Schumer attacks Supreme Court, then lies about it

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Schumer has always made comments like these as far back as 2006 I can recall on various issues him saying "You better not do x, or else you will pay the price". Which always struck me has heavy handed considering he was DSCC chair at the time. It came off to the younger me as trying to extort political results, mafia style.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is why you don't see much decline in the unity and support for Trump among Republicans. The Democrats aren't declaring a truce on any of the major social issues, and the constant push for stacking the Supreme Court or what have you incentivizes Republicans to stand by Trump even if they don't like him. He may be an a@^hole but he is their a@%hole.

Democrats, because they don't share the positions and often don't respect the positions, expect that Republicans can easily just toss all that to the wayside in name of getting rid of Trump. Part of this disconnect is that there is this mindset among Democrats that a lot of Republicans are only pro-life for political reasons and that their position and whole viewpoint is not a serious political mindset. Maybe that was true 20 years ago, but a lot of that has shaken out now. This mindset also leads to the presumption that there should be some willingness to set this aside for the sake of the country and ousting Trump. This underscores the false premise that rested on Hillary's campaign of relying on Republican defectors to defeat Trump, especially with a Supreme Court seat hanging in the balance.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is why you don't see much decline in the unity and support for Trump among Republicans. The Democrats aren't declaring a truce on any of the major social issues, and the constant push for stacking the Supreme Court or what have you incentivizes Republicans to stand by Trump even if they don't like him. He may be an a@^hole but he is their a@%hole.

It's extremely rich to pretend that Republicans haven't been doing their best to stack not only Supreme Court, but all levels of the judiciary.  Also the idea that only one side needs to declare a truce is ludicrous. When only one side stops fighting, that's a surrender, not a truce.

Why do you people on this forum, always confuse "independent analysis" for personal opinion? I understand how Republicans and conservatives think, I am trying to explain in an analytical way how that effects their willingness to support Trump in spite of everything that has happened and in a way emphasize how comments like Schumer's have the effect of hardening the polarization.

The situation is what it is, I am not trying to give my personal views on the matter, or pass judgments on that viewpoint, that would distract from my overall point and ironically lead to it being missed, though you guys end up doing that regardless it seems. 

I said "they" and "their", not "I" and "Our" for a reason. I have been very critical of Trump, I said I wouldn't have picked Kavanaugh and I said that Garland should have been given an up or down vote.

However, Conservatives regard the success at court appointments as a success that they own and that was made possible by Trump. If Trump loses, that success will be undone, therefore they will stick by Trump at the levels we are seeing, to preserve those victories.

I said the other night, that the cultural divide between the two blocks as well as their own media and "facts" dedicated to their line of thinking has the effect of putting us in a situation like that of the late 19th century where we were extremely polarized between the two coalitions with the Civil War voting pattern at full strength.