On 6 Nov 2004 06:19:16 -0800,
(christian9997) wrote:

Bush's election has brought on two questions:

The first is directed at the right-wing biggots who seemed to have
crawled out of the woodwork (hence explaining the -at first-
surprising crosspost to rec.woodworking):

Let's suppose that the US Army manages to keep the peace up to January
and that the Iraki elections are held as planned. What will happen if
the Irakis decide to vote for an Islamist Dictatorship similar to the
one in Iran?

Two Possibilities:
-George W. accepts the result and let's it happen.
Result: The situation ends up as being far worse than it was under
Saddam Hussein. = 300 Million Dollars spent to worsen the situation.
-George W. cancels the elections under some false pretext and
instaures a Military Dictatorship (Similar situation as to what
happened in Algeria not so long ago)
Result: All those Bull**** Speeches about The Republicans wanting
Freedom and a Free Vote for the people of Irak will be shown to be
just a pack of LIES (just like most of what George W. says) = All the
values that the USA are supposed to stand for will be trampled on by
the US-Army.

My second question is more technical and is aimed at people (slightly
more intelligent?) who know what the rules are to present a candidate
at the election:

I am surprised that the Democrats have not helped in the emergence of
a fourth candidate who would be openly racist and fascist (an opposite
candidate to Ralph Nader). A candidate who would be similar to LePen
in France, that is so far right that he would never have any real
chance of being elected.

There's always a few, they just don't get taken seriously. The reason
(I would guess) that the Democrats don't encourage such a candidate is
that for a person like that to be effective in any way, they would
need to truly believe in the principles they are advocating. When the
gulf between positions becomes too wide, any kind of collusion or
communication is almost impossible.

Seeing how biggoted and racist the population of the US has become,
I'm sure that candidate would have pinched at least 10% of the vote
from George W. Bush thus greatly improving the chances of Kerry. Why
hasn't this sort of candidate emerged, isn't this a big mistake by the
Democrats?

No, it's not a mistake by the Democrats- it's not their responsibility
to dangle a hawk in front of the swine.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam