Actual story headlines of the first three.
“Obama’s plan expands existing system.”
“Barack Obama promises you can keep your health insurance, but there’s no guarantee.”
“Barack Obama says that under his health care law, those who have health insurance will keep it.”
And each was factual at the time. Or half factual.
I think the idea of comparing totals of statements which Politifact chose to rate is an entirely pointless exercise if you’re trying to extrapolate from that analysis something broader like “which candidate is more honest and trustworthy”. This blog post explains it far more articulately than I can (but I have tried to explain it here).
So by posting that, you admit you can’t really show the bias you’re claiming.
If i promise not to stab you in the dick it will be true until the day i actually stab you in the dick.
More like sour grapes, the writer there complained that more people that ask questions to Politifact will come from the left side of the spectrum, it may be so, but the flaw is that Clinton did get ding several times and the article does not deal with Trump or Clinton and it is coming from a site specifically made to discredit Politifact. You are just nut picking and reaching the bottom of the barrel to press your point.
Neither could win without the other.
I did also check what that anti politifact site was up to, and their more recent effort promised to make notes about how Politifact is wrong about his methods, based on their video it is clear that the makers of the site are just clowns and they really do not have any serious desire to criticize properly the people at Politifact. It is a typical hatchet job site made by right wingers.
Dream on. Here, arguments need to be supported by reality.
And you ain’t got.
So you got nothing.
Just please consider that maybe it’s not a coincidence that the actual fact checking organizations seem to say that Trump lies a ton while Hillary lies less often. Maybe your news sources aren’t giving you the best information.
Are you really surprised that someone who repeatedly questioned Obama’s birthplace with zero evidence, and said that his investigators were finding incredible things (while never saying what they found) in Hawaii, is rated as rather dishonest by fact checkers?
I’m quite comfortable with the current state of affairs: a majority of Dopers think Clinton is honest and trustworthy and a majority of likely voters think she is not.
Is truth and fact important to you as well? And please cite that “a majority of Dopers think Clinton is honest and trustworthy”, or is this another example of a conservative Doper with psychic abilities?
Cite on both claims, please.
Sorry, no cite for that. I was just making a snap judgement off the posts in the last few pages of this thread, which is admittedly a subset of dopers, and some conjecture based off the positions their posts take, since I don’t have an actual poll. Maybe most of you think she’s dishonest and untrustworthy, like most likely voters? I certainly hope that’s the case. If I’m wrong, consider me happily wrong.
It’s not just a “subset of Dopers”, it’s a “subset of Dopers who are talking about Hillary’s campaign”. :rolleyes:
And Hillary Clinton? Fine, I consider her as honest as:
George W. Bush, ex-head of the CIA
Barack Obama
Gerald R. Ford
More honest than:
Bill Clinton
Ronald Reagan
Richard Nixon
Lyndon Johnson
George H. W. Bush
And less honest than:
Jimmy Carter
(Those are the Presidents of my lifetime. Not going back further.)
There’s a grey area – sometimes she’s dishonest, and I think she’s more trustworthy on some things and less so on other things. In both qualities I think she’s far, far better than Trump. I wouldn’t be able to answer in a yes/no fashion, since neither answer fits how I feel about her. I’m not sure if there’s a single politician in American history for whom I’d be comfortable answering “yes” on this.
As for your wrongness, hopefully it will encourage you to refrain from saying things about other Dopers without any actual evidence for it.
The current state of affairs leads to a decisive Democrat win.
Point of order, you said that some polls do, even what you said showed that you are getting it wrong now. Indeed one can not say that a majority is when not all polls tell us that is the case, but not all of them do and more voters are likely to vote for Clinton still.
http://www.suffolk.edu/news/67378.php
As a majority of dopers will do.
As for the latter portion, see the latest IBD/TIPP poll:
As for the claim about Dopers, I don’t have a cite, and I’d be delighted to be wrong about that, and in the company of so many Hillary skeptics.
Something about this post seems … inconsistent.
:rolleyes:
Read my post again, you are wrong or incomplete in your say so. And even you called yourself incomplete based on what you told us early; again you said some polls do tell us that, going from there to tell us that the majority are thinking that way was wrong. You need to get much more than just one poll just to claim who is very likely to be seen as more trustworthy.