Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals loved it when Obama said elections have consequences.

Not so much now ...........

We meant legitimate elections free of foreign interference. Sorry that’s so hard for you.

It is actually damn hard to understand the hallucination that the Russians hacked the Electoral College. Maybe if you take your meds you can explain? I don't get it, but I don't have mental problems.

It is just liberal frustration. They are losing out on every front and can't come to terms with it.

Endless media hits on Trump and he just blazes on ..... can you blame liberals for their rants?

Anonymous wrote:Why you so mad? The Obama doctrine: "Elections Have Consequences."

So NOW you no like?

Aw, too bad, so sad. What is hypocritcal emoji face?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kavanaugh will sail through. Sure we'll here lots of this and that, but it's a done deal. Collins, Murkowski, Manchin, etc will all confirm. Plus, he's actually a great pick. I dare anyone to come up with a plausible argument on why he should not be confirmed.

merrick Garland. Unassailable.

Merrick Garland. Private Citizen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kavanaugh will sail through. Sure we'll here lots of this and that, but it's a done deal. Collins, Murkowski, Manchin, etc will all confirm. Plus, he's actually a great pick. I dare anyone to come up with a plausible argument on why he should not be confirmed.

merrick Garland. Unassailable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals loved it when Obama said elections have consequences.

Not so much now ...........

We meant legitimate elections free of foreign interference. Sorry that’s so hard for you.

It is actually damn hard to understand the hallucination that the Russians hacked the Electoral College. Maybe if you take your meds you can explain? I don't get it, but I don't have mental problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals loved it when Obama said elections have consequences.

Not so much now ...........

We meant legitimate elections free of foreign interference. Sorry that’s so hard for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Merrick Garland. His treatment during the DC Circuit nomination and during the Supreme Court nomination is ample evidence of how much Republicans have politicized appointments.

You can no longer expect passive acceptance of a judge based on resume. You created this problem, now live with it.

Actually, the Democrats started it with Bork.

Nominees have been rejected several times since the beginning of the nation. George Washington's recess appointment of John Rutledge as Chief Justice was rejected in 1795. Nixon had 2 nominees rejected in 1969 and 1970. Please read more history to get a better perspective.

There's a reason that the name Bork is used when attacking someone through organized vilification. He was treated terribly.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bork

Go back a little further and read about how terribly Bork treated the rule of law during the Nixon administration.

I'm an old DCUM poster. BTDT.

Kavanaugh's gonna Bork the progs up.

Anonymous wrote:Liberals loved it when Obama said elections have consequences.

Not so much now ...........

Anonymous wrote:Kinda like when you Obama something, meaning you build up huge expectations, but accomplish nothing at all

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Merrick Garland. His treatment during the DC Circuit nomination and during the Supreme Court nomination is ample evidence of how much Republicans have politicized appointments.

You can no longer expect passive acceptance of a judge based on resume. You created this problem, now live with it.

Actually, the Democrats started it with Bork.

Nominees have been rejected several times since the beginning of the nation. George Washington's recess appointment of John Rutledge as Chief Justice was rejected in 1795. Nixon had 2 nominees rejected in 1969 and 1970. Please read more history to get a better perspective.

There's a reason that the name Bork is used when attacking someone through organized vilification. He was treated terribly.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bork

Go back a little further and read about how terribly Bork treated the rule of law during the Nixon administration.

I'm an old DCUM poster. BTDT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Merrick Garland. His treatment during the DC Circuit nomination and during the Supreme Court nomination is ample evidence of how much Republicans have politicized appointments.

You can no longer expect passive acceptance of a judge based on resume. You created this problem, now live with it.

Actually, the Democrats started it with Bork.

Nominees have been rejected several times since the beginning of the nation. George Washington's recess appointment of John Rutledge as Chief Justice was rejected in 1795. Nixon had 2 nominees rejected in 1969 and 1970. Please read more history to get a better perspective.

There's a reason that the name Bork is used when attacking someone through organized vilification. He was treated terribly.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bork

Go back a little further and read about how terribly Bork treated the rule of law during the Nixon administration.