Ana.J
Active Member
The polygraph will tell you that both are liars, but the bias machine will choose one over the other.
I am not a native speaker so the term "bias machine" is unfamiliar to me. Is it another word for common sense? Or Gut instinct?
-
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 am not a native speaker so the term "bias machine" is unfamiliar to me. Is it another word for common sense? Or Gut instinct?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Neither I.
so the term "bias machine" is unfamiliar to me. Is it another word for common sense? Or Gut instinct?
No, it means to choose one over the other for no real reason, so if they're biased to Trump then
Trump to them is the best choice regardless of his vices and the same goes with Hillary.
Ana.J
Active Member
A janitor can give us an opinion, doesn't mean he should run for president.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Most biases are perceived to be a negative thing. That's not really accurate, but it's the perception out there since bias often leads to prejudice which then leads to all sorts of bigotry.I am not a native speaker so the term "bias machine" is unfamiliar to me. Is it another word for common sense? Or Gut instinct?
Political bias is when an argument is accepted or rejected depending on whether it supports your party or candidate. Facts are dismissed outright or twisted to suit their view. The quickest and arguably the laziest way to try to counter facts or evidence that run contrary to your party/candidate is to claim it's from a biased media. Trump has been incessant with his contention that the media is biased against him. In reality, he's his own worst enemy. He plays the victim, when in reality he's the prime instigator.
Politifact, along with Snopes are two great methods for us to check out the veracity of any incident or statement. They really try to be as fair as possible even as they are exposed to the political slime they have to wade through. It's not their fault when a party becomes predisposed to bending or breaking the facts to support their quest for power.
As for Clinton's overall trustworthiness, I've been pointing this out for a long, long time. Ask anyone who claims she's a liar and what do you get? You get a single comment about being shot at on tarmac. Yeah, she was wrong and has admitted to such. Show where she is wrong about something, anything and you'll find her quite open to change. Other than that, they are simply sheeple blindly following the RNC party lies about her. That's the real "bias machine".
A dig against me?
Anyway, a reminder to all that Politifact is operated by the Tampa Bay Times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com
It has taken the side of Hillary against Donald.
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/times-recommends-hillary-clinton-for-president/2296789
So I wouldn't trust any pronouncements they make, either singular or statistical.
But I do find it useful to read why they rule as they do.
Sometimes it's cromulent.
Other times it looks like strained rationalization.
Last edited:
Underhill
Well-Known Member
All someone needs do is listen to any one of the debates to realize their numbers are accurate.
I refuse to listen to debates.
So I judge Politifact by its evidence & reasoning.
You are a groundskeeper, a far step above your everyday janitor!
Sure, and that can be a case by case basis. But to outright dismiss their findings as a whole because they don't support a particular candidate would be silly, at least, in my opinion. (Not saying you do, but other RF faithful have suggested such.)
Underhill
Well-Known Member
It can be tough to make a judgement about honesty if you don't actually listen to what they say.
The silly part of your argument is that you yourself have said you think Clinton is the more trustworthy of the two, which directly lines up with poltifact, which you claim is biased. *boggle
Everyone knows that Willie is also the school's janitor!
Aye, that's now it's done.
I dismiss that which is unreliable.
Tis the same as my dismissing Drudge Report polls.
Either could be right....but also wrong.
So why leap to belief?
Is there a particular instance where you believe PF was unreliable?
I'm trying to save face, work with me here!
One needn't listen, which means enduring their nauseating voices & platitudes.
Tis easier on my stomach to read what they say.
You entirely misunderstand what I say.
There is no conflict between my claims.....
- Hillary can be trusted to do what is expected of her.
- Trump is less trustworthy because he has no political record & because his positions change more.
- Politifact is a biased judge, whose pronouncements should be examined for cromulence, rather than accepted as fact.
Trustworthiness is not necessarily a positive thing.
What matters more is what we trust them to do....is it good or bad?
It's a bit frightening that the best result on that graph was only half "true" or "mostly true".
See also: Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter
Contrary to the propaganda you see everywhere, there is no equivalency between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump when it comes to honesty. Clinton is not only far more honest than Trump, but she is more honest than many other prominent American politicians. Comments?
How about if I offer to clean your chair?
And you would have to endure the pants suits! Who wears it better, anyway?
What?
You expect me to remember that?
Well, I don't.
One big problem is that to accuse someone of telling a lie is that this means a deliberate intent to deceive by knowingly stating a falsehood. How on Earth can Politifact know what evil lurks in the hearts of men (& women). Unless the Shadow (aka Lamont Cranston) is on staff, this would be seldom knowable. So I speculate that they make it about lying because such drama sells papers. And it doesn't hurt that their results favor their candidate.