Lol, I knew someone would find a way to either throw Obama or Hillary into this and you won the prize.

"Please don't ask me to watch videos whose titles are lies.  I didn't see any laugh directed at Clinton. 
"As for what McConnell said, just because the Republicans take their cues nowadays from extremist bloggers, radio talk show hosts, etc., doesn't mean the Democrats are following suit.  Let me know if someone in Congress proposes that, but until then McConnell—and you—are just stretching "a human being in the USA has this idea" to mean "the Democratic Party plans to do this".  I mean, shit, if they were going to pack the court there wouldn't even be a need to impeach Kavanaugh."

This is what you call "focused on the title"?  21 words about it, then 87 words about the other stuff. 

"TYT talking about it and FOX reporting it. They may do either or try both. McConnell smirks in the video which for him is about as close to a laugh as you get."

18 words about the title and 15 words about everything else.  Except even the 15 words were veering off topic, because when I said that you didn't dispute anything I had said you didn't even try to refute me about anything except the title. 

You've been exposed for what you are.  Why not just admit it? 

So you don't like the name of the title of the video, that I didn't make, that was as short and sweet as I could find, that I simply added as proof to help make my point, since the odds were high I would get asked for proof if I didn't?

A portion of a title of a 2:45 clip that also talks about something I didn't even mention at all in my initial post? You want me to say I'm a phony because I tried to answer you and point out how someone other than yourself may interpret that McConnell was laughing?

Well since this is clearly such a major problem for you, I'd be happy to ignore any and all of the following responses you make that veer off track, if even ever so slightly, since apparently it's up to me to decide what you should and shouldn't say when you respond to me, based on what I've already said prior.

Going to be some very short conversations by the the looks of it.

For a guy who wants to talk about the points you made, and not the video title, it's funny how the only part of my response to your points that you addressed was the part where I mentioned the video title.

If you truly think that "maybe he was laughing on the inside" is a reasonable defense of the fact that a video titled "Mitch McConnell LAUGHS At Hillary Clinton And Far Left Mob Over Brett Kavanaugh" shows zero laughter, especially when the video description backtracks to "Mitch McConnell Today smiled and smirked and made fun of all of the opposition", I really don't know what to say.  Maybe you're in the Matrix and everything you do and experience is an illusion?  Asking why I don't assume the video's poster meant he was laughing on the inside is about as silly.

And I realize you're trying to mock me with the third paragraph, but I STILL can't figure out what you're actually referring to as the basis for your mockery, as far as "apparently it's up to me to decide what you should and shouldn't say".  I'm kind of curious, but would be disappointed if answering this question consumed your entire post to the exclusion of all other responses.  Especially if you blamed me for it. 

Below

I wonder how many times I will have to re-post prior posts as proof of points in posts that have already have been made after the initial post?

Also don't be silly like me, we all know it's my fault. I can't remember why though, or when...

I wonder how many times you'll post before what it is you're supposedly "proving" is actually explained? 

Whenever someone goes back and reads the first few initial posts that were made. Since I've had to repost some of those so far, I'm guessing, infinity?

LOL. I figured there was a strong chance this might happen. 'Knights in shining armor'. I didn't mean someone as in someone else though. 

I eat AppleJacks for breakfast btw. My fav.

Since you're either trolling or honestly too myopic to understand that you need to articulate the point you're trying to make instead of just post "evidence" and assume everyone has magical psychic knowledge of your thought process, I'll do your job for you and guess that you're trying to say that
"TYT talking about it and FOX reporting it. They may do either or try both."
was addressing my post,
"As for what McConnell said, just because the Republicans take their cues nowadays from extremist bloggers, radio talk show hosts, etc., doesn't mean the Democrats are following suit.  Let me know if someone in Congress proposes that, but until then McConnell—and you—are just stretching "a human being in the USA has this idea" to mean "the Democratic Party plans to do this".  I mean, shit, if they were going to pack the court there wouldn't even be a need to impeach Kavanaugh."

First, I'll point out that back when those posts were fresh I had already pointed out that your response did NOT address what I said, and when you disputed it you pointed ONLY to the part that talked about whether McConnell laughed and NOT the other parts.  Until now I have taken this to be a tacit admission that the other stuff was not on point and have repeatedly told you so, which you have yet to explicitly dispute. 

Second, "TYT talking about it and FOX reporting it."  TYT talking about the possibility of trying one or both of those things (which I don't know is true but I'm taking your word for it for now) doesn't mean that Democrats in Congress actually plan on trying any such thing.  So how was that a substantive response to my post?  Fox reporting about speculation that the Democrats are wild-eyed lunatics desperate to destroy America is nothing new and I don't see what this has to do with anything. 

Third, "They may do either or try both."  Taken literally as a claim that this it's not physically impossible that this could happen, I agree.  By that standard, it's equally true that "the Republicans may do either or try both".  But I already said in the first post that I see no indications that there is a moderate likelihood (or more) that either one will actually be attempted and you gave no argument to the contrary.  So how was that a substantive response to my post? 

You said I didn't and I showed you I did. You kept saying I didn't though. The other parts were mostly explained by the TYT and FOX clips. It also doesn't mean the Dems specifically aren't planning that. Why would Fox out of the blue make something like that up? What would they really have to gain? They already 'won' anyway like Trump said. Sounds an awful lot like some of the Ford excuses about why she came forward. Why would she lie? What would she have to gain? Just because there wasn't news about Ford earlier, did she only recently become a victim, or was she a victim the entire time, we just didn't know until it was reported? Is news only true if the left leaning media also covers it? No reason for the left or right media to turn a blind eye to certain stories? Not like the left or right ever have stories about potential news, like Trump being a Russian spy/pawn, NK on the brink of nuking the US, or the Dems in the planning stages of impeaching Kav. None of which have any truth to them apparently, but plenty argued that wasn't the case when those stories were hot out of the oven.

Dem leaders over the last month or so, keep calling for harassment of Rep leaders, kicking them when their down, and just recently, Hillary herself (on CNN I think) said there is no need for civility until the Dems get the power back. Those are just words though, words from the left, which mean nothing, unlike the words from the right, which mean exactly whatever is said, regardless of the way in which it is presented, or what happens in correlation with it. Are the Dems not drooling at the opportunity to impeach Trump? Why bother impeaching Trump if you can just 'stack the Gov'? All they have to do is win the House, Senate, or even the Presidency, and then they don't need to worry about impeaching him, so why are they so worked up about exactly that? Why wouldn't that same train of thought follow through with Kav? Just stack the court right? Could it be that the Dems don't just live their political lives day to day and plan ahead? Could it be they don't want the story spread so it doesn't become boring old news, because they aren't ready themselves to push that agenda just yet?