- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Yep, you are!

Posted by: Samuel Day Fassbinder ( Citizens for Mustard Greens, USA ) on January 27, 19100 at 17:05:14:

In Reply to: Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong ad infinitum posted by MDG on January 27, 19100 at 16:03:54:

: : : Now who's the dupe? Shrub has embraced every CC concern, he's just not as obvious about it as Keyes or Bauer. Gore won't seek to outlaw abortion; Bush will.

: : SDF: This is guesswork -- assuming Bush really cares enough about the CC any more than Gore does, that any Supreme Court majority can be assembled that can find any grounds for outlawing abortion on a national level, or that they really care enough about the CC that they would do anything more than allow the states to decide about abortion laws. And if a state ever was allowed to ban abortion in any form, this would create a reason for an abortion-rights movement like no other.

: The reason Bush doesn't have to explicitly state that he embraces the Christian Coalition's platform is because after 20-odd years of conservative Christian activism, the GOP has incorporated virtually all of the CC's ideology into its own. The CC has won, in other words, at least as far as shaping the GOP into its own creature. I might add that when David Duke first started out, he was ostracized even by the GOP; now, a decade later, the GOP has incorporated many of Duke's ideas into its own; that shows you how far right today's GOP is.

SDF: And the Democrats have adopted the Republican agenda in much the same way. With big money politics, they will adopt even more of it this year.

: : : : : and my main concern is the makeup of the Supreme Court under the next President. Rehnquist, O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Stevens all stand a good chance of leaving the Court, and there is a hell of a difference between the moderates like Souter, and lunatics like Scalia, and I guarantee you that Bush (or McCain or Forbes) will appoint Scalias, while Bush or Bradley would appoint Souters. For that reason alone, even if they're all globalizing capitalists, I'm voting for Gore or Bradley;

: : SDF: Bush's daddy was sure good at screwing liberals with Clarence Thomas. Maybe it's because their rank-and-file routinely votes for careerist politicians who put their image as White "non-racists" ahead of the quality of the Supreme Court.

: Eh? Did liberals vote for Bush?

SDF: They voted for Thomas. So much for your theory Democrats being this big bulwark against bad Supreme Court justices.

: : : SDF: Go! Go! WTO!

: : : Go, go, states rights and more executions!

: : SDF: Uh, executions are already a state matter.

: Uh, uh,

SDF: Then why is there no NATIONAL death penalty?

: the Supreme Court is the court of last resort for prisoners on death row seeking review of state court judgments, and this Supreme Court, with a 5-4 conservative majority, routinely either refuses to hear death row appeals, or affirms the state court's decision. Case in point: a recent Supreme Court decision which found that although the trial judge did not adequately instruct the jury as to its sentencing options (death penalty versus life in prison), this error was not egregious enough to remand the case back to the state court with new instructions to inform the jury correctly, EVEN THOUGH THE JURORS LATER SAID THAT HAD THEY KNOWN THEIR OPTIONS, THEY WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE DEFENDANT LIFE INSTEAD OF THE DEATH PENALTY. Should Bush pack the court with even more conservative judges, you can kiss of any successful death penalty appeals.

SDF: No. Gore, Gore-with-a-heart-condition, and Bush have the SAME position on the death penalty and will appoint the SAME judges REGARDLESS of what you think. In fact the Democrats will appoint MORE CONSERVATIVE judges because they, unlike the Republicans, have something to prove to their overseers. The only way of opposing the death penalty is if there's a real mass movement against such things, something the Democrats have successfully prevented.

: :And the Democrats are not going to oppose states rights or end the death penalty, like duh.

: Moderate Supreme Court justices will more likely oppose these than conservative judges...duh yourself.

SDF: Pleas to unhearing elites, is that your form of activism?

: : Was it a Republican President who signed the "Welfare Bill" into law?

: No, it was a moderate Republican named Bill Clinton, who I did not vote for.

SDF: Try to avoid Democrat candidates THIS YEAR too.

: : : That's what you'll get from the Supreme Court if all you're concerned about is the WTO.

: : SDF: Liberals will never create a serious movement to promote their lifestyle issues unless they dump the Democratic Party. All the Republicrats are accepting big money and selling votes to the highest bidders, and voting New Coke or Old Coke will not change the flavor of this process.

: You think I'm pleased with the present Democratic party? Hardly.


: I'll tell you this though, Sam -- the further down you get from the Presidency, the better the Democrats are.

SDF: They're SUCK-UPS to MONEY, pure and simple.

: Of course Gore and Bradely and barely Democratic (though still moreso than Bush), but at the Senate level, and especially the Congressional level, you'll get great liberal/left Democrats like Paul Wellstone

SDF: Who endorsed Bradley...

: or Ed Markey. I defy you to show me one Republican moderate, let alone liberal Republican (which can now be found in the same display case as the dodo).

: : (I'm sure the Green Party will appreciate Stoller's poetry and Krasny's prose)

: : : : The Democrats are capable of doing all of the things the Republicans want to do, only the Democrats are cleverer at it, because they put all the phony liberals to sleep first. The environmental movement has been asleep since Clinton b

: : : If Dole was President, the Artic Wildlife Refuge would be filled with oil drillers right now.

: : SDF: Dole had no chance against Clinton because he could not establish any difference between himself and Clinton that the voters could take seriously. It isn't my fault; I voted for Nader.

: Yeah, well, I voted for Nader too, but the point remains that if the Republicans had their way, they would be drilling in that Artic Refuge right now, so you ought to be happy that Clinton won at least in that regard.

SDF: Clinton will reverse his stand when his environmental constituency falls asleep sometime this year. Or Gore will do it for him.

: : : As for principles, SDF, thank god I'm not as rigid as you.

: : SDF: "Being good" = "lesser of two evils" = evil? Is that your slippery slope?

: Reality is tough, isn't it?


: : Are you really that thouroughly against the idea of Ralph Nader getting 5% of the vote (= matching Federal funds) this year? Or are you indefinitely for the cause of maintaining the One-Party System with your politics?

: I might very well vote for Nader, but I'm more inclined to vote for third parties at the lower levels (Senate, Congress, state office), because Bush will be an utter disaster for the Supreme Court, and I am willing to hold my nose and vote for Gore or Bradley to stop that potentially 30 year reign of horror.

SDF: Why bother, such third party candidates don't run because they don't have the money, thanks to well-meaning folks who just can't let go of their allegiance to the One-Party System.

The 30-year reign of horror was made possible by the DEMOCRATS, who ditched grassroots organizing for big-money politics. The Christian Coalition is strong because they STILL DO grassroots organizing.

: : You buy corporate, corporations make your world, and you vote corporate. What was it you opposed?

: I oppose foolish consistency.

SDF: I see, does that include your consistent support for corporate America, as I just discussed above?

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup