You can't just dismiss an argument because of your "gut feeling", which is basically all it is. I think you put it best:

I didn't say shit about a "gut feeling." You are so clueless it hurts.

It is an obvious fact that fox news journalists are journalists, like other journalists.

I don't need to provide evidence for obvious facts.

That is an obvious fact.

When refuting an argument, you are making a new claim; therefore, you need evidence even if your intuition (aka "gut feeling") makes everything you don't believe in false, in your eyes. Aristotle states that in order to refute an argument, we must prove its contradiction.

No dipshit.

I'm not refuting an argument. What OP claimed could be true.

I'm pointing out 1) your "evidence" is not actual supporting evidence, it does not apply and is insufficient, and 2) the evidence offered in the OP is nonexistent.

Therefore, we can dismiss the claim till actual evidence is offered.

You will never win a debate vis-a-vis ignoratio elenchi against a rhetorically correct front (note: a rhetorically correct argument is backed by evidence and is logical without falling into any pitfalls; that does not mean it is correct). You have to state the opponent's argument and address it in clear terms.

Do not address the weakest part of your opponent's argument in order to prove your point, especially when the weakest point is not the crux of their position (Straw man + Irrelevant conclusion).

I don't need to and I'm not. I'm pointing out insufficient or lacking evidence.

These are the main problems I saw with your argument, and overcoming these will be the first step to becoming a better orator. Honestly, this is a mistake a lot of people make and is the first issue addressed in any beginner's rhetoric course.

You're a condescending ass that clearly took a Logic or Philosophy 101 class and think's he know's shit.

EDIT 2: There was one more thing I just remembered. Time is not a factor in this argument due to two points: one, when the time scale is equivalent, it is an unnecessary part of the argument unless it takes place outside the scope of the issue at hand (e.g. when Republicans use the Democrats history from 1960 to its founding as a means to discredit it today, is a fallacy) Two, even if the time scale is not equivalent, if the data is relative (percentages in our example), time is a non-issue (e.g. Even though Pres. Obama has already served 8 years vs. Trump's 6 months, the time difference is irrelevant because in both periods they were President and the data is not how many false statements they made rather the percentage of false statements).

I don't understand how you can be so wrong, yet so confident you are right.

Politifact rates statements that they choose to rate.

They don't rate all of something.

They don't judge the actual party platform as a whole for truthfulness.

They don't go through the party platform of each party and examine all statements to give an overall truth rating.

They took a few smalls statements by individual senators and rated them as true or false, or a few smalls statements by DNC/RNC committees and rated them.

They didn't judge either platform as a whole.

I can't fathom how you think the number of statements they rated correlates to the truthfulness of the overall platform for either party. That is one of the dumbest things I've seen in this conversation.

You are extremely ignorant, yet stupidly confident in yourself.