Yes for sure and they can be so intricate that it doesn’t really capture the overall sentiment of what is being said.
This isn’t any type of trump endorsement at all but an example of a fact check totally painting a narrative. I remember when trump backed out of the Paris climate accord he said that China would wipe out any progress made if the accords goals were met in two weeks. The fact checkers said it was false because it would actually take 59 days instead of two weeks. Yes technically not to the day correct but the general point he was trying to get across was generally true (albeit stupid to bring up by him ).
Trump lied about so many fucking things but it’s also clear that some fact checkers were just hell bent on finding a way to prove he’s lying about everything.
chuteboxhero t1_j8vqmfw wrote
Reply to comment by Kesshh in Factcheck.org - Trumps Final Numbers by extremekc
Yes for sure and they can be so intricate that it doesn’t really capture the overall sentiment of what is being said.
This isn’t any type of trump endorsement at all but an example of a fact check totally painting a narrative. I remember when trump backed out of the Paris climate accord he said that China would wipe out any progress made if the accords goals were met in two weeks. The fact checkers said it was false because it would actually take 59 days instead of two weeks. Yes technically not to the day correct but the general point he was trying to get across was generally true (albeit stupid to bring up by him ).
Trump lied about so many fucking things but it’s also clear that some fact checkers were just hell bent on finding a way to prove he’s lying about everything.