Bush Administration making plans to delay elections

[pseudobrit]

zim, you might be proven right:

here it comes (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040711/ts_nm/politics_election_terror_dc_2)

Goddamn, they've got nerve. They're getting the public ready now so we won't revolt when a "red alert" closes the polls.

[zimv20]

nuts, you beat me by five minutes. so important, we get to discuss it twice!

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=79189

i've been talking to friends about how i think the US, as we know it, won't exist in 20 years. who knows, maybe it'll just be a few more months...

[pseudobrit]

nuts, you beat me by five minutes. so important, we get to discuss it twice!

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=79189

i've been talking to friends about how i think the US, as we know it, won't exist in 20 years. who knows, maybe it'll just be a few more months...

I would hope the Democrats grow some balls and do... something. Anything. Really, we need some strong opposition to this ridiculous tyrannical regime if they wipe out our elections.

Welcome to the United States of America, the newest Banana Republic.

[zimv20]

hands up -- who here thinks it would be okay to move or suspend the elections?

[LethalWolfe]

hands up -- who here thinks it would be okay to move or suspend the elections?


It wouldn't surprise me. Never thought I'd say that... :( :mad:
The fact that this idea is even being entertained is... horrifiing.


EDIT: Misread you zim. I thought you aske who here thought the election would be moved or suspended.

Pseudo,
At least millions of Americans are armed. All we have to do now is coordiante the uprising. :D


Lethal

[pseudobrit]

At least millions of Americans are armed. All we have to do now is coordiante the uprising. :D

Why do I have a feeling the NRA crowd wouldn't support such a move?

[LethalWolfe]

Why do I have a feeling the NRA crowd wouldn't support such a move?

I dunno... The next logical step to solidifing your power after "temporarily" suspsending elections in a time of emergency is to disarm the public (can't have an armed rebellion w/o arms). And I think we all know how the NRA feels about that.


Lethal

[Neserk]

What is the plan? See how Bushy-boy is doing in the polls and wait until they are in his favor *then* hold the election?

When Florida was having so many problems I personally felt that Florida should just redo it! Everyone who voted the first time got to go back and recast their ballot! I was told that this was not going to happen, that it was unconstitutional, blah, blah, blah. Seems that something very similar could happen in November. :mad: I guess it is okay if it favors Bush.

[Sayhey]

hands up -- who here thinks it would be okay to move or suspend the elections?

Not only is it a horrible idea, it is unconstitutional without an act of Congress. Only Congress has the ability to change the time of the election, not the President.

Article II Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution of the US states,

Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

There is a very good reason that this power is not in the hands of the executive. A unscrupulous executive could delay the vote for political advantage. I know that no one here would think Bush capable of such a thing, but it is outrageous to even consider such an action without Congressional approval.

[Desertrat]

Lemme play Devil's Advocate for a moment, with the stipulation that a delay would only--repeat, only--occur in the event of an attack.

What if several attacks occurred in such places as NYC, Chicago and SF? What if, thereby, people who would have voted later in the day stayed home but for whatever reason the Republicans had already voted for Bush? Or, the rural, more pro-Bush areas in NY, IL and CA kept right on voting?

We've had enough hell-raising over 2000's Florida results; "What if?"

'Rat

[Sayhey]

Lemme play Devil's Advocate for a moment, with the stipulation that a delay would only--repeat, only--occur in the event of an attack.

What if several attacks occurred in such places as NYC, Chicago and SF? What if, thereby, people who would have voted later in the day stayed home but for whatever reason the Republicans had already voted for Bush? Or, the rural, more pro-Bush areas in NY, IL and CA kept right on voting?

We've had enough hell-raising over 2000's Florida results; "What if?"

'Rat

'Rat,

I'm not saying that under very, very drastic circumstances a delay of the vote, in some areas effected by a terrorist attack - in Texas or California for example, could not be justified. It just can't be done by Presidential fiat. I would think that giving that power to the President would make you just a little nervous.

[Desertrat]

I agree with you, Sayhey.

Still playing the "What if they attack?" game, though, what's the alternative?

Is it reasonable that a law stipulating "IF & ONLY IF there is a disruptive terrorist attack" be passed? How do we ensure fair and unbiased elections in the event of a notable disruption of the voting process?

'Rat

[Sayhey]

I agree with you, Sayhey.

Still playing the "What if they attack?" game, though, what's the alternative?

Is it reasonable that a law stipulating "IF & ONLY IF there is a disruptive terrorist attack" be passed? How do we ensure fair and unbiased elections in the event of a notable disruption of the voting process?

'Rat

'Rat,

my take on it would be to look at passing a law that would deal with circumstances when Congress could no longer meet to determine what to do in such a situation (i.e. a successful attack against Congress itself.) There doesn't need to be a surrender of authority to the President on such a matter.

[Thanatoast]

I agree with you, Sayhey.

Still playing the "What if they attack?" game, though, what's the alternative?

Is it reasonable that a law stipulating "IF & ONLY IF there is a disruptive terrorist attack" be passed? How do we ensure fair and unbiased elections in the event of a notable disruption of the voting process?

'Rat
When it comes to the voters decisions, there is no such thing as fair and unbiased. If there was a giant terrorist attack the day before or of the elections, people would vote based on their notions of how that attack reflected on how well the president was doing his job. Some would see it as proof that we need a "strong, steady" leader. Others would see it as proof we need a change in direction. Frankly, I think the former opinion would win out, giving the Bushies a boost.

Another thing to consider is the definition of a "disruptive terrorist attack". If a bomb goes off in NY, does this affect the ability of someone in Colorado to vote? Should Colorado wait till New York is ready? Who decides when that is? Best to keep it November 2nd, I think. Otherwise, "the terrorists have won".

[Desertrat]

No problem, Thanatoast. It's just that I wonder about the world of what-if beyond "Bush wants to be Emperor."

By "fair", I meant all got to vote who wished to. By "unbiased", I meant that they weren't fearful in the voting booth.

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

No problem, Thanatoast. It's just that I wonder about the world of what-if beyond "Bush wants to be Emperor."

By "fair", I meant all got to vote who wished to. By "unbiased", I meant that they weren't fearful in the voting booth.

'Rat

Why not have a second day for voting and add the totals?

[pseudobrit]

What is the plan?

Right now, I'm sure it's just the administration making sure all options are available to them.

If they're desperate, they need as many "plans" in place as possible to influence the election. They're simply planning ahead and making sure a turn-key system is ready to go.

[Krizoitz]

I dunno... The next logical step to solidifing your power after "temporarily" suspsending elections in a time of emergency is to disarm the public (can't have an armed rebellion w/o arms). And I think we all know how the NRA feels about that.


Lethal

Yes because all those NRA nuts could overthrow the entire government with their rifles. You're kidding right? Not unless they got ahold of anti-tank missles, some fighter planes and a navy. The "we don't want the gov't to oppress us so we have to have guns to fight back" argument is a joke. It made sense when the citizenry and the arm had the same (incredibly inefficient) weapons, ala the revolutionary war. Now its a completely different story.
Plus, just because its in the Constitution doesn't mean it SHOULD be. I seem to remember something in the constitution about allowing slavery and counting blacks as 3/5ths of a person. We got rid of that one, why not the second ammendment. Oh right because they need to be able to use their rifles against the tyrannical govt....?

As for delaying the election, it wouldn't surprise me if Emperor Bush tried to do so. Heck this story (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=aaj071904) says that the Pakistani gov't is under preasure by the Bush administration to make sure some highly valued targets (Osama included) are captured leading up to the election. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if this were true.

[Chip NoVaMac]

hands up -- who here thinks it would be okay to move or suspend the elections?

I am not sure about moving the election date.

The report I saw on this said that there was no evidence that the 3-11 bombings had any effect on the outcome of the Spain elections.

That being said, I am not sure that if a 9-11 style attack happened on the actual election day. I remember that on 9-11 I didn't care about anything other than getting home to my loved one.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I dunno... The next logical step to solidifing your power after "temporarily" suspsending elections in a time of emergency is to disarm the public (can't have an armed rebellion w/o arms). And I think we all know how the NRA feels about that.


Lethal

But I think it safe to say that the NRA has the Republicans in their back pocket.

[FatTony]

Someone please remind me how Hitler took control of Germany?

[Sayhey]

Someone please remind me how Hitler took control of Germany?

That would be through the use of the Reichstag fire. All evidence now points to the Nazis as the ones who started it, but used it to attack their rivals. Hmmm.... are you trying to imply that Fearless Leader would do such a thing in order to maintain power? Never!

[FatTony]

Even the idea of postponing elections scares the hell out of me. I can't believe its even being considered.

What happened to that stupid saying? Giving in to the fear means the terrorists have already won.

So the best case scenario is that this administration is already declaring defeat to the terrorists, but the worst case is they are just playing by the facist handbook.

[blackfox]

Well, I posted in Zim's thread as I liked the name better, but I guess you can't fight the power of etiquette...

I think we all need to calm down a little boys and girls...while Bush has certainly done some very questionable things, as have other high-level members of his administration, this does not mean that he is a Fascist, or that he is the Devil-incarnate, or necessarily has a conspiracy to subvert Democracy and create an Empire...

He is only a President, and a not very good one at that. He is well-connected and employs a sophisticated spin machine to obscure this fact. He and the GOP want him to win in November, as is often the case w/ sitting Presidents and their respective parties.

Many of his decisions seem foolish, or arrogant. They make sense according to the ideology employed by the Administration. Whether or not the US public agrees with this ideology, either in terms of content, or of ends, remains to be seen. Much of this is unremarkable in terms of Politics.

We are in a War many of us do not agree with, and are victims of Domestic policy that we may not like either. I do not see GW being any worse than Nixon (w/Vietnam and domestic policy) or LBJ (Vietnam) or Reagan (domestic policy, arms race)...during their tenures, many who disagreed w/ them resorted to calling them many of the terms now being thrown at Bush, and the accuracy of those claims is subjective. The point is the sky did not fall. They left office, and we kept going, perhaps paying for mistakes of our lesser Presidents, but moving on nontheless.

I happen to think that Bush is one of the most ineffectual Presidents we have ever had, and I judge him on the legacy of the past four years. And I will take that judgement to the Voting booth come November...yet I do not necessarily think he is a bad person.

As Sayhey noted, it would take an act of Congress to effect the timetable/nature of the Nov. Election. As much as I know GW wants to be re-elected, this is something beyond his power as an Executive. So I am not worried yet.

Vote your conscience come November.

[pseudobrit]

As Sayhey noted, it would take an act of Congress to effect the timetable/nature of the Nov. Election. As much as I know GW wants to be re-elected, this is something beyond his power as an Executive.

Does he know that? Does he care? I guess we'll see.

[Voltron]

nuts, you beat me by five minutes. so important, we get to discuss it twice!

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=79189

i've been talking to friends about how i think the US, as we know it, won't exist in 20 years. who knows, maybe it'll just be a few more months...
I am sure they also have contigency plans for invading Britain, Canada, etc. Nothing wrong with making too many plans.

[blackfox]

I am sure they also have contigency plans for invading Britain, Canada, etc. Nothing wrong with making too many plans.
Oh, it's good to see you jumping on the sarcasm train w/ the rest of us...see, we're not so bad...

(On the off-chance you were being serious, then I was being sarcastic.)

[acdninjapan]

I am sure they also have contigency plans for invading Britain, Canada, etc. Nothing wrong with making too many plans.

I believe that there are several such scenarios such as this in existance. The American military is extremely good at developing these studies purely from a theoretical wargame standpoint and I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this happen in the very near future.

In all seriousness though, I think the "bean republic" to the south of the US would be a more tempting and plausible target-afterall there are all those Mexican drugrunners and terrorists in Acapulco.

[sorryiwasdreami]

Welcome to Nazi America, where our Dictator George W. Bush continues to take our freedom away.

I’m willing to bet he will stage an attack on American soil by his good friends in Al Qaeda on or before the Election Day, postpone the election until "America is safe once again from terrorist attacks," and continue "his very own Vietnam War" for another four years.

Isn't if funny how "terrorism" is exactly what the Bush administration is dispensing upon us in these times? Already, they are building anxiety and scaring us due to another devastating attack, “predicted” (planned) many months before it supposedly happens. Can you see they are terrorizing us?

Domestic Terrorism: the same tactics used to lure us into watching the network news and buying the products from commercials in between.

This is preposterous. I’m moving to Canada; no, make that Italy. Enjoy.

[FatTony]

We are in a War many of us do not agree with, and are victims of Domestic policy that we may not like either. I do not see GW being any worse than Nixon (w/Vietnam and domestic policy) or LBJ (Vietnam) or Reagan (domestic policy, arms race)...during their tenures, many who disagreed w/ them resorted to calling them many of the terms now being thrown at Bush, and the accuracy of those claims is subjective. The point is the sky did not fall. They left office, and we kept going, perhaps paying for mistakes of our lesser Presidents, but moving on nontheless.

And none of these administrations even floated the idea of postponing elections.

As Sayhey noted, it would take an act of Congress to effect the timetable/nature of the Nov. Election. As much as I know GW wants to be re-elected, this is something beyond his power as an Executive. So I am not worried yet.

And this is the same congrees that passed the patriot act and voted for the Iraqi quagmire.

Pardon me while I don't hold my breath.

[zimv20]

Well, I posted in Zim's thread as I liked the name better
and i appreciated that :-)

As much as I know GW wants to be re-elected, this is something beyond his power as an Executive.
not necessarily. as the article mentioned, mr. ridge is looking for the legal authority. it wouldn't surprise me if something were "found" in the patriot act that could be interpreted as granting that power (much as the effort in seeing how much torture the US could "legally" get away with).

as i've mentioned, FEMA is one way he could grab power, another is to declare martial law.

finally, power is in the eye of the beholder. i don't hold much faith in Congress' ability to avoid rolling over and playing dead.

one more finally -- we still don't know much about that shadow gov't enacted in the wake of 9/11. i think something as simple as loss of communication (EMP blast?) may trigger such a power transfer.

[blackfox]

And none of these administrations even floated the idea of postponing elections. In fairness, they might have if similar circumstances presented themselves...
And this is the same congrees that passed the patriot act and voted for the Iraqi quagmire.
This is true, but both of them were temporary in nature, and w/in the boundaries of the normal functioning of government. They also both keep Congress in the loop, and as an authority.
not necessarily. as the article mentioned, mr. ridge is looking for the legal authority. it wouldn't surprise me if something were "found" in the patriot act that could be interpreted as granting that power (much as the effort in seeing how much torture the US could "legally" get away with).

as i've mentioned, FEMA is one way he could grab power, another is to declare martial law.

finally, power is in the eye of the beholder. i don't hold much faith in Congress' ability to avoid rolling over and playing dead.

True, and I am aware of the power of FEMA. Still, such measures would only prove temporary, and eventually there would be hell to pay. I just do not think the populace would stand for it.

It is such an amazing precendent, that it seems ridiculous to even contemplate. This is a serious course of action to be discussing, and I do not think that even this Administration would mess with it for something as self-serving as holding on to power.

Still, I am not dismissing this out of hand...but realizing the enormity of what is being proposed. In my mind, multiple cities would need to be obliterated for there to be reason to even potentially justify such an action. Anything less, and I believe there would more likely be an impeachment than a successful transition to Martial Law. We are a geographically large and resilient country, it would take a lot to break our system down to the point of FEMA management...

[letterbox]

It is my feeling that - and this may be a sort of moot point to some here - that what is so startling about this administration is it's ability to take on such precedents and turn them into reality. Such as pre-emptive war based on information that is under scrutiny and terrorism in America coming from the government itself.

[pseudobrit]

I just do not think the populace would stand for it.

It is such an amazing precendent, that it seems ridiculous to even contemplate. This is a serious course of action to be discussing, and I do not think that even this Administration would mess with it...

Still, I am not dismissing this out of hand...but realizing the enormity of what is being proposed. In my mind, multiple cities would need to be obliterated for there to be reason to even potentially justify such an action. Anything less, and I believe there would more likely be an impeachment...

I felt the same way in the leadup to the Iraq War. When it came down to it, Congress and the American people just didn't care.

[Duff-Man]

Duff-Man says...I rarely wade into the politics forum because of all the inflammatory threads like this. For the record - I am not a Bush supporter. Now having said that, all the people here claiming some far-reaching conspiracy for to delay the election in some desperate plan to hang onto the White House are a lot closer to ol' right-wing paranoid Dale Gribble than the Bush supporters are. As I said - I lean a lot more to the democrat party, but sometimes I find it a bit disturbing that the supporters of this party that preaches tolerance ane quite often the most intolerant and seft-righteous, pretentious idiots that it makes me wonder if I am on the right side. The "left" has extremists too and they are just as bad as the extreme right......oh yeah!

[zimv20]

In my mind, multiple cities would need to be obliterated for there to be reason to even potentially justify such an action.
i'm not sure it would need to be that severe. i do think, however, that the "point of entry" would need to be higher than the circumstances needed to maintain it.

what do i mean by that?

let's say that there is some act, or threat thereof, that postpones the election, and let's say the populace more or less buys into it, w/ the caveat that the election will be rescheduled "soon."

a date is proposed. as the date nears, something happens that would disenfranchise some number of voters. for example, wildfires could drive 5,000 people from their homes, and there's no way to set up a voting mechanism in time.

it's rescheduled, and now there's a hurricane threatening the east coast. or another anthrax letter keeps thousands in their homes.

once we're "in the scenario," it's easy to make the argument that, in order to preserve democracy, everyone must be able to get to the polls. the flipside: having the election while some people are in crisis could be perceived as playing politics, so "it's best to reschedule."

some FEMA management here, a little federal disaster area there, and w/ all these protesters converging on D.C., we had to declare martial law around the capital....

i've worked in software, and it's really only the first delivery date that's held in high regard. after you miss the first date, it's so easy to slip the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.

[blackfox]

I felt the same way in the leadup to the Iraq War. When it came down to it, Congress and the American people just didn't care.
While I am not sure I would phrase it as you have, I somewhat agree w/ regards to the Iraq situation...

But this is a qualitatively different thing we are discussing here, and I do not believe that such comparisons are instuctive to these matters. While it may be reassuring (to some) or easy to see this as along a line of action of a crazed Administration and a apathetic and ignorant populace, that is just not the case.

The Administration is not insane, nor worthy of comparison to James Bond villany. The populace is in some cases apathetic, but in others more politically active than ever. Some of the populace are ignorant either willfully or passively, and some are very educated. It is a complex scenario on both issues, as much as it is tempting to paint things in bold primary colors.

I am not happy about the state of affairs, I am basically a Liberal and was not a fan of the war. Still, I find it discouraging that some take this current situation to such pessimistic extremes. This country is not falling apart just yet...and there is much to be positive about politically. To dismiss the ability of the populace and the majority of our elected officials to handle this, seems distorted and unfair. If you love your country, why must you be unduly cynical about it's ability to recover it's way.

There is still an election in November as of this writing, and there is much that can be accomplished to deal with our complaints. The system may be ever-the-less perfect, but it is not broken yet.

Zim, your comments merit a separate response, which I shall deal w/ sometime later...but quickly, you present the most plausible case for this potentiality. Still, call me hopeful, but I just don't believe it. Hell, if there was mass protest and unrest as a result, we don't even have enough troops to deal with it...they are spread across the world.

[pseudobrit]

While I am not sure I would phrase it as you have, I somewhat agree w/ regards to the Iraq situation...

But this is a qualitatively different thing we are discussing here, and I do not believe that such comparisons are instuctive to these matters. While it may be reassuring (to some) or easy to see this as along a line of action of a crazed Administration and a apathetic and ignorant populace, that is just not the case.

The Administration is not insane, nor worthy of comparison to James Bond villany. The populace is in some cases apathetic, but in others more politically active than ever. Some of the populace are ignorant either willfully or passively, and some are very educated. It is a complex scenario on both issues, as much as it is tempting to paint things in bold primary colors.

I am not happy about the state of affairs, I am basically a Liberal and was not a fan of the war. Still, I find it discouraging that some take this current situation to such pessimistic extremes. This country is not falling apart just yet...and there is much to be positive about politically. To dismiss the ability of the populace and the majority of our elected officials to handle this, seems distorted and unfair. If you love your country, why must you be unduly cynical about it's ability to recover it's way.

There is still an election in November as of this writing, and there is much that can be accomplished to deal with our complaints. The system may be ever-the-less perfect, but it is not broken yet.

Zim, your comments merit a separate response, which I shall deal w/ sometime later...but quickly, you present the most plausible case for this potentiality. Still, call me hopeful, but I just don't believe it. Hell, if there was mass protest and unrest as a result, we don't even have enough troops to deal with it...they are spread across the world.

Call it undue cynicism if you will.

The Bush administration has prepared a plan to stop the election; I'm merely preparing to be outraged if they do. They started it.

[Flex]

Welcome to Nazi America, where our Dictator George W. Bush continues to take our freedom away.

I’m willing to bet he will stage an attack on American soil by his good friends in Al Qaeda on or before the Election Day, postpone the election until "America is safe once again from terrorist attacks," and continue "his very own Vietnam War" for another four years.

Isn't if funny how "terrorism" is exactly what the Bush administration is dispensing upon us in these times? Already, they are building anxiety and scaring us due to another devastating attack, “predicted” (planned) many months before it supposedly happens. Can you see they are terrorizing us?

Domestic Terrorism: the same tactics used to lure us into watching the network news and buying the products from commercials in between.

This is preposterous. I’m moving to Canada; no, make that Italy. Enjoy.
If the terrorist do strike and the administration had not stated at least some warnings people would complain about them not doing enough. 9/11 did happen, Spain did happen, odds are very high that the terrorist will try to disrupt other countries elections via terrorism including within the US. Why blame those whose job it is to defend our country why not blame those who attack it?

[zimv20]

if this eventuality does occur, here's a gem i expect to hear: "it's just the election we're rescheduling, the inauguration will take place as planned."

[IJ Reilly]

It is my feeling that - and this may be a sort of moot point to some here - that what is so startling about this administration is it's ability to take on such precedents and turn them into reality. Such as pre-emptive war based on information that is under scrutiny and terrorism in America coming from the government itself.

This expresses my feelings in a nutshell. This administration has a habit of doing the unthinkable.

[pseudobrit]

In light of recent developments, I think we can safely raise zim's odds. I say there's a 35% they'll do it if it looks bad leading up to the final week.

[Sayhey]

Duff-Man says...I rarely wade into the politics forum because of all the inflammatory threads like this. For the record - I am not a Bush supporter. Now having said that, all the people here claiming some far-reaching conspiracy for to delay the election in some desperate plan to hang onto the White House are a lot closer to ol' right-wing paranoid Dale Gribble than the Bush supporters are. As I said - I lean a lot more to the democrat party, but sometimes I find it a bit disturbing that the supporters of this party that preaches tolerance ane quite often the most intolerant and seft-righteous, pretentious idiots that it makes me wonder if I am on the right side. The "left" has extremists too and they are just as bad as the extreme right......oh yeah!

Normally, I'd agree with you, Duff-Man. I like to stay away from theories put forward by people wearing tin foil hats as much as the next guy, but the only problem is these crazy idiots in this administration are really talking seriously about the possibility of delaying the election. I don't know how much farther out there on the weird & scary scale you can get than that.

[LethalWolfe]

Yes because all those NRA nuts could overthrow the entire government with their rifles. You're kidding right? Not unless they got ahold of anti-tank missles, some fighter planes and a navy. The "we don't want the gov't to oppress us so we have to have guns to fight back" argument is a joke. It made sense when the citizenry and the arm had the same (incredibly inefficient) weapons, ala the revolutionary war. Now its a completely different story.

Two words: Guerilla Warfare. It's a proven way for an unconventional force to fight a conventional army.

The Revolutionary War wasn't as equally matched as you make it sound. The British had more troops, better weapons, better equipment, better organziation/training, and better/more supplies. One of the biggets reasons the Americans weren't squashed in a heartbeat is because they practiced unconventional warfare. For Example, Washington crossing the Delaware and taking Trenton was beyond unconventional warfare at the time it was unthinkable. Vietnam (both French and US), Afgahanistan (both USSR and US), and Iraq are all good examples of conventional forces having problems w/unconventional tactics.

The military's heavy weapons, while wonderful for annihilating<sp?> opposing armies, lose much of their effectiveness when the goal is occupation, not out right destruction. And it also makes things harder when the people that are attacking you are every day citizens. Occupation is significantly harder than facing another army on the battlefield.

Plus, just because its in the Constitution doesn't mean it SHOULD be. I seem to remember something in the constitution about allowing slavery and counting blacks as 3/5ths of a person.


Odd I don't remember those being in the Bill of Rights. And, as not to hijack this thread, if you want to discuss guns/the 2nd Amendment feel free to read and join the discussion here. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=78092)


Lethal

[zimv20]

Two words: Guerilla Warfare.
today they're called 'terrorists,' and we've got ways of dealing w/ them. secret arrests, torture, blackmailing w/ kidnapped relatives, secret surveillance, no need for probable cause. and a public that screams for murder when they're about.

the administration would make absolutely no distinction.

[mouchoir]

Not only is it a horrible idea, it is unconstitutional without an act of Congress. Only Congress has the ability to change the time of the election, not the President.

Article II Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution of the US states,



There is a very good reason that this power is not in the hands of the executive. A unscrupulous executive could delay the vote for political advantage. I know that no one here would think Bush capable of such a thing, but it is outrageous to even consider such an action without Congressional approval.


Apparantly congress don't read half of the things they sign (see the patriot act).

Which is somewhat disturbing and may be a fault in how the system works.

But does mean something like this could slip through...

[Sayhey]

Apparantly congress don't read half of the things they sign (see the patriot act).

Which is somewhat disturbing and may be a fault in how the system works.

But does mean something like this could slip through...

All true, but in the run up to this election I don't see a bill getting through the Senate that would hand over the power to postpone the election to the Executive branch. Even these Democrats aren't that dumb. Now, that doesn't mean the Bushies might not try this without Congressional approval and they might try to steamroll a change through after an attack, should it occur. If that happens we should all remember this nation did not delay its voting in the midst of the Civil War! It is very unlikely that we need to delay it now.

[IJ Reilly]

All true, but in the run up to this election I don't see a bill getting through the Senate that would hand over the power to postpone the election to the Executive branch. Even these Democrats aren't that dumb. Now, that doesn't mean the Bushies might not try this without Congressional approval and they might try to steamroll a change through after an attack, should it occur. If that happens we should all remember this nation did not delay its voting in the midst of the Civil War! It is very unlikely that we need to delay it now.

Depends on how you define "need." Keeping the American public on the verge of panic might turn out to be quite necessary.

[Chip NoVaMac]

In fairness, they might have if similar circumstances presented themselves...

This is true, but both of them were temporary in nature, and w/in the boundaries of the normal functioning of government. They also both keep Congress in the loop, and as an authority.


True, and I am aware of the power of FEMA. Still, such measures would only prove temporary, and eventually there would be hell to pay. I just do not think the populace would stand for it.

It is such an amazing precendent, that it seems ridiculous to even contemplate. This is a serious course of action to be discussing, and I do not think that even this Administration would mess with it for something as self-serving as holding on to power.

Still, I am not dismissing this out of hand...but realizing the enormity of what is being proposed. In my mind, multiple cities would need to be obliterated for there to be reason to even potentially justify such an action. Anything less, and I believe there would more likely be an impeachment than a successful transition to Martial Law. We are a geographically large and resilient country, it would take a lot to break our system down to the point of FEMA management...

You keep using the word temporary. But the USPA is up for another vote. And the lemmings of the Republican Party will vote for it yet again. i think that many Democrats are much the wiser about a bill that they did not read the last time.

And the war in Iraq I think is a not a temporary situation.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Normally, I'd agree with you, Duff-Man. I like to stay away from theories put forward by people wearing tin foil hats as much as the next guy, but the only problem is these crazy idiots in this administration are really talking seriously about the possibility of delaying the election. I don't know how much farther out there on the weird & scary scale you can get than that.

And seeing the news today of Delay's use of lobbyist funds to help win the Texas redistricting, one has to wonder where the Republicans will stop to maintain control.

[blackfox]

You keep using the word temporary. But the USPA is up for another vote. And the lemmings of the Republican Party will vote for it yet again. i think that many Democrats are much the wiser about a bill that they did not read the last time.

And the war in Iraq I think is a not a temporary situation.
True enough, but I guess my point is that the US public will only tolerate so much...
The reason I have posted in this thread, is not so much that I believe I am 100% correct, but to offer some balance to the thoughts that believe we are doomed to a Police State in short order...

Possible? Yes. Inevitable? No. Just doing my part to balance the viewpoints...

[acdninjapan]

Something you people may have all forgotten in this rabid zeal to overreact is "What will the US's allies have to say about this?" If Bush's actions threaten to destabilize the world's only superpower and put treaties and such in abeyance, then the members of NAFTA, EU and ASEAN amongst others may decide to rock the boat by lowering the US's credit rating, freezing funds etc. Bush cannot take too many hits from foreign friends. And if the Carlye Group and Haliburton suffers as a result don't you think Daddy will step in?

GW actions could also force corporations to "leave" the US. Think about the havok if the Evil Empire picks up and moves north or if Boeing cites adverse business conditions and moves to the land of enchiladas.

Anything is possible, just look at history. before repeal of the Bread Act only grain from GB's colonies could be sold in the British market, many American grain merchants changed citizenship and moved their HQ to Canada to take advantage of the world's largest market and sell US grain to the BE. This situation continued until the asent to the throne of Queen Victoria and an act passed by Parliament that repealed the law.

Point: US companies will not hesitate to move or meddle in q countries politics if it hurts their pocketbook. Remind them of this in regards to GW. You may be surprised at what happens.

[Chip NoVaMac]

True enough, but I guess my point is that the US public will only tolerate so much...
The reason I have posted in this thread, is not so much that I believe I am 100% correct, but to offer some balance to the thoughts that believe we are doomed to a Police State in short order...

Possible? Yes. Inevitable? No. Just doing my part to balance the viewpoints...

I am just concerned how the move of the move of voting date would be decided. Just what level of attack would be needed to move the date?

As a move to to a police state. For whatever reason I believe that the population of the US are lemmings. They accept what ever is handed to them by the media outlets. They no longer think for themselves. And with that sort of attitude is all to easy for "special circumstances" to lead to "special measures".