Mitch McConnell has shown his true colors.

@midnightrose Isn't the favourite thing to do now in politics is spin things out of control, comparing to nonsensical comparisons, because it's emotionally useful?

@thewindupbirdchronicles I suppose that's why I find it all so frustrating. A lot of people don't bother to verify what people say so they go on believing whatever they hear. There's a saying that says something like informarion is power and the one without it is easily manipulated.

@midnightrose [quote]Those weren't his words. If you're going to quote somebody be honest about what they actually said, don't add your own spin onto it.
[/quote]

Not his exact words, but that's what it essentially translates into.

He cited a federal law that forbids “pickets and parades” with the goal of influencing judges. He said the law could make the protestors’ actions illegal. He also said that Democrats ignore science, when they support choice, and it would be different if the GOP was in power.

@Northwest I don't see where he said it would be different if the GOP were in power. I've tried finding it but cannot. All I saw was him saying he would not change the fillibuster to pass the abortion ban.

@midnightrose Yes they fucking were his words. He said it twice. Twice he reaffirmed these ideas.

He said when the GOP gets power they will end abortion across all 50 states.

He claims we ignore science when they can't grasp how a baby grows in the womb nor understand miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy.

@midnightrose He also said that about the filibuster..but in order to pass an abortion ban across all 50 states he would have to do away with the filibuster

Which is NOT Constitutional and always has been a hostage situation. It actually bypasses the Constitution and does not allow our reps to vote for the people.

@midnightrose [quote]I don't see where he said it would be different if the GOP were in power.[/quote]

Weird, because all it took was a simple google church, that included two words: mcconnell and abortion, and out comes link after link, after link, after link....

[quote]All I saw was him saying he would not change the fillibuster to pass the abortion ban.
[/quote]

And what do you think that means? 😂

@Northwest I searched it on google and read several links. None of them said what you mentioned. Does it only say it on the USA interview because I don't have a subscription to it and reading other reportings of it.

To answer your question, this is my understanding of what that means...[quote]Drawing that line, if McConnell sticks by it, would mean Republicans might never have the votes to ban abortion at the federal level.
[/quote] CNN

@midnightrose [quote]The White House is saying the country is at "serious risk" of a nationwide ban on abortion two days after [b][i][u]Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said it was possible for lawmakers to pursue codifying the Supreme Court's leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade[/u][/i][/b].[/quote]

For Americans, and those who understand how our legislative branch works, it says that McConnell would ATTEMPT to make the abortion ban Federal law.

And that goes counter to your claim (and in support of the OP's post):

[quote] A lot of people don't bother to verify what people say so they go on believing whatever they hear.[/quote]

As this is what McConnell said he would do, which has nothing to do with whether he can make it happen.

@JaggedLittlePill [quote]He said when the GOP gets power they will end abortion across all 50 states.[/quote] Where does he say this? Everything I'm reading he didn't outright say this. He said it was [i]possible[/i]. Which I know in the minds of some people is as good as saying they will but that's not what he said. If he did say it somewhere else I'm not finding it. Article after article, I'm only seeing the same quote where he says it's possible. Certainly, he probably agrees with the idea but supporting it and doing it are two different things.

[quote]He claims we ignore science when they can't grasp how a baby grows in the womb nor understand miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy.[/quote] As I mentioned to Northwest, I'm not finding this at all. Did he say this previously somewhere else?

[quote]Which is NOT Constitutional and always has been a hostage situation. It actually bypasses the Constitution and does not allow our reps to vote for the people.[/quote] So you would support getting rid of it?

@Northwest I think you're right that people will [i]think[/i] that's what it means. I just don't agree with saying those are his words when it wasn't what he said.

@Northwest [quote]And that goes counter to your claim (and in support of the OP's post):

A lot of people don't bother to verify what people say so they go on believing whatever they hear.[/quote]
How does it go counter to my claim when I tried to verify and couldn't find anything that said [quote]and it would be different if the GOP was in power[/quote] nor the part where he stated that democrats ignore science. I'm still searching for that one.

@midnightrose

[quote]How does it go counter to my claim when I tried to verify and couldn't find anything that said
[/quote]

You said:

[quote]Those weren't his words. If you're going to quote somebody be honest about what they actually said, don't add your own spin onto it.
[/quote]

But in fact, this is the essence of what he said. You're accusing someone of doing exactly what you're doing.

@Northwest I don't know how you're getting that but whatever.

@midnightrose [quote]I don't know how you're getting that but whatever.[/quote]

You're getting all uppity over "purity" of quotes, but you're still denying that McConnell said these things. Yet, he did.

@Northwest Because he didn't say it. Even you originally admitted those weren't his exact words.
[quote]Not his exact words, but that's what it essentially translates into.[/quote]
Anybody can interpret them however they want but when sharing it with others it needs to be made clear that is what it is and not what he actually said because otherwise you're deceiving people. That is why I went to look it up in the first place because I was like did he really say that and what I found was different and much less sensationalized.

He didn't say he [big][i] would[/i][/big] he said it's possible and those aren't the same thing.

@midnightrose I anxiously anticipate returning to this comment when it happens.

@CorvusBlackthorne Haha that's fine. Even if it does happen (which I'm not saying it can't or wouldn't) it doesn't change anything. I'm not saying you have to take him for his word, or anybody else. People should be able to see his own words and decide for themselves what it means.

@midnightrose Your day job is tap dancing, right?

@Northwest No

@midnightrose The way your "arguments" here are structured, you're a natural.

@Northwest So if somebody tells you maybe or something is a possibility you think that means yes or an affirmative that they will do that thing? Or is it just in this case? I'm not the one putting additional words into what somebody else spoke. You can say his words mean something else but those are [i]your[/i] thoughts of his words, not his words. I would think you could understand that.