US Politics XI - more threads than fired Trump cabinet members

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg released from hospital after cancer surgery

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...e-court-justice-released-hospital/2413300002/

WASHINGTON – Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been released from the hospital after cancer surgery.

Ginsburg, the leader of the court's liberal faction, was discharged on Christmas Day and is recuperating at home, court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said in a statement on Wednesday.

Ginsburg, 85, underwent a pulmonary lobectomy last week at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. The procedure to remove two nodules in the lower lobe of her left lung followed their discovery during tests performed last month to diagnose and treat rib fractures suffered in a fall on Nov. 7.

...Earlier this year, Ginsburg said she intended to stay on the bench for at least five more years, noting that Associate Justice John Paul Stevens served until age 90. Stevens retired in 2010 and is now 98.

The second woman appointed to the court – Justice Sandra Day O'Connor became the first in 1981 – Ginsburg has gained celebrity status as the "Notorious RBG." She is the subject of a recent documentary, "RBG," and a feature film, "On the Basis of Sex,"which opens in theaters this week.
 
An early analysis of Democrats' preferences going into 2020:

https://news.yahoo.com/usa-today-suffolk-poll-democrats-110006925.html

WASHINGTON – Democratic and independent voters are crystal clear about the candidate they'd be most excited to see in the 2020 presidential field: Someone entirely new. Oh, and also the most seasoned prospect.

Asking voters their pick for president more than a year before the primaries begin typically doesn't tell you much beyond name recognition. Instead of asking about support, a USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll tested which candidates now seem intriguing to voters, and who turns them off, in an effort to get clues about the dynamic ahead.

Landing at the top of the list of 11 options was "someone entirely new" – perhaps a prospect not on the political radar screen yet. Nearly six in 10 of those surveyed – 59 percent – said they would be "excited" about a candidate like that; only 11 percent said they'd prefer that a new face not run.

That said, close behind was Joe Biden, the opposite of someone entirely new. Biden, now 76, was a veteran senator from Delaware before he served two terms as President Barack Obama's vice president. He's weighing whether to make his third bid for the Democratic nomination; 53 percent said they would be excited about that, while 24 percent urged him not to run.

"He has the common touch," said Thomas Maslany, 72, a Democratic retiree from Perkiomenville, Pennsylvania, who worked for the Environmental Protection Agency. He thought Democrats might need to nominate an older white male to defeat President Trump for re-election, although he agreed the party needs to move to a new generation of leaders. "The world's changing so fast."

Catherine O'Connor, 63, an artist and a political independent from Lockport, New York, had an idea how to reconcile those conflicting impulses: nominate Biden for president and choose someone like California Sen. Kamala Harris or Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke as his running mate.

While she mentioned O'Rourke, she also worried that the three-term House member, who lost his bid for the Senate last month, and other newcomers, lack enough experience for the Oval Office.
 
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/po...selfie-russian-troll-farm-20181228-story.html


giphy.gif
 
I’ve been rewatching the West Wing since it’s either back on netflix or was just always been there and I didn’t notice. It’s such an unrealistic work of fiction. In one of the first few episodes the press secretary gets mad that she accidentally lied to the press. That would never happen in real life.
 
Dems need to be smarter than this.

I agree. I voted for her but I'm no big fan of her running for President
She's going to be seen as too liberal from (stereotype) heathen liberal MA. Don't see that working out well at all. I like that she stands up to Trump, but we need way more than that. Like concrete ideas and plans. Not just being anti Trump.

Not that the orange clown had such things. Maybe that doesn't even matter now.
 
I think we shouldn’t discount candidates as “too liberal.” The gloves are off, no more trying to appease people.

That being said, I don’t think she’s the best candidate.

I’m still all in for Hillary running again if we can’t get a solid candidate.
 
I think we shouldn’t discount candidates as “too liberal.” The gloves are off, no more trying to appease people.

That being said, I don’t think she’s the best candidate.

I’m still all in for Hillary running again if we can’t get a solid candidate.

I agree but I think Hillary’s days are done. It would be a mistake to run her again eso against trump in 2020. I think the dems need a fresh face with fresh ideas and like it was said here, not someone that is just anti-trump.
 
I think people in certain parts of the country would see Senator Warren as too liberal. I don't care about appeasing people but I do want someone who can beat Trump. It's rather pathetic that's there's no obvious person who can do that.
 
I’m still all in for Hillary running again if we can’t get a solid candidate.




For a while, I was of the opinion that she needs to retire and do some activist stuff with Bono and Oprah and be an elder statesmen.

But now that the depth of the Russian/GOP collusion has been revealed to be every bit as bad as we could have imagined, damn, 2016 was *stolen* from her. Make all the Wisconsin jokes you want, no one has ever been subjected to such shit as she.
 
For a while, I was of the opinion that she needs to retire and do some activist stuff with Bono and Oprah and be an elder statesmen.

But now that the depth of the Russian/GOP collusion has been revealed to be every bit as bad as we could have imagined, damn, 2016 was *stolen* from her. Make all the Wisconsin jokes you want, no one has ever been subjected to such shit as she.
You're not wrong.

But most people still don't believe that, and/or want to believe that they were manipulated. On both sides.

She'd be better off traveling back and forth between Chicago and Dalkey.
 
The theft perpetrated against Hillary Clinton is astonishing and I feel deeply sorry for her, not just for 2016 but the prior 3 decades or so of character assassination and sexism at the hands of various factions of the right/Republicans. Having said that, I think we are all ready for a new chapter.


With respect to Elizabeth Warren, let me be very clear: if she is the nominee running against Trump, there would not be a millisecond of doubt as to whom I would vote for. Zero. If I could, I would volunteer, donate money, do what needs to be done. Nobody on our planet has the luxury of waffling here. In the words of my 3-year-old, "this isn't funny." Having said that, she wouldn't be my first choice. I'm not too concerned about the "she's too liberal" complaint. The reality is that the 20% or so of voters who are Trump's base are a lost cause and I wouldn't even think about them come election time. They are the ones screaming about owning libruls from San Francisco. The squishy middle, I don't think really cares that much, they will either vote on the basis of being sick to their stomach of Trump, or on the basis of their wallets. Warren is populist enough to appeal to them. My concern with her is that she is a policy wonk and tends to sound professorial/not brief enough. She has decent soundbytes on Twitter but I don't know that it translates the same way to speaking on the stump. Since the eventual nominee will have to do battle for media time against that orange whore in office, you really need somebody who is either enigmatic and attractive like Obama or somebody who is loud and brash and takes it to Trump 24/7. Everybody else will just cede time - on covers of newspapers, on the Sunday morning talk shows, the weekly news, etc. Remember how much free advertising Trump got because he attended like 99 Republican primary debates for months and months and then he was so outrageous they started covering his rallies as well. I just don't see Warren as somebody who would give him a run for his money.
 
For a while, I was of the opinion that she needs to retire and do some activist stuff with Bono and Oprah and be an elder statesmen.

But now that the depth of the Russian/GOP collusion has been revealed to be every bit as bad as we could have imagined, damn, 2016 was *stolen* from her. Make all the Wisconsin jokes you want, no one has ever been subjected to such shit as she.

:lmao:

:laugh:

that's a good one. :applaud:
 
Last edited:
For a while, I was of the opinion that she needs to retire and do some activist stuff with Bono and Oprah and be an elder statesmen.

But now that the depth of the Russian/GOP collusion has been revealed to be every bit as bad as we could have imagined, damn, 2016 was *stolen* from her. Make all the Wisconsin jokes you want, no one has ever been subjected to such shit as she.



I don’t even necessarily align with her so much as I believe she’s fit for the job, is better than the other likely candidates, and oh the sweet poetic justice it would be... there’s nothing I want more than for smug unintelligible Trump supporters heads to explode yelling about some drop state conspiracy where the system removed Trump and put KillLiary in power.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom