Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Bush Calls off 2008 Election

  1. Oct 14, 2005 #1

    Al-queda, who are laughing at the state of US Politics and the bigger and deeper divide in the USA. Attack the US months before the 2008 election, knowing that the power hungry neocons will cease the oppertunity and call off the elections. The Neocons fall for the bait and call them off saying it is in the interest of national security. Bush almost seems gleeful when he speaks to the american people that this will happen indefinetly, until we can safely say that this threat to america is taken care of...The world watches as America becomes more restless... Everyone takes sides, and a polarised America become even more polarised... Civil War is a brewing.

    What would you do? Is this Senario really that far feached?

    I would like to hope so, but its closer to home than is comfortable
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 14, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Not to brainwashed liberals
  4. Oct 14, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    And then the men in white coat come in, and say: Georgie boy, time for your pills, be a good boy now :smile:
  5. Oct 14, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The real scenario is that King Albert and the Council of Ministers have secretly been developing nukes, nerve agents and super-computer-viruses. In their zealous and steadfast desire to reach out to new friends and form treaties they have secretly allied themselves with al Qaeda. In 2008 they activate their plan and launch a pre-emptive strike on the United States ...

    OH -- I guess that answers your question! :)
  6. Oct 14, 2005 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It's about as likely as the similar one I heard about Clinton planning to use the Y2K disaster to sieze dictatorial power (hence his expansion of FEMA's powers). :uhh:

    Now where'd I put those extra pills I've been saving...?
  7. Oct 14, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :rofl: :rofl: I hope this story would end the way you're saying not this way:

    "Hey guys, take your pills, because Al-Queda is attacking US." :uhh::biggrin:
  8. Oct 14, 2005 #7
    not to turn this into a political flame fest, but Liberals are the ones skeptical about Bush and the republicans. that is not brainwashing. Conservatives who think that Bush is doing a good job are the brainwashed ones.

    they not only are in a small minority by all polls, but they always give bush and the congressional leaders the benefit of the doubt, no matter what.
  9. Oct 14, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I take an AK-47 and assassinate everyone in executive branch.
  10. Oct 14, 2005 #9
    Most conservatives are the ones who think he isn't destroying the country and think he is doing an OK job. I don't see any evidence that he ruined our country, so hmmmm, also, what brainwashed me? O.O
  11. Oct 14, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Stupid comments of murdering the president on a public forum like this will likely put your ass on the FBI watch list. But, hey, maybe you belong on it.
  12. Oct 14, 2005 #11
    Yes it is too far fetched.

    The idea was floated by the administration a year + ago, to delay the 2004 election in the event of a terrorist threat. So in one sense such a scenario has crossed their mind.


    But I think he'd have to have support for that sort of idea, and he has less and less support with every passing week.

    Things could turn around, he could respond "stongly" to a terrorist attack and enjoy great numbers again, but without that kind of support I think your idea won't be tolerated by people. It wasn't well tolerated a year ago, and he had over 50% support then. Now he is below 40%.
  13. Oct 14, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Heh maybe. But I certainly wont be one of those "silly people" that sit at home and go like "awww I knew this was gonna happen!"

    Trust me.
  14. Oct 14, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What exactly do you mean? Could you be a little more specific?
  15. Oct 14, 2005 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Lets just say it should never be an option for any President that he will stay longer than 2 terms in the office.
  16. Oct 14, 2005 #15


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Ah, you are still fairly new to the forum, so you probably don't know he is just being his usual troll self. Just put one of these :rolleyes: in reply to his posts, and maybe he'll go away. (We're saving the pills for Georgie).
  17. Oct 14, 2005 #16
    I hope so, so what do you think will happen if new york is attacked in 2008? If Bush got the backing of the Military then your voices wouldnt matter....
  18. Oct 14, 2005 #17


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    less talk more action
  19. Oct 14, 2005 #18
    Wait a second.. doesn't it say in the constitution somewhere that there is to be an election every four years? I didn't know saying "nah, we're not in the mood to have an election this time around" was an option. :confused: What are they gonna do away with checks and balances while they're at it?
  20. Oct 14, 2005 #19
    Well, I think he'd make a speech and galvanize a certain proportion of the populace and see some strong support in congress.... And he'd also see some strong opposition. The country would be even more divided than now, and there'd be such outrage that I think .... Oh I don't know.... I think there'd probably be an increase in all sorts of violent rhetoric, and maybe even actions within our own country. I think the 49% of us that *really*, *really* dislike this administration, and who have had *more* than enough, well that amounts to tens of millions of people and I expect all bets are off that we'd just go along and say "OK then. We'll just wait it out." I expect a few of those tens of millions would have other ideas.

    :confused: Are you suggesting he'd use the military against the US population?? What *are* you saying with this?
  21. Oct 14, 2005 #20
    If the terrorists are fighting against freedom and democracy, and then we suddenly turns USA into a totalitarian country, then doesn't that mean that the terrorists are victorious?
  22. Oct 14, 2005 #21
    Hmmm… I am merely pointing out that if this situation came about he would only need the support of the Military forces.
    Sure this is a total hypothetical scenario, and will never happen. BUT as an American which most of the people here are, you shouldn’t feel that your democracy isn’t vulnerable to the evils that Man can do.

    I want to highlight again something I highlighted in another thread.


    'Hague Invasion Act’

    Why is this necessary? If your government is peace loving and democratic, why would it need this clause? Why on earth would any president feel it needed to ratify a Law that made it LEGAL to undermine the INTERNATIONAL Court? Unless it felt that it could act outwith these laws

    We all live under the same Flag ‘so to speak’, in the western world, the flag of Democracy, The flag of Human rights, The flag of INTERNATIONAL law.

    Power can warp anyone….
  23. Oct 14, 2005 #22
    Thats the point, and I am glad you see this....
  24. Oct 14, 2005 #23
    I'm still not with you. How would he use those forces to enact his goal?

    I have little illusion that democracy is any less vulnerable than any other system of government.
  25. Oct 14, 2005 #24

    If any state, democratic or not, desires to boycott its lawful obligation to have an election for the next government, the only necessary ally it needs is the countries military force. If this is behind its decisions then the voice of the people isnt as important... Especially when you have a MIGHTY military

    That’s what I am pointing out
  26. Oct 14, 2005 #25
    There was a better chance at that in 2004, and not even then.

    In the wake of the bogus NYC alert, did anyone catch the CNN report about the timing of terrorist alerts occurring the day after a negative story in the media? Of course there is no proof for the correlation, even 10 times as odd coincidence. At least anyway now there is a negative story for the WH almost daily.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook