In The News Today...

Quote: kenarman

As mentioned earlier in the thread Politicifact.com is known as a left leaning fact checker. This is a perfect example of why. The law was possibly muddy on the point but they chose to label the claim false. A label of 'unclear' or what ever term they use for that would have been a more truthful answer. They are supposed to be in the business of supplying the truth after all.

Politifact rates Biden.

53 things he's said as "Half true"
42 as "mostly false"
38 as "false"
6, so false as to be rated "Pants on fire"

I don't know what kind of standard you want, kenarman.

Quote: kenarman

As mentioned earlier in the thread Politicifact.com is known as a left leaning fact checker. This is a perfect example of why. The law was possibly muddy on the point but they chose to label the claim false. A label of 'unclear' or what ever term they use for that would have been a more truthful answer. They are supposed to be in the business of supplying the truth after all.

It appears that they have a label called, "Half True," which they seem to sometimes use for things that are completely in doubt. It doesn't seem that they have a rating for, "Hell, we don't know," but they should. It's okay not to know things, sometimes. It's definitely better than guessing and being wrong.

Quote: Mission146

It appears that they have a label called, "Half True," which they seem to sometimes use for things that are completely in doubt. It doesn't seem that they have a rating for, "Hell, we don't know," but they should. It's okay not to know things, sometimes. It's definitely better than guessing and being wrong.

But they always give a more detailed explanation, so you're free to disagree with their rating. I think it's almost universally true that some people will always disagree with a conclusion, even one stating "unclear"

Quote: kenarman

As mentioned earlier in the thread Politicifact.com is known as a left leaning fact checker. This is a perfect example of why. The law was possibly muddy on the point but they chose to label the claim false. A label of 'unclear' or what ever term they use for that would have been a more truthful answer. They are supposed to be in the business of supplying the truth after all.

This is my point. Thanks for staying it more clearly than I did. If you are calling yourself a ‘fact checking’ website you can’t (or shouldn’t!) make a mistake on something that is DOMINATING the news cycle. I don’t need a ‘fact checking’ website, especially when you have an example like this. What repercussions occur for this error? I have never gone to
Politifact. Have they issued an apology? A retraction…. with an explanation? Are they firing the guy who published the non-fact as a fact? Crickets.

The older 60 minutes shows used to have letters at the end of the show with two viewers claiming complete bias but two opposite sides of the story.

Letter's to the Editor in newspapers also often had people claiming bias to opposite sides of the same story.

Quote: SOOPOO

This is my point. Thanks for staying it more clearly than I did. If you are calling yourself a ‘fact checking’ website you can’t (or shouldn’t!) make a mistake on something that is DOMINATING the news cycle. I don’t need a ‘fact checking’ website, especially when you have an example like this. What repercussions occur for this error? I have never gone to
Politifact. Have they issued an apology? A retraction…. with an explanation? Are they firing the guy who published the non-fact as a fact? Crickets.

You're just being unreasonable.

Quote: terapined

Is their a right wing site for fact checking
Nope
Trump wouldn't allow it
No way he wants a conservative fact checker to tell him he lost
Might want to check politifact for the facts, no doubt they have Trump losing the last election
I'm not even sure Newsmax is admitting that

For or against Murkowski?
Funny how Trumpers can't answer a simple question
Trump is against. Republican party supporting

Are you using speech to text? What possible control would Donald Trump have over the existence of a, "Right wing site for fact checking?" The statement that he wouldn't allow it is absurd on its face for two reasons:

1.) Any such site would have likely predated Trump anyway.

AND:

2.) It assumes that every single person on the political right wants to bow down to whatever Trump wants. Before you say that is true, I would encourage you to read one of the names in your very own post.*

*Of course, that's going to be a cue for a Trump supporter to come in and call her a RINO. As if that matters, Trump is also a RINO.

Oh, I saw an interesting piece of 538 that pertained to homosexual Republicans. According to them, some 23% of the some 5% of the nation's LGB population (I would have thought it to be higher) are Republican---mostly pursuant to their economic positions. That's about 1.15% of all voters.

I thought that was interesting because it almost makes me wonder whether or not other homosexuals are potentially, "In play."

All they'd have to do is say, "Gay marriage is settled law and I don't really have a huge problem with it anyway," and they'd have a chance with most gay voters, I think.

I guess Republicans running for a particular office just have to play the numbers game and determine whether they would potentially gain more gay people or lose more homophobes based on what they say. Ugh. What can you do?

Just another reason that kowtowing to the Evangelicals is a stupid move. I don't even think Republicans have to promote anything that the Evangelicals would actively like anymore; I tend to think that Evangelicals would be satisfied with any alternative to the Left. Besides, every single one of their social positions has lost, is losing and will lose for all of time. Both themselves and their religion is irrelevant in this country...the right just has to see that.

You can vote for economically responsible policies, too, Terapined...AND have an LGBTQ+-friendly political party, come join us Libertarians!

Quote: rxwine

But they always give a more detailed explanation, so you're free to disagree with their rating. I think it's almost universally true that some people will always disagree with a conclusion, even one stating "unclear"

It's really not important to me as I pay no attention to that website, so it's a just a matter of my opinion. When we talk about things being, "True," or, "False," I just think that one would only want to apply those terms to things that are virtually totally objective. It seems like they try to stick to analyzing objective things, but when getting into matters of law (such as this) it's often going to be as much on the interpretation of a judge as anything if it's not abundantly clear.

Quote: SOOPOO

This is my point. Thanks for staying it more clearly than I did. If you are calling yourself a ‘fact checking’ website you can’t (or shouldn’t!) make a mistake on something that is DOMINATING the news cycle. I don’t need a ‘fact checking’ website, especially when you have an example like this. What repercussions occur for this error? I have never gone to
Politifact. Have they issued an apology? A retraction…. with an explanation? Are they firing the guy who published the non-fact as a fact? Crickets.

Terminating someone for (as far as we know) one mistake seems a little extreme...especially if that person isn't an attorney to begin with.

What about a, "Possibly false," rating and then they quote and cite the statute? That's public domain, so they can directly quote any statute they wish.

Quote: Mission146

Are you using speech to text? What possible control would Donald Trump have over the existence of a, "Right wing site for fact checking?" The statement that he wouldn't allow it is absurd on its face for two reasons:

1.) Any such site would have likely predated Trump anyway.

AND:

2.) It assumes that every single person on the political right wants to bow down to whatever Trump wants. Before you say that is true, I would encourage you to read one of the names in your very own post.*

*Of course, that's going to be a cue for a Trump supporter to come in and call her a RINO. As if that matters, Trump is also a RINO.

Oh, I saw an interesting piece of 538 that pertained to homosexual Republicans. According to them, some 23% of the some 5% of the nation's LGB population (I would have thought it to be higher) are Republican---mostly pursuant to their economic positions. That's about 1.15% of all voters.

I thought that was interesting because it almost makes me wonder whether or not other homosexuals are potentially, "In play."

All they'd have to do is say, "Gay marriage is settled law and I don't really have a huge problem with it anyway," and they'd have a chance with most gay voters, I think.

I guess Republicans running for a particular office just have to play the numbers game and determine whether they would potentially gain more gay people or lose more homophobes based on what they say. Ugh. What can you do?

Just another reason that kowtowing to the Evangelicals is a stupid move. I don't even think Republicans have to promote anything that the Evangelicals would actively like anymore; I tend to think that Evangelicals would be satisfied with any alternative to the Left. Besides, every single one of their social positions has lost, is losing and will lose for all of time. Both themselves and their religion is irrelevant in this country...the right just has to see that.

You can vote for economically responsible policies, too, Terapined...AND have an LGBTQ+-friendly political party, come join us Libertarians!

To your second point:

Republicans don't realize how great that Court decision was for them, it gives them an out to never talk about gay marriage again. And, yet they still mess it up. My guess is they want to appeal to their religious base and look tough on an issue that they know they cannot change.

For example there are several Republicans I would vote for on foreign policy alone if they were not insane on social policy. There are some rare Republicans like Dick Cheney who are great on both issues (even before most Democrats, look at the very first VP debates in 2000).