Bush Administration making plans to delay elections

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by pseudobrit, Jul 11, 2004.

  1. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #1
    zim, you might be proven right:

    here it comes

    Goddamn, they've got nerve. They're getting the public ready now so we won't revolt when a "red alert" closes the polls.
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    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...
     
  3. pseudobrit thread starter macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #3
    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.
     
  4. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #4
    hands up -- who here thinks it would be okay to move or suspend the elections?
     
  5. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #5

    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
     
  6. pseudobrit thread starter macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #6
    Why do I have a feeling the NRA crowd wouldn't support such a move?
     
  7. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #7
    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
     
  8. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #8
    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.
     
  9. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #9
    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.
     
  10. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #10
    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
     
  11. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #11
    '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.
     
  12. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #12
    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
     
  13. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #13
    '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.
     
  14. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #14
    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".
     
  15. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #15
    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
     
  16. pseudobrit thread starter macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #16
    Why not have a second day for voting and add the totals?
     
  17. pseudobrit thread starter macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #17
    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.
     
  18. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #18
    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 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.
     
  19. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #19
    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.
     
  20. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #20
    But I think it safe to say that the NRA has the Republicans in their back pocket.
     
  21. FatTony macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #21
    Someone please remind me how Hitler took control of Germany?
     
  22. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #22
    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!
     
  23. FatTony macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #23
    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.
     
  24. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #24
    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.
     
  25. pseudobrit thread starter macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #25
    Does he know that? Does he care? I guess we'll see.
     

Share This Page