The last guy did the same thing for 8 years, taking credit for things that he had no influence over, and passing the buck on anything bad that happened during his tenure.  We got 8 years of blaming Bush.

Your fact check never happened when the messiah was in the Oval Office, but if it had, it would have read almost exactly the same.  "True, but..."

Every politician should be fact checked as much as possible, and we ought to be able to admit it when they are intentionally misleading people.  We should not let our partisanship get in the way of the truth.

Were you saying this for the previous 8 years when the media gave that guy a pass on just about everything that crossed his lips?

I don't disagree with you, but I find it interesting that fact checking really seems to be slanted in one direction.  Even the link you provided had to take the opportunity to basically defend Obama in every "True, but..." they posted.  You never saw anything of the sort during Obama's tenure.  The media just let it go.  What's worse is that many of the fact checking services are nothing more than shills for one political viewpoint, which this MSN article actually supports.  Snopes, Factcheck.org, and the other large operations that do this kind of work all let their bias determine the narrative, and in every instance, they're admitted leftists.  If you're fine with that, okay.  I tend to dismiss most "fact check" sites.  There are a couple that do a decent job of keeping bias out of the discussion, but they tend to be few and far between.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

The last guy did the same thing for 8 years, taking credit for things that he had no influence over, and passing the buck on anything bad that happened during his tenure.  We got 8 years of blaming Bush.

Your fact check never happened when the messiah was in the Oval Office, but if it had, it would have read almost exactly the same.  "True, but..."

Every politician should be fact checked as much as possible, and we ought to be able to admit it when they are intentionally misleading people.  We should not let our partisanship get in the way of the truth.

Where was all this passion for the truth when Obama was in office?

---

Caption contest?

"Look! The North Korean ambassador just wet himself."

"I think you're hotter than that Huckabee chick"

.

---

Every politician should be fact checked as much as possible, and we ought to be able to admit it when they are intentionally misleading people.  We should not let our partisanship get in the way of the truth.

Where was all this passion for the truth when Obama was in office?

That's an interesting and arguable point, but not relevant to what I said.  Do you disagree with my statement above? 

"Every politician should be fact checked as much as possible, and we ought to be able to admit it when they are intentionally misleading people.  We should not let our partisanship get in the way of the truth."  Agree or disagree?

---

Trump was right -- that wall is hideous

---

Where was all this passion for the truth when Obama was in office?

That's an interesting and arguable point, but not relevant to what I said.  Do you disagree with my statement above? 

"Every politician should be fact checked as much as possible, and we ought to be able to admit it when they are intentionally misleading people.  We should not let our partisanship get in the way of the truth."  Agree or disagree?

I agree, unfortunately the Left and the MSM (birm) live by a totaly different code.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Where was all this passion for the truth when Obama was in office?

That's an interesting and arguable point, but not relevant to what I said.  Do you disagree with my statement above? 

"Every politician should be fact checked as much as possible, and we ought to be able to admit it when they are intentionally misleading people.  We should not let our partisanship get in the way of the truth."  Agree or disagree?

I completely agree, but the FACT of the matter is that it's selectively applied. Journalism is critical for democracy. Unfortunately the self-imposed standards of the press in the U.S. have turned it from a fourth estate into a fifth column. They've undermined their own credibility by leveraging idealism over infallibility. Standing on your soapbox while making noble proclamations about the truth is only aping the censor when applied inequitably.

---

That's an interesting and arguable point, but not relevant to what I said.  Do you disagree with my statement above? 

"Every politician should be fact checked as much as possible, and we ought to be able to admit it when they are intentionally misleading people.  We should not let our partisanship get in the way of the truth."  Agree or disagree?

I completely agree, but the FACT of the matter is that it's selectively applied. Journalism is critical for democracy. Unfortunately the self-imposed standards of the press in the U.S. have turned it from a fourth estate into a fifth column. They've undermined their own credibility by leveraging idealism over infallibility. Standing on your soapbox while making noble proclamations about the truth is only aping the censor when applied inequitably.

Okay, you and I completely agree that politicians should be truth-checked as much as possible.   So it must follow that what they are doing to Trump with the truth checking is okay.   The problem you have is that you don't think they applied the same standard to Obama.   But that's a different issue.  

Personally, I think the difference in the way the press treats Trump is less a result of a double-standard, and more the result of the incredible volume of lies that come out of his mouth.  They can't avoid truth checking him, because that's their job.  If a politician tells a lie, the press has a duty to provide the facts that reveal the lie.   If they failed to do enough truth-checking on Obama, that would be bad, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't truth-check Trump, because as you and I agree, they should truth check everybody as much as possible.

---

Where was all this passion for the truth when Obama was in office?

Apparently your cable must have been out because Fox News came after Obama on the topics below pretty much on a minute by minute basis.

* Bailing out the banks
* Keeping the troops in the Middle East
* Birther - idiotic claims headed up by Trump
* Vacations in Hawaii
* Unemployment rate going down is actually because the entire country is underemployed
* Obamacare

---

Where was all this passion for the truth when Obama was in office?

Apparently your cable must have been out because Fox News came after Obama on the topics below pretty much on a minute by minute basis.

* Bailing out the banks
* Keeping the troops in the Middle East
* Birther - idiotic claims headed up by Trump
* Vacations in Hawaii
* Unemployment rate going down is actually because the entire country is underemployed
* Obamacare

Yep, and they were the only ones fact checking as opposed to a cadre of Obama sycophants. Thank goodness for Fox News.

---

Where was all this passion for the truth when Obama was in office?

Apparently your cable must have been out because Fox News came after Obama on the topics below pretty much on a minute by minute basis.

* Bailing out the banks
* Keeping the troops in the Middle East
* Birther - idiotic claims headed up by Trump Hillary
* Vacations in Hawaii
* Unemployment rate going down is actually because the entire country is underemployed
* Obamacare

Unlike Snopes et al., Fox does not claim to be an objective fact checker. 

And the point is that no other network or major newspaper fact-checked Obama. Maybe I'm wrong. Do you have a link criticizing Obama's statements about the unemployment rate from (say) Politifact?

And unlike the facts that Trump stated at the UN and that Marty's link even admitted were true (they were political spin and didn't tell the whole story, but true), Obama's statements about Obamacare, Gitmo, and troops in the Middle East were flat out lies (and Obama made no statements about "Vacations in Hawaii" that I know of).

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I completely agree, but the FACT of the matter is that it's selectively applied. Journalism is critical for democracy. Unfortunately the self-imposed standards of the press in the U.S. have turned it from a fourth estate into a fifth column. They've undermined their own credibility by leveraging idealism over infallibility. Standing on your soapbox while making noble proclamations about the truth is only aping the censor when applied inequitably.

Okay, you and I completely agree that politicians should be truth-checked as much as possible.   So it must follow that what they are doing to Trump with the truth checking is okay.   The problem you have is that you don't think they applied the same standard to Obama.   But that's a different issue.  

Personally, I think the difference in the way the press treats Trump is less a result of a double-standard, and more the result of the incredible volume of lies that come out of his mouth.  They can't avoid truth checking him, because that's their job.  If a politician tells a lie, the press has a duty to provide the facts that reveal the lie.   If they failed to do enough truth-checking on Obama, that would be bad, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't truth-check Trump, because as you and I agree, they should truth check everybody as much as possible.

It's 100% double standard. Compare how they portray Trumps statements to how Snopes treats similar statements about Obama.

http://www.snopes.com/barack-obama-accomplishments/

As long as the double standard exists, then the fact checking should not be trusted. Yes, ideally fact checking politics, if objective, should be a big part of the information. But objective fact-checking by the mostly far-left media is a pipe dream.

This is not to mention that your link was about throw-away lines by Trump about domestic issues. Those statements were insignificant in the context of his speech, which was about how the US would deal with the UN and foreign countries. Can't you see that the article itself was reaching for any tiny thing they could say to discredit Trump? Shouldn't that be a dead giveaway to you?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Okay, you and I completely agree that politicians should be truth-checked as much as possible.   So it must follow that what they are doing to Trump with the truth checking is okay.   The problem you have is that you don't think they applied the same standard to Obama.   But that's a different issue.  

Personally, I think the difference in the way the press treats Trump is less a result of a double-standard, and more the result of the incredible volume of lies that come out of his mouth.  They can't avoid truth checking him, because that's their job.  If a politician tells a lie, the press has a duty to provide the facts that reveal the lie.   If they failed to do enough truth-checking on Obama, that would be bad, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't truth-check Trump, because as you and I agree, they should truth check everybody as much as possible.

It's 100% double standard. Compare how they portray Trumps statements to how Snopes treats similar statements about Obama.

http://www.snopes.com/barack-obama-accomplishments/

As long as the double standard exists, then the fact checking should not be trusted. Yes, ideally fact checking politics, if objective, should be a big part of the information. But objective fact-checking by the mostly far-left media is a pipe dream.

This is not to mention that your link was about throw-away lines by Trump about domestic issues. Those statements were insignificant in the context of his speech, which was about how the US would deal with the UN and foreign countries. Can't you see that the article itself was reaching for any tiny thing they could say to discredit Trump? Shouldn't that be a dead giveaway to you?

You don't have to trust Snopes or any other fact checker.   You don't need to trust them because facts can be independently veriified from many sources.   All the fact checker does is tip you off.  From there, it's up to you to do your own work, and it's pretty easy.   So there's no need for you to simply reject the claims of fact checkers and then close your mind about it.

---

It's 100% double standard. Compare how they portray Trumps statements to how Snopes treats similar statements about Obama.

http://www.snopes.com/barack-obama-accomplishments/

As long as the double standard exists, then the fact checking should not be trusted. Yes, ideally fact checking politics, if objective, should be a big part of the information. But objective fact-checking by the mostly far-left media is a pipe dream.

This is not to mention that your link was about throw-away lines by Trump about domestic issues. Those statements were insignificant in the context of his speech, which was about how the US would deal with the UN and foreign countries. Can't you see that the article itself was reaching for any tiny thing they could say to discredit Trump? Shouldn't that be a dead giveaway to you?

You don't have to trust Snopes or any other fact checker.   You don't need to trust them because facts can be independently veriified from many sources.   All the fact checker does is tip you off.  From there, it's up to you to do your own work, and it's pretty easy.   So there's no need for you to simply reject the claims of fact checkers and then close your mind about it.

 
This issue is that you don't "have to" trust them, it's that most people trust the fact checkers without any scepticism at all. Then when it's demonstrated how biased many of them actually are they become defensive and you get Trump and Hillary for President.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It's 100% double standard. Compare how they portray Trumps statements to how Snopes treats similar statements about Obama.

http://www.snopes.com/barack-obama-accomplishments/

As long as the double standard exists, then the fact checking should not be trusted. Yes, ideally fact checking politics, if objective, should be a big part of the information. But objective fact-checking by the mostly far-left media is a pipe dream.

This is not to mention that your link was about throw-away lines by Trump about domestic issues. Those statements were insignificant in the context of his speech, which was about how the US would deal with the UN and foreign countries. Can't you see that the article itself was reaching for any tiny thing they could say to discredit Trump? Shouldn't that be a dead giveaway to you?

You don't have to trust Snopes or any other fact checker.   You don't need to trust them because facts can be independently veriified from many sources.   All the fact checker does is tip you off.  From there, it's up to you to do your own work, and it's pretty easy.   So there's no need for you to simply reject the claims of fact checkers and then close your mind about it.

Anyone can claim that something is true or false. How does that make Snopes or Politifact any different or more valuable than (say) Sean Hannity or John Oliver?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

You don't have to trust Snopes or any other fact checker.   You don't need to trust them because facts can be independently veriified from many sources.   All the fact checker does is tip you off.  From there, it's up to you to do your own work, and it's pretty easy.   So there's no need for you to simply reject the claims of fact checkers and then close your mind about it.

Anyone can claim that something is true or false. How does that make Snopes or Politifact any different or more valuable than (say) Sean Hannity or John Oliver?

It's not any different or more valuable than Sean Hannity or John Oliver.   If someone tells you someone is lying, you can go check it out for yourself.  

What brought fact checking into vogue in the Trump administration was the sheer volume of lies that come from the White House.   It's a tidal wave of false statements.   Somehow, Trump fans are able to ignore or even justify the lies.   I guess the ends justify the means.

---

I'll admit to fact checking everything The Drifter posts.

You don't have to fact check Trump, just keep listening and he'll contradict himself in the same speech.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I'll admit to fact checking everything The Drifter posts.

You don't have to fact check Trump, just keep listening and he'll contradict himself in the same speech.

So what's it like hanging off my jock strap?

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

I'll admit to fact checking everything The Drifter posts.

You don't have to fact check Trump, just keep listening and he'll contradict himself in the same speech.

So what's it like hanging off my jock strap?

About as substantive as one might expect.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I'll admit to fact checking everything The Drifter posts.

You don't have to fact check Trump, just keep listening and he'll contradict himself in the same speech.

So what's it like hanging off my jock strap?

Haha

---