They Aren't Fact Checkers People; They're 2020's Version Of Orewell's Ministry Of Truth From The Novel 1984
Ask PolitiFact: Did Capitol Police let mob of Trump supporters in?
We have not seen evidence that Capitol Police granted rioters access to the building or that they were “in on” the breach, as some posts claim.
Footage that appeared to show some officers allowing rioters past barricades was misrepresented online. The journalist who shot the video said the officers backed off the barricade because they were “completely outnumbered.”
Other videos taken at different entrances back that up, and show rioters quickly overwhelming police barricades and eventually forcing officers to retreat.
35 Capitol Police Officers Under Investigation in Connection With Riot
Office of Professional Responsibility investigating 35 officers.
Six of those officers have already been suspended (with pay).
Acting Chief Yogananda Pittman has directed that any member of her department whose behavior is not in keeping with the Department's Rules of Conduct will face appropriate discipline.
What I'm saying is that they jumped at the chance to declare the capitol police's involvement in the riot as false.
They did not wait for evidence.
There was no reason for them to fact check it without any contradictory evidence but they did.
They called a claim false because they couldn't prove the claim; not because there was any evidence whatsoever to dispute said claim.
In fact, they claim there is no evidence that police removed barriers and allowed rioters to enter at a time when there were multiple videos of exactly that all over the internet.
They ignored supporting evidence. Now we know that 35 officers are being investigated BECAUSE of there involvement in the capitol riots.
Lmao nope, sorry are you used to not have anything you say questioned here? Was what I said wrong?
Usually there's a lot of bullshit in these "fact checks", and while the article you linked to presented totally one-sided and selective facts, they didn't stick their necks out with clickbait results on that one.
They lied about the tapes. We've all seen them and watched/heard the officers move the barricades and invited them in. So they lied when they said "there is no proof" because there plainly was but they chose to misrepresent the evidence in their article.
Anyone can pick apart the BS ones, it's a little more difficult to PAY ATTENTION to the little details.
Did you read past the summary? They did address that. I consider the person who shot the video to be a solid source
But the viral, 14-second video clip that some are using to claim that officers willingly let rioters past barricades and into the Capitol is being misrepresented online, said journalist Marcus Diapola, who shot the video.
"They definitely didn't just open the barriers," Diapola told PolitiFact. "The pro-Trump rioters made a fist like they were going to punch the cops, which is why I started recording. Then (police) backed off the barricades.
"They were completely outnumbered," Diapola said. "There wouldn't have been any point in fighting."
Diapola said the video was taken around 2 p.m. near the northeast entrance of the Capitol and estimated that the officers were outnumbered "100 to 1," with only around 30 officers spread out between three entrances on that side of the Capitol, compared with thousands of protesters.
Another video, taken on the west end of the Capitol, shows rioters quickly overwhelming police barricades and eventually forcing the officers to retreat.
While we found no evidence that officers allowed the mob in willingly, the security breakdown that enabled rioters to breach the building is under intense scrutiny, and officials have said an investigation is imminent.
Most sheep just read the fact check headline and never dig into the meat of “evidence”, the supposed lack thereof, and sources further into the page.
These days, if someone google searches something I claim and they land on Snopes or some other worthless propaganda site, I take the time to walk them through the entire article and show them how shaky their claims are. It doesn’t take a lot of effort and their BS is easy to spot.
I’ve forgotten which one, but there was one Snopes article that was debunking something I was reading and they wrote up this long page explaining how it wasn’t true, etc etc, and their one source was John McCain; as if that proved everything.
One of the reasons why they get away with it, is because the Academic Elite and the MSM have been successful in redefining the truth. It's subjective now, not objective. It all depends on the person presenting the truth and whether it fits the current "norms." Norms that they've been successful in redefining as well.
"Speak YOUR truth" is the key buzz phrase/concept here that allows this line of thought.
Truth is uncomfortable, and has whats know as FACTS. if there are no facts then how the ____ can you say its true. wait thats call PROPAGANDA , saying something is true without facts, also known as a conspiracy theory.
They Aren't Fact Checkers People; They're 2020's Version Of Orewell's Ministry Of Truth From The Novel 1984
Ask PolitiFact: Did Capitol Police let mob of Trump supporters in?
We have not seen evidence that Capitol Police granted rioters access to the building or that they were “in on” the breach, as some posts claim.
Footage that appeared to show some officers allowing rioters past barricades was misrepresented online. The journalist who shot the video said the officers backed off the barricade because they were “completely outnumbered.”
Other videos taken at different entrances back that up, and show rioters quickly overwhelming police barricades and eventually forcing officers to retreat.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/07/ask-politifact-did-capitol-police-let-mob-trump-su/
35 Capitol Police Officers Under Investigation in Connection With Riot
Office of Professional Responsibility investigating 35 officers.
Six of those officers have already been suspended (with pay).
Acting Chief Yogananda Pittman has directed that any member of her department whose behavior is not in keeping with the Department's Rules of Conduct will face appropriate discipline.
https://www.newsweek.com/35-capitol-police-officers-under-investigation-connection-riot-1570376
What are you trying to say? That because 35 are under investigation, Politifact was wrong about them letting the protesters in?
What I'm saying is that they jumped at the chance to declare the capitol police's involvement in the riot as false.
They did not wait for evidence.
There was no reason for them to fact check it without any contradictory evidence but they did.
They called a claim false because they couldn't prove the claim; not because there was any evidence whatsoever to dispute said claim.
In fact, they claim there is no evidence that police removed barriers and allowed rioters to enter at a time when there were multiple videos of exactly that all over the internet.
They ignored supporting evidence. Now we know that 35 officers are being investigated BECAUSE of there involvement in the capitol riots.
The fact checkers lied is what I'm saying.
I don't see the word "false" anywhere in the article you linked to.
Do you work for Snopes or Politifact?
Lmao nope, sorry are you used to not have anything you say questioned here? Was what I said wrong?
Usually there's a lot of bullshit in these "fact checks", and while the article you linked to presented totally one-sided and selective facts, they didn't stick their necks out with clickbait results on that one.
..... As I explained earlier
They lied about the tapes. We've all seen them and watched/heard the officers move the barricades and invited them in. So they lied when they said "there is no proof" because there plainly was but they chose to misrepresent the evidence in their article.
Anyone can pick apart the BS ones, it's a little more difficult to PAY ATTENTION to the little details.
Did you read past the summary? They did address that. I consider the person who shot the video to be a solid source
Fact checkers are just cyber sleuths: if they can’t find evidence on the internet or from a statement by a lying politician, then they rule it false.
Yep, you are spot on.
Most sheep just read the fact check headline and never dig into the meat of “evidence”, the supposed lack thereof, and sources further into the page.
These days, if someone google searches something I claim and they land on Snopes or some other worthless propaganda site, I take the time to walk them through the entire article and show them how shaky their claims are. It doesn’t take a lot of effort and their BS is easy to spot.
I’ve forgotten which one, but there was one Snopes article that was debunking something I was reading and they wrote up this long page explaining how it wasn’t true, etc etc, and their one source was John McCain; as if that proved everything.
One of the reasons why they get away with it, is because the Academic Elite and the MSM have been successful in redefining the truth. It's subjective now, not objective. It all depends on the person presenting the truth and whether it fits the current "norms." Norms that they've been successful in redefining as well.
"Speak YOUR truth" is the key buzz phrase/concept here that allows this line of thought.
Agree
I have shared many links to help redpill extended family, friends, and coworkers only to receive a factcheck link in reply.
Yet when you analyze the fact check author and their analysis it:
Wasn’t Candice Owens going after fact checkers legally?
Someone misspelled their job description. It's spelled "phuct peckers"
** 1984 complete dramatised Audiobook https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBPNrVQwqeo**
Truth is uncomfortable, and has whats know as FACTS. if there are no facts then how the ____ can you say its true. wait thats call PROPAGANDA , saying something is true without facts, also known as a conspiracy theory.
I think it's a good idea to precede "fact checkers" with "Ministry of Truth".
Thus, the Ministry of Truth "fact checkers".