Ron Paul - Dennis Kucinich is "a decent candidate"

[David Octavius]

YouTube Video

I can't believe he said that! Also he identifies with Chuck hagel but considering RPs views, to say Dennis is a candidate he likes is shocking to me!

[JaJae]

Only because of his Iraq views. He's positioned himself many times in the past as saying he wouldn't vote for a Republican because they all want to prolong the war in Iraq. The defining characteristic I think for Paul in any politician is whether they want to pull out of Iraq yesterday and bring all troops home. I don't think it would matter too much if they were borderline socialist, open-borders, and for the expanding government. This actually hurts my opinion of him. While Iraq is very, very important, I don't like that he would support a politician that goes against essentially every principle he stands for.

[jimeigh]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Only because of his Iraq views. He's positioned himself many times in the past as saying he wouldn't vote for a Republican because they all want to prolong the war in Iraq. The defining characteristic I think for Paul in any politician is whether they want to pull out of Iraq yesterday and bring all troops home. I don't think it would matter too much if they were borderline socialist, open-borders, and for the expanding government. This actually hurts my opinion of him. While Iraq is very, very important, I don't like that he would support a politician that goes against essentially every principle he stands for.

i think Kuccinich is the best democratic candidate. i highly disagree with most of what he says, but i think he's the most honest about how he feels and what he wants to do of the democrats. this makes him, in my book, a decent CANDIDATE. as a president? i think he'd be shitty.

[Fed Up]

CD: Congressman Dennis Kucinich is kind of similar in that he is one of the more vocal antiwar critics on the Democratic side of the debates. I know you guys probably disagree on a load of things, but you’ve come together a lot to work on issues of war and peace. So could you talk about your relationship with Congressman Kucinich over the past couple years, what it’s been like, what you think of him?

RP: We’re close friends, and we certainly agree [on the war]. And I think we may end up voting closely all the time on the war issue. Sometimes some of these funding bills are a little bit complex, and even Walter Jones and I will disagree even though we agree on what we’re supposed to be doing, but the interpretation will be a little bit different. But I think Dennis and I usually come down on the same side of it. That is, if you don’t want the war you quit the funding, and that’s our responsibility and it’s not the president’s authority to do what he wants because we have the purse strings, so you have to vote against the spending. So we get along very well on that, and since it’s such a major issue I think I will continue to work with him the best we can. And you know, take some of the liberal welfare spending that Dennis might support more than I. But you know, I’m not hostile toward that. If I can save the money from overseas, put some of it against the deficit, end up with a net reduction in the size of the budget, at the same time stopping a war, I may well be very open to funding some of these programs. Because I’m not out to gut some of these programs that have taught people to be very dependant on the government, like medical care. I mean, that’s not my goal. I’ve never run for office with the goal of slashing [those programs] even though philosophically I don’t think it’s the best way to deliver services and prosperity to poor people.

CD: So can we look forward to a Paul-Kucinich 2008 ticket?
RP: Not likely, but I think that Paul and Kucinich will continue to work together and do the kind of work that we’ve been doing for a couple years now.

A Conversation With an Unusual Man by Charles Davis

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Only because of his Iraq views. He's positioned himself many times in the past as saying he wouldn't vote for a Republican because they all want to prolong the war in Iraq. The defining characteristic I think for Paul in any politician is whether they want to pull out of Iraq yesterday and bring all troops home. I don't think it would matter too much if they were borderline socialist, open-borders, and for the expanding government. This actually hurts my opinion of him. While Iraq is very, very important, I don't like that he would support a politician that goes against essentially every principle he stands for.

Excellent!

And I think the same hypocrisy is true for people on the left who boost Paul and are diametrically opposed to his domestic agenda and small government ideas. They simply like the idea of taunting Republicans with an anti-war candidate and will never vote for him.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Excellent!

And I think the same hypocrisy is true for people on the left who boost Paul and are diametrically opposed to his domestic agenda and small government ideas. They simply like the idea of taunting Republicans with an anti-war candidate and will never vote for him.

Isn't the sign of a good President, one who can compromise?

Just curious if you read what I posted.

"And you know, take some of the liberal welfare spending that Dennis might support more than I. But you know, I’m not hostile toward that. If I can save the money from overseas, put some of it against the deficit, end up with a net reduction in the size of the budget, at the same time stopping a war, I may well be very open to funding some of these programs. Because I’m not out to gut some of these programs that have taught people to be very dependant on the government, like medical care. I mean, that’s not my goal. I’ve never run for office with the goal of slashing [those programs] even though philosophically I don’t think it’s the best way to deliver services and prosperity to poor people."

I view this as a positive.

Fed Up

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Isn't the sign of a good President, one who can compromise?

It's an ackward compromise. Paul and Kucinich are polar opposites on their political views and principles. It would be like me willing to support Karl Marx because he was currently anti-war and a nice guy. That's just the way I view it.

It would be like me saying my views are this, this, this and this. I'm uncompromising in these views on the basis of morality. But, I'd support this guy because he agrees with me on this one hot-button issue to my campaign. I support him because of this despite the fact that on essentially every other issue and political philosophy we're polar opposites.

[Ardentfrost]

I believe he explains why in the vid well enough. kucinich is an honest candidate, much like Paul and that certainly deserves respect which even i have expressed before. His views aren't just what ppl want to hear, but what he thinks is right.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's an ackward compromise. Paul and Kucinich are polar opposites on their political views and principles. It would be like me willing to support Karl Marx because he was currently anti-war and a nice guy. That's just the way I view it.

As it stands, Ron Paul will have to be compromising with the Left and the Right if he were to become President.

What I like about him, is that overall his answers are uncompromisable as they are based on the Constitution. Translating that to reality in working with the other side, he would be willing to work with Kucinich (or the Dems or even Republicans) on some issues "to tide things over," but in reality, he wants to phase non-constitutional programs out. If the Constitution was adhered to in the beginning, these socialist or other government programs wouldn't have ever occurred and I believe this is his view.

Fed Up

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

As it stands, Ron Paul will have to be compromising with the Left and the Right if he were to become President.

What I like about him, is that overall his answers are uncompromisable as they are based on the Constitution. Translating that to reality in working with the other side, he would be willing to work with Kucinich (or the Dems or even Republicans) on some issues "to tide things over," but in reality, he wants to phase non-constitutional programs out. If the Constitution was adhered to in the beginning, these socialist or other government programs wouldn't have ever occurred and I believe this is his view.

Fed Up

That's a fair assessment. I'm looking at it a little more microscopicly. I see him and view him for the principles he stands for. I'm left scratching my head when I hear him saying he would support someone as president who goes against essentially every principle he stands for. I can understand compromising with people with different points of view or even opposite points of view. But supporting them to run the country to me is about as absurd as me saying I support Karl Marx to run the US. I can compromise with Karl Marx, sure, but support him as president of my country? No. Not even if he were my best friend.

I understand what you're saying though. It's nice that he can compromise. I would like him to compromise on a lot of issues. But I think willingness to compromise and supporting for president are two different issues. If I were a politician I could compromise with Hillary Clinton, but support her for president, I cannot.

[lew]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Only because of his Iraq views. He's positioned himself many times in the past as saying he wouldn't vote for a Republican because they all want to prolong the war in Iraq. The defining characteristic I think for Paul in any politician is whether they want to pull out of Iraq yesterday and bring all troops home. I don't think it would matter too much if they were borderline socialist, open-borders, and for the expanding government. This actually hurts my opinion of him. While Iraq is very, very important, I don't like that he would support a politician that goes against essentially every principle he stands for.

Paul and Kucinich agree on quite a bit more than just the War.

They're both honest.


Kucinich is wary of the Federal Reserve.

They both are against the War on Drugs.


They also similar views on all of these:


Corporate Welfare.


Military-Industrial Complex.


Fair / Free Trade.


Patriot Act.


Death Penalty.



Their differences defiantly outnumber their similarities, but Kucinich isn't all that bad in my book.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Isn't the sign of a good President, one who can compromise?

Just curious if you read what I posted.

Yes, to some degree. If anyone wants 100% agreement you better vote yourself as President.

I was posting about those who support big socialist leaning government who like Ron Paul's anti-war message and not much more than that. If you are not aware Kucinich recently declared healthcare a right! If Ron Paul or anyone else thinks by ending the cost of this war we found the money to take care of our growing entitlement problems then he needs to do some math.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Yes, to some degree. If anyone wants 100% agreement you better vote yourself as President.

I was posting about those who support big socialist leaning government who like Ron Paul's anti-war message and not much more than that. If you are not aware Kucinich recently declared healthcare a right! If Ron Paul or anyone else thinks by ending the cost of this war we found the money to take care of our growing entitlement problems then he needs to do some math.

Minus the healthcare thing, though, what else don't you like about Kucinich? Because I've looked into his politics a bit and that's the thing that really turns me off to him, but as far as other issues, he does well.

If the 2008 election came down to RP and Kucinich, I seriously don't think we could lose, unlike the 2004 election where we were doomed either way. I would say that about the 2000 election, but we didn't know we were doomed based on then GWB, we found that out over the following 3 years.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Yes, to some degree. If anyone wants 100% agreement you better vote yourself as President.

Sorry...too many skeletons in the closet...oh, and pictures....



Thank God there weren't video cell phones when I went to college!

But I understand your point...it's almost impossible to find a candidate you can agree with 100%. Ron Paul comes pretty close for me.

Fed Up