It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron paul and Dennis Kuchinich

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
In this day of political decisiveness gearing up for the future presidential race, Two presidential hopefulls are banding together with very real ideas. I have noticed a lot of similarities between Ron paul and Dennis Kuchinich. Both are for the audit and abolition of the federal reserve and integration back into the U.S Treasury. Both are for the Immediate withdraw of troops from Libya and the constitutionality of the presidents actions. Both seem to be very vocal against the Obama Administration. They have different views on entitlements but both actually speak of the constitution as the cornerstone of our country and it shall be strictly adherred to.
Lets not forget they are republican and democrat. So why can't they run together in the presidential race as a motley mixed party one as potus and the other as the v.p? Though I do not know as much about Kuchinich as I do Ron paul, I think they'd make good bedfellows ( I do not mean that in a gay conoctation.)
I think the Democratic party is either using Kuchinich to grab some of the Libertarian/ Republican steam but assimilating into the crowd or Kuchinich is legit. It is too soon for me to make a sound decision on that issue.
I do however recall the tea party being assimilated by the neoconservatives and progressives because it was the "cool thing" going on at the time

I do not know how to embed a vid hopefully this works right.

This video is a fair example of what point I am trying to illustrate.www.youtube.com... this link is to Kuchinich talking about Ron Paul


This link is to Ron Paul talking about Kuchinich www.youtube.com...
Kuchinich and Ron Paul co sponsoring a bill in Congress and its about Iraq. Its 15 minutes long.





Why can't we have our cake and eat it too? I do see great points they both have but I don't agree with all republican agenda and all democratic agenda. I think if we can balance the scales with bipartisan politics at the top our overall ebb and flow of giving and taking in the gov't will move freer and more productive for all Americans. Has anyone ever noticed how when lets say we have a republican ran administration all the dems are bashing the republicans. Yet when the Democrats are in office the Republicans fight tooth and nail just because it is democratic agenda. Lets face it, when one side is in power they run with whatever they can get away with as fast and as far as they can but if the top executives can run office together then they can make congress work smoother with more...real debate rather than partisan BS. Yeah our talk shows will make quite a stir but that'll die down quickly because there won't be as much finger pointing and blaming as to party policy.
Like I said political parties and lobbyist are not for the American people 90% of the time( this percentage is not actual but a assumption of my concious or opinion). These guys from what I have seen have integrity and honor. That is what I am looking for in an Executive branch. Who would you like to see run as a biparty team to the white house? Just pick two people on two seperate parties and pair them up. Please explain your reasoning.


Thank you for your time.
edit on 1-7-2011 by agentblue because: added video from c-span

edit on 1-7-2011 by agentblue because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by agentblue
 


They used to do this I think. I believe John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were from two separate parties.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ParanoidAmerican
 
Really? I did not know that. Thanks for the information. I will research that asap

Thank you


http:/ /scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1091&context=ask_gleaves&sei-redir=1#search=%22bi%20partisan%20running%20mates%22
edit on 1-7-2011 by agentblue because: researched the topic



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I knew that they agreed on alot, but I didn't know the extent of their friendship. Thank you for this. These two men epitomize the potential good of their parties/ideologies. And on many important points they agree. Great good stuff. Makes me reconsider my complete apathy for the American political system.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Yea this was standard practice in our early years. Didn't really work out for the best however as it led to more fights than anything else.

I would like to see Hillary Clinton with Michelle Bachman myself.

Bachman seems to have a desire for the job and Hillary has the experience. I think they would balance each other out nicely. On top of that however I believe it would be a ticket with a strong chance of winning.

Basically anyone who runs with Hillary in 2016 will make it.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ParanoidAmerican
reply to post by agentblue
 


They used to do this I think. I believe John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were from two separate parties.



John Adams , 2nd President was elected as a Federalist

Thomas Jefferson came in 2nd in the election, his party was called Democratic-Republican.

In the early days the man who came in 2nd in the race for President became the Vice-President.


When parties became stronger the rules changed and the Vice-President became a separate elected office,

as it is today



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by louieprima
 


Actually these two don't really represent their two parties at all. The reason we have a two party system is that each side speaks for that majority of Americans views. Certainly not on every issue but basically everyone can associate more with one than the other.

The major issues that face America are handled either with a democratic point of view or a republican one and any third option is usually too far fetched or plausible to be considered this is why third party candidates never really fit in. The issues they bring to the table are either already covered by the dems or republicans or don't fit with the mainstream voter.

Both Paul and Dennis fit into this third category. They may have interesting ideas but usually most of America won't agree with them on their platform as a whole. This is why together in the last election they got maybe 3% of the vote combined.

Unless both major parties really go crazy I don't think you will ever see a realistic third party since there's not much different they could bring to an issue that the dems or republicans do.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by whatwasthat
 


It's also neat that back then you would have multiple people from a party running for office. In fact the republicans actually disappeared for awhile and there was an election with I believe just 5 democrats running for President. This was either before or after the Whig party came in but i'd have to check on that.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
I would vote for a Paul-Pres/Kucinich-VP ticket. I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's views, but do agree with most of them. I disagree with Kucinich more; however, I do believe he is decent, loves this country and isn't bought-and-paid-for; therefore I would support him. It's time to have ethics again as part of the equation for the highest job in the Land (imo).

I would not support any of the following due to corruption:
Hillary Clinton made Judicial Watch's Top Ten Most Corrupt Politicians List how many times? Ditto Obama. Bachmann supported the bailout and after getting elected, betrayed us by voting YES to extending the Patriot Act. Pawlenty's state went downhill with him in office; Cain is an ex-Federal Reserve employee, says the Fed does not need audited and there was a scandal wherein he screwed employees out of millions. Newt has a scandalous past as well. Huntsman worked for Obama, but now he's a Republican? Perry worked for Gore and is now a Republican? These two just offer further proof that there truly is not a dime's difference between the parties. Perry is pro-illegal immigration, supports the NAFTA, tried to force girls to get the Gardasil vaccine, accepting a campaign contribution from Merck--how anti-Constitutional is that? Plus, imo, it should be the parents' call anyway. I was actually shocked the other day to see a YT video of Ed Rendell, former Democrat governor of Pennsylvania stating that "Paul is the ONLY one telling the truth".

My biggest concern is DIEBOLD. The Paul campaign has hired a polling company, though, which I think was a brilliant move...



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by whatwasthat
 


Nice see I picked up something as well. I didn't not know the runner-up became vice, man they leave so much out in history courses.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
There's no rule against members of opposite parties running on a ticket, I for one would love to see these two break that constraint. Back in the early days of the US the VP was the guy who lost the bid for the presidency and the newly-elected president's former rival.

Too bad these two will never get their chance, they'll both be run out of town by their own parties for breaking from the status-quo.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join