It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


"Nader nation"--few but loyal

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 06:59 PM
Like many voters, the choice between Bush and Kerry leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I would prefer to vote for a candiate I believe in, not just the lesser of two evils, like the last twenty years .
Here's an interesting look into Nader voters.

"FEW BUT LOYAL: Ralph Nader's supporters may be small in number (as with this group in Oklahoma City last month), but they represent a wide variety of viewpoints and are committed to his candidacy because his positions mirror their own."

Jonathan Becker doesn't like his options between the two major-party candidates in a duel for the US presidency. George W. Bush's politics don't reflect his own. And John Kerry, he says, is too hard to pin down. So Mr. Becker will be voting for Ralph Nader.

"He's specifically clear on where he is on the issues," says Becker, a computer-support specialist in New York who names civil rights and Iraq as his own hot-button concerns.

"In an election, you vote for who you want to vote for," he adds. "I'm not into voting a guy out of power just to replace him with an unknown quantity."

By all appearances, Nader supporters like Becker - ready to stay with his candidate to the end - are a rarer breed today than they were four years ago. On April 5, for example, Mr. Nader failed to get enough signatures in his first bid to qualify for the ballot in Oregon, which would have been the first state to list him for the 2004 race.

Nader's prospects for at least making a blip in November - assuming he stays in the race - rest in the hands of a group many experts call relatively small in number, but remarkably broad in terms of the agendas it represents.

Some of Nader's "true believers," as one observer calls them, have an almost nihilistic take on major-party politics. But his supporters also include some conservative Christians, one of whom calls Nader a "puritan patriot [whose] morals require all of us to do more for each other and the public good."Also among core backers: ardent internationalists and elements of the more isolationist Reform Party.

"They don't care about Republican or Democratic politics," says Michael McDonald, professor of public affairs at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. "They have a commitment to something they believe in, and they're going to support that."

full article

posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 07:07 PM
Sorry, but that picture says it all...

What is this a Nadar Rally?

chirp, chirp...

I suppose if you don't like Kerry or Bush then voting for Nadar is better than not voting, BUT...

It's really just a vote for Bush. Nadar people should know that. If you vote Nadar, you might as well pull that handle for big business Bush/Cheneyburton... the exact OPPOSITE of everything Nadar supposedly stands for.

See the problem?

posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 07:13 PM
No way RANT!! I refuse to accept democrat logic on this issue. You vote for Nader because you want to vote for Nader, just because it potentially takes votes away from a democrat means nothing. It doesn't mean you support Bush.

If Bush wins because the democrats don't have enough votes that's not the Naders fault. It's just democracy, the rule of the majority.

*EDIT: Nader is a hypocrite BTW, don't vote for him.

posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 07:22 PM

Originally posted by insite
If Bush wins because the democrats don't have enough votes that's not the Naders fault. It's just democracy, the rule of the majority.

Okay, I do take issue with this point. I've been simmering the topic for a while now seeing as how so many people claim to want a real third or fourth party. They want choices, blah, blah, blah.

Fine. I understand that. BUT forget about so called "majority" rule forever. As if the 2000 selection wasn't bad enough, imagine a truly "viable" third party...

Now imagine some totally corrupt big business party with the most donations (I think we can all imagine such a party) winning every election for the rest of time with a mere 34% of the vote. It would happen.

Some "majority".

PS - My guess is Nadar will hand the election to Bush with a mere 47 to 48% or the vote.

So technically we could say a MAJORITY of Americans are against big business/Wall-Mart-Street corruption and will vote it back in office by dividing the vote.

posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 07:57 PM
Having heard Nader speak, he has some very interesting views, however, I do already know where my vote is going, it was interesting nonetheless to see another parties point of view without all the filtering and split second opposition. In a sense it was a relief to hear a candidate speak freely.

top topics

log in