I just want to chime in and say thank you for editing your post after finding new information. If everyone in the world was like you, this place would suck a lot less.
Snopes doesn’t know. They know someone with his information donated on his behalf at the very least. That said a fun easy to piss people off is too make public donations to things they do not like or support in their name.
Got a friend who doesn’t support planned parenthood, dope. Make a public donation in their name and send them the link to watch the brain melting commence.
First, he DID say, after the “Jews will not replace us” march, and intentional murder of a counter-protestor that there were “very fine people on both sides.” So he DID say that. The statement that he did not say that is false. Note:
Editors’ Note: Some readers have raised the objection that this fact check appears to assume Trump was correct in stating that there were “very fine people on both sides” of the Charlottesville incident. That is not the case. This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump’s characterization was wrong.
Secondly, Snopes has apparently incorporated the trump administration’s walk-back of that to say yeah he didn’t know they were all nazis.
While I disagree with that analysis, it is laid out plainly that that’s how they arrived at the true/false determination of what this demented sociopath meant.
Which is - imo wrong, but fair. Identifying an address that matches the address of alleged shooter is simply comparing two empirical values. So while I disagree with the ‘both sides’ analysis I think there’s room for them to claim it was false, unlike the donation address matching the shooter’s address.
The $15 donation was another guy with the same name. This guy was 17 at the time.Snopes sez: false https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-shooter-donation/
I just want to chime in and say thank you for editing your post after finding new information. If everyone in the world was like you, this place would suck a lot less.
Not only editing but leaving the old info so people don’t get confused, that’s awesome behaviour.
He has the same name as a guy who donated to ActBlue?! DEM
The FEC filing for the donation matches the shooters address: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-shooter-donation
Dem too.
/s
Snopes now says true
Snopes says it’s true that he donated, not that someone else did.
My main point is that the word “false” doesn’t appear. Snopes sez True
Snopes doesn’t know. They know someone with his information donated on his behalf at the very least. That said a fun easy to piss people off is too make public donations to things they do not like or support in their name.
Got a friend who doesn’t support planned parenthood, dope. Make a public donation in their name and send them the link to watch the brain melting commence.
True that it’s the same person.
Which would mean false for them being different people
Please Ive heard this but I could never find a source for it.
It’s hard to actually tell. There’s a 69 year old Thomas Crooks in Pittsburgh who regularly donated to ACT BLUE.
ACT BLUE also does not accept donations from those under 18 due to legal liability issues.
On the other hand, the donation in question, on Jan 20 2021, had Thomas M Crooks’ address. Or at least his zip code.
The age thing is what makes me think Snopes is wrong, and they have been known to lie before for things like Elon and his bullshit.
What things did they lie about? I am ignorant on this subject.
Huh. Well, I trust Snopes enough to retract that. For obvious reasons they don’t specify the address in question.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-shooter-donation/
You shouldn’t trust Snopes at all anymore. They literally said that Trump never said “good people on both sides”.
Which Trump bragged about in the debate a few days later.
I don’t trust them at all, anymore
Okay - hit me with those links!
They are probably referring to this:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/
Yeah, a couple of problems with it though:
First, he DID say, after the “Jews will not replace us” march, and intentional murder of a counter-protestor that there were “very fine people on both sides.” So he DID say that. The statement that he did not say that is false. Note:
Secondly, Snopes has apparently incorporated the trump administration’s walk-back of that to say yeah he didn’t know they were all nazis.
While I disagree with that analysis, it is laid out plainly that that’s how they arrived at the true/false determination of what this demented sociopath meant.
Which is - imo wrong, but fair. Identifying an address that matches the address of alleged shooter is simply comparing two empirical values. So while I disagree with the ‘both sides’ analysis I think there’s room for them to claim it was false, unlike the donation address matching the shooter’s address.
. . .
Link us up!
. . .
Now snopes says true, now
Heh. It does say “True” that the shooter made the donation.
So, it’s “False” that the shooter didn’t make the donation.
Ah, I’m stupid
Oh, damn…