Post Election - Chaos?

Status
Not open for further replies.
ScottW

ScottW

Founder
Staff member
No matter which person you'd be voting for, one thing is for certain, someone will win and someone will lose. It is also very clear that unless there is a landslide winner that the "fun" of the election will only begin on November 3rd.

Interestingly, CPAN carried a interaction between Edward's wife and a Kerry Supporter. It goes something like this...

Supporter: "Mrs Edwards, Kerry is going to take PA."

Edwards: "I know."

Supporter: "I am concerned about the riots afterwords."

Edwards: "Ummm...ah.... well yes, there won't be any if we win."

Supporter: "Ok"

Now... That conversation is very disturbing, no matter which camp it was coming from. Somewhere, someone is planning riots in the event that Kerry loses this election.

Aside from that, it is no doubt that if there is any issue of who WON a state, like Florida in 2000, the losing party, Republican or Democrat is going to file law suits.

I fear the worst honestly... I think 2000 is going to be a walk in the park compared to this years election. If Kerry wins, I think you will see some mild grumpiness from the Republicans and life will go on. If Bush wins, I think those who are anti-Bush will bring this country on it's knees.

I think the United States worst enemy, is the people who live within it's own borders.
 
It will be most interesting to see.

I'll grant you that this exchange, if taken literally, is disturbing. However, I think it's quite a leap to suppose that Mrs. Edwards has actual knowledge of any planned riots. I'm sure you don't want to get into who has made more verbal gaffes to the media...

Even so, apart from this exchange, are you truly of the opinion that Bush supporters would take a defeat with more grace than Kerry supporters? I'm not saying that I disagree, but I really find myself unable to judge the emotional 'temperature' of the GOP now.

I've made my own preferences on this board clear enough. While I personally don't plan rioting or violence if Bush wins, I will definitely be upset.

But I find myself unable to imagine being pro-Bush; hence unable to speculate about how upset I might, hypothetically, be over a Bush defeat.
 
I don't know about riots, but there'll definitely be unhappy people, either way. I don't really see a riot starting over it - has that ever happened before?
 
Personally, I don't recall any post-election riots in the US. There may have been some long ago.

There was the famous riot at the 1968 Democratic Convention, in which protestors were brutally repelled by police.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/1968_Democratic_National_Convention

By many accounts, the police (at the behest of the mayor) attacked the protestors with little or no provocation. Something like THAT wouldn't surprise me too much, post 11/2...
 
Election day is next week, I have to go to my previous hometown to vote since I could not get my act together and register in my new one lol -- It will be interesting to see what happens. Honestly, I think that the whole "winner takes all" strategy of the electoral college does not work well. We also need official third parties in all states. Getting sigs in all 50 states to be on the ballots leaves them with a disadvantage.
 
Do you not remember what happened when Bush was first elected (so they claim) president? They had riots on pennsylvannia ave. Bush was the first elected president to not be able to get out of his limousine and walk to the white house.
http://www.pstripes.com/jan01/ed012101b.html
If Bush is elected president again there will be many pissed off people. Will riots occur? I'm thinking that's a possibility, however, let's hope not.
 
Also, remember the worlds largest anti-war protest with 6 to 10 MILLION people protesting WORLD WIDE?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2765215.stm
Ask yourself these questions before voting:
1. Why are we at war with Iraq when (a) Saddam Hussein had NO weapons of Mass Destruction, (b) the 9/11 commission report stated that there is NO link between Saddam Hussein and Usama Bin Laden, (c) no exit plan, and (d) no International support (minus Great Britain and Spain).
2. How are we going to reduce the largest budget surplus in the history of the United States caused in most part by George W. Bush's war on Iraq as well as with tax cuts that had little if no efffect in providing economic stimulus as well were tilted towards the more wealthy america?
3. What do we tell the people that have lost 2.2 million jobs since Bush has taken office?
4. Since George W. Bush has taken the obvious approach of overturning the rulling of Roe v. Wade, do we really want our women to lose their rights? George Bush has appointed Dr. David Hager to head the FDA. Dr. W. David Hager, an obstetrician-gynecologist who also wrote, with his wife Linda, Stress and the Woman's Body, which puts "an emphasis on the restorative power of Jesus Christ in one's life" and recommends specific Scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome. Hager also is known to refuse to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.
5. How do we re-elect a president that has ignored advice to better prepare for postwar reconstruction, a president that has disregarded the Geneva Conventions that led to a prison-torture scandal in both Iraq and Afghanistan? How do we vote for someone that when asked to admit three things he has done wrong while in office responds with stating that he has done nothing wrong but may have appointed a few wrong people?

i could go on. It irritates me when people close their eyes to what's happening with this country. Watch the presidential debates. Understand what's going on. Vote.
 
ichadsey said:
Do you not remember what happened when Bush was first elected (so they claim) president? They had riots on pennsylvannia ave. Bush was the first elected president to not be able to get out of his limousine and walk to the white house.
http://www.pstripes.com/jan01/ed012101b.html
If Bush is elected president again there will be many pissed off people. Will riots occur? I'm thinking that's a possibility, however, let's hope not.
Click to expand...


I remember that, too bad i didn't care as much as i do now. I'm one of the Millions who is affected by the current state of the economy. So if he manages to steal this election (again) i'll be down in D.C. throwing eggs with all the other protesters.

Kerry even said "I'm going to be down in Florida so we don't have a 2000 Election again."

Florida 2000 - Brother Runs the State, Friends in Fox News, 1st Cousin Runing the Recount, and every recount both Gore and Nader got less and less votes. Kinda Fishy don't ya think?

Florida 2004 - lets wait and see.
 
FDR... led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman... finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy.... started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson... turned Vietnam into a quagmire. Vietnam never attacked us. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton... went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked US!

President Bush has ... liberate two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but... It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find her Rose Law Firm billing records. It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick, drowning Mary Jo. It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military moral is high!
 
Even if I believed the war in Iraq was a good idea - which I surely don't - Bush has swept the charts for holding the wrong positions on every domestic issue (at least, if he wanted my vote.)

Record deficits (he may be a conservative, but not fiscally!) He's the first president in 72 years to lose jobs. He has an obvious and ardent desire to transform the country into a Christian Theocracy, banning abortion, and stripping gays of any rights, even those which demonstrably have no impact on anyone else.

The only people for whom Bush has any sympathy are rich CEOs. He has systematically demolished government regulations of all industries, including vital environmental protections, cut taxes for the CEOs, eliminated overtime pay, given them juicy government contracts and appointed them to government positions allowing them to REGULATE THE INDUSTRIES THAT PAY FOR THEIR OWN YACHTS!!

He (and I suspect, you) will protest that these things will help the economy and create jobs. Not happening. They continue to be shipped overseas. Bush should take his own advice & go to a community college, and learn to do SOMETHING competently.

If there were ever grounds for a workers revolt, it is here.
 
ScottW said:
If only you knew the truth about Christ.
Click to expand...
You have to be kidding me. Please tell me you are not voting to destroy this country just because you believe gays and women should not have rights.
 
I am afraid of riots after the election. Democrats have already went over the edge with this and this. Also this and this are just a few examples of what will become in American politics if the election is close and Bush is winner. The old saying of "welcome all young lawyers" will have a new birth of life. It is really sad. :(
 
I hope that you realise that having a post-election chaos is much better than having a pre-election chaos such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq isn't taken: nevermind that Bush said "The war is over. We have won." More soldiers died after the "end" of the war than during the war. Discussing whether or not the war has "ended" is purely academic. Iraq is not "taken". The progress against the ramshackle army of Saddam was swift, but now the US and the few allies that remain are in it up to their necks, with no idea of how to get out. Iraq isn't "taken" until elections have been held, until they have regained their own sovereignty and mothers are no longer afraid to send their kids to school. You can take a country with war, which can be fast, but you need patience and attention to detail to bring peace. The US have not brought peace, so what do you mean with "taken"?

President Bush has ... liberate two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
Click to expand...
Don't take this as sarcasm: that is wonderful. It is good. He did well. The results, when considered in this way are enourmous. BUT! Why didn't he also try to come to terms with Iraq without firing a shot? Why didn't he allow for the inspectors to do their job? Don't you think that even the threat of war would have brought Saddam to his senses after a while? He increasingly cooperated in the last months before the begin of the war... Had Bush gone on "without firing a shot" I wouldn't be so vehemently opposed to him. We differ on whether or not we can consider Afghanistan and Iraq as "liberated", but I agree that the world is probably better of without them. Most of all I disagree on the way he has obtained his results: recklessly, arrogantly and foolhardily. These are not qualities that I approve of in the Commander in Chief of the worlds greatest and best trained army. I know that you couldn't care less what I personally approve and disapprove of (more so because I'm not American), but I suspect that many more people inside the US and out disapprove and make it be heard and hopefully vote for "regime change" in the American Empire.
 
America is better than the EU or the Revived Roman Empire. Hmmm... interestinly the article or whatever that establishes the EU President is article 666. The new EU Constituion is being signed in Rome at the end of this month.

Hmmm... Biblical prophecy playing out? Could a future EU President be the Anti-Christ? Could a 7 year treaty be signed with Israel for peace? Hmmmm.....
 
ScottW said:
Vietnam never attacked us.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting revision of history... we were not taking an active part in Vietnam (after watching the French) until the attack on the USS Maddox (a ship my Dad served on). That action brought an immediate escalation in our involvement in that conflict.

North Vietnamese knew at the time we were not interested in being part of the conflict and the Maddox was patrolling in international waters. Johnson (rightly or wrongly) used the incident to get the same powers from Congress that Bush was given in the Iraq issue (without Iraq attacking us of course).

As I recall, the Maddox only received superficial damage at best. But like Bush's phantom WMD, Texas oil men seem to know how to tell some whoppers when they want war powers. At least in Johnson's case an incident did happen... it is too bad about Bush's WMD not even having a shred of validity.
 
ScottW said:
America is better than the EU or the Revived Roman Empire. Hmmm... interestinly the article or whatever that establishes the EU President is article 666. The new EU Constituion is being signed in Rome at the end of this month.

Hmmm... Biblical prophecy playing out? Could a future EU President be the Anti-Christ? Could a 7 year treaty be signed with Israel for peace? Hmmmm.....
Click to expand...

do you read what you write? do you actually believe what you're saying? Listen to yourself! Maybe it's best that you keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubts.
 
If only you knew the truth about Christ.... Biblical prophecy playing out? Could a future EU President be the Anti-Christ?
Click to expand...

These are the exact sorts of "arguments" that make me want, worse than ever, to see Bush removed. I believe Bush probably also entertains such grandiose thoughts, and has a similarly patronizing and condescending attitude toward non-Christians.

You can't fight ideologues (i.e. Muslim fundamentalist terrorists) with a another, more heavily armed ideologue. We need a President who is in touch with reality.
 
ScottW said:
I fear the worst honestly... I think 2000 is going to be a walk in the park compared to this years election. If Kerry wins, I think you will see some mild grumpiness from the Republicans and life will go on.
Click to expand...
As for riots, they most likely wouldn't be any worse than the staged demonstrations Republicans put together in Florida trying to stop the vote. Hopefully this time they'll not fly in staff members of Republican members of congress to do this.

But yeah, this looks like a lot more than mild grumpiness from these Republicans last time...
 

Attachments

  • riot.jpg
    riot.jpg
    62.3 KB · Views: 21
ScottW said:
FDR... led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman... finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy.... started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson... turned Vietnam into a quagmire. Vietnam never attacked us. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton... went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked US!

President Bush has ... liberate two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but... It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find her Rose Law Firm billing records. It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick, drowning Mary Jo. It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military moral is high!
Click to expand...
Okay so you're a Republican that wasn't hard to figure out.So shall we start at the top; Since Germany & Japan & Italy were the Axis powers at the time why not finish Europe first before ultimately finishing off the Japonese makes perfect sense to me.Germany did declare war on the US btw. ` Truman never started any war on the Korean peninsula, thank N. Korea for that.Look at how many countries who were part of the U.N.sent troops to DEFEND the South Korean people from such a fate that has befallen the N.Korean people. ` JFK only had advisors to the S.Vietnamese army.Well as far as LBJ is concerned in the context of the times it was probaly inevitable that it wouldn't succeed. ` Bosnia was a NATO action if I recall.Concerning Sudan how can anyone believe anything coming out of a country like that,just another Yemen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top