independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Mon 21st Jan 2019 2:50pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Book: How to get rid of a President: History's guide to...
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 3 of 3 <123
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #60 posted 01/02/19 3:28pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

EmmaMcG said:

djThunderfunk said:



EmmaMcG said:


"How To Get Rid of A President" by Lee Harvey Oswald.


You think that's funny?



Yes.


Like he isn’t the national disaster and walking impeachment lol
President Trump is a disgusting piece of shit.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #61 posted 01/02/19 3:36pm

onlyforaminute

IanRG said:

13cjk13 said:

God, I really wish there was a way to get rid of a piece of shit president, so devoid of class and so ignorant that he would tweet this this morning:

"'General' McChrystal got fired like a dog by Obama. Last assignment a total bust. Known for big, dumb mouth. Hillary lover!"

What an absolutely disgusting asshole.

.

This and the topic's book (which demonstrates the historical difficulties with replacing a dud elected "monarch") is why I favour an non-executive president with the political leader being the prime minister in a properly elected parliamentary democracy. If the prime minister is removed outside of a normal election, the parliamentary processes allow that person's replacement. It is so much harder if you are electing an indivdual executive president.



There's a chain of command which I think may be the problem. Mike Pence would automatically get the seat.

"The sole purpose of a child's middle name is so he can tell when he's really in trouble.

- Somebody
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #62 posted 01/02/19 4:13pm

IanRG

onlyforaminute said:

IanRG said:

.

This and the topic's book (which demonstrates the historical difficulties with replacing a dud elected "monarch") is why I favour an non-executive president with the political leader being the prime minister in a properly elected parliamentary democracy. If the prime minister is removed outside of a normal election, the parliamentary processes allow that person's replacement. It is so much harder if you are electing an indivdual executive president.



There's a chain of command which I think may be the problem. Mike Pence would automatically get the seat.

.

Exactly my point.

.

The "Presidential Line of Succession" is the equivalent of the "Line of Succession to the British Throne" - except the UK is Consitutional Monarchy so the Queen and her successors have much less power than the president and his.

.

In a Parliamentary Democracy, the leader (Prime Minister) is determined by the Parliament so if, that person is removed, retires etc., then the Parliament selects a new leader by majority support (by party with the approriate majority or by the formation of coalitions if there is no one party with a simple majority). You never get a leader from one party and both the houses controlled by the other party as so often can happen in the US or France. Indeed in France they have elected a president from one party whilst in the very same election given the parliamentary majority to another party!

.

The position of VP is weird. You elect arguably the most powerful person in the world, if not, only beaten by powers Putin and Xi Jinping have granted themselves. At the same time, you elect someone to sit quietly in public (like during Trump's recent demonstration that he is so very awful at the art of the deal), be the president's runner to rally the houses and just wait in case the president is removed. At least the next two in the line of succession are the speaker selected by the majority in the reps and then the President pro tem as the longest serving senator from the senate majority. So, it is not until both the president and vice president are removed do you actually get a guaranteed match between a parliamentary majority and the president.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #63 posted 01/02/19 4:22pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

IanRG said:

onlyforaminute said:



There's a chain of command which I think may be the problem. Mike Pence would automatically get the seat.

.

Exactly my point.

.

The "Presidential Line of Succession" is the equivalent of the "Line of Succession to the British Throne" - except the UK is Consitutional Monarchy so the Queen and her successors have much less power than the president and his.

.

In a Parliamentary Democracy, the leader (Prime Minister) is determined by the Parliament so if, that person is removed, retires etc., then the Parliament selects a new leader by majority support (by party with the approriate majority or by the formation of coalitions if there is no one party with a simple majority). You never get a leader from one party and both the houses controlled by the other party as so often can happen in the US or France. Indeed in France they have elected a president from one party whilst in the very same election given the parliamentary majority to another party!

.

The position of VP is weird. You elect arguably the most powerful person in the world, if not, only beaten by powers Putin and Xi Jinping have granted themselves. At the same time, you elect someone to sit quietly in public (like during Trump's recent demonstration that he is so very awful at the art of the deal), be the president's runner to rally the houses and just wait in case the president is removed. At least the next two in the line of succession are the speaker selected by the majority in the reps and then the President pro tem as the longest serving senator from the senate majority. So, it is not until both the president and vice president are removed do you actually get a guaranteed match between a parliamentary majority and the president.


The ultimate irony would be if Pence were also indicted of something alongside the orange one - then Nancy Pelosi would be Prez lol

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #64 posted 01/02/19 5:07pm

onlyforaminute

IanRG said:

onlyforaminute said:



There's a chain of command which I think may be the problem. Mike Pence would automatically get the seat.

.

Exactly my point.

.

The "Presidential Line of Succession" is the equivalent of the "Line of Succession to the British Throne" - except the UK is Consitutional Monarchy so the Queen and her successors have much less power than the president and his.

.

In a Parliamentary Democracy, the leader (Prime Minister) is determined by the Parliament so if, that person is removed, retires etc., then the Parliament selects a new leader by majority support (by party with the approriate majority or by the formation of coalitions if there is no one party with a simple majority). You never get a leader from one party and both the houses controlled by the other party as so often can happen in the US or France. Indeed in France they have elected a president from one party whilst in the very same election given the parliamentary majority to another party!

.

The position of VP is weird. You elect arguably the most powerful person in the world, if not, only beaten by powers Putin and Xi Jinping have granted themselves. At the same time, you elect someone to sit quietly in public (like during Trump's recent demonstration that he is so very awful at the art of the deal), be the president's runner to rally the houses and just wait in case the president is removed. At least the next two in the line of succession are the speaker selected by the majority in the reps and then the President pro tem as the longest serving senator from the senate majority. So, it is not until both the president and vice president are removed do you actually get a guaranteed match between a parliamentary majority and the president.



There shouldn't have only been 2 dominate parties in power. Maybe a variety wouldn't lend itself to this whole, right wrong mentality. If they are on that side they are wrong since I'm on this side and I'm right. A buffet, a little of this, a little of that, a pinch of something else...

"The sole purpose of a child's middle name is so he can tell when he's really in trouble.

- Somebody
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #65 posted 01/03/19 2:55am

IanRG

onlyforaminute said:

IanRG said:

.

Exactly my point.

.

The "Presidential Line of Succession" is the equivalent of the "Line of Succession to the British Throne" - except the UK is Consitutional Monarchy so the Queen and her successors have much less power than the president and his.

.

In a Parliamentary Democracy, the leader (Prime Minister) is determined by the Parliament so if, that person is removed, retires etc., then the Parliament selects a new leader by majority support (by party with the approriate majority or by the formation of coalitions if there is no one party with a simple majority). You never get a leader from one party and both the houses controlled by the other party as so often can happen in the US or France. Indeed in France they have elected a president from one party whilst in the very same election given the parliamentary majority to another party!

.

The position of VP is weird. You elect arguably the most powerful person in the world, if not, only beaten by powers Putin and Xi Jinping have granted themselves. At the same time, you elect someone to sit quietly in public (like during Trump's recent demonstration that he is so very awful at the art of the deal), be the president's runner to rally the houses and just wait in case the president is removed. At least the next two in the line of succession are the speaker selected by the majority in the reps and then the President pro tem as the longest serving senator from the senate majority. So, it is not until both the president and vice president are removed do you actually get a guaranteed match between a parliamentary majority and the president.



There shouldn't have only been 2 dominate parties in power. Maybe a variety wouldn't lend itself to this whole, right wrong mentality. If they are on that side they are wrong since I'm on this side and I'm right. A buffet, a little of this, a little of that, a pinch of something else...

.

This article discusses the evolutiuon of US monarchial presidential line of succession. It raises an interesting question - as the speaker is currently second in line, do they have a conflict of interest, especially if they can roll the VP at the same time as the president? It can all get very "The Lion in Winter".

.

You wont get more than 2 dominant parties unless you get a preferential voting system for the houses and a run-off election process if no presidential candidate gets more than 50% of the votes. The US system largely enshrines a two party system. The "my side can do (virtually) no wrong and "your side no right" continues unabated.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #66 posted 01/03/19 10:20am

onlyforaminute

IanRG said:

onlyforaminute said:



There shouldn't have only been 2 dominate parties in power. Maybe a variety wouldn't lend itself to this whole, right wrong mentality. If they are on that side they are wrong since I'm on this side and I'm right. A buffet, a little of this, a little of that, a pinch of something else...

.

This article discusses the evolutiuon of US monarchial presidential line of succession. It raises an interesting question - as the speaker is currently second in line, do they have a conflict of interest, especially if they can roll the VP at the same time as the president? It can all get very "The Lion in Winter".

.

You wont get more than 2 dominant parties unless you get a preferential voting system for the houses and a run-off election process if no presidential candidate gets more than 50% of the votes. The US system largely enshrines a two party system. The "my side can do (virtually) no wrong and "your side no right" continues unabated.



https://www.cnn.com/2013/...index.html

I think this has better information on lines of succession. Yours seemed to leave out convenient info such as the fact that Bush was acting president after Reagan was shot.

"The sole purpose of a child's middle name is so he can tell when he's really in trouble.

- Somebody
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #67 posted 01/03/19 1:11pm

IanRG

onlyforaminute said:

IanRG said:

.

This article discusses the evolutiuon of US monarchial presidential line of succession. It raises an interesting question - as the speaker is currently second in line, do they have a conflict of interest, especially if they can roll the VP at the same time as the president? It can all get very "The Lion in Winter".

.

You wont get more than 2 dominant parties unless you get a preferential voting system for the houses and a run-off election process if no presidential candidate gets more than 50% of the votes. The US system largely enshrines a two party system. The "my side can do (virtually) no wrong and "your side no right" continues unabated.



https://www.cnn.com/2013/...index.html

I think this has better information on lines of succession. Yours seemed to leave out convenient info such as the fact that Bush was acting president after Reagan was shot.

.

Now that makes an interesting additional problem I had not considered - The VP line of succession can mean the replacement president can come from a different party than their VP if the senate majority is with the other side. Then, rather than being the president's runner to chase up votes for executive orders (the equivalent of royal pronoucements), the replacement VP can be the first blocker.

.

The mostly unimportant position of VP was demosntrated by two events: Whilst Bush was actually acting president for 8 hours, Alexander Haig was being machiavellian by going round saying he was the person in control at that time.

.

The other event is one you would not know - On a tour of the blue room in the Korean DMZ by Australians during G.H. Bush's presidency, a Marine spoke about Dan Quayle's visit to the DMZ in 1989 and made the point that it was not considered safe for the president to visit here, but OK for VP Quayle to be here and ended with the quip "you draw your own conclusions".

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #68 posted 01/03/19 2:50pm

onlyforaminute

IanRG said:

onlyforaminute said:



https://www.cnn.com/2013/...index.html

I think this has better information on lines of succession. Yours seemed to leave out convenient info such as the fact that Bush was acting president after Reagan was shot.

.

Now that makes an interesting additional problem I had not considered - The VP line of succession can mean the replacement president can come from a different party than their VP if the senate majority is with the other side. Then, rather than being the president's runner to chase up votes for executive orders (the equivalent of royal pronoucements), the replacement VP can be the first blocker.

.

The mostly unimportant position of VP was demosntrated by two events: Whilst Bush was actually acting president for 8 hours, Alexander Haig was being machiavellian by going round saying he was the person in control at that time.

.

The other event is one you would not know - On a tour of the blue room in the Korean DMZ by Australians during G.H. Bush's presidency, a Marine spoke about Dan Quayle's visit to the DMZ in 1989 and made the point that it was not considered safe for the president to visit here, but OK for VP Quayle to be here and ended with the quip "you draw your own conclusions".



How does that translate automatically to the VP being from another party if the sitting president is the one nominating (if different that running mate) the VP? Sure the Congress has to vote just like they do for Supreme Court justices. Most president nominated Supreme Court justices get in and most are the same party as the sitting president. You're making mountains out of mole hills based on what somebody said as if people can't say all kinds of things, has nothing to do with what is.

"The sole purpose of a child's middle name is so he can tell when he's really in trouble.

- Somebody
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #69 posted 01/03/19 3:12pm

IanRG

onlyforaminute said:

IanRG said:

.

Now that makes an interesting additional problem I had not considered - The VP line of succession can mean the replacement president can come from a different party than their VP if the senate majority is with the other side. Then, rather than being the president's runner to chase up votes for executive orders (the equivalent of royal pronoucements), the replacement VP can be the first blocker.

.

The mostly unimportant position of VP was demosntrated by two events: Whilst Bush was actually acting president for 8 hours, Alexander Haig was being machiavellian by going round saying he was the person in control at that time.

.

The other event is one you would not know - On a tour of the blue room in the Korean DMZ by Australians during G.H. Bush's presidency, a Marine spoke about Dan Quayle's visit to the DMZ in 1989 and made the point that it was not considered safe for the president to visit here, but OK for VP Quayle to be here and ended with the quip "you draw your own conclusions".



How does that translate automatically to the VP being from another party if the sitting president is the one nominating (if different that running mate) the VP? Sure the Congress has to vote just like they do for Supreme Court justices. Most president nominated Supreme Court justices get in and most are the same party as the sitting president. You're making mountains out of mole hills based on what somebody said as if people can't say all kinds of things, has nothing to do with what is.

.

No, you are missing my point.

.

Sure, the initial VP is selected as a running mate by the presidential hopeful.

.

But we, on your lead, are talking about when GH Bush was briefly acting president. GH Bush did not select a VP for those 8 hours. If Reagan died then GH Bush would have been president and his VP would have been the Speaker of reps. If that Speaker was a Democrat, then Bush would have a VP from the other side. Fortunately Reagan did not die and, instead, Bush was able to select Quayle as his running mate in a normal election, much to the pleasure of comedians world wide.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #70 posted 01/03/19 3:33pm

onlyforaminute

IanRG said:



onlyforaminute said:




IanRG said:



.


Now that makes an interesting additional problem I had not considered - The VP line of succession can mean the replacement president can come from a different party than their VP if the senate majority is with the other side. Then, rather than being the president's runner to chase up votes for executive orders (the equivalent of royal pronoucements), the replacement VP can be the first blocker.


.


The mostly unimportant position of VP was demosntrated by two events: Whilst Bush was actually acting president for 8 hours, Alexander Haig was being machiavellian by going round saying he was the person in control at that time.


.


The other event is one you would not know - On a tour of the blue room in the Korean DMZ by Australians during G.H. Bush's presidency, a Marine spoke about Dan Quayle's visit to the DMZ in 1989 and made the point that it was not considered safe for the president to visit here, but OK for VP Quayle to be here and ended with the quip "you draw your own conclusions".





How does that translate automatically to the VP being from another party if the sitting president is the one nominating (if different that running mate) the VP? Sure the Congress has to vote just like they do for Supreme Court justices. Most president nominated Supreme Court justices get in and most are the same party as the sitting president. You're making mountains out of mole hills based on what somebody said as if people can't say all kinds of things, has nothing to do with what is.



.


No, you are missing my point.


.


Sure, the initial VP is selected as a running mate by the presidential hopeful.


.


But we, on your lead, are talking about when GH Bush was briefly acting president. GH Bush did not select a VP for those 8 hours. If Reagan died then GH Bush would have been president and his VP would have been the Speaker of reps. If that Speaker was a Democrat, then Bush would have a VP from the other side. Fortunately Reagan did not die and, instead, Bush was able to select Quayle as his running mate in a normal election, much to the pleasure of comedians world wide.




Um.

1974 - After Richard Nixon resigns and Ford assumes the presidency, Ford nominates Nelson Rockefeller to be vice president.

If Bush had of become Pres. then he would have nominated someone else for VP.
"The sole purpose of a child's middle name is so he can tell when he's really in trouble.

- Somebody
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #71 posted 01/03/19 3:46pm

IanRG

onlyforaminute said:

IanRG said:

.

No, you are missing my point.

.

Sure, the initial VP is selected as a running mate by the presidential hopeful.

.

But we, on your lead, are talking about when GH Bush was briefly acting president. GH Bush did not select a VP for those 8 hours. If Reagan died then GH Bush would have been president and his VP would have been the Speaker of reps. If that Speaker was a Democrat, then Bush would have a VP from the other side. Fortunately Reagan did not die and, instead, Bush was able to select Quayle as his running mate in a normal election, much to the pleasure of comedians world wide.

Um. 1974 - After Richard Nixon resigns and Ford assumes the presidency, Ford nominates Nelson Rockefeller to be vice president. If Bush had of become Pres. then he would have nominated someone else for VP.

.

Ok - I see your point. The VP line of succession applies slightly differently by allowing the abnormally elevated president to select a VP without an election.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #72 posted 01/03/19 3:54pm

onlyforaminute

IanRG said:



onlyforaminute said:


IanRG said:


.


No, you are missing my point.


.


Sure, the initial VP is selected as a running mate by the presidential hopeful.


.


But we, on your lead, are talking about when GH Bush was briefly acting president. GH Bush did not select a VP for those 8 hours. If Reagan died then GH Bush would have been president and his VP would have been the Speaker of reps. If that Speaker was a Democrat, then Bush would have a VP from the other side. Fortunately Reagan did not die and, instead, Bush was able to select Quayle as his running mate in a normal election, much to the pleasure of comedians world wide.



Um. 1974 - After Richard Nixon resigns and Ford assumes the presidency, Ford nominates Nelson Rockefeller to be vice president. If Bush had of become Pres. then he would have nominated someone else for VP.

.


Ok - I see your point. The VP line of succession applies slightly differently by allowing the abnormally elevated president to select a VP without an election.


No the new appointed president does not select a new vp, they nominate just like they would a scotus candidate, then congress gives its yays and nays.
"The sole purpose of a child's middle name is so he can tell when he's really in trouble.

- Somebody
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #73 posted 01/03/19 5:22pm

IanRG

onlyforaminute said:

IanRG said:

.

Ok - I see your point. The VP line of succession applies slightly differently by allowing the abnormally elevated president to select a VP without an election.

No the new appointed president does not select a new vp, they nominate just like they would a scotus candidate, then congress gives its yays and nays.

.

That is just the process of selection - the nomination is the way the appointed president selects their VP. As a vetted selection process this requires approval.

.

It highlights a different potential failing than the one I mistakenly envisaged: If no one is successfully appointed as VP, because the houses are controlled by the other party, and the appointed president then fails to make it to the next election, then, with no VP, the presidency goes straight to the Speaker from the other party.

.

Is there precedent for a party delaying vetting a presidential nominee? Absolutely, the Republicans refused to allow Obama to select a scotus candidate by rejecting any consideration of any nomination. This was done to seek to change the balance of the courts to favour them if they won the 2016 election - I am not talking about molehills - just the prospect of machiavellian powerplays based on circumstances.

[Edited 1/3/19 17:23pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #74 posted 01/03/19 5:55pm

onlyforaminute

IanRG said:

onlyforaminute said:

IanRG said: No the new appointed president does not select a new vp, they nominate just like they would a scotus candidate, then congress gives its yays and nays.

.

That is just the process of selection - the nomination is the way the appointed president selects their VP. As a vetted selection process this requires approval.

.

It highlights a different potential failing than the one I mistakenly envisaged: If no one is successfully appointed as VP, because the houses are controlled by the other party, and the appointed president then fails to make it to the next election, then, with no VP, the presidency goes straight to the Speaker from the other party.

.

Is there precedent for a party delaying vetting a presidential nominee? Absolutely, the Republicans refused to allow Obama to select a scotus candidate by rejecting any consideration of any nomination. This was done to seek to change the balance of the courts to favour them if they won the 2016 election - I am not talking about molehills - just the prospect of machiavellian powerplays based on circumstances.

[Edited 1/3/19 17:23pm]



I'm just being careful where I'm stepping, the concept of the president simply "selecting" someone lends itself to a messy can of worms I don't want to bother with.


I mean, one can make a whole lot of hypothetical situations where it all just crumbles. Heck, this system was assumed to last about 20 years and then start falling apart as times and generations change and yet here we are, hanging on and battling it out. There is no ideal system set in stone, they all have flaws. Now I keep using the scotus candidates as an example because they are the closest in this country's history that fall in those situations to where we can see how the process works. The Republicans are well verse on using the system to snatch as much power as possible when it's in their favor, Democrats for some reason seem to keep dropping the ball in that area, I guess maybe because it's became the "catch all" for every single ideaology that doesn't fit into the Republican party, which has been pretty rigid, only pockets of people are on the same page.

"The sole purpose of a child's middle name is so he can tell when he's really in trouble.

- Somebody
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #75 posted 01/03/19 9:23pm

IanRG

onlyforaminute said:

IanRG said:

.

That is just the process of selection - the nomination is the way the appointed president selects their VP. As a vetted selection process this requires approval.

.

It highlights a different potential failing than the one I mistakenly envisaged: If no one is successfully appointed as VP, because the houses are controlled by the other party, and the appointed president then fails to make it to the next election, then, with no VP, the presidency goes straight to the Speaker from the other party.

.

Is there precedent for a party delaying vetting a presidential nominee? Absolutely, the Republicans refused to allow Obama to select a scotus candidate by rejecting any consideration of any nomination. This was done to seek to change the balance of the courts to favour them if they won the 2016 election - I am not talking about molehills - just the prospect of machiavellian powerplays based on circumstances.

[Edited 1/3/19 17:23pm]



I'm just being careful where I'm stepping, the concept of the president simply "selecting" someone lends itself to a messy can of worms I don't want to bother with.


I mean, one can make a whole lot of hypothetical situations where it all just crumbles. Heck, this system was assumed to last about 20 years and then start falling apart as times and generations change and yet here we are, hanging on and battling it out. There is no ideal system set in stone, they all have flaws. Now I keep using the scotus candidates as an example because they are the closest in this country's history that fall in those situations to where we can see how the process works. The Republicans are well verse on using the system to snatch as much power as possible when it's in their favor, Democrats for some reason seem to keep dropping the ball in that area, I guess maybe because it's became the "catch all" for every single ideaology that doesn't fit into the Republican party, which has been pretty rigid, only pockets of people are on the same page.

.

The difference between me saying "select" whilst we both know it is a vettered selection process involving the president and the houses is a semantic difference.

.

Does the system work? I mean other than for the Reps/Dems. A good measure of whether a democracy with voluntary voting is working is whether the disaffected in a society think that if they get out and vote then this can change. Voting rates in the US are poor and especially among the more disaffected. The Reps/Dems know they only need to appease those who bother to vote and they only need to be a bit better than the other one.

.

I agree that there is no perfect system but the only way to make improvements is to seek to identify the failings and encourage proper correction.

.

It is so much better talking to you than to engage with the endless my side fantastic and your side is evil and you are so bad because you don't agree with me arguments so common here lately

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #76 posted 01/07/19 1:07pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

1. Trump has accepted money from foreign governments, used the presidency to promote his businesses and hidden his personal finances from the American people.

2. Trump directed a criminal campaign-finance violation scheme, in the final month of the presidential campaign, and lied to the American people about it.

3. Trump pressured Justice Department officials to go easy on an investigation into the president himself and his campaign.

4. Trump attempted to undermine the credibility of multiple checks and balances on the executive branch, including the justice system, the press, the electoral system and the Central Intelligence Agency.





"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 3 of 3 <123
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Book: How to get rid of a President: History's guide to...