Mitch McConnell - World Class Hypocrite

www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/th...ly-side-of-snowflake

THE ORIGIN of snowflake is NOT a new lexicon......I was curious and found this....WHO KNEW?

The article states, "a person that was opposed to the abolition of slavery," hence the Democrats.

Obviously meaning changes. Now it means Republican.

koobookie wrote:

Rick wrote: This has to be one of the silliest threads I've seen in a while. Name one politician or news network or "journalist" who isn't a hypocrite or acts hypocritical. I'll wait...

As for the reason he's a hypocrite on this issue, I'm cool with it considering the horrific way Kavanaugh was treated and the way every candidate Trump may pick WILL also be treated. Screw the Democrats, they can pound sand and whine... I'm sure worthless scum like Romney will save the day though so don't worry too much till after the election.

What you are suggesting is that since Kavanaugh was - in your opinion - treated horrifically (gasp - what a snowflake!) that makes it okay for the republican senators to be flaming hypocrites?

In what world do you live? Do you live in the world where integrity is non-existent, where hypocrisy and honor are not valued? Apparently so.

Since when is accusing a man of rape without facts not horrific? Your leftists found an abortion activist who was willing to lie her ass in order to trash a good man's reputation. Only in a deranged leftist world would people believe a woman who conveniently couldn't recall where or when the alleged assault happened. She couldn't remember how she got there or how she got home. She was smart in that she made it impossible to incriminate herself as the liar she is. But with Kavanaugh, he was deemed guilty by the allegation alone and none of the left was calling to wait for facts, including your worthless leftist media.

I want a country where innocent until proven guilty actually means something, obviously you don't.

LET'S BE REAL CLEAR.....the scope of the investigation was LIMITED BY THE KING...had there not been those constraints,evidence could have been presented and OTHER WITNESSES subpoenaed that
MIGHT HAVE CHANGED the outcome......NOT a fair trial.

It was a ridiculous made up accusation from years ago with ZERO substantiation. In fact, every single person she said could corroborate her story said exactly the opposite. Tara Reade is MUCH more believable! But, I guess when a claim is made against a democrat, you don't care about that. Just to be REAL CLEAR

Pony Soldier wrote: It was a ridiculous made up accusation from years ago with ZERO substantiation. In fact, every single person she said could corroborate her story said exactly the opposite. Tara Reade is MUCH more believable! But, I guess when a claim is made against a democrat, you don't care about that. Just to be REAL CLEAR

yes, that would be the definition of HYPOCRISY, thus fitting perfectly into this silly thread.

Pony Soldier wrote: It was a ridiculous made up accusation from years ago with ZERO substantiation. In fact, every single person she said could corroborate her story said exactly the opposite. Tara Reade is MUCH more believable! But, I guess when a claim is made against a democrat, you don't care about that. Just to be REAL CLEAR

I'm sorry, I don't believe U addressed the issue of INTERFERENCE by the king....outside constraints were
a consideration that inhibited the investigation....do the research,it's documented that there where perimeters
to the planned process.

If by "the King", you meant Trump, how exactly did he interfere? There were 6 FBI investigations that all turned up squat. Kavenaugh was the most vetted candidate in history....

Pony Soldier wrote: If by "the King", you meant Trump, how exactly did he interfere? There were 6 FBI investigations that all turned up squat. Kavenaugh was the most vetted candidate in history....

[/b]


REALLY???

www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/201...-white-house/572236/