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

[Quetzal]

Oh, do you want me to go searching for every single Hillary lie I can find? That would be a good way to make people who think differently than you to have to root through such a colossal abyss of internet crap that nobody would want to play your "challenge". Even in the event I did do so the Hill fans would just claim I was doing the same sampling issue as above.
Perhaps trying to make a list of every single time Hillary has been honest/lied would be awfully time wasting for me, eh?
So, I will pass, thanks.

You're right, that isn't fair of me to ask. I think we will have to agree to disagree. You are right that PF does not address long term consistency. We would need another source for that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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. . .

Keep running with that.

Its clear your the type that let's others do the thinking for you.

Facts always do come out sooner or later and a judgement can be made on the veracity of facts.

Not on a rag site like politifact where the only thing factual really is their pick and choose bias with a minimum of democrat criticism. For balence I'm sure. Like Fox is.

Incidentally, operated by Tampa Bay Times. Whoo hoo. Op didn't mention that little tidbit.

If course, those folks over there are certianly unbiased. ...... cough...cough......

 

[Quetzal]

Not on a rag site like politifact where the only thing factual really is their pick and choose bias with a minimum of democrat criticism. For balence I'm sure. Like Fox is.

Of the things they pick to report on, do you think they are untrue?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Addum

Of the things they pick to report on, do you think they are untrue?

It all depends upon both sides of the story and multiple sources to see if there is uniformity by which any givin fact is presented. Sometimes you just can't tell if something is a fact until it presents itself over time. There's pretty much two sides to every coin as I see it.

 

[Quetzal]

Addum

It all depends upon both sides of the story and multiple sources to see if there is uniformity by which any givin fact is presented. Sometimes you just can't tell if something is a fact until it presents itself over time. There's pretty much two sides to every coin as I see it.

Thankfully politifact is a rag site and this article is probably junk.

Hillary Clinton’s top 10 most misleading claims

Now, with each claim you can click it and it will give you a full readout of where the information came from and links to them. What do you think? Should we throw that article out?

 

[psychoslice]

A janitor can give us an opinion, doesn't mean he should run for president.

Well that maybe so, but I bet he would do a better job than the two we have now.

 

[Lighthouse]

All someone needs do is listen to any one of the debates to realize their numbers are accurate.

Someone just needs to use the better side of their cognition to see that much of the stuff listed for every person listed cannot possibly be labeled as true or false, pants on fire, etc. without the capacity to be omniscient and omnipresent.
In order to check most of the facts listed, Politifact would have to be omniscient and omnipresent, therefore it's rather easy to conclude that Politifact falls into the category of "pants on fire" and "exploiting minds that are cognitively biased."

 

[Quetzal]

Well that maybe so, but I bet he would do a better job than the two we have now.

We can agree on that!

 

[Scuba Pete]

Oh, do you want me to go searching for every single Hillary lie I can find?

I would. Most who claim they can only seem to come up with the sniper fire snafu.

Not on a rag site like politifact where the only thing factual really is their pick and choose bias with a minimum of democrat criticism.

Your biggest problem is that the Republicans are less accurate? That they come out "mostly false" more than Democrats? Cry me a river! Reminds of a certain Frau...

 

[Acim]

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?

Hilarious that anyone thinks of PolitFact as "independent fact-checking website." Hey guess what? Fox News is "fair and balanced." Ya know I know? Cause they say so.

 

[Lighthouse]

I would. Most who claim they can only seem to come up with the sniper fire snafu.

Your biggest problem is that the Republicans are less accurate? That they come out "mostly false" more than Democrats? Cry me a river! Reminds of a certain Frau...

This side is "more" than that, this person is "more" than that. "More more more more more more."
At some point, people do grow up and mature cognitively. Some people.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Hillary is really really really good at telling half-truths and "technically trues". But she outright lies multiple times and we have caught her red handed. Not as much as Trump mind you. He speaks in buzzfeed titles.

 

[Acim]

Politifact's ratings don't involve intent:

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

They clearly involve bias. It's bias for each rating. How they determine the veracity of the data, and how they decide on the ratings themselves. That's for each rating. Then there's the whole (big ball of wax) for what they even select to be rated. Adding all that together, leads to enormous bias.

We can look at individual ratings to help decide on this bias. Let's see how it holds up to RF debate and how we handle all these elements, though the last one (the totality of what they choose to rate at all) is not one we can likely tackle in say under a year, even if that's all we worked on for say 40 hours a week. And yet, it's that which produces a chart like that in OP.

But if you really think they aren't biased, then choose, any item you want (true or false) and then I suggest we each do that, and bring one to the table. And let's debate it. Let's see if we all agree on the rating. If not, then it would be indication of their bias, rather than some bizarre notion of they are going with "accurate" as if that is objective.

I just looked at one before writing this post, that struck me as "half true" and is dealing with stuff that is many years/decades old (about Trump). They decided to rate it as "true." I'd love to have that debate that really explores what is being stated in the assertions, plus have all that discussion not be isolated strictly to that one claim, but how it compares to all other claims on the site. IOW, I am explicitly stating they cherry pick what goes "true" for Clinton and what goes "true" for Trump. Plus I'm saying there's many layers of bias involved, all of which is discernible if you spend more than say 30 minutes on the site.

 

[Quetzal]

They clearly involve bias.

I agree, but that doesn't mean their findings are completely unfounded.

 

[Scuba Pete]

But she outright lies multiple times and we have caught her red handed.

Then trot out the "multiple times". I've only seen propaganda to that effect with no supporting facts. It's stupid easy to denounce someone for lying without showing us the lies. One could make the argument that such a baseless accusation makes you guilty of what you're accusing Clinton of.

They clearly involve bias.

It's obvious that they support their ratings far better than you do your suppositions about them. Times, dates and actual quotes are often cited on most every instance. if there is a paucity of facts, they just state that. Just claiming that they are biased means you're even more biased than they are. Think of this like a math class: show us your work. Don't be lazy. Don't be sloppy. Don't be guilty of the very thing you're accusing them of.

 

[Acim]

I agree, but that doesn't mean their findings are completely unfounded.

Of course. But the conclusions (who lies the most) are, IMO.
What you're saying is no different than anyone who attempts to discredit RW media, who's findings/reporting/commentary also also not completely unfounded.

 

[Acim]

Then trot out the "multiple times". I've only seen propaganda to that effect with no supporting facts. It's stupid easy to denounce someone for lying without showing us the lies. One could make the argument that such a baseless accusation makes you guilty of what you're accusing Clinton of.

It's obvious that they support their ratings far better than you do your suppositions about them. Times, dates and actual quotes are often cited on most every instance. if there is a paucity of facts, they just state that. Just claiming that they are biased means you're even more biased than they are. Think of this like a math class: show us your work. Don't be lazy. Don't be sloppy. Don't be guilty of the very thing you're accusing them of.

How about you back up your claim for all of their claims, that times, dates and actual quotes are cited on most every instance. Don't be sloppy. Until you do, you are a bigger liar than Trump.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Then trot out the "multiple times". I've only seen propaganda to that effect with no supporting facts. It's stupid easy to denounce someone for lying without showing us the lies. One could make the argument that such a baseless accusation makes you guilty of what you're accusing Clinton of.

I mean the ones in the propaganda are still lies. They list valid complaints. They blow them out of proportion but it doesn't mean they aren't there.

A big one is that she stated she DID NOT RECIEVE CLASSIFED EMAILS ON HER PERSONAL SERVER. Then she deleted a metric fukton of emails that did in get, read and respond to classifed emails on her personal server. I mean that is just red handed full bold face lie immediatly right there. She has said several in her campaign. Most of them damaging to Bernie Sanders. A personal favorite of mine she stopped saying mid way through the primary was how the ACA drove down prices to the lowest we've seen in years. Which this is objectively false.

 

[Scuba Pete]

How about you back up your claim for all of their claims, that times, dates and actual quotes are cited on most every instance. Don't be sloppy. Until you do, you are a bigger liar than Trump.

Someone's ticked off that I've called him on his deceit. You've made the contention, now support it. Putting it back on me doesn't take the heat off of you to prove your allegation. Unless you can't. We all know that you can't, so we'll look for more bluster instead.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I mean that is just red handed full bold face lie immediatly right there.

Then why didn't the FBI charge her? Obviously, they didn't see it as such an 'obvious' lie. But then, they weren't going to let partisan politics guide their decisions. Now, before you suggest otherwise, you had better have a lot more evidence than you have provided so far. You've only embarrassed yourself.

This is the problem with FUDDD: Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, Distortion and Defamation. It's a tortuous path of rationem repetens. Defame and repeat ad nauseum. You say it sooooo many times, you expect everyone to just accept your crap as truth. I won't. Crap is crap.