4 ms·
I assume that Snopes Inc doesn't want an agenda -- but that many writers at Snopes are anti-Trump. To support your claim, what information or sources can you pr
by dr_dshiv 7y ago
I assume that Snopes Inc doesn't want an agenda -- but that many writers at Snopes are anti-Trump. To support your claim, what information or sources can you provide that an open minded person would find plausible?
- ponsin 7y agoHow many examples (this being 1) would an "open minded" person need to find it plausible?
- caconym_ 7y agoAn "example" would be a source saying that these people were not pushed out, or that equivalent roles were created and re-filled during/after the "restructuring". That has not yet been provided in this subthread. GGP's post is non sequitur nonsense—all he's doing is throwing out the "liberal" slur that's so popular with Reddit quarantine zone denizens and hoping nobody on either "side" notices that what he's saying doesn't make an ounce of sense.
- jfengel 7y agoGiven that the user's name is "grayed-down", I'm pretty sure they're aware of that. It's an uninterrupted litany of standard tactics for distracting, evading, and ignoring. Poe's Law mean that it's hard to tell somebody pretending to be obtuse from somebody actually being obtuse.
- ponsin 7y agoA website run with a leftist agenda, or any agenda for that matter, can take "facts" and word it in ways that can give the reader a false world view. To give an example from the right, while most of what fox news says is factually accurate, most open minded person would not use it to know what's going on in the world.
- caconym_ 7y agoDid or did not the Trump administration restructure the NSC, causing those responsible for preparing for and responding to pandemics and similar events to exit the organization? If so, were or were not equivalent positions created in the new structure and filled? Those are the only questions that matter—what is or is not said about any of it in news media is irrelevant. So I'll ask you, do you have answers to those questions that conflict with the ones published by Snopes? Or, if not, do you have additional questions and answers that show how those questions aren't the whole story? If not, to be perfectly frank, fuck off. It beggars belief that people like you are on here peddling sophomoric wisdom about media bias and backpedaling whataboutism in the face of this crisis.
- grayed-down 7y agoGood questions worthy of a response if asked by someone with less negative energy.
- caconym_ 7y agoHow convenient! You people really are something else. If you really believe the truth is on your side, I'll tell you what I told the other guy: let's see it! Otherwise, reasonable people like me are going to assume you're full of shit, and finding dumb excuses not to answer straightforward questions is not going to change that impression. On the other hand, if your true goal is to play the victim, you're doing a fine job. Keep at it.
- dr_dshiv 7y agoI am genuinely curious if you could share.
- grayed-down 7y agoFirst Question: Yes. But the mission and responsibility was not eliminated. To claim that is irresponsible at best. Second Question: Obviously not. Third Question: The Snopes piece is devious in that it suggests, as a result of the restructuring, the Trump administration single-handedly gave up the mission and responsibity of responding to infectious disease crises, pandemics and bio-weapon attacks. The reality is that there are layers upon layers of civilian and military procedure and doctrine supporting this mission and responibility.
- ta999999171 7y agoCheck closely into their founders and/or ownership.