Paul and Kucinich on one ticket?
Jeanwah
Posts: 6,363
OK-you've got to watch the whole video. Paul talks about how he would consider Kucinich for VP if he gets the Rep nom. He says that after bringing our troops home, stabalizing our economy and reducing the national deficit, he would be willing to use some of the extra money generated from that towards social programs that Kucinich is so passionate about. What do you guys think of it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUG8T0ceeRs&eurl=http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/524.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUG8T0ceeRs&eurl=http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/524.html
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
So, no thanks. I'll never cast a ballot for Dennis Kucinich, even if Ron Paul were attached to it.
i think the generic paul for less government and kucinich for more is way too simplified ...
they are both for less wasteful gov't ... they are both against a form of welfare state ... and they both aren't catering to any special interests (lobbyists) in their campaigns ...
at the end of the day - if honest gov't can be put in place - everyone would be a lot happier regardless of specific policies ... right now - the gov't operates for their friends and those of influence ... the people are getting screwed over ...
take that equation out and you have the basis for progress on many fronts ...
To suggest that the idealogical differences between those two have been "oversimplified" and then to go on to highlight only aesthetic similarities between the two candidates is at best foolish and at worst disengenous. You might as well propose putting Ayn Rand and Karl Marx on the same ticket. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich represent nearly polar opposites on the spectrum of political philosophy.
even dems think he's a whack job.
well ... i'm not gonna write a 30 page thesis here ...
they are not polar opposites - how can you say that? ... the opposite of kucinich is probably bush ... honest gov't vs. corrupt gov't ...
do you think honest gov't is only an aesthetic similarity?
George Bush and Dennis Kucinich have very similar political philosophies. They both believe in the near omnipresence of the state and the right to push a morality on others at the point of a gun. The point of difference between Bush and Kucinich would be on the issue of ends (goals). Their means are very much aligned.
Ron Paul believes in the philosophical primacy of liberty. Dennis Kucinich believes in the philosophical primacy of equality. Those are two fundamentally different starting points that severely contradict one another along the way towards forming political structures.
Yes. If one person honestly threatened your life, and another honestly vowed not to, I certainly wouldn't paint those two individuals with the same brush. Would you?
i think that is dependent on how you see the motivations of bush ... i don't believe it has anything to do with morality
was that a serious question? ... if so - i have no further comment
Perhaps not your morality or mine. But it most certainly has everything to do with his.
Of course it was a serious question. Similarly, if I honesty told you that I wanted to steal your wallet and another person honestly told you that he wanted to fill your wallet and yet another person honestly told you that he had no interest in your wallet, would you paint all three of us with the same brush? Would you say that we had fundamental similarities, or only aesthetic similarities?
aesthetics represent everything, heir maestro.
hahahaa! i would most certainly vote for such a monster!!!!
such is the basis of the philosophy of american politics--"checks and balances", my dear friend.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
we shouldnt dismiss the plausibly of even the most remote ideas up front.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
That sounds nice, but doesn't make much sense. Aesthetics represent the a view of beauty and, specific to this conversation, the perspective of surface attributes. Certainly one may tangentially suggest that everything contains beauty and, therefore, a study of aesthetics would be a study of everything. However, in the context of this conversation, I would suggest that saying "aesthetics represent everything" would be akin to saying "whatever I see on the surface of the ocean represents everything within the ocean".
While "checks and balances" are certainly a defining characteristic of the American political machine, it is not the basis of American political philosophy. The basis of American political philosophy, for better or worse, was individual liberty. Checks and balances within the structure of government grew from that philosophical basis. Only a fool would values "checks and balances" in and of themselves. The wise value "checks and balances" for specific reasons (ie controlling the actions of the state in the name of individual liberty).
I don't dismiss its plausibility, though I find a Paul/Kucinich ticket to be both highly unlikely and incredibly unwise. A good presedential ticket would contain two individuals who complement each other, rather than directly contradict each other.
Personally, I could stomach a Paul/Obama ticket. I'd be fascinated to see a Paul/Greenspan ticket. I'd really prefer a Paul/Jeffrey Sachs ticket.
i would say any bill bush votes yes for - kucinich would oppose ... not the same for paul and kucinich
then - no further comment for reasons which should be obvious to you ...
on another note - if they were so polar opposites - why would he consider (as the first post suggests) kucinich as a running mate? ... could it be because there are more similarities then you think?
would have my vote in a second
Kucinich has voted for Bills that George Bush has signed numerous times. Simply look through his voting record. However, certainly Kucinich and Bush have numerous policy differences. As I indicated earlier, their preferred ends are much different. Their means are simply quite similar. I'm not trying to suggest that Dennis Kucinich and George Bush are the same. I'm suggesting that Kucinich is philosophically closer to Bush than he is to Paul.
The only thing that is obvious here is that you're dodging a very simple question.
He likely wouldn't consider Kucinich as his running mate. Watch the interview. He simply says that he agrees with Kucinich's views on foreign policy, particularly relative to the operations in Iraq and elsewhere. Furthermore, he explains that he wants to get people out of the social programs that Dennis Kucinich is a such strong advocate of and would use money saved from ending foreign interventions to fund these programs during a "transitionary period" aimed at gradually eliminating these programs.
Hi Jeff
Is Jeffrey Sachs getting (directly) involved in politics? Or is this an expression of desire? Just curious, he's one of my favorite economists.
Caterina,
That is solely an expression of my own desire! I have heard no indication that Mr. Sachs would want to become involved in electoral politics.
Best,
-Jeff
Ahh, I thought so. He seems to very much involved in poverty alleviation causes these days. What a great mind. His hypothesis regarding "the curse of natural resources" is brilliant and so right on spot for Latin America
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/ron-paul-talks-about-dennis-kucinich-video/
although there are obvious ideological differences - i believe this video shows that the areas of commonality are stronger then given ...
yes ... i'm dodging - but not because the question is simple ... i find it facetious in nature and really not worth my time to get into ... the crux of the conversation can be discussed thru other avenues ...
i didn't watch the video (hence why i put in my previous post that it was suggested by the first poster) ... i think there are other videos that may not necessarily show that he would choose kucinich as a running mate but rather a liking of sorts ...
This video, like the other, simply shows a common view against foreign war. That's certainly nice, but I'm not seeing "areas of commonality" beyond that, or ones that are somehow stronger than the areas that everyone is already aware of.
Hehe...ok.
Paul certainly has indicated that the two are friends.
Poverty alleviation is most certainly his primary cause and I feel that would make a good complement to Ron Paul. I don't like all of Sach's ideas, but I think he's a wise and respectable man. BTW, Sachs "stole" most of his ideas regarding resources and geography from Jared Diamond. If you haven't read Diamond's books (particularly Guns, Germs and Steel), I'd highly recommend them.
EDIT: "Stole" is in quotes above with tongue firmly in cheek -- Sachs gives much credit to Diamond in his works.
Nope I haven't read Diamond, but I'l check him out. I mean, having read a lot of Sachs papers I must have seen him quoted, but I'm lazy when it come to quoted authors
Best of both worlds. Talk about Salvation. Unprecedented insanity followed by unprecedented genius.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
does he have this published somewhere I can find? I would love to read it.
@FFG...its good to have ya back. I enjoy reading your posts.
I think that would be a brilliant think to do. They would balance themselves out and it would be the best thing for this country.
Question is, how smart are americans?
to elect two people running together who are almost completely opposite is idiotic. which leaves the question, how smart are you?
That's exactly what is so attractive about the two, no careful words that could lose votes. Especially Dennis Kucinich, the first candidate that I know of that wants to implement a Department Of PEACE.
That has GOT to be a first!
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)