Republicans, explain how these are similar? Do you really consider a president using funds from the government to provide aid in exchange for a personal favour equivalent to a president allegedly being on the phone to a bank to get their sons a loan?
Remember - in the first case there were literally phone call recordings. In the second, there is no evidence beyond whats being alleged.
Both are “abuse of office”. You acquitted the first. Do you really feel the second is just as bad or worse than the first? Why?
A
A president of the united states called the leader of another foreign sovereign nation in an attempt to coerce said foreign nation to investigate a conspiracy theory about the president’s political opponent in exchange for 400million dollars in military aid to defend against a third foreign nation. A quid quo pro deal.
Said president instigated an attack on the capitol building in an attempt to overthrow democracy and prevent votes from being counted.
B
The sons of a president of the united states, while on the phone to … a bank? financial institution? some loan provider … put the president on the phone to exchange pleasantries. No alleged quid quo pro - even from the republican report from what I have seen.
Calling it now - not a single republican voter will provide a coherent response.
In 2016 a MAGoo woman went on The View TV show to defend Donnie’s ‘pussy grabber’ tape.
One of the other panelists kept saying the word ‘pussy’ over and over. Finally, the Conservative woman had had enough and demanded that the other lady stop using that offensive term.
I read the whole article to try to find out what relevance cannabis had to the story.
The answer is: it didn’t. The author just decided “this guy was a hippie and he still smokes weed like he did back then” was somehow relevant.
My dad wasn’t a hippie, but he used cannabis edibles for a few years before he died after never having used it his entire life to treat pain. On top of that, plenty of Republicans are avid cannabis users.
Why try to divide people on an issue that is widely agreed upon across the political spectrum?
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
> Wikipedia about this source
Dave Van Zandt’s site, Media Bias Fact Check puts The Guardian and Breitbart in the same (Factual Reporting: MIXED) category of credibility. Apparently this is because they both have articles where the facts are contested. This ignores the difference in size of the two news sources’ publication rate, the number of articles contested, and the seriousness and type of errors. This is not a credible way of measuring a news publication’s credibility.
MBFC is a right-biased credibility gatekeeper. Lemmy.World loses credibility every day this bot continues to operate.
Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Associated Press:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Wall Street Journal - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Wall Street Journal:
> MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
LA Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for LA Times:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
NBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for NBC News:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.