Honestly, I really don't feel like typing out a well documented response because I think we both know its not going to change anyone's opinion, and changing anyone's opinion wasn't the point of my comment.
You yourself said it was hyperbole so why are you trying to compare it to someone else?
A couple things.
I said your criticism of McConnell was hyperbole not because he might not be bad or good, but because his course of action is no different than his predecessor. That makes the idea that what he's doing to be unprecedented or that he's some sort of outlier as opposed to being business as usual, questionable. That's all.
I'm projecting here, but I think most people's frustration with your rebuttals stem from how defensive you are. I get it's in your nature due to your profession, you can't show weakness to your side of the argument. But outside of work, as a human in society, its okay to show empathy towards another opinion and admit a semblance of truth to your opposition. I also promise you, showing a bit more humility and vulnerability will enable others to be a lot more empathetic to your POV.
This cuts both ways. IN, I'm not the one who immediately resorts to personal attacks, or even for that matter attacking a large voting bloc as opposed to a specific politician. You might also come in hot if you're starting in the middle of a discussion that's already summarily dismissed the opposition as being backwards simpletons.
I mean, you met me at the tailgate, outside of work, as a human in society. Honestly, do I come off as unempathetic or confrontational at all?
But what do I know I'm an idiot libtard
I don't think that's very fair.
I've never said something like that specifically to you, nor would I compare or try and reduce your thoughts to that of someone who would unironically use a buzzterm like "KKKonservative" or some such idiocy. I sure do throw the word queynte around a lot when it gets really heated. As MB astutely pointed out, I'm no angel.
I might have compared someone else to acting like they were...I think I said on the derriere-end of tumblr. IMHO, their rhetoric may have warranted it.
A big issue I have with Mitch is how little he has put to vote
You can acknowledge this is wrong, but also part of a pattern of behavior in terms of what happens when one party controls the House and the opposition controls the Senate. It's not whataboutism to point out that McConnell's predecessor at one point had some 350 bills passed by the House, in committee, ready to be discussed, and they were left to be tabled and die.
Again, and if someone has an example of Mitch acting in a similar way have at it, but I can't think of behavior as abhorrent as refusing to entertain bi-partisan House measures to fund the National Institute of Health during a government shutdown out of purely political reasons.
the potential issues with his wife
I didn't want to not address this and have it seem like I was ignoring this. Yeah. I got nothing.
and how he is handling the SC spots. I find it very hypocritical he refused to put forth a vote for an SC role at the end of Obamas term, but has said he would 100% try to fill it during trumps last year.
that and he looks like a turtle
Without getting into a big rehash of an argument I used to get into with Fen all the time here (RIP);
-McConnell and Senate Republicans are wrong to withhold a confirmation hearing. It was short-sighted, lazy and purely political.
-A Republican senate majority has absolutely no business confirming a jurist who without question would have significantly and radically changed the way we interpret the Second Amendment. It's not even a matter of whether or not you think that's the right thing to do, a majority was sent to the Senate with a core issue being to preserve the 2A as we know it.
I wouldn't expect a Senate majority of Democrats to ever confirm someone who's prior jurisprudence makes it clear that as soon as he gets his chance, he's coming for Roe. It'd be a very clear and obvious non-starter.
