# Politifact has issued their ratings today. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 27, 2016, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politifact-has-issued-their-ratings-today/769875 "2016-10-27T19:42:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politifact-has-issued-their-ratings-today/769875/41 "2016-10-28T19:29:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I decline the invitation to do so in this thread. > > I have no interest in even the appearing of propping Trump up by delineating Clinton dishonesty in detail. Thank you. If only others had the honesty to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politifact-has-issued-their-ratings-today/769875/42 "2016-10-28T19:35:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I decline the invitation to do so in this thread. > > I have no interest in even the appearing of propping Trump up by delineating Clinton dishonesty in detail. I’m curious if this is for the benefit of how people perceive you or because of your extreme distaste from Trump. The latter would surprise me because of your extreme aversion to poor argumentation. I’ll pitch in one though. Hilary lied when she claimed Comey said she did nothing wrong. I don’t understand the reaction of people who defend Clinton over everything. She isn’t perfect, it’s fine to acknowledge that. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politifact-has-issued-their-ratings-today/769875/43 "2016-10-29T06:41:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I decline the invitation to do so in this thread. > > I have no interest in even the appearing of propping Trump up by delineating Clinton dishonesty in detail. How can one short pose contain so many fallacies? Your post was factually incorrect. While Trump could give some of the politicians of yesterday a run for their money in effort, end he wouldn’t come in the top several hundred. One has to to be completely ignorant of American political history and feign an unfamiliarity of William Tweed and his ilk to claim any modern figure would compare to what this Republic has seen. Clinton would not even be in the top several thousand dishonest politicians our fine country has produced. Second, your post is illogical. You are already on record as stating your views vis-a-vis Trump. There is simply no way that following up on a point you raised would be seen as an endorsement of him. Finally, your refusal is disingenuous because you well know that you made a ludicrous statement which you cannot support and are attempting to divert attention. This actually seems to be exactly the same behavior that you are charging Clinton with. “Everyone”'knows she is dishonest because “everyone” says she is. She is no Boy Scout. Very few if any are. Yet do any of her statements reach the level of those such as the Bush administration which dragged the US into an unnecessary war over knowing lies about weapons of mass destruction? Again, everyone knows you do not back Trump. That is that and this. Do you have anything specific or is this simply more Republican talk? ---
**Author:** ![Cyberhwk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7993a0/32.png) [@Cyberhwk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyberhwk)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politifact-has-issued-their-ratings-today/769875/44 "2016-10-29T09:10:28Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > They command zero respect among those of us on the right Then again neither does Climate Change, so… ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politifact-has-issued-their-ratings-today/769875/45 "2016-10-29T15:49:45Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > [PolitiFact | National](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/) > > \*PolitiFact has been documenting Trump’s statements since 2011, when he was toying with a 2012 White House bid. Since then, we’ve fact-checked more than 300 Trump claims. About 71 percent of them rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire. About 14 percent of his statements are Half True, while 4 percent rated True. > > Trump’s inaccuracies are diverse. They include conspiracy theories, attacks on critics and opponents, misleading statistics and exaggerations of his own personal record. \* > > \*PolitiFact has been fact-checking Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton since we launched in 2007, during her first run for the White House. Over that time, she has proven herself to be a careful speaker. Like all politicians, however, she sometimes stretches the truth. > > During the many years we’ve fact-checked Clinton, we’ve rated close to 300 of her statements. Just over half — 51 percent — have rated True or Mostly True. Another 23 percent rated Half True. On the negative side, 26 percent of her statements rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.\* > > So, tell me again, Hillary-haters- which is the dishonest candidate? Can’t they BOTH be dishonest? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politifact-has-issued-their-ratings-today/769875/46 "2016-10-29T15:59:36Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Your post was factually incorrect. While Trump could give some of the politicians of yesterday a run for their money in effort, end he wouldn’t come in the top several hundred. One has to to be completely ignorant of American political history and feign an unfamiliarity of William Tweed and his ilk to claim any modern figure would compare to what this Republic has seen. Clinton would not even be in the top several thousand dishonest politicians our fine country has produced. Absolutely disagree. Boss Tweed was certainly no paragon of honesty, to be sure. But his lies were manifestly tied to his criminal enterprise of embezzlement, which intrinsically requires lies of a different nature than I’m seeing from Trump. > [@](#): > > Second, your post is illogical. You are already on record as stating your views vis-a-vis Trump. There is simply no way that following up on a point you raised would be seen as an endorsement of him. If only that were true. I find myself a frequent target of attacks on this board notwithstanding my clear statements of a contrary position. > [@](#): > > Finally, your refusal is disingenuous because you well know that you made a ludicrous statement which you cannot support and are attempting to divert attention. I have sent you a PM substantiating my claim. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politifact-has-issued-their-ratings-today/769875/47 "2016-10-29T16:34:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Damuri Ajashi** : > > Can’t they BOTH be dishonest? Of course they can be. But that doesn’t mean that they’re both _equally_ dishonest. And given that we’re being asked to choose between the two of them, that means that the question of which one is more dishonest is the relevant one, here. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politifact-has-issued-their-ratings-today/769875/48 "2016-10-31T00:51:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Absolutely disagree. > > Boss Tweed was certainly no paragon of honesty, to be sure. But his lies were manifestly tied to his criminal enterprise of embezzlement, which intrinsically requires lies of a different nature than I’m seeing from Trump. We haven’t really defined how we are grading honest and dishonest. Certainly, though, having seen such incidents as the Yellow Peril, the internment of US citizens of Japanese decent during WWII for racial reasons, the pretenses employed in the sordid history of racial discrimination, the dealings with the Native Americans, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, the actual consequences of Trump still is little league. However, my point concerned HRC, someone you stated was one of the most dishonest politicians in US history, and which is absurd. > [@](#): > > If only that were true. I find myself a frequent target of attacks on this board notwithstanding my clear statements of a contrary position. Help me out here, **Bricker**. It would seem so trivial a task to point to back to this post if someone gave you shit that it does not seem you are being upfront. If you were truly so worried, why would you have posted in the first place? I don’t get it unless you are being disingenuous. Can you post a cite where you have back away from another argument for this reason? Then perhaps I could accept it, even if I cannot comprehend why you would set yourself up for such an emotionally devastating exchange by making an outlandish claim which cannot be backed up. I feel for you, **Bricker**. Being a Republican cannot be easy on this board. It does indeed concern me that you are so bothered by the potential of being attacked for something false, especially when it’s so easy to refute. If you are so concerned about your reputation, wouldn’t you worry that people will think that you are unable to provide a good argument? Or is that somehow different, and if it is different, how so? Let’s say that you were to engage in a public exchange with me instead of sending PM. Someone may say that you support Trump and at which point you can point back to any number of posts in this thread which state you didn’t. What sort of attack are you worried about? > [@](#): > > I have sent you a PM substantiating my claim. No. You have not. You sent a PM. True. It contained _one_ lie which Hillary is famous for. But that is hardly substantiating an argument that Hillary is one of the most dishonest politicians today, let alone in all of US history. Let me repeat, yet _once again_ that we are not arguing for the canonization of a saint here. (Sorry, ex-Mormon here so I may have the terminology wrong.) Hillary does lie, and does lie about some really stupid things. However, in my book, even the lie about the stock dealing you cited in your PM does not reach the same level as the deliberate deceptions of the W. Bush administration dragging us into a war on false presences. I could go on and on, but it doesn’t look like you are interested in a real discussion. Not to single you out, but this is the reason I generally stay away from GD because most of the arguments there are as superficial as this. So, OK. Rather than push the point, I will defer to your fears and will drop it. ---
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politifact-has-issued-their-ratings-today/769875/49 "2016-10-31T11:09:22Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > [P.J. O’Rourke: I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton, the Devil We Know](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/11/p-j-o-rourke-i-m-endorsing-hillary-clinton-the-devil-we-know.html) > [Conservative Author P.J. O'Rourke Reluctantly Backs Clinton : NPR](http://www.npr.org/2016/05/09/477339063/conservative-author-pj-orourke-reluctantly-backs-clinton) > > _“I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises,” O’Rourke continued. “It’s the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she’s way behind in second place. She’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.”_ I don’t think she’s wrong about everything, but she’s pretty bad. Then again, we’re grading on a curve here, and she’s a middling Democrat in terms of badness, by comparison to others in her party. Her actual grade would be like a D, but since we’re on a curve, she’s like a C+. I do love this quote though. Wrong within normal parameters. She lies within normal parameters, she’s a fake-ass politician with a ton of empty rhetoric within normal parameters, she’s as uninspiring and corrupt as any normal politician. She is the used car salesman who overcharges you by $5,000 for an old beat up but reliable car. Trump is the guy who will sell you a cardboard cut-out of a car, and tell you that you’ve also graduated from his car mechanic university simply by buying it. Plus, it’s only 50 grand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politifact-has-issued-their-ratings-today/769875.md?page=2)