Ok there are two things going on here:

1) You are attempting to claim objectivity. Unfortunately, you are not succeeding because of statements you made. Specifically, you said "So you would take issue with me using a politifact source due to alleged bias and then counter with breitbart, which definitely has a bias" which reveals your SUBJECTIVE assessment of these two sources of information.

Your OWN bias is to categorize politifact as having "alleged" bias, while you plainly state that "breitbart, which definitely has a bias"

2) The breitbart article lists several points. Unless you can prove that those points are invalid, the points stand.

How we assess news these days is to take both sides and make your own decision. We have a liberal source, and a conservative source. This is not unlike two lawyers in a courtroom.

You do not throw out both lawyers just because they each have bias for the defendant, and for the plaintiff.

You see what both present, and then make a decision.

So, it was entirely appropriate for me to counter your politifact bias, with a brietbart bias. In fact, the breitbart article specifically points out information that was left out by politifact.

Again, unless you can point by point show that the breitbart information (not opinion) is incorrect, then the breitbart article is an excellent counterbalance to liberal bias presented.

I said alleged for politifact because someone else made the allegation. I said breitart definitely has a bias and thus I am making my own allegations. People don't usually refer to their own allegations when they say alleged.

Politifact also lists several points. I don't know which one is more accurate or to what degree. My point is that I am not going to discount a source just because of a liberal bias and I am not going to automatically accept a source just because of a conservative bias.

I said alleged for politifact because someone else made the allegation. I said breitart definitely has a bias and thus I am making my own allegations. People don't usually refer to their own allegations when they say alleged.

Politifact also lists several points. I don't know which one is more accurate or to what degree. My point is that I am not going to discount a source just because of a liberal bias and I am not going to automatically accept a source just because of a conservative bias.

Yet, that doesn't stop you from posting links as your sources when you agree with them.

Maybe you would be better off actually researching (there's that word again) instead of simply Googling and pasting the first link from a known source that supports your positions/"facts".

Yet, that doesn't stop you from posting links as your sources when you agree with them.

Actually it does. You just don't see them because I don't post them.

Actually it does. You just don't see them because I don't post them.

No, you leave them for us to post as the opposing viewpoint rather than be honest and post both for discussion.

You have to be right, and cherry-picking Google returns is how you validate yourself.  Ignoring opposing information is dishonest and academically lazy.