dan7777777 | 0 points
Is Snopes about to debunk Pizzagate?
There are currently researching it: http://www.snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/
But they only do it for the money: http://abcnews.com.co/donald-trump-protester-speaks-out-i-was-paid-to-protest/
xx45xx | 5 points
Snopes is garbage. You ever notice how they change a story from its original telling to debunk it based off the variable they inserted?
ryguyhermosa | 3 points
obviously this one is a hard one to debunk, they haven't touched 911, i have a feeling they might walk away from this one.
emilythompson96 | 1 points
Last night, it said that it was in progress. Today, it says it's unproven with a big red x but have no reason as to why they decided to lean towards that than remain in progress...
sunkenberries | 14 points | Nov 22 2016 10:48:04
So, snopes is somehow able to debunk something that nobody has done yet sofar? You do realize it's ran by a prominently left-wing couple right? Simply look at all their previous claims with regards to Clinton, even the ones where nothing was proven. They're just another pair of humans who happened to become popular. They were reliable in the past, but now they base all their information off "factcheck.org" which is influenced by the government intelligence agency "Stratfor". (Search on Wikileaks "Stratfor" "Factcheck", and you'll get 60 pages worth of discussion reggarding factcheck. In the earlier pages you'll see conversations such as "factcheck the shit out of this" with regards to news.)
There's no reason to trust them. Especially when they "intentionally" do not disclose their funding source, and further "intentionally" hide their previous web history on the Wayback Archives as to not let out any hints.
AND... Look at the author's bio: "Kim later began writing for the site due to an executive order unilaterally passed by President Obama during a secret, late-night session." Obviously sarcasm, but shows that she's clearly biased from the beginning.
permalink
sheik_yerbouti_jr | 0 points | Nov 22 2016 12:15:21
I was a supporter of Clinton. Not a very eager one, as I understood what she did with her server etc, but nonetheless. Even from today's perspective I wouldn't vote for Trump.
Yet I'm actively here.
Let's wait to see what Snopes comes up with, and let's analyse this critically . We could learn something from her.
permalink
sunkenberries | 3 points | Nov 22 2016 12:27:36
Like I said, there's no 100% evidence until we conduct physical investigations. For the past few years, Snopes has had a tendency to make true/false conclusions upon incomplete evidence (e.g. using a biased source, or not at all.). It's no doubt they'll do the same this time. They've done it for everything with regards to their political ideals to the point that it's obvious.
If you have a "maybe" option, but never use it when it relates to your political views, you're definitely an unreliable source.
I already know that Snopes won't look at this objectively. I hope they surprise me. I'll genuinely be disappointed if they make any "absolute" conclusions based on incomplete evidence, when 100s of children's lives are on stake.
permalink