[Rugoz]

He was impeached for lying under oath:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

The pertinent text is in the second sentence: "The specific charges against Clinton were lying under oath and obstruction of justice."

You can try to spin it any way you want, but he was impeached for perjury...

I never denied he was impeached. I said he didn't commit perjury. What the Republican majority voted for is utterly irrelevant to that question.

Very true. Lying about a blow job is not a high crime, not is it a misdemeanor.

Lying under oath, however, is. The subject of those lies doesn't matter...

Lying under oath about a blow job (which he didn't) is nowhere near a "high crime or misendavour". It's fucking braindead to think so.

[BigSteve]

I never denied he was impeached. I said he didn't commit perjury. What the Republican majority voted for is utterly irrelevant to that question.

One of the articles of impeachment sent to the Senate was for perjury.

Call it anything you want, I guess, but it's silly to say he wasn't impeached for it...

Lying under oath about a blow job (which he didn't) is nowhere near a "high crime or misendavour". It's fucking braindead to think so.

What's brain dead (other than to invent the word "misendavour") is to believe that, when under oath, there's a distinction as to what one may or may not lie about.

There isn't.

You're under oath.

You tell the truth.

Period.

Clinton failed to do that and, in failing to do so, committed perjury, which he was impeached for...

[Patrickov]

Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren in private 2018 meeting that a woman can't win, sources say

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/13/poli ... index.html

Sanders probably just meant he was aware of the number of mysoginists in the United States.

One thing I learn fron this forum is that most tweets like this (be it pro-Trump or anti-Trump) are probably fake or exaggerated. Care should be taken when sharing them.

[Hindsite]

Sanders probably just meant he was aware of the number of mysoginists in the United States.


One thing I learn fron this forum is that most tweets like this (be it pro-Trump or anti-Trump) are probably fake or exaggerated. Care should be taken when sharing them.

However, it makes the point very good.
HalleluYah

[colliric]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -democrats

More on Booker's withdrawal.

[Patrickov]

However, it makes the point very good.
HalleluYah

As This Member sometimes points out himself, fake news do not make points good.

[colliric]

Sanders probably just meant he was aware of the number of mysoginists in the United States.

Or probably he's aware how much Hillary set that cause back a decade or so.

[Godstud]

People who think news is fake are simply not inclined to believe anything that doesn't confirm their bias, so they deny reality on that basis.

[Patrickov]

Or probably he's aware how much Hillary set that cause back a decade or so.

Frankly, if one has low confidence on female candidates just because of Hillary Clinton being a Pariah (I dispute that too, but let's assume it is true), that person effectively thinks lowly towards women, and IMHO it is mysoginist.

Look at Hong Kong and Taiwan. Female leaders are just like any leader -- they can be good, they can be bad. Treat them equally.

[Patrickov]

People who think news is fake are simply not inclined to believe anything that doesn't confirm their bias, so they deny reality on that basis.

Reporters and editors themselves are also human and will have bias, not to mention if the media in concern is corporate or state controlled. Better set the default mode as "it is fake".

But as far as I concern, it is not that hard to identify lies. The more emotional a report is the more likely it is at least partially false.

[Godstud]

Facts are facts. Opinions are not. Your take on it is overly simplistic and borderline ridiculous, @Patrickov. There is no "fake news". There is news and there are there are pundits peddling their opinions and propaganda. Those, however, are not NEWS.

eg. Trump lies. That's a fact supported by mountains of evidence.

[Patrickov]

:roll: Facts are facts. Opinions are not. Your take on it is overly simplistic and borderline ridiculous, @Patrickov. There is no "fake news". There is news and there are there are pundits peddling their opinions and propaganda. Those, however, are not NEWS.

eg. Trump lies. That's a fact supported by mountains of evidence.

Selective presentation of facts in a report is fake news, and not necessarily opinion, to me. I only see those with obvious statements of the writer's feelings as opinion.

[BigSteve]

There is no "fake news". There is news and there are there are pundits peddling their opinions and propaganda. Those, however, are not NEWS.

Quite true.

As we all know, those are CNN and MSNBC...

[Godstud]

Selective presentation of facts in a report is fake news, and not necessarily opinion, to me. I only see those with obvious statements of the writer's feelings as opinion.

Well, you're wrong. The facts are being presented by all the news agencies, but people are getting distracted by all the stupid pundits that these news outlets hire to peddle their political agendas. The facts are still being reported, but people aren't listening to the facts. They are listening to the opinions, as you and BigSteve clearly demonstrate with your response.

You've lost your ability to discriminate, and now only listen to what you're told by news personalities.

As we all know, those are CNN and MSNBC...

And #1 with a bang, Fox News.

Look at how each one handles retractions... for one thing:

Conservative media has a reputation of being reluctant to admit mistakes. Could be because that part of their reason for being is that they feel that the main stream media has been biased against them and their point of view and, therefore, get things wrong.

In recent months, both CNN and Fox have retracted stories on their websites regarding particularly high-profile topics on the left and right, respectively. Both sites issued similar excuses: A breakdown in normal editorial standards that led to something being published that shouldn’t have been.

Yet in most other ways, the two cases are a study in opposites.

CNN, on one hand, retracted its story within a day and issued an apology. The network immediately carried out an internal investigation. Three employees resigned. Those that remained were told that any future stories on the topic would need to be vetted by two top executives before publishing.

Fox, on the other hand, took a week to retract the story, though it was debunked by other news outlets within hours. Little news of an investigation within the network emerged. No on-air apology was issued, despite a week of speculative coverage on the cable network. No employees resigned. And one of the network’s stars — Sean Hannity — continues to promote the conspiracy theory to this day.
https://thinkprogress.org/fox-news-cnn- ... fbc589fe6/

[Patrickov]

Well, you're wrong. The facts are being presented by all the news agencies, but people are getting distracted by all the stupid pundits that these news outlets hire to peddle their political agendas. The facts are still being reported, but people aren't listening to the facts. They are listening to the opinions, as you and BigSteve clearly demonstrate with your response.

You've lost your ability to discriminate, and now only listen to what you're told by news personalities.

I am afraid this is serious false accusation. If anything, news personalities are even more often fake. I just want to point out that selective reportings is what "fake news" is to me, it does not necessarily mean I believe more in something said by, say, "Trumpets".

[Godstud]

Selective facts are not fake facts, so your entire premise is incorrect, @Patrickov. They do call that "spin", however, and most people can tell when this happens.

Not everyone has all the facts, all the time, so implying something is fake simply because they lack a few facts, is simplistic, to say the least.

Yes, the personalities reporting news and giving their own "takes" on it, as is more common now, is not actual factual. They are opinions. You only see very few reports by Fox News where the reporter doesn't give their opinion on what's being reported. more often, than not, they bring someone in to give their opinion on it, and this misleads the people from the actual facts.

[colliric]

Frankly, if one has low confidence on female candidates just because of Hillary Clinton being a Pariah (I dispute that too, but let's assume it is true), that person effectively thinks lowly towards women, and IMHO it is mysoginist.

Look at Hong Kong and Taiwan. Female leaders are just like any leader -- they can be good, they can be bad. Treat them equally.

I agree, but I think Sanders comments were in relation to the fact the Democratic Party should not go with another Woman candidate in a row just yet as Trump schooled the last one, and she was supposed to be "the choosen one who couldn't possibly lose". Maybe in 2024. Tulsi Gabbard should run again in 2024 in my opinion. If Sanders wins nomination he should nominate Tulsi as his vice president.



I expect the Republican Party is going to have a few female candidates throw in their hats for that election as well. In fact I'm still hoping Sarah Palin runs for President in 2024. I'd back her 100%.

Palin VS Gabbard in 2024 would be a tough choice for me.

[Patrickov]

Selective facts are not fake facts, so your entire premise is incorrect, @Patrickov. They do call that "spin", however, and most people can tell when this happens.

Not everyone has all the facts, all the time, so implying something is fake simply because they lack a few facts, is simplistic, to say the least.

Yes, the personalities reporting news and giving their own "takes" on it, as is more common now, is not actual factual. They are opinions. You only see very few reports by Fox News where the reporter doesn't give their opinion on what's being reported. more often, than not, they bring someone in to give their opinion on it, and this misleads the people from the actual facts.

I am not American and I do not watch Fox News.

[Godstud]

It's an example that I am sure you are aware of. I am not an American, but I am aware of Fox news. Your answer is a cop-out.

[Patrickov]

It's an example that I am sure you are aware of. I am not an American, but I am aware of Fox news. Your answer is a cop-out.

More likely my failure to comprehend why My Friend would imply I watch Fox News or believe in Trumpist statements just because I believe fake news exist. I do admit that I probably didn't read My Friend's posts thoroughly.

EDIT: Calling this a cop-out is a bit arbitary.