ADVERTISEMENT

Politifact on lying candidates

I already specifically cited an example of politifact being biased. My reference to the New York Times (a newspaper) was used as an example of selection bias. PolitiFact is also newspaper based (Tampa Bay Times). You haven't yet admitted to selection bias, so I thought I'd provide an example in case you didn't understand.

You referencing previous threads that involved PolitiFact is like citing the Angels for Pete Rose's gambling problem. Don't deflect from the FACT that you are wrong about PolitiFact not being biased. I'd hate to call you out for your favorite straw man defense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ecouch
qazplm said:
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.
Click to expand...
Jesus H. Christ, do you even read the responses to your lunatic outbursts before responding? Here we go, one more time......

"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."
 
CWS said:
I already specifically cited an example of politifact being biased. My reference to the New York Times (a newspaper) was used as an example of selection bias. PolitiFact is also newspaper based (Tampa Bay Times). You haven't yet admitted to selection bias, so I thought I'd provide an example in case you didn't understand.

You referencing previous threads that involved PolitiFact is like citing the Angels for Pete Rose's gambling problem. Don't deflect from the FACT that you are wrong about PolitiFact not being biased. I'd hate to call you out for your favorite straw man defense.
Click to expand...
You've provided zero evidence that politifact is biased. None. You said I remember one time when I thought the local paper was wrong. That's it.

And now somehow being "newspaper based" is relevant.

You and the other yahoo can go around using the words "selection bias" as a mantra all you want. Doesn't mean it's relevant, that you understand it, or that it's applicable. I guarantee you that if that chart showed the opposite, we wouldn't be hearing boo from you, or the others in this thread.
 
qazplm said:
You've provided zero evidence that politifact is biased. None. You said I remember one time when I thought the local paper was wrong. That's it.

And now somehow being "newspaper based" is relevant.

You and the other yahoo can go around using the words "selection bias" as a mantra all you want. Doesn't mean it's relevant, that you understand it, or that it's applicable. I guarantee you that if that chart showed the opposite, we wouldn't be hearing boo from you, or the others in this thread.
Click to expand...
Boo. Fox News is biased. As is PolitiFact.
 
qazplm said:
lol if politifact had said Hillary and Obama were huge liars, all the people saying it's biased now would have posted five different threads about it by now.
Click to expand...

Most people don't need Politifact to tell them if they are being lied to. A little research and following the news will expose them regardless of which side of the aisle you prefer.
 
qazplm said:
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.
Click to expand...
I love your use of the term "Fact"


The FACT is US News exposed politifacts as being biased. Oops!

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...inds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans
 
Bruce1 said:
I love your use of the term "Fact"


The FACT is US News exposed politifacts as being biased. Oops!

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...inds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans
Click to expand...
The "evidence" for the bias asserted in that article is that politifact found that republican politicians during the period studied lie more than democrats.

If they found democrats lied more than republicans I'm sure you'd find them "biased" wouldn't ya?

I suspect if politifact went to another period in time they might actually find that Dem politicians during that time period lied more. However, at this point and time it's not surprising that the party that rejects science, that led to the creation of the word "truthiness" might have some issues with veracity.
 
qazplm said:
The "evidence" for the bias asserted in that article is that politifact found that republican politicians during the period studied lie more than democrats.

If they found democrats lied more than republicans I'm sure you'd find them "biased" wouldn't ya?

I suspect if politifact went to another period in time they might actually find that Dem politicians during that time period lied more. However, at this point and time it's not surprising that the party that rejects science, that led to the creation of the word "truthiness" might have some issues with veracity.
Click to expand...

It's very obvious you didn't read the complete article. You are so blind it makes it impossible to have any rational discussion with you. Your view of being rational is that your view is correct and everyone else who has differing views are idiots that need to shut up. I had breakfast yesterday with a very liberal Dem college professor that I have only known for a few years. In spite of our differences we had a very constructive conversation and agreed on several topics while agreeing to disagree on a couple. I learn a lot from my discussions with him and have changed my views based upon our relationship. One of the areas we agreed to disagree on was the recent topic that Trump's wife shouldn't be First Lady because of nude pictures taken a long time ago before she married Trump and was a model etc. He felt that alone should disqualify Trump for the Whitehouse citing the dignity of the office, etc. I disagreed pointing out that I thought Bill's desecration of the office was far worse. He disagreed saying that it was " only a b....job." While funny I told him that if the pictures of Melania were fair game then Trump should bring back Monica to rehash that History.
My point is that people with differing views can still relate and have meaningful discussions. In the case with you......well......never mind.
 
Bruce1 said:
It's very obvious you didn't read the complete article. You are so blind it makes it impossible to have any rational discussion with you. Your view of being rational is that your view is correct and everyone else who has differing views are idiots that need to shut up. I had breakfast yesterday with a very liberal Dem college professor that I have only known for a few years. In spite of our differences we had a very constructive conversation and agreed on several topics while agreeing to disagree on a couple. I learn a lot from my discussions with him and have changed my views based upon our relationship. One of the areas we agreed to disagree on was the recent topic that Trump's wife shouldn't be First Lady because of nude pictures taken a long time ago before she married Trump and was a model etc. He felt that alone should disqualify Trump for the Whitehouse citing the dignity of the office, etc. I disagreed pointing out that I thought Bill's desecration of the office was far worse. He disagreed saying that it was " only a b....job." While funny I told him that if the pictures of Melania were fair game then Trump should bring back Monica to rehash that History.
My point is that people with differing views can still relate and have meaningful discussions. In the case with you......well......never mind.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's why Gr8 and I never agree on anything.

And I could not care less about Melania's nude modeling. It ranks 546th on my list of reasons why Donald Trump shouldn't be President...right next to my bigotry against Orange-Americans.

See, we DO agree on something.

And please point out the part of the article that reveals the bias of politifact other than that they find that republicans lie more than dems.
 
qazplm said:
Yeah, that's why Gr8 and I never agree on anything.

And I could not care less about Melania's nude modeling. It ranks 546th on my list of reasons why Donald Trump shouldn't be President...right next to my bigotry against Orange-Americans.

See, we DO agree on something.

And please point out the part of the article that reveals the bias of politifact other than that they find that republicans lie more than dems.
Click to expand...

The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.

Done. Enjoy life in the bubble.
 
Bruce1 said:
I had breakfast yesterday with a very liberal Dem college professor that I have only known for a few years. In spite of our differences we had a very constructive conversation and agreed on several topics while agreeing to disagree on a couple. I learn a lot from my discussions with him and have changed my views based upon our relationship. One of the areas we agreed to disagree...
Click to expand...
I highlight this because it is always, ALWAYS, easier to discuss these topics in person. There are non-verbal cues which provide a lot of clarity that is lost in the written word. It happens all the time on this message board, wherein people add much more emotion to words written than was intended by the OP. I am quite certain that most of us would be far more civil in person than we are on this board.

In short, that you were able to have a reasonable discourse with a liberal over breakfast but perceive that you aren't able to do so with qaz isn't a surprise. Qaz and I have had many disagreements, some of them ugly, over the years, but generally (not always!) we try to remove emotion when discussing things because there's just no sense in getting into emotional arguments via the written word.

I'd encourage you to take more of what people say at face value, rather than reading emotion into things all the time. I frequently edit posts when I make them, removing things that aren't necessary, or might be inflammatory and just focus on the relevant points. It's hard, and I don't succeed all the time, but I try to be reasonable even in the face of name-calling and personal attacks.

If you find you're truly unable to stick to issues with someone, I'd recommend just putting them on ignore (as I should with BGB because there's just no value there.)
 
gr8indoorsman said:
I highlight this because it is always, ALWAYS, easier to discuss these topics in person. There are non-verbal cues which provide a lot of clarity that is lost in the written word. It happens all the time on this message board, wherein people add much more emotion to words written than was intended by the OP. I am quite certain that most of us would be far more civil in person than we are on this board.

In short, that you were able to have a reasonable discourse with a liberal over breakfast but perceive that you aren't able to do so with qaz isn't a surprise. Qaz and I have had many disagreements, some of them ugly, over the years, but generally (not always!) we try to remove emotion when discussing things because there's just no sense in getting into emotional arguments via the written word.

I'd encourage you to take more of what people say at face value, rather than reading emotion into things all the time. I frequently edit posts when I make them, removing things that aren't necessary, or might be inflammatory and just focus on the relevant points. It's hard, and I don't succeed all the time, but I try to be reasonable even in the face of name-calling and personal attacks.

If you find you're truly unable to stick to issues with someone, I'd recommend just putting them on ignore (as I should with BGB because there's just no value there.)
Click to expand...
Interestingly, when it comes to sports, we are almost always on the same page.
Much like the late, great MDC over on OGFP board. We vehemently disagreed on politics but were almost lock-step on sports.

And I would think the fact that you and I have had some verbal tussles but generally get along/respect each other speaks well for BOTH of us.
 
TOKenBoiler said:
Well, she's been dead since 1981, so...you're into some creepy shit.
Click to expand...
There are several jokes available at this point, but I don't want to offend, so I will just chuckle at them in my own head.
 
buygreekbonds said:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...aim-fbi-found-her-email-remarks-truthful.html
Click to expand...

I love how there's this obsession with one thing Clinton has said (which I think she shouldn't say and she just needs to say the FBI found nothing to charge me on and be done with it).

However, Trump is literally making up scenes in his head and describing them in detail to audiences repeatedly and you don't give a crap.

Trump is a businessman/salesman at heart and tries to sell people on things. And it just spins around in his head and it's fine to do when selling people on an exclusive golf course about how great it will be and there's nothing like it in the world - but facts actually matter when it comes to being the leader of the free world. He literally just makes things up on the fly left and right - whether they exist in his head or his feelings or what. But you seem to be fine with that?
 
lbodel said:
I love how there's this obsession with one thing Clinton has said (which I think she shouldn't say and she just needs to say the FBI found nothing to charge me on and be done with it).

However, Trump is literally making up scenes in his head and describing them in detail to audiences repeatedly and you don't give a crap.

Trump is a businessman/salesman at heart and tries to sell people on things. And it just spins around in his head and it's fine to do when selling people on an exclusive golf course about how great it will be and there's nothing like it in the world - but facts actually matter when it comes to being the leader of the free world. He literally just makes things up on the fly left and right - whether they exist in his head or his feelings or what. But you seem to be fine with that?
Click to expand...
Show me one post in which I've ever said anything in support of Trump. I have stated repeatedly that neither Clinton or Trump is qualified or competent to be POTUS.
 
qazplm said:
If Trump would just remove all "moslems" from the country, he could lock down BGB's undying loyalty.
Click to expand...
That's just it, unless he's planning to write someone in, I can't imagine a candidate more closely aligned with BGB's worldview than what Trump is pushing, yet he says he's not voting for Trump.

Libertarians are all about open borders and such, so they're out. Green party? HA! Right. I'm guessing he's writing in his local church leader or something. Dunno.
 
Straight answer: Trump and Hillary are so loathsome that it is possible for a third party (or alternate Dem or Rep) to emerge as a viable candidate before November.
 
buygreekbonds said:
Straight answer: Trump and Hillary are so loathsome that it is possible for a third party (or alternate Dem or Rep) to emerge as a viable candidate before November.
Click to expand...
I agree. Actually, I think some already have, though maybe not fully "viable" yet. Lib and Green party candidates are approaching or already in double digits. I think last I saw Libs were 12% and Green 9%?
 
gr8indoorsman said:
That's just it, unless he's planning to write someone in, I can't imagine a candidate more closely aligned with BGB's worldview than what Trump is pushing, yet he says he's not voting for Trump.

Libertarians are all about open borders and such, so they're out. Green party? HA! Right. I'm guessing he's writing in his local church leader or something. Dunno.
Click to expand...
Well, the Libs might support open borders but that's been the US policy with Latin America for 2-3 centuries and it doesn't make too much difference which party controls Congress and the White House.

However it's hard to imagine a Lib president bringing in tens of thousands of moslems from the Mideast and Africa at government expense. So a Lib would clearly be preferable to a Democrat in the WH.
 
http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...cott-correct-florida-created-1-million-jobs-/

Here is some bias in a specific example that you wanted, Qaz.

Rick Scott "we got a million jobs". PolitiFact found the stats that supported it. Rick Scott did NOT say "I solely created a million jobs". PolitiFact should have said: TRUE, yes, what he said was true. Instead, they went on a lengthy explanation to downgrade his claim to "mostly true", when what he said was true by their own admission.
 
CWS said:
http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...cott-correct-florida-created-1-million-jobs-/

Here is some bias in a specific example that you wanted, Qaz.

Rick Scott "we got a million jobs". PolitiFact found the stats that supported it. Rick Scott did NOT say "I solely created a million jobs". PolitiFact should have said: TRUE, yes, what he said was true. Instead, they went on a lengthy explanation to downgrade his claim to "mostly true", when what he said was true by their own admission.
Click to expand...
"Scott said "we got a million jobs," referring to employment in the state of Florida on his watch.

On the numbers, Scott is on target -- the figure is actually a bit higher than 1 million net, new, nonfarm jobs. We’ll just note, as we always do in cases like this, that the governor is not solely responsible for this improvement -- other factors played a role too. The statement is accurate but needs additional information, so we rate it Mostly True."

Bias? LMAO. Absolutely true. It would be EQUALLY true if it were President Obama since no President is responsible for every job on his watch.

Scott didn't say Florida got a million jobs, he said "we" go a million jobs strongly implying that his admin was responsible for those million jobs.

If THAT is all you have for bias...lol
 
CWS said:
http://www.politifact.com/californi...wn-speaks-truth-about-californias-job-growth/

It's interesting that in this one, they didn't bother to go on and say anything about the other factors and rate it mostly true. They just said true.

http://www.politifact.com/new-york/...o/new-york-has-more-private-sector-jobs-ever/

Similar to Cuomo.

I wonder why they said "Mostly True" for Scott and "True" for Brown and Cuomo. Any ideas?
Click to expand...
"He didn’t take all the credit for the new jobs."
Boom, too easy. Want to give me a harder one?
 
CWS said:
Sure. Where did Scott take all the credit?
Click to expand...
"At one point in the now-viral exchange, Scott responded to the barrage of criticism by customer Cara Jennings with what appears to be an estimate of the jobs created on his watch.

"We got a million jobs," Scott said."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Boilermaker03

Retroactive pardon of Fauci

Replies
5
Views
357
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
Boiler Buck
Boiler Buck
D

Purdue football Candidates to replace Ryan Walters at Purdue

Replies
1
Views
549
The Depot
IronChefBBQ
IronChefBBQ
Boiler Buck

Pollsters decent job....

Replies
0
Views
152
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
Boiler Buck
Boiler Buck
TwinDegrees2

How amazing was today in the market.

Replies
6
Views
264
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
bonefish1
bonefish1
Boiler Buck

RED WAVE = MANDATE

Replies
81
Views
2K
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
tjreese
tjreese
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back