Kucinich/Paul 2008 Ticket?

[metta]

There has been an idea thrown out there of having (Democrat) Dennis Kucinich Run with (Republican) Ron Paul for President/Vice President 2008 and having them run under the independent party.



http://www.dennis4president.com/home/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

I don't know if it would help them enough but I think that it would make an interesting ticket. Any thoughts?

 

[iman]

Other than living on the fringe, they do not have much in common.

 

[RandomAccess]

Yep. . . it'd even-out the race between Hillary and (insert Repub name here) by drawing fringe votes from both parties.

*Edit: by that, I mean it would lessen the impact of a Ron Paul ticket which would splinter the Republican party.

 

[Spazer181]

Really?
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich could be no further apart on everything save the war. Kucinich is a socialist (he wants to create the Department of Peace), Paul is an anarchist (slight overstatement, "libertarian") (he wants to eliminate the government). This ticket would make no sense. A possible third party run by a McCain/Paul ticket might make slightly more sense and Kucinich running SPUSA or Green could make sense.

 

[construct]

I would not vote for a Kucinich/Paul ticket in the general election.

 

[Kurn]

Really?
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich could be no further apart on everything save the war. Kucinich is a socialist (he wants to create the Department of Peace), Paul is an anarchist (slight overstatement, "libertarian") (he wants to eliminate the government). This ticket would make no sense. A possible third party run by a McCain/Paul ticket might make slightly more sense and Kucinich running SPUSA or Green could make sense.

This only makes no sense if you rigorously define government as something that does evil and does it inefficiently.
If government is OURs and is US, then if we are evil, then government will be evil.
If so, To hell with all of us.
If we are good, then why not have a government that does good.
To be sure, you might hate the word "government" since the meaning implies limitation and restriction and oftimes oppression.
But what if "government" was an institution that balanced our excesses? An institution that blurred the distinctions that we have carried with us for centuries and which have little or no purpose or relevance?

Actually, socialism and anarchism are quite close.
An easy way to get to a much saner society would be to have a "Government" that is more and more restricted in what harm it can do and more and more liberal in what it can do to ameliorate the unintended effects of a market economy. Government, to be sure, should also have to inculcate a sense of "doing nothing" in many instances.

[this way you eventually wouldn't have to fear walking home in the dark///What a concept!!!]

[I still support Hillary, though]

 

[LaloGS]

Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,

This idea just made my day!!!!! Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,

 

[MystikWizard]

I can see the jokes in the Mainstream Media now.

They want you to think Paul is crazy so nobody even thinks of taking him seriously, although his ideas are in reality very logical and threaten a lot of important people in this country. Which is why the Republicans fear him.

On a side note, Paul crossed $9 Million raised for the Quarter on Thanksgiving. After the December 16th Boston Tea Party money bomb, we're expecting him to finish the 4th Quarter between $18 and $20 Million, which will likely be the highest of all the GOP candidates (Giuliani raised $11 Million last Quarter). One of Paul's supporters paid $100,000 to place an ad in yesterday's USA Today to advertise Paul and the Dec 16th fundraiser. It was also good to hear that Barry Goldwater, Jr. just endorsed him the other day.

Now, getting back to the topic at hand, we have Dennis Kucinich, who is now labeled as a loon, because of the answer to the UFO question 2 debates ago.

Other than the War in Iraq and opposition to War in Iran, these 2 are pretty far apart on every other issue.

 

[construct]

This only makes no sense if you rigorously define government as something that does evil and does it inefficiently.
If government is OURs and is US, then if we are evil, then government will be evil.
If so, To hell with all of us.
If we are good, then why not have a government that does good.
To be sure, you might hate the word "government" since the meaning implies limitation and restriction and oftimes oppression.
But what if "government" was an institution that balanced our excesses? An institution that blurred the distinctions that we have carried with us for centuries and which have little or no purpose or relevance?

Actually, socialism and anarchism are quite close.
An easy way to get to a much saner society would be to have a "Government" that is more and more restricted in what harm it can do and more and more liberal in what it can do to ameliorate the unintended effects of a market economy. Government, to be sure, should also have to inculcate a sense of "doing nothing" in many instances.

[this way you eventually wouldn't have to fear walking home in the dark///What a concept!!!]

[I still support Hillary, though]

Kurn, you have just explained why Paul would not make a good running mate for Kucinich. The similarities between the two are really quite superficial when you drill down to the level of political philosophy. You are insisting on exactly those aspects of Kucinich's philosophy that are completely antithetical to Paul's.

 

[Spazer181]

Actually, socialism and anarchism are quite close.

I think you may mean communism and anarchism are quite close. At the technical level, this tends to be true, however, the means for arriving are quite different (violent overthrow of the government versus evolution to no government).

Socialism, on the other hand, tends to be more statist in its political philosophy - government running the economy. Personally, I find this closest to Kucinich's message.

we have Dennis Kucinich, who is now labeled as a loon, because of the answer to the UFO question 2 debates ago.

Now, let's be fair, he was labeled a loon well before that. I think he was labeled a loon sometime around the time he formed an exploratory committee for the 2004 Presidential Election.

 

[MystikWizard]

Kurn, you have just explained why Paul would not make a good running mate for Kucinich. The similarities between the two are really quite superficial when you drill down to the level of political philosophy. You are insisting on exactly those aspects of Kucinich's philosophy that are completely antithetical to Paul's.

At this point, it would be the other way around.

 

[Kurn]

No, don't you see?
Anarchism and socialism would counter-act the mechanisms/absurdities of the other and actually accomplish the goals, the ones of the other.
The real goal of socialism/communism --- early Marxists used the words inter-changeably --- was the elimination of class structure. The real goal of anarchism---is the same. Of course RP is a libertarian. Libertarianism answers to the wisdom that we all need some government around to some degree just like ol' Tom Paine wrote: 'the necessary evil.'

Plus, how else is Uncle Ned gonna get a job?

 

[Kulindahr]

Really?
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich could be no further apart on everything save the war. Kucinich is a socialist (he wants to create the Department of Peace), Paul is an anarchist (slight overstatement, "libertarian") (he wants to eliminate the government). This ticket would make no sense. A possible third party run by a McCain/Paul ticket might make slightly more sense and Kucinich running SPUSA or Green could make sense.

Seems you're prejudiced against Paul, because you've thrown out a falsehood.
Paul can be accurately described as a Constitutional Libertarian: he believes in stripping the federal government back to those things enumerated in the Constitution for it to do. That was the intent of the Constitution; we've wandered far astray, on a path warned against by a number of the Founding Fathers.

Paul would never run with McCain; he's aware of the truth that McCain has no use for free speech.

 

[Spazer181]

I will admit to not liking Ron Paul...
Kulindhar: If the Federal government, however, were overstepping its boundaries (as outlined in the Constitution), the Supreme Court would decide that, as they have in the past - most notably throwing out some of the best bits of the New Deal. The Constitution, as a living document, was given elasticity by the Founding Fathers to meet the needs of our country overtime, which can be said of very few constitutions worldwide.

 

[MystikWizard]

What honestly is there not to like about Ron Paul?





He has vowed to bring the troops home from Iraq in 6 months (something the American people are screaming for).

He's against militarily involving ourselves in the Wars of Others (ie Israel).

He is for reducing the size of Government to give more discretion to the States.

He in the very least supports a flat tax (if not outright abolishing the IRS) to put the money being taken out of your paycheck to go right back in your own pocket so you can do with it what you see fit (wouldn't you like to have more money to spend from your paycheck, instead of 30% or higher being taken out to go to the Government?).

He's against big Government pork spending.

He is for abolishing the Federal Reserve to eliminate inflation.

He's against the Patriot Act and for protecting civil liberties.

He is against a National ID Card.

He has a phenomenally consistent voting record in Congress.

He does not take money from lobbyists, therefore the interests of the American people come first for him.

The guy is a dream candidate. Except he has an (R) next to his name, so that's apparently a big "No No" to those that want to continue playing the tired old game of partisan politics. When are we going to be civil enough to move past this point and pick the candidates that most reflect our views, instead of voting by Party? Because, I'll tell you now, I question 1 or 2 candidates on the Dem side as being Neo-Cons disguised as Democrats.

 

[Kulindahr]

Paul isn't personally thrilled with homosexuals, but as a man of principle he wouldn't impose his personal opinion.

What other politician can make that claim?