Name the October Surprise?

[Jillyvn]

Hey, newbie here. Not sure if you guys are following the American election, but in case there are any other junkies out there, I thought I'd give you this link:

http://www.nametheoctobersurprise.com/

I listen to Air America radio at work. I'm sure this makes me a very bad Canadian. At any rate, they were discussing this site today. The gist is that everytime Bush is getting behind in the polls or the crunch is on, something major happens, i.e. capturing Saddam in time for christmas. The theory amoung lefties is that Bush is going to pull something major out of his hat right before the yanks go to the polls. This site lets you submit your ideas. Best one I've hear so far? Osama Bin Laden is captured, but the twist is that he is hiding amoungst Iraqi Insurgents thus proving once and for all the link between 9-11 and the Iraq War. Lol.

I'm banking on a "terrorist" attack.

 

[LadyC]

What about an assassination attempt?

Love the kitty.

 

[Isengard]

RE: Name the October Surp

When they catched Saddam for Christmas, my first thought was that they would deliver Osama for new year's eve... Unfortunately, the election was too far away, people would have forget and it would have been a waste. They could get him out of the closet mid october though, wouldn't it be convenient for Bush??

 

[Jillyvn]

Re: RE: Name the October Surp

When they catched Saddam for Christmas, my first thought was that they would deliver Osama for new year's eve... Unfortunately, the election was too far away, people would have forget and it would have been a waste. They could get him out of the closet mid october though, wouldn't it be convenient for Bush??

I swear - the man is on kidney dialysis and they can't find him? C'mon. You just know they've got their guns trained on Osama and are waiting for the right time to pull him in. The first week of November would be ideal - just before the election and during sweeps!

The Americans have gone completely off their rockers. If it weren't for airamericaradio.com, I'd think they were all nuts.

 

[Jillyvn]

Re: RE: Name the October Surprise?

What about an assassination attempt?

Love the kitty.

Lol. Thanks.

This is another likely scenario I've thought of. Cheney is really dragging Bush's ratings in the polls down, but they can't oust him the normal way. So, some rogue assasin targets Bush, misses and hits Cheney, allowing McCain to take the nomination for VP, and cementing the Bush reelection.

I hope they don't read this board

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

Re: RE: Name the October Surprise?

This is another likely scenario I've thought of. Cheney is really dragging Bush's ratings in the polls down, but they can't oust him the normal way. So, some rogue assasin targets Bush, misses and hits Cheney, allowing McCain to take the nomination for VP, and cementing the Bush reelection.

I have had the same suspicions but rather than an assassination, they can just as easily get rid of Cheney - and save face - simply by having his doctor declare him as unfit to run for health reasons. I'd just about bet money on that one happening.

 

[fubbleskag]

iran - they've already begun the pre-amble.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Name the October Surp

i'm betting on Iran too...not a full scale attack, just a quick bombing of alleged "secret" nuclear facilities. I think it wil have to secret ones because Iran will likely fully capitulate with demands for full inspections soon and the world community knows too much about what's happening there.

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

They still need to get rid of the liability who is Cheney, don't you think? Cheney recently fired his doctor, so what will the new doctor say... perhaps he will conveniently declare Cheney unfit for a second term?

I'm not sure any of the above is needed anyway. It seems Americans are determined to continue believing in Bush, thinking that he is the only man for the job despite the onslaught of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Name the October Surp

I believe that if they were going to get rid of Cheney they would have done it before the convention so Bush would have a running mate for the whole "official" campaign.

He will only become a real detriment if he has to go to court on charges of bribery and corruption, and that won't hit until after November in the US. The French government may indict him before that, but given the whole "freedom fries" thing, the Republicans aren't going to see that as a negative.

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

Re: RE: Name the October Surp

The French government may indict him before that, but given the whole "freedom fries" thing, the Republicans aren't going to see that as a negative.

Ah yes, the nation that embraced the concept of 'freedom fries'... these are the people you believe will see the light in time?

What you say makes sense about Cheney, but I maintain that the new doctor is in place for 'just in case'.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Name the October Surp

The thing is that the whole nation didn't embrace freedom fries. Remember the anti-war demonstrations? That's a lot of people to bring out.

The problem is that those people really have nobody to vote for. It's part of the reason why voter turn-out is so dismal in the US.

 

[bogie]

The word is "apathy" - same here in Canada. The feeling that "your vote won't make any difference". Unfortunately - it does! If the true majority of eligible voters did vote, imagine the possible outcome! Way too many don't vote because of the "what's the use?" excuse. Think of how our recent Canadian election may have turned out if more people voted.

The U.S. "excuse" of "policing the world" to help the poor, downtrodden, and suppressed, is driven by economics, not ethics. Otherwise Sudan would be flooded by U.S. troops - oooppss ... no oil ... how stupid of me ....

Hitting a fly with a ten tonne brick carries with it a lot of collateral damage. "Shock and Awe" became "Shock and D i s g u s t" - and it carries forward with much loss of life. A poorly executed "change of regime" for Iraq.

The U.S. has backed out of global environmental control, allowing "weapons of destruction" into the hands of their own people (uummm... who's going to come in and stop that?), hiding statistics on how violent their own society has become - "the enemy within" - and how the "ugly American" has become even more so in the eyes of most global communities.

I don't know about you, but "dying for the cause, while waving the flag" is not my view of life and civilization.

"Leave it to Beaver" has left the building, and "The Terminator" has entered.

Bush out, Kerry in, and, my God, hope for a better future.

 

[fubbleskag]

voting should be mandatory.

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

Re: RE: Name the October Surprise?

voting should be mandatory.

Except, of course, it infringes on civil liberties and therefore might be accompanied with requirements as to the 'correct' answer on the ballot. Remember Saddam's 100% turn-out, 100% voting for him. I do know what you mean, though.

The people who can't be bothered to vote are also the ones who would, if they did vote, do so without being informed. They would likely vote for Bush simply because he makes it easy for them to decide by offering them a one-dimensional rah rah America cardboard icon. Kelly, gasp, might make them think things through, Bush will always spare them of that.

 

[Jillyvn]

Well, fubbleskag... it looks like the prize might go to you:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/09/16/u_s_suspects_iranian_nukes/index_np.html:

A U.S. official expressed alarm Thursday about a possible nuclear-weapons-related test site in Iran and accused the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency of keeping silent on its own concerns about the issue.

The official -- a senior member of the U.S. delegation at the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors -- spoke as U.S and European negotiators moved closer to agreement to censure Iran for reneging on a freeze on uranium enrichment and setting a deadline for Tehran to dispel suspicions it is trying to make nuclear arms.

You'll have to view an ad to read the whole thing

First Iraq, now Iran... anyone want to take bets that Syria is next?[/quote]

 

[bogie]

Re: RE: Name the October Surprise?

voting should be mandatory.

The people who can't be bothered to vote are also the ones who would, if they did vote, do so without being informed. They would likely vote for Bush simply because he makes it easy for them to decide by offering them a one-dimensional rah rah America cardboard icon. Kerry, gasp, might make them think things through, Bush will always spare them of that.

Despite any possible errors in voting, we live, as does the US, in a democracy (albeit ours is restricted by being parliamentary). The majority is supposed to rule. It is up to the candidates to attract the voters, make them informed, and hope for the best. Your comments exemplify that apathy, and until the attitude changes, our governments won't either.

Our ballots should also include another option of "none of the above". While that is controversial, in statement, it allows one to exercise the option of a true democracy, and vote to not accept any who are running for power. If everyone voted, you might be surprised at the results. These "dissenters" would have to be considered as legitimate votes, the same way as if they had voted for a particular candidate. It could help to create a change of attitude by those who seek elective office.

How many times have you heard, as I have, "there was no good choice"? These people should have the option to state that, on the record, as a citizen of their country. Not just by spoiling their ballot, as that is counter-productive.

Couple that with a required percentage of votes required to win a seat, and you could land up with surprise election result in some ridings. Even one with no one elected would be a wake-up call.

You cannot force people to vote - we are in a democracy, and it is our chioce whether to vote or not.

 

[Jillyvn]

Re: RE: Name the October Surprise?

Our ballots should also include another option of "none of the above". While that is controversial, in statement, it allows one to exercise the option of a true democracy, and vote to not accept any who are running for power.

I agree that voting should not be mandatory. I chaffe at the idea of "forced" anything in my democratic ideal. I like the idea of including the option of "none of the above", but it has a certain anarchist feel to it. What happens if the majority of people chose "none of the above"? Who stays in power until we can find someone that a majority will agree on? Given our current political climate of "the lesser of two evils", this idea has the potential to destabilize our current system of government.

 

[fubbleskag]

Re: RE: Name the October Surprise?

Our ballots should also include another option of "none of the above". While that is controversial, in statement, it allows one to exercise the option of a true democracy, and vote to not accept any who are running for power.

I agree that voting should not be mandatory. I chaffe at the idea of "forced" anything in my democratic ideal. I like the idea of including the option of "none of the above", but it has a certain anarchist feel to it. What happens if the majority of people chose "none of the above"? Who stays in power until we can find someone that a majority will agree on? Given our current political climate of "the lesser of two evils", this idea has the potential to destabilize our current system of government.

me. i guarantee after having me in power for a few months this problem will never arise again lol

 

[Jillyvn]

Re: RE: Name the October Surprise?

fubbleskag says:

me. i guarantee after having me in power for a few months this problem will never arise again lol

Well, then fubbleskag, we wouldn't have a democracy, and this argument would be moot.

As grand a leader as you would be....