• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Weekend at Feinstein's

SOme misguided people are screaming "Ageism" over this.
That old age does bad thing to people seems beyond their comprehension.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Yeah but you can't say the quiet part out loud.

I get into a fight here on the board every Political Primary because I point out the whole thing only makes sense if it's the Party Leadership telling the voters who to vote for, not the other way around.

But pull down that puppet theater and I don't know what the parties are even there for.

Anything that is gonna read like "No we're basically telling you you can't vote for her" is gonna come off bad.

I'm not on Feinstein's side here, I've spoke at length at how absurd it is that the vast, vast, vast bulk of political power in this country is held by people who's age is "Statistically died 10-20 years ago."

Just any solution beyond "somehow convince people to stop voting for them voluntarily" doesn't sit well with me.
Click to expand...

Oh. That one's easy. The parties are there to prevent you from getting local candidates who will represent the local community.

(In theory, the parties are there so that you can tell how the candidate will vote on a given issue, but the world is full of examples where that just isn't true.)

In Australia, candidates are 'parachuted in' over local representatives all the time. At best they make some token commitment to the electorate, for example buying a rental property in the electorate so that they can claim to be a rate-payer...
 
TurkeysGhost said:
A person born yesterday would have seen this coming. It's getting a bit a bit tired for Democrats to play the "we didn't expect the Republicans to be bad faith obstructionists" card at this point.

At this point failing to anticipate such moves and plan accordingly speaks very poorly about the seriousness of the Democratic party.
Click to expand...
Now fit this denial/excuse of yours into reality.

If RBG resigned sooner, what? :______________

And the Democrats should have done what to make that happen? ___________

Was it clear in 2018 that Feinstein shouldn't run for reelection and how would the Democrats have stopped her? (this is probably the easiest one to answer if you don't provide any facts from 2018) ____________________

Was there insight when she was assigned to the Judiciary Committee that McConnell had another card up his sleaze? ________________

Is there a way to get around McConnell that the Democrats haven't done? ____________

Does that include getting past the Sinema/Manchin roadblock, how? ______________

You post comes across as armchair-hindsight bitching and moaning.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Now fit this denial/excuse of yours into reality.

If RBG resigned sooner, what? :______________

And the Democrats should have done what to make that happen? ___________

Was it clear in 2018 that Feinstein shouldn't run for reelection and how would the Democrats have stopped her? (this is probably the easiest one to answer if you don't provide any facts from 2018) ____________________

Was there insight when she was assigned to the Judiciary Committee that McConnell had another card up his sleaze? ________________

Is there a way to get around McConnell that the Democrats haven't done? ____________

Does that include getting past the Sinema/Manchin roadblock, how? ______________

You post comes across as armchair-hindsight bitching and moaning.
Click to expand...
"We tried doing nothing and now we're out of ideas."
 
Beelzebuddy said:
"We tried doing nothing and now we're out of ideas."
Click to expand...
What is that supposed to mean? You too cannot fill in those blanks but bitching and moaning about the Democrats makes you feel better?


My apologies if I missed sarcasm in your post, I am seriously sarcasm blind.

I have lots of complaints about the Democrats, the biggest one being they suck at marketing. But this whining why didn't somebody do something about RBG and now Feinstein is just that whining. And it lets that truly evil Satan substitute McConnell off the hook.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
You too cannot fill in those blanks
Click to expand...
You didn't ask me to. The last three pages of this thread are filled with people saying the input of people like myself is neither needed nor wanted at this juncture. You have the answers, right? The situation is all well in hand, and the only thing my speaking up could do is ruin things by making Democrats lose. Somehow. With that in mind, if you still want the answers, ask me. Ask me like Democrats ask Mitch McConnell for permission to wipe their asses.

[ETA] Ah to hell with it, here you go anyway:
CHEAT

McConnell doesn't let a bunch of decades-old honor system rules meant to keep Congress in blissful gridlock stop him from pushing his horrible agenda into place, WHY do Democrats insist on it when they have the upper hand? Feinstein's out, fine, Mark Kelly shows up in her seat. No permission from McConnell, no **** playing Mother May I. He shows up, Dems have a quorum, they start voting. DONE. Mitch can go bitch about it on OAN.

Oh and about Feinstein, yes there were plenty of people wanting her not to run even in 2018. If you recall at the time RBG was barely hanging on, it was really obvious that leadership age was becoming a critical issue. As for what Dems could have done about it, refer to my earlier post. They didn't have to give her seats on those committees, not in 2018 and not in 2022.
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
You didn't ask me to.
Click to expand...
Then why did you quote me?

As for
You have the answers, right? The situation is all well in hand, and the only thing my speaking up could do is ruin things by making Democrats lose. Somehow. With that in mind, if you still want the answers, ask me. Ask me like Democrats ask Mitch McConnell for permission to wipe their asses.
Click to expand...
Your ire is misdirected.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Now fit this denial/excuse of yours into reality.

If RBG resigned sooner, what? :______________

And the Democrats should have done what to make that happen? ___________

Was it clear in 2018 that Feinstein shouldn't run for reelection and how would the Democrats have stopped her? (this is probably the easiest one to answer if you don't provide any facts from 2018) ____________________

Was there insight when she was assigned to the Judiciary Committee that McConnell had another card up his sleaze? ________________

Is there a way to get around McConnell that the Democrats haven't done? ____________

Does that include getting past the Sinema/Manchin roadblock, how? ______________

You post comes across as armchair-hindsight bitching and moaning.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding with this? You really have to live in a revisionist history world to think that any of these are difficult or serious questions.

- If RBG had retired sooner, her replacement would be a liberal justice instead of a fed society hack. Kagan and Sotomayor got on the court during that time, and there were absolutely people contemporaneously discussing the problem of RBG's advanced age and potential problems with future replacement. Are you implying RBG retiring during that period of D control of the Senate and White House would have been a problem somehow?

- And the Democrats should have done what to make that happen? A public pressure campaign would have been a good start. Probably would be less easy to blame them for this unforced error had they tried anything besides sticking their heads in the sand about this obvious problem. It's true, perhaps RBG's foolish hubris truly had no bounds, but I doubt it.

- Feinstein was 85 years old in 2018 when she sought re-election, that speaks for itself.

- Was there insight when she was assigned to the Judiciary Committee that McConnell had another card up his sleaze?: Just lol with this. Do you really need an answer?

- The way to get around McConnell for Democrats is to make good decisions when they have control of the Senate. RBG dying on the bench during D control is an example of not doing that.

- Ditto for above about Manchin/Sinema. The D's control of the Senate hasn't always been so precarious as to be bound to the whims of these corrupt freaks. That would have been the time to do important tasks. I agree they are more or less totally screwed at the moment, but we all have memories longer than 5 minutes, right?
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
There should be a mandatory retirement age for senators and supreme court justices.
Click to expand...

As always, why?

In October 2017, Feinstein declared her intention to run for reelection in 2018. She lost the endorsement of the California Democratic Party's executive board, which opted to support State Senator Kevin de León, but finished first in the state's "jungle primary" and was reelected in the November 6 general election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein#Elections​

Feinstein won 54% of the general election vote. Californians are, by and large, apparently not too concerned about advanced age as a disqualifier. If they don't see the need, why should you or anyone else seek to impose it on them with a law?

(There's the party doing what some people think it should have done, by the way.)
 
theprestige said:
Feinstein won 54% of the general election vote. Californians are, by and large, apparently not too concerned about advanced age as a disqualifier. If they don't see the need, why should you or anyone else seek to impose it on them with a law?
Click to expand...

The voters are idiots. Democracy is too important to be entrusted to average voters. :idea:
 
theprestige said:
As always, why?



In October 2017, Feinstein declared her intention to run for reelection in 2018. She lost the endorsement of the California Democratic Party's executive board, which opted to support State Senator Kevin de León, but finished first in the state's "jungle primary" and was reelected in the November 6 general election.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein#Elections​



Feinstein won 54% of the general election vote. Californians are, by and large, apparently not too concerned about advanced age as a disqualifier. If they don't see the need, why should you or anyone else seek to impose it on them with a law?



(There's the party doing what some people think it should have done, by the way.)
Click to expand...
In theory someone should be standing up to replace her as a candidate.
 
a_unique_person said:
In theory someone should be standing up to replace her as a candidate.
Click to expand...

Well someone did, but the voters, I guess out of habit, reelected her anyway.

We have term limits for presidents. You could make same argument as theprestige there: if the voters want to reelect the same person ad infinitum, isn't that their democratic prerogative? There's no age limit for presidents (no upper age limit, that is) but they are limited in the time they can serve.

ETA: and 36 states have term limits for governors.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
(There's the party doing what some people think it should have done, by the way.)
Click to expand...

That speaks well to the state party. Unfortunately it seems the national party did not follow their lead.

The list of endorsements for Feinstein has all the big names you might recognize. Lots of large profile national politicians like Obama, Biden, Pelosi, etc, and all the major papers in the area.

Leon's state party endorsement is a notable exception. Shame they seemed to be the only ones who could tell which way the wind was blowing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_Senate_election_in_California#Endorsements_2
 
Feinstein's staff had a "don't let her wander off alone" policy.

Feinstein’s Health Crisis Goes Back Farther than We Knew
Staff for the high-ranking Democrat have for years had a system to keep her from walking the halls of Congress alone, sources tell Rolling Stone
Click to expand...

Bleak stuff, staff describing managing the sun-downing Senator

One person who did not want to be named recounted Feinstein asking a staffer for a memo, then responding with bewilderment when the memo was turned in the next day. These issues are longstanding: last summer, almost a year ago, one person who had worked with her and asked not to be named said “her days are all bad days now.” Feinstein’s acuity gets worse as the day goes on, multiple people told Rolling Stone, and staff have long tried to avoid her having any engagements after mid-afternoon.
Click to expand...

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/dianne-feinstein-health-crisis-senate-resign-1234734590/
 
Puppycow said:
There should be a mandatory retirement age for senators and supreme court justices.
Click to expand...

And what happens when the populace votes them in anyway?

This is not an idle question.

This isn't like the 35 minimum age for President where there's no real push to elect anyone that young from the general populace.

As said 54% voters want Feinstein in that office. How exactly are you going to get 50%+ of the same voters to vote yes on a referendum of not doing... exactly that?

The voting populace being asked to put limits on themselves has always struck me as weird, like when an overweight person puts a lock on their fridge so they don't over eat but they still have the key to the lock.

Also yes let's start the precedent in modern times of putting more rules on who can run for office, the Republicans absolutely won't use that as an excuse to do something horrible.

The only solution here is a voter base that just doesn't vote someone of Feinstein's age into office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom