(1) Dems can't do what GOP did with Garland. Need majority for it.

(2) GOP could force a simple majority vote and get Gorsuch in either way with Nuclear Option, but it's a little messy. It's actually a lot messy and I wish it didn't exist.

I think there's a good chance Gorsuch goes in with a straightforward vote for two reasons:

First, Dems could choose to drag it out and fight it, but if the Nuclear Option precedent is set for SCOTUS it's hard to put that genie back in the bottle. They would have no leverage at all to discourage or really do anything about far more extreme future nominees. Considering what the 2018 elections look like they're probably going to be the minority for a while.

Second, even if they were successful blocking Gorsuch in a straight vote, what's the endgame? Trump would very likely just nominate someone more right and the GOP forces them through. And when the next seat opens, Gorsuch gets nominated again and this time confirmed.

Thanks Minirra.

apparently spicer's job with the press isnt in question, its his second job as whateverthenamewas that theyre looking to find someone

Aside from anything else, it's simply an historical trend. There will be cuts.

Have the SJWs here been calling Pelosi and Pocahontas?

No wonder the hate for Trump if facts get twisted this much or they simply won't matter.

Some wild claims. Bush is still president? Putin is invading Korea? Pocahontas off the rails?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMDyOBD7rFk

Your well-reasoned arguments are both compelling and persuasive.

At 86 views, this has to be his video or one of his friend's right?

This thread needs more appreciative art work



You got to give it to him. Against all odds he won.

The left's recent stance to free speech also requires a mention





https://grrrgraphics.wordpress.com/2...rison-cartoon/

Thanks.

Before we go all meta, we should talk about why these democracts are off the rails, is it partly because of hysterical people like you see here in the Politics: activism, protects and more thread pushing their own agenda, going crazy and harrassing anyone who doens't agree with them

How much of theater is just aimed to please the brainwashed groups like this

http://nypost.com/2017/01/31/thousan...ers-apartment/



More true than ever

Is Pocahontas the new face of opposition and resistance?

Do you guys here who oppose Trump march behind her? If so, I think you could pick better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVXEq8rx8vE



PS. The majority of Americans love what Trump is doing with the executive orders

"A new poll shows that a majority of Americans approve of President Donald Trump's executive orders so far." "Temp Travel ban: 55% approve / 38% disapp"

Direct link to poll: http://www.politico.com/f/?id=000001...a-bf78cc9d0001


http://www.dailywire.com/news/13292/...-aaron-bandler

Trump voters hate women who won't shut the **** up when they're told to shut the **** up. Have you people ever been to the south? Forget men, other women hate women who have the audacity to voice an opinion.

Why are you calling her Pocohontas and is there any record of Churchill ever making that quote?

Has a G in their name Bannon x Baghdadi



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What are the chances that you can find a source for that Churchill quote?

Ben Garrison cartoons are pretty much indistinguishable from The Onion cartoons:

Nice, I thought that was a pretty funny onion cartoon at first.

Before any bitching about the sources, politico is an organization on the left

LEFT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politico/

Shocker: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:W..._anti-fascists

Jesus. Now Trump saying the Gorsuch comment is a lie

Also, irony free didn't serve in Vietnam blast

Kypreanus, that's been common knowledge for decades, at least with most mainstream journalism.

Serious challenge for you: please apply the same standards to Breitbart, Infowars and whatever other nonsense that has you all jacked up every day. Then, once you find out where their bias puts them on the scale, identify it and objectively evaluate their credibility against the basic tenets of good journalism.

I predict that you'll find yourself unable to correctly complete this very simple challenge.

lol kypenis

It took me less than 30 seconds to find that page along with half a dozen others that say that the quote is fake. So the person complaining about people on the left being fascists is just making **** up. Quelle surprise.

Problem is that most people who roundly reject the MSM don't know what good journalism is. So they have no frame of reference. To them, good journalism is anything that agrees with them.

The Atlantic Magazine story from the time of her Senate election campaign seems a fair source.

Is Elizabeth Warren Native American or What?

Warren, now running as a Democrat to unseat incumbent Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, has been embroiled in the controversy since reports surfaced that she described herself as a minority in a law school directory and was touted as a Native American faculty member while tenured at Harvard Law School in the mid-1990s. Warren has described herself as having Cherokee and Delaware Indian ancestry. Brown's campaign has seized on the story to raise questions about whether Warren misled Harvard or sought to use distant Native American ties for professional gain, and hammered on the propriety of a blonde, blue-eyed white woman describing herself as a minority.

The Democratic Senate candidate can't back up family lore that she is part Indian -- but neither is there any evidence that she benefited professionally from these stories.