Trump picks Neil Gorsuch as nominee for Supreme Court.

So is he a racist or a sexist? Can we pretend he's both?

>>106977
I have a hundred other bigger problems with Trump then Gorusch. I don't agree with his politics, but the guy is qualified enough, and it's not like it would shift the Supreme Court's balance anyways. If the Ds want to protest, they should do it when Trump finds a legit crazy person to stick in the court.

>>106977
Wow, a pick that isn't completely off the fucking wall and backed with credentials.

Dems should just respond by saying the appointment should be up to the next president, just like the Repubs did with Obama.

We can get along with 8 justices. Nothing requires one be appointed right now.

Anything otherwise should be treated by Republicans by yet another favor we've done for their sake. Of course there'll be the usual mental gymnastics from them, so I think it's best we just ignore the appointment. Although I respect if my fellow dems want to continue our tradition of generosity and efforts to reach common ground with our ideological opposition.

>>106988
It wont work as the republicans control the senate and can force a vote or use the nuclear option and make it so the supreme court picks need only 51 votes to be confirmed.

>>106987
Welcome to reality. Its been this way the entire time.>>106988
>Dems should just respond by saying the appointment should be up to the next president, just like the Repubs did with Obama.
Classic leftist argument.

Here's how it works:
>misunderstanding something
>HURRRRRRRR REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL DEMOCRATS GOOD
>checkmate

>>106990
Don't know what you're on about m8. People are always going to critique picks, but this one is solid. Devos and Tillerson are fucking ridiculous, just to mention.

>>106995
there's nothing ridiculous about tillerson. unconventional yes, ridiculous, no. organizationally he has qualifications, and being the CEO of an oil megacorporation means you have friends in high places in 2/3 of the countries on earth, at least. diplomacy comes with the territory.

>>106990
>republicans are evil
I don't recall saying this.
I think some are pretty despicable. But I think some republicans are great.
I think republicans should avoid reading too much into what us dems post.
They have crazy ideas about what we're like in their head and they seem to project them onto everything they read from us, no matter what we actually say.

>>106988
Unfortunately the Democrats literally can't stop the appointment. Their only real effort can be to filibuster the proceedings but the Republicans, due to their domination of all three branches, can use the nuclear operation of eliminating filibuster from the floor. If they do then they only need a simple majority to appoint whoever they please at will and the Democrats literally can't do anything but protest.

>>107002
This. We can finally have good relations with Russia? Whay are people so opposed to that? Is it because the left wants to start a WWIII just over sore beans from Clinton losing?

>>107007
>Whay

Better luck next time commie scum

>>107008
Putin is not a communist anon. He wants to be king there is a difference.

>>107002
It is a disgusting appointment since Trump has established ties with an enemy nation that is a major patron of his company. A country his company continued to do business with despite our countries sanctions against them.
As with all of Trump's choices, the conflicts of interest are infinite and unthinkable for any other candidate.

His company funneled money into shadow organizations attempting to spread misinformation from faux scientists about the grave and potentially existential threat of climate change.

He is likely a traitor to the US and he may also seek to obstruct progress in climate science and technology to combat it. He intentionally facilitated the efforts of an African autocrat to squander his poverty-stricken nation's resources on weaponry, which makes him an all-around disgusting creature.

Republicans come out with the more convoluted mental gymnastics to attempt any sort of justification.

>>106988
Joe Biden is the one that started this shit back in 1992, but I guess mental gymnastics doesn't apply for them, right?

>>107007
The reason people are opposed to it is because "good relations" implies we're giving them ground and letting them get away with shit like invading Ukraine and murdering their own people. Putin is a crook who has stolen millions from the people he's supposed to be governing and will do anything he can to stay in power (because otherwise he will lose all his money, and possibly be jailed or killed by political opponents). Russia is not being led by good people.

In Trumps vernacular, "good relations with Russia" translates roughly to "turning a blind eye to Russia's determination to destabilize the west through various means."

>>107008
But you're fine with China who are actual commies, since Trump is against them, I presume.

>>107010
Thank you for Correcting the Record.

>>107047
Joe Biden made those statements under very different circumstances. What he meant was that if there had been a vacancy (which there wasn't) the US should at least wait until after the election is over to confirm a nominee because otherwise it will become a very partisan issue that will cast a lot of shadow over the electoral process.

Politifact did a pretty good analysis in response to Mitch McConnell's use of "the biden rule" to justify his own partisan bullshit:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

>>107006
>can use the nuclear operation

There's a reason it's called the "nuclear *option": once you use it it can't be taken back. That means that the next time Dems control the Senate (i.e. 2018) they'll control any SC picks no matter how radically left-wing their judgments may lean. The judicial filibuster tends to keep court picks at least more or less moderate when a party has double-majority, and that's important for all sides in the US government.

It's only newbie Senators who want to end the filibuster -- they don't know how power and politics changes over time.

>>107053
>Politifact

>>107049
>you're fine with China

They have an economy that's larger and more stable, a government that's more stable and has invaded 2 fewer countries in the past decade (Ukraine, Georgia), and a commitment to scientific and trade expansion over development of its mininal-sized nuclear arsenal.

>>107056
>the next time Dems control the Senate
>2018
Oh you poor naive fool.

>>107058
And they're communists who oppress their own people in usual communist fashions.

>>107059

He used it as an example, you perfunctory fuck face.

>>107051
That's all you have to say? You have a meme that implies you think people that wreck your shit in debates, are paid shills. This shit writes itself

>>107053
>politifact
no wonder this board is retarded

>>107082
>y-yeah fuck Politifact you should use alternative fact sites like Breitbart!

>>106979
He was nominated by trump. By default they will accuse him of both, maybe even accusations of grabbing pussy. Funny thing is he isn't liked by strict conservatives because he ruled in favor of gay marriage stating precident must be followed.

>>106988
They already made that threat against G H W Bush.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

Where do you think they got the idea from, plus you must be a special kind of dumb to think the minority can play that card for a minimum 2 years for a chance at Senate control.

>>107053
Oh good, it doesn't count because they couldn't act on it and was just talking shit. Well guess what? Those circumstances did end up happening and boo hoo the Democrats didn't have Senate control.

>>107124
>If I consider politifact do be a poor, biased, proofless source, I certaintly am a Trumpbart shill !

>>107061
Then he's still retarded and should've used 'e.g.' instead of 'i.e.'

>Wh-whuh what? There's a difference!?

Probably just pretending to be retarded, eh?

>>107124
they don't even try to hide their bias or their funding anymore

>>106977
Wacko narcissists: or worse but no one has the courage to speak out of their crimes, esp. family.

>>106988
Democrats LITERALLY LITERALLY started all of this, and it is completely and utterly, their fault.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/opinion/nocera-the-ugliness-all-started-with-bork.html

>>107124
Liberalism and democracy are finally dying around the world. Do you think that leftist media will have any place in the world that we are creating?

>>107190
Who fucking cares.

Can anyone post exactly what he's for and against that doesn't come from fake news networks and mainstream media?

>>107190
False flagging kike

Take a hike!

>>107201
Oh shut up you CREWfag. You must be "extreme" if you want to move the overton window in your direction. Once it becomes normal to talk about deporting all the kikes, or nuking the sandcunts, then it becomes acceptable in people's minds to do so. Those who are the loudest, and speak the most, are the ones who win. You think Trump would be in the white house right now if we hadn't been preparing the stage for him for the past 10 years?

>>107003

Hi not the same guy but id like to chip in.

The projection 'we' get of you is founded on your unfortunate load minority who make you look unreasonable and some of us remember the general insanity on the social level that was pushed in the obama years. I think its the general hipocrasy many of your group suffer from that anyone who does the slightest amount of research on certain subjects, would be put off by your party on the whole if constantly bombarded with it (which, as far as media is concerned, it is the case...)

Also, we are evil but we're good at it and like it so you cant change that ;)

>>107003
>I think republicans should avoid reading too much into what us dems post.
We just really wanted you to leave the country, like yesterday. We think that the world would be better off with out liberalism to get in the way of our lives.

>>107199
What is the litmus test for a "trustworthy" news source for you?

>>107212
>We think that the world would be better off with out liberalism to get in the way of our lives.
>We tell everyone that we want to be left alone, but then go out of our way to impose our values and beliefs on others and tell them to leave if they don't agree with exactly what we say.

You're a dullard.

>>107238

A reputable source would be statements, track records, things he's written or said that have been recorded and not tampered with or cut out to make one argument over another.

>>107134
So a gay jude is allowed to state a legal opinion on a piece of legislation that affects him personally like Prop. 8 and get rewarded for it.

>>107056
>It's only newbie Senators who want to end the filibuster -- they don't know how power and politics changes over time.


So, just to be clear.

The Democrats were the ones, under the leadership of the execrable Harry Reid, who already USED the 'nuclear option.'

President Obama then packed the judiciary branch to the rafters with committed lefties.

Was Harry Reid a 'newbie' Senator?

Even more fun. If the Democrats then force the Republicans to use the nuclear option again...it's the REPUBLICANS fault?

How does that parse?

This situation, where the Republicans control EVERYTHING, was brought about by the exact sort of behavior that's going on right now. If the Democrats keep up this relentless drumbeat of opposition, they're going to alienate the middle and find themselves even further out of power.

Plus, you can't rely on the press to rein in the government any more, because they've become so relentless partisan the President himself calls them the opposition, and he's not wrong.

If the press had gone after President Obama with this level of savagery, then they'd have some credibility left.

They did not.

So, they do not.

>>107124
>alternative fact sites like Breitbart!

Expand your worldview.

Read Drudge. Read Breitbart. Read Westmonster.

One of the best right-leaning sites I know of is powerlineblog.com. Read all their articles, every day, then read all the articles they link to in their banner.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/


After you've done that, THEN go read all the sources of news you currently use.

Only if you read BOTH sides can you claim to be well informed. Relying only on the mainstream media, after their colossal fail last year, is really, REALLY, foolish.

>>107186
>>>106988
>Democrats LITERALLY LITERALLY started all of this, and it is completely and utterly, their fault.
>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/opinion/nocera-the-ugliness-all-started-with-bork.html


What this guy said.

Hell, I'd go so far as to say this goes all the way back to Watergate, and hell, even back to the 'yellow journalism' days.

Thank god for the internet. We can finally start to get an idea of what's really going on out there, rather than mealy propaganda poison.

I was hoping for sources that are unbiased and spoke simple facts, but I suppose such a thing does not exist in the political world because every writer must stick their two cents in . I suppose the only way we will see if the people in power now are any good is to see what they do. Here's to hoping that real freedom and not the illusion of freedom hasn't completely died. The wilderness of Alaska is slowly looking better and better everyday.

>>107239
Not him but the word liberal is basically a slur now, don't you think?

>>107358
>We can finally start to get an idea of what's really going on out there, rather than mealy propaganda poison.
Yeah. Too bad you choose to read Breitbart instead.

>>107357
I went to Breitbart several times. Most of the front page features a store that sells clothing with kitch designs. The articles have absolutely no indepth analysis and often provide information which is simply wrong.

The place is basically /pol/ with just as much self-reflection. Most of the articles are dedicated to demonizing liberals at every opportunity.

>>107549
Literally only to Fox News' viewership and confirmation bias addicted conservatives.

>>108805
What's wrong with demonizing liberals? Most of them are communist fucks anyway. We are not talking about a group of people that is very nice to begin with. Liberals are the shit class of American society.

>>108823
I can't tell if this is self aware shitposting or oblivious hypocrisy, either way bravo

>>108823
>falling for divide and conquer tactics

>>106990
Yeah, remember when reps in Congress went on strike because they didn't agree with Obamacare, even though they're the reason Obamacare was so shitty? Not saying that dems are much better (we'll see over the next 4 years) but that is a blatant disgrace to the fundamentals of a democratic republic

literally who?