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.


No democratic challengers to president Obama???

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:07 PM
Yeah this is real quick why is there no democratic challenger steping forward to run for president? I mean if there is I haven;t heardof the person. Does anybody find this weird?? With all the things going on and him not doing alot of the things progressives and the left wanted him to do. It justs eems weird that nnobody ghas stepped forward all the cable news networks talk about are the republican challengers. Even Dennis kucinich who has vigoursly disagreed with the president about some of the wars has said that he won't run. Whether or not he changes hi smind is a different scenario. So what gives?

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:08 PM
reply to post by American-philosopher

because they all love their messiah obama.

they will keep him there.

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:10 PM
Who would run? Shrillary has already said she will not run. So who? Reid? Please! Princess Pelosi? Be real. There is no one willing to take on the messiah.

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:11 PM
I wondered this myself the other day.

Seems like the incumbent always gets the nod...

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:14 PM
reply to post by neo96

Wait a minute fine they may love him. But it isn;t the least bit wierd to you?? This is the presidency of the united states the highest office in the land alot of men and women aspire for this position. I don;t think love of this man will hold even lets say the corrupted back.

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:17 PM
reply to post by American-philosopher

Its because he did his job and they need a "conservative" next. Citizens United vs FEC was successfully implemented during his reign, he allowed people to be held in Guantanamo for life without trial, and several other things that had a right winger been in office would have had the left wing up in arms.

Its highly likely that our next scheduled screwing will be based on fear. Who knows what, war with Iran perhaps, some additional Patriotic erosions of our Constitutional rights for our "safety," increasing the powers of the SS...err..........I mean "Homeland Security," something that the right wingers specialize in.

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:17 PM
reply to post by American-philosopher

not weird just the way it works the sitting president no matter the party always get the nomination

its a given its been that way ever since i can remember.

the only two presidents that stepped aside were nixon and johnson i believe.

back in the day when they put country above self.

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:20 PM
This is why there is the "two" party system, that's actually all one party.

We have the illusion of choice, but it's only an illusion. If the dems put up a candidate against Obama, the facade would crack, and we would get a glimpse at the truth.

It would be much better if there were no parties at all, just people who truly believed in what they were doing and followed through on what they said. But, that'll never happen as long as the system remains intact.

Hopefully the economic collapse/WW3/mayan day of doom/whatever will crush the system to dust so it can be re-built the way it should be.

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:21 PM

Its because he did his job and they need a "conservative" next
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Well they might not get a conservative next Becasuse so far the only people who have stepped forward on the conservative side can;t win.

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:23 PM
Flag. The title in itself is noteworthy, so I say good point. I can scarcely bear to pay attention to the charade, but I do pay attention. Your thread was well worth putting out there, a salient observation if I ever saw one. The zionist nwo need no division as pertains to rahm's master plan. There will be plenty of shenanigans as pertains to the supposed 'conservatives' to ensure a win win.

trump burst onto the scene re potus about 6 weeks ago. I noted that among the first things he said through the normal msm was 'that catching bin Laden should be simple'. What does that tell you? It was a feeler move, designed to test public sentiment toward prolonging the zionist 911 myth, and they sweetened it up, a few weeks later, with trump's saying 'we won a war in Iraq. Since when don't we TAKE the SPOILS? We should TAKE the OIL!!!

I'm getting sick.... Also, I noted the emotive response to trump's antics from the mind of a former palin supporter. This subject was swooning with admiration for trump, begging me to listen to him, on youtube, the night these words came out. Since palin is being phased back, maybe phased out (she seems quite limber and resilient) I perceive trump as a palin backup plan.
edit on 26-4-2011 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:24 PM
Kucinich would get my vote over Obama or the Republicans so far. Unless Ron Paul makes a legitimate run, then I would extremely conflicted between Kucinich and Paul, but Paul would probably get my vote.

Wouldn't that be an odd new problem to have? A choice of two good candidates where I could support either one? Instead of the usual lesser of two evils!

Kucinich vs. Paul would mean the USA was back on its feet!

As opposed to Gore vs. Bush, or Kerry vs. Bush, or Obama vs. McCain which meant we were screwed!

It would be so nice to have a real choice for a change!

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:33 PM
reply to post by American-philosopher

They are probably on to the fact that the masses are turning on the two party system. They might be planning to subvert the "third party" idea by running someone as an independent, or Tea Partier, if the tea party still has enough credibility after the last election.

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:34 PM
kucinich sold his soul over obama care that man will never have my vote.

the only way i will ever vote for paul is if the judge napalitano is with him on the ticket.

least then someone knows what the constitution really means.

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:35 PM
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I don;t think so the globalist don;t believe int he people. And for a third party to have bite mass people would have to be behind a third party.

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:40 PM
reply to post by American-philosopher

All a third party needs to win is the MSM supporting him/her and a propaganda campaign about how the Dems and Republicans have wrecked this country. You underestimate how disenfranchised the masses are, and how much power marketing has.

The reason we have never had a really viable third party is because they get almost no air time, and propaganda campaigns have been running against them. (ie, Ron Paul as a conspiracy nut, and the Tea Party as a bunch of racist white people)

The masses are behind whomever the media hypes up. Because people want their vote to count, and so they only vote for people the media tells them has a chance to win.

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:44 PM
I know this is off topic but is it not also funny that the ACLU has made Preisdent obama enemy number 1. well not offically but the amount of law suits filed under Obama's reign has probably already beat out bush the son. Just a feeling I have no facts to support that. I remember watching O'reily and him actually supporting the preisdent obama on an issue where the ACLU lawyer he had on disagreed.

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I remember wondering, during the 2008 election, about how much hype the media was giving to Obama. Here's this guy that no one hardly knew before hand, and all of a sudden they are fawning all over him. I remember being very wary of the "hope/change" line because it seemed to me, like a very well played out marketing campaign. I had been to school for marketing, and I know how these things work...and sadly it drew a lot of people in. I was under no delusion about Obama. I didn't vote for him and I wasn't the least bit surprised that he "broke" all these campaign promises and hired all these Wall Street guys for his could see it coming from a mile away. I just wonder why so many were fooled, while in the meantime, others such as myself could see right through the media hype and marketing lies. I really don't get is why people keep falling for the same old tired line, again and again as if something is going to change? The same thing is going on now with the Tea Party, and the media are giving them all this hype. I wouldn't be surprised if, as you say, the next candidate is a Tea Party person. I mean all you had to do was look at who was donating to Obama's campaign and to the Tea Party, and you can easily figure it out. Although I wonder if the "Bilderbergs" have met yet to decide who they are going to put in office?

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:10 PM
Here is the current people running for the US POTUS 2012 either set up exploratory committees or announced


Incumbent President Barack H. Obama II (Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, etc etc) of Illinois

Author, Pro Life Activist Randall Terry of New York


Herman Cain, businessman and radio talk show host from Georgia

Newt Gingrich, former U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives from Georgia

Gary E. Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico

Fred Karger, political consultant and gay rights activist from California

Andy Martin, perennial candidate from Illinois

Jimmy McMillan, perennial candidate from New York

Roy Moore, former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court of Alabama

Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas

Tim Pawlenty, former Governor from Minnesota

Buddy Roemer, former Governor of Louisiana

Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts

Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania

Ole Savior, perennial candidate from Minnesota

Jonathon Sharkey, perennial candidate, wrestler and vampire from Florida

Green Party
Stewart Alexander, activist and 2008 Socialist Party USA vice-presidential nominee from California

Socialist Party USA
Stewart Alexander, activist and 2008 Socialist Party USA vice-presidential nominee from California[49][50]

Independent candidates
Robert "Naked Cowboy" Burck, a street performer from New York

Joe Schriner, a former journalist, author, and perennial candidate from Ohio
Prospective candidates

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:30 PM

Originally posted by meeneecat
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I remember wondering, during the 2008 election, about how much hype the media was giving to Obama. ?

I knew from some speech he gave in 2000? 2001? That they were going to have him win after Bush. The hype began that long back. He was being compared to Martin Luther King Jr, and all kinds of stuff.

And I too knew Obama was going to be used to screw us somehow at home. I personally thought they would go for the coup de gras under him and push through the NAU. But so far, they have not. IF he wins a second term, I would say its still a possibility. Citizens United vs FEC is still a HUGE corporate victory. Almost as big as NAFTA under Clinton.

People are team spirited. And they hate to admit they are wrong. Just like the Republicans choke on the thought that their guy led us to war against the wrong country, the left is having a hard time admitting that Obama is a corporate sell out. The most heavily corporate sponsored President of all time, allowing corporations free reign to buy elections on his watch. What a surprise.

What I will never understand is how he got flat busted with that memo in Canada, and how the people just totally overlooked a clear sign of betrayal before he even got into office.

["Goolsbee] was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy... On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more 'core' principles of the agreement...

...Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign... He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

People believe what they want to believe. Right and left. Their emotions and pride get involved and they cannot think clearly and even if they do manage to see a problem, once they have voiced support for someone (or condemned them) its really hard for people to admit they were wrong.

Why? I dont know. There is no shame in being fooled. We all have been at some point. The only shame is not learning from it and doing better the next time.

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:33 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in