This is the Friends of History Debating Society. I'm John Batcher, also known as Gaius and Michael

Leus is here, Germanicus. We're in Londinium. We're banishing words here because they've lost meaning. One of those words is demise. We are going to deal with the facts as we see it in the 21st century in this

contest for emperor of the American Empire.

Germanicus, I summarize the week of the two candidates.

No surprises, listless, repetitive, and without originality anywhere. I also mention a

witticism from the very sharp writer Peggy Newan for the Wall Street Journal.

She entertains me every Friday.

She puts it in a pop fashion.

It's empty versus awful.

That's the choice given to the American people. I mention that because

the American people are being asked to make a choice, almost like putting a white ball or a black ball into a box between two candidates who

represent very little that I can summarize.

There's very little to say. And that's an odd way to go about choosing

an emperor, or is it? Have we done this before? Does it come out okay?

Every empire must have an emperor and every emperor must upon his passing or as the Romans would say

as ascension at which point he might be if he was well thought of be declared a god.

But all emperors have to find a successor or a successor has to be found to replace them.

And thus, the act of succession,

as we have discussed here, becomes an issue.

And the Romans had had three ways to decide succession.

One, if an emperor was weak or screwed up and the Senate, meaning the big men surrounding the imperial system,

would get together and overthrow him or perhaps a faction would get together perhaps led by a general perhaps perhaps by a senator, and you would have the emperor essentially assassinated.

...