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

So what's the downside again to just ignoring the nomination? It's not really a question as to whether or not Obama's nomination is a really good choice for the country...
Voting it down is just as bad of an issue to be used against the republicans as ignoring it until after the election. If they don't approve it outright the media is going to scream bloody murder. I say let them scream and laugh at their pain.

 

I don't disagree entirely of not approving him...but they gotta give him due course. However, if the republican establishment don't throw support Trumps way, they'd better approve this nominee because Hillary would nominate someone far worse I fear.

 

The down side is that he is very likely better then any other nominees you will see come out of the next administration providing the dems win the whitehouse in 2016.

What should frighten the majority of republican voters is the way the establishment of the party has taken up arms against the will of the people. So with that in mind I feel like any decision they make will be self serving for establishment.

 

Hillary has already said she thinks Obama would make a great justice.

That thought alone is cringe worthy every time I think about it, if D's regain the senate she will have a nomination at some point in the term.

 

It's very nice to hear from people that have personally met Mr. Trump. I honestly think that all these antics are just an act, as he is doing his best to mock the political establishment. I expect him to act much more presidential once he wins the nomination.

 

I expect him to act as liberal as he actually is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

If Hillary gets in, there are two other seats likely to be open, this one doesn't amount to a hill of beans except in the immediate ramifications if he were to be confirmed. I still think it should be tabled until after the election.

 

There's zero percent chance an establishment republican is going to be elected any time soon. The only way the we can win is to have a candidate carry the crossover votes and the conservative votes. I certainly don't think he is a strong conservative, but he's also not a bleeding heart liberal or socialist and that seems to be the shift. We're either going full on stupid with socialism or we're going with a moderate conservative. Not really the direction I'd like our country to be heading, but it's where we are right now.

 

Trump is a nationalist, as long as he follows through with plans as he's stated and gets the economy to recover and isn't a liberal, that's good enough with me. If conservative principles can't agree with a strong and financially solvent America any more than liberal principles then I'm not interested in either one. While conservatives are worried about the man's ethics and dilly dallying trying to decide between Trump or Cruz...the D's and R's are destroying the country. Our trade deficits are killing us and the bloated government's obese health is gross and unsustainable.

 

Well stated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I totally agree. I think what most politicians(especially liberals) either ignore or don't understand is that you cannot legislate prosperity, only our free market can do that. It truly is what made America great.

 

Liberals can't understand you can't legislate compassion and charity either.

 

I think that the best course of action is to table the Garland talk until after the November election. If Hillary is elected(God forbid) then the lame duck congress can consent to Garland. Let the Dems scream about the lack of action all they want if the shoe was on the other foot with Harry Reid in control this wouldn't even be a discussion right now, no way it would get considered. It is politics pure and simple, been like that since the formation of the republic. Obama said it "Elections have consequences" and this is one of them.

 

I am voting for captain obvious


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Hillary Clinton Will Lose to Donald Trump

 

He's a gun grabber, and only appears moderate because the left is so far left now a days that he seems fairly decent. With that said he is still the best case scenario the GOP will get out of Obummer.

 

According to a survey I took yesterday I am a hard core liberal. So it should not surprise you that I think the senate should bring this to a vote immediately. I wrote to both of my senators urging them to do so. I also urged that their vote should be no. We need judges who believe in the whole bill of rights. A judge who is willing to take my guns away would very likely fail to protect my religious freedoms. I just pray that Hillary does not get elected, because the next president is going to shape the court for a very long time. So who's voting with me to elect Gary Johnson.

 

I've taken one that showed me to be a dead center moderate. I consider myself conservative so I was offended, haha.

 

I have always known that I lean left, (I believe in food stamps because kids can't just choose parents who earn more money) but to be called hardcore was downright low.

 

That's a good example. I could fully support a safety net for the needy, I just think the system we have now is asking to be abused and John Q is paying a lot of people to be lazy and promoting an entitlement minded subculture that's going to turn into the main culture if things don't change. I believe in an honest days work for an honest days pay, if the public is going to subsidize people that are "underprivileged" I don't see the problem with them filling basic government labor needs in return for a paycheck. Our government gives billions to foreign governments, why not keep that money for our domestic programs to care for the needy and save some of our tax burden. I don't know why there can't be solutions to any problem that are practical and cheap.