WestCanMan

D Harris’s comment stands as the written & published testimony of a member of society in high standing, on a subject where he is the world’s leading authority until proven otherwise - his own grandmother and great grandmother. He’s not blonde with blue eyes, pretending to be a ‘visible minority’ and citing a vague claim from his grandmother that he never bothered to follow up on. He’s very specific about names of people that we have every reason to believe he should know. His word stands as the statement of record until he is “disproven”. The burden of proof isn’t on him to prove his own grandmother was. It falls on someone else to disprove it, period.

Two is plenty dude. Harris and Warren. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I’m not a guy who says fool me 86 times, no big d. That’s a leftist quote.

If it even makes a difference to you that they’re accurate more often then they intentionally lie then you can go ahead and use him as a fact checker. I try not to get my information from people who I know to be active liars.

Them being wrong on 2/2 is bad enough imo. The thing with the fact checker is that you usually go there when you don’t already know what the correct answer is. Now that I know they’re not honest in 2/2 instances, why would I take them as an authority on anything else?

Go read all that again, and yes, Snopes is totally busted. You're not even trying to defend the content of their crap posts. No one is. It's indefensible. AKA garbage.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/07/19/donald-trump-putin-russia-cbs-interview-ac360-sot-vpx.cnn I accidentally put this with the previous reply. It was for this post. To be honest, it's not easy finding clips of people making claims that they already have actual evidence. If you watch from 3:05 to about 4:30 you'll find a great example of CNN grossly overstating the connection between arrests made by the Mueller investigation and their relation to Russian collusion. 192 criminal charges.....blah blah blah then ends with "you get the picture". But none of the blah blah blah says anything about Russian collusion. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/10/31/hannity_on_indictments_one_justice_system_for_the_clintons_the_left_and_another_for_everyone_else.html Here's some info on Manafort's charges. That's a big part of the 192 charges (many of which were against 13 random Russians who will never set foot in America) by Mueller's team, and a big chunk of the jailtime handed out. Prosecutors were originally requesting "minimum 19 years jail time", they offered him reduced jail time for dirt on Trump, and none of the charges were related to collusion. He ended up with less than 4 years jail time. But when they talk about "FACTS" this is the first thing they bring up. Utter horseshit. You might know all this now that the trial is over, but CNN was spinning these unrelated arrests like collusion gold. Anyways, this is unrelated to the fact that I busted Snopes for being left-wing fakt chuckers. Read the OP. Debate the posts that are on-topic here. We can debate the witch hunt in another thread.

Did they make the 9/11 hijackers "Times Magazine People of the Year" in 2001? Has there been a bigger news story since the year 2000? Their criterion is theoretically to only name the people who are the most newsworthy, but if you read the list it's still limited to people who make the news in a good way, not in a bad way. Hitler would be Times Man of the Century, by a long shot, if being newsworthy was their only criteria. I provided two examples of Snopes being inaccurate. You can debate me on that if you want, otherwise you lose, as usual. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/07/19/donald-trump-putin-russia-cbs-interview-ac360-sot-vpx.cnn Here's a CNN talking head saying that Trump's team was open to collusion, trying to collude, etc, while talking about the infamous meeting. The same one that Mueller wrote 2,500 words about. The same meeting that Mueller was asked about last week, when he said that investigating why the same woman met with DNC staffers the day before and the day after the Trump meeting was "out of his purview". Their prediction all along has been that he's guilty. That's not up for debate.

He wasn't white. His parents were white and he grew up white but he wasn't white when he did the shooting. See? Told ya. Not white.

Yeah, so they may have done a good job at one time. I don't care how good they were 10 years ago, or 6 years ago, or 3 years ago because that's neither here nor there. I'm talking about how pathetic they are right now. Hitler was Time's "Man of the Year" in 1938. Are you going to say that he was awesome too? Get up to speed MH. I caught the "fact checkers" chucking around non-facts & spin. That's where we stand right now. Why don't you try to defend the content of their posts instead of making baseless accusations? We both know why that is - you don't have anything else. You go with what ya got. I'll take the position that Fox News is more accurate than Snopes. Let's go. Everybody loves to diss Fox here and no one ever tries to come back with facts. No one. Fox News predicted things that CNN didn't even report on after the fact, like Andrew McCabe's firing, Peter Strzok's problems... etc. The only people known to have committed crimes related to Russian collusion and during the course of the investigation so far are Dems and FBI officials. How did CNN's Russian collusion predictions go? The only one to get it right was Van Jones when he was caught on a hidden camera saying "Russian collusion is a big nothingburger". CNN got it right ONE SINGLE TIME IN OVER TWO YEARS. LMAO.

Lol.

They wrote an inaccurate/misleading rating, and then neglected to put a rating on a similar topic, in both instances this occurred when an accurate rating was going to be damaging to sitting leftist politicians. Then they tried to put a ridiculous spin on the articles. How many times do you let a news source or fact checker spin falsehoods to you before you put them into the "requires more than just a grain of salt" category? There are two there. That's plenty for a fact-checker.

Nope. You still haven't commented on my reply. I must have missed that part of the article that said that. Can you show me? Also, mortgages and all other loans come with a risk. Areas with a high default rate are a greater risk. And the areas that you're talking about had "Christains, Jews, etc...." so they're not even an example Smart racists vote for the Dems. Their policies keep blacks in poverty. You missed the point, intentionally. The Dems' holier-than-thou party line is bunk, and highly insulting. He said he had bone spurs. Millions of people "dodged" in the same ways. Back to the topic at hand, Snopes is complete crap, as per my comments in the OP and subsequent posts which substantiated them. Deal with it.

A direct reply to my direct and accurate response to your question would have been nice. I gave you the curtesy of an answer to yours Boges. Here's Kamala, in her finest hour, throwing down the victim of racism card. And you should be aware that when she's the victim, America - the country of white privilege as per the Dem party line, is the villain. Here's the irony of it all. When Americans (mostly white republican Americans) were fighting in an actual [civil] war (against Democrats - the party that gave rise to the KKK) and dying to abolish slavery, her ancestors were slave owners who were fighting to keep their slaves. Her father is a highly-educated man, where did the money for his education from? Now she's a victim because she rode a bus to get her free education? How many "white-priviliged Americans" were drafted to fight and die or get injured in Viet Nam? Tens of thousands. WWI, WWII, Korea, Iraq, etc. Where's the privilege in that?

The word “Unproven” is a false semi-exoneration in that context. It gives the impression that the claim lacks the credibility required for one to cite it in reasonable conversation. “Yet to be disproven” is far more accurate. The head of her family made the claim, and he’s the leading expert on planet earth. What he says about his own not-so-distant family history stands as a point of fact until disproven or until there is at least reasonable doubt. He’s a man of high standing, he made a credible claim, no one on earth gave good reason to doubt him. (Remember how many people, you included, put far more weight on Dr Ford’s claim which was completely vague and 100% uncorroborated?) If the claim that his genealogy wasn’t traced that far back was backed up with the claim that Jamaican birth records from the 1800s were impeccably kept that would be something. The fact that they can’t say either way leads me to believe that accurate birth records do not exist. So, her father’s claim is the ultimate authority at this point in time. It matters because Kamala is a SJW who acts like she’s better than everyone else and like she’s a victim of her skin colour. She’s just a victim of her own family karma.

Anything that is blatantly and deliberately misleading is fake news. If you want to start a thread about Google go for it. This is about Snopes, and their illegitimacy as a "fact checker". If you think that my opening post was inaccurate or misleading then by all means spell it out for us Boges. You have all the time in the world. As of this second it stands as 100% accurate because you don't have anything to say which contradicts any of the facts in it.

I never said CATO lied about inhumane conditions. That's just you lying again. I said that the conditions were inhumane because of underfunding and Dems attracting illegal immigration. The Republicans were the first ones to say that there was a crisis at the border. They were right. The Dems said that there was no crisis. They were lying. Get it?

If Schiff had evidence then the FBI has that evidence too. Why does the FBI keep saying that there was no evidence of collusion? In what way did they obstruct justice? There were something like 500 interrogations. They handed over milions of pages worth of documents. They gave the FBI lieterally every single thing they asked for. So what if Trump said Mueller should be fired - did you see how much of a stuttering boob he is? I wouldn't let him run a lemonade stand. Contrast Trump's "obstruction of justice" with Hillary's.... They just asked her to hand over a server and some emails. They got neither. The emails were deleted and the server was wiped. Can you provide me with one single CNN newscast that didn't say Trump colluded with Russia from 2018?

I've said about twenty times now that AOC's lies have nothing to do with CATO's comments. The two are unrelated. Neither one supports the other. There's no point in me saying it again if you don't understand it now.

Wow. I didn't have to have someone connect the dots for me to arrive at a conclusion of why US businesses are not allowed to unilaterally decide who they are going to boycott. I just figured it out myself. You, on the other hand, don't understand it even after it was all spelled out for you. I can't type any slower GH. You'll just have to read it really really slowly and try to understand. Your insults are juvenile, I don't have anything to say to the rest of your post. Cheers GH. I hope that your tireless efforts to research and create debate points eventually expands your brain to the point where you can undesrtand the subject matter that you're dealing with.

My argument is that people have been saying "Trump colluded with Russia" for over 2 years and no one has ever provided credible evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. Schiff has stated on multiple occasions that Trump was close to impeachment. No one is saying that Trump would be prosecuted for colluding with Russia. No one. People are saying that he could be prosecuted for obstructing justice by talking about firing Mueller. But now that we've all see how grossly incompetent Mueller is it's ridiculous to say that Trump had no grounds. Trump impeachment is still a farce. As of this second, anyone who has ever said "Trump colluded with Russia" is a outright liar and even if it is eventually proven true that doesn't change anything because there is overwhelming evidence right now that he didn't collude with Russia. That being a 2+ year FBI investigation which produced no evidence. No one "knows" that Trump colluded with Russia, period.

Honest people do. She needs to back down from her stance that "other people were bad and I'm 100% pure".

Yes, they matter quite a bit more to me than they do to every single Liberal/Democrat on earth. For example: I have never said in no uncertain terms that "Trump colluded with Russia". I would wait for at least some undeniable and verified evidence before I would consider such a statement. Here's the deal - it's perfectly legitimate to run a story that says "Kamala Harris's father, a Professor at [wherever], said that his great grandmother was a slave owner and was against abolition". That story 100% accurate whether or not her father was right. It doesn't overstate the likelihood of whether or not it's true. The reader can choose whether or not to believe it, or how much consideration to give it. It's incredibly stupid to join the club that says "If you can't find proof on ancestry.com then it's just a fake story that's not worth reporting on" because if they can't say definitively who her ancestors actually were, or weren't, then that's just proof that her records don't actually exist and all we have to go on is her family's own word. And her dad wasn't claiming something unlikely or worth bragging about. He was admitting to something that's unpopular. Not many people lie to make their family look bad. This is all just basic, solid logic, and undenied facts. Facts that matter. In conclusion, I'll say that people who deem sites that report on this story to just be "alt-right propaganda factories" are actually propagandists themselves. /debate

I know you never made that claim, you just don't didn't consider the international ramifications of businesses taking actions which effectively constitute the setting of foreign policy. Ford and Apple have licenses to conduct business within the USA and abroad. But a business license isn't a license to set foreign policy. If you want to do business in the US you have to follow their laws. Not really. Just think about the cake maker who didn't want to make a cake for the gay couple. The court determined that they didn't have the right to deny those people the right to do business with them. In the end the court also determined that it would be going too far to impose a positive injunction on them, specifically by making them create a cake with gay people on it, but the court still said that the cake maker had to allow gay people to do business with them. Their business would not be allowed to continue to operate if they refused to conduct business with gay people. Period. I totally appreciate that you have humanitarian concerns. I used to be anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian as well. But what you consider reasonable and what Iran considers reasonable and what Israel considers reasonable don't really matter though. The comparison to Nazi Germany was made by a member of the squad. That's the genesis of this whole debate. If your posts made more sense then I wouldn't have made a claim against your reading comprehension.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/14/adam-schiff-there-ample-evidence-collusion-between-trump-campaign-russians/336786002/ for Bubber

LMAO. Now you're trying to say that you're unaware of anyone ever saying the words "Trump colluded with Russia"? Do you think that they were saying "Trump allegedly colluded with Russia" this whole time? You're telling me now that you and others here were all waiting for the evidence to roll in before you jumped to any conclusions? You don't think that people here were talking about arrests that were made during the investigation as if they had something to do with collusion? Talk about an argument falling apart Bubber. That's a lie on top of a lie on top of a lie on top of a lie.