General Discussion

Fresh_Start

(11,365 posts) Wed May 4, 2016, 01:10 PM May 2016

Supreme Court may be filled due to Trump nomination [View all]

Republicans must know that there is absolutely no chance that we will win the White House in 2016 now. They must also know that we are likely to lose the Senate as well. So the choices, essentially, are to confirm Garland and have another bite at the apple in a decade, or watch as President Clinton nominates someone who is radically more leftist and 10-15 years younger, and we are in no position to stop it.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/05/04/3775259/redstate-confirm-merrick-garland-before-it-is-too-late/

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court may be filled due to Trump nomination [View all] Fresh_Start May 2016 OP

Trump is going to be the next President. Dawgs May 2016 #1

Why are you on Democratic Underground jehop61 May 2016 #3

Um, making a prediction is not supporting. Dawgs May 2016 #6

Trump sucks, but how many pundits and statisticians and candidates have underestimated him? I see no Attorney in Texas May 2016 #36

Approximately 100% have underestimated him. virtualobserver May 2016 #51

99 percent nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #57

... where anything but rah rah cheerleading is verboten? AgerolanAmerican May 2016 #56

Because it's not true. FLPanhandle May 2016 #4

Disagree. n/t Dawgs May 2016 #7

....and you make such a convincing argument Stallion May 2016 #9

Well here are a few reasons I posted a few weeks ago. Dawgs May 2016 #15

1- 5 Are Disputed By Actual Hard Evidence-The rest are like-Your Opinion Stallion May 2016 #21

#2 is wrong. Millennials far prefer Hillary to Trump. stopbush May 2016 #35

#2 is right. Millennials won't vote for either. Dawgs May 2016 #38

"Barely beat" Sanders. stopbush May 2016 #41

Yep. And, it's not over yet. Dawgs May 2016 #45

Show the math that supports your assertion. procon May 2016 #10

It's impossible to use math at this point. Dawgs May 2016 #17

Well Egnever May 2016 #20

She won't win. Dawgs May 2016 #33

OK nostradamas Egnever May 2016 #39

I pointed out 10 things. And, I could have pointed out 10 more. Dawgs May 2016 #40

They were all spurious Egnever May 2016 #43

None of them were proven false. The election isn't until November. Dawgs May 2016 #46

And yet, she's winning with many more votes. procon May 2016 #23

Don't need no fancy math nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #59

The money disagrees. Egnever May 2016 #11

The money disagrees NOW. n/t Dawgs May 2016 #18

K well when that mythical time comes when it even starts to narrow. Egnever May 2016 #19

No, they don't. basselope May 2016 #26

Well hi there Egnever May 2016 #29

The money has disagreed for the last 18 months. I'd say a consistent, longstanding pattern exists. LonePirate May 2016 #28

Awwww zappaman May 2016 #13

They don't get it. basselope May 2016 #22

You Got that Backwards Hoss Stallion May 2016 #24

You are so lost. basselope May 2016 #25

And Yet You Have No Evidence to Support Your Opinion Stallion May 2016 #30

He just gave you evidence. Dawgs May 2016 #31

She has more votes, and that IS an undeniable fact. nt procon May 2016 #47

Hillary has the same number of votes as Trump - ZERO. Dawgs May 2016 #48

When you're losing an argument this badly, asinine retorts doom your whole narrative. nt procon May 2016 #49

So, no intelligent response to my facts means I'm losing. Dawgs May 2016 #50

ZERO is the Number of Electoral Votes That Bernie will get in 2016 Stallion May 2016 #66

In closed primaries where Trump had up to 8 rivals??? basselope May 2016 #64

Did you bother to read the post before responding with nonsense? basselope May 2016 #63

YOU SUPPORT TRUMP??? Why are you even a member here if you support Trump? trueblue2007 May 2016 #27

Can I answer before you scold me? Dawgs May 2016 #34

I made that prediction months ago nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #60

does it take much practise to be that snarky. Dem to Dem, you should be a little nicer. trueblue2007 May 2016 #67

HRC gained 19% of the Republican vote last night justiceischeap May 2016 #37

Not a chance. They will gladly vote for him over a Clinton in the end. n/t Dawgs May 2016 #42

I think you're overestimating Trumps "appeal" or HRC's lack of appeal. nt justiceischeap May 2016 #65

I am sure he appreciates your support. Agnosticsherbet May 2016 #52

So you're saying Dem voters will flock to him? Blue_Tires May 2016 #53

Highly unlikely. cali May 2016 #58

Really? LynneSin May 2016 #62

"watch as President Clinton nominates someone who is radically more leftist"? KamaAina May 2016 #2

its their world view Fresh_Start May 2016 #5

The offer to nominate Garland should be withdrawn now lagomorph777 May 2016 #44

Someone like Ginsburg, who was appointed by her husband. Agnosticsherbet May 2016 #54

It would make sense for them to confirm Garland, but Vinca May 2016 #8

True. They are such rigid idealogues that it would be impossible for them to change course. procon May 2016 #12

Lol ananda May 2016 #14

ted will block it. why? Javaman May 2016 #16

Or it could be that they know a Trump nominee could be considerably to the left of Marr May 2016 #32

Sorry, but this is silly. The Feceralist Society picks Republican Supreme Court nominees. Trust Buster May 2016 #55

Clinton will not nominate someone who is "radically more leftist". former9thward May 2016 #61