Heh. I learned that from watching American Idol. 
You appear to have an objection to the U.S. electing as president as woman who would perform the job in as excellent a fashion as can be expected of anyone in this day and age; also, that your objection to that outcome is so strong that you would prefer that the presidency be handed to as unqualified a buffoon as has ever thrown his hat into the ring, even as a JOKE.
Is it only because you hate our country, or is there some other reason for this?
Why NOW? It’s not like she didn’t have a chance to sixteen years ago.
In fact, she COULD have done it over the course of several years, Johnny Cash-style.
Yep, China! Connect the dot, people!
Probably the mere absence of underlined blue text, such s one would fund in a linked citation.
Personally, I find that leaving it up to one’s interlocutors to find the citations for one’s own assertions to be kinda obnoxious, even when the person making the assertion is on my side.
Perhaps even especially then.
Is that the same Secretary of Defense who serves at the President’s pleasure? Does the law state that in the absence of a SecDef nuclear launches may not be initiated?
That would be a relief.
This is a fair question, and I admit that I may be the victim of my own confirmation bias here… which is why I said, “In my view, however, Politifact applies two different standards…” as opposed to a more rigorous statistical analysis.
But the problem is that it’s nearly impossible to find two examples that defenders will agree can be compared to one another. Even here, where we have the same source being used against the same target from a left- and a right-leaning speaker with different results, defenders argue that the different treatment is justified.
Against this backdrop, I confess that I think the chances of an acceptably rigorous analysis are slight.
Yes.
One is too nebulous to rate, and the other is verifiably true or false, correct?
Again: I don’t care what they rate, as long as they apply a consistent approach.
If “Murphy was named one of the most ineffective,” is False, then why did they discuss that claim when Greyson was the speaker and say that it was too subjective to rate? Greyson’s “False” rating came from his claim that Murphy missed all the committee meetings.
You’re still confused about what statements were being rated. Let’s reiterate.
[ol]
[li]American Future Fund (conservative) “says Patrick Murphy was named one of America’s least effective congressmen.” This statement earned a more lenient “mostly false” because it merely cited a misleading metric. [/li][li]Grayson (D) “says Murphy ‘hasn’t passed a single bill out of committee’”. This statement was rated false, and was adequately demonstrated as such.[/ol][/li]
The difference is that the InGov “study” was the whole of AFF’s argument, while Grayson made a very specific and falsifiable claim. The central claim of the ad was patently false, so there’s little point in saying that part of it was merely “mostly false”. Hence Grayson (the liberal) justifiably got the worse rating.
And let’s not even go with the ‘I’m just reporting what some people are saying’ defense. Journalists have to evaluate the evidence they’re given, especially watchdogs monitoring impressions that politicians are trying to make.
Anyhow, this has been a great gotcha, I learned a lot about 3 useless politicians and a useless clickbait outfit called InGov. The more you know…
A vote for Hillary is a vote to ban guns. And yes I’m aware a lot of people here think that’s a good thing. I disagree, but we have enough gun-debate threads already. Also, even discounting the mudslinging by Republicans, the Clinton dynasty seems to have a lot of buried sleaziness. I doubt they’re completely innocent victims of a right-wing conspiracy.
No it isn’t, not any more than a vote for Trump is a vote to dissolve NATO. Both camps have people who would like that, but mostly realize there are other issues to deal with.
I can’t disagree with that. They’re career politicians, very skilled ones. People have been investigating them for years, digging up some real dirt, and smearing them with some simulated dirt. I can’t see why they’re pushing this e-mail scandal instead of corporate-influence conflicts of interests like Clinton’s ties to Corning. There is some truly smelly stuff out there.
But to use a metaphor, at the end of the day, I have to have heart surgery. Do I want a sleazy-looking heart surgeon who rubs me the wrong way, or do I want a real-estate huckster who says he’s going to consult some very smart people who are reinventing heart surgery?
The world, and our government, really are that fragile and complex. You really don’t want the teenager who’s going to take it for a joyride and crash it into the showroom window of Victoria’s Secret.
nm
This is true – but it’s not an effective vote to ban guns. As discussed elsewhere, Secretary Clinton undoubtedly would like to ban guns, but as President would not be likely to have any real success.
I am ardently interested in ensuring guns remain unbanned. But I regard the risk for Clinton’s actual banning of guns to be very small, and the risk of Trump’s serving as President much greater in terms of damage to the nation.
There may in fact, be Dopers who would view that as a good thing, but the first sentence of your post is a damnable LIE.
So, apparently, in addition to hating America, you also enjoy lying.
Own it, you America-hating liar. 
All true.
BUT – your explanation ignores Politifact’s commentary with respect to the more general Grayson claim: that they were not going to rate “effectiveness” because it was too subjective.
If that’s true, why did they not adopt the same rule when ranking AFF’s claim? AFF did not make a specific claim – they are perfectly entitled to say that (in their view) effectiveness consists of getting bills out of committee. You may disagree, but that’s not a matter of truth or falsity.
AFF’s only specific claim is that Grayson was named as ineffective by InsideGov, a claim that is undeniably spot-on true. If Politifact finds that misleading, they can certainly say so… but if they call the claim false BECAUSE it’s misleading, then why did they say that such claims are too subjective to be rated?
How can you continue to defend this?
Perhaps this example isn’t all that good, maybe you should take another one off that bigly pile you have there at your fingertips?
This was one of those fun threads for a while, but when they capsize into Bricker vs. everybody, they get SO god damn BORING.
It is worse when AFAICR Bricker has said the he’s not going to vote for Trump.
You seem to be hung up on this sentence from the first article.
And you are implying that this means the first article gave the InsideGov article a pass, but the first article was just as critical of InsideGov as the second.
First article…
Second article…