Snopes is a fake news disinformation outlet. Who the fuck cares what they think.

Got any proof behind that statement?

Because he financed it.

(((Snopes)))

Snopes is shady AF. Soros is shady AF. On the other side, Koch is shady AF too, but Soros and Snopes align politically.

Snopes probably funded by him. The man has many fingers in many pies with the aim of disinformation, confusion and causing tensions.

Snopes probably funded by him. The man has many fingers in many pies with the aim of disinformation, confusion and causing tensions.

Because Snopes is directed propaganda.

💵💵💵💵💵💵💵

The usual reason. $$$

I'm pretty sure he owns Snopes. I remember my grandpa telling me this 5+ years ago

They talk every Saturday from what I hear.

Because they are extreme leftists executing an agenda.

Snopes exposing Soros would be like you calling the cops on your folks for smoking pot..

Oops

I find it funny that you can say snopes is dis-info and get lots of upvotes. But when you mention Q you get massive down votes. Why is that?

There is a reflexive hate against anything explicitly in Trump's favor, even if the underlying ideas and theories are widely supported by the sub.

I think most here are well intentioned; they simply don't believe Trump is opposing the bipartisan deep state. They see him doing typical Republican things, and most don't look harder. For example. They saw him bomb Syria over a gas attack. They didn't see that he did the literal bare minimum, and that we would absolutely have a no fly zone and probably troops if any other candidate had won aside from Rand.

As for Q specifically, I think a lot of people will give it a second look this week.

Take this post, complete gibberish in 2017.

https://i.imgur.com/dGPQ9Rm.jpg

Here it is filled out with information revealed in the last few months.

https://i.imgur.com/uAFzStD.jpg

He owns Snopes.

Got any proof for that statement?

More like a hunch. We have a few things to consider:
-The owner went from being married to getting a hooker to be his CEO almost overnight.
-Heavily featured during the election. Did you know there was a special fund of $160 million to be paid out to "combat alternative news"? I wonder who got a huge piece of that, as well as the other "fact checking" sites. And who set them up? And is that person a little lap dog for Mr. Soros?
-Heavily favors anti Trump, pro Soros bullshit. Their false stories go something like this: Claim: Trump says he went to the bathroom today. FALSE: Although Trump did urinate, he actually did so outside in the bushes, and therefore did NOT go to the bathroom. FALSE!
-The fact that they go out of their way to say they are NOT funded by Soros:
Funding Critics of the site have falsely asserted that it is funded by businessman and philanthropist George Soros, or linked sites.[2] Snopes declared in 2016 that its revenue was derived from advertising. In 2016, it also received an award of $75,000 from the James Randi Educational Foundation, an organization formed to debunk paranormal claims. In 2017, it raised approximately $700,000 from a crowd-sourced GoFundMe effort and received $100,000 from Facebook as a part of a fact-checking partnership.[30]
GoFundMe huh? Hm, sounds familiar.

Anyway, no I don't have proof, because duh, they would try to hide it right? Remember you're on a conspiracy sub before you go crazy replying to me. Thanks!

So many fallacies there though. Just because they say they aren't being funded by him doesn't mean they are. I used to be on the bandwagon of 'anti-Snopes', but after a check through their article base I don't really see a bias. They're equally critical of the Clintons as they are of Trump.

GoFundMe is suspicious, because anyone can do it, but that doesn't argue that there is something bad going on there. I'm pretty sure if something was actually going on it would have been found. Internet Scavengers are very good at finding dirty connections.

Also, the owner is not a woman, and the 'hooker' in question is an Administrator, according to their website. Are there documents that put this woman in control?

I'm just asking for proof, because I'd love to see them as biased, but according to all objective sources they hold very little bias. I think the main reason so many people on the right don't like them is because they reveal so many of their 'truths' being blatant lies. Same with many of the SJWs and their idolizing of the Clintons. People don't like to change their mind and don't like it when they're being told their newest and bestest favoritest dictator(-ess) is actually just a human, full of flaws.

To put it bluntly. If there was smoke, there is probably fire. But the only smoke I'm seeing is coming from the people who don't agree. The only thing they really have going against them is that one of the people in their employ likes to be naked for money. But that doesn't mean they're wrong.

I didn't say the owner was a woman. What about the $160 million dollar fund? You don't think they got hooked up for a piece of it? Don't you notice a change in quality of the site around election time? You sound as if I was presenting hard evidence, that then you debunked. I submit that I said it was all a hunch based on these shady things I described. I wasn't exactly making a scholarly assessment for you to call "fallacy". It's a hunch bud. Take a look, trust your gut. Apparently you used to.

While they might or might not be funded by Soros, saying that they are fair and unbiased is just.....not true, to be kind.

Because he’s not the fucking boogeyman.

He sold out innocent Jews and sided with the Nazis

So did Preston Bush, Intel, and many other people.