Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an 82 year old cancer survivor. The odds of her having to leave the court in the next 4-8 years are certainly nonzero. She's said that she doesn't plan to retire anytime soon, but she might not be able to hang on through a Republican president if her health fails.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The 2nd Democratic National Primary Debate
- Thread starter kingkitty
- Start date
- Status
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an 82 year old cancer survivor. The odds of her having to leave the court in the next 4-8 years are certainly nonzero. She's said that she doesn't plan to retire anytime soon, but she might not be able to hang on through a Republican president if her health fails.
exmachina64
Banned
If you want to reclaim real democracy, it takes more than just winning the presidency. Do you show the same passion for your state, local and Congressional elections?
RPGCrazied
Member
Nah, I'm central, starts at 8 for me.
How exactly do you expect Bernie to actually do that? He will only be the President of the United States if he gets elected. He will have no control over the legislature besides being the leader of his party. He will not be a god or even an autocrat, so I am confused why you think that electing Bernie will change that.
I also think you are confused about the structure of our government. How the hell do you expect Bernie to do anything about Citizens United and Corporate Personhood? Are you itching to destroy our government, and establish a totalitarian dictatorship with Bernie at the head or something? Because the only way that is getting changed is through the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court court appointments need to be approved by the Senate. As a consequence, Bernie's nominations are probably going to be as left and liberal as Hilary's nominations out of sheer necessity.
teruterubozu
Member
Don't get your hopes up.
Most people seem to think that the President can just snap his (or her) fingers and things are done. It's mind boggling to me considering how long they drilled in the system of checks and balances throughout elementary and middle school, even halfway into high school.
teruterubozu
Member
Well to be fair, Bush's use of executive orders kind of altered the perception of presidential power in recent years.
Absolutely. This year my state passed a law to get money out of politics. I'm fully aware that it isn't just about the general.
GoldenEye 007
Member
I would think that congressional and supreme court actions over those same years clearly demonstrate the power there. To a much more powerful extent.
teruterubozu
Member
True, but let's face it. Thousands of books - entire libraries and hundreds of scholars - have tackled the question of balance in presidential power/courts/government. It will be debated forever. We can't hope to resolve it here.
exmachina64
Banned
I'm happy to hear that.
Ryouji Gunblade
Member
Let's not actually undermine our democracy though.
Really crappy, biased OP. I'm one of the few here, probably, who doesn't really support Bernie. I do like the guy, but I still don't believe he can win. Hillary won me over more, after the last debate. I liked her composure and confidence, not to say Bernie didn't have that. I'm going to be watching tonight, and I'm expecting more substance than any of the Republican debates combined.
There's a lot of Bernie support here, but you're not one of the few. Bernie supporters are just making the most noise, especially since the Hillary supporters don't feel they need to during the primaries.
Hillary Clinton Vs Bernie Sanders On Wall Street, courtesy of Kyle from Secular Talk. So, Adam, do you still think that wasn't a major snafu, or did you just, in fact, witness Bernie blow Hillary out of the water?
exmachina64
Banned
We'll actually have realistic discussions about tax proposals.
My thoughts exactly.
It really depends on the thread. As a Bernie supporter, ive definitely been in the minority here at times. Some of the Clinton supporters have made plenty of noise and some really make it their personal mission to shit up threads with their "Bernie cant win" crap. Its tiring honestly.
Borderline Paradise
aspiegamer
Member
All so rough on the OP, man. Between current events and the fact that, on the spectrum of political spectacle this ranks as about a 0.5 out of 10, can you blame them that much? It's like complaining that the soap you buy comes in a boring container. It's like asking for a flashy OT for the app store's latest match-3 game. That debates for the Democrats are largely procedural at this point (to many voters) doesn't exactly raise a lot of hype, either.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Actuarial table for an 82 year old woman over the next 8+1 years (ignores that she's wealthier than average, and thus healthier, but I figure that washes out from past health problems):
Chance she'll die in the Obama presidency: ~6%
Chance she'll die by the end of the next president's first term: ~31%
Chance she'll die by the end of the next president's second term: ~57%
Edit: adjusted figures to fix a math error
The odds are better than chance that she will die and her replacement will be appointed by the end of the next presidency.
Other justices of interest:
Scalia: Obama 6% / Next Term 30% / End of Second Term 56%
Kennedy: Obama 6% / Next Term 30% / End of Second Term 56%
Breyer: Obama 5% / Next Term 25% / End of Second Term 48%
Let's instead do joint survival:
Odds that all four justices will survive the end of Obama's term: 78%
Odds that all four justices will survive the end of the next president's first term: 25%
Odds that all four justices will survive the end of the next president's second term: 4%
User 463088
Banned
Daniel B·;185494043 said:
A Vlog/YouTube channel that I'd never heard of before today, versus ample evidence showing Hillary maintaining and expanding her lead in the polls, ranking up new endorsements (including union and environmental groups), winning every news cycle since then....
Ya, no, it wasn't a major snafu.
RPGCrazied
Member
I think they should focus on questions about last night in Paris. It effects everyone,
User 463088
Banned
Sarcasm, right? Please tell me it's sarcasm.
RastaMentality
Banned
Well, a president's job depends on responding to crises in effective, quick ways. It's what the entire audience will be thinking about going into the debate anyways.
User 463088
Banned
They have creams for that now.
Nope, not sarcasm.
The attacks yesterday ultimately make little difference to the importance of foreign policy over the course of the next president's term. And if the candidates have any sense at all then this event should make little difference to their foreign policy. A debate should focus on every issue that a president will experience over their 4 years, not just what happens to be in the news that month.
The largest terror attack on a developed western nation for a decade? Yep, not important at all.
User 463088
Banned
Right, and dealing with a crisis is an essential trait every President must posses. There's another story circulating that Sanders' campaign is upset that it'll be about foreign policy. It's his weakest area, so he clearly doesn't want to talk about it.
He has to be able to respond to issues when they occur, not when it can be conveniently scheduled.
Nice try
. I'm sure some other GAFers will be happy to weigh in, but I'm off to the debate party .Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
It'd be pretty bizarre if an event like the Paris attacks didn't cause belief updating about relative threat levels (either because you didn't think it was big or because you thought an attack of that magnitude and coordinate was so inevitable that you had already priced it into your threat model)
Given an update in the relative threat, unless your foreign policy is threat invariant (i.e. no one should ever engage in military action ever or alternatively, we should always bomb every bad guy ever) you would expect there to be an update to your policy.
exmachina64
Banned
You are incredibly wrong.
But the Supreme Court thing just doesn't matter because we're so tiiiired of hearing it.
Fortunately in the western world we experience far fewer deaths from terrorism than you'd expect if you looked at the news.
Sure, I suppose I'm coming at this from the view that these kinds of attacks are inevitable, expected, and though horrifying and scary, ultimately have little impact on the wider public's safety. Terrorist attacks are supposed to scare us into changing domestic and foreign policy. Time and time again it has worked and I wish our politicians would take a step back and consider the impact of their reaction in the long term.
What do you think is going to change?
User 463088
Banned
You don't think it's important for people to see how a potential President would respond to a foreign policy issue?
reptilescorpio
Member
Can you watch this from outside the US? Brings up a geo error which I try to load the live stream.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Sure, I think we can all agree that a) reactionary bombing shit randomly is a bad idea and b) politicians are often reactionary.
Setting that aside, Paris didn't update your thoughts about ISIS' planning and execution capability? The Russian plane, the stuff in Lebanon today, and Paris collectively made me feel like their operational capability is better than I thought.
My prior on ISIS in western countries was basically self-radicalized randoms with a couple guns, like in Charlie Hebdo 2015, like in Ottawa/Quebec end of 2014. Blowing up an airplane and doing multiple coordinated attacks with suicide belts in a western capital was a surprise for me. The same way I think everyone knew al-Qaeda was able to blow stuff up, but 9/11 would have updated one's belief about their capacity to execute larger-scale coordinated stuff.
I'm not proscribing a particular response, it's not clear to me what that response would be, but the input into my foreign policy clearly changed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked