It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nader on Bush Payroll?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Democrats blame Nader for Gore losing the election, Bush's slipping in the polls, BOOM!!!! Osama is found in Afghanistan, and Ralph Nader enters the election.

Strange coincidence?
or
Bush bringing out the Hired Guns?




posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   
You neglect to illustrate how it could work both ways. Republicans could lose the electiosn by the number of popular votes that Nader gains. He's an independant now, not a Green remember. A lot of people value his economics.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   

I guess you didn't catch "Meet The Press" this morning?
Methinks...not.


regards
seekerof



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Dude, I find it hard to believe that Nader would take votes away from Bush.

As far as Nader on Bush payroll: It's called ego, Nader has a problem with it. He likes the fanfest, etc..
That or maybe one of those ecoterrorist groups are threatening him to run.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DClark
Dude, I find it hard to believe that Nader would take votes away from Bush.


Such is the election. I think Democrats are banking on the fact that they can take votes away from Bush. How much harder would it be for nader to do the same thing as an independant?



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

I guess you didn't catch "Meet The Press" this morning?
Methinks...not.


regards
seekerof


Nah I was working all freakin day,
I know he said something like, He wanted to end our current presidents reign or sumthin.
But going back to the 2000 election, he Supposedlt took votes away from Gore, which "won" the election for him. So I don't see how his comments on taking Bush out would work. Nader will never win the presidency. So there is no way "HE" could do it. He will be taking votes away from someone, and it will probably be Kerry.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Trickmaster....agreed.
And my post was not meant to offend you if it did.


Listening to the media, etc., the ones doing the most howling over Nadar joining in....is the Democrats. Interestingly, on "Meet The Press", this was also mentioned.


regards
seekerof



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Trickmaster....agreed.
And my post was not meant to offend you if it did.


Listening to the media, etc., the ones doing the most howling over Nadar joining in....is the Democrats. Interestingly, on "Meet The Press", this was also mentioned.


regards
seekerof


Not offended in any way.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Why are the Dems worried about Nader? That should tell you something (about the dems)



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob88
Why are the Dems worried about Nader? That should tell you something (about the dems)


Yeah, how democratic is the Democratic Party? Not very. Commie, pinko, stalinist scumbags...

[Edited on 2-22-2004 by insite]



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 11:42 PM
link   
I don't think Nader is on Bush's payroll. They are as far apart as sugar and lemon.

As far as Nader taking away Gore's votes...hmmm I don't think that is Nader's fault. Nader appeals to the progressive vision, something that the democrats have lost base with. The best comparison I can think of right now is the difference between classic conservatism and neo-conservatism. Bush is NOT conservative in the classic sense and there are many Republicans that notice this and don't like the direction the party seems to have turned. Many liberals feel the same way about the Democratic Party.

A big problem with this is the labels- Democrat and Republican. People equate Democrat with liberalism and Republicans with conservatism. So if I am liberal that means I have to vote Democrat and if I am conservative then I have to vote Republican. Problem with that is what happens if I don't like the candidate on the ticket?

Nader won "took" votes away from Gore because many liberals felt Gore was moderate (and corrupted) and wasn't going to take many of their issues to effect. I am a "liberal"(though I might be considered radical) but I don't consider myself a Democrat. It seems now a days that both political parties main focus is keeping the status quo, which is anything but liberal. Nader was out to change that status quo and people voted for him. Don't blame him because of the Democrats' faults.

Many say that this is the worse timing for him to run because of the urgency of 2004 elections and I agree to a certain extent (because Bush needs to go). I felt and better strategy would have been focusing his support for Dennis Kucinich, which is closest to him in ideology since both are progressives. But maybe he would have if Dennis had a chance to win, which now seems a very distant possibility.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK
Democrats blame Nader for Gore losing the election, Bush's slipping in the polls, BOOM!!!! Osama is found in Afghanistan, and Ralph Nader enters the election.

Strange coincidence?
or
Bush bringing out the Hired Guns?


No, Nader's not on Bush's side. Nader's on Nader's side and isn't thinking straight. He needs to get over himself and bow out. Even his own supporters are telling him to get real.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Nadar is good for 3% of the vote MAX.

That means a close race between Dems and Repubs would be 49% to 48% of the vote, with the remainder to Nadar.

No big deal. With a double digit lead now, this is still Kerry/Edwards race to lose. How hard would it be to keep Bush under 49% of the vote?

Guess what. It's EASIER with Nadar in the race as an Independent instead of Green! I was nervous about Nadar too given 2000, but looking at it now, I'm not.

He won't take votes away from Bush, but he'll get people that were going to abstain this year as a protest vote. That doesn't hurt anyone.

The race is still between Dems and Repubs fighting for the first to get to 49%.

49% of the vote will WIN this race. All Nadar did was make it EASIER for someone to win with a minority of the vote. Kerry was never going to get 51% IMO, but now he can win with a minority. NADAR helps Kerry. He really does.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Kerry will get over 51% with Edwards as VP. Anyone else, no.
THere's nothing the Republicans can do to counter that ticket.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Nothing? How about dumping Cheney and bringing in the 'straight talk express'? Would bring the socially moderates and fiscal conservatives back into the Bush camp
, setting Johnny Mac up for an 08 landslide victory against Hillary?

(hey, I can dream, can't I?)

[Edited on 23-2-2004 by Bob88]



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 08:30 AM
link   
....nibble off his left nut than munch the Bush!

Look out for the Dean/McCain ticket!



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
....nibble off his left nut than munch the Bush!

Look out for the Dean/McCain ticket!


That'd be nice, but Dean said he ain't gonna run independent.

This time around, I don't think Nader's gonna be able to draw much of any vote. People would be insane to throw that vote away. He needs to start thinking about what's best for all. Like working within the Democratic party - like Dean has encouraged.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Wait, how 'bout a McCain/Edwards ticket?



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 11:03 AM
link   
It dont matter if he is or not.

If Nadar is in, Bush will win.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join