Prime Ministers who were from the House of Lords (the last of whom was Salisbury all the way back in 1902) were referred to as Prime Ministers. And the last time a Lord had the chance to be PM, he resigned his peerage because it wouldn't be seen as right for a sitting Lord to be PM.
Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes
- Thread starter Teshuvah
- Start date
- Status
Prime Ministers who were from the House of Lords (the last of whom was Salisbury all the way back in 1902) were referred to as Prime Ministers. And the last time a Lord had the chance to be PM, he resigned his peerage because it wouldn't be seen as right for a sitting Lord to be PM.
But then every single president should have a "military service" section on their infoboxes.
I realize this is from nearly 10 days ago, but how can al-Qaeda be in Iran? Al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization, and Sunnis really terribly hate Shias. Even in "hard times", most of them would rather fight the Shias than team up with them.
I'd assume that Al-Qaeda would probably have a very minor presence in Iran post-invasion, even among Sunni groups. However, the fact that they're Al-Qaeda and do a pretty good job of broadcasting themselves means that their influence is greater than it really should be, with regards to Iran.
Well, I'm surprised the Republicans got second place, since they should be splitting off Whig votes. I'm also not sure why the Southern Democrats nominated a (understandably sympathetic) Northerner, but I'm sure the timeline helps with some of the details.
Especially given all the changes in relation to the Texii and Cuba.
Here's something I made with the idea of an Eisenhower courted, and succumbing to both parties in 1952:
Unless the Communists and others all nominated Ike as well, there would still be minor parties, which would probably do better than usual with one candidate running on both major party tickets. They wouldn't necessarily win any states, but the popular vote percentage wouldn't be 100 for Ike either.
I hope that at least one elector would throw away his vote on someone, anyone, else, rather than have a President win unanimously! That hasn't happened since Washington; if it happens, I'll call for his immediate impeachment on the grounds that it's too dangerous to have in office someone who could so easily become a dictator.
(Yes, I know there're other checks and balances. But still, I think this's an important symbolic one.)
wolf_brother
Banned
Texas and Cuba have been covered in previous updates to the timeline (which you can find in my sig
).As for the Republicans, they're current riding on a wave of liberal-radical reformist feeling that's festering in the US, who didn't get in on the 1848 Revolutions, based largely on the example of the liberal and radical states and parties in Europe (which are doing quite well for themselves). The Democrats essentially self-implode over slavery, and the Whigs are able to come back from the near-death by finding a moderate niche between the two that is appealing to the majority of Americans.
I hope that at least one elector would throw away his vote on someone, anyone, else, rather than have a President win unanimously! That hasn't happened since Washington; if it happens, I'll call for his immediate impeachment on the grounds that it's too dangerous to have in office someone who could so easily become a dictator.
(Yes, I know there're other checks and balances. But still, I think this's an important symbolic one.)
Well, I was going for a "Ike is nominated by Democrats and Republicans" vibe. Presumably, he'd be running with two different Vice Presidents, and Marshall, the Democratic VP won out in the end.
- Status