*PolitiFact has been documenting Trump’s statements since 2011, when he was toying with a 2012 White House bid. Since then, we’ve fact-checked more than 300 Trump claims. About 71 percent of them rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire. About 14 percent of his statements are Half True, while 4 percent rated True.
Trump’s inaccuracies are diverse. They include conspiracy theories, attacks on critics and opponents, misleading statistics and exaggerations of his own personal record. *
*PolitiFact has been fact-checking Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton since we launched in 2007, during her first run for the White House. Over that time, she has proven herself to be a careful speaker. Like all politicians, however, she sometimes stretches the truth.
During the many years we’ve fact-checked Clinton, we’ve rated close to 300 of her statements. Just over half — 51 percent — have rated True or Mostly True. Another 23 percent rated Half True. On the negative side, 26 percent of her statements rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.*
So, tell me again, Hillary-haters- which is the dishonest candidate?
Politifact is part of the dishonest, disloyal national media trying to elect Queen Hillary. They’re liars and scum and should be jailed along with her.
Signed,
Generic Trump Supporter.
I hate both Trump and Hillary, so I have no immediate dog in this fight.
If you expect me to treat Politifact as a political Snopes, dedicated solely to truth and accuracy… sorry, I can’t accommodate you.
Trump IS a sphincter and BS artist, but Politifact is a left-leaning group with its own agenda. They command zero respect among those of us on the right, and they don’t DESERVE any respect. They’re liberal pundits, not objective fact checkers.
You just hate that facts have a liberal bias. As does reality.
Why don’t you list some of their findings that demonstrates bias and your source of the truth.
The Republicans “proof” that Politifacts is biased? Why *that if finds more Republicans lie than democrats!!! *:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
(Gomer Pyle) Surprise, surpise, surprise!
:rolleyes:
The Tampa Bay Times (formerly the St. Petersberg Times) has endorsed a Democrat for President or Governor since 1948. Every time. Link. Link 2.
Is that biased enough for your taste?
As far as fact checking sites, every single one of them that I have checked has had inconsistent or just flat out wrong information. So, instead of relying on someone else to do my thinking for me, if I have a question I go find the answer myself.
I am sincerely interested in knowing of a fact-checking site that does not come to the same conclusion that Trump lies far more than Clinton.
Politifact and the one I referenced, FactCheck, both claim to be unbiased, but anyone can accuse them of bias (even tho FactCheck provides detailed citations of their sources). So, please show me a fact checking web site that reaches the opposite conclusion, even if it is totally biased in favor of Republicans. I am interested.
Y’know, given how much more often Republicans lie than Democrats, it’d be astounding if the people who keep professional count of those lies didn’t end up favoring the Democrats. Equality of opportunity does not imply equality of results, and fairness of criteria does not imply equal agreement with both sides.
That said, I will grant that it’s possible for an outfit like Politifact to manifest bias without actually coming to any wrong conclusions. All they’d have to do would be to be selective about what statements they fact-check. A biased organization could do the like of checking Clinton’s statement about the color of the sky and Trump’s statement about whether that dress makes Melania’s butt look fat.
So, any actual evidence that Politifact does that, either?
Both are significantly deceitful. It’s just that Clinton falls into the normal range of unscrupulousness for a politician and is canny enough to qualify her statements in such a way to avoid blatant fraud, while Donald Trump seems constitutionally incapable of telling the truth even regarding statements he is on record of having said and factual inconsistencies that have been clearly debunked. Clinton is not a very good candidate (hence her record unfavorable rankings) and will probably be a mediocre although administratively competent president who was fortunate to run in opposition to a “man-baby” whose qualifications for the office extend only to how much he could hijack the message of fear and entitlement that the Republican party has been selling for two decades and turn it to is own self-aggrandizement, like a season of Arrested Development somehow become reality.
Question 1: Is it possible for a fact checking group to look into any 2 politicians, analyze their statements, and conclude one lies more than the other, without supporters of that politician assuming that they are simply biased?
Question 2: If someone begins with the premise that their chosen candidate is the best choice, are there literally **any **facts that could deter them?