Caring deeply about my message exactly every 4 years is truly inspiring

    • chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • Dadd Volante@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        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

            • Optional@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              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:

              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.