 (India) José de Jesús Sahagún de la Parra 100 (last living bishop appointed by John XXIII, also last living South American representative) Daniel Alphonse Omer Verstraete 98 (was an apostolic administrator while at the council, named bishop later) Victorinus Youn Kong-hi 98 (South Korea)

This thread is for: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sly_Stone American musician of Sly and the Family Stone fame. Not Sylvester Stallone.

His death leaves seven Second Vatican council fathers.

Meh. Too old.

I think she’ll make it. Perhaps a poll is in order to preserve our opinions and avoid the inevitable amnesia?

Sen. Tim Johnson had a cerebral aneurysm in mid December 2006 and everyone thought he was going to die. As it is it took him nearly a year to recover. If that happened to any US senator this December you can bet they’d be on next year’s list.

She will almost certainly outdo the former king of Thailand but the real question is can she best Louis XIV?

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251102/pope-francis-the-doctor-has-told-me-not-to-walk As mentioned above - his mobility issues are severe, perhaps permanent. I suspect this is the true beginning of a steep decline.

Any way to fix these polls so that people can only vote once? Sir Creep voted for everyone. Rather takes the fun out of it doesn’t it?

No, he was not. He is having a lot of trouble moving, the video cites knee pain, which would result in weight gain from an increasingly sedentary lifestyle. I suspect he’ll go in his sleep relatively soon. He has already far exceeded his immediate family’s longevity.

If I could like this twice I would.

Though I tend to agree that’s what they meant, another reading could be: when renovations are completed she will be 101 and would be extremely unlikely to return in the event she’s still alive.