Of all the things Trump has done, you are upset with that?



That only rates a 1 on my outrage meter.


#MAGA

Source for the Obama “record”? Everything I’ve read says that Obama elected not to nominate potential picks who were rated unqualified by the ABA.

---

''The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t.''

—Lars-Erik Nelson

-
You're right, as Obama did not put them forward:
-
"In other words, most presidents know how the ABA views their picks before those picks are publicly identified. They can then choose to move forward with the nominations or not.
From the ABA:

When the White House participates in the pre-nomination process, the president can choose not to officially nominate that candidate before a “not qualified” rating can go public. President Bill Clinton chose to advance four nominees who received such a rating, three of whom were confirmed by the Senate. Although no official nominee under President Barack Obama had a “not qualified” rating, the New York Times reported in 2011 that the ABA gave a “not qualified” rating to 14 of about 185 potential candidates the Obama administration asked the ABA to evaluate.

President Barack Obama had a number of potential nominees who were rated as “not qualified” — who he then didn’t actually nominate."
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...m_term=.2111b81cce36

President Barack Obama had a number of potential nominees who were rated as “not qualified” — who he then didn’t actually nominate."


With those facts, the only possible response is that you must have TDS.

The fact that he didn't nominate is kind of important. It seems like Obama used an ABA rating as a minimal standard for acceptability. Kudos for not putting forward folks who didn't pass muster. Doesn't seem like a terrible first step. Of course, this clown DIDN'T get an unqualified rating....

You're talking about the blonde woman? I only saw one clip, but she seemed light years ahead of the bible oath guy. I almost feel bad laughing at that interview. He doesn't seem like he's dealing with a full deck.

He was apparently sort of a fringe feature of Alabama Republicans, so I'd expect him to draw a somewhat unique support staff and core following. I was predicting a sizeable victory, simply because of his party affiliation.

I'm not sure I wouldn't have voted for him, and rolled the dice on a Republican replacement, if I were an Alabama conservative. I mean, not voting for him only increased the chances of a pro-choice Democrat victory, right? Everything is a compromise, so what's the strategic argument for effectively supporting the Democrat?

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W