Diane Feinstein needs to resign.

[K1052]

Any one in the Senate or Congress (regardless of their party affiliation) that is found incapable of doing their job should be removed from office and replaced either by appointment or special election.

I think this is way easier to say than it would be in practice assuming both parties even agreed to it.

 

[fskimospy]

Any one in the Senate or Congress (regardless of their party affiliation) that is found incapable of doing their job should be removed from office and replaced either by appointment or special election.

Compare Senator Grassley (89 Years) to Senator Feinstein (89 Years). There is a huge difference in cognitive abilities. I think both should have retired long ago.

Did you call for Strom Thurmond’s resignation? This seems like a pretty convenient time to develop this standard.

The basic problem is this. Republicans have already publicly stated they will put the interests of their party before the country. That means to put the country first Democrats need to keep Feinstein in office because otherwise this would cripple the judiciary and thwart the clear will of the voters. If Republicans pledge to put country first then maybe we can revisit this.

 

[pcgeek11]

I think this is way easier to say than it would be in practice assuming both parties even agreed to it.

I know.

It is painful to watch an woman that doesn't have a clue as to what is going on around her or where she has been for months being pushed around in a wheelchair as a prop. And to listen to a man babbling random words out and his counterparts looks of bewilderment as to what the heck is he saying.

Anyway I said what I think and I'm going to leave it at this as we are not going to agree on this subject and neither are we going to solve it here. At least some Democrats are honest about Diane needing to retire. AOC, Talibe etc...

It will work out one way or the other.

 

[fskimospy]

I know.

It is painful to watch an woman that doesn't have a clue as to what is going on around her or where she has been for months being pushed around in a wheelchair as a prop. And to listen to a man babbling random words out and his counterparts looks of bewilderment as to what the heck is he saying.

Anyway I said what I think and I'm going to leave it at this as we are not going to agree on this subject and neither are we going to solve it here. At least some Democrats are honest about Diane needing to retire. AOC, Talibe etc...

It will work out one way or the other.

I think the best thing for the country would be for Republicans to publicly apologize for their actions so far related to Feinstein and then a new rules package should be passed to nuke the filibuster for all committee assignments.

After that Feinstein should be pushed to resign.

This seems like a fair compromise, no? Feinstein resigns and Republicans can't use that resignation to overturn the will of the voters. Agree?

 

[soundforbjt]

I know.

It is painful to watch an woman that doesn't have a clue as to what is going on around her or where she has been for months being pushed around in a wheelchair as a prop. And to listen to a man babbling random words out and his counterparts looks of bewilderment as to what the heck is he saying.

Anyway I said what I think and I'm going to leave it at this as we are not going to agree on this subject and neither are we going to solve it here. At least some Democrats are honest about Diane needing to retire. AOC, Talibe etc...

It will work out one way or the other.

Have you listened to Grassley speak lately? Granted not as bad as Feinstein but...

 

[UNCjigga]

JD Vance is holding up all judicial nominees until “Merrrick Garland stops prosecuting his political enemies” (Trump). It’s a brazen power grab and there isn’t much Biden can do about it. Dems will continue to lose at Judges—unless they go nuclear.

 

[fskimospy]

JD Vance is holding up all judicial nominees until “Merrrick Garland stops prosecuting his political enemies” (Trump). It’s a brazen power grab and there isn’t much Biden can do about it. Dems will continue to lose at Judges—unless they go nuclear.

A few things:
1) Vance is pledging to hold up DOJ nominees, not judges.

2) There already is no filibuster for judges.

3) Vance can slow things down, he can't stop them.

 

[UNCjigga]

So this only impacts US attorneys and senior appointments?? I thought it impacted judges as well…happy to be wrong on that front.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Until someone can explain to me how they are going to fill her seat on the judiciary committee that’s a hard no from me.

This is why, she will bring other candidates down with her. Bad enough we can’t get some damn judges. No need to bring others down too.

lol

 

[Greenman]

I know.

It is painful to watch an woman that doesn't have a clue as to what is going on around her or where she has been for months being pushed around in a wheelchair as a prop. And to listen to a man babbling random words out and his counterparts looks of bewilderment as to what the heck is he saying.

Anyway I said what I think and I'm going to leave it at this as we are not going to agree on this subject and neither are we going to solve it here. At least some Democrats are honest about Diane needing to retire. AOC, Talibe etc...

It will work out one way or the other.

A placeholder is far better than a loss. As long as she can be instructed on how to vote they have value to the party, perhaps even more than someone that's coherent. It's a locked in vote, no opinion, no give and take, just tell them which button to push.

 

[HomerJS]

A placeholder is far better than a loss. As long as she can be instructed on how to vote they have value to the party, perhaps even more than someone that's coherent. It's a locked in vote, no opinion, no give and take, just tell them which button to push.

I bet the NYP doesn't mention the reason DF is being kept as a placeholder.

 

[Greenman]

I bet the NYP doesn't mention the reason DF is being kept as a placeholder.

Their decision, not mine.
Every news outlet has an agenda, I've yet to find one that I agree with.
As we devolve into a society of grievance and anger most news services are more than happy to participate, and at this point, I don't think they have a choice.

 

[K1052]

Their decision, not mine.
Every news outlet has an agenda, I've yet to find one that I agree with.
As we devolve into a society of grievance and anger most news services are more than happy to participate, and at this point, I don't think they have a choice.

Grievance and anger is the Murdoch stock in trade. They're not even close to reluctant participants lol.

 

[Pohemi]

Their decision, not mine.
Every news outlet has an agenda, I've yet to find one that I agree with.
As we devolve into a society of grievance and anger most news services are more than happy to participate, and at this point, I don't think they have a choice.

I'd agree with the bolded comment, where you used most to describe the situation. I have not seen a cable news channel in decades that didn't have some slant.

I've also found a few outlets online that I would consider mostly neutral; if there's any slant in the reporting and articles/editing, it's very minimal. Those are mainly Associated Press and Reuters. I use to like the BBC as well but they started to slant more left in recent years and I stopped going to their site when I recognized it.

I just find it surprising you haven't found ONE outlet you don't think has some agenda, even if it isn't a partisan one. Where do you get news from? The almighty dollar is always number one, but I do believe there are still a few orgs that retain their journalistic integrity and truth.

I'm not saying it's what you think/feel, but I know conservatives (mainly in extended family) that denounced ALL media and news in any format because of something they saw on ONE outlet about some OTHER outlet being partisan. It might've even been true, I don't know. But typically if one starts ripping on another outlet...it's projection whether the accusation is true or not. Accusations have been going both ways for years now, and a lot of it is true IMO.

 

[cytg111]

I know.

It is painful to watch an woman that doesn't have a clue as to what is going on around her or where she has been for months being pushed around in a wheelchair as a prop. And to listen to a man babbling random words out and his counterparts looks of bewilderment as to what the heck is he saying.

Anyway I said what I think and I'm going to leave it at this as we are not going to agree on this subject and neither are we going to solve it here. At least some Democrats are honest about Diane needing to retire. AOC, Talibe etc...

It will work out one way or the other.

On what metrics do you measure AOC as "stupid"

 

[hal2kilo]

A placeholder is far better than a loss. As long as she can be instructed on how to vote they have value to the party, perhaps even more than someone that's coherent. It's a locked in vote, no opinion, no give and take, just tell them which button to push.

So ironic. Greenman trying to talk sense to the baby.

 

[pcgeek11]

On what metrics do you measure AOC as "stupid"

Listening to her stupid ideas....

 

[Moonbeam]

A placeholder is far better than a loss. As long as she can be instructed on how to vote they have value to the party, perhaps even more than someone that's coherent. It's a locked in vote, no opinion, no give and take, just tell them which button to push.

At least Democrats only have one senator like that, the Republicans have that full spectrum, marching morons, all in goose-step.

 

[cytg111]

Listening to her stupid ideas....

That sounds like a difference of policy to me, not at measure of intelligence.
In your opinion, what's the dumbest idea she has put forth? And before you say green deal, qualify the dumbest part of that please.

I'll level with you, I worked with plenty of really smart people in engineering and programming contracting for defense, for one, and what I see in AOC is not a subpar IQ at all. If you think for one second that AOC would not lap MTG on an IQ test several times, I dont know what to tell you.

 

[Greenman]

At least Democrats only have one senator like that, the Republicans have that full spectrum, marching morons, all in goose-step.

Fetterman.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Fetterman.

The guy with a graduate degree from Harvard?

 

[pmv]

I use to like the BBC as well but they started to slant more left in recent years and I stopped going to their site when I recognized it.

Was that a typo? The BBC has had an increasingly right-wing slant for some time now, as they have become terrified of offending the Conservative government (who control their purse-strings by setting the level of the licence fee, and appoint their management - and as we've had Tory governments for so long now that BBC vulnerability to government attitudes has become an increasing problem).

Their news department has long been stuffed full of known committed Tories (it's noticeable that so many big names from the BBC have defected to the new overtly right-wing news channels like GB News - it just emphasises how many right-wing figures were in the Beeb to start with - Andrew Neil, Nick Robinson, Bernard Ingham, John Humphries, Jeremy Clarkson...).

For example, their one-time chief political editor, Laura Kuenessberg, has been long regarded as a Tory shill. Regularly repeating Tory Party misinformation as if it's factual reporting.

Johnson denies conflict of interest in appointment of BBC chairman

Labour asks watchdog to examine recruitment process after reports Richard Sharp helped former PM with personal finances

www.theguardian.com

If wanting fair and accurate political coverage makes me a nerd, knit me a tank top | Stewart Lee

Luckily the great British public were on hand to help Laura Kuenssberg correct the record last week

www.theguardian.com

BBC Trust says Laura Kuenssberg report on Corbyn was inaccurate

Regulator says report on Labour leader’s views about shoot-to-kill breached impartiality and accuracy guidelines

www.theguardian.com

In its election coverage, the BBC has let down the people who believe in it | Peter Oborne

The corporation, admired around the world, has been behaving in a way that favours the Tories, says journalist and author Peter Oborne

www.theguardian.com

Or there was its ludicrous punitative treatment of Gary Lineker for stating the obvious about the government's treatment of asylum-seekers. A glaring contrast with how it treated the many BBC figures who have made _right_ wing remarks on social media.

BBC cowardice caused the Gary Lineker rebellion. And there will be more unless it finds some courage | John Kampfner

The corporation needs clear and consistent rules. But more than anything it must learn to stop cowering before politicians, says writer and broadcaster John Kampfner

www.theguardian.com

Or the way it likes to pretend there is a two-sideded "debate" about climate-change, giving the ridiculous Nigel Lawson an equal platform with actual scientists.

A major reason why I don't have a TV (apart from the fact that an internet connection makes it increasingly unnecessary, and it costs too damn much) is that I don't want to be obliged to pay a licence fee to fund what is a right-wing channel. I could also cite its tediously craven coverage of all things Royalty-related (which might not be political in the normal sense, it's just what the Beeb has always done since its founding, but it's just so _boring_) or its weird anti-cycling bias (that's most noticable in its radio coverage).

The most one could say, maybe, is that in the era of Trump many at the BBC have had a hard time concealing their elite distaste for Trump's crudity and lack of culture. That's not a political issue so much as an aesthetic one.

Trump and his supporters were just too vulgar and crass for even the BBC Tories (e.g. even Andrew Neil, very much a man of the right, and Rupert Murdoch's favourite editor, has torn idiot Republican interviewees to shreds...sheer professional pride I think meant he couldn't stop himself from doing so even if he wanted to).

 

[Moonbeam]

Fetterman.

OK, he has some problems, to what extent he has and may still recover I can’t say. But the real issue, in my opinion, is that these are old age and stroke whereas the Republican Senators are practicing evil.

 

[Pohemi]

Was that a typo? The BBC has had an increasingly right-wing slant for some time now, as they have become terrified of offending the Conservative government (who control their purse-strings by setting the level of the licence fee, and appoint their management - and as we've had Tory governments for so long now that BBC vulnerability to government attitudes has become an increasing problem)....

.... Trump and his supporters were just too vulgar and crass for even the BBC Tories (e.g. even Andrew Neil, very much a man of the right, and Rupert Murdoch's favourite editor, has torn idiot Republican interviewees to shreds...sheer professional pride I think meant he couldn't stop himself from doing so even if he wanted to).

As I read this, I was going to quote it and ask how long it's been this way, and then I got to the end and it made sense. It was probably half a dozen years back that I stopped reading it when they were tearing into Donnie (above and beyond simply reporting facts, it was opinionated as I read it), and I kind of equated it to CNN/MSNBC at the time. It wasn't to the same degree, but I read it as slant nonetheless.

Not sure it was any different, but I never paid attention to the "local" news (in the UK), I only went there to read world news, as it was. I didn't notice any rightwing slant, but it's possible I just didn't recognize it.

 

[pcgeek11]

That sounds like a difference of policy to me, not at measure of intelligence.
In your opinion, what's the dumbest idea she has put forth? And before you say green deal, qualify the dumbest part of that please.

I'll level with you, I worked with plenty of really smart people in engineering and programming contracting for defense, for one, and what I see in AOC is not a subpar IQ at all. If you think for one second that AOC would not lap MTG on an IQ test several times, I dont know what to tell you.

I didn't say she was stupid. I think she has lots of wrong headed (stupid) ideas IMO.

Met Gala in a dress emblazoned with the words 'tax the rich." All while hob-knobbing with millionaires.

The New York congresswoman said last year it is 'wrong' for billionaires to exist in the US and her policy advisor said: 'Every billionaire is a policy failure.'

Comparing migrant detention centers to concentration camps. Silly at best best.

She suggested that teenagers should ditch their disposable razors and instead use safety razors to combat climate change.

In 2018, AOC claimed: 'Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.

Dumping the Amazon Center in her district at the expense of many jobs (25K) and economic growth.

That Green New Deal isn't a deal at all and is mostly just massive spending with no real benefits. IMO. You are not going to replace fossil fuels without Nuclear Power Plants (like 200 of them). You are not going to be able to support electric vehicles in any useful way without fossil fuels and a huge concentration on building the electric grid and charging stations.

I guess you do have a point her policy ideas are stupid IMO.