Should Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul form a third-party ticket?

Question

They have some differences but also a lot in common.

Answer 1

Nope,I don't agree they have a lot in common.
Progressives usually are internationalists.I sure don't believe in turning our back to the rest of the world.I can see how people are enchanted by Ron Pauls stand on the war after the Bush fiasco, but they don't fully understand why he stands there.I've said this before.If you understand what Ron Paul stands for and you like him you can be an strictly economical liberal but only in the calassical sense,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism,but you certainly are not a progressive.

Isolationism has been tried and failed before.It's also very anti social,I don't think those who suppoort Paul and consider themselves liberal or progressive understand that.Isolationsim is definetely a right wing trait usually.Being in favor of Isolationism effects more than war alone.If you choose that you turn your back on Africa too
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty.asp

He's against gay marriage and abortion rights.The reason he voted no on The Federal Marriage Amendment is because he fears it might give gay and lesbian people legal ground to demand equal rights not because he supports gay rights.He wants to give it to the states so they can discriminate.
"I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage....
I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree"Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

He doesn't support seperation of church and state.From a text he wrote:"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

He's a white Christian intolerant male who hides his support for continued discrimination,soicial injustice and social darwinism behind states rights.
Liberals should wake up about this guy.Ron Paul believes states are the best bet for fighting progress liberals seek.His attempt to play both sides on every issue make him loose all credibility.
Dennis Kucinich is one of the few real progressive American politicians and has no buisness running with this regressive right winger

Answer 2

I think Ron Paul is running as a Republican for a reason.

Some of us recall the first Clinton election and Ross Perot's 3rd party run.

It will be interesting to watch Paul, however. He has said he wouldn't run 3rd party, and my bet is he would rather lose than help get Hillary elected.

Answer 3

Neither could win, especially Kucinich.

Answer 4

It would be great for the Republicans. It would hurt the Democrats. Most of the people who would vote to the two are on the far left. That means the votes they would get would have gone to the Democrats candidate. Why do you think the Democrats sued in 2004 to keep Nader of the ballot every chance they could?

Answer 5

I could get behind that.
Edit- I find it sad that people that are calling for peace and looking for innovative ways are called kooks. I swear some of our population is going thru a de-evolution.

Answer 6

Yes in the third world.

Answer 7

Sure, why not? It would attract about 0.05% of the national vote and marginalize them to where they could do the least harm.

I propose that they organize under the auspices of
"The Goofball Party"

Answer 8

If they dont b come Prez, then ya

Answer 9

You mean part 3 of Dumb and Dumber???!?!?!? Holy crap, a trilogy would be fantastic!!! But, wouldnt it be Dumb and Dumbererer???

Answer 10

They don't seem compatible. The only thing they have in common is they are both kooks.