Redbrickbear said:

---

I met Senator Diane Feinstein once, in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. She had just recently been assigned to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (in 2001), and it was in that capacity that she had a senior staffer from the committee ask me to come to Washington… pic.twitter.com/QQPA04hP22

— Scott Ritter (@RealScottRitter) September 29, 2023

---

I'd hope she would vote the way again as it was the correct choice. Blowing the **** out of them and leaving in a few days would have been the correct path, not nation rebuilding.

Evil bat who did more harm than good. Should have been ran out of DC decades ago.

What did DiFi know about the Clintons?

Hillary is experienced enough to make these killings look like natural causes

Reading these posts, she must have been really consequential. Thank you, Madam Feinstein. RIP.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Reading these posts, she must have been really consequential. Thank you, Madam Feinstein. RIP.

---

Hillary always pretends to be very very respectful after these things. Just like you. Hmmmm?

fubar said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

It's reported that Newsome has announced he's going to appoint a black woman to replace her. Can someone please explain to me how that's any less racist/sexist than announcing you're going to appoint a white man to replace her?

---

His reason, in part, is that there are no black women currently serving in the Senate, and the last -- Kamala Harris -- didn't finish her term.

Not sure why this is racist. Californians voted in a black woman, and they'll have a chance to do so again in 13 months. Newsom has also said he won't appoint someone who will run for that full term next year, as he doesn't want to be seen as tipping the scales.

---

Making any kind of appointment or selection based on race and/or gender is a racist and/or sexist act, period. What does it matter if there aren't any black women serving in the Senate as long as black women aren't being prohibited from serving in the Senate, which that clearly isn't happening. This makes no more sense than saying I'm going to appoint a disabled veteran to replace Feinstein because there isn't one currently serving in the Senate. What's wrong with - God forbid - I'm going to appoint the best and most qualified person I can find to replace her regardless of completely superficial things like race and gender??

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Reading these posts, she must have been really consequential. Thank you, Madam Feinstein. RIP.

---

60 million unborn children agree with you.

Redbrickbear said:

---

I met Senator Diane Feinstein once, in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. She had just recently been assigned to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (in 2001), and it was in that capacity that she had a senior staffer from the committee ask me to come to Washington… pic.twitter.com/QQPA04hP22

— Scott Ritter (@RealScottRitter) September 29, 2023

---

In other words, she was a politician. They're all self-serving crooks.

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

I think she has been in her current condition for at least three years now.

---

Dead?

Johnny Bear said:

---

fubar said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

It's reported that Newsome has announced he's going to appoint a black woman to replace her. Can someone please explain to me how that's any less racist/sexist than announcing you're going to appoint a white man to replace her?

---

His reason, in part, is that there are no black women currently serving in the Senate, and the last -- Kamala Harris -- didn't finish her term.

Not sure why this is racist. Californians voted in a black woman, and they'll have a chance to do so again in 13 months. Newsom has also said he won't appoint someone who will run for that full term next year, as he doesn't want to be seen as tipping the scales.

---

Making any kind of appointment or selection based on race and/or gender is a racist and/or sexist act, period. What does it matter if there aren't any black women serving in the Senate as long as black women aren't being prohibited from serving in the Senate, which that clearly isn't happening. This makes no more sense than saying I'm going to appoint a disabled veteran to replace Feinstein because there isn't one currently serving in the Senate. What's wrong with - God forbid - I'm going to appoint the best and most qualified person I can find to replace her regardless of completely superficial things like race and gender??

---

Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor because he wanted to appoint a woman.

He was a sexist? Thanks for clearing that up for me ... I never would've known.

fubar said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

fubar said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

It's reported that Newsome has announced he's going to appoint a black woman to replace her. Can someone please explain to me how that's any less racist/sexist than announcing you're going to appoint a white man to replace her?

---

His reason, in part, is that there are no black women currently serving in the Senate, and the last -- Kamala Harris -- didn't finish her term.

Not sure why this is racist. Californians voted in a black woman, and they'll have a chance to do so again in 13 months. Newsom has also said he won't appoint someone who will run for that full term next year, as he doesn't want to be seen as tipping the scales.

---

Making any kind of appointment or selection based on race and/or gender is a racist and/or sexist act, period. What does it matter if there aren't any black women serving in the Senate as long as black women aren't being prohibited from serving in the Senate, which that clearly isn't happening. This makes no more sense than saying I'm going to appoint a disabled veteran to replace Feinstein because there isn't one currently serving in the Senate. What's wrong with - God forbid - I'm going to appoint the best and most qualified person I can find to replace her regardless of completely superficial things like race and gender??

---

Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor because he wanted to appoint a woman.

He was a sexist? Thanks for clearing that up for me ... I never would've known.

---

IIRC Reagan was smart enough to review a number of different candidates, then simply said O'Conner was the best choice.

When you announce in advance that your decision is based on race and sex, well that's a different look ...

fubar said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

fubar said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

It's reported that Newsome has announced he's going to appoint a black woman to replace her. Can someone please explain to me how that's any less racist/sexist than announcing you're going to appoint a white man to replace her?

---

His reason, in part, is that there are no black women currently serving in the Senate, and the last -- Kamala Harris -- didn't finish her term.

Not sure why this is racist. Californians voted in a black woman, and they'll have a chance to do so again in 13 months. Newsom has also said he won't appoint someone who will run for that full term next year, as he doesn't want to be seen as tipping the scales.

---

Making any kind of appointment or selection based on race and/or gender is a racist and/or sexist act, period. What does it matter if there aren't any black women serving in the Senate as long as black women aren't being prohibited from serving in the Senate, which that clearly isn't happening. This makes no more sense than saying I'm going to appoint a disabled veteran to replace Feinstein because there isn't one currently serving in the Senate. What's wrong with - God forbid - I'm going to appoint the best and most qualified person I can find to replace her regardless of completely superficial things like race and gender??

---

Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor because he wanted to appoint a woman.

He was a sexist? Thanks for clearing that up for me ... I never would've known.

---

He should have nominated Bork and then anyone close to Bork. That is not Sandra "We can tolerate racism another 25 years" O'Connor. And it is certainly not Kennedy.

fubar said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

fubar said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

It's reported that Newsome has announced he's going to appoint a black woman to replace her. Can someone please explain to me how that's any less racist/sexist than announcing you're going to appoint a white man to replace her?

---

His reason, in part, is that there are no black women currently serving in the Senate, and the last -- Kamala Harris -- didn't finish her term.

Not sure why this is racist. Californians voted in a black woman, and they'll have a chance to do so again in 13 months. Newsom has also said he won't appoint someone who will run for that full term next year, as he doesn't want to be seen as tipping the scales.

---

Making any kind of appointment or selection based on race and/or gender is a racist and/or sexist act, period. What does it matter if there aren't any black women serving in the Senate as long as black women aren't being prohibited from serving in the Senate, which that clearly isn't happening. This makes no more sense than saying I'm going to appoint a disabled veteran to replace Feinstein because there isn't one currently serving in the Senate. What's wrong with - God forbid - I'm going to appoint the best and most qualified person I can find to replace her regardless of completely superficial things like race and gender??

---

Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor because he wanted to appoint a woman.

He was a sexist? Thanks for clearing that up for me ... I never would've known.

---

Yes. He appointed her as a token.

Oldbear83 said:

---

fubar said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

fubar said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

It's reported that Newsome has announced he's going to appoint a black woman to replace her. Can someone please explain to me how that's any less racist/sexist than announcing you're going to appoint a white man to replace her?

---

His reason, in part, is that there are no black women currently serving in the Senate, and the last -- Kamala Harris -- didn't finish her term.

Not sure why this is racist. Californians voted in a black woman, and they'll have a chance to do so again in 13 months. Newsom has also said he won't appoint someone who will run for that full term next year, as he doesn't want to be seen as tipping the scales.

---

Making any kind of appointment or selection based on race and/or gender is a racist and/or sexist act, period. What does it matter if there aren't any black women serving in the Senate as long as black women aren't being prohibited from serving in the Senate, which that clearly isn't happening. This makes no more sense than saying I'm going to appoint a disabled veteran to replace Feinstein because there isn't one currently serving in the Senate. What's wrong with - God forbid - I'm going to appoint the best and most qualified person I can find to replace her regardless of completely superficial things like race and gender??

---

Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor because he wanted to appoint a woman.

He was a sexist? Thanks for clearing that up for me ... I never would've known.

---

IIRC Reagan was smart enough to review a number of different candidates, then simply said O'Conner was the best choice.

When you announce in advance that your decision is based on race and sex, well that's a different look ...

---

You recall incorrectly. Reagan promised to appoint a woman. He did just that.

Sexist? Yes or no. JB says yes.

fubar said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

fubar said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

fubar said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

It's reported that Newsome has announced he's going to appoint a black woman to replace her. Can someone please explain to me how that's any less racist/sexist than announcing you're going to appoint a white man to replace her?

---

His reason, in part, is that there are no black women currently serving in the Senate, and the last -- Kamala Harris -- didn't finish her term.

Not sure why this is racist. Californians voted in a black woman, and they'll have a chance to do so again in 13 months. Newsom has also said he won't appoint someone who will run for that full term next year, as he doesn't want to be seen as tipping the scales.

---

Making any kind of appointment or selection based on race and/or gender is a racist and/or sexist act, period. What does it matter if there aren't any black women serving in the Senate as long as black women aren't being prohibited from serving in the Senate, which that clearly isn't happening. This makes no more sense than saying I'm going to appoint a disabled veteran to replace Feinstein because there isn't one currently serving in the Senate. What's wrong with - God forbid - I'm going to appoint the best and most qualified person I can find to replace her regardless of completely superficial things like race and gender??

---

Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor because he wanted to appoint a woman.

He was a sexist? Thanks for clearing that up for me ... I never would've known.

---

IIRC Reagan was smart enough to review a number of different candidates, then simply said O'Conner was the best choice.

When you announce in advance that your decision is based on race and sex, well that's a different look ...

---

You recall incorrectly. Reagan promised to appoint a woman. He did just that.

Sexist? Yes or no. JB says yes.

---

Uh no - I don't say "yes".

Ronald Reagan was the greatest POTUS of my lifetime, but I stand by the statement that taking an action based solely on things like race and/or gender is a racist/sexist act - especially in today's America where it's obvious people aren't being excluded because of those factors. Given that Reagan wasn't an identity politics obsessed nut based on the body of his life and work he took into account a lot of other salient qualifying factors besides Sandra Day O'Connor's gender, but again I stand by the statement. It doesn't mean, however, that Reagan was a racist/sexist person per his life's work any more than it means that someone who once got drunk should automatically be categorized as an alchohic.

"Making any kind of appointment or selection based on race and/or gender is a racist and/or sexist act, period."

Your original statement.

Geeez. Some of the comments above are ridiculous. She was a liberal, no doubt, but not the evil person portrayed by most of you above. In fact she was considered too conservative by a lot of California's hard left.

I remember when those in San Francisco opposed the naval base there and she stated 'this is not the San Francisco I grew up in and love". She always supported military.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Geeez. Some of the comments above are ridiculous. She was a liberal, no doubt, but not the evil person portrayed by most of you above. In fact she was considered too conservative by a lot of California's hard left.

I remember when those in San Francisco opposed the naval base there and she stated 'this is not the San Francisco I grew up in and love". She always supported military.

---

She was in favor of a naval base. Well, that does it, she was obviously a decent person.

fubar said:

---

"Making any kind of appointment or selection based on race and/or gender is a racist and/or sexist act, period."

Your original statement.

---

And again I stand by it. The word "act" is an important word in the sentence. Work on your reading comprehension skills.

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Geeez. Some of the comments above are ridiculous. She was a liberal, no doubt, but not the evil person portrayed by most of you above. In fact she was considered too conservative by a lot of California's hard left.

I remember when those in San Francisco opposed the naval base there and she stated 'this is not the San Francisco I grew up in and love". She always supported military.

---

She was in favor of a naval base. Well, that does it, she was obviously a decent person.

---

Yea I always love when republicans come out of the wood work to defend some liberal who spent their life getting rich off being a politician and making America a worse place to live…but then say "but come on she was also a international war monger like us and so she was pretty decent!"

Johnny Bear said:

---

fubar said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

It's reported that Newsome has announced he's going to appoint a black woman to replace her. Can someone please explain to me how that's any less racist/sexist than announcing you're going to appoint a white man to replace her?

---

His reason, in part, is that there are no black women currently serving in the Senate, and the last -- Kamala Harris -- didn't finish her term.

Not sure why this is racist. Californians voted in a black woman, and they'll have a chance to do so again in 13 months. Newsom has also said he won't appoint someone who will run for that full term next year, as he doesn't want to be seen as tipping the scales.

---

Making any kind of appointment or selection based on race and/or gender is a racist and/or sexist act, period. What does it matter if there aren't any black women serving in the Senate as long as black women aren't being prohibited from serving in the Senate, which that clearly isn't happening. This makes no more sense than saying I'm going to appoint a disabled veteran to replace Feinstein because there isn't one currently serving in the Senate. What's wrong with - God forbid - I'm going to appoint the best and most qualified person I can find to replace her regardless of completely superficial things like race and gender??

---

Didn't Biden and Obama do that for the Supreme Court?

Fre3dombear said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

fubar said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

It's reported that Newsome has announced he's going to appoint a black woman to replace her. Can someone please explain to me how that's any less racist/sexist than announcing you're going to appoint a white man to replace her?

---

His reason, in part, is that there are no black women currently serving in the Senate, and the last -- Kamala Harris -- didn't finish her term.

Not sure why this is racist. Californians voted in a black woman, and they'll have a chance to do so again in 13 months. Newsom has also said he won't appoint someone who will run for that full term next year, as he doesn't want to be seen as tipping the scales.

---

Making any kind of appointment or selection based on race and/or gender is a racist and/or sexist act, period. What does it matter if there aren't any black women serving in the Senate as long as black women aren't being prohibited from serving in the Senate, which that clearly isn't happening. This makes no more sense than saying I'm going to appoint a disabled veteran to replace Feinstein because there isn't one currently serving in the Senate. What's wrong with - God forbid - I'm going to appoint the best and most qualified person I can find to replace her regardless of completely superficial things like race and gender??

---

Didn't Biden and Obama do that for the Supreme Court?

---

Obama was obviously a hater. He referred to Sotomoto as a wise Latina. Everyone who is sensitive knows they are a wise Latinx.***

***with apologies to biology, gender reality, and the English language

Johnny Bear said:

---

fubar said:

---

"Making any kind of appointment or selection based on race and/or gender is a racist and/or sexist act, period."

Your original statement.

---

And again I stand by it. The word "act" is an important word in the sentence. Work on your reading comprehension skills.

---

You also said "I stand by the statement that taking an action based solely on things like race and/or gender is a racist/sexist act ...."

So I have to ask: Do you really think that the "sole" considerations Gavin Newsom will use in appointing a new senator will be that she is a she and black? That's it?

If you don't, then what was your point in bringing it up?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

fubar said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

fubar said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

It's reported that Newsome has announced he's going to appoint a black woman to replace her. Can someone please explain to me how that's any less racist/sexist than announcing you're going to appoint a white man to replace her?

---

His reason, in part, is that there are no black women currently serving in the Senate, and the last -- Kamala Harris -- didn't finish her term.

Not sure why this is racist. Californians voted in a black woman, and they'll have a chance to do so again in 13 months. Newsom has also said he won't appoint someone who will run for that full term next year, as he doesn't want to be seen as tipping the scales.

---

Making any kind of appointment or selection based on race and/or gender is a racist and/or sexist act, period. What does it matter if there aren't any black women serving in the Senate as long as black women aren't being prohibited from serving in the Senate, which that clearly isn't happening. This makes no more sense than saying I'm going to appoint a disabled veteran to replace Feinstein because there isn't one currently serving in the Senate. What's wrong with - God forbid - I'm going to appoint the best and most qualified person I can find to replace her regardless of completely superficial things like race and gender??

---

Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor because he wanted to appoint a woman.

He was a sexist? Thanks for clearing that up for me ... I never would've known.

---

Yes. He appointed her as a token.

---

What is a token? She went to the same schools and had the same credentials.

You never hear white men called "tokens" when they get jobs over more qualified minority or female candidates.

Newsom is appointing Laphonza Butler, a black woman who checks off numerous boxes that any nominating official would consider.

fubar said:

---

Newsom is appointing Laphonza Butler, a black woman who checks off numerous boxes that any nominating official would consider.

---

Yet Newsome insults her by focusing on her skin color rather than her qualifications. Only a Democrat could be happy about that.

Butler is not qualified. She is a resident of Maryland.

perrynative said:

---

Butler is not qualified. She is a resident of Maryland.

---

Lol. Just one Itty Bitty problem.

fubar said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

fubar said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

fubar said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

It's reported that Newsome has announced he's going to appoint a black woman to replace her. Can someone please explain to me how that's any less racist/sexist than announcing you're going to appoint a white man to replace her?

---

His reason, in part, is that there are no black women currently serving in the Senate, and the last -- Kamala Harris -- didn't finish her term.

Not sure why this is racist. Californians voted in a black woman, and they'll have a chance to do so again in 13 months. Newsom has also said he won't appoint someone who will run for that full term next year, as he doesn't want to be seen as tipping the scales.

---

Making any kind of appointment or selection based on race and/or gender is a racist and/or sexist act, period. What does it matter if there aren't any black women serving in the Senate as long as black women aren't being prohibited from serving in the Senate, which that clearly isn't happening. This makes no more sense than saying I'm going to appoint a disabled veteran to replace Feinstein because there isn't one currently serving in the Senate. What's wrong with - God forbid - I'm going to appoint the best and most qualified person I can find to replace her regardless of completely superficial things like race and gender??

---

Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor because he wanted to appoint a woman.

He was a sexist? Thanks for clearing that up for me ... I never would've known.

---

IIRC Reagan was smart enough to review a number of different candidates, then simply said O'Conner was the best choice.

When you announce in advance that your decision is based on race and sex, well that's a different look ...

---

You recall incorrectly. Reagan promised to appoint a woman. He did just that.

Sexist? Yes or no. JB says yes.

---

Of course it was.

Why are we acting like the US hasn't been obsessed with neoliberalism for decades? People have been rising to power based on superficial characteristics for quite some time.

fubar said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

fubar said:

---

"Making any kind of appointment or selection based on race and/or gender is a racist and/or sexist act, period."

Your original statement.

---

And again I stand by it. The word "act" is an important word in the sentence. Work on your reading comprehension skills.

---

You also said "I stand by the statement that taking an action based solely on things like race and/or gender is a racist/sexist act ...."

So I have to ask: Do you really think that the "sole" considerations Gavin Newsom will use in appointing a new senator will be that she is a she and black? That's it?

---

Oh no - not at all. I'm sure other "important" qualifications such as being gay or some other form of sexual deviant along with hating our country as founded and supporting murdering the unborn up to the moment of birth were all part of his thought process as well.

I dislike the excessive use of "elder abuse" in politics, but what was done to Dianne Feinstein 100% applies.

So many aspects to it, but Nancy Pelosi manuevered her daughter to prop up and control Feinstein when she couldn't even manage her own affairs:https://t.co/VsYRwrIMhM pic.twitter.com/SKXo9By6BC

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 2, 2023

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

some problems fix themselves

---

We have no less than four more problems that need to "fix themselves."

RIP Dianne Feinstein.

---

Congresspeople, supreme court justices and presidents should not die of natural causes in office.

I'm with Nikki Haley. Our government has become the "most privileged retirement home in the world."

Something should be done about it, but it won't.

---