What's your argument going to be when the President does nominate someone and the Senate either doesn't hold hearings and a vote or begins voting down every nominee the President sends?

The Senate has that constitutional right.  Checks & Balances sometimes work as designed.

Gimp, I respect your posts, but I think you're off base here. Jeff is seeing what many conservatives are seeing or believing about what I see is a Trojan horse candidate in Donald Trump.

Except for his strong immigration stance, I see and hear every one of his current positions, including the Second Amendment, to be in direct contradiction to positions that he had previously taken, including those taken fairly recently. Take any topic - the Gulf War, assault weapons, waiting periods, pro-choice, abortions, late-term abortions, Obamacare, the individual mandate, taxation, governmental spending - he is currently one standard rate 1 minute turn from where he used to be.

Worse, he is holding some positions that are simply NOT conservative positions.  See eminent domain.

I am as passionate about this as anyone, and make no excuses for it. I don't think Jeff should either.

So to point these things out is not out of line in this debate in this election year. Nor is it out of line for Pilot Spin.

The idea of Trump, or anyone really, being able to pull off a 'trojan horse' candidacy, in the modern day, is laughable in my opinion - tinfoil hat kind of stuff.

It honestly bugs me that I end up coming off as an apologist for Trump, not because I don't respect him since I do, quite a bit after following his career/public life since the Art of the Deal, but moreso because it strikes me odd that some people seem to think he needs 'protection' or explanation.  I don't say he is a Conservative, never have.  I acknowledge that he has has held and in some cases still holds positions that are not party-line, I know he has donated to Democrat as well as Republican candidates over the years.  But the sum total of his history is far more conservative than liberal, IMO, but absolutely more Republican than Democrat.

With respect to his speaking off the top of his head, I personally find it so refreshing that I give him a fair amount of latitude but definitely understand it puts some folks off.  After so many years of fake people with fake stories and so on I prefer what I perceive as a more direct honesty even if it means holding and having to explain non-party-line positions - this is why I found the outsiders attractive this go 'round - Jindal, Carson, Fiorina and Trump.

The attitude displayed in Jeff's posts and in the mainstream media and from the establishment completely miss why most folks who I do know who are supporting Trump are doing so - dismissing them as unintelligent hate-filled racist rubes - basically the same view that Democrats have of the non-Democrat majority in the nation.  I find it distasteful that we are using the same techniques and tactics we decry from the Left in describing/attacking our own.

I get people find Trump threatening on a number of levels, I know some folks don't trust him - and there are reasons for people to not support, even oppose him as a candidate for the Republican nomination - but there are still 4 other men running FOR the nomination - where is the energy to convince people to support one or more of them?  There are still two crusty old socialists running for the Democrat nomination, where is the energy pointing out the dangers of their positions, etc.?

'Gimp

I don't know if her ego will allow her.  She is obsessed with power, and becoming President even if it means doing Soros's, Saudi, China's, etc bidding.

Actually, I agree with lucifer in this case. The coughing gigs are just ... odd. Health is the #1 most graceful reason to step out and retain the belief that you would have won.

National polls mean jack shit during the primaries.

Oh, it's even better than that. Apparently Code Pink is a big fan, as is Michael Moore.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/15/trump-scores-crucial-code-pink-endorsement/

Let's see. Bush is responsible for 9/11. Bush LIED about WMD and lead us to war on a known lie.

Is he running for the Democratic nomination, or is he just willing to adopt the most far left talking points and destroy the rest of the field by threats of lawsuits and retribution and lies and distortions to secure the nomination via the most despicable scorched earth destruction of the Republican Party?

EDIT:  Oh, that's right. I forgot.

IMMIGRATION!!!!!

So all tactics are acceptable.

Rush had a great show today about why Trump may be doing/saying some of what he is doing/saying and it has to do with the open primary in SC - some interesting points raised and a couple excellent calls that would put to rest a lot of the 'controversy' in this thread in particular.

Trump is definitely not playing by the normal rules and it really confuses/consternates a lot of folks - right, wrong or indifferent he has changed the narrative and if he dropped out tomorrow that would be the lasting impact of his involvement this cycle.  I hope he does not drop out, do not expect him to drop out because the elitist ruling class need a collective punch in the gut and kick to the teeth regardless of which side of the aisle they reside on.

'Gimp

The difference was that even Democratic members of Congress saw FDR's court-packing plan as an unreasonable overreach by the Executive branch.

I see no similar scruples with today's Democrats in Congress.

The DNC, and their member Democrat politicians have embraced the far left, radical agenda they espouse.  They have learned to be successful they must be in LOCK STEP.  More like a goose step, but I digress.  There are very few if any moderate Democrats.  Look at their candidates for President.  Even O'Malley was a socialist to the nth degree.  Now Bernie, and Hillary are trying to out commie each other and promise "free" stuff that makes no sense whatsoever.  The 1 1/2 percent can't pay for it, and they know it, but the low information types lap it up. 

I'm just kinda surprised there's any debate on this at all - the sitting President gets to select Supreme Court Justices. Democracy in action.

If and when there's a Republican president, then he'll get to choose if and when another vacancy opens up.

It just seems so simple.

First, the President doesn't get to select Supreme Court justices, he gets to nominate them and it's up to the Senate to confirm them. There is no obligation that the Senate confirm the nominee. Second, a president doesn't get to choose if there is a vacancy on the court since they are lifetime appointments. Generally speaking, with death being the exception, Supreme Court justices try to retire during a presidency that is closely aligned to their ideology so that their replacement is also of the same ideology.

Me too.

You may want to read the article and sources. This is an organization that is known to be respectable by folks on both sides of the aisle.

You're the same people that call those that want to follow the Constitution as RADICAL.  Ooooh, that evil Constitution that made our Country great.