Al Franken's turn now? heh heh heh ....here it comes.....I guess this is long overdue

[Dawg]

. Yes. It’s the accuser who was uncertain enough about the quality of her case that she agreed to settle it rather than risk taking it to a jury.

$850,000 + uncertain makes you sound stupidly

and you claim to be a Lawyer=rotflmao

 

[Arkady]

But yet, Trump (according to you and others here) lies about EVERYTHING.

Well, "everything" is a bit of an exaggeration. But, as you know, he lies vastly more often than a typical politician, and completely dominated the rankings of major 2016 candidates in terms of the frequency of lying, according to multiple independent fact-checkers.

And yes, Clinton lied under oath......

Which specific statement told under oath do you believe was a lie, and what evidence do you see that what he said wasn't true?

After nearly 14 hours of debate, the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, charging him with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice.

Yes -- and after those clowns pushed through their sham charges, they couldn't even convince enough Republicans in the Senate to back the charges for their coup d'etat attempt to succeed. When even the most right-wing Senate in modern history (to that point) can't bring itself to pretend such charges are justified, you know you've gone way the hell off the deep end. Fortunately for Clinton, not only did several Republican senators find themselves with too much conscience to go along with the stunt, but the American people saw right through it. Clinton's popularity soared after the Republicans brought their silly little impeachment, and Clinton wound up the most popular outgoing president in the history of modern polling.

 

[Dawg]

Well, "everything" is a bit of an exaggeration. But, as you know, he lies vastly more often than a typical politician, and completely dominated the rankings of major 2016 candidates in terms of the frequency of lying, according to multiple independent fact-checkers.



Which specific statement told under oath do you believe was a lie, and what evidence do you see that what he said wasn't true?

After nearly 14 hours of debate, the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, charging him with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice.

Yes -- and after those clowns pushed through their sham charges, they couldn't even convince enough Republicans in the Senate to back the charges for their coup d'etat attempt to succeed. When even the most right-wing Senate in modern history (to that point) can't bring itself to pretend such charges are justified, you know you've gone way the hell of the deep end. Fortunately for Clinton, not only did several Republican senators find themselves with too much conscience to go along with the stunt, but the American people saw right through it. Clinton's popularity soared after the Republicans brought their silly little impeachment, and Clinton wound up the most popular outgoing president in the history of modern polling.[/QUOTE]

"Conscience" = they could be in hot seat next

Libs loved his molesting women=most popular

 

[Arkady]

But Bill Clinton was ready and anxious to go to trial?

No, clearly he wasn't. He's a guy who was able to charge half a million bucks for a single one-hour speech in front of a friendly corporate audience. If winning that trial cost even two hours of his time, he'd come out ahead simply by settling the claim, spending that time doing speeches, and pocketing the difference. Understandably, that's what he chose to do. It's not like winning the trial would have changed anyone's mind on the right -- look at the way he prevailed in the Senate impeachment and yet right-wingers remain convinced he must have done something wrong. So, there was no point wasting his time and money, and putting his family through that crap, just in the hopes of "clearing his name." Among right-wingers, nothing could do that, since they will believe any negative charge against a Clinton to their dying breath, no matter what. And among non-right-wingers, it was already clear he would have prevailed.

 

[Arkady]

No. All news is tainted. One must get need from a variety of sources and see through the various agendas


I find this hilarious. CNN"s ratings are down by 52% and they're left with the likes of Nina as their vote audience.

I don't like CNN any more -- starting in the early 2000s, to compete better with the shameless tabloid style Rupert Murdoch brought to Fox News, they really dumbed things down. You can see what I mean, just by comparing the layout from an archived CNN.com page from 2000 and how the site looks today:

http://www.cnn.com/
https://web.archive.org/web/20000815052826/http://www.cnn.com:80/

In 2000, it was information-dense -- lots of text, few pictures, and mostly just informative (instead of sensational) headlines linking to longer stories. Now there are lots of pictures, a huge portion of the stories focus on personalities instead of policy, and there's a lot of video that's not even trying to be serious (comparing the Trump and Rubio water sips, or a story saying Trump's face was found in a dog's ear), plus all the paid content (57 Amish Facts that will make you cringe). It's been seriously dumbed down, with an aesthetic pioneered in supermarket check-out-line publications.

But, even though I personally don't like their plunge into the trash heap, it seems to be working. They just had their most watched third quarter ever:

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/q3-2017-ratings-cnn-has-most-watched-third-quarter-ever/342731

 

[Arkady]

$850,000 + uncertain makes you sound stupidly

Hahahaaheehehaaa!

 

[Arkady]

Libs loved his molesting women=most popular

It's chilling how much trouble right-wingers like you have with understanding a concept as simple as consent. When two adults mutually choose to have a sexual relationship with each other, as Clinton and Lewinsky did, that's not molestation. Molestation is when someone forces sexual behavior on someone who is unwilling (as, for example, Moore is alleged to have done when he groped women), or who is incapable of giving meaningful consent due to some form of incapacity such as being too young (as when Moore is accused of having a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old).

 

[NinaS]

Maybe you should watch some news as well. Watching CNN all day hardly qualifies.

Maybe you should go FLY a kite. Or at least pretend you know how.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Maybe you should go FLY a kite. Or at least pretend you know how.

I haven't flown a kite since I was a kid. I'm not sure why you would think that a person in their 50s would be interested in doing so.

You make some extremely bizarre comments. Are they supposed to make sense?

 

[NinaS]

Well, "everything" is a bit of an exaggeration. But, as you know, he lies vastly more often than a typical politician, and completely dominated the rankings of major 2016 candidates in terms of the frequency of lying, according to multiple independent fact-checkers.



Which specific statement told under oath do you believe was a lie, and what evidence do you see that what he said wasn't true?



Yes -- and after those clowns pushed through their sham charges, they couldn't even convince enough Republicans in the Senate to back the charges for their coup d'etat attempt to succeed. When even the most right-wing Senate in modern history (to that point) can't bring itself to pretend such charges are justified, you know you've gone way the hell off the deep end. Fortunately for Clinton, not only did several Republican senators find themselves with too much conscience to go along with the stunt, but the American people saw right through it. Clinton's popularity soared after the Republicans brought their silly little impeachment, and Clinton wound up the most popular outgoing president in the history of modern polling.

Her answer: Marked your post DISAGREE. LOL

 

[NinaS]

I don't like CNN any more -- starting in the early 2000s, to compete better with the shameless tabloid style Rupert Murdoch brought to Fox News, they really dumbed things down. You can see what I mean, just by comparing the layout from an archived CNN.com page from 2000 and how the site looks today:

http://www.cnn.com/
https://web.archive.org/web/20000815052826/http://www.cnn.com:80/

In 2000, it was information-dense -- lots of text, few pictures, and mostly just informative (instead of sensational) headlines linking to longer stories. Now there are lots of pictures, a huge portion of the stories focus on personalities instead of policy, and there's a lot of video that's not even trying to be serious (comparing the Trump and Rubio water sips, or a story saying Trump's face was found in a dog's ear), plus all the paid content (57 Amish Facts that will make you cringe). It's been seriously dumbed down, with an aesthetic pioneered in supermarket check-out-line publications.

But, even though I personally don't like their plunge into the trash heap, it seems to be working. They just had their most watched third quarter ever:

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/q3-2017-ratings-cnn-has-most-watched-third-quarter-ever/342731

They were on the Franken case all day yesterday. They are biased and they give Trump hell all the time, BUT when he has done nothing but slime them and calls them FAKE NEWS, I hope they keep it up. They hate his guts with reason.

 

[Caroljo]

Her answer: Marked your post DISAGREE. LOL

Maybe because I disagreed with everything he said?

 

[Caroljo]

They were on the Franken case all day yesterday. They are biased and they give Trump hell all the time, BUT when he has done nothing but slime them and calls them FAKE NEWS, I hope they keep it up. They hate his guts with reason.

Ya, I see CNN has been quite a bit better about telling the truth, or at least some. Looks to me like Trump calling them out for their lies did them SOME good.

 

[MrMike]

I haven't flown a kite since I was a kid. I'm not sure why you would think that a person in their 50s would be interested in doing so.

You make some extremely bizarre comments. Are they supposed to make sense?

I think that one is self-explanatory in that case....

Yes -- and after those clowns pushed through their sham charges, they couldn't even convince enough Republicans in the Senate to back the charges for their coup d'etat attempt to succeed. When even the most right-wing Senate in modern history (to that point) can't bring itself to pretend such charges are justified, you know you've gone way the hell of the deep end. Fortunately for Clinton, not only did several Republican senators find themselves with too much conscience to go along with the stunt, but the American people saw right through it. Clinton's popularity soared after the Republicans brought their silly little impeachment, and Clinton wound up the most popular outgoing president in the history of modern polling.

"Conscience" = they could be in hot seat next

Libs loved his molesting women=most popular [/QUOTE]

The reality is... the Left have painted themselves in a corner for decades using a brush provided by the Clinton by hiding their perversions and rape. Try as they might now, the Lefties can't escape the gravity of that black hole.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Ya, I see CNN has been quite a bit better about telling the truth, or at least some. Looks to me like Trump calling them out for their lies did them SOME good.

Nah, you've just been programmed to screech about "the media" when they report facts you don't like, and applaud them when they report facts you do like.

 

[NinaS]

Maybe because I disagreed with everything he said?

Yet you didn't have anything to say for a change? Why is that? Hiding behind your Disagrees and Dislikes is BS. If it weren't for the rating tabs, you cons couldn't survive.

 

[Arkady]

They were on the Franken case all day yesterday. They are biased and they give Trump hell all the time, BUT when he has done nothing but slime them and calls them FAKE NEWS, I hope they keep it up. They hate his guts with reason.

What frustrates me is how little policy analysis they do. It's all personality stuff -- whether they're going after Trump or Franken, it's for interpersonal behavior and easily understood scandals, rather than working to explain policy matters. There are some hugely important matters at hand right now -- tax cuts that will boost deficits by trillions of dollars, and yet another attempt to gut healthcare. That stuff may be too dry to drive ratings, but it's going to make VASTLY more difference to the majority of people than a lewd picture a senator took years before he took office.

 

[NinaS]

Nah, you've just been programmed to screech about "the media" when they report facts you don't like, and applaud them when they report facts you do like.

Note, she nor any other con will call out Trump on his hypocrisy for tweeting about Franken who has apologized, admitted his guilt. (which doesn't help the victim but makes him a bigger man than their boy Trump). Why aren't they calling out the pedophile Moore? His supposed "Christianity" is about as fake as those here who tout theirs.

 

[marvin martian]

If he’d pulled her pants or top down for the picture, I’d want him impeached.

Good to know you at least draw a line at forcible assault.

 

[NinaS]

What frustrates me is how little policy analysis they do. It's all personality stuff -- whether they're going after Trump or Franken, it's for interpersonal behavior and easily understood scandals, rather than working to explain policy matters. There are some hugely important matters at hand right now -- tax cuts that will boost deficits by trillions of dollars, and yet another attempt to gut healthcare. That stuff may be too dry to drive ratings, but it's going to make VASTLY more difference to the majority of people than a lewd picture a senator took years before he took office.

The tax cuts will help people like Trump. That's all he and his other rich cronies care about. And they'll get it passed, one way or another.