Fake news will lie about whomever Trump nominates

If it's not Merrick Garland, there will always be something immoral about the Republicans' SCOTUS picks. Always.

Lol right?

The side of the fence for baby murder has no ground to stand on in any morality question.

"Of course we're allowed to cheat the Constitution; our stance on a wedge issue entitles us to anything."

There is no cheating... Its the standing President's job to nominate picks for that. Remember when Obama did the same thing? You weren't up in arms about it then.

When he tried to do the same thing and it was stolen from him? Yes, we remember that pretty f**king clearly.

So you mean Obama made lines in the Government & the Republican group in the Senate couldn't agree with his policies - like how he forced people to buy stuff under penalty of fines? So they refused to vote on it?

Man - wonder how much problem Trump will have with that? Probably not - because Trump hasn't disenfranchised the Senate like Obama did.

If you're mad at that - perhaps that is Obama's fault that he disenfranchised the people he works with. That should tell you about radical leftists policies & how they have no place in a civilized society.

But no - when democrats fail, its someone else's fault.

The Senate's job was to take a vote. They didn't do it. They didn't do their job that the Constitution set out for them to do. They cheated the Constitution. And every pick they ever make that isn't Merrick Garland is a continuation of that cheat.

The presidents job is to not alienate the Senate so the voice of the people comes through. Guess he skipped that class & made everything a giant divide.

Can't blame the Senate for a piss poor job by the president

Will you stop pretending like the Constitution says "but the Senate doesn't have to do that if they just don't like the President"? It doesn't. That text isn't there. They HAD to take a vote.

They could vote the nomination down, but they had to take a vote. They didn't. They cheated. And your attempt at making a loophole just isn't based on what's actually in the f**king rules.

If they HAD to take a vote - they WOULD have taken a vote. No vote means they didn't have to do it. They didn't do it...

That's on Obama for drawing party lines & disenfranchising half the country. If he were such a good leader - they would have voted on his nomination. Obama is suck a puke blooded pile of crap though - that they couldn't in good conscious do it.

That's on Obama - not the Senate.

I don't think you understand the concept of cheating. They DID have to take a vote. Those were the rules. They broke the rules. Nobody physically prevented them from doing that but they weren't supposed to. That's the point of cheating.

So you're mad about cheating then.... Man, if only everything politics were fair.

Remember when Obama forced 305 Million People to purchase a product under penalty of fines for Obama care?

Remember when the House of Representatives cheated & didn't read the medical plan "we have to pass it - so we can find out what's in it"?

They are supposed to by position - read everything that gets voted on z but forced in through right before a break - without doing so.

They cheated that process.

Remember when Clinton has 3100 votes from a district with only 2400 residents? She cheated.

So apparently cheating is OK if a Democrat does it - but is bad when a Republican does it.

That is called a double standard. Double standards come from bigots. Which makes sense - bc you're pro Democrat.

I think the Senate was doing Obama a favor. They never would have confirmed Garland and would have been another white stain on an already soiled blue dress that was his presidency.

Obama and Clinton aren't the same person.
One was touted by the media to be the first black President and the other admits to being the first American president to come from Kenya.

Listen 5:50
https://youtu.be/L36sGc4Id2I

Are you under the impression that Obama and Clinton are somehow the same person?