I am not going to turn this into a Snopes thread or a Fact Checker thread. I am just saying I don't think OAN is a trustworthy source, they are very clearly biased towards Trump and certain political ideologies, they don't even try to hide it.

Unless you have evidence the information they published is inaccurate, you're just deflecting from the facts and demonizing the publisher -- not even the source.

You should be more honest about what you're doing.  It's not being objective.  You're BIASED against OAN, so you refuse to consider the validity of the TRUTH they publish as honest and accurate.

Shooting the messenger never seems to go out of style when the message isn't what you want to hear.

Unless you have evidence the information they published is inaccurate, you're just deflecting from the facts and demonizing the publisher -- not even the source.

You should be more honest about what you're doing.  It's not being objective.  You're BIASED against OAN, so you refuse to consider the validity of the TRUTH they publish as honest and accurate.

Shooting the messenger never seems to go out of style when the message isn't what you want to hear.

Again a double standard there. Eager to believe claims of Snopes being bias and you will discredit them but if I proved blatant bias by OAN you would insist we look at the source. Snopes puts sources in their article to support their conclusion but did you insist on looking at those? All I ask is for consistency here.

Again a double standard there. Eager to believe claims of Snopes being bias and you will discredit them but if I proved blatant bias by OAN you would insist we look at the source. Snopes puts sources in their article to support their conclusion but did you insist on looking at those? All I ask is for consistency here.

Stupid comparison -- again.

Snopes pretends to be a fact checker.  They don't publish facts from reputable sources to support their OPINIONS.  That's completely different than OAN REPORTING from a verifiable source.

One is an opinion, the other is a factual telling of someone else's analysis.

I'm not surprised you can't accept that the difference is not a "double standard", but you trying to compare apples to oranges and say it's the same thing is ridiculous.

Snopes doesn't report news.  They pretend to fact check other people's reports, comments, claims, etc., and they do a rather piss poor job of it.

SCOTUS to decide whether election fraud cases can proceed

https://rumble.com/ve0r2f-scotus-to-decide-whether-election-fraud-cases-can-proceed.html

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Snopes pretends to be a fact checker.  They don't publish facts from reputable sources to support their OPINIONS.  That's completely different than OAN REPORTING from a verifiable source.

One is an opinion, the other is a factual telling of someone else's analysis.

I'm not surprised you can't accept that the difference is not a "double standard", but you trying to compare apples to oranges and say it's the same thing is ridiculous.

Snopes doesn't report news.  They pretend to fact check other people's reports, comments, claims, etc., and they do a rather piss poor job of it.

The HPD troll gets his news from Snopes???

ROFLMAO,  never heard of ANYONE getting a thing from that deviant site other thanliberal talking points.
Mother Stoned, Rolling Stoned, The Nation, etc are little better.

Stupid comparison -- again.

Snopes pretends to be a fact checker.  They don't publish facts from reputable sources to support their OPINIONS.  That's completely different than OAN REPORTING from a verifiable source.

One is an opinion, the other is a factual telling of someone else's analysis.

I'm not surprised you can't accept that the difference is not a "double standard", but you trying to compare apples to oranges and say it's the same thing is ridiculous.

Snopes doesn't report news.  They pretend to fact check other people's reports, comments, claims, etc., and they do a rather piss poor job of it.

Have you ever even read a Snopes article? The post sources for the information they use to fact check. Man, here I am fact checking you!

Have you ever even read a Snopes article? The post sources for the information they use to fact check. Man, here I am fact checking you!

Snopes doesn't post news articles.  They post opinions on what other people put online.

The sources they reference are cherry-picked and quite often unrelated to the actual claim they are trying to fact check.

They twist the claim to make sure that something in it fails the check, even though the person they quoted never said what they fact checked.

Have YOU ever read a Snopes "article"?  They fact checked The Babylon Bee!!   

They beclown themselves constantly, but those ARTICLES are the most telling.

Anyway, this topic is not about Snopes or any other article's bias or reliability.  Stop derailing the thread!

 

Have you ever even read a Snopes article? The post sources for the information they use to fact check. Man, here I am fact checking you!

Snopes is straight up left wing propaganda. Cherry picking left wing propaganda sources does not change reality.

Snopes is weird people

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/12/22/snopes-exposed-fact-checking-website-co-founder-accused-embezzling-money-prostitutes-426660/

Snopes’ top “fact-checker” Kim LaCapria has admitted on her personal blog that she has “posted to Snopes” after smoking marijuana, the Mail reported.

While none of these accusations (smoking weed at work, embezzling company funds, or being a porn star/escort) is in itself disqualifying per se, the fact that ALL THREE are occurring at the same website that holds itself out as the arbiter of truth is laughable.

SCOTUS to decide whether election fraud cases can proceed

https://rumble.com/ve0r2f-scotus-to-decide-whether-election-fraud-cases-can-proceed.html

Clarence Thomas called out the majority decision as ridiculous.

We couldn't hear the complaints about unconstitutional election rule changes BEFORE the election because no harm had been done to the candidates before election day.

Now, we can't hear the complaints because Donald Trump is no longer able to become President based on the 2020 election results?

So, what's to stop anyone in any election from making election process changes outside of the constitutionally-mandated legislative process if there's no venue to redress these problems?  The integrity of all future elections will be in serious doubt if we allow states to ignore the laws.

I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist.

Clarence Thomas called out the majority decision as ridiculous.

We couldn't hear the complaints about unconstitutional election rule changes BEFORE the election because no harm had been done to the candidates before election day.

Now, we can't hear the complaints because Donald Trump is no longer able to become President based on the 2020 election results?

So, what's to stop anyone in any election from making election process changes outside of the constitutionally-mandated legislative process if there's no venue to redress these problems?  The integrity of all future elections will be in serious doubt if we allow states to ignore the laws.

I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist.

in before not proven in a court of law...

in before not proven in a court of law...

While the courts refuse to hear cases, there can never be newly documented "truths" in the country ....

While the courts refuse to hear cases, there can never be newly documented "truths" in the country ....

Courts don't have time for frivolous suits.  It's been proven already there's no evidence of mass fraud.  All the cases alleging that have failed.  Only so much you can beat a dead horse.

Courts don't have time for frivolous suits.  It's been proven already there's no evidence of mass fraud.  All the cases alleging that have failed.  Only so much you can beat a dead horse.

we beat on you all the time...

we beat on you all the time...

Took democrats 4 years to get over Russia,  guess you still need time to heal.

While the courts refuse to hear cases, there can never be newly documented "truths" in the country ....

Can't be proven in court if court won't hear it. Win, win.

Took democrats 4 years to get over Russia,  guess you still need time to heal.

Cite your sources that prove Democrats ever "got over Russia."

Jan 21, 2021

But that is not the only sign of this lingering obsession. Look at a new conversation between
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, on Clinton’s podcast, “You and Me Both.”
There was much to discuss about the Biden agenda, but you will not be surprised to learn that
Trump dominated the conversation. The two reached back into the Trump-Russia matter —
what the president calls the “Russia hoax” — to call for yet another Trump investigation.

“I hope, historically, we will find out who [Trump is] beholden to, who pulls his strings,” Clinton
said. “I would love to see his phone records to see whether he was talking to [Russian leader
Vladimir] Putin the day that the insurgents invaded our Capitol.”

Clinton’s theory was that the Russians, acting through their puppet, the President of the United
States, were behind the Capitol riot. “Do you think we need a 9/11-type commission to investigate
and report everything that they can pull together and explain what happened?” she asked Pelosi.

https://www.albanyherald.com/opinion/byron-york-even-as-hes-gone-democrats-still-obsessed-with-trump/article_bef81272-5bf3-11eb-9b31-937dabd21642.html

This, after Brennan's notes showed that Clinton was the instigator of the Russia hoax!   

Cite your sources that prove Democrats ever "got over Russia."

https://www.albanyherald.com/opinion/byron-york-even-as-hes-gone-democrats-still-obsessed-with-trump/article_bef81272-5bf3-11eb-9b31-937dabd21642.html

This, after Brennan's notes showed that Clinton was the instigator of the Russia hoax!   

"Most" democrats.  Its not a headline in the news, no new hearings.  No constant whining.  ETC.

"Most" democrats.  Its not a headline in the news, no new hearings.  No constant whining.  ETC.

This was a PODCAST on national broadcast with Clinton (Former Sec of State and chief Russia Hoax coordinator) and Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and 3rd in line to be President.

They ARE the Democrat Party.  What they focus on is what the party is focused on.

Being a headline in the news as a measure of what's front of mind of people stopped a long time ago.  They pushed "RUSSIA!" long after most Americans cared about it. 

Most Dems still think Mueller was a traitor.

"Most" democrats.  Its not a headline in the news, no new hearings.  No constant whining.  ETC.

that's not what you said