It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

November Elections To Be Postponed?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I think that at least there is 50% chance to postpone the election due to major staged terror attack or start of major war in North Korea and/or Iran.

There is another 30% change, that the vote machine and software will be tampered to favor Bush The Wise.

Kerry would be a better leader of America, but his chance of success is no more than 20%.




posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I just found a Reuters story posted today at 12:00 EST.

It cites unnamed sources in the DHS stating that DHS had made a request of the Justice Dept. to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the election if an attack occurred on the day before or the day of the election

Read it here
news.myway.com...|top|07-11-2004::12:05|reuters.html

Edit:
Again though, it appears as if these steps would be taken IF there were an actual attack, not just if a threat existed. But then again it's only July.


[edit on 7/11/2004 by phreak_of_nature]



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I’ve been giving this election postponement a bit of thought, and I think on the hole the population of America will go along with the Administrations decision. Individually the people will say no way, but do nothing. What puzzles me is how the Administration knows, or believes it’s going to happen, It could also be a ploy to have the populous forget about Iraq and the 9/11 investigations, I would guess the bottom line is who has the most to gain.
Osma Ben Laden, Democrats, or the Republicans?



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
I would guess the bottom line is who has the most to gain.
Osma Ben Laden, Democrats, or the Republicans?

D. all 3, because they are all in this together!



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Well... If they go ahead and postpone an election, I would have to assume that it would be delayed until a point in time when public sentiment was in the favor of those who want to ensure continuity of leadership.

But I certainly hope that once a process or procedure for postponing an election is adapted, it would include a defined period of time in which the election must be held.

I am recalling from the 2000 election that the results had to be certified by mid December. So any delay, I would think, could be no more then 30 days. Past that, and we got problems.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Let used some reasoning on all this please, first let analyze Al-queda, this group have nothing to gain from stopping elections, for the contrary they will be more than happy to have bush that Al-queda hate out of the presidency, so any attacks on US soil if done by Al-queda will be to make bush look bad, but not to stop elections, if the attack happened right before the elections we all know that it was stage.

Second the last time I check on the congress it was still made of members of both parties so bush needs votes from both sides of the congress and then we have the members of bush own party that do not agree with what is going on, so I doubt that they will approve a bill like that, people give more credit to the American public that will not stand from something like this.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Another point I think we all, except marg, missed is that this election is not just for the president. Every member of the house of representitives, and numerous senators are also up for election.

These people will also want to make sure that their local voters have the ability to cast their ballots.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   
phreak_of_nature, Thanks for adding that I got so involve on bush and Al-queda that I forgot all the components of our democraty rights.:shk:ha, ha, ha,



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Let used some reasoning on all this please, first let analyze Al-queda, this group have nothing to gain from stopping elections, for the contrary they will be more than happy to have bush that Al-queda hate out of the presidency, so any attacks on US soil if done by Al-queda will be to make bush look bad, but not to stop elections, if the attack happened right before the elections we all know that it was stage.


Exactly. But what if Bush-Cheney cabal is actually behind Al-queda? They can pull strings whenever needed, and blame it on Al-queda.

I find this assumption can explain too many things.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng
Exactly. But what if Bush-Cheney cabal is actually behind Al-queda? They can pull strings whenever needed, and blame it on Al-queda.

I find this assumption can explain too many things.


If Bush / Cheney are the puppet masters of Al-Qaeda as you assert, then you believe that these 2 individuals are also behind the embassy bombings, the 1st WTC bombing, the attack on the Cole? Or was Clinton pulling their strings back then to help him out with Monica-Gate?

Sooo, let me see if I understand you? Al-Qaeda is the presidential boogey man? And they were invented by Bush / Cheney? And every Al-Qaeda attack was coordinated from within the White House?

Got it



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by phreak_of_nature
Sooo, let me see if I understand you? Al-Qaeda is the presidential boogey man? And they were invented by Bush / Cheney? And every Al-Qaeda attack was coordinated from within the White House?

Got it


Tell me your answer on the following:

If you were the leader of Al-Qaeda and hate Bush Regime, would you attack US before Nov. election and allow Bush to stay in Power, the person you tried to get rid of.

If you suggest they are just mad, can you imagine they can organize 9/11?



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I see it this way if an attack happened in US and it was not Al-queda, you bet your butt that Al-queda will scream fowl play and blame it on bush.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 05:55 PM
link   
If New York City got Nuked on November 1st, would you still suggest that the national elections be held the next day? Are the rescue workers going to stop saving lives to go vote? The hospital staff? How about everybody, and I mean everybody in the military? They gonna vote while on high alert? Is anyone going to leave the media coverage of the horror the next day to go vote? Wow, you think you can't get people to the polls now? Gonna have your victory party and recieve the opponents concession speech while NYC is still glowing? Are you actually suggesting that we have a major election that may very well decide the future of this planet during a time of undeniable national crisis and emotions running as high as they ever will? Are you sure?

It would seem to me that for the Republicans to take advantage in the way you folks are suggesting, they would need to hold the elections as soon as possible to take advantage of the state of sorrow and predictable unity in the country. In such a situation, delaying the elections would just give people a chance to cool off and for the usual polarities to re-establish themselves. I imagine the Democrats would be pushing for a delay in that case for just that reason. If something major happens, I promise you the American people are not going to want to hear Kerry and Co. saying how it's America's fault. Delaying the election would not help the Republicans in this event, but it would help the Democrats. My personal opinion is that Kerry would not want to have whatever major disaster happened on his shoulders to deal with anyway and would try to delay the elections as long as possible, hoping whatever Bush does in response goes wrong and makes Bush look bad.

As for Martial Law. It is just not possible in this country. Hell, we can't even control our own inner city areas or our own borders. That is a price of Freedom, I suppose. Given that, how can you imagine that Martial Law could be imposed on a national level? Why do you think that everyone in the military would just go along with it or that our soldiers would fire on our own civilian population (maybe some would but not many)? Anyway, we are the best prepared population on the planet and on our own turf to boot. If you think Iraq is nasty, imagine here. Martial law, yeah right.

Yes, I'm dispensing Reality Pills all day friends...



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 06:01 PM
link   
It's been 'coming' to me for some time now that the elections might very well be postponed this year... but the reasons for that could be anything - an attack included. If one of the two candidates were to die (or both for that matter) then most certainly it would be postponed. Or a natural disaster, say, in California (earthquake) or elsewhere (hurricane in Florida - a big state to win over), etc.

Anyway, whatever the reason(s) is(are) it's evident with all the 'warnings' we've been getting from homeland security .... something is stepping up...



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   
To put it plainly, and bluntly. If we are attacked, and regardless of the real or perceived political effects to any and all candidates, I don't see a problem with postponing an election for a short, defined period of time.

As Ambient Sound put it:


would you still suggest that the national elections be held the next day? Are the rescue workers going to stop saving lives to go vote? The hospital staff? How about everybody, and I mean everybody in the military? They gonna vote while on high alert? Is anyone going to leave the media coverage of the horror the next day to go vote?

I know myself personally, I was glued to the TV night and day after 9/11. I slept on the couch with one eye open.

The nation would need time to heal, and I personally don't give a damn what the perception would be.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by phreak_of_nature
To put it plainly, and bluntly. If we are attacked, and regardless of the real or perceived political effects to any and all candidates, I don't see a problem with postponing an election for a short, defined period of time.

As Ambient Sound put it:


would you still suggest that the national elections be held the next day? Are the rescue workers going to stop saving lives to go vote? The hospital staff? How about everybody, and I mean everybody in the military? They gonna vote while on high alert? Is anyone going to leave the media coverage of the horror the next day to go vote?

I know myself personally, I was glued to the TV night and day after 9/11. I slept on the couch with one eye open.

The nation would need time to heal, and I personally don't give a damn what the perception would be.


That is exactly why they will able to pull their trick again.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Newsweek calls it an Exclusive
Titled Election Day Worries
Counter terrorists officials are claiming “alarming intelligence about Qaeda in the states


Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place


Exclusive: Election Day Worries

[edit on 11-7-2004 by Sauron]



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyarlathotep

Originally posted by Sauron
Rense I know thats why I have the, Dancing Banana


OK Gotcha. I guess my question then is why would you post that if it's along the lines of what type of material rense has on their site?

It is obvious from your posting history that you are not exactly pro-Bush
, but to post stuff like that makes you seem less credible and looks like you are willing to post anything, no matter how ridiculous and outlandish, to try and prove that Bush is some kind of villain. Like I said before, don't believe everything you read on the net.

Edit: I wish I was in the same mood you are now
(I'm all out
)




[edit on 7-10-2004 by nyarlathotep]


Hey Sauron, why did you completely ignore my post on why you would admittedly post something you knew was bogus?



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Hey Sauron, why did you completely ignore my post on why you would admittedly post something you knew was bogus?

I did'nt know I ignored you I'm sorry, but now what is it that is bogus?



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Sauron, you had said that even rense had it on their website and I said they were hardly a credible site and you said rense that's why I have the dancing banana. I said why would you post something that was along the same lines as something that rense would post, you never responded. Read the second to last post on page one.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join