What did he mean by this?

The Dems are already gunning to play the race card. I shit you not, they are saying that the filibuster clause will ferment White Supremacy.

The Senate had an option of not approving Obama's nomination but that's not what's happened in 2016.
The Senate never even had a vote on a nomination. MoscowMitch outright refused to hold a hearing and a vote. He explained that there will be no hearings on nominations in an election year.

If that happens then the SCOTUS in its current configuration will be dead for sure.
A bunch of presidential candidates are already planning to change the composition of the court after previous hellish hearings.

Of course there is high probability that the Democrats will pack the court anyway if they have a decisive win in 2020.

He meant he is sad

>REEEEEEEEEE HOW DARE YOU BE BETTER AT POLITICS THAN THE BLACKS AND TRANNIES RUNNING MY PARTY

Attached: 1519191745032.png (500x421, 166K)

>Know about (((David Axelrod)))
>Know about Turtle-man McConnell
>Don't know if this is a viable, realistic possibility
>The mere thought seems to make this Khazer's matzos kvetch
>Bust out my handy reminder card
>What's bad for the jews is good for the goy

Attached: opposite.png (500x398, 99K)

hes right about shit getting very real very fuken fast if moscow mitchell play games...

The Republicans followed the process outlined in the US Constitution. Leftists/ Democrats are human garbage, who want to make-up the rules/ laws as they go, in order to benefit only leftists.

He meant to prepare people for the narrative of agitation that he and other DNC leaders will engage in when the time comes.

That's not politics. That's political warfare.
It works for a while when only one side does it while other side is desperately trying to keep the system together.
If both sides start doing it for real then it will tear the republic apart or will drive one side into permanent hopeless and toothless minority.

tear it apart then lmao

You're wrong. Consent by the Senate was always given or denied by a voting process. That's what's in the Constitution. There was no vote on a nomination of Merrick Garland.

>That's not politics. That's political warfare.
It politics without the "norms" and "unwritten rules". The Reps would still be doing something completely legal and within the actual rules of the game.

>It works for a while when only one side does it while other side is desperately trying to keep the system together.
Dems are, by natural disposition, weak on their positions and always open to compromise. If the republicans wanted to pass a law to gas all dems the dems with try to bid them down to only gassing half the dems.

>If both sides start doing it for real then it will tear the republic apart or will drive one side into permanent hopeless and toothless minority.
I dont know where you have been but two groups of people with diametrically opposed goals, values, and theories of how the world works can't compromise.

it means a bunch of jews will whine and kvetch about it on twitter and the fake news will go full retard and absolutely no one will care.

Hell, most will support the decision based on the facts alone.

THE CONSTITUTION MUST BE INTERPRETED AS IT IS WRITTEN, WITH THE MEANING INTENDED WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN.

Yes David, that would be the point. If this country needs to tear itself apart to be free of your tribe's influence then so be it.

>when Trump Derangement Syndrome hits Stage 5

Attached: IMG_3182.jpg (1024x639, 53K)

You don't need both sides doing political warfare for it to happen. California has a Democrat supermajority and Republicans can't stop them from doing anything. The only conflict now is between the radical and centrist Dems.

Democratic republic can't work without compromise. Politics without compromise only works in tyrannical dictatorships and those always end very badly for everyone.

Republicans were doing political warfare in California in the 90s. It didn't help them and it drove them into permanent minority when Democrats started to get serious and fight back.

As opposed to what? Everything just continuing to get shittier and shitter slowly until the next big economic collapse? Fuck this, people all over the western world are fucking sick of this shitty Neo-liberalism and want something new. A political system isn't worth saving if it can't produce positive results for the people it is supposed to represent.

Attached: mob.jpg (203x248, 10K)

good thing we're a Constitutional Republic.

No compromise on the supreme court.

Do you really think you can keep it with such a fierce political warfare without any good faith?

It means all of the brown people who don’t leave voluntarily are going to be otherwise removed.

A democratic political system is your only way to change the economic system peacefully. Without compromise and negotiations it is impossible to change it.

You are a lying leftist piece of shit. The Senate does not have to vote on a judge's appointment at all. The President nominates and the Senate follows a process, which could lead to a vote or not.
Leftist human filth like you are eternal liars and it is pointless to even communicate with you lowlife garbage.
I hate liars and leftist more than anything on earth.

>Without compromise and negotiations it is impossible to change it.
Not true, there is nothing stopping one side from seizing all power through completely legal means. It already happened when republicans had full control of the government for decades after the civil war.

And neither house bothers to call a vote unless they are 90+% sure that it's affirmative. Garland not getting a formal vote that would ensure he wouldn't be confirmed is pretty much the same as what happened informally.

Especially when it's a hot, white, Catholic, conservative MILF.

Attached: Amy Coney Barrett.jpg (920x613, 103K)

At this point? lmao

No, it's not. Formal denial would have been followed by a new formal nomination by the President. Lack of vote is breakage of that procedure.

It needs to be a 35 year old anti-immigration lawyer with perfect health and longevity genes.

no u

The story was much more complicated there. Don't forget that Republicans were unionists, urbanists, and liberals of that time. If you draw historical parallels to our time then it means that Democrats will become such a power for a decade or so.

Attached: 1280px-Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png (1280x627, 569K)

Republicans didnt take power for that whole period of time because they were liberal, they took power because they won a fucking war. If shit is going to hit the fan in a big way do you really think liberals cowering in their easily blockaded cities would be able to take on heavily armed conservatives who control 95% of the USA's landmass?

The situation was pretty much the same. Republicans in the Civil War had support in the coastal cities. Democrats had support in rural areas and the South. Republicans were liberal ideologically. Democrats were conservative ideologically.
Urban and liberal side has won decisively the Civil War. Why do you think this hypothetical civil war if it happens (it won't) will turn out to be any different?

Just compare the election map to our timeline.

Attached: 1200px-ElectoralCollege1860.svg.png (1200x698, 138K)

>Why do you think this hypothetical civil war if it happens (it won't) will turn out to be any different?
because it would be based on ideology and not geography. The American civil war was incredibly clean with well defined boarders, leaders, armies, navies, and governments. A modern civil war would look a lot more like Syria. There would be sides but they wouldnt be defined by state boarders. They would be defined by which group the majority of people in a given area supported, rural whites vs urban minorities. There is also the fact that the military, national guard, police, and veterans all lean to the right in terms of voter preference.

McConnell blocking that jew Merrick Garland is the most based thing he has ever done.
I hope if Ginsberg croaks he doesn't let the media concern troll him into not nominating another conservative judge

Attached: Based_mitch.gif (220x134, 650K)

She has adopted brown kids. Guaranteed cuckservative

There's not going to be an "If". She's 86 and just got nuked. I'll give her a month. When it does happen it will be a shit show. A glorious one.

Attached: Doom-Paul-01.png (449x548, 76K)

>let the media concern troll him
Not a chance. The President has taught him well. Is he even going to run for his seat again?

Thinks that some notion of not fair applies in war.

I hope she's well, but chooses to retire and spend whatever time she has left (months? years?) with her family, instead of going out at her bench in order to be some martyr.

The US is not Syria. Rural vs. urban civil war won't be that likely due to a fact that cities control financial and communications infrastructure.
Without forming at least a quasi-government or without a foreign help you won't be able to coordinate and supply any kind of rural insurgency.
>There is also the fact that the military, national guard, police, and veterans all lean to the right in terms of voter preference.
Do not forget who pays them and how. Economic security and hierarchy are much more important to people in law enforcement and military than voter preference.

Careful he'll call you an incel

>thinking jews have souls

Pretty sure her husband is dead anyway

country is already torn apart. if you don't play fair don't expect the other side to play fair either, faggots

leftists are hypocrites

Lmao dems only want a supreme court pick so they can change what the constitution means

You seem to be under the weird assumption that the right wont be in control of all or part the federal government at the point where a civil conflict kicks off.

How do you imagine that kind of conflict happening and starting?
The radical right almost certainly will be met with an uncooperative, obstructive, and leaking bureaucracy. It won't be able to govern.

Attached: DC.png (577x419, 46K)

>nogs+swamp
>voting D
Were you trying to make a point, memefag?

Its been pointed out many times before that there won't be a 'civil war' in the traditional sense. The second any riot or terrorist attack turns into an insurgency the United States effectively ceases to exist. A clusterfuck of foreign involvement, collapsing infrastructure, targeted power grids, impossible to follow lines of conflict, and starvation. The entire country is so precarious in its food supply, power grid, and other necessities that a sneeze would cause it to fall in.To say nothing of the sheer chaos that would erupt internationally. There will be no 'civil war'. The second the facade of national unity fails and large groups start firing shots, from either side, at anyone, the instant 'normalcy' is broken, everything is going to fracture into a million pieces. No battle lines, no 'whose side is the military on', no 'muh drones', just complete and utter chaos where both sides immediately lose.

Attached: tumblr_p6jhsft3LU1sggf4so1_400.png (400x299, 94K)

That what it mean to control the Senate you dumbfuck. You will get the rope.

At worst, still a big shift to the right compared to RBG.

Attached: Anon predicts RGB's future.png (903x563, 270K)

Fragmentation.

Attached: CAACF3AD-9D7C-43F2-AB6F-F77C16BF48A0.png (419x693, 431K)

The US government is a complicated system with a lot of humans who have a lot of interests and believes inside. To make it work you have to understand all the complexities, limitations, pitfalls, red lines, both positive and negative triggers, and you have to speak its language. Current right wing is totally unable to do so.

>both sides immediately lose
Given one side also avoids firearm use like a literal plague I'm willing to bet one will lose more than the other.

Attached: 1564876490732.gif (288x288, 1.61M)

Most major liberal political victories of the last 50 years were pushed through the courts on middling Constitutional basis. There have been more Federal Injunctions in this presidency then the previous century before it. Don't try to pretend the Left gives two shits about the system beyond how they can game it.

Kind of a dick measuring contest at that point, after the nation balkanizes and WW3 happens with the death of Team America World Police.

wat

>MoscowMitch
Using a meme flag.
Yeah, good job outing yourself you kike shill.

It means Xi needs to nuke America.

Well than Democrats have to be better at winning elections.

Attached: (you).gif (480x238, 415K)

>nobody actually votes for Democrats
>the country will be torn apart
lol no

Attached: 1422329106607.gif (400x267, 184K)

>Only the Jews can break the law and game the system
>If the Goyim do it it'll destroy the country
RIP In Piss

Attached: 1392981790696.gif (350x261, 1.04M)

>Republicans were doing political warfare in California in the 90s. It didn't help them and it drove them into permanent minority when Democrats started to get serious and fight back.
No citations.

What actually fucked California was Regan giving amnesty to MILLIONS of illegals, who predictably swung California to the Democrats. Prior to that California was Middle Class paradise.

Attached: California Demo.png (676x265, 20K)

He thinks people outside of his containment area cares.
Look at Kavanaugh shit how they accused him of some multiple rapist and sex predator. The media was running it 24/7 to make people care about it.
Literally not even 2 days after he was voted in, everyone forgot and moved on, nobody gave a shit. Nobody knows what even happened to the woman whose name I can't even remember, that was interviewed by both democrats and the media over and over to sell her bullshit.
People who follow politics closely like most of us here do only knew a bit later that the other accusers quietly admitted to making it up, cos muh roe vs wade and whatever else gibberish that make women think its acceptable to pull these stunts.

>The Senate had an option of not approving Obama's nomination but that's not what's happened in 2016.
As long as Tel Aviv has dirt has dirt on you or you are scientifically proven to have fubar genes, you can become president of the United States for Greater Israel.

This needs a CNN edit

Little do they know cuckservative or a liberal nothing will change and government will only get bigger.

This. She's guaranteed to be another John Roberts.

What’s that the left over the last fifty years have been pushing through policies being almost unconstitutional? Changing the fabric, loopholes, fragmentation, goal post shifting, the list is endless and completely true.

Attached: A6315E9D-3F91-41F4-AC25-008371726C2F.jpg (690x872, 293K)

That was Chuck Grassley, head of the Senate Judicial Committee. Mitch McConnell had nothing to do with it.

God forbid

Not a chance in hell. If you look into McConnel you'll soon learn that stocking the supreme court with conservative judges is his personal jihad. The fact that he stuck his neck out so far to cuck Garland shows how important this issue is to him.

This will hold back the effects of the demographic shift a little while longer. But how long? And what to do once it wears off?

>How do you imagine that kind of conflict happening and starting?
A mass protest spirals out of control. Imagine a BLM highway blocking protest where someone (doesn't really matter if its cops or nogs) opens fire and dozens die and are wounded. Thats how it starts, it would spiral out of control from there. Imagine occupy wall street but it turning into downtown Kiev 2014.

Everyone on the right, who thinks that stacking judiciary with young radically conservative judges will help them delay the inevitable demise from losing electoral chances, tend to forget that the composition of the judiciary system is not a fixed thing. It's determined by a law written by the Congress.
The Congress with the White House could pass and sign new Judiciary Act to radically expand the system and add a lot of new courts and/or judges.

When is the shift change? This one is boring.

>The Congress with the White House could pass and sign new Judiciary Act to radically expand the system and add a lot of new courts and/or judges.
but they wont because unless you live under a rock you will notice that the dems a collossill pussies who are more interested in winning "moral victories" than real ones.

I don't see it spiraling into a civil war as long as political power is determined by elections.
Civil wars and even downtown Kiev are always about political control.
Civil wars usually happen when minority controls the government against majority will.
Downtown Kiev usually happens when the government is hostile to the will of the population of the capital city. Yanukovych was supported by the East Ukraine and Crimea but he was totally foreign to Kiev population.

Look at this doomer cuck
Shove your black pill back up your ass

Democrats really need a leader and a fighter at that.

>Democrat
>leader

only?

...

"Democrats fall in love while Republicans fall in line." is a good old cliche.
Still maybe Democrats will eventually stumble upon someone like FDR or LBJ by pure accident and transform a lot of things in a moment.