Trump

[ManlyTragic]

Who’s Trump?

 

[Brookie1973]

When you post Larry K and the Fox crowd I know how this will land so here is a link

Tulsi Gabbard misleads about Obama-era assessment on Russia

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said she found evidence that former President Barack Obama manufactured an intelligence assessment about Russia’s involvement in the 2016 U.S. election. We fact-checked three of her statements.

www.politifact.com

Just because you call yourself a fact checker doesn’t make it so. Politifact is well known for its left leaning bias. This particular article just seems to be an attempt at muddying the waters rather than proving or disproving facts.

Politifact - Bias and Credibility

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording

mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[manlyfan76]

Who’s Trump?

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Eagle 1]

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

zzzzz .....It's not election time yet, why not save it till we get close to 2028.

 

[manlyfan76]

zzzzz .....It's not election time yet, why not save it till we get close to 2028.

More valuable insight from you.

 

[lsz]

Just because you call yourself a fact checker doesn’t make it so. Politifact is well known for its left leaning bias. This particular article just seems to be an attempt at muddying the waters rather than proving or disproving facts.

Politifact - Bias and Credibility

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording

mediabiasfactcheck.com

So instead of talking about what is in the article you ignore that.

Cool so it is business as usual in this thread then

 

[Brookie1973]

So instead of talking about what is in the article you ignore that.

Cool so it is business as usual in this thread then

No, I read it, hence my comment that it seemed more about muddying the waters than proving or disproving “facts”.

As for “fact checkers” in general, only the extremely gullible would think that someone sitting in an office somewhere is completely apolitical and able to determine the absolute truth of anything these days, and in this instance, is in possession of more facts than the Director of National Intelligence.

Is it not more likely that “fact checkers” are in the business of providing emotional comfort to people who desperately need reassurance that their world view is correct? And that applies to both sides.

As for the topic at hand, the idea that Obama/clinton tried to manipulate intelligence reports to discredit an elected president that they truly hated seems very plausible to me. Certainly more plausible than the apparent u-turn in intelligence conclusions once Trump won a surprising victory.