Hoo boy, that's a hot pile of garbage. I'm obviously not going to convince you, but I'll get my hands dirty for the sake of bystanders. >https://www.realclearp

Hoo boy, that's a hot pile of garbage. I'm obviously not going to convince you, but I'll get my hands dirty for the sake of bystanders. >https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/13/fact-checkers_choice_to_be_literal_or_contextual_138913.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/13/fact-c... Yes, fact-checking is hard. You can say things that are literally true but clearly imply false conclusions, or vice versa. And Snopes isn't perfect. I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to be getting here. >ethicsalarms.com This is a batshit right-wing conspiracy theory site. Anyone who cites it as an argument should immediately lose all semblance of credibility. Here are some direct quotes from that site that I found within the first 60 seconds of clicking around: >>>CNN is obviously approaching the election as a partisan mission, and has signaled that fair coverage is not in the cards. The goal is to put Democrats in control of the government. >>>Pelosi’s Democrats have orchestrated one attempted coup after another >>>There have been 19 Plans to abuse various processes, laws and theories, all put forward and promoted by members of the Democratic Party/”resistance”/mainstream news media alliance since President Trump’s election in November of 2016... The desired effect of this barrage, apart from serving the goal of removing an elected President without the bother (and risk) of an election, has been to make it impossible for the President to govern, and to destroy his support among the public. Yep. Fair and balanced, and definitely not unhinged. Moving on: >Snopes and BBC articles about a commentator named Robert Lee As Snopes says: >There is no dispute that Robert Lee was moved off covering a University of Virginia football game for ESPN because of the coincidence of his name. However, ESPN’s intent appeared to have been a desire to avoid prompting public ridicule rather than public offense — a move that ended up subjecting the network (for different reasons) to the very mocking they had hoped to head off. What else am I supposed to be seeing here? A megacorp attempted to sidestep a potentially awkward situation, and ran into the Striesand effect. Both Snopes and the BBC pointed out that it was maybe misguided, and we all had a chuckle at their expense. Do you think that Disney, of all companies, is a leftist organization, and that Snopes is covering for them? >Google search for "snopes strawman" The top results for me are, in order: 1. A bunch of Reddit results referring people to Snopes as a source because the thing they're arguing against is a made-up strawman. 2. Snopes's own Facebook page 3. A blog nitpicking semantics over... Amelia Earhart's bones? https://tighar.org/wordpress/earhart-project/fact-checking-snopes/ https://tighar.org/wordpress/earhart-project/fact-checking-s... 4. ethicsalarms.com, discussed above. 5. "A Guide to Arguing with a Snopes Denier", from the Houston Press