Who Do You Prefer For President - Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich? [Archive]

dudalb

7th November 2007, 02:05 PM

I wouldn't totally bet on that... not that we'll ever hear honesty from anyone on the subject.

Here's an interesting poll: http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll/results

Kucinich leads ALL Democrats. What a surprise. What do they know that the mainstream pollsters and media don't?

Wow. A left wing website conducting a poll has a result favoring a left wing candidate.
That is really solid evidence of how mainstream America feels.
Joe,once again you are letting ideology blind you to reality: American public opinion is not nearly as far to the left as you think it is.
That is weak,really,weak.
And if someone on the political right tried the same think you would be jumping all over them.
Try taking the blinders off for one minute.

dudalb

7th November 2007, 02:08 PM

That the far left who votes on that poll vote for the farthest left candidate? That's about as much a surprise as Pat Robertson winning a popularity contest on the 700 club site.

I agree. It is an incredibly lame...and painfully obvious.. tactic.
A good case of allowing ideology to triumph over reality.Joe thinks there is a massive ,hidden,far left voting public out there. There is not.

dudalb

7th November 2007, 02:14 PM

fishbob

7th November 2007, 02:19 PM

Because everyone has a preference... :rolleyes:

Oliver will call me names if I choose the Planet X option.
You wouldn't want that, would you?

Dr. Fascism

7th November 2007, 02:22 PM

One thing Paul and Kucinich have in common: Neither stands the chance of a snowball in hell of being elected President or even getting their party's nomination.
Paul is a borderline Anarchist; Kucinich is a borderline The Government Should Run Everything Socialists.

the conspiracy nuts like them because they think the media is biased and the parties are corrupt,

but who has deftly been running america? the MAINSTREAM democrats and republicans, and we are doing quite well

we don't need a change, the only change is for these people to SHUT THE HELL UP

Oliver

7th November 2007, 02:22 PM

Oliver will call me names if I choose the Planet X option.
You wouldn't want that, would you?

I rarely call names. You might confuse me with Dubalb here...

fishbob

7th November 2007, 02:26 PM

"Lemmingism"

You called me a Lemmingismist.

Oliver

7th November 2007, 02:32 PM

"Lemmingism"

You called me a Lemmingismist.

I didn't mean you - otherwise I would have said "Lemmingmismionalist".

Tsukasa Buddha

7th November 2007, 02:32 PM

BPSCG

7th November 2007, 02:37 PM

Oliver will call me names if I choose the Planet X option.
You wouldn't want that, would you?Be a man and vote your convictions. This is America, where you can't be jailed for stating your opinions unless you don't show the proper respect for GWB, and even then, you'd be set free on January 20, 2009 anyway.

Unless Cheney's planned coup succeeds, in which case you'd be screwed anyway.

Dr. Fascism

7th November 2007, 02:38 PM

Kucinich!

He actually stands for what he believes in.

He's also crazy. But it's a special kind of lovable crazy that is the opposite of Ron Paul's.

I've never quite understood the "Love" part of Ron Paul's campaign. I mean, what's loving about permitting genocide, withdrawing from Afghanistan, or abolishing Social Security and the Department of Education?

I mean, at least Kucinich's hippie "Strength through Peace" campaign isn't self-contradictory.

thats what im saying! we are one big society, if you don't want to give the amount SOCIETY deems acceptable then you're anti-american and dont belong here!

ron paul is doing this under the guise of there is no base consent towards these programs

but i say, we live on teh governments lands, we are TENENTS of the government, we owe our rent, and in turn they give us a robust federal system.

ron paul would say, "i support charity" but thats not enough, you have to force the people to cough up for the greater good

thats why i hate libertarians

Dr. Fascism

7th November 2007, 02:39 PM

Be a man and vote your convictions. This is America, where you can't be jailed for stating your opinions unless you don't show the proper respect for GWB, and even then, you'd be set free on January 20, 2009 anyway.

Unless Cheney's planned coup succeeds, in which case you'd be screwed anyway.

ifyour convictions are for voting ron paul, then dont vote, leave this country

dudalb

7th November 2007, 02:51 PM

Kucinich!

I mean, at least Kucinich's hippie "Strength through Peace" campaign isn't self-contradictory.

Sadly,it is.
The guy means well, but is pretty damn nieve in many way.

Dr. Fascism

7th November 2007, 03:17 PM

Sadly,it is.
The guy means well, but is pretty damn nieve in many way.

naive is an understatement for anyone who wants out of iraq

Darth Rotor

7th November 2007, 03:24 PM

naive is an understatement for anyone who wants out of iraq

I am guessing you live in a warm clime, and live under a bridge to keep out of the sun as you watch for billy goats.

Care to raise the bar on your minimum standard input, Dr F? Your fans will appreciate it, and those not your fans will as well.

A win - win situation.

DR

Dr. Fascism

7th November 2007, 03:29 PM

I am guessing you live in a warm clime, and live under a bridge to keep out of the sun as you watch for billy goats.

Care to raise the bar on your minimum standard input, Dr F? Your fans will appreciate it, and those not your fans will as well.

A win - win situation.

DR

I love my country and we went into Iraq for a reason

no liberal or ron paul supporters can tell me otherwise

UserGoogol

7th November 2007, 03:33 PM

Wow. A left wing website conducting a poll has a result favoring a left wing candidate.
That is really solid evidence of how mainstream America feels.
Joe,once again you are letting ideology blind you to reality: American public opinion is not nearly as far to the left as you think it is.
That is weak,really,weak.
And if someone on the political right tried the same think you would be jumping all over them.
Try taking the blinders off for one minute.

Yeah, although personally I'd like the results of that poll to be representative, they probably aren't. I think the interesting thing is that Kucinich is in first place while Gravel is in last place, although politically Gravel and Kucinich are pretty close.

Of course, possible reasons abound why that might be the case, so it's not that weird. Kucinich ran in 2004 and is actively serving in Congress "fighting the good fight" while Gravel has been out of office since 1981, (which makes Kucinich a more obvious choice for people on the left) and also Gravel supports the FairTax and although I think that might be a neat idea (with the "monthtly prebates" it is both comparably progressive to the current system while providing a moderate Guaranteed Minimum Income, for instance) the idea of switching to a national sales tax might put a lot of people on the left off guard since the idea has been largely promoted by Libertarians. But generally, I think it might be that Kucinich is just viewed as a crazy lefty while Gravel is looked at as a crazy old man, who is incidentally also pretty left-wing.

Darth Rotor

7th November 2007, 03:37 PM

I love my country and we went into Iraq for a reason
More than one, or weren't you paying attention? Not as much fun as you might think, the scrum over there.
no liberal or ron paul supporters can tell me otherwise
They can tell you whatever they like, unless you have some secret means by which you can prevent them forming an opinion, typing, and using the "post" or "send reply" button on the forum.

If that is true, Mr Randi's million may be yours, on the paranormal skills basis. You holding out on us, Dr F?

DR

Upchurch

7th November 2007, 03:39 PM

If I have to pick between crazy, Kucinich is my kind of crazy.

Dr. Fascism

7th November 2007, 03:42 PM

If I have to pick between crazy, Kucinich is my kind of crazy.

isnt is funny how all the non-mainstream politicians are crazy?

if there's anything i love that's really mainstream its mainstream politicians, they do politics right unlike clowns like UFO Kuchinich

DoubtingStephen

7th November 2007, 03:48 PM

I love my country and we went into Iraq for a reason

I accept that you love your country, and I agree that we certainly did go into Iraq for a reason, or perhaps for two reasons.

Oil
Permanent military bases

I'm curious, though, why you would choose to express your love for your country in the same sentence as your assertion that we went into Iraq for a reason.

As a librul, homo, pacifist, vegan, peacenik fag I also love my country. It is the current infestation of neocons in our government that I appreciate much less than I love my country.

no liberal or ron paul supporters can tell me otherwise

I'm a librul, as mentioned above. Are you saying that I can't tell you that you love your country? Or did you mean that I can't tell you that we went into Iraq for oil and permanent military bases?

Oliver

7th November 2007, 03:49 PM

isnt is funny how all the non-mainstream politicians are crazy?

if there's anything i love that's really mainstream its mainstream politicians, they do politics right unlike clowns like UFO Kuchinich

Did you ever wonder why all mainstream politicians are rich, arrogant Liars?
I really wonder how the presidential clown-circus even relates to politics.
On the other Hand - no democracy, no democratic elections...

Oliver

7th November 2007, 03:56 PM

we went into Iraq for a reason

Oh pleeaaase ... enlighten us! :)

Darth Rotor

7th November 2007, 04:12 PM

I accept that you love your country, and I agree that we certainly did go into Iraq for a reason, or perhaps for two reasons.

Oil
Permanent military bases
Stephen, a few facts might be in order here to help you with your perspective.

The US already had considerable bases, and basing rights, in the Persian Gulf before crossing the LD in IRaq in 2003. Air bases in:

Oman (Masirah) (IIRC, in 2004, Oman reduced some of its cooperation at Masirah, not sure what the state of play is now.)
Manama (Bahrain)
UAE (Al Dafra)
Saudi Arabia (the infamous PSAB. Now replaced by a smiliar base in Qatar)
Numberous bases and deopts in Kuwait

One of your alleged reasons does not stand up as a motive for war. Bases were already there, and available to launch a war from, as was done, and support a war from, as is being done.

Oil.
*sigh*

If the US "wanted oil," then an invasion of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or Brunei, might have been simpler. Why Iraq?

If you look a little deeper (take the WMD issue in whichever way you like) and you see something a little less simplistic than your two sound bytes. The neo Wilsonian reason may or may not be window dressing, the old "evangelize Democracy to the poor and oppressed of the world (see neo-White Man's Burden), but when one considers the influence of various neoconservative sorts in the administration, it seems to match.

As a librul, homo, pacifist, vegan, peacenik fag I also love my country.
I never thought of you as a cigarette. :cool:

I'm a librul, as mentioned above. Are you saying that I can't tell you that you love your country? Or did you mean that I can't tell you that we went into Iraq for oil and permanent military bases?
You can say what you like, but that doesn't make you right, or even well informed.

DR

Bob Klase

7th November 2007, 04:34 PM

Dennis "I saw a UFO" Kucinich?

Well, 0.001% of Americans can't be wrong.... :rolleyes:

isnt is funny how all the non-mainstream politicians are crazy?

if there's anything i love that's really mainstream its mainstream politicians, they do politics right unlike clowns like UFO Kuchinich

So did he say that he'd seen an alien spacecraft or something? Or did he say that he'd seen something he couldn't identify? If the latter, I'm not sure what the problem is other than the fact that he didn't spell it out in small words so Sean Hannity and his ilk wouldn't have an out of context quote to rant about for the next few months.

DoubtingStephen

7th November 2007, 05:49 PM

Stephen, a few facts might be in order here to help you with your perspective.

The US already had considerable bases, and basing rights, in the Persian Gulf before crossing the LD in IRaq in 2003. Air bases in:

Your argument may suggest that the US did not need additional permanent military bases in Iraq, but it is also true that the US did not need to invade Iraq in the first place. Necessity has nothing to do with the current adventure in imperialism.

The fact does remain that right after our invasion, we did begin building 14 bases. (source (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm))

Perhaps the reason for building these new bases we did not require was simply to funnel taxpayer dollars to a company that features the Vice President of the United States among its former CEOs.

One thing we can be certain about, our reasons for invading Iraq have nothing to do with the reasons that were trumped up to sell the war to the people.

Tailgater

7th November 2007, 06:01 PM

Your argument may suggest that the US did not need additional permanent military bases in Iraq, but it is also true that the US did not need to invade Iraq in the first place. Necessity has nothing to do with the current adventure in imperialism.

The fact does remain that right after our invasion, we did begin building 14 bases. (source (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm))

Perhaps the reason for building these new bases we did not require was simply to funnel taxpayer dollars to a company that features the Vice President of the United States among its former CEOs.

One thing we can be certain about, our reasons for invading Iraq have nothing to do with the reasons that were trumped up to sell the war to the people.

Not so fast.

From the article.

"Now U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years."

You also cited an article from '04 when bases were expected to be used in Iraq for a few years.

JoeEllison

7th November 2007, 06:06 PM

If I have to pick between crazy, Kucinich is my kind of crazy.

Yeah, sane is my kind of "crazy" too! :D

JoeEllison

7th November 2007, 06:14 PM

So did he say that he'd seen an alien spacecraft or something? Or did he say that he'd seen something he couldn't identify? If the latter, I'm not sure what the problem is other than the fact that he didn't spell it out in small words so Sean Hannity and his ilk wouldn't have an out of context quote to rant about for the next few months.Actually, he DID spell it out, probably not in enough detail for Hannity or his pinhead audience:

"Uh, I did. And the rest of the account. It was an unidentified flying object, OK? It's like, it's unidentified. I saw something. Now, to answer your question. I'm moving my, and I'm also going to move my campaign office to Roswell, New Mexico, and another one in Exeter, New Hampshire, OK? And also, you have to keep in mind that Jimmy Carter saw a UFO, and also that more people in this country have seen UFOs than I think approve of George Bush's presidency."

How can you not like him?

DoubtingStephen

7th November 2007, 06:26 PM

Not so fast.

From the article.

"Now U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years."

You also cited an article from '04 when bases were expected to be used in Iraq for a few years.

Are we still there? Did Halliburton get fat no-bid contracts? Was Darth Cheney formerly the CEO of Halliburton? Is he still getting 1 million dollars a year as part of a sweetheart "retirement" package?

Tailgater

7th November 2007, 06:35 PM

Are we still there? Did Halliburton get fat no-bid contracts? Was Darth Cheney formerly the CEO of Halliburton? Is he still getting 1 million dollars a year as part of a sweetheart "retirement" package?

That's not what you posted about.

Your original post cited permanent military bases.

You supported this with a link 6 months after the war started about bases that would be used for at least a few years for the war. Of course they need bases to support logistics.

You would need to show evidence of post-war plans to make these permanent, which may be the case.

I was only pointing this out.

marksman

8th November 2007, 07:04 AM

Actually, he DID spell it out, probably not in enough detail for Hannity or his pinhead audience:

"Uh, I did. And the rest of the account. It was an unidentified flying object, OK? It's like, it's unidentified. I saw something. Now, to answer your question. I'm moving my, and I'm also going to move my campaign office to Roswell, New Mexico, and another one in Exeter, New Hampshire, OK? And also, you have to keep in mind that Jimmy Carter saw a UFO, and also that more people in this country have seen UFOs than I think approve of George Bush's presidency."

How can you not like him?
Well, except he got his numbers wrong, as Tim Russert immediately pointed out to him. 14% of America claims to believe in UFOs (even fewer claim to have seen one themselves) and Bush still has a (dismal) 31% approval rating.

Of course, since Kucinich has never managed to poll 14%, he hasn't even gotten the UFO vote locked up!

I voted for Planet X, because that's the only Planet in which would ever come down to a choice between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich for President.

JoeEllison

8th November 2007, 07:12 AM

Well, except he got his numbers wrong, as Tim Russert immediately pointed out to him. 14% of America claims to believe in UFOs (even fewer claim to have seen one themselves) and Bush still has a (dismal) 31% approval rating.
That's because Russert is a moron and an anti-Democrat hack. It was a good line, to humorously defuse the silly story... but scum like Russert are slavishly devoted to the silly story over real issues.

marksman

8th November 2007, 08:13 AM

It was a good line, to humorously defuse the silly story... but scum like Russert are slavishly devoted to the silly story over real issues.
Right, because not correcting a politician when he gives out inaccurate information worked out so well for the press with Bush...

But you know what really would have defused the silly story? If he had said "No, I don't believe in UFOs. I do believe George Bush is ruining this country."

His joke instead said "I might be bat crazy, but there are more crazies who agree with me than with Bush..." except he was wrong.

BPSCG

8th November 2007, 09:08 AM

That's because Russert is a moron and an anti-Democrat hack. Funny, I keep hearing that Russert is a moron and an anti-Republican hack.

Maybe he just doesn't like anyone very much.

GreNME

8th November 2007, 09:37 AM

The US already had considerable bases, and basing rights, in the Persian Gulf before crossing the LD in IRaq in 2003. Air bases in:

Oman (Masirah) (IIRC, in 2004, Oman reduced some of its cooperation at Masirah, not sure what the state of play is now.)
Manama (Bahrain)
UAE (Al Dafra)
Saudi Arabia (the infamous PSAB. Now replaced by a smiliar base in Qatar)
Numberous bases and deopts in Kuwait

One of your alleged reasons does not stand up as a motive for war. Bases were already there, and available to launch a war from, as was done, and support a war from, as is being done.

How many of those bases allowed the US to launch for Desert Storm? How many do you think would allow launches against Iran?

Actually, if you look at those on a map, you'll see that those locations are not very centrally located, except for possibly the SA ones. However, the Saudi government has special restrictions on what kinds of missions we can fly out of there, not to mention the general discontent with an American military presence in the first place.

No, permanent military bases in Iraq are still far more logistically reasonable than the others, because the desired goal is having a government in Iraq that feels beholden to US causes, not the other way around with the US being beholden to its host.

Oil.
*sigh*

If the US "wanted oil," then an invasion of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or Brunei, might have been simpler. Why Iraq?

Because it's simpler. Your "might have been simpler" suggestion is just plain false. Attacking Saudi Arabia (our ally) or Venezuela (a huge producer of a resource we consume a great deal of) are impractical because we do business with them directly. To attack those two would be to shoot ourselves in the logistical foot. As for Brunei, Iraq simply has more of the Good Thing, and isn't currently being tapped very much. There are significant advantages to having direct influence over a resource that is in high demand and was currently (prior to 2003) under embargo.

If you look a little deeper (take the WMD issue in whichever way you like) and you see something a little less simplistic than your two sound bytes. The neo Wilsonian reason may or may not be window dressing, the old "evangelize Democracy to the poor and oppressed of the world (see neo-White Man's Burden), but when one considers the influence of various neoconservative sorts in the administration, it seems to match.

There are differences between "excuses" and "reasons" for doing things. The WMD line was pure BS, or we'd have gone after North Korea first. The democratic evangelizing is equally BS, or we'd have been in Darfur and a number of other places first. There is every indication that Iraq was a case of the administration having axes to grind and seeing opportunity for economic and military benefits in having influence in Iraq. Given the change of focus to Iran now, the whole "having bases in Iraq" thing is looking even more strategically sound.

corplinx

8th November 2007, 09:48 AM

If I pretend to agree Kucinich, does that mean I'll have a chance to score with his wife after he drinks the koolaid at the next comet party and she's on the rebound?

Darth Rotor

8th November 2007, 10:25 AM

Your argument may suggest that the US did not need additional permanent military bases in Iraq, but it is also true that the US did not need to invade Iraq in the first place.
Aye, Need is not a word that makes any sense. I didn't use it. Why did you?
Necessity has nothing to do with the current adventure in imperialism.
That's another way to put it.
The fact does remain that right after our invasion, we did begin building 14 bases. (source (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm))I understand what post hoc means, which is an interesting pun as Army bases are also called "posts" by Army sorts.
Perhaps the reason for building these new bases we did not require
Who is this we, Stephen? Are you serving in Iraq as we speak? Look at how many troops we have in Korea, and how many bases. It's part of how you function: have a base to function from. The building of bases suggests "this is not a quick in and out, love."
was simply to funnel taxpayer dollars to a company that features the Vice President of the United States among its former CEOs.
I see, the "depth" of your analysis is demonstrated. Thanks. Mistaking cause for effect, again? OK.
One thing we can be certain about, our reasons for invading Iraq have nothing to do with the reasons that were trumped up to sell the war to the people.
Sorry, your all or nothing is trite, and when you look at it, factually wrong. The public reasons for invading Iraq inlcuded:

Get rid of Saddam (done)
Scotch his WMD programs (well, that seems to have been easy, given their discovered state)
Transform the government and politics of Iraq, which was sold as "free the Iraqi people," which seems to have led to the operation being named "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
This factor did not get primacy of place in the sales pitch, did it? No, yet it seems to be the one piece that actually remained. You can write the thank you letters to Paul Wolfowitz, though not at the World Bank, seems they tired of his act as well.

Change (improve was assumed) security posture in the Middle East.
Well, change has come, and Iran is wallowing in it. Seems we did them a favor, politically, and any number of critics of the war warned that Iran could only gain from an invasion, is that really what was wanted? The "change" does not strike me as any great success, as of this writing, other than in the Kurds getting a better deal than they had.

Lucky them.

As to Freedom, and Iraqis, which would be the folks living in Iraq, have exercised their freedom to leave, it appears: two million refugees have left the country. According to many reports, a further two million exercised their right to do something like Southwest Airlines advertises, as they were now free to move about the country: two million internal refugees, roughly. Some call this a form of ethnic cleansing.

From the Temptations, we get cogent lyrics as the sound track, slightly adjusted for time:

People moving out
People moving in
All because of the [strike]color of the skin[/skin]mosque you worship in
Run run run
But you shore can't hide
An eye for an eye
A tooth for a tooth
Vote for me
I'll set you free!
Revolution!
(And the band played on . . .)

They also appear to be free to enjoy their civil war, and have been for the past four years.

Lucky them. :(

DR

Darth Rotor

8th November 2007, 10:43 AM

How many of those bases allowed the US to launch for Desert Storm?
The ones in Saudi. The ones in Kuwait didn't yet exist, nor did the one in Qatar. What does this have to do with OIF?
How many do you think would allow launches against Iran?
Good question. Don't know.
Actually, if you look at those on a map, you'll see that those locations are not very centrally located, except for possibly the SA ones.
Really? Look at Kuwait, again. Plus, SA has seen a reduction in basing. If you are doing air ops, you don't need centralization. If you are doing land ops, it may be a more attractive option.
However, the Saudi government has special restrictions on what kinds of missions we can fly out of there, not to mention the general discontent with an American military presence in the first place.
Yep. Note, as I noted, PSAB be gone, the base in Qatar is up.
No, permanent military bases in Iraq are still far more logistically reasonable than the others, because the desired goal is having a government in Iraq that feels beholden to US causes, not the other way around with the US being beholden to its host.
Could be, a new version of basing in Germany, without the beer. That's bad.
Because it's simpler. Your "might have been simpler" suggestion is just plain false. Attacking Saudi Arabia (our ally) or Venezuela (a huge producer of a resource we consume a great deal of) are impractical because we do business with them directly.
Could have done business with Saddam directly as well. Didn't, for a variety of reasons.
To attack those two would be to shoot ourselves in the logistical foot. As for Brunei, Iraq simply has more of the Good Thing, and isn't currently being tapped very much. There are significant advantages to having direct influence over a resource that is in high demand and was currently (prior to 2003) under embargo.
As I say, could have done a deal direct with Saddam, if oil is what the aim was. Since we deal with the King of Saudi, and Hugo, the oil obviously isn't the matter, something else is.
There are differences between "excuses" and "reasons" for doing things. The WMD line was pure BS, or we'd have gone after North Korea first.
Purest BS. None of the factors are taken in isolation, unless you are playing the fool. I think you no fool, so why do you play this card? Korea has its own calculus, and its own political logic, so your non sequitur of trying to match Korean WMD issues with Iraq WMD-security issues goes back to the rubbish bin where it belongs, right next to the "Axis of Evil" speech. See also a thing called "geography."
The democratic evangelizing is equally BS, or we'd have been in Darfur and a number of other places first. f
I guess you don't think the neocons had any influence on policy? I think they did.
There is every indication that Iraq was a case of the administration having axes to grind and seeing opportunity for economic and military benefits in having influence in Iraq. Given the change of focus to Iran now, the whole "having bases in Iraq" thing is looking even more strategically sound.
If you assume that the move into Iraq was a first step of two, the second being a move into Iran, yes. I don't. One reason I don't is that it requires an assumption that the political craft to keep the emotion that got us into Iraq remains alive and well. That craft has been noticeably lacking. Then again, any number of bad things were assumed away in the alleged strategic vision, so who knows?

Oil alone? Nope.

WMD alone? Nope.

Change in the region? Yeah. Gee, that seems a bit more like Wilsonian "evangelical" moves, if you recall how Veracruz went down, and places like Haiti, 1919.

DR

Ion

8th November 2007, 12:12 PM

To:
I like the honorable Mr Kucinich because of his outspoken criticism of our imperialist invasion of a completely innocent country based on a pack of lies.

He was against this illegal and immoral war, he is against this illegal and immoral war, and he will be against this illegal and immoral war.

I like most of everything else I hear him say too.
and:
Kucinich!

He actually stands for what he believes in.

He's also crazy. But it's a special kind of lovable crazy that is the opposite of Ron Paul's.

I've never quite understood the "Love" part of Ron Paul's campaign. I mean, what's loving about permitting genocide, withdrawing from Afghanistan, or abolishing Social Security and the Department of Education?

I mean, at least Kucinich's hippie "Strength through Peace" campaign isn't self-contradictory.
I voted for Kucinich.

Paul is a libertarian, clueless about the responsability of the government in society.

Ion

8th November 2007, 12:20 PM

Stephen, a few facts might be in order here to help you with your perspective.

The US already had considerable bases, and basing rights, in the Persian Gulf before crossing the LD in IRaq in 2003. Air bases in:

Oman (Masirah) (IIRC, in 2004, Oman reduced some of its cooperation at Masirah, not sure what the state of play is now.)
Manama (Bahrain)
UAE (Al Dafra)
Saudi Arabia (the infamous PSAB. Now replaced by a smiliar base in Qatar)
Numberous bases and deopts in Kuwait

One of your alleged reasons does not stand up as a motive for war. Bases were already there, and available to launch a war from, as was done, and support a war from, as is being done.

Oil.
*sigh*

If the US "wanted oil," then an invasion of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or Brunei, might have been simpler. Why Iraq?
...DR
"...Why Iraq?..."

Because BushCheneyRumsfeldRice thought it to be simple, the Iraqis were to greet U.S. with flowers, Iraq was going to pay its own invasion with oil.

They are wrong.

As for U.S. military bases already built in the Persian Gulf, enough is never enough for U.S..

Kopji

8th November 2007, 12:49 PM

I'm like, totally in for four years of Elizabeth as first lady.

SpaceMonkeyZero

8th November 2007, 01:41 PM

If it came down to those two, I think I'd commit seppaku.

dudalb

8th November 2007, 02:17 PM

If it came down to those two, I think I'd commit seppaku.

Or move to Canada.

Ziggurat

8th November 2007, 04:38 PM

Yeah, sane is my kind of "crazy" too! :D

*cough* chemtrails *cough*

Ziggurat

8th November 2007, 04:39 PM

As for U.S. military bases already built in the Persian Gulf, enough is never enough for U.S..

Which is, of course, why we pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia. :rolleyes:

steverino

8th November 2007, 05:55 PM

I like Kucinich as well, despite him being crazy.

He's sort of cute, too. Looks like one of Santa's elves.

Life just ain't fair. :mad:

Bull13

8th November 2007, 06:01 PM

What is sad i would vote the Planet X one on ANY politician you can name today. Chirst even the mayor of small Salinas Cali is a *******.

Loss Leader

8th November 2007, 06:06 PM

It's a shame that people like a winner. I think it you presented each candidate's positions without their name attached, far more Democrats would support Kucinich.

Dr Adequate

8th November 2007, 06:49 PM

pounce

8th November 2007, 07:53 PM

i sure would like to see kucinich win it. i'll be voting for him.

thing is, as has been pointed out, if you just look at the things he stands for he is where i am on the issues and the others aren't. period.

what's a shame is the way the media is limiting exposure to the candidates now. i don't want hillary, and the presidential election is a good way off.

has everyone done one of those online things where you fill in your take on the issues and it shows how candidates align with your views? i did. it was very interesting to see. and it's how i came to realize how kucinich had views i like, and views that were oddly unique in this election.

ps: i don't want the election focused on whether a woman or black man could be president, because i think either could be. they just don't represent my take on the issues, and i don't think democrats need to be weak to be popular, and i think hillary and obama are weak on the issues. they just have the most money of all of the democratic candidates.

Admiral

9th November 2007, 02:32 AM

Quick question- why has no one talked about how Dennis Kucinich is involved in 9/11 Truth?

Justin Martell: Can you maybe address the 9/11 truth movement?

Dennis Kucinich: First of all, you have to understand that all over the country people are concerned about whether or not they've been told the truth about 9/11 and the way that the administration handled 9/11, taking us into a war against Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11. It deepened people's suspicions about the possibility there may have been a cover-up. Because, why would the government lie about a cause for war? And so, what I'm saying is that I respect the concerns people have about whether they've been told the truth or not.

Because I want to be president of the United States, I know that unless you address that lack of trust, you're not going to be able to successfully lead a nation. And I want to be quite specific about this. It's my intention as Chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee to focus in on two areas that I've -- there are a number of areas, probably dozens of areas that haven't been appropriately probed. But I know of two, that I'm looking at. I'm not at liberty to discuss exactly what they are, but our committee will hold hearings on two discreet areas that have major implications with respect to the story that Americans have been told about 9/11.

Martell: What do you say to the people who say you might be pandering to the crowd a bit on that?

Kucinich: I don't have to hold those hearings. It's not like anything I have to offer. I don't have to say anything about it. I could say "9/11 has already been looked at, let's move on." I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I think we need to listen to what people are concerned about, first of all, and secondly, I'm in a position as chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee to be able to hold hearings. Now that's a small committee--it isn't like the 9/11 Commission with a huge budget, it's a small committee with a small budget, but we have the ability to get at a couple areas and I'm going to do that. And, if in our research we can tease out some of these contradictions and be able create a breakthrough, that might be the basis for asking the full committee to go at the entire inquiry again. But I just want to say that I'm talking about taking a couple small steps. But there will be some steps taken.

You gotta start somewhere. So because I can, I will.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2007040683039464

Compare this to when Ron Paul was asked about the movement, to which he responded he was "Absolutely not" a truther, in no uncertain terms at all.

http://seoblackhat.com/2007/07/27/ron-paul-not-truther-interview/

Some notes:

a) I don't think this is necessarily enough to base a decision for a candidate on. A candidate can believe rather ridiculous things and still be a good president, and if he doesn't really believe it than it's just a political ploy- dishonest and pathetic, sure, but not particularly damning in terms of his issues.

b) I like a good number of Kucinich's positions

c) If anyone has any evidence that Kucinich doesn't believe 9/11 was a government plot, I'd immediately admit I was wrong. But to the best of my knowledge, he's never denied it. In the source I quoted above, he had an opportunity to disparage it, and he just used it to explain his support.

Admiral

9th November 2007, 02:39 AM

I've never quite understood the "Love" part of Ron Paul's campaign. I mean, what's loving about permitting genocide, withdrawing from Afghanistan, or abolishing Social Security and the Department of Education?

Even ignoring your other questions, you think Ron Paul is in favor of abolishing social security?

That must come as a big shock to him. (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/social-security/)

daredelvis

9th November 2007, 09:11 AM

Kucinich! I like the idea of a FLILF. Haven't had one of those since FDR.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/30/is-america-ready-for-a-flilf/
The first lady. We’ve looked to her for moral guidance. We have looked at her as our nation’s mother. But the one thing we have never done, is looked at her.

Daredelvis

Darth Rotor

9th November 2007, 10:12 AM

Ron Paul, because that would be so funny. And because I don't live in America. Or have plans to visit.

Just before the total breakdown of society, we'll invade via Canada and restore order. I hear you guys have oil, yes?
Ron Paul as president: actually, the laughs would be one a day, with groans in proportion.

A Paul Presidency would be funny because he'd have no Congressional base from which to work. Unlike Jesse Ventura in Minnesota, who ran on a bit of a "populist, throw the bums out" platform, and won, as governor, Ron does not seem to have enough practical political sense to get along. Maybe his rhetoric is just that, and he's find a way, maybe not.

I suspect he'd veto a lot, and get overrun by bipartisan overrides of his veto in order to keep the government functioning.

After four years, the Libertarian Party would see a significant loss of position, once the problem of not building a political power base in the correct order became more obvious to more of them.

DR

Tsukasa Buddha

9th November 2007, 12:55 PM

Even ignoring your other questions, you think Ron Paul is in favor of abolishing social security?

That must come as a big shock to him. (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/social-security/)

He is opposed to social security, medicare, etc. However, realizing that it would make him unelectable, he says he favors phasing them out [/cynicism]. For SS, he wants to have people be able to withdraw from it and opt out. He doesn't want to directly leave people out in the streets.

Of course, I have to wonder how it isn't the same as abolishing it when you allow young people to opt out. It would seem like only accelerating the process of having too many retirees and too few workers to pay for Social Security.

NeoRicen

9th November 2007, 11:35 PM

I hate it when people compare Paul to people like Gravel and Kucinich. They could not be more different. They agree on Iraq and Drugs... THAT'S IT!

I'm beginning to actually want to see Ron Paul as President as I'm not American so I can sit back and laugh as America falls apart and hopefully learns it's lesson.

And I completely agree with this stupid 'Love' thing in the Paul campaign. I've never seen a politician display any less of it. His whole policy is almost a giant "**** You!".

Schneibster

10th November 2007, 04:26 AM

You know, I like Kucinich. But he'd make a lousy President. And he wouldn't understand why people were hating on him while he was screwing up, either. No more than Shrub does.

Ron Paul is a toon.

The screwdriver is a sure thing. I'm not so sure about the spork, though.

EeneyMinnieMoe

27th November 2007, 09:24 PM

Of course, Ron Paul is nutty... but the media smears against him don't seem to understand why he's a kook.

Nutty...as opposed to the man who saw a UFO?

Axiom_Blade

27th November 2007, 09:50 PM

Nutty...as opposed to the man who saw a UFO?

What? I've seen UFOs, too.

Haven't you ever seen a flying object that you couldn't identify?

Oliver

27th November 2007, 10:19 PM

EeneyMinnieMoe

28th November 2007, 06:27 AM

What? I've seen UFOs, too.

Haven't you ever seen a flying object that you couldn't identify?

Not that I can think of, actually.

Vorticity

28th November 2007, 08:30 AM

Well, except he got his numbers wrong, as Tim Russert immediately pointed out to him. 14% of America claims to believe in UFOs (even fewer claim to have seen one themselves) and Bush still has a (dismal) 31% approval rating.

Of course, since Kucinich has never managed to poll 14%, he hasn't even gotten the UFO vote locked up!

This is getting ridiculous. I can't believe this "UFO" thing has gotten traction.

As Kucinich makes very, very clear, what he meant was that he saw something in the sky he couldn't identify. You know what "UFO" stands for, right? I've seen a UFO. Haven't you? I have a hard time believing that less than 14% of people have seen a UFO. Surely that number would be closer than 100%.

And another thing: Any poll that asks whether people "believe in UFOs" is terribly worded.

Wildy

28th November 2007, 08:31 AM

This Kucinich guy. Is he the one with the infinite pockets that have things like a tea pot, a teacup, a teabag, a pocket US constitution, a pocket Magna Carta, a baseball card of some baseballer, a quote from some guy, a pocket Rosetta Stone and a pocket Stephen Colbert?

Axiom_Blade

28th November 2007, 09:38 AM

This is getting ridiculous. I can't believe this "UFO" thing has gotten traction.

As Kucinich makes very, very clear, what he meant was that he saw something in the sky he couldn't identify. You know what "UFO" stands for, right? I've seen a UFO. Haven't you? I have a hard time believing that less than 14% of people have seen a UFO. Surely that number would be closer than 100%.

And another thing: Any poll that asks whether people "believe in UFOs" is terribly worded.

Well, it's a clear case of "form over substance": like how we weren't supposed to vote for Howard Dean just because he screamed in a speech. (You wouldn't wanna vote for a guy like that, would you?? What would the neighbors think!)

The media does the same thing to Kucinich: he becomes a guy who "looks like an elf" and "saw a UFO." That makes for good, quick jokes. Anything to avoid talking about his platform or issues, because, you know, that would require THINKING.

Tsukasa Buddha

28th November 2007, 01:16 PM

Oliver

28th November 2007, 01:22 PM

rikzilla

28th November 2007, 01:36 PM

Easiest planet X pick I've ever made....

Oliver

28th November 2007, 08:57 PM

Easiest planet X pick I've ever made....

Planet X always suggests lack of knowledge about an issue. Mhmm,
I should start a poll about Planet X itself...

NeoRicen

28th November 2007, 09:50 PM

For me the question is: Who is more capable to end the war?
I guess it's Paul who has more backing by his grassroots to
push important issues like the war in Iraq...

http://250kb.de/u/071128/p/bc1b033c.png

ALL the Democrats support ending the war. Ron Paul is an unusual case in the Republicans but being against the war isn't a Ron Paul position.

Oliver

28th November 2007, 10:09 PM

ALL the Democrats support ending the war. Ron Paul is an unusual case in the Republicans but being against the war isn't a Ron Paul position.

It is - he never voted for the war. Not in the first place
and not to grant spending on it. Most Dem-Frontrunners
won't get out immediately - and we know how well they
all supported financial spending on it ...

Tsukasa Buddha

28th November 2007, 11:09 PM

It is - he never voted for the war. Not in the first place
and not to grant spending on it. Most Dem-Frontrunners
won't get out immediately - and we know how well they
all supported financial spending on it ...

That still doesn't make him unique. You know there are other candidates in the Democratic primary at the same level as Ron Paul? You know, the ones in the single digit percentages?

Oliver

28th November 2007, 11:12 PM

That still doesn't make him unique. You know there are other candidates in the Democratic primary at the same level as Ron Paul? You know, the ones in the single digit percentages?

I know - but doesn't really matter to me since dems and reps are
pretty much the same old crap. Paul brings in some new perspectives,
which is great to see in a almost two-party society ... Time for a
third opinion ....

Tsukasa Buddha

28th November 2007, 11:45 PM

I know - but doesn't really matter to me since dems and reps are
pretty much the same old crap. Paul brings in some new perspectives,
which is great to see in a almost two-party society ... Time for a
third opinion ....

Except he is still a Republican, and most of his ideas are old ones.

If it's new third ideas you're looking for, there's always the Fascist Party.

Oliver

28th November 2007, 11:49 PM

Except he is still a Republican, and most of his ideas are old ones.

If it's new third ideas you're looking for, there's always the Fascist Party.

It's rather about a third direction instead a third opinion. Paul borders
to libertarianism, which is indeed a third opinion. And quite frankly,
the Necocons already "copycatted" fascistic ideas ... And I have
enough of it already ...

gtc

28th November 2007, 11:55 PM

Time for a third opinion ....

It's rather about a third direction instead a third opinion.

Is it time for a third opinion or not?

Oliver

29th November 2007, 12:11 AM

Is it time for a third opinion or not?

Concerning the Media - it is.
Concerning politics: As well - since the two major parties aren't that opposed
to each other ... as stupid/ignorant/misinformed/naive people might think.

Rika

29th November 2007, 01:06 AM

Actually, they are and aren't, and that's why they draw so much attention to the differences...

Oliver

29th November 2007, 01:11 AM

Actually, they are and aren't, and that's why they draw so much attention to the differences...

I see ... "Hoping for the best".
A third option to vote on would be nice, wouldn't it?

Rika

29th November 2007, 01:33 AM

If it was a decent third option, yes!

Oliver

29th November 2007, 01:36 AM

If it was a decent third option, yes!

Why do you think it is NOT descent? According to Paul's voting
records in Congress, he is speaking truthful words without any
flip-flopping since he's in Congress.

The only thing on which he changed his mind from my knowledge
is: Death penalty. Now he's opposed to it. And I agree with his
change of mind.

NeoRicen

29th November 2007, 03:57 AM

I know - but doesn't really matter to me since dems and reps are
pretty much the same old crap. Paul brings in some new perspectives,
which is great to see in a almost two-party society ... Time for a
third opinion ....
No, Ron Paul is a republican, and has republican ideas. The only real major difference is foreign policy and defense (as he admitted himself on the daily show). And he's not even the only republican with those ideas. He's also considerably less moderate than some Republicans, even Bush.

And who gives a crap if someone didn't flip flop. Flip flopping is good, shows people are open to new ideas and evidence and can change their ideology to fit reality. Paul's voting record only shows he's an ideologue. And it's also not a good thing of you disagree with their policies, especially if he's never going to change them.

Oliver

29th November 2007, 04:37 AM

No, Ron Paul is a republican, and has republican ideas. The only real major difference is foreign policy and defense (as he admitted himself on the daily show). And he's not even the only republican with those ideas. He's also considerably less moderate than some Republicans, even Bush.

And who gives a crap if someone didn't flip flop. Flip flopping is good, shows people are open to new ideas and evidence and can change their ideology to fit reality. Paul's voting record only shows he's an ideologue. And it's also not a good thing of you disagree with their policies, especially if he's never going to change them.

No - Flip-Flopping means that someone changes his mind whenever
it serves his own interest ... rather than showing his state of mind.
That's nothing positive at all unless you're dumb. Either you agree
with an issue, you changed your mind about an issue or you jump
"back and forth" to whatever your audience loves to hear...

Paul is consistent. That's very positive for a voter who's interested
in what might he do in office - isn't it?

Did Kucinich "Flip-Flop" yet?

Rika

29th November 2007, 10:03 AM

No - Flip-Flopping means that someone changes his mind whenever
it serves his own interest ... rather than showing his state of mind.
That's nothing positive at all unless you're dumb. Either you agree
with an issue, you changed your mind about an issue or you jump
"back and forth" to whatever your audience loves to hear...

Actually, Flip-Flopping is only bad if it has no reason. Thanks for quoting something directly out of Rove's playbook :p

Paul is consistent. That's very positive for a voter who's interested
in what might he do in office - isn't it?

Did Kucinich "Flip-Flop" yet?

And inflexiable too, which is not very positive at all

Axiom_Blade

1st December 2007, 11:09 PM

I see ... "Hoping for the best".
A third option to vote on would be nice, wouldn't it?

See, that's what I'm afraid of. The American people get SO SICK of the Democrat/Republican lesser-of-two-evils nonsense, they vote some total nutcase into office.

I don't think that Ron Paul IS that nutcase (he doesn't have enough support), but the fact that he's getting any attention at all is unsettling.

The fact that he's a Republican is his downfall, anyway. Do you think the GOP would allow somebody like Paul to gain the nomination?? If by some miracle he did gain enough popular support, his own party would do something to sabotage his campaign. The GOP is still trying to clean up Bush's mess; if they had Paul in office for 4 years, the party would be a laughingstock. Nobody would vote for them ever again.

Hhhmmm, Oliver's cheerleading is starting to make sense now....

gtc

2nd December 2007, 08:28 PM

Actually,

A third option may not be very good with first past the post voting

Lets say three parties stand - Republicans, Democrats and Ron Paul.

Lets assume that the Republicans are pro-war and the Dems and Paulians are anti-war.

If the vote ends up being:

Republican 40%
Democrat 30%
Ron Paul 30%

Then the pro-war Republicans win, even though a majority of voters are anti-war.

Elizabeth I

2nd December 2007, 09:07 PM

You all do know Dennis the Menace was a certifiable loony when he was mayor of Cleveland, right? The Cuyahoga River caught fire during his administration, probably not his fault, but certainly eerily appropriate symbolism for the general chaos that prevailed while he governed that city. I see no reason to believe he has gotten any saner over the years.

And whatever Ron Paul was back in the 70s, he's too strange for words now.

dudalb

3rd December 2007, 06:22 PM

Ron Paul has now stated he is not going to run as a independent,so I think it seals his fate. I predict that by the Middle of Feburary he will be a footnote.
The sudden rise of Huckabee has kind of taken the wind out of Paul's sails as far as publicity goes.

In My Spare Time

3rd December 2007, 09:10 PM

Is there a way to change my vote to planet x? I've given up on Dennis.

Jaana

7th December 2007, 01:32 PM

Is there a way to change my vote to planet x? I've given up on Dennis.

Why have you given up on Dennis?

As for those who bring up the stupid UFO thing: That is the most ridiculous issue to place your vote (or non-vote) on. I have seen things in the sky that I cannot explain. So what? Does that make me less credible, simply because I can admit I am unable to base a scientific explanation for for what might have been a low-flying meteor or some other simple, natural or unnatural flying thing that I cannot describe as anything but "unidentifiable" according to my own abilities?

Geeez....

Considering the options, I have no other option but to vote for Kucinich.

I agree with what someone else in this thread said: If the names were removed from the candidates' positions, I have a strong feeling that Kucinich would rise to the top of the mainstream polls.

Dog forbid Hillary gets the white house. If she does, I'm moving to Canada.

Or maybe Australia...
Or New Zealand...
Or Zimbabwe...

Does Zimbabwe have universal health care?