DrDeth
September 5, 2016, 9:38pm
941
No one gets away free from Politifact. Everyone makes misstatements, exaggerations, half-lies, and so forth.
I mean, if you’re saying all Politicians are dishonest and Clinton is a Politician, ergo she’s dishonest, then sure.
But she’s less dishonest than any of the Republican candidates.
She’s not even seen as more honest than Trump according to at least some polls. Here is, for example, the latest national poll off RCP (IBD/TIPP) :
Meanwhile, nearly two thirds (62%) now say Clinton is “not honest or trustworthy,” up from 58% in last month’s poll. Trump scores comparatively much better, with 52% saying he’s not honest or trustworthy, a three-point improvement from last month.
What’s your basis for the “she’s less dishonest …” claim?
Over 2/3rds of what Trump says is mostly false, false, or “Pants on Fire”, according to Politifact . Hillary Clinton is mostly false or worse only about 1/4 of the time.
HurricaneDitka:
She’s not even seen as more honest than Trump according to at least some polls. Here is, for example, the latest national poll off RCP (IBD/TIPP) :
What’s your basis for the “she’s less dishonest …” claim?
Look at the Politifact link.
JohnT
September 5, 2016, 11:09pm
946
Facts. Data. Lack of fines, sanctions, arrests, firings, reprimands, etc.
Just a lot of right-wingers claiming she’s a horrible liar for 20+ years.
JohnT:
Facts. Data. Lack of fines, sanctions, arrests, firings, reprimands, etc.
Just a lot of right-wingers claiming she’s a horrible liar for 20+ years.
It’s telling that he used a poll to prove his point rather than point at facts.
JohnT
September 5, 2016, 11:16pm
948
Polls are only useful when they tell you what you want to hear. Otherwise, they’re just lies.
iiandyiiii:
Over 2/3rds of what Trump says is mostly false, false, or “Pants on Fire”, according to Politifact . Hillary Clinton is mostly false or worse only about 1/4 of the time.
Did Politifact rate all statements by both candidates or a subset? If it was just a subset, how do they determine which candidates’ statements to rate, and how many statements from each candidate to rate?
JohnT
September 5, 2016, 11:19pm
950
Just read the link, guy, and ask Politifact how they do their work, not us.
Ahhh, drive-by linking, my favorite kind of debate avoidance. I don’t believe the subset of statements that politifact chooses to rate gives any semblance of an accurate measurement of whether a political is “more or less dishonest” than another one. Neither do the American people apparently, because fewer of them find HRC honest and trustworthy than DJT.
JohnT
September 5, 2016, 11:23pm
952
HurricaneDitka:
Did Politifact rate all statements by both candidates or a subset? If it was just a subset, how do they determine which candidates’ statements to rate, and how many statements from each candidate to rate?
They pick statements that are of a clearly factual nature (as in “over my tenure at position X, average salaries increased by Y”), and ones that are generating discussion and controversy, and research them :
Choosing claims to check
Every day, PolitiFact and PunditFact staffers look for statements that can be checked. We comb through speeches, news stories, press releases, campaign brochures, TV ads, Facebook postings and transcripts of TV and radio interviews. Because we can’t possibly check all claims, we select the most newsworthy and significant ones.
In deciding which statements to check, we ask ourselves these questions:
Is the statement rooted in a fact that is verifiable? We don’t check opinions, and we recognize that in the world of speechmaking and political rhetoric, there is license for hyperbole.
Is the statement leaving a particular impression that may be misleading?
Is the statement significant? We avoid minor "gotchas" on claims that obviously represent a slip of the tongue.
Is the statement likely to be passed on and repeated by others?
Would a typical person hear or read the statement and wonder: Is that true?
JohnT
September 5, 2016, 11:24pm
954
HurricaneDitka:
Ahhh, drive-by linking, my favorite kind of debate avoidance. I don’t believe the subset of statements that politifact chooses to rate gives any semblance of an accurate measurement of whether a political is “more or less dishonest” than another one. Neither do the American people apparently, because fewer of them find HRC honest and trustworthy than DJT.
Wasn’t my link, so make your whiny excuses to somebody else.
The quote that should be looked at:
But the truth is that you’d have to work incredibly hard to find a politician who has the kind of history of corruption, double-dealing, and fraud that Donald Trump has. The number of stories which could potentially deserve hundreds and hundreds of articles is absolutely staggering. Here’s a partial list:
[ul]
[li]Trump’s casino bankruptcies, which left investors holding the bag while he skedaddled with their money[/li][li] Trump’s habit of refusing to pay contractors who had done work for him, many of whom are struggling small businesses[/li][li] Trump University, which includes not only the people who got scammed and the Florida investigation, but also a similar story from Texas where the investigation into Trump U was quashed.[/li][li] The Trump Institute, another get-rich-quick scheme in which Trump allowed a couple of grifters to use his name to bilk people out of their money[/li][li] The Trump Network, a multi-level marketing venture (a.k.a. pyramid scheme) that involved customers mailing in a urine sample which would be analyzed to produce for them a specially formulated package of multivitamins[/li][li] Trump Model Management, which reportedly had foreign models lie to customs officials and work in the U.S. illegally, and kept them in squalid conditions while they earned almost nothing for the work they did[/li][li] Trump’s employment of foreign guest workers at his resorts, which involves a claim that he can’t find Americans to do the work[/li][li] Trump’s use of hundreds of undocumented workers from Poland in the 1980s, who were paid a pittance for their illegal work[/li][li] Trump’s history of being charged with housing discrimination[/li][li] Trump’s connections to mafia figures involved in New York construction[/li][li] The time Trump paid the Federal Trade Commission $750,000 over charges that he violated anti-trust laws when trying to take over a rival casino company[/li][li] The fact that Trump is now being advised by Roger Ailes, who was forced out as Fox News chief when dozens of women came forward to charge him with sexual harassment. According to the allegations, Ailes’s behavior was positively monstrous; as just one indicator, his abusive and predatory actions toward women were so well-known and so loathsome that in 1968 the morally upstanding folks in the Nixon administration refused to allow him to work there despite his key role in getting Nixon elected.[/li][/ul]
And that last one is happening right now. To repeat, the point is not that these stories have never been covered, because they have. The point is that they get covered briefly, then everyone in the media moves on. If any of these kinds of stories involved Clinton, news organizations would rush to assign multiple reporters to them, those reporters would start asking questions, and we’d learn more about all of them.
JohnT
September 5, 2016, 11:50pm
956
Don’t forget he even scammed those little girls who sang that song at his rally back in January:
JohnT
September 5, 2016, 11:58pm
957
For all the crap I’ve heard about “Hillary ducks the press”, nobody has peeped a word about the 25 minute press conference she held today.
iiandyiiii:
They pick statements that are of a clearly factual nature (as in “over my tenure at position X, average salaries increased by Y”), and ones that are generating discussion and controversy, and research them :
They don’t seem to do all that good of a job of it. For example, here are their ratings on ObamaCare:
2008: “if you’ve got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it” = “True”
2009: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan” = “Half True”
2012: “If you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance” = “Half True”
2013: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” = “Lie of the Year”
That’s quite a lot of … ummm … evolution, for something that’s supposed to be “of a clearly factual nature”, don’t you think?
Do you know if there’s any video of it? I’d like to go watch such a historic event in its full glory.
Sometimes the facts change. But that last one was hyperbole on the part of Politifact – for the vast majority of people, Obama was correct. That there are a small number for whom that isn’t true doesn’t make the statement a terrible lie.
But anyway, if you think their ratings of Trump and Hillary are no good, then prove it – show the statements of Trump and Hillary that they rated incorrectly.
