I don't understand the love on here for Kucinich

[Son of Detroit]

Why does the majority of people love Dennis? There's people saying he should be VP, he's their second choice, etc.

Sure he has the same war stance as Paul, but he's TOTAL opposite as far as everything else. He's a gun grabber, big government, socialist liberal.

He'd be one of my LAST choices as far as who to run the country.

[integrity]

I think he is honest, and thats rare....

[Son of Detroit]

I don't care if a man has never told a single lie in his lifetime if it meant that we'd be one step closer to a socialist welfare state. Say good-bye to your guns if Kooky Kucinich becomes elected.

[angrydragon]

It's not most people on here, it's some.

He's a principled and peaceful socialist.

[WilliamC]

Simple. His politics are wrong but he is willing to speak truth to power.

That's rare.

[BuddyRey]

Why does the majority of people love Dennis? There's people saying he should be VP, he's their second choice, etc.

Sure he has the same war stance as Paul, but he's TOTAL opposite as far as everything else. He's a gun grabber, big government, socialist liberal.

He'd be one of my LAST choices as far as who to run the country.

I wouldn't call him a full-blown socialist, but he's definitely a social democrat. Still, at least he comes by it honestly, and really believes his own policies. In that regard, he's much higher on my preference rankings than Hillary or Obama. Also, let us not forget he is a personal friend of Dr. Paul who has made countless kind and ecumenical statements regarding RP and his supporters, and the need for principled bipartisanship to save this country. That alone redeems him in my book!

I do think his anti-2nd Amendment position is extremely misguided though.

[integrity]

I don't care if a man has never told a single lie in his lifetime if it meant that we'd be one step closer to a socialist welfare state. Say good-bye to your guns if Kooky Kucinich becomes elected.

thats not gonna happen...

[Paulitician]

I understand it. Most people just want an honest candidate--and the war is a HUGE issue. I do, however, feel sorry for those who don't understand that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich's domestic policies are completely opposite to each other. Like way opposite. I think there are actually people here who do want socialized healthcare, bigger government etc. Personally, I don't care for him. It does tick me off when I see tons of threads purpose "DENNIS RP VP!" or other such ridiculous nonesense though.

[r3volution]

he has a hot wife . other than that i could care less about him ..

[Edward]

As others have suggested, I think many people here like Kucinich (even though they disagree with his stance on various issues) for the same reason they like Paul... he comes across as honest and principled in his beliefs. Acknowledging that does not mean that we all want him to be President.

[VoluntaryMan]

I understand it. Most people just want an honest candidate--and the war is a HUGE issue. I do, however, feel sorry for those who don't understand that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich's domestic policies are completely opposite to each other. Like way opposite. I think there are actually people here who do want socialized healthcare, bigger government etc. Personally, I don't care for him. It does tick me off when I see tons of threads purpose "DENNIS RP VP!" or other such ridiculous nonesense though.

Not completely: it's my understanding that Kucinich would restore habeas corpus, end warrantless searches, push for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act and restoration of civil liberties, and would end the drug war. There are some similarities, but certainly not enough. I do hold out hope, though, that any honest man will eventually convert to the cause of liberty. I prefer an honest socialist to a fake conservative, although I have zero sympathy with socialism. There's no substitute for character. Socialism thrives on fraud. I don't see how an honest man can advance it's cause much.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I understand it. Most people just want an honest candidate--and the war is a HUGE issue. I do, however, feel sorry for those who don't understand that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich's domestic policies are completely opposite to each other. Like way opposite. I think there are actually people here who do want socialized healthcare, bigger government etc.

At least he's honest about his plans. When people are dishonest about the plans, there can be no meaningful public discourse. So, I think I agree with you completely. I don't like what he's selling, but at least he's willing to say what's in the box he wants to give me.

[deronde]

Kucinich is cool, and is the ONLY democratic candidate for president to EVER MENTION RON PAUL!

[RonPaulFTFW]

If you don't understand the love of Dennis Kucinich you're probably not a true Ron Paul supporter and don't understand his message as well as you should.

Throwing around words like "gun grabbing liberal" just shows that you can't be objective to other peoples points of view.

yes, he disagrees with some things, but he also agrees with Ron Paul on some very important things, not to mention he is very honest and speaks truth to power.

If Ron Paul supporters can't bring in people in a big tent and tolerate all kinds we can't do much with this revolution of ours.

[RJB]

He's an honest socialist unlike Bush, Clinton, etc. who are dishonest socialists. Although I'm against any socialism of any kind, atleast his brand wouldn't involve corporate welfare like Bush's prescription drug plan and other schemes.

As far as being a gun grabber and other anti constitutionalist stands, if he tried to implement an assault rifle ban (for instance) the republicans and many democrats would fight it tooth and nail. If Romney, Rudy or McCain tried a ban, the republicans would roll over on their backs for them.

Yes I'd definitely prefer a president Kucinich over any of the republicans or dems (other than Paul, of course). That being said, If Ron wins it all, I'd much rather he pick a constitutionalist over Kucinich.

If RP did pick Kucinich, I'd be disappointed but I'd still vote for them

[hard@work]

Why does the majority of people love Dennis? There's people saying he should be VP, he's their second choice, etc.

Sure he has the same war stance as Paul, but he's TOTAL opposite as far as everything else. He's a gun grabber, big government, socialist liberal.

He'd be one of my LAST choices as far as who to run the country.


How is this difficult for you? Do you not understand why Democrats love Paul? This is as much a battle for the soul of our political system as it is for the policies Paul represents. If you were a true democrat who truly supported the constitution (as you saw it) would you not want a Paul presidency to secure our country so honest democrats such as Kucinich could rise to power? Any intelligent Democrat who truly knows the voting records and the actions of the establishment dems knows they are hypocrites. It is a matter of them being willing to digest this and see them for what they are (lying politicians) or overlooking this and compromising their own values in the name of staying a "yellow dog" democrat.

:)

[RedLightning]

If you don't understand the love of Dennis Kucinich you're probably not a true Ron Paul supporter and don't understand his message as well as you should.

Throwing around words like "gun grabbing liberal" just shows that you can't be objective to other peoples points of view.

yes, he disagrees with some things, but he also agrees with Ron Paul on some very important things, not to mention he is very honest and speaks truth to power.



Guns rights are a very important issue to me. I know Kuncinich believes in many of the same things we do, but that is a deal breaker for me. But I guess that just means I'm not a "true" supporter of Ron Paul.

[Devil_rules_in_extremes]

Why does the majority of people love Dennis? There's people saying he should be VP, he's their second choice, etc.

Sure he has the same war stance as Paul, but he's TOTAL opposite as far as everything else. He's a gun grabber, big government, socialist liberal.

He'd be one of my LAST choices as far as who to run the country.

I agree 100%.

If your not from Ohio, maybe you don't get the whole picture on Kucinich. Dennis is a MAJOR socialist. He believes in government run monopolies. He hates private ownership, and is a major proponent of collectivism. Dennis may be against this current foreign occupation, but don't think one minute he won't go into Somalia to "aid" them.

Another black mark, that some may not know outside Ohio is the fact that He was Mayor of Cleveland at one time, and as the Mayor of Cleveland (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3325411.stm) he presided over the first bankruptcy of a city since the Depression, after he refused to sell the municipal power company to a private enterprise which left Cleveland unable to pay a $14m debt.

I would NEVER be able to support Dennis in any public office... EVER. I'm Pro-Free Market in every sense. Kucinich is not.

[Richandler]

Kucinich wants bigger government and a huge step in the wrong direction. He really isn't much different from the other democrats other than wanting to make bigger promises. He is socialst through and through but the thing you have to understand is that socialism doesn't work. So simply put, I don't like the guy because he wants the United States to have a system of government that doesn't work and gives more power to politicians than they already have.

[mmink15]

1. War
2. Civil Liberties
3. Everything else

That's my voting priority this election, and why Kucinich is my number 2 choice

[Exponent]

Quoting myself from here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=967679#post967679),

Not everyone here treats "socialist" like a dirty word. I'm personally voting for Ron Paul primarily on character and foreign policy[, things that Kucinich does well on also]. The political philosophy of libertarianism definitely intrigues me, and I can see the arguments in favor of it when compared to larger government type systems, but I can also see arguments in favor of other systems. Some are more idealistic, others more practical. Some are a strange mix of idealism and pragmatism; I consider libertarianism to fit into this category. And somewhat due to the general difficulties faced with implementing idealistic systems, I don't worship libertarianism like some people seem to. But it still sounds pretty good. However, I wouldn't be completely opposed to giving some forms of socialism a chance either.

[FreeTraveler]

If you don't understand the love of Dennis Kucinich you're probably not a true Ron Paul supporter and don't understand his message as well as you should.


You are out of your friggin' mind, pistols at dawn!! Dr. Paul's message is about Liberty and keeping what's yours. Kuchinich is a SOCIALIST! Which part of that don't you understand?

The only difference between Kuchinich and Hitlery is that he'd be honest about robbing you. Theft is still theft. I have no use for a crook with good manners.

[Spirit of '76]

Why does the majority of people love Dennis?

I don't think "the majority" does love Dennis.

I respect his courage and his persistence, but I hate his politics.

[silverlegacy]

Democratic Socialism can work and has for many years in Europe, Australia and New Zealand. While I totally disagree with the basis for socialism and the thought of collectivism in general, I would much rather have a society where I have way more personal freedom and more socialized government (healthcare, retirement, higher minimum wage etc) than have a total free market system with no personal liberty which is where the US is moving. Ireland, New Zealand, Hong Kong (if considered a free country), and Australia are considered more "free" countries. In some indexes the US is down as low as the 40s in freedom from the government! It is quite an eye opener when some countries that you travel to seem more "free."

[2young2vote]

I like him because He would destroy america quickly. All of the others would make it painfull and slow.

[CountryboyRonPaul]

I like some of his positions on Civil Liberties. I like his consistancy in voting his misguided message. I respect him for sticking to his guns.

I like that he wants to end the Iraq War, but my reasoning is a bit different than his, mine is solely economic.

If our occupation of Iraq was actually helping the economy, I would not be against it.

My voting issues in every election are.

1. Economy
2. Free Economy
3. Civil Liberties

Entitlement programs fall in with the economy and civil liberties, they are detrimental in both, this is one of my main issues with Kucinich.

Civil Liberties to me comes with Self Reliance, meaning no government enforced entitlements or subsidies at the expense of someone else's right to their earnings.

I'm registered Republican, but consider myself Libertarian.

I respect anybody who is honest, it doesn't mean I like what they have to say. So I'd protest vote for the Libertarian candidate before I'd vote for Kucinich.

[angrydragon]

We don't have a free-market silverlegacy.

[Goldwater Conservative]

The "frontrunners" in both major parties want us to be in eternal war for no good reason and to our detriment, while also stripping us of our freedoms here at home. Paul and Kucinich (and I think Gravel) are different. Kucinich is obviously completely wrong on the economy, foreign aid, and other big issues, so I can't and won't support him, but at least he wouldn't send us to die for nothing or invade our privacy.

[constituent]

i like kucinich and gravel, b/c i think given the chance to dialogue w/ RP and all of us
via internetium (the great equalizer) they would come around.

perhaps not completely, but probably more than one might think.




... after all, there are some great non-profits who benefit from the free-market
(and do much much much better than any government "social" (pacificiation)
program could dream of doing)

[Laja]

If you don't understand the love of Dennis Kucinich you're probably not a true Ron Paul supporter and don't understand his message as well as you should.

Throwing around words like "gun grabbing liberal" just shows that you can't be objective to other peoples points of view.

yes, he disagrees with some things, but he also agrees with Ron Paul on some very important things, not to mention he is very honest and speaks truth to power.

If Ron Paul supporters can't bring in people in a big tent and tolerate all kinds we can't do much with this revolution of ours.

Brilliant! Thanks!

[slinkymaster]

both parties are socialist for the most part, the prescription drug bill was done by the gop. kucinich is honest and people have priorities over ideology

[RevolutionSD]

Why does the majority of people love Dennis? There's people saying he should be VP, he's their second choice, etc.

Sure he has the same war stance as Paul, but he's TOTAL opposite as far as everything else. He's a gun grabber, big government, socialist liberal.

He'd be one of my LAST choices as far as who to run the country.

Kucinich is an honest man who opposes the war, opposes the war on drugs, and is for a new investigation into 9/11. He is also a friend of Ron Paul and they are often 2 of the only No votes on several issues.

[RevolutionSD]

Democratic Socialism can work and has for many years in Europe, Australia and New Zealand. While I totally disagree with the basis for socialism and the thought of collectivism in general, I would much rather have a society where I have way more personal freedom and more socialized government (healthcare, retirement, higher minimum wage etc) than have a total free market system with no personal liberty which is where the US is moving. Ireland, New Zealand, Hong Kong (if considered a free country), and Australia are considered more "free" countries. In some indexes the US is down as low as the 40s in freedom from the government! It is quite an eye opener when some countries that you travel to seem more "free."

The U.S. is certainly NOT moving towards a free market system. In fact they are moving far away from a free market system and never had one.

[SeanEdwards]

Kucinich favors slavery reparations and banning civilian ownership of firearms.

[VoluntaryMan]

Kucinich favors slavery reparations and banning civilian ownership of firearms.

And both Bushes extended welfare programs, and signed gun control legislation.

I'm just saying.

[qh4dotcom]

Guns rights are a very important issue to me. I know Kuncinich believes in many of the same things we do, but that is a deal breaker for me. But I guess that just means I'm not a "true" supporter of Ron Paul.

Kucinich opposes felons arming themselves...he has no problem with Americans who know how to use guns responsibly and can be trusted with them. What's your problem with that?

[EvilNight]

I like Dennis because he has integrity and he votes his beliefs, just like Ron Paul does. He isn't CFR or sold out to corporate interests and strikes me as a reasonably trustworthy politician.

We should be so lucky as to have him win the Democratic nomination and Ron win the Republican one. That would be one hell of an election. The debates would rock.

[Cindy]

Simple. His politics are wrong but he is willing to speak truth to power.

That's rare.

Thats' the thing. I would never vote for him because of his socialist policys' however, I respect and admire his courage to speak truth to power and honesty.

That's extremely rare in a politician these days and I think it is important that Americans support, actions of honesty in Politicians willing to speak the truth, even if we do not support all of their policys.

[Ncturnal]

He's respectable and honest (aside from the inherit dishonesty of socialist policies) and against the war, but that's as far as it goes.

[RedLightning]

Kucinich opposes felons arming themselves...he has no problem with Americans who know how to use guns responsibly and can be trusted with them. What's your problem with that?

If someone can't be trusted with a gun why did the govt let them out in the first place? Also he wrote a bill in congress that would ban all handguns, yeah thats I guy I like. :rolleyes:

[silverlegacy]

The U.S. is certainly NOT moving towards a free market system. In fact they are moving far away from a free market system and never had one.

LOL I am well aware of this. The US is one of the more free-market systems in the world. It's not the most free market but closer than 90% of countries out there. My words were meant to be an example of priorities.

[areyou4real]

Democratic Socialism can work and has for many years in Europe, Australia and New Zealand. While I totally disagree with the basis for socialism and the thought of collectivism in general, I would much rather have a society where I have way more personal freedom and more socialized government (healthcare, retirement, higher minimum wage etc) than have a total free market system with no personal liberty which is where the US is moving. Ireland, New Zealand, Hong Kong (if considered a free country), and Australia are considered more "free" countries. In some indexes the US is down as low as the 40s in freedom from the government! It is quite an eye opener when some countries that you travel to seem more "free."

Socialism is not compatible with personal freedom because it imposes economic rights or a right to goods. Under any kind of socalism, freedoms must be taken from some and given to others.

Take socialized healthcare for instance:

"An alleged “right” to health care, like all other economic rights, imposes positive obligations on the parts of others to fulfill that right, and thereby necessitates the violation of other rights like the right to property. A “right” that is in conflict with other rights represents a contradiction that is resolved not by some crude moral balancing act, but by recognizing that economic rights themselves do not exist."
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1297-Right_To_Health_Care.aspx

"Let's begin by defining our terms. A right is a principle that specifies something which an individual should be free to have or do. A right is an entitlement, something you possess free and clear, something you can exercise without asking anyone else's permission. Because it is an entitlement, not a privilege or favor, we do not owe anyone else any gratitude for their recognition of our rights.

When we speak of rights, we invoke a concept that is fundamental to our political system. Our country was founded on the principle that individuals possess the "inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Along with the right to property, which the Founding Fathers also regarded as fundamental, these rights are known as liberty rights, because they protect the right to act freely. The wording of the Declaration of Independence is quite precise in this regard. It attributes to us the right to the pursuit of happiness, not to happiness per se. Society can't guarantee us happiness; that's our own responsibility. All it can guarantee is the freedom to pursue it. In the same way, the right to life is the right to act freely for one's self-preservation. It is not a right to be immune from death by natural causes, even an untimely death. And the right to property is the right to act freely in the effort to acquire wealth, the right to buy and sell and keep the fruits of one's labor. It is not a right to expect to be given wealth.

The purpose of liberty rights is to protect individual autonomy. They leave individuals responsible for their own lives, for meeting their own needs. But they provide us with the social conditions we need to carry out that responsibility: the freedom to act on the basis of our own judgment, in pursuit of our own ends; and the right to use and dispose of the material resources we have acquired by our efforts. These rights reflect the assumption that individuals are ends in themselves, who may not be used against their will for social purposes.

Let us consider what liberty rights mean in regard to medical care. If we implemented them fully, patients would be free to choose the type of care they want, and the particular health care providers they want to see, in accordance with their needs and resources. They would be free to choose whether they want health insurance, and if so, in what amounts. Doctors and other providers would be free to offer their services on whatever terms they choose. Prices would be governed not by government fiat, but by competition in a market. Since this is an imaginary state of affairs, no one can predict what mix of private practitioners, HMOs, and other sorts of health plans would emerge. But market forces would tend to ensure that patients have more choices than they do now, that they would act more responsibly than many do at present, and that they would pay actuarially fair prices for health insurance—prices that reflect the actual risks associated with their age, physical condition, and lifestyle. No one would be able to shift his costs onto someone else. In a truly free market, I might add, there would be no tax preference for obtaining health insurance through employers, so most people would probably buy health insurance the way they buy life insurance, auto insurance, or homeowners insurance—directly from insurance companies. They would not have to fear that losing their job, or changing the job, would mean losing their coverage.

So that is what liberty rights—the classical rights to life, liberty, and property—would mean in practice. The so-called "right" to medical care is quite different. It is not merely the right to act—i.e., to seek medical care, and engage in exchanges with providers, free from third party interference. It is a right to a good: actual care, regardless of whether one can pay for it. The alleged right to medical care is one instance of a broader category known as welfare rights. Welfare rights in general are rights to goods: for example, a right to food, shelter, education, a job, etc. This is one basic way in which they are quite different from liberty rights, which are rights to freedom of action, but don't guarantee that one will succeed in obtaining any particular good one may be seeking.

Another difference has to do with the obligations imposed on other people. Every right imposes some obligation on others. Liberty rights impose negative obligations: the obligation not to interfere with one's liberty. Such rights are secured by laws that prohibit murder, theft, rape, fraud, and other crimes. But welfare rights impose on others the positive obligation to provide the goods in question.

Health care does not grow on trees or fall from the sky. The assertion of a right to medical care does not guarantee that there is going to be any health care to distribute. The partisans of these rights demand, with air of moral righteousness, that everyone have access to this good. But a demand does not create anything. Health care has to be produced by someone, and paid for by someone."
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=14&h=53

[werdd]

This is why kucinich is a fucking hoser.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll501.xml

That was a vote for the bill that made it illegal to "annoy" someone on the internet.

Kucinich voted for it, paul and 3 others nayed it.

Kucinich is a nanny state sack of shit, paul isnt, end of story.

[silverlegacy]

I totally agree that the basis of socialism takes liberty away. How much varies greatly from country to country and type of socialism being employed. A free market system is very capable of having almost no liberty and in our case of a mixed economy, personal rights are being taken away at a rapid pace to a point where we have less rights than a lot of countries that are more socialist than us. To say that free market equals liberty and socialism equals equality is way too simplistic. There are more factors to freedom than health care, speech, gun rights, etc.

Participatory economics and mutualism are two of the socialist "movements" that promote liberty over equality. While both are very simplistic in theory and have yet to really be expanded, they are different thoughts on the are when compared to the Lenin and China models of socialism. Socialism is a broad generic term that often has a different meaning than what it is applied to.

[CurtisLow]

He's the only candidate with Balls to call for impeachment of Dick and Bush!

[stewie3128]

Why does the majority of people love Dennis? There's people saying he should be VP, he's their second choice, etc.

Sure he has the same war stance as Paul, but he's TOTAL opposite as far as everything else. He's a gun grabber, big government, socialist liberal.

He'd be one of my LAST choices as far as who to run the country.

It's because in the near-term, a Paul administration would be indistinguishable from a Kucinich administration. Both want to pull out of Iraq immediately, and curtail the attack on our civil liberties.

In the middle and long term, though, things would be very different. Kucinich would work to repeal the 2nd amendment and enact a government takeover of several industries, not the least of which is health care.

Overall, I'm with you - I'd really rather not have Kucinich as President. He'd be OK for 8 weeks though. :)

[freedom-maniac]

Kucinich is a Constitutionalist. He carries the Constitution around with him.

And the idea that he is a gun grabber is ridiculous. He might not be the NRA's top choice for pres, but at an old debate, all the Dems were asked to raise their hand if they owned any guns. Kucinich was one of the few who did.

[angrydragon]

I remember using www.kucinich.us when I was researching the candidates back in early 2007, now it seems he got a new domain and doesn't have the gun-control issue on his main website anymore.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070519133023/kucinich.us/issues/guns.php

I co-signed a bill, H.R. 2038, to renew and strengthen the federal assault weapons ban. I also attended a recent Save Our Sons and Daughters (SOSAD) event.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=62819

In the aftermath of Monday’s deadly shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is proposing a comprehensive, three-point plan to deal with the violence plaguing America, including a ban on handguns.

Already this Congress, Kucinich has introduced HR 808 and HR 676—two bills that directly relate to the events of Blacksburg. HR 808, legislation to establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence, addresses the issue of domestic violence, gang violence, and violence in the schools, which is reflected in the current homicide rates. HR 808 has 62 cosponsors.

“The bill provides hope for a transformation through education of our children in principles of nonviolence and support for existing community groups and professionals whose dedication would be empowered by a national commitment to peace and nonviolence,” Kucinich said.

BTW, what better way to help guarantee no peace with a government Department of Peace.

[RedLightning]

Kucinich is a Constitutionalist. He carries the Constitution around with him.

And the idea that he is a gun grabber is ridiculous. He might not be the NRA's top choice for pres, but at an old debate, all the Dems were asked to raise their hand if they owned any guns. Kucinich was one of the few who did.

What he heck have you been smoking? :confused: Just becuase he owns a gun doesn't mean he in any way is pro gun rights, not when he attempts to ban handguns.