Not only did she pretend to be incredulous about NSA spying, she put forward the bill to excuse most of it after completely redirecting the conversation to "metadata." Now Ajit Pai made it a partisan issue she's having screaming about being pro net neutrality but a few years back she co-sponsored the PIPA bill!
Worst of all she's considered to be basically impossible to replace. It would be very nice to see CA stop giving her money and put a significant challenger forward but it's probably not good ROI to attempt.
>Worst of all she's considered to be basically impossible to replace. It would be very nice to see CA stop giving her money and put a significant challenger forward but it's probably not good ROI to attempt.
The only type of person that has a chance is a celebrity. If Arnold can win governor as a Republican, then a left-wing celeb can definitely primary Feinstein.
Kevin de Leon is running against her and has some political and media support. Unfortunately, he's far to the left of her on the issue of gun control and that alone may nullify whatever small chance he had of getting elected.
If he's running for US Senate, all of California will be voting for him or Feinstein. And parts of California are extremely pro gun, and parts are extremely anti gun.
To the downvoters: Seriously it is. For example: Can you imagine what would happen if we allowed people to have bars? People are expected to DRIVE to a BAR and DRINK! Can you imagine what people would do then, if we legalized the existence of bars? People would drive home drunk!
I appreciate the spirit (I am no DF fan either!) but in the state of New Jersey if you serve alcohol at a party, you are responsible if you allow an inebriated guest to drive off and they mow down people.
If this is about gun control, there is no reason to panic. Your guns are safe.
LOL! I wasn't talking about guns, and no, guns are not safe, every year more and more guns are banned in this country. T he idea that guns are not being banned is just a lie that is told to pretend like not banning all of them outright isn't banning them.
But my point was that just because you have responsibility for inebriated people doesn't mean that drunk driving can't happen-- we should ban bars.
OF course the thing is, most people who go to bars don't drive drunk. They have the freedom of choice.
That's what's scary to HN people... who have been brought up to worship government and believe tyranny is a good thing.
Drivers should be licensed because they're operating a vehicle on shared public property. That's not the same as creating a gatekeeper that imposes a blanket ban on entire categories of private voluntary exchange (e.g. selling alcohol) that are only lifted on a case-by-case basis if one is approved by that gatekeeper.
>>Requiring a higher standard for risky stuff is how we handle everything.
Not really. There are no laws restricting high-risk sexual practices. In the civil sphere, we correctly recognize that individual liberty trumps the personal risk and even public risk posed by risky actions.
It's only in the economic sphere where we restrict private exchanges, and that's because rejecting economic liberty is a necessary precursor to taxing the public and creating regulatory moats to protect industry incumbents from competition.
I'm not being sarcastic in the least. I'm being downvoted because this is a site where critical thinking is not tolerated and it's overrun with millennials who have never had to use their brains.
