by Yerusalyim 135 Replies latest social current
This is very speculative.
A terrorist act might actually solidify nationalism and support the current ruling party. Just take a look at Bush's numbers after 9/11. But when governments make decisions that citizens believe inflames terrorism, they might tend to vote for a change. Either way it certainly brings an element of instability to the voting process.
"Two of the things I hope for from Kerry as a leader are the ability to make reasoned decisions when he has time, and to make good snap decisions when he doesn't have time.
Senator Kerry has spent two decades in Congress; he's built up quite a record. In fact, Senator Kerry has been in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue. He's been for the Patriot Act and against it; for NAFTA and against it; for the No Child Left Behind Act and against it; for the use of force in Iraq and against funding the liberation of Iraq."
Good Luck!!
Jeez, at least attribute your Bush quotes...
I did, losing the quotes marks when posting for some reason....Hey, you sure are nagging today, How about adding to the debate, or is this the best you can do?
Dont forget rule 10:
Read my posts.
Blacksheep... you seem to be good at evading topics.
My point was instability and opportunities for terrorism are much higher in Iraq and in the whole Middle-East than they were one year ago. And I think they are.
But, of course, the US just cannot stand dictators! They did tolerate a number of them in Europe (including Spain) in the 30's and early 40's. They did promote a number of them in Latin America. And they are still quite polite with a number of them when they are really dangerous (North Korea, China). Don't be silly.
By the way, I'm curious what your concept of "democracy" is when you advocate "leadership" against one's people's majority...
""Who the Spanish want to elect to govern them and represent them is their business. The simple fact is that the previous leadership went against the wishes of the people and, perhaps being around Bush too much, started lying and not seeing the bleeding obvious in front of their face (that it was Al Quida and not ETA).
Simon:
You make very good points. However, don?t you agree that the Terriorist?s helped shape the election by bombing three days before the election? According to the polls before the bombing, the incumbent should have won.
What have you done for us lately?
Whoops... my bad.
Read my posts on this thread.
We've had many elections in the UK where the polls said Candidate A won but instead Candidate B won. There were no bombs though.
If polls were really accurate, then why bother having an election?!
Were voters to ignore the bombs? Is that what you are saying?
I hope US voters will ignore Sept 11 then.
