Paul and Kucinich on one ticket?

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

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 ...

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.

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 ...

Hehe...ok.

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 ...

Paul certainly has indicated that the two are friends.

farfromglorified

CaterinaA wrote:

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

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.

CaterinaA

farfromglorified wrote:

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

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I'va also been thinking this Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

Best of both worlds. Talk about Salvation. Unprecedented insanity followed by unprecedented genius.

Drowned Out

I think the biggest common ground between the two is that they answer questions without double talk and conjecture. Neither speak like they're trying not to lose votes, and they both want enormous change. That makes them attractive as a team IMO.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Some ultra conservative people would grumble and complain at first, but eventually come to realize these guys are actually looking out for the common man, instead of playing BS corporate mind games and ultimately screwing people around like all the rest of the candidates.

jlew24asu

CaterinaA wrote:

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

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.

NMyTree

Jeanwah wrote:

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

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?

jlew24asu

NMyTree wrote:

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?

g under p

Drowned Out wrote:

I think the biggest common ground between the two is that they answer questions without double talk and conjecture. Neither speak like they're trying not to lose votes, and they both want enormous change. That makes them attractive as a team IMO.

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

baraka

I agree and support Paul's stance on the war and foreign affairs 100%. But I agree that I can not see these two on the same ticket. I feel their positions on the other issues are philosophically opposed. Kucinich is for national health care and improving social programs, etc. Paul's libertarian beliefs are directly opposed to such things and would work to dissolve things such as medicare and other social programs among other things. Libertarians are all about the individual and NOT society. I find the libertarian philosophy flawed as I feel human existence is inconceivable without society. For example, moral problems can no more be analyzed from the point of view of the individual, than strategy and rules of a team sport can be analyzed from the point of view of a single player.

I think because of the less than ideal democratic options many democrats are looking to Paul, but I'm not sure they understand the libertarian philosophy completely, they are 'cherry picking' certain positions without understanding all the positions. For those that that consider themselves liberal, I highly recommend researching the libertarian principles, so you can understand the ramifications of such a candidate. It is the concept and role of government, minimal vs. expansive, that most dramatically distinguishes the libertarian from the liberal.

Yoyoyo

I would support this ticket. It shows solidarity to thoughtful politicians and says a big fuck you to the the established partisan politics that exist now. Thoughtful debate is what the house and senate are supposed to be about and having two leaders as President and Vice President that can work together for compromise and progress could teach the world something.

End the partisan bullshit.

Yoyoyo

baraka wrote:

I think because of the less than ideal democratic options many democrats are looking to Paul, but I'm not sure they understand the libertarian philosophy completely, they are 'cherry picking' certain positions without understanding all the positions. For those that that consider themselves liberal, I highly recommend researching the libertarian principles, so you can understand the ramifications of such a candidate. It is the concept and role of government, minimal vs. expansive, that most dramatically distinguishes the libertarian from the liberal.

What is your definition of a liberal?

baraka

Mestophar wrote:

What is your definition of a liberal?

Are you asking what my definition is in contrast to a libertarian? While the liberal (this is my opinion), acknowledges individual rights, goes further than that to me. I believe the liberal recognizes the 'social goods' as well as individual freedom, such as economic justice, domestic tranquility, and communal loyalty, all of which flourish under a system of laws, regulations, and enumerated welfare rights, which are best enacted, executed and protected by the institution of popular government. Perhaps I should have distinguish the 'social liberal' versus the libertarian.

Yoyoyo

baraka wrote:

Are you asking what my definition is in contrast to a libertarian? While the liberal (this is my opinion), acknowledges individual rights, goes further than that to me. I believe the liberal recognizes the 'social goods' as well as individual freedom, such as economic justice, domestic tranquility, and communal loyalty, all of which flourish under a system of laws, regulations, and enumerated welfare rights, which are best enacted, executed and protected by the institution of popular government. Perhaps I should have distinguish the 'social liberal' versus the libertarian.

Would you concider that social action by the community would be preferential over bureaucrocy managed by government..?
Liberal is a hijacked term. Liberal used to mean Libertarian.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

political PHILOSOPHY, yes. but practical policy choices... not necessarily.

baraka

Mestophar wrote:

Would you concider that social action by the community would be preferential over bureaucrocy managed by government..?
Liberal is a hijacked term. Liberal used to mean Libertarian.

Interesting question Mestophar, but I'm not sure I see the difference. Perhaps you can expound.

Yeah, I agree there are many schools of thought when it comes to the term 'liberalism'. I think today is it applied more to 'social liberalism', but I may be wrong. I draw my conclusions from those in politics that deem themselves liberal.

Weird, I think you just edited your question. It is now different than the one I was replying to........... Again, I support system of laws, regulations, and enumerated welfare rights, which are best which are best enacted, executed and protected by the institution of popular government.

soulsinging

baraka wrote:

I agree and support Paul's stance on the war and foreign affairs 100%. But I agree that I can not see these two on the same ticket. I feel their positions on the other issues are philosophically opposed. Kucinich is for national health care and improving social programs, etc. Paul's libertarian beliefs are directly opposed to such things and would work to dissolve things such as medicare and other social programs among other things. Libertarians are all about the individual and NOT society. I find the libertarian philosophy flawed as I feel human existence is inconceivable without society. For example, moral problems can no more be analyzed from the point of view of the individual, than strategy and rules of a team sport can be analyzed from the point of view of a single player.

I think because of the less than ideal democratic options many democrats are looking to Paul, but I'm not sure they understand the libertarian philosophy completely, they are 'cherry picking' certain positions without understanding all the positions. For those that that consider themselves liberal, I highly recommend researching the libertarian principles, so you can understand the ramifications of such a candidate. It is the concept and role of government, minimal vs. expansive, that most dramatically distinguishes the libertarian from the liberal.

ron paul would be president, not dictator. he wouldn't have the power to singlehandedly dismantle all social programs in 4 years. nor in 8. the fact is, americans want those programs and he knows it. what he might be able to do is manage their budgets with an iron fist and have some serious downscaling and fiscal responsibility, which would be a step in the right direction. so paul's philosophical vision is appealing becos it moves in the right direction with the certainty that it can only go so far.

Yoyoyo

baraka wrote:

Interesting question Mestophar, but I'm not sure I see the difference. Perhaps you can expound.

You are wrong that Libertarians are only about the individual and not society/community. The things you stated: economic justice, domestic tranquility, and communal loyalty can flourish just as well or better in a more localized setting, it is a matter of scale and level of participation.


If a central government enforces its will on 300 million plus people, it is essentially trying to homogenize thought and behaviour and it disregards the fact that people are different in that morals and life priorites can be quite different from one locale to another. Being self responsible has little value with a backdrop of a huge government, but in a smaller setting it can very much hinder or enhance your life depending on the communities that one chooses to participate in.

Intothewild

If they won, would you need to install booster seats on Air Force One?