• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump 4, Politifact 1

KLATTU

KLATTU

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
19,259
Reaction score
6,899
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nice takedown of liberal spinmeisters Politifact.

As I've brilliantly and famously noted on several occasions- they rarely check facts.
Trump 4, Politifact 1 | Power Line
 
Why does it seem like every conservative posts a blog as their source?
 
Geoist said:
Why does it seem like every conservative posts a blog as their source?
Click to expand...

Because conservatives are easy prey for fake news?
Oh wait... maybe it was a rhetorical question...
 
Geoist said:
Why does it seem like every conservative posts a blog as their source?
Click to expand...

""Objection-irrelevant."
"Sustained"
Now- do you have any comments on Politifact's ridiculous rulings?
 
Geoist said:
Why does it seem like every conservative posts a blog as their source?
Click to expand...

RickJames3000 said:
Because conservatives are easy prey for fake news?
Oh wait... maybe it was a rhetorical question...
Click to expand...

Porkuloss said:
Thanks. I didn't have Power Line in my list of RTV approved sites. I fixed it...
Click to expand...

Are the statements made in the OP article (blog) correct or incorrect? I read it. Did you? I agree that using an OpEd (as some blogs are) as a source of facts can make it difficult to defend in a debate, unless the blog post's facts are correct and backed up with data. Also, there are numerous folks on here that use blog posts as a source to begin a thread discussion, both left leaning members and right leaning members, as well as some members that don't lean at all. That doesn't make a blog a bad primer for a thread discussion, especially if the blog is well sourced and factual.

So, again, was the blog author correct or not in his statements? I haven't checked the source material to see for myself, but you guys made such demonstrative statements against the OP that you three must have checked out the facts and come to the conclusion that the author was obviously incorrect because it was a blog.

Mind sharing how you came to that decision, in addition to letting us all know whether you think the blog author is correct or incorrect on the facts?
 
RickJames3000 said:
Because conservatives are easy prey for fake news?
Oh wait... maybe it was a rhetorical question...
Click to expand...

LAFF-FRIggiIN_ RIOT.

Liberals just don't see themselves.

Trump cites (fake) attack in Sweden

Trump cites (fake) attack in Sweden

Donald Trump Cites Terror Attack in Sweden That Never Happened | The Daily Dot

or the third time in less than a month, a member of Donald Trump's administration falsely cited a terror attack as justification for its travel ban.

Trump Cites Non-Existent Sweden Attack - The Daily Beast

Trump Cites Non-Existent Sweden Attack


We all know now he never cited any such thing.

FAKE!
Liberals fell for it hook line and sinker
 
KLATTU said:
LAFF-FRIggiIN_ RIOT.

Liberals just don't see themselves.

Trump cites (fake) attack in Sweden

Trump cites (fake) attack in Sweden

Donald Trump Cites Terror Attack in Sweden That Never Happened | The Daily Dot

or the third time in less than a month, a member of Donald Trump's administration falsely cited a terror attack as justification for its travel ban.

Trump Cites Non-Existent Sweden Attack - The Daily Beast

Trump Cites Non-Existent Sweden Attack


We all know now he never cited any such thing.

FAKE!
Liberals fell for it hook line and sinker
Click to expand...

Yes, everyone knows he didn't cite terror attacks in Sweden. What he did was interject his thoughts on Tucker Carlson's show on a documentary in the middle of his comments about real terror attacks in real countries.

It would help if the President can get his thoughts straight so he isn't talking about Fox News shows while he's talking at the same time about terror attacks. Then nobody would have to spend hours trying to decipher what he's saying.
 
tres borrachos said:
Yes, everyone knows he didn't cite terror attacks in Sweden. What he did was interject his thoughts on Tucker Carlson's show on a documentary in the middle of his comments about real terror attacks in real countries.

It would help if the President can get his thoughts straight so he isn't talking about Fox News shows while he's talking at the same time about terror attacks. Then nobody would have to spend hours trying to decipher what he's saying.
Click to expand...
But nobody spent any time deciphering what he said in that case. The journolistso's couldn't WAIt to get that fake story out there.

If they tried to decipher what he said- they would have ignored it ( because it didn't really make any sense) . Where doe sit say they have to run out a gotcha story every time he sneezes.
 
KLATTU said:
But nobody spent any time deciphering what he said in that case. The journolistso's couldn't WAIt to get that fake story out there.

If they tried to decipher what he said- they would have ignored it ( because it didn't really make any sense) . Where doe sit say they have to run out a gotcha story every time he sneezes.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I didn't know it was everyone else's responsibility to try to figure out why he's talking about Tucker Carlson's show when he's going on about keeping America safe.

You're right, they should start ignoring him. I've said that myself. Then he'll have a meltdown because he isn't getting any press time. If it's one thing that man loves, it's his own image on television.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Are the statements made in the OP article (blog) correct or incorrect? I read it. Did you? I agree that using an OpEd (as some blogs are) as a source of facts can make it difficult to defend in a debate, unless the blog post's facts are correct and backed up with data. Also, there are numerous folks on here that use blog posts as a source to begin a thread discussion, both left leaning members and right leaning members, as well as some members that don't lean at all. That doesn't make a blog a bad primer for a thread discussion, especially if the blog is well sourced and factual.

So, again, was the blog author correct or not in his statements? I haven't checked the source material to see for myself, but you guys made such demonstrative statements against the OP that you three must have checked out the facts and come to the conclusion that the author was obviously incorrect because it was a blog.

Mind sharing how you came to that decision, in addition to letting us all know whether you think the blog author is correct or incorrect on the facts?
Click to expand...

My post was a joke based on prior experience looking at Powerline. I had totally dismissed and forgotten about it some time ago. If I have time later I'll look into the actual blog post and see if any of the links therein a meaty enough to warrant reading.

Where this "fact checking" stuff gets hairy is when the verdict isn't black/white. With snopes I like the fact that they tend to include inline references to illustrate what the conclusions are based on. There have been times I've read the evidence and reached a different conclusion.
 
Porkuloss said:
My post was a joke based on prior experience looking at Powerline. I had totally dismissed and forgotten about it some time ago. If I have time later I'll look into the actual blog post and see if any of the links therein a meaty enough to warrant reading.

Where this "fact checking" stuff gets hairy is when the verdict isn't black/white. With snopes I like the fact that they tend to include inline references to illustrate what the conclusions are based on. There have been times I've read the evidence and reached a different conclusion.
Click to expand...

I truly appreciate you giving an honest response. Thank you. Also, I agree with your last paragraph.
 
Geoist said:
Why does it seem like every conservative posts a blog as their source?
Click to expand...

lol..smackdown with a blog written by who knows who.
 
Geoist said:
Why does it seem like every conservative posts a blog as their source?
Click to expand...

huffpo, mediamatter, dailykos, politico, motherjones.
nope not blogs at all.
 
tres borrachos said:
Yes, everyone knows he didn't cite terror attacks in Sweden. What he did was interject his thoughts on Tucker Carlson's show on a documentary in the middle of his comments about real terror attacks in real countries.

It would help if the President can get his thoughts straight so he isn't talking about Fox News shows while he's talking at the same time about terror attacks. Then nobody would have to spend hours trying to decipher what he's saying.
Click to expand...

The fake news says Trump doesn't read, but watches a lot of TV. Wonder what the truth is?
 
tres borrachos said:
I'm sorry, I didn't know it was everyone else's responsibility to try to figure out why he's talking about Tucker Carlson's show when he's going on about keeping America safe.

n.
Click to expand...

It's not. So instead of even trying, they rush out a fake story. That's my point.
 
KLATTU said:
It's not. So instead of even trying, they rush out a fake story. That's my point.
Click to expand...

The "fake story" was pointing out that his comments made no sense. That's actually a true story. His comments made no sense.
 
Porkuloss said:
The fake news says Trump doesn't read, but watches a lot of TV. Wonder what the truth is?
Click to expand...

He probably thinks he knows about Shakespeare too because he once saw Laurence Olivier play Hamlet.

Hey, he's only watching the networks who are - what was his word again - "friendly" to him. Now that's not the sign of a narcissist, is it?
 
tres borrachos said:
The "fake story" was pointing out that his comments made no sense. That's actually a true story. His comments made no sense.
Click to expand...

I disagree. He comments made a lot of sense..... To a chef. In fact, famous chefs are coming from all over the world to see Trump's word salad.
 
Politifact is horrible. They utilize pretzel logic to bend their outcomes to their agenda. If you're going to go with a liberal fact checker at least go with WaPo. They do a more thorough job. For conservative fact checking sites you can look at news busters but they're more of a media watchdog site.

Some conservative writers out there like Charles Cooke specialize in fact checking arguments and they're good at it.
 
Trump does not lie, he merely embellishes. If he won by 500 votes he says it's 1000, if he has a crowd at an event of 10,000
he says its 15,000. It's tactical exploitation & obviously effective. To a percentage of Trumpsters it's rather becoming.

On the other hand, a considerable portion of the MSM are card-carrying liars. If they had a Mt. Rushmore of cable news liars
Jake Tapper, Don Lemon, Rachelle Maddow & Lawrence O'Donnell would be memorialized on the montain top & Wolf Blitzer
would be hoppin mad that he just missed out.
 
ludin said:
huffpo, mediamatter, dailykos, politico, motherjones.
nope not blogs at all.
Click to expand...

They have blogs within their websites. The websites themselves are not blogs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom