http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/23/trump_campaign_releases_first_in_a_series_of_hillarys_legendary_lies_benghazi.html

#1: Benghazi terrorist attack was started by an internet video.

hail god empeoror trump

Hilarious coming from the guy who's got <10% combined for True/Mostly True on Politifact.

Yeah, Trump upholders are noone to talk when it comes to lying politicians.

Hilarious to cite a website which claims Trump's candidacy had no effect on the immigration debate.

Tsh, you think that Trump "started the talk on violent Islamism"? It was actually T. Cruz, I think, who had even harsher immigration standards, and immigration is something talked about in most lands for tens of years - there will always be those fully against immigration.

GOD DONALD JOHN TRUMP had the biggest impact on the US immigration debate. Why does everyone associate the topic with him if he had no impact on the debate?

lol at Knyte for citing Politifact as an accurate measuring tool.

It's not like they won the Pulitzer Prize or anything.

I've always been a bit skeptical about politifact, as honestly they seem to be just like every other biased news organization with the whole "X are pure angels who always tell the truth and Y are lying cheating dogs and literally everything they say is false" narrative.

They've made some dubious calls but most of their decisions are well documented. I don't think bias is how you'd account for someone's contested statements only being true 2% of the time. The whole "Politifact has liberal bias" thing only started to pop up when people noticed how bad Romney's and Ryan's records were; we've bought into the false equivalency that both sides of the aisle are equally good choices so much that we're unwilling to acknowledge that one might just have a really bad record when it comes to honesty.

Also it's not like they back liberals all the time. Clinton and Sanders don't have great records, and they've got a nice fat list of unfulfilled Obama promises- arguably strongly biased against him because they're giving minor promise failures like falling short of troop movement goals the exact same weight they're giving major Obamacare promise successes. And let's not forget that Obama's made their Lie of the Year a few times. Not quite Daily Kos we're talking about here.

Edited 6/25/2016 00:36:10

It's not even about making dubious calls or lying in any way. They can be absolutely 100% honest about the truthfulness of the statements they check and still be biased due to the kind of facts they check. For an example, here are some of clintons statements they've checked and rated true:

"When I was secretary of state, I had a very high approval rating."

"We just had the best year for the auto industry in America in history."

"Sen. Sanders did vote five times against the Brady bill."

These are pretty simple statements, contrasted with some of trumps that they've rated "pants on fire":

"We don't know anything about Hillary in terms of religion. Now, she's been in the public eye for years and years, and yet there's no — there's nothing out there."

"For the amount of money Hillary Clinton would like to spend on refugees, we could rebuild every inner city in America."

"The Obama administration was actively supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq, the terrorist group that became the Islamic State."

The point being, It seems like they favor checking obviously false statements for republicans and obviously true ones for democrats.

All of those were contentious statements- Clinton (-16% favorability now) having a high approval rating? Sanders (a progressive) voting against a key progressive issue five times? The auto industry having the absolute best year in its history?

They also aren't shying away from picking up "obviously false" statements by Democrats-

"If you like your insurance, you can keep it."

"I'm the only candidate in the Democratic primary, or actually on either side, who Wall Street financiers and hedge fund managers are actually running ads against."

"I remember landing under sniper fire."

Obama "basically threatened to bomb Pakistan."

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court "is transparent."


How do you even determine whether a statement is "obviously true" or "obviously false" just by looking at it? I'd understand your argument if Politifact checked the accuracy of someone saying "the sky is blue" but everything they evaluate has political weight and is certainly something I'd check after watching a debate or hearing a speech if I had the time. Also, it's a bit hilarious that you tried to demonstrate your point by picking statements rated True/Mostly True by Dems and Pants on Fire by Republicans. Of course the Pants on Fire statements you picked are gonna be "obviously false"- if they weren't, you wouldn't have picked them!

Even if you disagree with their analysis and conclusions, I think it's at least worthwhile to read their documentation. You can find some for Trump's claims about Clinton and Benghazi: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jun/22/fact-checking-donald-trumps-speech-about-hillary-c/

Edited 6/25/2016 01:22:07

They also aren't shying away from picking up "obviously false" statements by Democrats-

I know, but my point was that they're obviously doing this less for democrats than republicans, since as you've pointed out only 2% of the statements they've checked from trump are "True". This is contrasted with 21% for Obama and 23% for clinton, a disparity of 11 times, which obviously gives off the impression I mentioned that "Democrats are so truthful and republicans are such liars".

How do you even determine whether a statement is "obviously true" or "obviously false" just by looking at it?

Yeah, pretty much. For one I could tell you off the top of my head without doing any research that Clinton is a united methodist, that the claim about rebuilding cities is ridiculous, and that the US has never actively supported terrorist groups. I could also tell you that sanders has voted against Gun control and that Clinton was pretty popular as secretary of state, these are all pretty much no brainers.

I know, but my point was that they're obviously doing this less for democrats than republicans, since as you've pointed out only 2% of the statements they've checked from trump are "True". This is contrasted with 21% for Obama and 23% for clinton, a disparity of 11 times, which obviously gives off the impression I mentioned that "Democrats are so truthful and republicans are such liars".

That disparity is interesting, but what makes you think Politifact went out of their way to make it the case? Maybe Trump just does happen to lie a lot- his numbers are lower than the vast majority of Republicans, too.

that the US has never actively supported terrorist groups.

That's pretty dubious, given our interventions during the Cold War, not least of all in Afghanistan where we backed the Mujahideen and through them the Taliban to fight off the Soviets.

That disparity is interesting, but what makes you think Politifact went out of their way to make it the case? Maybe Trump just does happen to lie a lot- his numbers are lower than the vast majority of Republicans, too.

Simply the fact that it is so large makes me a bit skeptical. I mean don't get me wrong, it's totally possible that 98% of what trump says is less than completely true, but to me it seems a lot more plausible that there is either conscious or unconscious selection bias going on.

And the disparity does actually exist for a lot of well known republicans. Ted cruz has only had 6% of his statements rated as "True", Ben carson has a flat zero for "True" statements, again both far less than Sanders at 16%, or clinton and obama.

Now, I did mention that this is only for well know republicans. Oddly enough, it doesn't seem to apply for people nobody cares about, such as congressional leaders. Paul Ryan gets a fair 14%, and Mitch McConnell 12%. The fact that people who are all over the news because they're running for president are the only ones who seem to be affected by these single digits just makes it more suspect to me.

That's pretty dubious, given our interventions during the Cold War, not least of all in Afghanistan where we backed the Mujahideen and through them the Taliban to fight off the Soviets.

You get the point though, to most people it sounds ridiculous to say that Obama was/is an isis supporter.

I agree that a large disparity should make you skeptical but it's also fairly simple to investigate- instead of looking at the disparity itself, you can instead use other metrics to track what sort of statements Politifact ends up rating or track whether similar statements are rated differently when made by different people. You can, for example, watch speeches, jot down statements you think would warrant a second look, and see how far Politifact varies from your assessment. I did that and their methodology seems consistent and predictable- review claims about numbers relating to policy outcomes, shocking statements, etc., basically pick up the "meat" of a political speech.

wow, a nice, thoughtful, respectful debate

+1 to both sides here *clap clap clap*

wow, a nice, thoughtful, respectful debate

Jinxed it