3 ms·

To me there's not such a big difference between resorting to a totally original straw man and picking the weakest argument among those different individuals on

To me there's not such a big difference between resorting to a totally original straw man and picking the weakest argument among those different individuals on the other side of party lines have put forward. This snopes article serves as a catchall for claims about democratic attempts to impeach. There's no separate article for a different wording of the meme. And even if this were the only way anyone had worded the claim, it still merits a "partially true" or "mostly true". I deliberately avoided putting specific examples in my first post because I didn't want to quibble over the specifics. Spin is spin, it's not outright lying. Snopes isn't going to bend the truth to such a degree that a democrat, when confronted with the article, would be forced to admit they are dirty rotten liars.

dkonofalski 7y ago
>And even if this were the only way anyone had worded the claim, it still merits a "partially true" or "mostly true". How so? At best, only 2 of the last 6 Presidents were actually called for impeachment by the Democratic party and, at worst, it was 3 if you count Nixon which was bi-partisan. How does that make the claim, in any way, "mostly true" or even "partially true"?
nickthemagicman 7y ago
> democrat, when confronted with the article, would be forced to admit they are dirty rotten liars. And there you have it. I think your objectivity might be a little questionable. Reality has as known liberal bias.