I happened upon Snopes this morning, because I was wanting to see if it had anything about this image below depicting a “Roman-era couple holding hands for 1500 years.” I had seen it before but History In Moments tweeted it and it caught my eye and I thought about researching it to satisfy my own curiosity. I did a few searches and came up with nothing at that website. In hindsight perhaps Snopes wasn’t the best of first places to look regarding this image, but while I was there I happened to notice another rumor that interested me enough to click on it.
There was an article about Hillary Clinton and how she wears designer Armani pant suits which cost thousands of dollars. In particular, there was one noticeably gaudy suit depicted in an image you will find at Snopes or elsewhere on the web, which reportedly cost her $12,495 and people were appalled she’d wear such a thing while she gave a speech about financial inequality. Seemed very “let them eat cake” of her. Now, the Snopes website cited this one as “mostly false.” Which seemed out of character for them. When I research other topics on their site, for my purposes they are usually rather consistently objective and accurate. At least so far as I know. To be honest, because I’m lazy and don’t have the necessary time and resources, most of the time when I come across something questionable, if I go to Snopes I’m satisfied with their answer and I move on. This is not how The Scientific Method actually works, and it’s not how Investigative Journalism actually works. Multiple sources are needed to reach any resemblance of credibility, and even then, nothing is absolute. However, as I said, I’m lazy, and I’m no scientist or journalist. I used to fancy myself a “journaler” but nowadays I don’t know if I write frequently enough to even qualify for that anymore.
I looked to the bottom of the Snope page about Hillary Clinton’s expensive wardrobe to see if there was a message board to which I could respond. Interestingly, I don’t recall ever feeling a need to respond to one of their reports before. This time I did, and I found their page wanting. Unlike most other websites nowadays, you can’t directly comment on a web page at Snopes and see it appear. So I sent them an email and here’s what i wrote. I’m not convinced their website’s feedback button works tho cuz I got an error message, so I’m duplicating it here.
You describe the Hillary Clinton Armani Jacket rumor as “mostly false” but admit that the retail price of the jacket is usually around the amount given. Even if she paid a discounted price, that’s still more for one article of clothing than many of her supporters see in several paychecks. Also, she does demonstrably wear expensive clothes while talking about poverty and homelessness. That’s evident. While the exact numbers are controversial, I would say this one is mostly true. As George Carlin once said, “when two planes almost hit each other it’s called a near miss — but IT’S A NEAR HIT!”
I understand if you are not being objective because you happen to want Hillary Clinton to win. I got no dog in this fight cuz I happen to feel both Clinton and Trump are equally dangerous as POTUS for different reasons. However, when I come to this site I need objective and dependable information, and this example does SEEM to illustrate bias on your part.
Signed, yours truly, etc. I get this is no big deal to you. Whoever you are. I’m simply recording it here for my personal edification. At any rate, this brings me to a topic I probably don’t discuss enough and that’s the elephant in the room for modern day politics. Hillary, and Donald, and Bernie, and Lyin’ Ted, and all the other prospective candidates who have come and gone this presidential election cycle have each spent millions of dollars for a job that has a salary of maybe $200K a year plus expenses. They’re obviously not doing it for the money, they’re doing it for the power. Perhaps they honestly believe they can make a difference and sincerely want to serve the American people and represent them to the world, but let’s face it. They’re a bunch of power hungry mad crazy assholes who are already richer than you or I will ever be, and they want to pretend to represent us, because doing so grants them the illusion that they have our power.
Why are Republicans anti-abortion? It lets them speak for the unborn. This doubles their political power. Even Hillary Clinton has used the “think of the children” card when she wants to do stuff. This isn’t about us. They do not really represent us. They pretend to represent us and others you will never meet let them pretend to represent us, because it gives them more power. So the cost of being Hillary isn’t just monetary. She’s using the power we relinquish by not wielding it ourselves. I’m not gonna run around in a pant suit telling other people how to run their lives and pretending to know better than everybody else when I don’t, but that’s exactly what politicians do every day, while wearing expensive pants and suits, probably paid for using our tax money. Either that, or they’re allowed to “borrow” the clothes from other rich people who expect some kind of tit for tat in return for the wardrobe. She is spending other people’s money to be her, and she’s spending our resources to be her. Same goes for Donald and any other blow hard pretending to represent us. She is using us to be herself, and if that’s not a disturbing thought to you, then she’s probably already used you up and spit you out, like some kind of Slack Vampire. Praise “Bob!”