NationStates Jolt Archive

This question is more for the older Americans here. Do you think that this US Presidential election is more important than others in the past? The fighting and propaganda wars seem to be much harder. Supporters on both sides seem much more zealous than before.

Do you think you are at a turning point in US political history? Or is this just another election?

This question is more for the older Americans here. Do you think that this US Presidential election is more important than others in the past? The fighting and propaganda wars seem to be much harder. Supporters on both sides seem much more zealous than before.

Do you think you are at a turning point in US political history? Or is this just another election?

Ok, first I'm a Canadian, but I am one of the older posters on the site. I have followed US elections as long as Canadian and world affairs for many years now. I think that without doubt this is the most important election in my life time. Not just to Americans but to the world. The decision the American people have before them is huge. Certainly who you choose for president in 2004 will certainly decide which direction and how you go about doing it. I believe most non-Americans would agree with me here, four more years of Bush might end any respect the world has left for the USA. While I agree on some level Kerry's foreign policy doesn't sound too much different then Bush's, it's in how he would go about it. You can not be a leader if no one is following and the world will not follow Bush. Just like a CEO of a company, when he's lost credibility in the world, you change the CEO.

I most certainly believe the USA is at a cross-roads. That will decide whether Americans can hold onto the values they have espoused in the world for over 60 years or if they go in a very different dangerous direction for the world.

I'm not exactly one of the older people around here, but I have studied political history quite extensively. And like Stephistan said, this is a deciding factor in terms of which path our country will take in the next 4 years, will we continue to alienate ourselves from the world and will we continue to draw battle lines in the sand on the home front, or will we try ti mend out relationships. And I want to say to all of you internaitonal people out there that may be reading this, don't hate all of us americans, only hate some of us, like the 25% of the voting age population that voted for bush the last time.

Hmmm.. a very good question!

I am American and another of the "older" posters (FWIW, 36).


My first instinctive response is that, no, this election will not turn out to be a major historical nexus. It might appear to be such in the immediate context, but I don't expect it to be in the long run.

However, as I said, it is a very good question. I'll sleep on it before I commit to the above....

I'm 14, so I cannot really say.

But this is bigger to me than to most of the people here in NS.

This is the first real election I am following. I never cared about the 2000 elections, for I was merely 10 years old at the time. Although I told my mom
"Don't vote Al Gore! He's not cool! C'mon...vote the guy who's dad was President! That's cooler!"

*sigh*

But if this is the most important election of the next few decades, I can proudly tell my kids I watched it and I was for Kerry all the way, despite what events occur.

I'm 14, so I cannot really say.

But this is bigger to me than to most of the people here in NS.

This is the first real election I am following. I never cared about the 2000 elections, for I was merely 10 years old at the time. Although I told my mom
"Don't vote Al Gore! He's not cool! C'mon...vote the guy who's dad was President! That's cooler!"

*sigh*

But if this is the most important election of the next few decades, I can proudly tell my kids I watched it and I was for Kerry all the way, despite what events occur.
if Bush actually wins this time around and if the GOP continues to hold our congress hostage to one party misrule in service to special interests without the dems at least liberating one house then it appears that america will fall into a civil war (which is the only logical response to unchecked tyranny)

im 47 and it always amazes me how much difference an election can make
with so little difference between the 2 major parties and with all politicians being ...well...politicians it really shouldnt matter much
but reagan made a huge difference, clinton made a huge difference, bush2 has made a huge difference.
so i HOPE we are at a turning point in US political history through voting kerry into office and restoring a bit of sanity to the whitehouse but we'll find that out in november.

Ok, first I'm a Canadian, but I am one of the older posters on the site. I have followed US elections as long as Canadian and world affairs for many years now. I think that without doubt this is the most important election in my life time. Not just to Americans but to the world. The decision the American people have before them is huge. Certainly who you choose for president in 2004 will certainly decide which direction and how you go about doing it. I believe most non-Americans would agree with me here, four more years of Bush might end any respect the world has left for the USA. While I agree on some level Kerry's foreign policy doesn't sound too much different then Bush's, it's in how he would go about it. You can not be a leader if no one is following and the world will not follow Bush. Just like a CEO of a company, when he's lost credibility in the world, you change the CEO.

I most certainly believe the USA is at a cross-roads. That will decide whether Americans can hold onto the values they have espoused in the world for over 60 years or if they go in a very different dangerous direction for the world.
I'm not that old, 17, but I generally agree with this. The only difference is, I think the turning point was in 2000. I think Kerry will be at least a partial return to Clinton's path, while Bush will continue his. We already switched from Clinton to Bush. This election decided whether Bush's original election was a true turning point or just a detour.

Well, as November being a little ways off, theres no way of telling until then on whether or not this will be a major point in history. But, if Kerry can restore what little dignity GWB left us, i think thats a cornerstone in itself. That is of course if Kerry wins.

if Bush actually wins this time around and if the GOP continues to hold our congress hostage to one party misrule in service to special interests without the dems at least liberating one house then it appears that america will fall into a civil war (which is the only logical response to unchecked tyranny)

Funny -- someone who hates Bush because he gets us into wars advocating a war on American soil, brother against brother.

What a warped view.

I don't want to see Bush as President either, but his smarmy ass is outta there in four years, if we have to endure him that long.

Look at the polls, though -- Kerry is slightly in the lead...

Funny -- someone who hates Bush because he gets us into wars advocating a war on American soil, brother against brother.

What a warped view.

I don't want to see Bush as President either, but his smarmy ass is outta there in four years, if we have to endure him that long.

Look at the polls, though -- Kerry is slightly in the lead...

Yeah, I totally agree with you.. I was very moved by quite a few of the speeches at the DNC convention about "There are no liberals and no conservatives, only Americans" or "There are no blue states or red states, they are all red, white and blue" So on and so forth. I see four more years of Bush maybe as a catalyst for world backlash.. but as Americans you are in the same boat. Thus should certainly stick together. I say this as a foreigner, but I personally do not wish to see America for all her faults fall into any civil war. Now, one may argue that there was a cultural civil war in the 60/70's and the left won.. but that's not quite the same as taking up arms against each other. I hope it never comes to that!

Last national polls I seen last night were Kerry 48% and Bush 43% , but we won't know how much if any bounce he got out of the convention until Monday, although I suspect he will get at least 5 points.

Yeah, I totally agree with you.. I was very moved by quite a few of the speeches at the DNC convention about "There are no liberals and no conservatives, only Americans" or "There are no blue states or red states, they are all red, white and blue" So on and so forth. I see four more years of Bush maybe as a catalyst for world backlash.. but as Americans you are in the same boat. Thus should certainly stick together. I say this as a foreigner, but I personally do not wish to see America for all her faults fall into any civil war. Now, one may argue that there was a cultural civil war in the 60/70's and the left won.. but that's not quite the same as taking up arms against each other. I hope it never comes to that!

Last national polls I seen last night were Kerry 48% and Bush 43% , but we won't know how much if any bounce he got out of the convention until Monday, although I suspect he will get at least 5 points.

Yeah, a civil war would be a little to um, extreme. I could see mass protests though. You can't deny that bush is a great divider. He has completely alienated himself from the people who don't support his ideas, and he has not even made an attempt to show sincerity to try to fix that. Compassionate conservativism... sounds like an oxymoron to me.

At 31, I think I agree with Daistallia. It's a terribly important election in terms of the next four years, but in terms of absolute importance, I'm not sure if it will compare to the 2000 election (which forced us to question our entire political system) or even the 1980 election (which showed that the Presidency is little more than a political beauty contest).

The damage has been done. America's proclaimed values have been called into question and regardless of who wins this year, that's going to take a long time to address. If Bush takes the prize and continues his heavy handed policies, well, that's no more than we've been living with for the past four years. If Kerry takes it, he'll spend four years undoing what Bush did (for better or for worse) and there will most likely be a Republican in the White House come the next election...I can't see Kerry being more than a single term President). While a Kerry win might go a long way to improving international relations, Bush has finally begun to understand that, even with our might, we don't live in a vacuum. And regardless of who's in the White House, terrorists are not going to stop targeting the US because, frankly, we're such a big target. Kerry might improve the economy by forcing companies to stop offshoring and exporting jobs (although that's much easier said than done in an age of truly global corporations), but Bush might be able to claim a victory in this as well if the theoretical job profits from that same exportation start making themselves known (which is still a possibility, although an increasingly dim one). Kerry won't be able to make any headway with a universal health care system because the Congress is going to stay Republican and, even if it doesn't, no Democrat is going to vote for the sweeping changes he wants. Bush has basically abandoned the health care issue and will continue to do so if he's reelected.

That's the problem with this election. The situation is such that no matter who gets elected, their effect on the system will be weak at best Neither candidate possesses sufficient vision or leadership to turn things around or to make a significant impact on history, at least, any more than they have already done.

At 31, I think I agree with Daistallia. It's a terribly important election in terms of the next four years, but in terms of absolute importance, I'm not sure if it will compare to the 2000 election (which forced us to question our entire political system) or even the 1980 election (which showed that the Presidency is little more than a political beauty contest).

The damage has been done. America's proclaimed values have been called into question and regardless of who wins this year, that's going to take a long time to address. If Bush takes the prize and continues his heavy handed policies, well, that's no more than we've been living with for the past four years. If Kerry takes it, he'll spend four years undoing what Bush did (for better or for worse) and there will most likely be a Republican in the White House come the next election...I can't see Kerry being more than a single term President). While a Kerry win might go a long way to improving international relations, Bush has finally begun to understand that, even with our might, we don't live in a vacuum. And regardless of who's in the White House, terrorists are not going to stop targeting the US because, frankly, we're such a big target. Kerry might improve the economy by forcing companies to stop offshoring and exporting jobs (although that's much easier said than done in an age of truly global corporations), but Bush might be able to claim a victory in this as well if the theoretical job profits from that same exportation start making themselves known (which is still a possibility, although an increasingly dim one). Kerry won't be able to make any headway with a universal health care system because the Congress is going to stay Republican and, even if it doesn't, no Democrat is going to vote for the sweeping changes he wants. Bush has basically abandoned the health care issue and will continue to do so if he's reelected.

That's the problem with this election. The situation is such that no matter who gets elected, their effect on the system will be weak at best Neither candidate possesses sufficient vision or leadership to turn things around or to make a significant impact on history, at least, any more than they have already done.

While I agree with you for the most part, I must say that part of me thinks a lot of us are selling Kerry a bit short. Though the amount of progress he makes is largely dependent on how the congressional elections turn out.

Yeah, a civil war would be a little to um, extreme. I could see mass protests though. You can't deny that bush is a great divider. He has completely alienated himself from the people who don't support his ideas, and he has not even made an attempt to show sincerity to try to fix that. Compassionate conservativism... sounds like an oxymoron to me.

That's another legacy of the past four years that, while Bush accelerated it, I don't think it was avoidable. It's ironic that, as the two major political parties become more and more similar, the views of the people in those parties become more and more polarized. It's like we've forgotten the purpose of government and elections and even political parties. The point is not to win, but to find the best governor for our country at any given moment in time.

That's another legacy of the past four years that, while Bush accelerated it, I don't think it was avoidable. It's ironic that, as the two major political parties become more and more similar, the views of the people in those parties become more and more polarized. It's like we've forgotten the purpose of government and elections and even political parties. The point is not to win, but to find the best governor for our country at any given moment in time.

This is true, tensions have been flaring for years between the left and right. That was especially apparent with the Clinton Impeachment. If the levels of tension weren't there, that would never have happened. So you're right, bush did just speed things along a few years.

While I agree with you for the most part, I must say that part of me thinks a lot of us are selling Kerry a bit short. Though the amount of progress he makes is largely dependent on how the congressional elections turn out.

Oh, I hope we are. I would like to believe that Kerry has more going for him other than "He's Not Bush" and I'm sure he does. I just don't know how much more that is. If you look at the last two multiple term Presidents, they both had an an undeniable charisma, a vision, a sense of leadership. Neither candidate has that this time, just like neither candidate had it in 2000. If Bush gets a second term, he gets it by default, not because he's clearly the better choice.

And you're absolutely right about Congress. If it stays Republican and Kerry wins, nothing will get done because you'll have a situation like the last four years of Clinton's run. It won't be about governing the country, it'll be about making sure Kerry gets nothing accomplished. If it goes Democrat and Kerry wins, it'll be about setting up the 2008 elections, so nothing impressive or controversial will be done. If Bush wins and the Congress goes Democrat, then you'll have the same situation as with Kerry and a Republican Congress. The only wild card, really, is Bush and a Republican Congress. I don't think the Republican party is willing to give him the leeway they have for the last four years, because he's made some decisions that run very contrary to the principles they uphold and make it hard for them to go home and justify them to the electorate. Or they could rally around him again. It's hard to tell at this point.

Oh, I hope we are. I would like to believe that Kerry has more going for him other than "He's Not Bush" and I'm sure he does. I just don't know how much more that is. If you look at the last two multiple term Presidents, they both had an an undeniable charisma, a vision, a sense of leadership. Neither candidate has that this time, just like neither candidate had it in 2000. If Bush gets a second term, he gets it by default, not because he's clearly the better choice.

And you're absolutely right about Congress. If it stays Republican and Kerry wins, nothing will get done because you'll have a situation like the last four years of Clinton's run. It won't be about governing the country, it'll be about making sure Kerry gets nothing accomplished. If it goes Democrat and Kerry wins, it'll be about setting up the 2008 elections, so nothing impressive or controversial will be done. If Bush wins and the Congress goes Democrat, then you'll have the same situation as with Kerry and a Republican Congress. The only wild card, really, is Bush and a Republican Congress. I don't think the Republican party is willing to give him the leeway they have for the last four years, because he's made some decisions that run very contrary to the principles they uphold and make it hard for them to go home and justify them to the electorate. Or they could rally around him again. It's hard to tell at this point.

I can't really see the senate staying in a republican majority anyway myself, the dems only have to pick up 3 seats for a majority, and really only 2 seats if you count McCain as a Democrat since he has seemed to be largely moving against the tide of the republican party lately. The races for the House will be very interesting this year though, very interesting indeed.

I can't really see the senate staying in a republican majority anyway myself, the dems only have to pick up 3 seats for a majority, and really only 2 seats if you count McCain as a Democrat since he has seemed to be largely moving against the tide of the republican party lately. The races for the House will be very interesting this year though, very interesting indeed.

You're right about the Senate, in theory. The problem is, though, a slim majority is not going to be enough to get anything accomplished, particularly in this day of "fighting for the middle" politics. Unless there is a decisive majority in both the House and the Senate then it all tends to dissolve into partisan bickering anyway.

I've grown a little jaded with our political system as of late. I hope I'm wrong and just being pessimistic. :)

I've grown a little jaded with our political system as of late. I hope I'm wrong and just being pessimistic. :)

Preaching to the chior, lol. Yeah, it would do wonders for the level of public apathy if things actually started getting accomplished again.

Preaching to the chior, lol. Yeah, it would do wonders for the level of public apathy if things actually started getting accomplished again.

Heh. At this point, it'd probably scare the hell out of us.

Yes this is a very important election because the outcome is a lose lose situation. With Kerry in office he'd probably get more world support for the whole Iraq debacle but we in the US once again would give up atleast one right, the right to keep and bare arms.

With Bush in office we'll continue to piss the world off, he'll continue to blunder Iraq, US citizens will have more of their right to privacy taken away, and we might still lose our right to keep and bare arms.

Either way the US will be a gimmy to any nation who wants to take over or has hostile intentions. If things get bad enough I could even see a second american revolution happening.

If anything it would be nice for the US to take it's collective head out of it's collective ass and start seeing that there are more than two political parties and that some of them really DO care about the country.

Yes this is a very important election because the outcome is a lose lose situation. With Kerry in office he'd probably get more world support for the whole Iraq debacle but we in the US once again would give up atleast one right, the right to keep and bare arms.

Er, where has Kerry said he intends, if elected, to revoke the Second Amendement?

This question is more for the older Americans here. Do you think that this US Presidential election is more important than others in the past? The fighting and propaganda wars seem to be much harder. Supporters on both sides seem much more zealous than before.

Do you think you are at a turning point in US political history? Or is this just another election?

No. Regardless of which political party is in office, the same people shape our foreign policy.

Example: When CFR member Gerald Ford (CFR member Nixon's successor) and his secretary of state Henry Kissinger, Nelson Rockefeller's protege', lost the '76 election, they were replaced by CFR member Jimmy Carter and Special Assistant for National Security Affairs Zbigniew Brzezinski, David Rockefeller's protege'. Every President since Dwight D. Eisenhower- with the exceptions of Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Regean, and George W. Bush- has been a member of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). Almost every secretary of state for the past fifty years has been a member: George Marshall, Dean Acheson, John Foster Dulles, Dean Rusk, William Rogers, Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, George Schulz, Warren Christopher, Madaleine Albright, and Colin Powell. Vice-Presidents Hubert Humphrey, Nelson Rockefeller, Walter Mondale, and Dick Cheney were/are all CFR members. Of the Democratic candidates this year, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Wesley Clark, and Richard Gephardt are all members. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is a former member. George F. Kennan- the man who formulated the containment policy-is a member. Newt Gingrich is a member. So is William F. Buckley. Dan Rather, Barbara Walters, Jim Lehrer, Tom Brokaw, and scores of other reporters and journalists are members. Michael Eisner, CEO of Disney, is a member, as are dozens of other CEOs and presidents of big-name companies. Every CIA director in history has been a member. Alan Greenspan is a member. Presidential candidates Thomas Dewey and Adlai Stevenson were members. Senator John McCain is a member, as are a few other senators, of both political parties. So are numerous congressmen. Even some of our military leaders have been members: Matthew Ridgway, William Westmoreland, Andrew Goodpaster, Lyman Lemnitzer, Maxwell Taylor, and more than few members (and even chairmen) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Alan Greenspan is a member. Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert McNamara, Strobe Talbott, C. Douglas Dillon, Winston Lord, John McCloy, Melvin Laird, Walt Rostow, William and McGeorge Bundy, W. Averell Harriman, Elliott Richardson, Ellsworth Bunker, Sol Linowitz, Edward Lansdale, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., Caspar Weinberger, Alger Hiss, and literally hundreds of other big-name government people have been members. Every President for the past fifty years has had hundreds of members in his administration.

Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Stephen something (I don't remember his last name, sorry) are all members as well.

No. Regardless of which political party is in office, the same people shape our foreign policy.
I'm guessing that's why US foreign policy has stayed along roughly the same lines since WWII. I think we can all agree that it has changed since then, due to the 9/11 crisis. Here's a question: Do you think Bush would have changed the style of US foreign policy if 9/11 had never happened?

I'm guessing that's why US foreign policy has stayed along roughly the same lines since WWII. I think we can all agree that it has changed since then, due to the 9/11 crisis. Here's a question: Do you think Bush would have changed the style of US foreign policy if 9/11 had never happened?
yes of course--that was the whole point of 911

I'm guessing that's why US foreign policy has stayed along roughly the same lines since WWII. I think we can all agree that it has changed since then, due to the 9/11 crisis. Here's a question: Do you think Bush would have changed the style of US foreign policy if 9/11 had never happened?

Actually, I don't think Bush's policy is really a change, just an exaggeration. Since WWII we've frequently gone into countries that didn't want us there because we wanted to. Viet Nam, Korea, Israel, the list goes on. We were accused of trying to be the world's police force a long time before Bush got into office and also accused of being closet imperials. Bush just ordered the most blatant display of that foriegn policy since Viet Nam, a display which could not be ignored by the international community.

Civil War if Bush gets relelected?

John Titor, anyone?

hmm....

nah...

Civil War if Bush gets relelected?

John Titor, anyone?

hmm....

nah...
we are all interested in the future cause thats where you and I are gonna spend the rest of our lives

if Bush actually wins this time around and if the GOP continues to hold our congress hostage to one party misrule in service to special interests without the dems at least liberating one house then it appears that america will fall into a civil war (which is the only logical response to unchecked tyranny)
I don't think that there will be a civil war if Bush gets re-elected. I doubt there would be even if he were to refuse to step down after four years, mainly because only a tiny minority of people would support him.

Also remember, not all Republicans like Bush.

I think there possible would be a civil war if somehow acts were passed stopping freedom of speech and politics, and freedom from unreasonable searches. But that's not going to happen even if Bush wants it to.

I'm guessing that's why US foreign policy has stayed along roughly the same lines since WWII. I think we can all agree that it has changed since then, due to the 9/11 crisis. Here's a question: Do you think Bush would have changed the style of US foreign policy if 9/11 had never happened?

You are right. Go down my list and see how many names you recognize. Hell, Jesse Jackson is a CFR member.

I don't think that there will be a civil war if Bush gets re-elected. I doubt there would be even if he were to refuse to step down after four years, mainly because only a tiny minority of people would support him.

Also remember, not all Republicans like Bush.

I think there possible would be a civil war if somehow acts were passed stopping freedom of speech and politics, and freedom from unreasonable searches. But that's not going to happen even if Bush wants it to.
it can easily happen if he holds onto his one party tyranny and gets to stack the bench with nazi Judges

Er, where has Kerry said he intends, if elected, to revoke the Second Amendement?

*doesn't remember seeing this anywhere either* Oh wait, I forgot that is the never-ending liberal conspiracy.

Here's a question: Do you think Bush would have changed the style of US foreign policy if 9/11 had never happened?

If 9-11 wouldn't have happened I don't know that he would have had the opportunity to. Prior to 9-11 his approval ratings were in the toilet, and the main thing that he did to radically change foreign policy was the war in Iraq. It is obvious that if he didn't have 9-11 as a barganing chip the war never would have happened in the first place. So the short answer to your question: No.

it can easily happen if he holds onto his one party tyranny and gets to stack the bench with nazi Judges

Though I do share your same fear that bush will appoint more strict right-wing religious judges, I think you are going a little overboard. The worst we would see is mass protest, but at the levels of public apathy towards the government we have today, chances are that public outrage would never become fueled enough for a "civil war".

If 9-11 wouldn't have happened I don't know that he would have had the opportunity to. Prior to 9-11 his approval ratings were in the toilet, and the main thing that he did to radically change foreign policy was the war in Iraq. It is obvious that if he didn't have 9-11 as a barganing chip the war never would have happened in the first place. So the short answer to your question: No.

I don't know about that. The general theory now seems to be that Bush was already planning an Iraqi action prior to 9/11. While 9/11 certainly made it easier to execute, I think we were destined to go into Iraq the second Bush accepted the Presidency. As for popular opinion, well, I'm not sure he really cares. He's purposefully surrounded himself with yes-men and insulated himself from it for the whole of his term (partly because past examples indicate he doesn't deal with confrontation all that well). Remember, he didn't actually win the popular vote...

I don't know about that. The general theory now seems to be that Bush was already planning an Iraqi action prior to 9/11. While 9/11 certainly made it easier to execute, I think we were destined to go into Iraq the second Bush accepted the Presidency. As for popular opinion, well, I'm not sure he really cares. He's purposefully surrounded himself with yes-men and insulated himself from it for the whole of his term (partly because past examples indicate he doesn't deal with confrontation all that well). Remember, he didn't actually win the popular vote...

Oh I'm absolutely sure you're right, that was pre-planned. However the senate was in the control of the democrats prior to the 2002 midterm elections, a majority that would have only grown stronger had 9-11 not happened and he would never have gotten his authorization for war then. But then again, it's a whole what-if situation that could have gone either way.

Though I do share your same fear that bush will appoint more strict right-wing religious judges, I think you are going a little overboard. The worst we would see is mass protest, but at the levels of public apathy towards the government we have today, chances are that public outrage would never become fueled enough for a "civil war".
the nation isnt divided because the people are apathetic--its divided because our so-called leaders are

the nation isnt divided because the people are apathetic--its divided because our so-called leaders are
I don't think I ever said we were divided because of apathy, I said that public outrage would never hit the hights that it would need to to fuel an actual civil war because of the levels of public apathy. The worst that would happen is a clash of protesters. It is divided because people are moving to the extremes of either side which causes tension on society, but sooner or later that tension is bound to snap back to the middle and we will have a primarily moderate society again.

I don't think I ever said we were divided because of apathy, I said that public outrage would never hit the hights that it would need to to fuel an actual civil war because of the levels of public apathy. The worst that would happen is a clash of protesters. It is divided because people are moving to the extremes of either side which causes tension on society, but sooner or later that tension is bound to snap back to the middle and we will have a primarily moderate society again.
thats sounds stark

Having slept on it, I still have to say no.

And, since it has been brought up again, I'd like to address the suggestion that the US is headed for a second Civil War. There will most certainly be no civil war in any reasonably predictable time frame. We would see a 10+ year lead up to that. Remember that the Compromise of 1850 was one of the key factors leading up to the US Civil War.
If the militia movement had actually gone anywhere beyond the Murray Building bombing, it could have developed into a "Bleeding Kansas" situation. But I think it's pretty clear in the aftermath of that, that there isn't sufficient division within the US.

And, Colodia, John Titor has, AFAIK, pretty much been shown to be a hoax.

I'm 14, so I cannot really say.

But this is bigger to me than to most of the people here in NS.

This is the first real election I am following. I never cared about the 2000 elections, for I was merely 10 years old at the time. Although I told my mom
"Don't vote Al Gore! He's not cool! C'mon...vote the guy who's dad was President! That's cooler!"

*sigh*

But if this is the most important election of the next few decades, I can proudly tell my kids I watched it and I was for Kerry all the way, despite what events occur.

hehe, I was the same way four years ago, except I was 14 at the time. I didn't really care too much, because politics didn't much interest me then. I actually supported Bush getting elected. ><

Anyway, I think that this is a fairly major turning point in our history. There's no telling what 4 more years under Bush would do...even though I think the past 4 show that the next 4 would be pretty bad. But that's my opinion, don't ask for facts to back it up, lol.

From a foreign perspective, I think this election is a chance to save America from deep, deep unpopularity in the world.

From a foreign perspective, I think this election is a chance to save America from deep, deep unpopularity in the world.

Yeah, who we pick is most certianly going to affect the world view.