Ron Paul vs Dennis Kucinich in presidentials

I think that would be good for USA that both, Dennis Kucinich for Democrats and Ron Paul for the Republicans arrive to the Presidencials.

It would be interesting to see people with different ideas in both parties. Both could be considered libertarians but in different spectres, one in the left and the other in the right, instead of having representative in the authoritarian side.

Both represent in great part the values of the founders. Not the actual "neoconservative" like Sarah Pallin and company. And with the Democrats people like Obama and his troops.

 

How about Mickey Mouse v. Donald Duck?

Both are cartoon characters and have as much chance of winning as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

 

Simply amazing that anybody thinks these 2 guys are worth a single vote.

Their ideas are worth discussing..but not these 2 clowns.
John Stossel and the Judge are better than these guys.

 

It is in political opinions and beliefs, so what I consider important is discuss their ideas. Not if they deserve the vote or not.

And vote a person I don't consider good. You must vote the ideas.

 

I think kucinich is authoritarian on a number of economic issues, but I like the idea of your post.

 

But you have two guys at pretty much the extremes of the political spectrum. If you think are country is partisan now? I think they both subscribe to their own reality and neither has ideas for a real world. While I think both have ideas that will push aside the status quo, I personally think there is a lot we don't and probably shouldn't know for our own good. Too much transparency and not enought government intervention is probably not good for an uneducated, unaware society like ours.

 

well you call ron paul extreme, I call him the ultimate compromise candidate. he has views both left and right can support, so all together he would be a compromise right in the center.

 

It always can change. If you don't give an opportunity to the people what they really are never you will know.

What I mean, is that if people now is uneducated in political issues is because their opinion has no value. It isn't important what they say. What is working now is do what I say and be quiet.

For example, in Spain some local governments introduced things like the participative budgets. It is the people of that city voted where was spent the budget. With that the people was becoming much more educated.

People is not stupid, just if you don't give them an opportunity, directly they will pass and ignore the reality.

And maybe if these two presented to elections maybe the abstention would be reduced, because in USA only a 40% of people vote. And for my point of view that indicates that people is very unhappy with the politics(but it is another topic).

I think that their opinions although aren't mainstream I think that are very interesting, and if USA wants a real change, that ideas are the ones that have to defend.

 

I agree with all of this. They are the best of both parties IMO. They both have ethics, which distinguish them from the majority of their colleagues. Unfortunately, these ethics are why it will never happen.

 

You miss my point. I could say the same for Kucinich since he wants to audit the Fed. Certainly Republicans can jump on board with that one. So it doesn't matter that they might have common views with the other party. Their fundamental political ideology is so far extreme, that they just aren't practical for this country.

 

while kucinich wants to audit the FED, what he really wants is to hand the FED keys to the federal government. so I'm not sure you really could say the same thing about him.

 

That's the problem, the change can't come with electing someone different, the change has to come from the bottom, the regular people. Like it did in Egypt or Syria or in this country eons ago.

IMO, not true, they are uneducated because they've been sold a bill of goods and given misplaced ideas about one side being evil and the other good. So instead of do what I say, they hear the other side is evil and not good for you.

Well they do that here in the US as well at local levels. However, it's impossible to do that at the federal level.

No, not stupid, just ignorant and misinformed.

Well we could go back and forth on why we don't vote or participate in politics. From my point of view, voting either one of these ideological extremes would not be good for the country.

 

Yes I think you can. In the debate the other night someone stated abolishing the Fed (probably Paul) and someone said we don't need to abolish them, we need to just figure out what they are doing. The Treasury answers directly to the US government since they essentially hold the US's money. The Fed answers to no one so I think Republicans could jump on the same boat with that one.

 

I am anarchist. I am defender of the Revolution. And I believe that voting someone without a strong popular movement is absurd. But also I can moderate my ideas, or think with other ideas to adapt myself to a situation.

Here no one would defend or understand that the real change only can be achieved from the bottom. First they would have to see fail the people that in the top apparently want a strong change.

And about the participatory budgets, if it works in local level, it can work in any other higher level. It isn't so different. Only bigger numbers.

 

A revolution cannot exists with someone being voted into office without popular support. And neither of these candidates would ever have popular support.

Sure they can. In Egypt, they overthrew the regime in less than a year by a revolution started by the people. Consider what we did in Iraq with a top down approach without popular support.

Locally we have various board meetings where the public can participate. Do you think we should have national meetings where anyone could attend? Where exactly would you hold that? Also, do you really want someone in the South Dakota voting on money spent on emission standards?

 

The direct democracy would change many of the style of relations, but it is possible. Also most of the decissions would be locally taken. And just a few of decissions could be federal or at state level. So I believe that it is possible.

Just each local assembly have to send a representative, and this meetings in superior level would be informative, and to put in common different things that has been taken in different assemblies. Each assembly would finally decide what they do.

It is possible to do. Or even, improve the communications of this.

And about the revolution, I've said that the only way to change the things is from the bottom. But many people don't believe that, so I consider that must see fail the persons that apparently will make the greatest change.

I've never said that was impossible the change from the bottom. Only that most of people think that is impossible, and they believe in the "representative democracy".

 

Ok, so that is far different than participative budgets at a federal level.

We have that now. They are called congressmen and senators. I'm not sure where you are going with each assembly would finally decide what they do. Why have a "superior level" meeting only to have local assemblies do their own thing? Maybe I just misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Of what?

Yes, which we have now? I guess I'm missing your point but you are a self professed anarchist so maybe that was your strategy all along.

 

Participative budgets form part of direct democracy.

Let's see, how do you know what have decided the assembly of other state? Well then in a meeting in a higher level. But that meetings only are to put in common what each smaller assembly have decided. And to bring to them the things that they put in common and they must decide, the smaller ones.

I was refering to the communications between the assemblies. Make other model that the one that I was refering, but I think that you get the idea.

I am anarchist, yes. What I've said would be the organization of an anarchist model.

 

Wow, the fact that people like yourself continue to throw "clowns" and "loons" about when it comes to essentially the only two ideologically consistent and honest men in Washington certainly demonstrates why the country is in a downward spiral. You admit that their ideas warrant discussing yet you minimalize them with name calling like you're Bill O'Reilly.

Can someone please explain to me what seems to be the prevailing logic of recognizing leading candidates as corporate stooges and still supporting them just because they have a "realistic" chance of winning and simply aren't extreme. What about the status quo could possibly still excite some people?

Have we really been so conditioned with pecimism and have so narrow a view of history that we truly seem to accept that the last 30 or 40 years is representative of the only version of this country we can ever aspire towards?

 

It is the same that the mainstream media of Spain did in the past to Julio Anguita, coordinator of United Left(Izquierda Unida). He was presented as a clown, a mad person. Even if we the attacks that he received he achieved to bring his party to the third force, and during his mandate IU had the maximum number of diputates of all his history.

Now, he is viewed as the most reasonable person, and an example of politician, now that he is retired.

The good politicians always will be denostated by the mainstream media, because in reality they won't defend their interests.

With the difference that in Spain we have more parties, and to find responsible people you must search them in smaller parties rather in the biggest.

 

Right on! Absolutely! And other words necessary to fulfill the character minimum!

I highly agree.

 

If all we did was talk about Ideas..
There might be a President EDWARDS
Ideas are 1 thing...but like TED Kennedy history will show character extends well beyond in politics than just ideas.
The current President was full of fine ideas..
Transparency..
Posting the bill on the net for all to see..
Ending Getmo..
Ending the wars..not getting involved in others without a direct threat.

and now you say..just relax and give the Kooks the keys?
Without a debate on Character and history ?

Just ideas..
Puff Puff...let there be pot.

 

And we need to do something to make it happen. because I also completely agree.

 

I don't know exactly how works, but if you can vote for them, vote for them. It is the only way to make it happen.

 

Ok, my turn. Of course this would be easier if he spoke in sentences.

You apparently just made an argument that you want a President who implements ideas and doesn't just talk about them. That would require resolve, consistency and a record of following through with promises.

When looking at character and history, Ron Paul is the only guy on the Republican stage with a positive record in this regard.

Is Perry for or against health care?
When did Perry decide the Fed was so bad?
Is Romney for or against abortion?
Does Romney want mandates in health care or not?
Does Perry's record show he is for or against the rights of individuals?

Go on, those are five simple ones, give it a go.