Snopes debunks the lies of Trump
That is, the lies that have been told about Trump in order to hurt him.
Are you surprised that Snopes is doing such a thing? I am.
[Hat tip: Althouse.]
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
That is, the lies that have been told about Trump in order to hurt him.
Are you surprised that Snopes is doing such a thing? I am.
[Hat tip: Althouse.]
The Age of Trump is making a lot of people nervous about the future and less SJWesque. The previous pantywaist presidential image has been replaced.
Are you surprised that Snopes is doing such a thing? I am.
I am also surprised.
I don’t see the point of following the Trump brouhaha closely, as it seems to be but a continuation of the MSM trying to pin something on Trump.
I’m surprised but cynical. They have to keep up the pretense of being truthtellers, after all, and actually playing both sides on occasion keeps them in good graces.
What I see is that the people at Snopes the hole that the left Is digging beneath themselves; and how, like the boy who cried wolf, this will come back and hurt them.
It’s not just the falsehoods they highlight, but over the top responses as well. Every one of these is used to support the notion that DJT is unfit for office, should be impeached or executed (that is the punishment for treason, right?)
Under this current state of affairs, what would happen if a real scandal came out of the Trump administration? Would anybody believe the left or mainstream press (I repeat my self there)?
KRB
Kae Arby is totally correct, for any normal person.
When everything is a scandal, nothing is a scandal.
However, the Left and Dems have shown that they will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous, so they certainly will believe something that happens (accidentally?) to be true.
Snopes giveth, and Snopes (sort of) taketh away.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
“Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s approval of a deal to transfer control of 20% of U.S. uranium deposits to a Russian company was a quid pro quo exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation: False”
However, when you read through the analysis, they are actually weaseling around the situation in a “meaning of is” fashion.
They debunk certain specific claims to conclude that Hillary didn’t give the Russians uranium that they could take home in return from donations from the investors.
Then turn around and tell us that donations came from OTHER people involved in the deal.
And the Russians still own and profit from the shares, even if they can’t pocket the uranium itself.
Snopes has a political agenda, and I don’t trust them on anything that’s got a political angle to it.
If it comes to things like “Did Bubble Yum have spider eggs in the 80s?” they seem pretty reliable.
Snopes is not a reliable neutral source. A lot of their stuff is progressive narrative crap.
If it comes to things like “Did Bubble Yum have spider eggs in the 80s?” they seem pretty reliable.
Snopes is as reliable as a grenade made by jihadists.
Intel analysts don’t use those sources, since they have better ones, open info mining even.
I’m cynical, so I assume they have to do this sometimes to demonstrate why they can be counted on by companies like Facebook and AP to be their third-party fact checkers for labeling some news items as “Fake News.”