Discussion
hairykrishna said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Conceptually interesting site. Snopes for politics (and a few other tossers ).
Not meant as harsh criticism, but I would be more inclined towards trusting them if they had started up a few years back, or perhaps did some retrospective work on Mr. Obama and 'that woman'.
That said, it's quite clear that for now they intend to focus on Trump, his failings and those of his team.
I still can't quite (yet) see them as an unbiased source.
Not sure what you mean - they launched 10 years ago. They have analysis of Obamas and Hillarys comments along with a lot of other people.Not meant as harsh criticism, but I would be more inclined towards trusting them if they had started up a few years back, or perhaps did some retrospective work on Mr. Obama and 'that woman'.
That said, it's quite clear that for now they intend to focus on Trump, his failings and those of his team.
I still can't quite (yet) see them as an unbiased source.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/
scherzkeks said:
Propaganda. Funded by a major Clinton Foundation/anti-Trump superpac donor, and the subject of much criticism over the years. About as useful as the WP "fact checker." If you have not figured it out by now, chances are slim you will.
Feel free to point out where they're fact checking is wrong? scherzkeks said:
hairykrishna said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Conceptually interesting site. Snopes for politics (and a few other tossers ).
Not meant as harsh criticism, but I would be more inclined towards trusting them if they had started up a few years back, or perhaps did some retrospective work on Mr. Obama and 'that woman'.
That said, it's quite clear that for now they intend to focus on Trump, his failings and those of his team.
I still can't quite (yet) see them as an unbiased source.
Not sure what you mean - they launched 10 years ago. They have analysis of Obamas and Hillarys comments along with a lot of other people.Not meant as harsh criticism, but I would be more inclined towards trusting them if they had started up a few years back, or perhaps did some retrospective work on Mr. Obama and 'that woman'.
That said, it's quite clear that for now they intend to focus on Trump, his failings and those of his team.
I still can't quite (yet) see them as an unbiased source.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/
scherzkeks said:
Propaganda. Funded by a major Clinton Foundation/anti-Trump superpac donor, and the subject of much criticism over the years. About as useful as the WP "fact checker." If you have not figured it out by now, chances are slim you will.
"subject of much criticism" by loons is a badge of honour. Politifact are quite happy to report on HRC's lies just as much as anybody else's. It's just that Trump lies so much more...
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-cl...
Countdown said:
scherzkeks said:
Propaganda. Funded by a major Clinton Foundation/anti-Trump superpac donor, and the subject of much criticism over the years. About as useful as the WP "fact checker." If you have not figured it out by now, chances are slim you will.
"subject of much criticism" by loons is a badge of honour. Politifact are quite happy to report on HRC's lies just as much as anybody else's. It's just that Trump lies so much more...
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-cl...
Can anyone name names?
""subject of much criticism" by loons is a badge of honour. "
Maybe. Sometimes.
There are a lot of "loons" out there on both sides of these arguments.
"Politifact are quite happy to report on HRC's lies just as much as anybody else's. It's just that Trump lies so much more..."
They have most certainly evaluated more statements by/about Trump than by/about Hillary, but that doesn't quite prove that point does it?
If, as scherzkeks states, and you appear to confirm to a degree, the 'right'/'crazy right'/Trump supporters don't trust the site, then it's unlikely they (crazy right) would bother posting suggestions, aside from which, we don't know how much of what is sent is ignored.
That last is not intended an accusation, simply a caution, as we simply can't know.
By default, I would presume they probably list everything that can be factually proven to have been said (and reported to them), giving them the benefit of the doubt, but with a watchful eye.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
They have most certainly evaluated more statements by/about Trump than by/about Hillary, but that doesn't quite prove that point does it?
If, as scherzkeks states, and you appear to confirm to a degree, the 'right'/'crazy right'/Trump supporters don't trust the site, then it's unlikely they (crazy right) would bother posting suggestions, aside from which, we don't know how much of what is sent is ignored.
That last is not intended an accusation, simply a caution, as we simply can't know.
By default, I would presume they probably list everything that can be factually proven to have been said (and reported to them), giving them the benefit of the doubt, but with a watchful eye.
I originally posted the site in response to you saying you weren't aware of any specific proven lies by Trump. That site points out plenty which can be checked independently. I don't think it really matters what their bias is or how it's manifested in the number of facts they check per person. If, as scherzkeks states, and you appear to confirm to a degree, the 'right'/'crazy right'/Trump supporters don't trust the site, then it's unlikely they (crazy right) would bother posting suggestions, aside from which, we don't know how much of what is sent is ignored.
That last is not intended an accusation, simply a caution, as we simply can't know.
By default, I would presume they probably list everything that can be factually proven to have been said (and reported to them), giving them the benefit of the doubt, but with a watchful eye.
hairykrishna said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
They have most certainly evaluated more statements by/about Trump than by/about Hillary, but that doesn't quite prove that point does it?
If, as scherzkeks states, and you appear to confirm to a degree, the 'right'/'crazy right'/Trump supporters don't trust the site, then it's unlikely they (crazy right) would bother posting suggestions, aside from which, we don't know how much of what is sent is ignored.
That last is not intended an accusation, simply a caution, as we simply can't know.
By default, I would presume they probably list everything that can be factually proven to have been said (and reported to them), giving them the benefit of the doubt, but with a watchful eye.
I originally posted the site in response to you saying you weren't aware of any specific proven lies by Trump. That site points out plenty which can be checked independently. I don't think it really matters what their bias is or how it's manifested in the number of facts they check per person. If, as scherzkeks states, and you appear to confirm to a degree, the 'right'/'crazy right'/Trump supporters don't trust the site, then it's unlikely they (crazy right) would bother posting suggestions, aside from which, we don't know how much of what is sent is ignored.
That last is not intended an accusation, simply a caution, as we simply can't know.
By default, I would presume they probably list everything that can be factually proven to have been said (and reported to them), giving them the benefit of the doubt, but with a watchful eye.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Countdown said:
scherzkeks said:
Propaganda. Funded by a major Clinton Foundation/anti-Trump superpac donor, and the subject of much criticism over the years. About as useful as the WP "fact checker." If you have not figured it out by now, chances are slim you will.
"subject of much criticism" by loons is a badge of honour. Politifact are quite happy to report on HRC's lies just as much as anybody else's. It's just that Trump lies so much more...
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-cl...
Can anyone name names?
I am also a lefty, BTW.
Oh dear .. Another CNN fake news story - http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/01/politics/erin-bu... .
Except this one is about Fake News circulated by KellyAnne Conway (again)...
Except this one is about Fake News circulated by KellyAnne Conway (again)...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff