Lib fact checkers. You just can’t make this crap up.
Comments
-
15 months later. It was pointed out days after. Speed-limit IQ.
The Clinton slush fund is not the point. They don't, but who cares with regards to this. The point is if it is opinion-writing or fact-checking. A pundit said the following (of the over $500 million raised by the Clinton Foundation, much from foreign governments):
"A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.”
All true statements. TRUE. TRUE. TRUE. In fact, even the Politifact moron literally told the author the statements were “clearly accurate” and “technically true”.
Yet somehow the same moron rated the "fact-check" "Mostly False". Because he's giving his opinion. Not checking facts. Because he's a Liberal Hack. Politifact are not lining "the whole thing out for you to come to your own conclusion." when they issue a label instead of writing a counter opinion piece. And more importantly censor others from seeing the original article because of their label. My entire point, which you are making for me.
Speed limit IQ.
HondoFS. -
You are complaining about bias yet your own source uses the word "measly". It's very clear you don't understand how charities work and politifact clears that issue up. Your news source injects opinion and thinks the only charitable with they can do are programmatic grants. You don't think those salaries are paying people for charitable work? Idiot.HoustonHusky said:15 months later. It was pointed out days after. Speed-limit IQ.
The Clinton slush fund is not the point. They don't, but who cares with regards to this. The point is if it is opinion-writing or fact-checking. A pundit said the following (of the over $500 million raised by the Clinton Foundation, much from foreign governments):
"A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.”
All true statements. TRUE. TRUE. TRUE. In fact, even the Politifact moron literally told the author the statements were “clearly accurate” and “technically true”.
Yet somehow the same moron rated the "fact-check" "Mostly False". Because he's giving his opinion. Not checking facts. Because he's a Liberal Hack. Politifact are not lining "the whole thing out for you to come to your own conclusion." when they issue a label instead of writing a counter opinion piece. And more importantly censor others from seeing the original article because of their label. My entire point, which you are making for me.
Speed limit IQ.
HondoFS. -
HA. Another speed limit IQ response.
Its an opinion piece using literal, verifiable facts to back up that opinion. Politifact did not clear up anything...did verify any facts were wrong? Nope. Did they provide a breakdown funds? Nope. Did they explain why the two largest Clinton Foundation Initiatives are the wonderful charties known as the Clinton Library and the Clinton Global Initiative (a annual party of celebs and CEOs)? Nope. Did the moron explain why having the CGI give $2MM to a company 29% owned by a lady who visits Bill regularly and is known by the secret service as the "Energizer Bunny" is somehow a charitable cause? Nope.
Did they do anything but say its actual facts are true but its still not fair? Nope.
It is nothing more than an opinion of a Liberal Hack of why literally true statements are not fair because they paint a bad picture of the Clintons. He didn't dispute the actual facts, and he didn't provide any numbers supporting a contrary opinion. He literally just said that's not fair. And because Politifact doesn't think its fair they labeled it as "Mostly False" and more importantly they get to censor people from seeing the opinion.
Its frightening stuff when you think about it...you can have literal morons like HondoFS deciding what news people can and cannot see. That should scare everybody.
Its an epic takedown of the fraud known as Politifact for anyone (I'm sure HondoFS isn't one) actually interested in reading up on it.
https://thefederalist.com/2015/04/29/punditfact-a-case-study-in-fact-free-hackery/
-
First of all, the foundation is audited by a big 4 firm and you can see all the audit reports online. If we're you say is true, you'd see that in the audit reports. And the Clintons would be in jail.HoustonHusky said:HA. Another speed limit IQ response.
Its an opinion piece using literal, verifiable facts to back up that opinion. Politifact did not clear up anything...did verify any facts were wrong? Nope. Did they provide a breakdown funds? Nope. Did they explain why the two largest Clinton Foundation Initiatives are the wonderful charties known as the Clinton Library and the Clinton Global Initiative (a annual party of celebs and CEOs)? Nope. Did the moron explain why having the CGI give $2MM to a company 29% owned by a lady who visits Bill regularly and is known by the secret service as the "Energizer Bunny" is somehow a charitable cause? Nope.
Did they do anything but say its actual facts are true but its still not fair? Nope.
It is nothing more than an opinion of a Liberal Hack of why literally true statements are not fair because they paint a bad picture of the Clintons. He didn't dispute the actual facts, and he didn't provide any numbers supporting a contrary opinion. He literally just said that's not fair. And because Politifact doesn't think its fair they labeled it as "Mostly False" and more importantly they get to censor people from seeing the opinion.
Its frightening stuff when you think about it...you can have literal morons like HondoFS deciding what news people can and cannot see. That should scare everybody.
Its an epic takedown of the fraud known as Politifact for anyone (I'm sure HondoFS isn't one) actually interested in reading up on it.
https://thefederalist.com/2015/04/29/punditfact-a-case-study-in-fact-free-hackery/
Secondly, here is one article about the Clinton foundation. Contrary to what you say, they used actual facts.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/25/reince-priebus/reince-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/
Fuck it's like I'm talking to a wall. -
Keep deflecting...I'm not talking about what Reince said (of which Politifact gave no verifiable numbers to contradict, and by saying Charity Watch says they are ok as proof is FS because you can just as easily say Charity Navigator, a more prestigious organization, put them on a watch list for potential problematic charities). I gave a specific example with verifiable facts that PolitfactFS didn't like, didn't contradict, and yet still labeled "Mostly False" because they are political opinion hacks (which you literally admitted a few posts back) and not fact checkers.
They can have an opinion...more power to them. Just realize its a liberal hack opinion.
The problem is by categorizing their opinion as "fact-checking" they get to censor the information others see on social media.
Which is scary.
Which you lied when you said isn't true.
HondoFS. In every thread:
Keep hitting reply speed limit IQ...maybe you'll actually have a point one of these days (years).
