You really are shameless. If I ran the same search on Donald Trump in Politfact, what do you think I would find? (Hint: Approximately 10x more lies than Politfact attributed to HRC.)

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...p&ruling=false

Don't bother responding by attacking your own source. I know the playbook.

You guys are the ones who thinks D's aren't shameless liars. I have no problem saying Republicans and Trump are shameless liars. You all really think the D's have some sort of higher moral ground when it comes to politics, and that's just absurd.

I mean, you all talk about Republicans abusing norms, but ignore the fact that Reid is the one who normalized filibusters for judges, for political expediency.

LOL. Goofy went to bed, and IHIV apparently took one of the most embarrassing performances I've ever seen on 2+2 and made it even worse by not going to sleep and seriously arguing that Senate Republicans would have gone back on their word and filled the seat with another nominee if only Obama nominated Gorsuch for them (again, reality: they used the SCOTUS seat as a wedge issue in the election, to great effect! Donald Trump won the presidency campaigning on that open seat!).

It's even more hilarious when you go back to what started this tangent - Mitch would have needed the nuclear option to fill any judge in Scalia's seat, because Dems would have filibustered it, because denying any Obama nominee a hearing was a significant escalation Democrats would have to respond to with filibusters. IHIV pulling out all this bullshit of "well Obama could have nominated a conservative if he wanted" is his response to that! He's saying Dems shouldn't have felt a need to retaliate for the Garland saga, because they should have been happy with Obama having the option* to nominate a Republican justice!

In-****ing-credible. I guess that's a hard pass on ever reading a book and educating himself on anything, IHIV's gonna just keep spewing uninformed bullshit he thought up in his head until the end of time.

Never go full HIV, it only ends with AIDS



*and even that option is something fabricated by a serial liar ITT with no evidence it really existed!

This is complete bullshit. Since WWII, there have been fifteen instances in which a Republican president nominated someone to the SCOTUS during a period when Democrats controlled the Senate. Twelve of the fifteen nominees--including Anthony Kennedy, William Rehnquist, and Clarence Thomas-- were approved. (It's true that several GOP nominees turned out to be liberals on that court, but that wasn't by GOP design. Eisenhower was highly critical of a couple of his appointees. I'm sure H.W. was horrified by Souter.)

Since WWII, there has only been one instance in which a Democratic president nominated someone during a time when Republicans controlled the Senate. And we all know what happened.

No one claimed that Democrats always tell the truth. And if we were comparing H.W. and Jimmy Carter, or whatever the ****, I'd have a lot more sympathy for this both sides bullshit.

But we are talking about Donald Trump. Forget about what I think about the Democrats. How do you think Trump's veracity stacks up to some of his Republican predecessors. For example, how do you think Trump stacks up to H.W. with respect to telling the truth?

Obama: I’m going to nominate an actual moderate guy. Either this will help him get through, or they’ll look bad for contesting it.

McConnell: LOL we’re not even going to vote on it sucker. And not because we don’t like him, but because the PEOPLE should have a voice. WE WILL NOT CONSIDER ANYONE!!!!!

Itshot: Yea ok, but how do we KNOW that Mitch would do that? I guess we’ll never know because BarryO never nominated BORK.

Goofy mostly covered how laughably wrong this is, but Republicans are on the record that they would have blocked all of President Hillary Clinton's nominees for four straight years regardless of who they were had she won the presidency and they held the senate.

No Democratic senator has ever threatened to not even hold a hearing or a vote for a single Republican nominee, let alone prior to a nomination even being made. Withdrawing a name prior to a hearing is not remotely the same thing, as every time a Republican president has done this, he got a confirmation vote for a different nominee.

We could also point to GW Bush curtailing ABA’s role in vetting judges and trying to make blatantly partisan appointments as the trigger for Democratic filibusters.

Again, it is not unusual for politicians to push the boundaries of accepted institutional norms. Nor is it unusual for such conflicts to escalate over time.

But Trump and McConnell’s (nearly in Mitch’s case) complete disregard for institutional norms is extremely abnormal and amounts to an active assault on the norms that make America exceptional.

Yeah. We need not indulge the fantasy that Obama nominated some sort of unconfirmable liberal firebrand. He didn't.

this x 1000

and now if the dems win the senate, they want to get rid of the fillibuster altogether.

and when that bites them in the ass someday and the repubs pass a major bill with no bipartisan support, the repubs will be said to have been taking advantage to a new extreme!

Not for political expediency. As a response to GOP obstruction.

You probably don't know this because your handlers didn't tell you it goes back to the GOP doing it to Clinton.

The GOP has nothing to offer it's voters other than obstruction.
Sure every rule change cuts both ways but long term the GOP loses that one.

No fillibuster means more direct representation means things will get better for the voters on average.

The president is guilty of that of which he was accused, and he should be removed from office. Sparing that, we should definitely continue doing everything he wishes.

Going back to politicians who don't have principles, Collins is only now announcing she'll vote "no", since Romney joining the fold means they have the breathing room to still confirm without her.

Are you talking about the wishy-washy statement where she said the Senate shouldn't have hearings before the election? Because that's not "announcing she was a no" and there's a reason The Hill is announcing this latest update as "just in" (because she hadn't made any such announcement before!).

If he thinks Trump is dangerous enough to warrant removal from office via impeachment, there’s no way he should be approving Trump’s SCOTUS picks.

You should email The Hill then so they can fix this error in their story, they'd probably like to know they got it wrong:

No less than you are. At least my "editorializing" involves not actually reading things into her words that she did not say.

I don't understand your rose-colored glasses for Collins at all. You never responded to this post about her Kavanaugh flip-floppery btw (nor to ecriture or Rococo about their own "she is obviously doing what's in her best political interest" posts).

He shouldn’t like ACB, though, she a nutcase. And we don’t even know she’ll be the pick. It makes no sense to say that Trump’s politics are an existential threat to America and also say you’ll rubber-stamp whatever ghouls he picks to run the country.

You seem sane and rational but not everyone is that way. I know someone who was way into Words with Friends a few years ago. They always hated Alec Baldwin for political reasons. When they found out he liked the game too (when he got kicked off that plane), they stopped playing and deleted the app.

Or maybe th dems passed stuff they support. Maybe they didn't want to do that stuff.

Victor on point here. If you only lived in this forum you'd think US Democrats were crazy left when they're pretty much just right of center at their core

that's a super ignorant statement

he said he would vote yes if he agrees the candidate is qualified and would make a good judge. this is and should be irrespective of his disdain for trump

the fact that each of trumps supreme court judges got almost zero dem support does kind of mean that most people think like you... trump is a pos so obstruct obstruct obstruct dont look at each instance indivually (like Romney apparantly does)

Romney is a conservative who believes judges should rule by the constitution, not legislate. Romney is a pro-life conservative who supports conservative judges, yet you are saying he shoudlnt like ACB .. because she a nutcase.

makes sense