Paul and Kucinich on one ticket?

Jeanwah
Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
edited November 2007 in A Moving Train
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
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    i've been thinking this for a long time now.....:)
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    I don't see it. Ideologically they are opposites. One favors less government while the other supports more government. I guess it could provide a balance but Paul would probably loose some of his libertarian and conservative supporters because of this.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Paul and Kucinich have one similarity: they are against foreign wars. However, Paul wants to gradually eliminate the welfare state whereas Kucinich wants to make it increasingly omnipresent. They could not be more different economically and the theoretical compromise between their ideologies would be roughly the Keneysian mess we're in today.

    So, no thanks. I'll never cast a ballot for Dennis Kucinich, even if Ron Paul were attached to it.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    i think these two are a lot closer in idealogies then people think ...

    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 ...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    i think these two are a lot closer in idealogies then people think ...

    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.
  • 810wmb
    810wmb Posts: 849
    if ron paul gets the nod, he'll blow it if he picks dennis.

    even dems think he's a whack job.
    i'm the meat, yer not...signed Capt Asshat
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    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.

    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?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    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 ...

    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.
    do you think honest gov't is only an aesthetic similarity?

    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?
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.

    i think that is dependent on how you see the motivations of bush ... i don't believe it has anything to do with morality
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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?

    was that a serious question? ... if so - i have no further comment
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    i think that is dependent on how you see the motivations of bush ... i don't believe it has anything to do with morality

    Perhaps not your morality or mine. But it most certainly has everything to do with his.
    was that a serious question? ... if so - i have no further comment

    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?
  • Rats of Multa
    Rats of Multa Posts: 250
    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.

    aesthetics represent everything, heir maestro.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    You might as well propose putting Ayn Rand and Karl Marx on the same ticket.

    hahahaa! i would most certainly vote for such a monster!!!!
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich represent nearly polar opposites on the spectrum of political philosophy.

    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.
    we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
    to dust i guess,
    forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Rats of Multa wrote:
    aesthetics represent everything, heir maestro.

    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".
    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.

    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).
    we shouldnt dismiss the plausibly of even the most remote ideas up front.

    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.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Perhaps not your morality or mine. But it most certainly has everything to do with his.

    i would say any bill bush votes yes for - kucinich would oppose ... not the same for paul and kucinich


    farfromglorified wrote:
    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?

    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?
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    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


    would have my vote in a second
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    i would say any bill bush votes yes for - kucinich would oppose ... not the same for paul and kucinich

    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.
    then - no further comment for reasons which should be obvious to you ...

    The only thing that is obvious here is that you're dodging a very simple question.
    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?

    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.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    I just watched the video again, maybe I missed it, but no where does Paul state that he would consider Kucinich as a running mate. He states that it is too early to think about that. That he and Dennis agree as far as American foreign policy is concerned, but disagree on economics. He stated that he respects him and that they are friends but never once did he state that he would concider him as a running mate. Again maybe I missed it.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • CaterinaA
    CaterinaA Posts: 572
    farfromglorified wrote:

    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.

    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    CaterinaA wrote:
    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
  • CaterinaA
    CaterinaA Posts: 572
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.

    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 ...
    farfromglorified wrote:
    The only thing that is obvious here is that you're dodging a very simple question.

    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 ...

    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.

    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 ...

Categories