US Politics: Biden vs. Ron DeCardassian in the Delta quadrant

[HoodedCrow]

I believe that RBG thought that she could make it past the election. She didn’t.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Arakan said:

But why doesn’t she just retire, why even take the risk? We have seen with Bader-Ginsburg what the result can be. It would be the intelligent, solidary, unselfish and serving the public good thing. When you reached that age, anything can happen very fast and very unexpected.

Alright, I feel like there needs to be some clarification here.  RBG not retiring is NOT the same as Dianne Feinstein not retiring.  Feinstein was elected to a six year term in 2018.  The only reason people are worried about her seat is because she is the oldest Democratic Senator when the Senate is split 50/50 - and the peculiar coincidence that there's a recall election in her state.  How she was supposed to divine all that when she ran for reelection in 2018, well, that's beyond me.

[Arakan]

1 minute ago, HoodedCrow said:

I believe that RBG thought that she could make it past the election. She didn’t.

Yeah that’s the thing, why not retire earlier, as soon as a window and an opportunity arises? That would have been somewhere around 2010-15. At that stage she would have been in office for 20 years. Long enough. Those things are too important to be dictated by randomness or personal vanity. Just my opinion of course. 

[Arakan]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Alright, I feel like there needs to be some clarification here.  RBG not retiring is NOT the same as Dianne Feinstein not retiring.  Feinstein was elected to a six year term in 2018.  The only reason people are worried about her seat is because she is the oldest Democratic Senator when the Senate is split 50/50 - and the peculiar coincidence that there's a recall election in her state.  How she was supposed to divine all that when she ran for reelection in 2018, well, that's beyond me.

I understand but the margins are so fine, yet the consequences so drastic. People are worried justifiable so. Republicans must be stopped by any legal means necessary, for the better of the US and the world. I really think that the difference between Democrat control and Republican control can be that severe. Don’t leave nothing to „fate“.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Arakan said:

Republicans must be stopped by any legal means necessary, for the better of the US and the world. I really think that the difference between Democrat control and Republican control can be that severe. Don’t leave nothing to „fate“.

K, but there's no reason Dianne Feinstein could have known her resignation is necessary for this fight to be successful.  And, frankly, there's still not.

[Arakan]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

K, but there's no reason Dianne Feinstein could have known her resignation is necessary for this fight to be successful.  And, frankly, there's still not.

All what you say is true but still. We have seen that the Republicans are driven by an insatiable hunger for power, nothing else. They don’t care about legal traditions or traditions of the democratic process. They will take any advantage they got, no matter if by doing so they break decades upon decades of political traditions and „gentlemen’s agreements“. They don’t care. Against such an opponent, one might even call it enemy, you cannot play by the book or take the high road. You yourself have to use every advantage, be it tiny as is, to „protect the gates“ so to speak. Personal feelings or egos don’t have a place in such an environment. It really is now about the greater good. Democrats must radically change their mindset. When someone is throwing mud at you, throw it back. This is how proto-fascists gain power, don’t have to look to the 1930s. What happened in Poland or Hungary in the last 10 years is proof enough. 

Sorry, I know a lot of platitudes but my point is: be hard and be ruthless. Think big, think about the overall picture. Only way to fight those rightwing idiots.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Sorry, I know a lot of platitudes but my point is: be hard and be ruthless. Only way to fight those rightwing idiots.

I guess I should try to make this difference more clear because it does seem to not be getting through.  Here's a comparison between the "risk" of Dianne Feinstein retiring and Stephen Breyer retiring:

Breyer - if he doesn't retire before the 2022 midterms, there's a substantial chance there won't be another period with a Democratic president AND Democratic Senate - and both are necessary these days in order to confirm a Democratic SC judge, because the GOP are a bunch of assholes.

Feinstein - we're worried you will not live for the next 16 months.

See the difference?  This isn't about "strategy" or whatever.  It's about two entirely different circumstances.  Do I think Feinstein should retire?  Yes.  But that is not comparable to how much I think Breyer should retire while he has the chance to be replaced by someone he actually agrees with.

[Arakan]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I guess I should try to make this difference more clear because it does seem to not be getting through.  Here's a comparison between the "risk" of Dianne Feinstein retiring and Stephen Breyer retiring:

Breyer - if he doesn't retire before the 2022 midterms, there's a substantial chance there won't be another period with a Democratic president AND Democratic Senate - and both are necessary these days in order to confirm a Democratic SC judge, because the GOP are a bunch of assholes.

Feinstein - we're worried you will not live for the next 16 months.

See the difference?  This isn't about "strategy" or whatever.  It's about two entirely different circumstances.  Do I think Feinstein should retire?  Yes.  But that is not comparable to how much I think Breyer should retire while he has the chance to be replaced by someone he actually agrees with.

I get your point, I agree that your point is rational and risks in both cases are different. And yet I still say: Don’t leave nothing to chance. The margins are too fine. Why take such a risk at all? At that age, health can deteriorate very quickly, seen it often enough in my private circles. I know it comes across as quite impious but we are not living in stable, normal times. Anyway I get your point and I respect it yet still I think the Democrats lack the necessary ruthlessness to match the Republicans. 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Anyway I get your point and I respect it yet still I think the Democrats lack the necessary ruthlessness to match the Republicans. 

Well if you want to kill Dianne Feinstein before Newsom has the chance to be recalled, fair enough.  But the more rational action is to kill Stephen Breyer first to ensure Feinstein and/or her replacement can vote for his replacement.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

In general, octogenarians should be enjoying a healthy retirement, regardless of political calculations.  

[Martell Spy]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

In general, octogenarians should be enjoying a healthy retirement, regardless of political calculations.  

The real problem isn't RBG, it's the insanity of our system where so much is decided based on a few old people dying or not dying in a certain time period. It's gotten so absurd that we may lose even our ability to vote from it.

[Varysblackfyre321]

41 minutes ago, DMC said:

How she was supposed to divine all that when she ran for reelection in 2018, well, that's beyond me.

She couldn’t it. But she should be able to see Newsom may be replaced with a Republican and act accordingly—retire whilst she can easily be replaced.

 

2 hours ago, Ormond said:

What is your definition of "likely"? To me "likely" means something has over a 50% chance of happening. The average life expectancy for an 88 year old woman in the United States is 5.64 years, and Feinstein being highly educated and getting excellent health care are factors that are going to raise her life expectancy above average. So I would never say it's "likely" she will die within the next year. 

Breyer’s 83, average life expectancy for an 83 year old man is 6.3 years. He’s also rich and educated.

[DMC]

What about that jerk Chuck Grassley?  He's 87 years old and still won't even tell the people of Iowa whether he's running again with his term up at the end of 2022.

ETA:  Talk about the GOP not being "team players."

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

The real problem isn't RBG, it's the insanity of our system where so much is decided based on a few old people dying or not dying in a certain time period. It's gotten so absurd that we may lose even our ability to vote from it.

Hence why the 18 year wheel makes the most sense going forward. 

Never thought I'd strongly support something I first heard Rick Perry talk about.

[DMC]

Do we really have to go over this prosaic argument every time Breyer is brought up?  If you want to change the courts, change the number.  That's actually constitutional, whereas the court will never allow term limits of any kind upon itself.  I don't care if Daffy Duck is the Chief and Statler & Waldorf are the swing votes -- and it's getting pretty close to that.

[Varysblackfyre321]

52 minutes ago, DMC said:

What about that jerk Chuck Grassley? 

He’s from a comfortably red sstate with a Republican governor not threatened immediately with losing her seat.

Can you really see no significant difference between his situation and Feinstein’s?

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He’s from a comfortably red sstate with a Republican governor not threatened immediately with losing her seat.

How do you know that?  She's up for reelection in 2022, who knows what could happen?  Is it likely she loses?  No.  But it's at least just as unlikely Dianne Feinstein dies in the next 16 months.

[Varysblackfyre321]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

How do you know that?  She's up for reelection in 2022, who knows what could happen?  Is it likely she loses?  No.  But it's at least just as unlikely Dianne Feinstein dies in the next 16 months.

If the governor does lose or look about to lose reelection he should immediately retire lwell before a democratic govenor is sworn into power.

Especially if the gop only obtains a narrow majority in the senate.

He could chancing his general health wouldn’t falter and thus impede his party’s interests. It would not be pragmatic.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If the governor does lose or look about to lose reelection he should immediately retire lwell before a democratic govenor is sworn into power.

....I don't think you get how politics works.  These are actual people.  You treat it like a video game.

[Varysblackfyre321]

32 minutes ago, DMC said:

....I don't think you get how politics works.  These are actual people.  You treat it like a video game.

The best thing Feinstein could do for her party is retire before a Republican governor is sworn in.

Her contributions to the party should be acknowledged and respected.

And I wouldn’t blame her for not enjoying having to retire due to the failures of someone else. 

Having said that; her discomfort is less important than protecting the rights of hundreds of millions of people and protecting democracy.

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

The real problem isn't RBG

It’s a bit of both. Supreme Court have timed their retirement to be when a president and senate is likely to replace them with someone of similar ideological stripes.

Ginsburg had an opportunity to do this in 2014 and was smart enough to realize it could be over 8 years before democrats could get back into a position to replace her.