What do you guys think of Mike Gravel

[Tower of Bebel]

What do you guys think of this Mike Gravel. He has some good critques on the democrats and tha war in Iraq and the conflict with Iran.

[Demogorgon]

He favours replacing all progressive taxes with regressive taxes. Even Bush isn't that bad.

[Ismail]

He seems pretty legit, but yeah, not a fan of his tax policy and so on. Plus, he is still a capitalist.

[Tower of Bebel]

Allthough he's a capitalist and a nationalist, and has no idea on how to deal with the situation in Iraq, I think that he's a better choice than the other candidates.

[Janus]

and has no idea on how to deal with the situation in Iraq
Not according to his site.

Senator Gravel's position on Iraq remains clear and consistent: to commence an immediate and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. troops that will have them home within 60 days. The sooner U.S. troops are withdrawn, the sooner we can pursue aggressive diplomacy to bring an end to the civil war that currently consumes Iraq. Senator Gravel seeks to work with neighboring countries to lead a collective effort to bring peace to Iraq.


I think that he's a better choice than the other candidates.
Maybe, but there's little chance of him actually winning the Democratic presidential nomination.

[CheRev]

Maybe, but there's little chance of him actually winning the Democratic presidential nomination.That´s probably a sign he´s one of the best candidates out there!

Ismail summed it up nicely IMO: "he is still a capitalist".

[Black Cross]

They're all capitalists. I think it is our responsibility to choose the lesser of all evils, though it's not likely that the "lesser of all evils" candidate would win since most voters in america are all for said "evil".

[CheRev]

They're all capitalists. I think it is our responsibility to choose the lesser of all evils, though it's not likely that the "lesser of all evils" candidate would win since most voters in america are all for said "evil".

But why would you choose the "lesser of all evils"? What do you gain in the long-term from doing that? You just prolong the time it takes to the fulfillment of a revolution. The "lesser of all evils" is still capitalist but he/she will appease the masses for a while longer, give them hope where there is no hope and eventually he/she will do something wrong and someone like Bush will come to power, and so the story continues in this circle with no real change but gradual chipping away at the revolutionary spirit.

[KC]

He gets worked up constantly. It's hilarious to watch.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There is no "lesser of two evils." They are all capitalists. The question is class, not "evil". There is no "best" exploiter of workers.

Just like Kucinich, Gravel serves to tie workers with generally leftist outlooks to the other imperialist party. He'll get alot of progressive workers to support him, and they'll get behind him, possible even campaign for him.. Then, when he inevitably looses the primary, he will endorse whoever wins, and all of his supporters will then go ahead and support that person, who they probably wouldn't have supported otherwise. Same old song and dance.

The key for communists in the U.S. right now is to break workers from the Democratic Party, which is a party of the bosses period.

Doing so will have more of a possitive impact than having 1,000 so-called lesser evil candidates elected.

And it doesn't matter which of the bosses' parties has their candidate elected anyway, as far as reforms go.. Workers make gains based on their organization and activity, regardless of which blood sucker is in the White House.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:28 pm

Not according to his site.

Senator Gravel's position on Iraq remains clear and consistent: to commence an immediate and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. troops that will have them home within 60 days. The sooner U.S. troops are withdrawn, the sooner we can pursue aggressive diplomacy to bring an end to the civil war that currently consumes Iraq. Senator Gravel seeks to work with neighboring countries to lead a collective effort to bring peace to Iraq.
I mean, when you ask him what could happen if America leaves he has no fucking idea on how to handle the situation. I know he wants to get out of Iraq, he even proposes a law. But the thing is that he's only concerned about the fact that american soldiers are dying because of a false war. He wants to retreat, but has no idea on how to save the people of iraq in their destroyed and violent country.

[Black Cross]

All i was saying is that we should pick the "least capitalist" of the candidates; if we cannot have a revolution, then the least we can do is try to make life for the proletariat a bit more bearable in the mean time. Look at it this way. You're going to have to deal with a capitalist president' it's unavoidable. So shouldn't we try our best to ease life for proletarians until revolution? If you just don't vote, you are just making it more likely for a person like Bush to gain office. I'm not, in any way, approving of these candidates; i just have the proletariats best interests in mind.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

All i was saying is that we should pick the "least capitalist" of the candidates

There is no "least capitalist". That doesn't make sense. They all objectively represent the capitalist ruling class, period.


if we cannot have a revolution, then the least we can do is try to make life for the proletariat a bit more bearable in the mean time.

As I said before, progress isn't made by electing bourgeois politicians, we workers make it, through levels determined by our unity, organization and action -- regardless of which bourgeois politician is in the White House.


i just have the proletariats best interests in mind.

You have our best interests in mind by tying us to one of the capitalist parties?

[Tower of Bebel]

Revolutionaries shouldn't vote for capitalists, period. But the common people do and therefor I hope they don't vote friggin Hillary.

[SonofRage]

I will vote the same way i do every time: I do a write-in vote for "None of the Above"

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Marxist-[email protected] 12, 2007 07:42 pm
They're all capitalists. I think it is our responsibility to choose the lesser of all evils, though it's not likely that the "lesser of all evils" candidate would win since most voters in america are all for said "evil".
I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want and get it.

[Janus]

I mean, when you ask him what could happen if America leaves he has no fucking idea on how to handle the situation.
I don't think anyone does but it's very likely that the US would increase funding for the pro-US gov. in Iraq in order to support and bolster their position and influence in the area.


I know he wants to get out of Iraq, he even proposes a law. But the thing is that he's only concerned about the fact that american soldiers are dying because of a false war. He wants to retreat, but has no idea on how to save the people of iraq in their destroyed and violent country.
Same situation with Vietnam. Nixon was able to win a lot of his votes with his "peace" campaign but the US never withdrew immediately.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

capitalist bourgeois trash period.

I was arguing with a spart a while ago and she asked me which party was more dangerous. I had I had think about it. While the Republicans are of course leading the charge of christian fascism; for torture in gitmo, against womyn's rights, against LGBT rights, and for all these wars of empire, the democrats are falling behind and tricking the working class in the exact fashion CdL makes clear. So their the same in my opinion. Both need to be utterly rejected.