A fact checker looked into 158 things Donald Trump said. 78 percent were false

[Helix]

A fact checker looked into 158 things Donald Trump said. 78 percent were false

that's terrible, just terrible. horrible. but if you vote for Donald Trump, he'll make the truth great again, let me tell you.

 

[imyoda]

Um...you do know I was being sarcastic, right?

I must have missed that.......

Sorry for my error

 

[imyoda]

I'm surprised it's that low.

Good for Trump!

Sometimes he makes mistakes and makes accurate comments

 

[Kobie]

When are they going to fact check Hillary?

They already have.

 

[Kobie]

Politifact is a creation of the Tampa Bay Times. The TBT is published by the Poynter Institute. The Poynter Institute is affiliated with a who who list of Progressive Machine members.

New Fact-Checking Network Funded by Liberal Snowden Supporter

Tides Foundation
Open Society Institute - George Soro's -

Over 30 Major News Organizations Linked to George Soros | Media Research Center

Knight Foundation

Democracy Alliance

And the list goes on and on.

PolitiFact Bias


Politifact is part of the Progressive Machines strategy of disinformation hidden by the appearance of objective analysis. It's the reason the Machine has spent $100's of millions to create important sounding organizations like The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. It's a shame and a massive propaganda effort supported by big labor and other ideologically driven organizations.

Ocean prattles on about the "Progressive Machine"! I've almost got BINGO!

 

[coldjoint]

They already have.

Then why isn't she in an orange pantsuit behind bars? The media is so far up her fat ass it isn't likely any of her lies will ever recieve air time.

 

[beefheart]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-than-all-the-other-2016-candidates-combined/
A fact checker looked into 158 things Donald Trump said. 78 percent were false.

Liar, liar…. Pants on fire……. If Trump opens his mouth, chances are 78% of the time it is a lie


PolitiFact, the nonpartisan fact-checking outlet based in Florida, is out today with its mid-year report on the 2016 election. It's an attempt to take a step back from the day-to-day grind of the campaign and see which candidates are telling the truth and which aren't.

Donald Trump isn't.

Of the 158 Trump claims that PolitiFact has checked out, 95 have been rated either "False" or "Pants on Fire." That's 60 percent of all Trump claims. As PolitiFact notes, if you include the Trump statements rated "mostly false" in that group, 78 percent of all of Trump's fact-checked claims have been scored "mostly false" or worse.

That's not even the most amazing fact in the PolitiFact report. That honor goes to this: "Trump has more statements rated Pants on Fire, 30, than the 21 other candidates for president we’ve fact-checked this cycle combined……….

ALSO SEE:
The truth (so far) behind the 2016 campaign | PolitiFact

The ignorant rabble don't care, they want someone like Trump because he lets them be the hillbilly rednecks that they are.

 

[Kobie]

Then why isn't she in an orange pantsuit behind bars? The media is so far up her fat ass it isn't likely any of her lies will ever recieve air time.

I was unaware that Politifact was responsible for prosecuting Hillary Clinton. What, you think the FBI relies on fact checkers, or that Clinton's campaign statements are somehow illegal?

 

[coldjoint]

I was unaware that Politifact was responsible for prosecuting Hillary Clinton. What, you think the FBI relies on fact checkers, or that Clinton's campaign statements are somehow illegal?

Well if fact checkers are not good enough for the FBI why should the publiuc believe them?

 

[Kobie]

Well if fact checkers are not good enough for the FBI why should the publiuc believe them?

This is possibly the dumbest thing I've seen you post.

 

[imyoda]

The ignorant rabble don't care, they want someone like Trump because he lets them be the hillbilly rednecks that they are.

Let's be kind now........

No need for name-calling........

There are so many other words one can use which expresses the same idea..........

Yet is much more cutting and does not seem crude........

 

[coldjoint]

This is possibly the dumbest thing I've seen you post.

It is only addressing the stupid post of yours.

 

[Kobie]

It is only addressing the stupid post of yours.

What "stupid post" was that -- pointing out the flaw in your utterly asinine assertion that Clinton's campaign statements (the kind of things Politifact looks at) should land her in jail? You are absurdly bad at this.

You seem to be living in some fantasy world where the only thing keeping Hillary drawing free breath is the "liberal media," as if the FBI determines whether to pursue criminal charges based on media reports.

 

[coldjoint]

What "stupid post" was that -- pointing out the flaw in your utterly asinine assertion that Clinton's campaign statements (the kind of things Politifact looks at) should land her in jail? You are absurdly bad at this.

You seem to be living in some fantasy world where the only thing keeping Hillary drawing free breath is the "liberal media," as if the FBI determines whether to pursue criminal charges based on media reports.

I asked why she wasn't in jail. I said nothing about her campaign statements putting her there, you did.

 

[coldjoint]

The ignorant rabble don't care, they want someone like Trump because he lets them be the hillbilly rednecks that they are.

Didn't Marie Antoinette say something similar to that? It is a fact she hadn't a clue what was going on around her.

 

[Kobie]

I asked why she wasn't in jail. I said nothing about her campaign statements putting her there, you did.

1. Thread is about Politifact checking Trump's campaign statements.
2. You asked when they were going to fact-check Hillary.
3. I stated that they already had.
4. You then asked why Hillary Clinton wasn't in jail, if she had been fact-checked by Politifact.

This is your embarrassing line of thinking.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Considering that if Hillary Clinton opens her mouth and speaks anything other than smarmy platitudes, chances are 100% she's lying. So that would make Trump the more honest of the two. That's pretty sad, actually.

 

[beefheart]

Didn't Marie Antoinette say something similar to that? It is a fact she hadn't a clue what was going on around her.

You constantly prove my point.

 

[Kobie]

Didn't Marie Antoinette say something similar to that? It is a fact she hadn't a clue what was going on around her.

Actually, it's pretty much accepted by actual historians that Marie Antoniette didn't say that.

 

[beefheart]

Actually, it's pretty much accepted by actual historians that Marie Antoniette didn't say that.

Yeah, but the Germans...bombing Pearl Harbor...OMG!

 

[Kobie]

Considering that if Hillary Clinton opens her mouth and speaks anything other than smarmy platitudes, chances are 100% she's lying. So that would make Trump the more honest of the two. That's pretty sad, actually.

Politifact's actual analysis appears to conflict with yours. Perhaps you should show us your research.

 

[code1211]

Politifact finds Clinton to have made 23% completely true statements to Trump's 2%. A politician is supposed to have an "agenda driven motivation." To run for office without one is just goofy.

What qualifies as "a completely true statement"?

If a swindler was bent on deceiving, it's unlikely that he could get down to the 2% level.

So let's see, 23% true vs 2%.

I wouldn't play golf with either of these inveterate liars.

In one case we can be sure that one is lying 77% of the time and the other 98% of the time according to Politifact.

Do these numbers recommend either one?

 

[Kobie]

Politifact finds Clinton to have made 23% completely true statements to Trump's 2%. A politician is supposed to have an "agenda driven motivation." To run for office without one is just goofy.

I'd prefer those numbers for the Democratic nominee to be higher than that.

 

[code1211]

Very disappointing......but we have no one other to blame but us

That's the truth!

I think the Framers assumed that the elections for president would be decided in the House.

When the two parties colluded to pass laws to assure that the parties would decide the outcomes, everything changed.

This is the outcome of the process that is in place. It is not beyond possibility that the Donald will be frozen out somehow and Hillary will be indicted. I guess it depends on what the FBI turns up and if the Lynch DoJ will do anything with their stuff.

We already have Hillary's declaration that there will be no trial on transgressions. She seemed pretty certain of that.

Donald seems pretty certain of everything he says.

Both lie most of the time. What a country!

 

[Cardinal]

I'd prefer those numbers for the Democratic nominee to be higher than that.

While 23% doesn't look great by much of any metric, I think one thing you have to keep in mind is that any politician is going to make large sweeping statements that are almost always going to have an exception or some nuance that chips into it in some way. Saying "X country's taxes are higher because President Lucifer raised them" may be true. But if the statement is said to suggest that President Lucifer's decision was to blame for the dire finances of a country, it may neglect the important back story that the only reason for the dire finances in the first place is because his predecessor President Beelzebub spent the country's money on coke and hookers. That's why the majority of a politician's statements tend end up getting thrown into the "mostly true" than the "true" category. Most people, even Republicans of all people, think of Bernie Sanders as a generally principled and honest guy, and the latter hate his policies. His "true" statements on Politifact? 14%.

So when you add up the true and mostly true statements, which is actually what I usually do, you get Trump with 9%, Clinton with 51% and Bernie with 52%, which all start to look a little more believable.

I think what's really interesting is the Pants on Fire rulings, the lies are so lie-y, that you can't even rebrand them as "mistaken." They're obviously made-up bull****. So then you've got Trump with 19%, Clinton with 1%, and Sanders with 0%.