Slashdot Mirror

Urban legend, I'm afraid.

Censorship and integrity in regard to TED owners who chose to ban the talk which is mentioned in this /. submission.

Except it wasn't banned, this is the same link as in the article which tells the full story. https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

Snopes is a well known American troll farm spreading fake news.

Censorship and integrity in regard to TED owners who chose to ban the talk which is mentioned in this /. submission.

Except it wasn't banned, this is the same link as in the article which tells the full story. https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

Yeah the illegals swarming the border are causing HUGE tuberculosis problems for the US. A bit worse than fucking measles bro. Ask John Keats how bad dying of tuberculosis sucks.

Or we could, I don't know, treat them for tuberculosis since that's a thing now that wasn't available in John Keats' day.

And also, it was three cases of tuberculosis and 4 of HIV from a group of thousands of migrants. Hardly a huge problem as you claim.

Both of these were top results in a 2 second Google search. Maybe just the tiniest bit of fact checking next time?

Those payoffs were not a crime.

But you know what IS a crime, what is conspiracy and collusion? Paying a foreign agent to use made-up (Russian, even!) lies to build a fake dossier to attack your political opponent. And lying about it. Which is exactly what The Clinton campaign and the DNC did. Shall we look into that? I mean, they have a history of collusion, starting with colluding with the media to rig the debates...

Republicans "lost" then found literally millions of emails.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington.

Are you serious? Check the donations. They skyrocketed when she ran for President - and fell like a stone when she failed. Then boomed again when she was suddenly in charge of all US International relations (Sec State). And you're telling me people are not buying her?

Uhhh, you're confusing things.

Like I said, people were donating to gain favour. Obviously they did so more when she was in a position of power or potential power. But that's absolutely Washington SOP.

It's not a bribe as much as a "I'll do something nice for me and I'll hear you out... but I won't actually do something I think is wrong". I mean it's pretty much standard that if you want to meet with a politician you don't have to be a donor.. but it would really help if you were.

It's highly problematic, but it's how the system works, Clinton was entirely normal in that regard.

Like the way her foundation and husband received millions of dollars after choosing not to deny the Russian buyout of Uranium One?

You mean the acquisition that was completely normal and uncontroversial acquisition and H. Clinton had almost nothing to do with anyway?

The multiple ties between Hillary and Russia,

People with international dealings having a few connections to a major country is fine. The problem with Trump is there's a ton of people with big connections to incredibly shady people.

including secret meetings in 2016

as she was candidate Clinton?

The problem with the Trump orbit meetings is:
1) A few of them seem directly related to the stolen emails.
2) Many of the Trump people in question repeatedly lied about the meetings. Either leaving them off official forms or denying they took place under oath.

Funding fake dossiers against candidate Trump?

Sigh. The dossier was opposition research, not "fake". Somethings have been proven wrong, and some have been verified.

Colluding with personal friends in the media to get advance information about campaign questions and the like?

Wasn't corrupt? I guess the Sahara is a frigid, sodden wasteland in your world...

Campaigns do sketching things sometimes. Hell, this guy signed up a fake candidate to launch an attack campaign against his rival then drop out of the race.

Oh, and here's a fun question where I'm really interested to hear the answer.

So lets assume you're right and the dossier really was a "fake dossier".

So... what was the point?

Because it didn't come out before the election, and as you pointed out she certainly had enough friends in the media to put it out.

Hell, they could even "anonymously leak" it somewhere, yet they obviously didn't.

So why get a fake dossier to slander Trump if you don't actually release it till after you already lost the election?

I feel like you w

She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington.

Are you serious? Check the donations. They skyrocketed when she ran for President - and fell like a stone when she failed. Then boomed again when she was suddenly in charge of all US International relations (Sec State). And you're telling me people are not buying her?

Like the way her foundation and husband received millions of dollars after choosing not to deny the Russian buyout of Uranium One?

The multiple ties between Hillary and Russia, including secret meetings in 2016

as she was candidate Clinton?

Funding fake dossiers against candidate Trump?

Colluding with personal friends in the media to get advance information about campaign questions and the like?

Wasn't corrupt? I guess the Sahara is a frigid, sodden wasteland in your world...

When democrats abuse information for elections..."it's justified for the cause" but when republicans do it... "it's because they are evil".

Read this guys article.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...
Yes, BOTH side really are the same, big business federalists that have no reason to care about you beyond your vote. They only care about their constituents and that is where they appear different is because their constituents have differences.

The Cambridge Data lesson is in a nutshell... a beacon of the Hypocrisy of the Left... no so much on the right because it benefited them this time. BOTH Parties have been doing things like this in all sorts of ways for decades. Before Cambridge, Before the internet. They have been using census data, voter records, polls, and anything they can get their hands on to redraw districts, target campaign speech locations, issue spotting, and just about anything a campaign manager can think of to get the upper hand.

This is nothing shocking or surprising but instead, a NATURAL result of people giving up their privacy to a feckless company that generates revenue off of their personal data! The people upset about this are really just pissed off they didn't do a better job at it.

It's still going to be done, they will just now do it a different way and because of the mfg outrage machine they will just have to find other less obvious ways to do it.

We already let every non-citizen vote and now there is a move to make it official. Even though the marxists over at snopes rate it as false, the text of the explanation proves it's true. They rejected the motion by Crenshaw to call out illegal immigrants voting. https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

The WaPo article you linked is hosted on the Washington Times website for some reason.

She wrote a “fact check” article about Jimmy Carter’s unilateral ban of Iranian nationals from entering the country that looks more like an opinion column arguing against Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban. https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]

The claim refuted on that page is that President Jimmy Carter banned Iranian nationals from entering the U.S. in a manner similar to Donald Trump's proposal to ban the entry of Muslims..

It was rated a "mixture" and they pointed out how it had some elements of truth to it, but was false in the claim that it had any similarity to Trump's proposal of banning all Muslims.

What exactly is wrong with it?

- ACTPM

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists

Executive summary:

Above all, the Nazis were German white nationalists. What they stood for was the ascendancy of the “Aryan” race and the German nation, by any means necessary. Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals. The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality.

i said this story is probably true but they do have a credibility issue, theyve been caught skewing the results. Even the WaPo has called them out, I linked their article in another thread. RealClear politics rated them and showed that they actually cited THEMSELVES as sources of their fact checking. Its fact checking. You cannot site yoursel or for that matter opinion articles (they scored a 90% on the topic f using the media as their 'fact check'. Considering journalists often use snopes for their fact checking, this means that a journalist runs with an article because snopes said another journalist said its true)

Believe me, I am highly skeptical, of everything. Im one of the few that believe both sides of these debates work in concert to keep us believing the world would be a better place if only the other side wasnt preventing progress. The reality is this 50/50 split serves to guarantee no progress ever happens and noone is ever held accountable. its entirely by design. But some more tidbits of this supposedly fact-only not bias'ed group:

Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer, Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes. Couple of examples
https://www.inquisitr.com/6700...
https://www.rawstory.com/2015/...

While at Inquisitr, she consistently displayed clear partisanship. She described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as “teahadists.” She called Bill Clinton “one of our greatest” presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham’s comparison of voting to sex because they “fear female agency.” She once wrote: “Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth–or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty.” (A simple fact-check would show that food stamp fraud does occur and costs taxpayers tens of millions.) These are not good traits if you're trying to portray yourself as someone only about the facts.

After blogging the Inquisitr, Lacapria joined Snopes, where she regularly plays defense for any rumor or otherwise against democrats.
She wrote a “fact check” article about Jimmy Carter’s unilateral ban of Iranian nationals from entering the country that looks more like an opinion column arguing against Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban. https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

After the Orlando terror attack, Lacapria claimed that just because Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat with an active voter registration status didn’t mean he was actually a Democrat. Her “fact check” argued that he might “have chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered.” Eactly how is this fact checking and not a platform to substitute her opinions as given facts. The FACT was he was a registered democrat. Why did she need to downplay this fact and rate it as a Mixture and not simply True. https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...
here is the quote
"What that lone fact means is the subject of a good deal of speculation, with possibilities ranging from Mateen’s being a supporter of Democratic ideology to his simply having chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered. Mateen didn’t appear on the FBI’s radar until 2013, and it’s possible that in the ten years between 2006 and 2016 his political outlook (whatever it was to begin with) might have changed radically, even

i said this story is probably true but they do have a credibility issue, theyve been caught skewing the results. Even the WaPo has called them out, I linked their article in another thread. RealClear politics rated them and showed that they actually cited THEMSELVES as sources of their fact checking. Its fact checking. You cannot site yoursel or for that matter opinion articles (they scored a 90% on the topic f using the media as their 'fact check'. Considering journalists often use snopes for their fact checking, this means that a journalist runs with an article because snopes said another journalist said its true)

Believe me, I am highly skeptical, of everything. Im one of the few that believe both sides of these debates work in concert to keep us believing the world would be a better place if only the other side wasnt preventing progress. The reality is this 50/50 split serves to guarantee no progress ever happens and noone is ever held accountable. its entirely by design. But some more tidbits of this supposedly fact-only not bias'ed group:

Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer, Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes. Couple of examples
https://www.inquisitr.com/6700...
https://www.rawstory.com/2015/...

While at Inquisitr, she consistently displayed clear partisanship. She described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as “teahadists.” She called Bill Clinton “one of our greatest” presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham’s comparison of voting to sex because they “fear female agency.” She once wrote: “Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth–or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty.” (A simple fact-check would show that food stamp fraud does occur and costs taxpayers tens of millions.) These are not good traits if you're trying to portray yourself as someone only about the facts.

After blogging the Inquisitr, Lacapria joined Snopes, where she regularly plays defense for any rumor or otherwise against democrats.
She wrote a “fact check” article about Jimmy Carter’s unilateral ban of Iranian nationals from entering the country that looks more like an opinion column arguing against Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban. https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

After the Orlando terror attack, Lacapria claimed that just because Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat with an active voter registration status didn’t mean he was actually a Democrat. Her “fact check” argued that he might “have chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered.” Eactly how is this fact checking and not a platform to substitute her opinions as given facts. The FACT was he was a registered democrat. Why did she need to downplay this fact and rate it as a Mixture and not simply True. https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...
here is the quote
"What that lone fact means is the subject of a good deal of speculation, with possibilities ranging from Mateen’s being a supporter of Democratic ideology to his simply having chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered. Mateen didn’t appear on the FBI’s radar until 2013, and it’s possible that in the ten years between 2006 and 2016 his political outlook (whatever it was to begin with) might have changed radically, even

This is a Snopes article. Not sure why they linked to a salon write-up of the Snopes story tho.

https://www.snopes.com/news/20...

If I search for "Snopes DNC" the only thing that comes up is this. Can you post some specific links (with commentary if the links don't already have it)?

Because it all comes from Snopes. Salon is just what you have to click through for some reason. They should have skipped the BS and went straight to the source.

So did they take out the M&M's or not? Don't leave us hanging.

He didn't?

Don't worry Keith, you can keep buying your blood from Switzerland. The FDA only has authority in the United States.

This means if you sit in a bullet train traveling at half the speed of sound and think the train is too narrow, you should blame the Roman horses for being too narrow.

Nice story, but it isn't true.

Well, according to the fact checking site Snoops, Trump did say this in 2015:

"We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way Somebody will say, ‘Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people."

See: https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

Actually shutting down the internet is relatively common worldwide. India, Pakistan and Iraq shuts down the internet fairly often. It often happens during political unrest.

Unless you're reading a different claim than I am, according to Snopes the figure is based on a misreading of a GAO report which actually covered over 50 years (not 4) of arrest (not conviction) records.

Illegal aliens kill over 2,000 Americans per year.

This is factually accurate, supported by numerous studies and basic crime statistics where there is a body plus a person found guilty for the death.

This widely reported objective fact is rated "mostly false", but because Snopes claims, "immigrants have a lower crime rate than the general population."

Could post a link to the Snope page that rates this statement as "mostly false?" Or were you thinking of their rating of the statement "Have Undocumented Immigrants Killed 63,000 American Citizens Since 9/11?" as false?

Too bad the current President lies even more than his toupee.

Turns out there was no contract for him to perform the State of the Union. Apparently he thinks he is a celebrity, not a servant of the people. Not that he doesn't have a history of broken contracts and retracted promises.

So you can keep whining about Obama, and Hillary, and Bill, and even Jimmy Carter and Buchanan. Of course, you have cited so many false offenses that you lack credibility. Kinda your own fault for wasting all your effort screaming Birther nonsense.

It's why you deny Trump is a problem, when he can't even figure out a shut down is bad for the country. He even preemptively took responsibility for it, and promised not to blame anybody else.

Except he did.

Funny that.

Guess his Russian handler messed up.

Oh well, go put on your little red MAGA hat and scream at a Native American to go home.

Don't get "NO PLATE" "NO PL8" "NO TAG" or "MISSING". You're likely to get a flood of citations for parked cars with missing plates.

False. He actually referenced "a hundred thousand acres or so of trees". If you're going to attribute a quote, you need to get it right.

It's probably a reference to this old joke

Almost but not really: https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

Moreover, upon signing that lease, Silverstein was obligated to insure the World Trade Center. There was nothing strange, suspicious, or “fortuitous,” therefore, about his purchasing an all-risk insurance policy — which at that time would have automatically included terrorism coverage — two months before 9/11, because that’s when he became contractually responsible for doing so. Ultimately, Silverstein wasn’t even solely responsible for the total dollar amount of that coverage ($3.55 billion) because that was the minimum demanded by his lenders, according to a 2002 report in The American Lawyer.

And he got back $4.55 billion when the rebuilding cost was estimated to be $9 billion so he lost a ton of money here, so no there where no "funny how a jew profited from terrorist attacks" at all.

Fox never did either.

Did Fox News Sue for the ‘Right to Lie’? FALSE

I guess that's why The Hill, a left-of-center site, reported that the BBC, Fox News, and PBS were the most trusted news brands. And that CNN brought up the rear. That's probably why Fox has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC - combined.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/thomas-crapper/

...
Thomas Crapper took out nine plumbing patents between 1881 and 1896, but none of these patents was for the “valveless water-waste preventer” he is often credited with having invented. The first patent for a siphonic flush was taken out by Joseph Adamson in 1853, eight years before Crapper started his plumbing business. Many types of siphonic systems were patented in the 1880s, but none by a Crapper until George Crapper, Thomas’ nephew, was awarded an 1897 patent for “improvements in or relating to automatic syphon flushing tanks.” Crapper may have sold or installed water closets, but he didn’t have much to do with their development.

Alexander Cummings is generally credited with inventing (or, at least, patenting) the first flush mechanism in 1775 (more than 50 years before Crapper was born), and plumbers Joseph Bramah and Thomas Twyford further developed the technology with improvements such as the float-and-valve system. Thomas Crapper, said an article in Plumbing and Mechanical Magazine, “should best be remembered as a merchant of plumbing products, a terrific salesman and advertising genius.”

A related legend has it that U.S. soldiers stationed in England during World War I (some of whom had little or no experience with indoor plumbing) saw toilets marked with the name ‘CRAPPER’ and brought the word home as a synonym for ‘toilet’ or ‘bathroom.’ Although the word ‘crap’ (used in a scatological sense) antedates Thomas Crapper and is therefore not derived from his name, the origins of ‘crapper’ as a synonym for ‘toilet’ are unknown, other than that it is a particularly American term whose earliest print citings come from the 1930s.

The fraudulent nonsense is on you. Both are terrible, just because they have different rhetoric and ways of acting out that corruption does not change the end result that corruption is end to end, party before country, constant lies and deceit, dancing around the issues, backroom deals, rushing votes on recently changed bills, pork, omnibus, budget, gerrymandering, filibusters, taking bribes, lobbyists over citizens, fear mongering, and a general disconnect with reality BOTH FUCKING SIDES!!! People like you are easy to fool. I could rob you and make you love me for it, all I have to do is tell you it was those other guys over there! It's that simple... that is how politicians play the game, regardless of side and that is how YOU get pulled into thinking that one sides is more noble or cares about you more. They are the rich elite and you are the poor serf. They are smart and you are dumb... by the pure virtue that they are ruling over you! If you were so smart then you too would be able to game the system and put these idiots in the place and show them to be the fools they obviously are right?

NN has loopholes built into it... yea I can hear it now... It's better than nothing. So what? That's the bait that you just bit sucker! When NN was in effect I saw no difference in my speeds, bandwidth limits. I did not see a change in exclusive content, I still saw Netflix getting throttled, I still saw the news reports where ISP kept fucking people over.

The NN fight is the same as this stupid joke.

To find out how to keep an idiot busy, turn this over...
*turns over*
To find out how to keep an idiot busy, turn this over...

Please... keep turning the rock over... regulations gave the ISP's monopoly power starting with the creation of the FCC. The FCC is on record as stating they will regulate them as monopolies and they didn't even have to.

Charles Reese was on target here..

https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...
"Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them." ...
"Don't you see the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party." ...
"Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees."

And you don't have the gumption because you have been fooled (by a politician) into thinking 1/2 of the country wants you marginalized, enslaved, silenced, or killed.

Congrats on joiming the stupider-than-a-fucking-rock club.

Socialism is on the left,fascism is on the right,NAZI's were right wing fascists. Because you disagree with the entire rest of the world EXCEPT other self loathing incels in the US doesn't make you correct, it just makes you a fucking idiot.

https://www.snopes.com/news/20...

So... grow a brain and realize people don't hate you because you can't get laid, they hate you because you're a fucking NAZI asswipe. The biggest problem in the US is there are too many people as completely fucking stupid as you.

Given that Nazism is traditionally held to be an extreme right-wing ideology, the party’s conspicuous use of the term “socialist” — which refers to a political system normally plotted on the far-left end of the ideological spectrum — has long been a source of confusion, not to mention heated debate among partisans seeking to distance themselves from the genocidal taint of Nazi Germany.

That epitomizes stupid cunts like you: distancing yourself from your ideology in the eyes of others, all the while being worthless shit stains. No honor, no integrity,party before country.

The reason why fat people find it so hard to lose weight and keep it off is that the body fights them. When they cut down their calorie intake it goes into starvation mode. They feel tried all the time and it reduces burn to a minimum, which ends up meaning they need to diet extremely aggressively to get anywhere and will likely be unable to keep the weight off. 1500 calories/day is neither healthy nor sustainable, but in starvation mode that's what they need to achieve.

Bullshit. "Starvation mode" doesn't exist, straight up*. What does happen is that you need fewer calories as you lose weight, because fat (like every other cell in your body) consumes energy: less fat means less energy consumed. The idea that your body can miraculously can metabolic efficiency just because you've lost some weight is garbage that makes absolutely no sense: our bodies have had literally millions of years of evolution to become basically as efficient as it's possible for a biological organism to become. And in fact meta-analysis of studies have found that in fact the energy consumption after weight loss behaves exactly as expected. Yes, you can find individual studies that look at a dozen participants that find "metabolic adaptation" (such as the Biggest Loser study you link to elsewhere), but that's because if you perform enough studies of a topic, some of them will show what you want. In the case of that study, for example, the error bars on the measurement of the resting metabolic rate are nearly as big as the "effect".

As an aside: it's very well known that the Biggest Loser competitors lost weight in a horribly unhealthy and unsustainable fashion, essentially going on a crash diet with heavy exercise to lose weight rapidly, instead of being taught to moderate their intake and lose weight over a longer period (this article has more information, as well as tons of links to studies about metabolic adaptation and weight loss). You can lose weight like that (like a Scottish man who lost 276 lbs of weight doing that), but it's unhealthy and can even be dangerous.

Also, 1500 calories/day is perfectly healthy and sustainable for extended times (how long depends on your height, weight, and level of physical activity: a tall physically active man should usually eat more, a short sedentary woman probably needs to eat even less just to maintain a healthy weight). It doesn't even really matter how you get those calories (as long as you make sure you get enough micronutrients): you can lose weight eating mostly Twinkies and Hostess cakes.

*Note that once someone starts actually starving, your body will start consuming and shutting down internal organs, which could be called "starvation mode". But that doesn't happen until you reach basically 0% body fat and 0% lean muscle. But unless you literally have no access to food for a month or so, or are working in a force labor camp on 500 calories a day, that's not happening to you. Actual starvation looks like this. Skipping your daily venti mocha frappachino? Not even close to starvation.

Different companies in different lines of business, but all of their bankruptcies have the same cause:

Massive debt, resulting from leveraged buyouts. Most of them led by Bain Capital (you may remember their former CEO, Mitt Romney).

Mitt Romney stopped being involved in day-to-day operations of Bain Capital in February 1999 so he could work on the SLC Winter Olympics. He officially left Bain Capital in early 2002.

Bain Capital's relationship with Toys-R-Us began in 2004 - 2 years after Mitt Romney left.

"On 20 July 2008, iHeartRadio "announced the completion of a merger with an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of CC Media holdings, Inc., a corporation formed by a private equity group co-lead by Bain Capital Partners, LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P." source. Roughly 6 years after Romney officially left Bain.

In 2005 Vornado Realty Trust bought 7.5 million shares of Sears Canada. Vornado was also involved with Bain Capital in taking over Toys “R” Us, which took over KB Toys resulting in 3,400 jobs lost." source. Note this source is extremely anti-Romney and places the date of acquisition as 2005 - years after Romny left Bain.

The June 2008 issue of SF Guitar Tech includes the sentence: "Bain Capital, an equity fund that was founded by 3 people, including Mitt Romney (take that in whatever way you want), recently bought Guitar Center for 2.1 Billion dollars." Again, years after Romney left Bain.

I cba to click on a youtube link especially when I'm 99% sure you're linking to that interview that I've already seen. It's covered far better here than I could ever cover it:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

So we still both know you're full of shit. It's funny that you realise you're suposed to need a good reason to hate someone. What's not funy is your desparate attempt at a post-hoc justificaton of your hate. You are prepared to stretch facts to far, far beyond breaking point in order to justify to yourself that your hatred is, well, justified.

Here's a free clue: if you need those mental gymnastics then no your hate isn't justified. You should probably example your motivations but I know you won't.

And he was the one who had an election server wiped days after the lawsuit alleging voter fraud on the voting machines was filed.
https://www.snopes.com/news/20...

"A computer server crucial to a lawsuit against Georgia election officials was quietly wiped clean by its custodians just after the suit was filed."

Just after.

What, like with a cloth?

At least he didn't take a hammer and smash the server, like someone else did with their old cellphones.

right? Facebook has consistently been caught making it easy for advertisers to target racists whites. Facebook is a company. They make money. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves why there is so much money to be made targeting that particular demographic.

I'd like to think it's all the Russian trolls buying up ads to rile up a small percentage of Americans. It's also possible that small percentage of racists is worth targeting because they're easy to fleece, especially during a mid-term election where they can be tricked into voting against their best economic interests.

When you're feeling instead of thinking you do dumb things.

Remember Soupy Sales' gag?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

It actually happened. CNN aired footage of people in Palestine celebrating as well.

That name was dreamt up to play on the fears of Republican voters, including the suggestion that it would have "death panels". A survey early last year showed 35% of respondents still didn't realize "Obamacare" was the same thing as the ACA. We need to make decisions rationally, not out of fear.

For instance, you're more likely to be killed by pollution (200,000 early deaths per year) than an undocumented immigrant (750 per year). However, our administration wants to spend money building a wall to protect you from the "dangerous" Mexicans, but doesn't mention anything about how many people die from pollution when announcing cuts to emissions standards.

(The 750 number is 456 arrests per year, plus an estimated correction factor due to cases not being solved.)

Seriously?

And you just had the balls to lecture about misusing fear as a political factor?

What about the massive and widespread identity theft perpetrated by illegal immigrants?

IRS: 1.2 Million Illegal Aliens Committed Identity Theft in FY 2017

Hell, you just tried to paper over a complex issue with a lot of aspects using a childish fear-based statistic.

You played your NPC role well.

For instance, you're more likely to be killed by pollution (200,000 early deaths per year) than an undocumented immigrant (750 per year). However, our administration wants to spend money building a wall to protect you from the "dangerous" Mexicans, but doesn't mention anything about how many people die from pollution when announcing cuts to emissions standards.

Some people want a wall to protect the fiscal integrity of their state and/or country. Certainly "undocumented workers" (nee: illegal immigrants) pay some taxes and produce, and there are plenty of success stories. The problem is... illegal immigration is a net loss, and one method of slowing the losses is to better control immigration. Whether a wall will do it remains to be seen, but the only option I've heard is to try to make those countries a place in which nobody wants to leave... good luck with that considering those in charge south of the U.S. Border....

That name was dreamt up to play on the fears of Republican voters, including the suggestion that it would have "death panels". A survey early last year showed 35% of respondents still didn't realize "Obamacare" was the same thing as the ACA. We need to make decisions rationally, not out of fear.

For instance, you're more likely to be killed by pollution (200,000 early deaths per year) than an undocumented immigrant (750 per year). However, our administration wants to spend money building a wall to protect you from the "dangerous" Mexicans, but doesn't mention anything about how many people die from pollution when announcing cuts to emissions standards.

(The 750 number is 456 arrests per year, plus an estimated correction factor due to cases not being solved.)

Simple googling the title of this document leads you to multiple, convincing debunkings:

https://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

Nope - never happened.

Okay, you are talking about this article on Snopes. It rates the claim made by White on Twitter that she was attacked merely for wearing a MAGA hat in Hollywood as "mixture".

That seems entirely reasonable. It's true that she did get into an altercation, but only after going to an anti-Trump rally and, with her boyfriend, crossing an LAPD line meant to keep opposing sides apart to prevent violence.

Clearly the way she frames it as having been attacked merely for wearing a MAGA hat in Hollywood is omitting key details. The other claim about having alcohol thrown over her is impossible to verify, and given the provocation and deception used in the first part of the video it's impossible to make any determination.

So once again we have unfounded claims of bias and an outright misrepresentation of Snopes' position. Maybe you simply misspoke when you said "false or inconclusive".

Hey Anonymous Coward, which *facts* in this Snopes story are wrong? Be specific.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

"My fear is if North Korea nukes us, Trump gonna get us into a war" - Maxine Waters

You realize she never said that, right? She said nothing even close - it's not an honest mistake or a misquote but just pure fabrication. I know it doesn't matter in this post-truth world but there are plenty of other cringe-worthy quotes available, so why go for a fake one?