Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Sealobo · Mar 7, 2003, 06:06 AM

U.S. Presidents elected in the year of XXX0

1840 :: William Henry (died in presidency)
1860 :: Abraham Lincoln (assassinated)
1880 :: James A. Garfield (assassinated)
1900 :: William McKinley (assassinated)
1920 :: Warren G. Harding (died in presidency)
1940 :: Franklin D. Roosevelt (died in presidency)
1960 :: John F. Kennedy (assassinated)
1980 :: Ronald Reagan (survived an assassination)
2000 :: George W. Bush (?)

snotnose · Mar 7, 2003, 06:11 AM

this could be bin ladens plan all along... to let history kill the white satan for him

MindFad · Mar 7, 2003, 06:28 AM

1840 :: William Henry (died in presidency)
1860 :: Abraham Lincoln (assassinated)
1880 :: James A. Garfield (assassinated)
1900 :: William McKinley (assassinated)
1920 :: Warren G. Harding (died in presidency)
1940 :: Franklin D. Roosevelt (died in presidency)
1960 :: John F. Kennedy (assassinated)
1980 :: Ronald Reagan (survived an assassination)
2000 :: George W. Bush (died looking up the word "assassination")

juanvaldes · Mar 7, 2003, 06:52 AM

MPC · Mar 7, 2003, 06:57 AM

golden....

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 7, 2003, 06:59 AM

According to History, the Democratic Party should have gained seats in Congress in the midterm elections last year.

OptimusG4 · Mar 7, 2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by sealobo:

2000 :: George W. Bush (?)

Let us pray.

Timo · Mar 7, 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by sealobo:
U.S. Presidents elected in the year of XXX0

2000 :: George W. Bush (?)

But was he really elected?

::ducks::

roger_ramjet · Mar 7, 2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Timo:
But was he really elected?

Yes.

Nicko · Mar 7, 2003, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Yes.

Awww you only say that because you like him.

macvillage.net · Mar 7, 2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Yes.

Technically he wasn't "Overwhelming elected by the people" as his speachwriter says:

Little more than 3/4 eledgeable to vote are registered to vote.

Little more than half of those registered actually vote.

Pretty damn close to half of those actually voted.

That's a pretty small group of people.

Timo · Mar 7, 2003, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Yes.

Man, that wiley ramjet's watchin' my every move.

OldManMac · Mar 7, 2003, 09:52 AM

1840 :: William Henry (died in presidency)
1860 :: Abraham Lincoln (assassinated)
1880 :: James A. Garfield (assassinated)
1900 :: William McKinley (assassinated)
1920 :: Warren G. Harding (died in presidency)
1940 :: Franklin D. Roosevelt (died in presidency)
1960 :: John F. Kennedy (assassinated)
1980 :: Ronald Reagan (survived an assassination)
2000 :: George W. Bush (died trying to say the word "assassination")

nonhuman · Mar 7, 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Timo:
But was he really elected?

::ducks::

No, he wasn't. Even if he did have the majority of votes and did really win the election, he still wasn't elected. The decision was not made though the election but by the Supreme Court.

Timo · Mar 7, 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by nonhuman:
No, he wasn't. Even if he did have the majority of votes and did really win the election, he still wasn't elected. The decision was not made though the election but by the Supreme Court.

Phew! Now he won't die!

climber · Mar 7, 2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by nonhuman:
No, he wasn't. Even if he did have the majority of votes and did really win the election, he still wasn't elected. The decision was not made though the election but by the Supreme Court.

and let's see, who was it that took the issue to the courts in the first place?

That would be the Democrats and Clinton if your memory is failing.

Logic · Mar 7, 2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by climber:
and let's see, who was it that took the issue to the courts in the first place?

That would be the Democrats and Clinton if your memory is failing.

So? What's your point?

davesimondotcom · Mar 7, 2003, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by nonhuman:
No, he wasn't. Even if he did have the majority of votes and did really win the election, he still wasn't elected. The decision was not made though the election but by the Supreme Court.

That's simply not true. The Supreme Court ruled on whether the idiotic "recounts"(read: guessing games) could continue in three specially selected counties within Florida.

Gore & Co. messed up BIG TIME when they selected just three counties instead of asking for recounts in EVERY county... but that's another story.

The Supreme Court did not elect the President. The Electoral College did.

davesimondotcom · Mar 7, 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
So? What's your point?

His point is simple. Democrats in America love to defer everything to courts, so much so that they can't stand the thought of a non-liberal being appointed to the courts (see the Estrada nomination.)

So, their love of the courts is unconditional when it comes to ACLU cases regarding everything from abortion to affirmative action. But the one time their love of taking everything to court bites them in the ass, they can't seem to let it die.

spacefreak · Mar 7, 2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Technically he wasn't "Overwhelming elected by the people" as his speachwriter says:

Little more than 3/4 eledgeable to vote are registered to vote. Little more than half of those registered actually vote. Pretty damn close to half of those actually voted. That's a pretty small group of people.

The fact is that the US public knows that in order to have one's vote counted, one must actually vote.

Cipher13 · Mar 7, 2003, 11:05 AM

Serious danger? I hope so. Well, maybe not.

I'd never wish death upon anybody (well, most people), and I'm not doing that here either... but the bright side is stunningly beautiful.

davesimondotcom · Mar 7, 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
I'd never wish death upon anybody (well, most people), and I'm not doing that here either... but the bright side is stunningly beautiful.

Big fan of Dick Cheney, eh?

Spliffdaddy · Mar 7, 2003, 11:12 AM

Dubya is gonna take a few folks with him before he goes.

bewebste · Mar 7, 2003, 11:23 AM

U.S. Presidents elected in the year of XXX0

1840 :: William Henry (died in presidency)
1860 :: Abraham Lincoln (assassinated)
1880 :: James A. Garfield (assassinated)
1900 :: William McKinley (assassinated)
1920 :: Warren G. Harding (died in presidency)
1940 :: Franklin D. Roosevelt (died in presidency)
1960 :: John F. Kennedy (assassinated)
1980 :: Ronald Reagan (survived an assassination)
2000 :: George W. Bush (died after successfully saying the word "assassimination" and choking on a pretzel)

BRussell · Mar 7, 2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by climber:
and let's see, who was it that took the issue to the courts in the first place?

That would be the Democrats and Clinton if your memory is failing.

Huh? Bush took Gore to court to stop the vote counting, not the other way around. And I'm not sure what Clinton has to do with any of it.

driven · Mar 7, 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
His point is simple. Democrats in America love to defer everything to courts, so much so that they can't stand the thought of a non-liberal being appointed to the courts (see the Estrada nomination.)

So, their love of the courts is unconditional when it comes to ACLU cases regarding everything from abortion to affirmative action. But the one time their love of taking everything to court bites them in the ass, they can't seem to let it die.

They also claim to be for afirmative action, yet when a minority of Estrada's stature gets nominated they fillibuster him. Nice. "We are for afirmitive action. We stand up for the miniority! (So long as the minority doesn't seek a big office that is.)"

SeSawaya · Mar 7, 2003, 11:40 AM

<Ralph Wigum> "When i grow up, I'm going to Electoral College" </Ralph>

eh, it sounded funnier in my head.

driven · Mar 7, 2003, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by BRussell:
Huh? Bush took Gore to court to stop the vote counting, not the other way around. And I'm not sure what Clinton has to do with any of it.

Wow. History revisionism.

The Secretary of State of Florida declared the final (original) count "certified" by the deadline in accordinance with state law. It was the dems that went to court to over-ride the Flordia state law.

FWIW: In all but one of the many recounts that took place after the election Bush still won, and thus won the Florida electoral votes, and thus won the presidency.

Clinton won his first term with 43(?)% of the popular vote. Bush and Perot split the remainder. This of course means that 57% of the country voted for some form of a conservative candidate (Perot/Bush) yet the country ended up with a liberal president. Nobody I knew of at the time complained about Clinton not being popularly elected. (He WAS according to our election mechanisms.) I don't recall anyone claiming that Clinton didn't have enough of a mandate to hold office. (He DID, according to our election mechanisms.)

The Kennedy / Nixon election was also extremely close. Nixon didn't challenge the counts. (And arguably he had the basis to do so. He didn't feel that it would serve him or his country very well, and Gore proved what Nixon assumed to be true.)

The ongoing debates on this past election do not help. (Unless you are in charge of replacing the "chad" ballots with something better!) It would be far more productive to:
1) Get behind the president we have and his initiatives.
-or-
2) Get involved in an opposition party in some way/shape/form and try to get someone else elected in the next election.

andi*pandi · Mar 7, 2003, 12:02 PM

what would really settle the matter completely is if Al Gore is hit by a bus in the next 2 years, that would truly mean he was elected in 2000.... right? Laws of coincidence apply.

nonhuman · Mar 7, 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by SeSawaya:
<Ralph Wigum> "When i grow up, I'm going to Electoral College" </Ralph>

eh, it sounded funnier in my head.

That's cause he says 'Electrical College'.

Kitschy · Mar 7, 2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by OptimusG4:
Let us pray.

Careful. This is a public forum. Separation of Church and State!

And we don't want to *ahem* offend...anyone.

BRussell · Mar 7, 2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by driven:
Wow. History revisionism.

The Secretary of State of Florida declared the final (original) count "certified" by the deadline in accordinance with state law. It was the dems that went to court to over-ride the Flordia state law.

FWIW: In all but one of the many recounts that took place after the election Bush still won, and thus won the Florida electoral votes, and thus won the presidency.

Clinton won his first term with 43(?)% of the popular vote. Bush and Perot split the remainder. This of course means that 57% of the country voted for some form of a conservative candidate (Perot/Bush) yet the country ended up with a liberal president. Nobody I knew of at the time complained about Clinton not being popularly elected. (He WAS according to our election mechanisms.) I don't recall anyone claiming that Clinton didn't have enough of a mandate to hold office. (He DID, according to our election mechanisms.)

The Kennedy / Nixon election was also extremely close. Nixon didn't challenge the counts. (And arguably he had the basis to do so. He didn't feel that it would serve him or his country very well, and Gore proved what Nixon assumed to be true.)

The ongoing debates on this past election do not help. (Unless you are in charge of replacing the "chad" ballots with something better!) It would be far more productive to:
1) Get behind the president we have and his initiatives.
-or-
2) Get involved in an opposition party in some way/shape/form and try to get someone else elected in the next election.

You are incorrect about who sued whom. Gore followed Fla. state law in requesting the recounts, which were allowed, and Bush with Jim Baker went to court to stop them. They eventually tied things up in court long enough that it never went through. Bush ran out the clock by taking Gore to court.

What was the case that was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, Bush v. Gore or Gore v. Bush? It was Bush v. Gore.

Were you around in the 1990s? Republicans constantly harped on Clinton's not winning the majority of the popular vote.

CharlesS · Mar 7, 2003, 01:35 PM

Back to the original topic:

Ronald Reagan broke the curse. He survived the assassination attempt.

Remember that plane in which the passengers managed to subdue the hijackers, causing the plane to crash in a field in Pennsylvania? IIRC, it was said that that plane's target might have been the White House. So, GWB may already have survived an assassination attempt.

wdlove · Mar 7, 2003, 01:38 PM

I pray daily for George Bush and our country, leaders in this country and around the world. Only God can defeat our enemies.

George Bush's fate is in the hands of God alone!

No one's future is promised to them.

My prayers have been answered so far, so my confidence is positive!

roger_ramjet · Mar 7, 2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
You are incorrect about who sued whom. Gore followed Fla. state law in requesting the recounts, which were allowed...

And he got his recount - more than one, in fact.

roger_ramjet · Mar 7, 2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by driven:

... Clinton won his first term with 43(?)% of the popular vote. Bush and Perot split the remainder. This of course means that 57% of the country voted for some form of a conservative candidate (Perot/Bush) ...

Perot wasn't a conservative. He was a populist.

theolein · Mar 7, 2003, 02:25 PM

I don't wish the guy death, but I do wish he'd go back to school and learn a little history, geography and english and leave the rest of the world alone.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 7, 2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Remember that plane in which the passengers managed to subdue the hijackers, causing the plane to crash in a field in Pennsylvania? IIRC, it was said that that plane's target might have been the White House. So, GWB may already have survived an assassination attempt.

Er, he was in Florida, remember?

OK, so maybe the hijackers thought he would be in the White House. But the fact is, he wasn't. Saying that Bush survived an assassination attempt on 9/11 is a bit like saying Kennedy would have survived assassination if he'd have gone to Pittsburgh rather than Dallas.

Slightly OT, but how does the joke go: "Well, apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the show?"

swsteckly · Mar 7, 2003, 02:36 PM

Dubya is gonna take a few folks with him before he goes

Yeah. Hopefully, powell, rumsfeld, blair, etc....

I know bush is absolutely terrible, but who would be left with? ...... Cheney?

bewebste · Mar 7, 2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by SeSawaya:
<Ralph Wigum> "When i grow up, I'm going to Electoral College" </Ralph>

eh, it sounded funnier in my head.

Don't feel too bad... it's hard to compete with "Bovine University" when it comes to funny names for a college.

Anomalous · Mar 7, 2003, 04:50 PM

I don't think Bush was elected. Besides the fact that he lost the popular vote by a wide margin, subsequent recounts by the media showed that Gore should have won. Bush was clearly appointed by the Supreme Court.

itai195 · Mar 7, 2003, 05:11 PM

And yet, with all the whining about how antiquated the electoral college system is and how out of date much of our election technology is, precious little seems to have been done about it. I don't want to take either side here, but this is just another example of high profile Democrats talking the talk but not taking any action.

chris v · Mar 7, 2003, 05:16 PM

Whenever I try to picture Dick Cheney as president, I immediatly thereafter wish George W. a long and healthy life.

A good presidential candidate keeps would-be assassinators at bay by making the veep choice so onerous nobody is willing to suffer the consequences of him becoming president through the right of succession.

Dan quayle? Walter Mondale? Spiro Agnew? I rest my case.

CV

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Mar 7, 2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by chris v:

A good presidential candidate keeps would-be assassinators at bay by making the veep choice so onerous nobody is willing to suffer the consequences of him becoming president through the right of succession.

Dan quayle? Walter Mondale? Spiro Agnew? I rest my case.

CV

Al Gore?

I'm inclinded to agree with this theory!

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 7, 2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by chris v:
Whenever I try to picture Dick Cheney as president, I immediatly thereafter wish George W. a long and healthy life.

A good presidential candidate keeps would-be assassinators at bay by making the veep choice so onerous nobody is willing to suffer the consequences of him becoming president through the right of succession.

Dan quayle? Walter Mondale? Spiro Agnew? I rest my case.

CV

Just not very originally, seeing as how Nixon made the quip about Agnew being his insurance against assassination 30 years ago.

davesimondotcom · Mar 7, 2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Anomalous:
I don't think Bush was elected. Besides the fact that he lost the popular vote by a wide margin, subsequent recounts by the media showed that Gore should have won. Bush was clearly appointed by the Supreme Court.

Yeah yeah...

First, the "wide margin" you refer to cannot be proven, since many absentee ballots never were counted in many states, including thousands of military votes in California.

Second, he wasn't clearly appointed to anything by the Supreme Court. They simply stopped the selective guess-counts by the people holding up ballots looking for "dimples" and "pause marks" in three hand-picked counties where disputed votes would go to Gore due to the election board being 3-2 democrat in them.

If the people of the US were so outraged that Bush is the President, why didn't they vote in droves for Democrats in 2002 to make his life miserable for the next two years?

thunderous_funker · Mar 7, 2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
... why didn't they vote in droves .....

Americans voting in droves?? Man, would I love to see that. <sigh>

roger_ramjet · Mar 7, 2003, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Americans voting in droves?? Man, would I love to see that. <sigh>

OT: Iran just had elections. The regime all but begged the people to turn out in record numbers. Instead, there were massive numbers of abstentions. In Tehran the official line gave the turnout at 10%. It may have been as low as 1%.

thunderous_funker · Mar 7, 2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
OT: Iran just had elections. The regime all but begged the people to turn out in record numbers. Instead, there were massive numbers of abstentions. In Tehran the official line gave the turnout at 10%. It may have been as low as 1%.

OT: I take it that means the "lesser of two evils" apathy hasn't settled in yet. Good for them

Way OT: How about Serbia calling the election results invalid because less than 50% participation. They just don't consider that democracy so they're redoing it. Serbia. Democratic.

The world is becoming an unrecognizable place

roger_ramjet · Mar 7, 2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

Way OT: How about Serbia calling the election results invalid because less than 50% participation. They just don't consider that democracy so they're redoing it. Serbia. Democratic.

Good for them!