Proof that the "who" and "what" Don't Matter, If Trump is Involved, Exposure Will Occur

This is a laugh riot.
www.washingtonexaminer.com...

The Women’s March, whose mission is to “harness the political power of diverse women,” issued a statement denouncing President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee by initially referencing the nominee as “XX," indicating that it was written before the White House announcement Monday evening and sent without final edits.

“In response to Donald Trump’s nomination of XX to the Supreme Court, The Women’s March released the following statement,” the email begins.

Despite claims by the malcontents that each and every grievance is it's own unique entity, which has allegedly been examined on its own merit and reflects deeply seeded unease directed at the specifics, reality once again rears it's inconvenient head. These fine, upstanding womyn patiently waited to see who President Trump would select as his SCOTUS nominee, hell, they did their homework and spent the week+ he provided between the retirement announcement and revealing his nominee, studying each and every judge on the list of 25 candidate President Trump would be choosing from... they knew every intangible, identified unique concerns over some of the potential picks and, one must assume, pros on some of the others... and then they released a blanket, pre-prepared statement so quickly they failed to even change the XX place holder to the name of the actual nominee chosen!

If this doesn't hammer home the fact that this minority of Americans who will rant and rage over ANYTHING that has Trump's signature tied to it, then damn, nothing will.

Reject the haters, they'll always be there and they simply aren't important or plentiful enough to care about. Let the fires of their rage keep them warm at night and the milk of their self righteous spite nourish them when they hunger. As for the rest of sane America, treat them with mockery and the degree of condescention they have demanded they be treated with.

Yes, yes marching ladies, President Trump chose a nominee. We don't need your phantom "right shifted SCOTUS" to marginalize your opinions, as you've already done that for us and done such a wonderful job of it, yes you have! So freaking cute with your rage and your eyes sparkling, yes you are!

:rolleyes:

They make it far too easy, almost like shooting fish in a barrel. Almost.

4D chess by the women's march, triggering the triggerables.

No way they would have sent that out without knowing that "XX" was there, so they are obviously continuing the narrative of division on purpose. The more triggered people get the more emotional their responses/reactions are instead of logical. Trump is a master of it and so is the media/Hollywood. They're playing you guys so hard.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yep.
Dingbats ruled solely by emotion.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yawn.

The Judicial Crisis Network had three sites on three different domains ready to go — one for each of the three on the short list. They'd also already done their ad buys in preparation for supporting anyone that Trump nominated.

Also:

March of 2016

Key Republican senators vowed Tuesday not to vote or even hold a hearing on any Supreme Court nominee by President Obama to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia -- a move likely to put the replacement process in a holding pattern, for now.

First, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said his party will not permit a vote. Then, every GOP member of the Senate Judiciary Committee penned a letter pledging not to even hold a hearing until the next president is sworn into office.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
No way they would have sent that out without knowing that "XX" was there, so they are obviously continuing the narrative of division on purpose.

You'd like to think that, but history would seem to make that a pie-in-the-sky position not based on any sort of evidence of prior competency by these marchers.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Now let's be honest here.
They will protest who ever he picks.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You CANNOT help but be contrary can you

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You've never seen a typo in a major article before?

What I see there is a document that was prepared in advance (maybe months in advance) that somebody forgot to fill it in before sending it out, or sent out the draft instead of the form in filled in form.

a reply to: theantediluvian

LOL, cheeks still stinging over the delay in replacing Scalia, ya? Get over it, it happened and Kavanaugh will certainly be approved before the midterms, let alone before Trump's successor takes the office in 2025.

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yep.
Dingbats ruled solely by emotion.

Dingbats ruled by ignorance.
Fixed it for you.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

This is more than just a typo and an organization with that many filters in place would not allow such an obvious "error" get through unless they wanted it to.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
4D chess by the women's march, triggering the triggerables.

No way they would have sent that out without knowing that "XX" was there, so they are obviously continuing the narrative of division on purpose. The more triggered people get the more emotional their responses/reactions are instead of logical. Trump is a master of it and so is the media/Hollywood. They're playing you guys so hard.

You call it "4D chess".
I call it "chutes and ladders".
They didn't get to take the ladder into the cesspool of ignorance.
They got in the "fast route"

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yep.
Dingbats ruled solely by emotion.

Dingbats ruled by ignorance.
Fixed it for you.

But....but...but they wear pussy-shaped hats in public so they can't be ignorant, right ?........

a reply to: burdman30ott6

LOL, cheeks still stinging over the delay in replacing Scalia, ya? Get over it, it happened and Kavanaugh will certainly be approved before the midterms, let alone before Trump's successor takes the office in 2025.

Look at your "Lulz! Butthurt? Neener-neener!" response. Lmao.

I think you just admit that you're every bit as partisan as the Women's March folks and would have supported anyone Trump nominated from the list compiled for him by the Federalist Society.



ETA:

To state the obvious here: everyone also knew that it was down to three "finalists" (to be announced in a primetime special because reality tv) days ago and who those people were. It's not like Trump was selecting an unknown.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yawn.

The Judicial Crisis Network had three sites on three different domains ready to go — one for each of the three on the short list. They'd also already done their ad buys in preparation for supporting anyone that Trump nominated.

Also:

March of 2016

Key Republican senators vowed Tuesday not to vote or even hold a hearing on any Supreme Court nominee by President Obama to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia -- a move likely to put the replacement process in a holding pattern, for now.

First, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said his party will not permit a vote. Then, every GOP member of the Senate Judiciary Committee penned a letter pledging not to even hold a hearing until the next president is sworn into office.

So thank you for pointing out that whomever was nominated, THAT one was the bad one and women will all die now because... Trump!!!

I'm not sure about your last point because it assumes that there is a Presidential election this year.

There is not.

So...

~puzzled look~

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yep.
Dingbats ruled solely by emotion.

Dingbats ruled by ignorance.
Fixed it for you.

But....but...but they wear pussy-shaped hats in public so they can't be ignorant, right ?........

That is called "inane"
Look it up....

a reply to: theantediluvian

Oh I never denied being partisan in any way, Ante. I'd have preferred Amy Barrett, honestly, but I don't have many problems with Kavanaugh. At least I've got unique reasons for liking/not liking justice nominees beyond some cookie cutter pre-prepared statement ready and waiting to go. Besides, we're talking about a very different situation than existed with the Scalia replacement. Scalia was a conservative stalwart who Obama looked to replace with a liberal activist judge (granted, not a super liberal, but still a measurably liberal judge). Trump just nominated a former clerk of Anthony Kennedy to replace Anthony Kennedy. In many ways he's replacing like with like... had he gone with a more conservative judge, then perhaps there would be some grounds for the "OMG, he's shifting the balance!!!" claims. And, in the name of honesty, when Ginsberg and (oh sweet Baby 8 lb, 2 oz Jesus could we be this blessed?) Breyer leave the court in the next 2-6 years, I'll celebrate like a rock star as Amy Barrett and Tom Hardiman are elevated to the SCOTUS and we see full fruition of a Constitutionalist court.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
4D chess by the women's march, triggering the triggerables.

No way they would have sent that out without knowing that "XX" was there, so they are obviously continuing the narrative of division on purpose. The more triggered people get the more emotional their responses/reactions are instead of logical. Trump is a master of it and so is the media/Hollywood. They're playing you guys so hard.

You call it "4D chess".
I call it "chutes and ladders".
They didn't get to take the ladder into the cesspool of ignorance.
They got in the "fast route"

Better yet.....

How to Play: Clue

😎🚬🔫

a reply to: burdman30ott6


Lol. And they make fun of his grammar? Wow. That is funny.
SnF

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I likened it to a typo. It looks like a pre-fab form that someone messed up and didnt send out the filled in copy.