Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
Something I noticed about JTs predictions
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Judge Bean" data-source="post: 11780" data-attributes="member: 42"><p><strong>Something I noticed about JTs predictions</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I thing that you are right about the inevitability of some sort of irregularity, some kind of election distortion. The most recent news is that Colorado may be the new Florida in terms of voting glitches, for example.</p><p></p><p>The real threat to a legitimate election is that the final decision will move past the electoral college level again, but this time due to monkeyshines by the president, who cannot absolutely rely on failed technology to win. Remember that last time Bush's side wasn't in power; this time, they have a lot of other things at their disposal, including the Justice Department.</p><p></p><p>The media that is generally viewed as pro-Bush announces that the polls favor him, but there is some desperation in the White House about now as they scramble to hold on to power. What will they do, how far will they go? How far can they go?</p><p></p><p>If the other polls are right, and Kerry can manage to win by a comfortable margin, there is actually very little that they can do to overturn it short of an actual Executive Order suspending the inauguration. In the dark however, under the ground, there is no limit to what criminal things can be done to stop Kerry. </p><p></p><p>One popular misconception is that if Kerry were to become incapacitated before the inauguration, that then Edwards would be inaugurated. I think that this is wrong, although it has never happened before that a president-elect has fallen. I think that Bush would continue to serve until another election, although it is unclear whether that election would have to wait four years. </p><p></p><p>In the event of a major terrorist attack aimed at the government (rather than at financial institutions that appear to be the actual terrorist targets), Bush could lawfully and Constitutionally declare the type of emergency allowing him to suspend the Constitution-- which, of course, includes all of the provisions for the election. There is no actual precedent for that, either, but they have carefully laid out all of the necessary foundation for such action. Last week, a Minnesota senator fled the capital; shut his office and warned his constituents not to visit DC due to the prospect of such an attack. Probably knows more than we do.</p><p></p><p>The suspension of ordinary civil law can include the postponement of the election. The polls simply do not open, and the candidates go to court to make them open. The Supreme Court hears the case and decides not to try to "second guess" the executive branch in a time of war (to use the phrase used by Rehnquist to describe his position on the issue). </p><p></p><p>By the way, the assassination of a candidate for president, not to mention the president-elect, could easily be characterized as a terrorist act meant to disrupt the election. The <em>attempt </em>to assassinate him is probably enough. So, bingo, you can have a terrorist attack meant to disrupt the election, providing (ironically) the legal justification for <em>disruption </em>of the election, and both men still walking. </p><p></p><p>We all prefer to believe that such a thing can't happen. But if this were another country, or it were a hundred or two hundred years ago, we wouldn't be too much surprised.</p><p></p><p>We are not all that much different now.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Judge Bean, post: 11780, member: 42"] [b]Something I noticed about JTs predictions[/b] I thing that you are right about the inevitability of some sort of irregularity, some kind of election distortion. The most recent news is that Colorado may be the new Florida in terms of voting glitches, for example. The real threat to a legitimate election is that the final decision will move past the electoral college level again, but this time due to monkeyshines by the president, who cannot absolutely rely on failed technology to win. Remember that last time Bush's side wasn't in power; this time, they have a lot of other things at their disposal, including the Justice Department. The media that is generally viewed as pro-Bush announces that the polls favor him, but there is some desperation in the White House about now as they scramble to hold on to power. What will they do, how far will they go? How far can they go? If the other polls are right, and Kerry can manage to win by a comfortable margin, there is actually very little that they can do to overturn it short of an actual Executive Order suspending the inauguration. In the dark however, under the ground, there is no limit to what criminal things can be done to stop Kerry. One popular misconception is that if Kerry were to become incapacitated before the inauguration, that then Edwards would be inaugurated. I think that this is wrong, although it has never happened before that a president-elect has fallen. I think that Bush would continue to serve until another election, although it is unclear whether that election would have to wait four years. In the event of a major terrorist attack aimed at the government (rather than at financial institutions that appear to be the actual terrorist targets), Bush could lawfully and Constitutionally declare the type of emergency allowing him to suspend the Constitution-- which, of course, includes all of the provisions for the election. There is no actual precedent for that, either, but they have carefully laid out all of the necessary foundation for such action. Last week, a Minnesota senator fled the capital; shut his office and warned his constituents not to visit DC due to the prospect of such an attack. Probably knows more than we do. The suspension of ordinary civil law can include the postponement of the election. The polls simply do not open, and the candidates go to court to make them open. The Supreme Court hears the case and decides not to try to "second guess" the executive branch in a time of war (to use the phrase used by Rehnquist to describe his position on the issue). By the way, the assassination of a candidate for president, not to mention the president-elect, could easily be characterized as a terrorist act meant to disrupt the election. The [i]attempt [/i]to assassinate him is probably enough. So, bingo, you can have a terrorist attack meant to disrupt the election, providing (ironically) the legal justification for [i]disruption [/i]of the election, and both men still walking. We all prefer to believe that such a thing can't happen. But if this were another country, or it were a hundred or two hundred years ago, we wouldn't be too much surprised. We are not all that much different now. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
Something I noticed about JTs predictions
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top