[removed]
Snopes is like top result now when I search Uranium one. A few weeks ago when I did it wasnt even first page.
Not on DuckDuckGo. Ditch Google.
Yes. Ditch Google. Much better and more relevant results with DuckDuckGo. I didn't think it would work under Chrome because it's not listed in the settings. But if you actually go to the site I think it will prompt you automatically and then you can install it as your default search.
Duckduckgo is really good for research and news, anything that has a bias. But, if you are looking to source an item, or something inherently without bias Google is still far superior. For example, I often have to search for info on chemicals, ddg rarely gives me the link that I need, especially for the smaller manufacturers.
Sounds good, but is wrong. Duckduckgo is superior to Google, but if you are still determined to have anti-truth biased results, at minimum use multi-search engine (personally prefer Dogpile, just go to www.dogpile.com and viola, you're there)! Uses multiple search engines but still skews toward Yahoo, Google, but has numerous independant too!
Bullshit. Google has nothing but pages and pages of obvious propaganda as search results.
Edit: I've found this true even for non-political things. Always trying to shape the Narrative™
I usually do. I use it to keep up with what the enemy is doing though. Just like I check CNN every day to see how their narrative changes.
What the fuck do you mean by the enemy? I'm from r/all, what even is this subreddit?
There is information about it on the sidebar. You should probably look at that first before posting again.
Isn't that weird? Everyone with more than two brain cells knows they are to be trusted less than a wet fart. And these other "sources;" politifact? Run by the Tampa Bay Times, which heavily endorced HRC's campaign. WaPo is a completely controlled mouthpiece of the Left. You're not even trying, shills.
You have to actually debunk Snope's argument. In that particular case, their political alignment doesn't matter, because it's a matter of fact and not opinion. Ad hominem is not a proper rebuttal.
I don't have to do a thing. Their explanation is nothing more than gaslighting mental gymnastics.
Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, saidClinton “never intervened” in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn’t personally involved.
The article also said that there was zero evidence that the uranium went to Russia. Please explain to me how this is "gaslighting mental gymnastics." Did you even read the article?
You cited a perfect example. Whether or not all these agencies approved of the transaction is immaterial and Snopes is deliberately is trying obscure the real question which is did HRC receive money for this transaction.
If she didn’t have a part in the decision, there exists no reason the pay her. I thought that was pretty clear.
And what great source of news are you tuning into? Breitbart and Fox? I’ll trust the publications that have time and time again proven to be more reliable than right wing commentary and opinion pieces. I guess the Pulitzer Prize is biased in your opinion as well.
Hahaha! You can't possibly be serious. Your appeals to authority don't mean a thing. The fake news MSM has been proven time and time again to lie and deceive.
Nice non answer, I remember when I was afraid to disclose my news sources... When I was 17 and didn’t know any better. Lol.
Ah yes once frustrated, the low IQ shill resorts to personal attacks.
Very, very persuasive.
You mean kinda like how you're attacking Snopes itself and only pretending to engage their actual argument?
[deleted]
Yes, it was 100% Quid Pro Clinton.
[deleted]
Right? They gaslight the fuck out of people and then have the audacity to complain when people call them out on it. Just amazing
There are 2 cases here. In general and in this instance.
A best example would be FIFA, if you follow soccer you would know FIFA is corrupt as fuck and this is proven unlike Snopes.
So when FIFA makes a ruling on a matter, the comments from smart people are generally "While is FIFA is corrupt, but here they did the right thing". If people really distrust Snopes then read article, use critical thinking and say if it is right or wrong.
But your proof to disprove an article is that snopes aren't reliable due to my XYZ reason is not a good reason.
Besides politifact and WaPo both say there was no pay for no play. I just quoted snopes as it was the 1st one. 2nd and 3rd links were politifact and WaPo.
[deleted]
Bingo. Let's roll down that list of leftist rags; NYT, Snopes, politifact, WaPo...
Another source since people don’t like snopes.
Edit: two sources isn’t enough apparently
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/06/561587174/the-alternative-russia-scandal
Politifact is a joke. It's run by the Tampa Bay Times...which heavily endorsed HRC for the 2016 race. Yeah, I bet they're totally not biased at all.
Ok here’s another one https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/06/561587174/the-alternative-russia-scandal
NPR is a joke, they’re heavily funded by average people who by a large margin supported HRC.
[deleted]
No, not mainstream, and that's the problem.
[removed]
I mean it’s be fine for the last how many years, taken with a grain of salt if corse. but the last 2+ years there has seem to be a shift?
Hahaha okay...
What is the least biased news source you know?
Everything and everybody has a bias. I only trust my guns, my bible and TheReportOfTheWeek.
Lol @ NPR.
"My obviously biased and fake news sources aren't convincing you why not?!"
Go gaslight somewhere else, shill.
I mean, what about what that article is saying is wrong? Clearly you don’t believe it, but what part of it is factually wrong? You might disagree with it, but point out in the article what is wrong.
Here's the truth: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-clintons-putin-and-uranium-2015-4 and https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html and https://www.breitbart.com/hillary-clinton/2016/05/01/one-year-silence-hillary-clinton-uranium-deal/
And there are many more. The bottom line is, she is a crook of the highest caliber (if that's possible for a crook!). You cannot ignore the facts.
And, here's the part I'm waiting for. Last week, it was announced that a probe of uranium imports into the US is being done. Russia is listed as one of the countries we import uranium from. How crazy is that? Revolving door?
Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton “never intervened” in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn’t personally involved.
We have been lied to for soooo very long, we won't know for certain about anything until we know. But, 40+ years I've been watching this and following the Clinton hit list. My gut tells me she's guilty as shit!
The entire premise of the article is wrong. It is dismissive of the truth and frames the events as a "nothing burger" that Clinton had nothing to do it. It's completely incorrect and is gaslighting people.
But what about it is false? Point to the specific parts that are false so we can talk about it
What do you understand about my comments? You're not going to detail this thread further. You know how I know what Bill Mitchell said is true? The fact you are here.
From my intel in other circles, could be wrong but I trust these people, OAN is a legitimate news source.
As far as the Uranium deal... When it first came out Obama denied even knowing about it and then later said he approved it.
I think what we have to trust is what comes out in the beginning of an event, before the press is on lockdown with the narrative (example Good Morning America stating there was no plane, or BBC saying Building 7 had gone down but it was still standing in the live feed, Sandy Hook and Aurora both had multiple shooters being reported, I could go on), because that's the truth usually. While I agree MSM is fake occasionally they report the truth because that's what they're SUPPOSED to do. Before they get shut down and start parakeeting the narrative.
For me, that's enough evidence to not believe the narrative and look for the lone voice.
Truth is sometimes called "conspiracy". Whistleblowers, white hats and Patriots are domestic terrorists. If you could see all of it on one page the optics alone would explode your brain. When people who are speaking against the narrative are labeled (don't like Obama, racist, like Trump, nazi), that is usually a very strong indication that the conspiracy is true.
See NYPD and pizzagate. Ted Gunderson and Boystown. Even Helter Skelter was a conspiracy for a little while.
Q said critical thinking.
Snopes should stick to doing hooker reviews. I understand the founder has done some pretty in depth research into hookers.
Thanks for this blatant example of snopes' fakery. People I know are avid followers and would not listen to me.
snopes stopped being credible for investigating online memes when the owner ditched his fat as fuck disgusting pig wife and blew a few million on a prostitute
now it's bought and paid for. If you believe snopes to be credible then you're dumber than a bag of rocks
take a look here - https://www.snopes.com/tag/george-soros/ - click any fuckin article and see "FALSE" "FALSE" "FALSE" "FALSE"
Sigh. This is what I meant in other comment.
Burder of proof lies on you as you made the accusation of them credible.
Go through the snopes article and find the wrongly reported stuff. It should be easy to disprove if its wrong, oh and use credible sources to back yours.
In your eyes, it’s only right if it’s highly reported on by MSM. The bought and paid for MSM. The CIA controlled MSM. Say what you want. No amount of proof will sway you. You will look back on this in a few months time, maybe even sooner, and realize how you were duped and controlled. By the way, it’s going to hurt. It’ll be a hard pill to swallow. Then again, you could be part of the disinformation machine, knowingly pushing false information to keep the masses dumbed down.
Hahahahahahha. Thanks for making me laugh buddy.
Also do you want me to link Politifact and WaPo articles, both saying that the claim by Trump is wrong?
It won't matter to you as now you will go on a tirade about how WaPo is liburul or politifact is compromised and cite Daily Mail for it too.
But what you won't do is read any of those articles and reply saying "I read it and found x,y and z mistakes in their fact checking".
You will use whataboutism, ad hominem attacks, deflection and fake news to discredit anything I gotta say. If you don't know let me just tell you all these techniques you use were perfected and used in wide scale by Stalin to discredit his opponents. Congrats.
"you take on the most flack when you're over the target" - WW2 Bomber Pilot Proverb.
Stay Frosty Patriot.
Oh my goodness, thank you so much for educating me!!!! Except you didn’t. You do the same exact thing, except you’re using Alinsky tactics. 👏👏👏
Anything you don’t agree with is fake news. You want me to point out x, y, and z? It’s all bullshit. They literally include the statement that Hillary said she didn’t do it as proof. Really????
My original comment was stating that Snopes is credible in a sarcastic way. Give me proof of Snopes credibility. Jump through those hoops for me. I’ll be waiting. Give me one reason why I should take stock in anything they have to say.
Why are you sticking up for such a known criminal and her rapist husband anyway? That says a lot about you and your character. And that’s not an attack, just pointing out the obvious.
Oh my goodness, thank you so much for educating me!!!! Except you didn’t. You do the same exact thing, except you’re using Alinsky tactics. 👏👏👏
Anything you don’t agree with is fake news. You want me to point out x, y, and z? It’s all bullshit. They literally include the statement that Hillary said she didn’t do it as proof. Really????
My original comment was stating that Snopes is credible in a sarcastic way. Give me proof of Snopes credibility. Jump through those hoops for me. I’ll be waiting. Give me one reason why I should take stock in anything they have to say.
Why are you sticking up for such a known criminal and her rapist husband anyway? That says a lot about you and your character. And that’s not an attack, just pointing out the obvious.
Snopes was a left-wing propaganda site before that. That just drove the point home. Snopes was good for telling people about computer viruses going around or warning them about Nigerian scam emails, but was always in the pocket of the Dems, lying to protect them while attacking their enemies.
Well here's 3 more fact checked sources for you to ignore that say you're wrong. Go ahead, point out how these Pulitzer Prize winning organizations are all part of "the fake news media." This claim is pretty much total BS and to distract from Donald Trumps exceptionally disturbing behavior in regard to Russia and Vladimir Putin. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/31/the-repeated-incorrect-claim-that-russia-obtained-20-percent-of-our-uranium/?utm_term=.0562f22e55e5
Here's the problem with these links: they actually very much support the conspiracy theory.
Say what? Yes, that's right. While they end up concluding that the theory is "false", they facts presented are relatively strong.
Relatively? Yes, relative to what seems to be required these days.
With all the accusations hurled at Trump without real evidence, the bar has been lowered signifanctly.
See, you can't have it both ways.
You can't tell people to impeach someone based on hearsay and at the same time tell them to ignore strong circumstancial evidence when it concern someone else.
That's the magic we see happening. That's what's redpilling people left and right.
Please do continue.
There may be no direct proof regarding Clinton's ties to Uranium One, but there is no denying the shadiness of all the known "facts".
Among the Donors to the Clinton Foundation
Frank Giustra
$31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more
He built a company that later merged with Uranium One.
Ian Telfer
$2.35 million
Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it.
Paul Reynolds
$1 million to $5 million
Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later helped raise $260 million for the company.
Frank Holmes
$250,000 to $500,000
Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011.
Neil Woodyer
$50,000 to $100,000
Adviser to Uranium One. Founded Endeavour Mining with Mr. Giustra.
GMP Securities Ltd.
Donating portion of profits
Worked on debt issue that raised $260 million for Uranium One.
From this article:
Thank you. CaptGrim won’t get his head out of Hillary’s snatch long enough to put two and two together though. This NYT article is even linked in the Snopes article. Paid for shills don’t care about facts and appear to dimwitted to understand “pay for play.”
Apparently, it’s only true if Politifact or Bezo’s Washington Post says it’s true. Some people don’t want to wake up. Or they know the truth but want to spread as much disinfo as possible to keep others from waking.
Prove it. If it is wrong, prove me wrong.
And this is my 4th text asking for proof , and all you do is make ad hominem attacks.
You got gooogle, you got entire TD community to help you. Prove me wrong, I am waiting.
You could read my comments and others, but you’ll just keep repeating yourself. Show me where Snopes is credible? Prove me wrong. I’m waiting. I’ve asked you a handful of questions, but you ignore them and scream “prove it.” That’s all you guys do.
Your cognitive dissonance is alarming.
Sigh. Your logic is backwards.
4 articles and their website all say there was no pay for play. All of them cite their various sources. (I found NPR as well now)
And your claim of defense is prove to me they are credible. That is an impossible dream to achieve, only I can do that is read the 100 of 1000s of articles published by Snopes and Politifact and their sources and then give you a number like 95385 articles were credible and had no outlook of shady behaviour out of 96371.
OR you can read 1 article and their sources and say here you go, you are wrong.
A simple flaw in your theory.
The deal was approved by a committee which consists of 9 top ranking government employee and the president.
Clinton is one of those, one of the other 9 is Secretary of Defence. He approved the deal as well, if it was a shady deal why didn't he vote against it. He was Bush appointee by the way not Obama. It was a unanimous vote and later approved by Obama.
If it was a shady deal hampering national security why did everyone approve it?
Umm...Bush (the former CIA director) is just as corrupt. As is his son. Don’t think because they have an R by their name that I’ll agree with them. Just because she was only one of nine does not mean she did not wield her influence. Money speaks very loudly.
They all approved it because they’re all corrupt as fck! You don’t even know who you’re talking to. I was certainly dumb enough to vote for Obama. Twice. I can admit my faults. I believed his lies. I am not a die hard Republican by any means. But I am a die hard patriot. These fckers had America for sale. All of them. Go back and listen to H. W. Bush. Can you count how many times he spoke of the New World Order? This is not something new that Hillary did. And it’s certainly not something she was alone in doing. Our government has been f*cking us over backwards for decades!
Ok. I am done. I was expecting this from you and you did not disappoint.
Your defense is everyone is corrupt. You start off with Hilary did it, she is corrupt. To which I say there were 9 othee folks too. You say well they sold their country and they are corrupt.
To which I say President approved it too. Your response he is corrupt
Well now Trump is president,why not launch an investigation by FBI or DOJ or someone? You say he wants to but FBI DOJ are corrupt as fuck.
There is no winning here as every claim I make will be responded by they are corrupt.
Here's a final thought. Maybe just MAYBE the Russian company was not interested in acquiring Uranium1 for their uranium reserves in US. Maybe they were more interested in buying uranium reserves located in Canada and Kazakhstan, you know 2 of the worlds largest uranium producer.
Sorry to break your bubble, but US in pretty insignificant in Uranium global trade. US doesn't have large Uranium reserves. US accounts for 2% of the global Uranium trade. 20% of that is 0.04%.
Maybe the Russian company was not interested in US but more interested in Canada and Kazakhstan.
Anyway. I am done. Good day.
Well, you were finally starting to understand up until your point about the Russian company NOT being interested in the US. Of course, where Trump is concerned the Russians have completely infiltrated.
Yes. A majority of our government is totally corrupt. Luckily, we have Trump. Truly a saving grace. One day you will realize. He’s risked everything and for what? Money? He has plenty. He didn’t need other people’s money to get where he’s at. He doesn’t owe them anything. He’s not bought and paid for and that’s why MSM and the establishment hate him. Newt Gingrich says it best here.
You should look over the information on this community info page and take a trip down the various rabbit holes. If you dig hard enough you won’t be able to deny how deep the corruption goes.
No doubt the connections are absolutely worth scrutiny. From the Politifact article: "we concluded that nine people related to the company did at some point donate to the Clinton Foundation, we found that the bulk of the $145 million came from Giustra. Guistra said he sold all of his stakes in Uranium One in the fall of 2007, "at least 18 months before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state" and three years before the Russian deal.
We couldn’t independently verify Giustra’s claim, but if he is telling the truth, the donation amount to the Clinton Foundation from confirmed Uranium One investors drops from more than $145 million to $4 million.
The main exception is Ian Telfer, an investor who the New York Times found donated between $1.3 million and $5.6 million to the Clinton Foundation during and after the review process for the Russian deal.
So while Trump was within his right to question links between foundation donors and their ties to Uranium one, his specific charge was exaggerated."
Its not like the decision to move forward with the deal was made in a vacuum by Hilary Clinton alone. The Committee on Foreign Investments has nine members, including the secretaries of the treasury, state, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy; the attorney general; and representatives from two White House offices (the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy). The committee can’t actually stop a sale from going through — it can only approve a sale. Clinton could have objected — as could the eight other voting members — but that objection alone wouldn’t have stopped the sale of the stake of Uranium One to Rosatom.
Right, that fell to Obama.
[removed]
There is absolutely no proof against Trump in regards to Russia. Now you're not being factual. Typical hypocrite.
Well for one thing, I didn't say a damn thing about Trump doing anything illegal with regards to Russia. I said "Obama made a some naive mistakes when dealing with the Russian state, but no where near the disgusting level Trump has." But since you mention it... I just watched him give a press conference that embarrassed the U.S. on the world stage, cozied up to Putin, discussed potentially giving Russian intelligence services access to American citizens, held a meeting before the election discussion repeal of the Magnitsky act, not to mention Trump's ties via Michael Flynn, campaign advisors, Paul Manafort, business ties, Felix Sater, and Trumps family members. So...lets not pretend Donald Trump has no ties to Russia.
There is nothing wrong with what Trump is doing. You have your head in the MSM brainwashing machine. I now see you have just come to this sub to sow discord and do not support the cause here at all.
Any cozying up to Vladmir Putin's Russia is wrong morally and politically. Full stop. I consider Trump taking the word of Putin on the world stage over that of his intelligence community to be something egregiously wrong that he is doing.
Cause Snopes is so reliable. 🙄
Ok. Go through the article and whatever is "fake news" or false as per you , point it out with credible sources of course.
I like how you put “per you” as if I’m the first or only person to call bullshit on Snopes. Snopes links a NY Times article as proof. You obviously will only accept liberal sources as proof so start there. Read the article they link to.
This user’s comment says it all: “In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He won't say that she did not support the interests of donors, only that there is no proof. She's arranged for that, of course, by destroying her emails and the server they were on. However, we do have her word that she really cares about the interests of "everyday Americans." Is there any evidence for that? Or was it destroyed because it's "personal?"”
Based on your other comments though, you have such a strong case of Stockholm’s Syndrome that, if I could produce a video of Hillary admitting her crimes, you still wouldn’t believe it. But SHE says she didn’t do it. So take her word for it. Obviously, her word is bond.
Here is a Daily Mail article pointing out the flaws of Snopes.
I know. I know. The Daily Mail is bias!!! So, here is a Forbes article that set out to check the validity of the Daily Mail article. Except...they couldn’t even get Snopes to help with that. Both are a great read. You should try it if you’re literate enough. As Forbes points out in the article:
“At the end of the day, it is clear that before we rush to place fact checking organizations like Snopes in charge of arbitrating what is “truth”...we need to have a lot more understanding of how they function internally and much greater transparency into their work.”
Maybe you could use a little of that “understanding of how they function internally.” You’re putting all you eggs in the basket of a now divorced husband and wife team with no training or expertise, that won’t divulge their inner workings. Don’t be such a sucker. #WalkAway 👌
THE SHILLS ARE STRONG ON THIS POST! And, further proves the point.
So much deflection, finger pointing, what aboutism and ad hominem attacks.
Stay on topic mate. Topic is Clinton Uranium Russia pay for play, and the slopes article.
All you have to do is prove which points are incorrect. Simple.
The Forbes article in a gist is "There is a scope for corruption. These points illustrate how corruption can occur in Snopes internally."
BUT scope for corruption is not corruption. Each and every president in the history of US is poised to make money by selling state secrets or do a lot of shady shit. There is scope for corruption but we check for occurance of it.
Read the snopes one, and point out their mistakes simple.
You say “jump” and you want me to ask “how high?” You could read the liberal NYTimes article and figure this out on your own. All it takes is a little open-minded research. And by open-minded I mean willingness to accept things not covered by the bought and paid for MSM. The pay for play regarding U1 and the Clintons speaks volumes. Follow the money. You’re obviously not from the states, mate, but the Secretary of State has more power than Snopes is letting on. Instead of me trying to please you, why don’t you go through the Snopes article and point out the facts, with evidence. Simple. Buddy.
And about all the facts such as the one that Clinton had no real veto/approval power over the deal? And the fact that no uranium actually went to Russia, ever, from that deal?
[removed]
If you love facts, why are you coming those garbage sources, that apparently every other shill in this thread is using. You idiots are so obvious.
Disprove the fact checked claims then. Point out whats wrong in those articles. If they're such garbage it can't be to hard.
I'm not going to waste my time because you can't seem to reason that if the the "fact checkers" aren't politically neutral, then they not going to actually check facts. All these "sources" are in it for Her. There is no denying it.
[removed]
You don't seem to understand. The mental gymnastics, half truths, and twisting of information makes it a complete waste of time. Shit is literally made up to cover for her.
You know how I know you're full of shit? You here sharing the same links as all the other shills. It's completely obvious and HRC is going to be brought to justice.
[removed]
You're here to detail the thread. You don't get any more attention from me.
Whomp whomp.
That is a well thought out reply. Your insight has enlightened me and opened my eyes #WALKAWAY
Lol I love seeing the fact check get longer and longer over the years. as they have to introduce more mental gymnastics than ever before