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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Are you telling me there are no checks and balances??


Not trying to insult you but I found a checks and balances in the congress for kids, it explains things very easily... I'm actually there right now, doing some reading, feel free to join me if you'd like.

Here's what I found on the checks and balances...

the president may veto a law passed by Congress. Congress can override that veto with a vote of two-thirds of both houses. Another example is that the Supreme Court may check Congress by declaring a law unconstitutional. congressforkids.net...


[edit on 1-9-2004 by TrueLies]




posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 09:01 AM
link   
No, I'm telling you that there ARE checks and balances.

There are balances of power that work to keep the middle class and below in check.

The simple truth is that there is now way for the middle/lower class citizen to affect any sort of large scale change in his/her federal government, short of all-out revolution.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 09:03 AM
link   
On Impeachment ( A response to your question about other ideas)

When a new president is elected to office, he or she takes an oath that lists many heavy responsibilities. Abuse of power or failure to uphold these responsibilities cannot be tolerated. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the right to impeach the president. Impeachment means that a charge of misconduct is filed against the president. A majority of the members of the House must vote for these charges in order to impeach the president.

After the charges of misconduct are filed, the Senate has the power to try impeachment cases like a court. Two-thirds of the senators must vote for conviction. The president may be removed from office and never allowed to hold a government position again if he is found guilty.

Our 17th president, Andrew Johnson, was impeached while in office. Thirty-five senators found him guilty -- just one vote short of the two-thirds vote necessary to convict him.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 09:05 AM
link   
I'm very well aware of what the Congress/President/Supreme Court rock-paper-scissors game looks like.

Unfortunately, there's a problem with that.

The supreme court would find a motion by a private citizen to impeach/recall/repeal the president of the united states to be unconstitutional.

President would veto it,

And the Congress (Controlled by Republicans) would can it.

Simple truth is that we're locked down. Once we've voted our leaders in, that's it until the next election. Because that's the way the constitution works. The checks and balances system prevents any huge changes that need to be made.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Bill Clinton became the second president to be impeached by the House in 1998. Later, the Senate found him not guilty.

Did he try and veto it?? I'm just curious ... I don't think we're locked down like you said.. People have choices, but alot of times I guess it's easier to sit back with a self defeatist attitude and just hope for the best...



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
On Impeachment ( A response to your question about other ideas)

When a new president is elected to office, he or she takes an oath that lists many heavy responsibilities. Abuse of power or failure to uphold these responsibilities cannot be tolerated. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the right to impeach the president. Impeachment means that a charge of misconduct is filed against the president. A majority of the members of the House must vote for these charges in order to impeach the president.
After the charges of misconduct are filed, the Senate has the power to try impeachment cases like a court. Two-thirds of the senators must vote for conviction. The president may be removed from office and never allowed to hold a government position again if he is found guilty.

Our 17th president, Andrew Johnson, was impeached while in office. Thirty-five senators found him guilty -- just one vote short of the two-thirds vote necessary to convict him.


Yes. Quite well said. I totally understand exactly what the Impeachment process involves.

You're failing to realize the reality of the numbers game.

Two thirds of congress will never impeach the president. Party ties are simply too strong.

In the days of Andrew Jackson...people killed each other over politics. The climate is much cooler now, and party ties are much stronger. (I cite the Taft-Roosevelt issue of the 1912 election as evidence of weak party ties in early 20th century)

It won't happen. The only thing we can hope to do, is wait 4 years, and dump him for a new guy.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link   
we might not be around in 4 more years the way we're heading...
Which is why I don't trust bush with my life or Kerry for that matter..



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 09:12 AM
link   
You know, I tried to avoid this...


The system doesn't work!!!

It's old, it's worn, it's cliche, but more than anything,

It's the TRUTH.

I hate to have to say it. I've seen it in action. I'm a novice political scientist. The system defeats itself at every turn. Because it claims one thing, and performs another.

It's supposed to be for the people.

The fine print reads

that run the show

That's it.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Look who's on the ballot in my area: capwiz.com...
Hmm, I guess I do have a choice...

Interesting... I think i'l vote.........badnarik...



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
we might not be around in 4 more years the way we're heading...
Which is why I don't trust bush with my life or Kerry for that matter..


I trust Kerry much further than Bush.

Bush, I'll trust about as well as a black mamba with an eye infection.

Kerry, I'll trust about as well as a fisherman in an aquarium.

Kerry right now is fighting to get us back on track. That's what we need. Not neo-imperialistic expansionist BS.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Edit: Sorry I should stay on topic........

You are right about that, however, how can kerry be serious about getting us back on track if his track record matches bush's ideas half the time???




[edit on 1-9-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I think Nader had a lot to do with Bush winning in 2000 besides that crooked stuff going on in Florida. I see Nader as a very stupid man, he is letting his ego get in the way of all he has achieved. He worked tirelessly on enviormental issues, for the working man's rights and has helped hand Bush the election who so far has destroyed a lot of what Nader had worked so hard and fought so hard for. Now he is running again when he should be lending his support to Kerry with a guarantee of a job of his choice when Kerry gets into office. Nader is wasting his talents running for office, he is not going to win. But lending his support to Kerry for the promise of a job where he could make a huge difference would be good for us all.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Nader no longer counts:
His Ballot access is inadequate.

Of the candidates with Ballot access,
Michael Badnarik is closing in on Kerry amongst wavering votes,
pulling 8% to Kerry's 10%, twice that of Nader's 4%.



The interactive poll of 19,033 likely voters,
which included 501 undecided likely voters and those most likely to change their minds,
was conducted from Wednesday through Tuesday (August 11-24, 2004)
by the Zogby/Williams Institute.
Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/0.7.
Margin of error for undecided voters is +/- 4.5.

Presidential Candidates %

Republican-George W. Bush 35

Democrat -John Kerry 10

Libertarian-Michael Badnarik 8

Independent-Ralph Nader 4

He is pulling twice as much as Nader who,
in Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and South Dakota,
is not even permitted as a write-in candidate.

Forget Nader, he is a harmless curiousity on the ballot in 9 states.

Considering how much effort Bush put into wooing libertarians in his speech,
Michael Badnarik poses a credible threat to Bush regime plans.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   
No, that's not true.

You have to look at the demographic of Michael Badnarik's electorate...

Liberals. Left. aka The exact opposite of whom supports bush.

Break it down:

Credible candidates (Right wing)
Bush.

Credible candidates (Left wing)
Kerry
Badnarik
Nader


If you just break the numbers down, and say, split the nation directly in half, you wind up splitting up the left half's votes. That's not good, considering the conservatives can all join together, and support bush.

Whereas on the left, they've got three candidates to divide their vote up for.

So, the only person Michael Badnarik threatens is Kerry.

Like, 0% of all bush voters will switch and vote for badnarik. I wish that this was not the case, but I can't do much about it. :|

If we liberals intend to get bush out of the white house...it's going to have to be kerry, kerry, kerry.

Not that kerry's a bad candidate, but he's definitely not an FDR, by any stretch. I'd rather see him over any other candidate. If I had the one vote that would decide the presidency, i'd vote kerry. And that's what's important.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join