Factcheck

Can anyone provide me actual examples of politifact or snopes making completely false claims? It seems like everyone circlejerks that they're shills, but nobody can provide concrete examples

Other urls found in this thread:

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/14/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-people-who-went-school-obama-nev/
youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q
thoughtco.com/do-they-eat-babies-in-china-3299484
politifact.com/about/
dspace.utamu.ac.ug:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/181/Research Methodology - Methods and Techniques 2004.pdf?sequence=1
politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/31/donald-trump/donald-trump-inflates-apple-investment/
politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

They are pure liberal word twisting...

Example: Trump likes water.... liberal twist version; trump believes water should be used to kill black babies

Lol so give me a link then

Search for HRC and David Byrd kiss. Twisty.

...

2

"Considering that Trump hasn’t enacted any fiscal legislation, it’s a bit of a stretch for him to take credit for any changes in debt levels,"
I said politifact and snopes, not nbc.

>He's right, but we shouldn't celebrate. So it's mostly false.

op btfo

Jesus Christ

Snopes covered up for the gang rape of a 5 year old in Idaho by Iraqi rapefugees who trapped it and passed on her afterwords.
Twice.

Their debunking was something like they were from Syria not Iraq and then basically accused the father who saw the video of lying

You can hear them say ackchyually through that post.

Yes hes right, but context needs to be provided. Literally anyone could become president and the National debt still would've fallen. As long as they didnt actively sabotage the economy, these events would occur. Especially considering how we're coming out of a recession

Give me the link then

...

What context? He made a factual statement and the response was "in our opinion..."

The way trump says it makes it sound like he was responsible for this. In reality, the national debt is not so easily influenced, especially since he passed no financial legislation

>The Weekly Standard, "The Real Obama." For this story, reporter Dean Barnett contacted dozens of Obama's classmates at Harvard Law School. "Also noteworthy is that virtually everyone seemed to know Obama," Bartnett wrote.

>In fact, many of Obama's former classmates volunteered for his presidential campaign, and Politico ran a story about some 20 Harvard classmates who were members of his transition team. The story ran under the headline "School buds: 20 Harvard classmates advising Obama."

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/14/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-people-who-went-school-obama-nev/

No you lazy fuck

This entire info graphic seems like it was made by someone looking for any reason to discredit polifact, and explicitly for the kind of people who look at pictures and assume it's fact.
aka 4channers

>snopes making completely false claims

Snopes is literally run by 2 libshit retards who recently divorced.

The wife caught the husband spending all the site profits on high class hookers. Look it up.

>No fiscal legislation
>cut govt massively
>moreso than any president ever
>government programs not fiscally related
You just exposed yourself as a marxist liberal shill
Sage this shit.

Dont help this lazy nigger faggot

>In February 2011, University of Minnesota political science professor Eric Ostermeier analyzed 511 PolitiFact stories issued from January 2010 through January 2011. He found that the number of statements analyzed from Republicans and from Democrats was comparable, but Republicans have been assigned substantially harsher grades, receiving 'false' or 'pants on fire' more than three times as often as Democrats. Ostermeier suggested that this may indicate a bias in the selection of statements to analyze, concluding: "The question is not whether PolitiFact will ultimately convert skeptics on the right that they do not have ulterior motives in the selection of what statements are rated, but whether the organization can give a convincing argument that either a) Republicans in fact do lie much more than Democrats, or b) if they do not, that it is immaterial that PolitiFact covers political discourse with a frame that suggests this is the case."[32]

There were no adults involved, Loebs said, the boys didn’t have a knife, and the incident wasn’t a “gang-rape” instigated by the oldest boy.
“All those involved are juveniles, and the older one didn’t touch the victim in any way,” Loebs said. Only one person is alleged to have touched the victim, said the prosecutor, though he declined to elaborate.
Loebs is the prosecutor
Its sad that pol is like reddit now. Look at only headlines and ignore the details
What does the situation of the people who run the website have anything to do with the authenticity of the facts?

Someone link the Hitler quote about Jew dialectic at this kike please

>What does the situation of the people who run the website have anything to do with the authenticity of the facts?
you serious bro? i bet you're okay with stronk and his big gumed mistress working for the fbi?

If you havent seen one by now, get off this board

...

Research yourself. Hear something? Go to the second or third page and find sources that look reasonable. Look at the author and bias. Or just talk to people not living in a circlejerk libtard hellhole.

To put a finer point on the subject, politifact simply cherry picks statements by right wingers which could be classified as "false" and assigns that grade, while overlooking or outright ignoring statements made by leftists.

Case in point: I bet you won't find anything on politifact about this statement by the esteemed nigger from where ever.

youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

...

Do you have specific examples of trump "cutting gov" and how that correlates to the reduction in national debt?
Interesting opinion, but i want concrete links. Politifact ratings will always be hated by whomever dislikes them, but the actual information is more important

...

They're disingenuous and they use tricks of language to come to their conclusions. They misrepresent the "theory" they're analyzing, thereby cutting their own work out for them. When "pizzagate" is "The theory that Hillary and Podesta are running a child sex ring out of a pizzeria basement," it's very easy to say "pizzagate isn't real," so that's exactly why they define it that way. Shit like that.

...

Please look up ad hominem arguments
But pol never does that to news headlines
You're right. Politifact cant cover every statement, just the most popular ones said by polticians. But are any of their analysis fundamentally wrong? I'm not saying trump is a liar. Just that his statements covered by politifact are often misleading

...

Fucking die you kike. Snopes is a dying clinton era website. Stop trying to shill clicks there. If that fat fuck would fucked his fat wife and not a bunch of hookers they woudnt need to be begging for traffic like this.
>is there anything more kikey
Fucking insulting for you to come to a Malaysian amateur fishing net tying forum and fucking demand people do research for you.

>You're right. Politifact cant cover every statement, just the most popular ones said by polticians.
Think about this statement for a second. Then think about the nature of modern media and how they can take a single snippet of a quote out of context and run with it however they want. If you are really relying on "fact checking" websites to verify if information is true or not you're an idiot.

probably my favorite

Obviously, a blatant lie can be detected, so they are smart enough to lie by omission, like the rest of the media. That is, they will 'fact check' one side far more than the other.

Context. Trump makes it sound like hes responsible for the decrease when he actually wasn't. Forget the headline rating and read the actual article
So point me to some examples then. Your pizzagate one sounds fine
Read the articles, not just the headline ratings

Yes in fact their analysis is fundamentally wrong.
see
>most popular ones
>determined by ???

Yeah right. You mean the most convenient ones for the narrative.

True true. But trump does make the most...fantastic statements.

>Snopes is literally run by 2 libshit retards
You mean kikes

Show me links to fundamentally wrong analysis.

...

>Trump makes it sound like hes responsible for the decrease

"In my house, there was a fire."

Ok shitlib faggot, am I making it sound like I'm responsible for the fire or am I simply stating facts?

But they dont do that. They often try to look at the context of the statement. Do you have an example to the contrary?

>posted >>
>still wants links

are you blind or simply retarded?

>liberal

nvm faggot

Ok youre stating facts. So is Trump. I'm not saying Mostly false is a correct title for the article. I'm saying that their actual analysis is on point

TURNS OUT THEY DON'T MAKE FALSE CLAIMS, BUT YOU KNOW WHO DOES

Trump: They had me wiretapped!

Truthfacts: No, wiretapping is an obsolete method only used on phone wired lines. The FBI, CIA, NSA just directly intercepts your audio wirelessly using digital signals via Spectre and Meltdown, and various other exploits on all electronics.

Why label it "mostly false" then? What he said was not incorrect, and is in fact mostly true. The claim is that his statement, while being true, has a false implication. If that's the case, then label the fucking statement correctly and add the note at the bottom

The post i was replying to didnt provide links. And i already responded to the other ones posted in this thread

Snopes often uses absence of evidence as evidence of absence. Spend 10 minutes looking at random shit on Snopes and you'll see it.

Is it an outright lie and/or related to their bias? Maybe. But if nothing else, it's intellectually and logically incorrect.

Why does the Left lack the capacity for deductive reasoning?

Not if they come to different conclusions for the same sort of statements based on party affiliation.

See

Is there an actual article you're getting that from?
True, the title is mislabeled. But people nowadays read headlines only and not details. They should have put true. This still doesnt prove that politifact is full of crap though. Just that their rating labels suck

I doubt they are even transparent with their "analysis". If they actually have a methodology segment please post a link to it. Otherwise fuck off.

>But they dont do that
Says you. Or do you really believe articles with "sources familiar" in it? Or statements like this,
>They often try to look at the context of the statement
>try
"Try" and "do" are two distinct things you kike. Be more precise with your words.

>Do you have an example to the contrary?
This thread is literally full of contrary examples and you are blatantly ignoring them.
>muh links
Do your own homework if you really want it that bad.

Can you point to just one example of snopes doing this?
I'm not replying to meme pictures because they look only at headlines and not the article itself. Statements can have many nuances which politifact does an adequate job of explaining

The Chinese eating a baby one was something that was full of shit. The guy really did eat a baby.

thoughtco.com/do-they-eat-babies-in-china-3299484

I can't be arsed to find the Snopes article.

Still waiting on the link to politifacts methodology section, or are they not that transparent...

>This still doesnt prove that politifact is full of crap though
What is does prove is that they're partisan hacks unwilling to tell the unadulterated truth; no better than CNN or FOX News

But the ratings are the entire point.

politifact.com/about/
They do look at the context of statements, including trumps. Just read their background surrounding each quote.
I did look at the examples posted, but nobody has conclusively pointed out inaccuracies. The meme pictures dont count. They just take headlines out of context and ignore the details of the politifact article

>Statements can have many nuances which politifact does an adequate job of explaining

Fact check: False

Many people disagree with the adequacy of politifact's explanations and have accused them of partisan bias. Politifact has so far made no statement defending or even explaining their methodology.

Well im just looking at politifact and snopes links, sorry
Not the whole truth? Which example?
Not its not. Thats like saying buzzfeed click bait articles are the entire point. The details explaining each quote is much more important

Check and
Dude, you are arguing with literal shills. In this instance they are Trump shills but shills nonetheless. Why are you doing this?

politifact.com/about/
They talk about the sources they contact and how their ratings work, even though its not black and white

I'm super bored eating dinner and feel like debating internet people

>politifact.com/about/

>explanation of how their ratings are to be understood
>no explanation as to how those determinations are made

Yeah, try again faggot, they are not transparent nor rigorous about their anylisis

If you want to see how it's actually done read an actually research study.

dspace.utamu.ac.ug:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/181/Research Methodology - Methods and Techniques 2004.pdf?sequence=1

>industry confidence in future president doesn't impact economy
Liberals are retarded aren't they?

PolitiFact writers and editors spend considerable time researching and deliberating on our rulings. We always try to get the original statement in its full context rather than an edited form that appeared in news stories. We then divide the statement into individual claims that we check separately.

When possible, we go to original sources to verify the claims. We look for original government reports rather than news stories. We interview impartial experts.

Why when liberals visit us they pretend to sound mature and open then they run back to leftypol or reddit or whatever and go "LOL I sure showed those dumb racist Drumf supporters". It's such a sociopath move.

OP is a colossal faggot.

Fact check: Mostly true.

So do you have concrete proof or a study that connects trumps victory and industrial confidence?

So your argument is invalidated....
Now you are turning to pure rhetoric to "win".

Sad

...

Im still here though
Cant dispute that one

So politifact articles must have 100% accurate titles and their actual article details dont mean anything?

>They do look at the context of statements, including trumps.
So now you decide to be more precise, that's nice.
>Just read their background surrounding each quote.
I have, and it is often chuck full of bias. Like this little chunk here.
politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/31/donald-trump/donald-trump-inflates-apple-investment/
>"Combining new investments and Apple’s current pace of spending with domestic suppliers and manufacturers — an estimated $55 billion for 2018 — Apple’s direct contribution to the U.S. economy will be more than $350 billion over the next five years," the statement said.
>Notice that Apple did not say it plans to invest $350 billion. It described its "direct contribution to the U.S. economy."
This is an arbitrary mish mashing of words that can be interpreted in any manner, which highlights the importance of precision in language. Apple may have meant "contribution" to be "invest" but since those are not the two same words politifact interpreted it as they would have. But Trump was right about the 20,000 jobs, so at least they didn't fuck that one up.

>The meme pictures dont count.
Moving the goalposts are we? Your OP asked for examples. Not "links."

>They just take headlines out of context and ignore the details of the politifact article
I will say it again, if you trust "fact checking" websites to tell the truth you're an idiot.

It's not about you being here and I don't even care about the topic. It's the lack of respect I have for you sociopaths because you pretend to be mature then run back to where you came from and act petty. It's so passive aggressive. Just act how you really act stop with this show.

If they are going to claim to be a "fact checking website" they should probably pay attention to the detail of their titles you stupid ass.

What more do you want than the fucking stock market booming? That's heavily confidence based.
>prove it
Fucking educate yourself. I shouldn't have to prove what should be easy to understand.

These websites intentionally misunderstand or misconstrue the statements to make themselves "technically" correct so retards like you will believe they are impartial. It works so well too.

It's really that simple. If you don't think that a site that runs off of political donations is bias then there is no helping you. Enjoy being conned over and over again by people you are told to trust.

My 2 cents..

Politifact is fine. They are just very tossing with their meter. Read their articles if you're able to comprehend more than just a simple end note.
The anti-fact checking y'all are posting are also out of context. go figure

They're were pretty hard on Obama.

politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

The debt one is a bit absurd. The tweet is true but the context surely isn't. That should've just been noted.

e.g some liberal - "Every year in America, we celebrate a rapist and enslaver."

Politifact will mostly rank this mostly false although the statement does align with fact. Columbus was in fact a rapist and did enslave the native population, but for obvious reasons its out of context.

also as just look at DIRECT quotes/data/videos and come to a conclusion yourself. not that hard.

Do you work for them or something? You seem hell-bent on proving politifact correct.
And just because of that I'll be sure to never trust them again.
I'll be sure to spread my skepticism to friends and family also.

Unadulterated; I used that word specifically because of its broad meaning
>Unadulterated: not mixed or diluted with any different or extra elements; complete and absolute
>Synonyms: pure · unalloyed · unsullied · untainted · virgin · untouched · absolute
I have a pic comparing Obama's lies which were pawned off as mostly true compared to Trump's half-truths which were labelled as pants on fire. Though that's on my other laptop and I can't be bothered to fish it out. Do some snooping yourself, don't ask people to hand you shit
Why are you eating dinner? It's 11 o'clock, or are you a Left coaster?

To be considered arbitrators of what is in fact Political Fact?

Yes, I would say that they should make concrete and unassailable statements. If they cannot do so, it's really just Popular Opinion

>Do some snooping yourself, don't ask people to hand you shit
I think OP is a liberal disinfo kike but anyone who says shit like this is equally dishonest and this is a retarded trend liberals are doing that we should not do. In a debate, as a person making an argument or refuting it, it's your job to provide proof. "I'm not going to do your homework for you" or "Stop being lazy" is dishonest liberal boomer tactics don't do that shit.

Look you like to nitpick my words, so im just trying to be clear for you.

It said its purchases from other companies will be large -- about $55 billion in 2018. Lee said if that number didn’t grow, Apple would spend about $275 billion over five years. But that’s "pre-planned," Lee said. It’s the cost of doing business and doesn’t represent new investment.
It isnt a completely new investment.

I just want actual examples that arent just ripping headlines off. So far nobody has provided absolute evidence of political utterly lying

Pretend to be mature? You dont believe i actually want a legit discussion on pol?

news headlines everywhere are not always completely correct. Thats why theyre headlines. Politfact also explains the rational for their ratings.
I cant find any scientific study or economic review specifically connecting trumps election to renewed market confidence.

OP is the one rebutting evidence without any counter evidence though. There comes a point when you simply stop answering request for sources to avoid having your time wasted by disingenuous "debaters".

>I can't find scientific study proving Trump spurred the economy
Economics isn't science. Why do you insist on forcing science into things it has no business being involved in?

Science is the pursuit of truths without human bias. Economics is a field with inherent human bias.
You will never find scientific studies for the things you are looking for. It doesn't make them any less true.

You sound like someone who has never delved into real sciences before. Typical.

I just havent seen an example of politifact being utterly wrong. Im quite curious if they have been like pol claims
They discuss in their article why certain statements have elements of truths and lies. Sometimes, trump heavily weighs on the lie part and sometimes obama does it too
how am i providing false info? im trying to disprove pol's claim that politifact and snopes is all crap
Thats why you need to read the article. Otherwise the title would be five sentences long and not appropriate

This point is fine I don't disagree with you here. I just have a pet peeve for when people say shit like "do your own homework". I had enough disqus arguments with liberal boomers where they always say this shit for any argument they make just to avoid showing proof.

>how am i providing false info? im trying to disprove pol's claim that politifact and snopes is all crap
I didn't say you are providing false info I called you a disinfo kike. There is a difference.

That's because of how the government handles its finances there are sometimes months where it technically operates at a surplus. It happens under all presidents. FY2017 ended with a $668 billion deficit.

>27 posts of "lol that doesn't count"
what a pointless thread

>I haven't seen a case of them being utterly wrong
Funny how you keep moving the goalpost. Now they have to be completely wrong to change your opinion? Being completely disingenuous is now fine?
You obviously aren't looking to have an honest discussion, so why bother posting?

No, we need to adopt their tactics and throw them back in their faces. Like it or not, the way they've been angling their arguments have been largely successful in the cultural sphere, so in order to survive ideologically we need to co-opt those tactics and outclass them. I respect where you're coming from but there's a saying that I'm rather fond of
>"Never mud-wrestle with a pig; the pig likes to get dirty"
We need to be the pig, user. Also, I don't feel like compiling an argument only to devolve into the kike-semantics that liberals like to get into