[Magdalen] Hypocrisy?

[Grace Cangialosi]

I’d heard that he’s really unpopular, even in KY, so why would people still vote for him?

> On Sep 20, 2020, at 3:41 PM, Jay Weigel <jay.weigel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> So am I, but some polls have her even, while one has him almost 12 points
> up. I guess it depends on who votes and who counts those votes. When that
> man dies they won't even be able to screw him into the ground, he's that
> crooked.....
> 
>> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 2:07 PM Christopher Hart <cervus51 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I couldn't agree more, Jay, both with the unfortunate associations with
>> more Machiavelli and with him doing the greatest damage to our democracy.
>> I'm rooting for Amy McGrath to defeat him.
>> 
>>> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 1:59 PM Jay Weigel <jay.weigel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> "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
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Christopher Hart
>> 
>> List Mail Address: cervus51 at gmail.com
>> Personal Mail: cervus at veritasliberat.net
>> Twitter: @cervus51
>>