Hillary Clinton is Far More Honest Than the Propagandists are Telling You

[Quetzal]

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 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.

True, all they are doing is taking statements at face value and determining accuracy. No matter how you label it, though, the results stay the same.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Politifact's ratings don't involve intent:

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.

http://www.politifact.com/about/

 

[Revoltingest]

And you would have to endure the pants suits! Who wears it better, anyway?

Don't ask questions which might bring discomforting answers.
Hillary cuts the better figure in a pantsuit.
There...I said it.

 

[Quetzal]

Something that nobody seems to have pointed out is that this is since 2007. It in no way offers information on Hillary's consistency. Politifact is also a liberal leaning organisation and is going to try to make Hillary seem as good as possible, the same sort of propaganda which gets us into this sort of a mess.

Hell, Obama is rated most favourably when he served as head of state for sequential terms. Does this not point out any sort of bias?

Let's not forget that Politifact has only graded 284 statements. This can be a bit misleading because they can select the statements that will be judged. Let's not think of this as any sort of objective measure about the lies Hillary makes.

My challenge still stands to any nay-sayers! Pick a piece you disagree with and explain why. Or perhaps an addition they missed? You can scream bias at the top of your lungs, but until you can back it up with evidence, you are throwing a temper tantrum for nothing.

 

[Revoltingest]

True, all they are doing is taking statements at face value and determining accuracy. No matter how you label it, though, the results stay the same.

That's all that's done?
No....they also decide upon intent to deceive.
This is something they seldom know, but often claim.
It doesn't inspire trust.

 

[Quetzal]

Don't ask questions which might bring discomforting answers.
Hillary cuts the better figure in a pantsuit.
There...I said it.

REVOLT SUPPORTS HILLARY! You heard it here first! See? I could get a job in the media!

 

[Revoltingest]

Politifact's ratings don't involve intent:

To call someone a liar speaks directly to intent, ie, to deceive.

 

[Revoltingest]

REVOLT SUPPORTS HILLARY! You heard it here first! See? I could get a job in the media!

No one is fairer than I.
Even the dreaded Hildabeast deserves credit for her fashion sense.

 

[Quetzal]

That's all that's done?
No....they also decide upon intent to deceive.
This is something they seldom know, but often claim.
It doesn't inspire trust.

Then accept my challenge and prove them wrong. Show us libbies whose boss! (or contract someone else to do it for ya, that works too. )

 

[Revoltingest]

Then accept my challenge and prove them wrong. Show us libbies whose boss! (or contract someone else to do it for ya, that works too. )

You want me to work?
Well, there's a conversation ender.

Dang....I was locked out of responding to your post for a bit.
Did the mods think we were being too mean to each other?

 

[Quetzal]

You want me to work?
Well, there's a conversation ender.

Yeah I dun wanna work either. Let's agree to disagree that there may be bias but that doesn't mean there isn't some truth to it. That work?

Dang....I was locked out of this thread for a bit.
Did the mods think we were being too mean to each other?

I kept hedging on a post I was quoting you in and it got stuck. That might have had something to do with it. Fixed now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Something that nobody seems to have pointed out is that this is since 2007. It in no way offers information on Hillary's consistency.

Politifact also rates politicians' statements on a scale from "no flip" to "full flop". This information is on their web site.

Politifact is also a liberal leaning organisation and is going to try to make Hillary seem as good as possible, the same sort of propaganda which gets us into this sort of a mess.

So you think their ratings are inaccurate? Can you give some examples?

Hell, Obama is rated most favourably when he served as head of state for sequential terms. Does this not point out any sort of bias?

Why would that suggest bias?

Let's not forget that Politifact has only graded 284 statements. This can be a bit misleading because they can select the statements that will be judged. Let's not think of this as any sort of objective measure about the lies Hillary makes.

Let's look at Donald Trump.
Of course he's a lying piece of literal trash. Let's look at what they say about telling the truth though.
13?
Do we honestly believe here that Donald Trump hasn't even gotten half way through the second digits?
Sounds odd to me.

That infographic was based on 50 statements per candidate.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah I dun wanna work either. Let's agree to disagree that there may be bias but that doesn't mean there isn't some truth to it. That work?

The existence of bias is unavoidable, given that they've taken a side in the race.
The real question is which of their pronouncements are bogus.

I kept hedging on a post I was quoting you in and it got stuck. That might have had something to do with it. Fixed now.

I eventually figured that out after seeing the post gone.
Wise choice, btw.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To call someone a liar speaks directly to intent, ie, to deceive.

So you're inferring intent behind what Politifact is saying?

 

[Quetzal]

Wise choice, btw.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you're inferring intent behind what Politifact is saying?

That would be to claim too much....you rascal !
I say "subject to influence".

 

[sun rise]

If you want to claim that 99.999% of humanity is biased in one way or the other and that bias is manifest in some way or the other, sure, I'll buy that.

If you throw out the 'baby' because the 'bathwater' is dirty, we part company. I'll accept that there is a selection criteria of facts to check that is subject to bias. And it's fair to propose some other statements that should have been evaluated but were not.

But when confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance comes into play and all evidence is rejected, we leave the intellectual, fact realm, and enter into lower brain structures.

As an aside, one way I judge honesty is how someone reacts when caught lying. Hillary Clinton is a bad liar - she gets embarrassed and has a hard time responding when a lie is pointed out to her. In contrast, Donald is a very good liar by that measure and doubles down on all his lies with a straight face. I prefer someone with a reliable (poker) "tell" .

 

[suncowiam]

yur kilt?

Gotta put a fire extinguisher under there.
Wait.....already got one!

LOL. Perfect responses

 

[suncowiam]

Maybe its the fact that she doesn't tell the truth when I believe it matters most.

Iraq War... NAFTA agreement... Emails...

I voted for her but it doesn't mean I can let my guard down with her. She still needs to be scrutinized with the rest of them. Just because she's more "honest" doesn't suggest exactly when she will be honest. I've said all along that she lies less than Trump, but it doesn't make her an angel either.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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?

It's a sad state of affairs when an "honest" politician is still mostly truthful only half the time.