Worse case election scenarios...
-
I had a paranoid thought while taking my shower this morning. I found myself wondering what would happen if we have a repeat of the 2000 election - Bush wins by a slim electoral margin after the Supreme Court acts to stop attempts at recounts in some key state. The left in this country, and most (all?) of the people of the rest of the planet, are already foaming at the mouth angry with Bush. They already appear to believe that the antiquated democractic institutions of the U.S. have failed and that we have morhped into some kind of fascist like state where hordes of racist, christian zealots, brain washed by government controlled media and handicapped by a badly failed educational system, grant power to a capitalist controlled puppet government to protect them from the evil terrorists. In short, it seems to me that the Bush haters are not all that different in their basic world view from what motivates the terrorists - fear and loathing for the international system that maintains the virtually incalcuable hegemony of the U.S. Would such an event push people in any significant way to begin entertaining the possibility of an alliance with the terrorists? In other words, is there even a remote possibility that another "illigitimate" Bush term could provide the stimulus for an almost global terrorist movmement aimed at the U.S., with a much broader and deeper recruiting pool than just Islamic fanatics? Precisely how mad are people now, and how much angrier can they get? EDIT] Factoring in environmental issues, rising gas prices, etc.[/EDIT] "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
I absolutely agree that this will happen and it is happening already. I happen to be one of those that believe we are slowly morphing and the religious zealotry is at the core of the beast that is taunting more rational people to become angry enough to drop everything and retaliate.
-
I had a paranoid thought while taking my shower this morning. I found myself wondering what would happen if we have a repeat of the 2000 election - Bush wins by a slim electoral margin after the Supreme Court acts to stop attempts at recounts in some key state. The left in this country, and most (all?) of the people of the rest of the planet, are already foaming at the mouth angry with Bush. They already appear to believe that the antiquated democractic institutions of the U.S. have failed and that we have morhped into some kind of fascist like state where hordes of racist, christian zealots, brain washed by government controlled media and handicapped by a badly failed educational system, grant power to a capitalist controlled puppet government to protect them from the evil terrorists. In short, it seems to me that the Bush haters are not all that different in their basic world view from what motivates the terrorists - fear and loathing for the international system that maintains the virtually incalcuable hegemony of the U.S. Would such an event push people in any significant way to begin entertaining the possibility of an alliance with the terrorists? In other words, is there even a remote possibility that another "illigitimate" Bush term could provide the stimulus for an almost global terrorist movmement aimed at the U.S., with a much broader and deeper recruiting pool than just Islamic fanatics? Precisely how mad are people now, and how much angrier can they get? EDIT] Factoring in environmental issues, rising gas prices, etc.[/EDIT] "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
Hmm... where people can be held without trial for 2-3 years (so far) and then even if they are found innocent could still be kept in prison for the rest of their lives... Or ordinairy citizens could be banned from flying and have no redress to have the error corrected and this information would be available to anyone. I want security, but security that works not this. The resources put into this are beign diverted from much more effective techniques. Think what could have been done with the $106 million spent on CAPSII before they admitted it would never work X| The tigress is here :-D
-
-
I had a paranoid thought while taking my shower this morning. I found myself wondering what would happen if we have a repeat of the 2000 election - Bush wins by a slim electoral margin after the Supreme Court acts to stop attempts at recounts in some key state. The left in this country, and most (all?) of the people of the rest of the planet, are already foaming at the mouth angry with Bush. They already appear to believe that the antiquated democractic institutions of the U.S. have failed and that we have morhped into some kind of fascist like state where hordes of racist, christian zealots, brain washed by government controlled media and handicapped by a badly failed educational system, grant power to a capitalist controlled puppet government to protect them from the evil terrorists. In short, it seems to me that the Bush haters are not all that different in their basic world view from what motivates the terrorists - fear and loathing for the international system that maintains the virtually incalcuable hegemony of the U.S. Would such an event push people in any significant way to begin entertaining the possibility of an alliance with the terrorists? In other words, is there even a remote possibility that another "illigitimate" Bush term could provide the stimulus for an almost global terrorist movmement aimed at the U.S., with a much broader and deeper recruiting pool than just Islamic fanatics? Precisely how mad are people now, and how much angrier can they get? EDIT] Factoring in environmental issues, rising gas prices, etc.[/EDIT] "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
I think you're right and the only way we can prevent this is to make the Bush family a heriditary monarchy with George Junior as the first King for life! That would stop those freedom hating socialist-types and other terrorist in their tracks. :rolleyes:^2
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Calling what Bush is doing a paranoid fantasy and anyone that is against them a terrorist a common tactic. This is fear mongering at its most childish. OK fair enough say the media is fair, these are moderate "compassionate" Republicans, and is not racist and the Florida election was a fair race in which Bush won by a slim margin, and likely Democrats were not unfairly excluded from the voter lists. Numbers are alot more difficult to explain away. The deficit is the highest its every been. There are large cost of living increases in gasoline and transportation. Job losses have increased. The economy is sputtering, despite the fed's best efforts. The Iraq war is a costly beast that is balooning the Pentagon budget, with large emergency funds being contantly requested. How does this justify another term? There is one right wind creed that I like - that is "Nothing suceeds like sucess". This adminstration has not.
Jeff Bogan wrote: Calling what Bush is doing a paranoid fantasy and anyone that is against them a terrorist a common tactic. This is fear mongering at its most childish. Just to be clear. I'm saying the paranoid fantasy is mine. (I mean, I disagree with you about Bush, but you have the right to your opinion no matter how whacky) I'm perfectly content to listen to views on my paranoia, however. I'm not suggesting at all that opposition to Bush is related to terrorism. I am asking whether or not it could become that given sufficient motivation. I mean, if Al queda were to play down the Islmaic Fundamentalism, and play up the anti-globalization/economic hegemony marketing, is it altogether unthinkable that many people, given my worse case scenario, might be tempted to think it a noble cause to enlist in? You would have a well organized, well funded, international network in place that many might feel at home in, philosophically. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
-
I had a paranoid thought while taking my shower this morning. I found myself wondering what would happen if we have a repeat of the 2000 election - Bush wins by a slim electoral margin after the Supreme Court acts to stop attempts at recounts in some key state. The left in this country, and most (all?) of the people of the rest of the planet, are already foaming at the mouth angry with Bush. They already appear to believe that the antiquated democractic institutions of the U.S. have failed and that we have morhped into some kind of fascist like state where hordes of racist, christian zealots, brain washed by government controlled media and handicapped by a badly failed educational system, grant power to a capitalist controlled puppet government to protect them from the evil terrorists. In short, it seems to me that the Bush haters are not all that different in their basic world view from what motivates the terrorists - fear and loathing for the international system that maintains the virtually incalcuable hegemony of the U.S. Would such an event push people in any significant way to begin entertaining the possibility of an alliance with the terrorists? In other words, is there even a remote possibility that another "illigitimate" Bush term could provide the stimulus for an almost global terrorist movmement aimed at the U.S., with a much broader and deeper recruiting pool than just Islamic fanatics? Precisely how mad are people now, and how much angrier can they get? EDIT] Factoring in environmental issues, rising gas prices, etc.[/EDIT] "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
Stan Shannon wrote: Would such an event push people in any significant way to begin entertaining the possibility of an alliance with the terrorists? In other words, is there even a remote possibility that another "illigitimate" Bush term could provide the stimulus for an almost global terrorist movmement aimed at the U.S., with a much broader and deeper recruiting pool than just Islamic fanatics? If you are referring to the Western countries, then of course not. Believing George Bush is a dangerous idiot is one thing; aligning oneself with medieval fanatics trying to reverse most of the progress of civilisation is something entirely different. If you are referring to non-Western countries, then the niceties of electoral systems in other countries are not what they get excited about. John Carson "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote ... and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. - John F. Kennedy
-
This is the most sensible thing you've posted here, Stan - kudos! Personally I think we might be headed for civil war, especially if the election results are unclear.
Jim A. Johnson wrote: Personally I think we might be headed for civil war, especially if the election results are unclear. I agree, the diffences between the political factions in this country are more extreme than they were in 1860 by far. (I don't have anything against you lefties personally, but I absoltuly loath your politics at a visceral level as you obviously do mine. ) If outright Civil Wars were still possible I think we would already be in one. They aren't, so terroism of some kind is the only other alternative for one side or the other to affect its will - given a perceived collapse of democracy. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Would such an event push people in any significant way to begin entertaining the possibility of an alliance with the terrorists? In other words, is there even a remote possibility that another "illigitimate" Bush term could provide the stimulus for an almost global terrorist movmement aimed at the U.S., with a much broader and deeper recruiting pool than just Islamic fanatics? If you are referring to the Western countries, then of course not. Believing George Bush is a dangerous idiot is one thing; aligning oneself with medieval fanatics trying to reverse most of the progress of civilisation is something entirely different. If you are referring to non-Western countries, then the niceties of electoral systems in other countries are not what they get excited about. John Carson "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote ... and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. - John F. Kennedy
John Carson wrote: If you are referring to the Western countries, then of course not. Believing George Bush is a dangerous idiot is one thing; aligning oneself with medieval fanatics trying to reverse most of the progress of civilisation is something entirely different. I agree. But what if the existing terrorist networks were to re-market themsleves to take advantage of international sentiments? It would not be all that difficult for them to present a facade more in keeping with western values. After all, they do attack centers of capitalism, not centers of religion, it would not be a great leap to make the "economic hegemony of the U.S." the outward focus while playing down Islamic Fundamentalism to the rest of the world. That might have a very broad appeal to many. Read some of the replies above. I don't think it all that absurd a question. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
-
Sadly, the philosophers are always the first to go... ;P "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
-
Jeff Bogan wrote: Calling what Bush is doing a paranoid fantasy and anyone that is against them a terrorist a common tactic. This is fear mongering at its most childish. Just to be clear. I'm saying the paranoid fantasy is mine. (I mean, I disagree with you about Bush, but you have the right to your opinion no matter how whacky) I'm perfectly content to listen to views on my paranoia, however. I'm not suggesting at all that opposition to Bush is related to terrorism. I am asking whether or not it could become that given sufficient motivation. I mean, if Al queda were to play down the Islmaic Fundamentalism, and play up the anti-globalization/economic hegemony marketing, is it altogether unthinkable that many people, given my worse case scenario, might be tempted to think it a noble cause to enlist in? You would have a well organized, well funded, international network in place that many might feel at home in, philosophically. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
Violence is a last resort.
-
Jim A. Johnson wrote: Personally I think we might be headed for civil war, especially if the election results are unclear. I agree, the diffences between the political factions in this country are more extreme than they were in 1860 by far. (I don't have anything against you lefties personally, but I absoltuly loath your politics at a visceral level as you obviously do mine. ) If outright Civil Wars were still possible I think we would already be in one. They aren't, so terroism of some kind is the only other alternative for one side or the other to affect its will - given a perceived collapse of democracy. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
-
In short, it seems to me that the Bush haters are not all that different in their basic world view from what motivates the terrorists that's really a disgusting thing to think ... anyway ... I don't care, I'm not an USAn... but for the first time, there will be international observers for the election. somewhere on CNN
Maximilien Lincourt Your Head A Splode - Strong Bad
Maximilien wrote: that's really a disgusting thing to think ... I agree, but is it untrue? For example, Michael Moore's opinion of the U.S. may be motivated by a secular world vieew, and bin Ladin's by an Islamic one, but beyond that they both possess a seething hatred for it and its basic institutions. I'm not suggesting that Moore would actually blow anyone up, but is it unthinkable that some percentage of those who agree with him would feel pushed beyond the limit of civil conduct - if they really felt they had no democratic alternative? "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
-
Violence is a last resort.
Which is exactly what I'm asking - what would it take for it to become the only resort for many? "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
-
Which is exactly what I'm asking - what would it take for it to become the only resort for many? "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
If the 2004 election was won fair and square by Bush with no hint of e-voting fraud, or fixing of voter list or any other subtle vote tampering, I as an ex-pat American in Canada would grin and bear 4 more years of Bush. If there is voter fraud, whatever it takes to right the wrong should be used. I very much doubt this will lead to huge grass-roots violent protests. But it is not impossible. Al Qaeda is bizarre backwards Islamic extremist orgaization that speaks Arabic exclusively, believes in the very anti-democratic concept of Sharia Law and and an integrated theocracy. I don't see any connection at all. ----------------------------- All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
-
Jeff Bogan wrote: Calling what Bush is doing a paranoid fantasy and anyone that is against them a terrorist a common tactic. This is fear mongering at its most childish. Just to be clear. I'm saying the paranoid fantasy is mine. (I mean, I disagree with you about Bush, but you have the right to your opinion no matter how whacky) I'm perfectly content to listen to views on my paranoia, however. I'm not suggesting at all that opposition to Bush is related to terrorism. I am asking whether or not it could become that given sufficient motivation. I mean, if Al queda were to play down the Islmaic Fundamentalism, and play up the anti-globalization/economic hegemony marketing, is it altogether unthinkable that many people, given my worse case scenario, might be tempted to think it a noble cause to enlist in? You would have a well organized, well funded, international network in place that many might feel at home in, philosophically. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
Stan Shannon wrote: I'm not suggesting at all that opposition to Bush is related to terrorism. I am asking whether or not it could become that given sufficient motivation. is this just preparation for upcoming comments should any protestors get out of hand in NYC ?
Mr. Bush's advisers said they were girding for the most extensive street demonstrations at any political convention since the Democrats nominated Hubert H. Humphrey in Chicago in 1968. But in contrast to that convention, which was severely undermined by televised displays of street rioting, Republicans said they would seek to turn any disruptions to their advantage, by portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect for a sitting president.
-
Maximilien wrote: that's really a disgusting thing to think ... I agree, but is it untrue? For example, Michael Moore's opinion of the U.S. may be motivated by a secular world vieew, and bin Ladin's by an Islamic one, but beyond that they both possess a seething hatred for it and its basic institutions. I'm not suggesting that Moore would actually blow anyone up, but is it unthinkable that some percentage of those who agree with him would feel pushed beyond the limit of civil conduct - if they really felt they had no democratic alternative? "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I'm not suggesting at all that opposition to Bush is related to terrorism. I am asking whether or not it could become that given sufficient motivation. is this just preparation for upcoming comments should any protestors get out of hand in NYC ?
Mr. Bush's advisers said they were girding for the most extensive street demonstrations at any political convention since the Democrats nominated Hubert H. Humphrey in Chicago in 1968. But in contrast to that convention, which was severely undermined by televised displays of street rioting, Republicans said they would seek to turn any disruptions to their advantage, by portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect for a sitting president.
I actually don't expect things to get out of hand in NYC. If they do, Kerry could suffer for it (being associated with violent left wing extremism in the mind of the voters). I think the dems would do every thing they can to limit any protests in NYC.
-
Sadly, the philosophers are always the first to go... ;P "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
-
Calling what Bush is doing a paranoid fantasy and anyone that is against them a terrorist a common tactic. This is fear mongering at its most childish. OK fair enough say the media is fair, these are moderate "compassionate" Republicans, and is not racist and the Florida election was a fair race in which Bush won by a slim margin, and likely Democrats were not unfairly excluded from the voter lists. Numbers are alot more difficult to explain away. The deficit is the highest its every been. There are large cost of living increases in gasoline and transportation. Job losses have increased. The economy is sputtering, despite the fed's best efforts. The Iraq war is a costly beast that is balooning the Pentagon budget, with large emergency funds being contantly requested. How does this justify another term? There is one right wind creed that I like - that is "Nothing suceeds like sucess". This adminstration has not.
Jeff Bogan wrote: The deficit is the highest its every been. In terms of total dollars, yes. As a percentage of GDP, it is not even close. Jeff Bogan wrote: The economy is sputtering, despite the fed's best efforts. This is highly suspect. Alan Greenspan and the Fed have been walking a razor's edge for the last 4 years. Most of what has happened to the economy was self induced by the Fed. Specifically, they saturated the banking system with excess liquidity prior to Y2K anticipating "problems". When the problems did not materialize, they drained the excesses out and then some. They then repeated the same scenario imediately after 9/11. (If your up for some pain... look at this publication[^].) In addition to too much monkey business with the monitary supply, they were so concerned about potential inflation and the stock market bubble of '95 - '99 they felt compelled to bring both under control by rasing interest rates. Remember the "soft landing" they attempted to engineer with the rate inceases which began in the summer of '99? That "soft landing" turned into the worst market since the Great Depression! When all that "wealth" dries up... it rolls down hill, i.e. recession! You make some valid points but your way off base on the Feds actions. :((
Paul Lyons, CCPL
Certified Code Project Lurker -
Jim A. Johnson wrote: Personally I think we might be headed for civil war, especially if the election results are unclear. I agree, the diffences between the political factions in this country are more extreme than they were in 1860 by far. (I don't have anything against you lefties personally, but I absoltuly loath your politics at a visceral level as you obviously do mine. ) If outright Civil Wars were still possible I think we would already be in one. They aren't, so terroism of some kind is the only other alternative for one side or the other to affect its will - given a perceived collapse of democracy. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
Stan Shannon wrote: the diffences between the political factions in this country are more extreme than they were in 1860 That was one of the questions asked of the Bush campaign official during the Paula Zahn town meeting. They basically blamed the administration for the divisive state of the nation and asked what he intended to do about it. The response given was not well received by the audience. It was almost as bad as the gymnastics crowd reaction to the Russian's performance on the High Bar event yesterday. :) Paula had to end the subject and move on to the next question.
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete