Paul / Kucinich Ticket to change politics forever

Originally posted by getreadyalready I'm a big civil liberties guy too, but I understand the need for "some" regulation. We need to do away with 3-strike laws, and mandatory sentencing, and jailtime for minor crimes, and de-criminalize many of the trivial offenses.

How about the elimination of mandatory union membership, mandatory wage minimums, gun control laws, motorcycle helmet laws, forcing people to stay in school until they are sixteen, and so on? Those things certainly impinge upon our civil liberties! I agree with you that trivial offenses (that is, "trivial" meaning victimless crimes, such as prostitution, drug use, dueling, assisted suicide, etcetera) should be de-criminalized, since I believe that a person should have the right to do whatever he chooses to do as long as, by doing so, he doesn't impinge on another's right to do the same.

Originally posted by getreadyalready We do need a limited FDA to ensure truth in labeling (which they currently fail at), and to ensure imports are inspected properly.

Do we need another government bureaucracy to "ensure truth" in publishing and advertising as well? I mean, if the government thinks I'm not able to decide what food or drug is best for me, does that mean I'm too stupid to know which website or blog is good for me as well -- and need to let the government constrain my choices? Where do you draw the line at the nanny state?

Originally posted by getreadyalready As much as I hate Socialist practices, we currently do not have a Free Market in any way, shape, or form.

True. The government has taken away much of the freedom of a free market. Does this means we need to take away even more of those freedoms to establish another government bureaucracy (for our own good, of course)?

Originally posted by getreadyalready SO, if we must have some regulations, and some socialist tendencies, then they should be in the areas of Healthcare and Education!

I disagree on both counts, and with your logic that got you there in the first place. Why "must" we have "some regulations, and some socialist tendencies" in the first place? Is it, as you seemed to intimate earlier, because our free market system isn't free enough?

And if you want to regulate my life, why is it okay to take away my freedom of choice in healthcare and education, but not okay in, for example, firearms or plural marriages? I don't see where the government has any right to interfere with my choices in any of those issues, as long as i don't interfere with anyone else's rights to do the same!

Originally posted by getreadyalready I don't support Socialist Medicine, nor the Dept. of Education, but I do support the Student Loan programs, and I do recognize a drastic need for Healthcare Reform.

I have no problem with student loan programs, either, but I do not think I should be forced to underwrite them. And what do you mean by "Healthcare Reform"? Do you mean reform of torts so that my costs won't be driven up by frivolous lawsuits? Or do you mean the government should tell me how much I should have to pay for my health care or how much I should charge to provide health services? My wife makes $US43/hr plus benefits as an ICU RN. Should the government tell her she's making too much?

Originally posted by getreadyalready So, I think the combination of Paul and Kucinich could straddle the divide. We could honestly have the best of both worlds, at least in theory, and then it would be up to the two men to lead and prioritize and make it work.

I hardly see how. I mean, a lot of people like God and a lot of people like the Devil. By praying to both of them, we'd attract a whole lot more people. But what kind of afterlife would we have?

I'm more interested in personal responsibility and freedom that in attracting a bunch of voters so that they'd vote by a team which, by its very makeup, is completely dysfunctional!

Originally posted by getreadyalready I really hope Kucinich doesn't believe in Chemtrails though.

That might be a deal-breaker.

Check it out: contrailscience.com...

Oops!!!!

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

I'm still on the fence regarding Paul, and his VP choice will make a difference. A Paul / Kucinich (or even better, a Kucinich / Paul

. Yes, I know.) ticket would go a long way towards locking me down for Paul.

Kucinich seems to be one of the very few actually honest politicians, who actually really does give a damn about something other than enriching himself.

Honest question, who would you vote for if it wasn't Ron Paul?

reply to post by capone1


As for me, my vote is Paul, or a write-in. I'm not voting for any of the other candidates as of this time. Huntsman could possibly win me over, but it would take a whole lot of work on his part. So, it truly is Paul or Bust.

reply to post by Off_The_Street


I think you might have misunderstood my post. I'm not calling for "MORE" of anything. I'm just saying that a small portion of what we have now is necessary and we don't want to flush the baby with the bathwater.

If you by a 500 mg Vitamin C pill or Tylenol pill, you want to know that it really is 500 mg of that medicine, not 100, and not 5000! That is what got the Oriole's Pitcher killed a few years ago. An holistic energy pill that was mislabeled and he overdosed totally by accident, not of his own doing.

So, I think education needs drastic reform, and the days of internships, and fathers passing down skills to sons, and apprenticeships should be more significant. I think some education should be mandatory though. I disagree with seat-belt and helmet laws. I disagree with drug laws. I think we need major tort reform.

So, since we know it will never be an entirely free market, then it becomes very important to vote for someone that has the right priorities when it comes to where the regulation needs axed, where it needs trimmed, and where it needs left alone.

As for straddling the aisle in comparison to God and the Devil, well, I don't believe in much of a Devil, and I don't believe in a personified God. I believe straddling the aisle in Religion is a good thing also! It is important to have Faith, in order to have Morality, but it is not important whether you call your god God, Allah, Vishnu, or Lucifer. I don't care what you name your god, so long as you have one, and you follow a strict moral code that matches your ideals and the ideals of a prosperous family and society.

Anyone know of any polling assuming the possibility of Ron Paul running as an independent?

Who would win?

1. Mitt Romney (R)
   
2. Barack Obama (D)
   
3. Ron Paul (I)
   

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
Anyone know of any polling assuming the possibility of Ron Paul running as an independent?

Who would win?

1. Mitt Romney (R)
   
2. Barack Obama (D)
   
3. Ron Paul (I)
   

I'll look for some polls, but This Link has some links to polls, and some very good information about why all the other candidates should get behind Paul and stop splitting the vote to keep Romney in the lead.

Moreover, as Benton noted, with Paul’s prodigious fundraising ability, he is currently the only candidate other than Romney capable of mounting “a full, national campaign, competing in state after state over the coming weeks and months.” No matter how good the other candidates may be, they simply don’t have the money to compete; Paul does.

In addition, Paul has momentum that his non-Romney rivals lack. While the hares have watched their poll numbers skyrocket only to plummet again just as quickly, Paul, the tortoise, has seen his numbers rise slowly and steadily. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, taken before Tuesday’s vote, has Paul’s support among Republicans and Independents up by five percentage points over the last month. He is now tied for second place in the poll (Romney remains in the lead) with Newt Gingrich, who is on his way down, having lost eight points since the last survey. The other candidates peaked early; Paul is still on the rise as the primary season gets underway.

Suppose Paul does get the Republican nomination. What about the general election? “Ron Paul and Mitt Romney,” Benton said, “have been shown in national polls to be the only two candidates who can defeat Barack Obama.” About Romney there is little question among establishment pundits, who, ConservativeHQ’s David Franke tartly observes, “have lost no opportunity in recent months to assure us that the 25% candidate is the only Republican who can beat Obama.” But, he asks, “if it weren’t for that assumption, what would Romney’s level of support be? 5%? Your guess is as good as mine.” As to Paul, as early as 2010 national opinion polls showed that he could tie or even beat Obama. And just this week CBS News released the results of another survey showing that Obama could be fought to a statistical draw only by — guess who? — Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. (Obama, according to the poll, would defeat all other GOP candidates.) Benton was right on the mark

.

Even CBS's Poll (who have been totally ignoring Paul) says Romney and Paul are most likely to defeat Obama.

A CBS News poll published late Monday found that in a general election contest against President Barack Obama, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul would be the GOP candidates most likely to defeat the president.

In hypothetical head-to-head match-ups, Romney would defeat Obama by a two-point margin, 47�“45 percent, according to the poll. Paul would come within one percentage point of the president.

“Romney and Paul’s relatively strong showings are driven by support from independent voters,” reported CBS News.

“The survey continues to illustrate Ron Paul’s secret weapon that sends establishment insiders into fits: his unshakable and growing appeal across party and ideological lines,” wrote J.A. Pitcher, a staff writer for Revolution PAC, a super PAC supporting Paul.

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen


AHA!

This poll shows if there is a 3rd Party Independent Candidate, then Only Ron Paul as the Republican Nominee can beat Obama!

Poll Analysis Conclusion

So, what can we access from this poll, and the polling in general on the potential “3-Way Race” in 2012?

1. That the majority of interest for a third-candidate is coming from the right, not the left
2. That a majority of the interest is currently supporting Ron Paul, and will go to someone like Johnson if Romney is the Nominee
3. Paul can maintain the Romney-Republican base, but Romney cannot maintain the independent/Ron Paul base.
4. Thus, despite head-to-head polling, Ron Paul is potentially the only candidate, as a Republican, that can defeat President Obama (even a Ron Paul third-party run won’t win, as it will likely split the Republican vote).

Kucinich would not attract conservatives, I don't know how the author of that article can come to that conclusion. Kucinich is very liberal on social issues, he could make Paul essentially unelectable. Virtually none of Kucinich's social views are compatible with those of Ron Paul.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I think that would be an awesome ticket, I like the truthfulness of both candidates (even though I disagree with most of Kuchinich's ideas). But what would say "Bipartisan" more than a rep/dem ticket with their caliber?

But I believe Ron Paul has already said that he would ask Judge Napolitano to be his running mate. Which, I think if they both publicly said so Paul's support would go through the roof and decimate Romney. People like the Judge, he's more familiar to the Fox News crowd of Conservatives, and he speaks more clearly than Paul. Hell, the Judge running for office would be sufficient enough for me.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
. Hell, the Judge running for office would be sufficient enough for me.

Almost as much as I'm waiting for the Walking Dead to re-start, how awesome would the VP debates be between the Judge and Biden.

You could almost hear the poll numbers soaring for RP/ Judge during the debates.

Love this idea.

Kucinich is definitely not a lover of liberties. He supported a ban on hand guns, is willing to spend money we don't have to research green energy, and supports more government intervention and regulation on our free market. He just isn't in line with what most libertarians support. Paul and Napolitano would be a much better ticket.

Originally posted by bubbamorris
Kucinich is definitely not a lover of liberties. He supported a ban on hand guns, is willing to spend money we don't have to research green energy, and supports more government intervention and regulation on our free market. He just isn't in line with what most libertarians support. Paul and Napolitano would be a much better ticket.

How is he not a lover of liberties? He voted against the war on Iraq when it was thought of as political suicide. If I remember correctly he voted against the Patriot Act. He has voted against NDAA. He speaks about the constitution and checks in executive power. His gun stance I am against so yeah I agree on that part.

You said he is willing to spend money on green energy research that we don't have. Yet we have money to spend upwards 1 trillion dollars on failed wars in the middle east partly (or mainly) for oil. What’s the budget for green energy funding? Yeah about 50 billion. How does it makes sense to continue to spend money on fossil fuels that are causing massive environmental damage (not just talking about CO2 here), is finite (which means it's going to end) and highly monopolized. Not only that but the transnational corporations that own the monopoly (and by extension the elite individuals) have MASSIVE say in the direction of our government. And by spending money we don't have do you mean the money that will go towards a new industry, into pockets of people actually being put to work and paying taxes back to the government?

Those that oppose research into green energy are the same ones to say drill baby drill which destroys habitats, poisons our water and land and cost billions in subsidies. They are also the ones willing to bomb nations with munitions bought at bloated prices, in foreign unstable lands which end up costing 10 times the amount or more. Makes no sense to me.

And the supporting of more regulation of "our free markets" line, first of all what does that mean, and what free markets (we have none)?

I guess people would rather vote for someone that they think follows their particular ideology but are just empty rhetoric suits following the calls of their corporate masters, rather than individuals that might differ in their ideology but have integrity.

Kucinich was bought off with a plane ride from Obama on Air Force one and hes a major Leftist

reply to post by knightrider078


He is a Socialist.. he'd admit as much. And I do believe that he has changed significantly since Obama was elected.. I think it had everything to do with running for President in 2004.

Running for President has a habit of .... destroying people's character. Kucinich obviously fell victim to such. As did McCain, he used to be a decent politician who didn't always follow the Republican mantra.. Now? He's a tool, a washed up tool at that, who can only speak in Republican soundbites. In these Primaries Perry is a good example of going from a Governor that had a very strong base of support and history to being ... a made fun of tool. I still think Kucinich is (one of) the better Democratic politicians, but perhaps that's because I have very little respect for the majority of them.

Paul seems ancy to bail on the Republican platform, and rightfully so. If he doesn't win South Carolina I expect him to bail. It's a waste of money at that point to stay on the party.

reply to post by ezwip


I hope he doesn't bail. He probably can't win as an independent. Some Ron Paul billboards just went up here in Tallahassee. That was a welcome sight after hearing that he wasn't going to campaign in Florida. I hope to see more campaigning from him here, I think he has a good shot at winning Florida even though conventional theory says otherwise.

Originally posted by spannera
As an outsider looking in i just find these 2 very appealing. Unfortunately, its not my call but if i had a vote i would love to have a say for what it's worth.

"As an outsider"

What does that mean, you don't know anything about the candidate and vote based upon how they look?

What I am seeing here is that many expect to vote for Ron Paul, but the machines are fixed, and if they aren't and he gets in, he will be called a liar if he is forced to follow the puppet-string puller, or with be assassinated!

I say he is taking a real chance, with his reputation and his life!

Anyone agree?

Originally posted by getreadyalready

 

I hope he doesn't bail. He probably can't win as an independent. Some Ron Paul billboards just went up here in Tallahassee. That was a welcome sight after hearing that he wasn't going to campaign in Florida. I hope to see more campaigning from him here, I think he has a good shot at winning Florida even though conventional theory says otherwise.

Glad to hear Paul and Florida may give each other a fair shot. He may decide not to campaign much there but what I know of Florida I can imagine there would be a strong Paul support.

I think Iowa and NH have made it clear Paul does not have to bail, that he has momentum that can't be hidden or ignored by the media. Paul is clearly a strong candidate with a shot at the nomination now. We should hope maintains that strength. If he remains a consistent strong 2nd or 3rd while the other contenders show some wins in select states I'm sure that sort of consistency would deliver a clear message. I am entitled to vote in this race, but being an American living abroad I probably would not waste my time if Paul were not on the ballot, though I'd certainly think about writing him in. My vote would not split anything as I would not vote for either of the clowns the major parties would have if not Paul.

As far as Paul not winning as an independent, you are likely correct with "probably not" BUT this is the strongest third-party possibility I have seen. He has much more strength than Ross Perot had and I would say he could be a possibility for election as an independent. The GOP just might find it would be in their best interest to get behind him. We'll see.

2012 is the year many say things could go topsy-turvy and I expect that could be true in the political arena as anyplace. I also expect there to be more surprises before the year is out. Americans may be just about ready to take their liberty back. That would be a pleasant surprise if they do.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by ezwip

 

I hope he doesn't bail. He probably can't win as an independent. Some Ron Paul billboards just went up here in Tallahassee. That was a welcome sight after hearing that he wasn't going to campaign in Florida. I hope to see more campaigning from him here, I think he has a good shot at winning Florida even though conventional theory says otherwise.

Win or lose, you gotta take into consideration the fact that Ron Paul is raising eyebrows. No matter how hard the media trys to cut him off, rip him off on airtime, or label him "crazy," he's currently #2, and has the ability to spread his message, win or lose. So hopefully, he can convert some sheeple to... well, people.