: : 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. : Doubtful.
SDF: Gainsaying! How clever! Where did you learn it? Tell me, are there any Democrats running for President these days who are OPPOSED to the death penalty? Could you name them for us please?
Folks, there are tremendous issues plaguing American politics these days. The coming end of the economic bubble (and consequent resurgence of racial and class violence with inklings of military dictatorship such as we saw in South Central back in '92), the end of the era of cheap oil, and the coming of the climactic disasters of the greenhouse effect are among the most predictable of these issues.
Again, folks, I'm sure MDG has plenty of stake in the Demos, so he isn't really the focus audience of debate here. I'm committed too. The focus is you. Would you rather vote to maintain the public's trust in the One-Party System, or would you rather recognize the limitations of voting, and join a GRASSROOTS attempt to break the mold, to promote a party of leaders (not followers) and activists that employs consensus process and promotes a proactive set of values, to create a real democracy as opposed to the bourgeois farce we see on TV every four years, & to get some real change?
: :In fact the Democrats will appoint MORE CONSERVATIVE judges because they, unlike the Republicans, have something to prove to their overseers.
: Again, that's doubtful, but possible,
SDF: It's LIKELY. This isn't realism, it's the substitution of GUESSING for real political sense, based on what Gramsci would call "folklore". Community politics bears fruit; this sort of bourgeois-democratic speculation doesn't.
The Supreme Court passes judgment upon laws. When the laws change, the judgments change. The One-Party System won't change the laws.
: however, it's far more likely that Bush will appoint Scalia-type justices than Gore or Bradley will, so which way will you bet?
SDF: This way.
