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.

 

No Commander in Chief?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Is it worrying anyone at this point with the polls split right down the middle on the US elections, the situation the US could be in by the end of next week?

If the election gets challenged and drags on how does a potential lame duck (Bush - the term for an outgoing political figure between the election and the end of their term) or a potential future president (Kerry) but who knows, new guy accomplish anything? Seems to me the rest of the world would not deal with us at all until the election is decided.

Where does this put us in the war? Where does this put our guys over there with no clear leader and a REALLY uncertain future?

Does it occur to anyone that we are in a too precarious position right now to be a country without a clear leader? (Recent threats of blood in the streets paling in contrast to 9/11).

Seems to me the challenges that may occur after the election could be what takes us out, there are so many implications if we don't have a clear leader after the election Tuesday.

I almost wish everyone would commit now to whatever the outcome, let the chips fall where they may. We can't afford a debacle like that with the state of affairs they way they are. Maybe to show good faith for the greater good of the Country both candidates should agree right now that if there is not a clear winner, neither has a majority confidence of the people, but we need to move on - flip a coin.




posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Heh, I'm canadian and i'm watching the elections too. I don't really care for america but if any of the sayings are true and Bush leads the 3rd world war hell then even the canucks gotta be there to see the excitement(or lack thereof) unfold.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by orfeo8
Heh, I'm canadian and i'm watching the elections too. I don't really care for america but if any of the sayings are true and Bush leads the 3rd world war hell then even the canucks gotta be there to see the excitement(or lack thereof) unfold.


I think you missed my point. But what the hey....



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 08:22 PM
link   
It basically is pot luck. No one knows what gonna happen. Scarry stuff being said.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Well Bush would still be President until January lame duck or not. In the case of a tie the House votes for President and the Senate for Vice President. I doubt that they would let it go on to long. Since the House is controlled by Republicans and the Senate by Democrats it is possible to have Bush as President and Edwards as VP. Of course if there is a tie in the electoral collage there is the possibility of one of the delagates jumping ship. Even if a candidate wins a state by popular vote, the delagates for that party do not have to vote for the popular vote winner. The electoral collage are the folks who vote for President and they can vote for whom ever they want to, popular vote or not. Its never happened but it could.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Hey Relentless:

I get the point.

I'm also worried about what I called the in-between time on a mud-pit thread I stared about the same thing.

No matter the outcome of the election Bush is Commander-in-Chief until the Innauguration.

[edit on 10/28/2004 by Gools]



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
Hey Relentless:

I get the point.

I'm also worried about what I called the in-between time on a mud-pit thread I stared about the same thing.

No matter the outcome of the election Bush is Commander-in-Chief until the Innauguration.

[edit on 10/28/2004 by Gools]


Of course Bush is still in charge till January no matter what, but what I am worried about is the state of affairs if the election drags on due to court challenges with the race so close. I think the rest of the world would take a wait and see attitiude towards the US if the next President isn't clear. I think this puts us in a very weak position during a precarious time.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
In the case of a tie the House votes for President and the Senate for Vice President.


Ok, you flip a coin! the winner is the President the Loser is the Vice Pres. anyways, they are basically the same people with different words. They are both LAWYERS.... Would you expect anything different?



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by JCMinJapan

Ok, you flip a coin! the winner is the President the Loser is the Vice Pres. anyways, they are basically the same people with different words. They are both LAWYERS.... Would you expect anything different?


Wow, when did Dubya pass the bar?



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by just_a_pilot

Originally posted by JCMinJapan

Ok, you flip a coin! the winner is the President the Loser is the Vice Pres. anyways, they are basically the same people with different words. They are both LAWYERS.... Would you expect anything different?


Wow, when did Dubya pass the bar?




From what I hear Bush never passes a bar!! :w:


Anybody ever notice the bb code for that emoticon?



I understand what you are saying relentless. I think there will be a clear winner.

As an outside observer I'm expecting the high turnout to be in Kerry's favour and for him to be a clear winner. We can only hope...



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Suppose Kerry were to win, he in the hospital or something and
Edwards in charge of this country, can you really see Edwards taking on that roll?



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I think if Bush is so eager to fight terrorism abroad and take the tittle of commander in chief.

If his intentions were true and filled with a substanced made of compassion towards humanity.

Then read this..



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:31 PM
link   
personally, I think we would actually be better off without a President given the choices I have today. get to the polls and vote NO!!!



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalmessiah
personally, I think we would actually be better off without a President given the choices I have today. get to the polls and vote NO!!!



Another one who missed the point (boat?)

We can't be a country without a clear leader right now. We are in a dead heat - this is not good!

I give up.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
Is it worrying anyone at this point with the polls split right down the middle on the US elections, the situation the US could be in by the end of next week?

If the election gets challenged and drags on how does a potential lame duck (Bush - the term for an outgoing political figure between the election and the end of their term) or a potential future president (Kerry) but who knows, new guy accomplish anything? Seems to me the rest of the world would not deal with us at all until the election is decided.

Where does this put us in the war? Where does this put our guys over there with no clear leader and a REALLY uncertain future?

Does it occur to anyone that we are in a too precarious position right now to be a country without a clear leader? (Recent threats of blood in the streets paling in contrast to 9/11).

Seems to me the challenges that may occur after the election could be what takes us out, there are so many implications if we don't have a clear leader after the election Tuesday.

I almost wish everyone would commit now to whatever the outcome, let the chips fall where they may. We can't afford a debacle like that with the state of affairs they way they are. Maybe to show good faith for the greater good of the Country both candidates should agree right now that if there is not a clear winner, neither has a majority confidence of the people, but we need to move on - flip a coin.





All this puts us where we already are, a country in termoil over descisions made and not made blaming everyone they can for the mistakes made.

Men dying over those mistakes and descisions.

An un-easy ocuppation in Iraq where the people are tired of the fighting and just want the US to leave now.

A country where money is spent faster than we can possibly have it stolen from our pockets by the IRS, and so on and so on.

Nothing new but the lack of exact name to attach to the problems now at the top of world events.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 09:56 PM
link   
I believe there will be plenty of time for the presidential candidate to be decided before noon, January 20th, as discussed in the 20th Amendment (Lame Duck). President Bush would of course still be in charge during this time, however, it will put a damper on our current alliances if there is a dispute, that is for sure.

With the next president to enter office unsure, other nations will not see Bush as the leader, but instead a possible leader. Any agreements he makes, or has made, will be threatened by the possibility of Kerry popping into office and disavowing the agreements. Britain will be unsure of the presidents words as they have no assurance they will stick. Anything Bush says, is only a campaign promise until the decision is in.

America must stand by the decision of the majority, and will do so. However, this doesn't mean other nations will stand by Bushs' decisions while unsure of his future in office. If we need any help during that time of transition..I don't see us getting much. Let's just hope the war in Iraq doesn't get any worse, and that no other problems will arise, because if they do..we very well may be on our own

[edit on 10/29/2004 by SkyFox2]



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless

Originally posted by metalmessiah
personally, I think we would actually be better off without a President given the choices I have today. get to the polls and vote NO!!!



Another one who missed the point (boat?)

We can't be a country without a clear leader right now. We are in a dead heat - this is not good!

I give up.



I got your point, I just dont agree with it. you insinuate that Bush or Kerry either one are clear leaders & then say I'm the one that missed the boat? dont ask for opinions if you are just going to criticize the one's you dont like. Bush is barely literate & Kerry changes his mind every 10 seconds or so. one of those damn NASA monkeys would be a better leader.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   
In the unlikely event that the scenario you described comes to be, then there would be called a global time out and everyone would go about his own business, peacefully, until such time as the election is decided, at which time all hostilities would resume.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
In the unlikely event that the scenario you described comes to be, then there would be called a global time out and everyone would go about his own business, peacefully, until such time as the election is decided, at which time all hostilities would resume.


LOL or better yet we would all play ping-pong, sip tea, and square dance until further notice.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 12:37 AM
link   
time to run to canada eh?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join