This is not complicated. My opinion (the statement nicely sums up a defensible political position, and the Tampa Bay Times&#x27; assessment is wrong) is based on the facts they brought to the fore, as well as a few of my own — as any argument would be —, but I also show my own reasoning:<p><i>Same-day voter registration puts a pressure on the bureaucracy to be more forgiving and less thorough; that&#x27;s a fact. But is that driven by the political elements who benefit from illegals voting, and do people on either side actually believe that it has an effect? That&#x27;s not a factual question, that&#x27;s a question for a political debate. Mr Trump&#x27;s hyperbole captures this with a surprising pith.</i><p><i>Politifact [...] is [...] not a[n independent] third-party watchdog. [... Further, f]act-checking cannot provide [data about speakers&#x27; telling the truth] for [statements using] hyperbole [...].</i><p>Your overarching position seems to be that this stuff is too complicated for you to reason about on your own, and you need to rely on other (presumably qualified) people to do some of your analysis (I disagree); Politifact provides a good unbiased, trustworthy, well-sourced, and most importantly impartial set of facts (I disagree); and the candidates that have the most fraught relationship with truth just happen to be those who you oppose politically (we may agree on that one). That&#x27;s, I believe, at the core of a big problem with American journalism: the intellectual trepidation to analyse facts independently, based on all available evidence, and present a conclusion that is one&#x27;s own; in a word, the pretence that a journalist can escape bias by simply choosing between what others are saying, without ever directly challenging their reasoning or assumptions.<p>That is not really important: all I&#x27;m asking of you is to present, preferably without swearing, your own reasoning for why you think Mr Trump gave anything but an honest answer <i>on this particular occasion</i>?