paul30

I first head of Kucinich as one of the Democrats who FINALLY came out against war.

This was a relief, after all the posterior-kissing Dems like Gephardt and Lieberman.

Kucinich's other positions seem good, too, for a mainstream Dem.

I am a socialist/anarchist (no, these are not contradictory), but I would vote for him.

emphryio

Yes, ha ha.

But I consider voting democrat an even greater waste of time.

I'd rather see things continue to go to hell and then experience a great backlash, then see a democrat make a short term partial co-opting of the social movement which would be absolutely certain to cycle right back to republican. (Or republicrat.)

I think democrats are a complete waste of time.

I could be wrong.

John Hancock

I think a lot of Dennis Kucinich. Principally because he doesn't seem to be like most of the members of his party and secretly defecate on the grave of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Greens and what not just vote for Ripoff Republicans something I've always thought stupid.

Martin Buber

emphryio

How are Greens ripoff Republicans?

theyeti

I see where you're coming from, but since I'm apparently much more moderate, I'm perfectly happy with the Democrats (though they could straighten up their act IMO).

But I don't agree though that it's okay for things to go further and further to hell in the hopes of a backlash. People get hurt in the process, and much of the damage done by the Right cannot be undone for a long, long time. (For example, how easy will it be to repair America's international reputation that the Right has so thoroughly trashed?) And if the Right is allowed to, they'll make their changes permanent through whatever means available, constitutional or otherwise.

Also, a backlash can be a bad thing. I think it's more realistic to gradually move the country's politics leftward, and therefore to achieve your goals slowly rather than haphazardly.

theyeti

HaysooChreesto!

I could be wrong, but what I think what Martin means is that by voting for a Green Party candidate you end up taking votes away from the Democrat candidate thereby giving an advantage to the Republican.
IIRC, if all the Greens had voted for Gore that may have been enough to tip the scales in his favor.
In 1992, the vast majority of people who voted for Ross Perot were would've been Bush Sr. voters and that directly allowed Clinton to win that election.

emphryio

Yes people do get hurt. But you know plenty of people were getting hurt with Clinton, Bush 1, Reagen, Carter, etc, etc.

You are aware of imperialism I hope? Tens of millions possibly billions (shrug) living in poverty and dying on a daily basis throughout the third world. And they are the third world because mainly of US policies.

Look at what is happening in Venezuela right now. Seriously go to z net and read all about it. And of course I've given the links concerning some of the past history of imperialism at least 10 times.

Yes, Bush is planning to kill an extra 100,000 that might have been allowed to continue in abject poverty under Gore. (Wait a second, under Clinton, half a million children died thanks to sanctions.)
No I'd say that the damage done to human lives is only slightly worse in the short term with Bush. In the long term, Republican or Democrat, things have been horrible for the rest of the world.

And as for how things are in America, on the basis of the imperialism I just alluded to, does it really matter all that much?

Yes the economy may be better off under a democrat but....
How does that weight with what democrats and republicans have supported going on in the rest of the world for at least the last century?

I don't know. I doubt it. I really think radical change is needed and although democrats may attempt to co-op some of the Green platform eventually. I seriously doubt they will ever make any radical change.

That, on the other hand, may be one hell of serious problem.

TollHouse

Does anyone know where he stands on gay rights? What about church and state?

Krieger

Well, if someone like Kucinich actually won the primary, then I might consider voting for him. But he won't even get that far in the primary race. I just wanted to see what some of the Democrats here thought of a more progressive candidate. Personally, I think Lieberman is going to win the Dem primary, but there is a chance that maybe Gephart or maybe John Kerry could pull off an upset, but that is unlikely to happen.

Yes. America currently has its Nicholas II and its Black Hundreds (right-wing nationalists) - now we just need to find our Lenin!

Hehe, I already know what kind of pond scum 99% of the Democrat party is.

Yes, but that already happened to Kucinich though. When he was mayor of Cleveland he refused to sell off a publicly owned electric company. The mayor before Kucinich had caused the city major financial problems, so the bankers came to Kucinich and said something like "sell us the power company or your political career is over", but he said "NO". Then the bankers heavily funded his opponent in the next election - Kucinich did not hold another public office for 10 years. While he is somewhat of a social-conservative, I do think he is one of the better Democrats.

Actually, theyeti, there is an officially recognized group within the Green Party that is made up of socialists, anarchists and others.

Sakpo

I wish I could vote. I have officially recognized/demonstrated American citizenship and all that...but I've never lived full time in recognized American territory so...damnit. Oh well, the election after the next one...