Terror with Benefits Poll

[omin]

Conflict of interest can be proven, when terror attacks directly or indirectly positively affect a presidential candidate’s business circumstances. In this regard, the level of 'conflict of interest' of a presidential candidate and their business connections is directly proportionate to the level of 'threat of terror upon Americans'.

Based upon what you have seen, read or heard, which candidate has more to gain positively in terms of business (as well as their personal business connections) from the results of a terror attack upon innocent Americans?

A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone, most commonly a lawyer, a politician, or a director of a corporation has competing professional or personal interests that would make it difficult to fulfill their duties, fairly.-Wikipedia

 

[russ_watters]

What you are implying here is absolutely ludicrous. No answer.

 

[omin]

I guess you don't read the papers today.

 

[omin]

I find it interesting no one is commenting on this poll. The newspapers show the business interests of each candidate. A bit of research can show the connections of each.

Does it not seem a conflict of interest that leaders should be in office who can benefit from terror attacks upon their own people?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Does it not seem a conflict of interest that leaders should be in office who can benefit from terror attacks upon their own people?

No.

Well, you asked.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Any attack on the US would benefit the sitting president. Rally 'round the flag.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Any attack on the US would benefit the sitting president. Rally 'round the flag.

I didn't realize how true this is. Last night there was a bit on polls and their interpretation. Not only did Bush spike on 911, he spikes on the anniversary of 911.

 

[JohnDubYa]

So the next day his polls drop? People only want to vote for him on one day, but not the previous or the next? Oh, come now.

If there was a spike, it was probably from people remembering what it was like then and what it is like now.

An attack on the US takes away one of Bush' biggest trump cards -- "he kept us safe." It would also give credence to his detractors that we are not safer now than we were four years ago. No way does Bush want an attack on US soil before the elections.

 

[selfAdjoint]

John that's the rational way to bet, but I'm betting that Americans aren't rational on this. Bush has suffered in polls from the lack of WMD compared to his reasons for attacking Iraq, but he hasn't suffered from criticisms about the failure to prevent 9/11.

 

[Outcast]

First President Bush doesn't need a terriorist attack, to help him in the 2004 election. He just need to create the fear of one.

http://www.progressive.org/sept04/comm0904.html

When Homeland Security head Tom Ridge said in early August that his department "doesn't do politics," it was hard to take him seriously, especially since, when announcing a heightened terror alert two days before, he praised President Bush for his stewardship of the war on terror.

It is likely that another terrorist attack against the United States would boost Bush's electoral prospects, as many citizens would probably rally around their commander in chief. Terrorism is Bush's only card to play right now. On almost every other issue, he is way down in the polls. So an attack could strengthen him where he is strongest, and could convince the few remaining undecided voters that he deserves to stay in the White House after all.

DeForest B. Soaries, Bush's appointed head of the Election Assistance Commission, wrote Ridge in June for guidelines on how and when to cancel or reschedule our national elections in the event of a terrorist strike. He even floated the idea that his commission should be authorized to make such a momentous decision.

"To even consider postponing our elections, the most ardent symbol of American democracy, because of threats made by terrorists would be nothing short of allowing fear to rule our country," said Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California.

On the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, Republican Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi said, "I can't imagine a scenario where we would put an election off. They could be bombing us and we would keep voting."

Here is the wisdom of Abe Lincoln on the folly of canceling elections when in crisis. On November 10, 1864, just days after his reelection, he wrote: "The present rebellion brought our republic to a severe test; and a Presidential election occurring in regular course during the rebellion added not a little to the strain. . . . But the election was a necessity. We cannot have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forgo, or postpone, a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us."

The above is just part of the article.

 

[GENIERE]

I'm glad you spared us the rest of the article!

 

[omin]

No.

Well, you asked.

Simple negation is not an argument. You need to back up your argument. Mine is. Assert something positive or imply nothing, and convey meaninglessness.

As far as your other comments, murdering Iraqis and stealing their resources increasing the threat of an attack. So, Bush has not made us safer, where diplomacy would have decreased the threat of attack

And an attack before the elections? No, it wouldn't be good for Bush, because he is supposed to be improving the situation, but those who are so simple minded to think killing Arabs will decrease the level of threat are idiots. Look at how stupid Israel has been for the past 50 years. They are a living breathing example murdering Arabs will get you no where. You and your kind who believe in this mentality will not the successfull ones to find end the conflicts between Americans and Arabs. Get over the tough guy no where attitude.

Ivan, I hadn't thought about it that way. Unless, I think of it in terms of Patriotism. But I meant in terms of business interests and ability to sway policy to enrich his fellow business friends and aquaitances.

SelfAdjoint, I blame 911 on Team Bush. It may not have been all of Team Bushes fault, but it is the Presidential Administrations JOB to keep us safe and this idiot failed that demand! Evevating the level of terror against America by murdering innocent Iraqis was his biggest second mistake. If he isn't going to take repsosibility, we need a president who'll get in there a do what it takes to settle things down, by showing diplomatic leadership vs. murderous leadership.

Outcast, Yes, fear is a basic principle in the present leaderships theory on running a nation and international policy. Fear is our enemy.

 

[selfAdjoint]

SelfAdjoint, I blame 911 on Team Bush. It may not have been all of Team Bushes fault, but it is the Presidential Administrations JOB to keep us safe and this idiot failed that demand! Evevating the level of terror against America by murdering innocent Iraqis was his biggest second mistake. If he isn't going to take repsosibility, we need a president who'll get in there a do what it takes to settle things down, by showing diplomatic leadership vs. murderous leadership.

I think you didn't follow my argument. It was not whether the Bush administration was remiss in connection with 9/11, but whether the American people were disposed to blame them for it. The evidence showed that their highhanded disregard for the warnings of the previous administration contributed to the unreadiness.

I repeat my belief that any attack on the US is an advantage to the sitting president. Not among people who analyze issues but among the great mass of the US citizenry.

 

[omin]

I think you didn't follow my argument. It was not whether the Bush administration was remiss in connection with 9/11, but whether the American people were disposed to blame them for it. The evidence showed that their highhanded disregard for the warnings of the previous administration contributed to the unreadiness.

I repeat my belief that any attack on the US is an advantage to the sitting president. Not among people who analyze issues but among the great mass of the US citizenry.

Popularity gained through the attention of an attack is something diffrent from pre-existing business interests though. Popularity is not something I mean to attend to here. Finantial interests and power gained from changing policy is what I mean to point out here. For example, without a terror attack, Bush couldn't have improved his oil interests, but we Americans would have still paid the same price for oil, actually less, because the war is billions in entropy finantially. And, the military asset production goes through the roof in wartime, but the assets are worthless in times of diplomacy. Who knows the connections Bush has with the war equipment? And what about those contracts in construction of any type in Iraq?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Simple negation is not an argument. You need to back up your argument.

Do your own Google search for my arguments. After all, that is your modus operandi.

The rest of your argument hinges on your attitude that Americans are stupid unless they vote for your candidate. I have no patience to respond, especially since most of your allegations are completely unfounded and unsubstantiated.

Let me go into Omin-style ranting:

Bill Clinton attacked the Serbs simply because Hillary told him to do it! She hates Serbs! This proves that Bill was nothing more than Hillary's lap dog!

And how do I respond if someone challenges my assertion? Two ways:

1. Tell them to use Google and back up my assertions on their own.

2. Just repeat my rant over and over and over and over.

 

[JohnDubYa]

John that's the rational way to bet, but I'm betting that Americans aren't rational on this. Bush has suffered in polls from the lack of WMD compared to his reasons for attacking Iraq, but he hasn't suffered from criticisms about the failure to prevent 9/11.

Because most Americans realize that Bush couldn't have stopped 911 from occurring.

 

[omin]

Do your own Google search for my arguments. After all, that is your modus operandi.

The rest of your argument hinges on your attitude that Americans are stupid unless they vote for your candidate. I have no patience to respond, especially since most of your allegations are completely unfounded and unsubstantiated.

Let me go into Omin-style ranting:

Bill Clinton attacked the Serbs simply because Hillary told him to do it! She hates Serbs! This proves that Bill was nothing more than Hillary's lap dog!

And how do I respond if someone challenges my assertion? Two ways:

1. Tell them to use Google and back up my assertions on their own.

2. Just repeat my rant over and over and over and over.

There was a few other time you repsonded in the same way. Let me refresh your memory. You repsonded with simple negation.

I make an argument. You simply say it's not true. You didn't prove anything, because only saying false is no argument at all.

You've done it again. Buth this time you sound really convincing with many worlds, but you still don't haven't stated anything.

Set me straigh with facts if I"m wrong or represent things in a more accurate order, or something else. You sound like a little kid saying no, but not an ounce of reasoning or explanation for the no.

Come on, grow up.

And I never would have said that, prove how in principle you are mocking me well. I don't see it.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I make an argument. You simply say it's not true. You didn't prove anything, because only saying false is no argument at all.

You asked for my OPINION, and I answered it. You asked whether I thought that Bush had a conflict of interest in being President and invading Iraq, and I said no.