California Democrats decline to endorse Feinstein - Polidicks

[URL="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/25/california-democrats-feinstein-leon-423452"]Source[/URL] [QUOTE] In a sharp rebuke to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democratic Party has declined to endorse the state’s own senior senator in her bid for reelection. Riven by conflict between progressive and more moderate forces at the state party’s annual convention here, delegates favored Feinstein’s progressive rival, state Senate leader Kevin de León, over Feinstein by a vote of 54 percent to 37 percent, according to results announced Sunday. Neither candidate reached the 60 percent threshold required to receive the party endorsement for 2018. But the snubbing of Feinstein led de León to claim a victory for his struggling campaign. “The outcome of today’s endorsement vote is an astounding rejection of politics as usual, and it boosts our campaign’s momentum as we all stand shoulder-to-shoulder against a complacent status quo,” de León said in a prepared statement. “California Democrats are hungry for new leadership that will fight for California values from the front lines, not equivocate on the sidelines.” A centrist Democrat, Feinstein has long maintained an uneasy relationship with activists who dominate state party conventions, and the vote this weekend — while embarrassing — was not unexpected. The result followed two days of lobbying by the candidates in convention speeches and throughout the convention halls. In an appeal to thousands of delegates Saturday, de León portrayed himself as an agent of change. He cast Feinstein, without mentioning her name, as a Washington power broker out of touch with progressive activists at home. “I’m running for the U.S. Senate because the days of Democrats biding our time, biting our tongue, and trying to let it work the margins are over," he said to cheers. “I’m running because California’s greatness comes from paths of human audacity, not congressional seniority.” The non-endorsement appears unlikely to immediately alter the trajectory of a contest Feinstein is leading by a wide margin. First elected in a 1992 special Senate election, Feinstein is outpolling de León 46 percent to 17 percent among likely California voters, according to the most recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California. Her financial advantage is even more overwhelming: Feinstein held close to $10 million in cash on hand at the end of last year, while de León reported raising just $500,000.[/QUOTE]

She's a decrepit skeleton at this point anyways, on top of being an idiot. It's retirement time.

Top 10 Anime Betrayals She’s a moron and an incredibly autocratic, divisive corporate shill.

[quote][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_de_Le%C3%B3n]In 2014, de León sponsored SB 808 which passed both Houses of the Legislature and was vetoed by the Governor. De León was criticized for a press conference in support of the bill in which he made several mistakes with gun vocabulary in addition to making false claims about the rate of fire of a rifle he was discussing. During a press conference, he referred to an AR-15 style rifle as having a ".30 caliber magazine clip" and claimed it had the ability to "disperse 30 bullets in half a second" despite neither being true as the AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle he was holding was not .30 caliber, could not accept clips, and the rate of fire for a semiautomatic AR-15 style rifle is less than 25% of what he claimed it was.[/url][/quote] Looks like nothing will really change in the Senate if he makes it.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53159958]Looks like nothing will really change in the Senate if he makes it.[/QUOTE] Wow, just guns? That's all that matters to you or makes a change in senate? This candidate should be more left, thus more willing to support social safety nets, making actual change.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53159958]Looks like nothing will really change in the Senate if he makes it.[/QUOTE] If you're talking about gun control sure, but Leon looks to be better for the privacy of citizens on the whole.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53159958]Looks like nothing will really change in the Senate if he makes it.[/QUOTE] I was wondering where I recognized that name. [editline]25th February 2018[/editline] Yeah it's not really surprising that a more progressive candidate would be as much for gun control/ignorant of guns as a Democrat.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53159990]Wow, just guns? That's all that matters to you or makes a change in senate? [/QUOTE] A person should be knowledgeable on a subject they want to write legislation for.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53159990]Wow, just guns? That's all that matters to you or makes a change in senate? This candidate should be more left, thus more willing to support social safety nets, making actual change.[/QUOTE] All I have ever hear from Feinstein is "guns guns guns". It's the only issue I've ever heard or associated with her, so naturally I'm going to see if her potential replacement has any change on that subject.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53160057]All I have ever hear from Feinstein is "guns guns guns". It's the only issue I've ever heard or associated with her, so naturally I'm going to see if her potential replacement has any change on that subject.[/QUOTE] It's possible to investigate more than what the news feeds you on a silver spoon

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53160071]It's possible to investigate more than what the news feeds you on a silver spoon[/QUOTE] Obviously all politicians deal with all political issues, but some clearly have that "one topic" they're known for.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53160028]A person should be knowledgeable on a subject they want to write legislation for.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately it is [i]literally impossible[/i] to be knowledgeable on every subject.

Does this mean that the witch is finally going to be gone? She's advocated for laws that have shat on the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments off the top of my head. I don't like saying someone "hates freedom," especially since that comes up in gun control debates a lot, but considering she's advocated banning video games and numerous other unconstitutional things, I'm willing to say that she hates freedom.

[QUOTE=elowin;53160090]Unfortunately it is [i]literally impossible[/i] to be knowledgeable on every subject[/QUOTE] Maybe when they're voting on a bill, but this was when he was pushing for his own bill. If you're going to make a law regarding something, it's better to know what the hell you're making a law regarding. [editline]25th February 2018[/editline] On top of that, if he did not know the specifics of the topic of the law he was pushing, he should not have talked about the specifics of the topic, just kept it broad or vague.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53160104]Maybe when they're voting on a bill, but this was when he was pushing for his own bill. If you're going to make a law regarding something, it's better to know what the hell you're making a law regarding. [editline]25th February 2018[/editline] On top of that, if he did not know the specifics of the topic of the law he was pushing, he should not have talked about the specifics of the topic, just kept it broad or vague.[/QUOTE] Ehh, the technical details of how a gun works is about the least relevant piece of information for passing good gun control measures. What you need to know is what works and what doesn't in terms of stopping gun violence, along with how far your constituents are willing to go. That said, he may or may not know fuck all about that either, and spewing completely incorrect facts about guns is pretty fucking stupid. But his knowledge on the technical specifications of an AR-15 doesn't really matter, what matters is his position. Also on the subject of actually knowing what the hell you're making a law about, it probably doesn't exactly help that there's barely any funding for research going into this subject any more. Probably doesn't do wonders for making people educated as to what actually works insofar as gun control is concerned.

Hope we can move past this. Party disunity is the opposite of what we need going into 2018.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;53160132]Hope we can move past this. Party disunity is the opposite of what we need going into 2018.[/QUOTE] While I agree that a more unified party is necessary to take the reins in 2018 and 2020, I don't think the path of the complacent and idle centrist is the way forward. People are tired of representatives like Feinstein leading a stagnating and toothless party in the face of a rapidly changing nation with dire issues that desperately need addressing. We need forward-thinking, progressively-minded people to lead and represent the American left going forward.

[QUOTE=elowin;53160119]Ehh, the technical details of how a gun works is about the least relevant piece of information for passing good gun control measures. What you need to know is what works and what doesn't in terms of stopping gun violence, along with how far your constituents are willing to go. That said, he may or may not know fuck all about that either, and spewing completely incorrect facts about guns is pretty fucking stupid. But his knowledge on the technical specifications of an AR-15 doesn't really matter, what matters is his position. [/QUOTE] I feel it does matter if he talks and acts like he knows the technical specifications when he only knows jackshit. The bills listed on his wiki page, including the one I quoted, mostly deal with ammunition and the sales of such. If he's trying to pass laws in regard to limiting "guns shooting a lot of bullets really fast" then he should at least know how fast said guns shoot. [QUOTE=elowin;53160119]Also on the subject of actually knowing what the hell you're making a law about, it probably doesn't exactly help that there's barely any funding for research going into this subject any more. Probably doesn't do wonders for making people educated as to what actually works insofar as gun control is concerned[/quote] I agree - in regards to the common voter. But a politician really hasn't an excuse for not knowing the subject of the bills he's pushing through government. Posters on facepunch here have always given a plethora of gun statistics, technical knowledge, and legal history in regards to firearms. What excuse does a politician have for not knowing such things if it's open to the layman to learn? Furthermore, if he has complete ignorance of this political matter and pushes bills through based on such ignorance, what can be trusted of him to pass good health care or other progressive measures? [editline]25th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Duck M.;53160173]While I agree that a more unified party is necessary to take the reins in 2018 and 2020, I don't think the path of the complacent and idle centrist is the way forward. People are tired of representatives like Feinstein leading a stagnating and toothless party in the face of a rapidly changing nation with dire issues that desperately need addressing. We need forward-thinking, progressively-minded people to lead and represent the American left going forward.[/QUOTE] Better the Democrats try to win the left vote [I]and[/I] the centrist vote than to leave centrist America without any party to vote for, because it's pretty damn evident that the Party of Trump no longer cares about any voter but the far right ones.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53160175] Better the Democrats try to win the left vote [I]and[/I] the centrist vote than to leave centrist America without any party to vote for, because it's pretty damn evident that the Party of Trump no longer cares about any voter but the far right ones.[/QUOTE] That's ideal, but I have my doubts about the Democrats' ability to do so in a way that meaningfully mobilizes the American left, especially younger voters. The Dems' tendency to align with corporate interests is directly at odds with the economic anxieties and angst that makes the American left so exasperated with Washington in the first place. The Democrats are going to have to choose. They can't appeal to everyone, and If they continue to push uncharismatic, out-of-touch candidates who can't get people to the polls, then what good is their pragmatic, practical centrist approach? While Sanders had his fair share of problems as a candidate, the unique passion that drove his campaign shows that there's a demographic there worth campaigning for.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53160175]I feel it does matter if he talks and acts like he knows the technical specifications when he only knows jackshit. The bills listed on his wiki page, including the one I quoted, mostly deal with ammunition and the sales of such. If he's trying to pass laws in regard to limiting "guns shooting a lot of bullets really fast" then he should at least know how fast said guns shoot.[/QUOTE] As I said, it's pretty stupid of him to talk as if he does know about it. But no, it really doesn't matter if he knows how fast a gun shoots. That's completely irrelevant knowledge. Just like you don't have to be an expert on cars to pass laws about speed limits, you don't need to be an expert on guns to pass laws restricting them either. The thing you need to be an expert on is the research. What you need to be an expert on is whether a certain piece of legislation will actually have the effect it's intended to, which is completely irrelevant to the rate of fire of an AR-15. In other words, the relevant question is not "how fast does this gun fire", its "how can you best use legislation to prevent people from getting shot." [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53160175]I agree - in regards to the common voter. But a politician really hasn't an excuse for not knowing the subject of the bills he's pushing through government. Posters on facepunch here have always given a plethora of gun statistics, technical knowledge, and legal history in regards to firearms. What excuse does a politician have for not knowing such things if it's open to the layman to learn? Furthermore, if he has complete ignorance of this political matter and pushes bills through based on such ignorance, what can be trusted of him to pass good health care or other progressive measures?[/QUOTE] Except as I was saying, the problem is that there is a severe lack of research in this field in the first place. It's underfunded and overly restricted, due in no small part to lobbying by the NRA. There are statistics on certain things but that's not the same as actual research into finding a way to actually fix a problem. Knowing that of the 15070 murders reported in 2016, 11004 were commited using some type of firearm is [i]something[/i], but it's not everything we need. It tells you that there is a problem, but it doesn't tell you how to fix it. It is supplementary evidence at best. The same goes for most statistics, it can tell you there is a problem, it can be used to supplement a point, but it's not enough to really tell you how to fix the issue in and of itself. It needs more.

[QUOTE=elowin;53160090]Unfortunately it is [i]literally impossible[/i] to be knowledgeable on every subject.[/QUOTE] There's a thing called google. They don't have to be an expert but they could at least put a modicum of effort into trying to learn something.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53160310]There's a thing called google. They don't have to be an expert but they could at least put a modicum of effort into trying to learn something.[/QUOTE] But that's probably exactly what he did? He did not completely lack any information on the subject, his information was just flawed and incorrect. Sort of as if he just kind of sat down and tried to look up some basic information quickly without having any foundational knowledge on the subject. It's very much the kind of mistakes one might make if you just tried to google something quickly without really knowing anything about it beforehand. But keep in mind that this is one of many, [i]many[/i] things that he has to legislate on. Keep in mind the exact technical specifications of a particular gun is at best tangentially relevant to the actual legislation. Keep in mind that he only made that presentation to make a supplemental point for his argument, and the fact that he got the technical specifics wrong doesn't even really change his point. Is it fucking stupid to try to make a presentation without being entirely sure you have all the specific technical details correct? Obviously. Does it prove he doesn't know shit about gun legislation? Hardly, because knowledge about gun legislation and knowledge about the technical specifications of guns is completely different. The only thing it really proves is that he's clearly not a gun hobbyist. And frankly I would damn well hope he doesn't spend all his time researching how exactly a particular gun works because that's not relevant to his job at all. I would hope he spent his time trying to come up with ways to actually fix problems, instead. Because that's what actually matters.

A few of his gun bills dealt with regulating the size of gun magazines. Not knowing the difference between a clip and a magazine would probably severely impact the language of the laws he's trying to push. Especially if he believes an AR15 can fire "30 rounds in a second". And these are not bills he helped push or just simply supported. These are bills [I]he started.[/I]

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53159990]Wow, just guns? That's all that matters to you or makes a change in senate? This candidate should be more left, thus more willing to support social safety nets, making actual change.[/QUOTE] If he's blantantly lying like that, why should I believe anything else he says?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53160378]A few of his gun bills dealt with regulating the size of gun magazines. Not knowing the difference between a clip and a magazine would probably severely impact the language of the laws he's trying to push. Especially if he believes an AR15 can fire "30 rounds in a second". And these are not bills he helped push or just simply supported. These are bills [I]he started.[/I][/QUOTE] Have they? I havent exactly looked through every bill of his, but from what I can tell he seems to primarily have been pushing for restrictions on ammunition sales. Either way, I'm not so much arguing that there's nothing to complain about regarding this guy, I'm arguing that you're complaining about the wrong things. That he got the fire rate wrong for a gun he was presenting is a dumb thing to do and kinda funny, but it's not going to accomplish anything in a discussion because it's not really that important in the end. Whats important is what he actually wants to do, and what legislation he's actually pushing. Whats also actually important is getting research done on these subjects, because as it stands right now legislators are largely flailing about in the dark when it comes to gun control. Unlike many other issues there's no clear solution available, just plenty of unproven theories. As long as that is the case you're going to have legislators pushing whatever theories they have for fixing the issue, because no one truly [i]knows[/i] what the solution is. This, along with how unfeasible certain types of legislation is due to the uncompromising nature of America's gun culture, is why you have shit like the assault weapons ban. I'm sure that most politicians pushing for assault weapons bans are quite aware that simple handguns are responsible for the vast majority of firearm related homicides. However, they're also aware that trying to ban the common handgun is insane. So in order to curb at least some firearm related deaths, they try to curb another type of firearm. They don't [i]know[/i] if that will actually help, they don't [i]know[/i] if every shooter with a rifle would just have used a handgun to kill just as many people anyway. There's no way to know, whether your position is that it would help or not the proof is simply lacking, the knowledge isn't there. But they know something has to be done, they have to push something so they push this because it [i]might[/i] help, and because its niche enough that its slightly less insane to try than putting serious restrictions on handguns. Meanwhile a dozen other democrats are pushing for a dozen other types of restrictions without knowing for sure what will help, because the knowledge is simply not there. In other words, because of the opposition that exists to gun control and the lack of research into effective gun control measures, current attempts at gun control legislation are essentially shooting into the dark. Legislators hope that some legislation will get through the insane opposition there is, and they hope that [i]some[/i] of that legislation that passes will actually be effective, but no one knows what can get passed and what will be effective. Because they all know that new legislation is needed, but no one knows whats actually effective and the gun lobby seemingly opposes all of it whether its effective or not.

Screw both of them. I do not want to be represented by either one. One is the crypt keeper and hates freedom, the other is a know-nothing fool. I see the democrats are still making the same mistakes. Fresh face, same exact ideas that got them into their current predicament. The real shame here is that I know he is gonna win, because California is so blue that it doesn't matter at all who they nominate, that person will win by default.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;53160833]Screw both of them. I do not want to be represented by either one. One is the crypt keeper and hates freedom, the other is a know-nothing fool. I see the democrats are still making the same mistakes. Fresh face, same exact ideas that got them into their current predicament. The real shame here is that I know he is gonna win, because California is so blue that it doesn't matter at all who they nominate, that person will won by default.[/QUOTE] Yeah man, who cares if Trump gets more power, as long as I have my guns, I can lead my militia and overthrow the government. Or if that doesn't work out, jerk off to my AR-15. Win-Win [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Novangel))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Rika-chan;53161075]Yeah man, who cares if Trump gets more power, as long as I have my guns, I can lead my militia and overthrow the government. Or if that doesn't work out, jerk off to my AR-15. Win-Win[/QUOTE] Didn't mention the word gun and you turned into a discussion about guns. Noice.

[QUOTE=download;53161129]Didn't mention the word gun and you turned into a discussion about guns. Noice.[/QUOTE] It is very obvious by his post history and the context of the thread as to what he is talking about when saying Feinstein hates freedom and Leon knows nothing.

[QUOTE=Rika-chan;53161141]It is very obvious by his post history and the context of the thread as to what he is talking about when saying Feinstein hates freedom and Leon knows nothing.[/QUOTE] There are a whole range of others things Feinstein has supported that can be construed as "hating freedom". Support for FISA and the Patriot Act are a few good examples.