Bush takes the presidential election

[slang]

I know most of the major players here and where they stand. More than a few have some great minds regarding politics, even though I strongly disagree with their leanings.

I am convinced that we are near critical mass in the US. The country is polarized more than any time than I can remember. The elections, in my opinion, will not settle any disputes or create any unity. They will further divide us all. Will one half of the voting public just stand down and accept defeat?? Not a chance, it will energize both sides to push their agendas even further, legally or illegally.

The winning team will glow with the idea that they won fair and square through the effective use of the system, and they will be wrong. The losing team will be convinced that they were somehow cheated and they need not accept the results of the contest, and they will also be wrong.

So will we be headed into a civil war? What will be the "first volley from Ft. Sumpter"? Has it already been fired? What will a civil war look like this time around? The lines are not geographic but I am convinced that there is at least as much fervor over the modern political issues as there was during the Civil War.

So here's the scenario. Bush takes office, after a landslide victory.

What is happening to the economy? Terrorism? Jobs? Crime? How does the "mood" of the country change? What direction are we now headed with Bush in office for another 4 years?

[Beestie]

As a conservative, I'm not comfortable with another four years with Bush. I didn't think he was up for the job in 2000 and I definitely don't think he is worthy of re-election. I continue to agonize over John McCain's candidacy. If only he were president.

But, the dems do themselves no favors with the New England gold-digging, duplicitous liberal, John Kerry. I mean seriously - Bush is ripe for defeat and Kerry is the best the dems can do? How pathetic is that?

As a Southern conservative, I'm pissed that the dems can't come up with a better choice than a someone less conservative than Ted Kennedy.

As a nation, we are screwed with these two "candidates."

[xoxoxoBruce]

The day after the election, no matter who wins, I will go to work, put out the trash, and go on with the rest of my life. Just like I've done after every other election. Priorities, man. I suspect most people will do the same.

[wolf]

I know what the US under Bush is like. I fear the US under Kerry. I think he will continue the slow slide into oblivion and UN control. I also believe that he will not be perceived as a sufficiently strong leader, more likely to be an appeaser, and will make the US a more attractive terrorist target.

[slang]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

..... I suspect most people will do the same.

That's not the question. It's the bitterness of both sides that extend into our "everyday" lives that grows. People dont feel passionately about issues and invest their time, money and emotion all to lose in crushing defeats, real or imaginary. Issues that directly affect peoples' lives. Once you get beyond taking the trash out, there is a whole world of people from both sides of the fence you are faced with.

If there was another terror attack out here in the sticks, I know for a fact that many people will directly blame the Democrat Party. They arent tough enough on terror and focus on bullshit cosmetic issues of little consequence. I wouldn't want to be a dem out here if something else goes down. They'll get their asses kicked no matter how big they are.

On the other hand, what if 30 people that you know personally, and have for 20+ years, were picked up and whisked off to Gitmo ( or any other terrorist internment camp ) without so much as a phone call?? A month after this incident, another 30 were taken from a neighboring town......gone, without so much as a phone call (from "jail").

How would you feel? How would you feel about the people that support Bush?
Those people may even support that specific action....and say so outloud. Now how do you feel? Do you feel threatened? The foundation of your beliefs of this country are changing. This changes everything in your life, what you do, where you go, what you *say*.

What I am trying to say here is that both sides are so solidly in their own opinion of many of the current issues that there is a possibility of division beyond what we have ever seen.

I am specifically interested in the signs of a "cold civil war" or other direct effects of the polarization.

The numbers of people involved in the opposing teams makes this game interesting. Neither team will just pack up and go away, nor be bullied by policies they see as unfair, unconstitutional, ect. It's the numbers on the teams and the hostility that makes this interesting or worrisome.

On top of all that.............................what if the fucking cable goes out!?

[Yelof]

I think if Bush were to win in as contentious a manner as 2000 with perhaps a scandal involving an October suprise or Diabold voting machines then I think that many Americans would loose faith in the democratic process and I would not be suprised if direct action groups would not arise. If Kerry were to win on a norrow margin or even in a contentious apointment as in 2000 I think most Bush supporters will take the beating, Bush has lost the public zeitgeist and most of his supporters must realise that him loosing is a real possibility, also that if they have an election stolen from them well it is not as if it hasn't already happened in their favour. So I think the most dangerous proposition is a repeat of 2000.

[slang]

Originally Posted by Yelof

.......direct action groups...........

I love that term.


Your scenario seems most likely at this time. I think that a landslide in either direction would also cause a major rift.

[lookout123]

i think there would be an internal power struggle with the big players activating military forces to counteract a "terrorist attack", which is of course their own uprising. senior military officers will of course be in on it and as the calls go down the chain some branches of the military will land on either side of the conflict. civil war involving our own military without the shooters even knowing what is happening in the beginning, by the time they do it is too late. individuals and small groups (think some members of the cellar) will collect their guns, camping gear, and families and head to the hills a la red dawn. soon the entire nation is involved in a guerilla style civil war with 2 governments in place. the "leftist" forces will be based in washington dc and the "conservative patriots" will be based from San Antonio. WMD will not be used because everyone knows someone on the other side, but a hell of a lot of lead will fly. after enough of the existing command structure has disintegrated prominent members of the EU will see this as their chance to regain their rightful place as leaders of the world and will go to the UN asking for action against the former US to protect the world from the Nuclear weapons that are in the control of opposing factions. the UN will of course support intervention which the factions will reject. The UN/EU will send in "peacekeeping" forces who will enter the conflict as a 3rd party with all 3 sides fighting each other. russia will invade alaska for easy access to oil. japan will invade hawaii, guam, etc. Canada will slowly stretch into some of the northern tier states. eventually the UN/EU forces will realize that they can't suppress the conflict because the military forces are the least of their worries; every crazy ass american with a glock and a .22 is taking potshots at them so they say screw it and leave. the firefights will slow down as the fragmentary groups divide into regions by race and religion issues. it will calm into a cold war for awhile and someday the former US will be like the Europe of the early 20th century - many small countries on one continent.

or i might just have an overactive imagination.