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 is taking the votes

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 12:16 AM
link   
I just want to see what other opinions are about Nader taking votes from the democratic side. I think that he's gonna have a bigger impact that predicted.




posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Nader is an ass. No one will vote for him. He waits until AFTER the Dems do the hard work and slug it out for top spot then shows up and says VOTE FOR ME?

He can (edited for profanity).


[Edited on 26-2-2004 by Colonel]



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   
I say who cares. If people want to vote for Nader, more power to them. It's their right to vote for who they choose. Taking votes from the democrats? Obviously if they vote for Nader then they aren't a strict democrat. If people want Bush out, then they will vote for the party that will successfully remove him. People who vote aren't as stupid as those who don't vote at all. I wish the Democrats would be more democratic. Wow, when I thought I would actually vote Democrat, I now might have to vote Nader just to spite them. Any Democrats reading this hear me now, THIS IS A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC!



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 12:27 AM
link   
What has Nader got to offer the people? nothing Colonel is right he comes in after the democrats have worked their socks off and expects votes to come flowing in this guy beems like a doofus most of the time.



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by drunk
What has Nader got to offer the people? nothing Colonel is right he comes in after the democrats have worked their socks off and expects votes to come flowing in this guy beems like a doofus most of the time.


He seems like he expects votes just as much as Kucinich does. The Dem's don't have any faith in the people of America, and don't deserve a vote. They should have welcomed him to the race as an alternative to Bush, but they don't. Anyone can run for President (provided you meet a few simple criterion).

Democrats really disappointed me with this, but it seems typical. I was sooo close to voting for their party, but alas they turned me away with this issue. I wonder how many others are in my boat?



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Not me i aint in your boat cos i dont own a boat, but as for voting i didnt vote for Blair i didnt vote.



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
Nader is an ass. No one will vote for him. He waits until AFTER the Dems do the hard work and slug it out for top spot then shows up and says VOTE FOR ME?

He can (edited for profanity).


[Edited on 26-2-2004 by Colonel]


I will probably vote for Nader, as a lot of others who think it's time to vote for someone based on their convictions instead of based on their political party. Personally, I think it's idiotic to affiliate yourself with ANY party and then vote for that party's candidate like a damn zombie.

And what's all this "hard work" that the Democrats have supposedly done? Pointing out the obvious faults in the current government? OOH. REAL HARD. If that's work, then unemployment wouldn't be so high.



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Now I can see both sides of this. I too agree that party affiliation is stupid, but if they did away with it, I would just reform. But I can see the point that the democrats did some work that is now being potentially affected by nader.



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzz
But I can see the point that the democrats did some work that is now being potentially affected by nader.


No one is denying the fact that the Dem's will be potentially affected by Naders running. The fact of the matter is that Democrats are getting extremely upset by it. If they had any faith that the people do not want Bush in office then they have no reason to be concerned. The fact that they are taking their insecurities out on Nader is just pathetic. I can't stress this enough, America is supposed to be a democracy.



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by insite

If they had any faith that the people do not want Bush in office then they have no reason to be concerned. The fact that they are taking their insecurities out on Nader is just pathetic. I can't stress this enough, America is supposed to be a democracy.


I agree completely. The Democratic party is taking out their insecurities on Nader. There is a certain faith issue here and the democrats seem not to have too much of it.



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 01:27 AM
link   
The democrats need to quit their whining. I never would have voted for Kerry in the first place. He's an ass. Just like I would never vote for Bush. He's an even bigger ass. If Nader wasn't running, I probably wouldn't even bother voting at all.



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 01:34 AM
link   
So far I gather that the people voting for nader are voting for just cause thay don't want one of the other party's to win. Is anyone voting for him cause of his stance on the issues?



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 01:37 AM
link   
I'll vote for noone except Mr Schwarzneggar!



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzz
So far I gather that the people voting for nader are voting for just cause thay don't want one of the other party's to win. Is anyone voting for him cause of his stance on the issues?


i firmly believe that nader is the only fit candidate for presidency.
frankly, he cares for the amerikan people... while your democrats and republicans are figuring out who to sell themselves off to.

this is the transcript of meet the press from last sunday... nader's interview is at the bottom half if you'd like to learn more of his programme.
src: www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzz
So far I gather that the people voting for nader are voting for just cause thay don't want one of the other party's to win. Is anyone voting for him cause of his stance on the issues?


I AM voting for him because of his stance on the issues. I know he won't win, but I refuse to vote for either Bush or Kerry because I don't believe either of them will make decisions that are the best for me as a citizen.



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 05:16 AM
link   
I will vote for Bush because, when it comes to national security, I will sleep better knowing that he is in office rather than Kerry, who would be dancing for a cookie in front of the UN, or Nader, who would be trying to outlaw bullets because gunpowder is hazardous to spotted owls.

john



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 05:39 AM
link   
I love election years.... Do I vote for the crazy texan who turned half a world of enemies into a whole world of enemies, the guy who look like bert from sesame street and wants to gimp the economy, or the crazy guy who makes me miss ross perot.

Personaly i'll probably vote for Kerry. A lesser of 3 evils, but anyone who understands real security is not being hated in the first place has got to do better than Bush. I even voted for Bush the first go 'round but I just can't support a president who strips constitutional rights with his patriot act and then isolates us from the world. I'm a republican because I agree with the economic and domestic policies, but Bush seems to think republicans are all Christians who think steping up the control and violence is the solutions to terrorism. I'd rather pay more taxes and see gas prices raise (things i'm normaly adverse to) then him turn the United States into the bad guys under the flag of self deffense.



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Quest

If you mean the French, German, and Russians when you say that Bush has isolated us from the rest of the world, then you have to admit why the French are against us. It is because the French did not want us to go into Iraq. Why is that? Because of some humanitarian reasons? No, it is because France was in bed with Iraq, getting oil at dirt cheap prices and handling the oil field contracts. They stood to lose big time, monetarily, if Saddam were gone.

So who else have we "isolated" ourselves from? Libya, who now want to join the world community, because they know that they very well might be the next one on the list? Or maybe Pakistan, who will now allow us to come in and get bin laden?

So who exactly have we isolated ourselves from. Name one country, please.

john



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 09:26 AM
link   
OK, maybe isolated was the wrong word.

We initiated a military conflict against the wishes of the UN, Germany, France, Russia, and many other nations that we consider(ed) allies. In addition to that the vast majority of the arab world now sees the US as not only being a threat, but an immenant one. The issue isn't true isolation, but rather showing the world that the US will activly use military might to alter the government of other countries even against the wishes of the UN and many countries.

In a way this is isolationism, in that the United States will undertake a major effort that impacts the globe as a whole regardless of what many countries friendly toward us wish. After 9/11 when the US went into Afganistan it did so to directly retaliate against the organization and the government that supported it, and many european countries supported that, or at least understood our actions.

However with Iraq, regardless of the state of the country, we activly changed a foriegn government without provocation, and without the understand and support of many of our allies.

Don't get me wrong, i'm all for standing up for our country, but in this case it was way out of line. We already police much of the world, which isn't our duty or right, but now we are saying who can and can not rule in another country. This is bad, and isolating us from the views of most of our once close allies.

As for the WMD argument, aside from the fact that we didn't find any, what about all the other countries with possible WMD? Iran? North Korea? Lybia?

Personaly I disagree that my cheap gasoline is worth our long history of policing the middle east, but now we are even changing around the structure of middle eastern countries AND against the wishes of our allies. This is not a way to end terrorism, its a way to rally more against us and make our allies look the other way as it gets worse.

This foriegn policy is not my only problem with Bush. THe patriot act also causes me great alarm. The act does have some very important information sharing parts to it, but it also strips people of the right to due proccess. I will stand up for my country, as long as it stand up for me and others. If people can be detained without being charged with a crime, without a lawyer, and indeffinatly, then i do NOT suport it.

I originaly voted for Bush in hopes that we would see a few more republican methods applied to our economy, not so that he could use 9/11 as an excuse to attack other countries unprovoked.

As a final thought, Many of the scandinavian countries have virtualy no poverty, drug abuse, or crime. Does this give them the right to invade the US because we have the poor, crime, drug abuse, and WMD? Basicly, the US claimed the Invasion of Iraq was justified based on humanitarian and WMD issues.



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzz
I just want to see what other opinions are about Nader taking votes from the democratic side. I think that he's gonna have a bigger impact that predicted.


It doesnt matter!!!!!! The votes don't mean a damn thing. It's all an illusion. Corporate america runs the beltway and that's the way it is.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join