> we looked up to the U.S. for their people's ability to think critically and to have their own informed political opinions.
Don't confuse opinions with facts. Opinions are personal and facts are (as far as possible) universal.
However, I'm unlikely to have a good opinion of someone who says too many things that are factually untrue, which is the case with Trump and Cruz.
> When I was growing up in the Eastern Bloc
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Eastern Bloc had rulers who could say things that weren't true and not have those things exposed as lies by the MSM. That's why we fact-check both Trump and Clinton. That's what democracy is based on.
> "the ruling went against him". That's totalitarian language, describing a totalitarian concept.
No it isn't. There's absolutely nothing totalitarian about it. It's exactly the reverse.
On the evidence presented by Politifact, what Trump said wasn't true. If you want to dispute that, you have to disprove the existing information or find more information that contradicts it.
Merely having an opinion about it adds nothing: it's not worth a damn.