LOL, you might want to check a history book. 

Yes, some nominees were rejected in previous presidencies. I do not dispute that. When I say "universally blocked," I mean Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell literally said they would not accept any Obama nominee, period. Nixon, Reagan, W, LBJ, etc. all had at least one of their nominees voted down or withdrawn, but eventually got another nominee confirmed. The GOP Senate would never have voted on any Obama nominee--that's what made it unprecedented.

If the Dems take back the Senate, I'd support them holding a seat open for the 2020 presidential winner to "get back" at the GOP. But after that, this nominee nonsense needs to stop.

Thank you for not addressing a single one of my counterarguments and give me another opening for me to shoot down more of these assertions. For instance, you continue to go on with your semantics argument when I easily refuted that by altering the tyranny of the majority phrase. Let us look up the definition of ochlocracy, shall we? Ochlocracy is the rule of government mob or a mass of people, or colloquially referred to as mob rule. When people say tyranny of the majority, the majority (in the phrase, not the majority, in general) is tyrannical because of the authoritarian similarities between mob rule and an actual tyranny.

You asserted that there is no tyranny in a popular vote, but I already given you two examples of where the tyranny of the majority led to detrimental effects. Turning your eyes away from the flaws of a plain democracy does not help your argument, just so you know. The majority does not always think best for the country nor will it always not do harm to the minority. That is a legitimate (see how I'm using this word correctly?) weakness of a democracy hence why there are other systems that try to address these weaknesses. The presidential election and the electoral college (though I disagree with the winner-take-all system) is one way to address that. But hey, "It's not a true democracy! Therefore, you're against freedom and equality!" Speaking of which...

This is quite a feeble attempt at character assassination and also a gross misrepresentation of what I've been saying. Here is what I said: "A democracy also allows the majority ethnic group to throw its weight around minority ethnic groups whereas it is more difficult in a republic system. In addition, democracy only considers the equality of voice into consideration, but not the collective intelligence of mass into consideration." Now show me where I said that some people's votes should be worth more than others. Or are you just going to retort with "Oh, I can't even..." or "How dare you..."?

To add more to my arguments, republicanism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. A republic can use many aspects of democracy as what the US does. The advantages that a republic offers is that it contains a bill of rights or a constitution. There is an established set of rules and rights that cannot be broken nor infringed while operating under a democratic system. An outright democracy lacks these necessary restrictions that disallow the majority from abusing power over the minority.

It wasn't unprecedented. Even Harry Reid said senate has no duty to consider a SC nominee 

Ok, i see your issue. That is not something that i consider because i don't see my own country as ethnic A trying to screw Ethnic B or exterior trying to screw interior.

In an educated Country, everyone votes for the best of the country in their own view. Even if they vote selfishly that is legitimate. It is their right. It is democratic and equal. The majority wins and their decision is legitimate. If the people change their mind later, they elect someone else to change/revert that decision.

Though honestly, in my country there's countermeasures to that in the constitution. You can't make stupid laws like the examples you gave. They have to be legal.

Again, tyranny of the majority is something that can only happen in a country that probably shouldn't be a country. If your people's are actively trying to destroy each other, then you got a more fundamental problem to solve, or you know... make a better constitution that doesn't allow that without robbing people of their equality right.

I didn't say republic and democracy are mutually exclusive. Of course they are not. I said that the US is not a democracy (or at least a flawed one), wich we all know to be true and that i wish they stopped passing themselves as such. Wich they have since WW1. Or you know... actually improve the outdated 2 century old system to something more democratic so we can actually not cringe at the values of democracy being thrown in the mud.

Saying and doing are two different things. Under GWB, Reid did try a filibuster against Alito even though he knew he didn't have the votes--he got confirmed. 22 Dems voted for Roberts--he got confirmed. They could have blocked them from getting 60 votes but didn't. Nothing close to Garland's situation had ever occurred, so it definitely falls under the definition of unprecedented.

Yes, some nominees were rejected in previous presidencies. I do not dispute that. When I say "universally blocked," I mean Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell literally said they would not accept any Obama nominee, period. Nixon, Reagan, W, LBJ, etc. all had at least one of their nominees voted down or withdrawn, but eventually got another nominee confirmed. The GOP Senate would never have voted on any Obama nominee--that's what made it unprecedented.

If the Dems take back the Senate, I'd support them holding a seat open for the 2020 presidential winner to "get back" at the GOP. But after that, this nominee nonsense needs to stop.

However, you haven't proposed any suggestions to improve what you called an outdated 2 century-old system. I already mentioned one: in the presidential election, winner of the state automatically wins two electoral votes (senate) with the rest divvied up proportionally by the state popular or district vote (representatives). In addition, the United States is a union of sovereign states. Each state has its own government that serve its state citizens. Deciding who is president by the popular vote would actually undermine the democratic process of the states. This is another reason why the electoral college is utilized. As a matter of fact, two states use the system that I suggested: Maine and Nebraska. Those states went with the proportional system over the winner-take-all system via the democratic process. Want to improve the electoral college? Convince the other states to change the way the electoral votes are distributed.

Here's another solution I propose. Stop gerrymandering. It's a cheap tactic both political parties to win their state, congressional, and gubernatorial elections. If district lines need to be changed, then it should preferably be done by an independent non-partisan entity.

And one last thing. The US runs on a constitutional republic that uses democratic processes. It was never claimed to be a democracy and anyone who claims the country to be one does not understand how the US government works.