Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
2/11/2017 11:21:01 AM EDT
Why didn't the Democrat/media complex make a bigger deal of Republican's refusal to consider Garland? Sure, it was always there, but it was always a low-level whine, not a full throated tantrum. It's like they really didn't care all that much.
2/11/2017 11:21:54 AM EDT
[#1]
They were SURE that Killary would be elected.
2/11/2017 11:26:38 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote History
Quoted:
They were SURE that Killary would be elected.
View Quote


I don't dismiss that theory, but there was a time when they were worried about Rubio winning the nomination and the likelihood he'd beat Hillary.
2/11/2017 11:29:07 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote History
Quoted:


I don't dismiss that theory, but there was a time when they were worried about Rubio winning the nomination and the likelihood he'd beat Hillary.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Quote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
They were SURE that Killary would be elected.


I don't dismiss that theory, but there was a time when they were worried about Rubio winning the nomination and the likelihood he'd beat Hillary.


Yea, not so much.
2/11/2017 11:39:48 AM EDT
[#4]
Garland was nominated for one purpose only, to make republicans look bad in an election year. Obama and the media knew they'd never let him through hence why they put up a moderate to show how unreasonable republicans are.

They never thought Trump would actually win.
2/11/2017 12:06:20 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote History
Quoted:


Yea, not so much.
View Quote


You are correct. I lost track of the time line. Still, Trump wasn't inevitable yet.
2/11/2017 12:08:44 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote History
Quoted:
Garland was nominated for one purpose only, to make republicans look bad in an election year. Obama and the media knew they'd never let him through hence why they put up a moderate to show how unreasonable republicans are.

They never thought Trump would actually win.
View Quote


But that's my point. They just didn't beat on that issue like I would have expected.
2/11/2017 12:10:51 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote History
Quoted:
Garland was nominated for one purpose only, to make republicans look bad in an election year. Obama and the media knew they'd never let him through hence why they put up a moderate to show how unreasonable republicans are.

They never thought Trump would actually win.
View Quote
A month before, with all the fake polls showing Hillary a shoe in, Obama even attempted another push for Garland.

Glad the Republicans held their ground
2/11/2017 12:12:34 PM EDT
[#8]
B-b-but on Jan. 3 the Democrats can confirm Garland by having Joe Biden recognized as majority leader before swearing in and umm some stuff then omg get Bernie Sanders on this.....
2/11/2017 12:18:27 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Why didn't the Democrat/media complex make a bigger deal of Republican's refusal to consider Garland? Sure, it was always there, but it was always a low-level whine, not a full throated tantrum. It's like they really didn't care all that much.
View Quote


there was a lot of bitching about it, but there is also a bit of history about SC justice not being approved at the end of one presidents office when a new one was about to be elected, as for the noise maybe they assumed Hillary would get in and then it would happen for sure.
2/11/2017 12:21:58 PM EDT
[#10]
Who cares?

Fuck the Democrats. Fuck the Media. Fuck Merrick Garland. 
2/11/2017 12:27:05 PM EDT
[#11]
Because they would have done the exact same thing if the shoe was on the other foot and everyone knows it.

Joe Biden in 1992 said that if a Supreme Court position opened up, there shouldn't be a nomination process started until after the presidential election was decided.  
2/11/2017 12:27:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Garland is about as exciting as a box of rocks, plus he is the wrong color and gender. The libs were probably thinking Hillary would get in and nominate a multi-racial transgender illegal, so it would be better to hold out for that.
2/11/2017 12:43:03 PM EDT
[#13]
IF they were competent they didn't raise the issue because their internal polling told them it wasn't one which would motivate their voters, while making noise about it would encourage Republicans to vote for their candidate.
2/11/2017 1:06:57 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote History
Quoted:
IF they were competent they didn't raise the issue because their internal polling told them it wasn't one which would motivate their voters, while making noise about it would encourage Republicans to vote for their candidate.
View Quote


This make sense.
2/11/2017 1:09:07 PM EDT
[#15]
Garland is hardly a moderate. Hard core leftist VERY Anti-2A.
2/11/2017 1:09:55 PM EDT
[#16]
It wasn't a bigger deal because even if he was given a full hearing, he wouldn't have survived an up/down vote.

So confirmation hearings weren't held as a sort of variation on the Hastert Rule.
2/11/2017 1:10:10 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote History
Quoted:
They were SURE that Killary would be elected.
View Quote

FPNI Again!

Their end-game was sooo close they could taste it.

Replace a solid Constitutionalist with another bull dyke, or "wise latina"...then Ginsberg would graciously announce her retirement the day after the inauguration, and the USA would become full-blown communist forever and amen.
2/11/2017 1:11:10 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote History
Quoted:


I don't dismiss that theory, but there was a time when they were worried about Rubio winning the nomination and the likelihood he'd beat Hillary.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Quote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
They were SURE that Killary would be elected.


I don't dismiss that theory, but there was a time when they were worried about Rubio winning the nomination and the likelihood he'd beat Hillary.


Garland was a much more moderate candidate.  They thought Hillary would win and they'd be able to install a straight up Marxist.  Too bad their plan backfired.
2/11/2017 1:18:31 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote History
Quoted:


But that's my point. They just didn't beat on that issue like I would have expected.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Quote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Garland was nominated for one purpose only, to make republicans look bad in an election year. Obama and the media knew they'd never let him through hence why they put up a moderate to show how unreasonable republicans are.

They never thought Trump would actually win.


But that's my point. They just didn't beat on that issue like I would have expected.


Because they would have been bummed if he was confirmed and Hillary won. And they were very, very confident that she would win.
He is pretty much a centrist conservative that LOATHES guns. Not too much of a leftist ideolog on the social justice, environmental and LGBT stuff.
2/11/2017 1:25:37 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Why didn't the Democrat/media complex make a bigger deal of Republican's refusal to consider Garland? Sure, it was always there, but it was always a low-level whine, not a full throated tantrum. It's like they really didn't care all that much.
View Quote




The Biden rule:  no appointments in a presidents last year once election cycle starts

Dems invented it
2/11/2017 3:53:41 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote History
Quoted:
Who cares?

Fuck the Democrats. Fuck the Media. Fuck Merrick Garland. 
View Quote

You should write Jingles.
2/11/2017 3:55:10 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote History
Quoted:
They were SURE that Killary would be elected.
View Quote


FP Fkn NI