Snope=libtart what is a good alternative

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

I like to check at least some of the rumors I hear but Snopes is very liberal and cannot be trusted for anything gun or conservative related, are there any good alternatives that are not biased? I would take one that is biased to our side

 

[In God We Trust]

People don't trust snopes because the owners are libtards, but I don't think anyone has yet to point out anything false from there yet.

 

[Drix]

You can not be false but still be incorrect. Snopes likes to give a black and white representation of arguments and rarely communicates anything in the shade of gray the world works in. Snopes isn't out to write entire treatises on arguments, and therefore just barely skims the surface of problems.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

found this site that lists 5 or 6 fact checkers. I really want something this is middle of the road, snopes I guess would be good for email scams etc checking

want something slightly center right for political

https://www.technorms.com/454/get-your-facts-right-6-fact-checking-websites-that-help-you-know-the-truth

 

[MichaelJames1971]

I like to check at least some of the rumors I hear but Snopes is very liberal and cannot be trusted for anything gun or conservative related, are there any good alternatives that are not biased? I would take one that is biased to our side

If your 'discovery' that the Right likes to lie and smear as much as the left makes you uncomfortable, perhaps you're not really interested in the truth - you're just looking for something to defend your preferred-flavor of rhetoric?

 

[Dennis in MA]

Wow. A debate on Snopes on NES. Will wonders never cease. I thought we were banhammah'd if we actually visited the site.

It is left-leaning, but I can't think of a time, offhand, that anyone said, "Snopes is plain wrong here" and Snopes stood pat.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

If your 'discovery' that the Right likes to lie and smear as much as the left makes you uncomfortable, perhaps you're not really interested in the truth - you're just looking for something to defend your preferred-flavor of rhetoric?

Well I have seen MSNBC and CNN flat out lie about stuff. The Russians through the election to Trump, and not reporting that there is no evidence and that the Russians gave 145,000,000 to the Clinton's and their foundation, crickets

I mostly want to check of various facebook claims such as this or that virus or so on.

Oh did you hear Amelia Earhart is alive and living in Brooklyn?

 

[Dennis in MA]

Brooklyn??? Didn't you see the special this summer? She got kilt at Hiroshima.

 

[MichaelJames1971]

Well I have seen MSNBC and CNN flat out lie about stuff. The Russians through the election to Trump, and not reporting that there is no evidence and that the Russians gave 145,000,000 to the Clinton's and their foundation, crickets

I mostly want to check of various facebook claims such as this or that virus or so on.

Oh did you hear Amelia Earhart is alive and living in Brooklyn?

When it comes to the Russians, people believe what they want to believe. I suppose some Conservatives believe Podestra hacked his own email...that he gave it to WikiLkeaks himself....magic!

Who is Natalia Veselnitskaya, again? Who did she meet-with, and why?

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Looks like the Washington Post Fact Checker and it's Pinocio's is what I want for political

http://www.courant.com/politics/capitol-watch/hc-pol-murphy-fact-check-dispute-20171018-story.html

 

[42!]

OP you want a fact checker but you want it to be biased in one direction?

Any site that says they are a fact checker but is biased is not a fact checker. This works both ways.

If you want the truth you need to find the original information source and look at it unedited. And read what you think is the source very carefully, it's common to mix out of context quotes with the reporter's opinion in order to mislead. When it comes to studies and statistics you need to look at both the raw data and the process. I know of a conversation between two people creating a questionnaire discussing how to word the questions to get the results they wanted.

 

[drgrant]

I like to check at least some of the rumors I hear but Snopes is very liberal and cannot be trusted for anything gun or conservative related, are there any good alternatives that are not biased? I would take one that is biased to our side

Snopes was for internet rumors and chain mails, LOL. Anything political? Forget it, no better or worse than DemSNBC or wherever. Most so called "fact checking" sites for political type issues are usually run by one faction or the other. No real getting around
it. If you want to check the facts, you're probably going to have to do your own legwork.

People don't trust snopes because the owners are libtards, but I don't think anyone has yet to point out anything false from there yet.

I wouldn't say most of their pages contain falsities but with the political stuff there's a healthy amount of lies by omission, or printing something out of context. Or using one small piece of evidence to dismiss a claim.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

When it comes to the Russians, people believe what they want to believe. I suppose some Conservatives believe Podestra hacked his own email...that he gave it to WikiLkeaks himself....magic!

So the "russian government or hackers operated by them" are the only entity capable of hacking podestas computer/accounts? You're really that ignorant?

I used to hang out with guys on internet relay chat from Russia (and Ukraine) back in the late 90s that were bored out of their gourds- they would practically consider popping into a machine or account like that a form of entertainment. Getting paid is nice but it was never a requirement as a motivation for them to do
something.

Half of the computer underworld is from Russia, Eastern Europe, and Israel. Or at least it was. Saying "someone from Russia did it" is like as dumb as trying to tell us that water is wet, etc. There are a
handful of countries that are abysmally bad about chasing down "bad guys" WRT computer crime and
fraud. Russia is one of them, as well as most of the ex soviet bloc nations, particularly Ukraine.

Are there any real links between the guy who supposedly did it, and the russian government? Good luck proving that.

-Mike

 

[mikeyp]

People don't trust snopes because the owners are libtards, but I don't think anyone has yet to point out anything false from there yet.

Not true at all, plenty has been pointed out. One was that Keagan(or Stotomoyer?) didn't represent Oblahblah in front on the SCOTUS before he appointed her to it, when you could see on the SCOTUS site itself that she did.

 

[mg42doc]

When it comes to the Russians, people believe what they want to believe. I suppose some Conservatives believe Podestra hacked his own email...that he gave it to WikiLkeaks himself....magic!

I dont care if Ronnie Reagan did it. The resulting shitstorm was beautiful....

Podesta pretty much hacked himself.....wasnt his password "Password"? dumbass.

 

[JayMcB]

It is left-leaning, but I can't think of a time, offhand, that anyone said, "Snopes is plain wrong here" and Snopes stood pat.

That's in the top 5 most uninformed things I've ever read on NES. WOW talk about out yourself

unproven https://www.snopes.com/four-times-more-stabbed-than-rifles-any-kind/

 

[MichaelJames1971]

So the "russian government or hackers operated by them" are the only entity capable of hacking podestas computer/accounts? You're really that ignorant?

I used to hang out with guys on internet relay chat from Russia (and Ukraine) back in the late 90s that were bored out of their gourds- they would practically consider popping into a machine or account like that a form of entertainment. Getting paid is nice but it was never a requirement as a motivation for them to do
something.

Half of the computer underworld is from Russia, Eastern Europe, and Israel. Or at least it was. Saying "someone from Russia did it" is like as dumb as trying to tell us that water is wet, etc. There are a
handful of countries that are abysmally bad about chasing down "bad guys" WRT computer crime and
fraud. Russia is one of them, as well as most of the ex soviet bloc nations, particularly Ukraine.

Are there any real links between the guy who supposedly did it, and the russian government? Good luck proving that.

-Mike

You know damned-well that if a Democrat were elected with even a suggestion of assistance from a hostile Foreign Government, the GOP would be demanding YEARS of Congressional investigations involving every 3-letter Intelligence Agency supporting the effort. The fact that you totally ignored the fact that Jared Kushner did admit to meeting a Russian Lawyer with connections to the Russian Government tells me just how DEEP you have your head buried in the sand. You DON"T know anything, and you don't WANT to know anything, and nothing will convince you otherwise, because your new 'Dear Leader' just might get dipped in horse manure by association.

Snopes is not the CIA or the FBI, and even they're convinced the Russians lent assistance to the Trump campaign - it doesn't matter if Trump or his team asked-for, encouraged, or knew-about such assistance. I'm sure they appreciated all the help they could get, no matter the source.

 

[BTSDOG]

You know damned-well that if a Democrat were elected with even a suggestion of assistance from a hostile Foreign Government, the GOP would be demanding YEARS of Congressional investigations involving every 3-letter Intelligence Agency supporting the effort. The fact that you totally ignored the fact that Jared Kushner did admit to meeting a Russian Lawyer with connections to the Russian Government tells me just how DEEP you have your head buried in the sand. You DON"T know anything, and you don't WANT to know anything, and nothing will convince you otherwise, because your new 'Dear Leader' just might get dipped in horse manure by association.

Snopes is not the CIA or the FBI, and even they're convinced the Russians lent assistance to the Trump campaign - it doesn't matter if Trump or his team asked-for, encouraged, or knew-about such assistance. I'm sure they appreciated all the help they could get, no matter the source.

Ok, Bernie [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Glockster30]

You know damned-well that if a Democrat were elected with even a suggestion of assistance from a hostile Foreign Government, the GOP would be demanding YEARS of Congressional investigations involving every 3-letter Intelligence Agency supporting the effort. The fact that you totally ignored the fact that Jared Kushner did admit to meeting a Russian Lawyer with connections to the Russian Government tells me just how DEEP you have your head buried in the sand. You DON"T know anything, and you don't WANT to know anything, and nothing will convince you otherwise, because your new 'Dear Leader' just might get dipped in horse manure by association.

Snopes is not the CIA or the FBI, and even they're convinced the Russians lent assistance to the Trump campaign - it doesn't matter if Trump or his team asked-for, encouraged, or knew-about such assistance. I'm sure they appreciated all the help they could get, no matter the source.

Mike (drgrant) can take care of himself), so I'm just chiming in to further point out your hypocrisy. Your old, 'Dear Leader,' Obama, knew about Russian meddling in elections as far back as 2014. Furthermore, in 2016 at the G20 summit, Obama "supposedly" told Putin to knock it off, but Putin just ignored his incompetence. Even though Obama knew about Russian meddling, he did nothing about it until November 9, 2016 when it was known for sure that your darling, HRC, lost the election. Why did Obama do nothing? Because the polls were all lying and showing that HRC was going to win the election in a cakewalk.

As far as I'm aware, Jared Kushner's meeting with the Russian lawyer has produced nothing yet, even though he testified in front of a congressional committee. Mueller, which is a travesty in of itself due to his ties with Comey, et al, is investigating all the Russian angles above and beyond his original task, which was just to determine if the Russians impacted the voting machines. Now, the investigation has morphed into every conceivable facet of Trump's life and anyone associated with him. The team Mueller put together consists primarily of former Clinton supporters and at least one lawyer who worked for the Clinton Foundation, whose primary job was to deflect any FOIA requests asking for info about the Clinton Foundation. So, until Mueller reports anything of significance, as far as I know, Jared is still innocent until proven guilty, but you already assume he is guilty. Even though I can't stand him, a supposedly great legal mind, Alan Dershowitz, has stated that the meeting with the Russian lawyer for 20 minutes was not a crime. However, as has been stated, a team of lawyers like mueller's could indict a ham sandwich, so pull you head out of your a$$, not the sand.

A year ago July, Comey all but told us that HRC did just about everything wrong with the way she handled her private server to conduct official state department business, but HE decided that there should be no indictment of HRC when it was not his right to even make that decision. The decision for an issue like that is made by the US Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, which is another joke. You remember her, she accidentally bumped into Bill Clinton when they landed at the same time in the same AZ airport. Bill went to her plane and "supposedly" talked about their grandchildren for 49 minutes, just days before Comey was going to all but indict HRC on national TV. If you believe that they just discussed grandchildren, then your head is permanently stuck up your a$$.

Just recently, it was discovered that Comey already exonerated HRC as far back as March 2016 due to some of his work that was discovered. This was 3 months before he was on TV in July telling everyone that HRC was guilty, but he was not going to indict. This is in spite of the fact that there was never a grand jury, no FBI recorded testimony by HRC, or no testimony under oath by the FBI. However, she was "interviewed" by the FBI on a Saturday with her lawyer, Cheryl Mills present, who was also in line to be investigated. You want to talk about more BS?

Now it's finally coming to light about how the Clinton Foundation benefitted in their pay-to-play schemes, such as the Uranium One deal, that goes back to 2010, but that's a subject for another time. In addition, we are now being told that additional emails that could be top secret were found on Carlos Danger's computer, who is going to end up in a fed penitentiary. Huma could be following his footsteps, as well.

I could go on for pages, but your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

[42!]

Snopes is not the CIA or the FBI, and even they're convinced the Russians lent assistance to the Trump campaign - it doesn't matter if Trump or his team asked-for, encouraged, or knew-about such assistance. I'm sure they appreciated all the help they could get, no matter the source.

Of course it matters. If someone kills someone you know and hate, and you don't know about it then you are not-guilty regardless of how you feel about the outcome. On the other hand, if you asked-for or encouraged it then you are guilty. YES it matters.

 

[Mountain]

Not true at all, plenty has been pointed out. One was that Keagan(or Stotomoyer?) didn't represent Oblahblah in front on the SCOTUS before he appointed her to it, when you could see on the SCOTUS site itself that she did.

Yep. Several others as well.

I was actually a bit sad upon discovering Snopes was libtard and full of crap. I really like their concept, but the execution is tainted.

 

[jhblaze1]

People don't trust snopes because the owners are libtards, but I don't think anyone has yet to point out anything false from there yet.

The problem snopes is that what passes for evidence often isn't. They cite their sources. Oftentimes they stretch what the source actually says to fit their true/false position.

I don't think snopes is full out libtard but I do think it has a lib bent.

 

[drgrant]

You know damned-well that if a Democrat were elected with even a suggestion of assistance from a hostile Foreign Government, the GOP would be demanding YEARS of Congressional investigations involving every 3-letter Intelligence Agency supporting the effort.

The GOP has demanded tons of investigations on Obama's administration and Hillary Clinton, yet pretty much does/gets nothing except a bunch of glad handing. (eg, Benghazi, etc).

The fact that you totally ignored the fact that Jared Kushner did admit to meeting a Russian Lawyer with connections to the Russian Government tells me just how DEEP you have your head buried in the sand.

That's cool but- That has ****ing ZERO to do with Podestas email being hacked. Unless there's some connection between Jared Kushner and whoever the dude who hacked his email and presumably provided all the DNC leaks. If you want to impress us, please provide evidence of this other than some speculation provided from Crescent News Network, DemSNBC, etc.

This is what you do constantly, deflect, and then change the subject. Typical.

You DON"T know anything, and you don't WANT to know anything, and nothing will convince you otherwise, because your new 'Dear Leader' just might get dipped in horse manure by association.

You assume I'm a trumpette because I think the russian collusion claims on the DNC hacks are, at best, on a good day, highly debatable? Frankly I think the only good thing about the guy is we got a SCOTUS justice out of him (and if we're lucky, we might get another) and he's not Hillary Clinton. Beyond that? Meh. It's just a circus of executive orders the next president is going to wipe out, because the guy can't cast his ideas into legislation and get congress to pass them. He does step in
horse shit constantly, I'm not even going to deny that. That's not what I'm talking
about here.

Even this article, which seems to indicate points to russia, pretty much says "Yeah the russian gov might have done it" if you really read between the lines... it still doesn't give incontrovertible proof, or even what I would call a smoking gun... that the hacker or even "guccifer 2.0" are inextricably linked to the Russian government.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...government-attempt-to-cover-up-their-own-hack

Yeah, it looks "kinda" incriminating, but they still have no real proof. Oh a russian hacker named an account after a character from FSB, you don't say? That's like someone calling their WiFi AP "FBI Surveillance Van" and then everyone thinks the feds are in their neighborhood.

Snopes is not the CIA or the FBI, and even they're convinced the Russians lent assistance to the Trump campaign - it doesn't matter if Trump or his team asked-for, encouraged, or knew-about such assistance. I'm sure they appreciated all the help they could get, no matter the source.

I'm not even discussing whether or not there was "russian assistance" at all. I'm not even denying that trump types might have met with russian officials in an improper manner, etc. I was specifically addressing this claim that you think that the russian government put someone up to hack podesta/dnc.

-Mike

 

[jhblaze1]

The GOP has demanded tons of investigations on Obama's administration and Hillary Clinton, yet pretty much does/gets nothing except a bunch of glad handing. (eg, Benghazi, etc).



That's cool but- That has ****ing ZERO to do with Podestas email being hacked. Unless there's some connection between Jared Kushner and whoever the dude who hacked his email and presumably provided all the DNC leaks. If you want to impress us, please provide evidence of this other than some speculation provided from Crescent News Network, DemSNBC, etc.

This is what you do constantly, deflect, and then change the subject. Typical.



You assume I'm a trumpette because I think the russian collusion claims on the DNC hacks are, at best, on a good day, highly debatable? Frankly I think the only good thing about the guy is we got a SCOTUS justice out of him (and if we're lucky, we might get another) and he's not Hillary Clinton. Beyond that? Meh. It's just a circus of executive orders the next president is going to wipe out, because the guy can't cast his ideas into legislation and get congress to pass them. He does step in
horse shit constantly, I'm not even going to deny that. That's not what I'm talking
about here.

Even this article, which seems to indicate points to russia, pretty much says "Yeah the russian gov might have done it" if you really read between the lines... it still doesn't give incontrovertible proof, or even what I would call a smoking gun... that the hacker or even "guccifer 2.0" are inextricably linked to the Russian government.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...government-attempt-to-cover-up-their-own-hack

Yeah, it looks "kinda" incriminating, but they still have no real proof. Oh a russian hacker named an account after a character from FSB, you don't say? That's like someone calling their WiFi AP "FBI Surveillance Van" and then everyone thinks the feds are in their neighborhood.



I'm not even discussing whether or not there was "russian assistance" at all. I'm not even denying that trump types might have met with russian officials in an improper manner, etc. I was specifically addressing this claim that you think that the russian government put someone up to hack podesta/dnc.

-Mike

I thought it was against the rules for Cosmic Irony to have 2 screen names

 

[Cap'n Mike]

Best I have come up with if I want to get an unbiased read on a political story.
I find an article about the story on a Left leaning website, then I find and article about the story on a Right leaning website.
Having gotten both sides spin on the story, I form my own opinion.

 

[Kevin_NH]

Equivalent non-lefty site which cites their sources & provides links to source?

The problem snopes is that what passes for evidence often isn't. They cite their sources. Oftentimes they stretch what the source actually says to fit their true/false position.

I don't think snopes is full out libtard but I do think it has a lib bent.

At least Snopes will usually give enough information on their sources to allow you to find the "original" and read it in entirety. I haven't found an equivalent right-leaning or centrist site which actually cites their sources, much less provides links.

 

[TLB]

That's in the top 5 most uninformed things I've ever read on NES. WOW talk about out yourself

unproven https://www.snopes.com/four-times-more-stabbed-than-rifles-any-kind/

Good one. If they liked the answer, they would be more definitive.

 

[Tallen]

Try Infogalactic. The existing pages are as good or better than wikipedia's. I've linked their roadmap and within a year they should have page content layered by source (so if you want to only see facts you can hide everything else). Future plans include ideology-based filters or lenses for each page.

 

[drgrant]

I thought it was against the rules for Cosmic Irony to have 2 screen names

Even though CI frequently incites stuff, he does usually at least try to stay on topic, he's not doing the wandering thing.

michaeljames453452345 is frequently motoring outside the topic. Like that dude at the golf course that hits the ball outside of the white stakes, and then just goes into the poison ivy with his club and continues playing as though nothing happened. Or the guy who takes his shoes off and partially wades into the water hazard because "he sees his ball and he can hit it out just fine"





-Mike

 

[weekendracer]

People don't trust snopes because the owners are libtards, but I don't think anyone has yet to point out anything false from there yet.

As far as immigration during the Obama years, I found quite a few that were flat out lies, but mixed with enough 'official' that the average person would never be able to prove it.