What do you do Nov 3rd?
 

Scenario: It is Nov 3rd and your candidate has lost the election. What do you do?

-- Will you continue about life and accept the elected president as the leader of our nation?

--Will you spend endless amounts of energy trying to convince people why the person in office shouldn't really be there?

-- Will you look for every opportunity to bad mouth and tear to shreds the man in the office?

-- Will you grab your gun and head for the hills to wait for imminent implosion of the nation?

-- Or will you simply shrug your shoulders and take solace in the fact that you are comfortable, yet disgusted, that it doesn't really matter who is in power because none of them really care about people like us anyway?

I'll go with 1, 3 and 5.

-- Will begin to look for the quickest exit out of the country?
Is that an option?

What if your candidate wins the election but is denied the presidency?

yeah, you and hollywood. oh wait, they didn't follow through on their promises.

I don't have a gun, so I've gotta go 1, 2, 3, and 5.

Depends on what you mean by "win."

Well if hollywood contacts you again.....tell it that i'm a worthy cause and to donate. I'm not sure why hollywood would make you promises, but that's obviously none of my business. I can respect your privacy about the whole thing......... :D

My idea is obviously not permitted so I'll just go with:
--Will not draw my own conclusion and will embrace all insults with charity :thumbsup:

Secret Option #6 - Enroll in Semester At Sea and jump ship.

[quote]Depends on what you mean by "win."[quote]

get more votes

Gore got more individual votes, but Bush got more electoral votes, which is what is needed to win the presidential election in the US. The EC sucks, but I don't see it changing any time soon...and I wouldn't say that Gore was necessarily denied.

I gotta go with head for the hills with my gun while waiting for Aunt Elsa to send me my one way ticket to Zurich on Swiss Air. :eek:

Perhaps had tens of thousands of American citizens ( primarily black) not been denied their vote due to "errors" in the accounting of people's right to vote ( innocent people whose names and demographics bore a resemblance to that of a convicted criminal for instance) or in the inexlicable blocks which were placed in the way of other ( again mainly black) American citizens and which had the effect of making voting a ( sometimes physically) difficult affair.....Perhaps then yes Bush could be said to have recieved more votes. But since the tens of thousands of people whose votes were denied were overwhelmingly likeely to vote Democrat....and since Bush only "won" by a handful of votes, much less than the votes which were unfairl;y discounted I still consider the election to have been stolen.

Sources, por favor.

I'd be interested in seeing 'neutral' proof of these allegations.....I can only seem to find this information coming from the mouths and fingers of Pro Kerry supporters....and from that, extrapolate that it's merely a tactic to deter Pro Bush voters.

As an aside, and a completely unrelated topic, I find it interesting that it's being said that the majority of voters leaning towards the Democratic side of the ticket this November are not voting that way because Kerry's there.....they phrase their choice "I'm voting 'against' Bush", not "I'm voting FOR Kerry".

Dagney

It wasn't all that long ago that the (until recently secret) Florida felon list was shown to be massively flawed in a pro-Republican way. Data errors my ass.

From what I've seen, it's clear that the State of Florida really fucked up this year regarding the felon list. Based on that, I wouldn't be surprised if the fuck-ups Dana mentioned did occur. But I haven't seen anything other than conspiracy theory-type items regarding those issues.

Not me...I'm voting for John Kerry because I think he'll be a better president than Bush, not just because I hate Bush.

I'll go with 1 and 5. With the corollary that I will have to endure the celebrations of my boss.

On the other hand, if Bush wins, the other manager and I have plans to sneak in early and plaster his office with pro-Bush banners and such. hehehe

If it's true, so what? By definition (except in really unusual circumstances) the presidential challenger is always less well-known on the national level than the incumbent. How many Republicans were sitting home pining for George W. Bush to get into the White House in, say, December of 1999? Most voters probably hadn't really heard of any of the candidates... W probably had more name recognition than the rest just because of his dad. In 1992 people thought Bush Sr. had screwed up and they wanted him out. In 1980 they wanted Carter out. If George H. "voodoo economics" W. Bush had won the Republican nomination in 1980, would Republican partisans have sat home because their hero Reagan was not in the race? The most flaming liberal voters supported Dean and Kucinich (sorry, I probably spelled that wrong) in this primary cycle. Are they supposed to vote for Bush because Kerry won the nomination instead?

Republicans are famous for loyalty to their party. How come that's all of a sudden a bad thing when Democrats start doing it?

Oh, I never answered the question.

I suspect I'll be having several stiff drinks no matter who wins.

And no matter who wins, if there is even the smallest hint of irregularity in any election results in any county, even if it isn't significant enough numerically to have changed the outcome of the race, then we're all a bunch of complete idiots if we don't immediately force every government official of every party to clean house with respect to voting procedures.

Colorado just prduced it's own new list of "felins".........uh-oh. Coloradans don't make datea mstkes on purrpose thogh so im not worried. :eek: oooopsy....

Thanks monkey.



Sneaky so and so's. :mad:

I didn't say it was a bad thing...what I stated was that I found it interesting that some - not all - people will back a candidate, simply because he's the one their party chose, and don't explore the issues...they vote the party.

I have a somewhat checkered trend in my own voting history - because I vote for the issues, not the party. (Which is how I personally think it should be done...YMAYVMV)

So what? :confused:

What is, "One of the greatest jazz songs ever," Alex.

I think you can say you're voting against Bush and be informed of the issues. Kerry is the alternative to Bush and If one feels that Kerry is the lesser of two evils...that seems the most damning of Bush.

Bush is running against his record.

Oh, and I dont think this will be decided by Nov 3. I think it will take a while.

Nov. 3?


What if the hammers of Hell come down on the insurgents in Iraq and we have a Kerry win? I'm not emotionally equipped to deal with all this.

I'm crawling into a hole with as much beer as I can get no matter how it goes.

Another update on the Florida felon list.

From the article

I think he really means "After the media sued to look at the list, and after we failed to stop them, and after examination driven by the media it was found to be less than %90 accurate, and after members of a large Republican voting block were shown to have been 'accidentally excluded' I met with my Secretary of State, who is also a Republican, and told her 'If I try keep this up, we're all going to jail.'"

I think she really means "After the media sued to look at the list, and after we failed to stop them, and after an examination driven by the media it was found to be less than %90 accurate, and after members of a large Republican voting block were shown to have been 'accidentally excluded', the governor met with my Secretary of State, who is also a Republican, and told her 'If I try keep this up, we're all going to jail.'"

Simple solution - make it a state law to pay any eligible voter turned away $10,000, the money to be paid by the county, state, and company who placed them on the list. That should make the list more honest.

Mmmm! I could listen to Kind of Blue forever and ever and ever.

and ever.

This points out one of the great ironies of our present political nightmare. If the Dems win they grab guns and violate the intent of the 2nd Amendment, leaving people without the power to resist. If the Reps win, they put in place the very police state policies which the people need to resist. Good thing I'm already in the hills. :gray:

You really need a "drink heavily" option.

Oh. I'm for #4 and #5.

if i new everyone would pick one of my choices i would have made this a poll. i thought someone would give a narrative description of their plans. and then, because this is the cellar - we could ridicule them and tell them why they are stupid and probably the downfall of america. :D

Last paragraph in the link
Well, Mr Jones, it seems you were wrongly listed. We're very sorry, we'll count your provisional ballot right now. Let's see now, did you vote fer or agin us? :rolleyes:

It'll take the Dems at least 3 or 4 days to round up all, what.........150......200 millions guns. According to the chicken littles, anarchy will commence immediately, so there's no conflict.
I think I'll get out the "big gun" to handle those Apache Longbows. :thumb:

Lots of folks out there with unregistered guns, Bruce. Of course, I wouldn't know any! :angel:

It doesn't matter if they are registered or not if the anarchy will commence immediately following the election. ;)

They can take the guns. It's okay with me. I have my own formidable arsenal that doesn't use any gunpowder, CO2- or air-cartridges. Just makes things generally safer for me! :ninja:

required reading for marichiko

Michael Totten quietly notes the stupid irony in claiming Bush has festered totalitarianism in the US, as he plans his trip to Libya, a truly totalitarian regime.

There didn't seem to be much more than "Libya's much worse than the US, so don't complain" in there. We're supposed to set our bar much higher than Libya, and complain bitterly over any attempt to lower it.

Well, thank you for your concern in regard to my reading list. I can't recall ever posting that the US=Syria or some other totalitarian regime (of course we all know about me and my stupid memory, but that doesn't seem like an analogy I would make).

Yes, I am deeply concerned about the erosion of our freedoms under the Patriot Act and various laws that have come out of the war on drugs. The Patriot Act allows the government to arrest people who are suspected of being terrorists and hold them for indefinate lengths of time without access to a lawyer or the right of habeas corpus. These people essentially get disappeared, and that is frightening. There have been more than 1200 presumably terrorist-related arrests and 750 people deported, and no one outside the government knows their names, or how many court docket entries have been erased or never entered. Secret federal court hearings have been held with no public record of when or where or who is being tried. (I'll get you the cite on this). Here it is, Bill Moyers: http://yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_13509.shtml

I agree with the words of Pastor Niemöller 'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'

When we see something which is unconstitutional being done to a group of people who may indeed be guilty, but where some may be innocent; we need to speak out. Even the worst criminal still has certain basic rights in our country. We protect that criminal's rights because they are also the rights of an innocent person who may have been falsely accused. These rights under the constitution are MY rights and YOUR rights, and we should oppose ANY governmental attempt to undermine them for ANY reason. Who will speak out for you, UT, if someone makes a false accusation of terrorism against you and you get taken away?

I have traveled in totalitarian countries. I spent almost a year in Brazil in the early 70's when that country was under an extremely repressive military dictatorship. Soldiers stood on every street corner. One had to be extremely careful of what one said in public. I heard story after story of dissenters being taken from their homes in the night and never being heard from again. I had a Brazilian friend named Augusto B. who had fled Sao Paulo for the northeastern Brazilian town where I was staying because he was an activist against the dictatorship and it was no longer safe for him to reside in Sao Paulo. Everytime I got on a plane going to, from, or within Brazil I had my passport scrutinized and re-scrutinized. I was actually strip searched a couple of times by female members of Brazilian customs. I know what it is to live in a totalitarian society.

The US is not Brazil. I hope to God it never becomes like Brazil. We citizens need to speak out when we see bad things happen in our country. Thank God we still can.

I haven't seen anyone mention assassination. Hmmmm

MY candidate will not win. I already know this. I think he could win if we'd have instant run-off voting, but that's not likely to happen since the Democrats and Republicans are keeping everyone else out. I hope for the lesser of two evils (John Kerry) because if Bush is elected it will mean the possible complete destruction of America and perhaps the world. At the very least it will mean there will no longer be any trace of the freedoms or principles upon which America was built.

I'd seriously consider moving to another country, but no country would be safe with Bush in office...especially the USA.

Probably because mentioning it in a public forum could get you flagged by Carnivore, after which you could end up in an uncomfortable basement room being questioned by hostile government agents, and (regardless of the outcome) never be able to get on a commercial flight again. (note lack of emoticon).

Now, now, now. What did your Uncle UT just tell us a few posts above? This isn't Syria and Radar can say anything he wants! :eyebrow:

This isn't the first time that Radar has said something like his comment above...he's still here, isn't he?

Or is he?

Does anyone reading this thread actually know someone who was actually prevented from getting on any flight?

It's a government secret! :D Come to think of it, George Jr. did have his flight priviledges revoked for not showing up for his physical for the National Guard.

I skimmed back a bit - what flights are you referring to?

By prevented, do you mean stopped from boarding but ultimately allowed to fly or barred from flying ever?

Well Russ has set the bar pretty high, as "never be able to get on a commercial flight again", but let's take any particular restriction of over 24 hours, for the purposes of seeing what turns up.

How about Cat Stevens? Ted Kennedy? Anyone named David Nelson? And those are just a few of the ones that were amusing enough to make the news.

If you meant know personally, the people I know don't fly much...

Actually, the "no-fly" list is NOT a matter of public record. For a sampling of citizens' complaints about being placed on this list, look here: http://www.epic.org/foia_docs/airtravel/congress1.pdf

:eyebrow:

hahaha kennedy...

One person on Baen's Bar (another board not quite entirely unlike this one) says that he's had exactly that -- arrest and questioning by three-letter agencies and placement on the no-fly list -- happen to him, as a result of posting a rant on that board.

Do you think the three-letter agencies would have a similar story about why they placed him? (Might there be more to it?)

Ahh. Haven't reached the 24 hour mark yet, but I do know a couple of people who were detained, one for about 6 hours and the other for around 8, before being released to 'go about their business'.

Here's a discussion of various airline-watchlist-related stories.No outright bannings mentioned, as of yet.

The cite I gave above contains the documentation of an innocent individual who is consistently being detained and delayed each time he attempts to fly somewhere. Everything is reproduced on Federal Agency letter heads. His example is just one of many. :eyebrow:

If the TLAs have a story, they aren't telling it. Which is one of the problems with the no-fly list... they don't HAVE to justify themselves. There's no review and no oversight. Blatant violation of the constitution (punishment without trial), but one which will no doubt be upheld by SCOTUS using the talisman of "public safety".

I'm just trying to see how big a problem it is, at this time.