SOFT presidents

[R_P_A_S]

im sitting here at work, bored watching the CNN democrats debate. and that guy Dennis Kusinich or whatever the hell his name is.. he makes me laugh. he looks like a little angry elf. out of all those morons he just looks pissed and he seems to always try to expose the other candidates and it just cracks me up how he comes on.

obviously he will never get a chance to run for prez. he is too "left wing" LOL. but I was thinking. if countries were to have presidents who are SOFT. and in SOFT i mean more flexible and a bit more liberal, pro-working class. wouldn't it be easier to get organized and toppled that presidency? as opposed to having a nazi type prez like bush? nationalist wacko?

why not vote, why not all communist, socialist, anarchist register and vote, support the softest candidate so we can kick their asses and revolt easier?

just an idea?

[S.O.I]

dennis kukinich is da man

[Cheung Mo]

The only people who would revolt as a result of the material consequences of a Kucinich presidency would be the religious lunatics.

[Angry Young Man]

Wouldn't people be more likely to rebel against a tyrant, i.e. someone so patently self-interested and oppressive than a nice liberal chappy?

Compare the number of despots overthrown, like Nicholas II, Fulgencio Batista, Louis XVI and Charles II; to the number of liberals...

Except for the ones who were overthrown by the CIA.

[Leo]

Even the "softest", "nicest", most "pro-worker", most "social democratic" presidents and statesmen have proven themselves capable of being as harsh as the authoritarian presidents. Capitalism is not a system of the rule of elected individuals, it is a system of the rule of a class, and it is that class which workers are going to overthrow: not one soft individual but the class which is behind their soft or harsh individual representatives. So no voting for the softest guy will not make revolution easier.

But advocating voting will make it harder. Bourgeois parliaments and elections are merely tools for making workers think that they are in control of the society, that there are other ways to solve their problems that class struggle and revolution, that supporting one bourgeois faction over the other will make their lives easier.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:36 am
im sitting here at work, bored watching the CNN democrats debate. and that guy Dennis Kusinich or whatever the hell his name is.. he makes me laugh. he looks like a little angry elf. out of all those morons he just looks pissed and he seems to always try to expose the other candidates and it just cracks me up how he comes on.

obviously he will never get a chance to run for prez. he is too "left wing" LOL. but I was thinking. if countries were to have presidents who are SOFT. and in SOFT i mean more flexible and a bit more liberal, pro-working class. wouldn't it be easier to get organized and toppled that presidency? as opposed to having a nazi type prez like bush? nationalist wacko?

why not vote, why not all communist, socialist, anarchist register and vote, support the softest candidate so we can kick their asses and revolt easier?

just an idea?
I see what you're saying, but the fact is that if you're going to vote for the weakest candidate, you might as well vote for Ron Paul (shudders). As Leo said, they are members of the ruling class. No matter who is in power, the revolutionary spirit has died out in the main parties. And you're right, Kucinich is a funny looking guy.