|
|
| Author |
Message |
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
 Posted: 07/12/04 - 09:33 Post subject: Holy Shit! (elections)
|
|
|
So, it's worse than we thought. The seemingly bogus "terror warning" of last week (even though there was no specific new information of any kind and no raising of the alert level), was perhaps not intended simply to distract attention from Kerry's VP pick. It might be the runup to a state of national emergency being declared so that our elections could be postponed until a time when conditions are more favorable to reelecting soon-to-be-exalted-president-for-life Bush.
The interesting point is the concern seems to be not so much about the mechanics of the election being disrupted (which if true, would be pretty much inarguable), as about the mood of the populace being disrupted, which is a very different thing. If we get to the point when an election can be postponed simply because people aren't in the "right" frame of mind, it's all over.
I seriously wonder if I'll be an old guy telling stories to my kids and grandkids someday, saying "I remember when Democracy disappeared. It started with the stolen election in 2000, then the canceled elections of 2004. Then the 'Patriot' act turned into permanent martial law". I don't really think that will happen, but in my opinion it's gone from "utterly unthinkable", to only "reasonably unlikely".
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/index.html
| Quote: | WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials have discussed the idea of postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or about that day, a Homeland Security Department spokesman said Sunday.
The department has referred questions about the matter to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, said spokesman Brian Roehrkasse, confirming a report in this week's editions of Newsweek magazine.
Newsweek said the discussions about whether the November 2 election could be postponed started with a recent letter to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge from DeForest Soaries Jr., chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
The commission was set up after the disputed 2000 presidential vote to help states deal with logistical problems in their elections.
Soaries, who was appointed by President Bush, is a former New Jersey secretary of state and senior pastor of the 7,000-member First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens in Somerset.
Newsweek reported that Soaries expressed concern that no federal agency had the authority to postpone an election and asked Ridge to ask Congress to give his commission such power.
Ridge warned Thursday that al Qaeda terrorists were planning a large-scale attack on the United States "in an effort to disrupt the democratic process." (Full story)
Ridge said he had no specific or credible information about threats to the political conventions. The four-day Democratic convention kicks off July 26 in Boston, Massachusetts, and the Republican National Convention begins August 30 in New York City.
Ridge also said the nation's color-coded terrorist threat level would remain at yellow, or elevated.
Democratic Rep. Jane Harman of California, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that she believes planning for the possibility of postponing Election Day is "excessive, based on what we know."
"Six days ago, the leadership of the House and Senate intelligence committees and leadership of the House and Senate were briefed on these so-called new threats," Harman said on CNN's "Late Edition."
"They are more chatter about old threats, which were the subject of a press conference by Attorney General [John] Ashcroft and [FBI] Director [Robert] Mueller six weeks ago.
"[Ridge] sounded more like an interior decorator talking about what more we can do under the shade of yellow," she said.
The news that such discussions have taken place raised other eyebrows on Capitol Hill as well.
"I don't think there's an argument that can be made, for the first time in our history, to delay an election," said Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, a member of the Intelligence Committee.
"We hold elections in the middle of war, in the middle of earthquakes, in the middle of whatever it takes. The election is a statutory election. It should go ahead, on schedule, and we should not change it."
But the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Christopher Cox of California, said on "Late Edition" that he sees Ridge's request as part of a prudent effort to plan for "doomsday scenarios."
"We don't have any intelligence to suggest that it is going to happen, but we're preparing for all of these contingencies now," Cox said.
Noting that New York election officials were able to postpone their September 11, 2001, primary election after terrorists slammed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center, Cox said "there isn't any body that has that authority to do that for federal elections."
"So what Secretary Ridge has asked the Justice Department to do is, 'Give me a legal memo, tell me what will be necessary. Do we need to go to Congress and get legislation?' "
What has Homeland Security officials worried is that terrorists could attempt to disrupt the election in the same way that train bombings in Madrid created unrest three days before the Spanish general election, Roehrkasse said.
Although there is no evidence that the bombings influenced the March 11 vote, socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero unseated Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, whose center-right government supported the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
The country's new government then pulled Spanish troops from Iraq. |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 09:41 Post subject:
|
|
|
I heard about this and strongly disagree with postponing the election unless there is a massive disturbance the day of or a couple days before the election. However, would you leftists PLEASE stop suggesting that the 2000 election was stolen. You sound like a bunch of f*****g retards.
Edit: And what the f**k is up with that last section you bolded? No evidence that the Madrid bombing effected the elections??? The conservative party was polled at winning by a landslide the day before the bombing. A few days later, the socialist party winds up winning by a landslide. What a stupid f*****g claim.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Paco
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 12939
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 09:48 Post subject:
|
|
|
Man, that's some serious f****d up shit being made up on your part, if you really think it's going to affect the vote that much. I mean, my god, talk about dellusional conspiracy theories at their foil wrapped capped craziness.
I can see some valid concerns, but give it a rest on pulling shit out of your ass. I understand you're concerned about the elections, but they will happen.
My god, if you don't understand why a threat level is changed, and you can't find a good enough reason, that doesn't give you poetic license to make shit up. I think it's a bit excessive wanting to delay the election, but it prolly would be a few days only, not like what you'd like to think..never again.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 09:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Paco wrote: | | Man, that's some serious f****d up shit being made up on your part, if you really think it's going to affect the vote that much. I mean, my god, talk about dellusional conspiracy theories at their foil wrapped capped craziness. |
I think it would effect the vote...in Bush's favor. People give Bush a lot of credibility on terror. The only reason he's only ahead by 2 points right now is the good economic vibes have only begun to set in this month and people have deprioritized the war on terror. Kerry's campaign is in big trouble. Bush's campaign estimated a 12 point increase once he selected a running mate (which is typical), but there was no change in the polls. That means there is little real interest in Kerry. Over the next couple months (after the Dem convention), we'll most likely see Bush pull ahead by at least 5 points or so.
And yes, the goal here is to delay the election days if the logistics (not politics) of an election are influenced...not weeks, months or years.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 10:00 Post subject:
|
|
|
Well, in 2000, I didn't think the election was stolen. I was proud to be a Republican, and I wanted Gore to just shut the hell up, stop whining, and concede for the good of the country. It's the things that have come out since that that have made me have doubts about the progress of that election (and the subsequent administration).
And yeah, I freely admit that my scenario is pulled out of my ass. I even said it was reasonably unlikely. But it scares me that I can even see it as a possibility. I hope it scares everyone else just as much, because that's the main thing that will ensure it doesn't happen. But huge changes happen in history - I suspect that a lot of them seemed pretty damned unlikely beforehand.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Paco
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 12939
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 10:02 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I appreciate your concern.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 10:15 Post subject:
|
|
|
| sinrakin wrote: | Well, in 2000, I didn't think the election was stolen. I was proud to be a Republican, and I wanted Gore to just shut the hell up, stop whining, and concede for the good of the country. It's the things that have come out since that that have made me have doubts about the progress of that election (and the subsequent administration).
And yeah, I freely admit that my scenario is pulled out of my ass. I even said it was reasonably unlikely. But it scares me that I can even see it as a possibility. I hope it scares everyone else just as much, because that's the main thing that will ensure it doesn't happen. But huge changes happen in history - I suspect that a lot of them seemed pretty damned unlikely beforehand. |
There have been remarkably few adjustments made to our lives considering the magnitude and complexity of our problems with terrorists. The Bush administration strived to maintain freedom and the rule of law in the face war. I was more concerned when Bill Clinton was given a free pass to break the law.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Yellow Journalist
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 20 Oct 2002
Posts: 1973
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 10:19 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
f**k politics.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 10:59 Post subject:
|
|
|
terrorism effecting the election would only help Bush.
Fear begets compliance.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 12:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
Nevertheless, Terrorism is a part of life, now and always, and if it affects the upcoming elections such that people vote differently, then isn't it only natural to let the voting occur as it usually does? Isn't it what the people want? Should we not vote based on how the administration is run, and based on what happens in the United States under the current adminisration, even right before the election?
If Bush is doing so great battling terrorism and keeping it out of the US, then he shouldn't be worried about the upcoming election. If something indeed does happen here, then does it not say something about the current administration? With ample time to prepare for such an attack, shouldn't our administration be able to handle such an event?
If somehow, we are not able to handle it, then shouldn't we look to someone else to handle the job? Isn't that part of what elections are all about? A choice? A chance for a new opportunity?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 13:07 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Syke wrote: | Nevertheless, Terrorism is a part of life, now and always, and if it affects the upcoming elections such that people vote differently, then isn't it only natural to let the voting occur as it usually does? Isn't it what the people want? Should we not vote based on how the administration is run, and based on what happens in the United States under the current adminisration, even right before the election?
If Bush is doing so great battling terrorism and keeping it out of the US, then he shouldn't be worried about the upcoming election. If something indeed does happen here, then does it not say something about the current administration? With ample time to prepare for such an attack, shouldn't our administration be able to handle such an event?
If somehow, we are not able to handle it, then shouldn't we look to someone else to handle the job? Isn't that part of what elections are all about? A choice? A chance for a new opportunity? |
The fact that the administration does worry about these things means that it is handling things well. It has already stopped a dozen or so major attacks within the US, but the nature of the situation requires planning for an attack that could occur. I believe the goal here is to allow for contingency planning in the case that an attack is successfully implemented. I'm sure you would want a delay of a couple days if simultaneous dirty bombs were detonated in Greenwich Village, San Francisco and Key West.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 13:51 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | | Syke wrote: | Nevertheless, Terrorism is a part of life, now and always, and if it affects the upcoming elections such that people vote differently, then isn't it only natural to let the voting occur as it usually does? Isn't it what the people want? Should we not vote based on how the administration is run, and based on what happens in the United States under the current adminisration, even right before the election?
If Bush is doing so great battling terrorism and keeping it out of the US, then he shouldn't be worried about the upcoming election. If something indeed does happen here, then does it not say something about the current administration? With ample time to prepare for such an attack, shouldn't our administration be able to handle such an event?
If somehow, we are not able to handle it, then shouldn't we look to someone else to handle the job? Isn't that part of what elections are all about? A choice? A chance for a new opportunity? |
The fact that the administration does worry about these things means that it is handling things well. It has already stopped a dozen or so major attacks within the US, but the nature of the situation requires planning for an attack that could occur. I believe the goal here is to allow for contingency planning in the case that an attack is successfully implemented. I'm sure you would want a delay of a couple days if simultaneous dirty bombs were detonated in Greenwich Village, San Francisco and Key West. |
Yea, I'm sure a few days delay, or possibly weeks, would be fine in the event of an attack, if it were to happen during the election..I don't think it would really work towards a different turn-out as Sinrakin may have implied. The prime factor in the final turnout would be the attack itself, and the response to such an attack or operation.
But there's always the possibility that it could change things, and it's something I don't believe has ever been done before. Proceed with caution.
Last edited by Syke on 07/12/04 - 13:52; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 13:51 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | | I'm sure you would want a delay of a couple days if simultaneous dirty bombs were detonated in Greenwich Village, San Francisco and Key West. |
But you wouldn't, would you?
-Nah-
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 14:25 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nahualli wrote: | | Confused wrote: | | I'm sure you would want a delay of a couple days if simultaneous dirty bombs were detonated in Greenwich Village, San Francisco and Key West. |
But you wouldn't, would you?
-Jesus!- |
I think every American should have the opportunity to vote if they so desire, even if it means that I don't get my way.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 14:53 Post subject:
|
|
|
This is nothing new.
Republicans in Congress continually keep the vote open on the floor beyond the deadline in order to sway key members in order to tilt a close vote their way.
Now they are attempting to implement a macroscopic version of this strategy on the entire nation.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 15:01 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | This is nothing new.
Republicans in Congress continually keep the vote open on the floor beyond the deadline in order to sway key members in order to tilt a close vote their way.
Now they are attempting to implement a macroscopic version of this strategy on the entire nation. |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Frax
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8489
Location: Fuck yoiu fucking fuckers
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 15:02 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Liberals wrote: | | blah blah blah waah waah waah |
and
| Conservatives wrote: | | waah waah waah blah blah blah |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Banzai
Guest
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Silvermouse
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 11015
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 15:25 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
The election would be postponed for like a week. Whoopty-doo.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Maelstrom
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 4072
Location: Montréal
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 17:17 Post subject:
|
|
|
AH!
What info are they using to claim that terrorists might attack during the election? the same that they used in Irak that they are now bashing and trying to hide behind?
Bunch of f*****g hypocrites all they do is put fear in the US poppulation claiming that terrorists attack will happen all the time yet they never show any proff.
Besides what could happen? people go vote in a place near their home...you will never find thousands of people going voting at once at the same place...hell school/ shopping center/sport center are 100 times more poppulate and they dont close them.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 17:21 Post subject:
|
|
|
Now I have to ask.. what's the point of postponing the elections? If 50 terrorists are planning to drive an ambulance full of TNT into 50 seperate voting precincts, why is delaying the vote a week going to help deter that?
It's easier for 50 people to change their plans than it is 50 million.
I guess I understand the whole wanting to postpone the election because of the terror threat thing (I don't, actually, but for the sake of argument, let's assume I do) but it begs the question : What do they hope to accomplish by doing it?
-Nah-
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 17:30 Post subject:
|
|
|
The only delay I would see in the election process would be if something drastic happened at the GOP convention in NY...like a suitcase nuke taking it all out.
Then we'd have to have time to mourn the loss of our CINC and others, then give the GOP time to field another candidate.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 07/12/04 - 17:36 Post subject:
|
|
|
Ahh.. ok I understand now. (For reals!)
Yes I think that there should be a plan in place to postpone elections if terrorist attacks destabilized them to the point where people didn't feel safe enough to go vote for fear of getting blown up.
-Nah-
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
