Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I found it surprising Bachmann has more dishonest than Trump.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Hillary Clinton is Far More Honest Than the Propagandists are Telling You
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
I found the combined falsities and honesties interesting. While Bachman had the most pants on fire, Sanders had none.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Seems to suggest democrats are somehow immune to the same accusations?
Not at all, they have ratings and fact checkers on them, too. But you would rather "think for yourself" (whatever that means) with no evidence than to at least consider that the republican camp makes more false statements than the opposition, with document evidence to go with it. Sorry, not buying it until something else comes along to challenge it.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I go by results than skewed polls and charts like politifact. The facts themselves usually appear after the "fact" hidden by smoke and mirrors of such propaganda sites like politifact.
Want a fact checker outside of one's own determinations?
Ok
It's called political history. It's not hard to see any of the facts after the "facts" play out.
About as accurate as it gets.
What results? From where?
You are being ambiguous with no specifics or examples. This is what I am getting at. There are, quite literally, hundreds if not thousands of statements on that website with sources to go with them. I would be very interested to see you take a few of those studies, investigate them, gather sources and then overturn their conclusion. You can talk about "political history" until you are blue in the face, but until you cite sources and present an argument contrary to what has been given, it is nothing but smoke and mirrors with no credible content.
I am not surprised.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I rather trust those who puts their cards on the table, than those who hide them.
Telling it like it is doesn't help when Trump constantly contradicts himself and is ill informed if not out right lying.
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
I recommend common sense, a neutral mind, not being guillable and naive, being fearless, and not worrying about what others think. And also important is to not get too excited.
Last edited:
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Well I have been hearing the old Hillary does her share of lying also.
I remember her rookie days. Her record still stands by what she says. When asked about controversial votes she doesn't say dumb things like "I never said that", she will acknowledge the mistake. The one I can think of is about imposing stricter bankruptcy laws.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Mmm, maybe, who really knows.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
How do they measure who lies more?
The bias machine.
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
No it's not. The human brain is filled with cognative biases.
Just because you're convinced that all media except specific right wing media is automatically biased against a conservative point of view does not make it so.
You deny the results of the OP. You say it's biased, but you are presenting absolutely no conrradictory evidence.
If you are thinking for yourself, then what is wrong with the results? How do you know it's wrong.
No one lives in a vacuum. How do you claim any knowledge about the candidates at all without using outside sources? You know that doesn't make any sense.
If you really thought for yourself, you would consider each piece of evidence on its own merits, regardless of it apparently liberally biased source.
You might as well be quoting us bible passages for all the thought you've put into this. . .
Ana.J
Active Member
Notanumber
A Free Man
It’s a wonder that she can remember them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-clinton-couldnt-recall-in-her-fbi-interview/
From the comments section - “This woman had original classification authority as Head of the State Dept and she tells the FBI that she has no knowledge of classification levels!!! She tells the media and the American people that she knows to safekeep classified material but tells the FBI that she has no clue! By her answers, she is telling he FBI that she was incompetent to do her job as Secretary of State! But she wants to be elected as President of the United States? Either she is incompetent or she lies - there is no other alternative.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...i-she-could-not-recall-did-not-recall-did-not
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop_b
Last edited:
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
This one?
The polygraph will tell you that both are liars, but the bias machine will choose one over the other.