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.

 

Alternative candidates (not skull and bones)

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Bush and Kerry





Really, what choice do you have between two people from the same satanic, elitist, power-crazy secret society?
Skull + bones article
Just so you don't have to worry about finding other candidates, earthtone has provided an easy-to-use guide of alternatives just for you!

Lyndon LaRouche
Dennis Kucinich
Ralph Nader
Michael Badnarik
Gary Nolan
Michael Peroutka
Sterling D. Allan

American voting history 1952 - 2000

don't vote for the crooks!






[edit on 6/10/2004 by earthtone]




posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 03:14 AM
link   
So nobody at ATS in America will be voting for any of these alternative candidates? Do these guys really get zero votes? It's a shame becuase some of them look quite good.. .



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Ok well it's a shame that there is such a narrow view. does everyone really see voting anywhere but with the two main candidates as a wasted vote? I know alot of people who vote for Kerry just to to get rid of Bush, why not try a different way?


df1

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Many folks tell me that voting for anyone other than bush or kerry is a waste of my vote, the equivalent of not voting at all.

My heart and mind tell me that I can not vote for bush as he is an incompetent demagog that is leading our country to economic devastation. Despite the best efforts of the bush administration I am not afraid of terrorists, the future or death.

Kerry folks tell me that voting for any third party candidate is a vote for bush. Despite my best efforts at chanting the "anybody-but-bush" mantra I can not bring myself to voting for kerry. Bush with a smiley face is an unacceptable alternative.

I will go the polls as I always have in the past and cast an uninspired protest vote for one of the third party candidates with the regret that I do not have an option of choosing "none-of-the-above".

Nothing short of divine intervention will save us from the future charted for us by the demopublicans.

God save america.


[edit on 14-6-2004 by df1]



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   
It could be seen as a wasted vote, similar situation in Britian, the Liberal democrats are getting more votes because of people who don't like the war
not voting for labour and the conservatives just being so poor... people are just voting as an alternative. Sadly there isn't a large center left party in America, there seems to be no choice.

I think that it is still good to at least vote for what is right. It may be seen as a vote for Bush to vote for any of these guys but it still means you are being ture and not voting for the skull and bones republicrats. You have to ask that maybe if people didn't think it was a wasted vote then more of these candidates would have a chance, hopefully getting more decent people into politics, who knows.

If only there was 'non-of-the-above' !! Thanks you for your opinion df1.



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthtone
So nobody at ATS in America will be voting for any of these alternative candidates? Do these guys really get zero votes? It's a shame becuase some of them look quite good.. .


I'm not voting for either Bush or Kerry. I'm voting for Dennis Kucinich and I'm sticking with him. IMO he could be a very good President for this country but he'll never get there. Not as long as the extreme puppet masters are running this country.



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I'm probably going to vote for Michael Badnarik. I posted a thread like this a while back, about whether or not voting for a third party will be a wasted vote. I think if you vote with your heart, and do what you think is best, then your vote won't be wasted. It might not lead to your candidate being voted in, but it's doing what you thought was best for the country.

And I think voting for a third party candidate who would work in the best interest of the country is a lot better than voting for "the lesser of two evils."



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Nice Mr. Mulder! I'm glad you feel that you have to vote for someone good and not just "use your vote". I have now found two people here doing this now wow!



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Here's a video clip on Skull and Bones that aired on CBS:
www.prisonplanet.tv...(Jun13)-skull-and-bones.wmv
9MB



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I will surely be voting third party - haven't quite decided which one yet, though. I still need to do some research into their platforms. It's really a shame that so many people see this country as bipolar, they forget that there is probably a candidate with a platform closer to their beliefs than the watered-down policies of the democrats and republicans.

There's a good thread going on in the Mud Pit about how Bush and Kerry are similar [link] - too similar, if you ask me. Anybody consider that maybe the GOP and DNC are actually tied somehow, and they don't care which way you vote, as long as you don't vote third party? I mean, as long as a democrat or republican ends up in the White House, we'll end up with the same satus quo, elitist white men who care more about their political future than the country.

I hate to say it, but I wouldn't even mind Nader being elected that much. I can't stand his policies, but he'd sure do a good job shaking up the establishment. Besides, checks and balances would ensure that he didn't mess things up too bad.

Grass-roots politics is what this country was founded on, and a lot of people have forgotten that.

[edit on 6/16/2004 by PurdueNuc]



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I will vote third party, as I have done in the past 3 National Elections. IMHO, if you want my vote.. you first have to earn my vote.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Great, more people. PurdueNuc, I feel the same, Bush and Kerry are just the same, as you said it's voting in the white elite. American politics needs a very big shake up.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 05:06 AM
link   
America needs a black president! or a Black Female president! That would fix things... Look what Maggie did in the UK!



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Indeed Browha, something like that would be fine! Would shake things up a bit anyhow. Maggie was/is an alchoholic who screwed up England, effectively selling everything that was already owned by the country back to itself. Everything.... Anyways thats another thread I suppose



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 07:52 AM
link   
I'm not voting. I know I will get flamed for this. Just try to understand that not voting is a vote in a sense, as well.

I try to tell myself "you have to atleast choose the lesser of multiple evils," but then I keep coming to the conclusion that I shouldn't be being forced to vote for an "evil" at all.

So my choice not to vote is my "vote of no confidence" in all of the candidates, since one poster pointed out, "none of the above" isn't an option on the ballots.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 07:57 AM
link   
I understand your dilema AceWombat, but not voting is not a protest, it is just a wasted vote. Why not just vote for a third part candidate and help someone out in the process instead of just giving a vote away? At least then you have done something against evil instead of just not supporting it.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Because I don't think any of them would bring about genuine, fundamental change. They would just take different views within the same structure that already exists. They'd get new laws passed, and say different things, and feel differently about issues. But the structure, fundamentaly, in which all that happens, wouldn't change.

Anyway, I don't want to get into it too much. I assure you, I already know I'm too idealistic for my (or anyone else's) good, and any deeper discussion of my views will inevitably lead to argument and anger (no matter how much I'd try to prevent it, because I don't get angry generaly, and I don't like to argue) and probably hurt on my end.

And when I think about it, the above paragraph is analogous to the nature of the the reasons I won't be voting.

You can lable me a wuss for not wanting to take the debate further if you want. That's preferable to getting into it from where I sit, based on my experience.

I do respect and commend your desire to affect change though, even if I don't agree with you on the methods. (i.e. It isn't you...it's me).



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I got into an argument with a friend because I told him I may sit out the election in protest. He yelled "You have to vote for Kerry!"

Why do I have to vote for Kerry?! Honestly, I see that as compromising my principles. He's really no different than Dubya - other than the fact he doesn't run with the NeoCons - that we know of. His Iraq policy is really no different. He voted to give Bush power to wage war. That's when he stepped in the shyte with me.

Dennis Kucinich would make a great Attorney General.

If Kerry chooses Clark for a running mate I will gag. Call it Klinton's revenge.

Anyone read the article on Skull & Bones in the lates issue of Vanity Fair? It seems like they're trying to make Kerry out to be 'the good Bonesman' to Bush's A-hole Bonesman.

That chick who wrote it has been bought. She doesn't even know it.

Those 'harmless' initiations sounded a lot like Abu Ghraib's forerunner. They're a bunch of intellectually and emotionally stunted perverts.

Give me a real candidate, a non-plutocrat, man or woman of the people. Howard Dean (who never had a chance) or Congressman Ron Paul from Texas. Then I'll vote.

P.S. All of this may be moot. Dubya's crew might just light the states up between now and the election, smelling the blood in the water. Remember what Gen. Tommy Franks said in Cigar Aficianado? ONE MORE BIG ATTACK, and MARTIAL LAW will be thrust upon us. Bye Bye Democracy, HELLO DIKTATORSHIP. Hail King George, the PROTECTOR.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
Because I don't think any of them would bring about genuine, fundamental change.

You can lablel me a wuss for not wanting to take the debate further if you want. That's preferable to getting into it from where I sit, based on my experience.

I do respect and commend your desire to affect change though, even if I don't agree with you on the methods. (i.e. It isn't you...it's me).


Hey, Ace, I completely understand your viewpoint on this. None of the third party people will bring about change, it's a dream. I do not label you a wuss, you don't have to justify yourself to me if you don't want to. I just feel that a protest vote isn't a protest becuase it doesn't actually do anything to help. Still a good protest though none the less, I agree with it.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
IONE MORE BIG ATTACK, and MARTIAL LAW will be thrust upon us. Bye Bye Democracy, HELLO DIKTATORSHIP. Hail King George, the PROTECTOR.


It is a scary thoguht. This is what the 'war on terror' is heading towards as civil liberties in the UK and US are quite rapidly beginning to disolve. It's a shame that many feel so disgusted with the elections that they will not vote. If in America I would probably do the same, but I still compell all to vote against Bush, doesn't have to be Kerry because we all know he is a moron. It's a shame there are apparently no worhtwhile alternatives to the two.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join