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

[Acim]

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.

Oh I can, but am used to your deceit to realize it isn't worth the effort. If you're okay accepting biased nonsense, cool, I'm used to that. But I'll be sure to note it as biased as long as it's outside of "Liberals only" section. Sorry, dem da breaks.

How about taking me up on my suggestion, you bring any of them to the table, and I'll bring one to the table, and will allow all members on RF that wish to partake in such a debate to determine if the PolitiFact rating is biased or accurate. Oh, that's right, you don't want to play a game that is fair and would show up as you engaging in yet further deceit.

 

[Scuba Pete]

OK guys, gals and FUDDDy duds... while the first rule of Scuba is "don't hold your breath", one of the ancillary rules is get some sleep. I'm off to bed and will read your erudite responses in the morning. The not so erudite responses will probably be disemboweled at the same time.

 

[idav]

Then why didn't the FBI charge her?

Cause they were looking for actual crimes like laundering money or something of the sort. All they could scrape out of the sorted mess was misclasification of emails.

 

[Quetzal]

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.

I think thats fair. I can go with that.

 

[Acim]

Here is example of PolitiFact bias: Clinton Says Donald Trump "used undocumented labor to build the Trump Tower."

So, that's what Clinton said. Then the headline right after that on PolitiFact says: Hillary Clinton correctly claims that Trump Tower was in part built by undocumented workers.
Also says Rubio said similar thing, and they gave him lower rating (I think Half True) because of how specific he got.

And PolitFact concludes with:

Clinton claimed that Trump "used undocumented labor to build the Trump Tower."

There’s no question that undocumented workers were hired to do demolition work on the future site of Trump Tower. Questions remain as to how involved Trump was in the construction process and hiring of the 200 Polish laborers, but Clinton is factually correct to say that undocumented labor helped construct Trump’s New York skyscraper.

We rate this statement as True.

So, score another one up for Camp Clinton as "True" when given everything stated here, and linked from here, strikes me as certainly not clear Trump knew they were on the job, nor did he directly hire them. But it is attributed to Trump and also not attributed to him, to allow for wiggle room.

Me, I'd go with Half True.

Guessing if only LW types respond to this post, they go with Mostly True or higher. Guessing if I put same type of thing up for discussion in "Conservatives Only" and/or if Conservatives on the site respond to this post they go with something lower than "True." Feel another fact check site would rate it differently than PolitiFact, though admittedly not sure.

But what I'm saying is this stuff adds up, and Clinton gets a "True" in her column based on what is a very questionable rating. If this stuff didn't add up, and this was the only item PolitiFact rated, I'd say teeny tiny/negligible bias. But I'm saying if I did this same type of thing for say another 10 posts (that I'd pick), it would lead to similar conclusions of it being (highly) questionable, how they rated. Thus, to be fair, we can strip off around 30 or so of the True assertions from Clinton side, and perhaps add about 50 or so from the Mostly True and Half True side to the Mostly False side, ya know, to get a more accurate picture.

Not to mention the dozens of things they don't choose to take up about what Hillary says.

 

[Acim]

Cause they were looking for actual crimes like laundering money or something of the sort. All they could scrape out of the sorted mess was misclasification of emails.

FBI agents (around 100 of them) are I believe greatly surprised Comey didn't recommend she be stripped of her security clearance. He didn't. That doesn't apparently sit well with a whole lot of FBI agents, such that they are seeking employment elsewhere and have either hinted that FBI is now corrupted or are in vein of discrediting what they see as false reporting of the investigation by Comey. Because of how long this would take to play out for whistle blowing to mean you won't be hounded, I think it could be a year or two before this stuff coming to light. From what I gather, whistleblowing in the FBI is not like it is in pretty much any other job. Especially considering that the department of justice is essentially well known at this point to be involved in the corruption.

 

[Acim]

Here's another from PolitiFact: (Clinton Says) "One-half of undocumented workers pay federal income taxes, which means they are paying more federal income taxes than Donald Trump pays."

First part of the claim is based on guesstimates about what illegals pay, and based on guesstimate that it is half. So, in reality, we don't know.
Second part of the claim is based on Trump's current taxes, and PolitiFact says "we don't know."

Me, I am curious what @Revoltingest would say on this one.

PolitiFact chose to go with "Half True."

But given the exact claim made and the fact we don't know, it is a matter of bias to conclude what Clinton said is "accurate."
I'd go with Pants on Fire, or Mostly False (if I was in a generous mood).

 

[idav]

FBI agents (around 100 of them) are I believe greatly surprised Comey didn't recommend she be stripped of her security clearance. He didn't. That doesn't apparently sit well with a whole lot of FBI agents, such that they are seeking employment elsewhere and have either hinted that FBI is now corrupted or are in vein of discrediting what they see as false reporting of the investigation by Comey. Because of how long this would take to play out for whistle blowing to mean you won't be hounded, I think it could be a year or two before this stuff coming to light. From what I gather, whistleblowing in the FBI is not like it is in pretty much any other job. Especially considering that the department of justice is essentially well known at this point to be involved in the corruption.

Who cares what people's opinions are. The law is the law. If the FBI were corrupt then they wouldn't have recommended looking into the Clinton Foundation. However even in that case it would be ridiculous to go after the Clinton foundation over a debunked Tweet gone viral. That's how silly the whole thing has gotten and blown out of proportion.

 

[idav]

FBI agents (around 100 of them) are I believe greatly surprised Comey didn't recommend she be stripped of her security clearance. He didn't. That doesn't apparently sit well with a whole lot of FBI agents, such that they are seeking employment elsewhere and have either hinted that FBI is now corrupted or are in vein of discrediting what they see as false reporting of the investigation by Comey. Because of how long this would take to play out for whistle blowing to mean you won't be hounded, I think it could be a year or two before this stuff coming to light. From what I gather, whistleblowing in the FBI is not like it is in pretty much any other job. Especially considering that the department of justice is essentially well known at this point to be involved in the corruption.

You really want to know about corruption then question the Trump foundation in which he has actually been fined because of the IRS. Watchdogs find stuff on trump and not Clinton, ask yourself why that is.

 

[Watchmen]

Corruption and honesty are not mutually exclusive.

 

[YmirGF]

It's a bit frightening that the best result on that graph was only half "true" or "mostly true".

Exactly. When my mom was alive there was many a morning where she was spitting nails about what Obama had said. I usually heaved a sigh and tried to explain that he isn't outright lying. He is simply avoiding any facts that contradict what he is saying.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Oh I can, but am used to your deceit to realize it isn't worth the effort.

Translation: You can't do it and you're not honest enough to admit it. This is just bluster designed to hide that fact.

If you're okay accepting biased nonsense, cool,

Unfortunately for you, I'm not accepting your biased nonsense and have the temerity to point it out.

Cause they were looking for actual crimes

Lying to the FBI is a serious crime.

Me, I'd go with Half True.

Why only "half true"? Clinton's facts were spot on unless you have proof otherwise.
Rubio's claims (Illegal Polish workers got a million dollar settlement) was only half true. The judgement was for $325,000 and they apparently settled lower, but we don't know how much. They gave us four links and multiple quotes to demonstrate why they gave it a "true".

Not to mention the dozens of things they don't choose to take up about what Hillary says.

Such as? What do you think they didn't cover that they should have?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...n-twists-trumps-words-rescuing-auto-industry/

Here we have a accusation by Clinton against Trump rated as "Pants on Fire". Where's the bias? She made a statement that I probably would not have fact checked as it's consistent with his predatory nature, and I would be wrong. In the same methodical method, they debunked Clinton's accusation and showed that the exact opposite was true. It also includes a number links to support their conclusions.

Politifact never attempts to assign the term "lie" to any of these various statements. True to false with a cheeky "pants on fire" reserved for when the person is so wrong that they should have known better. It's not their fault, nor is it showing bias that Trump scores much, much lower in this regard than Clinton. He's a horrible person.

FBI agents (around 100 of them) are I believe greatly surprised Comey didn't recommend she be stripped of her security clearance.

Can you provide actual support for this claim or are you expecting us to simply accept your "biased nonsense" just because you say it's true?

 

[Scuba Pete]

But given the exact claim made and the fact we don't know, it is a matter of bias to conclude what Clinton said is "accurate."
I'd go with Pants on Fire, or Mostly False (if I was in a generous mood).

So, let me get this straight. Politifact divides this contention into parts, and rates the first half as probably true and the second part as indeterminate and so give it "half true"

But you, without any evidence that any part of it is false, want to go with "Pants on Fire". This is why I see you as unreasonable and your contentions as being "biased nonsense". The real problem you have with this statement is that it goes against your homie, Trump. You don't need or even want facts to base your opinion on. You just go with your emotions and feelings, like a modern political Farragut: "Damn the facts, full Trump ahead!"

 

[Underhill]

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."

Look at this list and tell me that. I scanned the entire list and found 2, out of many dozens, that fit your description in the least (and upon reading those, they make valid points). Sorry but again, you are just wrong.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/pants-fire/

 

[Revoltingest]

Here's another from PolitiFact: (Clinton Says) "One-half of undocumented workers pay federal income taxes, which means they are paying more federal income taxes than Donald Trump pays."

First part of the claim is based on guesstimates about what illegals pay, and based on guesstimate that it is half. So, in reality, we don't know.
Second part of the claim is based on Trump's current taxes, and PolitiFact says "we don't know."

Me, I am curious what @Revoltingest would say on this one.

PolitiFact chose to go with "Half True."

But given the exact claim made and the fact we don't know, it is a matter of bias to conclude what Clinton said is "accurate."
I'd go with Pants on Fire, or Mostly False (if I was in a generous mood).

According to Revoltifact, her claim ranks as....

"Specious Speculation Pretended As Fact"
or.....
"Pantsuit On Fire"

Since bias is generally statistical in nature, I don't know if Politifact is guilty of it in this particular example.
But I'd rate their claim as.....

"Unduly Charitable To Their Chosen Candidate"

 

[Underhill]

According to Revoltifact, her claim ranks as....

"Specious Speculation Pretended As Fact"
or.....
"Pantsuit On Fire"

Since bias is generally statistical in nature, I don't know if Politifact is guilty of it in this particular example.
But I'd rate their claim as.....

"Unduly Charitable To Their Chosen Candidate"

Except you agree with their conclusion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except you agree with their conclusion.

To some extent.

 

[Underhill]

To some extent.

Just basing it on what you said yesterday...

So Trump obviously is more full of **** than Clinton but Politifact is suspect when it says so and backs it up with evidence to an extent that nobody else in the media comes close to... Sometimes the positions you choose to argue baffle me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just basing it on what you said yesterday...

So Trump obviously is more full of **** than Clinton.....

What is obvious to a Clinton fan won't be the same as what's obvious to a Trumpeter.
They both have major credibility problems for me.
But even more important, they've major differences in agendas for the country.

.....
but Politifact is suspect when it says so and backs it up with evidence to an extent that nobody else in the media comes close to...

Politifact should be suspect, given that they are owned by a pro-Hillary newspaper.
But note that I've also said that their reasoning & evidence are worth reviewing.
I've read their pieces many times....but not with blind faith that they're without bias.

Sometimes the positions you choose to argue baffle me.

I'll often argue a point which might appear to support something I dislike.
Example....
I've defended Obama's foreign policy at times.
This does not mean that I like Obama or his foreign policy.
But there are individual acts which I'll defend against criticism, eg, not overtly attacking Iran.

People too easily leap to belief that I've taken an opposing side,
when I've merely stated something which their side doesn't like.

 

[Scuba Pete]

But I'd rate their claim as.....

"Unduly Charitable To Their Chosen Candidate"

And I would rate this as "Pants on Bias!"