Or they could be calling them out, asking them to disprove the notion.
And yet you came in to defend him and attack everyone who doesn’t support him.
No, the fact that 40% of the population is either block stupid or racist as fuck is not some weird revelation.
And we have a couple Trump supporters in here, so you didn’t even get that right.
Of course the only reason we want them in here is to tell them they are wrong. We actually care about this country, unlike you who are voting for someone you know can’t win, meaning your vote will accomplish nothing.
No.
For what I hope is the last time:
The Democrat got a “False,” for the specific claim that no committee meetings were attended. The Republican-minded AFF got a “Mostly False,” for the claim that InsideGov rated the guy ineffective, a rating Politifact felt was based on insufficient metrics.
Two different things, and I would not have mentioned it. EXCEPT that during the process of giving the Democrat “False,” for his SPECIFIC FALSE STATEMENT, they also mentioned that they weren’t going to rate the more general “ineffective” claim, as it was too subjective.
Please address those two disparate treatments of that issue.
InsideGov rated the congressman ineffective. Is that statement true? False? Mostly false? Or too subjective?
Hand to God?
Huh?
Look, on matters like this, I have learned that if my interlocutors are willing to deny a clear example of bias between two Granny Smith apples like this, there’s zero value in exploring oranges and how they might be compared to the apples.
My admission of possible confirmation bias is above, and the answer to this question is: not any accumulation of statistics, but a personal recollection of finding most of Politifact’s decisions acceptably defensible on their own, but observing that the set in total is standards stricter against conservative speakers and the decision to fact-check specific statements made against conservatives more often.
Yes, but even then, if the sieve produces “Mostly,” as an answer in one case, it should reliably produce “Mostly,” in a near-identical case.
Here, the question is about the claim that InsideGov rated a congressman among the most ineffective. Talk about that claim. I accept any answer to it, because I agree it’s laden with a lack of rigor.
BUT I cannot see how it can produce two different answers.
So was the mostly false statement that he was “named” the most ineffective congressman? And the “not rate-able” statement that he WAS the most ineffective congressman?
Because one is did the metrics used by the group confirm that he is totally ineffective, and the other is was he the least effective person.
It seems to me to question of how the statement is/was parsed/presented. Were both within the same time frame?
Is this directed at me as the OP? I don’t think I’ve used the term imbecile in my posts, but if you self-identify–good for your self awareness.
I could be wrong, much like Trump stating he never said not paying federal taxes was smart right after the debate.
One more lie, but it’s like a grain of sand on the beach at this point.
Reach out…and feel the Johnson.
Also known as “virtue signalling”. You are going to vote for someone (a rather crazy someone) who has no chance of winning as a symbolic gesture to show your moral purity, while increasing the chance a neofascist incompetent will take power and plunge the nation and the world into disaster.
But hey, at least you can pat yourself on the back for your moral superiority when Trump bombs Mexico City, rolls back civil rights and collapses the world economy. All those dead and suffering people are a small price to pay in return for stroking your ego, right?
People who “vote their conscience” as a rule don’t have one.
I bet the Donald wants Ivanka to feel his johnson. Low blow [heh!], I know.
But he’s really creepy when it comes to women, including his daughters. Didn’t he describe one of his daughters by air-cupping and saying she really has “Great boobs?”
Tremendous boobs! The best ever! I make children with really successful boobs better than anyone! That’s what I’m hearing! Their boobs are as big as my hands! And, just tremendous! That’s what I’m hearing. People are just saying, ya know. [repeat a few times so people don’t think you’re on coke]
Perhaps better to discreetly ignore friend Uke’s fall from grace. Maybe “flung himself” more than “fell”…
What did I miss? Not sure what to make of this comment.
Yes.
No. It was ALSO that he was named the most ineffective congressman.
Both of these were previously linked, but:
Here is Politifact on AFF’s ad:
OK?
Now here’s the discussion of Grayson’s more specific claim:
The SPECIFIC claim that Grayson made earns (correctly) a False rating:
That was a false statement. No argument there.
But the statement that they wouldn’t rate the more general “effectiveness as a legislator” statement is problematic for you, because they did exactly that when rating the AFF’s statement “Mostly False.”
AGAIN – either approach is perfectly defensible. It’s when you lay them next to each other that the problem becomes clear.
Someone made a good point: People don’t necessarily vote for a presidential candidate because they think he or she is good. They may think that he or she is bad, but that* America needs to have something bad happen to it, *for its own eventual good.
I saw that post. My first thought was: That’s right. Masochists vote too. 
Mostly false is defined by Politifact as a " statement [that] contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression."
The fact that the InsideGov rankings are flawed is a “fact that would give a different impression.”
Therefore, the Mostly False rating is appropriate.
This doesn’t mean that Murphy is, necessarily, an effective member of congress. In fact, the Mostly False rating would still be appropriate even if Politifact feels that he was ineffective. Because the AFF’s neither presents their statement as subjective opinion nor bases it in rigorous analysis, but instead cites a rating based on unreliable and discredited methodology, the statement would be “mostly false” statement even if it happened to coincidentally be true. Stopped clock, twice a day, etc. etc.
OK.
And then what about the earlier claim that rating effectiveness is too subjective?
See, for what I again hope is the last time: I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH EITHER STATEMENT ON ITS OWN. I am saying that both, together, show evidence of different methods of analysis.
Any future posters responding to this discussion: please don’t defend only one analysis, or attack only one analysis. I am showing that both, together, indicate a differing approach, and you cannot refute that by only looking at one. Whatever you say about one statement, I agree with, ok?
There is no inconsistency between “this shallow rating method is so shallow it’s obviously false” and “this complicated rating method is so subjective that we cannot evaluate it.”
Yes, there is. It’s the same method. How can it result in “We c an’t evaluate it,” and simultaneously, “Yes, we can, and it’s mostly false?”
Seriously, this thread is about Trump voters and their (presumable) unwillingness to admit even the most obvious flaw in their candidate.
And in the middle of THAT discussion, you are perfectly comfortable saying what you just said?
No, it’s not–they are saying that the InsideGov method is too simple to be true, but an actual, valid measure of effectiveness is too subjective to be proven. By conflating PolitiFact’s evaluation of InsideGov’s methodology and PolitiFact’s (lack of) evaluation of actual political effectiveness, you misrepresent both the text of the article and the substance of my argument.
The article on Grayson’s statement says Politifact will not rate Murphy’s effectiveness. It then immediately proceeds to dismantle the methodology behind InsideGov’s ranking. They won’t tell you how to judge a congressperson’s effectiveness, but they will tell you how not to do it, and that’s with InsideGov’s method.
Then, when rating Murphy’s statement, they do not comment on whether Grayson is actually an effective politician. Rather, they base their mostly-false rating on the paper-thin pretension upon which Murphy rests his judgment (a point which, I’ll add, you conceded a few posts ago but seem to have already forgotten)
These two articles are entirely consistent. There is no contradiction between the reasoning in the two articles, which both dismiss a juvenile ranking method as inaccurate while withholding judgment on a better solution. And there is no contradiction between their unwillingness to rank politicians themselves and their willingness to excoriate InsideGov’s feeble attempt at the same.
I give you credit for a brilliant effort at rehabilitating Politifact.
But I’m afraid I still don’t agree. You have chosen to read each of their statements in the best possible light… you emphasize the areas in which you can find common points between the two. But you never answer the main point. “Politifact will not rate Murphy’s effectiveness,” according to you, is independent of Politifact’s judgement about InsideGov’s usefulness as a source. They won’t rate his effectiveness, but it’s mostly false for someone else to claim that InsideGov said that he was ineffective?
Here’s a test of your theory. Suppose Politifact had said, “Politifact will rate Murphy’s effectiveness stronger than InsideGov did, and therefore rate the InsideGov statement Mostly False.” That, by you, is consistent. Yes?
Now suppose that Politifact said, “While InsideGov’s methods are limited to one metric, it’s undeniable that by that metric, their rating is accurate, so we rate it Mostly True.” Would that also be consistent?