Criticizing Trump to hide the fact that

[questionmark 11,371]

2 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

"They fear Donald Trump because they know he will expose them. Obama knows it, the Clinton's know it, and the Bush's know it."

The last thing I ever want to see.. EVER... is Donald Trump "exposing bush"...

I know, I know... I'm a juvenile trapped in a forty-something year old body

It looks that you missed one of the debates when "bush" was a hot topic by Mr. Trump... besides hand sizes to operate same....

[Doc Socks Junior 1,748]

16 minutes ago, questionmark said:

But to claim that you mist be able to prove it. Or are you a politician now who does not and we need fact checkers to see how much truth is in your assertions?

 

Sorry, was on a smartphone. Here you go:

http://www.politifactbias.com/2016/07/the-cover-your-butt-cover-up.html

14 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

So you prefer the Enquirer, then? 

You can actually read the news, go fact check on it...find videos of Trump saying the actual things claimed, and still it's the biased media. Lol. 

When I look around, myself, to fact check Trump, he always fails. And Republicans keep putting up the most ridiculous things (seemingly believing them to be true) that turn out to be entirely false. 

I'm not saying that there's no bs in both parties...but it has been my personal observation that one pile is steamier than the other. 

No, I do not prefer the Enquirer. I simply say, and stand by my statement, that PF is biased.

10 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

Is Politifact correct or incorrect when they report Trump as being "more consistently a liar" than Clinton?

If you don't know whether they are correct or incorrect, why did you seek to rebut ChaosRose's post by claiming Politifact "are not to be trusted"? If you are able to show that everything Politifact report as fact is incorrect, then you have a case and it's relevant to this discussion. If you can't show that, and can't show that the "fact" ChaosRose quoted is incorrect, then all you are doing is seeking to smear that "fact" by posting your own, unsubstantiated, opinion.

And I'm not "misrepresenting your position" - because the only "position" you have so far assumed, is that Politifact "is not to be trusted in your opinion". You haven't made any case that what ChaosRose quoted is incorrect.

I would hazard that they are incorrect.

I do not need to show that everything PF reports as fact is incorrect either to have a case for bias, or to have it be relevant to this discussion. Even one instance of contorting a claim for Hillary to have it classified as not a lie sheds doubt on their entire position primarily because they are claiming a mantle of "facts" for their case. You're trying to make me prove no bias, to prove a negative. As I'm sure a smart person who loves to name-drop logical fallacies as you do realizes, that's a silly proposition.

ChaosRose said "his pants are clearly on fire the most". I didn't question that "fact". I'm sure that PF has Drumpf's pants on fire more than Hillary Clinton. That is indeed a "fact". However, that "fact" is meaningless as a yardstick of who is actually a liar because the source is biased. I'm saying that using PF is a dicey proposition because of their bias. If you look up in my reply to QM, you see an example of PF bending over backwards to rate a Clinton claim as true. Now, here is an example of PF ignoring their own classification criteria to rate a Drumpf claim as "Pants on Fire".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/05/fact-checking-politifacts-fact-check-of-trumps-crime-is-rising-claim/

So, to reiterate, Chaos posts that Drumpf lies more than Hillary because PF said so. I say that PF is biased. I have now shown both a pro-Clinton, and anti-Drumpf bias from PF. Therefore, the claim and position is both relevant (insofar as PF should not be used to distinguish between the two) and correct.

[GlitterRose 26,642]

2 minutes ago, socrates.junior said:

Sorry, was on a smartphone. Here you go:

http://www.politifactbias.com/2016/07/the-cover-your-butt-cover-up.html

No, I do not prefer the Enquirer. I simply say, and stand by my statement, that PF is biased.

I would hazard that they are incorrect.

I do not need to show that everything PF reports as fact is incorrect either to have a case for bias, or to have it be relevant to this discussion. Even one instance of contorting a claim for Hillary to have it classified as not a lie sheds doubt on their entire position primarily because they are claiming a mantle of "facts" for their case. You're trying to make me prove no bias, to prove a negative. As I'm sure a smart person who loves to name-drop logical fallacies as you do realizes, that's a silly proposition.

ChaosRose said "his pants are clearly on fire the most". I didn't question that "fact". I'm sure that PF has Drumpf's pants on fire more than Hillary Clinton. That is indeed a "fact". However, that "fact" is meaningless as a yardstick of who is actually a liar because the source is biased. I'm saying that using PF is a dicey proposition because of their bias. If you look up in my reply to QM, you see an example of PF bending over backwards to rate a Clinton claim as true. Now, here is an example of PF ignoring their own classification criteria to rate a Drumpf claim as "Pants on Fire".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/05/fact-checking-politifacts-fact-check-of-trumps-crime-is-rising-claim/

So, to reiterate, Chaos posts that Drumpf lies more than Hillary because PF said so. I say that PF is biased. I have now shown both a pro-Clinton, and anti-Drumpf bias from PF. Therefore, the claim and position is both relevant (insofar as PF should not be used to distinguish between the two) and correct.

You would hazard they are incorrect, but you don't bother trying to fact check Trump. You can actually look at all of the comments he made, and why PolitiFact found that they were mostly false, false, or pants on fire. Have you bothered to? These aren't made up spins on anything. They're words right out of his mouth that people have fact checked him on and found him to be lying most of the time. 

[Leonardo 10,410]

6 minutes ago, socrates.junior said:

Sorry, was on a smartphone. Here you go:

http://www.politifactbias.com/2016/07/the-cover-your-butt-cover-up.html

No, I do not prefer the Enquirer. I simply say, and stand by my statement, that PF is biased.

I would hazard that they are incorrect.

I do not need to show that everything PF reports as fact is incorrect either to have a case for bias, or to have it be relevant to this discussion. Even one instance of contorting a claim for Hillary to have it classified as not a lie sheds doubt on their entire position primarily because they are claiming a mantle of "facts" for their case. You're trying to make me prove no bias, to prove a negative. As I'm sure a smart person who loves to name-drop logical fallacies as you do realizes, that's a silly proposition.

ChaosRose said "his pants are clearly on fire the most". I didn't question that "fact". I'm sure that PF has Drumpf's pants on fire more than Hillary Clinton. That is indeed a "fact". However, that "fact" is meaningless as a yardstick of who is actually a liar because the source is biased. I'm saying that using PF is a dicey proposition because of their bias. If you look up in my reply to QM, you see an example of PF bending over backwards to rate a Clinton claim as true. Now, here is an example of PF ignoring their own classification criteria to rate a Drumpf claim as "Pants on Fire".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/05/fact-checking-politifacts-fact-check-of-trumps-crime-is-rising-claim/

So, to reiterate, Chaos posts that Drumpf lies more than Hillary because PF said so. I say that PF is biased. I have now shown both a pro-Clinton, and anti-Drumpf bias from PF. Therefore, the claim and position is both relevant (insofar as PF should not be used to distinguish between the two) and correct.

You've shown that PF were incorrect in something, then corrected themselves (the "Clinton fact"). You showed that PF correctly reported as false something that Trump claimed (the "Crime is rising" fact).

How is that indicative of a bias?

The only bias it might indicate, is your own.

And you still haven't answered the question regarding the relevant "fact". Does Trump more consistently lie than Clinton? Yes or no?

Edited August 3, 2016 by Leonardo

[questionmark 11,371]

Wait, are you seriously subscribing to the opinion that if Politfacts corrects its story in detriment of Clinton its is biased toward Trump? Or do I get something wrong here?

 

Edited August 3, 2016 by questionmark

[Doc Socks Junior 1,748]

5 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

You've shown that PF were incorrect in something, then corrected themselves (the "Clinton fact"). You showed that PF correctly reported as false something that Trump claimed (the "Crime is rising" fact).

How is that indicative of a bias?

The only bias it might indicate, is your own.

And you still haven't answered the question regarding the relevant "fact". Does Trump more consistently lie than Clinton? Yes or no?

No, I showed that PF was incorrect on a Clinon claim, doubled down on their assertion, and finally changed their classification. As to the Drumpf claim, you didn't bother to read what I posted, I see.

The bias comes insofar as they give Clinton the benefit of the doubt initially, defend that rating again, and finally stealthily change it without acknowledgment. Whereas they give a Drumpf claim the lowest rating possible, contrary to their own classification system.

The relevant fact is not "does Drumpf lie more consistently than Clinton" or vice versa. (A broken clock, and even PF, is right twice a day.) It is, as I've consistently said, that PF should not be used a standard for judgment.

 

[supervike 5,417]

2 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

But, Donald didn't create isis, hillery and Obama did. If I'm going to criticize I'm going to do so justly especially knowing all that we know.

Again, thank you for proving my point.

 

And for the record, I think we should criticize 'hillery' and Obama.  Do you think Donald should be above criticism?

[Leonardo 10,410]

13 minutes ago, socrates.junior said:

No, I showed that PF was incorrect on a Clinon claim, doubled down on their assertion, and finally changed their classification. As to the Drumpf claim, you didn't bother to read what I posted, I see.

The bias comes insofar as they give Clinton the benefit of the doubt initially, defend that rating again, and finally stealthily change it without acknowledgment. Whereas they give a Drumpf claim the lowest rating possible, contrary to their own classification system.

The relevant fact is not "does Drumpf lie more consistently than Clinton" or vice versa. (A broken clock, and even PF, is right twice a day.) It is, as I've consistently said, that PF should not be used a standard for judgment.

 

That they "stealthily changed their appraisal of the Clinton claim" is only your unsubstantiated opinion. The fact is, they changed it - so no indication of bias (except your bias).

What PF reported regarding the Trump claim is correct. Trump said "Crime is rising". FBI stats show crime is, in fact falling. Violent crime had a small rise - but Trump never specified what type of crime he was referring to, and PF are not at liberty to liberally interpret the words they report on. The claim "Crime is rising" is false. PF are correct. Those sites castigating PF by suggesting Trump was referring to "violent crime" may be viewed as Trump apologists, or themselves biased, but you cannot fault PF for their objective reporting of the veracity of the claim Trump actually made.

You haven't shown PF to be "lacking" as a standard, and you haven't shown the actual claim in question - that Trump more consistently lies than Clinton - to be false.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Leonardo

[Doc Socks Junior 1,748]

21 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

That they "stealthily changed their appraisal of the Clinton claim" is only your unsubstantiated opinion. The fact is, they changed it - so no indication of bias (except your bias).

What PF reported regarding the Trump claim is correct. Trump said "Crime is rising". FBI stats show crime is, in fact falling. Violent crime had a small rise - but Trump never specified what type of crime he was referring to, and PF are not at liberty to liberally interpret the words they report on. The claim "Crime is rising" is false. PF are correct. Those sites castigating PF by suggesting Trump was referring to "violent crime" may be viewed as Trump apologists, or themselves biased, but you cannot fault PF for their objective reporting of the veracity of the claim Trump actually made.

You haven't shown PF to be "lacking" as a standard, and you haven't shown the actual claim in question - that Trump more consistently lies than Clinton - to be false.

It is not only my unsubstantiated opinion.

The archived page of PF's original claim was edited before being archived, without that edit being acknowledged. So, yes, a stealthy change of their appraisal. If you looked further on the page (which I doubt you did), you could see ample evidence of other stealth edits by PF. Dishonest journalism, especially by a "fact checker". Especially since their principles say they won't do that. Your bias is showing a little, now. Better tuck it back in.

Oh, that's funny. You think that PF does not "liberally interpret" the words they report on? They already did utilize interpretation in their rating of the claim. They utilize interpretation all the time. Look at any PF fact "check".

Yes. The claim is false. I agree. They do not only claim it is false, They add it to their adorable "Pants-on-Fire" list. Which adds the beautifully unobjective marker "and makes a ridiculous claim". This is important, because the original claim by ChaosRose, that I replied to, specifically mentioned the "Pants-on-Fire" classification. That classification is in no way objective, unless you think there is an objective way to measure "ridiculosity", an assertion I would objectively state was ridiculous (heh). This is a key point.

Any "standard" that includes a completely non-objective classification on their "meter" is lacking as a standard. And, no, the actual question of Drumpf or Clinton lying more is immaterial to my issue with PF. That wasn't the claim in question. I know you've said it a lot, but it doesn't make it true.

 

[Leonardo 10,410]

15 minutes ago, socrates.junior said:

It is not only my unsubstantiated opinion.

The archived page of PF's original claim was edited before being archived, without that edit being acknowledged. So, yes, a stealthy change of their appraisal. If you looked further on the page (which I doubt you did), you could see ample evidence of other stealth edits by PF. Dishonest journalism, especially by a "fact checker". Especially since their principles say they won't do that. Your bias is showing a little, now. Better tuck it back in.

"Stealth edits"?

I don't care about no steenkin' "stealth edits".

This is a fact-checking site. I don't care how they get their facts correct, I only want them to get their facts correct. If they get their facts correct, then there is no bias. Everything else is irrelevant.

15 minutes ago, socrates.junior said:

Oh, that's funny. You think that PF does not "liberally interpret" the words they report on? They already did utilize interpretation in their rating of the claim. They utilize interpretation all the time. Look at any PF fact "check".

They don't add or remove words to or from the claim being checked. That would be "liberally interpreting". Checking the claims in the context they are made - i.e. using the surrounding phrases to contextualise the claim - is not "liberally interpreting".

15 minutes ago, socrates.junior said:

Yes. The claim is false. I agree. They do not only claim it is false, They add it to their adorable "Pants-on-Fire" list. Which adds the beautifully unobjective marker "and makes a ridiculous claim". This is important, because the original claim by ChaosRose, that I replied to, specifically mentioned the "Pants-on-Fire" classification. That classification is in no way objective, unless you think there is an objective way to measure "ridiculosity", an assertion I would objectively state was ridiculous (heh). This is a key point.

Any "standard" that includes a completely non-objective classification on their "meter" is lacking as a standard. And, no, the actual question of Drumpf or Clinton lying more is immaterial to my issue with PF. That wasn't the claim in question. I know you've said it a lot, but it doesn't make it true.

 

They set out the criteria for each "level" of truth they assign each claim they vet. If you have a complaint they are not sticking to that criteria then fine, show it, but so long as they have set criteria and stick to it they are being as objective as they can be.

You've quoted from a site that unashamedly boasts it's partisanship (PolitiFacts Bias) that makes no attempt to itself be "objective". Nor does it provide any actual objective reason or evidence as to why it's complaint about "bias by PolitiFact" should be considered true. All it provides is a whinge that PolitiFact seems to rate more Republican claims harshly, than it rates Democrat claims. That doesn't necessarily indicate PolitiFact is biased, it may just indicate that Republicans are looser with their claims and are more careless when doing their own research.

Instead of researching if what PF Bias claims is true, however, you choose to believe it - after all the evidence "appears" to be there. More Republican claims seem to be rated harshly on PF than Democrat claims. But are they?

From the latest PF Bias research by state (2015) PF Bias reported on what PF assessed in several states. In the "PoF bias" category there were 2 states where there seemed to be a small (possibly statistically insignificant) bias against Republicans and there were 2 states where there seemed to be a small (possibly statistically insignificant) bias against Democrats. In all other states there was either insufficient or no data available, or no detectable bias. The "Selection Bias" category the site includes is problematic, because they do not clarify the selection criteria. If PF use media exposure as their main selection criteria, then in most of the states I would expect more claims made by Republicans to be selected, because they were more reported on. But this doesn't suggest a bias on PF's part, only a potential bias on the part of mainstream media.

In examining the site PF Bias, I see nothing that vindicates their claim that PF is biased. They simply do not have any hard evidence of it. I can only conclude they are upset because Republicans have said more inaccurate things that have been newsworthy, or are perhaps using PF as a substitute target for some wider dissatisfaction with mainstream media. Regardless, that you are using this site as one of your yardsticks to claim bias on the part of PF, only suggests that your own claim is made from a position of bias, and that you are making the mistake you accuse others of - using a unreliable source as a means of determining an "objective truth".

But none of this is relevant to whether the claim that Trump is more consistently a liar than Clinton is true or false. Suggesting that PF is unreliable as a source means nothing with regards that.

[Agent0range 6,254]

This is way bigger than Trump, and that is what people like Ella don't understand.  I have criticized friends and family for saying bad things about Veterans.  I have criticized friends and family for making fun of a disabled person.  I have criticized my grandfather, and challenged him face to face about his racist views.  I have criticized friends and family for being ignorant on policy and plans when they attempt to discuss politics.  This is more than Trump.  This is about how a normal person should act.  And no, it has nothing to do with the made up term of "political correctness", it's about what is right and wrong.

[and then 48,033]

6 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

I don't blame the media for him. I blame the voters. I blame the Republican party. More of them should have come out against him. In this day and age with all of the information we have at our fingertips, people should have been able to figure out that he was not good for the country. In 5 seconds of hearing him speak, people should have been able to figure it out. 

So you don't imagine the 24/7 media flood over everything he said or did had an affect on him winning?  More to the point, do you recall anyone else, at ALL, being given a chance to get points across other than briefly at the debates?  Oh no, the D. is a media creation and if his supporters burn it down after Nov's little poll then the media can be so proud they put him in such a position to hurt the nation.  You can't have it both ways CR.  Blame who you will but remember that when enough people get angry  that anger kind of takes on a life of it's own.  Think of it as a "middle class votes matter" movement.  I bet they might even cause three toes to be inconvenienced.

[and then 48,033]

2 hours ago, Agent0range said:

 I have criticized friends and family for saying bad things about Veterans.

Did I miss this?  I seem to recall Trump calling Khan a hero - which I agree with.  I have only seen where Trump has as usual not been very artful or graceful in making his point.  All I heard him do was say Khan the elder was being used by the DNC(true) and the odd statement about the wife's silence.  That one seemed to imply that she wasn't allowed to speak and that may have been a bit out of bounds but dude... you really think the media firestorm is justified?  It doesn't seem like an obvious attempt by the media to destroy his candidacy once and for all?  Frankly I think they're getting a little desperate because the old tried and true methods of political assassination by media doesn't seem to work with him.  If he stands his ground here and rebounds in the polls then next stop is going to be absolute media hysteria.  If Trump DID disparage the son then can you reference a quote please?

[pallidin 11,076]

Why do people "excuse" Trump for his continually bizarre comments? I don't get it.

[GlitterRose 26,642]

8 minutes ago, and then said:

Did I miss this?  I seem to recall Trump calling Khan a hero - which I agree with.  I have only seen where Trump has as usual not been very artful or graceful in making his point.  All I heard him do was say Khan the elder was being used by the DNC(true) and the odd statement about the wife's silence.  That one seemed to imply that she wasn't allowed to speak and that may have been a bit out of bounds but dude... you really think the media firestorm is justified?  It doesn't seem like an obvious attempt by the media to destroy his candidacy once and for all?  Frankly I think they're getting a little desperate because the old tried and true methods of political assassination by media doesn't seem to work with him.  If he stands his ground here and rebounds in the polls then next stop is going to be absolute media hysteria.  If Trump DID disparage the son then can you reference a quote please?

I think maybe the McCain incident is also being considered. 

And there is rather a huge attempt at smearing aimed at both Khan and his son. There are people trying to say all sorts of ridiculous, horrible, and completely unfounded things. I won't repeat them here, but you can easily google about it. I don't know that Trump is directly responsible for it, but his continuing war with a family whose son died for our country is not doing him any favors. And his idea of his own "sacrifices" are only making things worse. There are also comments coming from his staff that are not helping. 

The thing of it is...I see this mentioned all over the place that Hillary also makes blunders. They certainly aren't as rampant, but the differences are that by and large, she's not trying to offend anyone, and if she does...she apologizes. Trump never apologizes for anything. 

[pallidin 11,076]

Just now, ChaosRose said:

...Trump never apologizes for anything. 

So true. When confronted, Trump attacks and spins.

[GlitterRose 26,642]

1 hour ago, and then said:

So you don't imagine the 24/7 media flood over everything he said or did had an affect on him winning?  More to the point, do you recall anyone else, at ALL, being given a chance to get points across other than briefly at the debates?  Oh no, the D. is a media creation and if his supporters burn it down after Nov's little poll then the media can be so proud they put him in such a position to hurt the nation.  You can't have it both ways CR.  Blame who you will but remember that when enough people get angry  that anger kind of takes on a life of it's own.  Think of it as a "middle class votes matter" movement.  I bet they might even cause three toes to be inconvenienced.

I certainly don't know why 24/7 coverage of the idiotic things he has said would be to his benefit. 

[GlitterRose 26,642]

Just now, pallidin said:

So true. When confronted, Trump attacks and spins.

And he doubles down on the craziest of things. Attacking POWs, ffs. 

[and then 48,033]

Just now, ChaosRose said:

I think maybe the McCain incident is also being considered. 

And there is rather a huge attempt at smearing aimed at both Khan and his son. There are people trying to say all sorts of ridiculous, horrible, and completely unfounded things. I won't repeat them here, but you can easily google about it. I don't know that Trump is directly responsible for it, but his continuing war with a family whose son died for our country is not doing him any favors. And his idea of his own "sacrifices" are only making things worse. There are also comments coming from his staff that are not helping. 

The thing of it is...I see this mentioned all over the place that Hillary also makes blunders. They certainly aren't as rampant, but the differences are that by and large, she's not trying to offend anyone, and if she does...she apologizes. Trump never apologizes for anything. 

So there is no example of him disparaging the son.  No one is making the argument that Trump isn't a loud mouth who has no place in the office.  HC however is absolutely no better on any count except that she lies more smoothly.  The woman has proven she's cold blooded and a crook many times over.  Those who vote for her knowing this are complicit with whatever she does in her presidency.

[GlitterRose 26,642]

Just now, and then said:

So there is no example of him disparaging the son.  No one is making the argument that Trump isn't a loud mouth who has no place in the office.  HC however is absolutely no better on any count except that she lies more smoothly.  The woman has proven she's cold blooded and a crook many times over.  Those who vote for her knowing this are complicit with whatever she does in her presidency.

She also lies a lot less. And she's not the subject of a lawsuit over a fraudulent "university." All inquiries into her have come up empty-handed. Most of the attacks I see against her fall apart under fact-checking. 

[pallidin 11,076]

Yeah, either one is completely unfit to be President.

[pallidin 11,076]

2 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

She also lies a lot less. And she's not the subject of a lawsuit over a fraudulent "university." All inquiries into her have come up empty-handed. Most of the attacks I see against her fall apart under fact-checking. 

True.

[Agent0range 6,254]

39 minutes ago, and then said:

Did I miss this?  I seem to recall Trump calling Khan a hero - which I agree with.  I have only seen where Trump has as usual not been very artful or graceful in making his point.  All I heard him do was say Khan the elder was being used by the DNC(true) and the odd statement about the wife's silence.  That one seemed to imply that she wasn't allowed to speak and that may have been a bit out of bounds but dude... you really think the media firestorm is justified?  It doesn't seem like an obvious attempt by the media to destroy his candidacy once and for all?  Frankly I think they're getting a little desperate because the old tried and true methods of political assassination by media doesn't seem to work with him.  If he stands his ground here and rebounds in the polls then next stop is going to be absolute media hysteria.  If Trump DID disparage the son then can you reference a quote please?

I'm sorry, my memory is less short term than yours.  I was talking about John Mccain. 

[HandsomeGorilla 6,365]

Trump completely mishandled the whole Khan debacle. I'm convinced it was a setup from the beginning that anyone could've seen from a mile away...except him, of course. 

These attacks on individual people have got to stop. He takes everything way too personally, puts real issues on the backburner and proceeds to launch at wee people like a juggernaut. It looks horrible. 

He doesn't understand that the diehard support for him, the honeymoon, is coming to an end. They're not going to be the electorate. These childish antics and outrageous statements aren't impressive anymore. He doesn't seem to realize that it's going to be independent conservatives like me who decide whether he wins this election. 

Frankly, I'm still not sure if he can even help himself, or if he wasn't just part of a scheme to get Hillary elected. 

[GlitterRose 26,642]

It seems like the message is that it's so much less reprehensible to go after the parents of a fallen soldier. 

It's not any less reprehensible.