That might be fine if the rumors were about aspartame, but not him or Hillary.
I like fact check better. Synopses seems to opinionated though they are good for some things, like chasing down internet hoaxes.
Clue you in? Ok, Snopes is an extremely bias website that is controlled by far left libtards and is not worthy to be considered for any accuracy at all.
I have heard that Snoopes is some lady with a cat who pretends to be an authority on everything.
Snopes sucks is a good explanation.
They’re a left-wing shill group.......
‘Rat propaganda?
snopes=bought and paid-for. sound impartial?
I stopped trying to make anything of Snopes long ago. They’re liberals on a mission and can barely hide it.
I’ve read snopes at it’s inception. Like when Mosiac was your browser because it was the only browser. Back then it was considered bible, and had I think several News groups on it, like Alt.Urban-Legends. This is when drudgereport was emailed to you in ascii text.
Now I say they tread a fine line of political activism, and like wikipedia, is subject to perpetual edits.
When Snopes debunks the hands up don’t shoot narrative, then MAYBE then I would consider them to be slightly credible. But hell will freeze over, or longer than that the Jets will win another Super Bowl before that happens.
Snopes is a website run by a husband and wife ( both libtards ) out of their home. The husband does the website and the wife is the “researcher”. She bases her conclusions on “consensus” on the web- that is, she will look up an issue and if the majority of comments or websites declare it is false ( with no actual proof), she declares the issue false. Snopes is not a research organization ( though the media gives the impression that is exactly what it is ) with people on the payroll that delve into an issue and know something about what they are researching.
Um, you have been here since 1998 and do not know that Snopes is left wing Soros propaganda outfit?
Just wow.
ABOUT 15 YEARS AGO SNOPES CALLED THE NEW TESTAMENT AN ABERRATION.
THAT SHOULD SAVE YOU TIME DECIDING
Aimed exclusively and directly at the progressive, Dim camp...
I just ignore them now.
I find it curious that out of the zillions of government and private sector things that have been hacked in this admin, the only time they can say who hacked it AND who leaked the emails is when it happens to fit a narrative that helps them.
I am suspicious of the blame the Russians approach the DNC is taking to say the least.
On the other hand considering the amount of leverage due to the illegal stuff that the DNC does as routine business if it was open the Russians probably DID hack it, along with every other country in the world.
But who HACKED it and who LEAKED it are two different things.
However, Assauge offering to pay for info leading to the arrest of the murderer of top DNC insider Rich is closer than Mr Assauge has ever gotten to naming a source.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/democrat-official-shot-death-washington-d-c-breaking-news/
In the "Was Omar Mateen's father invited to a hillary speech?" the author, the woman who seems to do half of their work, LIED, and claimed he was not invited. She even provided a video from a local florida station as so called evidence. If anyone actually watched the video, mateen's father makes the claim himself at 2:00 in the video.
Either the author is lazy or overworked, thus sloppy., or she is lying.
I'll type this slowly.
ANYTHING political by Snopes is garbage.
Hard to take anyone seriously who cites Slate as a source.