Politifact is in the news again for labeling a true claim by J.D. Vance, the Republican candidate for vice president, as “false”. Let’s take a look at this claim, then we’ll see whether Politifact is a fact-checker, or just a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party.
The Media Research Center reports.
Here is Vance’s claim:
“I think it’s pretty weird to try to take children away from their parents if the parents don’t want to consent to sex changes,” Vance said Aug. 7 at a campaign event in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. “That’s something that Tim Walz did.”
As usually, Politifact concedes that the claim is correct – the courts can temporarily remove children from the custody of their parents. But, it’s got to be labeled “false” because this is an election year, and people who have failed at life need a bailout from the taxpayers:
Abels, the LGBTQ-issues “fact checker,” is funded by the Gill Foundation, a radical LGBTQ philanthropy. Last October, she worried out loud about “incarcerated trans people” being denied the “gender-affirming” stuff.
Last May, Tuquero defended Minnesota Democrats when they took expressly anti-pedophile language out of an “anti-discrimination” bill.
Grace Abels is a loser:
Grace Abels joined PolitiFact as a staff writer focused on LGBTQ issues in February 2023. She graduated from Duke University where she studied history and journalism.
Loreben Tuquero is a loser:
Loreben Tuquero is a reporter covering misinformation for PolitiFact. She graduated from Ateneo de Manila University with a degree in communication.
These people are losers at life, who have no marketable skills, and just vote Democrat because they want dentists, veterinarians and petroleum engineers to pay off their tens of thousands of dollars in student loans.
This isn’t the first time that Politifact, which is used by all the big social media companies to “fact check” speech, has been caught protecting their favored political party.
Let’s see some examples of past bias.
Arizona Senate Race
Politifact screwed up their fact-check for the Arizona Senate race.
The Daily Caller explains:
PolitiFact incorrectly labeled it “mostly false” that Democratic Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema “protested troops in a pink tutu” during its live fact-check of the Arizona Senate debate Monday night.
It’s an established fact that Sinema, a former Green Party activist who co-founded an anti-war group, wore a pink tutu at one of the multiple anti-war protests she attended in 2003.
“While we were in harm’s way, she was protesting our troops in a pink tutu,” Republican candidate Martha McSally, a former Air Force fighter pilot, said during Monday night’s debate.
Here’s their Politifact’s evaluation of McSally’s claim:
And here’s the photo of Kyrsten Sinema, protesting the troops, in a pink tutu:
The Daily Caller notes:
A 2003 Arizona State University news article at the time described Sinema wearing “something resembling a pink tutu” at one of the protests.
[…]Sinema openly associated with fringe elements of the far-left during her anti-war activism.
She promoted an appearance by Lynne Stewart, a lawyer who was convicted of aiding an Islamic terrorist organization, in 2003.
Sinema also reportedly partnered with anarchists and witches in her anti-war activism and said she did “not care” if Americans wanted to join the Taliban.
And now for the big one: Politifact’s fact-checking of Obamacare.
Obama’s claims about Obamacare
Avik Roy, health care policy expert at Forbes magazine, wrote about Politifact’s assessment of Obama’s promise to Americans about keeping their health plans after Obamacare.
In 2008, before the presidential election, PolitiFact rated Obama’s claims about Obamacare “True”:
Roy writes: (links removed)
On October 9, 2008, Angie Drobnic Holan of PolitiFact published an article using the site’s “Truth-O-Meter” to evaluate this claim: “Under Barack Obama’s health care proposal, ‘if you’ve got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it.’”
And she concluded:
[…]…people who want to keep their current insurance should be able to do that under Obama’s plan. His description of his plan is accurate, and we rate his statement True.”
Roy notes:
PolitiFact’s pronouncements about Obamacare were widely repeated by pro-Obama reporters and pundits, and had a meaningful impact on the outcome of the election. Indeed, in 2009, PolitiFact won the Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the 2008 campaign.
Here’s the screen capture from 2008:
Before the election, it’s true! And Obama got re-elected, because people believed that. But what happened after the election?
In 2013, after the 2012 election, PolitiFact rated Obama’s claims about Obamacare “Pants On Fire”:
Roy writes: (links removed)
On December 12, [2013] the self-appointed guardians of truth and justice at PolitiFact named President Obama’s infamous promise—that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it”—its 2013 “Lie of the Year.”
[…][N]one of the key facts that made that promise “impossible” in 2008 had changed by 2013. The President’s plan had always required major disruption of the health insurance market; the Obamacare bill contained the key elements of that plan; the Obamacare law did as well. The only thing that had changed was the actual first-hand accounts of millions of Americans who were losing their plans now that Obamacare was live.
And the screen capture from 2013:
So when Politifact rates a statement by a Democrat as true, what they really mean is that it’s pants-on-fire-false, but it’s election time so they don’t say that. It’s not like the critical assessments of Obamacare from health policy experts were not out there between 2007-2012. I know, because I blogged on every study and report on the predicted effects of the law that I could find. But the intellectually lazy journalism-major clowns at Politifact couldn’t be bothered to read those studies and reports.
Secular left journalists are the stupidest people on the planet. Stick with reading The Federalist and Daily Wire if you want to know what’s really going on in the world.
WINTERY KNIGHT 