Imagine if we obeyed and enforced our federal immigration laws. Poland is a shining example of the benefits of respecting law and order. Too bad are leaders are so willfully derelict in their sworn duties. pic.twitter.com/Bx7OZ69gD8

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) October 2, 2023

tequila4kapp said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

It was a silly mistake to nominate someone that doesn't live in the state. But otherwise, he's doing it fast, he's keeping his promises and he's doing it in a way that doesn't influence the general election for Feinstein's replacement. I think those are good things.

---

I think it was stupid.

We already have some good candidates who announced their interest in Katie Porter and Adam Schiff but Newsom comes up with this lady? Is she going to get primaried?

---

What I read implied that she won't run, that she's a temporary solution only. Newsom was quoted as saying he didn't want to do anything to tip the scales in the primary, that several D's had been working their tails off for the seat and it would be wrong to give any of them an advantage/disadvantage.

---

So this is pretty much the definition of pandering then. Give the seat to an undeserving person who won't run for it but he can check off a box somewhere to satisfy some constituents.

BearHunter said:

---

blungld said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

I suppose she checks all the qualification boxes. It's the same quals I would want for my heart surgeons and pilots.

---

I see. But you have no issue with Trump inner circle qualification boxes? Willing to lie, hate immigrants, kiss the ring, unquestionably loyal and willing to fall on sword, fake patriot, fake Christian, primal materialist, sycophant, and amoral tribalist who puts cult over country and others the rest of America.

---

I'm sorry whatever it is that you're going through is happening to you.

---

Bless your soul.

BREAKING: Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) finally speaks out about pulling a fire alarm inside the Capitol:

"I was in a rush to go vote."

What on earth?? pic.twitter.com/hVBzcp7iGf

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) October 2, 2023

Can't we just move on?

TRAGIC NEWS.

San Jose Mercury: "San Jose: Two children die, one injured after falling into swimming pool at residential daycare"

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

It was a silly mistake to nominate someone that doesn't live in the state. But otherwise, he's doing it fast, he's keeping his promises and he's doing it in a way that doesn't influence the general election for Feinstein's replacement. I think those are good things.

---

I think it was stupid.

We already have some good candidates who announced their interest in Katie Porter and Adam Schiff but Newsom comes up with this lady? Is she going to get primaried?

---

What I read implied that she won't run, that she's a temporary solution only. Newsom was quoted as saying he didn't want to do anything to tip the scales in the primary, that several D's had been working their tails off for the seat and it would be wrong to give any of them an advantage/disadvantage.

---

That seems to be the idea. She's basically being chosen for the seat on the premise that she won't win the next election.

---

Why would you appoint someone the public doesn't want as their representative?

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

It was a silly mistake to nominate someone that doesn't live in the state. But otherwise, he's doing it fast, he's keeping his promises and he's doing it in a way that doesn't influence the general election for Feinstein's replacement. I think those are good things.

---

I think it was stupid.

We already have some good candidates who announced their interest in Katie Porter and Adam Schiff but Newsom comes up with this lady? Is she going to get primaried?

---

What I read implied that she won't run, that she's a temporary solution only. Newsom was quoted as saying he didn't want to do anything to tip the scales in the primary, that several D's had been working their tails off for the seat and it would be wrong to give any of them an advantage/disadvantage.

---

That seems to be the idea. She's basically being chosen for the seat on the premise that she won't win the next election.

---

Why would you appoint someone the public doesn't want as their representative?

---

Because that's how appointments work? They happen when someone needs to fill a seat and there hasn't been a chance for a new election yet?

I don't understand the question.

to sum it all up, off topic wise, here's a mind-bending 3 year old tubey with maany million views..

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

It was a silly mistake to nominate someone that doesn't live in the state. But otherwise, he's doing it fast, he's keeping his promises and he's doing it in a way that doesn't influence the general election for Feinstein's replacement. I think those are good things.

---

I think it was stupid.

We already have some good candidates who announced their interest in Katie Porter and Adam Schiff but Newsom comes up with this lady? Is she going to get primaried?

---

What I read implied that she won't run, that she's a temporary solution only. Newsom was quoted as saying he didn't want to do anything to tip the scales in the primary, that several D's had been working their tails off for the seat and it would be wrong to give any of them an advantage/disadvantage.

---

That seems to be the idea. She's basically being chosen for the seat on the premise that she won't win the next election.

---

Why would you appoint someone the public doesn't want as their representative?

---

Because that's how appointments work? They happen when someone needs to fill a seat and there hasn't been a chance for a new election yet?

I don't understand the question.

---

You appoint someone knowing there is no chance they will win an election? Why not appoint someone who might be able to actually win the election?

Padilla is a do nothing but he was appointed and then won his election.

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

It was a silly mistake to nominate someone that doesn't live in the state. But otherwise, he's doing it fast, he's keeping his promises and he's doing it in a way that doesn't influence the general election for Feinstein's replacement. I think those are good things.

---

I think it was stupid.

We already have some good candidates who announced their interest in Katie Porter and Adam Schiff but Newsom comes up with this lady? Is she going to get primaried?

---

What I read implied that she won't run, that she's a temporary solution only. Newsom was quoted as saying he didn't want to do anything to tip the scales in the primary, that several D's had been working their tails off for the seat and it would be wrong to give any of them an advantage/disadvantage.

---

That seems to be the idea. She's basically being chosen for the seat on the premise that she won't win the next election.

---

Why would you appoint someone the public doesn't want as their representative?

---

Because that's how appointments work? They happen when someone needs to fill a seat and there hasn't been a chance for a new election yet?

I don't understand the question.

---

You appoint someone knowing there is no chance they will win an election? Why not appoint someone who might be able to actually win the election?

Padilla is a do nothing but he was appointed and then won his election.

---

I think Newsom wants to be pretty clear about not putting his "thumb on the scale" re: the upcoming Senate race that everyone has been anticipating. Hence choosing someone from outside of the top candidates.

You can disagree with the strategy, but it's not some big mystery.

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

It was a silly mistake to nominate someone that doesn't live in the state. But otherwise, he's doing it fast, he's keeping his promises and he's doing it in a way that doesn't influence the general election for Feinstein's replacement. I think those are good things.

---

I think it was stupid.

We already have some good candidates who announced their interest in Katie Porter and Adam Schiff but Newsom comes up with this lady? Is she going to get primaried?

---

What I read implied that she won't run, that she's a temporary solution only. Newsom was quoted as saying he didn't want to do anything to tip the scales in the primary, that several D's had been working their tails off for the seat and it would be wrong to give any of them an advantage/disadvantage.

---

That seems to be the idea. She's basically being chosen for the seat on the premise that she won't win the next election.

---

Why would you appoint someone the public doesn't want as their representative?

---

Because that's how appointments work? They happen when someone needs to fill a seat and there hasn't been a chance for a new election yet?

I don't understand the question.

---

You appoint someone knowing there is no chance they will win an election? Why not appoint someone who might be able to actually win the election?

Padilla is a do nothing but he was appointed and then won his election.

---

I think Newsom wants to be pretty clear about not putting his "thumb on the scale" re: the upcoming Senate race that everyone has been anticipating. Hence choosing someone from outside of the top candidates.

You can disagree with the strategy, but it's not some big mystery.

---

He did it with Padilla.

I think it's pandering and it's stupid.

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

It was a silly mistake to nominate someone that doesn't live in the state. But otherwise, he's doing it fast, he's keeping his promises and he's doing it in a way that doesn't influence the general election for Feinstein's replacement. I think those are good things.

---

I think it was stupid.

We already have some good candidates who announced their interest in Katie Porter and Adam Schiff but Newsom comes up with this lady? Is she going to get primaried?

---

What I read implied that she won't run, that she's a temporary solution only. Newsom was quoted as saying he didn't want to do anything to tip the scales in the primary, that several D's had been working their tails off for the seat and it would be wrong to give any of them an advantage/disadvantage.

---

That seems to be the idea. She's basically being chosen for the seat on the premise that she won't win the next election.

---

Why would you appoint someone the public doesn't want as their representative?

---

Because that's how appointments work? They happen when someone needs to fill a seat and there hasn't been a chance for a new election yet?

I don't understand the question.

---

You appoint someone knowing there is no chance they will win an election? Why not appoint someone who might be able to actually win the election?

Padilla is a do nothing but he was appointed and then won his election.

---

I think Newsom wants to be pretty clear about not putting his "thumb on the scale" re: the upcoming Senate race that everyone has been anticipating. Hence choosing someone from outside of the top candidates.

You can disagree with the strategy, but it's not some big mystery.

---

He did it with Padilla.

I think it's pandering and it's stupid.

---

Pandering to who? The California voters? There is a primary campaign right now which was not the case with Padilla. Newsom decided to stay out of the primary so he appointed somebody who won't even TRY to run for reelection. I think it's a good move. Shows lots of respect for the voters.

Newsom is now saying Butler is free to run and that she would be an ideal candidate.

With that, I retract my prior comments. This is stupid.

If Newsom had made her promise not to run you would have criticized him and since he asked for no commitments not to run you are criticizing him. Nobody doubted you would eventually find reason to criticize him.

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

It was a silly mistake to nominate someone that doesn't live in the state. But otherwise, he's doing it fast, he's keeping his promises and he's doing it in a way that doesn't influence the general election for Feinstein's replacement. I think those are good things.

---

I think it was stupid.

We already have some good candidates who announced their interest in Katie Porter and Adam Schiff but Newsom comes up with this lady? Is she going to get primaried?

---

What I read implied that she won't run, that she's a temporary solution only. Newsom was quoted as saying he didn't want to do anything to tip the scales in the primary, that several D's had been working their tails off for the seat and it would be wrong to give any of them an advantage/disadvantage.

---

That seems to be the idea. She's basically being chosen for the seat on the premise that she won't win the next election.

---

Why would you appoint someone the public doesn't want as their representative?

---

Because that's how appointments work? They happen when someone needs to fill a seat and there hasn't been a chance for a new election yet?

I don't understand the question.

---

You appoint someone knowing there is no chance they will win an election? Why not appoint someone who might be able to actually win the election?

Padilla is a do nothing but he was appointed and then won his election.

---

I think Newsom wants to be pretty clear about not putting his "thumb on the scale" re: the upcoming Senate race that everyone has been anticipating. Hence choosing someone from outside of the top candidates.

You can disagree with the strategy, but it's not some big mystery.

---

He did it with Padilla.

I think it's pandering and it's stupid.

---

Pandering to who? The California voters? There is a primary campaign right now which was not the case with Padilla. Newsom decided to stay out of the primary so he appointed somebody who won't even TRY to run for reelection. I think it's a good move. Shows lots of respect for the voters.

---

Pandering to black voters and maybe also LGBTQ voters. He is also trying to burnish his own credibility with them.

We have three qualified candidates running in the primary and he comes up with this candidate? I get not wanting to influence the election but having an incumbent is going to do that regardless. He should have stuck his neck out and made a hard choice.

I think he didn't want to nominate Barbara Lee (who is trailing) but he also didn't want to be accused of nominating a white man. That left him with Katie Porter who would be a fine choice. However, that could be viewed as hurting the campaign of the powerful and popular Schiff so he wussed out and found an outsider that he thought would score him points.

Pandering = doing things I disagree with

sycasey said:

---

The whole thing boils down to "Who cares?" in my book. Newsom appointed a temporary caretaker for the seat that maybe pleases some interest groups in his party. Then voters will get to choose the more permanent choice. It's fine.

---

Exactly

sycasey said:

---

The whole thing boils down to "Who cares?" in my book. Newsom appointed a temporary caretaker for the seat that maybe pleases some interest groups in his party. Then voters will get to choose the more permanent choice. It's fine.

---

That caretaker will be voting in the Senate for a year. We don't need a caretaker. That was Diane Feinstein. We need a Senator.

dimitrig said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Pandering = doing things I disagree with

---

Pandering = choosing a woman that lives in Maryland who wasn't even interested in running for Senator because she is a black lesbian

---

The Senator is totally qualified for the job.

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Pandering = doing things I disagree with

---

Pandering = choosing a woman that lives in Maryland who wasn't even interested in running for Senator because she is a black lesbian

---

The Senator is totally qualified for the job.

---

There aren't any qualifications for the job which is why we saw Coach Tuberville and Herschel Walker running so that's not really the point.

The point is that it wasn't a job that she actually wanted but there were at least three more qualified people who DO want it.

If you had a job opening and three very qualified people applied for it would you then give it to someone that couldn't even be bothered to apply?

No one has mentioned this, but aren't all 3 candidates currently house members? The GOP minority is extremely slim and appointing one of them would have left a vacant house seat for the remainder of the term.

I don't think Butler is nearly as unqualified as people are making her out to be. She led a large labor union (almost 400k members, California's largest) for more than a decade and was a public policy director for Airbnb. She's apparently a prolific fundraiser and has been running an influential PAC the last few years. I'm guessing that Newsom thought that she would be a more valuable ally to him than any of the other candidates and I don't think he's wrong. It's also a sign of respect for Kamala Harris and maybe was an olive branch to her.

She has strong roots in California, so the fact that she most recently was living out of state isn't really a big deal.

I am not surprised at the number of disingenuous conservatives attacking her for being black and queer. They vote and support far less qualified people. I suppose just because they are white men. When white men are elected or appointed with no qualifications, the deplorable are silent and never say "he was just elected because he isn't black, queer or female." Gavin had plenty of qualified black women to choose from and it wasn't hard for him to find one better suited to be our senator than any number of dreadful white men currently serving in the senate.

What qualified RFK Jr. to be president? Or Trump? Or Andrew Yang?
What qualified Kelly Loeffler to be a senator when she was appointed? Or as pointed out before, Tuberville or Herschel?

Qualifications never matter to conservative darlings.

Not everyone will be as well qualified as Feinstein or Kamala Harris. Schiff and Barbara Lee are both well qualified, but I would consider Butler to be better qualified to be California's senator than Katie Porter. Porter has very little history of public service (just her second term as a rep) and as far as I can tell she doesn't have much history or connection to California.

Can't say I've read every post diligently but has anyone raised any issue in regards to her not being qualified other than her being black and/or a woman and/or a lesbian?

Fresh in from The Oops! Department:

55 Chinese sailors feared dead after submarine 'caught in trap'



https://mol.im/a/12589429

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The whole thing boils down to "Who cares?" in my book. Newsom appointed a temporary caretaker for the seat that maybe pleases some interest groups in his party. Then voters will get to choose the more permanent choice. It's fine.

---

That caretaker will be voting in the Senate for a year. We don't need a caretaker. That was Diane Feinstein. We need a Senator.

---

Get back to me if she starts making votes wildly out of line with what Feinstein would have done. Bet you she won't.

dimitrig said:

---

If you had a job opening and three very qualified people applied for it would you then give it to someone that couldn't even be bothered to apply?

---

The analogy does not hold because this is ultimately meant to be an elected position and not one chosen by a boss.