FACT-CHECKING WON'T FREE US FROM OUR BASELESS CONVICTIONS

The thing is if Democrats win a lot of seats in Congress in this mid term election coming, we know what the excuse is gong to be: illegal voting going on. Finally will need to declare martial law. Maybe suspend elections for the next 10 years or so? I would not put it past far-right believers to think that and want that. 

Perhaps it's because no one "fact checks" the "fact checkers".

I found out something interesting about Snopes a few weeks ago. Apparently, it's run by a husband and wife team that happen to be Democrats. That in itself isn't a problem assuming they are not biased. But the article I read also said they accept funding from......Soros.

I thought that was a little "fact check" that should be better known about this particular group of fact checkers.

Odd, isn't it? Two years ago I didn't even know who George Soros was --and now I know a great deal about him.

I'd like to know more about other "fact checking" sites because of this. Who is in charge? Who does the funding?

--Debutante

>Snopes fact checked itself about the claims against them and decided they were false.
---The thing I like about Snopes and PolitiFact is that they show you the path they took to reach a conclusion. You can follow the process and, if you have doubts, check it yourself. The real question about Snopes is whether they show bias in their answers. Doesn’t matter where their funding comes from if they are neutral in their answers. Granted, I haven’t read every answer to every subject on the site, but I’ve never seen bias in any subject that I’ve ever looked up. Usually go there when I get emails from friends making wild claims.

---I had a super-conservative friend years ago who’s view of life was very simple. If you were not conservative, you were automatically liberal, biased, a fool, etc. So his view of Snopes was that they were liberal-biased because they exposed some conservative things he believed in as being not true. Since they didn’t agree with him, they were biased. Didn’t matter to him that they showed why the conservative claim wasn’t true or that they also exposed some liberal claims as being not true. Either you are 100% with him, or you are a biased liberal. Deb, I pretty sure that even you wouldn’t pass the test for this friend and so he would consider you a liberal. Same as Snopes. 8->

> Most of the recent articles disclaim any bias --- but I think Strsok did too.
---What Strsok said was that his personal beliefs did not influence any work that he did for the FBI. Which may or may not be true, but, as far as I know, no one has ever shown any act that he did was biased.

----Here’s the problem. Every person who works for the FBI and all other government agencies has personal beliefs. Some left, some right, some middle. If we demand that only people who totally agree with the current president can hold government jobs, we’re going to have some serious turnover every 4-8 years. Not a realistic deal. What we can demand is that government workers don’t let their personal beliefs interfere with their jobs. It’s actions that count, not beliefs. Believe whatever you want, but keep your beliefs out of the job. BTW, this was also a problem under Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc., when many FBI and others didn’t like them. It’s going to happen with every president. There are even Secret Service folk who hate the president that they are sworn to protect with their lives. I don’t see a solution for this problem. Like I said, so long as their beliefs do not change their actions, let it ride.