Is anyone else scared of what will happen if Kerry is elected?

[Petra]

What are they putting in the water over there, guys?

http://www.christianforums.com/t1097...s-elected.html

I'm petrified. Of course, no telling how long we'll know who really wins the election seeing that the democrats already have protesting in the works. I fear rioting and violence and all sorts of chaos from this election. We are so in the end of times. The only thing that keeps me going some days is looking for the day that the Lord returns and hearing of rape, incest, murder, as if they were just normal everyday expectancies will be no more.

How widespread do you guys think this kind of thinking is, because I find it pretty damned disturbing and would like to be reassured that there are only about half a dozen people, give or take a couple, that are like this.

[SharonDee]

Bah. I count this kind of silliness with what they were saying as Clinton's term neared its end. "Oh, he's going to hole up in the White House. He's going to refuse to leave, using the military to hold onto power. Just you wait and see."

Chicken Littles, the lot of them.

[livius drusus]

Yeah, I'm with Sharon on this one. I think the overwhelming majority of people in this country would take a Kerry victory in stride, just as they would a Bush victory.

Wars and rumors of wars...

[Dingfod]

I'm a whole lot more scared of the Republican reaction to a Kerry victory than anything Kerry might do in office. They've got guns, lots of them.

[Petra]

Chicken Little - great way to put it. And so true.


I got a wee giggle out of this part of the above quote, though...

...and hearing of rape, incest, murder, as if they were just normal everyday expectancies will be no more.

I had to do a double take on that one.

[Petra]

Originally Posted by warrenly

I'm a whole lot more scared of the Republican reaction to a Kerry victory than anything Kerry might do in office. They've got guns, lots of them.

And they're all nutty as a fruit cake.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by lunachick

And they're all nutty as a fruit cake.

Well, not all of them.

[livius drusus]

Excuse me, but my dad is a Bush-voting Republican. He's neither armed nor crazy. I don't like this demonization of political opponents one damn bit. I think it's creepy, paranoid, polarizing and ultimately self-defeating.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Excuse me, but my dad is a Bush-voting Republican. He's neither armed nor crazy. I don't like this demonization of political opponents one damn bit. I think it's creepy, paranoid, polarizing and ultimately self-defeating.

Thank you, Liv, for adding a voice of reason here. I agree completely. I don't like demonizing political opponents either. I find the Nazi name calling which occurs far too often and with far too little thought to be particularly egregious. Those calling Republicans, law enforcement, or anyone else Nazis (except for actual neo-Nazis themselves), or those explicitly or tacitly endorsing such name calling, should be ashamed of themselves.

It has occurred right here in this thread already, as short as it is at this point. I'll leave the reader to find it, but I was disgusted to see it used so uncritically and foolishly.

************

Warren,

Come on now, do you really fear there will be widespread rioting and organized violence on the part of Republicans if Kerry is elected? Where does this unfounded fear come from? There is no historical basis for it in modern America. The Presidency has teetered back and forth between Democrats and Republicans several times in the last 100 years. When was there ever any widescale rioting or uprising resulting from the outcome of a Presidential election? Where are the threats of such a thing going on right now?

I don't care for scare mongering like this. It is groundless in fact, and serves no purpose other than to create and foster divisiveness. Encouraging "us vs. them" paranoia is simply not productive.

Cool Hand

[Ymir's blood]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

When was there ever any widescale rioting or uprising resulting from the outcome of a Presidential election?

1861-1865.
Just to be pedantic and not trying to claim that there will be a modern parallel.

[Dingfod]

I really was just kidding. I don't for one second think all Republicans would riot in the streets, but I do remember a bunch of screaming idiots scaring the shit out of the vote counters in Florida four years ago. When I imagine what would have happened if Gore had taken office under the same taint as Bush did I can't help but shudder. Sorry.

Me paranoid? What about the fucking Bush campaign? Kicking women out of a rally for wearing T-shirts that read "Protect our civil liberties."? Do most Republicans find protecting civil liberties repugnant? I would hope they would be completely aghast at the actions of the current administration since they've taken office. They've fomented more divisiveness than anyone in my memory.

Just for the record, I voted Libertarian in five of the last six national elections, including 2000, the exception being Perot in 1992. I'm only reacting to what I saw in 2000 and ever since. I feel my fears are rational, but they may be coming from some dark place in my mind. I hope I'm wrong about all of it. Really.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by Ymir's blood

1861-1865.
Just to be pedantic and not trying to claim that there will be a modern parallel.

Fair enough. I get that you are also probably being at least a little facetious.

I'll be similarly pedantic and retort that the Civil War of 1861-1865 was not the direct result of Lincoln's election as President. The events leading up to it were many and varied. It is simplistic and inaccurate to assert that Lincoln's election and taking of office was the cause of the war, or to imply that the war wouldn't have occurred if Douglas had been elected instead.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by warrenly

I really was just kidding. I don't for one second think all Republicans would riot in the streets, but I do remember a bunch of screaming idiots scaring the shit out of the vote counters in Florida four years ago. When I imagine what would have happened if Gore had taken office under the same taint as Bush did I can't help but shudder. Sorry.

No big deal, but what you jest about must be something you have thought about, right? As for the screaming idiots, they are found everywhere there are controversies. Extremists and crusaders on both sides of the political spectrum can be seen behaving like idiots and scaring more temperate persons.

There's that "taint" business again. You don't actually believe that had the election gone the other way, and that had Al Gore been determined to have been rightfully elected because the volunteer vote counters in two or three counties in Florida "determined" the voters' intent to vote for Gore based on dubious indentations on chads, that the Presidential election result would have been clean, do you? Because the election was so close, the party which did not prevail was inevitably going to cry foul against the other. The prevailing party just happened to be one you didn't like or support. Had it gone the other way, I suspect you would be defending the integrity of the vote counting process as I write.

For the record, I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 either. I voted for Harry Browne.

Me paranoid? What about the fucking Bush campaign? Kicking women out of a rally for wearing T-shirts that read "Protect our civil liberties."? Do most Republicans find protecting civil liberties repugnant? I would hope they would be completely aghast at the actions of the current administration since they've taken office. They've fomented more divisiveness than anyone in my memory.

Based on the accounts I have read, I find the removal of the two teachers for wearing said t-shirts to be unwarranted and disgraceful. Of course, the skeptic in me suspects that there may be more to the story than what most of us have heard. By way of pure speculation, for instance, the teachers may have smarted off to security. Of course, that is mere speculation and I have no basis for holding that belief, which I don't.

Was it really the Bush administration or the Bush campaign that tossed the women out, however? More likely it was the overzealous, spontaneous reaction of one or two security persons at the event. I have a hard time believing the President had anything to do with it, or that orders came down from him that anyone expressing support for civil liberties be removed.

Disruptions routinely occur at political events. What constitutes a disruption can vary, and I agree that if the only thing these women did at the event was to wear the t-shirts displayed in the photograph accompanying your link, then that is not sufficiently disruptive of any decorum to warrant being forcibly removed. Again, I have to wonder if that is truly the only thing the women did. I doubt that you or I will ever really know.

Do most Republicans find protecting civil liberties repugnant? I seriously doubt it. Do most Democrats? Do most independents?

Completely aghast at the actions of the current administration? Which actions? Show me any administration of whatever stripe that didn't do some harm and some good. Declaring that the President is or will be the ruin of all that is good and holy has been a favorite political pasttime in our country since its founding. Every single president has had his detractors. Every single president has made good judgments and bad.

I'm not aghast, completely or incompletely, at the administration's record as a whole. I am disturbed by many of its positions and actions, just as I am disturbed by many of the the positions and actions of any previous administration. I simply don't see government's behavior in black and white terms.

Just for the record, I voted Libertarian in five of the last six national elections, including 2000. I'm only reacting to what I saw in 2000 and ever since. I feel my fears are rational, but they may be coming from some dark place in my mind. I hope I'm wrong about all of it. Really.

That's cool. I hope you're wrong about your fears too, and I suspect that you are. There have always been naysayers who declare that society is going to hell in a handbasket. It never has, and it never will.

The world isn't so binary a place.

Cool Hand

[LadyShea]

Are you all aware that Republican party hired goons will be allowed to detain and question voters AT THE POLLING PLACE, on election day in Ohio? That is scary shit right there. Although I don't think there will be violence regardless of the outcome, I think there is some seriously frightening shit going on.

[lisarea]

I'm currently predicting that, if they call a winner at all on election night, there will be scattered street riots, regardless of who the winner is. Especially if they do it before the bars close. Emotions are just way too high, and things like Meetup and other organizing tools are way too common. Bars throughout the US are going to be staked out by people getting together to watch the returns, and I fully expect people to riot just the way they do after important football games, except that it'll be more widespread this time.

Hmmm. Do any states still have those election day blue laws?

Anyway, everyone has to give me a dollar when this happens, OK?

[Farren]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Was it really the Bush administration or the Bush campaign that tossed the women out, however? More likely it was the overzealous, spontaneous reaction of one or two security persons at the event. I have a hard time believing the President had anything to do with it, or that orders came down from him that anyone expressing support for civil liberties be removed.

The link I had is down but apparently the Bush campaign, when contacted by the press for comment after the incident, said they stood behind the actions of the security officers 100%.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

There's that "taint" business again. You don't actually believe that had the election gone the other way, and that had Al Gore been determined to have been rightfully elected because the volunteer vote counters in two or three counties in Florida "determined" the voters' intent to vote for Gore based on dubious indentations on chads, that the Presidential election result would have been clean, do you? Because the election was so close, the party which did not prevail was inevitably going to cry foul against the other. The prevailing party just happened to be one you didn't like or support. Had it gone the other way, I suspect you would be defending the integrity of the vote counting process as I write.

That election was just so close that you could take any silly tiny little factor and deem it responsible for the swing. Ralph Nader, roadblocks, ballot design, overvotes, undervotes, the weather, a sneezing dog, you name it. The tiniest thing could have swung it the other way, and it strikes me as a little disingenuous when people pick one of those factors and claim it was THE deciding factor.

And it did go both ways. The first time I saw "Hail to the Thief" themed products, they were referring to Gore. So it is inevitable that there would be someone crying foul when the results are so close.

But the real, organized misdeeds weren't so much the hanging chads or the Pat Buchanan factor or anything like that. Those things are bad, but they were fairly minor issues compared to what was really going on. There was a real undermining of the election process in 2000, in the form of scrub lists, which Jeb and Katherine Harris were warned about ahead of time and willfully proceeded with anyway. That was the real election fraud with a big F in 2000. There really was an organized effort to keep people in certain communities from voting, and it is entirely reasonable that people are keeping an eye on that sort of thing again.

Was it really the Bush administration or the Bush campaign that tossed the women out, however? More likely it was the overzealous, spontaneous reaction of one or two security persons at the event. I have a hard time believing the President had anything to do with it, or that orders came down from him that anyone expressing support for civil liberties be removed.

In that specific case, I can't say whether the Bush administration was responsible or not, but they have very regularly set up "free speech zones" for their own events, starting with the inauguration. My brother had tickets, and he had to decide whether he was going to protest or actually watch it. Something like $7 or 8M of that $87B appropriations went toward "security" at the trade talks in Miami, where they used it to infiltrate puppetmakers and beat up retired union workers.

Whether that particular situation was as egregious as it sounds on its face and whether the Bush administration was entirely responsible is arguable, but it's hardly out of character or anything.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

No big deal, but what you jest about must be something you have thought about, right? As for the screaming idiots, they are found everywhere there are controversies. Extremists and crusaders on both sides of the political spectrum can be seen behaving like idiots and scaring more temperate persons.

True enough. Further comments below.

There's that "taint" business again. You don't actually believe that had the election gone the other way, and that had Al Gore been determined to have been rightfully elected because the volunteer vote counters in two or three counties in Florida "determined" the voters' intent to vote for Gore based on dubious indentations on chads, that the Presidential election result would have been clean, do you?

No. That's exactly what I was saying, if the election had gone the other way under the same taint, and I do believe it was tainted for reasons I'll spell out below. I'm disturbed that reasonable people like yourself fail to see how it was tainted.

Because the election was so close, the party which did not prevail was inevitably going to cry foul against the other. The prevailing party just happened to be one you didn't like or support. Had it gone the other way, I suspect you would be defending the integrity of the vote counting process as I write.

Again you assume much. Prior to November 2000, I really didn't care one way or the other about Bush or Gore or which one was elected, in fact I often have said "Is this best the major parties can do?" I voted for Harry Browne too, not necessarily because I thought he was the best man for the job, but just to register my feeble little protest over the state of politics in the nation.

I just wanted the votes counted, no matter the outcome. I would like to think as a voter that my vote counts, even if it has to be counted again and again. I cannot see what the harm was to count the fucking votes. At every turn, James Baker and the Bush legal team, rather than trying to work together to determine the true outcome of the election in Florida they tried to get the counting stopped. It was just wrong, wrong, wrong. But, it wasn't until the Supreme Court stepped into the fray, deciding that Bush, the plaintiff, would be harmed by a recount, that I began to have what has ended up being a 100% distain for Bush and anything related to his administration. If there has been any good out of it, I suppose I can't see it for my own rage at the subversion of the democratic process.

BTW, I've voted using those butterfly punchcard ballots, and even though I was careful to make sure they were punched all the way through, there was a problem with the chads not coming out of the cards. And considering the force required to penetrate the card, I could see how many could end up with hanging chads and even dimpled chads. If there isn't a hole in the card the vote doesn't get counted by the card reader machines.

We had out own scandalous elections in Utah, where party operatives fed stacks of favorable ballots through the machines over and over again. In one Congressional election there were some 4000 more votes in the final tabulation than people that signed in. To this day, nobody has been prosecuted that I know of and the loser didn't contest the results so there was no manual recount. It was a sad day for democracy.

Based on the accounts I have read, I find the removal of the two teachers for wearing said t-shirts to be unwarranted and disgraceful. Of course, the skeptic in me suspects that there may be more to the story than what most of us have heard. By way of pure speculation, for instance, the teachers may have smarted off to security. Of course, that is mere speculation and I have no basis for holding that belief, which I don't.

Eyewitness reports, by Republican attendees (Other than those women removed, were there any other kind?) said the women didn't do anything, they were approached by Bush campaign operatives and told to leave. At that point they may have smarted off to security, I don't know, nobody has alleged that at all. The bad part about this is that this has been the case at virtually all of the Bush campaign rallies, from making people sign loyalty oaths to charging people with trespassing just for disagreeing. It makes me think Bush and his cohorts abhor free speech.

Disruptions routinely occur at political events.

And, according to news reports, Kerry engages them in conversation, Bush's people have them charged with trespassing. That's a big difference between the two of them, in my opinion. It makes me think one side hates freedom and the other doesn't. Or, maybe it's just that liberal media bias feeding me wrong information again, damn Dan Rather.

Do most Republicans find protecting civil liberties repugnant? I seriously doubt it. Do most Democrats? Do most independents?

I really didn't mean to imply that most Republicans do, but if they don't speak out about things going on like this in the midst of their own ranks, how am I or anyone else supposed to know any different?

Completely aghast at the actions of the current administration? Which actions?

The Patriot Act, for one. The treatment of protesters such as those teachers for another. Only inspecting 3% of the cargo containers coming in the country. Only just now requiring background checks for foreigners attending flight schools. Attempting to stifle criticism by labeling critics as unpatriotic. The laughable No Child Left Behind thing. And things like the obviously staged press conferences, stiffing reporters they view as not favoring their administration. Don't get me wrong, I blame the press for letting them get by with stuff like this as much as I do the administration. After all, they're only following their political agenda to the letter, an agenda that they truly believe in.

Show me any administration of whatever stripe that didn't do some harm and some good.

I can't, thus the reason for my feeble protest votes over the last two decades.

Declaring that the President is or will be the ruin of all that is good and holy has been a favorite political pasttime in our country since its founding. Every single president has had his detractors.

You got that right. Remember the venom spewed toward Clinton? At least I'm following a fine historical tradition of political naysaying.

Every single president has made good judgments and bad.

Again, it's all about balance. As long as the good outweighs the bad, it's good, right?

I'm not aghast, completely or incompletely, at the administration's record as a whole. I am disturbed by many of its positions and actions, just as I am disturbed by many of the the positions and actions of any previous administration. I simply don't see government's behavior in black and white terms.

Actually, I don't think that you and I are really all that far apart.

That's cool. I hope you're wrong about your fears too, and I suspect that you are. There have always been naysayers who declare that society is going to hell in a handbasket. It never has, and it never will.

What is that old saying? Never say never.

[Ymir's blood]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Fair enough. I get that you are also probably being at least a little facetious.

No, in this case I am being entirely serious.

I'll be similarly pedantic and retort that the Civil War of 1861-1865 was not the direct result of Lincoln's election as President.

Secession was a response to Lincoln's election and as such was a 'direct result' of it. However these things were only two of the last links in the chain of disunion and can not be viewed in isolation from the political climate of the times or the long history of the slavery issue.

The events leading up to it were many and varied. It is simplistic and inaccurate to assert that Lincoln's election and taking of office was the cause of the war,

Of course it would be simplistic to assert that. Slavery was the ultimate cause of the war. The South seceded because its leaders became convinced that the creation of a separate government was the only way to protect their 'Peculiar Institution.' Lincoln's election was merely the spark that touched off the war.

or to imply that the war wouldn't have occurred if Douglas had been elected instead.

It would not have started at the time it did, most likely. The election of Lincoln gave the Southern fire eaters the ammo they needed to pass ordinances of secession in a way that Douglas' election could never have done. However some form of confrontation was almost inevitable, given the growing gulf between Northern and Southern beliefs about slavery.

[Adora]

He'll have us kowtowing to the UN and seeking a global mandate of any action.

You mean, actually... *gasp* attempt to be responsible global citizens? NOOOOOO!

Honestly, the posts in that thread sound like a bunch of spoiled brats afraid they're about to start being disciplined. Or perhaps, considering the crazy religious passion of the current administration, having their pocket-money cut. Then again, it is CF, so I think that puts the general level of Crazy up a few notches, right?

[Shake]

Originally Posted by warrenly

Well, not all of them.

Thanks for this link. I'm forwarding this on to friends and family.

Ymir's blood beat me to the point about the Lincoln election being the straw that forced secession. I'm just finishing an excellent book about Lincoln.

[seebs]

The really psycho people on the fringes, well... Yeah. Not much we can say about them.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Thank you, Liv, for adding a voice of reason here. I agree completely. I don't like demonizing political opponents either.
Cool Hand

Well, that's not my experience with you, Cool Hand.

I do agree with liv, though. One of the finest politicians that this state has ever produced was Republican. Governor Tom McCall. Another, Senator Wayne Morse, started his political career as a Republican. Unfortunately, those years are long gone and the Republican party in my state has shifted far to the religious right....

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

To respond to the OP, I'd say "yes".

I'm apprehensive about the "Only Nixon could go to China" effect. If Kerry is elected, there is a much higher probability that he, as president, could reimplement a draft than could a re-elected Bush administration. At least that's my perspective.

The thing is, I fear more of what will happen if we re-elected Bush and his pals.

I think the letter posted by warn is to the point. Thanks, warn!

godfry

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Well, that's not my experience with you, Cool Hand.

godfry

Well, godfrey, I thought that when I promised not to address you directly and then you responded with "Fine," it meant that you wouldn't be addressing me either. I was wrong.

At the risk of offending you again, I'll hazard a response.

First, I apologize for offending you.

As far as I can tell, godfrey, I addressed you exactly twice in the 100 Facts thread before you essentially told me that you think I'm a big asshole (not your words, but that's the gist of how I took your post). I admit that my first post to you, the one in which I said "Get over it," was not very tactful. For that, I apologize. I didn't mean to belittle you. I meant exactly what I said--get over it. It's not productive for anyone to continue to dwell on the fiasco of the pregnant, dimpled, and hanging chads in Florida four years ago.

What I don't get is why you took such offense at the rest of that post or the other one. At worst, I suggested that your words could have come from James Carville's mouth. That's not demonizing you at all. I never said or implied that Carville is the devil. He is widely regarded as being the left's self-appointed "attack dog," but that implies only that your remarks were sharp and partisan. So? How is that demonizing?

(By the way, despite your contention to the contrary, I never said anything that stated or implied that your views were marginal, extremist, or left-wing. Strident, yes. Extremist, no. Carville is strident.)

In case this is what caused you to take such offense--and I can only guess, since I can't read your mind--it didn't concern you. It was about me:

"Your claim that you see a trend here with regard to what you think my views are is misguided. I don't think you understand my political views at all. I'm hardly a right winger. On the other hand, I try to maintain a comfortable distance from the absurd left-wing demogoguery that has dominated the Kerry campaign. For what it's worth, I don't buy much of Bush's rhetoric either. That doesn't mean by default I believe what the Democrats keep saying about him, however."

I did not mean to imply that you embrace absurd left-wing demogoguery. It is my opinion that the Democratic National Committe has engaged in quite a bit of it in this election, however. I had in mind at the time claims like President Bush has destroyed X million jobs, for instance. For the record, I believe the GOP has engaged in plenty of absurd right-wing demogoguery too.

I did answer your question "What makes you think I'm a Democrat?" with a response that indicated that I did think you are a Democrat and why. Surely there are worse epithets one could receive, right? Again, how did I demonize you?

I disagreed with you and was not very tactful towards you. I'm guilty of that and I apologize again. I hardly think that equates to demonizing you, however.

You have accused me of being slanderous, glib, and condescending. Further, you suggested that I "don't give a shit about how our country is run," simply because I don't express outrage at the Supreme Court's per curiam decision in Bush v. Gore.

Can we just bury the hatchet? I never intended to start a feud with you, and I don't wish for one to continue, if this could be regarded as a feud at all. Apparently, from what I can gather from your continuing remarks to and/or about me, you continue to feel insulted/angry/offended or something not nice as a result of things I've said. I tried to tell you I'll refrain from addressing you so as not to offend or insult you directly, but you aren't letting it rest. What do you suggest I do, apart from not participating in political discussions at FF?

Cool Hand