Difference between revisions of "FactCheck"
|Line 5:||Line 5:|
Here are a few examples of their mistakes: <DPL>
Here are a few examples of their mistakes: <DPL>
Latest revision as of 09:39, 24 February 2019
Annenberg's FactCheck.org is another lefty front posing as a non-partisan fact checker. Actually, since they started taking money from Facebook, they should be called Zuckerberg's FactCheck.org: follow the money. And Facebook is completely non-partisan and has no biases or agendas, right? LOL. History proves that FactCheck.org was partisan and bias, but since their acquisition by Facebook, it seems that they won't have even the false front of being a "J-School", which are all partisan, it's just Zuckerberg's sock-puppet.
Of course that doesn't mean I think that everything FactCheck says is wrong. It's just that if you pool a bunch of far left j-students as interns at a partisan location, and ask them to fact check things, what they choose to check, and omit, is unlikely to be completely fair. And when you have an echo-chamber, they seem especially susceptible to not knowing what they don't know. And if you don't have conservatives on staff, no one to sanity check your biases.
Here are a few examples of their mistakes: 12 items
- Trump Rally Violence - There's claims that Trump advocated violence at his rally's -- but that's not the whole context. Here's the facts: Hillary and the Democrats paid violent protestors to go to Trump Rally's and make scenes or beat people up. Trump said in his sloppy ways that if one of his protestors punched a guy in the face (who had first assaulted other people) or roughed them up on the way out (after they had assaulted other people) that he'd pay their legal bills. Fake News and Fake Fact Checkers omitted the context and claimed that Trump urged violence at his rally's. No, he urged defense and counter-violence against paid violent thugs that the Democrats put in his rally's, and omitting that context is a lie of omission. Defense against paid antifa thugs, isn't advocating for violence, and it isn't racist since the majority of them are white.
- Hillary Clinton: Troopergate (1980-1993) -
Despite 4 different troopers corroborating the stories (multiple Women coming forward or being discovered, including Paula Jones and Jennifer Flowers), and writer David Brock documenting many details of times, dates, with corroborating witnesses, he later apologized to Bill Clinton for breaking the story. The troopers had gotten paid for telling their stories, and he considered that a violation of journalistic ethics. Of course, most of the accounts still appear to be true, but that doesn't matter to Clinton supporters.
- Hillary Clinton: Travelgate (1993) -
- Hillary got involved, spread some lies about the travel office, she pressured the FBI to investigate them, and 7 people were fired (and smeared in the Press) because of it.
- The investigations into the fired staff resulted in one employee (Billy Dale) being charged with mixing personal and White House funds, and a jury acquitted him of any crime (in less than two hours). So he got audited by the IRS (completely coincidentally, I'm sure). Nothing came of that either.
- Then with the help of Bill Clinton's 25 year old cousin (Catherine Cornelius), Clinton cronies WWT (World Wide Travel) took over the business, and Harry Thompson's TRM got a $500K no-bid contract.
At least this one caused a media field day, on the abuse of FBI, investigation, firing, cronies and so on. WWT was so embarrassed they stepped down (and let American Express take over the business). And it lead to NYT writer, William Safire to describe Hillary Clinton as "a congenital liar". (When the NYT speaks truth about a Clinton, you know it's bad).
- 2018.05 Cagegate - This FakeNews fiasco was the fallacy that Trump's new immigration policy was breaking up families and putting kids in cages. The omitted reality was criminals (border jumpers) have always had the kids separated from the adults, as you aren't sure who are parents, and detaining both in the same place risks harm to children. The media even used faked propaganda images from Obama era to sell it.
- 2018.04.25 Bible Ban - You can have religious liberty, or a Democrat controlled government, but as California Assembly Bill 2943 shows, rarely both. Basically, it says no church or individual can practice "conversion therapy", or "pray the gay away". While I don't think those are useful, in a country with religious liberty, you don't outlaw stupid things just because you don't agree. And Fact Checkers like Snopes/FactCheck do their jobs and report the facts, instead of doing mental gymnastics to defend Democrats from themselves.
- 2017.02.28 Sitting for Seal Widow - This is a famous case where the Democrats were remaining seated during Trump's first address to congress in 2017, in protest of his very existence. As Ben Shapiro wrote, the Democrats unfortuitously decided to keep their asses planted for the 2nd standing ovation for a Navy Seal who gave his life (and his widow), and PolitiFact, FactCheck and Snopes misrepresented their stories to not make the Democrats look as bad as their contemptuous partisan behavior had been for the whole night, or to make it look like Ben Shapiro had misrepresented things that he had not.
- 2016.05.06 Birth of Birthers - Fact checkers (CNN, Politifact, Snopes, FactCheck) answered whether Hillary originated the Birther movement, and exonerated her. It was only her top strategists plan and her campaign staffers, but not her personally -- so they pretended that Trump was lying to imply she had anything to do with creating these rumors that her campaign gleefully twisted and spread. So dishonest.
- 2013.05.16 Open Border Hillary - Wikileaks leaked the text of private, paid speech to a Brazilian bank where Clinton said: “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders..." 3 years later, Politifact, FactCheck and CNN were claiming that Hillary never said or meant it, and spent their energies defending her reputation instead of communicating what was said and leaving it up to their readers.
- 2012.07.13 You didn't build that - One of the defining phrases of the Obama Administration was Obama's attack on private companies which went, "You didn't build that"... basically you owe government for the company you created since they supplied the infrastructure needed. The truth is the opposite, without government we'd still have commerce and industrious individuals, but without commerce and people to tax, there is no government. Government is the parasite with delusions of grandeur. The FakeNews / far-left / Democrats lied and claimed Obama was only talking about roads and bridges, when he clearly said, "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that".