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

[Cardinal]

A lot depends on what the lies are and what they are intended to lead the listener to believe.

For 13 hours, dedicated patriots fought for their lives got no help whatever. Our leaders left them behind.

Later Hillary, one of these leaders, told the families that the video was the reason that a peaceful demonstration turned violent.

Later still, Obama, another of these leaders, said that we don't leave people behind as he traded numerous terrorists to gain the release of one deserter.

Both have said or had their reps say that the situation was changing on an hourly basis and that is why they talked on every side of the issue saying alternately (in private and in public and depending on the audience) different things.

Some lies are just off the cuff jokes or misstatements and others are conspiratorial policy decisions orchestrated to deceive and mislead.

Are you trying to do start a "lie-off," where you say a lie Hillary has told, then I tell a lie Trump has told, and we go back and forth until we have a winner? We could do that, and you'd lose. Really badly.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Trump's greatest accomplishment this election season is beinf able to successfully convince his base that he's not a politician.

And yet he exemplifies everything bad in a politician adding personal boasting, bigotry and belligerence to the mix, creating a dangerous hate cocktail

 

[Fearandloathing]

You sound as if you don't believe you have the ability to tell when someone is lying to you.

No, I think it had to do with the cheap shot at Liberals.

John, I think you're going to just have to accept we're back in power as Canada's Natural Governing Party. And we're going to have fun running up a $30 billion deficit.

I know I like it, my pension is going up next month.

 

[Fearandloathing]

A lot depends on what the lies are and what they are intended to lead the listener to believe.

For 13 hours, dedicated patriots fought for their lives got no help whatever. Our leaders left them behind.

Later Hillary, one of these leaders, told the families that the video was the reason that a peaceful demonstration turned violent.

Later still, Obama, another of these leaders, said that we don't leave people behind as he traded numerous terrorists to gain the release of one deserter.

Both have said or had their reps say that the situation was changing on an hourly basis and that is why they talked on every side of the issue saying alternately (in private and in public and depending on the audience) different things.

Some lies are just off the cuff jokes or misstatements and others are conspiratorial policy decisions orchestrated to deceive and mislead.

And sometimes there are deliberate attempts to arouse a citizenry, or call out the credibility of a federal judge. Just because Obama and Hillary lied, doesn't mean Trump gets a pass.

I can't believe how stupid is that argument. Obamabots used it against Bush: "Bush did it too", now Trumps lemmings are doing the same thing. No wonder America is going in the toilet, you're accepting lower and lower standards with each new lying asshole who comes along.

 

[code1211]

Are you trying to do start a "lie-off," where you say a lie Hillary has told, then I tell a lie Trump has told, and we go back and forth until we have a winner? We could do that, and you'd lose. Really badly.

No.

I'm trying to demonstrate that Hillary has a record of lying about national security issues to advance a political party and the fortunes of the people within it.

The magnitude of the damage done to anyone is vastly greater when Hillary lies in the situations in which she lies and on the topics on which she lies than is the damage of Trump bloviating.

She and her former boss are more than willing to sail the republic down the drain to advance the fortunes of the party.

This does not excuse her obvious incompetence and lack of judgement demonstrated by her actions in official situations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSooz2wXpes

 

[Casper]

A lot depends on what the lies are and what they are intended to lead the listener to believe.

For 13 hours, dedicated patriots fought for their lives got no help whatever. Our leaders left them behind.

Later Hillary, one of these leaders, told the families that the video was the reason that a peaceful demonstration turned violent.

Later still, Obama, another of these leaders, said that we don't leave people behind as he traded numerous terrorists to gain the release of one deserter.

Both have said or had their reps say that the situation was changing on an hourly basis and that is why they talked on every side of the issue saying alternately (in private and in public and depending on the audience) different things.

Some lies are just off the cuff jokes or misstatements and others are conspiratorial policy decisions orchestrated to deceive and mislead.

True, like a life long Democrat claiming they are all of a sudden now a Republican and actually fooling enough fools into giving them the GOP nomination for the Whitehouse run. Sadly Most American know he is a liar but enough Cons simply want to ignore the facts and truth.

 

[imyoda]

Trump supporters aren't uninformed,they're misinformed!

:lol:

Can you provide something to back up you claim

 

[Cardinal]

No.

I'm trying to demonstrate that Hillary has a record of lying about national security issues to advance a political party and the fortunes of the people within it.

The magnitude of the damage done to anyone is vastly greater when Hillary lies in the situations in which she lies and on the topics on which she lies than is the damage of Trump bloviating.

She and her former boss are more than willing to sail the republic down the drain to advance the fortunes of the party.

This does not excuse her obvious incompetence and lack of judgement demonstrated by her actions in official situations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSooz2wXpes

Okay, I'll be voting for Clinton over the guy who lies 91% of the time.

 

[shrubnose]

Can you provide something to back up you cla

im

Plenty of proof has already been provided by his supporter's comments which are all over this forum and the rest of the internet.

 

[imyoda]

Plenty of proof has already been provided by his supporter's comments which are all over this forum and the rest of the internet.

Thank you for your sharing

 

[BWWzfc]

Your "contributions" to the thread have the nutritional value of hot dog feces.

Hot dogs have feces?

:shock:

 

[Kobie]

Hot dogs have feces?

:shock:

Ever eaten one?

 

[BWWzfc]

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.

More importantly, PolitiFact just isn't very good at fact-checking. And publishing these graphs without informing/reminding people that the selection bias makes the graphs more-or-less meaningless (we can count them as useful in exercising confirmation bias) makes PolitiFact about as honest as a political campaign commercial.

Who has bothered to look at PolitiFact's definitions for its "Truth-O-Meter" ratings? The system was hopelessly subjective even before giving the responsibility for fact-checking to a bunch of left-leaning journalists.

PolitiFact Bias

Thanks!

 

[BWWzfc]

Have you bothered to read the item you claim justifies/confirms/proves PolitiFact has liberal bias....

Where did he make that claim, and what are you talking about?

.....IMO the good fellow who put this site together seems to be a biased RW extremist or someone in need of some sort of mental health intervention.....

What "this site" are you talking about, please? And are you a mental health professional?

.....and is someone best described as seeing the boogieman just around the corner.......

What evidence might back your opinion?

Now you may judge my assessment as biased/harsh/overstated........

But read the few cherry-picked examples that proves PolitiFact's bias........

Could you provide an example of the "cherry-picked examples" that prove PolitiFact's bias?

all are breathtakingly illogical and dishonest..........

It's always wonderful when somebody publishes an opinion like that with no specific evidence in support. Cherry-pick your best example of a "breathtakingly illogical and dishonest" "cherry-picked" proof of PolitiFact's bias. Please.

But let's assume the 4-5 items are accurate.........

Four or five items does not make for the claim/proof of liberal bias.........

Obviously somebody said otherwise, for you're certainly above attacking a straw man. It will be easy for you to provide an appropriate quotation. Please?

So lets drop the argument PolitiFact is bias and therefore all they claim is not truth BS excuse as an argument..........

And deal with each item checking if the facts used are accurate........

The OP was based largely on PolitiFact statistics for its ratings. Do you consider the ratings "facts"? How about when you realize that the difference between a "False" rating and a "Pants on Fire" rating is that the latter is false and "ridiculous" while the former is merely false? Have you ever thought about how one would objectively measure whether something is "ridiculous"?

 

[code1211]

[/B]
True, like a life long Democrat claiming they are all of a sudden now a Republican and actually fooling enough fools into giving them the GOP nomination for the Whitehouse run. Sadly Most American know he is a liar but enough Cons simply want to ignore the facts and truth.

He is a new politician, but a politician nonetheless.

When he he has more experience, he might be as good at lying as is Hillary.

You will need to give him a little time, though.

It seems appropriate that we are once again faced with a very familiar choice for our next president:

A Liberal from New York and Hillary.

The only real difference between the two is that the Donald has not proven that he can be successful in international political affairs. Hillary has proven she is no match for the international folks.

Are we to chose a guy who is unproven or a gal that is a proven failure? What a choice!

 

[code1211]

Okay, I'll be voting for Clinton over the guy who lies 91% of the time.

Her unblemished record of failure proves beyond any doubt her abilities.

I wonder how many more countries Putin will annex and how many more countries will be destabilized and reduced to mob rule under Hillary. Those are pretty much her signature accomplishments.

I guess the only sure way to find out how many more countries can be destroyed is to put her in charge. Is it possible that she can double the National Debt again in the fashion of both or her predecessors?

I guess we'll find out.

 

[imyoda]

Where did he make that claim, and what are you talking about?



What "this site" are you talking about, please? And are you a mental health professional?



What evidence might back your opinion?



Could you provide an example of the "cherry-picked examples" that prove PolitiFact's bias?



It's always wonderful when somebody publishes an opinion like that with no specific evidence in support. Cherry-pick your best example of a "breathtakingly illogical and dishonest" "cherry-picked" proof of PolitiFact's bias. Please.



Obviously somebody said otherwise, for you're certainly above attacking a straw man. It will be easy for you to provide an appropriate quotation. Please?



The OP was based largely on PolitiFact statistics for its ratings. Do you consider the ratings "facts"? How about when you realize that the difference between a "False" rating and a "Pants on Fire" rating is that the latter is false and "ridiculous" while the former is merely false? Have you ever thought about how one would objectively measure whether something is "ridiculous"?

Thanks for your sharing.........

BTW

Why do folks seem to ask questions they can/should answer for themselves?

The Principles of PolitiFact, PunditFact and the Truth-O-Meter | PolitiFact

 

[Casper]

He is a new politician, but a politician nonetheless.

When he he has more experience, he might be as good at lying as is Hillary.

You will need to give him a little time, though.

It seems appropriate that we are once again faced with a very familiar choice for our next president:

A Liberal from New York and Hillary.

The only real difference between the two is that the Donald has not proven that he can be successful in international political affairs. Hillary has proven she is no match for the international folks.

Are we to chose a guy who is unproven or a gal that is a proven failure? What a choice!

There is not good choice here. Let me put it this way, would you hire someone that has never worked in your industry to run you company? I sure am not willing to give Trump his try by starting out as CEO, run for a lower office so we can see your so called talents before getting the keys to the kingdom. Hillary has not shown she is anywhere near as talented as her husband and probably would be every bit as inept as her predecessor and I sure has heck have to plan on helping her get the keys either. I have always been able to at least to have a choice between the lessor of two evils, for the first time there is only one choice None of the Above.

 

[code1211]

There is not good choice here. Let me put it this way, would you hire someone that has never worked in your industry to run you company? I sure am not willing to give Trump his try by starting out as CEO, run for a lower office so we can see your so called talents before getting the keys to the kingdom. Hillary has not shown she is anywhere near as talented as her husband and probably would be every bit as inept as her predecessor and I sure has heck have to plan on helping her get the keys either. I have always been able to at least to have a choice between the lessor of two evils, for the first time there is only one choice None of the Above.

I don't know that you're seeing this correctly.

Trump has been a very successful executive.

Where I work, the company hired a new boss who had never worked in our industry. He had very definite ideas about achieving his budget which he is doing quite handily and has since day 1. He did not really understand the mechanics of customer retention as it applies in our little world, but he learned after a couple missteps and now is very adept at it.

What he was excellent at doing was communicating, creating a vision and empowering his team as a group and as individuals. He is also a quick learner and a realist.

I've been in the business for decades and he is about as good an executive as I've ever worked for. The results he's achieving are spectacular. He has no experience in the business, but he knows people and can smell BS a mile off.

I would rather we get an experienced chief executive who can build a good team than an inveterate liar who sees the government as a weapon to be wielded against party opposition.

At least Trump sees the enemy as the people trying to attack our country. Hillary, like Obama, recognizes only Republicans as enemies. Everyone else, foreign or domestic, is only one pay-off from the inner circle.

 

[Casper]

I don't know that you're seeing this correctly.

Trump has been a very successful executive.

Where I work, the company hired a new boss who had never worked in our industry. He had very definite ideas about achieving his budget which he is doing quite handily and has since day 1. He did not really understand the mechanics of customer retention as it applies in our little world, but he learned after a couple missteps and now is very adept at it.

What he was excellent at doing was communicating, creating a vision and empowering his team as a group and as individuals. He is also a quick learner and a realist.

I've been in the business for decades and he is about as good an executive as I've ever worked for. The results he's achieving are spectacular. He has no experience in the business, but he knows people and can smell BS a mile off.

I would rather we get an experienced chief executive who can build a good team than an inveterate liar who sees the government as a weapon to be wielded against party opposition.

At least Trump sees the enemy as the people trying to attack our country. Hillary, like Obama, recognizes only Republicans as enemies. Everyone else, foreign or domestic, is only one pay-off from the inner circle.

You actually believe that, don't ya, oh well.

 

[code1211]

You actually believe that, don't ya, oh well.

Are addressing a particular point? There were 7 separate and distinct points in the post and one of those had several sub points.

 

[Casper]

Are addressing a particular point? There were 7 separate and distinct points in the post and one of those had several sub points.

All of them.

 

[code1211]

All of them.

So, do you have cogent thoughts describing how you feel about "all of them"?

 

[Casper]

So, do you have cogent thoughts describing how you feel about "all of them"?

In a word they are Nonsense.

 

[Carleen]

When are they going to fact check Hillary?

So why don't conservatives set up their own fact check if they think it is biased, huh?