Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I wonder if all these lies will reach politifact's truth-o-meter.

Comey challenges truthfulness of Clinton's email defenses

FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton's statements and explanations about her email server to the House Benghazi Committee last October were not true, as evidenced by the bureau's investigation into whether she mishandled classified information.

During an extended exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Comey affirmed that the FBI's investigation found information marked classified on her server even after Clinton had said that she had neither sent nor received any items marked classified.

"That is not true," Comey said. "There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents."

Asked whether Clinton's testimony that she did not email "any classified material to anyone on my email" and "there is no classified material" was true, Comey responded, "No, there was classified material emailed."

"Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?" Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, "She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state."

Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department.

"No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned," Comey said.

"Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account. Was that true?" Gowdy asked.

"That's a harder one to answer," Comey responded. "We found traces of work-related emails in, on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or whether when a server changed out something happened to them, there is no doubt that the work-related emails that were removed electronically from the email system."

Gowdy asked whether Clintons' lawyers read every one of her emails as she had said. Comey replied, "No."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-com ... mey-225216

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... email-def/




But, let's be real. Both of them are ego-maniacal lying sacks of shit.

Hillary is a much, much more skilled liar though. Trump lies like a seven year old.

Pick your poison.

I choose neither. Fuck this election. Just depressing.

Skjellyfetti wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... email-def/.

Yes and with that conclusion included in the database we are now at Hillary Clinton having 12% of her rated statements rated as "False" (11%) or "Pants on Fire" (1%).

Donald Trump? Right now he's at 59% "False" (40%) or "Pants on Fire (19%).

It's still not close. As bad as Hillary is in the honesty/dishonesty area, Trump is worse. MUCH worse. He has set a new standard for dishonesty.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... email-def/.

Yes and with that conclusion included in the database we are now at Hillary Clinton having 12% of her rated statements rated as "False" (11%) or "Pants on Fire" (1%).

Donald Trump? Right now he's at 59% "False" (40%) or "Pants on Fire (19%).

It's still not close. As bad as Hillary is in the honesty/dishonesty area, Trump is worse. MUCH worse. He has set a new standard for dishonesty.

You're a funny one, John.

Politifact.

Leave it to the stoic conservative JSO to put his trust in a far left wing "unbiased" fact finding website to validate his support for The Hildabeast.

You can't make this shit up.

Baldy wrote: Leave it to the stoic conservative JSO to put his trust in a far left wing "unbiased" fact finding website to validate his support for The Hildabeast.

You can't make this **** up.

What's your basis for saying Politifact is "left wing?"

Is your basis going to be because it indicates that Trump is a lot worse in terms of making false statements than Clinton is? Is it going to be because it doesn't say what you'd like to believe?

Let's go ahead and look at the other side of the coin:

Hillary Clinton True or Mostly True: 51%

Donald Trump True ore Mostly True: 18%

Just keep kidding yourself and shooting the messenger.

How does politifact choose statements to evaluate? Just by whether or not readers send them to them? At the very least it would probably be better to evaluate based on the number of false statements and not the percentage.

In any case, I can actually believe Trump does lie more, but his lies are going to fool fewer people and are just going to dig himself into a deeper hole. And of course, I think JSO would agree Trump's lies are going to be more closely scrutinized by the media than Clinton's.

JohnStOnge wrote:Let's go ahead and look at the other side of the coin:

Hillary Clinton True or Mostly True: 51%

Donald Trump True ore Mostly True: 18%

Just keep kidding yourself and shooting the messenger.

They're both liars. Trump is more of an in-your-face, who gives a f*#k kind of liar so he's going to score worse on a fact checker. Hilary is much a more nuanced and evasive type of liar so her lies are harder to pin down. Trumps lies are frequently hyperbole and ego inflating while Hilary's have actually damaged the country and put peoples' lives at risk. Yes Trump outright lies more than Hilary but how would the scoring change if you weighted the impact of those lies?

Everybody Sucks 2016 Except Gary Johnson. No seriously, vote Gary Johnson.

UNI88 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Let's go ahead and look at the other side of the coin:

Hillary Clinton True or Mostly True: 51%

Donald Trump True ore Mostly True: 18%

Just keep kidding yourself and shooting the messenger.

They're both liars. Trump is more of an in-your-face, who gives a f*#k kind of liar so he's going to score worse on a fact checker. Hilary is much a more nuanced and evasive type of liar so her lies are harder to pin down. Trumps lies are frequently hyperbole and ego inflating while Hilary's have actually damaged the country and put peoples' lives at risk. Yes Trump outright lies more than Hilary but how would the scoring change if you weighted the impact of those lies?

Everybody Sucks 2016 Except Gary Johnson. No seriously, vote Gary Johnson.

QFT

Trumps lies are equated with GHillary's lies on a one to one basis.



Hillary lies, people die.

Trump lies, someone gets their panties in a bunch.

But yeah, they are equal.

Pwns wrote:How does politifact choose statements to evaluate?

That is a fair question and the answer is in the discussion at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... h-o-meter/.

Choosing claims to check

Every day, PolitiFact and PunditFact staffers look for statements that can be checked. We comb through speeches, news stories, press releases, campaign brochures, TV ads, Facebook postings and transcripts of TV and radio interviews. Because we can't possibly check all claims, we select the most newsworthy and significant ones.

In deciding which statements to check, we ask ourselves these questions:

Is the statement rooted in a fact that is verifiable? We don’t check opinions, and we recognize that in the world of speechmaking and political rhetoric, there is license for hyperbole.

Is the statement leaving a particular impression that may be misleading?

Is the statement significant? We avoid minor "gotchas" on claims that obviously represent a slip of the tongue.

Is the statement likely to be passed on and repeated by others?

Would a typical person hear or read the statement and wonder: Is that true?

That is not a perfect process. Frankly, I think a perfect process in this area would be very difficult to design. But there's the description.

For sure I don't think we should be dismissing the results simply because they don't tell us what we want to hear. And I think when you see the unprecedented frequency of false statements on Trump's part you have to be exercising a pretty good bit of bias yourself to dismiss it. Especially since all you have to do is watch him yourself while paying attention and know he says stuff that has no relationship to reality all the time.

JohnStOnge wrote:
That is not a perfect process. Frankly, I think a perfect process in this area would be very difficult to design. But there's the description.

For sure I don't think we should be dismissing the results simply because they don't tell us what we want to hear. And I think when you see the unprecedented frequency of false statements on Trump's part you have to be exercising a pretty good bit of bias yourself to dismiss it. Especially since all you have to do is watch him yourself while paying attention and know he says stuff that has no relationship to reality all the time.

"Because we can't possibly check all claims, we select the most newsworthy and significant ones."



And there you have it.

Who selects what is newsworthy? People want to know what color underwear Kim Kardashian is wearing...and that is considered newsworthy.

And, of course, they don't rate the IMPORTANCE of each lie, or how those lies impact our nation.

But yeah, JSO, you've found a site that caters to what you want to hear. It admits it has a non-scientific way of choosing what to research...and it is clear that they do not consider the impact of any particular lie...but they say Trump is the bigger liar.

Again, you've become what you hate.

Cluck U wrote:[
"Because we can't possibly check all claims, we select the most newsworthy and significant ones."



And there you have it.

Who selects what is newsworthy? People want to know what color underwear Kim Kardashian is wearing...and that is considered newsworthy.

And, of course, they don't rate the IMPORTANCE of each lie, or how those lies impact our nation.

But yeah, JSO, you've found a site that caters to what you want to hear. It admits it has a non-scientific way of choosing what to research...and it is clear that they do not consider the impact of any particular lie...but they say Trump is the bigger liar.

Again, you've become what you hate.

They've selected more Hillary statements to look at than Trump statements.

I think that if Politifact was reporting that Hillary Clinton lies a lot more than Trump does you'd be all for Politifact. The problem for you is that it's reporting that Trump lies a lot more than Clinton does and you're for Trump. So you're trying to dismiss it. It's not about Politifact per se. It's about Politifact's reporting not being consistent with what you want to believe.

But that's how it is with Trump supporters. There's a Cult of Personality thing going on that's even worse than the one associated with Obama in the previous elections. Trump supporters have no interest in reality. If they did they wouldn't be Trump supporters.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Cluck U wrote:[
"Because we can't possibly check all claims, we select the most newsworthy and significant ones."



And there you have it.

Who selects what is newsworthy? People want to know what color underwear Kim Kardashian is wearing...and that is considered newsworthy.

And, of course, they don't rate the IMPORTANCE of each lie, or how those lies impact our nation.

But yeah, JSO, you've found a site that caters to what you want to hear. It admits it has a non-scientific way of choosing what to research...and it is clear that they do not consider the impact of any particular lie...but they say Trump is the bigger liar.

Again, you've become what you hate.

They've selected more Hillary statements to look at than Trump statements.

I think that if Politifact was reporting that Hillary Clinton lies a lot more than Trump does you'd be all for Politifact. The problem for you is that it's reporting that Trump lies a lot more than Clinton does and you're for Trump. So you're trying to dismiss it. It's not about Politifact per se. It's about Politifact's reporting not being consistent with what you want to believe.

But that's how it is with Trump supporters. There's a Cult of Personality thing going on that's even worse than the one associated with Obama in the previous elections. Trump supporters have no interest in reality. If they did they wouldn't be Trump supporters.

John, I don't like Trump. I think he's a charlatan, con artist and absolutely horrendous candidate. My problem is that I don't think Hilary is necessarily any better than Trump. That's why I'm not voting for either one of nutjobs.

JohnStOnge wrote:
They've selected more Hillary statements to look at than Trump statements.

I think that if Politifact was reporting that Hillary Clinton lies a lot more than Trump does you'd be all for Politifact. The problem for you is that it's reporting that Trump lies a lot more than Clinton does and you're for Trump. So you're trying to dismiss it. It's not about Politifact per se. It's about Politifact's reporting not being consistent with what you want to believe.

But that's how it is with Trump supporters. There's a Cult of Personality thing going on that's even worse than the one associated with Obama in the previous elections. Trump supporters have no interest in reality. If they did they wouldn't be Trump supporters.

I've been aware of Politifact for a while, JSO...and they have always been biased.

So, once again, you manufactured a false statement. You are getting very good at imitating Hillary's behavior and the behavior of those who you claim are bad for our country.

Furthermore, for someone who preaches that value of scientific methods, your statement about the number of statements reviewed is a poor method of gauging the accuracy of whom to call the bigger liar. You, above all, should know that. But, again, you have become what you rage against.

UNI88 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Let's go ahead and look at the other side of the coin:

Hillary Clinton True or Mostly True: 51%

Donald Trump True ore Mostly True: 18%

Just keep kidding yourself and shooting the messenger.

They're both liars. Trump is more of an in-your-face, who gives a f*#k kind of liar so he's going to score worse on a fact checker. Hilary is much a more nuanced and evasive type of liar so her lies are harder to pin down. Trumps lies are frequently hyperbole and ego inflating while Hilary's have actually damaged the country and put peoples' lives at risk. Yes Trump outright lies more than Hilary but how would the scoring change if you weighted the impact of those lies?

Everybody Sucks 2016 Except Gary Johnson. No seriously, vote Gary Johnson.

Let's assume the only time the Dallas shooter ever broke the law was during his shooting spree, and we're comparing him to someone who goes 3 mph over the speed limit every work day during his commute down the interstate to work. It seems JSO would say the commuter is a bigger criminal than the Dallas shooter.

Skjellyfetti wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... email-def/




But, let's be real. Both of them are ego-maniacal lying sacks of ****.

I find you to be less repellent when you agree with me.

catbooster wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
They're both liars. Trump is more of an in-your-face, who gives a f*#k kind of liar so he's going to score worse on a fact checker. Hilary is much a more nuanced and evasive type of liar so her lies are harder to pin down. Trumps lies are frequently hyperbole and ego inflating while Hilary's have actually damaged the country and put peoples' lives at risk. Yes Trump outright lies more than Hilary but how would the scoring change if you weighted the impact of those lies?

Everybody Sucks 2016 Except Gary Johnson. No seriously, vote Gary Johnson.

Let's assume the only time the Dallas shooter ever broke the law was during his shooting spree, and we're comparing him to someone who goes 3 mph over the speed limit every work day during his commute down the interstate to work. It seems JSO would say the commuter is a bigger criminal than the Dallas shooter.

catbooster wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
They're both liars. Trump is more of an in-your-face, who gives a f*#k kind of liar so he's going to score worse on a fact checker. Hilary is much a more nuanced and evasive type of liar so her lies are harder to pin down. Trumps lies are frequently hyperbole and ego inflating while Hilary's have actually damaged the country and put peoples' lives at risk. Yes Trump outright lies more than Hilary but how would the scoring change if you weighted the impact of those lies?

Everybody Sucks 2016 Except Gary Johnson. No seriously, vote Gary Johnson.

Let's assume the only time the Dallas shooter ever broke the law was during his shooting spree, and we're comparing him to someone who goes 3 mph over the speed limit every work day during his commute down the interstate to work. It seems JSO would say the commuter is a bigger criminal than the Dallas shooter.

Well done.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Baldy wrote: Leave it to the stoic conservative JSO to put his trust in a far left wing "unbiased" fact finding website to validate his support for The Hildabeast.

You can't make this **** up.

What's your basis for saying Politifact is "left wing?"

Is your basis going to be because it indicates that Trump is a lot worse in terms of making false statements than Clinton is? Is it going to be because it doesn't say what you'd like to believe?

On the basis of who funds them, and who they receive grants from. It's like a Who's Who of far left wing money launderers.

Or you can check read this article from a couple of years ago in the US News & World Report:

Who’s Checking the Fact Checkers?

Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

"Republicans see a credibility gap in the Obama Administration," said Dr. Robert S. Lichter, head of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. "PolitiFact rates Republicans as the less credible party."

As the first person to empirically demonstrate the liberal, pro-Democrat bias in the Washington press corps, Lichter's analysis is worth further study and comment. His study – and in the interests of full disclosure, he was once a professor of mine at the George Washington University - "examined 100 statements involving factual claims by Democrats (46 claims) and Republicans (54 claims), which were fact-checked by PolitiFact.com during the four month period from the start of President Obama's second term on January 20 through May 22, 2013." The conclusion: Republicans lie more.

Cluck U wrote:
I've been aware of Politifact for a while, JSO...and they have always been biased.

What is your basis for saying that?

Furthermore, for someone who preaches that value of scientific methods, your statement about the number of statements reviewed is a poor method of gauging the accuracy of whom to call the bigger liar. You, above all, should know that. But, again, you have become what you rage against.

I wrote that their process is not perfect. If you really wanted to make absolutely sure you would review ever single statement of "fact" that each candidate made or you would take a probability sample of them and evaluate that.

But it's fairly understandable that Politifact does not attempt to do that. They do try to just select statements that they think are "important." That can introduce some bias.

But it's not remotely close. To me you have to be REALLY clinging to just not wanting to believe Trump makes inaccurate statements more often than Clinton does to think otherwise.

Now, as I've said before: Inaccurate statement does not necessarily mean lie. An inaccurate statement could just be ignorant. But I don't know if that's any more of a comfort given the magnitude of the difference in terms of the frequency of inaccurate statements.

He's either a liar or he's a complete idiot.