“Bottom line: Taking into account donations to both outside groups and the Clinton campaign itself, Wall Street has provided about 7.2 percent of the funds backing Clinton — more than double what she said on Saturday,” Tucker wrote.

However, as fate would have it, a new Islamic State recruitment video surfaced on the web. In it, several American leaders are shown, but nowhere is Trump found.

Seems the Beast has a habit about lying.

The Dems aren't immune to lying, but only score 28% inaccuracies from both Sanders and Clinton.

.

The other 78% of the time they are lying through their teeth.

106%?

According to Politifacts

An anti-PolitiFact website is automatically biased? Doesn't that beg the question? Plus we're indicted for choosing a website name that puts us at the top of search results!

There's no substance at all to this criticism. Is it really helpful to people to explain when they're assuming their conclusion or committing a genetic fallacy? If that helps, here we go: The criticism assumes that criticism of PolitiFact is biased and therefore invalid. How would one justify that assumption?

We've documented how PolitiFact espouses contradictory positions on how to use their data. PolitiFact warns readers they're "not social scientists," but then engages in a near constant barrage promoting their "report cards," claiming they're useful for showing trends.

Whenever PolitiFact promotes charts like the one posted in the NYT article, the overwhelming response on Facebook and Twitter is to send the chart viral with unfounded claims that the conservative bogeymen are allergic to the truth. How can PolitiFact ethically promote such assertions when they know their report cards offer no objective data about the people they rate?

Instead of telling readers to discount any conclusions from their misleading charts, PolitiFact actively encourages and promotes these unscientific charts. That's not how honest, professional journalists seeking truth behave. On the other hand, it's behavior we might expect from partisan actors trolling for web traffic.

Lying is intent to deceive. Being inaccurate is just being sloppy with facts. There's also changing of one's mind, and inaccurate recollection of the facts. But not all of these things are lying. Just saying.

For the record there is a site that checks Politifacts for bias.

. One of whom lists beer as one of his interests and the other documents the bands that he likes as a credential

For the record, the site that you suggest is run by two bloggers. One of whom lists beer as one of his interests and the other documents the bands that he likes as a credential.

For the record, the site that you suggest is run by two bloggers. One of whom lists beer as one of his interests and the other documents the bands that he likes as a credential.

Damn, you can't do much better than that.
Now that is refreshing honesty I can respect.