Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 01-21-2019, 01:09 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napier View Post
I'm optimistic.

As Flyer points out she has a statistically average 6.8 years left. However, that average includes very sick 85 year olds. Setting aside the cancer, she is unusually healthy for an 85 year old. Plus, as CarnalK points out, she has unusually good access to health care. She also has an unusually big motive to stay healthy and survive, which I think is known to tend to extend life.
First, I have nothing against the notorious RBG, and hope she lives and remains on the court for as long as she can function as a judge.

That said, this is some crazy statistical logic. Yes, the average includes sick people. If it didn't, it would be higher since sick people die sooner. In the same way, the average life expectancy includes people killed in car crashes, but that doesn't mean driving drunk has no effect on lifespan.

If you isolated out of the 85 year old cohort all the people who have had recent pancreatic cancer and subsequent lung cancer, their 'statistically average' survival would not be anywhere near 6.8 years. And you can't declare her 'unusually healthy' by taking out the factors that would make her usual, such as cancer. My mother would have been unusually healthy for an 80 year old, if she just hadn't had diabetes and bowel cancer. But she did, and she died. Not that unusual for an 80 year old.

I'm guessing that if you put RBG's chart in front of a doctor without her name on it, they'd say something like, 'she'll be lucky to make it five years, but people with her history and age can go at any time'.

The unusually good access to health care will help a lot, but let's not kid ourselves. Any 85 year old person who has had pancreatic and lung cancer is living on borrowed time, and should be grateful for every new day they get.
  #102  
Old 01-21-2019, 01:21 PM
Folacin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: North of the River
Posts: 3,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
First, I have nothing against the notorious RBG, and hope she lives and remains on the court for as long as she can function as a judge.
I personally hope she has a medical power of attorney that says "keep me hooked up to the machines until a Democrat is elected president". I believe that the only way to remove her from the bench in that case would be for the House to impeach her and the Senate to convict, neither of which seems likely in these divisive times.

As a bonus, it might lead to an amendment to limit federal judicial terms at all levels. 20 years? Although a known end date could lead to game playing by both the judge (screw it, this is my last year (although they can do that anyway)) and people bringing suit (let's wait until Judge XXX is gone in a couple of weeks).
  #103  
Old 01-21-2019, 03:44 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
I'm not sure who has the moral high ground in this discussion. Is it the conservatives secretly wishing she would die, or the liberals only hoping that she lives, even if in a persistent vegetative state or suffering terribly just so that Trump doesn't get another pick?

Last edited by UltraVires; 01-21-2019 at 03:44 PM.
  #104  
Old 01-21-2019, 03:49 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
it's not at all common for people to live long based on only machines keeping them alive. That situation normally happens after a car wreck or a stroke or near drowning or similar issue.
  #105  
Old 01-21-2019, 04:59 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Obviously any news org has prepackaged obits of prominent people that are basically ready to go at a moment's notice. Fox follows this practice as well. It's probably easy to goof up and put it on the air momentarily. It's more amusing when Fox does it with someone like Ginsburg because it comes across as wishful thinking.
I'm not so sure I buy the theory that it was a goof. Didn't someone in the control room have to call up that specific file from wherever it's stored on the server, and then make another conscious decision to place it 'on air'?


Anyway, Oliver Wendell Holmes was just shy of 91 when he retired. RBG has a ways to go to beat that record.
  #106  
Old 01-21-2019, 05:25 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,209
Why would a newspaper intentionally post an obit that they'd know they would have to retract and suffer embarassmrnt for? These things happen from time to time as obits are pre-written for just about every public figure, by pretty much all media. Once in a while they get published by accident.
  #107  
Old 01-21-2019, 05:35 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I'm guessing that if you put RBG's chart in front of a doctor without her name on it, they'd say something like, 'she'll be lucky to make it five years, but people with her history and age can go at any time'.

The unusually good access to health care will help a lot, but let's not kid ourselves. Any 85 year old person who has had pancreatic and lung cancer is living on borrowed time, and should be grateful for every new day they get.
It really depends on whether you're talking a cancer death or that from another cause, and obviously they're not independent.

Still, minus the cancer, RBG seems to be a healthy and mentally robust 85-year-old. Average life expectancy for a women that age is about 7 years. RBG would probably have an even longer than average life expectancy in this regard (assuming in particular that her brain's robustness is an indicator of her overall health).

On the other hand, her cancer may kill her quickly making this discussion moot. Or, it may be truly well-controlled using modern approaches (especially 'biologics') using agents with only modest toxicity (again, 'biologics'). In the latter event - if her cancer is truly well-controlled - her net life expectancy would then be at least 7 years.

It's the middle ground of cancer survival that's less clear - where the cancer is 'active' and 'weakening' the body directly, or where it's treatment is doing the same thing due to its toxicity. How likely is this with RBG? We'd need access to her biopsy reports to know.
  #108  
Old 01-21-2019, 06:00 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Why would a newspaper intentionally post an obit that they'd know they would have to retract and suffer embarassmrnt for? These things happen from time to time as obits are pre-written for just about every public figure, by pretty much all media. Once in a while they get published by accident.
In the case of Fox: because it would drive up their ratings.* The 'goof' appears to be seen by some Trump fans as a delightful treat FoxNews gave them, nudge nudge wink wink. (I'll link to some tweets later if you'd like.)




*Not that I'm guessing this was planned or decided in a boardroom or such. I'd guess some producer just thought it would be a hoot.
  #109  
Old 01-21-2019, 09:12 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm not sure who has the moral high ground in this discussion. Is it the conservatives secretly wishing she would die, or the liberals only hoping that she lives, even if in a persistent vegetative state or suffering terribly just so that Trump doesn't get another pick?
That's a silly question. The question of moral high ground went out the window when the Republicans blocked any vote on Obama's nomination. They are the ones who made it where we have to care more about the letter of the law than the spirit.

We are also the ones trying to preserve the Court, while the Heritage list is all about appointing people who support certain political views.
  #110  
Old 01-21-2019, 09:42 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,572
What does "preserve the Court" mean in your mind?
  #111  
Old 01-22-2019, 09:10 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
We are also the ones trying to preserve the Court, while the Heritage list is all about appointing people who support certain political views.
Seriously? You don't want people on the Court with "certain political views"? So, I'm sure you would be fine with someone who wanted to overturn Roe for example so long as they "preserve[] the Court" whatever that means.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that "preserving the Court" means that you want solid liberals on the Court which in the new left doublespeak is not at all political.
  #112  
Old 01-22-2019, 11:16 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm not sure who has the moral high ground in this discussion.
Moral high ground left the building a few years ago with Senator McConnell.
  #113  
Old 01-22-2019, 05:37 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
Moral high ground left the building a few years ago with Senator McConnell.
I think perhaps you meant to say "explosively expelled by a fire hose wielded by Senator McConnell."
  #114  
Old 01-25-2019, 07:01 AM
Irishman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Denton, TX, USA
Posts: 12,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Obviously any news org has prepackaged obits of prominent people that are basically ready to go at a moment's notice. Fox follows this practice as well. It's probably easy to goof up and put it on the air momentarily. It's more amusing when Fox does it with someone like Ginsburg because it comes across as wishful thinking.
Except the story doesn't say they ran an obit. It says they displayed graphic of her with dates listed, a beginning and end date. The end date is what typically signifies the person died. In this case, they claim it was a technical error of some sort. Maybe the graphic artist put in and end date because there was a slot for it, or that just seemed right. Or someone at Fox was intentional.
  #115  
Old 01-25-2019, 07:17 AM
Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,393
It's all the fault of Roger Stone (D).
  #116  
Old 01-25-2019, 08:23 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,564
I despise Fox News but people really do make mistakes. People send embarrassing emails to reply all rather than to a specific person or send a text meant for their significant other to their mother by mistake.

So, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt in this case.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #117  
Old 01-25-2019, 08:32 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,925
Yeah, it seemed like a fuck up, not intentional. Graphics like that, just like obits, are kept around all the damn time for people for whom it makes sense to have them. They probably updated RBG's when her latest cancer diagnosis was announced. They want it ready to go should the worst happen. They don't want to be waiting on some kid graphic designer to finish updating it when they're trying to get the story on air.
  #118  
Old 01-25-2019, 08:33 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm not sure who has the moral high ground in this discussion. Is it the conservatives secretly wishing she would die, or the liberals only hoping that she lives, even if in a persistent vegetative state or suffering terribly just so that Trump doesn't get another pick?
I would say that neither side has exactly behaved with dignity.
  #119  
Old 01-25-2019, 08:53 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Yeah, it seemed like a fuck up, not intentional. Graphics like that, just like obits, are kept around all the damn time for people for whom it makes sense to have them. They probably updated RBG's when her latest cancer diagnosis was announced. They want it ready to go should the worst happen. They don't want to be waiting on some kid graphic designer to finish updating it when they're trying to get the story on air.
I assume it was a mistake but a graphic like that would take literally less than a minute to put together by the graphics department. It's not like an obituary that takes some thought and effort.
  #120  
Old 01-25-2019, 10:01 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,925
You should try working in a newsroom sometime. It's not the 2 minutes to build it - 2 minutes which are critical to getting it on air - but the 10 minutes of finding out who has the original, finding the graphics guy, arranging delivery and such.
  #121  
Old 01-25-2019, 10:41 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,435
Okay, well it's two stock images, 6 words and a date range. If it takes them more than 10 minutes, I'd be rather surprised. And fwiw, her most recent cancer scare technically was in 2018 meaning that if they updated it for that reason they waited for after the holidays or something.

Last edited by CarnalK; 01-25-2019 at 10:43 AM.
  #122  
Old 02-15-2019, 10:13 PM
psychobunny is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,684
And she's back at work at the court.
__________________
I'm not really an insane rabbit, but I play one on the net.
  #123  
Old 02-19-2019, 07:20 PM
Pithily Effusive is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 100
How morbid.
__________________
If you want to know what God thinks of money just look at the people He gave it to.
-Dorothy Parker-
  #124  
Old 08-23-2019, 01:36 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,931

How Much Longer Does Ginsburg Have?


Breaking news on MSNBC right now that RBG had radiation treatment August 5 for a new tumor found on her pancreas. Link to story below:
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/23/75369...tment-this-sum

Last edited by Kolak of Twilo; 08-23-2019 at 01:39 PM.
  #125  
Old 08-23-2019, 02:02 PM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,596
Fuck. That's not a good cancer to have.
  #126  
Old 08-23-2019, 02:44 PM
Irishman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Denton, TX, USA
Posts: 12,551
Yeah, but apparently she's had it before and beat it.
  #127  
Old 08-23-2019, 03:06 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,990
For varying definitions of "beat".

If Trump is re-elected and the GOP retains control of the Senate, she will live forever. The next session of the Supreme Court starts up in October - she will apparently be in shape to participate, even at 86.

My grandmother also had pancreatic cancer, and she was able to do the radiation treatments as an outpatient for a while as well. Of course, that was a long time ago, and treatments have progressed.

Regards,
Shodan
  #128  
Old 08-23-2019, 03:14 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,116
It's my understanding that if you have a cancer and "beat" it, but then the same kind of cancer comes back, it usually means that you didn't actually beat it, and you've now missed the one opportunity you'll ever have to beat it. In other words, this could be very bad news.
  #129  
Old 08-23-2019, 03:28 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,990
IIUC she's had colon cancer and lung cancer and pancreatic cancer. Now the pancreatic cancer has come back, and has allegedly been treated with radiation. I don't know if that counts as the same kind of cancer, but she's 86. There ain't no kind of cancer that isn't bad news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moloch, in the Watchman graphic novel
You know the kind of cancer that eventually you get better from?

That ain't the kind I got.
I don't think it's the kind she's got either.

Regards,
Shodan
  #130  
Old 08-23-2019, 03:29 PM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,419
the US Supreme Court just released this statement

Quote:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg today completed a three-week course of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. The focused radiation treatment began on August 5 and was administered on an outpatient basis to treat a tumor on her pancreas. The abnormality was first detected after a routine blood test in early July, and a biopsy performed on July 31 at Sloan Kettering confirmed a localized malignant tumor. As part of her treatment, a bile duct stent was placed. The Justice tolerated treatment well. She cancelled her annual summer visit to Santa Fe, but has otherwise maintained an active schedule. The tumor was treated definitively and there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body. Justice Ginsburg will continue to have periodic blood tests and scans. No further treatment is needed at this time.
  #131  
Old 08-23-2019, 03:32 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,209
I actually hope she survives until after the election. Because if she dies in Trump's last year, the Republicans will ram through a replacement as quickly as possible, and I'm guessing the other side will go absolutely ballistic given what happened in Obama's last year with Merrick Garland.

Also, if the Republicans push through another conservative and Trump loses the election, there will be enormous pressure on a Democratic president to pack the court, and that would be bad for U.S. politics.
  #132  
Old 08-23-2019, 03:33 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,566
I hope she gets better and lives a long time more.

But politically, I don't think it even matters any more. The SCOTUS is majority Republican, and has been for years. It's just another political institution, and one that happens to be dominated by Republicans at present. Hopefully in a few years it will be majority Democratic. Even better, but far less likely, the country will restore a much less political SCOTUS by reforming the process. Until then, I hope the Democrats do everything they can possibly get away with to try and game the SCOTUS their way, just like the Republicans have been doing for years.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 08-23-2019 at 03:33 PM.
  #133  
Old 08-23-2019, 03:33 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
Steve Jobs had pancreatic cancer and lived for a while , eventually he needed a liver transplant but after that he still died. He was only 55 when he died.
  #134  
Old 08-23-2019, 03:37 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
It's my understanding that if you have a cancer and "beat" it, but then the same kind of cancer comes back, it usually means that you didn't actually beat it, and you've now missed the one opportunity you'll ever have to beat it. In other words, this could be very bad news.
Wait, how does that work? If the cancer cells show up but are defeated each time, can't you just beat and re-beat it indefinitely (until you have lived as long as you need to live, like Ginsburg does, in outlasting her political opponents?)
  #135  
Old 08-23-2019, 03:39 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I actually hope she survives until after the election. Because if she dies in Trump's last year, the Republicans will ram through a replacement as quickly as possible, and I'm guessing the other side will go absolutely ballistic given what happened in Obama's last year with Merrick Garland.
I'm curious, from a procedure perspective, how long a ruling party must take to get a replacement justice confirmed.

If Trump lost the 2020 election and Republicans lost their Senate majority, but Ginsburg died in December 2020 just a few days before the new Congress was scheduled to take office, could Senate Republicans nominate a new replacement like Barrett or Pryor, scuttle the confirmation hearings, hold a vote, and effectively ram the replacement through within 24 hours?
  #136  
Old 08-23-2019, 04:02 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,116
You beat as many cancer cells as can be beaten, and hope and pray that that's all of them. If it comes back, then it means that at least some cancer cells weren't beatable by the therapy you used (most likely, because they'd spread throughout the body). And so now the cancer you've got coming back is unbeatable.
  #137  
Old 08-23-2019, 08:35 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I'm curious, from a procedure perspective, how long a ruling party must take to get a replacement justice confirmed.

If Trump lost the 2020 election and Republicans lost their Senate majority, but Ginsburg died in December 2020 just a few days before the new Congress was scheduled to take office, could Senate Republicans nominate a new replacement like Barrett or Pryor, scuttle the confirmation hearings, hold a vote, and effectively ram the replacement through within 24 hours?
Rule Number One: They can do anything you can't stop them from doing.
Rule Number Two: You can't stop them from doing anything.
  #138  
Old 08-23-2019, 09:00 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Steve Jobs had pancreatic cancer and lived for a while , eventually he needed a liver transplant but after that he still died. He was only 55 when he died.

I just heard on a podcast yesterday that he could still be alive if he didnít initially turn to woo instead of surgery.
  #139  
Old 08-23-2019, 10:23 PM
pool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I just heard on a podcast yesterday that he could still be alive if he didnít initially turn to woo instead of surgery.
Yes my understanding is Jobs was a candidate for the Whipple procedure, but instead initially sought out more nutritional or homeopathic "treatments". Could have potentially cured him or at least bought him another five years or so, maybe more, what a dumb-dumb.
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"
  #140  
Old 08-24-2019, 09:11 AM
Irishman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Denton, TX, USA
Posts: 12,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
It's my understanding that if you have a cancer and "beat" it, but then the same kind of cancer comes back, it usually means that you didn't actually beat it, and you've now missed the one opportunity you'll ever have to beat it. In other words, this could be very bad news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
You beat as many cancer cells as can be beaten, and hope and pray that that's all of them. If it comes back, then it means that at least some cancer cells weren't beatable by the therapy you used (most likely, because they'd spread throughout the body). And so now the cancer you've got coming back is unbeatable.
It's not quite that simple. My dad had colon cancer. After 5 years clear, his doctor told him he had beat it, and if he had any more it would be a separate incident unrelated to the first.

I don't know what the relapse time period is on pancreatic cancer, but she had the first batch in 2009.
  #141  
Old 08-24-2019, 09:17 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,116
Well, true, if it's possible for a person to get cancer once, then it's possible for them to get it twice independently. Hence the "usually".
  #142  
Old 08-28-2019, 12:26 PM
Gukumatz is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 2,846
Man, this is grim. I feel like if Ginsburg dies - at this moment in time - it will be a massive turning point. The politicality of the USSC is, of course, completely incomprehensible to me, but at least there has been a balance.

Having one side that's so violently anti-institutional with a 6-3 advantage brings to mind what's been going on in Hungary, Poland and Turkey lately ...

Last edited by Gukumatz; 08-28-2019 at 12:27 PM.
  #143  
Old 08-28-2019, 12:41 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,572
If Ginsburg dies while President Trump is in office, liberals will absolutely lose their shit. It will be epic.
  #144  
Old 08-28-2019, 12:48 PM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If Ginsburg dies while President Trump is in office, liberals will absolutely lose their shit. It will be epic.
It should be fine as long as it's in his last year of the term.
  #145  
Old 08-28-2019, 01:09 PM
Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,393
After all, McConnell would never vote on a nomination during an election year: he'd let the voters decide, instead.
  #146  
Old 08-28-2019, 01:21 PM
Dallas Jones is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Orygun forest
Posts: 4,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
It should be fine as long as it's in his last year of the term.
But it won't be and you know that.

He wasn't supposed to get even one year, Hillary was a given. And then all the Russia election fraud would do him in shortly. Or his tax returns, or the things he has said, or the things that he Twitters. Or something, something...

The current field of Democratic candidates doesn't look real strong, and the party is not unified and has little message other than free candy for everyone. So they will go safe and it will be Biden as the nominee. His heart isn't even close to being committed to this. Warren and Sanders are two sides of the same coin, and there is no one else.

So it will be a second term for Trump and we just have to ride it out. And that means Trump gets at least one more supreme court pick, maybe two.

Sleep well, my friend.
  #147  
Old 08-28-2019, 01:29 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallas Jones View Post
But it won't be and you know that.

He wasn't supposed to get even one year, Hillary was a given. And then all the Russia election fraud would do him in shortly. Or his tax returns, or the things he has said, or the things that he Twitters. Or something, something...

The current field of Democratic candidates doesn't look real strong, and the party is not unified and has little message other than free candy for everyone. So they will go safe and it will be Biden as the nominee. His heart isn't even close to being committed to this. Warren and Sanders are two sides of the same coin, and there is no one else.

So it will be a second term for Trump and we just have to ride it out. And that means Trump gets at least one more supreme court pick, maybe two.

Sleep well, my friend.
If you feel strongly about all of this, you could make a fortune on the betting markets. Or lose a fortune, if you're wrong.
  #148  
Old 08-28-2019, 01:50 PM
Dallas Jones is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Orygun forest
Posts: 4,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If you feel strongly about all of this, you could make a fortune on the betting markets. Or lose a fortune, if you're wrong.
That is just how I see it. I'll get back to you after the primaries.

Sanders is still being an just angry old man. An angry young man might pull it off but not Bernie. Warren has good ideas but comes across, to me, as too weak. And Biden's time was yesterday, or the day before yesterday, and he has no fire in the belly to want it.
  #149  
Old 08-28-2019, 01:56 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallas Jones View Post
That is just how I see it. I'll get back to you after the primaries.

Sanders is still being an just angry old man. An angry young man might pull it off but not Bernie. Warren has good ideas but comes across, to me, as too weak. And Biden's time was yesterday, or the day before yesterday, and he has no fire in the belly to want it.
Way too early for these sorts of judgments for the primary, much less what they might mean for the general, IMO. These are basically wild guesses. We'll see. I'm cheered by the likelihood that all the Democratic candidate needs to get to win is slightly more votes than Hillary in PA, WI, and MI. But I'm still not making a prediction -- not until Nate Silver's model does.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 08-28-2019 at 02:00 PM.
  #150  
Old 08-28-2019, 05:44 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,116
If an angry old man can't pull it off, then the Democrats have nothing to worry about. What do you think Trump is?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017