So let's say the Trump campaign did talk to Russians...
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
Nobody actually investigated them. Nobody wants to end up committing suicide by shooting themselves twice in the back of their head.
Trump and his campaign staff need to be investigated on this, if there is nothing, then fine , I am sure there won't be 6 investigations all with the same findings as there was with Benghazi
The findings of the Benghazi investigations were quite clear. Don't mistake the Obama administration refusing to take accountability as nothing was found.
Please enlighten me who conducted the sixinvestigations and what was their collective consensus. I ask because I genuinely did not know about 6 investigations, nor have I ever been clear what they found. Did they ever discover where Hillary and/or Obama were during the ordeal? Or did they decide that at this point what difference did it make?
Regarding your assertion that Trump & his staff need to be investigated I couldn't agree with you more. I think the worry that the Russians colluded to rig the election is spurious at best. But if Trump owes "huge" amounts of money to Russian investors tied to Putin the public needs to know, and Trump needs to go.
And, I might add, I can't help but wonder if this is why he is so reluctant to disclose his tax returns.
Well, I know what's-his-name, the congressman from South Carolina, conducted a hearing (in which he repeatedly denied he was "going after Hillary," he just wanted the truth), and he heatedly disparaged another investigation (by whom? The Senate?)
for having a pathetic, amateurish investigation. But I never really heard what his committee reported out. And I know nothing about another 4 investigations.
Here's one of them. Pretty clear.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/benghazi-report-obama-clinton-224854
There were quite a few focusing on different aspects. I seriously lost count. The House Behghazi Committe was a lengthy one (thanks to Obama administration stonewalling) that covered all of the Benghazi attack. I put a link to a summary in my post above.
So no example of where they show bias or got it completely wrong? Just more of the "it would be impossible for them to not be biased in some way - see this example of a divorce settlement that precludes the founder from talking about certain things".
If indeed Snopes is so bad, I would expect people to have an example or two. People might and I just haven't found them yet, but every single time I ask a Snopes doubter to give me an example I get something like what you just posted... which is not an example.
I thought I showed you where you could find an example. The article focuses on one fact finder and links to many - MANY! - of her posts. I would link it for you but I don't know how. The Daily Caller, June 17, 2016.
Snopes was good at debunking urban legends. Their recent decision to enter politics was definitely an intriguing one to me. The fact that folks are willing to blindly believe Snopes when it comes to politics, since they've never covered it before, is also interesting to me. I'm not one to automatically give credibility based on unrelated previous endeavors. To each their own I guess.
Plenty more from the past year davidallen. Even Politifact has smacked Snopes down.
https://www.google.com/amp/yournews...lying-for-hillary-again-questions-raised/amp/
Don't bother. davidallen likes to play head in the sand and then hide when you produce what he asked you to.
Being in the position I was in the US Military, I knew the Benghazi investigations wouldn't put blame on the Secretary of State........there were to many people lower in the chain of command who could have and should have acted.........now, why someone lower didn't get in trouble, I have no idea
From a trusted liberal site DailyKos. davidallen, need more? Notice a similar name involved? You know how to Google. Kim LaCapria is no stranger to lefty ideas.
I'm disappointed in myself for believing you to be in the same boat as pilt, a truth seeking unbiased person of liberal beliefs. Maybe you were in the past and Trump has you stirred into an undavidallen dimension. In either case, you're in lala land of late.
I'm sure you'll just crank off on the sources rather than the facts as presented, but 100% of LaCaprias quotes from the Daily Caller piece can be found from her actual writings for Inquisitr. Unbiased fact checker? Not in this case.
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/8/...Jill-Stein-they-both-are-wrong-about-vaccines
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/f...-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/#ixzz4ByrUl7x0
I'm disappointed in myself for believing you to be in the same boat as pilt, a truth seeking unbiased person of liberal beliefs. Maybe you were in the past and Trump has you stirred into an undavidallen dimension. In either case, you're in lala land of late.
I'm sure you'll just crank off on the sources rather than the facts as presented, but 100% of LaCaprias quotes from the Daily Caller piece can be found from her actual writings for Inquisitr. Unbiased fact checker? Not in this case.
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/8/...Jill-Stein-they-both-are-wrong-about-vaccines
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/f...-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/#ixzz4ByrUl7x0
Leadership starts at the top. We can blame Trump but not the Secretary of State? Do you believe your own bullshit?
An example! Well except for the fact that the first one noted they got it right and the article is wrong... Damn, so close.
Example 2 - a brownies story that doesn't present any kind of rating isn't really applicable to the question.
Example 3 - what is cited in the article doesn't coincide with what snopes has currently published - indeed the wrong photo may have been initially used, but it appears to be corrected without changing the underlying correctness of the assessment.
Will search further tonight. Genuinely want to find a clear cut case.
Anonymous opinion piece takes Snopes to task for assessing "the wrong thing" - come on man. Your google foo is stronger than that!
Last edited:
I have been in similar places in that part of the world where there were uprisings and everyone there knew what to do for an evac, and it did never required anyone outside the region to send help and anyone of us could initiate it............
Ironic that you think I will dismiss your examples based on the source, when your source is dismissing Snopes because of unrelated writings of one of their employees. So you want to indict Snopes for other blog postings by one of their writers elsewhere? Would that be the same as me making judgements on your professional skills based on your postings here? Just curious...
In any case, the the Facebook opinion by LaCaprias of "Unproven" certainly could have been rated "Mostly True" - a good one I will save to go back to and look at further.
I agree with her assessment in the second example - the coat cost considerably less than what was in the claim and the speech was not about "income inequality". The word inequality appears exactly once in that speech - give it a read.
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-full-transcript-new-york-victory-speech-450349
So what is Snopes other than opinion pieces? And why does Snopes get a pass when they got it wrong?
The Google funny was one I've used on you before. Thanks for acknowledging my humor, FINALLY.
If I was a political blog writer, or journalist, or fact checker, making judgments on my professional skills based on my posts here would very much be relevant. Don't go full retarded on me.
Snopes employs a known leftist blogger as their political fact checker. You don't find this the least bit suspicious? If they employed Bannon or Yianoppolous would you? I could comfortably wager on that answer being yes if it were a real life scenario. You could too if you were completely honest about it.
If the bias is strong then I don't need to do much more than review the examples where the bias is evident. I have one right now that I think is good to follow up on - appreciate the referral to it.
Can't find the one that @Ponca Dan has referred to. I may have to try Bing. That would sting a bit.
@davidallen here's another interesting take...
https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/01/06...s-the-worst-of-ethics-2016-part-1/#more-36509
https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/01/06...s-the-worst-of-ethics-2016-part-1/#more-36509
It is interesting how you dismiss the examples of snopes bias as being biased themselves. Actually you're probably right. Half right anyway. They're ALL biased in one way or another. That's why it is often irrelevant in a discussion.
When I was in high school 50+ years ago, on the debate team, we were taught that if you're losing the debate you should resort to "argue from authority." Meaning if your logic is unpersuasive rather than asking the judge to believe your argument, ask the judge to believe the "authority's" opinion instead. That's how I perceive it when people resort to links in the middle of a discussion. In debate a perceptive judge would recognize you had surrendered your argument as soon as you pulled the "authority" maneuver. Often times I see it tried in this chat room.
Excellent example... I agree with the author mostly. The difference between city of and City of is significant enough to call out.
This one doesn't seem to disagree with Snopes noting their article isn't the one Snopes said was false. Am I missing something?
I hadn't read anything on this Russian bank server thing, so I googled it. This is the first thing that popped up on the results: http://www.snopes.com/trump-server-tied-to-russian-bank/
Just FYI/FWIW sort of thing.
Without a doubt bias is present in all forms of media, from books to newspapers to online. What I am looking for is evidence that:
- errors get corrected - they will happen - does the source acknowledge it and correct them
- sources are verifiable - references to verifiable sources
- feedback is visible - public comments, forums, etc - some way of collecting and responding to feedback
- ideally a core group of contributors who are tracked for accuracy over time and graded by each other and the community
I take your post to mean you will never rely on anything but your own capacity to fact check any given point. That an appeal to authority is somehow a form of submission on a particular point. I disagree on both points - I think there is nothing wrong with turning to a reliable source to begin your search so long as you are prepared to readdress your position as you learn more.
Last edited:
