I had never even heard of him til this little back and forth happened. And I consider myself fairly politically active. I can only imagine how many people with the typical political attention span know of him.

just because you choose to ignore the point that your whole argument is based on a logically flawed assumption, trying to convince me to deliver even more proof to destroy your straw man as well, doesn't make it less true. acting like the sources i provided don't exist or that the far fewer sources you provided support your "no objection" narrative, is just outright false and dishonest.

republicans blocked garland for almost a year, that's unprecedented and highly undemocratic - a blatant disregard for the traditions and the institution itself in order to achieve their objective of STEALING a supreme court nomination.
no amount of blaming the robbed party for not putting up enough of a fight changes that SIMPLE FACT, and i bet by now even you realised it, otherwise you would at least have addressed at some point in your rants...

now get your false equivalence bs out of here, alternative facts don't matter to ppl with brains. why don't you just fabricate an obama speech where he claims he wanted republicans to block garland so they could nominate their own candidate if they win the electoral college? wouldn't be much worse than your current line of argumentation really...

lmao, completely unhinged this one is.

and trump supporters are the racist ones.... ok

Clearly you haven't seen the videos

The one I saw was hilarious

Mine wasn't strictly blm tho, it was equal opportunity frogger

a rally microphone is equivalent to a suggestion box. just throw out 90% of what's put up. seattle as a place maybe 99% tho.

I'd have to fabricate a speech where Obama talked about Merrick Garland at all. He made one op-ed in july and no speeches at all on the subject after that



Do you even know what a straw man argument is? I said that democrats and republicans mutually gambled on the SCOTUS nominee. I made this claim on the basis that the democrats made no fight over it, despite having many recourses. You denied that the democrats put up no fight. Now when I provide ample evidence, anecdotal, statistical and logical- you claim its a straw man. A straw man would be if I was arguing against some unrelated tangent. I said that A->B. You say ~A. I say A. You say A is a straw man. C would be a straw man.
If you want to disagree with my conclusion you're free to speculate another reason, and there are arguments about the motivations to be made. What isn't in doubt is the simple matter of fact that no media circus occurred over merrick garland at all, no showdowns, no trial, no constitutional crisis. If you're going to deny that, you're going to have to do better than pointing out that merrick garlands name was mentioned in an op-ed article about hillary clinton's favorite toothpaste. There are all sorts of easy ways to tell if something was in the news or not to any significant degree, google of course provides.

Again, the democratic national convention came and went without the man's name even being muttered, let alone his cause championed. How is this possible if, as you say, the democrats were putting up a fight? Did they forget they were putting up a fight? Was it just some weird bychance? Did a wizard curse them with a magical malady that prevents the taboo name from being spoken?

just because i entertained your ridiculous theory for a while, proving that even your excuse was wrong, doesn't mean i forgot where this argument started:

republicans stole the seat in an unprecedented and undemocratic way and no blaming the democrats for not putting up a fight (which is obviously a very subjective statement in itself, i have given you plenty of sources to read up instead of speculating about clinton's toothpaste, which seems to be the kind of political reporting you are used to) changes that simple FACT.

you can't just attribute even blame to the victim for simply not objecting enough - in your opinion. that's a borderline retarded argument really. the very premise of your whole defence is not only based on personal bias, but simply so flawed and utterly dismantled by basic logic and common sense really. kind of regrettable that some ppl only realise that if it negatively affects them...

No its really not. If I said "Lady Gaga is a well known performer", its not a subjective statement. But how would we objectively analyze it? Look at how much she's talked about in the news, how many people talk about her on social media, how many people go to her concerts.
If I say "Democrats let Merrick Garland's nomination languish without a fuss", we can look at how much it was talked about in the national or social media, how many democratic politicians put out statements over it, what sort of tactics the democrats employed to put pressure on the republicans (hint: none)
You're so busy trying to deflect from this simple point because you know it makes you look bad and nobody likes being wrong on the internet, but it also prevents you from making any credible argument about who is at fault or in the right or why the democrats would let this come to pass. You might even have an argument there. After all, I'm merely making informed speculation over motives as a matter of theory. But we won't know, or care, because you can't get past the basic matters of fact. I'm going to deal with your contradiction first.

You need to provide some explanation for how the DNC could run on a national stage, bringing up every democratic talking point for the year and fail to mention Merrick Garland at all. You need to provide some explanation for why the democrats wouldn't engage it any of the recourses they had available to them to force the nomination, or at least force a vote on it. There was a court challenge with merit, dismissed only for lacking of standing by the private citizen who tried it- standing that easily could have been given by any senator. There was a constitutional argument for a reasonable interpretation of law that would let Obama simply confirm Garland on his own, senate be damned. He could have done this at any time, and it would be up to the judiciary to rule on whether it was legal or not- or force the senate to move ahead. None of this was attempted. You need to explain how Merrick Garland had no significant degree of media exposure in over half a year, never making headlines on national news.

You can sing all the saddest songs for the democrats and play the worlds smallest violin for their loss, but when you deny obvious facts just because they inconvenience your narrative, it makes you a hack.

so many words and not a single one addresses the simple and undeniable FACT that it was republicans who STOLE the supreme court seed by blocking the democratic nominee for almost a year.
instead you you mercilessly try to hammer home your subjective message that democrats did not object enough and therefore carry the same amount of blame, which again is outright ridiculous...