Show me your best Politi"facts"

What is the issue here?

>>130888217
How about the fact that Trump's statement is 100% accurate and it's rated as "mostly false?"

>>130888357
literal cancer

>>130888294
Only if you take his statement purely at face value, which Politifact does not do, never does, and should not do. In stating it Trump implied that he had anything to do with it, when, in fact, the national debt is constantly fluctuating and Trump has not passed any legislation that would affect it.

>>130888357
>>130887937
>>130888992
Good grief they are liars themselves.

>>130889020
It's down over $100 billion in the first 5 months of his presidency. By this time under Obama it was up over $800 billion

>>130888790
>something is true only if you stay why it's true

>>130889020
I trained myself not to read a comment longer than 1 line unless I can spot a legit official non-counterfeit meme.

You failed the test

>>130889384
State

>>130889020
It's still a fact though, that doesn't change. It doesn't matter what his implications were, what he said was true, Politifact claims to be a website that checks whether what politicians say is true, that's their job.

>>130889020
>implying politifact is honest

GTFO Demfag scum

File: sn.png (66KB, 806x660px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 806x660px

>>130889525
Maybe you should actually read their methodology before stating what their job is. They take context into account, and "mostly false" does not mean that there are mix of true and false things in a claim. It means that a claim is misleading as fuck because it was not properly contextualized.

>>130890115
With the picture in the OP, they're injecting their own opinion and not taking the quote at face value in order to make him look bad. Is the statement true? The answer is yes.

>>130890115
ah, so is >>130888790 acceptable then?

>>130890247
Again, Politifact considers context, and it is not good enough for a claim to be true on the face for it to be "true" under their review.

Trump most certainly *should* be made to look bad when he bullshits like he did here.

>>130890115

>a statement can be "mostly false" even when it's literally objectively true

So, why the fuck should anyone listen to these retards?

File: polls.png (60KB, 814x621px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 814x621px

>>130890892
That is a shop. Politifact doesn't say that. In fact, they state that nearly every number is wrong.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/23/donald-trump/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/

>>130890922
But nonetheless: he's not raising the debt. He didn't get a balanced budget through, but he also didn't add $800 billion to the debt via a stimulus bill. Even with context this rating has an implicit bias

File: OhComeOnNow.png (312KB, 627x652px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 627x652px

>>130889020
>take his statement purely at face value, which Politifact does not do, never does, and should not do

I guess they're better than NBC Fact Check, if you aren't lying to me that is.

>>130890922

>it is not good enough for a claim to be true on the face for it to be "true" under their review.

Fuck em then, they're blatantly ignoring the facts

>>130891061
The statement can be true while the claim is not. The statement is the claim taken on the face. The claim includes what is implied. Trump was not saying "A month into my presidency the national debt decreased by complete coincidence" ; he was suggesting "I decreased the debt a month into my presidency."

Feel free not to use politifact if it bothers you that they take what politicians say at face value, but this is their method, this has ALWAYS been their method, and it's spelled out on their site.

>>130888357
jesus fucking christ

File: poli.png (86KB, 813x695px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 813x695px

>>130891294
Funny, the same people who post the images disparaging Politifact post this image for doing exactly what their upset that Politifact doesn't do.

Their methodology is on their site:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/nov/01/principles-politifact-punditfact-and-truth-o-meter/

>>130892200
Checked. Let's archive that
https://archive.is/1JiLP

>>130891876

And I'm saying their method is stupid and wrong. Additionally, Trump didn't make the claim that the debt went down as a direct result of actions he made, therefore they are attacking a strawman they erected themselves. Using lack of proof of words they put in trump's mouth to call an objective fact "mostly false". Lousy hypocrites.

>>130888357
>Obamacare isn't helping anyone

The fact that they would be so immature as to fact check obvious hyperbole should lose them any recognition as a legitimate fact checking source.

File: 1495945902320.png (582KB, 1760x1222px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 1760x1222px

>>130891451
DELETE THIS RIGHT NOW

>>130892303
Yea, Trump just decided, for absolutely no reason, to publicize the national debt change and was not implying anything about his effect on it.

Trump supporters want people to interpret Trump's words like autists when it's convenient for them. If this is how you guys process Trump's words, that explains a lot.

File: 1497969806662.jpg (8KB, 190x175px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 190x175px

>>130891238
Now imagine blacks made up 50% of the population.

>>130892762

I didn't say he wasn't implying that he wasn't at least in part responsible, I'm saying he never made a claim that any particular policy or action of his was partially or wholely responsible, so how could politifact "disprove" it? How do you disprove something you have to infer?

But this is still dodging the main issue which is that their shitty methodology calls literal unquestionable facts, mostly false.

>>130893763
Their methodology isn't shit. You are just looking for ways to discredit them. Interpreting anything someone says requires a degree of inference.

Politifact disputed the idea that Trump had anything to do with the decrease, which he suggests without explicitly stating. Trump didn't need to say any particular policy of his changed things. Politifact is saying that the fact he has not had any policy that would change things means he couldn't have changed it.

Aside:

If your idea fact-checker is an autist that takes claims purely at face value and determines true or false, there are plenty of ways of Trump's claim still being false. For instance, his tweet says "In my first month," but first month of what? He says "national debt," but whose national debt? You can't say he's saying "first month of my presidency" or "national debt of the United States," because I am autistic and can only take words at face value.

>>130894915

>Their methodology isn't shit. You are just looking for ways to discredit them.

They don't need my help when the call objective facts false

>Politifact disputed the idea that Trump had anything to do with the decrease, which he suggests without explicitly stating.

You mean which they inferred. They are disproving their own assumption. But more importantly, even their findings are wrong. Trump did have a dramatic effect even before being sworn in, as promise of deregulation, which he has worked steadily on since January, rallied the markets, which naturally increases tax revenue.

>your idea fact-checker is an autist that takes claims purely at face value and determines true or false, there are plenty of ways of Trump's claim still being false. For instance, his tweet says "In my first month," but first month of what? He says "national debt," but whose national debt? You can't say he's saying "first month of my presidency" or "national debt of the United States," because I am autistic and can only take words at face value.

The things you listed are not things that are wrong, but things that aren't said at all. But more importantly, there's nothing autistic about calling you retarded for saying that a fact is false.

>>130894915
Here we have an example of jewish pilpul

>>130895319
They don't say the statement "The national debt of the United States decreased by 12 billion dollars during the first month of Donald J. Trump's presidency" is false. In fact, they note that, on the face, it did go down. They are analyzing the wider claim that Trump is making, which includes the suggestion that he caused it to go down. It is as much of an inference as we do everyday when we communicate with others, as much as you're doing now and I'm doing now. Words are arbitrary, meaningless symbols without context, and it's irrational to try and limit the context when you think it favors your point.

Trump said:

>"The National Debt in my first month went down by $12 billion."

I'm sorry, but whose national debt is he referring to? It would be an "inference" to say that he is referring to the United States. What about the other 195 nations in existence? Also, which "first month" is he talking about? It's an absolute inference to say that he is talking about the first month of his presidency. Trump's "first month" started June 14, 1942, the day he was born, but certainly the national debt didn't decrease by 12 billion dollars.

>>130896549

They put "mostly false" right there. Because the point is to suggest to someone not reading the entire article that Trump was either willfully lying or just incorrect. When in fact, what he said was objectively correct. And you KNOW this, you're just trying to defend batshit backwards semantics as a method for publishing political lies.

>I'm sorry, but whose national debt is he referring to? It would be an "inference" to say that he is referring to the United States. What about the other 195 nations in existence? Also, which "first month" is he talking about? It's an absolute inference to say that he is talking about the first month of his presidency. Trump's "first month" started June 14, 1942, the day he was born, but certainly the national debt didn't decrease by 12 billion dollars.

Yes, these are inferences, very good. But guess what, the fact that you're able to correctly guess the answers to these questions does not mean that you can use your assumptions as a guideline to critique the factual truth of words. Especially when it's much more ambiguous than "what country is he talking about".

File: snop.png (17KB, 524x224px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 524x224px

>>130897076
Anyone who goes on the website will see not just the rating but also the headline of their review, which says,

"Why Donald Trump's tweet about national debt decrease in his first month is highly misleading"

It does not say it is "false." It says that it is "misleading." That is encompassed with politifact's definition of "mostly false." And the fact that they don't say that it is strictly "false" means that you HAVE to read the review to actually understand why it's "mostly false" rather than just "false" or even true so your assertion that they are trying to mislead unwitting Googlers doesn't hold up either.

Also yea, Trump is lying, lying by omission of pertinent facts. His attempt with the tweet (which in full was a dig at the media for not reporting the debt change his first month vs. obama's) was to suggest that he caused a 12 billion dollar change in the debt in his first month, which is false.

>>130897748

The page says "mostly false" right there. It's the most noticeable thing on the page and what the reader is expected to look at first, even before the headline. They are calling a numerical fact "mostly false", which is itself a lie, regardless of whether or not they have a systematic way of lying about it.

>And the fact that they don't say that it is strictly "false" means that you HAVE to read the review to actually understand why it's "mostly false" rather than just "false" or even true so your assertion that they are trying to mislead unwitting Googlers doesn't hold up either.

This doesn't follow at all. 98% of people will see the word "false" and go "well that settles that!" and move on. Especially if they're unaware of politifact's bullshit "methodology".

>Also yea, Trump is lying, lying by omission of pertinent facts. His attempt with the tweet (which in full was a dig at the media for not reporting the debt change his first month vs. obama's) was to suggest that he caused a 12 billion dollar change in the debt in his first month, which is false.

Prove it. He could and did have dramatic effect even before passing any legislature. That's how leadership works. In fact it's how it USUALLY works.

>>130898245

actually, you know what, don't bother, I have to go. But know this, you slimey fucking kike. Your days of spouting pseudo-intellectual garbage like calling a lie a truth if they have a systematic way of lying are numbered.

>>130898245
"Mostly false" is meaningless without explanation because that directly implies there is some truth in it is as well, but it doesn't tell you which parts are false and which parts true. If I say the claim "Susie has 4 dogs, 2 cats, and 1 turtle " is "mostly false," then I am saying it is partly true. But unless I tell you Susie has no dogs, you have no idea what I am saying is false.

The reason why Trump's claim is "mostly false" (rather than strictly false) is because, taken at its face value, the claim is true, but the implication ("I made the debt go down 12 billion dollars") is not true, and the implication is more important here.