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.

 

A Vote for Nader = A vote for Bush. Be Smart!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Okay, I'm sure this is very obvious to a large number of you, but I figured that this would be the time and place to post this topic.

IF you vote for Nader, you will be voting for Bush. DON'T Freaking DO IT.

Bush will most likely be retaining something like 90 percent of his constituancy from the last election, as well as a large number of turncoats. I'd expect to see his election percentage to something like 95% of what he had in 2000. However, the biggest difference between 2000 and now is the Left side of the ballot. It's WAY overbalanced. In 2000, there was 1. Count it...1 legitimate left candidate. Gore still lost, but he pulled huge numbers, actually winning the popular election.

Now, with the Libertarian candidate, and Ralph nader also making a good show of it this year...we liberals could be in trouble.

expect Nader to pull a huge amount of the electorate away from Kerry.

The only chance is that we have a larger youth voter turnout. Because it is shown that the Youth of the nation is in the 'anyone but Bush' camp, and the simple truth is that they're all smart (wise?) enough to vote for Kerry, a much less objectionable candidate, and get Dubya out the White House.

So, say along with me, everyone: "This fall, I will vote Democrat." "If I should vote for Nader, I will write 1000 times on the board, I'm sorry, my brain must've leaked out, because I voted Nader in November."


J/K.

Vote how you like.

But if you're dead set on getting Bush out, voting for anyone but John Kerry is NOT the way to do it. I've said my bit.

Peace.


[edit on 1-9-2004 by John bull 1]




posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Respectfully - I disagree.

This country needs to be serious about third, fourth, fifth parties.
There is no way that Independents, Greens, and Libertarians will
get equal time in the news, at debates, at conventions, etc. unless
people who want to vote for them do vote for them.

Jesse Ventura was a wonderful Governor. He was third party.
Imagine if people didn't vote for him because it was said that
they were throwing away their votes.

It will take time for the Independents, Greens, Libertarians etc.
to be taken more seriously. And it will take votes.

IF the ONLY thing people want to do is get G.W. out of office,
then you are correct. However, if people want to make a change
and make a statement about third parties (and fourth, fifth, etc.)
.... then Nadar is the way to vote.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

.... then Nadar is the way to vote.


If you want Bush to win. Nadar votes TAKE away from Kerry, Period. Unless you can get enough to win.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I have replied to threads like this with the exact same phrase...

I WILL VOTE FOR NADER!

I don't feel the need to talk about this anymore as I have done so a lot in the past.



Nader 2004!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loki
expect Nader to pull a huge amount of the electorate away from Kerry.


I don't see that happening. Nadar is getting from 1-5% of the vote.
They are coming from Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who
don't like what they hear coming from either of the major parties. I don't
think Nadar is pulling anything 'away' from Kerry and honestly, if Kerry had
a better message, no one would be pulled away.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Why would the left and right spends millions of dollars trying to sway the undecided voters if their vote didn't count??
What is there like 5 million undecided/unaffiliated voters?

Both are fighting for those people. If it didn't matter like we're told it doesn't, why do their actions speak the opposite of what they say?

A vote for kerry is the same vote for bush = A waste, a vote which SCREAMS "this country is going to continue going down the crapper along with your civil liberties"

So anybody with a brain will see this.....


And the youth of this nation who vote kerry are most likely watching too much mtv, they have their liberal agenda, so these people aren't as brilliant as you think they are...



[edit on 1-9-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Loki
expect Nader to pull a huge amount of the electorate away from Kerry.


I don't see that happening. Nadar is getting from 1-5% of the vote.
They are coming from Republicans



A true republican will never vote for a lib.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Respectfully - I disagree.

This country needs to be serious about third, fourth, fifth parties.
There is no way that Independents, Greens, and Libertarians will
get equal time in the news, at debates, at conventions, etc. unless
people who want to vote for them do vote for them.

Jesse Ventura was a wonderful Governor. He was third party.
Imagine if people didn't vote for him because it was said that
they were throwing away their votes.

It will take time for the Independents, Greens, Libertarians etc.
to be taken more seriously. And it will take votes.

IF the ONLY thing people want to do is get G.W. out of office,
then you are correct. However, if people want to make a change
and make a statement about third parties (and fourth, fifth, etc.)
.... then Nadar is the way to vote.



I totally agree with you there, but you have to realize that this is a Presidential election. Not a gubernatorial election. There are lots of differences. the most notable of which is called the Electoral College. It takes alot more to win a Presidential election.

As for 3, 4, 5th parties, Yes. I'm well aware of the very able Michael Badnarik. I'd be voting for him if I wasn't trying to get this guy Bush out of office.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:28 AM
link   
I agree loki, it all about getting this creep out. I dont care who wins as long as its not BUSH. I would vote for saddam before bush.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
if Kerry had a better message, no one would be pulled away.



Not even that, if his track record was consistent no one would pull away... Being a liberal, bringing in some conservatives, and others... But waffling on important subjects doesn't really show people your a good leader... So it would polarize people from him...

I think the only people that buy into his half this half that agenda, is himself...If you try to be everything to everyone people will see start to see the holes and just not trust you...



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I sure hope you're not a Bush supporter, TrueLies.

I'd have to give you a big fat flame if you were. Don't try to be a Bush supporter, and then call Kerry on track records.

Both candidates have holes in their records. The difference is that Bush created his holes. Kerry's are a result of poor maintainance, like much of the rest of Vietnam GIs' records.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loki
As for 3, 4, 5th parties, Yes. I'm well aware of the very able Michael Badnarik. I'd be voting for him if I wasn't trying to get this guy Bush out of office.


How about just exercising your constitutional right of amending the existing government?


There's enough people that dislike the existing government now, you can still vote badnarik and get bush out of office, even if he does get in again......

It's called a recall....It's called amending the existing government by way of your constitutional right.....Here's what Ab Lincoln had to say about this problem...

“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.” –Abraham Lincoln



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:34 AM
link   
And besides...

If a candidate has shown different opinions on different subjects...

It shows to me that they at least have the ability to think abstractly and make moral decisions. Go figure. Times change. So should people's method of thought.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:34 AM
link   
loki, you seem to be voting against Bush not for Kerry. I think if you want to vote for Bednarik then vote for him. SpittinCobra, are you really serious, you would want Saddam to run this country like he did Iraq. You need to go over to Iraq and see what was going on. are you saying that you think women are second class citizens? a comment like that does not show your intelligence.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies

Originally posted by Loki
As for 3, 4, 5th parties, Yes. I'm well aware of the very able Michael Badnarik. I'd be voting for him if I wasn't trying to get this guy Bush out of office.


How about just exercising your constitutional right of amending the existing government?


There's enough people that dislike the existing government now, you can still vote badnarik and get bush out of office, even if he does get in again......

It's called a recall....It's called amending the existing government by way of your constitutional right.....Here's what Ab Lincoln had to say about this problem...

“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.” –Abraham Lincoln



Oh, you're right. You have a great point. I'll just march up the the Capitol building and be like.

"Hey, political dudes. I'd like a, uh..recount? Get on that, would ya?"

Or better yet, you do it. Let me know how it goes.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jrsdls
loki, you seem to be voting against Bush not for Kerry. I think if you want to vote for Bednarik then vote for him. SpittinCobra, are you really serious, you would want Saddam to run this country like he did Iraq.



I was just tring to put my dislike in perspective.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loki
I sure hope you're not a Bush supporter, TrueLies.
Don't try to be a Bush supporter, and then call Kerry on track records.


Do you even see the "bright green" letters below my avatar that says libertarian contributor wake up. I would never vote for bush, I would never vote for kerry... I got slapped once, i'm not going to keep getting abused...
Or you could say, hitting your head against the brick wall doesn't feel too good so why keep doing it?? How far do you get?



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loki
Oh, you're right. You have a great point. I'll just march up the the Capitol building and be like.

"Hey, political dudes. I'd like a, uh..recount? Get on that, would ya?"

Or better yet, you do it. Let me know how it goes.



Apparantly you don't get the gist of the suggestion...... I'm not going to bother trying to explain it to you... It's not that difficult... And your response has nothing to do with my above post... recounts wasn't the idea, and neither was marching up to the capitol building... I'd suggest a re-read



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I dont understand why you need to talk to everyone, like they are a lower life form. You are so much smarter and better.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Okay, allow me to RE-Clarify for you then.

Let's go through the process.

I get a petition all written up, and go over it with someone who knows constitutional law.

Then I take it around my community, and have people look at it and sign it.

Then, I/We bring it to our congressmen. In my Case, it's Democrat Mark Udall. (Nice guy, I met him once in DC., Anyhoo...)

He looks it over, and hopefully, decides it's good enough to bring to the state assembly.

They, in turn, need to approve it so that it can be given to the Senators, and then, if they DECIDE they want to, they'll bring it to the Senate, and give it the old pass around.

After about 8 months in circulation, the bill is defeated by a presidential veto.

it is then passed around with more fervor and controversy, only spending 4 months in deliberation this time.

However, it is defeated by the Republican-controlled house, and it dies. Never to be seen or heard from again.

Yep, sounds real constitutional.

Any other ideas?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join