This is the kind of comment that I fucking hate the most. You've attacked OP with a stupid, bad-faith presumption that has nothing to do with their simple and straightforward statement.
In case I have to spell it out for you, yes, OP can simultaneously disagree with Feinstein and with multiple other politicians.
>I think politicians are entitled to contrast what they’ve done to what their political opponents would do.
I’ll be blunt—I absolutely hate this mentality.
No, politicians (or anyone for that matter) are not entitled to contrast what they’ve vs. what their opponents *would* have done, unless they happen to be mind readers or time travelers.
If you’re fortunate enough to get elected, you’re in the hot seat. The guy (or gal) you beat, they don’t get to make the decisions. You do. You don’t get to win, make the wrong decision, and then say, “oh well the other guy would have done it way worse”.
You’re splitting hairs.
Feinstein was mostly alone in her convictions but not completely.
Again:
> In the United States, there is effectively nobody in this position. The committee hearings on anti-trust and encryption have little overlap between interested parties or ideology.
> there is effectively nobody in this position.
Wrong. There are people and Feinstein is a great example of someone who worked quite hard to kill encryption while also being on various committees handling anti-trust.
If her anti-encryption bill passed or if she was able to push through some anti-trust through the Judiciary committee she would brag about it in her reelection campaign.
Feinstein is perfect model for someone who would gladly tout her legacy while on the judiciary committee and equally her accomplishments on a national security subcommittee.
You are wrong sir, now tuck your tail and go away. I’m done wasting my time with you. But now I know you quite well, you are a narcissist and you have to have the final word. So go ahead and prove me right…
> The latter case really aggravates me. It almost makes me feel their charges of hypocrisy are hypocritical somehow. At least, I wish the difference would be pointed out more often. It really is a different phenomenon. I think the former case has more moral authority, and the latter case is bad faith.
It’s not bad faith at all. It’s a way of saying “look, even the governor doesn’t believe this is as serious as she says it is.” That’s a totally fair criticism.
> I believe that Feinstein is a genuinely bad person, and we would be better off without her
As a Californian, I am constantly ashamed at calling her "my" senator. Why the fuck can't someone reasonable run against her? I guess for the same reason that Bernie is having so much trouble: the Democratic Party is sorta like the Communist Party in USSR; you have to be an insider to get anywhere.
> We definitely need to support someone who actually has a track record for this.
Ahem. Russ Feingold is best known for his collaboration with John McCain on campaign finance reform, but was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act the first time (joined by a few others the second time). Voted against the Iraq war. One of 3 Democrats to vote against Geithner as Treasury secretary. Fought pork, returned his raises to the government. Voted against dismissal of impeachment charges for Clinton, brought a resolution to censure George W. Bush for illegal wiretapping. After losing his seat to a Tea Partier, he formed a PAC, Progressives United, which has opposed Citizens United, Wall Street and SOPA, and calls out the Democrats when their spine softens, but was just shipped off to an African ambassadorship.
> Because of downvotes? That's probably just because you brought partisan politics into the discussion.
Wut? Mentioning a politician’s name isn’t partisan politics. He said nothing about the politics of Cruz, he compared the Senator shifting blame onto his kids with this CEO blaming an intern. Don’t be like that.
If you're talking about Arthur Jones, you're being very misleading. He won the Republican primary, but it was unopposed, in a heavily democratic district, and he was already denounced by Illinois Republicans.
> So while I agree with the spirit of what Frankin is saying, I'm just left with distaste for what obvious posturing and pandering it is.
At least someone is speaking up. You criticize Al Franken for not going after everyone else as well, but why not criticize the other 99 senators who haven't done anything. I apologize in advance if I'm missing another senator that has done anything like this about privacy.
>>> need to look to comments from an opponent from 40 years ago
>> you believe pointing out Biden's support of segregation is bad.
> I made no such arguments.
ok
> your preferred /party/
you make a lot of assumptions yourself.
> You are comparing comments made by one individual 40 years ago to where your preferred /party/ falls today.
Do you understand Biden has been nominated as the leader of the Democrats? Do you understand as mentioned, that Joe Biden was making racist comments in 2019?
> Seriously. Just stop. You're flailing.
/Someone/ is :D
> you're defending Rittenhouse in Kenosha.
Why aren't you defending him? Do you think he deserved to be assaulted?
> We're done here
And still no links proving your bizarre accusation that Adam Curry is alt right.
That's not what they said. They said Feinstein was worse.
reply