I just went through 7 different fact-check sites. They disagree with each other on what the facts are.
They cherry pick which statements to examine and which statements to give a pass.
They take literally that which was intended rhetorically and vice versa. Example:
Trump said “all your adult life”. Clearly Trump by tone of voice and everything else intended that to not be taken literally... but to be taken as an intentional and obvious exaggeration to demonstrate how little of Clinton’s time has been focused on ISIS.
Most fact checkers avoided the stop-n-frisk statements. Those who do state that what Trump said was factually correct...that the judge was removed for bias and DeBlasio failed to appeal. Yet they conclude against Trump.
“Unreasonable search and seizure”. Why do Trump and many others on the law-n-order side fail to argue that stop-n-frisk is reasonable when a cop sees a bulge in the pocket of a person with a record?
Probably cause. I think many aren’t comfortable getting into the specifics of law.
You are exactly right. What many of these fact check sites do is the equivalent of lying with statistics.
For example, the NRA ran an ad saying “Hillary Clinton does not believe in your right to have a gun in the home for self defense.”
Snopes “fact check” said “Hillary never said that”. TNe NRA did not say she did, they said she believed it. When you look at the totality of her record, the NRA is clearly correct.
Hillary blamed the Charlotte shooting on RACISM and said the proper response is more political re-education of the police force there.
A black police chief is supposed to convince a black officer not to shoot a black man holding a gun and advancing on officers when ordered to stop? All because a biased family member may LIE and claim he was holding a “book”?
Clinton routinely takes a sarcastic Trump statement and fails to recognize the sarcasm. She’s an idiot.