AARoads Forum

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Former-President-George-HW-Bush-Dies-184974861.html

That leaves Carter, Clinton, George W. Bush, & Obama.  Interesting note, Carter has outlived not too only his successor, but his successor's VP as well.

Also, as per protocol, all flags in the USA are to be set to half-staff for the next 30 days.

R.I.P.

:no:

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on December 01, 2018, 12:18:21 AM
Also, as per protocol, all flags in the USA are to be set to half-staff for the next 30 days.
R.I.P.
:no:
Mike

Elaborate funeral like Reagan got back when he passed ...

As I was only 7 (going on 8) when Reagan died, this will be my first time seeing and understanding the process following presidential deaths.

To be honest, I'm glad he finally passed. I'm sure without Barb by his side, life was a struggle. Sure, he had his kids, but living without your life partner has to be excruciatingly difficult, especially in later years. I'm sure he's in a much better place now. I know if one of my grandparents were to die, and both were in ailing health, the best thing would be for both of them to go at the same time.

Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 12:34:18 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on December 01, 2018, 12:18:21 AM
Also, as per protocol, all flags in the USA are to be set to half-staff for the next 30 days.
R.I.P.
:no:
Mike

Elaborate funeral like Reagan got back when he passed ...

That's up to his family for the most part.

A great statesman, G.H.W. Bush could not avoid simple gaffes that ultimately doomed his chances for a second term.   "No new taxes", "Where's the Beef" where two that come to mind.   Also Ross Perot, a blip on the political radar, siphoned off 19% of the popular vote in the Fall '92 election.   And this was after a bizarre exit from the race, and then re-entry, and accusations of Bush spy operatives.   This paved the way for William Jefferson Clinton to win, with barely over 40% of the vote.   

Quote from: US71 on December 01, 2018, 08:53:59 AM

Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 12:34:18 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on December 01, 2018, 12:18:21 AM
Also, as per protocol, all flags in the USA are to be set to half-staff for the next 30 days.
R.I.P.
:no:
Mike

Elaborate funeral like Reagan got back when he passed ...

That's up to his family for the most part.

The story Bruce linked to said the funeral will be at St. Martin Church in Houston & burial at his presidential library at Texas A & M next to his wife Barbara.

Quote from: DJStephens on December 01, 2018, 09:18:24 AM
A great statesman, G.H.W. Bush could not avoid simple gaffes that ultimately doomed his chances for a second term.   "No new taxes", "Where's the Beef" where two that come to mind.   Also Ross Perot, a blip on the political radar, siphoned off 19% of the popular vote in the Fall '92 election.   And this was after a bizarre exit from the race, and then re-entry, and accusations of Bush spy operatives.   This paved the way for William Jefferson Clinton to win, with barely over 40% of the vote.   

No New Taxes was what he campaigned on, but I'd forgotten about Where's the Beef

Whatever happened to ol' Dan Quayle? I'll never forget the time Quayle was at an airport and made a joke about a bomb on the plane, or the "potatoe" incident.

Quayle was also the man who said "E pluribus unum" meant "From one, many."

Quote from: bandit957 on December 01, 2018, 10:08:46 AM
Whatever happened to ol' Dan Quayle? I'll never forget the time Quayle was at an airport and made a joke about a bomb on the plane, or the "potatoe" incident.

He owns a private equity firm now,

Quote from: US71 on December 01, 2018, 10:14:28 AM

Quote from: bandit957 on December 01, 2018, 10:08:46 AM
Whatever happened to ol' Dan Quayle? I'll never forget the time Quayle was at an airport and made a joke about a bomb on the plane, or the "potatoe" incident.

He owns a private equity firm now,

Don't you mean Privat Equitye? :awesomeface:

Quote from: mgk920 on December 01, 2018, 12:18:21 AM
Also, as per protocol, all flags in the USA are to be set to half-staff for the next 30 days.

R.I.P.

:no:

Mike

Haven't flags been flying low since the stone age with all the onesy-twosey shootings happening lately?

I do say RIP. Lets just hope some trolls on here who do not like him do not get this into a flame war.  Talking about political figures leads to ideals which gets nasty.

Whether I like him or not is the issue as I would do the same for Obama or even his son if they had died.  I cannot be judge and was brought up that way to pray for your enemies as well as the good people you know.

Quote from: US71 on December 01, 2018, 08:53:59 AM

Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 12:34:18 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on December 01, 2018, 12:18:21 AM
Also, as per protocol, all flags in the USA are to be set to half-staff for the next 30 days.
R.I.P.
:no:
Mike

Elaborate funeral like Reagan got back when he passed ...

That's up to his family for the most part.

The size and scope of the public ceremonies is specified by decision of the president and the Congress.

Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 12:55:53 PM

Quote from: US71 on December 01, 2018, 08:53:59 AM

Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 12:34:18 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on December 01, 2018, 12:18:21 AM
Also, as per protocol, all flags in the USA are to be set to half-staff for the next 30 days.
R.I.P.
:no:
Mike

Elaborate funeral like Reagan got back when he passed ...

That's up to his family for the most part.

The size and scope of the public ceremonies is specified by decision of the president and the Congress.

So, in theory, if a sitting President had a quarrel with a predecessor, he could refuse a state funeral for said predecessor?  Just wondering.  :hmmm:

Quote from: US71 on December 01, 2018, 01:05:44 PM

Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 12:55:53 PM

Quote from: US71 on December 01, 2018, 08:53:59 AM

Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 12:34:18 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on December 01, 2018, 12:18:21 AM
Also, as per protocol, all flags in the USA are to be set to half-staff for the next 30 days.
R.I.P.  :no: Mike

Elaborate funeral like Reagan got back when he passed ...

That's up to his family for the most part.

The size and scope of the public ceremonies is specified by decision of the president and the Congress.

So, in theory, if a sitting President had a quarrel with a predecessor, he could refuse a state funeral for said predecessor?  Just wondering.

Any former president will get a state funeral and memorial services.  How big and how elaborate depends on the respective president and Congress.

Quote from: DJStephens on December 01, 2018, 09:18:24 AM
A great statesman, G.H.W. Bush could not avoid simple gaffes that ultimately doomed his chances for a second term.   "No new taxes", "Where's the Beef" where two that come to mind.   Also Ross Perot, a blip on the political radar, siphoned off 19% of the popular vote in the Fall '92 election.   And this was after a bizarre exit from the race, and then re-entry, and accusations of Bush spy operatives.   This paved the way for William Jefferson Clinton to win, with barely over 40% of the vote.

Or whatever circumstances led to it looking like he'd never seen a supermarket barcode scanner before (Mary Matalin says he had).

Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 01:13:22 PM

Quote from: US71 on December 01, 2018, 01:05:44 PM

Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 12:55:53 PM

Quote from: US71 on December 01, 2018, 08:53:59 AM

Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 12:34:18 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on December 01, 2018, 12:18:21 AM
Also, as per protocol, all flags in the USA are to be set to half-staff for the next 30 days.
R.I.P.  :no: Mike

Elaborate funeral like Reagan got back when he passed ...

That's up to his family for the most part.

The size and scope of the public ceremonies is specified by decision of the president and the Congress.

So, in theory, if a sitting President had a quarrel with a predecessor, he could refuse a state funeral for said predecessor?  Just wondering.

Any former president will get a state funeral and memorial services.  How big and how elaborate depends on the respective president and Congress.

Unless he declines it, of course, as Richard Nixon did. He specifically asked that he not receive a state funeral. Flags were, of course, still lowered to half-mast for the full 30 days. Some places kept them down longer when Jackie Kennedy died just before the end of the 30-day period.

Politics aside, how many Presidents win a war and then go on to lose in the next election?  Since Bush Sr. did his single term, every POTUS since then has been a two term office holder.  That is a rather remarkable streak. 

Rick

Quote from: nexus73 on December 01, 2018, 03:37:09 PM
Politics aside, how many Presidents win a war and then go on to lose in the next election?  Since Bush Sr. did his single term, every POTUS since then has been a two term office holder.  That is a rather remarkable streak. 
Rick

Not really, that is a reflection of the growing power of incumbency, to have had three 2-term presidents in a row up to the current.

Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 06:00:21 PM

Quote from: nexus73 on December 01, 2018, 03:37:09 PM
Politics aside, how many Presidents win a war and then go on to lose in the next election?  Since Bush Sr. did his single term, every POTUS since then has been a two term office holder.  That is a rather remarkable streak. 
Rick

Not really, that is a reflection of the growing power of incumbency, to have had three 2-term presidents in a row up to the current.

House elections go the way of the incumbents over 90% of the time.  With their terms being only 2 years, campaigning becomes a full time job for them. 

As for recent POTUS elections where the incumbent won, how many times was the opponent truly credible?  Campaigning for President is a 2 year process these days.  Candidates, good or bad, get ground down in a political marathon.  Last one standing gets the nomination.  Would a shorter campaign season as we see in European parliamentary democracies give us a better group of candidates?  Would multiple parties do so? 

(cue Alice Cooper's "Elected")

Rick

Historically it's not all that unusual to have more than one two-term presidents in a row. (I somewhat discount when a president died in office and his successor didn't serve the next term, and I certainly discount where a president said he wouldn't run again.) Certainly the difference between the 19th and 20th centuries reflects the advantages of incumbency in the modern news era. I find it interesting to see that several lost the renomination contests, and I find the long run of one-termers between Jackson and Lincoln interesting, although again that was in part due to deaths and Polk promising not to run again.

Washington (2)
Adams (1, lost in 1800)
Jefferson/Madison/Monroe (2 each, so 24 years total)
Adams (1, lost in 1828)
Jackson (2)
Van Buren (1, lost in 1840)
Harrison/Tyler (1 combined; Tyler didn't run in 1844)
Polk (1, didn't run again after promising not to)
Taylor/Fillmore (1 combined; Fillmore lost nomination in 1852)
Pierce (1, lost nomination in 1856)
Buchanan (1, didn't run again)
Lincoln/Johnson/Grant (2 combined for first two, 2 for Grant, total 16 years)
Hayes (1, announced during campaign he wouldn't run again)
Garfield/Arthur (1 combined; Arthur not nominated in 1884)
Cleveland (1, lost in 1888)
Harrison (1, lost in 1892)
Cleveland (1, didn't run again)
McKinley/Roosevelt (total 3 due to assassination; Roosevelt promised not to run in 1908)
Taft (1, lost in 1912)
Wilson/Harding/Coolidge (Wilson 2, Harding/Coolidge 2 combined)
Hoover (1, lost in 1932)
Roosevelt/Truman/Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon/Ford (FDR elected to 4 terms; Truman finished the 4th and was re-elected in 1948; Eisenhower 2; Kennedy/Johnson 2 combined and Johnson dropped out of seeking a third term; Nixon/Ford 2 combined, Ford lost in 1976; all this totals 44 years)
Carter (1, lost in 1980)
Reagan (2)
Bush (1, lost in 1992)
Clinton/Bush/Obama (2 each, total 24 years)
Trump (TBD!)

So since 1932, only Carter and Bush were elected presidents who lost re-election (this wording being to distinguish Kennedy being shot and Ford succeeding to the office). That's an entire lifetime or more of almost all two-termers!

I thought that Walter Mondale (still alive, IIRC) used the "Where's the beef?" line in a debate with Reagan. Clara Peller rules!

Quote from: jakeroot on December 01, 2018, 02:54:56 AM
As I was only 7 (going on 8) when Reagan died, this will be my first time seeing and understanding the process following presidential deaths.

To be honest, I'm glad he finally passed. I'm sure without Barb by his side, life was a struggle. Sure, he had his kids, but living without your life partner has to be excruciatingly difficult, especially in later years. I'm sure he's in a much better place now. I know if one of my grandparents were to die, and both were in ailing health, the best thing would be for both of them to go at the same time.

He was quite at peace, according to this article (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/01/us/politics/george-hw-bush-last-days.html):

QuoteHis longtime friend and former secretary of state, James A. Baker III, arrived at his Houston home on Friday morning to check on him.

Mr. Bush suddenly grew alert, his eyes wide open.

"Where are we going, Bake?"  he asked.

"We're going to heaven,"  Mr. Baker answered.

"That's where I want to go,"  Mr. Bush said.

Barely 13 hours later, Mr. Bush was dead.

Quote from: jon daly on December 01, 2018, 07:00:50 PM
I thought that Walter Mondale (still alive, IIRC) used the "Where's the beef?" line in a debate with Reagan. Clara Peller rules!

He said that to his primary opponent Gary Hart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjw8m7GmIa4

Quote from: Brandon on December 01, 2018, 12:14:02 AM
That leaves Carter, Clinton, George W. Bush, & Obama.  Interesting note, Carter has outlived not too only his successor, but his successor's VP as well.

Another interseting note is that both he and Bush were born in the same year.

When Richard Nixon died, I was sure that Ronald Reagan would be the next former President to go, simply because Reagan was two years older than Nixon, and I was right. After that I was convinced Ford would be next because he was the same age as Nixon (only younger by about seven months), but then Clinton had his first big post-Presidential health scare, and I wasn't as sure of who would go next anymore.

As it turned out, I was still right.

Then when I heard about Jimmy Carter's health problems, I started thinking it might be a toss-up between him and Bush.

Respect.  Do not make threats of any kind.  --sso

Quote from: Big John on December 01, 2018, 07:34:12 PM

Quote from: jon daly on December 01, 2018, 07:00:50 PM
I thought that Walter Mondale (still alive, IIRC) used the "Where's the beef?" line in a debate with Reagan. Clara Peller rules!

He said that to his primary opponent Gary Hart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjw8m7GmIa4

No wonder he won Minnesota!

I stand corrected.

I fully expected a bunch of discussion over whether or not Trump will go/will be invited to the funeral, but I wasn't prepared for the "Bush 41 had JFK assassinated" garbage that's washed up several places today.

Where do people dream up this stuff?

Quote from: hbelkins on December 01, 2018, 09:14:27 PM
I fully expected a bunch of discussion over whether or not Trump will go/will be invited to the funeral, but I wasn't prepared for the "Bush 41 had JFK assassinated" garbage that's washed up several places today.

Where do people dream up this stuff?

I thought it was LBJ?

Quote from: hbelkins on December 01, 2018, 09:14:27 PM
I fully expected a bunch of discussion over whether or not Trump will go/will be invited to the funeral, but I wasn't prepared for the "Bush 41 had JFK assassinated" garbage that's washed up several places today.
Where do people dream up this stuff?

Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy.  Vincent Bugliosi's book _Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy_ nailed it with 53 pieces of evidence supporting the case that Oswald alone fired the shots, and then he spent the second half of the book listing every conspiracy theory that he could find and then debunking them.

Quote from: seicer on December 01, 2018, 07:09:02 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on December 01, 2018, 02:54:56 AM
As I was only 7 (going on 8) when Reagan died, this will be my first time seeing and understanding the process following presidential deaths.

To be honest, I'm glad he finally passed. I'm sure without Barb by his side, life was a struggle. Sure, he had his kids, but living without your life partner has to be excruciatingly difficult, especially in later years. I'm sure he's in a much better place now. I know if one of my grandparents were to die, and both were in ailing health, the best thing would be for both of them to go at the same time.

He was quite at peace, according to this article (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/01/us/politics/george-hw-bush-last-days.html):

QuoteHis longtime friend and former secretary of state, James A. Baker III, arrived at his Houston home on Friday morning to check on him.

Mr. Bush suddenly grew alert, his eyes wide open.

"Where are we going, Bake?"  he asked.

"We're going to heaven,"  Mr. Baker answered.

"That's where I want to go,"  Mr. Bush said.

Barely 13 hours later, Mr. Bush was dead.

Good to hear, although people like him tend to be tough and not always honest about when they feel weak. HW would never admit that his life was in shambles without Barb. Not that it was, to be fair, but I'm sure he was looking forward to seeing his missus again.

Quote from: nexus73 on December 01, 2018, 03:37:09 PM
Politics aside, how many Presidents win a war and then go on to lose in the next election?  Since Bush Sr. did his single term, every POTUS since then has been a two term office holder.  That is a rather remarkable streak. 

Rick

Not a USA President, but the UK's Tories under Winston Churchill lost the first election that was called shortly after WWII ended, resulting in Clement Atlee's Labour Party taking over, after which they promptly set about to nationalize the entire country.

Mike

Quote from: jon daly on December 01, 2018, 07:00:50 PM
I thought that Walter Mondale (still alive, IIRC) used the "Where's the beef?" line in a debate with Reagan. Clara Peller rules!

And then in that first debate, Reagan declared that "I will not make an issue out of my opponent's youth and inexperience".  This was in reaction to some on the opposing side making hay out of Reagan's relatively advanced age at that time.

Mike

Who can forget when Dan Quayle tried to pass himself off as the next JFK?

^^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-7gpgXNWYI

Please focus on the topic and leave political stuff out!

Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 09:25:21 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 01, 2018, 09:14:27 PM
I fully expected a bunch of discussion over whether or not Trump will go/will be invited to the funeral, but I wasn't prepared for the "Bush 41 had JFK assassinated" garbage that's washed up several places today.
Where do people dream up this stuff?

Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy.  Vincent Bugliosi's book _Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy_ nailed it with 53 pieces of evidence supporting the case that Oswald alone fired the shots, and then he spent the second half of the book listing every conspiracy theory that he could find and then debunking them.

Was one of the 53 "Oswald was aiming for the Governor of Texas, missed, and hit JFK instead" ? Because that's the only one I've heard that accounts for a) Oswald acting alone and b) Oswald pulling off such a difficult shot when he was such a lousy marksman.

Regarding the funeral this Wednesday, Trump said he will attend. It's at the Episcopal cathedral in DC.

Quote from: abefroman329 on December 02, 2018, 06:37:57 AM

Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 09:25:21 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 01, 2018, 09:14:27 PM
I fully expected a bunch of discussion over whether or not Trump will go/will be invited to the funeral, but I wasn't prepared for the "Bush 41 had JFK assassinated" garbage that's washed up several places today.
Where do people dream up this stuff?

Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy.  Vincent Bugliosi's book _Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy_ nailed it with 53 pieces of evidence supporting the case that Oswald alone fired the shots, and then he spent the second half of the book listing every conspiracy theory that he could find and then debunking them.

Was one of the 53 "Oswald was aiming for the Governor of Texas, missed, and hit JFK instead" ? Because that's the only one I've heard that accounts for a) Oswald acting alone and b) Oswald pulling off such a difficult shot when he was such a lousy marksman.

Oswald enlisted in the Marine Corps in October, 1956.  Like all marines, Oswald was trained and tested in shooting.  In December 1956, he scored 212, which was slightly above the requirements for the designation of sharpshooter.  In May 1959 he scored 191, which reduced his rating to marksman.

It was not a difficult shot, you don't even need to be a trained infantryman (like Oswald) to kill someone at 50 to 70 yards with a high-powered rifle at essentially point-blank range (in windage and elevation) for that rifle.  A WWII rifle designed to hit and kill soldiers at 200 yards.

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 01, 2018, 06:30:35 PM
...So since 1932, only Carter and Bush were elected presidents who lost re-election (this wording being to distinguish Kennedy being shot and Ford succeeding to the office). That's an entire lifetime or more of almost all two-termers!

That reflects our resistance to change.

It also reflects the increasing standard of letting the opposing viewpoint stand out. After a while, supporters don't try to voice their opinion because it's drowned out by all the yelling by vocal opponents. In fact, calls for impeachment are often heard before a president, or other controversial elected officials, have even officially taken office, so it's impossible to have them cited for something they never even did.

When it comes time for the next election, not only does the 1st term president have his supporters (after all, he did win his 1st election), but probably many who didn't like him didn't know his opponents, and decided to vote for the same guy.

This is often seen in local elections as well.

Note: I'm not being specific to any one president; current or former. I'm reflecting on the history 1995hoo pointed out.

Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2018, 08:24:07 AM

Quote from: abefroman329 on December 02, 2018, 06:37:57 AM

Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 09:25:21 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 01, 2018, 09:14:27 PM
I fully expected a bunch of discussion over whether or not Trump will go/will be invited to the funeral, but I wasn't prepared for the "Bush 41 had JFK assassinated" garbage that's washed up several places today.
Where do people dream up this stuff?

Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy.  Vincent Bugliosi's book _Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy_ nailed it with 53 pieces of evidence supporting the case that Oswald alone fired the shots, and then he spent the second half of the book listing every conspiracy theory that he could find and then debunking them.

Was one of the 53 "Oswald was aiming for the Governor of Texas, missed, and hit JFK instead" ? Because that's the only one I've heard that accounts for a) Oswald acting alone and b) Oswald pulling off such a difficult shot when he was such a lousy marksman.

Oswald enlisted in the Marine Corps in October, 1956.  Like all marines, Oswald was trained and tested in shooting.  In December 1956, he scored 212, which was slightly above the requirements for the designation of sharpshooter.  In May 1959 he scored 191, which reduced his rating to marksman.

It was not a difficult shot, you don't even need to be a trained infantryman (like Oswald) to kill someone at 50 to 70 yards with a high-powered rifle at essentially point-blank range (in windage and elevation) for that rifle.  A WWII rifle designed to hit and kill soldiers at 200 yards.

And, having been up the the Sixth Floor Museum (which I recommend by the way), and looking out that exact window, Oswald had to be a complete idiot to miss that shot.  As it was, he did miss at least one that struck the pavement.

Quote from: mgk920 on December 01, 2018, 09:43:30 PMNot a USA President, but the UK's Tories under Winston Churchill lost the first election that was called shortly after WWII ended, resulting in Clement Atlee's Labour Party taking over, after which they promptly set about to nationalize the entire country.

Attlee et al had already nationalised a lot of the country during the war. What they did after the election was formalise that for peacetime. Attlee was Deputy PM and Home Secretary until the election process started.

Churchill only became Prime Minister during the war because he was the person Attlee wanted in charge of the war. Attlee, after the Norway debates, held most of the cards - there was a clear need to form a broader coalition than Chamberlain's crumbling one, and Attlee was the hold out. So Churchill managed to get the Tories to support his War Government (which was a tall ask as most Tories hated Churchill) because Attlee was happy to join. And that was because Labour were de facto in charge of all domestic policy (the Tories did foreign policy/war stuff, and the money was joint) under Churchill's proposals.

While the 1945 election had a massive swing towards Labour in the legislature (which wasn't Churchill losing, but Tories losing - the party, rather than the man - if anything Churchill stopped it being even more of a rout), when you look at the change in the executive branch, there was no more change than the replacement of Thatcher with Major (as an example). PM unable to carry on thanks to cabinet plotting, with a new PM from within the executive branch taking over due to getting the backing of the legislative branch, and then appointing mates to replace supporters of the former-PM. OK, that the executive branch in the UK is formed of members of the legislative branch complicates matters, but it wasn't so much the people that ousted Churchill after the war via the ballot box as the people's representatives did by ending their support for him.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 02, 2018, 09:17:38 AM

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 01, 2018, 06:30:35 PM
...So since 1932, only Carter and Bush were elected presidents who lost re-election (this wording being to distinguish Kennedy being shot and Ford succeeding to the office). That's an entire lifetime or more of almost all two-termers!

That reflects our resistance to change.

It also reflects the increasing standard of letting the opposing viewpoint stand out. After a while, supporters don't try to voice their opinion because it's drowned out by all the yelling by vocal opponents. In fact, calls for impeachment are often heard before a president, or other controversial elected officials, have even officially taken office, so it's impossible to have them cited for something they never even did.

When it comes time for the next election, not only does the 1st term president have his supporters (after all, he did win his 1st election), but probably many who didn't like him didn't know his opponents, and decided to vote for the same guy.

This is often seen in local elections as well.

Note: I'm not being specific to any one president; current or former. I'm reflecting on the history 1995hoo pointed out.

Once you get below the office of President, it's a lot easier to oust an incumbent that has served one or two terms, since the incumbent actually has a track record in that office (the challenger does not). Whether the Presidency is different because a President is limited to two terms, I couldn't say.

Quote from: jon daly on December 01, 2018, 07:00:50 PM
I thought that Walter Mondale (still alive, IIRC) used the "Where's the beef?" line in a debate with Reagan. Clara Peller rules!

You may very well be right. The line was used by a hamburger? chain also - Wendy's perhaps.   

Quote from: DJStephens on December 02, 2018, 10:16:40 AM

Quote from: jon daly on December 01, 2018, 07:00:50 PM
I thought that Walter Mondale (still alive, IIRC) used the "Where's the beef?" line in a debate with Reagan. Clara Peller rules!

You may very well be right. The line was used by a hamburger? chain also - Wendy's perhaps.   

Yeah, it WAS Mondale in a debate with Gary Hart (I had to look it up)

The phrase was made famous by Clara Peller on the Wendy's commercials.

Quote from: DJStephens on December 02, 2018, 10:16:40 AM

Quote from: jon daly on December 01, 2018, 07:00:50 PM
I thought that Walter Mondale (still alive, IIRC) used the "Where's the beef?" line in a debate with Reagan. Clara Peller rules!

You may very well be right. The line was used by a hamburger? chain also - Wendy's perhaps.   

That was Mondale's point. He said, "Whenever I hear you talk about 'new ideas' I'm reminded of that ad–'Where's the beef?'"

---

Regarding Bush, the government will be closed Wednesday for the National Day of Mourning. I don't work for the government, so I have to work, and I wonder whether VDOT will waive the HOV restrictions that day.

G.H.W.B. was the first president I could say I "knew". I was born during the Reagan administration, but I was too young to be able to recall much about him. I'll never forget G.H.W.B.'s strong displeasure with broccoli and at one point banning it from Air Force One.

Quote"...And I'm President of the United States, and I'm not going to eat any more broccoli!''

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/23/us/i-m-president-so-no-more-broccoli.html (https://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/23/us/i-m-president-so-no-more-broccoli.html)

Quote from: hbelkins on December 01, 2018, 09:14:27 PM
I fully expected a bunch of discussion over whether or not Trump will go/will be invited to the funeral, but I wasn't prepared for the "Bush 41 had JFK assassinated" garbage that's washed up several places today.

Where do people dream up this stuff?

Apologies to the mods in advance, but that's been part of one of the many 11/22/63 assassination theories for years.

And I don't think this is the time for those folks to bring it up.

Quote from: english si on December 02, 2018, 09:47:21 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on December 01, 2018, 09:43:30 PMNot a USA President, but the UK's Tories under Winston Churchill lost the first election that was called shortly after WWII ended, resulting in Clement Atlee's Labour Party taking over, after which they promptly set about to nationalize the entire country.

Attlee et al had already nationalised a lot of the country during the war. What they did after the election was formalise that for peacetime. Attlee was Deputy PM and Home Secretary until the election process started.

Churchill only became Prime Minister during the war because he was the person Attlee wanted in charge of the war. Attlee, after the Norway debates, held most of the cards - there was a clear need to form a broader coalition than Chamberlain's crumbling one, and Attlee was the hold out. So Churchill managed to get the Tories to support his War Government (which was a tall ask as most Tories hated Churchill) because Attlee was happy to join. And that was because Labour were de facto in charge of all domestic policy (the Tories did foreign policy/war stuff, and the money was joint) under Churchill's proposals.

While the 1945 election had a massive swing towards Labour in the legislature (which wasn't Churchill losing, but Tories losing - the party, rather than the man - if anything Churchill stopped it being even more of a rout), when you look at the change in the executive branch, there was no more change than the replacement of Thatcher with Major (as an example). PM unable to carry on thanks to cabinet plotting, with a new PM from within the executive branch taking over due to getting the backing of the legislative branch, and then appointing mates to replace supporters of the former-PM. OK, that the executive branch in the UK is formed of members of the legislative branch complicates matters, but it wasn't so much the people that ousted Churchill after the war via the ballot box as the people's representatives did by ending their support for him.

Thank you for a great explanation of late war politics in the UK.  I have never heard this story before as to why Churchill lost in 1945.  Save the world and get the boot...LOL!

Rick

Quote from: Brandon on December 02, 2018, 09:32:48 AM

Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2018, 08:24:07 AM
Oswald enlisted in the Marine Corps in October, 1956.  Like all marines, Oswald was trained and tested in shooting.  In December 1956, he scored 212, which was slightly above the requirements for the designation of sharpshooter.  In May 1959 he scored 191, which reduced his rating to marksman.
It was not a difficult shot, you don't even need to be a trained infantryman (like Oswald) to kill someone at 50 to 70 yards with a high-powered rifle at essentially point-blank range (in windage and elevation) for that rifle.  A WWII rifle designed to hit and kill soldiers at 200 yards.

And, having been up the the Sixth Floor Museum (which I recommend by the way), and looking out that exact window, Oswald had to be a complete idiot to miss that shot.  As it was, he did miss at least one that struck the pavement.

That is the nature of shooting, it is not guaranteed, some shots may miss, that is why they use multiple shots, and he probably could have gotten off 5 or 6 if needed before the SS and LEO pinpointed him and returned fire; that is probably why he fired from the rear when he could have initially fired from the front.  I have not been in the the Sixth Floor Museum, but others have commented that Dealey Plaza is a much smaller space than they would have thought.

A limosine with an apparent motion of 6mph at 50 yards is not a difficult target.

Feral pigs are -fast- ... these are difficult shots but the hunters made most of them --
Pigs on the run
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ft4aUH5lEo

Imagine if, Bush Sr would have been eaten  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichijima_incident (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichijima_incident) would the course of America still be the same today?

There were 9 soldiers, 8 of them captured & eaten/beheaded, while the 9th one Bush Sr did not get captured & survived, is that luck or what?


iPhone

Quote from: Tonytone on December 02, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
Imagine if, Bush Sr would have been eaten  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichijima_incident (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichijima_incident) would the course of America still be the same today?
There were 9 soldiers, 8 of them captured & eaten/beheaded, while the 9th one Bush Sr did not get captured & survived, is that luck or what?

Butterfly effect.

In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state.

The term, coined by Edward Lorenz, is derived from the metaphorical example of the details of a tornado (the exact time of formation, the exact path taken) being influenced by minor perturbations such as the flapping of the wings of a distant butterfly several weeks earlier.  Lorenz discovered the effect when he observed that runs of his weather model with initial condition data that was rounded in a seemingly inconsequential manner would fail to reproduce the results of runs with the unrounded initial condition data.   A very small change in initial conditions had created a significantly different outcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Quote from: Tonytone on December 02, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
Imagine if, Bush Sr would have been eaten  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichijima_incident (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichijima_incident) would the course of America still be the same today?

There were 9 soldiers, 8 of them captured & eaten/beheaded, while the 9th one Bush Sr did not get captured & survived, is that luck or what?

There was a Justice Society comic some years back where the team had to rescue certain endangered people who were vital to the future. On the final page, it was revealed they were all people who would eventually become President.

Quote from: Tonytone on December 02, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
Imagine if, Bush Sr would have been eaten  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichijima_incident (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichijima_incident) would the course of America still be the same today?

There were 9 soldiers, 8 of them captured & eaten/beheaded, while the 9th one Bush Sr did not get captured & survived, is that luck or what?


iPhone

Ironically, Tokyo was telling the people of Asia that US troops were cannibals who would eat them.

Quote from: Tonytone on December 02, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
Imagine if, Bush Sr would have been eaten  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichijima_incident (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichijima_incident) would the course of America still be the same today?

There were 9 soldiers, 8 of them captured & eaten/beheaded, while the 9th one Bush Sr did not get captured & survived, is that luck or what?


iPhone

I doubt much would be different. Reagan would have picked another New England Republican to balance his ticket. Maybe they would have run for President in 1988, maybe not. Maybe they would have been elected to one or two terms, maybe not.

In just eight months, George and Barbara are together again in heaven. I figured it would be a matter of time before he went not too long after she did.

Quote from: Henry on December 03, 2018, 11:51:01 AM
In just eight months, George and Barbara are together again in heaven. I figured it would be a matter of time before he went not too long after she did.

My mom survived about 2 1/2 years without dad.

Quote from: SSOWorld on December 01, 2018, 10:47:44 AM
Haven't flags been flying low since the stone age with all the onesy-twosey shootings happening lately?

I've been saying that for years now, and my parents both agree.  Flags are flying at half-mast so frequently these days that I've stopped even wondering why they're at half-mast.  It seems like, if someone's dog gets run over by a car, all the flags fly at half-mast.

Quote from: kphoger on December 03, 2018, 07:38:33 PM

Quote from: SSOWorld on December 01, 2018, 10:47:44 AM
Haven't flags been flying low since the stone age with all the onesy-twosey shootings happening lately?

I've been saying that for years now, and my parents both agree.  Flags are flying at half-mast so frequently these days that I've stopped even wondering why they're at half-mast.  It seems like, if someone's dog gets run over by a car, all the flags fly at half-mast.

How dare you disrespect the half mast status, that means we are missing the important events that take place, in the higher level population.


iPhone

Quote from: Tonytone on December 03, 2018, 08:27:40 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 03, 2018, 07:38:33 PM

Quote from: SSOWorld on December 01, 2018, 10:47:44 AM
Haven't flags been flying low since the stone age with all the onesy-twosey shootings happening lately?

I've been saying that for years now, and my parents both agree.  Flags are flying at half-mast so frequently these days that I've stopped even wondering why they're at half-mast.  It seems like, if someone's dog gets run over by a car, all the flags fly at half-mast.

How dare you disrespect the half mast status, that means we are missing the important events that take place, in the higher level population.

If we're remembering tragedy all the time, it loses its impact. There's nothing disrespectful about that.

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 03, 2018, 08:30:08 PM

Quote from: Tonytone on December 03, 2018, 08:27:40 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 03, 2018, 07:38:33 PM

Quote from: SSOWorld on December 01, 2018, 10:47:44 AM
Haven't flags been flying low since the stone age with all the onesy-twosey shootings happening lately?

I've been saying that for years now, and my parents both agree.  Flags are flying at half-mast so frequently these days that I've stopped even wondering why they're at half-mast.  It seems like, if someone's dog gets run over by a car, all the flags fly at half-mast.

How dare you disrespect the half mast status, that means we are missing the important events that take place, in the higher level population.

If we're remembering tragedy all the time, it loses its impact. There's nothing disrespectful about that.

Did you see how I said "higher level population"  that flag isn't for us, it's for the rich.


iPhone

Quote from: Tonytone on December 03, 2018, 08:31:20 PM

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 03, 2018, 08:30:08 PM

Quote from: Tonytone on December 03, 2018, 08:27:40 PM
How dare you disrespect the half mast status, that means we are missing the important events that take place, in the higher level population.

If we're remembering tragedy all the time, it loses its impact. There's nothing disrespectful about that.

Did you see how I said "higher level population"  that flag isn't for us, it's for the rich.

Unless it's only the wealthy dying in those mass shootings, that's just demonstrably not true. That is, unless you're also trying to insinuate that that's the only people it should be for, which is just as silly.

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 03, 2018, 08:36:30 PM

Quote from: Tonytone on December 03, 2018, 08:31:20 PM

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 03, 2018, 08:30:08 PM

Quote from: Tonytone on December 03, 2018, 08:27:40 PM
How dare you disrespect the half mast status, that means we are missing the important events that take place, in the higher level population.

If we're remembering tragedy all the time, it loses its impact. There's nothing disrespectful about that.

Did you see how I said "higher level population"  that flag isn't for us, it's for the rich.

Unless it's only the wealthy dying in those mass shootings, that's just demonstrably not true.

Thats true, but what does America really stand for nowadays? Seems like everything is for money nowadays.


iPhone

Quote from: Tonytone on December 03, 2018, 08:38:02 PM
Thats true, but what does America really stand for nowadays? Seems like everything is for money nowadays.

Money is the foundation of the economy. If it was suddenly meaningless, we'd have a problem.

Quote from: Tonytone on December 03, 2018, 08:27:40 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 03, 2018, 07:38:33 PM

Quote from: SSOWorld on December 01, 2018, 10:47:44 AM
Haven't flags been flying low since the stone age with all the onesy-twosey shootings happening lately?

I've been saying that for years now, and my parents both agree.  Flags are flying at half-mast so frequently these days that I've stopped even wondering why they're at half-mast.  It seems like, if someone's dog gets run over by a car, all the flags fly at half-mast.

How dare you disrespect the half mast status, that means we are missing the important events that take place, in the higher level population.

Since one of the "affected" high schools in the past year was one I'd graduated from, I kindly ask that we step back from internet knee-jerk overreactions and keep it on-topic.

A tragedy is a tragedy.

Quote from: jakeroot on December 03, 2018, 08:48:44 PM

Quote from: Tonytone on December 03, 2018, 08:38:02 PM
Thats true, but what does America really stand for nowadays? Seems like everything is for money nowadays.

Money is the foundation of the economy. If it was suddenly meaningless, we'd have a problem.

Wowers, I didnt know money comes with us when we die. Thats why everything's messed up now, back in the day everyone was trying to build up & find out more about life, now its work 12-12 with 1 day off.


iPhone

Quote from: Tonytone on December 03, 2018, 08:38:02 PM
Thats true, but what does America really stand for nowadays?

I don't think that's a meaningful question, nor do I think it has ever been meaningful.

Quote from: Tonytone on December 03, 2018, 08:27:40 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 03, 2018, 07:38:33 PM

Quote from: SSOWorld on December 01, 2018, 10:47:44 AM
Haven't flags been flying low since the stone age with all the onesy-twosey shootings happening lately?

I've been saying that for years now, and my parents both agree.  Flags are flying at half-mast so frequently these days that I've stopped even wondering why they're at half-mast.  It seems like, if someone's dog gets run over by a car, all the flags fly at half-mast.

How dare you disrespect the half mast status, that means we are missing the important events that take place, in the higher level population.
iPhone

I know this is a relatively minor thing, but it's half staff, not half mast. Half mast only applies in the Navy.

Quote from: jakeroot on December 03, 2018, 08:48:44 PM

Quote from: Tonytone on December 03, 2018, 08:38:02 PM
Thats true, but what does America really stand for nowadays? Seems like everything is for money nowadays.

Money is the foundation of the economy. If it was suddenly meaningless, we'd have a problem.

Quote from: qguy on December 03, 2018, 09:13:09 PM

Quote from: Tonytone on December 03, 2018, 08:27:40 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 03, 2018, 07:38:33 PM

Quote from: SSOWorld on December 01, 2018, 10:47:44 AM
Haven't flags been flying low since the stone age with all the onesy-twosey shootings happening lately?

I've been saying that for years now, and my parents both agree.  Flags are flying at half-mast so frequently these days that I've stopped even wondering why they're at half-mast.  It seems like, if someone's dog gets run over by a car, all the flags fly at half-mast.

How dare you disrespect the half mast status, that means we are missing the important events that take place, in the higher level population.
iPhone

I know this is a relatively minor thing, but it's half staff, not half mast. Half mast only applies in the Navy.

Half-mast is the proper term in the vast majority of the English-speaking world. Congress decided to say "half-staff" when they enacted the Flag Code, but that doesn't make "half-mast" incorrect in general use.

President George H. W. Bush was one of my favorite former presidents. Sure, his presidency was filled with little tiny gaffes that cost him a second term in office, and he was largely inactive during an AIDS crisis that killed way too many people in the late '80s, but damn if he wasn't a great man in almost every other respect.

He and Barbara were celebrating the birth of one of their great grandchildren a little while back, and 41's grand-daughter Jenna asked him, "What's the most important thing you've learned in your life?"

Bush replied, "Be true to yourself. To thy own self, be true."

Rest easy, H. W. I may not remember you, but you've got my respect.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjbgLmqn4XfAhVNh-AKHfATCEQQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fabc13.com%2Fpolitics%2Fbush-4141-train-to-transport-pres-george-hw-bush%2F4813537%2F&psig=AOvVaw2dwV2W7cn_tiC5Oh1BBQhW&ust=1543980934611690

The story says it has been in storage and not used since GHWB took it for a ride. I have seen it pulling freight trains on the UP the last few years.

Quote from: nexus73 on December 02, 2018, 02:40:16 PMSave the world and get the boot...LOL!

To be fair to Attlee, we were overdue another election having not had one since '37, and the war was all but over so the war coalition was rather pointless. He proposed at the Labour party annual conference that he wanted an election in Autumn, with the war coalition Government ending when it was called. Churchill, pretty much immediately after hearing what Attlee had said to his party, decided he needed to capitalise on the nations mood towards him personally post-VE day for the unpopular Tories* to have a hope of winning the election and so the next day went to the king to resign as PM and dissolve parliament (ie call an election) - which the king did, before asking Churchill to build a caretaker government to run the country until the election.

Churchill stayed on as Tory leader despite presiding over its (still) biggest loss - because it wasn't about him that they lost. And he turned it around - making Attlee's government very wobbly in 1950, and then winning a majority (of seats - Attlee's Labour got more votes) in 1951. But, old and unwell, his peace-time premiership was not good (it's generally considered to be pretty terrible). All the issues that had plagued his political career were still there - stubbornness, not being liked by the Tories, etc. But he had that "this is the guy who won the war" respect that meant that he was untouchable wrt getting rid of him unless you were his wife or the Monarch (George VI may have suggested retirement in the few months between election and death, but after that Liz was a young girl and needing to learn the ropes, while also in awe of Churchill) - and even then the stubborn man would likely reject it. He finally went in '55, and his prodigy is seen as the worst PM of the 20th century** (the poster boy of someone very highly qualified, well trained with lots of experience - and then turning out to be totally rubbish), because - unlike Churchill - his role during WW2 (as Foreign Secretary) doesn't get the focus, but his mistakes do.

Churchill was the right man for that one job we applaud him for, but really not good at any other office he had. We, like 50s Britain, give him pass after pass (and that was more so once he was dead) - as they somewhat did pre-war - even he admitted he was politically finished after Gallipoli in 1915 (https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/23/24FD9AB000000578-0-image-a-30_1422056597318.jpg) and the abdication crisis of 1936. OK, he worked hard both times to rehabilitate himself (returning to the army and making forays into no-mans land in WW1 despite his high rank to undo Gallipoli, leading the anti-appeasement campaign in the run up to WW2).

*They'd been leading the government for a very long time, and so had so much baggage making them unpopular. You get this in the US and was one factor in why Bush 41 was a one term presidency.
**Churchill is either ranked right near the top, or in the middle, depending if the experts (scholars, politicians, etc) remember his third stint in the 50s. Attlee is always first or second - with either Thatcher or Churchill beating him if he's not top.

Quote from: US71 on December 03, 2018, 07:22:08 PM

Quote from: Henry on December 03, 2018, 11:51:01 AM
In just eight months, George and Barbara are together again in heaven. I figured it would be a matter of time before he went not too long after she did.

My mom survived about 2 1/2 years without dad.

Both my grandmothers outlived their husbands for decades, as did my paternal grandmothers' sisters. What's rare is for a husband to outlive his wife for a significant amount of time.

Quote from: abefroman329 on December 04, 2018, 08:06:45 AM

Quote from: US71 on December 03, 2018, 07:22:08 PM

Quote from: Henry on December 03, 2018, 11:51:01 AM
In just eight months, George and Barbara are together again in heaven. I figured it would be a matter of time before he went not too long after she did.

My mom survived about 2 1/2 years without dad.

Both my grandmothers outlived their husbands for decades, as did my paternal grandmothers' sisters. What's rare is for a husband to outlive his wife for a significant amount of time.

My dad got his "final" wish, to go before mom. He couldn't see living without her.  My mom's uncle, Will, lived 7 years after Aunt Fannie passed. Of course, he found himself a girlfriend after a couple years so she probably helped.

Quote from: abefroman329 on December 04, 2018, 08:06:45 AM

Quote from: US71 on December 03, 2018, 07:22:08 PM

Quote from: Henry on December 03, 2018, 11:51:01 AM
In just eight months, George and Barbara are together again in heaven. I figured it would be a matter of time before he went not too long after she did.

My mom survived about 2 1/2 years without dad.

Both my grandmothers outlived their husbands for decades, as did my paternal grandmothers’ sisters. What’s rare is for a husband to outlive his wife for a significant amount of time.

My dad has outlived my mother by 8 years, and he is 92 now and is doing well.

Quote from: US71 on December 04, 2018, 09:25:23 AMOf course, he found himself a girlfriend after a couple years so she probably helped.

Yeah, that's the key right there; my grandmothers and great-aunts outlived their husbands by decades without remarrying or (AFAIK) dating.

Quote from: jakeroot on December 03, 2018, 08:48:44 PM

Quote from: Tonytone on December 03, 2018, 08:38:02 PM
Thats true, but what does America really stand for nowadays? Seems like everything is for money nowadays.

Money is the foundation of the economy. If it was suddenly meaningless, we'd have a problem.

It certainly didn't used to be as dominant as it is now, though.  It used to be one thing among many.  Now it's the only thing.

Quote from: english si on December 04, 2018, 05:46:33 AM

Quote from: nexus73 on December 02, 2018, 02:40:16 PMSave the world and get the boot...LOL!

To be fair to Attlee, we were overdue another election having not had one since '37, and the war was all but over so the war coalition was rather pointless. He proposed at the Labour party annual conference that he wanted an election in Autumn, with the war coalition Government ending when it was called. Churchill, pretty much immediately after hearing what Attlee had said to his party, decided he needed to capitalise on the nations mood towards him personally post-VE day for the unpopular Tories* to have a hope of winning the election and so the next day went to the king to resign as PM and dissolve parliament (ie call an election) - which the king did, before asking Churchill to build a caretaker government to run the country until the election.

Churchill stayed on as Tory leader despite presiding over its (still) biggest loss - because it wasn't about him that they lost. And he turned it around - making Attlee's government very wobbly in 1950, and then winning a majority (of seats - Attlee's Labour got more votes) in 1951. But, old and unwell, his peace-time premiership was not good (it's generally considered to be pretty terrible). All the issues that had plagued his political career were still there - stubbornness, not being liked by the Tories, etc. But he had that "this is the guy who won the war" respect that meant that he was untouchable wrt getting rid of him unless you were his wife or the Monarch (George VI may have suggested retirement in the few months between election and death, but after that Liz was a young girl and needing to learn the ropes, while also in awe of Churchill) - and even then the stubborn man would likely reject it. He finally went in '55, and his prodigy is seen as the worst PM of the 20th century** (the poster boy of someone very highly qualified, well trained with lots of experience - and then turning out to be totally rubbish), because - unlike Churchill - his role during WW2 (as Foreign Secretary) doesn't get the focus, but his mistakes do.

Churchill was the right man for that one job we applaud him for, but really not good at any other office he had. We, like 50s Britain, give him pass after pass (and that was more so once he was dead) - as they somewhat did pre-war - even he admitted he was politically finished after Gallipoli in 1915 (https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/23/24FD9AB000000578-0-image-a-30_1422056597318.jpg) and the abdication crisis of 1936. OK, he worked hard both times to rehabilitate himself (returning to the army and making forays into no-mans land in WW1 despite his high rank to undo Gallipoli, leading the anti-appeasement campaign in the run up to WW2).

*They'd been leading the government for a very long time, and so had so much baggage making them unpopular. You get this in the US and was one factor in why Bush 41 was a one term presidency.
**Churchill is either ranked right near the top, or in the middle, depending if the experts (scholars, politicians, etc) remember his third stint in the 50s. Attlee is always first or second - with either Thatcher or Churchill beating him if he's not top.

When I was taking AP US History in high school, the teachers suggested that the Soviet Union would not have been able to hold influence over their occupied areas had Stalin been dealing with FDR and/or Churchill instead of Attlee and Truman.  Makes me wonder if the Cold War would have been different (or even prevented entirely) had Churchill's government held out a little longer.

Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2018, 01:14:48 PM
When I was taking AP US History in high school, the teachers suggested that the Soviet Union would not have been able to hold influence over their occupied areas had Stalin been dealing with FDR and/or Churchill instead of Attlee and Truman.  Makes me wonder if the Cold War would have been different (or even prevented entirely) had Churchill's government held out a little longer.

I don't buy that for a minute.  The Soviet Union wasn't about to relinquish control of territory gained for anyone.  Stalin was too much of a paranoid fuck to leave open the possibility of a reconstituted Germany threatening him again.  The Germans attacked the Soviet Union twice in 3 decades; Stalin's primary goal post-war was to prevent that from happening again.  As such, the Cold War was inevitable.  And frankly, it was the better outcome than if the hotheads had their way in the 40's and we all plunged into war again over control of a bombed-out Berlin.

As for Bush Sr, he's one of those Presidents that looks better in retrospect.  Mostly because of how much more terrible his progeny was, but H-Dub played it cool while the Soviet Union imploded and knew better than to start an endless occupation in the Middle East.
That "Willy Horton" ad, though; that set the stage for a lot of bullshit we are still suffering from.  Right, it wasn't an 'official' campaign ad, but c'mon; it's ignorance to honestly believe that politicians aren't 100% in cahoots with those outside groups.

USPS is closed tomorrow for the "National Day of Mourning".  Do schools not close for that anymore?  My recollection is that we got two days off pretty close to each other when Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson died within a month or so of each other.

Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2018, 01:14:48 PMWhen I was taking AP US History in high school, the teachers suggested that the Soviet Union would not have been able to hold influence over their occupied areas had Stalin been dealing with FDR and/or Churchill instead of Attlee and Truman.  Makes me wonder if the Cold War would have been different (or even prevented entirely) had Churchill's government held out a little longer.

Churchill and a post-Hiroshima US and a bit more time for Winston to persuade Harry might have been able to limit Stalin (though via a Hot War seems about the only way). While Attlee definitely wasn't pro-Stalin (the UK's left-most PM is the only one who went to war against the Red menace - Korea), he hadn't necessarily gained Churchill's immense dislike of him* - though Clement would have known Churchill's concerns, and that he got it right the last time. But there also wasn't the Churchill myth, nor would Attlee and Truman have had built a relationship until too late (especially as they came to power a little after).

Yalta in early '45 was where (to Churchill's horror) FDR appeased Stalin and gave him the Sudetenland (and the rest of Czechoslovakia), let him anschloss Koningsburg, and let him finish his 1939 invasion of Poland. Churchill was at the beginning of the next conference between the three powers, but was replaced midway though by Attlee. Sir Winston was enraged by Stalin taking over Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, but all 3 western leaders there had two choices - open war with Russia, or letting Stalin get away with it. The USSR had enough air superiority (and was pretty close to nukes) so the threat of mushroom clouds would have been pretty meaningless and would have done nothing to curb Stalin.

*Churchill was open to attempts to thaw the Cold War a little when Stalin died during his third stint as PM, but his government didn't want to. Stalin, like Hitler, wasn't - in his experience - someone who you could do a deal with.

Quote from: gonealookin on December 04, 2018, 10:08:36 PM
USPS is closed tomorrow for the "National Day of Mourning".  Do schools not close for that anymore?  My recollection is that we got two days off pretty close to each other when Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson died within a month or so of each other.

Is anyone really so broken up about a has-been President dying that we need to stop doing business for a day in bereavement? I could see it being necessary if a sitting President died (especially in a JFK-type situation, folks are likely to be shaken up), but I can count the number of times that I thought about George H.W. Bush at all, in an average month before this one, on one hand. This seems more than a little silly.

Stock market is closed, too. But I still have to work.

Quote from: english si on December 05, 2018, 12:52:09 AM

Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2018, 01:14:48 PMWhen I was taking AP US History in high school, the teachers suggested that the Soviet Union would not have been able to hold influence over their occupied areas had Stalin been dealing with FDR and/or Churchill instead of Attlee and Truman.  Makes me wonder if the Cold War would have been different (or even prevented entirely) had Churchill's government held out a little longer.

Churchill and a post-Hiroshima US and a bit more time for Winston to persuade Harry might have been able to limit Stalin (though via a Hot War seems about the only way). While Attlee definitely wasn't pro-Stalin (the UK's left-most PM is the only one who went to war against the Red menace - Korea), he hadn't necessarily gained Churchill's immense dislike of him* - though Clement would have known Churchill's concerns, and that he got it right the last time. But there also wasn't the Churchill myth, nor would Attlee and Truman have had built a relationship until too late (especially as they came to power a little after).

Yalta in early '45 was where (to Churchill's horror) FDR appeased Stalin and gave him the Sudetenland (and the rest of Czechoslovakia), let him anschloss Koningsburg, and let him finish his 1939 invasion of Poland. Churchill was at the beginning of the next conference between the three powers, but was replaced midway though by Attlee. Sir Winston was enraged by Stalin taking over Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, but all 3 western leaders there had two choices - open war with Russia, or letting Stalin get away with it. The USSR had enough air superiority (and was pretty close to nukes) so the threat of mushroom clouds would have been pretty meaningless and would have done nothing to curb Stalin.

*Churchill was open to attempts to thaw the Cold War a little when Stalin died during his third stint as PM, but his government didn't want to. Stalin, like Hitler, wasn't - in his experience - someone who you could do a deal with.

To be fair to FDR a bit here, he was very (and visibly) ill at Yalta.  The war and the traveling for the war had taken a massive toll on him by this time.  My guess is that he was willing to agree to almost anything at that time to end the war sooner, perhaps before he would die.  He wasn't really in a position to stand up to Stalin at Yalta the same way that Churchill could and would have.

Quote from: Brandon on December 05, 2018, 07:04:33 AMHe wasn't really in a position to stand up to Stalin at Yalta the same way that Churchill could and would have.

Off-colour joke intended? :P

To be fair to FDR, all he could was either:
1) do what he did and let Stalin take over Europe east of what Churchill later called "the Iron Curtain"
2) do what Churchill did and denounce Stalin's but don't actually go as far as do anything to stop him
3) go to war with the USSR

2 is all bark and no bite - with the same outcome as 1. Thus 1 is a perfectly legit option if 3 isn't an option. 3 is a massive risk and victory would come at a great cost - there was a reason it was called Operation Unthinkable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable).

Threatening with nuclear war could have worked post-Hiroshima - the Soviets withdrew from Iran in 1946 very quickly - but at Yalta FDR couldn't let on about nuclear weapons (the Brits, despite the closeness of the alliance, found out when everyone else did).

Or as I said:

Quote from: english si on December 05, 2018, 12:52:09 AMChurchill and a post-Hiroshima US and a bit more time for Winston to persuade Harry might have been able to limit Stalin (though via a Hot War seems about the only way).

Though, Churchill's problem with FDR was not that he chose no more war (option 3),* nor that he didn't publicly signal virtue (option 2), but the lack of reluctance with which he decided that option 1 (as I've called it) was the way to go, without much private protest about Stalin's imperialism. That there wasn't even a lack of fight (which you'd get from an ill man), but more a willingness to let Stalin get away with it.

*Something that Bush 41 did to everyone's confusion at the time, but his son showed not invading Iraq was a good decision.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 05, 2018, 03:17:24 AM

Quote from: gonealookin on December 04, 2018, 10:08:36 PM
USPS is closed tomorrow for the "National Day of Mourning".  Do schools not close for that anymore?  My recollection is that we got two days off pretty close to each other when Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson died within a month or so of each other.

Is anyone really so broken up about a has-been President dying that we need to stop doing business for a day in bereavement? I could see it being necessary if a sitting President died (especially in a JFK-type situation, folks are likely to be shaken up), but I can count the number of times that I thought about George H.W. Bush at all, in an average month before this one, on one hand. This seems more than a little silly.

There's bound to be a few, but from what I have read, it's an honor bestowed for all former presidents. Hell, even Nixon (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/01/george-h-w-bush-day-mourning-president-trump/2173943002/) got a day of mourning.

Quote from: DaBigE on December 05, 2018, 09:05:54 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 05, 2018, 03:17:24 AM

Quote from: gonealookin on December 04, 2018, 10:08:36 PM
USPS is closed tomorrow for the "National Day of Mourning".  Do schools not close for that anymore?  My recollection is that we got two days off pretty close to each other when Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson died within a month or so of each other.

Is anyone really so broken up about a has-been President dying that we need to stop doing business for a day in bereavement? I could see it being necessary if a sitting President died (especially in a JFK-type situation, folks are likely to be shaken up), but I can count the number of times that I thought about George H.W. Bush at all, in an average month before this one, on one hand. This seems more than a little silly.

There's bound to be a few, but from what I have read, it's an honor bestowed for all former presidents. Hell, even Nixon (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/01/george-h-w-bush-day-mourning-president-trump/2173943002/) got a day of mourning.

And so did Ford, who didn't even serve a full term (he took over in the middle of Nixon's second term, and lost his re-election bid to Carter).

Quote from: DaBigE on December 05, 2018, 09:05:54 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 05, 2018, 03:17:24 AM

Quote from: gonealookin on December 04, 2018, 10:08:36 PM
USPS is closed tomorrow for the "National Day of Mourning".  Do schools not close for that anymore?  My recollection is that we got two days off pretty close to each other when Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson died within a month or so of each other.

Is anyone really so broken up about a has-been President dying that we need to stop doing business for a day in bereavement? I could see it being necessary if a sitting President died (especially in a JFK-type situation, folks are likely to be shaken up), but I can count the number of times that I thought about George H.W. Bush at all, in an average month before this one, on one hand. This seems more than a little silly.

There's bound to be a few, but from what I have read, it's an honor bestowed for all former presidents. Hell, even Nixon (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/01/george-h-w-bush-day-mourning-president-trump/2173943002/) got a day of mourning.

Which is something the current incumbent gets to look forward to in another 20-something years

Quote from: US71 on December 05, 2018, 09:36:50 AM

Quote from: DaBigE on December 05, 2018, 09:05:54 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 05, 2018, 03:17:24 AM

Quote from: gonealookin on December 04, 2018, 10:08:36 PM
USPS is closed tomorrow for the "National Day of Mourning".  Do schools not close for that anymore?  My recollection is that we got two days off pretty close to each other when Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson died within a month or so of each other.

Is anyone really so broken up about a has-been President dying that we need to stop doing business for a day in bereavement? I could see it being necessary if a sitting President died (especially in a JFK-type situation, folks are likely to be shaken up), but I can count the number of times that I thought about George H.W. Bush at all, in an average month before this one, on one hand. This seems more than a little silly.

There's bound to be a few, but from what I have read, it's an honor bestowed for all former presidents. Hell, even Nixon (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/01/george-h-w-bush-day-mourning-president-trump/2173943002/) got a day of mourning.

Which is something the current incumbent gets to look forward to in another 20-something years

Along with a Presidential Library - again, even Gerald Ford got one, despite serving as President for ~2 years.

Quote from: english si on December 05, 2018, 08:18:23 AM
To be fair to FDR, all he could was either:
1) do what he did and let Stalin take over Europe east of what Churchill later called "the Iron Curtain"
2) do what Churchill did and denounce Stalin's but don't actually go as far as do anything to stop him
3) go to war with the USSR

4) Demand that Soviet troops leave the non-Soviet countries within a set deadline of 2 or 3 years (after all millions of troops can't just turn on a dime), or else they will be driven back to the USSR.  State "this is not war with the USSR because we are not going to enter your country".

Quote from: oscar on December 05, 2018, 09:18:00 AM

Quote from: DaBigE on December 05, 2018, 09:05:54 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 05, 2018, 03:17:24 AM

Quote from: gonealookin on December 04, 2018, 10:08:36 PM
USPS is closed tomorrow for the "National Day of Mourning".  Do schools not close for that anymore?  My recollection is that we got two days off pretty close to each other when Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson died within a month or so of each other.

Is anyone really so broken up about a has-been President dying that we need to stop doing business for a day in bereavement? I could see it being necessary if a sitting President died (especially in a JFK-type situation, folks are likely to be shaken up), but I can count the number of times that I thought about George H.W. Bush at all, in an average month before this one, on one hand. This seems more than a little silly.

There's bound to be a few, but from what I have read, it's an honor bestowed for all former presidents. Hell, even Nixon (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/01/george-h-w-bush-day-mourning-president-trump/2173943002/) got a day of mourning.

And so did Ford, who didn't even serve a full term (he took over in the middle of Nixon's second term, and lost his re-election bid to Carter).

I think it's done more to grant a federal holiday to ease traffic in DC. One of my FB friends and a forum participant who lives there said the amount of traffic he's seen justifies government offices being closed. And it's certainly not fair to give federal workers in DC a paid day off while federal workers elsewhere have to work. We run into the same thing in Kentucky when a governor is inaugurated. The parade shuts down much of Frankfort, so they close state offices. State employees elsewhere get the day off, too. One year they floated the idea of just closing Frankfort and making employees in the other 119 counties work, but you can imagine how that went over due to the fundamental (un)fairness issue.

Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2018, 11:25:51 AM4) Demand that Soviet troops leave the non-Soviet countries within a set deadline of 2 or 3 years (after all millions of troops can't just turn on a dime), or else they will be driven back to the USSR.  State "this is not war with the USSR because we are not going to enter your country".

That's still basically 3) (or 2 if it works). The first Gulf war was still war with Iraq.

But I doubt it works as a ruse - you'd need to threaten the motherland with nukes (so 2-3 years too long as any bluff would get seen through, and Soviet nuclear program might develop) as Stalin is fine with throwing men (especially if they are foreign) at problems, and has the superiority with conventional weapons anyway.

Air Force One* carrying Bush's casket just flew right over my apartment in the South Arlington/West End Alexandria area (I-395&VA-7 in roadgeek terms)...pretty neat...real low, real loud.


*It's only AF1 when the sitting president is on board, but you know what I mean.

Quote from: Brandon on December 02, 2018, 09:32:48 AM

Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2018, 08:24:07 AM

Quote from: abefroman329 on December 02, 2018, 06:37:57 AM

Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2018, 09:25:21 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 01, 2018, 09:14:27 PM
I fully expected a bunch of discussion over whether or not Trump will go/will be invited to the funeral, but I wasn't prepared for the "Bush 41 had JFK assassinated" garbage that's washed up several places today.
Where do people dream up this stuff?

Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy.  Vincent Bugliosi's book _Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy_ nailed it with 53 pieces of evidence supporting the case that Oswald alone fired the shots, and then he spent the second half of the book listing every conspiracy theory that he could find and then debunking them.

Was one of the 53 "Oswald was aiming for the Governor of Texas, missed, and hit JFK instead" ? Because that's the only one I've heard that accounts for a) Oswald acting alone and b) Oswald pulling off such a difficult shot when he was such a lousy marksman.

Oswald enlisted in the Marine Corps in October, 1956.  Like all marines, Oswald was trained and tested in shooting.  In December 1956, he scored 212, which was slightly above the requirements for the designation of sharpshooter.  In May 1959 he scored 191, which reduced his rating to marksman.

It was not a difficult shot, you don't even need to be a trained infantryman (like Oswald) to kill someone at 50 to 70 yards with a high-powered rifle at essentially point-blank range (in windage and elevation) for that rifle.  A WWII rifle designed to hit and kill soldiers at 200 yards.

And, having been up the the Sixth Floor Museum (which I recommend by the way), and looking out that exact window, Oswald had to be a complete idiot to miss that shot.  As it was, he did miss at least one that struck the pavement.

I'd always been under the impression somehow that the distance of the shot was much longer that it actually is.  A couple of years ago, I stood at that same window looking down at the "X" painted on Elm Street and thought something like, "It'd be hard for me to miss."

I second the recommendation about the museum.  Very well done.

Quote from: english si on December 05, 2018, 12:32:15 PM

Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2018, 11:25:51 AM4) Demand that Soviet troops leave the non-Soviet countries within a set deadline of 2 or 3 years (after all millions of troops can't just turn on a dime), or else they will be driven back to the USSR.  State "this is not war with the USSR because we are not going to enter your country".

That's still basically 3) (or 2 if it works). The first Gulf war was still war with Iraq.
But I doubt it works as a ruse - you'd need to threaten the motherland with nukes (so 2-3 years too long as any bluff would get seen through, and Soviet nuclear program might develop) as Stalin is fine with throwing men (especially if they are foreign) at problems, and has the superiority with conventional weapons anyway.

So basically the USSR declared a cold war on the other Allies in 1945 and claimed these other countries as part of the Soviet Bloc. 

Germany was a special case as was Japan, where they were occupied by allied powers for 5 years to make the transition to a new peaceful government.  France, the United Kingdom, and the United States released the part they occupied to become an independent nation in 1949.  The USSR didn't release their portion until 1990.

I will grant that the USSR lost 20 million people in WW II and basically wanted a thousand mile wide buffer between them and the rest of Europe, and while I can conceptually understand that, it is outrageous that they held these other nations under their military control for 45 years after WW II ended, and technically it didn't end until 1990.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 05, 2018, 11:46:24 AM
I think it's done more to grant a federal holiday to ease traffic in DC. One of my FB friends and a forum participant who lives there said the amount of traffic he's seen justifies government offices being closed. And it's certainly not fair to give federal workers in DC a paid day off while federal workers elsewhere have to work.

That's SOP for Federal inaugurations. Unless something changed since I retired in 2011, Federal workers in much of the DC metro area (not limited to DC itself) get that day off, but Federal workers everywhere else are SOL.

Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 01, 2018, 07:42:16 PM

Quote from: Brandon on December 01, 2018, 12:14:02 AM
That leaves Carter, Clinton, George W. Bush, & Obama.  Interesting note, Carter has outlived not too only his successor, but his successor's VP as well.

Another interseting note is that both he and Bush were born in the same year.

When Richard Nixon died, I was sure that Ronald Reagan would be the next former President to go, simply because Reagan was two years older than Nixon, and I was right. After that I was convinced Ford would be next because he was the same age as Nixon (only younger by about seven months), but then Clinton had his first big post-Presidential health scare, and I wasn't as sure of who would go next anymore.

As it turned out, I was still right.

Then when I heard about Jimmy Carter's health problems, I started thinking it might be a toss-up between him and Bush.

Respect.  Do not make threats of any kind.  --sso

I don't know where you got the idea that I was making any threats with this post.

Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 16, 2018, 04:22:29 PM

Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 01, 2018, 07:42:16 PM

Quote from: Brandon on December 01, 2018, 12:14:02 AM
That leaves Carter, Clinton, George W. Bush, & Obama.  Interesting note, Carter has outlived not too only his successor, but his successor's VP as well.

Another interseting note is that both he and Bush were born in the same year.

When Richard Nixon died, I was sure that Ronald Reagan would be the next former President to go, simply because Reagan was two years older than Nixon, and I was right. After that I was convinced Ford would be next because he was the same age as Nixon (only younger by about seven months), but then Clinton had his first big post-Presidential health scare, and I wasn't as sure of who would go next anymore.

As it turned out, I was still right.

Then when I heard about Jimmy Carter's health problems, I started thinking it might be a toss-up between him and Bush.

Respect.  Do not make threats of any kind.  --sso

I don't know where you got the idea that I was making any threats with this post.

Seriously. And some people wonder why some complain about over-moderation here. I don't see any threats. Just speculation based on the realities of aging.

Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 16, 2018, 04:22:29 PM

Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 01, 2018, 07:42:16 PM

Quote from: Brandon on December 01, 2018, 12:14:02 AM
That leaves Carter, Clinton, George W. Bush, & Obama.  Interesting note, Carter has outlived not too only his successor, but his successor's VP as well.

Another interseting note is that both he and Bush were born in the same year.

When Richard Nixon died, I was sure that Ronald Reagan would be the next former President to go, simply because Reagan was two years older than Nixon, and I was right. After that I was convinced Ford would be next because he was the same age as Nixon (only younger by about seven months), but then Clinton had his first big post-Presidential health scare, and I wasn't as sure of who would go next anymore.

As it turned out, I was still right.

Then when I heard about Jimmy Carter's health problems, I started thinking it might be a toss-up between him and Bush.

Respect.  Do not make threats of any kind.  --sso

I don't know where you got the idea that I was making any threats with this post.

I see no threats. I don't see how anything could be construed as such.

Quote from: oscar on December 05, 2018, 07:58:39 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 05, 2018, 11:46:24 AM
I think it's done more to grant a federal holiday to ease traffic in DC. One of my FB friends and a forum participant who lives there said the amount of traffic he's seen justifies government offices being closed. And it's certainly not fair to give federal workers in DC a paid day off while federal workers elsewhere have to work.

That's SOP for Federal inaugurations. Unless something changed since I retired in 2011, Federal workers in much of the DC metro area (not limited to DC itself) get that day off, but Federal workers everywhere else are SOL.

This is still policy.  If Presidential Inauguration falls on a weekday then any federal office inside the beltway is given an admin day off.  It is treated like a snow day in that anyone already scheduled to have that day off would not get an in-lieu of holiday like one would for the existing federal holidays.  Days of Mourning are specifically designated as a federal holiday in accordance with law and is treated as a true federal holiday...

Quote from: hbelkins on December 16, 2018, 07:02:15 PM

Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 16, 2018, 04:22:29 PM

Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 01, 2018, 07:42:16 PM

Quote from: Brandon on December 01, 2018, 12:14:02 AM
That leaves Carter, Clinton, George W. Bush, & Obama.  Interesting note, Carter has outlived not too only his successor, but his successor's VP as well.

Another interseting note is that both he and Bush were born in the same year.

When Richard Nixon died, I was sure that Ronald Reagan would be the next former President to go, simply because Reagan was two years older than Nixon, and I was right. After that I was convinced Ford would be next because he was the same age as Nixon (only younger by about seven months), but then Clinton had his first big post-Presidential health scare, and I wasn't as sure of who would go next anymore.

As it turned out, I was still right.

Then when I heard about Jimmy Carter's health problems, I started thinking it might be a toss-up between him and Bush.

Respect.  Do not make threats of any kind.  --sso

I don't know where you got the idea that I was making any threats with this post.

Seriously. And some people wonder why some complain about over-moderation here. I don't see any threats. Just speculation based on the realities of aging.

Y'all just missed it.

Quote from: US71 on December 16, 2018, 07:04:59 PM

Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 16, 2018, 04:22:29 PM

Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 01, 2018, 07:42:16 PM

Quote from: Brandon on December 01, 2018, 12:14:02 AM
That leaves Carter, Clinton, George W. Bush, & Obama.  Interesting note, Carter has outlived not too only his successor, but his successor's VP as well.

Another interseting note is that both he and Bush were born in the same year.

When Richard Nixon died, I was sure that Ronald Reagan would be the next former President to go, simply because Reagan was two years older than Nixon, and I was right. After that I was convinced Ford would be next because he was the same age as Nixon (only younger by about seven months), but then Clinton had his first big post-Presidential health scare, and I wasn't as sure of who would go next anymore.

As it turned out, I was still right.

Then when I heard about Jimmy Carter's health problems, I started thinking it might be a toss-up between him and Bush.

Respect.  Do not make threats of any kind.  --sso

I don't know where you got the idea that I was making any threats with this post.

I see no threats. I don't see how anything could be construed as such.

There was more, before it was removed.

Apparently part of my message was misinterpreted as a threat. All I said was that Jimmy Carter would be the mostly likely ex-President to die unless somebody assassinates Trump. I wasn't saying I was going to kill either of them, or that anybody else should.

Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 16, 2018, 10:57:59 PM
Apparently part of my message was misinterpreted as a threat. All I said was that Jimmy Carter would be the mostly likely ex-President to die unless somebody assassinates Trump. I wasn't saying I was going to kill either of them, or that anybody else should.

That's something I wouldn't even joke about, myself.

Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 16, 2018, 10:57:59 PM
Apparently part of my message was misinterpreted as a threat. All I said was that Jimmy Carter would be the mostly likely ex-President to die unless somebody assassinates Trump. I wasn't saying I was going to kill either of them, or that anybody else should.

I don't really understand why you'd choose to repost the message that was deleted, but I'm not you. I thought it was in extremely poor taste.

The forum's management could potentially get in trouble if they allowed posts that commented on that sort of thing. Not worth it to them to allow that, regardless of how you meant it.

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 17, 2018, 08:11:15 AM
The forum's management could potentially get in trouble if they allowed posts that commented on that sort of thing. Not worth it to them to allow that, regardless of how you meant it.

Maybe they should block guest access so Mr. Secret Service can't read posts unless he's a member.  :-D :-D :-D

Speculating on an assassination isn't a threat. Can't recall the number of times I read people speculating that some Klan member would off Obama.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 17, 2018, 12:30:03 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 17, 2018, 08:11:15 AM
The forum's management could potentially get in trouble if they allowed posts that commented on that sort of thing. Not worth it to them to allow that, regardless of how you meant it.

Maybe they should block guest access so Mr. Secret Service can't read posts unless he's a member.  :-D :-D :-D

Speculating on an assassination isn't a threat. Can't recall the number of times I read people speculating that some Klan member would off Obama.

Still in poor taste.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 17, 2018, 12:30:03 PMCan't recall the number of times I read people speculating that some Klan member would off Obama.

Two wrongs make a right, it's true.

Quote from: abefroman329 on December 17, 2018, 01:21:08 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 17, 2018, 12:30:03 PMCan't recall the number of times I read people speculating that some Klan member would off Obama.

Two wrongs make a right, it's true.

But my point is, I don't think anyone who theorized that it might happen got a visit from the guys in dark suits with no senses of humor. Saying it's a possibility is a lot different than actually threatening to do so.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 17, 2018, 04:16:14 PM

Quote from: abefroman329 on December 17, 2018, 01:21:08 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 17, 2018, 12:30:03 PMCan't recall the number of times I read people speculating that some Klan member would off Obama.

Two wrongs make a right, it's true.

But my point is, I don't think anyone who theorized that it might happen got a visit from the guys in dark suits with no senses of humor. Saying it's a possibility is a lot different than actually threatening to do so.

Jack-booted government thugs are orders of magnitude more of something for the populace to worry about, than the handful of Klan members still around.

Quote from: jakeroot on December 01, 2018, 02:54:56 AM
As I was only 7 (going on 8) when Reagan died, this will be my first time seeing and understanding the process following presidential deaths.

To be honest, I'm glad he finally passed. I'm sure without Barb by his side, life was a struggle. Sure, he had his kids, but living without your life partner has to be excruciatingly difficult, especially in later years. I'm sure he's in a much better place now. I know if one of my grandparents were to die, and both were in ailing health, the best thing would be for both of them to go at the same time.

I've read in the obits a few times one will die & the other dies within a week

Quote from: hbelkins on December 17, 2018, 04:16:14 PM

Quote from: abefroman329 on December 17, 2018, 01:21:08 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 17, 2018, 12:30:03 PMCan't recall the number of times I read people speculating that some Klan member would off Obama.

Two wrongs make a right, it's true.

But my point is, I don't think anyone who theorized that it might happen got a visit from the guys in dark suits with no senses of humor. Saying it's a possibility is a lot different than actually threatening to do so.

Not worth it to them, as 1995hoo said.  Wouldn't be worth it to me.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.fanpop.com%2Fimages%2Fphotos%2F6800000%2FThe-Agents-Brown-Smith-and-Jones-the-matrix-6856160-640-262.jpg&hash=b6068ac86b13e36ab373967ec2e56fd77bc4ffca)

The agents say this thread is done.