Fact checking Trump, Harris, Vance, Walz

This particular link right here shows the issue I have with some of the “fact checkers” (and Politifact seems to be particularly bad about it in my anecdotal experience):

They effectively create a red herring that no one ever claimed was true in their analysis and then fact check that instead, but award their “rating” to the original statement instead of the reformulated one that they came up with themself.

They’re fact checking the claim that Kamala Harris wants to “defund the police.” They accurately note that, while she has praised people who diverted funding from police departments, whenever someone asked her about defunding the police she was consistently very careful to respond by changing the terminology and saying she wants to “reimagine the police.”

But then at the very end they completely change what they’re fact checking and say some people understand defunding the police to mean abolishing police departments entirely (no, I don’t think they do - at least that’s not any meaning of “defund the police” that I have ever heard), and Kamala Harris has never said that she wants to abolish police departments, so we rate this claim mostly false.

 

I've always understood defund the police as abolishing them by taking money away to create a community police

 

Ah, a “reimagining” of the police if you will.

But at the end of the day, their ultimate analysis on this statement amounts to little more than “if Donald Trump had said something different that he never actually said, that hypothetical claim wouldn’t have been true, so we’re going to rate the different statement that he actually made false.” That’s neither a particularly useful analysis, nor a fact check of what he actually said.

 

The vast majority of self-described fact checkers are lying democrats with a liberal agenda.Ino

 

I think this is fair.

also as to anti abortion, IVF, birth control, i think the pro life camp is fair game. True, their beliefs are not uniform, but at the same time when they actually get their way, the effects are often worse than they originally intended, sometimes accidentally sometimes intentionally. How often did we hear that the goal was for states to have the right to choose their own laws, and now many on the far right want a federal ban. Ironically Trump has been smart enough to squash this.

In the past exceptions for rape and incest were the norm for the pro life crowd. Now they aren’t.

So while technically some pro lifers may not be anti birth control or anti IVF, or even for federal anti abortion laws, that doesn’t mean that if the movement is left unchecked we won’t get that. I don’t trust the pro life movement farther than I can throw it.

 

Many of the so called fact checkers are very good at what they do. Not so much that they are always wrong but the fact that they are very selective about what they fact check and the ratings they give. There are always current stories you can't find mention on by some fact checkers, they are sort of swept under the carpet depending on which side of the isle is being fact checked....There are also certain people that get Pants on fire ratings for their false statements where as the same statement would get a mostly false rating by the other side.

 

Please substantiate that with facts.

 

If you dissect all of this, you can slowly see the country falling apart. The warped "fact checks." Defunding the police. Being coy with intentions. (ie "reimagine the police"). When lying becomes the main forum of communication, totalitarianism is waiting at the gates. Everyone is lying to each other.

 

Meanwhile, 100% of vegasfoxes are ineffective plants.

 

Righties were absolutely sprinting with the idea that “defunding the police” meant abolishing the police by stripping them of their funding. Are you seriously trying to act like that’s not how the right was framing it?

 

Your "analysis" is probably because a majority of fact checkers tend to dispute Trump's alternative facts.