Message from @pratel
Discord ID: 491318744702779392
You guys ever notice that most of the terrorist attack happen in full libretard cities ?
Cali , nyc, canada
France , UK
I wonder if Democrats will jump on this Onion piece... believing it to be true.
That rep from alaska said she might want to wait
The usual group of NeverTrumpers in the Senate are acting fidgety.
This ^
Thats gotta be a onion article ^
Lmao
It is.
I know
I honestly though that was real for a second
Lmao... got to love the onion.
They are pretty good at photoshopping pictures.
@TylerC He actually did nominate a democrat for a federal circuit. It got completely ignored. The Dems said "we actually like this pick" and the Reps outside a couple *very* plugged in elements just let it pass. No one noticed because there wasn't a fight. No one went "Oh, Trumps is actually a kind of reasonable guy." No "normies" woke up. It just passed a democrat judge into Hawaii and no one paid any mind.
Nominating a Dem to the supreme court is long-term suicide. Forget the election, you can just start chipping away at stuff like 1st or 2nd amendment for the life of the judge. No one amends the constitution anymore--they just nominate judges to "reinterpret" it.
There's also no way for Republicans to deny a Trump nominee without there being a fight and a split that destroys the party.
Surrendering to noise and yielding ground is dumb strategy. Simple capitulation when you hold the high ground defeats the whole purpose of fighting in the first place. "compromise" requires gaining something in return. Not a vague promise. Not a "it reduces the heat a bit." Not a "we'll be nicer down the line"
Realistically, it doesn't matter who Trump nominates, unless it's complete capitulation, the Dems will pull out all stops to fight.
See: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/11/democrats-praise-trumps-judicial-nominee-9th-circu/
Your entire argument with Atkins was completely misinformed.
Atkins is being a little too all-in. But the core idea of withdrawing the nominee and replacing him with someone "more palatable" is just beyond foolish.
@pratel fair enough, if its been tried then i withdraw the thought, it felt like a good idea at the time.
its not beyond foolish, but if it as done and didnt work, no problem. tried and tested
i can accept that
For a lot of us who have followed politics for awhile, it's been so tried and tested as to be beyond really thinking about.
Also, there are battles you pick and battles you fight.
The Supreme court is far too powerful and so it is always worth fighting over. This is why the Democrats are being so loud about it all. They want to make enough noise *somehow* to delay until they can put the Senate in play and then delay until they replace Trump.
ya i get the arguements you all are making.
really dont need the lecture to see your side of it. the facts about it having been tried are enough
Ok.
i get where you all are comming from
you dont want to believe i do
but i do
Nah, I get you.
I tend to focus on strategy.
Atkins was being just "no compromises"
thats what i was doing
I wanted to point out the fact that it'd been tried and what the strategy was.
tying to think of something to do that hasnt been done to get us past all this