Politifact: 76% of what Trump says are Mostly False to Pants on Fire lies. Does it matter?

[gipper]

Funny how some ***** about Trump lying, but say nothing about Hillary's many decades of lying.

Why is that?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The fact that Trump's pathological lying is indisputable and proven beyond any doubt makes no difference to those who fall into the category of "cult follower". They march like lemmings to the sea.

Says the delusional hillary kool aid drinker who picked hillary to be their nomination for president 2016 in the year 2009

 

[Camp]

The fact that Trump's pathological lying is indisputable and proven beyond any doubt makes no difference to those who fall into the category of "cult follower". They march like lemmings to the sea.

As opposed to the the fact Clinton's pathological lying is indisputable and proven beyond any doubt makes no difference to those who fall into the category of "cult follower"? They march like lemmings to the sea.

So which campaign lie do you think is the biggest one Hillary has told? Which lie has she told while trying to get the Presidential nomination do you think is the most obvious she has told?
The "thousands of Muslims celebrating in the streets of New Jersey" and the " the 9/11 hijackers flying their wives and families home days before the attacks" are the ones I would pick for Trump because they are so malicious. Because they are malicious they also become racist.
Why does defending Trump's lies always depend on a deflect to Clinton?

 

[OldLady]

Donald Trump's file | PolitiFact

Politifact has been keeping track of Donald Trump's many outrageous lies.

The question here is "do they matter?" To those following Donald Trump, so what if he lies about everything, right?

For one, Republicans have been lying for years about everything. Even Republicans can run off an entire list with ease.

What kind of president will such a man make. And please, stop with the Obama comparisons and Hillary comparisons. Most of those are Republican lies anyway. And the somewhat rare honest Republican even admit it.

For the sake of argument I'll stipulate "most" is correct, but that means then you're perfectly okay with the true lies of Barry and "Sir Hillary" Clinton, which go on and on and on but are okay because they're slimey ******* dimocrats.

The broken record tune of deany never changes.

If you compare Clinton's Mostly False to Pants on Fire campaign statements to Trump's, she has 29% mostly false to pof; Trump has 76%. I would consider that a significant difference. That's not bringing in the "unproveables" like the e-mails and Trump University. Just campaign statements. Since it is how they plan to run the country (presumably), I'd like to believe more of that is true. If Trump can't tell the truth about the facts 3 out of 4 times, how can anyone trust his campaign promises or intentions? Is he lying 3 out of 4 times about them, too?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Still waiting for hope and change a transparent government, keep your doctor.....




.

So you're in the two wrongs make a right camp.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Still waiting for hope and change a transparent government, keep your doctor.....




.

President Obama is slightly less that perfectly honest.

Donald Trump is slightly less than perfectly dishonest.

 

[OldLady]

Donald Trump's file | PolitiFact

Politifact has been keeping track of Donald Trump's many outrageous lies.

The question here is "do they matter?" To those following Donald Trump, so what if he lies about everything, right?

For one, Republicans have been lying for years about everything. Even Republicans can run off an entire list with ease.

What kind of president will such a man make. And please, stop with the Obama comparisons and Hillary comparisons. Most of those are Republican lies anyway. And the somewhat rare honest Republican even admit it.

PolitiFact is owned by The Poynter Institute a NON-tax paying entity that also owns the St. Petersburg Times (also known as Pravda West) all so biased that any honest assessment of any information from the above recognizes the bias!

PolitiFact bias: Does the GOP tell nine times more lies than left? Really?
PolitiFact is not that honest fact-checker. And these aren’t isolated cases. Once widely regarded as a unique, rigorous and reasonably independent investigator of political claims, PolitiFact now declares conservatives wrong three times more often than liberals. More pointedly, the journalism organization concludes that conservatives have flat out lied nine times more often than liberals.
PolitiFact bias: Does the GOP tell nine times more lies than left? Really? - Conservative News

Good fact-checking requires a consistent approach to the issues.
PolitiFact repeatedly fails to achieve consistency.

PolitiFact's rating system has always been a sham, because PolitiFact follows no rigid definition for its ratings. Sure, PolitiFact usually attempts justifications, but they are all over the map. For example, PolitiFact once gave Mitt Romney a "Half True" rating because the problems with his claim matched PolitiFact's definition of "Mostly True." Seriously, that's how PolitiFact justified its rating of Romney. PolitiFact has let the error stand for years.

Critics left and right have panned PolitiFact's rating system. Defenders often claim that the ratings aren't important. The important thing, they say, is the detailed information we get in the fact check.
But if PolitiFact varies in its approach, finding a problem in one instance and overlooking that same problem in another instance, it gives its readers poor fact-checking.
PolitiFact Bias

Interesting, but weak examples of "bias," when all they could come up with was a "Half True" instead of "Mostly True" rating on something Romney once said. Not exactly the end of the world. I agree what is more important is the detailed information we get in the fact check. Whether it's half or mostly true or false is a minor point we can take into account ourselves.
If PolitiFact now declares the GOP tells nine times more lies than the left, it may have something to do with 17 Republicans running for president recently, or having Trump in there skewing all the averages with his ignorant mouth.

 

[healthmyths]

Donald Trump's file | PolitiFact

Politifact has been keeping track of Donald Trump's many outrageous lies.

The question here is "do they matter?" To those following Donald Trump, so what if he lies about everything, right?

For one, Republicans have been lying for years about everything. Even Republicans can run off an entire list with ease.

What kind of president will such a man make. And please, stop with the Obama comparisons and Hillary comparisons. Most of those are Republican lies anyway. And the somewhat rare honest Republican even admit it.

PolitiFact is owned by The Poynter Institute a NON-tax paying entity that also owns the St. Petersburg Times (also known as Pravda West) all so biased that any honest assessment of any information from the above recognizes the bias!

PolitiFact bias: Does the GOP tell nine times more lies than left? Really?
PolitiFact is not that honest fact-checker. And these aren’t isolated cases. Once widely regarded as a unique, rigorous and reasonably independent investigator of political claims, PolitiFact now declares conservatives wrong three times more often than liberals. More pointedly, the journalism organization concludes that conservatives have flat out lied nine times more often than liberals.
PolitiFact bias: Does the GOP tell nine times more lies than left? Really? - Conservative News

Good fact-checking requires a consistent approach to the issues.
PolitiFact repeatedly fails to achieve consistency.

PolitiFact's rating system has always been a sham, because PolitiFact follows no rigid definition for its ratings. Sure, PolitiFact usually attempts justifications, but they are all over the map. For example, PolitiFact once gave Mitt Romney a "Half True" rating because the problems with his claim matched PolitiFact's definition of "Mostly True." Seriously, that's how PolitiFact justified its rating of Romney. PolitiFact has let the error stand for years.

Critics left and right have panned PolitiFact's rating system. Defenders often claim that the ratings aren't important. The important thing, they say, is the detailed information we get in the fact check.
But if PolitiFact varies in its approach, finding a problem in one instance and overlooking that same problem in another instance, it gives its readers poor fact-checking.
PolitiFact Bias

Interesting, but weak examples of "bias," when all they could come up with was a "Half True" instead of "Mostly True" rating on something Romney once said. Not exactly the end of the world. I agree what is more important is the detailed information we get in the fact check. Whether it's half or mostly true or false is a minor point we can take into account ourselves.
If PolitiFact now declares the GOP tells nine times more lies than the left, it may have something to do with 17 Republicans running for president recently, or having Trump in there skewing all the averages with his ignorant mouth.

The article about nine times more lies was written in Aug 30, 2012... nearly 4 years before the 17 candidates and Trump.
But your BIAS is obvious because you never read the article. See people like you don't seem to comprehend the facts the MSM is BIASED.
Explain this study:
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters
Or this study:
A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors,
Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election
Conclusion seems clear. there was a bias by the MSM. That is NOT my conclusion but the study.

So based on YOUR opinion which is based on YOUR experiences those two above studies STILL don't convince you that the MSM favors Democrats... because see the BIASED MSM agrees with you...i.e. Democrats can do NO wrong... GOP are always wrong. That is your conclusion isn't it in spite of the studies involved.

 

[OldLady]

Funny how some ***** about Trump lying, but say nothing about Hillary's many decades of lying.

Why is that?

One thread at a time.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Bret Baier Verified account ‏@BretBaier


.@realDonaldTrump tells the NYTimes that @RealBenCarson will head up his VP selection committee.
11:56 AM - 4 May 2016


You Are Fired

this was announced today:

Donald Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, will oversee the presumptive Republican U.S. presidential nominee's search for a running mate, a campaign aide said on Tuesday.

 

[Camp]

Funny how some ***** about Trump lying, but say nothing about Hillary's many decades of lying.

Why is that?

One thread at a time.

He can't defend the Trump lies without changing the subject. There is no defense for the Trump lies because he continues to tell them over and over no matter how many sources prove he is lying.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Funny how some ***** about Trump lying, but say nothing about Hillary's many decades of lying.

Why is that?

One thread at a time.

He can't defend the Trump lies without changing the subject. There is no defense for the Trump lies because he continues to tell them over and over no matter how many sources prove he is lying.

• 
  Former NY Post Gossip Editor: Lying Has Been "Almost A Sport For Trump" For Decades
• • 
    Tom Brokaw: Trump "Has Never Been Held Accountable" For His Lies

 

[rdean]

I don't think his policies matter as much as he speaks his mind and isn't establishment.

Speaks his mind which are all lies? That's OK?

 

[OldLady]

Donald Trump's file | PolitiFact

Politifact has been keeping track of Donald Trump's many outrageous lies.

The question here is "do they matter?" To those following Donald Trump, so what if he lies about everything, right?

For one, Republicans have been lying for years about everything. Even Republicans can run off an entire list with ease.

What kind of president will such a man make. And please, stop with the Obama comparisons and Hillary comparisons. Most of those are Republican lies anyway. And the somewhat rare honest Republican even admit it.

PolitiFact is owned by The Poynter Institute a NON-tax paying entity that also owns the St. Petersburg Times (also known as Pravda West) all so biased that any honest assessment of any information from the above recognizes the bias!

PolitiFact bias: Does the GOP tell nine times more lies than left? Really?
PolitiFact is not that honest fact-checker. And these aren’t isolated cases. Once widely regarded as a unique, rigorous and reasonably independent investigator of political claims, PolitiFact now declares conservatives wrong three times more often than liberals. More pointedly, the journalism organization concludes that conservatives have flat out lied nine times more often than liberals.
PolitiFact bias: Does the GOP tell nine times more lies than left? Really? - Conservative News

Good fact-checking requires a consistent approach to the issues.
PolitiFact repeatedly fails to achieve consistency.

PolitiFact's rating system has always been a sham, because PolitiFact follows no rigid definition for its ratings. Sure, PolitiFact usually attempts justifications, but they are all over the map. For example, PolitiFact once gave Mitt Romney a "Half True" rating because the problems with his claim matched PolitiFact's definition of "Mostly True." Seriously, that's how PolitiFact justified its rating of Romney. PolitiFact has let the error stand for years.

Critics left and right have panned PolitiFact's rating system. Defenders often claim that the ratings aren't important. The important thing, they say, is the detailed information we get in the fact check.
But if PolitiFact varies in its approach, finding a problem in one instance and overlooking that same problem in another instance, it gives its readers poor fact-checking.
PolitiFact Bias

Interesting, but weak examples of "bias," when all they could come up with was a "Half True" instead of "Mostly True" rating on something Romney once said. Not exactly the end of the world. I agree what is more important is the detailed information we get in the fact check. Whether it's half or mostly true or false is a minor point we can take into account ourselves.
If PolitiFact now declares the GOP tells nine times more lies than the left, it may have something to do with 17 Republicans running for president recently, or having Trump in there skewing all the averages with his ignorant mouth.

The article about nine times more lies was written in Aug 30, 2012... nearly 4 years before the 17 candidates and Trump.
But your BIAS is obvious because you never read the article. See people like you don't seem to comprehend the facts the MSM is BIASED.
Explain this study:
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters
Or this study:
A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors,
Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election
Conclusion seems clear. there was a bias by the MSM. That is NOT my conclusion but the study.

So based on YOUR opinion which is based on YOUR experiences those two above studies STILL don't convince you that the MSM favors Democrats... because see the BIASED MSM agrees with you...i.e. Democrats can do NO wrong... GOP are always wrong. That is your conclusion isn't it in spite of the studies involved.

I understand the MSM is biased toward the left; I don't dispute it. It isn't my conclusion that the GOP are always wrong at all. However, I guess I'm confused about the fact that you are lumping PolitiFact in with the MSM. I thought they were an independent fact checker. If they were willing to find that Clinton is mostly lying to pants on fire lying 29% of the time, and Harry Reid has a 51% on that score, I wouldn't say they were letting the Dems off lightly. It is interesting, comparing the percentages by political party, that the Republicans do come off worse--but is that because of which questions are asked? Are they being asked to check into Republican's comments more often? I don't know.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Oh and Democrats are pure as the driven snow.

Except this thread isn't about Warren, much less a cartoon about Warren. If you can't defend Trump, you really ought to just stfu.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Trump's pants are not only on fire, but he flies by the seat of them, too. It's obvious when he speaks at a rally that he's just making shit up as he goes along. He's a slick realtor, just a notch above a used car salesman.

 

[healthmyths]

Donald Trump's file | PolitiFact

Politifact has been keeping track of Donald Trump's many outrageous lies.

The question here is "do they matter?" To those following Donald Trump, so what if he lies about everything, right?

For one, Republicans have been lying for years about everything. Even Republicans can run off an entire list with ease.

What kind of president will such a man make. And please, stop with the Obama comparisons and Hillary comparisons. Most of those are Republican lies anyway. And the somewhat rare honest Republican even admit it.

PolitiFact is owned by The Poynter Institute a NON-tax paying entity that also owns the St. Petersburg Times (also known as Pravda West) all so biased that any honest assessment of any information from the above recognizes the bias!

PolitiFact bias: Does the GOP tell nine times more lies than left? Really?
PolitiFact is not that honest fact-checker. And these aren’t isolated cases. Once widely regarded as a unique, rigorous and reasonably independent investigator of political claims, PolitiFact now declares conservatives wrong three times more often than liberals. More pointedly, the journalism organization concludes that conservatives have flat out lied nine times more often than liberals.
PolitiFact bias: Does the GOP tell nine times more lies than left? Really? - Conservative News

Good fact-checking requires a consistent approach to the issues.
PolitiFact repeatedly fails to achieve consistency.

PolitiFact's rating system has always been a sham, because PolitiFact follows no rigid definition for its ratings. Sure, PolitiFact usually attempts justifications, but they are all over the map. For example, PolitiFact once gave Mitt Romney a "Half True" rating because the problems with his claim matched PolitiFact's definition of "Mostly True." Seriously, that's how PolitiFact justified its rating of Romney. PolitiFact has let the error stand for years.

Critics left and right have panned PolitiFact's rating system. Defenders often claim that the ratings aren't important. The important thing, they say, is the detailed information we get in the fact check.
But if PolitiFact varies in its approach, finding a problem in one instance and overlooking that same problem in another instance, it gives its readers poor fact-checking.
PolitiFact Bias

Interesting, but weak examples of "bias," when all they could come up with was a "Half True" instead of "Mostly True" rating on something Romney once said. Not exactly the end of the world. I agree what is more important is the detailed information we get in the fact check. Whether it's half or mostly true or false is a minor point we can take into account ourselves.
If PolitiFact now declares the GOP tells nine times more lies than the left, it may have something to do with 17 Republicans running for president recently, or having Trump in there skewing all the averages with his ignorant mouth.

The article about nine times more lies was written in Aug 30, 2012... nearly 4 years before the 17 candidates and Trump.
But your BIAS is obvious because you never read the article. See people like you don't seem to comprehend the facts the MSM is BIASED.
Explain this study:
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters
Or this study:
A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors,
Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election
Conclusion seems clear. there was a bias by the MSM. That is NOT my conclusion but the study.

So based on YOUR opinion which is based on YOUR experiences those two above studies STILL don't convince you that the MSM favors Democrats... because see the BIASED MSM agrees with you...i.e. Democrats can do NO wrong... GOP are always wrong. That is your conclusion isn't it in spite of the studies involved.

I understand the MSM is biased toward the left; I don't dispute it. It isn't my conclusion that the GOP are always wrong at all. However, I guess I'm confused about the fact that you are lumping PolitiFact in with the MSM. I thought they were an independent fact checker. If they were willing to find that Clinton is mostly lying to pants on fire lying 29% of the time, and Harry Reid has a 51% on that score, I wouldn't say they were letting the Dems off lightly. It is interesting, comparing the percentages by political party, that the Republicans do come off worse--but is that because of which questions are asked? Are they being asked to check into Republican's comments more often? I don't know.

Politifact.org is OWNED by Poynter institute which OWNS the St. Petersburg Times which STARTED Politifact.
Here for example is an issue I've personally contacted Politifact.org on to do their "analysis" and they have YET to comply.
Politifact.org agrees with 1 of the following gross misrepresentations that Obama made when he said "
I don’t have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance coverage today. In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage.”
BUT when you look at what constituted this "46 million"... here are the FACTS...
Politifact.org took exception the number and said Obama was just "sloppy"!
"So Obama is sloppy by saying it is for "Americans" but not accounting for the noncitizens, which leaves him off by about 22 percent.
PolitiFact Bias: PolitiMath on uninsured Americans
1) 10 million he counted were not Americans... not citizens per the Census:
Proof: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009 - Income & Wealth - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau
But did that stop Obama from counting them falsely??? Just to convince people.
But Poltifact.org DIDN"T answer why these people were counted as part of the "uninsured!

But it gets WORSE! Politifact would NOT acknowledge the failure of Obama's administration to enroll these 14 million people!
2) Obama failed to get 14 million people eligible for Medicaid enrolled. That's all that is needed. That leaves 22 million.
http://coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf
Politifact.org NEVER acknowledge this failure to sign these people up BEFORE ACA! It wasn't necessary to count them because all they had to do was enroll!

But the biggest joke and lie was counting this 18 million people!
3) 18 million under 34 don't NEED insurance. Can afford employers' plans as they make over $50k. That leaves 4 million.
CRISIS OF THE UNINSURED: 2009

So go to these links! Check them out and you will see that the true number of people that WANT and NEED is less the 4 million!
But Obama is destroying the health care system for 4 million people!

Finally when you consider the opinion Obama has of people like you and Politifact.org that DIDN"T look closely and the the numbers. This is what Obama thinks of you!
Like the architect for Obamacare,Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Jonathan Gruber appears on a panel and discusses how the reform earned enough votes to pass.
He suggested that many lawmakers and voters didn't know what was in the law or how its financing worked, and that this helped it win approval.
"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said.
"And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."
Gruber made the comment while discussing how the law was "written in a tortured way" to avoid a bad score from the Congressional Budget Office. He suggested that voters would have rejected ObamaCare if the penalties for going without health insurance were interpreted as taxes, either by budget analysts or the public.
While analysts expect the market to stabilize once premiums rise and more young, healthy people sign up, some observers have not ruled out the possibility of a collapse of the market, known in insurance parlance as a “death spiral.”
ObamaCare architect: 'Stupidity' of voters helped bill pass


Did Politifact.org acknowledge the above? Nope!

 

[NYcarbineer]

By supporting Trump, all these RWnuts are confessing that they never cared about honesty,

despite all their rantings about it that were directed at Democrats.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Donald Trump's file | PolitiFact

Politifact has been keeping track of Donald Trump's many outrageous lies.

The question here is "do they matter?" To those following Donald Trump, so what if he lies about everything, right?

For one, Republicans have been lying for years about everything. Even Republicans can run off an entire list with ease.

What kind of president will such a man make. And please, stop with the Obama comparisons and Hillary comparisons. Most of those are Republican lies anyway. And the somewhat rare honest Republican even admit it.

PolitiFact is owned by The Poynter Institute a NON-tax paying entity that also owns the St. Petersburg Times (also known as Pravda West) all so biased that any honest assessment of any information from the above recognizes the bias!

PolitiFact bias: Does the GOP tell nine times more lies than left? Really?
PolitiFact is not that honest fact-checker. And these aren’t isolated cases. Once widely regarded as a unique, rigorous and reasonably independent investigator of political claims, PolitiFact now declares conservatives wrong three times more often than liberals. More pointedly, the journalism organization concludes that conservatives have flat out lied nine times more often than liberals.
PolitiFact bias: Does the GOP tell nine times more lies than left? Really? - Conservative News

Good fact-checking requires a consistent approach to the issues.
PolitiFact repeatedly fails to achieve consistency.

PolitiFact's rating system has always been a sham, because PolitiFact follows no rigid definition for its ratings. Sure, PolitiFact usually attempts justifications, but they are all over the map. For example, PolitiFact once gave Mitt Romney a "Half True" rating because the problems with his claim matched PolitiFact's definition of "Mostly True." Seriously, that's how PolitiFact justified its rating of Romney. PolitiFact has let the error stand for years.

Critics left and right have panned PolitiFact's rating system. Defenders often claim that the ratings aren't important. The important thing, they say, is the detailed information we get in the fact check.
But if PolitiFact varies in its approach, finding a problem in one instance and overlooking that same problem in another instance, it gives its readers poor fact-checking.
PolitiFact Bias

Interesting, but weak examples of "bias," when all they could come up with was a "Half True" instead of "Mostly True" rating on something Romney once said. Not exactly the end of the world. I agree what is more important is the detailed information we get in the fact check. Whether it's half or mostly true or false is a minor point we can take into account ourselves.
If PolitiFact now declares the GOP tells nine times more lies than the left, it may have something to do with 17 Republicans running for president recently, or having Trump in there skewing all the averages with his ignorant mouth.

The article about nine times more lies was written in Aug 30, 2012... nearly 4 years before the 17 candidates and Trump.
But your BIAS is obvious because you never read the article. See people like you don't seem to comprehend the facts the MSM is BIASED.
Explain this study:
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters
Or this study:
A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors,
Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election
Conclusion seems clear. there was a bias by the MSM. That is NOT my conclusion but the study.

So based on YOUR opinion which is based on YOUR experiences those two above studies STILL don't convince you that the MSM favors Democrats... because see the BIASED MSM agrees with you...i.e. Democrats can do NO wrong... GOP are always wrong. That is your conclusion isn't it in spite of the studies involved.

I understand the MSM is biased toward the left; I don't dispute it. It isn't my conclusion that the GOP are always wrong at all. However, I guess I'm confused about the fact that you are lumping PolitiFact in with the MSM. I thought they were an independent fact checker. If they were willing to find that Clinton is mostly lying to pants on fire lying 29% of the time, and Harry Reid has a 51% on that score, I wouldn't say they were letting the Dems off lightly. It is interesting, comparing the percentages by political party, that the Republicans do come off worse--but is that because of which questions are asked? Are they being asked to check into Republican's comments more often? I don't know.

Politifact.org is OWNED by Poynter institute which OWNS the St. Petersburg Times which STARTED Politifact.
Here for example is an issue I've personally contacted Politifact.org on to do their "analysis" and they have YET to comply.
Politifact.org agrees with 1 of the following gross misrepresentations that Obama made when he said "
I don’t have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance coverage today. In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage.”
BUT when you look at what constituted this "46 million"... here are the FACTS...
Politifact.org took exception the number and said Obama was just "sloppy"!
"So Obama is sloppy by saying it is for "Americans" but not accounting for the noncitizens, which leaves him off by about 22 percent.
PolitiFact Bias: PolitiMath on uninsured Americans
1) 10 million he counted were not Americans... not citizens per the Census:
Proof: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009 - Income & Wealth - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau
But did that stop Obama from counting them falsely??? Just to convince people.
But Poltifact.org DIDN"T answer why these people were counted as part of the "uninsured!

But it gets WORSE! Politifact would NOT acknowledge the failure of Obama's administration to enroll these 14 million people!
2) Obama failed to get 14 million people eligible for Medicaid enrolled. That's all that is needed. That leaves 22 million.
http://coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf
Politifact.org NEVER acknowledge this failure to sign these people up BEFORE ACA! It wasn't necessary to count them because all they had to do was enroll!

But the biggest joke and lie was counting this 18 million people!
3) 18 million under 34 don't NEED insurance. Can afford employers' plans as they make over $50k. That leaves 4 million.
CRISIS OF THE UNINSURED: 2009

So go to these links! Check them out and you will see that the true number of people that WANT and NEED is less the 4 million!
But Obama is destroying the health care system for 4 million people!

Finally when you consider the opinion Obama has of people like you and Politifact.org that DIDN"T look closely and the the numbers. This is what Obama thinks of you!
Like the architect for Obamacare,Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Jonathan Gruber appears on a panel and discusses how the reform earned enough votes to pass.
He suggested that many lawmakers and voters didn't know what was in the law or how its financing worked, and that this helped it win approval.
"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said.
"And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."
Gruber made the comment while discussing how the law was "written in a tortured way" to avoid a bad score from the Congressional Budget Office. He suggested that voters would have rejected ObamaCare if the penalties for going without health insurance were interpreted as taxes, either by budget analysts or the public.
While analysts expect the market to stabilize once premiums rise and more young, healthy people sign up, some observers have not ruled out the possibility of a collapse of the market, known in insurance parlance as a “death spiral.”
ObamaCare architect: 'Stupidity' of voters helped bill pass


Did Politifact.org acknowledge the above? Nope!

Now that by 2 to 1, Americans do NOT want Obamacare repealed, not really that important, all your pissing and moaning...

 

[Katzndogz]

It isn't Trump I don't believe. It's the people talking against him that I don't believe.