And it damn well SHOULD! I know that I personally am as disturbed and frightened as hell about what would happen if Bush wins the election. 
Well, to answer the OP: If Bush (again) wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote, there will be a lot of resentment, maybe a new grassroots movement to abolish the Electoral College, but the people will accept the outcome. Provided that clearly is the outcome.
If, however, those election results, in terms of state-by-state vote counts, also are in doubt to the same extent they were in 2000, or worse (e.g., some evidence of actual vote fraud via the Diebold machines’ software), then we might see a political and constitutional crisis of unprecedented proportions. The kind that could, conceivably, lead to . . . no, let’s not even think about that, shall we?
Substitute “Nixon”, “Reagan”, “Bush”, “Clinton”, or “Bush II”, and you’ll know how tired this sounds to a middle aged person. Seen it, done it.
I’m 40, Walloon – maybe that counts as “middle-aged” these days, maybe it doesn’t – but I have been at least generally aware of every election since 1972, and I can tell you, I have never in my life been so genuinely frightened at the prospect of an American president winning a second term.
One of my teachers in college was Czechoslovakian and her and her family were all quite annoyed by this amazing anamoly that every time some new scandal was reported about Clinton, her family would get a bunch of bombs dropped on them.
I won’t argue that Bush has more reason than Clinton did to randomly attack countries, but I do think that it isn’t reasonable to single out this one president for being naughty.
Does anyone know of any good sites where I could get an unbiased view of Kerry? I won’t be voting in the next election, but I would still like to be able to determine whether I hope Kerry wins, or hope that we all vote for “None of the above” as we should have last time.
What are you talking about? Since when did Clinton bomb Czechoslovakia, especially since such a country has existed since Jan 1, 1993?
Duh. has not existed since 1993.
You’re thinking of the Czech Republic. However I admittedly do tend to be unable to keep former USSR countries clear in my mind–so it is possble that I have the wrong name, but the overall story is correct.
USSR countries would be places like Russia, Georgia, Ukraine. Clinton never bombed any former USSR countries.
Perhaps you are thinking of former Yugoslavia countries? Serbia, Bosnia, etc.
No dear, it’s not. The US hasn’t bombed any part of Czechoslovakia since WWII, if then.
I believe you mean Yugoslavia. Somewhat distinct difference between the two.
Though we did, indeed, bomb the living hell out of Yugoslavia.
:eek: Since I had been unaware of the existence of Yugoslavia (except as a name, which I loosely associated with the USSR), let us just say, I am unclear on everything between Germany, Russia, and Greece (roughly.) Anything in there and I make no promises on having any idea which country I am talking about.
If anyone can tell me which country my teacher was from, please chip in.
I spent my college years studying “everything between Germany, Russia, and Greece (roughly)”, and as far as I can reckon, by process of elimination, Yugoslavia is the country you are talking about, being the only country in the region we have bombed recently.
Can we end this threadjack now?
Would a doubling of the population of Canada qualify as “fallout”?
It will help for next time if you get your facts straight before making these pronouncements. Your teacher is probably from Serbia. Serbia is a state in the former Yugoslavia, which was bombed by NATO when Clinton was in power. This was not Clinton’s initiative, nor his agenda really – Madeline Albright probably had more to do with the drastic decision to bomb Serbia than Clinton did, and at any rate it was a NATO plan (at the time the supreme commander of NATO was none other than general Wesley Clarke, who made no good impression on anyone during the ordeal).
It was a dirty affair, what with the West’s support of terrorists like the KLA in Kosovo (who went on to eject Serbs from their own country, and who then tried the same crap in Macedonia) and the utter inability of NATO to subjugate a nation of a mere ten million or so in 70 days of intensive bombing.
Vile as that episode was, it was pretty tame stuff compared to Bush’s reckless “policy” on Iraq, to mention just the most flagrant item. In Kosovo only the KLA and a few smaller criminal outfits were assisted until they obtained what they wanted (control of Kosovo). In Iraq, well where does one start? The country is now, as no shortage of us predicted years ago, a terrorist hub and a growing recruitment centre for Islamic extremism and anti-Americanism. Iraq is now an endless bag of problems that is routinely used as an example of “American aggression” and similar rousing rhetoric. If Bush wanted to hurt al Qaeda by attacking Iraq – which is nonsense since the two had no meaningful connection – then he has accomplished exactly the opposite, with an intelligence source recently calling US efforts in Iraq “a gift of epic proportions to Osama Bin Laden”.
Another effect is that Muslim populations around the world are increasingly radicalized by what they view as a “clash of civilizations”, as then French Foreign Minister De Villepin warned at the UN in the build-up to invasion (too bad the US and UK were too busy making up lies about France and Germany in addition to Iraq at the time). Most importantly, Bush and his cadre of repulsive fools have exacerbated in Muslim populations what I have arbitrarily called the “clam effect” (there is surely a better name for it but I can’t recall it).
The clam effect seems to strike a group when radical action/rhetoric from the outside threatens its populations. Polarization results and is not, of course, confined by geographical boundaries in this age of Media and emigration. Populations react like bivalves, retreating within their shell and sealing it shut when they perceive hostility or when their identity is threatened. Core “fundamental” social values are rediscovered or redefined, communities draw in on themselves in an attempt to protect and emphasize self-identity, and extremism thrives. [url=]This BBC piece describes the cultural and religious effect I am talking about.
By my own reckoning this effect is more pronounced than the writer suggests, though what frightens me is the trend, not how widespread the effect is right now. Still, the problem could easily become significantly worse with another four years of idiocy. This is infinitely more serious and potentially dangerous than a few riots IMO.
[sup]Elucidator: it depends, for Canadians wouldn’t that be “fall-in”?[/sup]
Like:
-getting rid of Castro and restoring a Cuban democracy
-opening up free trade with South America
-beginning a massive program of nuclear, wind, and solar energy production.
All, in all, not too bad!
What’s to “restore”? Cuba was no democracy when Castro took over. And you know nothing of Cuba if you think the people will welcome American “liberation” now any more than they did at the time of the Bay of Pigs invasion. So far as we can tell – and it’s not all that hard to tell – the Cuban people generally like Castro, not because he is socialist but because he is anti-American. And they also generally like socialism, though there is a lot of discontentment with the system. If Castro falls, the aftermath will be nothing like it was in Eastern Europe.
What, the same way we opened up “free trade” with Mexico? Stop and think about that for a moment.
Very important, in fact crucial, but I think a Kerry Administration, having no particular ties to the oil industry, would be rather more likely to do that than a second Bush Administration.
It would depend on which of the two countries you were talking about. As the saying goes, it might increase the average intelligence level of both countries. 
Hell, with all this talk of fallout and how important this election is it sounds more like Johnson-Goldwater and the “Daisy” ad. (Okay, so I’m too young to remember it, but you can watch it here http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us/index.php it was 1964).
More temper tantrums from the Democrats, more lying about people not being allowed to vote, more whining about the Electoral College, and 4 more years of the liberals on the boards bitching about how Bush is eeeeeevil and the country’s going to hell in a handbasket.
Same shit, different term.