In this spirit, a question for this and other Trump voters:
Keep it specific. Keep out “she lies,” she’s wooden, strident, all the personal things you don’t like about her. I’m talking only about policy and what she could actually DO that would damage the USA in your opinion.
STAY ON TOPIC. DO NOT DEVIATE FROM MY QUESTION. KEEP IT SPECIFIC. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS (we’ve heard all those already).
I’d say (d): Politifact tends to apply harsher standards to Republicans than to Democrats. That is, a slip of the tongue – say, attributing a statement to the “Iraq Study Group,” instead of the “Iraq Survey Group,” – is rated “False.” It was uttered by a Republican, and was an absolutely true statement about the Iraq Survey Group. The Republican said it was the “Iraq Study Group,” and got “False.”
OK. I can live with that. The standard is high, but technically, the statement was False, and they rated it false.
But a Planned Parenthood ad that claimed “Republican candidate [JH] voted to criminalize abortion for rape victims,” was rated Half True. But as they acknowledge in the discussion, the bill JH voted for would not result in criminal charges for rape victims who procure abortions. Only abortion providers would have been criminally liable, and then only when the abortion was after the 20th week.
The Planned Parenthood statement is not “Half True.” It’s false. Now, you can perhaps make an argument that a generous reading of it has some relation to the truth: the bill involved some criminal penalties for some abortion-related actions. But it’s pretty clear to me that the same type of balancing was not applied in both rating decisions.
I don’t mind a strict assessment of the truth of statements; I don’t mind a lenient assessment that targets only the most unambiguous lies as False.
In my view, however, Politifact applies two different standards, each defensible on their own but clearly not harmonious with each other. And the choice of which standard to apply reliably correlates to the political leaning assisted by the finding.
That graphic lists 20 politicians. Would it be better with just eight names or so? The superfluous lines can be deleted readily with any image processing program. (Heck, I’d even volunteer to do it.)
He gets elected, you can expect a worldwide Great Depression, multiple wars, and the more or less permanent crippling of the US as a world power.
The idea that Hillary is some great threat that makes him a better alternative is ridiculous. She’s a boring, bland standard issue corporatist who outside of being a woman will be completely unremarkable as a President. She’s certainly not the supervillain the right loves to pretend she is.
I’m on the planned parenthood politifact page, and only see one half true statement. I’m not seeing which one you refer to. Maybe it’s listed elsewhere? Could you point me to it?
A felon? Do you mean she’s been convicted, tried, or indicted for a felony, or you just kind of feel like she’s a felon? I could call you a felon for spreading felonious bullshit.
As for a liar, they’ve both spread the truth, but Trump knowingly makes ridiculously false statements every time he opens his mouth, and repeats them despite them having been proven false. Sure, Mexico’s gonna pay for that wall. It looks like you’ve swallowed Trump’s whoppers so many times that you have no gag reflex at all.
Let me see if I understand your “reasoning.” You’re happy to turn the government over to a huckster whose biggest claim to greatness is that he’s not yet been arrested for his many criminal frauds because:
checks and balances limit the damage he’ll do, and
he’s likely to die or resign, thus turning the Oval Office over to … Mike Pence. :eek: (Out of curiosity, do you consider Pence to be a Mt. Rushmore candidate, or just an OK Prez comparable to a Bush-41 or Nixon?)
And the reasons? To avoid Hillary and to avoid Hillary.
What sort of super-powers do you think Hillary has anyway? Is she a witch that will be able to mesmerize the GOP-controlled House, canceling that check and balance? And why the hatred anyway? Is it her insincerity like Pneumonia-Gate — pretending to be patriotic when she should have been at home in bed? No, even an idiot would know Trump is by far the bigger liar. Is it, after all, the murder of Vince Foster? Hiring the Arabs to bring down the WTC? Some people say Hillary was the Zodiac Killer — is that it?
Was that a specific example, or an hypothetical example of an example? I am not finding this particular example that you are talking about. Could you point to either this example you are referring to, or to an actual example of the effect that you are claiming? Otherwise, could you be applying harsher standards to politifact’s criticism of republicans than you do to their criticism of democrats?
A cite for the criminalization of abortion fact check claim would be useful as well, as that doesn’t seem to be forthcoming (or possibly even exist).
Again, I don’t really care for Hillary, but Trump is just a buffoon that is beyond the pale.
What does it take to for his supporters to realize Trump does not have anyone’s back except his own? Trump certainly doesn’t have “his base” at heart. His concern is his family and business. He’s just using them–his base/morons and what’s scary is that they’re a lot of them that don’t care, as long as it’s “not Hillary”.
Yeah, let’s fuck the country because you don’t like a particular family. Wonder what other American political family is decisive?
If true, this ‘standard’ is pretty malicious. One might as well classify a politician as a 'liar" for mistakenly spelling NATO out as *“Northern *Atlantic Treaty Organization” rather than “North Atlantic Treaty Organization.”
