logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Will George W. Bush ever leave office?, Democracy in danger?
Will George W. Bush ever leave office?
Will the next Presidential election be held on November 4, 2008?
Yes, of course. [ 47 ] ** [77.05%]
Yes, but we won't be able to trust the vote unless we rein in companies like Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia. [ 13 ] ** [21.31%]
No, BushCo will cancel elections in the name of national security. [ 1 ] ** [1.64%]
Will Bush leave office by noon on January 20, 2009?
Yes, there will be a normal, peaceful transition of power. [ 53 ] ** [86.89%]
Yes, but he'll actually be removed by impeachment before then. [ 3 ] ** [4.92%]
No, Bush will not voluntarily relinquish power. [ 5 ] ** [8.20%]
Total Votes: 65
  
Jobius
post Jul 22 2007, 07:38 PM
Post #1


*******
Five Hundred Club

Sponsor
September 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 521
Member No.: 5,538
Joined: October-13-05

From: California
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



In another topic, DaffyGrl makes a comment that deserves its own thread:
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jul 20 2007, 09:05 AM) *
I have always maintained that the Bush administration will find a reason, even if they have to manufacture an event, to nullify term limits and keep Bush in power indefinitely.

I heard this kind of talk before the 2004 elections, and was tempted to place some wagers. I didn't, not because I thought the election would be canceled, but because I thought Bush would likely win and I wouldn't have the heart to demand payment from someone already depressed over a second Bush term. This time around, though, I'm willing to put some money where my mouth is.

The next Presidential election is scheduled for November 4, 2008.

1. Will the election be held as scheduled?

2. Will Bush leave office by noon on January 20, 2009?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Wertz
post Jul 24 2007, 04:36 AM
Post #21


Group Icon

*********
Advanced Senior

Sponsor
January 2003

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 3,235
Member No.: 181
Joined: October-23-02

From: Franklinville PA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



1. Will the election be held as scheduled?

I sincerely hope so - and I'm about 93% certain that it will.

2. Will Bush leave office by noon on January 20, 2009?

Unless we're dealing with the 7% possibility mentioned above, yes.

I don't believe that George W Bush wants to be "king" or "dictator" or "emperor", but I definitely believe that he would like to see his divinely ordained mission succeed - and if he could remain president for another four years or ten years or twenty years or however long it would take for his perceived Good to triumph over his perceived Evil, he would.

President Bush has been convinced from the outset that his presidency is part of a divine plan, that he is acting in accordance with God's will and, indeed, that God wanted him, personally, to run for the highest office in America in order to lead the fight against Evil. In Bush's binary world, every human being can be placed in only one of two categories: Good or Evil. Those on his side are Good and anyone who is not an absolute disciple is Evil. The same goes for every policy that he embraces and promotes: they are part of a divine plan that will ultimately lead to a triumph of Good over Evil (and anyone who opposes or even questions them falls into the latter camp). This is why he is incapable of admitting to errors or failures (which would be tantamount to acknowledging that God was wrong) and why, no matter how much criticism he receives, no matter how unpopular he or his policies may be, no matter how much havoc his policies reap, he cannot change any position on any issue ever.

Indeed, he no doubt sees his (necessarily Evil) critics as a vindication of just how Good and Just and Right his positions are. The more Good his crusade is, the more the forces of Evil will rise up to oppose him. Similarly, were Bush able to continue his valiant mission to make the world Good, by any means necessary, he would. We already know that he will not let the law or the Constitution or the will of the people he is meant to represent or world opinion stand in the way of his divinely ordained power, why would he balk at something so petty as a national election? Would he like to remain in power beyond January 20, 2009. Oh yeah. After all, God would like it, too. But does he have the skill to completely usurp the rule of law? Probably not. Then again, he has got away with every transgression so far - transgressions that, in other times, would have got heads of state executed. We should not be quite so blithe in our dismissal of an extended Bush administration. After all, who would stop him? Those who have stopped him from trashing our Constitution and our laws and our treaties at will? Okay...

Those who have been bolstering the Bush administration - financing its campaigns, setting its specific policies, promoting its unitary executive despotism - probably don't share Bush's religious zeal. But that doesn't mean that they haven't been willing to exploit it to the fullest. After all, it is much easier to play on peoples' fear of pure Evil and paint Bush as some sort of latter-day prophet than it is to sell war profiteering and an American hegemon at face value.

So would Rove and Cheney and Rice like to see their boy remain in power? You betcha. Do they have the political clout to effect such a radical transition in our form of government? Absent a major attack on US soil prior to the 2008 election - or 2009 inauguration - I would have to say no. Would Bill Kristol and Irwin Stelzer and Richard Perle and Mona Charen and Norman Podhoretz and Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Mellon Scaife and Gertrude Himmelfarb and Michael Novak like to see their puppet remain in power? Oh, hell yeah. But they are not as sold on Bush's Manichean vision, apart from using it as a means of selling their agenda to a gullible public, and probably realize that he isn't quite the figurehead they were looking for. I suspect that, rather than bankrolling and promoting a coup, they're shifting their allegiance to more sellable candidates.

QUOTE(moif @ Jul 22 2007, 06:55 PM) *
Whats most telling about the unpopularity of GW Bush is what it means beyond GW Bush. There has been an awful lot of hatred riding on the coat tails of this one man, far too much in my mind to be justified by his actions. I'm very curious to see if the hatred will remain once Bush is gone and how the next president will be perceived.

I don't doubt that, for many, there is pure hatred of George W Bush. For many of us, though, it is more a matter of outrage. For many of us, it is the the contempt for the Constitution, the war crimes (and war profiteering), the destruction of the balance of powers, the illegal activity, the cover-ups and lies that are of more concern than some irrational emotion. It is also this lawlessness - and the fact that it has gone almost entirely unchallenged - that leaves a bit of room for doubt about the next election. For many of us, it is exactly his actions that have led to strong feelings - and where there is hatred of the man who provides the public face for those actions, then it is justified a thousand times over.

The level of "hatred" will doubtless continue following the next election. The last two administrations have been incredibly divisive and, even if the next president were an affable moderate, there are several decades worth of contention to get over and that won't happen during the course of a mere four years. Whether or not the outrage continues is a matter of the policies espoused by the next president.

QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jul 22 2007, 09:37 PM) *
What I fear is that the extensions of power pressed for for the executive branch under his tenure will allowed to be left in place. That White House is our house and we should be allowed to know a lot more about the daily actions of the public employees that serve our Constitution and our president.

I couldn't agree more - and I'm glad it was a more moderate voice than my own that raised this issue. happy.gif

QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jul 22 2007, 09:37 PM) *
I hope the next person has the ability to not embrace those expanded powers and turn the lights on brighter around the executive branch and defer whenever possible to the legislative branch of government.

I wouldn't hold my breath. This has been one of my main fears over the past six years or so - that the powers seized and laws broken by the Bush administration have set deadly precedents for anyone who may succeed our current Messenger of God. The actions taken by this administration will have grave consequences for years to come, many of them may be irreversible. It will take a man or woman of enormous will to spurn the extraordinary powers they will be handed in the wake of the Bush administration. It is not enough that they refuse to use them, they must repudiate them and restore the values on which this country was founded, before an even more despotic or divinely inspired executive receives the reins of power . No easy task, even for a Gandhi - and I don't see many mahatmas in the running.

QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Jul 23 2007, 01:30 PM) *
I believe that those pulling the strings will try to win the next presidential election, and leave it at that. I do not believe that they will succeed, but it doesn't change my belief that the Republic is safe.

I agree with your first belief, but I'm not as sure about your disbelief - which leaves your further belief about the safety of the Republic a bit up in the air. Even if the Republic is safe, it has been radically reshaped over the past several years - and it may be many more years before we know exactly how much damage has been done to our institutions and values. A lot will depend on the next few administrations and whether they choose to start repairing the damage or whether they compound it. The Republic may have the semblance of "safety" and the transfer of power will most likely take place as scheduled, but it is not the same Republic it was in 2000. And the change has decidedly not been for the better.

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 23 2007, 03:10 PM) *
At this point, none of the candidates running for President, on the Democratic or 'publican side appear to be as bad as what we have occupying the Oval Office right now.

Then you need to take a closer look at Rudy Giuliani. And, should he run, Fred Thompson. That pair makes George W Bush look like Ben franklin. Okay, maybe they make him look like Alexander Hamilton. Anyway, those fascistic creeps really would place free elections in serious jeopardy. Hell, Giuliani's already tried it - and attempting to scuttle our electoral process altogether is apparently one of things that contributed to his being considered "America's mayor". Jesus.

This post has been edited by Wertz: Jul 24 2007, 06:08 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Jul 24 2007, 06:36 AM
Post #22


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,829
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



hmmm.gif

Okay, there's only one scenario that I can forsee where Bush would remain in office after 20 Jan 2009. The scenario would involve a WMD attack between the election and the Inauguration, an attack that killed not only the President Elect, but also the Veep Elect, and most if not all of Congress. In short, nuking DC on the opening day of Congress while Bush isn't there, plus getting the incoming duo somehow.

Not very likely.

Or, Bush could have a double stand in for him during the Inauguration, make sure DC is nuked and subsequently pop up to rescue the country and visit hellfire and damnation on the alleged perpetrators. Not that anybody would be at all suspicious in such a circumstance. innocent.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Jul 24 2007, 03:09 PM
Post #23


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jul 24 2007, 01:36 AM) *
hmmm.gif

Okay, there's only one scenario that I can forsee where Bush would remain in office after 20 Jan 2009. The scenario would involve a WMD attack between the election and the Inauguration, an attack that killed not only the President Elect, but also the Veep Elect, and most if not all of Congress. In short, nuking DC on the opening day of Congress while Bush isn't there, plus getting the incoming duo somehow.


Even then, Bush would be acting without constitutional authority, since his term ends on January 20 at noon via amendment 20.

What concerns me more, is a close, disputed election like we had in 2000, where no winner is declared by January 20.

I think the founders saw the House of Representatives closer to the people than any other body. I would support a constitutional namendment putting the Speaker-of-the-House (be it Nancy Pelosi or even Dennis Hastert sour.gif ) temporarily in charge until a winner is declared. I would not support continuation of a sitting president.

Y'all gotta remember, I've had to deal with Bush longer than rest of you. He was Governor of Texas for six years before he ran for president. Enough's enough. :choke:

This post has been edited by BoF: Jul 24 2007, 03:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Jul 24 2007, 03:43 PM
Post #24


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Jobius @ Jul 22 2007, 03:38 PM) *
In another topic, DaffyGrl makes a comment that deserves its own thread:
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jul 20 2007, 09:05 AM) *
I have always maintained that the Bush administration will find a reason, even if they have to manufacture an event, to nullify term limits and keep Bush in power indefinitely.

I heard this kind of talk before the 2004 elections, and was tempted to place some wagers. I didn't, not because I thought the election would be canceled, but because I thought Bush would likely win and I wouldn't have the heart to demand payment from someone already depressed over a second Bush term. This time around, though, I'm willing to put some money where my mouth is.

The next Presidential election is scheduled for November 4, 2008.

1. Will the election be held as scheduled?

2. Will Bush leave office by noon on January 20, 2009?

The next Presidential election is scheduled for November 4, 2008.

1. Will the election be held as scheduled?

How could it not be? Any one want to explain how? As far as the insinuation of fixed voting machines addressed in another thread no one has ever found a fixed machine.

2. Will Bush leave office by noon on January 20, 2009?
How could he not? The “Bush derangement syndrome” seems to be heavy here.

Maybe the real question is this – is Bill trying to back door another presidency by helping his wife get elected? Certainly he would have influence over her in office.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quarkhead
post Jul 24 2007, 08:01 PM
Post #25


Group Icon

********
Original Sufferhead

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,180
Member No.: 328
Joined: December-11-02

From: Spokane, WA
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jul 22 2007, 06:37 PM) *
I foresee no possibility that Bush will try to stay in office.

What I fear is that the extensions of power pressed for for the executive branch under his tenure will allowed to be left in place. That White House is our house and we should be allowed to know a lot more about the daily actions of the public employees that serve our Constitution and our president.

I hope the next person has the ability to not embrace those expanded powers and turn the lights on brighter around the executive branch and defer whenever possible to the legislative branch of government.


I agree. I am not very optimistic. Democrat or Republican, a president is usually known to exercise whatever limits of power they have. While I will agree with the Republicans who will be up in arms at the Democratic president using these expanded powers, I will be sure to note the irony of the dog they set loose turning and biting them. It'll be interesting to see all the Bushbots screaming about Hillary's use of power when they adamantly defended Bush for doing the same thing. I guess I'm a bit jaded, but these duopolistic partisans are pretty laughable in how they will defend and attack the same sorts of behavior, depending if it's "their guy" or not.

I think Bush wants history to see him as a great president, but that's not very likely. We'll be dealing with the fallout of his actions for a long time to come, whoever succeeds him.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aevans176
post Jul 24 2007, 08:09 PM
Post #26


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,931
Member No.: 3,607
Joined: September-13-04

From: Plano, TX. Sweater vest and Volvo hell.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(quarkhead @ Jul 24 2007, 03:01 PM) *
I think Bush wants history to see him as a great president, but that's not very likely. We'll be dealing with the fallout of his actions for a long time to come, whoever succeeds him.


Cool little talking points. Same ol' jazz QH. I wonder what you'd have said about Reagan. Probably not the most positive things. I personally am tired of GW too. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Once his term is up, he'll be gone.

QUOTE
Maybe the real question is this – is Bill trying to back door another presidency by helping his wife get elected? Certainly he would have influence over her in office.


Pray that doesn't happen. Hillary is a vile and terrible person, not for political reasons but moreover because of her personal choices and because she should be in prison for Whitewater.

What is this thread about again? Oh. Another crazy conspiracy theory thread. I suppose it's like the time that JFK got eaten by a tiger...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Jul 24 2007, 08:18 PM
Post #27


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,829
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(BoF @ Jul 24 2007, 10:09 AM) *
Even then, Bush would be acting without constitutional authority, since his term ends on January 20 at noon via amendment 20.
Certainly he would be acting without constitutional authority, my question for you though is this: what's the alternative? Who would have "constitutional authority?" Congress is dead, so there's nobody in that line of succession around. One of the existing Cabinet members? Well, strictly speaking they would theoretically have the authority, except for the fact that they can only take office if the President is dead or incapacitated. Old President is gone, no new President has been sworn in, ... 'Tis a knotty conundrum.

QUOTE
What concerns me more, is a close, disputed election like we had in 2000, where no winner is declared by January 20.
Not gonna happen. Close and disputed, sure, run out to January 20th, no way.

QUOTE
I think the founders saw the House of Representatives closer to the people than any other body. I would support a constitutional namendment putting the Speaker-of-the-House (be it Nancy Pelosi or even Dennis Hastert sour.gif ) temporarily in charge until a winner is declared. I would not support continuation of a sitting president.
I believe the 25th Amendment already covers that. The catch is, you have to have a Speaker and President Pro Tem to do it. This, btw, is one reason why, even during the Inauguration and State of the Union Address, as well as other "all government functions", one Cabinet member, and since 9/11, one Congressman and one Senator are "elsewhere." This is important, because if the entire House of Representatives, or even more than half, including the Speaker, were killed, you can't actually reconstitute the House w/o special elections. No House quorom, no new Speaker. The Senate can be reconstituted by state action, i.e. gubernatorial and/or legislative appointment.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quick
post Jul 24 2007, 08:43 PM
Post #28


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 824
Member No.: 6,407
Joined: August-22-06

From: USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Jobius @ Jul 22 2007, 03:38 PM) *
In another topic, DaffyGrl makes a comment that deserves its own thread:
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jul 20 2007, 09:05 AM) *
I have always maintained that the Bush administration will find a reason, even if they have to manufacture an event, to nullify term limits and keep Bush in power indefinitely.

I heard this kind of talk before the 2004 elections, and was tempted to place some wagers. I didn't, not because I thought the election would be canceled, but because I thought Bush would likely win and I wouldn't have the heart to demand payment from someone already depressed over a second Bush term. This time around, though, I'm willing to put some money where my mouth is.

The next Presidential election is scheduled for November 4, 2008.

1. Will the election be held as scheduled?

2. Will Bush leave office by noon on January 20, 2009?



1) Of course [the election will be held on time and we will honor its results, as we always have for well over 200 years].

2) Of course [Bush will leave office and we will have an orderly transfer of power, as we always have for well over 200 years].

This post has been edited by quick: Jul 24 2007, 08:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaime
post Jul 24 2007, 08:50 PM
Post #29


Group Icon

**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Admin
Posts: 5,941
Member No.: 4
Joined: July-25-02

From: Down where the River meets the Sea
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(quick @ Jul 24 2007, 04:43 PM) *
1) Of course

2) Of course


quick, you can be more constructive than that. Please be sure to not post one-liners.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GuardianAngel
post Jul 24 2007, 09:34 PM
Post #30


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 285
Member No.: 1,782
Joined: November-18-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Libertarian



biggrin.gif (noid noid) biggrin.gif

Wow the whole tone of this thread is just that .... yaknow the reason the 20th amendment is in place is because of a democrat... (FDR)

I dont think bush wants to stay in power beyond jan 20, 2009 but i do think he wants his policies carried out... all of the hate has everything to do with the ® after his name... Europeans hated Bush from the moment he took office, because he actually meant what he said ....

will the election happen on nov 4 2008, absolutely. will GWB want a republican to win and carry on the WoT absolutely. I think the dems who are calling for us to pull out of iraq and end the WoT will be singing a different tune if they get elected in 2008....

Will Bush leave office on jan 20, 2009, I can contemplate no circumstance where this would not happen... but it is funny to listen to the deranged rantings of those suffering from BDS...

QUOTE
What is this thread about again? Oh. Another crazy conspiracy theory thread. I suppose it's like the time that JFK got eaten by a tiger...


Was that the tiger LBJ sent after him for getting us into vietnam? or the one Nixon set on him for stealing the election by having dead people in chicago vote for him ?






This post has been edited by GuardianAngel: Jul 24 2007, 09:39 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Jul 24 2007, 11:36 PM
Post #31


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



First Quarkhead said :


It'll be interesting to see all the Bushbots screaming about Hillary's use of power when they adamantly defended Bush for doing the same thing. I guess I'm a bit jaded, but these duopolistic partisans are pretty laughable in how they will defend and attack the same sorts of behavior, depending if it's "their guy" or not.


QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jul 24 2007, 12:09 PM) *
Pray that doesn't happen. Hillary is a vile and terrible person, not for political reasons but moreover because of her personal choices and because she should be in prison for Whitewater.


Intresting comment Aevens- it really shows the hypocrisy we have been discussing on threads from Funeral gate to Scooter libby-by your measure of "proof" for the GW admin- Hillary should sue the RNC for violating her civil rights w00t.gif laugh.gif

What you have done is made quarkhead's point be true with about 10k exclamation points. w00t.gif

I mean, you get upset because she possibly lied about a losing busines deal in Arkansas, before Bill was even president- but you are okay with Scooter walking, don't want any investigations of GW, don't want him to testify.

Contemptably laughable.

It is posts like that make many think there are poeple in this world that will allow GW to stay in power- you are exactly the example of someone that would back bush up if he decided to stay in power- you simply can't let it go about how much worse a prez the republicans can put in office, even after a horrible dem laugh.gif

For folks like GW to stage coups, they need loyal followers, someone that will give them a "pass" no matter how bad they behave, or how much they break the law, even when it involves treason, like with Valerie Plame.

Unfortunately, there are enough gullible folks out there that actually believed the swift water liars, that believed that John Kerry was going to "steal thier bibles" wacko.gif - and confiscate all thier guns, that folks like Rove can exploit right out of thier very basic freedoms.

I think as long as we have poeple that are willing to let GW get away with anything he wants, there is the risk of a takever by GW- fortunately, he has alienated the folks that used to support him the most- the military. It doesn't take much to see what a "cluster" he made out of his idiocy in Iraq- and for that, we can thank our founding fathers for the checks and balances.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vladimir
post Jul 25 2007, 06:22 PM
Post #32


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 475
Member No.: 4,213
Joined: January-6-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Communist



I voted for a normal transition, though I must admit that I am not 100% certain that Bush and his backers might not try something extraconstitutional. Call it paranoia, but it seemed rather surreal to me that the military had drawn up a plan for business as usual in Iraq through 2009. I have said elsewhere on this board that I consider the threat of a military takeover of the United States, in the name of "Freedom," of course, to be a nontrivial and increasing risk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Jul 25 2007, 07:44 PM
Post #33


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jul 24 2007, 03:18 PM) *
I believe the 25th Amendment already covers that. The catch is, you have to have a Speaker and President Pro Tem to do it. This, btw, is one reason why, even during the Inauguration and State of the Union Address, as well as other "all government functions", one Cabinet member, and since 9/11, one Congressman and one Senator are "elsewhere." This is important, because if the entire House of Representatives, or even more than half, including the Speaker, were killed, you can't actually reconstitute the House w/o special elections. No House quorom, no new Speaker. The Senate can be reconstituted by state action, i.e. gubernatorial and/or legislative appointment.


I think the consensus of the board is that we will have a normal election and transfer of power. I agree.

In the very remote case we don't, there is nothing in the 25th Amendment that allows Bush to continue in power after January 20, 2009.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am25.html

Try another smokescreen.

QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jul 24 2007, 03:18 PM) *
Certainly he would be acting without constitutional authority, my question for you though is this: what's the alternative? appointment.


I already gave my answer earlier in the thread, but here it is again, just in case you missed it. If it came to it, I would rather haveNO! president than allow Bush to continue a nanosecond beyond the constitutional expiration of his term.

I'd also like to let the air out of his tires before he heads back to Texas. laugh.gif

Edited to add:

I've already changed my mind. If someone let the air out of Bush's tires, he'd might think it was a terrorist attack, but more likely he would see it as a prank played by one of his Skull and Bones buddies from Yale days. Seemingly he han't grown out of that mold and would likely dismiss it as a welcome home George gesture.



This post has been edited by BoF: Jul 25 2007, 08:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aquilla
post Jul 25 2007, 07:48 PM
Post #34


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,148
Member No.: 421
Joined: February-3-03

From: Missouri
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Vladimir @ Jul 25 2007, 11:22 AM) *
I voted for a normal transition, though I must admit that I am not 100% certain that Bush and his backers might not try something extraconstitutional. Call it paranoia, but it seemed rather surreal to me that the military had drawn up a plan for business as usual in Iraq through 2009. I have said elsewhere on this board that I consider the threat of a military takeover of the United States, in the name of "Freedom," of course, to be a nontrivial and increasing risk.



I would call it paranoia. You have claimed in other threads to have military experience/knowledge and given that, you should know that one of the things military planners do is plan for all kinds of "what-ifs". In this case the question they were tasked with answering probably went along the lines of "If we were forced to continue 'business as usual' in Iraq until 2009, how would we do that?" Doesn't mean it's a done deal that's going to happen by any means, but should the next President decide on that course of action, the military damn well better have a plan for it.


Aquilla
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Jul 26 2007, 03:12 AM
Post #35


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,829
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(BoF)
If it came to it, I would rather have NO! president than allow Bush to continue a nanosecond beyond the constitutional expiration of his term.
Sounds like a case of "cutting of nose to spite face" brought on by the aformentioned Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Nonetheless, your stance raises some mighty interesting questions, which I've posed in this Thread here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vladimir
post Jul 26 2007, 08:43 PM
Post #36


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 475
Member No.: 4,213
Joined: January-6-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Communist



QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jul 25 2007, 07:48 PM) *
QUOTE(Vladimir @ Jul 25 2007, 11:22 AM) *
I voted for a normal transition, though I must admit that I am not 100% certain that Bush and his backers might not try something extraconstitutional. Call it paranoia, but it seemed rather surreal to me that the military had drawn up a plan for business as usual in Iraq through 2009. I have said elsewhere on this board that I consider the threat of a military takeover of the United States, in the name of "Freedom," of course, to be a nontrivial and increasing risk.



I would call it paranoia. You have claimed in other threads to have military experience/knowledge and given that, you should know that one of the things military planners do is plan for all kinds of "what-ifs". In this case the question they were tasked with answering probably went along the lines of "If we were forced to continue 'business as usual' in Iraq until 2009, how would we do that?" Doesn't mean it's a done deal that's going to happen by any means, but should the next President decide on that course of action, the military damn well better have a plan for it.


Aquilla


In fact you can read all about this in Tuesday's New York Times. There is quite a lot of explanation there as to how and by whom this plan was produced. It is no mere contigency plan, that is certain. Of course it doesn't mean it's a done deal, but it is a little bit stunning that no plan has been prepared for withdrawal, only one for continued engagement at close to current troop levels.

Parenthetically (since it has no relevance to this discussion), I don't claim to be a military expert, but I have read a lot of military history. And yes, I did serve for eight years during the Vietnam War period. That doesn't make me the crown prince of opinionators upon military matters, but at least I have some slight idea of what it means to serve. Mainly it signifies that I don't have to take the back seat in the patriotism department.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
azwhitewolf
post Dec 18 2007, 07:38 AM
Post #37


******
Senior Contributor

Sponsor
December 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 339
Member No.: 8,176
Joined: December-1-07

From: Guess.. it's a toughie!
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE
1. Will the election be held as scheduled?

Yes. Of course it will.

I think Bush has been given too much credit by his opponents. Bush causes global warming. Bush was responsible for Hurricane Katrina. Now, Bush is going to stop elections. This is almost getting ridiculous.

If Bush actually controlled this stuff like the press says he does.... innocent.gif
QUOTE
2. Will Bush leave office by noon on January 20, 2009?

Yup.

And he probably won't be stuffing his suitcases with historical White House artifacts.

I don't hate Bush. But I am ready for some new leadership. I think the American People deserved a lot more answers for honest bi-partisan questions.

But sticking around and claiming the right to stay? Nah, I don't see that happening for a minute.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Jan 2 2008, 05:04 AM
Post #38


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(azwhitewolf @ Dec 18 2007, 01:38 AM) *
I think Bush has been given too much credit by his opponents. Bush causes global warming. Bush was responsible for Hurricane Katrina.

Let's be honest here azwhitewolf. I don't think many people have accused Bush of causing global warming or Hurricane Katrina. Many of us, however, don't think he's done enough about global warming and that he didn't respond quickly enough or adequately enough to Katrina.

I agree, though. Bush is gone at noon on January 20, 2009. I'm grateful he doesn't even get the whole day.

Edited. I put 2008 originally. I'd love to kick his butt back to Texas a year early. tongue.gif

This post has been edited by BoF: Jan 2 2008, 05:10 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sleeper
post Jan 23 2009, 05:08 PM
Post #39


********
Who dat!

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,692
Member No.: 386
Joined: January-17-03

From: Florida
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Independent



I had to bring this thread back because it was a chuckle for me to see people actually talking about Bush making some kind of attempt at staying in office, even if it was hyperbole.

Almost all of the posters were correct in their predictions about a smooth election and transition.

Edit to add: Although I would like to know the 13 people who thought the elections would not be fair if done by electronic means and the 5 who said Bush would have to be removed by force lol

This post has been edited by Sleeper: Jan 23 2009, 05:09 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Jan 23 2009, 06:31 PM
Post #40


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Sleeper @ Jan 23 2009, 08:08 AM) *
I had to bring this thread back because it was a chuckle for me to see people actually talking about Bush making some kind of attempt at staying in office, even if it was hyperbole.

Almost all of the posters were correct in their predictions about a smooth election and transition.

Edit to add: Although I would like to know the 13 people who thought the elections would not be fair if done by electronic means and the 5 who said Bush would have to be removed by force lol


Had he been competent, there might have been real cause for concern, or had actually NOT ran the country into the ground, because no matter what coup leader you see in the world in the past or present, they had to support thier base of power, and GW managed to even alienate his largest base.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: June 19th, 2018 - 04:20 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.