Trump's SCOTUS

[clubgop]

I'm not seeing it.

You will when they realize they can take back SCOTUS.

The odds on that are thin.

[clubgop]

Bad news for Trump.

Why ?
He's likely to nominate the young catholic chick, Amy Barrett (I think))

Trump's base is demoralized by Trump. Democrats are energized to replace him. The prospect if two more justices.. that's bad news for him.

Seen this movie before, thin plot as always. They said the same thing about Garland nomination. Democrats dont get that animated about SC justices. That's conservatives bag. They said the same thing about the Kavanaugh thing that would just energize liberals, it didnt it hurt thier Senate chances. You are starting to sound like a liberal drive by here. Don't channel ooky.

[Speaker to Animals]

Razerfist takes the same position. RBG croaking could potentially be pretty bad for the right.

[clubgop]

Razerfist takes the same position. RBG croaking could potentially be pretty bad for the right.

Yeah but if she can be replaced then take the hits and do it. Trump is in the White House, McConnell in the Senate, if we have the votes, jutust jam it through all that sympathy gonna be useless if the Dems act as desperate as they did with Kavanaugh. I don't want to go that route, but if that is the situation, nut up or shut up. You can't whine piss and moan about the base is this and the base is that, then feel the sads cause a SCOTUS seat falls into your lap and you want to be a bitch about it.

[Speaker to Animals]

Would be much better to happen after the election.

Especially if they nominate one of those feminist women. It will be an election for wamynz and you would be surprised how many of them vote for vagina.

[StCapps]

Would be much better to happen after the election.

Especially if they nominate one of those feminist women. It will be an election for wamynz and you would be surprised how many of them vote for vagina.

You'd be surprised how many of them don't vote vagina if it's Amy Coney Barrett who is replacing RBG. The Dems will still cry bloody murder, even if the Republicans nominate a woman to the SCOTUS, the vagina factor is irrelevant unless that vagina agrees with the Democrats. In fact the Dems will claim Barrett is anti-woman because of her stance on abortion, if she is picked to replace RBG.

Democrats do not have the courage of their convictions, they are political opportunists reaching for a weapon to attack their ideological opponents, the woman card is simply one of the nearest objects within reach most of the time, the second that they realize that playing that card actually works against them, they will hypocritically ignore the vagina factor altogether as if they never gave a shit about it at all. What really mattered is that someone they agree with is in a position of power, gender ain't ahead of that in the pecking order.

Your problem is you think most Democrats actually believe in the ideological purity spiral pandering their politicians engage in, when it's simply a means to an end.

Yet another reason why you are writing Biden's chances far too quickly I might add, if they think Biden has the best shot at beating Trump, they won't care that he doesn't have a vagina, and isn't as far left as they would hope, they'll still vote for him. The only reason they wouldn't for vote for Biden is that they think Warren or Sanders has a better chance against Trump, if you think intersectionality is more important to Democrat primary voters than electability, you aren't really paying attention.

Trump didn't win the Republican primary in 2016 because most conservatives thought he was the most conservative Republican, Trump won because they thought Trump has the best chances of beating Hillary Clinton.

Electability > Shared Values, Trump Knows.

In the 2012 Republican primary, Mitt Romney did not win because most conservatives saw him as the most conservative Republican, Romney won because they thought Romney had the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

In the 2008 Dem primary, Hillary was neck and neck with Obama, until the DNC finally realized he was actually more electable than she was, and that turned the tide in Obama's favor, as well as the votes of the superdelegates, who switched their support not because of shared values, but because of electability.

If there is tie in electability, then shared values will make the difference, but if there is a noticeable gap in electability, shared values are irrelevant.

[pineapplemike]

y u spammin bro

[StCapps]

y u spammin bro

If you don't like my conclusion you are welcome to rebut it, instead of being a moron like StA and declaring anything you disagree with to be spam. On topic posting tied into a side tangent that relates to the topic in very clear ways, is not spam.

[pineapplemike]

i'm bein sarcastic bro

[StCapps]

i'm bein sarcastic bro

Good. Pretending to be as dumb as StA FTW