US elections delayed?

[EricTheRed 0]

So how long do you think they would shoot for?

One month
A year
Until there's a revolution

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373660047

illegible usually

[Kennedy 0]

might make a good poll. depends on the severity of the attack. anything 9/11 Madrid scale and they would either go on right away or way out in the future. Anything smaller and I imagine they'd go for a month.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[tunaplanet 0]

In my humble opinion, this is an extremely bad idea. The elections should go on...regardless. You do not let a terrorist interfere with them. Besides, letting the terrorists know that they will delay the election if there is an incident on or the day before the elections is begging for an attack.

It will be interesting on which side of the fence the political parties stand on this. Neither side is saying anything definite. That part disgusts me. Instead of speaking their minds they wait. Why? Because neither side is 100% sure if a terrorist attack helps or hurts their presidential candidate. That to me is sickening.

Fact is nobody knows for sure if a terrorist attack will help or hurt Bush/Kerry. You could really argue both sides with equal ammo. Me personally I'm undecided who it would help.

Forty-two

[Kennedy 0]

I've been thinking the same thing. In standard' wars, the sitting president has an advantage (WWII). In 'non standard' wars, the challenger seems to have a better chance (Vietnam). We'll see how Iraq and/or 'War on Terror' effect the election (if significantly at all).

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Ron 10]

Quote

In my humble opinion, this is an extremely bad idea. The elections should go on...regardless. You do not let a terrorist interfere with them. Besides, letting the terrorists know that they will delay the election if there is an incident on or the day before the elections is begging for an attack.

Agreed. A stupid idea...Let the election go as planned.

Quote

Fact is nobody knows for sure if a terrorist attack will help or hurt Bush/Kerry. You could really argue both sides with equal ammo. Me personally I'm undecided who it would help.

The thing is that unlike Spain, one canidate is not saying "Lets pull our troops out!"

So a terror attack in the US could very well back fire. It could cause people to oust Bush since he didn't stop it, or it could piss off Americans to want Bush to clobber them.

All of this depends on the timing, and the attack.

Any attack on a soft target with a high civilian body count I think would piss people off to want blood.

An attack on a military target...say Gitmo, SOCOM with limited civilian deaths may put more fear than rage into voters.

And the timing would be very important...To close to the election and the voters might hold on to the rage...And I think rage will be the first emotion Americans would feel.

Still a very interesting question......Its one I am sure OBL has spent a great deal of time on.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

I don't think it would be a good idea to delay them. However, if there were a series of attacks around the nation the day before or the day of the election, I don't think there would be much choice. If something were to happen that paralyzed and terrified the nation like 9/11 did that close, it would keep so many people away from the polls that the election itself could hardly be called the legitimate will of the people.

Who it would benefit it anyone's guess. But I doubt AQ cares as much about that as they would about disrupting the most fundamental democratic principals of the vanguard of democracy.

[Ron 10]

Quote

If something were to happen that paralyzed and terrified the nation like 9/11 did that close, it would keep so many people away from the polls that the election itself could hardly be called the legitimate will of the people

It would be the will of the people who wanted to vote. We have thousands of people that don't vote every election...The reasons are to numerous to even start listing.

But even in the after math of 9/11 anyone outside of NY could have easily gone to a polling place and cast a vote.

Democracy should not wait.

Quote

But I doubt AQ cares as much about that as they would about disrupting the most fundamental democratic principals of the vanguard of democracy.

Oh I bet they have spent many hours trying to see who would benefit...It would not be a good move for them to enrage a nation even more without a clear objective...

OBL is smarter than planning an attack "just cause he can".

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[lawrocket 3]

I do not think that the US would delay elections because of it. It's not our style...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

It would be the will of the people who wanted to vote.

Around here we had a little thing called a state of emergency declared on 9/11. We weren't allowed to drive. Then there's the people who were involved in rescue operations, etc. etc. Even if they wanted to vote, they wouldn't have the opportunity.

And what if it were mutliple bombings at polling places scattered around the country. You don't think that might make people who otherwise really wanted to vote, stay away?

Like I said, it wouldn't be a good idea. But it wouldn't be a good idea to ignore the possible need, either.

[rehmwa 2]

At times, I'm less worried about OBL bombing strategic polling places than I am about the far left and far right wacko citizens bombing strategic polling places. Listen to the hate of the Hollywood nuts for an example. Would you put it past them? What about some of the religious nuts? Or the extreme environmentalists? They've done real damage before, now they have the rage of political lunacy on their side in addition to their particular axes they are grinding.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Remster 30]

Quote

Listen to the hate of the Hollywood nuts for an example. Would you put it past them? What about some of the religious nuts? Or the extreme environmentalists? They've done real damage before, now they have the rage of political lunacy on their side in addition to their particular axes they are grinding.

Why dont you include the right wing militias in your list of nutters?

Remster

[Ron 10]

Quote

Why dont you include the right wing militias in your list of nutters?

Cause most right wing milita nutters are hiding in the mountains waiting for all hell to break loose.

They are more concerned with making a deer into jerky than starting the shit storm.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[quade 4]

I think there needs to be a plan in place that allows for various scenarios.

A train bombing might not actually matter and the elections could go on, but an entire container ship taking out an entire city might be another thing altogether.

Whatever the plan is, it needs to be something that all three parts of the government can agree on and can't be done simply by executive decree.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Right . . . because we all know how many movies Timothy McVea directed.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Why dont you include the right wing militias in your list of nutters?

"At times, I'm less worried about OBL bombing strategic polling places than I am about the far left and far right wacko citizens"

You are really looking for something that's not there. I won't bite.

Edit: "nutters" is a funny word

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Zennie 0]

Quote

One month
A year
Until there's a revolution?

Ya know, a friend of mine quite a while back cynically commented that he wouldn't put it past this Administration to indefinitely hold onto power through some "state of emergency"/"national security" rationale.

You read stuff like this and wonder if he was being more prophetic than cynical.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Quote

One month
A year
Until there's a revolution?

Ya know, a friend of mine quite a while back cynically commented that he wouldn't put it past this Administration to indefinitely hold onto power through some "state of emergency"/"national security" rationale.

You read stuff like this and wonder if he was being more prophetic than cynical.

A friend of mine said the same thing. I was like never, it could never happen in the United States. But in all honesty, could they really postpone the election if something happened, for how long and what would the repercussions be?

[MarkM 0]

Quote

A friend of mine said the same thing. I was like never, it could never happen in the United States. But in all honesty, could they really postpone the election if something happened, for how long and what would the repercussions be?

Postponing would seriously piss off a lot of people and the act itself could influence voting when the polls re-opened. I'm on the fence between B and K, I think they're both morons. But if B postponed the elections or even let it happen on his watch, I'd vote for K in a heartbeat when the polls finally opened. And if someone is too scared to go out and vote, they don't deserve a vote to begin with.

[tbrown 26]

[Ya know, a friend of mine quite a while back cynically commented that he wouldn't put it past this Administration to indefinitely hold onto power through some "state of emergency"/"national security" rationale.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I don't think it would be a good idea to delay them. However, if there were a series of attacks around the nation the day before or the day of the election, I don't think there would be much choice. If something were to happen that paralyzed and terrified the nation like 9/11 did that close, it would keep so many people away from the polls that the election itself could hardly be called the legitimate will of the people.

Very good point.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[crwmike 0]

Quote

So how long do you think they would shoot for?

One month
A year
Until there's a revolution

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373660047

The US has held elections during all sorts of natural and man made disasters. The fact that the present administration is looking at the idea should remind you that if you wanted 'all the law west of the Pecos' from our govt, you just might get it.

Michael

[Ron 10]

You skimmed over the MOST part...again.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Ya know, a friend of mine quite a while back cynically commented that he wouldn't put it past this Administration to indefinitely hold onto power through some "state of emergency"/"national security" rationale.

You read stuff like this and wonder if he was being more prophetic than cynical.

You know what, as an outsider it would almost be worth to watch the bush government potpone the vote indefintely. Then I could see how much that constitutional right to bear arms is really worth.

So, here is the second question, how many of you gun afficionados will take your guns and try and oust the rogue government you would be saddled with?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I have never seen the pro-gun advocates on this forum this quiet........

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I have never seen the pro-gun advocates on this forum this quiet........

Loose lips sink ships.