Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Paul / Kucinich Ticket to change politics forever

page: 5
64
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Off_The_Street
 


I'm a big civil liberties guy too, but I understand the need for "some" regulation. We need to do away with 3-strike laws, and mandatory sentencing, and jailtime for minor crimes, and de-criminalize many of the trivial offenses. but,,,,

We do need a limited FDA to ensure truth in labeling (which they currently fail at), and to ensure imports are inspected properly.

As much as I hate Socialist practices, we currently do not have a Free Market in any way, shape, or form. SO, if we must have some regulations, and some socialist tendencies, then they should be in the areas of Healthcare and Education! I don't support Socialist Medicine, nor the Dept. of Education, but I do support the Student Loan programs, and I do recognize a drastic need for Healthcare Reform.

So, I think the combination of Paul and Kucinich could straddle the divide. We could honestly have the best of both worlds, at least in theory, and then it would be up to the two men to lead and prioritize and make it work.

I really hope Kucinich doesn't believe in Chemtrails though.
That might be a deal-breaker.




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I'm still on the fence regarding Paul, and his VP choice will make a difference. A Paul / Kucinich (or even better, a Kucinich / Paul
. Yes, I know.) ticket would go a long way towards locking me down for Paul.

Kucinich seems to be one of the very few actually honest politicians, who actually really does give a damn about something other than enriching himself.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
The real fantastic four would be Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader and Jesse Ventura. Combating evil in all corners of the earth



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I would be MUCH more likely to vote for Paul if he had Kucinich as his running mate. I do have concerns about Paul's age. He'll be 80 after his first term. We all know how a presidency affects the aging process... and on a septuagenarian... well, I'm not confident he'll make it through his first term.

Any of the other suggestions I've heard for Paul's running mate have turned me completely off.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


There would be no question in my mind if it was a Kucinich/Paul ticket. That one has my vote for sure!



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by mcdgray129
 

most Americans have a three second attention span or just plain apathy after being lied to and manipulated by the media for so long. They spend waay too much time in entertainment wonderland tending to give them a distorted view of the world. I am an American so i should know. Now that I see the relationship between the standard news media and public opinion more clearly, without a doubt it is extremely biased against Paul and doing it's utmost to discredit him in any way possible. Interestingly, despite all of this he is doing very well because once someone "tunes in to" him and his message and wakes up from their slumber or apathy (hence the placard- "dr paul cured my apathy"), they stay loyal. And those people are growing exponentially



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DocEmrick
Nobody will vote for Paul, let alone Kucinich after the UFO debacle.


Paul/Kucinch ticket would be key to unlocking that stalemate especially with Paul cutting enough money from black project groups to get their attention. Podesta and Panetta were both very vocal on the disclosure issue back in the Clinton era and they are still having success in DC, so how do you figure it would hurt? 70+% of Americans believe in some aspects of the issue



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
i would like to see RON PAUL and JESSE VENTURA.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorKarma
 

the whole "image is everything" philosophy is what got us into this problem to begin with. why should we continue using that reasoning?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Interview with Huntsman.

Apparently Huntsman has been named a potential running mate for Romney, to which Huntsman replied that he "couldn't imagine it at all," but he did say he would serve under Michelle Bachmann. Maybe he would be interested in a Paul ticket?

I;m sure there is a number of us that would serve under bachmann or palin

but Paul / Kucinich is a perfect match, where as huntsman would be the Manchurian candidate



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 

I guess that's where the scales tip one way or the other. If not Paul the scales tip to the fear and violence paradigm



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 

maybe not


either way I don't trust the way he plays ball with the status quo. he carefully phrases his words to leave wiggle room for later on when he changes his position.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 

I say put chemtrails in the "pollution folder" and call it a day. without a doubt the upper atmosphere does not need these toxins



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

I don't think you should try to fit a Paul presidency into the same mold as any previous except maybe Carter as far as cutting out extravagances and jet setting around the world when there is so much work to be done domestically.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Thread title is misleading.

The inclusion of the preposition 'to' implies that the event already happened and should be changed to something a little less concrete, for instance 'would', or better yet, 'might'.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by romanmel
 


You may not agree with Kucinich, or Paul, or any other candidate on everything. The important thing is to decide what is most important to you. Since Obama has been elected the entire outlook of the country has changed for the worse. Four years ago we had the ability to vote for change, policies, and ideologies. This novelty is no longer available to the American people. Four more years of politics as usual, even if the president is republican, will certainly destroy our nations ability to redeem itself. Mainstream candidates are simply not an option this time around. This election, the most important thing is to vote for a president who will protect and restore our constitutionally protected, god-granted rights. This election is about the direction of our nation. Will we move more and more toward a police state, the likes of which the world has never seen, or will we restore America. Will we find our roots and restore our values and principles, or will we surely go to ruin.

I disagree with many of Paul's positions, and don't think Kucinich is the best candidate for the leadership role of the world's most powerful nation, but none of my disagreements trumps my desire for the restoration of the constitution and the end of politics as usual.

PAUL/KUCINICH 2012!
PAUL/KUCINICH 2012!
PAUL/KUCINICH 2012!
PAUL/KUCINICH 2012!
PAUL/KUCINICH 2012!
PAUL/KUCINICH 2012!
PAUL/KUCINICH 2012!
PAUL/KUCINICH 2012!
PAUL/KUCINICH 2012!
PAUL/KUCINICH 2012!
edit on 12-1-2012 by memarf1 because: fixing a typo



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by sweetnlow
 


I disagree. I think people just think he looks like the Manchurian candidate because of what he actually looks like. Hollywood messed that up for him. He is my second favorite in the field. I would prefer Huntsman over all the others if it weren't for my perception that we need fundamental change right now. I say make Huntsman secretary of state and let him look to 2016 or 2020. He will make a fine president after the country has returned to its constitutional foundation.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorKarma
reply to post by getreadyalready
 
I respect and like Dennis Kucinich fine but two little guys running the country is not visually what I think we need.


WTH? Are you serious, who are you trying to impress?
Wasn't Napoleon a small guy? Pol Pot? Hitler?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I'd rather see Ron Paul/Jon Huntsman. I like some of what Kucinich says .. but Huntsman has it all. He's got executive and international experience. He works well with others (*others being those not of his party). He's got 'presence'. For me to vote for Ron Paul ... well ... his VPOTUS pick will have a big say in that. Ron Paul will be almost 80 and I don't think he could keep up with the rigors of office for a long time .. sorry.

As for Herman Cain .. the flavor of the week a weeks and weeks ago ... I dont think his endorsement will mean much and it won't sway anyone. That's what I'm thinking anyways ....



Me too, a much better combination. Kucinich is just too far left for me. It seems Mark Levin agrees with me and says he's a socialist.




This is all I have to hear about Kucinich to turn me off, and it's a review by the International Socialist Review


EVEN THOUGH Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich is widely viewed as an unrealistic option for president, he appeals to the left because he has taken the most consistent and liberal positions on most of the main issues–with the glaring exception of abortion rights. Kucinch promises a single-payer universal health care plan,

isreview.org...

edit on 12-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


If you want liberty, then adding people with a socialist agenda of any kind is not the answer. It's not a winning combination and Paul would never get the support of a Republican Congress with that ticket. Obama would win because no conservative will vote for Kucinich, and Kucinich is fart left as Obama is and a socialist as well. I am very disappointed to hear Paul would consider Kucinich for anything, but I understand he may want to pull support for stopping the wars. It's not enough of a reason to go with someone who pushes for single payer socialist health care especially when the GOP is trying to repeal it. If GOP gets wind of such a thing they will reject Paul flat out.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I would support a Kucenich/Paul ticket. It would certainly shake things up at the very core
however, a VP doesn't do much...would rather have one of them be sec/state (holds more power)






top topics



 
64
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join