Post politifact lies

I'm trying to convince my gf that politifact is not an objective source but it seems that jewgle purged most anti-politifact results. Post what ya got.

Other urls found in this thread:

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/23/national-rifle-association/yes-and-outlaw-apple-pie-as-well/
politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/13/wayne-lapierre/nra-leader-says-barack-obama-endorsed-total-ban-ha/
youtube.com/watch?v=-swcpDpAr20
strawpoll.me/10931650
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

...

>Like Blagojevich, Obama framed that debate as a home-rule issue. He told the Associated Press at the time that he voted against the measure out of respect for local governments' authority to set gun policy.

>Here's what LaPierre wrote about the vote: "When Obama turned thumbs down on the bill, he voted against the most basic element of the Second Amendment — the right of defense of self and family — the reason that millions of Americans own firearms."

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/23/national-rifle-association/yes-and-outlaw-apple-pie-as-well/

>LaPierre said "(Obama) endorsed a total ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of all handguns." Obama’s 1996 campaign for state Senate did endorse a state-level ban, on a questionnaire from which he has since distanced himself.

>He never suggested such a law in office, and later questionnaires showed a more nuanced approach, as have his more recent statements on gun control, including those during his time in the U.S. Senate and as president. In fact, his gun-control agenda has earned him failing grades from a prominent gun-control advocacy group.

>We can’t rule on a shadowy conspiracy to destroy the Constitution in Obama’s second term. But we can say that LaPierre’s claim that Obama endorsed a total ban on handguns contains a small element of truth (a typewritten "yes" on a long-ago questionnaire about a state ban) but ignores critical facts — that is, Obama's statements and record — that would give a different impression. That's our definition of Mostly False.


politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/13/wayne-lapierre/nra-leader-says-barack-obama-endorsed-total-ban-ha/

>corporate tax is the only form of tax

False equivalency is false.

You may also be retarded.

>doing the same work as men

This is only in one of the quotes.

IE when women actually do the same work as men, they tend to be paid around the same. When you fail to account for different choices made in terms of career selection and training by women and men, their is a major discrepancy between what they earn.

I am starting to doubt your ability to read user.

Jesus fucking Christ I hate that website. This is everything you need to know about the Left right here.

Every time he says it at rallies or conferences, it's obvious he's talking about in the context of business taxes. But the media never reports the full quotes

*corporate taxes

Is he though?


Or is that only real in your mind?

I mean its not hard to put corporate in front of taxes, assuming he is capable of forming a three syllable word.

And perhaps mote importantly, the way this point is presented is false, making politicfact right and you of questionable intelligence and/or reading comprehension.

There's not actually a technical contradiction here.

The tirst quote is, "women who do the same work get 77c to the dollar", which is mostly false. Overall, in the population, the average working woman makes 77% of what the average working man does. But that's due to a broad array of socioeconomic factors; when you narrow down to individual job types, the "same work", the gap is less.

The second quote doesn't narrow down this specification to "same work", so it's technically correct. But at the same time, more clarification would be great. Hence, "mostly true".

I wouldn't say it if it wasn't true. I specifically remember one time saying "Our business are suffering, we are the highest taxed nation in the world"

Best one.

That preface could also imply taxation on small or mid size businesses being harmful (the rate for both of which aren't the highest in the world in the US), or even income tax rates impacting negatively on consumer spending, impacting businesses (again, US income taxes arent that high by world standards).

...

Can you read? Are you retarded? Do you have any idea what WORDS ARE YOU FUCKING IDIOT

I've got a few.

Again, that doesn't account for the fact that personal tax rates int he US are actually quite low. Making the statement misleading at best and an outright falsehood at worse.

>I specifically remember one time saying
The only record is your mind.
And this isn't a sentence and doesn't actually even technically refer to donald trump at all.

I mean shit son, if you are that poor at constructing your ideas in plain English, it raises serious questions about your comprehension.

You wilk not turn her with Trump or othe Gop analisys. Take the Bernie's ones and ask her if they are right

Do you think they are actually looking for work?

REEEEEE

No. But the majority is definitely not female.

He talks about taxation on small and mid size businesses being too high all the time. Honestly the only way to know the truth is to watch the full rallies. The media never reports them accurately

...

Read the second article. Trump was referring to the corporate tax rate. Politifact took him out of context and look how well they fooled you.
I think you mean when you account for different choices made, not when you fail to do so. Regardless, if Politifact weren't biased, it would rate that claim partially false and provide the context why.

also

>their is a major discrepancy
>their

You can believe whatever lies you want but the people voting for him watch the full rallies and know the truth. He was always talking about corporate tax

They're owned by a company that endorsed Hillary for the Dem primary.

>.02 shekels deposited to your account

politifact is:
>PANTS
>ON
>FIRE

Also do you really think attacking my grammar creates a strong argument? Are you that insecure?

True:
Owned by Tampa Bay Times
Which always endorses Democrats and endorsed HRC for the primary.

>mostly false
>numbers are valid
>the comparison is questionable

JUST

bbb-but republicans lie more!!!!

Brah, we are discussing the veracity of a single point you have to blow up to defend some ass backward interpretation of what is actually written. And yes I am sure the truly committed to his cause will skew what he says whatever way they can to reflect favorably on him.

You are truly stupid user. You should stop shilling for him, you make him and his supporters look even worse than they do already.

>Also do you really think attacking my grammar creates a strong argument? Are you that insecure?

No user, just not being able to write a complete sentence in a debate makes you look stupid. I am trying to help you. How can you address the fact you cannot write English if no one ever lets you know.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

>I think you mean when you account for different choices made, not when you fail to do so

The discrepancy only remains if you fail to account for choices. If you account for choices the discrepancy evaporates.

>Read the second article. Trump was referring to the corporate tax rate
That is not what is written. Maybe it is taken out of context but the statement as written is false.

I don't give a shit about politifact. I am just laughing my ass off at the lack of critical reading skills among trump supporters.

>their is a major discrepancy
Shit sorry son. Auto-correct a bitch.

This triggers me.

There was one where they rated Obama's claim on the wage gap as true

Then there was another one they had on him saying the same thing where they said it was false.

>I cannot follow a thread: the post

Good one burger.

You fucking idiot. It's the very first post in the thread after OP.

thanks user

>the statement as written is false


no shit but who care about what was written if its not what Trump said but merely what liberals wish he had said

>The only record is your mind.
No, all his rallies are on record. You have to be completely delusional or ignorant if you think he's not taken out of context all the time by the media.

Context matters heavily with trump. He has a politically incorrect way of speaking where the meaning of the sentence is only clear in light of the sentences around it.

You're full of shit if you deny any of this.

>hurr durr ur iz ritart

king nigger literally says "Women deserve equal pay for equal work" in the very next sentence, which politico conveniently leaves out. So you morons are sperging out for no reason.

youtube.com/watch?v=-swcpDpAr20

>no shit but who care about what was written if its not what Trump said but merely what liberals wish he had said
So you are saying that everything politicfact tests on is made up wholesale?

I don't know, haven't had any reason to review the site, but this seems a stretch.

If there is a fuller exposition of the quote in question that proves your point, post it.

>context matters
No shit. It doesn't stop the statement as written from being false.

I am not going to sit through hours of his inane ramblings after dumbing my critical faculties with drugs, alcohol and/or head trauma just to prove your point for you.

Try harder.

>No shit. It doesn't stop the statement as written from being false.

They're calling him a liar. If you remove the statement from context then call a person a liar for saying it.... that makes YOU the liar. Politifact is lying.

Nobody cares about "the statement as written".... People care about whether trump is correct or not.

you'll find most of the bias in the spectrum between mostly true and mostly false.

where trump would get a mostly false, hillary would get a half true

>The discrepancy only remains if you fail to account for choices. If you account for choices the discrepancy evaporates.
Ok, without arguing semantics, we both draw the same conclusion (which is actually refreshing to hear from a leftist) and that's how Politifact should have responded to the President's claim. The 77 cent figure on its own is deceptive.

>That is not what is written. Maybe it is taken out of context but the statement as written is false.
Sure it's false as written, but in context it is no different from Leonard Lance's claim. I don't see how you can possibly defend what Politifact is doing here.

And as I said, provide proofs or stop crying.

I expect politicians to lie and don't trust politifact as an objective source.

If you are trying to convince other pwople of the fact they shouldn't trust it, you need to do better.

Posting inconsistent statements and climing they are the same isn't going to do it. Niether is telling people to watch his rallies, becasue they won't.

I mean shit son, at least this guy has half a leg to stand on as he actually provided something in terms of evidence beyond MAGA...

But then again he is not burger, so I think there may be something lacking in your general education...

>assuming I am a leftist

The cognitive fallacies never end with you people do they?

>I don't see how you can possibly defend what Politifact is doing here.

I am not defending anyone, I am attacking you on your retardation.

>defending politifact
>rabid anti-trump
>not a leftist
>not a globalist

Look brah, I understand you are too thick to deal with the world in any temrs more complex than star wars fairy tale morality, but it isn't really like that. And as for finding that level of intellectually laziness funny, I am glad you find some way to amuse yourself I guess.

But your time could be better spent actually trying to understand things as they exist rather than entertaining yourself with your own chimera.

>And as I said, provide proofs or stop crying.
Pay me and I'll do it. Otherwise go to hell; I'm not your personal record corrector.

I'm just pointing out that the "statement as written" is a bullshit standard to hold. It reflects a juvenile understanding of language. And that the conclusion "trump is a liar" doesn't follow from ":The statement as written is false".

You're defending illogical bullshit.

>transgender girls aren't boys

kek

>blow up
We contextualized the statement to ensure veracity but you want to pin it on him to discredit him. It's okay we get your fervor.
However, we agree the distortion of the truth serves a candidate. Obviously you favor the primary opposition as a Hildodildo, or the impractical third party. I think you distort the truth by simply assumming omission equates to affirmation.
Furthermore, you should agree that politifact has concluded statements as half-true or higher on several instances on account of the person making the statement did not contextualize, and, therefore, doesnt consistently rate claims.
Fuck you chucklefuck.

>responding this hard to 4 greentexts

>trumptard reading comprehension

Quick poll concerning Sup Forums and reddit:
strawpoll.me/10931650

>defending politishit
>attacking trump
>not a liberal shit
I bet you also like dicks

> I'm not your personal record corrector.
And yet you are trying to correct the record using only your uncorroborated statements

Really makes me think

I am merely here to be entertained by what you retards qualifies as proof.

Also

1) I cannot vote and don't actually have a dog in this race
2) even if i did I wouldn't vote for either major candidate because they are both shit and it is a choice between evil and incompetence

Gary Johnson is perhaps my preferred candidate, but I certainly don't care enough to shill about it, mainly because he won't win due to the shitshow that is the american political system, primarily due to the stupidity of people like you and your mirror image on hildog's side.

But keep on assuming

>writing three lines of text is hard

Wew

>I wish you also liked dicks
FTFY bro

Republicans and Democrats aren't the same group of people.