Like I said, you have a ridiculous notion of what "hypocrisy" means. She was against it, now she's for it because she was swayed by the arguments and pleas of her co-legislators. How is that hypocrisy? Hint: it's not. I used to be for the electoral college, now I'm very staunchly against it. How is that hypocrisy? It's not. The allegory is perfect. And, quite frankly, I don't know what you're aiming for here.... would you prefer that she STILL be against it, because I can guarantee you THIS: today you'd be calling her a hypocrite.
Do you really believe that? If so you’re a bigger fool than I thought. There’s no doubt she’s doing it for political expediency. That’s hypocrisy
So, let's get this straight.... her hypocrisy alone is what's causing her to vote against unfair activities? If that's hypocrisy then we need far more of it. But, like I said, you'd be calling her a hypocrite today if she had come out against the ban. You make ZERO sense.
@Rex to follow up. How do you know that about Pelosi’s decision? Did she call you to check with you? As I said if you believe that I have several bridges and lots of beachfront property for you.
So, let's get this straight.... her hypocrisy alone is what's causing her to vote against unfair trading activities? If that's hypocrisy then we need far more of it. But, like I said, you'd be calling her a hypocrite today if she had come out against the ban. You make ZERO sense.
nope, and i blame the lefty media for not telling you enough about the insurrection of april 2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2021_United_States_Capitol_car_attack more deadly than jan 6th and for a more dangerous ideology. equally likely to be successful.
No if she had remained in opposition to the ban, she would have been consistent. There is argument for both sides that can be respected. Her hypocrisy is that I very much doubt she’s changed her opinion; one she’s held forcefully for years for any reason other than hypocritical expediency.
