It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Both Kucinich and Paul are Libertarians in my opinion. Kucinich would be a social Libertarian and Paul a constitutional Libertarian. Both views have their place under the libertarian flag. Kucinich wants an America that follows the rule of law and takes care of the people first and foremost, and regulate business that works against the betterment of the people. Paul wants an America that follows the constitution and promotes freedom throughout a free market system allowing everyone to experience the mistakes and rewards of their own decision. The real debate between Paul and Kucinich is between a responsibility personal or collective. Kucinich promotes collective responsibility in a free system. Paul promote personal responsibility in a free system.
Neither should be in any party...but they must to get the funding and equal opportunity. Additionally, too many people don't have the brain power to be able to see outside the scope of two possible choices. You give someone 10 choice and they think the system is broken as their brain cannot process that much information and perspectives.
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by iamcamouflage
Why is Ron Paul a Republican? Maybe because he is a Republican brand. You should ask yourself how the Republican party did it. Essentially the Republican party got 2 or more million votes from a voter demographic that is suppose to be against the two party system, a voter demographic that does not trust either party. So how did the Republican party still manage to gain their support? All thanks to their brand extension, Ron Paul.
Its like Coke you know? Some people like coke but cannot consume high counts of sugar, so they purchase Diet Coke. At the end of the day they are still purchasing Coke regardless of whether it is slightly different. It is the same brand. That brand is using an extension to attract in a segment of consumers and that is exactly what the Republican party had been doing with Ron Paul. His a brand extension for the Republican party. Sure, the man tells it like is but then again thats just part of the brand. Its little to no different to what the Democrats do with Kucinich.
People can sit here and continue to celebrate how wonderful Ron Paul is but when they put that vote out for him they are voting the Republican party and assisting in gaining that party's momentum. If Ron Paul was well and truly different from politicians of both parties, he would not be apart of that system.
[edit on 18-4-2010 by Southern Guardian]
Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by mnemeth1
That is essentially what I am saying. The Republican party is no longer what it used to be. It is more likely that "true" Republicans should form a new party than hold any hope that the name Republican ever reverts back to what it originally was.
The term Republican means something completely different today than it meant in the past.
As another poster stated, Ron Paul is more aligned with Libertarians than Republicans.
And if he does not have anything in common with the current Republican party, why does he still want to call himself a Republican? Why doesnt he run as an independent? Libertarian? Paulatarian?
Why align yourself with a group of people that no longer hold the same views as yourself?
[edit on 19-4-2010 by iamcamouflage]