[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[TenEightyOne]

I hope that you know that Politifact is owned by The Washington Post, a known Hillary shill.

At first glance I read that as "Pontefract". She's welcome to the place, frankly.

 

[ryzno]

If that graph ain't biased I don't know what is.
Obama and Hillary need to be up there in Cruz and Bachmann spots. Of course nothing THEY say is a lie though. Funny thing is everything they say is a lie.

And how come @DK can run around calling Trump everything but his name, but we call Hillary something else and we get a warning?
Seems about as rigged as the graph.

 

[Northstar]

but if they're on the chart, then all the articles concerning each candidate have been used.

That's what he says, but he doesn't post anything showing it's what he actually did.

Here's the author of it explaining how he compiled the data.

Still not what I'm looking for. I want a list showing what statements they used for it, until than that graph means less than nothing.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Still not what I'm looking for. I want a list showing what statements they used for it, until than that graph means less than nothing.

Oh well that's simple - you just have to look up every PolitiFact article since 2007 that mentions any of those candidates

 

[Northstar]

Oh well that's simple - you just have to look up every PolitiFact article since 2007 that mentions any of those candidates

That doesn't prove they were/weren't used in that chart though.

I guess I'm just expecting a little too much from modern journalism.

(I should probably also state that Trump's representation on that graph it probably accurate, everybody else on the other hand seems low)

 

[Famine]

And how come @DK can run around calling Trump everything but his name, but we call Hillary something else and we get a warning?

You're going to have to explain who "we" is, as you have no warnings.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

That doesn't prove they were/weren't used in that chart though.

True Just checked though and it isn't actually too difficult to verify the data yourself - just search a name on PolitiFact and it'll point you to their profile which already gives you the percentages shown in the chart (although some are probably out of date now). Here's Rand Paul's page for example.

Whether all of PolitiFacts' judgements are accurate to begin with, is another story altogether of course.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Tampa Bay Times actually(but they are basically just as bought).

Oh, my mistake then.

 

[mustafur]

True Just checked though and it isn't actually too difficult to verify the data yourself - just search a name on PolitiFact and it'll point you to their profile which already gives you the percentages shown in the chart (although some are probably out of date now). Here's Rand Paul's page for example.

Whether all of PolitiFacts' judgements are accurate to begin with, is another story altogether of course.

Just looking at the questions on that page raises questions, there is no source for any answer.

 

[Scaff]

Just looking at the questions on that page raises questions, there is no source for any answer.

Did you follow the links to the end? As every one I've just checked links back to the source article and all the source article contain the sources used.

 

[mustafur]

Did you follow the links to the end? As every one I've just checked links back to the source article and all the source article contain the sources used.

Yeah i see it now.

Interesting that they try to fact check questions that can't be answered by them.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...paul/paul-gets-it-wrong-fate-libyan-missiles/

They say this is false yet can't prove how it's false, just probably false.

That's not a fact check.

 

[Scaff]

Yeah i see it now.

Interesting that they try to fact check questions that can't be answered by them.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...paul/paul-gets-it-wrong-fate-libyan-missiles/

They say this is false yet can't prove how it's false, just probably false.

That's not a fact check.

No it says it's mostly false.

And in the absence of definitive proof that thousands of MANPADs are in the hands of terrorists I would say that's a fair conclusion .

After all if he's making the claim one would expect proof to exist to support it.

A claim that they may have got hold of some would be true. A claim that they had got hold of some would be mostly true. A claim that they had got hold of thousands and it's all HCs fault is mostly false. A claim that the had thousands and had given them to Mexico to destroy the wall would be pants on fire.

 

[ryzno]

You're going to have to explain who "we" is, as you have no warnings.

"We", as in Trump supporters. I don't recall who said "Killary", but they received a "verbal warning" by a moderator to call her, Hillary or Clinton.

As I said, DK is still running around calling him Drumpf. A few pages back, and a few pages after said verbal warning.

Call me a cry baby, but I think we should have equal right to desecrate someones name. But since someone received a verbal warning, I'll take it, that it should not be allowed on either side.

 

[Dotini]

A claim that they had got hold of some would be mostly true. A claim that they had got hold of thousands and it's all HCs fault is mostly false.

A claim that HRC was secretly running guns through the US Libyan embassy to Turkey which subsequently fell into the hands of Syrian militants would most likely be true. I believe it's part of the Wikileaks

 

[Famine]

"We", as in Trump supporters. I don't recall who said "Killary", but they received a "verbal warning" by a moderator to call her, Hillary or Clinton.

As I said, DK is still running around calling him Drumpf. A few pages back, and a few pages after said verbal warning.

So "we" is not you, no-one you know of has a warning and you're comparing a homicidal epithet to an actual family name.

Got it.

 

[ryzno]

So "we" is not you, no-one you know of has a warning and you're comparing a homicidal epithet to an actual family name.

Got it.

We is not me, I don't run around calling people names like little kids.

My point is, two people, on two different sides are calling people out of their name. But it seems to be fine to joke Trump is dumb. But to call a killer a killer is not.

Got it.

The name is quite fitting for her though, there a lot of dead people that had ties to her. But I see where this is going already. Back under my rock.

 

[Dotini]

I have no trouble naming HRC a killer. Not one-on-one, mind you, but through her policy of Arab Spring and subsequent regime changes, revolutions and civil wars throughout the middle east and north Africa.

 

[Famine]

My point is, two people, on two different sides are calling people out of their name. But it seems to be fine to joke Trump is dumb. But to call a killer a killer is not.

I don't see how "Drumpf" is a joke that Trump is dumb, given that it's his family surname from not too long since...

We is not me, I don't run around calling people names like little kids.

So you don't really need to complain about getting warnings for doing it then...

It seems very odd to whine about inconsistent moderation that hasn't happened. Perhaps you're confusing GTPlanet with CNN.

 

[ryzno]

I did not know that was his family name.
Puts foot in mouth.

 

[Milouse]

I did not know that was his family name.
Puts foot in mouth.

How did you miss that video from last winter?

Don't thanks me

 

[SlipZtrEm]

The most important takeaway I have from this is:

How do we explain this to our kids when this election makes it into their US History textbooks?

Oh, that's not much of a worry: if Trump gets in, I doubt we'll make it long enough to get the books written, printed, and in schools.

 

[ryzno]

How did you miss that video from last winter?

Don't thanks me

That was entertaining!

 

[Dotini]

Oh, that's not much of a worry: if Trump gets in, I doubt we'll make it long enough to get the books written, printed, and in schools.

Trump is a realist, and a nationalist-populist. Of all the candidates running in 2015-2016, he is the least likely to involve the US in a war, possibly excepting Paul.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Trump is a realist, and a nationalist-populist. Of all the candidates running in 2015-2016, he is the least likely to involve the US in a war, possibly excepting Paul.

And Johnson which I feel is the least likely actually.

 

[Milouse]

Wow, that's entirely what I didn't ask for! I want the article that corresponds to the graph you posted. I don't care what some blogger thinks of it.

Just to clarify: my link was pointing towards a data visualization site, in touch with the graph author, with more general info, methodology and ethos of fact-checking websites, as well as more graphs like the one i've posted, AND a link to its methodology (the link posted by TRG Tspecialist).

So if your claim of it being just a minimum

The title of the graph was clear about that if read carefully. Anyway, this has been clarified by the link to the source.

There is potential that more entries were used to make it look more fair for Trump or Hillary, then that's not a true sample pool

It's a fair concern, but
1. Trump being on top and not at bottom is not a close call.
2. Politifact runs on a zealously transparent method. If one want to try to build a different graph or try to prove this is all wrong, he has all he needs.

it's not anti-intellectual to question a chart that from a quick study looks to be already skewed in respect to statistics

We were talking about questioning the underlying data, which are non-discriminated data from Politifacts. If, for example, we question the fact-checking results about Trump stance about climate change, it leads to discredit climate experts. That is what i'm mean by anti-intellectualism.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The title of the graph was clear about that if read carefully. Anyway, this has been clarified by the link to the source.

What is more then and were all given exactly the same number, hence why it's vague and not a correct way of collecting and reporting data. Or maybe for this line of work it is.

It's a fair concern, but
1. Trump being on top and not at bottom is not a close call.
2. Politifact runs on a zealously transparent method. If one want to try to build a different graph or try to prove this is all wrong, he has all he needs.

Then you've missed the point slightly, I couldn't care less where either placed in this system made by some off site. What is disturbing right off the bat is that 4 democrats were used, and tons of republicans, some of which have no business being there because they're a non-issue in the national election at any point in its process. Also no, cause I have no clue what the qualifying factors are as @Northstar has demonstrated in his argument. My conclusions could be slightly different or vastly different. My point is the same as before there is nothing exactly clear cut, I could hunt and spend the next couple of days cross examining but why should I when they created this report and table of data.

We were talking about questioning the underlying data, which are non-discriminated data from Politifacts. If, for example, we question the fact-checking results about Trump stance about climate change, it leads to discredit climate experts. That is what i'm mean by anti-intellectualism.

No to you it's non-discriminatory, nothing I've seen from your posts and links suggest that they're not possibly bias like that of Fox or MSNBC or CNN. I find it strange that you put so much trust in the site, if you wholly believe it that's great. But to claim that someone not holding such a trusting and willing to question it, being anti-intellectual...then I guess we all should believe stuff on face value when first seen.

 

[Milouse]

@LMSCorvetteGT2 , you're caricaturing what i wrote, i never use argument of authority: all what PolitiFact do is public, so there is no blind trust involved.

I find it strange that you put so much trust in the site

What is strange is that you tend to fall into hyper-criticism but don't use the tools that could make you closer to answers. Unless you're subconsciously try to avoid answers.

I have no clue what the qualifying factors are as @Northstar has demonstrated in his argument

He demonstrated his ignorance on the subject, not really an argument. But, more importantly, you ignore the information we've already provided:

Politifact process:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ples-politifact-punditfact-and-truth-o-meter/

Graph candidate (non) selection method:
http://mannmetrics.com/who-lies-more/

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@LMSCorvetteGT2 , you're caricaturing what i wrote, i never use argument of authority: all what PolitiFact do is public, so there is no blind trust involved.


What is strange is that you tend to fall into hyper-criticism but don't use the tools that could make you closer to answers. Unless you're subconsciously try to avoid answers.

No one (at least not me) is debating they're hiding content of arguments made, what I argued again let's be clear is that if one is going to put out data showing statistics or comparable tests you provide the exact sources of information that allowed for the data. Also I am not saying (read my post again) that there is no way to find the info, rather if yet again if you plan to post such data make it easy for the viewers of it to know exactly where you got it from. I don't have time nor do many others to research ten years of information and articles to verify, if Trump is that dishonest (luckily for them I believe it on my own).

He demonstrated his ignorance on the subject, not really an argument. But, more importantly, you ignore the information we've already provided:

Politifact process:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ples-politifact-punditfact-and-truth-o-meter/

Graph candidate (non) selection method:
http://mannmetrics.com/who-lies-more/

No I didn't I even said in my posts, read my posts fully next time before you claim something please. Also this doesn't even explain some of my other critiques like how statements were picked in the first place, why they were used over others. Also why these select people were decided upon rather than a 50/50 split of dems and republicans.

Also the greatest interesting factor is magnitude of said lies that can't be measured. So while the graph is somewhat interesting all it proves is the age old comment of "all politicians lie".

 

[Northstar]

He demonstrated his ignorance on the subject, not really an argument.

Ignorance? I questioned the chart and stats, you failed to actually give me any answers.

Have you any idea how studies and graphs are supposed to work? How journalism is supposed to work?

Let's take a look at this graph and I'll point out a couple things for you.

1) Where are the numbers? We're given "has graded more than 50" and some percentages. Nothing else, there's nothing saying how many total statements from each candidate nor how many fit in each category. Again for all we know he may have very well done a fair unbiased job or he may have taken 100 articles of Hillary saying that she's married to a guy named Bill into consideration.

2) No sources linked to this graph. All that anyone has come up with is "search Politifact" which does nothing as a) that doesn't prove what articles were or weren't counted and b) the duty of proof is on the one making the claim or doing the study.

3) The "study" itself is completely flawed. When you are doing a study on anything you need a control of some sort. In this case that would be the number of statements for each candidate. That's not what happened though as he even said he counted 171 for Hillary and 111 for Trump.

If I had turned something like that in for a project whether it's school or a job I'd have an "F" on the damned thing before it even left my hand.

So do whatever you want, think whatever you want, just remember 110% of stats are made up.

 

[Sanji Himura]

No I didn't I even said in my posts, read my posts fully next time before you claim something please. Also this doesn't even explain some of my other critiques like how statements were picked in the first place, why they were used over others. Also why these select people were decided upon rather than a 50/50 split of dems and republicans.

Also the greatest interesting factor is magnitude of said lies that can't be measured. So while the graph is somewhat interesting all it proves is the age old comment of "all politicians lie".

Perfectly logical explanation.

1. He covers THREE Presidential Elections in this chart, not just this one. That is why you are seeing someone like Romney or McCain in the chart because they ran against Obama in 2008 and 2012 respectively.

2. If there is ANY cherry-picking involved, it is done on Politifact's end. The chart covers every candidate since 2008 with 50 or more recorded statements on Politifact. The only reason why Martin O'Malley is not on the chart at all is because he didn't meet the required number to be included (O'Malley had 18 recorded statements on Politifact as of the time of writing).