Dear Protesting Liberals In America

Just wait until law and order President Trump takes office hell put these losers in their place.

You liberals who spend all day every on this website are pathetic.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert
I don't think you guys understand what is going on here. We just elected a man who's campaign tactic and style was similar to that of George Wallace and made promises to build a wall, round people up, ban Muslims and is in a position in which he could appoint SCOTUS justices that may overturn a ruling that gave women the freedom to do with their bodies as they choose.

Add to that the fact that the Reps control congress and we find ourselves in a bad position where we could take a huge step backwards in regards to personal liberty and constitutional protections. And we have yet to discuss the ramifications of his economic/tax ideas.

So I can understand why a lot of people are concerned. We've put ourselves in a terrible spot if Trump does achieve even a small bit of what he promised.

And what I KNOW you don't understand is that the democratic process used to elect a leader, just voted Donald J. Trump as president Elect of the United States. Apparently, this is what the people wanted. I think it's time for you to accept this and realize it's how things are going to be for the next 4 years. Suck it up.

Suck it up? It's been almost 8 years of Conservatives attacking Obama every day. Even on ATS there is some BS thread about something he said years ago. Trump followers may have to suck it up now. Daily.

a reply to: BigTownSky

they aren't liberals... They are progressive scum and SJWs

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Congress has no strong objections to Obama's nominee based on ideology. They said it was too close to a new president being elected to allow Obama's nominee to be a justice. That's a fact, ma'am.

a reply to: reldra

And before that it was 8 years of people whining about Bush. Come on, same #, different day. It's a conspiracy site. We don't make daisy chains here.

a reply to: reldra

I firmly believe one day you'll change your mind on these matters after extensive talks with you, I know you're intelligent.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: FauxMulder

it sure looks like you are trying to justify what they are doing.

The Constitution justifies what they are doing. They have a right to speak out, regardless of the reason for doing so.

They don't have a right to call for people to be killed because of how they voted. They do not have the right to call for the assassination of the President Elect.

www.mediaite.com...

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Congress has no strong objections to Obama's nominee based on ideology. They said it was too close to a new president being elected to allow Obama's nominee to be a justice. That's a fact, ma'am.

I don't care. Obama should have tried to work with Congress to get that vacancy filled. Caving was weak. A very weak and dangerous move.

a reply to: kaylaluv

so because obama says he is moderate that makes it so?

yeah that is "moderate"

www.usatoday.com...

But the truth is simple. Second Amendment issues have come before Garland, at least four times. He voted anti-gun every time.

doesnt really meet the definition of what you put up earlier as someone who is for the 2nd does it?

Obama could have nominated someone like your description, he chose not to.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Congress has no strong objections to Obama's nominee based on ideology. They said it was too close to a new president being elected to allow Obama's nominee to be a justice. That's a fact, ma'am.

Its called the BIDEN rule

a reply to: TechniXcality

he truly believes with every inch of his body that he's right and anyone who doesn't think like him is stupid.

yeah I have seen that before

too bad the actual facts disagree with him

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Congress has no strong objections to Obama's nominee based on ideology. They said it was too close to a new president being elected to allow Obama's nominee to be a justice. That's a fact, ma'am.

I don't care. Obama should have tried to work with Congress to get that vacancy filled. Caving was weak. A very weak and dangerous move.

Boy, talking about sticking one's fingers in one's hears and going "lalalalala". You don't seem to get it. There is nothing legally that Obama could have done. There is no one that Obama could have nominated that would have sufficed. There was no amount of talking, bribing, threatening, screaming, begging, etc., etc., etc., that could have been done.

Are you suggesting that he should have gone outside the legal parameters and forced a Supreme Court justice in against Congress?

a reply to: FauxMulder

I don't care who's "rule" it is. The fact is, Obama's nominee wasn't getting in, so blaming him is unproductive.

a reply to: kaylaluv

No, I am suggesting he force Congress to consider multiple nominees, if necessary, and if they stonewalled again and again, that would have been gold in mobilizing the left this election.

Yeah. He could have tried. Since he didn't, I am going to blame him...and not a hypothetical bad thing that Congress may have done...or not.

originally posted by: JetBlackStare
a reply to: reldra

And before that it was 8 years of people whining about Bush. Come on, same #, different day. It's a conspiracy site. We don't make daisy chains here.

I am sure there was. I was replying to someone who was basically saying there was no reason to do this with Trump or that it was wrong to do.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: reldra

I firmly believe one day you'll change your mind on these matters after extensive talks with you, I know you're intelligent.

While I appreciate the compliment, I will remain intelligent and not change my mind in 'these matters'.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Why would they consider multiple nominees when they said no matter who the nominee is, they wouldn't approve them because Obama's time was so limited and they felt the president for the next four years should be the one to nominate?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Why would they consider multiple nominees when they said no matter who the nominee is, they wouldn't approve them because Obama's time was so limited and they felt the president for the next four years should be the one to nominate?

You know what? It sounds like you think the way Obama handled it was the proper way and now you will get the ultra-conservative that I assume you want because Obama made all the right moves.

I would have liked to see him fight for a pro-choice justice so I am kind of pissed off about it.

But, as long as you are happy with how he handled it, then there is nothing for you to complain or worry about. Good luck with your ultra-conservative justice!

a reply to: reldra

well, that's fine.. however the country has spoken and from the senate to the house to the presidency it has rejected new age progressive ideology, and for that I am very pleased. Let me say that with a caveat, I do not believe in everything these people believe who are now in control, it's just i believe that they are better alternatives than the new age progressive ideology that has infected certain parts of society, and I hope that it remains a minority and eventually dies out.. Liberal enlightenment is what needs to take place

a reply to: kaylaluv

I agree no nominee would have gotten in. I just don't like when people on the left complain about the right using a rule made up by people on the left.