Slashdot Mirror

Here's an example:
http://www.snopes.com/seth-con...

It is an open investigation, and Snopes provides no evidence that the claim is false. There is no way Snopes can say that "DNC staffer Seth Rich was gunned down to prevent him from meeting with the FBI over plans to testify against Hillary Clinton." is FALSE. In fact, they don't have the ability to form an opinion one way or another. If you read the entire "debunking" you'll see they just talk about stuff and offer opinions, but no facts whatsoever. That was really one of the first things that turned me off to Snopes.

Finally, regarding the "problem" being on my end, I'm not the one making claims that I should be trusted and the authority on whether or not statements are true or not. What I see is Snopes making black and white judgements without any backing evidence at all in some cases. Snopes is the one with a burden to bear, not me. Nice try trying to make this about me though.

Do you have any citation for that? The only one I found was on Snopes where they're saying it's False.

There is no record of Marilyn's having had an operation at that point in her life, and no contemporary references to anyone's noticing her walking with a bandaged foot or a limp for a period of time. (One doesn't simply get up and start trotting around after having a toe removed — the missing digit affects one's balance, and it takes some time to adjust to the change and "relearn" how to walk.)

My wife is a podiatrist. I asked her about this reasoning and she said it's BS. She amputates toes from time to time as part of her practice and says that patients usually bounce back and are walking perfectly fine in no time, even when she has to remove the big toe. Lopping off an extra little vestigial toe wouldn't have any noticeable effect once the wound healed, and the patient certainly wouldn't have to '"relearn" how to walk'. I wrote to Snopes with that information and got back a response basically blowing me off and arguing that the sixth toe story is a fake and my facts are wrong because "there should be no reason why a person with a painfully infected toe would walk with a limp. But they do.". Yeah, I get that. I never said otherwise. But I do claim that this one piece of evidence is completely wrong, does not accurately contribute to their conclusion (which I agree with), and I have a subject matter expert's testimony to that effect.

Since then, I've been a bit loathe to trust Snopes about anything. I mean, they're probably right about most things, but I have firsthand experience with them completely ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their narrative. I haven't paid enough attention to their articles to know what their political slant is, but the point is moot for me already anyway.

What has Robby Mook said about Assange?

I assume you actually mean Bob Beckel. Not only is he not Clinton's campaign manager, Snopes can't find any evidence that he's ever even worked as a Clinton strategist in any capacity. Maybe if you dig hard enough you might find some sort of "three degrees of separation" thing to damn her with, though, so you should probably get started.

Actually, characterizing Stein as anti-vax or pandering to the anti-vaxers is over the top. There is a HUGE difference between questioning the FDA's effectiveness and being anti-vax, particularly when it comes to the old and well proven vaccines. She is on record as supporting vaccination.

Since the Salon article only pointed to Snopes' home page rather than providing a useful link, I'll supply it here.

Johnson predictably says no to any government mandatory anything. That's not a proper anti-vax stance since he isn't basing his position on paranoid pseudo-science. It says nothing about if he would personally recommend vaccination or not.

Trump looks to be all in on the crazy pseudo-science and hysteria.

I'm sure that even most liberals would agree, but the solution liberals have is "more government" (and thus, more corruption), rather than reigning in the corruption we have now by limiting government actions.

So we'd expect the least corrupt countries to have the smallest governments right?

Fascism was "at least the trains run on time"
Nope

This issue has been put to bed. ...

BULLSHIT

As long as Crooked Liar Hillary! is paying shills like you (your not THAT FUCKING STUPID, are you?!?!?) because she's still a public figure, it'll never be put to bed.

when we tally up all lie and half truths of our major candidates - Trump and Clinton - Trump loses.

WHAT FUCKING PLANET ARE YOU ON?!?!?!

Because your sky sure as shit ain't blue.

Crooked Liar Hillary! lied about her fucking NAME

Yep - Crooked Liar Hillary! said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Except that Crooked Liar Hillary! was born SIX FUCKING YEARS BEFORE Sir Edmund became famous for climbing Everest.

And who can forget this lie from Crooked Liar Hillary!:

Recalling Hillary Clinton’s claim of ‘landing under sniper fire’ in Bosnia

Shall I continue?

Unfortunately, it's been widely criticized for serious methodological issues. The Snopes page, which deals primarily with the paper's middlebrow reception (almost exclusively among people who hadn't read it, of course), has a good summary and links.

My take is that it's an interesting start, but 1) it doesn't mean what most people who haven't read it think it means, and 2) there are, indeed, some very serious issues with it. For example, as one of the commenters that Scopes cites points out, the paper makes much hay about "meaningless" statements, without ever defining "meaning" and often applying "meaningless" in ways that are extremely dubious. For the authors, "meaningless" appears to mean roughly what it did to Albert in an old Pogo strip: "I don't understand it and it don't mean nuthin'". I could make a similar complaint about phrases in the paper such as "confuse vagueness for profundity": without a definition of the profound, aside from some handwaving toward some exemplar statements that are "conventionally [citation needed] considered to be profound". Nor, unless I missed something, did they attempt to elicit definitions of profundity from the test subjects, who may have had quite different understandings of the concept.

Here's a statement: Statements have meaning the way fruit has pie. Profound, pseudo-profound bullshit, or something else? Justify your answer by displaying an understanding of linguistics, epistemology, psychology, semiotics, and rhetoric. Responses on a postcard.

There is no basis for comparison between the two...

I beg to differ. I think Trump has Mein Kampf beside his bead for quick reference and has every bit the same capacity for evil as Hitler. In fact, I perceive Trump as the greatest threat to American democracy ever. I believe that, if elected, Trump will immediately set about the business of repealing amendment 22 that enforces a limit of two terms. I believe that the election that elects Trump will be the last that ever appears even remotely free and fair. I believe that Trump fully intends to mute or eliminate all his critics using much the same tactics as his bum buddy Putin does, as soon as he is able. Look to Hugo Chavez's career for the strategy that Trump likely has in mind. Once president for life, Trump will be in a great position to give free rein to his darker side.

"Shitposting" is fraud rather than speech for a few reasons.

It is knowingly false. For example, "shitposters" distribute a purported photo of Hillary Clinton in blackface with Bill, which doesn't match her eye color or her and Bill's appearance at the time. But they keep distributing it.

They then spoof the comment system by having robots upmod posts and downmod their detractors, thus fraudulently promoting their comments as highly regarded.

They mis-state the first amendment of the constitution by telling people that reactions to their abuse are hypocritical and against the first amendment, when the first amendment does not protect anyone from the consequences of their speech, nor does it promise anyone the podium of their choice.

Taking action to show your disapproval of such action is laudable.

Snopes debunked the blackface rumour, it's neither Bill nor Hillary.. The "C.P. Time" comment was made by New York City mayor Bill de Blazio, Hillary did her best to clean it up by saying it meant "cautious politician" time.

Actually, they say that Clinton's close friend and personal hatchetman Sid Bulmenthal and campaign manager were among those that spread the Birther rumors during the 2008 primary.

But the original Birther was none other than Barack Obama himself, when he signed off the a book biography that claimed he was born in Kenya. It wasn't true, but just like Elizabeth Warren claiming to be Indian, it helped him early in his career.

Wow.. you got to be one of THE BIGGEST trump apologist I've ever seen.

First:

Trump's complete ignorance of the fact that Obama's mother was a US Citizen when he was born, and the push that he's not an American on the fabrication that he was born in Kenya, only for the sole fact that his father was Kenyan, was purely motivated by his mixed race.

Second:

What Trump actually said, was that the judge — a Mexican racist himself ("La Raza" member) — may have a conflict of interest. If it is Ok to suspect [washingtonpost.com], that an All-white jury [wikipedia.org] may be unfair to a Black defendant, why is it "racist" to suspect, a Mexican may be unfair to a White one?

You will need to provide substantial proof that the judge is racist before you can make a statement like that.

That Judge is apart of a group called "San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association", not the "La Raza" association you're thinking of.
http://www.snopes.com/judge-cu...

Third:

Has proposed banning members of a religion from the US (very similar to racism).

Not racism. Stick to the topic.

That's pretty much racist. It impacts a wide swath of individuals classified as Muslim, which is directly attributed to anybody from the Middle East, who's appearances are starkly contrasted to caucasians.

There have been numerous attacks on Sikhs who were believed to be muslim because they "looked like a muslim." The only similarity is the skin color.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/14/...

Fourth:

Trump's Real Estate business that he ran with his father were biased against black renters

https://www.documentcloud.org/...

That happened in 1973. He took over his father's business in 1971.

Fifth:
Trump stated that he wouldn't disavow David Duke because he didn't know who he was or what he was about.

Except that was a lie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

He clearly knows who David Duke is, unless it helps his agenda to feign ignorance.

Watergate - Hillary was fired from the staff of the House Judiciary committee investigating the Nixon Watergate scandal in 1974 by her supervisor, Democrat Jerry Zeifman, because she was a liar [foxnews.com]. Hillary "conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

Except that Zeifman was not her supervisor, and she wasn't fired http://www.snopes.com/politics...

Her tenure on the Watergate Commission was not an aberration, it was a preface to her life.

What tenure on the Watergate Committee? As a low-ranking staffer? All you have is a decades later accusation without corroborating facts.

That that is what you base your own premises upon, reflects more on you than her.

About those cell phones the poor have - they're "Obama-phones" - and I suppose we should be thankful because it does increase the market for our wares. I've seen this effect in person:

1) Snopes link

2) US News and World Report link

Like ultra liberal disgusting slob Michael Moore or Dances with rattlesnakes religious nevertrumper Glen Beck....

Glenn Beck is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (more commonly called Mormons by outsiders). We do not dance with rattlesnakes or anything like it. Calling him a "nevertrumper" is actually a compliment; I'm tired of politicos saying how bad a candidate is during the primaries, then once the other candidate gets the party's nomination everyone falls in line about how great the candidate is.

I'm genuinely surprised the article was fake.

I saw the headline in Facebook, but didn't read the article. I often look to Snopes when I see an overly outrageous headline or story.

Wow. Soooo much fail in one post.

Let's assume that we DID get rid of all guns. What would be the result? Criminals tend to be young males. Victims can be anybody, including women, and the elderly. Statistically speaking, in a physical confrontation, elderly and women are at a disadvantage compared to men. So you are clearly in FAVOR of criminals having an advantage. How very nice of you to make the streets safe for murderers and rapists. What chance does a 100-pound woman have against a crazy-ex? If she armed herself, at least she would have a chance. How sad that people like you want the woman defenseless. If I had to choose, I would much rather see the woman alive and her stalker dead, rather than the way that you would prefer. OK, you might not prefer that the woman die, but if you refuse to allow her the tools to defend herself, you are not really giving her much of a choice.

Studies have shows that guns are used approximately a MILLION TIMES A YEAR to prevent or deter crime. There are a lot of studies on this subject, and many of them are done to prove a point (pro-freedom or anti-freedom), so the numbers vary wildly. However, the median (aka probably most accurate) number seems to be around 800,000 to 1,000,000 times per year (think Olympic scoring -- discard low and high numbers and average the rest). So, you actually think that it would be a great idea to NOT deter crime a million times a year? Wow, how can anybody be that stupid?

Plus, if you did get rid of the guns, you still have the criminals. People will STILL DIE, so with guns gone, you then have to move on to the next bogeyman -- evil, terrible knives! I wish that I were joking, read this Snopes article:

http://www.snopes.com/2015/06/...

The fact that people have to ask "is this satire" and the answer is "sadly, no." should be telling. So, yeah, if you really want to get rid of violence, you can do two things:

* Figure out what causes violence (socioeconomic factors) and try to address that.

--OR--

* Get rid of guns.

* Whoops, people are still killing each other. Get rid of knives.

* Darn, people are still killing each other. Require proof of athletic league membership to buy a baseball bat, and you had better be a professional carpenter before buying a hammer.

Sadly, you would choose path #2. Re-read that Snopes article and then try to tell me that course is what you would want for America. I carry a Leatherman Wave on my belt at all times. You would be surprised how many times a day I need a knife, scissors, or screwdriver. Do you think that I want to live in a country where carrying a simple, common multi-tool can get me arrested?

Also, getting rid of guns will also remove hunting. Hunting is NECESSARY -- simple fact. Apex predators are mostly gone (like wolves). Vegetarian animals generally survive by running away and breeding a lot. It is the breeding thing that causes problems. Animals like deer and elk will breed like crazy in the absence of predators, until their numbers lead to destruction of habitat, starvation, and disease. I know that if I were a deer, I would rather have a happy life and live with a 10% chance of being shot, rather than a 100% chance of starvation, and hope that I was one of the ones strong enough to survive. I live close to Rocky Mountain National Park, and the rangers are having to shoot elk to keep their numbers down! True -- look it up.

the brown M&M's

For an interesting reason - they put that clause in the contract, in order to make it obvious whether care had been taken to read, digest, and comply with it.

http://www.snopes.com/music/ar...

Jill Stein isn't anti-vaccine. She supports mandatory vaccination for preventable diseases.

http://www.snopes.com/is-green...

There was a story that looked a democrat primary voting. States WITH a paper trail voted 51-49 in favor of bernie sanders, States WITHOUT paper trail voted 65-35 in favor of clinton. Pretty massive gap considering if you ask anyone with common sense, but then add to fact states they can review and verify results vs states you can't.

Related link.

In the end Hillary and Bernie were not that close, but either way, I'm a democrat, and I fully agree we need paper trails. I'm not going to argue and say no hacking occurred. I can no more prove that than I can prove, that the system I'm typing on isn't hacked... Anyone who says that voting machines, particularly without paper trails, are perfectly secure is either uninformed, an idiot, or deliberately lying to you. They are where an election can be flipped and are by far a much greater risk than voters voting multiple times.

Why don't you correctly attribute your quotes? The attribution to Mark Twain is spurious, and anyone familiar with his style and 19th-century American English in general could sense that something was off in calling this a Twain quotation.

Snopes has declared all of this False. http://www.snopes.com/politics...

"Clinton was acquainted with some people who died — that's about all one can make of this list."

You appear to not know that no one trustworthy uses snopes anymore for validation. It's become a laughing-stock of a joke now. The only people who use it are clueless. Sorry.

It was purchased by an evil rich old far left progressive couple who bought it for the express purpose of turning it into a liberal lying haven of lies. And they succeeded. No one trusts snopes anymore. Using it, in fact, invalidates any point one is trying to make.

I used tobelieve the body count rumor too, but then found this: http://www.snopes.com/politics...

Dear Mr. "I Used To Be, But Now I'm Not" Shill. You appear to not know that no one trustworthy uses snopes anymore for validation. It's become a laughing-stock of a joke now. The only people who use it are clueless. Sorry.

It was purchased by an evil rich old far left progressive couple who bought it for the express purpose of turning it into a liberal lying haven of lies. And they succeeded. No one trusts snopes anymore. Using it, in fact, invalidates any point one is trying to make.

Total bullshit as you can see assumiing you aren't brain dead

You appear to not know that no one uses snopes anymore for validation. It's become a laughing-stock of a joke now. The only people who use it are clueless. Sorry.

It was purchased by an evil rich old far left progressive couple who bought it for the express purpose of turning it into a liberal lying haven of lies. And they succeeded. No one trusts snopes anymore.

Let’s set the facts straight.

1: A CEO’s role (in a publicly traded firm) is to MAKE MONEY.. Jobs just happen to be incidental to that. (ie: we need to expand, and we can’t automate everything.. or the cost to automate would be too high, so we hire people... but if we can get them cheaper, lets do so.. which includes H1B’s, chopping salaries as much as possible, and in the case of Donald.. constant law suits and stiffing those he has a financial obligation to). The president is beholden to the ENTIRE country.. both the big and the small.. and in some cases, can't just abort/reverse course on the military/economic actions of his predecessors.

I’m not trying to sway anything here, but lets be realistic.. its not like the clock resets when a new president enters the office.. and almost NO president has ever “immediately reversed course” from an action of his predecessor.. most roll with the punches, work around it, or let it expire/laps

2: A CEO has (as much as Labor/OSHA laws and other legal/industry rules allow) total control over the a wide number of factors.. however they seldom have direct control over their customers choosing their business.. they can market/advertise/lobby.. but at the of the day, they are beholden to a customer that can be fickle. The president has, in the actual world, very little power.. he can suggest, propose, pen, even push bills through executive order.. but ultimately its going to come down to the Senate and Congress (and in the case of executive order, Judicial review on even if he CAN do that) So the president in most cases is a figure head.. or the king in chess, the most critical piece, but certainly NOT the most powerful.

Now on to your "sucking up to Terrorist Bill Ayers" comment. Well, that's just not even remotely true and certainly shows a lack of reading/wanting to understand the facts. So I would suggest some homework. Perhaps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and http://www.factcheck.org/2008/... and even http://www.snopes.com/politics....

And finally the whole "Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright", again, I refer you to some homework: http://www.politifact.com/pund..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I used tobelieve the body count rumor too, but then found this: http://www.snopes.com/politics...

If you ignore the partisan rant at the start of the article, youll find that they document the deaths pretty well, and only 2 of the 50 are actually "suspicious deaths related to the Clintons", and both had other probable theories, and no actual theory involving the Clintons.

That is unrelated to these new suspicious DNC events, but I like to debunk the "50 deaths" myth when I see it mentioned.

Total bullshit as you can see assumiing you aren't brain dead
or desperate to get out of the Equadorian Embassy without doing life plus 99 for espionage.

Snopes' take on this

Does anybody really doubt that this man was assassinated by the DNC/Clintons/etc.?

Yes. Snopes does.

http://www.snopes.com/seth-con...

Snopes is for debunking nigerian spam emails or fraudulent fundraising chain emails, not for investigating murders.

And here's what Snopes has to say about that.

Oh please. Snopes does this all the time to mislead people. They create a strawman of the actual story so they can label it "mostly false" and then in the print acknowledge the actual argument so they can pretend to be credible. Case in point, the Philando Castile shooting.

Castile was shot by a police officer in July. His girlfriend then made a video of the aftermath and put it up on facebook in which she claims they were stopped for a busted taillight and the officer flipped out and shot Castile for no reason other than the racist cop was scared of black people. The media ran with the girlfriend's story without question. This drew national attention and was one of the incidents cited by the man who shot and killed 5 Dallas police officers later in the week as one of the motivations for his actions.

Her story sounded fishy, and conservative media, which doesn't believe that racist cops are gunning people down for no reason investigated and found that, in fact, Castile was pulled over because he matched the description of an armed robber from a convenience store heist a few days before. And this is the claim made in the article snopes declared false:

Castile and Ms. Diamond Reynolds (Facebook video uploader) were pulled over by police because Castile matched a BOLO Alert for an armed robbery suspect from four days prior.

What does snopes pick as the claim?

Claim: Philando Castile was wanted for armed robbery when he was killed by police officers.

Which they then labeled "MOSTLY FALSE."

No. No one ever said the cops were out looking specifically for Castile. Just that he was pulled over because he matched the description (and he did). So, reality is the cop did not freak out and murder a random black man. He had a reasonable suspicion he was dealing with an armed robber. It would have been great if the situation had ended a different way, but if the officer was wary of the man and shot it was "because possible armed robber" and not "because black." To this day we do not know if Castile was the robber or not. I looked and couldn't find any new information about that aspect of the investigation.

Why didn't snopes choose this as the claim:

Claim: Philando Castile was stopped on suspicion of armed robbery when he was killed by police officers.

That's the actual claim from conservative media, and could have been labeled "TRUE."

But, snopes has their bias to push, so of course they can't do that. Would have been nice, though. Maybe if the media had run with "Man pulled over on suspicion of armed robbery shot" instead of "Racist cop murders black man for no reason" the Dallas shooter might not have been so mad, and not murdered all those cops?

Does anybody really doubt that this man was assassinated by the DNC/Clintons/etc.?

Yes. Snopes does.

http://www.snopes.com/seth-con...

FALSE

Snopes debunks the idea he was murdered on his way to the FBI.

Nice try...

Does anybody really doubt that this man was assassinated by the DNC/Clintons/etc.?

Yes. Snopes does.

http://www.snopes.com/seth-con...

FAIL
Did you even read that snopes article? It debunks that he was going to the FBI when he was shot. That's it.

Try again Hillary staffers ...

This has already been declared false by snopes. http://www.snopes.com/meta/cou...

Snopes has declared all of this False. http://www.snopes.com/politics...

"Clinton was acquainted with some people who died — that's about all one can make of this list."

http://www.snopes.com/seth-con...

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/...

http://www.snopes.com/politics...

http://www.snopes.com/seth-con...

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/...

http://www.snopes.com/politics...

http://www.snopes.com/seth-con...

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/...

http://www.snopes.com/politics...

Does anybody really doubt that this man was assassinated by the DNC/Clintons/etc.?

Yes. Snopes does.

http://www.snopes.com/seth-con...

Subliminal advertising is complete bollox http://www.snopes.com/business...

Can you cite some source? Googling it only brings up BS and a Snopes article: http://www.snopes.com/krauthammer-clinton-foundation-laundering/

You mean voter fraud like this? Or this? Or this?

Since you say that voter fraud is "well known" and "documented every goddamn election", perhaps you can share some of these documented cases that have been investigated and found to be true and describe the prison sentences the criminals who committed this fraud received.

But anyway, if you wanted to steal an election, I don't think voter impersonation would be the way to do it. Attacking electronic voting machines that have lax, minimal, or no security would probably be less risky and harder to prove if you attacked whatever logging mechanism was present.

For the past couple weeks my feed has shown various "The Rock Arrested!!!!" and "Free The Rock!" nonsense. A quick search shows Snopes debunked this nonsense. It's a photograph of a scene from one of his movies where his character gets arrested.

FB's 'algorithm' could start with random clickbait bullshit sites like Outbrain, TMZ and Zergnet.

Wait until the RNC completely collapses after the disaster Trump has brought to the party. Now he is saying that the election is going to be rigged. This casts doubt on the entire electoral process in the US. What a scumbag. He needs to quit to save himself from further embarrassment.

I dunno, looking at the way the DNC violated FEC rules in order to beat Sanders, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that they paid to rig the elections.

Remember those Trump protestors? The ones starting fights at Trump rallies? DNC paid staffers.

Remember Trump making his hats in China? Complete and total fabrication.

Remember all the lies, hatred, and general bad mouthing he spews? Mostly made up.

The Democrats are spewing a deluge of lies and misdirection at Trump, because it's all they got. Trump beats Hillary on pretty-much every political position, and the voters know it.

Keep with the insults, we need the public to get tired of this and see it for what it really is: the last ditch efforts of a morally bankrupt campaign.

(Here's a good one that was top news yesterday: Trump having a conversation with the devil. Republicans should totally start throwing insults back at Clinton, because that's what the election is all about!)

Note, Trump has all his "Make American Great Again" swag made outside the USA, along with his suits, and almost everything else.

You might want to check snopes and other sources before you post things.

It's not terribly difficult, and will prevent other from calling you out as a liar.

Don't forget her cattle futures, or the number of people dead surrounding her. From bodyguards to people directly involved with her, and dying from things like two bullets in the back of the skull after crawling 150ft uphill.

Oh my, citing that oft-discredited Clinton Death List?

Oh my, citing that oft-discredited agenda-driven Snopes website?

Don't forget her cattle futures, or the number of people dead surrounding her. From bodyguards to people directly involved with her, and dying from things like two bullets in the back of the skull after crawling 150ft uphill.

Oh my, citing that oft-discredited Clinton Death List?

Mashiki, are you trying to make yourself look bad?

or maybe the walkout by half the DNC hall after clinton was nominated???

I don't think the word "half" means what you think it means.

maybe it was the breaking of federal law at the convention when they knowingly had illegal immigrants come out and speak (yes, that IS a federal crime)

I believe your understanding of the law is incorrect.

How would anyone be able to tell? What can be more disgusting than a McDonalds hamburger and fries that looks the same after 6 years?

A regular hamburger made from fresh ingredients from the store will exhibit the same behaviour. The key is that the beef is thin, well cooked (i.e. sterile), and that it rapidly loses moisture. So this is natural.

http://www.snopes.com/six-year...