Politifact on lying candidates
- Thread starter qazplm
- Start date
Does it say how they chose the statements to rank? That certainly could influence these results.
He doesn't know what selection bias is. Guarantee he never had a college level stats class.
Do you really think they would influence them so much that the overall fundamentals will change? Would Hillary shoot up to the top or Trump to the bottom on that chart?
Sure. Let's have buygreekbonds select 20 statements from each of them and see how it works out...lol seriously. This is not a hard concept.
I don't know to what degree it would influence the results, but it could narrow the gap between Clinton and Trump...or not make the Democrats the most honest of the bunch.
Jeb Bush? Kasich? Both fundamentally as "honest" as the Democrats in that chart.
Biden is with the second tier/group.
Having 17 candidates means you are going to have have most of the spots on that list. Strikes me as several groupings of candidates (in no particular rank order within each Group):
Group 1: Clinton, Obama, Sanders, Kasich, Bush, maybe Paul. (Rs and Ds)
Group 2: Romney, Palin, Biden, Christie, Rubio, McCain, Ryan, Walker. (Rs and Ds)
Group 3: Perry, Santorum, Cruz.
Group 4: Bachmann, Gingrich.
Group 5: Trump.
If you take the time to go over to Politifact and actually read their analyses of Hillary's obvious lies (private server allowed, no classified info, etc), you'll see that Politifact rated most of these as inconclusive or insufficient info.
So we have a double standard. If Trump is lying, he's lying. If Hillary is lying, there is not enough hard evidence to prove it. So it doesn't count.
So we have a double standard. If Trump is lying, he's lying. If Hillary is lying, there is not enough hard evidence to prove it. So it doesn't count.
I'm not sure Trump lies so much as he just doesn't know the truth and thinks he can talk his way out of anything. Now, he also just lies and "doesn't recall" a lot of stuff (like we used to make fun of Bill and still make fun of Hillary for doing), but I think a lot of his problem is that he is easily suckered into answering questions where he hasn't thought about what the "right answer" is. He shoots from the hip. All. The. Time. And we get to see who he really is (or thinks people want him to be) by his ludicrous answers.
I don't know. I agree that some of the time he just shoots from the hip, but much/most of the time he knows he's not telling the truth. I think he knows the truth more than we think, or at the very least, he knows that what he is saying isn't the truth, even if he has no idea what the actual truth is in a particular case.
He just doesn't care. Truth/lie, it doesn't matter to him. He's a BS Artist. The whole point of being a BS Artist is selling whatever the buyer wants at that moment. It's the only thing he is good at...and it's worked for him in life but now he has fact-checkers and people checking his work.
That's fine. I'm just saying methodology matters when judging how much stock to put in this analysis.
I just don't see much reason to question their overall picture. It makes sense to me. The more traditional candidates of either party tend to tell the truth more often, the more fringe candidates tend to not, and then there is Trump in a class by himself.
Other than folks who think Clinton lies every time her lips move, nothing else about that overall picture is remotely surprising.
Probably so. He lies assuming people aren't smart enough to figure it out. Megyn Kelly's Fox debate was pretty awesome where she pointed out three blatant lies.
"He just doesn't care. Truth/lie, it doesn't matter to him. He's a BS Artist. The whole point of being a BS Artist is selling whatever the buyer wants at that moment. It's the only thing he is good at...and it's worked for him in life but now he has fact-checkers and people checking his work."
Replace "he/him/his" with "she/her" and your comments apply equally well to Hillary. I don't defend either of these goons. We need a third party candidate. Other than Jerry Sandusky, just about anyone in America would be a better choice.
Replace "he/him/his" with "she/her" and your comments apply equally well to Hillary. I don't defend either of these goons. We need a third party candidate. Other than Jerry Sandusky, just about anyone in America would be a better choice.
Not challenging things because they comport with your world view isn't very scientific.
I don't tend to challenge things when they are presented by an unbiased, credible source and they make perfect sense.
so you don't think politifact is credible and reasonably unbiased?
Do tell.
You don't think more centrists candidates aren't reasonably more likely to be more truthful than fringe candidates?
Really?
What exact meaningful new information do you feel was revealed in the DNC wikileaks?
Enough to trigger a mass resignation of the top brass in the DNC. What is the head count up to now over at the DNC HQ?
Ask Twitter why they are censoring negative DNC news. Facebook as well.
I'm sorry. I assumed anyone who would be willing to engage in this conversation would have read the emails.
So, my answer is you reading the emails. In addition, reading current events surrounding the Twitter censorship.
I'm tired of link/google-fu.
Not to mention, this graph is far from academic without methodology. I'm surprised it was posted.
It reminds me of something a climate change denier would post. Don't worry though. It is copyrighted by Robert Mann.
Last edited:
I have followed the matter and I fail to see any new information garnered from the DNC emails that in anyway fits into a discussion as to the level of truth/falsity presented by the politicians listed.
The DNC emails may very well demonstrate a bias by party regulars in favor of a party regular and adversity to an independent running for the party nomination or that many of those people should be far more careful in their choice of words, but they don't bear on the matter in this thread.
So, perhaps you can be kind enough to enlighten me, given your insight.
The DNC emails may very well demonstrate a bias by party regulars in favor of a party regular and adversity to an independent running for the party nomination or that many of those people should be far more careful in their choice of words, but they don't bear on the matter in this thread.
So, perhaps you can be kind enough to enlighten me, given your insight.
Politifact is run by the Tampa Bay Times, which is my local paper. The Tampa Bay Times is extremely liberally biased. On the local level, one "Fact" check was so ridiculous, that I called the newspaper to speak to the writer, but they wouldn't call me back. I don't remember the specifics, but it was basically this.
Statement:
Person A said that they paid their required taxes.
Verdict: False.
Reasoning: Person A did pay their required taxes, HOWEVER, we don't feel that the taxes are fair, Person A should pay more. Therefore, since it's not fair, Person A should have been required to pay more and their statement is then false.
It was literally that bad. After that piece of garbage, I lost all respect for the group. This doesn't show selection bias (which is rampant), but shows bias on their logic. There are also many other biases, such as the general wording of the articles. Right now, the headline on Politifact is "Is Donald Trump a Draft Dodger?" If it were Hillary, it probably would have said "Did Hillary's resilience lead her to breaking glass ceilings for women worldwide?" A little hyperbole, but it's not far from the truth.
There are sites that say that. No one posts them because we have more than 2 synapses functioning and understand that these sorts of sites are PURELY opeds. Why you can't understand that is beyond anyone.
There are facts mixed in with the OpEd on both sides. It's not that hard to understand. It is not black and white, therefore the ability to use bias to strengthen or soften the outcome of the result.
Either you can't read or we're arguing the same point. I clearly said that there are facts and opinions on BOTH SIDES.
Your next statement "biased processes usually lead to biased outputs across the board". I believe that you are saying that this evens things out. That is clearly an untrue opinion and not a fact. Selection bias by definition does not even things out. Once selected, if the writer can clearly have a liberal slant on their opinions of "facts" for both Hillary and Trump. Just the decision to label it "mostly true" vs "true but misleading" can be swayed by bias.
Your last statement is hyperbole and is not helpful to a discussion. Sometimes PolitiFact is correct. They need to be to have credibility. I understand that you see PolitiFact as Fact, but in reality, it is an opinion a significant amount of the time. Sometimes it is fact.
Politifact is used by both sides, as well as the media as a neutral arbiter. Fact.
Politifact has no obvious bias towards one side or the other. Fact.
Politifact is not run by either side. Fact.
Politifact uses facts and information to assess the credibility of statements. Fact.
But because the result "Hillary and Obama are more honest than some other republicans, like Trump" doesn't square with the reality of some on here, we get, they are biased/slanted.
Proclaiming "thing x can be swayed by bias" is another way of saying I reject everything because the person saying it could be biased. Anyone and everything "could be biased."
My statement was not about "evening out" it was about the fact that politifact calls statements by all sides out as lies. That is not the same as saying that they are 100% objectively accurate, no one could possibly be. But because they have no links or ties, because they go after all sides, and because they are used by all sides and the media, then those "errors" tend to be spread out.
This is all a no true scotsman variation. Politifact isn't perfect, could theoretically be biased (no actual evidence of said bias) so it's worthless.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/pub...intons-misleading-statement-during-interview/
When there are facts and opinions on both sides, both sides will pick and choose what they want to highlight. To say that PolitiFact isn't biased.... I don't think you could have your head stuck in the sand any more than you do. You need to be more open-minded. Here is an example of selection bias from the NYT. They put it in a blog because they were called out in it.
It's funny...politifact has been cited on this site all of the time, for a long time. No one raised about all the "biases" then. It's not til something that isn't Dems are liars is posted from politifact that now anyone who doesn't think "politifact isn't biased must have their heads in the sand."
NYT is not politifact. I know, I know, all the media is liberally biased!! lol But citing an example of bias in the NYT as proof that PF is biased is like citing the Angels for Pete Rose's gambling problem.
And everyone has "bias." If having ANY level of "Bias" is disqualifying then we can't trust anything or anyone at all, ever. PF isn't biased in the sense that it does not have an obvious, clear lean one way or the other. It makes a conscious effort to arrive at the truth the best it can. It will never be 100 percent successful. Like I said, I get it, Hillary is a huge liar and Obama is a huge liar so when PF says they aren't, they must be biased.
