I'm surprised this hasn't been getting talked about much on this forum. (the following post contains some articles about postponing the presidential elections incase you haven't heard about it already).
This is an issue that should/could cross-political divisions due to the drastic importance of it all. So keep the name calling out of this thread we all already know whom the pinko commie traitors and vile fascist capitalist swine are we don't need you to point it out to everyone in every thread.
Also for the sake of argument lets assume that the president was elected in 2000 and didn't "rob Gore" of it and lets also assume that he, nor anyone that works for him, would ever allow a terrorist attack to happen intentionally or create a fake one in order to keep power. Lets keep the speculation out of this thread so things stay serious.
All that aside i've got some questions for you to answer. Try and answer all of them in your first post and then reply to other people. We want to hear your opinions before you lash out at others for theirs. (Basically if you're not gunna give your views in this post you'll get called out for bein a pussy that can only attack others and not open yourself up for it in return).
Let’s get to it:
If the election is postponed doesn't that hand the terrorists a victory? Showing that not only does violence scare us, but also just the threat of violence is enough for us to postpone elections.
If you postpone the normal election when would you ever have another one? If you postpone an election that means you're setting a new date, well why wouldn't they just threaten the new date? Wouldn't elections then be indefinitely postponed?
Who would postponing the election help most? Bush? Kerry?
If elections were not postponed and there was an attack, something even as simple as a suicide bomber walking into a polling place in bumble fuck Nebraska and blowing the place up, is that cause for calling off the election or calling off the results of the election? What should/would be done if something like that happened? Re-elections? A new date to try it again? There'd be more bitching and moaning over that then there was in 2000.
Does it make you uncomfortable that the government would even think of exercising that power (not holding elections on time)? Does that signal to you that the terrorists aren't doing as bad as we might be lead to believe? I mean if they've got the government this scuuurrrred that calling off elections is possible, then who's really winning the war? Democracy is supposed to be our constant strength against the terrorists, we're all about it and they aren't, but if they can force us to abandon it, even temporarily, who's the victor?
What is cause enough for you to support elections being postponed (with either a set date for new ones or indefinitely)? The threat of attack? An attack before hand? An attack the day of?
Is there an appropriate level of risk that should be taken to preserve democracy? At what point do you put the safety of the citizenry above the safety of the entire political system of the country? If there is a chance people will die if the elections take place is it responsible of the Gov. to have them? If only a few people would die would that be ok to preserve the electoral system? Or are lives being threatened enough? What amount of lives would have to be threatened for postponing to be acceptable?
This is an issue that should/could cross-political divisions due to the drastic importance of it all. So keep the name calling out of this thread we all already know whom the pinko commie traitors and vile fascist capitalist swine are we don't need you to point it out to everyone in every thread.
Also for the sake of argument lets assume that the president was elected in 2000 and didn't "rob Gore" of it and lets also assume that he, nor anyone that works for him, would ever allow a terrorist attack to happen intentionally or create a fake one in order to keep power. Lets keep the speculation out of this thread so things stay serious.
All that aside i've got some questions for you to answer. Try and answer all of them in your first post and then reply to other people. We want to hear your opinions before you lash out at others for theirs. (Basically if you're not gunna give your views in this post you'll get called out for bein a pussy that can only attack others and not open yourself up for it in return).
Let’s get to it:
If the election is postponed doesn't that hand the terrorists a victory? Showing that not only does violence scare us, but also just the threat of violence is enough for us to postpone elections.
If you postpone the normal election when would you ever have another one? If you postpone an election that means you're setting a new date, well why wouldn't they just threaten the new date? Wouldn't elections then be indefinitely postponed?
Who would postponing the election help most? Bush? Kerry?
If elections were not postponed and there was an attack, something even as simple as a suicide bomber walking into a polling place in bumble fuck Nebraska and blowing the place up, is that cause for calling off the election or calling off the results of the election? What should/would be done if something like that happened? Re-elections? A new date to try it again? There'd be more bitching and moaning over that then there was in 2000.
Does it make you uncomfortable that the government would even think of exercising that power (not holding elections on time)? Does that signal to you that the terrorists aren't doing as bad as we might be lead to believe? I mean if they've got the government this scuuurrrred that calling off elections is possible, then who's really winning the war? Democracy is supposed to be our constant strength against the terrorists, we're all about it and they aren't, but if they can force us to abandon it, even temporarily, who's the victor?
What is cause enough for you to support elections being postponed (with either a set date for new ones or indefinitely)? The threat of attack? An attack before hand? An attack the day of?
Is there an appropriate level of risk that should be taken to preserve democracy? At what point do you put the safety of the citizenry above the safety of the entire political system of the country? If there is a chance people will die if the elections take place is it responsible of the Gov. to have them? If only a few people would die would that be ok to preserve the electoral system? Or are lives being threatened enough? What amount of lives would have to be threatened for postponing to be acceptable?
