No peeking, if the O/U on Rump lying under oath is 30.5 times, do you go over, or under?

[NFLTrends]

What Politifact says on Clintons "TRUE" = This number is nowhere near definitive, since it includes several deaths that are disputed. On the other hand, the number could be higher since it doesn’t include information from unreported strikes or strikes in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq or Philippines.

_________________________________________________________________________________________


But, lets look out how Politifact says they give their ratings:

True – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.

Mostly True – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.

Half True – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.

Mostly False – The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

False – The statement is not accurate.

Pants on Fire – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wait... What?? TRUE according to politifact means " The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing." But, Politifact even says "This number is nowhere near definitive, since it includes several deaths that are disputed. On the other hand, the number could be higher since it doesn’t include information from unreported strikes or strikes in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq or Philippines." and "There are no definitive lists of drone strikes or casualties they cause, but an analysis by the New America Foundation, a think tank, found that as of 2013".... Wait it gets BETTER ----- "Despite these caveats, a conservative analysis of the evidence does suggest a factual basis for Clinton’s claim."... suggests just a factual basis??

HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT WORK????!!!???

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Now lets look at Trumps statement according to Politifact: = "The destructive impact of the ‘Beyond Coal’ campaign is most clearly evident in the following 10 states where power plants blocked by the club represent the highest number of potential jobs (construction and permanent) foregone: Illinois (126,612), Texas (122,065), Montana (114,102), Nevada (75,194), Florida (75,055), Ohio (70,371), Colorado (55,620), Michigan (53,587), Oklahoma (42,581) and Kentucky (38,824)."

In response to an inquiry from PolitiFact, Andrew Wheeler, an energy adviser to the Trump campaign, also pointed to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce analysis that found that 10 delayed or canceled projects in Michigan -- most of them coal-fired plants -- would have created 56,000 jobs up front had they been built."

So wait... TRUMP gets a False.... and Clinton gets a TRUE??

________________________________________________________________________________

Clintons statement according to Politifact is "The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing."

Trumps statement according to Politifact is "The statement is not accurate."

What the fuck.... Am I taking crazy pills??!! Trump has 2 Government agencies backing his claim and gets a FALSE (lowest rating)... Clinton has NO government agencies, disputed claims, and just journalistic reporting, and suggests a factual basis... and she gets TRUE (highest rating)....

Thats why Politifact is just an OPINION piece... they see and do it all on OPINION, and pick and choose.

They wont take Trumps 2 government agencies estimates and give him the lowest FALSE rating... YET, they will take disputed claims, and a "Suggestion" of factual basis, and give it her the HIGHEST rating....

 

[PatsFan1283]

Just the idea of cherry picking statements lends itself to way too much subjectivity and eventually bias.

I'll go to those sites sometimes, but it would be better if they didn't even attempt to keep score because there really is no reason to attempt to do so unless you are literally grading every single thing they say, which would be pointless. These people make hundreds of statements in the course of a month, they do campaign events on a daily basis.

Hillary is a career politician and skilled lawyer, so a lot of her mostly true and true ratings are just because she knows how to phrase issues or makes sure she isn't telling outright lies about easily verifiable information.

Whereas Trump just knows how to use nothing but excessive hyperbole, so of course most of his are going to be false.

I think those sites are decent at dissecting the more grand and talked about political statements but again there really isn't any need to keep score. It should just be more of an educational tool rather than something to fuel partisanship.

 

[NFLTrends]

Just the idea of cherry picking statements lends itself to way too much subjectivity and eventually bias.

I'll go to those sites sometimes, but it would be better if they didn't even attempt to keep score because there really is no reason to attempt to do so unless you are literally grading every single thing they say, which would be pointless. These people make hundreds of statements in the course of a month, they do campaign events on a daily basis.

Hillary is a career politician and skilled lawyer, so a lot of her mostly true and true ratings are just because she knows how to phrase issues or makes sure she isn't telling outright lies about easily verifiable information.

Whereas Trump just knows how to use nothing but excessive hyperbole, so of course most of his are going to be false.

I think those sites are decent at dissecting the more grand and talked about political statements but again there really isn't any need to keep score. It should just be more of an educational tool rather than something to fuel partisanship.

I agree. there is bias, and its all opinion based for the most part. And with the Cherry picking, as I pointed out above, is what they do. Use estimates and "Suggestions of a factual basis" for one... but wont use estimates for the other....

 

[The Guesser]

Just the idea of cherry picking statements lends itself to way too much subjectivity and eventually bias.

I'll go to those sites sometimes, but it would be better if they didn't even attempt to keep score because there really is no reason to attempt to do so unless you are literally grading every single thing they say, which would be pointless. These people make hundreds of statements in the course of a month, they do campaign rally's on a daily basis.

Hillary is a career politician and skilled lawyer, so a lot of her mostly true and true ratings are just because she knows how to phrase issues or makes sure she isn't telling outright lies about easily verifiable information.

Whereas Trump just knows how to use nothing but excessive hyperbole, so of course most of his are going to be false.

I think those sites are decent at dissecting the more grand and talked about political statements but again there really isn't any need to keep score.

I think there's a huge need to keep score, and hold our candidates feet to the fire when they make clearly proven false statements.
And it's very important in debates, so I hope we get moderators who are as objective as Candy Crowley was 4 years ago, when she didn't let Mitt get away with his obvious falsehood about Obama not calling Benghazi an act of Terror.

 

[superbeets]

Once again, Crooked Hillary Clinton is caught lying about her secret email server. By not coming forward with the whole truth about how she violated the law, put national security at risk, and betrayed the trust of the American people, she has proven yet again she cannot be trusted to lead our country as president.

 

[superbeets]

 

[PatsFan1283]

I think there's a huge need to keep score, and hold our candidates feet to the fire when they make clearly proven false statements.
And it's very important in debates, so I hope we get moderators who are as objective as Candy Crowley was 4 years ago, when she didn't let Mitt get away with his obvious falsehood about Obama not calling Benghazi an act of Terror.

There really isn't any way to rate how many true or false statements someone makes unless you literally grade every single thing that comes out of their mouth is the point I am making.

So any ratings of true/false statements is subjective. And really a lot of statements politicians make are subjective anyways.

I think the sites are on balance a good thing, somewhere people can go, gather some info and decide for themselves. But they shouldn't attempt to rate the politicians really.

 

[superbeets]

 

[superbeets]

 

[Willie99]

Politifact is so biased it isnt even funny.

They give Hillary a "True" for something, even tho it doesnt have real actual fact behind it, just a small date sample size that gets close cause of estimates. Yet Trump says something that Hillary would TRUE for... he gets a MOSTLY FALSE, cause they wont use estimates??

MOSTLY FALSE for Trump = 50,000 job lost http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

TRUE for Clinton = Hillary Clinton says by 2009, U.S. drones had killed 'dozens' of senior terrorists http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-says-2009-us-drones-had-killed-doz/

Wait... so Trump gets a mostly false on a claim, cause politifact wont use estimates on job losses and precieved job losses... BUT Hillary gets a True, because the estimates say it would.

WTF!!>>!!>>>!>!>>??????

the cancerous left wing media trying to drag Trump into Hillary's class for credibility, it's her biggest weakness, it's all orchestrated, it's all a charade

the media is a democratic PAC, it's that simple, that's why they're on the talking points chains, it's why their headlines mirror the expression (or word) of the day

they march in lockstep

 

[Dave007inVegas]

the cancerous left wing media trying to drag Trump into Hillary's class for credibility, it's her biggest weakness, it's all orchestrated, it's all a charade

the media is a democratic PAC, it's that simple, that's why they're on the talking points chains, it's why their headlines mirror the expression (or word) of the day

they march in lockstep

It worked for Goebbels. For awhile. Then the end came. You can cry wolf for just so long then people become immune.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

^^^

You heard it here first.

[FONT=ARIAL,VERDANA,HELVETICA][SIZE=+7]CNN FEELS ANTI-MEDIA RAGE[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=ARIAL,VERDANA,HELVETICA][SIZE=+7][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=ARIAL,VERDANA,HELVETICA][SIZE=+7][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=ARIAL,VERDANA,HELVETICA][SIZE=+7] [/SIZE][/FONT]