Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We tend not to have the same problem over here AFAIK, Politicians who have lost their job/ moved office tend to be identified by their current title (and then maybe have an 'ex-blahblah' to denoted where they used to be).

However, yes it is very confusing/annnoying when people are called by their former title...

Testify wrote:But in the UK it's "ex-Prime Minister Blair", or just "that witch".

No its not. Tony Blair, as the example, is called 'Tony Blair'...

d-usa wrote:No, that is the sport where thousands of adult men project their hopes and dreams on teenagers that carry around a leather egg and then use that game to make fun of the other state while pretending that they had anything to do with the actual victory. The loosing state also screams for the head of the coach on a platter.

(apologies, personal gripe ahead....) The word is losing. not loosing...

Melissia wrote:Of course, when one realizes that most of the power in the government is in the legislature, you also tend to realize that the whining about overactive judiciary and executive branches is probably just because the legislature is both so lazy and so self-conflicting that it can't get anything done anyway, leaving the other two branches to get things done.

Explodinghead.gif

I... uh... what?

Snrub wrote:

Melissia wrote:Of course, when one realizes that most of the power in the government is in the legislature, you also tend to realize that the whining about overactive judiciary and executive branches is probably just because the legislature is both so lazy and so self-conflicting that it can't get anything done anyway, leaving the other two branches to get things done.

Explodinghead.gif

I... uh... what?

Here in the US, we have a lot of whining about "activist judges" (IE, judges who use the judiciary's power to determine if a law is constitutional or not). Never mind that the Judiciary has had such power essentially from the start, and it's essentially just a check on the massive power of the legislature (which, without this ability from the judiciary, could effectively pass whatever the hell laws it wants, because congress is able to override a presidential veto, the only other check on its power to make laws-- so if an unconstitutional law was passed, the only real recourse that we'd have is to hope that the executive branch decided simply not to enforce it).

Snrub wrote:Keeping the title of "Mr Pres" for life almost seems like some childish last ditch attempt at holding onto some semblance of power even though their reign of power/terror is over.

Or a mark of respect for someone who was elected to a high office.

I don't have a problem with people keeping titles like military ranks, academic offices, doctorates, ambassadorships, judgeships and elected offices because they're earned titles. No one is born to them. I've seen what it took for friends and family to get their PhDs and I can say anyone who went through that earned the respect of being called doctor.

How would you personally address a former President? I could see myself saying "Nice to meet you Mr. President the first time I address him, then Mr. Bush after that."

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Or a mark of respect for someone who was elected to a high office.

I don't have a problem with people keeping titles like military ranks, academic offices, doctorates, ambassadorships, judgeships and elected offices because they're earned titles. No one is born to them. I've seen what it took for friends and family to get their PhDs and I can say anyone who went through that earned the respect of being called doctor.

I have immense respect for anyone who has the nous to run a country. I just find it a bit strange that former Presidents get to keep the title of "President" rather then "Former President" or some such. Its not like you would be doing them any great diservice by adding the word former to their title.

d-usa wrote:How would you personally address a former President? I could see myself saying "Nice to meet you Mr. President the first time I address him, then Mr. Bush after that."

While i would be tempted to waive the whole formal title and jump straight to calling him "Georgy boy" i imagine he would still have armed bodyguards that might just take offence to that sort of insolence. So i would go with with "Mr Bush" most likely.

Melissia wrote:Here in the US, we have a lot of whining about "activist judges" (IE, judges who use the judiciary's power to determine if a law is constitutional or not). Never mind that the Judiciary has had such power essentially from the start, and it's essentially just a check on the massive power of the legislature (which, without this ability from the judiciary, could effectively pass whatever the hell laws it wants, because congress is able to override a presidential veto, the only other check on its power to make laws-- so if an unconstitutional law was passed, the only real recourse that we'd have is to hope that the executive branch decided simply not to enforce it).

Ok so let me see if i understand...
The legislature passes an unconsitutional law that the president doesn't like so he vetoes it.
But congress doesn't like the veto, so they overturn it.
Which leaves the "activist judges" (which im taking to mean that they are the judges who are actually worth a damn) in the position of actually deciding whether to enforce the law in their sphere of power.

Am i close?

Snrub wrote:While i would be tempted to waive the whole formal title and jump straight to calling him "Georgy boy" i imagine he would still have armed bodyguards that might just take offence to that sort of insolence. So i would go with with "Mr Bush" most likely.

He's got those armed guards for the ten years after his presidency, then he loses Secret Service protection. So then I imagine you can call him whatever you want, if you figure you can personally take him in a fight.

Or unless he has private protection... or they adjust the SS protection in the wake of the increased terrorism thing.