|Sent time:||Monday, October 24, 2011 12:27:34 AM|
|Subject:||[september17discuss] Re: 130 arrested defending the Chicago medical aid tent last night|
"Obama was supposed to be the paradigm of the progressive Democrat".
That's just not true. If people thought that then they were
projecting their aspirations onto him, because he certainly didn't
have the record or the policies of a strong progressive.
"Democrats always revert to their true form, which is to serve the 1%
in a way that at this point is virtually indistinguishable from the
Virtually indistinguishable? Just take a look at the Citizens United
- For: Roberts (Bush Jr), Alito (Bush Jr), Thomas (Bush Sr), Scalia
(Reagan), Kennedy (Reagan)
- Against: Ginsburg (Clinton), Breyer (Clinton), Sotomayor (Obama),
Now that Stevens has been replaced by Kagan, the only sane justices on
SCOTUS were nominated by Clinton and Obama, while the Republicans have
appointed the biggest corporate yes men they could find. Not even
getting into policy, SCOTUS alone is an enormous difference between
Democrats and Republicans, so please don't tell me they are "virtually
indistinguishable". The Democrats aren't nearly progressive enough,
but that doesn't mean they are "virtually indistinguishable" from
Republicans. Have you listened to a Republican debate recently? They
are straight-up arguing for the elimination of corporate taxes while
raising them on the poor.
|< PREV||INDEX||SEARCH||NEXT >|