The State Of American ‘Fact-Checking’ Is Completely Useless
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
If media wants to challenge the context and politics of Republican arguments, that’s their prerogative. There are plenty of legitimately misleading statements worthy of fact-checkers’ attention. Yet, with a veneer of impartiality, fact-checkers often engage in a uniquely dishonest style of partisanship. And State of Union coverage gave us an abundance of examples of how they do it:
Hyper-precision fact-checking that creates the impression that a Republican is misleading the public: For this, take Politico’s insinuation that Donald Trump was lying to the public about abuse of women at the border. During the State of the Union, Trump claimed “one in three women is sexually assaulted on the long journey north.” This contention is only “partly true,” according to Politico, because a “2017 report by Doctors Without Borders” found that only 31 percent of female migrants and 17 percent of male migrants said they had been actually abused while traveling through Mexico.
Whether Doctors Without Borders’ scary statistic is accurate or not, is one thing. Trump, however, was being called out for asserting that “one in every three” illegal immigrants has been abused attempting to cross the border rather than “33.333 percent of women”––probably a rounding error in the poll. It is almost surely the case that every past president and every politician has used “one-third” or “one-half” rather than a specific fraction, and walked away without being fact-checked.
Fact-checking subjective political assertions: The New York Times provided a masterclass in bad faith fact-checking by taking political contentions offered by the president and subjecting them to a supposed i mpartial test of accuracy. In his speech, Trump called the illegal border crossing “an urgent national crisis.” The New York Times says “this is false.” Why? Because illegal border crossing have been declining for two decades, they say. Customs and Border Protection agents, they go on to explain, had arrested around 50,000 people trying to illegally cross the southwestern border each of the last three months, which was only half of the arrests they had made in comparable months in the mid-2000s.
Even if those numbers correct, there is no way to factcheck urgency. After all, a lessening crisis doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t a pressing one. We’ve seen a steep decline in gun violence over the past 30 years. Would The New York Times ever “fact-check” a Democrat who argued that gun violence was an “urgent crisis” of public safety? Of course not. But this fluctuating standard allows journalists to “fact-check” any subjective political contention they desire.
If I claim that socialism is the greatest threat to American freedom and prosperity, I may well be right. I may have a lots of historical and economic evidence to back up my assertion. You can argue that I’m wrong. You can lay out statistics that attempt to prove me wrong. You can call me crazy. But you can’t produce an unbiased “fact-check” to establishing that my opinion is conclusively false. You’re just writing an op-ed piece.
Partisan talking point masquerading as a fact check: “FACT CHECK: President Trump praised the record number of women in Congress, but that’s almost entirely because of Democrats, not Trump’s party,” NPR tweeted, correcting the record on a statement that president never made.
Here’s what Trump said:
“And exactly one century after Congress passed the Constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote, we also have more women serving in Congress than at any time before. That’s great. Very great. And congratulations. That’s great.”
Trump was offering his rundown on the state of the union, not the Republican Party. It’s true that presidents take credit for all the good things that happen under their watch. Trump is no exception. In this rare case, however, Trump didn’t even take credit for electing the female politicians. In fact, he congratulated them after they broke out into cheers over his comment. Some people have argued that the NPR’s piece was providing context to the president’s comment. Perhaps. Still, their nitpicking created the impression that somehow Trump had misled the public. He did not.
Fact-checking meant to obscure actual facts: The Washington Post’ s fact-checking page offered a number of egregious examples of outright misinformation. In one of them, reporter Meg Kelly claimed that, “Abortion legislation in New York wouldn’t do what Trump said.” There are a number of words in her post intimating that Trump lied about the New York and Virginia late-term abortion bills, but none of her words debunk Trump’s core contention. Ramesh Ponnuru has a good rundown here.
Here’s what Trump said:
“Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth. These are living, feeling, beautiful, babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world. And then, we had the case of the governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth.”
As I’ve noted before, the biggest clue that you’re about to read a deceptive fact check on the abortion issue is an author mentioning that “only” few abortions of viable babies take place. “Indeed,” Kelly writes, “only 1.3 percent of abortions — or about 8,500 a year — take place at or after 21 weeks, according to 2014 data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Guttmacher Institute.” This number, as Ponnuru points out, is almost surely low. Whatever the case, Trump never claimed “most” abortions were post-20 weeks. Whether 8,500 or 15,000, thousands of viable babies are being aborted. No fact-checker would ever point out that only .0001 percent of legal gun owners commit crimes when talking about more firearm restrictions (and, yes, that’s an approximation).
And yes, the president bit of rhetorical flourish to say that babies can be “ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth” because, actually, they can be poisoned or dismembered in the mother’s womb moments before birth. Both the Virginia bill, which was tabled, and the New York law allow, just as Trump says (in his blunt language), for the termination of infants who survive the abortion procedure. Absolutely nothing in The Post’s “fact check” debunks the president’s contention that in New York, and elsewhere, abortion on demand until crowning (and after) is now legal as long as the woman and a doctor decide that the baby is stressful in some way to the mother. How often it happens is up for debate. What the bill says is inarguable.
Update : Factchecking a truthful statement by demanding that Trump highlight information that has absolutely nothing to do with his contention. As an astute reader points out this PBS fact-check of a Trump tweetfrom a couple of weeks ago. I’ve noticed this genre, as well. In it the president points out that a reputable Marist/NPR/PBS Poll had shown that his approval rating among Latinos had risen to 50 percent, an increase of 19 percent over a year’s time. After confirming that, yes, Trump had been precise in his assertion regarding their poll, PBS spends around 700 words taking Trump to task for failing to highlight other negative information in the poll. Will this be a new standard for all politicians?
The state of American fact-checking is dreadfully misleading. There’s no reason for conservatives to give its authors the deference they seek.
David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist.
Tags
Who is online
94 visitors
“Fact-checking subjective political assertions: The New York Times provided a masterclass in bad faith fact-checking by taking political contentions offered by the president and subjecting them to a supposed impartial test of accuracy. In his speech, Trump called the illegal border crossing “an urgent national crisis.” The New York Times says “this is false.” Why? Because illegal border crossing have been declining for two decades, they say. Customs and Border Protection agents, they go on to explain, had arrested around 50,000 people trying to illegally cross the southwestern border each of the last three months, which was only half of the arrests they had made in comparable months in the mid-2000s.
Even if those numbers correct, there is no way to factcheck urgency. After all, a lessening crisis doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t a pressing one. We’ve seen a steep decline in gun violence over the past 30 years. Would The New York Times ever “fact-check” a Democrat who argued that gun violence was an “urgent crisis” of public safety? Of course not. But this fluctuating standard allows journalists to “fact-check” any subjective political contention they desire.
If I claim that socialism is the greatest threat to American freedom and prosperity, I may well be right. I may have a lots of historical and economic evidence to back up my assertion. You can argue that I’m wrong. You can lay out statistics that attempt to prove me wrong. You can call me crazy. But you can’t produce an unbiased “fact-check” to establishing that my opinion is conclusively false. You’re just writing an op-ed piece.
Partisan talking point masquerading as a fact check: “FACT CHECK: President Trump praised the record number of women in Congress, but that’s almost entirely because of Democrats, not Trump’s party,” NPR tweeted, correcting the record on a statement that president never made.
Here’s what Trump said:
“And exactly one century after Congress passed the Constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote, we also have more women serving in Congress than at any time before. That’s great. Very great. And congratulations. That’s great.”
Trump was offering his rundown on the state of the union, not the Republican Party. It’s true that presidents take credit for all the good things that happen under their watch. Trump is no exception. In this rare case, however, Trump didn’t even take credit for electing the female politicians. In fact, he congratulated them after they broke out into cheers over his comment. Some people have argued that the NPR’s piece was providing context to the president’s comment. Perhaps. Still, their nitpicking created the impression that somehow Trump had misled the public. He did not.
Fact-checking meant to obscure actual facts: The Washington Post’s fact-checking page offered a number of egregious examples of outright misinformation. In one of them, reporter Meg Kelly claimed that, “Abortion legislation in New York wouldn’t do what Trump said.” There are a number of words in her post intimating that Trump lied about the New York and Virginia late-term abortion bills, but none of her words debunk Trump’s core contention. Ramesh Ponnuru has a good rundown here.
Here’s what Trump said:
“Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth. These are living, feeling, beautiful, babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world. And then, we had the case of the governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth.”
As I’ve noted before, the biggest clue that you’re about to read a deceptive fact check on the abortion issue is an author mentioning that “only” few abortions of viable babies take place. “Indeed,” Kelly writes, “only 1.3 percent of abortions — or about 8,500 a year — take place at or after 21 weeks, according to 2014 data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Guttmacher Institute.” This number, as Ponnuru points out, is almost surely low. Whatever the case, Trump never claimed “most” abortions were post-20 weeks. Whether 8,500 or 15,000, thousands of viable babies are being aborted. No fact-checker would ever point out that only .0001 percent of legal gun owners commit crimes when talking about more firearm restrictions (and, yes, that’s an approximation).
And yes, the president bit of rhetorical flourish to say that babies can be “ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth” because, actually, they can be poisoned or dismembered in the mother’s womb moments before birth.” http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/06/state-american-fact-checking-completely-useless/
Fact checking is useless?
Yes. On about 40% of the electorate.
The specter of Birtherism was permitted to breathe, even made it on the daily talk shows and general conversations with little pushback.
And then there is the effective measure of the 'alternative facts'. This is...………..expected. The Russians are here.
The Russians? Lol! We conservatives or your 40% are at total war with all msm fact Checkers and have no respect for them or anything they have to say. We have nothing but sheer and total contempt for them all from SPLC to snopes to Politifact and the others.
Alternative facts=the death of freedom and democracy. Conservatism is dead. It has become the American Quislings.
What you're at war with is reality and facts. You hate fact checkers because they point out that your idol lies constantly.
Please stop with all your Russia and Putin trolling about Americans who are conservatives on my seeds. It’s just ridiculous.
[Deleted] It is conservatives who are well grounded in reality. [Deleted]
It is not trolling. It is not ridiculous. Follow the money. Trump is a fraud. A broke arse fraud.
The Americans in the orb of the Trump are Quislings.
Hell, Maria Butina, the one little Russian redhead, suckered and burnt the NRA. L O effen L.
So, you are saying that Bill and Hillary Clinton colluded with multiple governments throughout the world by first accepting money from the Chinese in the 1990s as proven by the conviction of Charlie Trie then through all of the money donated to the Clinton Foundation and Global Initiatives while Hillary was Secretary of State and US Senator from NY?
Meh. Maybe.
No...it's definitely ridiculous.
Indeed....
In other words, you support the effort by the media to fudge any fact just to contradict the President.
That sums things up just right. Well said.
Uh no. Those contradictions would be yours.
No, Vic is the one who is correct here.
Name one 'fudged fact'.
Just one.
Well, aside from the highlighted one in this article, which you are obviously ignoring, there are the facts that the media want to add to. For example, the President made a general statement as follows: “More people are working now than at any time in our history.” to which the New York Times rated as misleading! The reason? Because the Times didn't feel that Trump was responsible for it:
That is a fudge of facts.
Have a good one
Well, he wasn't but, we could debate that all day, I would say that what we need to do is watch what happens in the coming year, economists say that we will be in another recession before the next election, let's find out.
A lot of plant closings. Especially here in Ohio. Our population is also larger than ever. These considerations must be weighed honestly and fairly.
Sears going under and other businesses large and small. The Carrier thing has turned out to be a bust. The list continues. Ignore it. " I don't really care---do you?"
He never claimed he was! The statement stands as TRUE!
Fact checking is useless when it comes to Trump supporters. They eat his lies up like they were candy. I don't need FC to know that Trump is a lying sos, using made up data to fear monger.
Trump is positive and speaks well of America and the common American citizens. He is positive and optimistic about our future, our national self confidence, our religious liberty, and our role in the world. In energy, employment, the economy, and our security he has made America great Again and we are going to Keep her that way.
Fact checking is only useless to his base as they eat his lies like candy. But for the rest of us, we want to know the truth.
The so called fact checkers used by the msm has no clue as to what the truth is. They ally with the msm to spin tall tales and lies while the real truth is with the new alternative media. Fact checker sites are nothing but lackeys and lying shills for the msm to protect their competitive status from the challenges of the real new media. They have a vested interest in how they rate the various media and one of them is the worst of them all.
Trump was right.
Northam said no such thing.
Neither did Governor Cuomo.
The bill would have removed/eased restrictions for getting a late term abortion.
Getting clearance from 1 doctor is much easier than 3. IMO there should have been at least a second opinion required when terminating a pregnancy that late. Asking for 3 is a bit much.
Again, easing restrictions and broadening what is allowed for a late term abortion. I have not read the bill; so I do not know what the bill would have allowed. A missing limb, or even limbs, as Northam described is not a life threatening condition in most cases; but could be taken as a severe deformity.
Northam is a mighty mental midget that is indefensible. His description of a late term abortion is what did this. The fact that people are still trying to twist his words around to make them acceptable is laughable.
Much ado about nothing.
Bill failed.
Everything else is just emotional conjecture.
Apparently Northem was a pediatric surgeon ( like Ben Carson ) and he doesn't speak in laymens terms very well.
Debate about a proposed bill is supposed to happen BEFORE the vote, but partisan and religious issues have a way of clinging to the 'front page' of the news for many cycles.
It's the height of hypocrisy to decry people who 'twist his words around to make them acceptable' while proceeding to make a false claim of what Northam described in order to bolster your argument.
Northam was not anywhere near as accomplished as Ben Carson in that field. Ben Carson would never have done or said what Northam did.
All of the words Trump spoke were acceptable and true. The nit picking over minor rounding of numbers and trying to make the president imply words he never spoke shows the editorial opinion of the so called fact checker to produce what ever meets their prejudices. There is nothing legitimate that so called msm Fact Checkers do.
I never said he was, military docs tend to be more well rounded though than pure specialists.
That's pure conjecture on your part, but I am willing to conject that Northam doesn't believe the Great Pyramids of Egypt were built by Joseph to store grain, either.
Yes we know how you FEEL Donald Trump's #1 Fan or whatever your name is today.
Keep America Great!
Keep Neo-nationalist Delusional.
I will say IMO that's much better than Make America great.
Because IMO: We have always been great, So demeaning that to me is lets say, irritating.
Like when Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton used that phrase? We switched from Make America Great Again to Keep America Great! because MAGA is mission accomplished!
So maybe the third time will be a charm ?
Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
donald trump
.................
Time will tell, I wont be holding my breath.
In my opinion America has always been great and as long as this country is of the people by the people it will be.
Now that trump has Made America Great Again He can say Keep America Great,... LOL + a sarc
So sorry still seeing a problem here. I never thought we weren't great. Of the people by the people not one man running the show no matter how much easier it makes running the government of the people by the people.
446 verse 1
I'll keep it great just the way its been for 243 years thank you very much.
playing in a derogatory manner with another members screen name here is against the COH.
New York Governor Cuomo believes that America was never that great and said so out loud. A feeling typical and widespread on the secular progressive left.
Luckily KAG, I dont buy into much variation of the middle. I dont even follow Any radicals of either side and there are plenty of them to follow on both sides if anyone chooses to.
I see some positive and some negative in both sides that why I still believe in cooperation and compromise. It's how the country is set up to be.
Speaking of the CoC:
Members should refrain from disciplining other members. If someone is violating the CoC, members should make no comment but rather use the flagging system to report it to the moderators.
Is that what you are doing now?
Actually NO, Xx.
Any disciplining you may read into that statement is from the CoC, not me.
Are you like auditioning to join the liberal Gang of Four in that role?
Who would they be and what 'role' are you blathering about Xx?
Actually I didn’t discipline anyone either. I simply reminded to follow common basic courtesy toward other members. Nothing more nothing less so since this was an A&B conversation, kindly C your way out of it.
FALSE. THAT is against one of the Commandments...
You know that everyone can see what you said right Xx?
Since this is about fact checking the SOTU, feel free to talk about it relating to any aspect of last nights SOTU. https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/full-text-president-trumps-2019-state-union-address-020849675.html
President Trump praised the record number of women in Congress, but that’s almost entirely because of Democrats, not Trump’s party,” NPR tweeted , correcting the record on a statement that president never made.
This is “fact checking” in a nutshell. It’s just editorial masked as objective reporting.
Exactly and they all do that including the one that is the worshipped holy grail here. They are the worst and admit that there is nothing scientific about their methods and methodology of their designations. Politifact and snopes are just about as biased and bigoted.
Given his pathetic record for truthfulness, a lie detector should be permanently strapped to Trump's head and kept turned on all the time he is speaking.
Fact-checking is one of the worst things that has happened to modern journalism. I've been saying it for a long time.
Fact-checking is supposed to be part of the ordinary job of journalists. In 2009, the White House press corps became the White House stenographers pool, dutifully repeating uncritically whatever the White House told them.
Self-proclaimed fact checkers meanwhile split absurd hairs and fact check opinion, then publish their own opinion and declare it to be fact.
Everything you said is the truth about those slime balls. The fact checkers are worse that useless. The media did become apologists for the Obama regime. Now with the change of administration the old media now labels as propaganda any new media that Treats Trump with any respect at all. Your last paragraph was perfect and accurately describes the holy grail here in every way.
I beg to differ. I'm old enough to remember Judy Miller of the NYT and her acting as a stenographer and an enabler of the Bush Administration.
'Fact-checker' like the 9/11 Commission, made it clear that Judy Miller and other 'journalists' were used by Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rice to fearmonger.
There is nothing that prohibits fact-checkers being fact-checked. Make the case, cite the facts and win the argument. Fact=checkers are here to stay and as long as Trump keeps spewing lies prolifically, we need them to help keep up with the deluge.
The State of the Union address is not a good example of that.
ONE lie in the SOTU is ONE too many.
The state of the union was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. That last part some democrats tried to remove from their oaths.
One lie is one more than there actually were in that speech.
For example?
One, huh? ok . . .
“I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.”
From what I'm reading in the seed and the comments is that things that 'lack context' are just fine with y'all. We're talking about outright lies here. Are you claiming that Obama didn't exclude any lobbyists from working in his Administration?
I repeat:
Trump lied.
How is that a lie? Please explain how you are stating that the statement you quoted there is a lie.
Trump set the lowest cap on refugee admissions in the history of the program and he said that he want's Congress to totally eliminate the diversity visa program.
So either he was lying then or he's lying now...
That’s absolutely true. We want the number of legal immigration to increase a lot. But we want the number coming here illegally to be as humanly close to zero as possible.
You make that claim based on what Xx? If sure as hell isn't based on the FACTs or the actions actually taken by Trump.
Yet you oh so conveniently left out the increase he wants in immigration that suits and meets America’s needs from people from countries all over the world that would be to our economic benefit.
Trump has been in office over 2 years Xx. WTF has he DONE? Hell, he hasn't even made a written proposal. Nothing NADA.
Oh and BTFW Xx, since Trump wants to eliminate 'chain migration' too, how many of those who 'meet America's needs' are going to leave their family FOREVER?
KAG One of the thoughts that I have about immigration is what about the people that we actually had a part in making their lives so miserable and or deady that they want to escape that place, even if it mean s actually coming here to do so ?
What about them, some of the people who end up at our border are in different ways accidental victims of us.
Cartels illegal activities are fueled by US dollars, cartels want control over an area to do their illegal deeds, they fight each other for these places making anyone else in the place miserable, open to unspeakable criminal shit on the most valuable in the masses. A violent lawlessness.
PS: AS we both probably understand most of the illegal Stuff actually has been coming thru checkpoints somewhere somehow anyway, the refugees are not the main suppliers by a long shot if at all.
And as I said some of them are round about victims of our society it self .
So WTF do we do ? Abandon them ?
If so IMO: That SUCKS !
And IMO is not a step toward Greatness.
We won’t propose or promote any thing at all on the liberalization of immigration policy or dealing with DACA or make the illegals here now feel safe from deportation raids or anything else until we secure the border with more barriers and high fencing augmented by drones, sensors, and more border patrol agents and immigration judges. No wall nothing else either.
Not everyone who comes to America is a refugee, nor should they be the only ones to come here.
it is QUITE possible to want fewer refugees and more immigrants at the same time.
You made the same claim about reopening the government. Apparently you're not in charge after all.
I hope the House and Senate do their damn jobs and come up with something where they both compromise and come up with something that Trump can't veto, before the 15th.
Thank you for stating the obvious. I have addressed three other forms of immigration in my comments.
Yet it would require that the Administration document HOW they intend to accomplish that feat. We KNOW what they DON'T want. Perhaps you can point to any documentation from the Administration that states what they DO want.
Then you shouldn't assume that because some want fewer refugees that it means they want fewer immigrants
Then you shouldn't assume that I assumed that.
In FACT, my comment refutes your assumption since it address BOTH refugees AND diversity visas. In another comment I also addressed Trump's desire to eliminate 'Chain immigration'.
Now, do you have any documentation of HOW Trump intends to promote MORE legal immigration while still opposing those three forms of legal immigration?
The fact that some types of people are not being as welcomed as before does not mean that Trump wants a reduction in all immigration, no matter how you now spin it.
Trump absolutely and categorically did not in any way lie in his very well received state of the union address.
Please refrain from attempting to put words in my mouth.
I NEVER stated that 'Trump wants a reduction in all immigration'.
I dismiss your strawman.
Secondly, the issue isn't 'some types of people' [which is a quite telling phrase], the issue is the entire elimination of long standing LEGAL immigration programs.
You stated:
Yet after being asked to support that assertion, you've failed to do so. You've also failed to provide any evidence that Trump has made any policy proposals that would allow MORE immigrants to come here.
Please proceed.
Didn't need to do that. I read your posts, and others can, too.
The rest of your post doesn't warrant my consideration.
Yet you did.
Yes, others can clearly see that 'I NEVER stated that 'Trump wants a reduction in all immigration'.
Of course not. It would you require you to support your claim, which obviously you're incapable of doing cogently.
Adulting is harder for some than for others.
Your proclamations are irrelevant Xx.
I did not.
The rest of your post is once again not worthy of consideration.
But, hey, good try!
That you think that is proof positive of how relevant my posts and words really are.
Sycophancy is rarely relevant.
Okay, the refugee program is not about legal immigration it is about temporary visas to allow people to come to the USA to get away from oppressors. IT is one of the reasons why a large number of people have overstayed their visas and have become illegal immigrants. One of your arguments against the wall has been the fact that, you have claimed, 80% of illegal immigrants overstayed their visas.
The diversity visa program is about artificially boosting immigration from countries that we don't get many immigrants from. That program would be best be eliminated as it takes away visas from countries that we get a much larger number of immigrants from and therefore would allow more people from say Guatemala to apply for legal immigrant status than currently due to say someone from Aruba getting a diversity visa set aside for them even though they may not want to emigrate to the USA.
So, you think it is okay to automatically approve every single cousin as well as parents, siblings, children, and spouse of an immigrant? Because, that is essentially what chain migration is, since there is no real limit on the number of family members or how closely related they have to be. Heck, you have had the courts strike down limits on how closely related a person has to be before being allowed in to include grandparents as well as parents, siblings, children, and spouse. Frankly, I would like the people allowed automatic visas to be limited to spouse and children as that is the immediate family living in a single household in the USA for the most part.
Not okay. Refugees don't get visas. Sheesh, where do you get this stuff?
Really tom. When did I say 80%? Please post a link.
Guatemala is a DV country.
Since allegedly Trump wants MORE legal immigration, instead of eliminating ANY immigration programs, why not remove the caps set on ALL legal immigration? Why not eliminate the DV lottery and open it up to whoever qualifies?
WTF is it with the strawmen being thrown around lately? Where did I even infer that tom?
FALSE.
Here READ some FACTS for a change:
So Melania shouldn't have been able to sponsor her parents. Got ya.
Mores the pity.
Refugees are here temporarily, or at least that is what is supposed to be the case.
I didn't look up the DV countries, I was comparing a country with a lot of people coming up here including some members of my extended family versus a country which I know we don't get very many immigrants from.
That is what he wants to do.
Seriously tom, do you never tire of being wrong?
Judging from your unfounded proclamations tom, you rare look up anything.
No tom. Trump wants to eliminate the DV program in it's entirety. I say eliminate the lottery part of it and take everyone who qualifies. Get it yet?
When Donald Trump isn't lying, he's speaking in useless generic hyperbole. His call for bipartisanship was as phony as his orange tan. I will admit he stuck the the script that was written for him and that pleased many conservatives. It was a disguised proffered hand while the other hand was used to stab his opponents in the back. I'm sure Putin enjoyed Trumps performance as much as the white nationalists in America did.
While I fully expected the fact checkers to come out immediately after the State of the Union as they did, I didn't need them to know Trump was lying at least half the time or taking credit for things that he had nothing to do with, he simply inherited (which is the true story of his life, utter failure but for the inheritance).
FACT CHECKERS......Pfffffft !
"Don't Believe the Liberal "Fact-Checkers"!
"More and more, major news outlets are relying on “fact checkers” to, allegedly, ensure that the news is factual, sources are reliable, and statements are accurate."
" In theory, this is admirable. In practice, it has proven to be simply another opportunity for the media to push their leftist agenda."
"Voters Don’t Trust Media Fact-Checking"
"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 29% of all Likely U.S. Voters trust media fact-checking of candidates’ comments. Sixty-two percent (62%) believe instead that news organizations skew the facts to help candidates they support."
Biggest problem as I see it is, The media goes all a flutter about all the Great Fact Checkers on their payrolls, yet they still get so much wrong in most of their "News?" reporting.
It's a Good thing they have Fact Checkers before going to print (just a few):
"ABC News had to correct a report indicating that Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn acted on Donald Trump’s instructions in allegedly violating the Logan Act under instruction by Donald Trump."
"A CNN story wrongly tying Anthony Scaramucci to a Russian investment fund was retracted."
"The Washington Post published a story in December focusing on a 7-year-old migrant child from Guatemala who died in border patrol custody. Despite WaPo’s misleading headline suggesting border patrol was to blame for the girl’s death, the full timeline of events and statements from the girl’s father praising border agents revealed a different story."
"The New York Times initially tied U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley to expensive curtains hanging in the ambassador’s apartment in New York, writing, “Nikki Haley’s View of New York Is Priceless. Her Curtains? $52,701. However, NYT’s own article later admitted that the curtains were approved in 2016 and that Haley had no say in the matter."
"CNN’s Jim Sciutto, MSNBC’s Katy Tur, and MSNBC’s Ari Melber were all responsible for falsely claiming that Never-Trump Republicans were responsible for initial funding of the salacious Steele dossier.
Washington Free Beacon founder Paul Singer did pay Fusion GPS for standard opposition research, however, he stopped paying Fusion GPS well before they contracted Christopher Steele to create the dossier. That research was paid for solely by the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
This falsehood has been shared so many times that even former FBI director James Comey has repeated it."
"MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow opened a show in July by insisting that the Trump administration edited a tape of the president’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on July 16 in Helsinki.
The Washington Post’s Phillip Bump pointed out that the error was made by reporters too and was due to a change “between the feed from the reporters and the feed from the translator.”
"The Associated Press published a report in June about abuse of child immigrants in the U.S., but did its best to bury the fact that the abuse primarily occurred under the Obama administration.
As this reporter noted at the time, “The article mentions President Donald Trump and his administration’s zero-tolerance policy at least four times in the first ten paragraphs, leaving the implicit suggestion that the Trump administration is responsible for the alleged abuse.”
The AP sneakily admitted in the 20th paragraph that the alleged abuse began in 2016 — during the Obama administration — but never bothered to mention Obama’s name in connection with the report."
Thanks for your fine and accurate contribution to my seed. It is right on about what it says about the fraud that is lamestream media fact checking. There is nothing legitimate or honorable about any of them or those who become their mouth pieces.
When the media uses "Checkers' to Check their own stuff, and still get it wrong....you know something is WRONG !
[deleted]
There is nothing right about msm Fact Checkers. They exist to promote old media and belittle and or censor new and alternative media. They are the enemy of free speech.
And your list is only the tip of the left wing media's Hate Trump campaign.
Remember when MSM speculated that Barron Trump had some kind of mental problem because he didn't smile very much? Imagine if anyone said that about Sasha Obama, who also didn't smile much at the same age.
Remember the lies about Melania? Here's only one example of many ...
And to think that the left considers Media Bias/Fact Check to be a reliable resource is hilarious!
I laugh when I see it put out there as the ONLY "Truthful Fact".
I think we need "Fact Checkers" to check the "Fact Checkers", and then, "Fact Checkers" to check those "Fact Checkers" too !
It's a job creator dontchyknow !
That is the biggest joke of a site on the whole internet, most definitely a questionable propaganda source, most biased of all.
From what I've been told, MB/FC is the only fact check source we're allowed to use.
🤬
Gosh how convenant, we certainly have a president who has even said words to him dont matter much its deeds that count, now we cant trust the media either ?
O well I guess we start guessing WTF is going on in the reality we exist in now.
That's pretty scary.
The scariest thing of all seems to be the never ending obsession with all things Trump since he won the 2016 election over their objections. Watching the weeping and lamentations of the never Trump crowd is in itself a great form of entertainment. The next showing of TDS commences in 5-4-3-2-1-.......
Its kind of to be expected though, trump himself is a obsessive personality, BIG, exaggerated, exotic, larger than life, unpredictable, grandiose, a genuine one man show. (you know me, you know I could add much more to my list, I won't)
Many people do not like those kinds of behaviour either in a personality type or now as the leader of the free world. ( I agree)
From what I remember KAG we had much obsesion and obstruction against the last president as well, and he was low key compared to trump.
KAG...trump Could be a decent president, but he certainly needs to make some BIG personal changes first. ( quite a few actually)
that's my opinion
A person that lacks decency can never be decent. Never.
I must disagree. I've seen it happen. People really can change.
People can change. Ebenezer Scrooge did. But not the Trump. His soul is foul. His heart is selfish. His mind is closed. He is consumed of himself. He is not a decent man.
He is also not dead or done living his life. Stranger things have happened. The responsibility of the president can do strange things to men.
I do agree even if he did decide to change I dont know if he could. But I also dont know that he couldn't.
Stranger things have happened. This a-hole won the election...lol
Is that why Obama never has been, isn’t, and never will be a decent human being?
Interesting that that is what was known to be the case for Obama and both Clintons.
Sure. Fire and flames. Smoke and water. The MAGA has risen.
More meaningless nit picking over next to nothing and people wonder why we have such sheer and utter contempt for all such so called fact checkers and those who rely on them as msm tools to prevent media competition.
So Trump lies thousands of times but his supporters don't care about that, they want to attack those reporting on the lies and claim it's "meaningless nitpicking" because they don't actually have a defense for the lies. They can only downplay them and dismiss them as unimportant.
“One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much." Luke 16:10
Not sure why I bother reminding supposed Christians of their own Gods words, it obviously just falls on deaf ears. It's really quite astonishing that so many Christians have embraced this liar even though they've been told over and over how their God views lying.
"44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44
That all sounds like Barack Obama the prince of darkness. In the series The Bible, The Satan tempting Jesus was of an appearance much like lord Barry.
[Removed]
Meaningless?
The President misquotes Cuomo & Northam and you applaud him.
(You misquote Virginia law and NY law and others applaud you)
The President claims the highest percentage of women in the workplace which can easily be proven wrong,
and you say it is nit picking?
Best remove the plank from thine eyes brother, before it is to late to save your own soul.
Objective reasoning is not one of your strengths, apparently.
Wtf? What "appearance"? Black? Go ahead and keep lying to yourself, what's one more lie when you've stacked up so many defending the indefensible? Trumps multitude of lies both big and small tell us exactly who he is, only the willfully blind refuse to see it because they simply don't want to. No one can just wish themselves smart, so no matter how much conservative Trump supporters want to imagine they know better for America, they will continue to flail and fail as they have always done. The swine roll in the mud of ignorance and are angry no ones been throwing their pearls before them.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Well in that movie Jesus was of the appearance much like Billy Ray Cyrus and about as far from accepted reality as you can get.
Fact checking Donald Trump isn’t useless, it’s just a pointless waste of time. It’s ALL lies.
I agree that the fact checkers checking Trump are all lies. They are a complete waste of time.
I agree with the every thinking person on this site about what your clear and obvious motivations are.
So you agree with KAG'S positions! Who would have guessed?
Of course he does. You and I and our friends here are the every thinking person on the site that he mentions.
[deleted]