It is in the best interest of the GOP to approve Garland

I have been a "ABH" voter. (Anyone But Hillary)

I thought that there could be no-one that would make me even think twice about that position.

I was wrong. I have voted in every Presidential election since Nixon.

I'm afraid that if it is the race that appears today............

"The felon narcissist" vs The mob connected narcissist" I actually will not vote.

 

Neither Cruz or Trump really have (had) a chance of beating Clinton. Pathetic really. I'm pretty sure I'm not voting for trump either. He isn't conservative and I really only have a few things in common with his beliefs. This is just a **** storm.

 

Just a current snapshot. A couple a months ago Trump was winning against Hillary and I am guessing in a couple more months he will be winning again.

 

Vote libertarian. That is what I would do if the election was today. There are more than two parties.

 

Truthfully, I think Trump has an ace in the hole on Hillary. He always alludes to, I haven't even started on her yet.

When he started in on them ehen he said Bill was fair game once he started campaigning for her it made them both step back for a time.

If he has something on her, and they knownit he could win a lot of those NE states.

It would make sense if he does hold an ace to keep it until it's him and her and to not give the other candidates the same weapon.

He is the best shot IMO of beating her

 

Never have seen a poll in which Trump was ahead of Clinton.
Once the press starts their barrage of the facts of Trump's life the group that favors him will have to stay home.
He has never received more than 38% support in any exit poll so far in the primaries.

 

There's plenty of stuff out there I'll post one:
Poll: Trump beats Clinton head-to-head | TheHill

 

Poll: Trump Beats Hillary in General Election Match-Up - Breitbart

 

There have been multiple polls showing Trump winning against Hilly. I also think Trump will reveal things that the masses don't know about the witch. Trump can beat her. Cruz can't.

 

Here is a good example of why Trump isn't electable in a general election. People that are typical republicans can look past this type of stuff. Where are elections won? The swing voters in the swing states. Sure Clinton has baggage too. Her baggage is much easier to overcome in the votes that count than Trumps Baggage.

The dems will use this type of stuff to their advantage and win.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/us/politics/donald-trump-butler-mar-a-lago.html?_r=0

 

Then you might as well vote for Hillary, that is essentially what you are saying.

 

If you say so Tom. Good luck with Trump .

 

In 7 polls since 2/11 Clinton beats Trump in 6 of the 7. Trump only beats her 45% - 43% in February and hasn't beaten her since.

 

I support Trump but I'm not going to throw doom and gloom around about anyone elses candidates, everyone else can make up their own mind as they're welcome to draw their own conclusions no matter how much I disagree with them. (except hillary or bernie supporters, they can kiss my rosie red.)

 

In 50 polls since last May, Trump has beaten Clinton in 5.

 

Pollssmolls...

 

I agree, at least they should have a hearing and vote. I am this surprised Garland was the first choice, I thought either him or Jane Kelly would be nominated after a more liberal justice wasn't confirmed by the senate.


The reason they are in this mess is because McConnell opened his mouth before A.S was even cold. And now Obama and the Dems are sticking it up the senates ***. republicans are terrible politicians.

I agree to wholesale discount anyone is asinine, vet them and give them an honest vote.
The average american didn't even know who garland was until today, never mind where he stands. They goggled him and now are regurgitating whatever some media hack on THEIR side wants them to believe.

This is bull crap, and 5 minutes of research can disprove it.

This purposely misleading. Read the above comment about 5 minute google searches and then regurgitating what fits your argument rather then the facts.
Four justices voted to rehear the case en banc, one of them being A. Raymond Randolph who is very conservative justice who happens to be very pro 2A, this national review article conveniently fails to mention that. But they did lump Garlend in with Tatel. See any problem there?
Further more a review doesn't mean that the ruling would have been over turned or how Garland or anyone else would have ruled on it.

I agree. Both side of the american electorate are waking up to that fact that we have corporate government partnership unlike the world has ever seen before. The establishment works for itself, its donor class and its corporate partners. Americans by and large have lost our voices. People, myself included believe that our only chance to turn things around in outsider that inst beholden to the establishment and lobbies /special interests that perpetuate it.

 

They need to do the review, but they don't have to approve him, and I hope they don't. His 2nd ammendment position alone is enough to say no.

 

He's not concentrating on her yet, but she's been hammering him. August on will be telling. She could possibly be indicted by then. If she were not who she is, she already would have been.

 

How many times has it happen?

• 1968: President Lyndon Johnson — who announced he would not run for re-election — nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas as Chief Justice and Homer Thornberry to fill Fortas’ vacancy. Fortas’ nomination failed, Thornberry withdrew his nomination and Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench, delaying his retirement. (More on this later.)

Actually happen two more times

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk