MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The greatest woman ever Died today  (Read 4431 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: October 05, 2020, 09:16 »
+3
Great woman indeed. But, I don't know why she didn't retire when there could have been a replacement appointed that would have cemented the progress she helped usher in. I fear this has happened at the worst possible time. Does anyone know why she held on for so long?


« Reply #26 on: October 05, 2020, 15:20 »
+5
Great woman indeed. But, I don't know why she didn't retire when there could have been a replacement appointed that would have cemented the progress she helped usher in. I fear this has happened at the worst possible time. Does anyone know why she held on for so long?

That's my feeling too.

Back in 2014, when Obama was in the W.H. and the Dems still controlled the Senate, I went nearly berserk when the Notorious RBG insisted on staying longer at the Supreme Court. She was already 81 and had survived several cancer treatments, not to mention other lesser ailments of old age.

That would have been the time for her to retire in glory, at the height of her power, knowing her legacy was safe. Now, with her death, we Americans face an atrocious rollback of all the things RBG brought or preserved for us, including a woman's right to control her own body, the right for gays to marry, voting rights for minorities, environmental protections, etc.

My theory as to why she stuck around too long: ego. Pure and simple.

And as for the "greatest woman who ever lived." Hyperbole much? ???

For all kinds of reasons, this is a grim time in America.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2020, 15:25 by marthamarks »

« Reply #27 on: October 05, 2020, 17:32 »
+1
 

« Reply #28 on: October 06, 2020, 06:42 »
+1
Great woman indeed. But, I don't know why she didn't retire when there could have been a replacement appointed that would have cemented the progress she helped usher in. I fear this has happened at the worst possible time. Does anyone know why she held on for so long?

That's my feeling too.

Back in 2014, when Obama was in the W.H. and the Dems still controlled the Senate, I went nearly berserk when the Notorious RBG insisted on staying longer at the Supreme Court. She was already 81 and had survived several cancer treatments, not to mention other lesser ailments of old age.

That would have been the time for her to retire in glory, at the height of her power, knowing her legacy was safe. Now, with her death, we Americans face an atrocious rollback of all the things RBG brought or preserved for us, including a woman's right to control her own body, the right for gays to marry, voting rights for minorities, environmental protections, etc.

My theory as to why she stuck around too long: ego. Pure and simple.

And as for the "greatest woman who ever lived." Hyperbole much? ???

For all kinds of reasons, this is a grim time in America.

I really can't understand it, what a shame. Such an intelligent woman. I guess it is just one of the problems with lifetime appointments. Maybe she just wasn't able to think clearly with health issues and faced with her own mortality.

I hope we are still praising her achievements in a decade and we haven't forgotten because they have all been rolled back, thanks in part her not steppoing down when she should have.

Anyway RIP, she still did more good than most

Shelma1

« Reply #29 on: October 06, 2020, 09:29 »
+1
....or maybe she was excited to be serving under the first black POTUS, when it seemed our country had finally stepped into the 21st century, and the world was optimistic about the direction the U.S. was heading, and we all looked forward to the first female POTUS, and she wanted to be on the court when that happened. It would have been an exciting time for women, with HRC in the white house and RBG on the supreme court.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #30 on: October 06, 2020, 09:43 »
+3
Great woman indeed. But, I don't know why she didn't retire when there could have been a replacement appointed that would have cemented the progress she helped usher in. I fear this has happened at the worst possible time. Does anyone know why she held on for so long?

Maybe she thought he battle wasn't done yet and there was more to be accomplished, and that was her personal life mission. I suppose anyone can make their own guess, political or for gender biased reasons, but I'd think she was a fighter and wasn't going to quit fighting until the end. Call that whatever you want. Our country was fortunate to have a person such as her, serving us and keeping balance, while stepping up to adjust historic imbalances in the law or interpretation. And not just issues of gender equality!

Maybe in all the news and reviews of her career, someone will actually have the answer, in her own words. I'm confident the question was asked while Obama was in office.

« Reply #31 on: October 06, 2020, 13:57 »
+2
....or maybe she was excited to be serving under the first black POTUS, when it seemed our country had finally stepped into the 21st century, and the world was optimistic about the direction the U.S. was heading, and we all looked forward to the first female POTUS, and she wanted to be on the court when that happened. It would have been an exciting time for women, with HRC in the white house and RBG on the supreme court.
Actually you're right. With hindsight it's easy to say she should have retired but there very well could have been another Democrat in after Obama. Just a shame things have worked out like they have.

« Reply #32 on: October 07, 2020, 15:11 »
+1
I didnt know her too much and she wasnt a leader as such but as politicians and leaders I can mention two whom I think was greater on a global scale and world issues, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi and well some lefties will be crying but even Maggie ( who sometimes had warped ideas) but as a leader on global diplomacy and efficiensy she was faultless!

« Reply #33 on: October 07, 2020, 21:59 »
+3
With hindsight it's easy to say she should have retired but there very well could have been another Democrat in after Obama.

Actually, history doesn't support that argument. Neither one of America's main political parties tends to hold the presidency for more than two terms in a row.

There are exceptions, of course (Reagan's 2 terms + GHW Bush's 1 term), but generally you'll find a long-established pattern of two terms/eight years of one party followed by two terms/eight years of the other.

I have a strong hunch that Justice Ginsburg knew that.

Shelma1

« Reply #34 on: October 07, 2020, 22:25 »
+5
With hindsight it's easy to say she should have retired but there very well could have been another Democrat in after Obama.

Actually, history doesn't support that argument. Neither one of America's main political parties tends to hold the presidency for more than two terms in a row.

There are exceptions, of course (Reagan's 2 terms + GHW Bush's 1 term), but generally you'll find a long-established pattern of two terms/eight years of one party followed by two terms/eight years of the other.

I have a strong hunch that Justice Ginsburg knew that.

Yet HRC won by almost 3 million votes. The country wanted another Democratic POTUS. Hanging chads, the supreme court and the electoral college have handed the presidency to losers. The Democratic party needs to grow a freaking backbone and fight like h*ll against the gross unfairness that leads to these outcomes. At this point only 29% of registered voters are Republican. Dont blame Ginsburg for the nefarious machinations of the Republican party. Point the blame for this farce of a presidency and a stacked supreme court where it belongs.

« Reply #35 on: October 08, 2020, 05:14 »
+1
With hindsight it's easy to say she should have retired but there very well could have been another Democrat in after Obama.

Actually, history doesn't support that argument. Neither one of America's main political parties tends to hold the presidency for more than two terms in a row.

There are exceptions, of course (Reagan's 2 terms + GHW Bush's 1 term), but generally you'll find a long-established pattern of two terms/eight years of one party followed by two terms/eight years of the other.

I have a strong hunch that Justice Ginsburg knew that.

Yet HRC won by almost 3 million votes. The country wanted another Democratic POTUS. Hanging chads, the supreme court and the electoral college have handed the presidency to losers. The Democratic party needs to grow a freaking backbone and fight like h*ll against the gross unfairness that leads to these outcomes. At this point only 29% of registered voters are Republican. Dont blame Ginsburg for the nefarious machinations of the Republican party. Point the blame for this farce of a presidency and a stacked supreme court where it belongs.

Dead right you are!..problem is the Democratic party and its the same with Labour in England. They are lost for leaders! Just look at them now with a "demented" Biden who is just a compromise to a real leader and its the same with this weird guy  Keir Starmer in England. Losers.

« Reply #36 on: October 08, 2020, 10:14 »
+1
Dont blame Ginsburg for the nefarious machinations of the Republican party. Point the blame for this farce of a presidency and a stacked supreme court where it belongs.

Ummmm, I'm not blaming Ginsburg for any nefarious machinations by anybody.

I'm simply pointing out the historical pattern, which has held true long before this farce of a presidency began.

« Reply #37 on: October 08, 2020, 12:43 »
+1
With hindsight it's easy to say she should have retired but there very well could have been another Democrat in after Obama.

Actually, history doesn't support that argument. Neither one of America's main political parties tends to hold the presidency for more than two terms in a row.

There are exceptions, of course (Reagan's 2 terms + GHW Bush's 1 term), but generally you'll find a long-established pattern of two terms/eight years of one party followed by two terms/eight years of the other.

I have a strong hunch that Justice Ginsburg knew that.

Yet HRC won by almost 3 million votes. The country wanted another Democratic POTUS. Hanging chads, the supreme court and the electoral college have handed the presidency to losers. The Democratic party needs to grow a freaking backbone and fight like h*ll against the gross unfairness that leads to these outcomes. At this point only 29% of registered voters are Republican. Dont blame Ginsburg for the nefarious machinations of the Republican party. Point the blame for this farce of a presidency and a stacked supreme court where it belongs.

Dead right you are!..problem is the Democratic party and its the same with Labour in England. They are lost for leaders! Just look at them now with a "demented" Biden who is just a compromise to a real leader and its the same with this weird guy  Keir Starmer in England. Losers.

Why are you calling him demented? You sound like Trump, calling everyone names. Sleepy Joe 😡 He has overcome a lifelong stutter, so he speaks carefully. That doesnt make him demented. Hes a helluva lot more presidential than Trump.

« Reply #38 on: October 10, 2020, 16:38 »
0
.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2020, 16:52 by cathyslife »

« Reply #39 on: October 10, 2020, 17:52 »
0


Yet HRC won by almost 3 million votes. The country wanted another Democratic POTUS. Hanging chads, the supreme court and the electoral college have handed the presidency to losers. The Democratic party needs to grow a freaking backbone and fight like h*ll against the gross unfairness that leads to these outcomes. At this point only 29% of registered voters are Republican. Dont blame Ginsburg for the nefarious machinations of the Republican party. Point the blame for this farce of a presidency and a stacked supreme court where it belongs.

exactly! and of course we have the spineless concession that resulted in Bush V Gore - i admired Scalia tho disagreed with most of his decisions, but BvG was utter hypocrisy

« Reply #40 on: October 10, 2020, 18:09 »
0
 
Actually, history doesn't support that argument. Neither one of America's main political parties tends to hold the presidency for more than two terms in a row.

There are exceptions, of course (Reagan's 2 terms + GHW Bush's 1 term), but generally you'll find a long-established pattern of two terms/eight years of one party followed by two terms/eight years of the other.
 

it's really a recent phenom -- most of the time one party held power for a decade or more

  • 1801-1849 Jefferson to Polk 1801-1849 (48 yrs)
  • 1853-1861 Pierce & Buchanan (who happily relinquishes the title of 'worst president ever') (8yrs)
  • 1861-1885 Lincoln to Arthur (24 yrs)
  • 1897-1913 McKinley - Taft (16 yrs)
  • 1921-1933 Harding - Hoover (12 yrs)
  • 1933-1953 FDR-Truman (20 yrs)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
3333 Views
Last post June 25, 2013, 02:22
by jshooz
10 Replies
2804 Views
Last post February 01, 2014, 06:15
by ShadySue
8 Replies
6888 Views
Last post April 14, 2016, 14:00
by Anyka
9 Replies
3009 Views
Last post November 12, 2015, 13:39
by wordplanet
105 Replies
27329 Views
Last post June 23, 2016, 06:15
by Microstock Posts

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle