[Magdalen] Hypocrisy?

[Jay Weigel]

"Dishonorable" and "Machiavellian" are both words that fit Addison Mitchell
McConnell extremely well, IMNSHO. (As an aside, it's actually too bad
Machiavelli's name got affixed to this behavioral type, as poor Machiavelli
was only *describing* the behaviors of a Medici prince, xo  maybe it should
be Mediciean?) Anyway, I got in a minor argument with someone on another
platform when I opined that if you could eliminate one person that would
change the course of history it would be McConnell, because he had done
more to damage things than even tRump. I still believe that, and it goes
way back to the Obama presidency. The man has taken his power to the
extreme and is so crooked he puts snakes to shame. Those of us who live in
neighboring states probably know him a little too well.

On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 4:30 PM Don Boyd <thedonboyd at austin.rr.com> wrote:

> Chad, I would like to believe that the term “politician” is not yet
> synonymous with “dishonorable” or “Machiavellian “, but there remain (sadly
> in diminishing numbers) some honorable and decent professional
> politicians.  That said, I do believe that Sen. McConnell  stands a good
> chance of replacing Sen. Joe McCarthy  in opprobrium.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Sep 19, 2020, at 3:07 PM, Chad Wohlers <chad at satucket.com> wrote:
> >
> > You have to understand that Mitch McConnell is a politician, first,
> last, and always. Nothing at all matters - not hypocrisy, ethics, morality,
> whatever - as long as it advances his cause (the Republican Party). He is a
> complete Machiavellian.
> >
> > --
> > Chad Wohlers
> > chad at satucket.com
> > Woodbury, VT   USA
> >
> >
> >> On 9/19/2020 9:39 AM, Roger Stokes via Magdalen wrote:
> >> An earlier attempt to send the bulk of this was blocked by the system's
> spam filter (no quibble about that, Brian) so here's another attempt.
> >>
> >> It is being reported that Mitch McConnell as saying that the Senate
> will move forward quickly on confirming President Trump's nominee of a
> successor to Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. I would like to
> think that this really is "fake news" but is all too plausible. In March
> 2016 this same Leader of the Senate said it was too close to a Presidential
> Election to proceed with President Obama's nomination following Antonin
> Scalia's death. Does he really have the gall and bad taste to do this six
> month's closer to the election? If he does then he certainly does not
> deserve to be in his present position given Christ's condemnation of
> hypocrisy? It would be even worse if he did so if he sought Senate
> confirmation of such a nomination if, as the polls indicate, the Democrats
> achieve a majority of the popular vote.
> >>
> >> Roger
> >>
> >>
>
>