NationStates Jolt Archive

There are many, even in the mainstream, who are saying that Bush will attempt to stay in power somehow. He seems a bit too smug. If he does have war declared on Iran, do you believe he will use it as an excuse to somehow stay in power?

Ralph Nader has said that Congress will not vote to impeach Bush because they are afraid he will declare martial law. It seems rather crazy for Ralph Nader to say, but so are others. Kucinich is saying that Bush should be arrested by law enforcement as soon as his term is up.

FOX ATTACKS IRAN: Setting the People up for War with Iran

News clips of numerous instances of Fox encouraging war with Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs

Possibly, though he has to realize that the liklihood of him being lynched in front of the White House is directly proportional to the liklihood of him declaring war on/invading Iran.

Ahahahaha..

I don't think it's even remotely likely. He didn't have that kind of juice even after 9/11 when people for a brief minute thought sunshine exuded from his ass.

HOWEVER, it would be used as a reason to elect another hawkish Republican.

I would laugh.

If war is declared on Iran, will Bush use the war excuse to cancel the 08’ elections?
No.

[/thread]

The idea that President Bush would use a war with Iran as a pretense to suspend the election is crazy. I would think a nuclear war between the United States and Russia is more likely then President Bush suspending the election. If he did suspend the election I would be among the first to rebel.

There are many, even in the mainstream, who are saying that Bush will attempt to stay in power somehow. He seems a bit too smug.

That's the evidence? :p

There are many, even in the mainstream, who are saying that Bush will attempt to stay in power somehow. He seems a bit too smug. If he does have war declared on Iran, do you believe he will use it as an excuse to somehow stay in power?

Ralph Nader has said that Congress will not vote to impeach Bush because they are afraid he will declare martial law. It seems rather crazy for Ralph Nader to say, but so are others. Kucinich is saying that Bush should be arrested by law enforcement as soon as his term is up.

He's such a shit, I wouldn't put fucking up the country just to spite other candidates beyond him.

That'd be great, I'd laugh my ass off and once again experience that feeling of not being the least bit surprised.

Obviously not, seeing as it would mean that the Republicans would win in 2012.

I don't think it's even remotely likely. He didn't have that kind of juice even after 9/11 when people for a brief minute thought sunshine exuded from his ass.

They still claim to have captured the event on camera. I think it's faked! :p

And the world will end four years later on December 20th, or something.

That'd be great, I'd laugh my ass off

War and death is hilarious; the mere prospect of more of either makes me giddy with excitement too.

Kucinich is saying that Bush should be arrested by law enforcement as soon as his term is up.

Kucinich should be arrested immediately for treason against America.

Bush isn't crazy enough to cancel the elections, though.

Kucinich should be arrested immediately for treason against America.

Bush isn't crazy enough to cancel the elections, though.

Uh, what? Since when is it treasonous to suggest the President be arrested? He should be, and tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity, along with the rest of his administration that was involved with Iraq, Abu Grhaib, and Guantanamo.

If he tried I would be the first (or a close second) to scream "Viva La Revolucion!"

If he tried I would be the first (or a close second) to scream "Viva La Revolucion!"
Nah, you wouldn't be, also you wouldn't really scream "Viva La Revolucion", it'd be more like "THIS IS SO UNFAIR" on NSG.

Now THAT is stretching it...

:( You see right through me, Yootopia.
No worries. The responses like "I will flee the land, also wee on the Presidential Cat if Huckabee wins the election" are just as, if not more annoying :)

Nah, you wouldn't be, also you wouldn't really scream "Viva La Revolucion", it'd be more like "THIS IS SO UNFAIR" on NSG.

See, this is why you rock and I don't.

Kucinich should be arrested immediately for treason against America.

Fail.

See, this is why you rock and I don't.
You rock aplenty, don't worry about it :)

Nah, you wouldn't be, also you wouldn't really scream "Viva La Revolucion", it'd be more like "THIS IS SO UNFAIR" on NSG.

:( You see right through me, Yootopia.

Nah, you wouldn't be, also you wouldn't really scream "Viva La Revolucion", it'd be more like "THIS IS SO UNFAIR" on NSG.

That's the best thing I've heard all week. :D:D:D

You rock aplenty, don't worry about it :)

I do?

No worries. The responses like "I will flee the land, also wee on the Presidential Cat if Huckabee wins the election" are just as, if not more annoying :)

But you are right, I probably would't do anything productive. I would just get really pissed and sulk in my mom's basement. :D


(I don't live with my mom by the way....)

There are many, even in the mainstream, who are saying that Bush will attempt to stay in power somehow. He seems a bit too smug. If he does have war declared on Iran, do you believe he will use it as an excuse to somehow stay in power?

Perhaps it is merely my own ignorance, but is that even possible to do? Also, do you really think that congress would vote to declare war in Iran? I highly doubt it.

Ralph Nader has said that Congress will not vote to impeach Bush because they are afraid he will declare martial law. It seems rather crazy for Ralph Nader to say, but so are others.

One executive power is to declare martial law? Without a check or balance? That doesn't make sense. Also, you will note that Ralph Nader (being very liberal would hold potentially irrational ideaas, he also does not represent all of congress well enough to speak for them does he?)

Kucinich is saying that Bush should be arrested by law enforcement as soon as his term is up.

Any reason?

I do?
Yeah. Your debating style is reminiscent of celery - pleasant, and totally inoffensive, making it very refreshing.

~Snip~

You're taking this question seriously?:rolleyes:

Yeah. Your debating style is reminiscent of celery - pleasant, and totally inoffensive, making it very refreshing.

Thank you. That is, after all, the idea.

...

The inoffensive and pleasant bit, I mean, not the celery.

i dont think that the president has the constitutional authority to suspend elections. come january 20, 2009 he is OUT.

One executive power is to declare martial law? Without a check or balance? That doesn't make sense.

Yes actually, in a manner he can. Without Congressional approval. In a law signed by President Bush in October, and passed. View 10. USC 331-335

10.USC 332
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

10. USC 333
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

10 USC 334
Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

i dont think that the president has the constitutional authority to suspend elections. come january 20, 2009 he is OUT.

And he'll have to walk his ass back to Texas, all the while trying to avoid getting 'accidentally' ran over.

I would be forced to celebrate if he did:

Democracy
Switzerland: 1
USA: 0

:D

Yes actually, in a manner he can. Without Congressional approval. In a law signed by President Bush in October, and passed. View 10. USC 331-335

10.USC 332
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

10. USC 333
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

10 USC 334
Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.
How the hell did that get passed?

Yes actually, in a manner he can. Without Congressional approval. In a law signed by President Bush in October, and passed. View 10. USC 331-335

10.USC 332
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

10. USC 333
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

10 USC 334
Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

And there isn't a single check or balance? I'm too lazy to look it up myself, but I doubt that quite a bit. Also, they could still impeach, and then remove him from office, and assumably it would happen pretty quickly after that....

We had a thread on this back in the day, and if i recall, the law was merely the legislative codification of the post-Cold War Continuation of Governance plans that the Clinton put into place.
That was pretty dubious of Clinton. *sighs*

How the hell did that get passed?

We had a thread on this back in the day, and if i recall, the law was merely the legislative codification of the post-Cold War Continuation of Governance plans that the Clinton put into place.

Nothing short of a breakdown in social order will prevent the US from holding elections. We have NEVER canceled - or even delayed - elections in our history. Not even during the Civil War, when martial law was declared in parts of the country.

i thought that war has not been declared for quite a while now, why would it this time be different? :)

I can see it

Well seeing how I've begun to doubt Bush's sanity repeatly.

He could TRY.

FOX ATTACKS IRAN: Setting the People up for War with Iran

News clips of numerous instances of Fox encouraging war with Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs

Irrelevant.

How they have been beating the war drums awhile. Bush is cozying up to the Saudis, and other nearby Arab nations so he can butter them up to the future American occupation of Iran.

Irrelevant.

Not irrelevant. Whether you or I like it or not, Fox News has a lot of sway over a significant portion of the population of the United States. They will do their best to drum up support for anything a Republican President might want to do, and they usually succeed too.

FOX ATTACKS IRAN: Setting the People up for War with Iran

News clips of numerous instances of Fox encouraging war with Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs
Irrelevant.

*snip*

In answer. HELL FREAKING NO!!

That'd be great, I'd laugh my ass off and once again experience that feeling of not being the least bit surprised.

Yeah, that'd be a laugh-a-minute. I'm laughing right now!

Funny, I don't remember ever losing tears from laughing...

Yes actually, in a manner he can. Without Congressional approval. In a law signed by President Bush in October, and passed. View 10. USC 331-335

10.USC 332
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

10. USC 333
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

10 USC 334
Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

The same law that was passed in 1807 and only recently amended. failed again.

Not irrelevant. Whether you or I like it or not, Fox News has a lot of sway over a significant portion of the population of the United States. They will do their best to drum up support for anything a Republican President might want to do, and they usually succeed too.

They really do it blatantly too. They do not get called out nearly enough on their drumming the party lines.

In answer. HELL FREAKING NO!!

Why not?

Aerion: They're also really good at propagandizing stations like CNN and MSNBC as being "liberal" when they're really just corporate.

Why not?

1) no election has ever been suspended in the history of the United States.

2) We had this thing called a civil war and martial law was declared in the state of Maryland to keep it from seceding from the Union. Guess what? It was an insurrection/rebellion/civil war and we still had the elections in 1862 and then again in 1864.

3) Let us not forget the 2nd world war. We still had our elections then too.

This thread is made of fail

1) no election has ever been suspended in the history of the United States.

2) We had this thing called a civil war and martial law was declared in the state of Maryland to keep it from seceding from the Union. Guess what? It was an insurrection/rebellion/civil war and we still had the elections in 1862 and then again in 1864.

3) Let us not forget the 2nd world war. We still had our elections then too.

This thread is made of fail
Alright. Fair enough. I didn't really expect the elections to be called off, mind. I was simply curious as to what reasons you felt were why that would not happen.

Wow, I didn't give this thought. He cannot declare war without the approval of our bicameral congress, that said it is somewhat unlikely that congress will agree without him being exposed for numerous well-placed bribes. Even if he did declare war, using it as an excuse to remain in power is as untraditional as it is illegal. It's funny, the President, a civilian, is made commander and chief of our armed forces to avoid a militaristic dictatorship. It was assumed that the president, a civilian, would have the interests of his nation's people at hand, and yet he seems to manipulate everything to his liking. I believe that our system, in the end, wins through against a real dictatorship, and any attempt by a monkey like him are going to be met with assassination. Him promoting someone with an agenda like his own in elections this year or 4 - 8 years from now is much more likely and much more possible legally and politically, and by support I mean financially rather than politically, He would not OPENLY support the candidate, if he was intelligent. Public opinion of him has dropped too far, it'd be too risky with anything close to a 50/50% split on people who love him and people who hate him.

Wow. Rant much. Enjoy.

I do not feel like the elections will be called off, but I am the one that voted that Bush would if he could. And in a very dismal view he might.

If it did happen, hypothetically, I hope everyone would be ready to rebel. At least the state legislatures are voting to refuse to comply with the REAL ID law being forced through by the Federal Government. That gives me some hope.

If Bush did stay in power (which is highly unlikely)
then got killed. Would Cheney take over???

If Bush tries to stay, I swear to God I will try to get myself elected Prime Minister of Canada, and send the Canadian army to liberate the USA.

I think Bush is trying to take over the World. i

Get someone new like Obama first black presdent of usa and take step forward and it look good.

If Bush tries to stay,I will try to get myself elected Prime Minister of GReat britain and send the Euro-Uk army to liberate USA.

Frankly, I don't think Bush wants to be president anymore. I think at this point he just wishes he could bury himself under a rock.

Frankly, I don't think Bush wants to be president anymore. I think at this point he just wishes he could bury himself under a rock.

Yeah, he's pretty worn out. Honestly, I can't help but feel sorry for him, even if I vehemently disagree with all of his policies...that guy really needs a hug or something.

Yeah, he's pretty worn out. Honestly, I can't help but feel sorry for him, even if I vehemently disagree with all of his policies...that guy really needs a hug or something.

If by "hug" you actually mean "a kick in the gonads", then I agree with you.

So yeah, sorry, but I can't get myself to feel sorry for him. The sheer stupidity of some of his moves ought to be criminal.

There are many, even in the mainstream, who are saying that Bush will attempt to stay in power somehow. He seems a bit too smug. If he does have war declared on Iran, do you believe he will use it as an excuse to somehow stay in power?

Ralph Nader has said that Congress will not vote to impeach Bush because they are afraid he will declare martial law. It seems rather crazy for Ralph Nader to say, but so are others. Kucinich is saying that Bush should be arrested by law enforcement as soon as his term is up.

FOX ATTACKS IRAN: Setting the People up for War with Iran

News clips of numerous instances of Fox encouraging war with Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs

War on Iran would screw the US over by streching already overstretched forced over which will impact the economy because the US would have to economically support the stretched out and failing military.

There are many instances in Sun Tzu's "Art of War" where he stresses the importance of resourcefulness and the hazards of stretching out forces and other actions which ultimately result in the suffering and impoverishment of everyone.

So why would Bush want to turn the nation's economy to utter smeg just so he can still remain in power. Thats as logical as playing king of the hill and accidentally pulling rescuing a genie on the way who grants you the position of king under one condition: the hill turns into a pile of bullshit first.

If by "hug" you actually mean "a kick in the gonads", then I agree with you.


Just one?

The crazy right-wingers used to say the same crap about Clinton.

Isn't it nice? Now the crazy Right and the crazy Left have something in common, even if it IS abject stupidity.

Well without a draft the US doesn't have the active forces required to even take and hold a part of Iran, let alone the whole country. It would have draft too do it.

Well without a draft the US doesn't have the active forces required to even take and hold a part of Iran, let alone the whole country. It would have draft too do it.

We could take and hold part of Iran. However why would we? There is no use in it. If there were a war it would be with air power. Any draft by any political party in the US at the moment for the expressed means of an offensive war is political suicide.

The crazy right-wingers used to say the same crap about Clinton.

Isn't it nice? Now the crazy Right and the crazy Left have something in common, even if it IS abject stupidity.



Just one big nuthouse isn't it?

Just one?
If it's a strong enough kick, from someone who's wearing steel-capped boots with spikes on them, then yes, a single one will do.

Any draft by any political party in the US at the moment for the expressed means of an offensive war is political suicide.
Not to mention a military suicide. Because I really, really don't think sending massive throngs of untrained, unwilling, low-morale troops to get blasted off by terror specialists is a winning move.

Professional soldiers already have a hard time in Iraq with the roadside bombs and asymmetrical warfare. While drafted armies might have worked in the past in conflicts where either side we distinctly identified and engaged in classical military moves, I'm quite certain a drafted army would not fare too well against trained guerrillas using hit-and-run tactics and clever booby-traps.

There are many, even in the mainstream, who are saying that Bush will attempt to stay in power somehow. He seems a bit too smug. If he does have war declared on Iran, do you believe he will use it as an excuse to somehow stay in power?

Ralph Nader has said that Congress will not vote to impeach Bush because they are afraid he will declare martial law. It seems rather crazy for Ralph Nader to say, but so are others. Kucinich is saying that Bush should be arrested by law enforcement as soon as his term is up.

FOX ATTACKS IRAN: Setting the People up for War with Iran

News clips of numerous instances of Fox encouraging war with Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs
1. Ralph Nader is NOT "mainstream".

2. Ralph Nader is a raving idiot. And i'm beginning to think he's totally batshit insane as well.

Bush would probably declare war on Iran though thats the last thing the world needs.

But cancel the elections? no........

If Bush tries to stay, I swear to God I will try to get myself elected Prime Minister of Canada, and send the Canadian army to liberate the USA.

You'd send all 10 of your troops and all 2 of your tanks south of the border?



















:p

There are many, even in the mainstream, who are saying that Bush will attempt to stay in power somehow. He seems a bit too smug. If he does have war declared on Iran, do you believe he will use it as an excuse to somehow stay in power?

1. The United States will not declare war on Iran without a justification which will pass muster with the American people. There is not enough popular support, and the military brass are fully aware that we do not have the capacity to force Iranian submission while still maintaining our commitments elsewhere...note the large number of resignations of high ranking military, as well as political burecrats, over the past two years. My guess is that Bush has been pushing for a war since 2006, but the intelligent people who actually run things aren't willing to follow him into making another, potentially disastrous mistake.

Either the Iranians must strike the first blow (unlikely, since such will ensure greater international support for U.S. efforts), or a staged event must occur that can be blamed on the Iranians (far more likely).

2. Provided that war with Iran does occur, regardless of the root cause, Bush would be a fool to try to suspend elections. If the military cannot add Iran to it's laundry list, how is it going to deal with the massive domestic unrest that suspended elections would certainly cause? Bush would have to flee D.C., "commanding" from a secure location. His authority as President would quite quickly be removed in such an event, and he cannot even count on the kind of support from the military that such a move would require.

He would quickly be neutered politically, and then captured...the end result for him would not be pretty. As stupid as I believe Bush to be, even I think he's smart enough to recognize that such an attempt to seize power would only end badly...for him.

well he, or his 'zietguiest' puppetmasters have already demonstrated something like that level of insanity, so its not so far beyond the realm of possibility that they'll just throw a tantrum and say if we don't let them make war on everyone anywhere they feel like just because they do, the'll officially point guns at us and not let us pretend to vote.

not beyond possibility, but certainly somewhere near the far edge of it.
as successful as the corporatocracy's usurpation of the election proccess has been, even if key states do manage to replace their touch screen 'voting machines' with scantron type automated vote counting in time for the election, that it's unlikely anyone they don't like THAT much is going to get elected.

it seems highly unlikely that the front runners for either major u.s. political party arn't already long since bought and paid for by the corporate mafia.

of course most of them this time, might be of sufficient charicter to vote their conscience and with the intrest of humanity and the planet, instead of staying completely bought, on at least some issues once they get in.

but will the major economic intrests be so paranoid of this possibilty as to demand the collective suicide of the human species, including their own greed blinded selves, at the point of a martial law gun?

well we HAVE seen what has been an octade of such lunacy, very nearly, if not so overtly, at that level. we can't assume it won't.

once upon a time such as this there was something called the wiemar republic, in a land that at that time had the most powerful and modernly equipped military on the face of the planet, and what happened there is a matter of history. fortunately someplace else beyone their convient reach had a greater production capacity.

the same place that now has the military edge but has shipped its production capacity off shore.

i don't think it's ignorance of history that is to blame for this either. although it has now been several generations.

and most of today's 'old folks' are only the CHILDREN of those who lived it, other then the extremely aged.

so we'll see. i certainly hope not. nor see it as likely. just not putting it entirely beyond what we have either.

=^^=
.../\...

when I was younger I wondered if he might do this...I still won't rule it out, but I'm not going to say for sure it will happen.

Only a leftie obsessed with hatred for President Bush, or a non-science grad student (which overlaps the former to a large extent), could even formulate such a laughable question.

when I was younger I wondered if he might do this...I still won't rule it out, but I'm not going to say for sure it will happen.

It's roughly in the area of him personally cloning a pig, surgically attaching eagles wings to the pig, somehow making the wings work, and getting the cloned pig to fly without inducements.

Only a leftie obsessed with hatred for President Bush, or a non-science grad student (which overlaps the former to a large extent), could even formulate such a laughable question.


And only a righty filled with nothing but love for Bush, the president chosen by God himself, would rule it out completelly after everything this crazy has done.

1. Ralph Nader is NOT "mainstream".true.2. Ralph Nader is a raving idiot.false. whatever else he is, he is extremely intelligent. his career as a lawyer shows that much.

You'd send all 10 of your troops and all 2 of your tanks south of the border?

Yes. And considering there will be nothing left to fight us in the US mainland(because all your fighting age men and women will be stuck in the Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan quagmires), we'll quickly breeze through the cheering populace of toothless elderly, 5-year old children, and housewives.

The only possible thing that could delay our advance is if we have to stop to receive the thanks of the people we liberate along the way.

Nothing stands in the way of the mighty Canadian Army! We will succeed where no one else has before, in a land war over US soil!

[/craziness]

But seriously? Get rid of the chimp-president. For the sake of the world, get rid of him, no matter what.

For the last couple of years, I've thought there's a chance Bush will refuse to step down, even if the more likely scenario is that he invalidates the election rather than cancels it. However, I've thought about it, and the fact that his term is up in 2009 really will mean lights out for Bush.

If the Project for a New American Century people really wanted to keep themselves in power, forcing more Bush down our throats would be a really good way to earn the nation's distrust and completely shoot the entire mission to hell.

The likelier scenario is this:

Run another person who's a PNAC lackey, perhaps even disguising them as a nice, mainstream moderate, or in the ultimate hoodwink, a Democrat. Given the sudden rise in popularity for Barack Obama in 2004, he's a prime candidate for such a move - not to touch on any PNAC conspiracy theories, but if I were PNAC, I might consider someone like Obama as a patsy. He's popular, new, and he could win, race and religious issues aside.

Now that you have someone who could win, the next part of the equation is to get the nomination. Bush got it through swiftboating McCain with such stories as the "black baby." Any slander will work. Painting Hillary as a pro-war authoritarian may secure the nomination for Obama, for example, if the PNAC people were going this route - and I'm not saying they are, because they're probably not, but still...

Next step in the process - win the election. All you have to do is get it close enough that it could go either way and fudge the numbers enough in your favor. Or just win outright; that works even better. Shortly after the election, it's time to put some of your agenda into action, whether it's pro-PNAC or not. Disguise tax cuts for the rich as "tax reform" or "across-the-board tax cuts." Legislation such as universal health care, improved education, or social programs should be ineffective at best and Orwellian at worst.

At this point, enter the hired guns. This is where this theory dives straight into the realm of conspiracy, the kind that says, "Well, it's theoretically possible, but extremely unlikely." The idea is to use al-Qaeda's fanatical hatred of the United States to PNAC's advantage. By allowing terrorist attacks and such to strike the mainland, fear is perpetually in the hearts of the people. You have to mix it up a little bit, though; having a 9/11 every eight years doesn't cut it. Assassinations, electrical disasters, building bombs, etc. Anything but a natural disaster, really, and even then, people won't be too upset about it.

All the while, freedoms are stripped away, Christianity is legislated at every turn, wars are drummed up, and the country becomes far more like it has been for the past seven years. The middle class begins to shrink. Corporations ignore legislation and get slaps on the wrist for it. A handful of rich people profit off of others' misery. Soon, people are virtually barred from doing anything but voting, and their options there are the equivalent of losing a hand or losing a foot.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

And that, people, is a potential recipe for something far worse than Bush simply refusing to step down.

This is, honestly, one of my worst fears right now. It may sound pretty far out there to most reasonable people, but we have to remember that, 1) Bush has served most of two terms without ever having been elected, and 2) this government is not lead by reasonable people. It's led by domestic terrorists. (Any minute now the CIA's going to break down my door)

No worries. The responses like "I will flee the land, also wee on the Presidential Cat if Huckabee wins the election" are just as, if not more annoying :)

Not to mention dangerous to those making such claims... I swore in 2000 that I'd move to Canada if Bush got elected, but I was 17 and still, you know, believed in the democratic process. I didn't think it would *really* happen. >_<

I would be forced to celebrate if he did:

Democracy
Switzerland: 1
USA: 0

:D

Hey, now. Let's not go that far. You can't just look at recent history, and I don't think either of us want to go back 50 years.

And there isn't a single check or balance? I'm too lazy to look it up myself, but I doubt that quite a bit. Also, they could still impeach, and then remove him from office, and assumably it would happen pretty quickly after that....

The President is the head of the military. That is HIS check against state uprisings. Consider the fact that the U.S. has been involved in at least four major wars that were not voted on by Congress...

Just one?

From every man woman and child in the US and any Guantanimo detainees found inocent in a fair trial (something I'm not sure they'll ever see).

New Mitanni, given Bush's recorded support of pseudoscience I'd say both categories are fanatical Bush haters.