Anyone keep track of how many lies were told during last nights' debate ?

[Syriusly]

Isn't there a fact check site that will tell us?

Like all those noble fact check sites that tell us how many lies Trump tells?

You're not that naive. Democrats arent fact checked. At least not by the MSM

Sigh. Typical Trumpsky. I can lead you to the facts, but I can't force you to actually read them.

I posted 4 or 5 links to factchecking the debates.

Trumpskies like yourself just continue to piss and moan about how nobody did any fact checking.

And meanwhile- you lap up every lie told to you by your Dear Leader.

How many of those "fact checking sites" have disproved that "150 million people died from guns since 2007"?

Look- I can't make you read- but I certainly am not going to do the very research you refuse to do for you.

I gave you the links- the links to the factchecking that your fellow contards said that no media had done.

Maybe you should be asking why your fellow contards lied about the media- or actually read what they said?

I couldn't view New York Times without subscription, and the other links have nothing on Biden claim.

Beside, relying on leftist fact checking sites is like relying on leftist media, they're all financed by the same people and biased to left.

Worse, most of "fact checkers" use other biased media sources to check facts, regardless of knowing that journalists get their facts wrong almost as often as politicians. And leftist media are presenting lies as truth, then use the "fact checkers" on their payroll to confirm, or "fact check" it as a truth.

And once again- you miss the entire point of my post.

Your fellow contards whined that the media didn't factcheck the debate.

I provided links showing that indeed the media did factcheck the debate.

Then in true Trumpian style you change topics from complaining about 'no fact checking by the media' to 'I don't believe the fact checking by the media'.

And finally- I will point out- that you didn't actually say you found any misleading claims in the fact checking- you just claimed you can never accept any fact checking by any 'leftist media'- i.e. anything other than Trump's pocket propaganda outlets.

So I will count this as another win.

Contards claim Media didn't factcheck.
I proved that was a lie.
Contards- after complaining that the media didn't factcheck- then say that they will never accept any factchecking by the media.

What pitiful snowflakes you all are.

 

[Syriusly]

More crayons for you, Superbadbrutha, I made is nice, circled it in color, so even you can understand.

View attachment 309304

Notice, "mostly false" rating, that you lefties are counting as one of "thousands lies" Trump told.

Here is the link to the PolitiFact article.

REEEEE, Trump is lying again.

Yes- Trump was lying about that- but as usual he knows that you- his base- feed off his lies. You love his lies.

Note how you left much of the article out.

Our rating

Trump says Clinton "gave up 20 percent of America's uranium supply to Russia."

The reference is to Russia’s nuclear power agency buying a controlling interest in a Toronto-based company. That company has mines, mills and tracts of land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity (not produced uranium).

Clinton was secretary of state at the time, but she didn’t have the power to approve or reject the deal. The State Department was only one of nine federal agencies that signed off on the deal, and only Obama had the power to veto it.

For a statement that contains only an element of truth, our rating is Mostly False.

 

[Syriusly]

Just for you, Superbadbrutha... Crayons.

Link to PolitiFact.

View attachment 309299

Notice, "pants of fire".

Let's see what the truth actually is. Here is what CNN said about it - CNN

View attachment 309300

Now tell me, who's lying here, Trump, or PolitiFact?

2011? You really have to go back far to try to prove that Trump wasn't lying.

How about we go for something a touch more current.

Please, please argue with Politifact on this- because I really want to hear someone explain how your Dear Leader 'saved Pre-existing conditions'- which of course is part of Obamacare that Trump is at this moment trying to end in the courts.
PolitiFact - Trump’s claim that he ‘saved’ pre-ex conditions ‘part fantasy, part delusion’
"I was the person who saved Pre-Existing Conditions in your healthcare."

Trump repeatedly has sought to align himself with this issue – in May, for instance, claiming he would "always protect patients with preexisting conditions." We rated that claim False. His re-election campaign has made similar claims, which experts debunked.

Trump’s recent claim that he "saved" that guarantee of coverage adds a new twist, though. We contacted the White House to find out the basis for this statement.

Judd Deere, a White House spokesman, told us, "President Trump has repeatedly stated his commitment to protect individuals with preexisting conditions and his track record shows that he has consistently done what is necessary to improve care for the vulnerable." Deere also pointed us to a range of other policy initiatives – such as efforts on kidney health, approving generic drugs and loosening restrictions on short-term health plans.

But none of those addressed the basis of Trump’s tweet.

The health policy experts we consulted, however, were unambiguous: The president’s claim has no factual basis and flies in the face of his ongoing policy efforts.

"I feel like we’re being gas-lit," said Linda Blumberg, a health economist at the Urban Institute. "You can’t tell me you’re the savior of people with preexisting conditions when every single thing you’ve said or done is the opposite of that." (Gaslighting means manipulating the telling of events in such a way it leads people to question their recollections.)

This skepticism persisted across the political spectrum.

"That’s a rather extended version of aspirational rhetoric short of any evidence," said Tom Miller, a resident fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

The preexisting condition protection

Under the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, health insurance plans cannot charge people higher prices because they have a medical condition. This protection has been intact since the law took effect, under then-President Barack Obama.

As a 2016 candidate, Trump promised to repeal and replace the health law. That came to a head in 2017, when the law came within one vote in the Senate of being undone.

"That tweet is part fantasy, part delusion, part politics, and all lie," said Jonathan Oberlander, a health policy professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. "The president is lying about preexisting conditions. He supported, and continues to support, efforts to repeal the ACA that would take those consumer protections away."

After that effort, Blumberg said, the president boasted that he had dismantled Obamacare – which is not only untrue, but, she added, confused many consumers.

 

[Syriusly]

Lets keep this ball rolling- mind you these are just some of his bigger whoppers while President.

PolitiFact - PANTS ON FIRE: Trump’s latest California voter fraud claim as baseless as past allegations

California "admitted" there were "a million" illegal votes in the 2016 presidential election.

Trump: "Well, I think it was a -- I mean, I'll say something that, again, is controversial. There were a lot of votes cast that I don't believe. I look at California."

Todd: "Mr. President."

Trump: "Excuse me."

Todd: "But that’s a …"

Trump: "Take a look at Judicial Watch. Take a look at their settlement. California admitted to a million votes. They admitted to a million votes."

Todd: "A million votes of what?"

Trump: "Take a look at Judicial …

Todd: "What are you talking about?"

Trump: "Judicial Watch made a settlement. There was …"

Todd: "About what?"

Trump: "There was much illegal voting."

Trump cited a January settlement California reached with the conservative group Judicial Watch. It requires Los Angeles County election officials to remove inactive registrations from voter rolls to comply with federal law.

The 20-page settlement document, however, notes all parties agreed there was no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the state or county. It makes no mention of voter fraud or illegal voting.

In a written statement, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla blasted Trump’s new allegation. Padilla, a Democrat, has also been critical of the president’s past statements on voter fraud.

"No matter how much he repeats them, Trump's lies about voter fraud are patently untrue. Specifically, the settlement with Judicial Watch, Los Angeles County, and the Secretary of State contains absolutely no admission to or evidence of "illegal votes." The President’s claims are untrue and yet another distortion aimed at undermining confidence in our elections.

The settlement was clear and simple, California will continue its work to adhere to modern list maintenance procedures under the National Voter Registration Act. California elections officials have and will continue to work to meet the goals of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA): maintaining the accuracy of the voter rolls and increasing the number of eligible citizens who register and vote."

Dean Logan, Los Angeles County’s top elections official, added in an email: "The agreement is about voter registration record keeping and interpretation of federal law, not about votes cast in any election."

 

[Syriusly]

PolitiFact - Is Donald Trump the most transparent president ever? No
"There has never been, ever before, an administration that’s been so open and transparent."
More recently, during a May 20 exchange with reporters on the White House lawn, Trump said, "There has never been, ever before, an administration that’s been so open and transparent."

Then, four days later, Trump reiterated the point in another White House lawn exchange with reporters: "I was the most transparent — and am — transparent president in history." Trump specifically cited providing Mueller with 500 witnesses, testimony by his attorneys, 2,500 subpoenas, 1.4 million pages of documents.

But does his administration live up to the hype? It does not, whether one looks at his relations with Mueller’s team, his refusal to release his tax returns, or his unwillingness to cooperate with subpoenas from Congress.

In fact, several experts we contacted said they laughed out loud when they first heard Trump make this claim. One of those was Jeffrey A. Engel, the founding director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University.

"This might not be the most dangerous" of Trump’s questionable claims, "but it is the most laughable," Engel said. "It’s not as though Trump is the only president with a problematic record on transparency, but he has expanded the range and scope" of those problems. (President Barack Obama, for instance, made 35 promises to improve transparency, and we rated 12 of those Promise Broken.)

The White House did not respond to inquiries for this article, but White House spokesman Steven Groves did offer a statement to Politico.

The Trump White House was partially, but not fully, cooperative with the investigation. It did turn over 1.4 million papers, and it didn’t stop some two dozen administration officials from testifying to Mueller. But in other ways, White House cooperation fell short.

As we’ve reported, Mueller and his team sought for more than a year to personally talk to the president, but they were ultimately rebuffed. The special counsel eventually agreed to accept Trump’s written answers to questions, but his responses were "inadequate," Mueller said, and contained dozens of instances where Trump claimed not to recall the information sought. Mueller also noted that Trump declined to answer questions about obstruction of justice, or questions on events that occurred during the presidential transition.

In addition, Mueller documented instances of Trump trying to impede the investigation or directing his staff to do so, including firing Mueller. "The president’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful," the Mueller report notes, "but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."

Blocking testimony before Congress
While Trump campaign officials have testified in the past to congressional investigative committees, the White House has prevented officials — and even former officials — from testifying or submitting documents to Congress since the Mueller report’s release. These include former White House counsel Don McGahn, former White House communications director Hope Hicks, and one of McGahn’s top aides, Annie Donaldson.

Trump has also sued to block subpoenas for his business records by the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and he’s sued to stop two banks he worked with — Deutsche Bank and Capital One — from cooperating with congressional subpoenas.

Fighting over congressional subpoenas is not new. President Bill Clinton asserted executive privilege during the investigation into his affair with Monica Lewinsky, as did President Barack Obama during the investigation into the "Fast and Furious" program, in which federal agents allowed guns to be sold and brought into Mexico so they could trace the weapons.

But experts say that Trump is well on his way to meeting or exceeding the scale of opposition by President Richard Nixon during Watergate, when non-cooperation with congressional subpoenas became a crucial element of impeachment articles against him.

"Trump has resisted oversight to a greater extent than typical, with blanket refusals to cooperate, as opposed to the usual give-and-take," said Eric Schickler, University of California-Berkeley political scientist and co-author of the book "Investigating the President: Congressional Checks on Presidential Power."

Still no Trump tax returns
Trump broke a precedent that went all the way back to Nixon of presidential candidates releasing a copy of their tax returns, usually for multiple years. House Democrats have demanded that the IRS release his returns, but Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has refused to do so. The dispute is expected to go to court.

Press briefings halted
Trump regularly stops to take questions from reporters on the White House lawn or while he’s traveling from event to event. His aides do, too. But the regular, institutionalized and usually lengthier briefings by his administrations have slowed almost to zero.

On June 2, 2019, the Washington Post reported that the last time press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders showed up for a regularly scheduled briefing "was 83 days ago, a record period for not briefing the press. She established the previous record (43 days) in March — which broke the record she set in January."

And it isn’t just the White House. The Post reported that May 31, 2019, marked one year since the last Pentagon press briefing, which for years had been held at least weekly.

Access to government information
Trump reversed a practice begun under Obama of publicly releasing White House visitor logs. After a lawsuit, the Trump White House agreed to a settlement in which a portion of those logs are released. Meanwhile, some White House staffers have been required to sign nondisclosure agreements, even interns, according to the Daily Beast.

More broadly, the Associated Press released an analysis in March 2018 showing that "the federal government censored, withheld or said it couldn't find records sought by citizens, journalists and others more often last year than at any point in the past decade."

And in November 2018, the pro-transparency FOIA Project released data showing that Freedom of Information Act lawsuits reached a record high in fiscal year 2018. (FOIA is a 1967 law that gives the public the right to request access to records from federal agencies.)

"I can’t think of an area where President Trump has been more transparent" than Obama was, said John Wonderlich, executive director of the pro-transparency Sunlight Foundation.

 

[Syriusly]

PolitiFact - Donald Trump's ridiculous link between cancer, wind turbines

"The noise (from windmills) causes cancer."

Meanwhile, the Australian Medical Association said, "The available Australian and international evidence does not support the view that the infrasound or low frequency sound generated by wind farms, as they are currently regulated in Australia, causes adverse health effects on populations residing in their vicinity. "

A 2014 review in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine of scientific studies found that "epidemiological studies have shown associations between living near wind turbines and annoyance." And that "annoyance seems more strongly related to individual characteristics than noise from turbines."

So annoyance, yes. Cancer? No.

Trump’s words were particularly unwelcome in Iowa. The Hawkeye State gets nearly 40 percent of its electric power from wind — more than any other state.

A couple of days after Trump spoke, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds kicked off an initiative to expand wind turbines in her state. Reynolds dodged questions about Trump’s statement, saying it wasn’t her place to comment.

But Sen. Ernst had no reservations.

"It’s ridiculous," she said April 4 (listen at 2:20). "Wind energy is just a tremendous asset for the state of Iowa. We are so fortunate to have so much of our electric drawn from a clean power source."

Trump said windmill noise causes cancer. The White House provided no evidence. No study supports the statement.

Echoing Iowa’s Republican senators, we rate this ridiculous statement Pants on Fire.

 

[Syriusly]

Sigh. Typical Trumpsky. I can lead you to the facts, but I can't force you to actually read them.

I posted 4 or 5 links to factchecking the debates.

Trumpskies like yourself just continue to piss and moan about how nobody did any fact checking.

And meanwhile- you lap up every lie told to you by your Dear Leader.

How many of those "fact checking sites" have disproved that "150 million people died from guns since 2007"?

Look- I can't make you read- but I certainly am not going to do the very research you refuse to do for you.

I gave you the links- the links to the factchecking that your fellow contards said that no media had done.

Maybe you should be asking why your fellow contards lied about the media- or actually read what they said?

I couldn't view New York Times without subscription, and the other links have nothing on Biden claim.

Beside, relying on leftist fact checking sites is like relying on leftist media, they're all financed by the same people and biased to left.

Worse, most of "fact checkers" use other biased media sources to check facts, regardless of knowing that journalists get their facts wrong almost as often as politicians. And leftist media are presenting lies as truth, then use the "fact checkers" on their payroll to confirm, or "fact check" it as a truth.

Maybe he could point to an article on CNN or MSLSD or ABC, NBC, CBS and show us where the Fake News covers this stuff even remotely as they would if Trump said such a thing

You can't find an article where the ”fact checker” calls anything pro-left outright false.".

Hmmmmm perhaps because none of them were?

Meanwhile- lets go for another Trump whopper- shall we?

PolitiFact - Trump wrong on size and timing of military pay increases

Says troops recently received "one of the biggest pay raises" ever, and that it was the first pay increase in "more than 10 years."

In reality, service members have received pay raises every year for more than three decades. The 2019 military pay increase of 2.6 percent is the largest in nine years, but it is not the "more than 10 percent" that Trump mentioned.

In fact, while the 2.4 percent increase for 2018 was the largest in eight years, Trump actually requested 2.1 percent, "an amount below the automatic adjustment (of 2.4 percent) for 2018." Congress ultimately overrode the administration’s proposal.

For 2019, the CRS reported that Trump requested 2.6 percent, which is a raise equal to the ECI, and one that the president’s 2019 budget called "modest."

 

[the other mike]

PolitiFact - Donald Trump's ridiculous link between cancer, wind turbines

"The noise (from windmills) causes cancer."

Meanwhile, the Australian Medical Association said, "The available Australian and international evidence does not support the view that the infrasound or low frequency sound generated by wind farms, as they are currently regulated in Australia, causes adverse health effects on populations residing in their vicinity. "

A 2014 review in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine of scientific studies found that "epidemiological studies have shown associations between living near wind turbines and annoyance." And that "annoyance seems more strongly related to individual characteristics than noise from turbines."

So annoyance, yes. Cancer? No.

Trump’s words were particularly unwelcome in Iowa. The Hawkeye State gets nearly 40 percent of its electric power from wind — more than any other state.

A couple of days after Trump spoke, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds kicked off an initiative to expand wind turbines in her state. Reynolds dodged questions about Trump’s statement, saying it wasn’t her place to comment.

But Sen. Ernst had no reservations.

"It’s ridiculous," she said April 4 (listen at 2:20). "Wind energy is just a tremendous asset for the state of Iowa. We are so fortunate to have so much of our electric drawn from a clean power source."

Trump said windmill noise causes cancer. The White House provided no evidence. No study supports the statement.

Echoing Iowa’s Republican senators, we rate this ridiculous statement Pants on Fire.

That's pretty bad.
Maybe he hates wind in general, because it messes up his golf game
and his hair.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/03/politics/trumps-war-on-windmills-now-includes-wild-cancer-claim/index.html

 

[the other mike]

How many of those "fact checking sites" have disproved that "150 million people died from guns since 2007"?

Look- I can't make you read- but I certainly am not going to do the very research you refuse to do for you.

I gave you the links- the links to the factchecking that your fellow contards said that no media had done.

Maybe you should be asking why your fellow contards lied about the media- or actually read what they said?

I couldn't view New York Times without subscription, and the other links have nothing on Biden claim.

Beside, relying on leftist fact checking sites is like relying on leftist media, they're all financed by the same people and biased to left.

Worse, most of "fact checkers" use other biased media sources to check facts, regardless of knowing that journalists get their facts wrong almost as often as politicians. And leftist media are presenting lies as truth, then use the "fact checkers" on their payroll to confirm, or "fact check" it as a truth.

Maybe he could point to an article on CNN or MSLSD or ABC, NBC, CBS and show us where the Fake News covers this stuff even remotely as they would if Trump said such a thing

You can't find an article where the ”fact checker” calls anything pro-left outright false.".

Hmmmmm perhaps because none of them were?

Meanwhile- lets go for another Trump whopper- shall we?

PolitiFact - Trump wrong on size and timing of military pay increases

Says troops recently received "one of the biggest pay raises" ever, and that it was the first pay increase in "more than 10 years."

In reality, service members have received pay raises every year for more than three decades. The 2019 military pay increase of 2.6 percent is the largest in nine years, but it is not the "more than 10 percent" that Trump mentioned.

In fact, while the 2.4 percent increase for 2018 was the largest in eight years, Trump actually requested 2.1 percent, "an amount below the automatic adjustment (of 2.4 percent) for 2018." Congress ultimately overrode the administration’s proposal.

For 2019, the CRS reported that Trump requested 2.6 percent, which is a raise equal to the ECI, and one that the president’s 2019 budget called "modest."

All due respect, we have a thousand Trump threads for you to rant on about the president, but just to remind you this is about the Democrats lies.

Starting with Biden still spewing Hillary's "17 intelligence agencies" lie.

 

[Syriusly]

Look- I can't make you read- but I certainly am not going to do the very research you refuse to do for you.

I gave you the links- the links to the factchecking that your fellow contards said that no media had done.

Maybe you should be asking why your fellow contards lied about the media- or actually read what they said?

I couldn't view New York Times without subscription, and the other links have nothing on Biden claim.

Beside, relying on leftist fact checking sites is like relying on leftist media, they're all financed by the same people and biased to left.

Worse, most of "fact checkers" use other biased media sources to check facts, regardless of knowing that journalists get their facts wrong almost as often as politicians. And leftist media are presenting lies as truth, then use the "fact checkers" on their payroll to confirm, or "fact check" it as a truth.

Maybe he could point to an article on CNN or MSLSD or ABC, NBC, CBS and show us where the Fake News covers this stuff even remotely as they would if Trump said such a thing

You can't find an article where the ”fact checker” calls anything pro-left outright false.".

Hmmmmm perhaps because none of them were?

Meanwhile- lets go for another Trump whopper- shall we?

PolitiFact - Trump wrong on size and timing of military pay increases

Says troops recently received "one of the biggest pay raises" ever, and that it was the first pay increase in "more than 10 years."

In reality, service members have received pay raises every year for more than three decades. The 2019 military pay increase of 2.6 percent is the largest in nine years, but it is not the "more than 10 percent" that Trump mentioned.

In fact, while the 2.4 percent increase for 2018 was the largest in eight years, Trump actually requested 2.1 percent, "an amount below the automatic adjustment (of 2.4 percent) for 2018." Congress ultimately overrode the administration’s proposal.

For 2019, the CRS reported that Trump requested 2.6 percent, which is a raise equal to the ECI, and one that the president’s 2019 budget called "modest."

All due respect, we have a thousand Trump threads for you to rant on about the president, but just to remind you this is about the Democrats lies.

Starting with Biden still spewing Hillary's "17 intelligence agencies" lie.

All due respect- it was a Trumpkin who introduced Politifact's evaluation of Trump's lies here.

But I do understand why you want now to change the focus back to Democrats- because by any evaluations of 'lies told by politicians' Trump comes out far, far worse.,

PolitiFact - 17 intelligence organizations or 4? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid

 

[the other mike]

PolitiFact - 17 intelligence organizations or 4? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid

Debunked by James Clapper himself under oath.

 

[the other mike]

I couldn't view New York Times without subscription, and the other links have nothing on Biden claim.

Beside, relying on leftist fact checking sites is like relying on leftist media, they're all financed by the same people and biased to left.

Worse, most of "fact checkers" use other biased media sources to check facts, regardless of knowing that journalists get their facts wrong almost as often as politicians. And leftist media are presenting lies as truth, then use the "fact checkers" on their payroll to confirm, or "fact check" it as a truth.

Maybe he could point to an article on CNN or MSLSD or ABC, NBC, CBS and show us where the Fake News covers this stuff even remotely as they would if Trump said such a thing

You can't find an article where the ”fact checker” calls anything pro-left outright false.".

Hmmmmm perhaps because none of them were?

Meanwhile- lets go for another Trump whopper- shall we?

PolitiFact - Trump wrong on size and timing of military pay increases

Says troops recently received "one of the biggest pay raises" ever, and that it was the first pay increase in "more than 10 years."

In reality, service members have received pay raises every year for more than three decades. The 2019 military pay increase of 2.6 percent is the largest in nine years, but it is not the "more than 10 percent" that Trump mentioned.

In fact, while the 2.4 percent increase for 2018 was the largest in eight years, Trump actually requested 2.1 percent, "an amount below the automatic adjustment (of 2.4 percent) for 2018." Congress ultimately overrode the administration’s proposal.

For 2019, the CRS reported that Trump requested 2.6 percent, which is a raise equal to the ECI, and one that the president’s 2019 budget called "modest."

All due respect, we have a thousand Trump threads for you to rant on about the president, but just to remind you this is about the Democrats lies.

Starting with Biden still spewing Hillary's "17 intelligence agencies" lie.

All due respect- it was a Trumpkin who introduced Politifact's evaluation of Trump's lies here.

But I do understand why you want now to change the focus back to Democrats- because by any evaluations of 'lies told by politicians' Trump comes out far, far worse.,

PolitiFact - 17 intelligence organizations or 4? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid

 

[Ame®icano]

"Factc heckers" almost never "debunks" anything that anybody claims.

The present the claim, and while confirming that claim is correct, they "debunk" something that nobody claimed and rate initial claim as a lie.

For instance... Claim was that Hillary ordered destruction of phones during FBI investigation, and Snopes rated it as false. While they admitted that Hillary's aides used hammers to brake the phones, they rated it false because "Hillary did not personally destroyed her phone with a hammer.

Here are few more examples, random claims.

How can claim be false if they confirmed that number is correct?

They rated if as a lie because they're experts in biology?

If numbers are valid, how claim can be "mostly false"?

Bottom line is... instead of arguing with anyone that cite Snopes, Politifact, Wikipedia, or any other left-wing brigaded source, turn around and walk away, because you're talking to Dunning Krueger nut case.

 

[Ame®icano]

Maybe he could point to an article on CNN or MSLSD or ABC, NBC, CBS and show us where the Fake News covers this stuff even remotely as they would if Trump said such a thing

You can't find an article where the ”fact checker” calls anything pro-left outright false.".

Hmmmmm perhaps because none of them were?

Meanwhile- lets go for another Trump whopper- shall we?

PolitiFact - Trump wrong on size and timing of military pay increases

Says troops recently received "one of the biggest pay raises" ever, and that it was the first pay increase in "more than 10 years."

In reality, service members have received pay raises every year for more than three decades. The 2019 military pay increase of 2.6 percent is the largest in nine years, but it is not the "more than 10 percent" that Trump mentioned.

In fact, while the 2.4 percent increase for 2018 was the largest in eight years, Trump actually requested 2.1 percent, "an amount below the automatic adjustment (of 2.4 percent) for 2018." Congress ultimately overrode the administration’s proposal.

For 2019, the CRS reported that Trump requested 2.6 percent, which is a raise equal to the ECI, and one that the president’s 2019 budget called "modest."

All due respect, we have a thousand Trump threads for you to rant on about the president, but just to remind you this is about the Democrats lies.

Starting with Biden still spewing Hillary's "17 intelligence agencies" lie.

All due respect- it was a Trumpkin who introduced Politifact's evaluation of Trump's lies here.

But I do understand why you want now to change the focus back to Democrats- because by any evaluations of 'lies told by politicians' Trump comes out far, far worse.,

PolitiFact - 17 intelligence organizations or 4? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid

They're so fixated on "fact checking" that they're even going after obvious satire, just to backpedal their articles were being used by social media giants to de-platform non left wing comedy websites.

Do you really need to "fact check" the Babylon Bee article that stated "CNN Purchases Industrial-Sized Washing Machine To Spin News Before Publication" to rate it as a satire? Believe it, or not, Snopes did.

 

[Ame®icano]

Here is typical example of "fact checkers" derangement.

When Bernie Sanders quotes the unemployment rate for black youth as %51, he is given "mostly true" and PolitiFact says the real unemployment is probably higher.

So you would think that if someone claims that unemployment rate for Black youth is 59%, which is little higher than previously claimed 51% by Sanders, that would be also rated if not "true" than at least "mostly true". Nope... When Trump made the claim, he was rated "mostly false".

 

[the other mike]

Same story, different headlines for left and right ....

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[Ame®icano]