Ok, Ron Paul fans (and Ralph Nader fans), what do you think of this?

I'm not sure if the 1.8% of people in this country that support Nader are on mylot, but I would love to hear their opinions on this. I don't think such an alliance makes sense really. Any stands that the two have in common are for entirely different reasons. Nader is a big government guy. He's huge on the tax and spend crap. Ron Paul is the opposite. They may agree on breaking up the marriage of corporate business and the federal government, but Ron Paul wants to do it so the free market can function while Nader wants to do it mainly to punish and weaken big business.

I think it is a great idea. I am not a big fan of Ralph Nader, but I think have been saying on here that I think Ron Paul needs to get out of the GOP. He will NEVER be nominated, and we all know it. I just hope that someday soon he does too.

It's an interesting combination, and I'd like to hear what each of them has to say about their reasons. If Paul's base is honest with itself, much of his platform is so "out-there-conservative" it's incredibly unlikely that most of it will come to fruition. If by some unrealistically lucky break Ron Paul actually won, he wouldn't be a one man show and he'd usually be at odds with congress no matter who's in control. If I understand correctly, Paul and Nader both detest the marriage between the federal government and corporate America, though their reasons for that hatred differ. While they're at odds fundamentally, they both seem to have agreed to come together on certain issues. I actually like politicians that ally themselves with people who don't agree with them often. To me it seems like an excellent balancing technique. At any rate, I'll probably reserve judgement until I get a better feel for their motivation and goals.

Ron Paul has spoken to this before he is all for working with people that in a general since he is at odds with on the things that they both agree on. Nader and Ron Paul for example both don't like the fed and Nader has been saying it for about as long as Ron Paul has. Also the differences they do have are in what should be done afterbthe break up of the government and massive business. Libertarians and progressives do have common ground it may be a varied thing among the different subsections but even libertarians have some more left leaning sides to it. So two groups that oppose each other on most things coming together for a greater good so to speak of trying to get something they both agree on needs to be done is far more beneficial than just fighting over what we don't agree on. Both are points that was brought up between the two. On judge napliono on fox business. Nader and Ron Paul even has come together before with people that they don't agree with 100%.

This of course is insane...Nader was good at what he used to do. I would never want to see him as President or Vice President. Maybe in the Cabinet or a Czar in a future administration...lol This is going to be another presidential election where you vote for the Least Horrible Candidate. I am really getting tired of these kinds of elections. Our country is going down the tubes. The Gossamer wisps(think about it,it will come to you) are taking over one country after another and we are next cause our doors are wide open.

The phrase "politics makes for strange bedfellows" comes to mind. I'm actually LMAO over this because it seems to indicate what I've always thought: that even these "idealistic crusaders" will do anything to get political power. That anyone considers these guys legitimate political heroes seems even more absurd in light of this, don't you think?

I am not sure what to make of this combination.....it would seem that it would never work as they simply disagree on too many things. Maybe Paul thinks that this will improve his chances for getting the Republican nomination? Other than that I really don't see what either of them would get out of it. Politics can be strange sometimes.