Question about American history

[storch]

Originally posted by ra
What?

Delusions, why bother?

[Boroda]

Originally posted by ra
What?

USSR trade with the US in the 30s brought solid gold and millions of jobs. I don't think that as many communist "historians" say it saved US economics, but it was important...

We still have whole automobile factories working here that were bought from the US in the 30s. The tremendous leap that USSR made in the 30s was based on foreign technology, including bought in the US for solid gold.

Next time you'll deny Russian policy towards US during the Independence War and other affairs in your history?...

[ra]

OK, what percentage of US exports went to the USSR in the 30's?  Probably not enough to make a big difference.   I'll bet the USSR imported more from the Third Reich in the 1930's than it did from the US.

[DieAz]

Originally posted by Boroda
When was the law passed not allowing president to stay for more then 2 times (8 years)?

AFAIR, what they told me at school - it was in late 40-s, during Truman presidency. Am I right?...

it is actually 2.5 terms (10 year limit)
If a sitting President leaves office for what ever reason the VP can become President for no more than 2 years of that term and be elected for 2 more terms.
If the VP serves as President even 1 day (minute or second if you want to be picky) over 2 years, he can only be elected 1 more term.

[mietla]

Originally posted by storch
I think you are wrong there.  IIRC the 22nd amendment states the terms may not be consecutive terms   He may if he wishes run again.

Amendment 22

(March 1, 1951)

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office…

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by Otto
You are correct.  I should have said that Bill Clinton never won 50% of the vote in either election. (in 1996 it was 49%)  He did win a majority of all the votes cast in both.

Also, I live outside of Philadelphia and vote there as well.

Sorry then, it sounded like you were trying to say Willy lost the popular election both times and made it in anyway.  I dont think he was THAT good.  I'm not really sure why it matters that he won 50% of the vote, but.........ok I concede your point.  He never won 50%.  Unless you want to quibble over 96 if it was 49% or 50%, I've seen it both ways and dont really know which is right.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Otto
You are correct.  I should have said that Bill Clinton never won 50% of the vote in either election. (in 1996 it was 49%)  He did win a majority of all the votes cast in both.

1992, 43% Clinton, 37% GHWBush, 19% Perot

Clinton received 44,908,254 of 104,600,366 votes cast.

1996, 49% Clinton, 41% Dole, 8% Perot

Clinton received 47,402,357 of 96,277,634 votes cast.

In order to receive "a majority of all the votes cast in both", Clinton would have had to receive more than 50% of 200,878,000 votes, or at least 100,439,000 votes.

He was 8,128,286 votes short of that bar. Clinton recieved 45.95% (a plurality, not a majority) of the votes cast in both.