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

[Arizona Willie]

One of my favorites is Trump's stump lie that refugees are coming in with no documentation, we have no idea who they are. He was using this one earlier in the race, but recently used it again in an interview. Now, if Trump is serious about national security, you'd think he might actually take the matter seriously and tell the truth about it. He could still argue for halting immigration and win, I think, just not basing it on bald faced lies.

Why does he keep it up? It's sad there are a bunch of people out there who BELIEVE him.

Below, from Politifact on Trump's stance on immigration:

Do the refugees get background checks?

The refugees admissions program, created in 1980 and retooled after 9/11, does actually perform background checks on all refugees, to the extent possible.

Before refugees face U.S. screening, they must get a referral from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (or occasionally a U.S. embassy or another NGO). The UN refers about 1 percent of refugees for resettlement through its own vetting process, which takes four to 10 months. During that process, UN officials decide if people actually qualify as refugees, if they require resettlement, and which country would accept them.

Once the cases are passed along to the United States, the refugees undergo security clearances. Their names, biographical information and fingerprints are run through federal terrorism and criminal databases. Meanwhile, the refugees are interviewed by Department of Homeland Security officials. If approved, they then undergo a medical screening, a match with sponsor agencies, "cultural orientation" classes and one final security clearance.

Syrian refugees in particular must clear one additional hurdle. Their documents are placed under extra scrutiny and cross-referenced with classified and unclassified information.

The process typically takes one to two yearsor longerand happens before a refugee ever gets onto American soil.

According to the State Department, Syrians tend to have more identity documents than other refugee groups around the world, and the reasons they give for missing documents (a bomb dropping on their house) can be verified.

Experts also warned against conflating the European vetting process, which is extremely chaotic, with the process used by the United States.

In the United States, very few resettled refugees — three since 9/11, according to theWashington Post’s Fact Checker — have been implicated in terrorist situations. Daryl Grisgraber of Refugees International pointed out that the Tsarnaevs came to the United States as children from Chechnya and applied for asylum, but were radicalized here.

Refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any traveler category to the United States. So for ISIS to take advantage of the refugee program "makes no operational sense," said Anne Speckhard, a counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University.

PolitiFact Sheet: 5 questions about Syrian refugees

========
" to the extent possible " is where the problem comes in.

The ONLY source of information about a refugee comes from the government of his country 99.9% of the time. And the government of the country the refugees are fleeing from hates the United States with a passion.

So we have no way of knowing how much of what they tell us is true and for the most part they won't tell us anything. Why would they?

They tell us to go **** ourselves.

How are you supposed to get valid dependable information to do a background check on someone when their government won't co-operate at all?

 

[healthmyths]

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...

Where are your FACTS? You just made that up because look at these POLLING NUMBERS!!!
LOOK! The AVERAGE is 51% want REPEAL... 43% Oppose!
Where in the hell did you get "2 to 1"?????
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Repeal of Health Care Law: Favor/Oppose

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

So, in other words for you, anyone who speaks their mind is pretty much all that you are looking for in a president. Well, that and no experience or knowledge of governmental policy of course.

im not voting for him
And I would rather a common joe be in office than a politician. They don't have to know every detail about everything. That's why they make cabinets and hire advisors.

Yeah. That's why we elected Jimmy Carter!

 

[Camp]

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...

Where are your FACTS? You just made that up because look at these POLLING NUMBERS!!!
LOOK! The AVERAGE is 51% want REPEAL... 43% Oppose!
Where in the hell did you get "2 to 1"?????
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Repeal of Health Care Law: Favor/Oppose
View attachment 74379

What does anything you have been posting have to do with Trump being a rabid pathological liar? Your method seems to be the standard deflection to evade having to discuss Trump's lies.

 

[SmokeALib]

Compared to 90 percent lies spewing from The Blamer and Hitlery.

 

[healthmyths]

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...

Where are your FACTS? You just made that up because look at these POLLING NUMBERS!!!
LOOK! The AVERAGE is 51% want REPEAL... 43% Oppose!
Where in the hell did you get "2 to 1"?????
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Repeal of Health Care Law: Favor/Oppose
View attachment 74379

What does anything you have been posting have to do with Trump being a rabid pathological liar? Your method seems to be the standard deflection to evade having to discuss Trump's lies.

A) Politifact.org called Trump a liar 76% of the time and I"M CALLING POLITIFACT.ORG a biased and totally inept source of opinion making which is what you have
done, i.e. formed an opinion based on Politifact.ORG...
B) I've shown that Politifact.org WoN'T call Obama on his gigantic lie that is costing human lives, i.e. Obama care !
There never were 46 million uninsured Americans that needed and wanted and were legal! NEVER!
10 million not legal... 14 million didn't know they were eligible because of Obama ineptness for Medicaid and 18 million don't want, or need!
Yet this gigantic lie passed Obamacare which has NOW caused deaths!
Frank Alfisi was killed by Obamacare.

His daughter, Amy DiFrancesca, is furious. And yes, she quite specifically blames the President of the United States for her father’s death. As did the doctor who told Amy: “You can thank Mr. Obama for this.”

Before we get to the specifics of how Frank Alfisi died, let’s begin with the who of this story. Mr. Alfisi was not a statistic. He wasn’t a guinea pig or a lab rat. Frank Alfisi was a real person. A son, a brother, a husband, a father, a grandfather. So let’s start here by getting to know something about Amy’s Dad Frank.
Obamacare Takes a Life

 

[Camp]

Compared to 90 percent lies spewing from The Blamer and Hitlery.

Another one who can not defend Trump being the biggest liar in Presidential campaign history deflecting away from the topic.
Putin did not call Trump a genius the way Trump has been claiming and lying about for two months. Putin called Trump bright, meaning flamboyant and colorful and eccentric. Trump mistranslated the meaning of way bright is used in Russian and decided to use bright to mean an American use of the word that means smart or witty. He is still lying about Putin calling him a genius.

 

[healthmyths]

Compared to 90 percent lies spewing from The Blamer and Hitlery.

Another one who can not defend Trump being the biggest liar in Presidential campaign history deflecting away from the topic.
Putin did not call Trump a genius the way Trump has been claiming and lying about for two months. Putin called Trump bright, meaning flamboyant and colorful and eccentric. Trump mistranslated the meaning of way bright is used in Russian and decided to use bright to mean an American use of the word that means smart or witty. He is still lying about Putin calling him a genius.

You know the difference between Trump the Liar and Obama the Liar is this:
Obama was counting on the stupidity of the American Voter because HE told all of us if you were smart enough to read his autobiography where he
shows his total disdain even for his Mother by playing with her and his deceit is so totally clear!
In Obama's own words when he was "fooling" his own mother!!!
From Obama's autobiography, "Dreams from My Father"...published July 18,1995 page 94 -95

"I had given her a reassuring smile and patted her hand told her not to worry, I wouldn't do anything stupid.
It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied.
They were revealed.
Such a pleasant surprise to find a
well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

 

[rdean]

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!

Obama is not running. Duh!

 

[rdean]

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

So, in other words for you, anyone who speaks their mind is pretty much all that you are looking for in a president. Well, that and no experience or knowledge of governmental policy of course.

im not voting for him
And I would rather a common joe be in office than a politician. They don't have to know every detail about everything. That's why they make cabinets and hire advisors.

Yeah. That's why we elected Jimmy Carter!

Who turned out to be a good president. 10 million jobs. Good economy. No wars.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

So, in other words for you, anyone who speaks their mind is pretty much all that you are looking for in a president. Well, that and no experience or knowledge of governmental policy of course.

Yeah...kinda like Obama.....or should it say...just like Obamy ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

So, in other words for you, anyone who speaks their mind is pretty much all that you are looking for in a president. Well, that and no experience or knowledge of governmental policy of course.

im not voting for him
And I would rather a common joe be in office than a politician. They don't have to know every detail about everything. That's why they make cabinets and hire advisors.

Yeah. That's why we elected Jimmy Carter!

Who turned out to be a good president. 10 million jobs. Good economy. No wars.

We still have a war....

19 trillion of debt.....he was a fantastic president.

 

[healthmyths]

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

So, in other words for you, anyone who speaks their mind is pretty much all that you are looking for in a president. Well, that and no experience or knowledge of governmental policy of course.

im not voting for him
And I would rather a common joe be in office than a politician. They don't have to know every detail about everything. That's why they make cabinets and hire advisors.

Yeah. That's why we elected Jimmy Carter!

Who turned out to be a good president. 10 million jobs. Good economy. No wars.

10 million jobs? Where are your facts as this is just a guess on your part. PROVIDE LINKS please!
"Good economy"?
The failed recovery in 9 charts: 9 charts highlighting the lackluster performance of the economy.

 

[rdean]

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

So, in other words for you, anyone who speaks their mind is pretty much all that you are looking for in a president. Well, that and no experience or knowledge of governmental policy of course.

Yeah...kinda like Obama.....or should it say...just like Obamy ?

Except Obama had been a community organizer who taught constitutional law for 10 years at the university level. Being president is being the world's most powerful community organizer. And his teaching is why he always wins when it comes to constitutional issues.

 

[Geaux4it]

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

So, in other words for you, anyone who speaks their mind is pretty much all that you are looking for in a president. Well, that and no experience or knowledge of governmental policy of course.

Yeah...kinda like Obama.....or should it say...just like Obamy ?

Except Obama had been a community organizer who taught constitutional law for 10 years at the university level. Being president is being the world's most powerful community organizer. And his teaching is why he always wins when it comes to constitutional issues.

LMFAO

 

[TNHarley]

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

So, in other words for you, anyone who speaks their mind is pretty much all that you are looking for in a president. Well, that and no experience or knowledge of governmental policy of course.

Yeah...kinda like Obama.....or should it say...just like Obamy ?

Except Obama had been a community organizer who taught constitutional law for 10 years at the university level. Being president is being the world's most powerful community organizer. And his teaching is why he always wins when it comes to constitutional issues.

he taught constitutional law for 10 years? link?

 

[healthmyths]

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

So, in other words for you, anyone who speaks their mind is pretty much all that you are looking for in a president. Well, that and no experience or knowledge of governmental policy of course.

Yeah...kinda like Obama.....or should it say...just like Obamy ?

Except Obama had been a community organizer who taught constitutional law for 10 years at the university level. Being president is being the world's most powerful community organizer. And his teaching is why he always wins when it comes to constitutional issues.

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.”
Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered.
A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach.
The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position.
He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool.
According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building.
He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

Chicago Law Professor: Obama Was Unqualified, LAZY, and... - Headline Politics

 

[JimBowie1958]

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 a libtard propaganda site that poses as neutral and objective.

only idiots like you believe that Politifacts is legit any more, short stuff.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Name one with a link and lets discuss it then.

I dont know of any deliberate lies he has told.

And note, Trump saying something that you disagree with is not a lie. He has to know that it is false when he says it or it is not a lie. Hyperbole is also not a lie.

So what was this awful lie Trump told?

roflmao

 

[JimBowie1958]

One of my favorites is Trump's stump lie that refugees are coming in with no documentation, we have no idea who they are. He was using this one earlier in the race, but recently used it again in an interview. Now, if Trump is serious about national security, you'd think he might actually take the matter seriously and tell the truth about it. He could still argue for halting immigration and win, I think, just not basing it on bald faced lies.

Why does he keep it up? It's sad there are a bunch of people out there who BELIEVE him.

Below, from Politifact on Trump's stance on immigration:

Do the refugees get background checks?

The refugees admissions program, created in 1980 and retooled after 9/11, does actually perform background checks on all refugees, to the extent possible.

Before refugees face U.S. screening, they must get a referral from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (or occasionally a U.S. embassy or another NGO). The UN refers about 1 percent of refugees for resettlement through its own vetting process, which takes four to 10 months. During that process, UN officials decide if people actually qualify as refugees, if they require resettlement, and which country would accept them.

Once the cases are passed along to the United States, the refugees undergo security clearances. Their names, biographical information and fingerprints are run through federal terrorism and criminal databases. Meanwhile, the refugees are interviewed by Department of Homeland Security officials. If approved, they then undergo a medical screening, a match with sponsor agencies, "cultural orientation" classes and one final security clearance.

Syrian refugees in particular must clear one additional hurdle. Their documents are placed under extra scrutiny and cross-referenced with classified and unclassified information.

The process typically takes one to two yearsor longerand happens before a refugee ever gets onto American soil.

According to the State Department, Syrians tend to have more identity documents than other refugee groups around the world, and the reasons they give for missing documents (a bomb dropping on their house) can be verified.

Experts also warned against conflating the European vetting process, which is extremely chaotic, with the process used by the United States.

In the United States, very few resettled refugees — three since 9/11, according to theWashington Post’s Fact Checker — have been implicated in terrorist situations. Daryl Grisgraber of Refugees International pointed out that the Tsarnaevs came to the United States as children from Chechnya and applied for asylum, but were radicalized here.

Refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any traveler category to the United States. So for ISIS to take advantage of the refugee program "makes no operational sense," said Anne Speckhard, a counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University.

PolitiFact Sheet: 5 questions about Syrian refugees

You actually believe that bullshit?

How the hell does our DHS verify past addresses, employers and residential data from a WAR TORN NATION LIKE SYRIA?