More proof that snopes cannot be trusted...

The people attacking Snopes are actually allowed to vote, horrifying!
 
Snopes exposed again!

We all saw the thread about our first lady's jacket that melted snowflakes the world over. Snopes jumped in and claimed the story was true. It wasn't. She never wore the jacket to meet the children.

Here is what the snopes page claimed (word for word):

Did Melania Trump Wear This Jacket When Visiting Children Separated from Their Families?

The First Lady made a surprise visit to detained immigrant children while wearing a jacket bearing the message "I DON'T REALLY CARE DO U?" on the back.

CLAIM

First Lady Melania Trump visited immigrant kids wearing a jacket with "I DON'T REALLY CARE DO U?" emblazoned on the back.


RATING
True


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/melania-trump-wear-jacket-visiting-children-separated-families/
 
Medical examiners have never lied either, right?

Anyways, none of this is really the point. Snopes did a hit piece on a website. It was clearly unfair. The snopes claim was false.


Snopes lies about many things and have been caught numerous times. Use google or if you are too lazy, go to the snopes site yourself and see their explanation of how jet fuel and office crap can burn hot enough to liquefy steel.
I believe there's something wrong with you if you think they are the problem with this story.
 
Snopes exposed again!

We all saw the thread about our first lady's jacket that melted snowflakes the world over. Snopes jumped in and claimed the story was true. It wasn't. She never wore the jacket to meet the children.

Here is what the snopes page claimed (word for word):

Did Melania Trump Wear This Jacket When Visiting Children Separated from Their Families?

The First Lady made a surprise visit to detained immigrant children while wearing a jacket bearing the message "I DON'T REALLY CARE DO U?" on the back.

CLAIM


First Lady Melania Trump visited immigrant kids wearing a jacket with "I DON'T REALLY CARE DO U?" emblazoned on the back.


RATING

True


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/melania-trump-wear-jacket-visiting-children-separated-families/
Snopes exposed again!

We all saw the thread about our first lady's jacket that melted snowflakes the world over. Snopes jumped in and claimed the story was true. It wasn't. She never wore the jacket to meet the children.

Here is what the snopes page claimed (word for word):

Did Melania Trump Wear This Jacket When Visiting Children Separated from Their Families?

The First Lady made a surprise visit to detained immigrant children while wearing a jacket bearing the message "I DON'T REALLY CARE DO U?" on the back.

CLAIM


First Lady Melania Trump visited immigrant kids wearing a jacket with "I DON'T REALLY CARE DO U?" emblazoned on the back.


RATING

True


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/melania-trump-wear-jacket-visiting-children-separated-families/
Where's the false part? Click your link, it says 'on the way to'...
 
Where's the false part? Click your link, it says 'on the way to'...
Can you people even read?

Snopes wrote:
The First Lady made a surprise visit to detained immigrant children while wearing a jacket...

And then even reiterated:
First Lady Melania Trump visited immigrant kids wearing a jacket...
 
Can you people even read?

Snopes wrote:
The First Lady made a surprise visit to detained immigrant children while wearing a jacket...

And then even reiterated:
First Lady Melania Trump visited immigrant kids wearing a jacket...
Semantically, they're not wrong.
Ex.: (Someone asks me as I get into my car,) "Is that a new coat? Where are you going?
To visit my grandma.
(Therefore, "I saw Rebound today, going to visit his grandma wearing his new coat.")

Anyway, minor semantic considerations aside, the premise in the OP is garbage.
 
I just came across an article that discusses this exact topic. The first example speaks directly to the OP and basically explains what I initially did before everyone got confused.

On June 8, Snopes attempted to claim that a story we wrote about Veterans on Patrol was false by claiming that we said this veterans group discovered a child trafficking camp in Tuscon, AZ. The only problem with this claim is that we never made it. The Free Thought Project merely reported on the activities of VOP and noted the possibility that this camp could also simply be a homeless camp. It’s why we used quotes in the title around “Child Trafficking Camp” because these were their words, not ours.


Nevertheless, thousands of Facebook users who shared our article received a notification that they had shared news that was determined to be false—when, in fact, it was not....


From:
Three Glaring Examples Proving Snopes and the AP Have No Business Being Official ‘Fact Checkers’
 
I just came across an article that discusses this exact topic. The first example speaks directly to the OP and basically explains what I initially did before everyone got confused.

On June 8, Snopes attempted to claim that a story we wrote about Veterans on Patrol was false by claiming that we said this veterans group discovered a child trafficking camp in Tuscon, AZ. The only problem with this claim is that we never made it. The Free Thought Project merely reported on the activities of VOP and noted the possibility that this camp could also simply be a homeless camp. It’s why we used quotes in the title around “Child Trafficking Camp” because these were their words, not ours.


Nevertheless, thousands of Facebook users who shared our article received a notification that they had shared news that was determined to be false—when, in fact, it was not....


From:
Three Glaring Examples Proving Snopes and the AP Have No Business Being Official ‘Fact Checkers’
You get your Snopes takedown from a website called "Freedom Outpost"?
CAADAgADhwMAAjbsGwVupXBe2AABuLEC.png
 
I believe in being parsimony when trying to analyze things. The way I see it, there are only a couple of reasons why @abiG would believe Snopes was trying to cover up this sensational story. Either:
A) Snopes is part of a liberal media cabal trying to influence the country, and covering up this story helps their pro-immigrant/pro-kid-diddling agenda
B) He is a gullible idiot suffering from severe backfire-effect
Which is most likely?
 
Back
Top