Gavin Newsom Picks Laphonza Butler To Fill Dianne Feinstein's Senate Seat
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Topline
California Governor Gavin Newsom on Sunday pledged to name Laphonza Butler to fill the Senate seat held by the late Dianne Feinstein, his office said in a statement, securing the Democrats' slim majority in the closely divided chamber.
Laphonza Butler was named to replace the late Dianne Feinstein in the Senate.
Getty Images
Key Facts
Butler, 44, leads Emily's List, a political group working to elect female Democrats who support reproductive rights.
She is a former labor leader, advised Vice President Kamala Harris during her campaign for president in 2020 and worked as an executive at rental giant Airbnb.
She will be the only Black woman in the Senate and just the third Black woman to ever serve in the chamber after Carol Moseley Braun and Harris, who Newsom also replaced when she stepped down after being elected vice president.
Butler, who is openly lesbian, will also be the first openly LGBTQ+ person to represent California in the chamber and the first Black lesbian to openly serve in the Senate.
Butler will complete the term of the late Feinstein, which runs through 2024, and will step down from her role leading Emily's List upon joining the Senate, Newsom said.
Butler currently lives in Maryland but owns a home in California and will switch her voter registration, the governor's office reportedlysaid.
Crucial Quote
Newsom, who promised to fill Feinstein's seat with a Black woman should she step down, said Butler was "an advocate for women and girls, a second-generation fighter for working people, and a trusted adviser to Vice President Harris." She "represents the best of California, and she'll represent us proudly in the United States Senate," Newsom said, adding that Butler will "carry the baton left by Senator Feinstein, continue to break glass ceilings, and fight for all Californians in Washington D.C."
What To Watch For
Democrats had narrow control over the Senate even before Feinstein's death last week and Democrats are keen to move quickly to give more breathing room during critical upcoming votes. Butler is expected to be sworn in by Harris soon, perhaps as early as Tuesday or Wednesday, according to news reports.
News Peg
Feinstein died late on Thursday after more than three decades serving California in the Senate, her office confirmed on Friday. Feinstein, who was the longest serving woman in the Senate and the oldest member of Congress at the time of her death, had resisted calls to retire before the next election despite growing concerns over her health, including a months-long absence following a case of shingles, but said she would not seek reelection in 2024. She was a trailblazer for women in U.S. politics and was a vocal advocate for women's rights and gun control.
Tags
Who is online
398 visitors
It is called pandering.
This is how democrats get certain groups to cast a vote.
Maybe you can top the racist and homophobic "satire" article about this that was posted here yesterday.
I don't get to read every article here, John. I guess I missed it.
I believe in selecting people based on merit. Is that why this woman was chosen?
She's simply another unqualified Dem token, just like Kamala and KJ-P
Maybe you can stop calling everything/everyone you don't like racist and homophobic. The words are losing their meaning because they are used that way.
Maybe you can lighten up and recognize satire doesn't please everyone. Nor is that its intent.
Figure it out.
I do agree that VP Kamala Harris has been promoted to the highest level of her incompetency ... and I do not agree with the appointing of candidates based on race, gender nor for arguments sake sexual orientation. Yet if you call Ketanji Brown Jackson and Laphonza Butler unqualified .. then what the hell do you call individuals such as Majorie Taylor Green? Would you have voted for Herschel Walker?
From both sides of the aisle, male and female, there are far from qualified individuals in the US Government - these two, 'block checking' black women are not among those ranks.
As some point this great nation is going to need to pull its head out and get back to working together for the good of "We the People" .. this divide is destroying the Republic that is the United States of America.
Peace
Newsome may have forgotten that his Civics 101 class taught, under Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution:
"No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."
However, his selection is valid 'cause she's over 30, is a citizen and DOES NOT LIVE in California.
I guess now that the new check marks of Black, Female, Lesbian need to be added to the list of sub-qualifications in the Constitution for Dems/Libs.
She wasnt elected , she's an appointee. That seems to make your point inapplicable.
So you are an originalist now...
John and Scalia, Gaetz and Ilhan Omar working together. What a world.
Not at all if one reads the law.
She apparently isn't qualified under law.
I cannot get mired in the political details coming from a fuck'd up state like CA .. I am only on Soapbox [I will put her back in her stall later] to defend these women's qualification to do the job to which they have been appointed to.
Nah, but I do think that it is time to check some different boxes ... like say for Indigenous peoples, Asian, Hispanic - somewhere along the way 'we' have lost sight of other marginalized women and men in this great nation, that are qualified and doing great work within their communities.
Peace 1stwarrior .. good to see you!
Jeezzz John - learn to read the Constitution -
and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
Now, in Cali, one never knows when they are in session or not - butttt . . . . . .
I dont know what you are going on about, but I responded to a specific comment you made, and 1.1.12 was not it.
You have been missed Colour - glad to see you again.
Kinda funny you mentioned "indigenous" peoples - California has the largest population of Native Americans out of any state, with 723,000 identifying an "American Indian or Alaska Native" tribe as a component of their race (14% of the nation-wide total).
So, where are they and why were none of them selected?????
I have no answers 1st .. but I can speculate... please correct me if I am wrong, yet it seems to me that in Montana [at least] the nations are fighting on a state level - the place where changes can still be made?
Everyone's higher power knows that the US federal government has given a whole new definition to dysfunctional!
it's called balancing the scale, with all the white supremacists and neo-fascists now openly populating the party of non-equality and anti-democracy, the GOP.
That would be racism.
Democrats are still trying to make amends for their wrongdoing more than a century later, at everyone else's expense of course.
They were wrong then and they are wrong now.
Please explain how Newsome is "balancing the scale" when we have the likes of Kamala Harris, KJP, and several others who were selected because they checked the block. I don't recall any Republican's doing this.
Yeah, we call them Democrats.
Yeah, it's called pandering. That's how modern politics works. Laphonza Butler isn't intended to be a permanent replacement for Dianne Feinstein. Butler's appointment was all about Gavin Newsom's political future.
What's odd is that Democrats are still pandering to the Black voting block. Hispanic influence over politics has been increasing geometrically every day. We may be witnessing the last gasps of Democrats' identity politics. The appointment of Butler is only noteworthy among us old farts and our time has passed.
To be fair, it's not like people in San Francisco were likely to ever vote Republican anyway.
Considering the halfwits , morons, and looney tunes Republicans keep sending to Congress the right should not be trying to throw stones over who Newsom appointed, whoever it may be.
They Are at least smart enough to understand how to open doors without committing a crime
Considering the mayors, the people of Chicago have elected, Chicagoans should have their heads down when they are in the company of decent folk.
The abject hypocrisy continues, who remembers the comments about Dr. Oz and his residency in Pennsylvania? They wear their hypocrisy like a badge of honor.
I am sure they will give your advice all the consideration it deserves.
Who holds the majority in the House John? Just all the halfwits, morons, and looney tunes the Dems/Libs keep flooding the government with.
“Who holds the majority in the House…
oops
(Meant to type in Senate
)
The perfect democrat, a twofer affirmative action hire who who literally represents a special interest that controls the money spigot democrats desperately need.
It would be like the republicans appointing the head of the nra to the senate, if the the NRA actually bankrolled republicans.
plus, as an out of stater, she represents the masses of Californians who’ve fled the state.
A threefer, Gay, African American and female. She may have all the qualifications to be a senator, i don't know, but the first three are never Job qualifications outside of Hollywood for playing historical figures.
Gay, African American and female
are never qualified to get jobs? You do understand that is what you are saying, dont you?
If Newsom had picked a random person off the street , black female lesbian, and made her senator that could be a cause for concern and commotion, but that is not what happened. Laphonza Butler has a perfectly reasonable resume for someone holding public office.
Only an idiot or someone lacking basic reading comprehension skills would interpret what I wrote that way, so let me clarify it for you.
Skin color or gender aren’t qualifications to being a doctor, successful completion of medical skill, residency and state exams is, being gay isn’t a qualification for being a lawyer, completing law school and passing the bar is. No where did I say the color of one’s skin or gender disqualified them from jobs, I said they weren’t qualifications, if you are still confused I’m sorry I can’t make it any more simple than that.
WHO IN FUCK DO YOU THINK SAYS BEING BLACK FEMALE AND GAY are Butler's qualifications?
The right wingers are the only ones who say that.
If President Roosevelt said I'm going to appoint a white German Jew to a commission to construct an atomic bomb do you think those would have been Albert Einstein's qualifications?
Newsom never said being black female and gay qualified anyone to be a US Senator, he said he would appoint a black female, probably because there have been precious few such people in the Senate.
Wrong again John.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) pledged Monday that he would appoint a Black woman to replace Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) should she choose to retire before her term is up. Newsom pledges to name Black woman to Senate if Feinstein retires | The Hill
Washington — President Biden praised retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer at the White House on Thursday, and said he plans to announce his nominee to fill Breyer's seat before the end of February. The president also reiterated his commitment to nominating a Black woman to the nation's highest court. Biden says he'll name a Black woman as Supreme Court pick by end of February (cbsnews.com)
It appears that the racists on the left think it is a qualification. not the right, so once again you are ass backwards in your comments.
That's literally makes being black and female a qualification
You are totally confused about the meaning of the word "qualifications'.
Newsom never said being black female and gay were Laphonza Butler's qualifications for office , if you dont understand that I cant help you.
Then why didnt he put the name of every black female lesbian in California into a big bowl , blindfold himself, and draw one out?
Being black and female were conditions Newsom put on his decision for a new senator, not qualifications.
“…makes being black and female a qualification…”
As opposed to generations of making it an automatic disqualification. Look at her resume…would yours stack up?
Black and female were major ones. From his mouth...........
Like being white, or a male under Newsome's announced qualifications.
Did he say those were the only qualifications?
I'm surprised you are struggling to understand what "qualification" means. This is about as straightforward as it gets. Newsom made it very clear race and sex were qualifications for the job. Per Newsom, she wasn't getting the job if she were white, therefore her race was a necessary qualification her for the appointment. It's absurd to pretend otherwise.
I wish we could say we are surprised that you don't see the problem with a racist and misogynistic decision. But we can't. You have a serious blind spot when it comes to this coming from the left.
Since you are having a problem with the definition of "qualifications", lets start here:
Using “real” definitions, on those here who find that “inconvenient” to the narrative du jour they are pushing, is a fools errand.
Redefining the established meaning of words is about the only skill some of these folks have. It’s all they got …..
They have to be educated somehow. If not we will continue to see that stupid nonsense.
Pretending is all some can do.
What you don't understand or deliberately are ignoring was that black was indeed what qualified her to be on Newsomes list.
A condition that must be complied with is the literal dictionary definition of a qualification.
Why do you keep digging this hole for yourself?
because for years he has claimed others were immensely unqualified for office, and now doesn't want that same standard applied to his faves?
You simply don't remedy past discrimination by discriminating against others now.
That doesn't solve a damn thing.
Describes your comments perfectly, when a job add says, "must have a college degree", that is obviously not a qualification right John? just like when Newsome says they must be an African American female. Language is hard when you are defending a racist.
Searching for: difference between conditions and qualifications
Searching for: difference between conditions and qualificationsGenerating answers for you…
Generating answers for you…
In general, a condition is something that must be met in order for something else to happen, while a qualification is a specific requirement that must be fulfilled in order to be considered acceptable or satisfactory 1.
For instance, in the context of software development, a condition may refer to a specific state or situation that triggers a certain behavior or outcome in a program. On the other hand, a requirement may state that a program must be able to handle a certain amount of data or perform a certain task within a certain timeframe 1.
In the context of education and employment, qualifications are often used to describe the skills, knowledge, and experience required for a particular job or position. For example, an employer may require applicants to have a certain degree or certification in order to be considered for a job 2.
I hope this helps!
Learn more: 1. thecontentauthority.com2. indeed.com3. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk4. asqasktheexperts.com+2 more
Black was DEFINITELY a prerequisite for consideration for the job.
No amount of spinning and word parsing changes what most of all of us recognize happened.
“Like being white, or a male…”
Like the overwhelming majority of the current Senate demographic? And just what has the current makeup wrought?
Does Ron DeSantis have any black trans atheists on his campaign staff? No , because he has conditions he imposes on who he selects.
Choosing a replacement senator is entirely the governor's prerogative . He could appoint himself if he wanted to. There is absolutely nothing wrong with him deciding black females are underepresented in the US Senate and then naming one to the position.
The ONLY thing I would agree with you all about is that he announced the "condition" publicly to get political benefit from it.
If a Democrat appoints someone from any one of those categories, they are never "qualified" according to Cons.
This is how you move the goalposts...
The newest affirmative action program.
The US Senate.
whatever. this is getting boring.
Gay, African American and female are not qualifications. They are discrimination and pandering.
You must have missed the definition of qualification that was already posted.
Why do you continue to argue against the dictionary? You can't win.
False.
I don't give a damn about parsing words. She had to be black to even be considered. I realize your definition of discrimination isn't standard, but come on, dude.
Bwahahaha. Who says those are her ONLY qualifications? HINT: The only ones saying that are you people. The best part is your side does the same fucking thing and you don't bitch and whine about it then [Deleted] The only ones who think its discriminatory and pandering is, again, YOU PEOPLE. I don't even have to wonder why you all think that way because we all already know.
Debating is not your thing. Let it go.
Enough said ……
Stop projecting John and just let it go.
I posted a definition that specifically says a qualification for employment is skill, knowledge and experience.
Does it take skill to be black? Does it take knowledge to be female? Does it take experience to be gay?
LOL.
we can impasse if you want. as i said i am getting bored.
It takes two for debate.
I'll be here waiting whenever you decide to participate.
BTFW, parsing words isn't really debate.
Lol …. He’s not the one losing here.
The tough part is, deciding if your comments are simply intentional gaslighting or just that plain old garden variety obtuse.
Is that discrimination? Don't bother answering. We all know you don't see it for what it really is.
It doesn't matter even if they are.
Newsome's responsibility is to select a person to represent that constituency. The only real question here is "Is this a person that the majority of Californians will support"? I don't see any way they wouldn't.
It's not like she's replacing Mitch McConnell or Tommy Tubberville. This is a like-for-like substitution that the majority of Californians will likely think is great. That's all that matters.
as soon as i clean the impact of your comments off the bottom of my shoe
is it ok if i yawn ?
My point is that they aren't her only qualifications, but I agree with the rest of your comment.
I repeat that I'll be right here waiting whenever you feel up to debate.
Sly little pathetic insult noted.
Newsome. Or have you not been paying attention?
And exactly when has "my side" placed qualifiers like being black or a specific gender. We await your links.
So YOU PEOPLE would be all dancing in fairy dust if somebody claimed they would only appoint white men? No. You all would stomp your feet and cry.
Right, he is racist.
When did he say those were her ONLY qualifications?
There you go, [ Deleted. ]
Right back at you, bub.
Of course it is, you are getting your hat handed to you.
Reading is fundamental, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had already passed, “I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman,” Trump said during a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina.
He was announcing his Choice, and it was Amy Coney Barrett. He was announcing it will be a woman, not that was the only criteria he was picking from. Gavin Newsome announced his Qualifications for the Job Before Feinstein had even died.
If you recall, he was making his announcement of his appointment. Not that it "will be" a woman. I'll give you partial credit for trying.
Splitting heirs.
He was announcing that his pick would be a woman while you all whine and cry about an LGBTQ woman of color being picked saying she's not qualified when none of you can say why exactly she isn't qualified. From the CNN article I posted:
He never said that Amy Coney Barrett would be the nominee then. He just said it would be a woman, which is the same exact thing you all are bitching about here. [Deleted]
Announcing before the person is picked and after the person is picked are two totally different thing. Trying to compare the two is intellectual dishonesty.
He knew who it was and said she was a woman. Totally different than someone saying they have not chosen the person but it will be a woman.
I did more than try. I provided a valid link to one your own saying he would nominate a woman to the Supreme Court without announcing who it would be.
From the article I posted (which apparently you didn't read):
[emphasis mine]
[Deleted]
Keep saying it, maybe someone will eventually believe you.
Sure thing.
I posted an article on it, so there it is in black and white.
You seem to be missing the point.
Why did the governor show how discriminatory he is by announcing he would pick a woman of color?
Doesn't that automatically exclude millions of people who may be very well qualified based SOLELY on race?
Had the governor announced he would be picking a white male, the left would simply lose their collective mind.
did you not read your own article?
He's providing a hint to the identity of the choice he'd already made.
Sure.
That would fit how little your comments in this conversation show sincere engagement vs petty bickering.
Enjoy your rest ….
No, he's saying that he will nominate a woman. That he will be PUTTING FORTH a nominee next week. Again, from the article:
He had not made up his mind yet (well really, he hadn't had his mind made up for him yet).
Can you explain how it isn't discriminatory to exclude people SOLELY on the color of their skin?
This should be good!
Id like to say you've got to be kidding but Elvis has left the building on that.
So I'll just say your comment is absurd.
After reading many comments from you on racism, I am left wondering why you condone this bit of discrimination until I remember it isn't racist if a Democrat does it and a minority benefits.
No it isn’t.
Trump said he was replacing a woman, with a woman. Point one. Which left his options open to any race, white, black, brown, etc. That’s point two. I could keep going but I’m sure the not so subtle facts of this situation will be lost within the ridiculous narrative your comments seem to be pushing.
Like I said earlier. A comment like this says it all:
Quite a statement …
It's the same thing. Newsome is replacing a woman with a woman (who fucking cares if its a woman of color....oh yeah, you fucking people do). You people will twist yourself into knots trying to justify your hypocrisy
I believe that most folks would be having kittens if anyone ever said "I am going to select a white male for this position".
You know why?
Because it would be wrong.
Lol ….. “you people?”
Keep digging ….
Bazinga ….. but don’t expect a connection to be made.
Yes, you people. Keep twisting...
It's the obvious logic, isn't it?
And you can prove this? I await the links.
So, instead of providing anything to show I'm wrong, you went with the personal insults. Again, showing you have nothing and just want to run your mouth.
Why should I provide additional proof when you didn't even read and understand the link I already provided.
All you have to say is you can't. You're not the only one from the left that can't back up your sensless claims.
Trump got his list of Supreme Court nominees from the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation picked the Supreme Court Justices, not Trump. Look it up your fucking self.
So still ultimately Trump's decision. He still chose albeit from a list provided.
Prove that Trump made his own decision.
Can't, not knowing the inner workings, any more than you can prove he didn't. As it stands, it was ultimately his decision for all anyone knows.
Sure it was.
It's cute how you are still trying to play off your failure.
Why? You can't?
It's cute how you think I'm failing because I won't provide you with information you demand when you don't provide anyone with information when they demand it. It's information that is readily available if you even care to learn anything. I've already provided a link to my original comments which you didn't read or maybe just didn't understand. Why the fuck would I provide you with another link for you to 1) not read it or 2) if you do read it, to not understand it.
My money is that you can't provide a damn thing. Not that it's surprising. Not the first time, not the last time we'll see this from the like of you.
I will give you credit to deflecting to Trump. With that being said, how about that racist running California?
That guy is a broken record.
Then, you would lose your money, but I'm still not giving you a damn thing when you again, either didn't read my original link or didn't understand, so any further links I provide you, you will either not read it or not understand it. Second, you NEVER provide proof when you're asked.
Well I was asked for proof that a Republican had picked someone based on their sex, color or sexual orientation, so I used the most recent one. That's not deflecting, that's providing the PROOF I was asked for.
I don't live in California so I won't be voting for him now will I.
How do you feel about all of the racists in your party. Maybe you should worry about cleaning up your own party before you start pointing fingers at others.
I know he is. He'll just keep repeating himself over and over again while providing no substance.
That's a round about way to say you still can't back up your claim.
You want to take a stab at backing up "thinkin"'s statement? You don't have the best track record either.
What the real deal is:
They know it is racist to exclude anyone not of a particular color, but simply choose to look the other way when one of their own perpetrates the racism.
They can't defend that logically, thus the switch to attacking, surprise, surprise!--Trump.
Same tired old tactics we see daily here.
As I said yesterday, does DeSantis have any black , trans, females on his campaign staff?
If not ( and Im sure he doesnt) it is because he excluded them from consideration. He just didnt announce that choice the same way Newsom did.
Making a condition that the replacement senator would be a female black is not racism. Carrying on about it is utter foolishness though.
You are a waste of time.
I really don't know and don't give a shit if he has checked the alphabet boxes to placate liberals.
BTFW, what does DeSantis have to do with anything other than serving as a deflection for you so you don't have to admit Newsome was racist?
Can you simply address the TOPIC, or must everything be deflection with you?
Here's a hint--glance at the headline in article you post under, it will give you at least a clue as to topic.
Prove it wasn't then. I'll wait.
[Deleted]
I can back up my claim. I just refuse to give YOU a link that YOU either will not read, or if you do read it, YOU won't understand it, just like the link I already provided that YOU'VE been trying to argue about.
Of course he had. Barrett was the only candidate he actually met with because he knew it was always going to be her after she finished second to Kavanaugh.
That remains to be seen. So far it looks like you (and JR) can't. In fact, JR proved he couldn't with personal attacks.
Sure, sure.
And you can never back up your claims either. Meanwhile, I can but refuse to give you the information you request since: 1) you never, ever back up your claims or answer questions posed to you and 2) you either didn't read or couldn't understand what you read in my original link. So given those two points, it's useless to provide you with further proof of anything when you 1) either won't read it, or 2) if you do read it, you won't understand it just like the article in my original link. You can easily look it up yourself while you go harass someone else.
Well, that's not what the article says and it's not what Trump himself said so....
Hmm, so not only are you not sure about his campaign staff you are sure you know why they may not be black , trans, females.
How about has DeSantis appointed any black , trans, females to positions within his administration?
one very, very simple question for you, if you deign to answer.
Would it be acceptable for a Governor to announce he will be picking someone old, white, and male?
A simple yes or no is the answer.
I bet you can answer that and liberals will run from it.
Were they on topic? Given you are ranting about Trump tells me they weren't. I've already acknowledged your distraction and am now moving on the actual topic of the article. (If you can't remember, scroll up.)
Read and understood. Just because it's not what you want to hear doesn't make it my problem.
You have nothing. Just as you've shown time and again.
1. Yes, they were on topic. You just ignored the questions because you didn't want to answer them, as usual.
2. Nope, it's obvious from your comments that you either did not read the link or did not understand it so my comments stand.
The rest of your comment is just you deflecting your unwillingness to provide answers and links on me when your tactic is thrown back at you.
You have fingers that are not broken so you can easily look the fact that Trump got his list of nominees from the Heritage Foundation. Easy peasy for someone willing to actually look things up, but then again, if you actually looked it up, it would destroy your conservative talking points which is all you have.
A simple question for you.
Would you be okay with a Governor saying he will only select someone white and male, excluding others?
If you can honestly answer that I would love to see it.
Trump is not the topic of the article. Maybe you should re-read the article.
Answered this already. If you don't like the answer provided you need learn to deal with it as it is not my problem.
The only thing that matters is you have proven my point that you all will twist yourself into pretzels trying to justify why its okay when your side does it, but bad when dems do it. End of conversation.
ignoring anything that might expose rank hypocrisy, ✔.
Texan can keep relying to me and wasting his time all he wants, but he KNOWS he's on ignore.
I know it was a really hard question for you to answer truthfully.
its ok.
You don't have a point or any kind of argument. Now move along.
Put them on ignore. That's one way to avoid answering questions or backing up your claims. I'm pretty sure he could care less about being on ignore.
I guess making pronouncements is really a thing for some.
Its ok, I would just hate to answer my question if I had been bitching about racism and then ignored it whenever it is convenient.
He's the only one I have on ignore, he's been on ignore for a very long time and he knows the reasons why.
If so, then he wouldn't keep replying to me, now would he.
And, I've already answered questions and backed up my claim that your side has also based their appointments on being a woman, etc.
Again, thanks for proving that you all will twist yourselves into pretzels trying to justify your approval of a Republican doing the same exact thing you're bitching about there.
I already stated my point and the fact that you've proven it multiple times in this conversation. I'll move along when I please to move along. I mean you could just stop replying to me (and proving my point), but it seems you can't help yourself.
[deleted]
They have to make themselves feel important somehow.
They've been ignoring it across the board. Their hypocrisy shows enough as it is.
The rest of this thread was removed for meta. Stop. Only warning.
So who are you quoting because I never said that.
That's a GREAT question, but I doubt it will get answered.
Not much chance at exposing rank hypocrisy when people think its okay to single out by race.
[deleted]
Nope, its a block quote from someone else. Who are you quoting?
no answer will be attempted.
Nope, just a deflection.
Why aren't you answering?
So you're trying to skirt the coc by quoting a question from someone I have on ignore. I'm not playing you and Texan's game. Nice try though.
I am amazed at the lengths people will go to just to avoid answering such a simple question.
Now, without seeing my posts, how can you possibly know?
It's a pretty simple question.. why would you not just answer it and move on?...
Apparently not.
Look at all the times it has been answered! (none)
I'm not playing Texan's game trying to get around the fact that he's on ignore, nor will I allow you or anyone else to assist him in doing it.
Yes I see.... harrumph harrumph
[deleted]
First, I'm not answering questions posed by someone who I have on ignore especially when he has someone else do his bidding by quoting his question to get around the fact that he's on ignore. I'm not playing his game, and his attempt to skirt the coc by having someone else post his comment proves I was right to block him. Second, show me where I defended Biden. I don't like Biden either, so your attempted insult is rendered moot. Third using my screen name like that is also a violation of the coc.
And I'm not ignoring "people". I only have 1 person on my ignore list.
[deleted.]
Anyone can have the same or similar questions. Refusing to answer them because, is just being wilfully obtuse.
Sen Butler has big pumps to fill. Best wishes for a successful term...
Isn't that what you got Fetterman for?
I would have preferred Karen Bass.
Lol ….. sounds about right for Calicrazy.
A perfect fit for the radical, progressive/leftist loons Democrats are sending to congress these days.
Coo coo ka choo!
I actually have zero problem with this.
The law of the land is being followed, both in fact and in spirit.
Newsome has appointed a token hire to represent a constituency that believes in token hires. He appointed an extreme liberal to represent the most liberal place in America.
If the Governor of Texas appointed this woman, it would be a huge problem. But she's not representing Texas, she's representing a place where people align with her views.
Of course it would have been a huge problem, she doesn't live in Texas any more than she lives in California.
Maryland has three Senators now, worked out for them.
I wonder if folks in Cali believe this woman who lived elsewhere will have their best interests at heart.