PICTURE THREAD - another try... (928)
------ This thread is Archived ------
Astonishing if True.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Aragorn11: Astonishing if True.
PolitiFactis operated by the Tampa Bay Times, a liberal paper. It attempts to fact-check statements that cannot be truly "fact-checked." it's been criticized by liberals and conservatives. There's a lot of old money in the Tampa Bay area too
------ This thread is Archived ------
------ This thread is Archived ------
galrads: PolitiFactis operated by the Tampa Bay Times, a liberal paper. It attempts to fact-check statements that cannot be truly "fact-checked." it's been criticized by liberals and conservatives. There's a lot of old money in the Tampa Bay area too
Is it ?
I wouldn't have a clue about the organisation.
Just proves to me they are all liars
------ This thread is Archived ------
Aragorn11: Is it ?
I wouldn't have a clue about the organisation.
Just proves to me they are all liars
I wouldn't have a clue about the organisation.
Just proves to me they are all liars
1. Who we’re fact-checking
Through June 29, 2016, we’ve fact-checked Trump more than any other candidate — 158 times. That’s to be expected. Trump made himself more available on television in the early part of his campaign than his Democratic or Republican rivals. Trump also participated in more debates (11 by our count) than either of the top Democratic contenders Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
2. The candidates on the Truth-O-Meter
While the 2016 campaign has been criticized as being fact-free, the most awarded rating to the presidential candidates has actually been Mostly True.
But don’t read too much into that.
Of the 650 claims we’ve fact-checked, it’s almost equally split among claims that rate True, Mostly True and Half True, and claims rating Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.
3. Clinton vs. Trump
The two presumptive nominees are the two most fact-checked candidates of the campaign. But their records are markedly different. Remember, these rankings only include the statements we’ve fact-checked after Clinton and Trump formally entered the race for president.
4. Whose pants are on fire?
Trump has more statements rated Pants on Fire, 30, than the 21 other candidates for president we’ve fact-checked this cycle combined.
Second on the list? Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, with four Pants on Fire claims. Bernie Sanders has yet to receive a Pants on Fire rating in the 2016 election.
5. More about Trump
Ninety-five of the 158 fact-checks of claims made by Trump have been rated False or Pants on Fire. Add in Mostly False and that accounts for 123 (78 percent) of all of Trump’s fact-checked claims.
60.13% of Donald Trump claims that have been rated False or Pants on Fire.
2.53% of Donald Trump claims rated True since he started his campaign.
6. More about Clinton
Just 16 of Clinton’s 120 rated statements ended up as False or Pants on Fire. By contrast, 53 percent of the statements we fact-checked were rated True or Mostly True.
13.3% of claims made by Hillary Clinton rated False or Pants on Fire.
13.3% of claims made by Hillary Clinton rated True during the 2016 campaign.
7. So how do we do this?
It’s another question we get all the time, and the answer is part of what makes PolitiFact special. We use only on-the-record sources and list all of the sources we consult as part of any fact-check. While the author of a fact-check recommends a rating on our Truth-O-Meter, the decision is left to a panel of three editors who vote like a jury. Majority rules.
It’s the same process since we started in 2007 covering the 2008 presidential campaign, and the same process we’ve used for each and every of our nearly 14,000 fact-checks published.
This video, which was made for our sister site PunditFact, does a good job of explaining the process in a bit more detail.
Interesting to note that every one on that chart has been rated pants on fire... except Bernie Sanders..
------ This thread is Archived ------
bohemianjack: 1. Who we’re fact-checking
Through June 29, 2016, we’ve fact-checked Trump more than any other candidate — 158 times. That’s to be expected. Trump made himself more available on television in the early part of his campaign than his Democratic or Republican rivals. Trump also participated in more debates (11 by our count) than either of the top Democratic contenders Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
2. The candidates on the Truth-O-Meter
While the 2016 campaign has been criticized as being fact-free, the most awarded rating to the presidential candidates has actually been Mostly True.
But don’t read too much into that.
Of the 650 claims we’ve fact-checked, it’s almost equally split among claims that rate True, Mostly True and Half True, and claims rating Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.
3. Clinton vs. Trump
The two presumptive nominees are the two most fact-checked candidates of the campaign. But their records are markedly different. Remember, these rankings only include the statements we’ve fact-checked after Clinton and Trump formally entered the race for president.
4. Whose pants are on fire?
Trump has more statements rated Pants on Fire, 30, than the 21 other candidates for president we’ve fact-checked this cycle combined.
Second on the list? Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, with four Pants on Fire claims. Bernie Sanders has yet to receive a Pants on Fire rating in the 2016 election.
5. More about Trump
Ninety-five of the 158 fact-checks of claims made by Trump have been rated False or Pants on Fire. Add in Mostly False and that accounts for 123 (78 percent) of all of Trump’s fact-checked claims.
60.13% of Donald Trump claims that have been rated False or Pants on Fire.
2.53% of Donald Trump claims rated True since he started his campaign.
6. More about Clinton
Just 16 of Clinton’s 120 rated statements ended up as False or Pants on Fire. By contrast, 53 percent of the statements we fact-checked were rated True or Mostly True.
13.3% of claims made by Hillary Clinton rated False or Pants on Fire.
13.3% of claims made by Hillary Clinton rated True during the 2016 campaign.
7. So how do we do this?
It’s another question we get all the time, and the answer is part of what makes PolitiFact special. We use only on-the-record sources and list all of the sources we consult as part of any fact-check. While the author of a fact-check recommends a rating on our Truth-O-Meter, the decision is left to a panel of three editors who vote like a jury. Majority rules.
It’s the same process since we started in 2007 covering the 2008 presidential campaign, and the same process we’ve used for each and every of our nearly 14,000 fact-checks published.
This video, which was made for our sister site PunditFact, does a good job of explaining the process in a bit more detail.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jun/29/fact-checking-2016-clinton-trump/Interesting to note that every one on that chart has been rated pants on fire... except Bernie Sanders..
Through June 29, 2016, we’ve fact-checked Trump more than any other candidate — 158 times. That’s to be expected. Trump made himself more available on television in the early part of his campaign than his Democratic or Republican rivals. Trump also participated in more debates (11 by our count) than either of the top Democratic contenders Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
2. The candidates on the Truth-O-Meter
While the 2016 campaign has been criticized as being fact-free, the most awarded rating to the presidential candidates has actually been Mostly True.
But don’t read too much into that.
Of the 650 claims we’ve fact-checked, it’s almost equally split among claims that rate True, Mostly True and Half True, and claims rating Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.
3. Clinton vs. Trump
The two presumptive nominees are the two most fact-checked candidates of the campaign. But their records are markedly different. Remember, these rankings only include the statements we’ve fact-checked after Clinton and Trump formally entered the race for president.
4. Whose pants are on fire?
Trump has more statements rated Pants on Fire, 30, than the 21 other candidates for president we’ve fact-checked this cycle combined.
Second on the list? Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, with four Pants on Fire claims. Bernie Sanders has yet to receive a Pants on Fire rating in the 2016 election.
5. More about Trump
Ninety-five of the 158 fact-checks of claims made by Trump have been rated False or Pants on Fire. Add in Mostly False and that accounts for 123 (78 percent) of all of Trump’s fact-checked claims.
60.13% of Donald Trump claims that have been rated False or Pants on Fire.
2.53% of Donald Trump claims rated True since he started his campaign.
6. More about Clinton
Just 16 of Clinton’s 120 rated statements ended up as False or Pants on Fire. By contrast, 53 percent of the statements we fact-checked were rated True or Mostly True.
13.3% of claims made by Hillary Clinton rated False or Pants on Fire.
13.3% of claims made by Hillary Clinton rated True during the 2016 campaign.
7. So how do we do this?
It’s another question we get all the time, and the answer is part of what makes PolitiFact special. We use only on-the-record sources and list all of the sources we consult as part of any fact-check. While the author of a fact-check recommends a rating on our Truth-O-Meter, the decision is left to a panel of three editors who vote like a jury. Majority rules.
It’s the same process since we started in 2007 covering the 2008 presidential campaign, and the same process we’ve used for each and every of our nearly 14,000 fact-checks published.
This video, which was made for our sister site PunditFact, does a good job of explaining the process in a bit more detail.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jun/29/fact-checking-2016-clinton-trump/Interesting to note that every one on that chart has been rated pants on fire... except Bernie Sanders..
Bernie Sanders is the man
Would you consider the fact checking site reliable Bo ?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Notice how some are following that playbook extensively?
------ This thread is Archived ------
YouMeUs: Notice how some are following that playbook extensively?
Speaking of a playbook.
Trump is furious that two of the three debates are going to be on nights when there is a football game.
Trump has said "I might not attend".
Very presidential
------ This thread is Archived ------
Aragorn11: Bernie Sanders is the man
Would you consider the fact checking site reliable Bo ?
"While the author of a fact-check recommends a rating on our Truth-O-Meter, the decision is left to a panel of three editors who vote like a jury. Majority rules."Would you consider the fact checking site reliable Bo ?
That alone should answer the question. Opinions, three of them. And nowhere in that post did fact-check claim that the three "judges" or three panel jury are unbiased in their decisions.
Whenever "Majority rules" is used, automatically dictates that disagreement of a lesser degree be over-run by a power used in influential decision-making...but that doesn't mean the majority are always right, it just means they carry the most votes.
...and we can't rule out the possibility of "favorable payoffs" ever happening, either. Someone has to pay for that site's bandwidth.
I think our best option is to find facts for ourselves and not rely on any three panel judgement call as always being factual.
------ This thread is Archived ------
YouMeUs: "While the author of a fact-check recommends a rating on our Truth-O-Meter, the decision is left to a panel of three editors who vote like a jury. Majority rules."
That alone should answer the question. Opinions, three of them. And nowhere in that post did fact-check claim that the three "judges" or three panel jury are unbiased in their decisions.
Whenever "Majority rules" is used, automatically dictates that disagreement of a lesser degree be over-run by a power used in influential decision-making...but that doesn't mean the majority are always right, it just means they carry the most votes.
...and we can't rule out the possibility of "favorable payoffs" ever happening, either. Someone has to pay for that site's bandwidth.
I think our best option is to find facts for ourselves and not rely on any three panel judgement call as always being factual.
That alone should answer the question. Opinions, three of them. And nowhere in that post did fact-check claim that the three "judges" or three panel jury are unbiased in their decisions.
Whenever "Majority rules" is used, automatically dictates that disagreement of a lesser degree be over-run by a power used in influential decision-making...but that doesn't mean the majority are always right, it just means they carry the most votes.
...and we can't rule out the possibility of "favorable payoffs" ever happening, either. Someone has to pay for that site's bandwidth.
I think our best option is to find facts for ourselves and not rely on any three panel judgement call as always being factual.
In fairness I do think there are unbiased people in this world. Does anyone check FactChecker
I'm hoping CS is not indicative of Republican or Democratic Voters as it's all so black and white and the intransigence of some where whatever side they are on is White and the other is Black is far from true in my experience
Seems extremely divisive, and accountability and license to lie is given reign if there is no proper debate.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Meanwhile this Russian Female pole vaulter is contesting her ban from the Olympics.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Aragorn11: Meanwhile this Russian Female pole vaulter is contesting her ban from the Olympics.
------ This thread is Archived ------
secretagent09: Speaking of a playbook.
Trump is furious that two of the three debates are going to be on nights when there is a football game.
Trump has said "I might not attend".
Very presidential
While Clinton didn't hesitate to cash in by saying; "I'm gonna be there, that's all I have to say."Trump is furious that two of the three debates are going to be on nights when there is a football game.
Trump has said "I might not attend".
Very presidential
Very power greedy.
No doubt she'll meet Trump at the debates, football game or not.
------ This thread is Archived ------
YouMeUs: While Clinton didn't hesitate to cash in by saying; "I'm gonna be there, that's all I have to say."
Very power greedy.
No doubt she'll meet Trump at the debates, football game or not.
Very power greedy.
No doubt she'll meet Trump at the debates, football game or not.
How is that power greedy living up to the agreement you made when you signed up for the election.
They must have signed off that they will attend the debates unless family matters arise.
She will be there and no doubt he will be too.
People will probably DVR the debates and watch the game
------ This thread is Archived ------
Aragorn11: In fairness I do think there are unbiased people in this world. Does anyone check FactChecker
I'm hoping CS is not indicative of Republican or Democratic Voters as it's all so black and white and the intransigence of some where whatever side they are on is White and the other is Black is far from true in my experience
Seems extremely divisive, and accountability and license to lie is given reign if there is no proper debate.
I concur there are unbiased people in this world. Getting them all in the same room might be a slight problem. I'm hoping CS is not indicative of Republican or Democratic Voters as it's all so black and white and the intransigence of some where whatever side they are on is White and the other is Black is far from true in my experience
Seems extremely divisive, and accountability and license to lie is given reign if there is no proper debate.
You haven't met the symptomatic Democrats and Republicans then? They're the ones who vote intensively and exclusively for the political party, regardless of who represents said party.
This is exactly where the intransigence lays, and even those who do not lean to either side get victimized...caught in the crossfire. And that is because both Dems and Repubs do not want any additional political parties interfering... it would create too much of an imbalancement to their cause.
------ This thread is Archived ------
YouMeUs: I concur there are unbiased people in this world. Getting them all in the same room might be a slight problem.
You haven't met the symptomatic Democrats and Republicans then? They're the ones who vote intensively and exclusively for the political party, regardless of who represents said party.
This is exactly where the intransigence lays, and even those who do not lean to either side get victimized...caught in the crossfire. And that is because both Dems and Repubs do not want any additional political parties interfering... it would create too much of an imbalancement to their cause.
You haven't met the symptomatic Democrats and Republicans then? They're the ones who vote intensively and exclusively for the political party, regardless of who represents said party.
This is exactly where the intransigence lays, and even those who do not lean to either side get victimized...caught in the crossfire. And that is because both Dems and Repubs do not want any additional political parties interfering... it would create too much of an imbalancement to their cause.
Are some on CS not symptomatic
Think your country would genuinely prosper with a genuine third party candidate. It just seems so entrenched.
jmo
------ This thread is Archived ------
secretagent09: How is that power greedy living up to the agreement you made when you signed up for the election.
They must have signed off that they will attend the debates unless family matters arise.
She will be there and no doubt he will be too.
People will probably DVR the debates and watch the game
Maybe this youtube documentary can explain her greed for power. They must have signed off that they will attend the debates unless family matters arise.
She will be there and no doubt he will be too.
People will probably DVR the debates and watch the game
This video also begs anyone to dig up facts to counter what is said about Hillary Clinton and her greed for political power.
------ This thread is Archived ------
YouMeUs: Maybe this youtube documentary can explain her greed for power.
This video also begs anyone to dig up facts to counter what is said about Hillary Clinton and her greed for political power.
This video also begs anyone to dig up facts to counter what is said about Hillary Clinton and her greed for political power.
I agree with much of what is in the video.
I have read that Hillary is not a warm person with people around her. So what. That's life in politics.
You have to think about the era she came from when women were still trying to pass the ERA. At that time women thought it was better to rule with a big stick rather then a soft voice and still get the results they wanted and it took a long time to get what they wanted.
I'm more of the mind to walk softly and carry a big stick which is what President McKinley said. Never let 'em know what you are really thinking.
I don't care if she is a B in the private world. What I care about is what lies you are anticipating she will tell that will make your and my life horrible.
For me it's a matter of which candidate could do the most harm.
I am really voting for her to keep Trump out.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
s*xual skills
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
See It All The Time
Are the ads on here as phony as some of the profiles?
who shaped your life?
If Our Profiles Were Truly Honest
The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
Iran- Israel war
your favorite topic?
biggest lie
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Clinton responds to party chair's resignation on Sunday by thanking "longtime friend" for her service at DNC and immediately naming her as honorary chair of her own campaign
Though many progressives immediately responded by saying her ouster would not be enough to undo the damage her leadership has done, Democratic National Committee Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced her resignation on Sunday afternoon, saying she would relinquish her post immediately following the party's national convention which begins Monday.
Her announcement comes just two days after a batch of leaked internal DNC emails showed evidence that party officials during the primary season had attempted to tip the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton against the insurgent campaign of Bernie Sanders. The emails appear to show top officials contemplating how they can undermine Sanders by pushing stories about his Jewish faith and questioning his ability to keep his campaign organized.
As journalist and radio host Sonali Kolhatkar tweeted:
Wikileaks managed to accomplish what many have attempted and failed to do for months now.
— Sonali Kolhatkar (@SonaliKolhatkar) July 24, 2016
Following Sunday's news, however, Clinton responded with a statement thanking her "longtime friend" for her service to the party and, seemingly without irony, announced that Wasserman Schultz would now serve as her campaign’s honorary chair.
webwalk
Jul 24, 2016
Once again, it is hard to discern:
Is Trump the Republican nominee in order to guarantee Clinton is elected?
Or is Clinton the Democratic nominee in order to guarantee Trump is elected?