• eighthourlunch@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    ·
    6 months ago

    Saying that costs nothing. It would have been a hell of a lot more impressive if he hadn’t worked so hard to stack the court and put us in this situation to begin with. Fuck you, Mitch.

  • logicbomb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    6 months ago

    Based on McConnell’s past actions, I suspect that the reason he is standing by his previous position is that he doesn’t find it politically beneficial to change his opinion. I don’t think there is any other type of meaning to McConnell’s political positions.

    • bean@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I went ‘oof’ internally… then found myself agreeing. He is an evil turtle. 🐢

  • nutsack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    If Donald Trump wins the case, he will completely reverse everything he’s saying right now. he’s an absolute pussy just like the other Republicans

    • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      I would agree except I don’t think it would be out of cowardice, though for many other Republicans it is that. From what I see Mitch makes his choices based on what gives the optimal outcome for himself, and being consistent simply doesn’t play into his calculus at all because being inconsistent basically never harms him.

  • ArgentRaven@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    I don’t trust anything that wormy little turtle scrotum says.

    Unless it’s death. I’d believe him if he dies.

    Alas, I don’t live in Kentucky and can’t do anything about him continuing to be a political figure.

  • Thrillhouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    What the SC is debating, if I understand correctly as a non-American, is YES it’s likely that ex-presidents are not immune from prosecution, however the question is a distinction between “official” vs. “Unofficial” acts, and WHEN those acts were performed (during the presidency or after???). This is such a devious way to appear moderate to swing voters who may be uninformed.

    For example, if Dubya goes and shoots someone today, well yeah duh he’s an ex-president that can be prosecuted.

    McConnell is framing this in the most innocuous way to purposefully confuse the argument for those who are not paying attention, imo, and to not say the quiet part out loud: Republican ex-presidents shouldn’t be prosecuted but Democrats, on the other hand….

    • evatronic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      They’re pulling a Ron Swanson about “official acts”.

      Remember when Ron won that female empowerment award and was giving Leslie a hard time? She said, “That’s not the attitude of an award winner.”

      He replied, “Everything I do is the attitude of an award winner, because I have won an award.”

  • chakan2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    The gates of hell are calling him home and he’s trying to make amends before that happens.

  • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    This kind of full stop statement has been used by McConnell in the past to make sure that the entire republican machine gets the memo. That was pre-Trump when McConnell was the republican party, but there are still plenty of people in congress and the media that listen. The question is, are Roberts and Thomas (who used to toe that line), still under his thumb. Or in Thomas’s case, is Harlan Crow still toeing that line?