Dems Used The Threat Of The SCOTUS To Get Hillary Elected…OOPS | Soshal Network, Social Circle Connection

Dems Used The Threat Of The SCOTUS To Get Hillary Elected…OOPS


Enjoyed the video ladies check these swimsuits out

On the current episode of Aggressive Progressives Jimmy Dore as well as Steve Oh discuss just what the Democrats did incorrect in their Supreme Court nominee. Watch the complete Hostile Progressives episode right here:

Follow Jimmy Dore on Twitter:
Follow Steve Oh on Twitter:

Steve Oh and Graham Elwood join Jimmy Dore for this week's episode of Aggressive Progressives. Jimmy, Steve and also Graham talk about Syria, Gorsuch and single-payer health care.

Share Your Comments


  1. Posted by theodore mule, at Reply

    It’s a sad day. Trump is the worst president America has ever elected. He has absolutely no skills, abilities or knowledge to perform the job. His track record as a business man is one filled with dishonesty, deceit and corruption.

    Here is what the hayseeds believe Trump is going to do.:

    1. Destroy the federal government as we know it.
    2. Get rid of a bunch of brown people.
    3. Get rid of Obamacare and watch the poor die. My previously unaffordable insurance is down to $85/month. My car insurance, from Insurance Panda, is now just $25/month. Under Trump, healthcare will be $500/month or more.
    4. Make the lives of poor kids, the sick, and the elderly worse than they already are.
    5. Drop a bunch of bombs on some colored people in some country somewhere.
    6. Cut taxes on the rich.

    I was not a Hillary fan but at least she’s no worse than most of the other politicians in Washington. Trump on the other hand is just plain dangerous. He’s unbalanced, self absorbed and unpredictable. A powder keg waiting to explode.

    America is doomed.

  2. Posted by vinnythewebsurfer, at Reply

    Basically, Hillary held the US hostage and people were like “we don’t negotiate with terrorists”.

  3. Posted by Brewka vlogs, at Reply


    • Posted by Brewka vlogs, at Reply

      +Vlad Basjet why does it matter to you

    • Posted by Vlad Basjet, at Reply

      Brewka vlogs i am sincerely interested

    • Posted by Brewka vlogs, at Reply

      +Vlad Basjet well early In the video he kept on yelling

    • Posted by Vlad Basjet, at Reply

      Brewka vlogs well he is passionate about this issue. But it shouldn’t distract you from the content

    • Posted by Brewka vlogs, at Reply

      +Vlad Basjet yeah

  4. Posted by Zu Nobi, at Reply

    really Jimmy? nobody made a stink about the Reps not confirming the Dem SCOTUS nominee?? are u living under a rock? now you’re blaming Democrats for their own nominee being rejected by the reps when they tried their hardest to compromise. all you do is grasp at straws these days. iirc the Republicans had to use the nuclear option to get Gorsuch in, specifically BECAUSE the Dems made a stink about it. delusional

    • Posted by Titansoftime, at Reply

      Zu Nobi When did the Dems fight on this?! There was some whining and complaining on TV but ZERO action.

    • Posted by Zu Nobi, at Reply

      Titansoftime what would you have considered fighting? employing the nuclear option is about the only thing they didn’t do, and that holds 200 yrs of precedent

    • Posted by Titansoftime, at Reply

      Zu Nobi Answer my question and I’ll answer yours.

    • Posted by syphe101, at Reply

      Zu Nobi Another fair point on Jimmy making aggressive arguments after the fact.

      My rebuttal to the Garland comment you made is simply this; In Canada, we have this historic story about the “Tin Pot Navy”. It’s based on our 2nd Prime Minister I believe. Check it out. I won’t repeat it, but the point of the story is that the Canadian leader tries to appease both sides of an argument.

      The outcome was that nobody was happy and he tanked his party. And this was almost 200 years ago.

      My position to you is that understanding your ‘political climate’ is important. And for all the positives that Obama brought ( he is one of the best POTUS in history, top 10) he was also naive in my opinion.

      Remember Obama wanted to unite the parties to work together in 08′. But by 15′ that had not worked ( because of the Republicans ), so he should get the hint, but instead, *again* tries to appease both sides by choosing Merrick Garland, which does not work in the current political climate.

      The point is this: either the Dems are incompetent/naive and don’t know that the Republicans won’t work with them, or they are feckless and don’t really care about their positions which is shown by odd comments like Pelosi’s, or Obama’s middle of the road actions. I believe the initial, but Jimmy is arguing for the latter of the two.

    • Posted by Jim is the man, at Reply

      @ZuNobi: What the Democrats don’t do is a relentless public campaign. Republicans and their pundits endlessly scream and yell about minor or even made up transgressions, covering every angle and then some. Every issue is elevated to the hysterical level. Democrats complain for a day or two and let it go. Case in point: Look at the use of the nuke option… any complaints are already dying out. By election time it won’t even be a blip.

  5. Posted by Jim is the man, at Reply

    If only Americans understood that selecting a President is selecting the SCOTUS… and that those decisions generally make a bigger difference in the country’s/Democracy’s health than legislation.

    Unfortunately, most don’t even know who their Legislators are or what the SCOTUS does, let alone tell you about individual justices.

  6. Posted by Mario Quade, at Reply

    Yeah, let’s rather elect a Republican who’ll put a far-right wing judge on the Supreme Court instead of a shitty centrist who at least is not going to set back your country several decades on social issues. Ingenious!

    Is Jimmy right that wanting a left-leaning judge from a Democratic president? No. And did the Democrats, once again, played it poorly that the GOP blocked Garland for such a long time? Yes. But that doesn’t change the fact, that Garland was nowhere as near as bad as Gorsuch. But I’m also not surprised that Jimmy brings this up, whenever anybody tried to explain to him why the Supreme Court is a viabale argument against voting for Trump during the election season, he ignored it and argued the Democrats should simply block any hearing like the Republicans did with Garland. I’m sorry, but wasn’t the reason why you said “don’t vote for Hillary” that she and the Dems were too weak and too corporate? Then why do you rely on them to protect you from a right-wing judge? Jimmy’s arguments and views on this matter never made any sense and to now stand up, after the Republicans stole this SCOTUS seat, and laugh and scream at the Democrats, putting most of the blame on them, is absolutely disingenuous and shows that Jimmy doesn’t cover the news with any rationality or objectivity at all, but absolute partisanship against the Democratic Party no matter what it takes.

    • Posted by Zu Nobi, at Reply

      you’re exactly right. after helping elect Trump with his stupid, third party vote, all he can really do is attack Dems because he knows he has no right to attack The republicana he helped elect

    • Posted by Mario Quade, at Reply

      +Smaakjeks K I’m not blaming the loss of the Democrats on anyone but themselves, but it should be possible to call out Jimmy’s stupid logic and his absolutely non-objective coverage of this issue.

    • Posted by Smaakjeks K, at Reply

      +Zu Nobi
      He attacks both parties, because none of them are interested in protecting or serving the American people. If you lose a race, it’s not the people’s fault whose vote you failed to acquire.

    • Posted by Smaakjeks K, at Reply

      “I’m not blaming the loss of the Democrats on anyone but themselves”
      Oh. Well, what’s this here about, then:
      “Yeah, let’s rather elect a Republican”

      Jimmy didn’t vote for a republican. He voted for Stein. If you were totally not blaming the outcome of the election on third-party voters, what were you doing?

      “Is Jimmy right that wanting a left-leaning judge from a Democratic president?”
      This is not a sentence, so I have to skip over it.

      “And did the Democrats, once again, played it poorly that the GOP blocked Garland for such a long time? Yes. But that doesn’t change the fact, that Garland was nowhere as near as bad as Gorsuch.”
      Do you reckon Jimmy has heard the lesser-of-two-evils argument before? Do you reckon Jimmy, and others, is sick of that argument as a reason to vote against one’s conscience?

      “wasn’t the reason why you said “don’t vote for Hillary” that she and the Dems were too weak and too corporate? Then why do you rely on them to protect you from a right-wing judge?”
      Being a critic of the party does not preclude advocating that they do *something* right.

  7. Posted by Phil, at Reply

    This is another big issue with the Democratic leadership. Corporatism aside, the Democrats just suck at negotiations. They always start with policy too far right, and then of course, Republicans are gonna counter offer with something FURTHER right. It is mind boggling. Corporations always win in this scenario.

    • Posted by Listenbuddy1, at Reply

      Phil the Dems pretend they are kind of right because the country is kind of right. Only 23% call themselves liberal. If they ever told the truth about what they really are, they’d never win another election.

  8. Posted by Seljuk Cuck, at Reply

    Honestly, the Republicans blocking Garland probably helped Trump in the election. A large part of the country, particularly in the midwest and rural areas, was extremely concerned about the possibility that another liberal justice would lead to the overturn of _D.C. v. Heller._ That threat motivated plenty of pro-gun people to vote. On the other hand, it didn’t motivate liberals to come out and vote because for liberals, the worst-case scenario was that Scalia gets replaced with another right-wing judge. There wasn’t nearly as much of an imperative for liberal voters to come out.

    • Posted by Zu Nobi, at Reply

      Seljuk Cuck what was DC v. Heller about?

    • Posted by Seljuk Cuck, at Reply

      +Zu Nobi The Supreme Court struck down a Washington D.C. handgun ban back in 2008. The crux of the issue was whether the 2nd Amendment protects the right for citizens to bear arms; the argument against it was effectively that since the 2nd Amendment starts with a brief mention of the importance of a militia, it only protects the right of the military to keep and bear arms. It was a narrow 5-4 decision, so had there been a liberal on the Court in Scalia’s place, the 2nd Amendment would have been effectively invalidated. A lot of gun owners felt threatened by the prospect of the decision being overturned, so they had a very strong motivation to vote Republican.

    • Posted by Zu Nobi, at Reply

      Ah that;s interesting, I did no know that. Cheers!

  9. Posted by Brian Rosado, at Reply

    It’s called compromise, Jimmy.
    Garland was the balance of liberal and conservative Supreme Court judges.

    • Posted by Spencer Chudyk, at Reply

      Brian Rosado They started on the compromise

    • Posted by Cezariusz 88, at Reply

      +Spencer Chudyk
      Yeah, they offered a compromise candidate because Republicans controlled the Senate… Details, I know…

      BTW if Obama was willing to offer GOP a centrist judge (that would still be miles better than Gorsuch, who is Koch Brothers’ no. 1 fan) doesn’t it mean that Jimmy is wrong to say they didn’t want him passed, cause they needed a Supreme Court vacancy to force progressives to vote for Hillary?

      Maybe Jimmy is just full of it…

  10. Posted by Nunya Biznes, at Reply

    Jimmy still trying to cover up the FACT that he wanted Donald Trump to win.

    • Posted by Smaakjeks K, at Reply

      “Is Gorsuch on Supreme Court a fantasy scenario too?”
      No, it’s not. How is that a response fit for a discussion for adults?

      “At the end of the day, if somebody was so effin wrong, maybe they were full of it to begin with…”
      One can be wrong for the right reasons, and right for the wrong reasons. That the dems would be so utterly weak is perhaps something not even Jimmy expected.

    • Posted by frededison, at Reply

      Did he say that? Wow. It helps to explain why he goes overboard to dismiss Trump’s ties to Russia. JD probably has a picture of Hillary on his home wall that he uses as a dartboard.

    • Posted by Cezariusz 88, at Reply

      +Smaakjeks K
      _’That the dems would be so utterly weak is perhaps something not even Jimmy expected.’_
      Jimmy said that they should filibuster Trump’s nominee. They did. What more do you want?

    • Posted by BruceLeedar, at Reply

      If you vote for someone when they don’t appeal to your interests then that person will not have any reason to serve your interests. HRC failed to provide positive motivation for people to turn out and it cost her the election, she essentially ran on ‘I’m not Trump’ and that doesn’t cut it ( ).

    • Posted by Nunya Biznes, at Reply

      If you didn’t vote for Hillary you were helping Trump win. No matter what b.s. reasons you have it won’t change that fact. The least you could do is accept responsibility and stop making excuses for being stupid.

  11. Posted by Mikey, at Reply

    I dunno, on the other hand, if Obama nominated a real progressive you can also say the right would have rose up and voted against him by voting for trump. Anyway, we have trump, its really important to make your voice heard in the midterms

    • Posted by Rebuilt Gearbox, at Reply

      Look to the future.

  12. Posted by Peter Wells, at Reply

    I agree with some of this commentary, the title of the video is inaccurate

  13. Posted by bleepmaster23, at Reply

    I recall Jimmy Dore handwaiving the threat of Trump picking someone for the SC by saying the Democrats can filibuster. Well that was silly. Now there’s a SC judge who think it’s acceptable for you to freeze to death should your employers ask you to.

    • Posted by Zaccheus4, at Reply

      bleepmaster23 Jimmy dore does not understand American politics. He’s a conspiracy theorist. He is just spreading misinformation through his own ignorance

  14. Posted by Jekyll Hyde, at Reply

    *TYT’s Proves They’re For Illegals/Islamic Raping & Islamic Terrorism Which Is The Reason Why TYT Isn’t Covering These Stories… The Rockville Rape Which An Underage Girl Was Raped In A HS Bathroom In Md… The Illegal Gang Member In NY That Stabbed Two Women & Raped A 2 Yr Old… The Islamic Terrorist Attack In Sweden Where Little Kids Were Run Over By A Truck… The Islamic Church Bombing Against Christians In Egypt…All The Facebook Rapes By Islamic Refugees….*

    *TYT You’re Very Fake “News”*

    • Posted by Ryne Green, at Reply

      Jekyll Hyde you know what’s even douchier? Someone using horrible acts of crimes that they don’t even care about as a means to attack a YouTube channel to discredit them

  15. Posted by Matthew Hubbs, at Reply

    And Neil Gorsich was already acceptable to the democrats. It’s just politics bro.

  16. Posted by William Penn, at Reply

    blaming democrats for this sounds a bit silly. I’d honestly blame the republicans for being so partisan.

    • Posted by Werner Voss78, at Reply

      +William Penn Yeah, people cared about Merrick Garland, but Republicans just didn’t listen. Besides, this wasn’t the first time Merrick was fucked over by Republicans. When he was appointed to what he does now in 1995 by Bill Clinton, the Republicans waited for the election results and Clinton had to renominate him.

  17. Posted by Chunk Oooger, at Reply

    lolz progressives openly admitting they want total dictatorial control of the United States

    • Posted by Jeff Ketcham, at Reply

      Chunk Oooger They want to fix the Democratic Party so they will stop losing so freaking much. If that means progressives take control of the party and government through elections, they achieved what they wanted. Conservatives probably wish they had even more control in Washington than they already do, what is wrong with that? If you disagree, vote accordingly.

  18. Posted by Info Illness, at Reply

    Democrats or Republicans would all be ultra right wing parties in Europe. And the Supreme Court is basically touting judgements that are 200 years out of date and the US has the cheek to criticise the Taliban…

    • Posted by Listenbuddy1, at Reply

      Info Illness that only shows that Europe is loopy. đź”—

    • Posted by Info Illness, at Reply

      OK so you feel that women should not be able to make decisions about their own bodies…very enlightened ha ha ha

    • Posted by Listenbuddy1, at Reply

      +Info Illness They can do whatever they want to themselves as long as they aren’t carrying another human being. Hopefully soon that’ll be the law of the land again and we can put our long national nightmare behind us.

    • Posted by Flirven212, at Reply

      Info Illness the Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower said something along the lines of: “there is no place in politics for people who don’t accept the New Deal.” Oh how far we’ve fallen

  19. Posted by Werner Voss78, at Reply

    I liked Merrick Garland, but I see where your coming from.