Would you vote for a Kucinich/Paul ticket?

[Colobo]

Well, if according to Mrs. Kucinich, Dennis would consider this...

[Major Hogwash]

1. Fuck no!

I will never vote for a Republican ever - for any office - ever!

No more GOP! PERIOD!
Fuck the GOP party, Bush did!

[hayu_lol]

3. That Limey hippie chick just sunk Dennis's...

catastrophic campaign.

No Repugs--ever.

[Perry Logan]

31. Yep. Kucinich just jumped the shark.

[riqster]

54. Only if he says it himself.

...if he does, he'll be eaten by the critter after jumping it. But I'll wait and see what the candidate says.

One thing to keep in mind: Kooch, unlike the rest of the field, does not have a big team of people scripting every word that comes out of his mouth. Or his his wife's. That means, on occasion, stupid shit will be said.

I am waiting to hear from Kooch himself. If he affirms that position, I will cease supporting him. My checkbook is closed until he denies it, personally and explicitly.

Tick...tick...tick...

[143tbone]

64. Limey hippie chick????? n/t

[saltpoint]

2. No chance with Paul on the ticket. Kooch is A-OK, but Paul is appalling.

I don't want that rightwing nutjob anywhere near power.

[Union Label]

50. I feel the same way about Kucinich and the rightwing nut

[Chovexani]

88. Co-signed

:(

[Dancing_Dave]

4. If the other choices are Hillary and Rudy

I sure would. What a nightmare such a "subway election" would be.

[aquart]

18. Thank you for your concern.

The Democrats will take it from here.

[Steepler0t]

5. No way

No how.

[saltpoint]

6. I think it would be a lift if in the next day or so Kucinch issued a statement

renouncing the notion of joining a ticket with Paul or Paul joining a ticket with Kucinich.

[cboy4]

7. Nope, I admire Paul's anti-war positions, but we

disagree on just about everything else.

[HuskerDU]

8. It would depend on if this was 3rd party or if Kooch won our

nomination and selected Paul as his running mate. 3rd party no, D yes.

[saltpoint]

9. I don't think either one of these folks will get their party's nomination, so

the point is moot.

If either did I can't picture the other one presidng over the U.S. Senate.

[Ytzak]

10. Ron Paul is Corporatist

Ron Paul believes this:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/
Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies.

(typical Republican anti-tax on wealthy munchking politic)

Kucinich not so much:

http://kucinich.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=1465
There is a need for a more fair, simple, and adequate tax system. The 2001, 2002, and 2003 tax cuts have created a tax system that favors the wealthy more than the working class American family. These tax cuts have created a more complex tax code that is full of loopholes. Finally these tax cuts placed the federal treasury in record deficits with little indication of a turn around. The President’s anti-growth economic policies and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are adding to the deficit. The combination of these policies are bankrupting our nation.

Ron Paul hates public education:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/education/
The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.

Kucinich:

http://kucinich.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=1460
Education is both a foundation and a building block. It is a foundation of skills and the building block of your future. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Congressman Kucinich strongly believes that every child, regardless of need or background, should receive a high quality education. He is committed to fighting so that every student who desires to attend college will the ability and the means to do so. If you need help with an educational issue, or want more information on educational grants and loans, please visit the Services for You section of the website.

I don't think Kucinich's wife knows what they hell she is talking about. These men's policies are diametrically opposed. I don't think a President Kucinich should allow him to attend all those state funerals on America's dime.

[razors edge]

14. Your post does point out

the differences in the two men's stances as far as their understanding of what the constitution does say and what they feel it should say.

[mmonk]

41. He's not corporatist. Corporatist means giving tax money

to corporations to replace government. Paul is basically small government or anti-government. It's a small distinction, but distinction nonetheless. You're too hard on Elizabeth who is a smart person. She readily admits she doesn't think like Paul but that Paul has some valid points in a few areas. She wasn't suggesting that this is a ticket Kucinich is seeking.

[Ytzak]

46. Paul is a Laissez-faire capitalist, who would refuse any limits or controls on corporations.

By denying any controls exist on an corporate activity, you give that corporate activity an advantage over those of us who do not have a corporations assets behind us. Laissez-Fire capitalism gives capitalists a preferred place on any playing field. Perhaps I have erred in my definition.

I apologize if I came off as being hard on Elizabeth. I did not mean to do so. I've talked and corresponded lately with many people on the left who look no farther than Ron Paul's stance on the war and assume that other characteristics follow. I am trying to get people to open the package before they extol its virtues.

In an ideal world, both sides of our political spectrum would put honest principled candidates on their tickets. Where these candidate might be deeply divided in how this nation faces and solves problems, they would be willing to come together and compromise to find a solution. In an emergency, these men and women would put party aside and work for the good of everyone. Ron Paul is the only person in the Republican field that I trust on that level. I would never vote for him because his stands on corporations, taxes, education, freedom of choice, privacy, and many other areas are simply wrong, in my point of view. If Republicans run anyone, I hope the nominate Paul, because if he wins, he can be trusted when things go bad to do the job right. It is in every other instance of the job as President that I think he is completely wrong for America.

Were Kucinich to take him as a Vice President, it would prove to me that Kucinich's values, belief's, and aspirations are not what he claims they are. Were Paul to accept a place on the ticket, it would show that Paul doesn't hold his values, belief's, and aspirations scared.

[penguin7]

11. I do not support Ron Paul

But the criticism of Ron Paul here and at Dailykos is incredibly ignorant.

Ron Paul speaks the truth as he sees it. He also has some very good insights into corporate corruption of government, the military and the debasement of our currency.

One thing is for certain, Ron Paul makes a hell of a lot more sense than 99% of the criticism he gets on this site and the other liberal sites.

It would behoove those that disagree with Ron Paul to discuss the issue with more thoughtfulness than I am seeing here. I disagree with him myself, but the over the top thoughtless posts here tempt me to defend him.

[MADem]

26. No it isn't. People who support him are on the wrong site if they're here.

That's rule two.

Hitler spoke the truth as he saw it, too. AND he liked dogs. And he enjoyed a natty uniform, AND he was a vegetarian.

I don't feel like seeing the country go back to a time when discrimination is acceptable, and employers are free to discriminate against you, or me, or anyone for any reason.

I think public education has a lot to recommend it. I like environmental laws to protect the environment. I don't think the free market should decide EVERYTHING--like when people croak from bad medicine, or lead on toys or what have you. I think choice should remain the law of the land.

These bozos who support him on his ONE stupid 'right for the wrong reason' issue are the ignorant ones.

[penguin7]

55. Comparing Ron Paul to Hitler is over the top

I am far from an expert on Ron Paul.

Where do you get that he is a racist? Just because a racist group supports him does not make him a racist.

I like Ron Paul on the military and military spending. This is a huge issue. In fact it probably trumps all others.

I like Ron Paul on the debasement of our currency. This is an important issue.

I like Ron Paul on corporate corruption of our government.

I also very much like Ron Paul's honesty. He is more honest than any candidate running in this election besides Kucinich.

It makes no sense to dump on an honest man fervently against the war in Iraq and against the US spending so much on military.

[MADem]

62. I didn't "compare" them. If I did, I'd say "Ron Paul is like Hitler in X fashion"

What my point was, the one that flew merrily over your head, is that you can find something nice to say about ANY asshole. And it's usually not too hard to do either.

Examples: Saddam had a fine head of hair and a good thick Islamic moustache. He was sartorial as well. Mussolini always kept his head nicely shaved, and those trains DID run on time. George Bush keeps his cowboy boots lovely and clean, and his habit of laziness and perhaps a bit of secretive drinking are virtues in that they keep him away from the corridors of power. Denny Hastert was very kind to all of his staffers, especially the ones that lived with him in his DC townhouse.

I didn't speak to his racism, I spoke to his views on employer discrimination--don't go reaching beyond my actual assertions, thanks much. His view is that employers SHOULD have the ABSOLUTE right to discriminate against people if they want to, and that discrimination laws should be tossed aside. You might want to check his actual views before you keep cheering him on. If he had his way blacks, gays, women, Jews,old people, ugly people, fat people, anyone the employer disliked, could be denied employment or fired if the employers have a problem with them.

Ron Paul wants to institutionalize corruption by making it legal; by permitting the rich to get richer without any pesky government regulation to interfere with their accrual of larger coffers still.

You should actually read his views, instead of relying on people to tell you what they think his views are--check the ON THE ISSUES website--it's an eye-opener.

Pat Buchanan is an honest man. You can 'like his honesty' too, but not agree with a single thing that comes out of his mouth.

[mtnsnake]

57. What about those who lie about Hillary all the time? Are they on the right site or something?

[MADem]

63. They toss those lies because they're partisans supporting other Democrats.

It's not right to lie, but it isn't quite the same. They pull that immature shit--and not just the anti-Clinton partisans, I've seen others do it as well--because they are STUPID. They actually think that telling outright lies is going to go unnoticed, and will cause people to change their vote. It's the thinking of someone who isn't operating all all cylinders, that kind of crap, but it isn't the same as supporting someone outside of the Democratic Party.

This is a website for Democrats and other progressives who support DEMOCRATS for political office. That's plain as day. It is, in fact, written!

Not Republicans, and especially not batshit crazy Republicans.

[Bluebear]

12. Paul is a regressive racist. No way in hell. nt

[Seabiscuit]

13. Beyond Iraq, Paul is a friggin nut job.

[LandOLincoln]

15. You're kidding, right? n/t

[hayu_lol]

17. Paul is a nutjob...no doubts about that at all...

Believes in religion in schools

believes more kids should be homeschooled

believes that mandated immunizations are wrong(guess he wants a return to the days when all families had kids die needlessly).

Anti-choice 100%.

The man is clearly a nutjob.

[LandOLincoln]

21. He's a nutjob, all right. Saw him for the first time on C-Span a few

months ago, and I was appalled. I'd heard what a maverick he was, how much grief he was giving the Bushies, so I was expecting...I dunno, another Chuck Hagel, maybe?

Instead I saw this fussy, prissy little person who went on at some length about the horrors of "partial birth abortion."

Now, Paul is an Ob/Gyn, creepy as that is to contemplate. He knows damn well there is no such thing as "partial birth abortion!" It's a wingnut scam to gin up public outrage towards ALL abortions at any time and for whatever reason. (I worked for a university dept. of ob/gyn for nearly five years, and once polled doctors and nurses about PBA. Every last one of them answered in exactly those words--"there is NO SUCH THING!" etc.)

The guy makes my skin crawl.

[JVS]

16. Kucinich/ Paul, yes. Paul/ Kucinich, no.

[cali]

19. If Kucinich teams up with Paul, it would make him a world class

hypocrite and a world class opportunist. I would no longer be able to believe that he actually believed in anything but Kucinich.

[LandOLincoln]

23. Hear, hear! n/t

[glowing]

36. For once I agree with you...

[MaineDem]

48. I totally agree with you. n/t

[Basileus Basileon]

20. Hell no. Nothing against Kooch, but Ron Paul is too dangerous. And frankly, if Kooch is willing to

run as a 3rd-party candidate, he's dead to me. If he's willing to run as a 3rd-party candidate with Ron Paul, I'll know that he has become one of the biggest frauds in recent memory.

[emilyg]

22. No.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Ron Paul is anti-choice and anti-separation of church and state. Sorry, I don't care how against the

Iraq war the guy is, some positions are non-negotiable.

Pat Buchanan is against the Iraq war, too, and I wouldn't vote for him either.

Ron Paul is a Republican. That's why he has that (R) after his name. And as much as I like Kucinich I have to wonder what is going on in his head.

I would advise disillusioned Kucinich supporters to check out Chris Dodd.

[ripple]

25. NO!!!!!

The fact that Kucinich would even consider this completely undermines his credibility.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. No

I'm a Democrat.

[rjones2818]

28. Yes: But only if it's a Dem ticket!

[terrya]

29. Nope

Not with Ron Paul anywhere on the ticket.

[mmonk]

30. If Dennis is the presidential candidate, yes.

It may be the last chance someone labeled "liberal" ever gets a chance.

[cali]

33. oh please.

Just that you'd consider voting for such a ticket, and I gather you're saying you'd vote for such an independent ticket, says everything I need to know about your politics. If Dennis teams up with Paul (and I don't believe he'd EVER do any such thing), he'd get the Opportunist/Hypocrite award of the century, and he'd be despised for decades for acting the spoiler. He doesn't stand a chance with or without Paul, but he could throw the election to the repukes if he runs as an indy.

[mmonk]

34. I don't believe the question was posed as an independent ticket.

My politics is simple. Winning at any cost even at ending constitutional rule is unacceptable. That's all one has to know of my politics other than I'm a true progressive vs. third way hijack progressive. Ron Paul at the VP slot won't mean anything damaging to the country.

[Vickers]

32. No. I also wouldn't vote for an Obama/Paul ticket...

Or a Clinton/Paul ticket...

Or an Edwards/Paul ticket...

Or a Biden/Paul ticket...

etc. etc.

[glowing]

35. Ron Paul is a Republican... They believe in downsizing the govt..

I say, we are the govt, and it needs to be as big as the people need it for the services the people require. I don't think it is big enough.. I believe it should include universal healthcare and universal Home and Car funds instead of predatory insurance.

[H2O Man]

37. It's no more likely

to happen than a Kucinich-Reagan or Roosevelt-Paul ticket.

[mmonk]

39. I've seen the interview with Elizabeth.

People here are making more of it than there really is. I imagine there is political motivation in doing so.

[Desertrose]

52. This is really being twisted & spun into something is wasn't....

I agree, mmonk.

Remember who won the DU "race"....now its time for serious spin control.

Predictable.

[nam78_two]

117. My sentiments exactly.nt

[TheUniverse]

38. Sure I would, just pray Kucinich is able to stay in good health.

[polichick]

40. Maybe she was talking about a Paul/Kucinich ticket.nt

[lojasmo]

42. Kucinich/Paul? Yes. Paul/Kuch? No

[Debi]

43. No, and would be dissapointed if Kucinich made that leap

Run as a Democrat or don't run.

[NoPasaran]

44. Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

[robcon]

45. With Ron Paul a heartbeat away from the presidency,

I would never vote for that ticket.

[bunnies]

47. These results are very interesting.

I see posts here all the time that rail people who are unwilling to vote for the Democrat in the GE. Apparently all that goes out the window if a Republican fills the VP slot. Would it then be OK to vote for the R nominee or third party?

Would Romney/Huckabee be better? Fuck no.

[Union Label]

49. And whoever voted yes needs to removed from this board

This is after all a board for progressives not regressives.

[IndianaGreen]

51. Paul isn't running as an independent, and neither is Dennis... HOWEVER

There is a good chance that there will be a centrist candidate running as an independent in 2008. Could be Bloomberg, or it could be Dobbs.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. If Kucinich were to run with Ron Paul, it would show that he had lost his marbles

The two of them agree on the war and on pulling back the military.

However, they would never agree on domestic issues at all.

[asdjrocky]

56. Not with a gun to my head.

What the hell is wrong with you people? 30? 30 people would vote for that ticket?

[robbedvoter]

58. No, but this is a MSM fantasy anyway...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

59. No way

Paul - you've got to be joking! When is he going to change parties?

[Amanita]

60. How about the Gore invented the internet/Kerry got a booboo ticket?

[Kucinich4America]

72. Don't forget the Kerry/McCain ticket from 2004

This bullshit is getting about as overhyped as that one did.

Dennis said no. Paul said no. And while they agree on a handful of some very crucial issues, they are 180 degrees opposed on everything else.

The best outcome is NOT a third party ticket, but Kucinich as the Democratic nominee and Paul as the Repuke nominee, so REAL issues can be on the table.

[Orangepeel]

61. What's the alternative?

If this is the Democratic ticket, I'd ride a flying pig to the elementary school and vote for it.

[marks25]

65. dnc just as bad as rnc fools...

When are you DNC sycophants going to understand that your team is bought out by the same guys as the RNC?? Excepting Kucinich and Paul. Most of these posts are the same type of ideological sludge one could expect at a repug site. Your hostility is misdirected.
Yes, Paul has many views that I disagree with. As do many other people in this polarized land (including Kucinich. Have ya'll looked at his thoughts on gun control? Yikes!). Imagine two polar opposite ideologues coming together in compromise for the good of our nation.
Kucinich has promised to be a healer of our fraught and divided nation. I see his Paul statements as being in line with healing our divisions and therefore, far from "the height of hypocrisy". Kucinich, the visionary realizes that one needs to be president of the United States of America, not the U.S. of DNC.

[slick8790]

66. I anticipate a short stay for you.

Enjoy it while you can.

[marks25]

67. Why??

DNC fans kick people off for asking thoughtful, provocative questions?? Answer me this DNC'ers: Where the ##** have your people been these Bush years? Oh, right. Backing him up on the Iraq war, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Homegrown Terrorists Act, confirmation after confirmation of corrupt Bush people to positions of power, impeachment off the table, etc. It seems complicity has endless names.

[slick8790]

68. Because this is a message board for Democrats.

And as it says in the rules, if you want to bash democrats, then you can use someone else's bandwidth to do so.

[marks25]

69. Weak.

I'm not bashing. I grew up Dem. Then I grew up. Besides I support Kucinich--a Dem.--wholeheartedly.
It seems absurd and pretty intellectually weak to kick people who have valid critiques. I'm not spamming or trolling, just truthing. But if DNC'ers can't handle it, I'll take that as confirmation of my greatest fears for the mainline dems.
I mean really. You cloister yourselves into a little ideological cubbyhole?? What good does that do the national dialogue? Besides, I doubt I'm the only progressive who is fed up with the DNC. One has to ask(if one is honest), if they're taking the same money from the same people as the repugs, How are they not in the same pockets?
Oh, and one further point just to drive home the fact of the rnc/dnc alliance: watch them close ranks fast against any 3rd party candidate. Are you afraid to ask why and demand better?

[slick8790]

70. I think calling the DNC "sychophants" would qualify as bashing.

As is saying they're just as bad as the RNC. What world are you living in?

[marks25]

75. Let me clarify...

I didn't call the DNC sychophants. I called blind supporters of the DNC sychophants. As in they will support the DNC no matter the betrayals against the people DNC leadership engage in.
And really I like the ideals of the Dems. who are actually dems. Maybe I should specify DNC LEADERSHIP as being bad as the RNC. If you can note a place they've been better lately than the RNC, please inform. Otherwise please see my previous post for the examples of the world I'm living in--One in which the DNC has repeatedly failed to stand for the people or the constitution or law or what is right morally. I'm living in a world where the Dems are taking in more corporate money than the repugs this election and their sychophantic followers think its a bloody good thing.
The sad thing is that as Kucinich has noted, none of these people are even reading the bills they're passing. Clinton and the dems included. As in Kucinich was one of the handfull out of 535 congresspeople who read the Patriot act before rubber stamping.

[Desertrose]

76. Welcome, marks25...

You make some excellent points.

Welcome to DU. :)

DR

[slick8790]

81. First of all, I think you're the one who's confused.

What do you expect the national party apparatus to do? they have no votes in congress. that's up to our representatives. but are you even kidding about giving an area where the dnc is better than the rnc? How do healthcare, iraq, national security, civil liberties, fair trade, the environment, and corruption sound?

I ask again, what world are you living in? It was people like you, saying there's no difference between the parties that got us bush the first time. there IS a clear difference. and you don't have to be an stubborn purist like dennis to be a real democrat. I'd say he's the only one who's not a real democrat. Have any other democratic candidates suggested a very conservative republican as their VP?

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slick8790]

97. If us Dems are as bad as the republics, then go to FR and bitch there.

"The dems want health care provided by the insurance coroporations much like repugs."

There's a BIG difference between what the republicans are saying and what dems are saying. Those who leave insurance involved make it affordable and don't allow companies to exclude people from benefits. Republicans seem to be saying they're pretty happy with our current system.

"The dems see an American presence in Iraq for the forseeable future much like the repugs."

I don't know where you get this, since every candidate has proposed withdrawing combat troops within a year.

"Name a national security policy for me in which the dems differ from the repugs."

How about the use of torture in interrogation? Good enough for you?


If you honestly don't think Democrats are any better than republicans, then why are you posting here at DEMOCRATIC Underground. But if you still cannot understand why even the worst dem is 1000x better than the best republican, then there's no hope for you.

[marks25]

104. I'll go thru this one last time and then I'm done with you.

Healthcare:
There is not a big difference. Leaving the insurance companies involved is what we have now. They're the reason our system is fucked. So handing them the entire system instead of just most of it seems just slightly counterintuitive.
Iraq:
You're full of it. In a live, on camera debate every democratic candidate except Kucinich and Gravel said that they forsee a troop presence in Iraq until at least 2013.
National Security:
A. torture- The dems seem to be giving lip service to being anti torture as they just confirmed Mukasey to the Justice Dept. even after he refused to rule out waterboarding. They also refuse to impeach the leaders who have admitedly engaged in torture. Now you can't say I'm against torture and then not act upon that. Just like you can't say I'm against the Iraq war and give billions to fund it. Actions are what you need to heed. Not their words. They toss up words like colored streamers in the wind.
B. Iran- The mainline dems refuse to rule out not only invading/bombing Iran; They won't even rule out using nukes on Iran a non-nuclear country.

I guess the reason I was initially attracted to this site was the thread on Kucinich. Then I found some ignorant sounding threads and wanted to add my opinion.
I think Bush has made many repugs wake up and realize the conservative agenda is not being implemented by the corporatist repugs. Hence the popularity of Ron Paul amongst their ranks.
Now the Dems need to wake up and realize that the liberal agenda they support is not being implemented by their corporatist leaders, and then maybe we can have a country worth a shit.

[slick8790]

108. I'm full of it about Iraq?

You seem to be deliberately twisting the candidates words out of your irrational hate for them. None of them would commit to having all troops out by the end of their first term, excepting the ones you mentioned. That is an irresponsible pledge. ALL troops means none to guard our embassy, none to protect our diplomats, etc. ALL candidates have proposed ending combat operations in no longer than a year.

[marks25]

109. Define combat operations...

Because I thought combat operations were over years ago according to Bush. Therein lies the problem. I have no issue with necessary security for diplomats and embassy officials. But that is not all they want. They have all spoken of peace keeping duties and training duties for our troops. These euphemisms are all remeniscent of Vietnam era wordplay by sorry leaders NOT trying to get us out of a war.
And hey, in your post you forgot to mention all the troops needed to man the permanent superbases we're building.

[marks25]

91. P.S.

Faulty electioneering (read stolen elections) gave us Bush in '00 and '04 as both Gore and Kerry won the actual vote counts (if they had been counted). The claim that disenfranchised progressives lost the election for the dems is just DNC bullocks. "Support our crappy, compromised, bought out candidate or else you get THAT guy" is not good politics. And one could argue that the blame/failure lies with the Dem leadership in this instance as well. If Gore and/or Kerry and their DNC/DLC backers had put up a fight and demanded counting the bloody votes, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[marks25]

92. P.S....Bullocks

Faulty electioneering (read stolen elections) gave us Bush in '00 and '04 as both Gore and Kerry won the actual vote counts (if they had been counted). The claim that disenfranchised progressives lost the election for the dems is just DNC bullocks. "Support our crappy, compromised, bought out candidate or else you get THAT guy" is not good politics. And one could argue that the blame/failure lies with the Dem leadership in this instance as well. If Gore and/or Kerry and their DNC/DLC backers had put up a fight and demanded counting the bloody votes, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[slick8790]

96. How much farther would you have liked gore to take it? He took it to the supreme court!

Long story short nader voteers (or "disenfranchised progressives", as you call them) lost the election because they were too selfish to realize the practicality of their vote.

[marks25]

100. What??

Do you not read posts or research before posting? I along with the record say the election was stolen.
You: No response. But Nader voters lost the election.
And 1. After the supreme court, you take it to the streets. Its only our democracy after all.
2. I forward the argument that a vote for one corporatist in favor of another possibly worse corporatist is not practicality. It is surrender to the corporatists. And I say once again: Vote for my shitty, unprincipled, bought out candidate or you get THAT guy is not good politics. That is why the dems lost.

[slick8790]

102. There's no arguing with people like you.

Politics is about compromise. People who are as selfish as you are the ones who cost us elections and send our country down the shitter.

[marks25]

105. Reason

There is no arguing with me because I'm right and I back up statements with factual examples. I would agree that in politics there is compromise. But in my opinion there are some things you shouldn't compromise.

[txaslftist]

71. Good post.

It's time that the bought and paid for folks in both the DLC and the RNC were knocked off their corporate sponsored thrones.

[marks25]

93. Thanks from a fellow txn. Yee haww!

[txaslftist]

73. ... but are you sure you didn't mean "dlc" rather than "dnc"? Big diff there.

[marks25]

80. Is there?

I know they're different outfits. What is the DNC doing differently or better than the DLC?

[skipos]

82. Wow, you really need to educate yourself.

Ron Paul blows total ass by the way. Right on 1 or two things, awful on everything else.

[marks25]

83. I do well enough

I happen to believe that the one or two things Paul is right on beat the 0 things most of the mainline democrats have going for them.
1. He's not bought by corporatists
2. Against Iraq war
3. Against the Fed.
Clinton, Obama, Edwards:
Bought
See troops in Iraq for the rest of the forseeable future
Too ignorant or bought to have an opinion on the FED

[skipos]

84. 4. He is against women 5. He is against minorities. What a great list of "againsts!!!"

:eyes: All the bad qualities of Herbert Hoover and David Duke rolled into one. Thank God he'll get nowhere near the presidency.

And before you rip on the DNC or DLC or whatever, make sure you know what they are.

Welcome to DU!

[marks25]

86. too true, and yet not

He is against making laws prohibiting personal, private behavior. Even if it is distasteful and despicable. I'm not defending Paul in this just letting you know there is a difference.
Also, I know well enough what they (DNC, DLC) are. I just see no functional difference.
And thanks!!

[cuke]

98. He's also against income taxes, business regulation and anti-discrimination laws

Three things that the corporatists want

[marks25]

101. Once again skewed...

He is against income taxes as they are unconstitutional. Taxes upon labor and wages are not legal. Corporate taxes on the other hand are completely legal. He is not for deregulation of business. He thinks business should be doing most jobs instead of government--which in many cases I disagree with, but in favor of regulation. And once again with the anti-discrimination: He is against such laws because they regulate private behavior. Even if it is despicable.

[slick8790]

112. Unconstitutional?

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

-16th Amendment to the U.S Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Something that is allowed in an amendment to the constitution seems pretty constitutional to me, whether you like it or not.

[marks25]

114. Right but...

Sorry, that one wasn't ratified properly. Here's a site I found with minimal effort. You should delve into this issue as it effects all.
http://givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/19990709_xcdfr_is_income.htm

[Bucky]

74. Such a ticket would make me lose respect for Dennis Kucinich

[Rowdyboy]

77. I will NOT vote Republican for President, Vice President, Governor, Senator.....

or freaking dog catcher. Anyone who does belongs on a different website.

[BootinUp]

78. I refuse to consider the possibility

I would just wait for someone to wake me.

[Rowdyboy]

79. I will NOT vote Republican for President, Vice President, Governor, Senator.....

or freaking dog catcher. Anyone who does belongs on a different website.

[marks25]

87. Your inhospitality belies your liberalism.

[Rowdyboy]

99. What an odd thing to say....

Granted, twenty years ago there were still a few Republican office-holders worthy of casting a vote for but not today. I am a lifelong partisan Democrat but have, from time to time over the last 35 years voted Republican. However, 7 years of George Bush and the Christian fundamentalist right has somewhat soured me on bipartisanship.

Three weeks ago I faced a ballot with 2 choices for governor: First Haley Barbour, the incumbent, a Republican lobbyist, corporate asshole Reaganite pig. Second John Eaves, the Democrat, who ran on a platform of restoring school prayer and making abortion more difficult. I refused to vote for either-I have limits to my partisanship. However, as a personal ethical statement I refuse to vote for any Republican for any office of ANY importance because they represent the antithesis of EVERYTHING I believe in.

Sorry if you define that as inhospitable.

Oh, and welcome to DU.

[marks25]

106. Of course not

Vote how you please. That is not inhospitable in the least. I was referring to your statement that people who disagreed should not be on this site. That seems a little exclusionary, and inhospitable.

[blondeatlast]

110. With all due respect, I hope you read the Rules as you came through the gate.

This is a private site and the owners have every right to decide who can be here--same as at our oppsition site, which is also privately owned.

In the meantime, welcome. :toast:

[marks25]

115. I piss wildly on rules.

Especially stupid, rude, inhospitable one.

[blondeatlast]

116. How mature of you. nt

[GoneOffShore]

89. Neither - never, NO HOW!

[Infinite Hope]

90. There will never be such a ticket...

Aside from the Iraq war and perhaps a couple other lesser issues, the two are polar opposites. Not to mention that neither will be the nominee.

[faithfulcitizen]

94. The Mootiest Point Ever.

[marks25]

95. pha ha ha ha ha. Nice.

All too true

[Stuckinthebush]

103. Hell no is not an option?

I like Dennis and planned on voting for him but after the Ron Paul BS...no way.

[LeftishBrit]

107. I wouldn't support an Archangel Gabriel/ Paul ticket!

Especially as the Stormfront nutters might well ensure that the more liberal president was 'removed' to raise their darling to the presidency.

[L0oniX]

111. There's no point to fighting over who's going to run the ship when it is sinking.

If you haven't noticed, our country is headed into bankruptcy. The same corporations who backed Bush will back anyone who helps them. They are going to back the candidate who they think has the best chance of winning. It doesn't matter if they are democratic or repukensteins. The only solution is mass revolt and mass work stoppage. Hit them where it hurts. V

[stimbox]

113. It's not happening, next!

http://tinyurl.com/3cya9z

I guess you don't pay attention.

[crawfish]

118. Hypothetically speaking, yes.

Honesty and integrity in the White House would be refreshing.

[Jimmy811]

119. Kucinich and Paul

They agree on the war and maybe degrees of foreign policy but they're m,iles apart on domestic issues. I think what makes them attractive to some is that they're both independent and original thinkers and not so much statue quo. If they would actually do it and explain their roles I might consider it but only if Kucinich was the President.