Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    01 Aug '16 08:52
    http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fact-checkers-confirm-hillary-clinton-is-more-honest-than-any-of-her-2016-opponents/24196/

    This is from fact checkers, not the feelings of republicans. You know those people? The ones who use facts.

    PolitiFact has rated 24% of Hillary Clinton’s contentious claims as receiving a perfect “True” score (source link), which may not sound impressive until you consider that just 15% of Bernie Sanders’ contentious claims have rated out as “True” (source link). There are two other passable categories, “Mostly True” and “Half True.” If you add up the numbers from the top three boxes, Clinton comes out at 72% and Sanders comes out at 70%, which are both robust scores. In the bottom two boxes, just 14% of Clinton’s challenged statements have rated out as “False” or “Pants on Fire” while Sanders has fallen into those bottom two boxes 15% of the time.



    It turns out Donald Trump’s statements have only rated out as being fully “True” a mere 3% of the time (source link). In fact he rates out as “False” or “Pants on Fire” an astounding 61% of the time. Ted Cruz is nearly as dishonest, rated “True” just 6% of the time, and “False” or “Pants on Fire” 36% of the time (source link). So what does this tell us?

    The factual bottom line is that Hillary Clinton is the most honest candidate in the 2016 election. Bernie Sanders is a close second, making them the two most comparatively “honest” politicians in the race. In contrast, Donald Trump rates out as nearly a pathological liar, and Cruz doesn’t do much better. So much for the notion that Clinton is the one who can’t be trusted.
  2. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    01 Aug '16 10:52
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fact-checkers-confirm-hillary-clinton-is-more-honest-than-any-of-her-2016-opponents/24196/

    This is from fact checkers, not the feelings of republicans. You know those people? The ones who use facts.

    PolitiFact has rated 24% of Hillary Clinton’s contentious claims as receiving a perfect “True” score (source link), whic ...[text shortened]... ruz doesn’t do much better. So much for the notion that Clinton is the one who can’t be trusted.
    Who shall be entrusted to check the fact checkers at the dailynewsbin.com?
    Christian Science Monitor?
    Boy's Life?
    Reader's Digest?
    TYT?
    Characterization by politicians wishing to persuade the hearer of the concepts they are trying to convey is vastly different than claims or supposed statements of fact.
    That might sound like double-speak, but it is merely an acknowledgement of the deplorable state of our political discourse.
    The mudslinging and inner-party denigrating leading up to the nomination is (nearly always) given the auld lang syne treatment and former deadly enemies are once again bosom buddies.
    This is to be distinguished and made distinct from statements of facts given when questioned directly on matters of both national and legal concern.
    In the latter regard, Clinton has demonstrated beyond question she is not to be trusted in any manner, shape or form, with anything related to the leadership of any organization and the power thereof.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    01 Aug '16 11:10
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    This is from fact checkers, not the feelings of republicans. You know those people? The ones who use facts.
    You mean the ones who use statistics. Do not confuse statistics with facts.
    "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

    How about these little facts:
    Clinton false or mostly false: 60
    Sanders false, mostly false: 30

    Clinton pants on fire statements: 4
    Sanders pants on fire statements: 0

    So, in summary, Clinton gets things wrong twice as often as Sanders, and Sanders was never caught in an actual definite lie, whereas Clinton was caught 4 times.

    http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
    http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

    Trump on the other hand told blatant lies more than Sanders got his facts wrong.
    http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

    You have been fact checked and found wanting. I will be kind and rate your OP 'mostly false'.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    01 Aug '16 11:20
    I will give your source 'pants on fire' because I believe he is intelligent enough to know what he did and didn't do it by mistake.

    The key is in this statement:
    These sites only evaluate controversial or contentious claims made by each candidate....

    Sanders made far fewer 'controversial or contentious claims' making him clearly the winner in terms of honesty.
    I bet that many of Trumps statements were so obviously nonsense or lies that they didn't even register as 'controversial or contentious claims' but were dismissed outright and are not counted. (I know this because his numbers aren't in the thousands.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    01 Aug '16 11:24
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    This is from fact checkers.......
    Fact checked: False.
    Your source is: Bill Palmer of Dailynewsbin
  6. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    01 Aug '16 11:49
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Fact checked: False.
    Your source is: Bill Palmer of Dailynewsbin
    oh for f sake. it's a guy who did some basic arithmetic in March. before accusing someone of falsehoods, do you bother to get all the facts ?

    yes, since then they all have made quite a few more speeches, but i would bet the trend stands.
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    01 Aug '16 11:50
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Who shall be entrusted to check the fact checkers at the dailynewsbin.com?
    Christian Science Monitor?
    Boy's Life?
    Reader's Digest?
    TYT?
    Characterization by politicians wishing to persuade the hearer of the concepts they are trying to convey is vastly different than claims or supposed statements of fact.
    That might sound like double-speak, but it is ...[text shortened]... hape or form, with anything related to the leadership of any organization and the power thereof.
    "In the latter regard, Clinton has demonstrated beyond question she is not to be trusted in any manner, shape or form"

    she says the least lies but she has proven not to be trusted? do you listen to yourself?
  8. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    01 Aug '16 11:53
    15% of what trump says is true (4😵 or mostly true (11😵 yet people still say he "tells it like it is" and is more honest. 15%.

    would you trust a surgeon with a 4% success rate and 11% mostly successful rate?
  9. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    01 Aug '16 12:03
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "In the latter regard, Clinton has demonstrated beyond question she is not to be trusted in any manner, shape or form"

    she says the least lies but she has proven not to be trusted? do you listen to yourself?
    Not only do I listen to myself, I listen to others prior to formulating an opinion on any topic.
    One of the people I listened to in formulating this particular opinion is Clinton herself.
    Not quotes attributed to her, but her own words.
    When she was asked point blank questions regarding the use of a private server for her email functions, she lied often and repeatedly.
    These were not conversations which could conceivably fall into the murky gray waters of political characterizations, but rather specific and pointed questions and statements (claims) of facts.
    She lied.
    She's a liar.
    She cannot be trusted with any format of leadership.

    Read that all back using Mr. Roger's voice instead of my own, as well as then in my own voice.
    His nearly imperceptible lisp kind of slackened the punch, but it still rings true in either voice.
  10. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80055
    01 Aug '16 12:07
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    You mean the ones who use statistics. Do not confuse statistics with facts.
    "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

    How about these little facts:
    Clinton false or mostly false: 60
    Sanders false, mostly false: 30

    Clinton pants on fire statements: 4
    Sanders pants on fire statements: 0

    So, in summary, Clinton gets th ...[text shortened]...

    You have been fact checked and found wanting. I will be kind and rate your OP 'mostly false'.
    Why do you think a statistic is not a fact?
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    01 Aug '16 13:21
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    oh for f sake. it's a guy who did some basic arithmetic in March.
    Fact Check: Pants on fire.
    He didn't 'do some basic arithmetic'. He used statistics from another site to come to a clearly false conclusion. No arithmetic was involved.
    Further, my point is that you claimed that your source was the fact checking website when it clearly wasn't. Your claim was not just an off the cuff remark, but an attempt to give credence to your thread title. You lied.
    The fact checking website does not come to the conclusion of your thread title.

    before accusing someone of falsehoods, do you bother to get all the facts ?
    Which facts would those be? The false ones?
    I checked all your 'facts' and found them wanting.

    yes, since then they all have made quite a few more speeches, but i would bet the trend stands.
    What trend would that be? Clearly the trend does not match your thread title. The actual trend from the fact checking website clearly shows Sanders is more honest than Clinton by a long shot.
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    01 Aug '16 13:24
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Why do you think a statistic is not a fact?
    Statistics are easily manipulated to give false impressions (as demonstrated in the OP). The raw percentages may be facts, but the conclusions most definitely are not. For a start, you have to ask what they are percentages of.
  13. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    01 Aug '16 13:38
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Fact Check: Pants on fire.
    He didn't 'do some basic arithmetic'. He used statistics from another site to come to a clearly false conclusion. No arithmetic was involved.
    Further, my point is that you claimed that your source was the fact checking website when it clearly wasn't. Your claim was not just an off the cuff remark, but an attempt to give creden ...[text shortened]... from the fact checking website clearly shows Sanders is more honest than Clinton by a long shot.
    Ah, SNAP!
  14. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    01 Aug '16 13:42
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Not only do I listen to myself, I listen to others prior to formulating an opinion on any topic.
    One of the people I listened to in formulating this particular opinion is Clinton herself.
    Not quotes attributed to her, but her own words.
    When she was asked point blank questions regarding the use of a private server for her email functions, she lied of ...[text shortened]... nearly imperceptible lisp kind of slackened the punch, but it still rings true in either voice.
    "When she was asked point blank questions regarding the use of a private server for her email functions, she lied often and repeatedly.


    "When she was asked point blank questions regarding the use of a private server for her email functions"
    this might be a shock to you, but a presidential campaign consists about more than a single issue. the fact that you can only complain about one issue (and a weak one at that) while trump is a liar and racist, mysoginist, fascist and more proves just how weak your position is.

    "she lied often and repeatedly."
    give me a number. supported by facts

    "repeatedly" is redundant in that sentence by the way. often means repeatedly. you just added another adverb to sound smart.

    "She lied. "
    so did trump.
    "She's a liar. "
    so is trump.

    "She cannot be trusted with any format of leadership. "
    you don't have a choice. the other candidate can be trusted even less.
  15. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    01 Aug '16 14:00
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Fact Check: Pants on fire.
    He didn't 'do some basic arithmetic'. He used statistics from another site to come to a clearly false conclusion. No arithmetic was involved.
    Further, my point is that you claimed that your source was the fact checking website when it clearly wasn't. Your claim was not just an off the cuff remark, but an attempt to give creden ...[text shortened]... from the fact checking website clearly shows Sanders is more honest than Clinton by a long shot.
    "He used statistics from another site to come to a clearly false conclusion"
    do you understand the article is from march? using politifact data (he also used politifact by the way) from now to prove he was lying then is idiotic.

    "The fact checking website does not come to the conclusion of your thread title."
    the fact checking website still supports the thread title.

    "I checked all your 'facts' and found them wanting."
    you are wrong.

    "Clearly the trend does not match your thread title"
    yes it does.

    "The actual trend from the fact checking website clearly shows Sanders is more honest than Clinton by a long shot."


    True 53 (23😵(53)
    Mostly True 67 (29😵(67)
    Half True 50 (21😵(50)
    Mostly False 34 (15😵(34)
    False 26 (11😵(26)
    Pants on Fire 4 (2😵

    True 14 (13😵(14)
    Mostly True 41 (39😵(41)
    Half True 21 (20😵(21)
    Mostly False 18 (17😵(18)
    False 12 (11😵(12)
    Pants on Fire 0

    taken by percentage, clinton is clearly better at making verified, 100% true, statements
    she made 4 statements that are "pants on fire" (apparently something can be "very" false). that's 4.

    she made more statements overall while sanders went with restating fewer ones. obviously when making more statements, you are more likely to make more mistakes but the percentages are still better than all of the republican's and better than sanders at some points and worse at some. tied in some.

    all these were mentioned by the author of the article using data from politifact available THEN in MARCH. (hope you get that little fact eventuallly). he also mentioned where sanders fares better than hillary. those statements still hold today, at the very least when comparing her with republican candidates.

    you stating she is less honest than sanders by a long shot means you either didn't bother to check the actual numbers or you have no idea how to interpret numbers.
Back to Top