i have a question…
why is an ‘ex’ president still refered to as a president when they not longer are in office, i noticed it during the US election campaign that they still refered to the Don as president trump and assumed it was a typo, but then i saw it more than once, and just now have noticed someone reference ‘president Barak Obama’ in a press report?
As a peace-loving neutral sort, my time in an LFC pub on a Friday night would be limited to drinking pints and singing LFC songs.
Wasn’t always that way for me in pubs though. But that was a long time ago. However, as the late/great Toby Keith once sang:
“I ain’t as good as I once was, but I’m as good once as I ever was.”
It’s just the convention and goes beyond president - senators, judges, ambassadors - the convention is they retain their highest title even after leaving their office/position.
For a country that rejects monarchy they really don’t act like it in a lot of ways
I work in the legal world. It’s astounding how often I have been reprimanded for not addressing magistrates as “your honor” or “judge”…thinking “magistrate” would suffice. And yes, the missed titles are appropriate.
It’s more of a sticking issue for those enamored with the titles, than those who are not.
Like the guy who was up before the courts first thing Monday morning after a boozy, hell-raising Saturday night.
Magistrate says to him…. “Have you got anything to say for yourself young man…?”
The guy says… “No Your Honour, I was Drunk as a Judge”
Judge looks at the guy over his half-rimmed glasses and says… “It is Not Drunk as a Judge… it is Drunk as a Lord”…
Guy says… * Ah Yes… Sorry M’Lord*
Yeah, it can get confusing at times
Let’s hope they are beginning to wake up…
I fear they are the United of political parties. Playing a back 3 of pelosi schumer and clyburn with 2 wingbacks Hoyer and Connolly all worried about a leftward drift in formation.
It’s actually been a happy Christmas on Twitter. I rather enjoy this “war”.
https://x.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1872701656200249386
Free Speech crusader deliting angry MAGA people
context
There is not enough popcorn in the world. Elon needs Indian immigrants for his High tech industry, enraging MAGA, since Americans have been let off in their tech industry. Then someone says that the Right Right are quote: “retards” and the Tech Right needs brains and are unable to train “retard” into not being “retard”, and Musk fucking quotes that and now it’s all burning.
BWAHAHAHA-fucking haha !
Look at the delicious anger and responses here
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1872797210066436560
I am all here for it.
They’re eating the cats, they’re eating the dogs, they’re eating each other 
This is the part that resonates withe as a non American the most.
"From remains an unabashed centrist who believes that economic growth, not the economic populism of Sanders or Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is the answer. “It’s important the critical mass in the Democratic party show that it’s the party of opportunity, responsibility and community but not the party of the left,” he insists.
He also argues that the party should not be afraid to talk about law enforcement and developing a system of community policing rather than urging “defund the police”. Likewise it should embrace the idea of legal immigration and a border that is under control. From applauds governors who have made jobs available to people without college degrees.
“The Democratic base alone is not enough to win elections, he warns. The party needs to reach moderate voters in the suburbs who “love the compassion” of the Democrats but question whether they have the “toughness to govern” as well. From says the party should welcome them, not chase them away.
“Democrats need to start winning in places where they have not been winning. You do that by planting a flag and having a message and ideas and values that people want to support and then you grow your support and then, if you have good candidates and a good communication system, you can win."
Good grief. Who are you quoting here? And also, have you been following the discussion here analysing why and where Harris lost the election?
This is literally the core reason why Harris lost, because they followed this strategy. Her team focused wayy too much trying to woo “on the fence” republicans while neglecting to energise her own base, just assuming they would turn up to vote.
She lost both subset of voters. The Democrats simply didn’t turn up in enough numbers and many pre-Trump republicans would rather abstain than vote for Trump or democrats.
If they do this again in the next election cycle then then democrats might just cease to exist as a political force. For good!
Read the article Bekloppt posted. Its in the article. Good grief. And I don’t care who is leading that joke of a country. The fact a convicted criminal is going to lead a country is a joke. But I do read interesting articles from time to time and find certain parts that resonate. So keep the grief to yourself.
Are you not familiar with the expression? 
Oh yes, I am Asian so I am definitely bad in English expressions.
In a bit of a mood today mate, everything okay? Not sure how you interpreted my reply to be an attack on you. I was referring to the article you quoted
But the confusing thing is that everything the article suggests is exactly what the Democrats already did. They did reject “defund the police”, they spoke about the border constantly and had a stronger record than Trumps administration on reducing illegal entries, Sanders and AOC have been pushed to the outskirts of the party.
They did that and none of it mattered. They did it and they’re still being accused of the same things.
You can’t beat the right on issues where the right set the narrative, that’s the real issue. Spend your time campaigning about your strengths on the border and half the country hear “the border is a problem, even the Democrats are talking about it - only the Republicans can save us” and the other half hear the theoretically left-leaning “nicer” party acting like jackboot thugs to desperate people and think “fuck you guys I’m not voting for you”. (Its not literally half and half but you get what I’m saying).
My point exactly. At this point it’s a cult of personality. Trump could flip flop on the same issue in the same speech and they’d lap it up.
This isn’t even limited to just the US, it’s literally a problem across Europe too. Why vote for Diet far-right when you can get the full-fat far right? “Mainstream” politicians are mostly far too cowardly.
Trump can do an entire U turn on abortion / gun rights etc etc and his votebase would still vote for him.
If anything, had he flip flopped on those issues , he would probably get a larger voteshare.
