• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Factchecking the second presidential debate

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
59,157
Reaction score
50,747
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Clinton: Trump 'an absolute avalanche of falsehoods' | PolitiFact

Trump: 16% of checked claims true or mostly true; 53% of claims false or "pants on fire"
Clinton: 51% of checked claims true or mostly true; 14% of claims false or "pants on fire"

This was the most compact factchecking summary I saw. Factcheck.org's was much longer, and NPR literally fact-checked the transcript word for word.

(Inb4 ridiculous claims of a "left-wing bias" by Politifact.)
 
Well, politifact is left wing. :shrug:
 
Well, politifact is left wing. :shrug:

Does the right wing have a fact check website? If so, why don't you post it so we can compare where they differ?
 
Clinton: Trump 'an absolute avalanche of falsehoods' | PolitiFact

Trump: 16% of checked claims true or mostly true; 53% of claims false or "pants on fire"
Clinton: 51% of checked claims true or mostly true; 14% of claims false or "pants on fire"

This was the most compact factchecking summary I saw. Factcheck.org's was much longer, and NPR literally fact-checked the transcript word for word.

(Inb4 ridiculous claims of a "left-wing bias" by Politifact.)

Why should anyone believe PolitiFact is more reliable than any other media source?

They seem to determine "Truth" based on their own opinion. For example:

Donald Trump: Says Hillary Clinton "viciously" attacked women abused by Bill Clinton. [Ruled Mostly False.]

Donald Trump: Says after Hillary Clinton helped a man accused of raping a 12-year-old, "she's seen laughing on two separate occasions, laughing at the girl who was raped." [Ruled False.]

Hillary Clinton's file | PolitiFact

Both of these issues are clearly matters of opinion when it comes to how she handled women who alleged Bill did something, and how to interpret her laughter during that interview about the rape defense; not fact.

Sooo...if they advance positions of "truth" in regards to opinion why should they be considered a disinterested source for either side? Just saying. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
"Facts are facts"

But it's really about perceptions from here on in, I think.
 
Derp! I goofed on the OP. I overlooked one very critical detail: That sample of claims was over the entire presidential election so far, not just last night's debate. If my count is correct, Politifact's breakdown from that is as follows: Fact-checking the second presidential debate | PolitiFact

Trump: 26% of checked claims true or mostly true; 53% of claims false or "pants on fire"
Clinton: 63% of checked claims true or mostly true; 13% of claims false or "pants on fire"

It is interesting to note that my oversight did not move the numbers that much, especially both candidates' "false" or "pants on fire" ratings. So I think it's safe to say that the OP "is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context"--the precise definition of Politifact's Half-True.
 
Why should anyone believe PolitiFact is more reliable than any other media source?

They seem to determine "Truth" based on their own opinion. For example:





Hillary Clinton's file | PolitiFact

Both of these issues are clearly matters of opinion when it comes to how she handled women who alleged Bill did something, and how to interpret her laughter during that interview about the rape defense; not fact.

Sooo...if they advance positions of "truth" in regards to opinion why should they be considered a disinterested source for either side? Just saying. :coffeepap:

Like I said, I predicted this kind of response in the OP. Reality does have a left-wing bias--and there's nothing half-true about that!
 
Like I said, I predicted this kind of response in the OP. Reality does have a left-wing bias--and there's nothing half-true about that!

Hmm, guess you missed this part of my reply:

Sooo...if they advance positions of "truth" in regards to opinion why should they be considered a disinterested source for either side? Just saying. :coffeepap:

I don't quote them against Hillary either. I prefer to form my own opinions based on personal examination of the available data. :shrug:

"Facts are facts"

But it's really about perceptions from here on in, I think.

Facts are Facts when it comes to scientific issues...like the Sun rising in the east, or how fast it take light to travel a certain distance.

When it comes to political statements? It depends on whether or not all the information is available about that statement, and then how it is perceived.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, guess you missed this part of my reply:

I don't quote them against Hillary either. I prefer to form my own opinions based on personal examination of the available data. :shrug:

The thing is, CA, truth doesn't get to decide which side conforms to it more than the other. It just is truth. And it's not biased to say as such. If Candidate A lies less than 15% of the time and Candidate B lies half the time, then A deserves a lot more scrutiny for lying than A does.
 
The thing is, CA, truth doesn't get to decide which side conforms to it more than the other. It just is truth. And it's not biased to say as such. If Candidate A lies less than 15% of the time and Candidate B lies half the time, then A deserves a lot more scrutiny for lying than A does.

Well, my point is about the basis for the "Truth vs. Lie" position when dealing with issues expressed as a political statement.

Many people would look at Hillary's actions vis a vis the women who accused her husband of sexual misdeeds as vicious attacks. Others, like yourself might believe it isn't so bad.

Many people might believe that Hillary's deletion and then scrubbing those deleted files while claiming they were innocuous personal data somewhat suspect, when an examination of them by any investigating authority would have been able to rule them innocuous without any harm coming to her reputation. Others, like yourself might believe it isn't so bad.

Truth is apparently in the eye of the beholder in such matters, wouldn't you agree? :unsure13:
 
Last edited:
14590349_517965881740384_9008552610393483457_n.jpg
 
Why should anyone believe PolitiFact is more reliable than any other media source?

They seem to determine "Truth" based on their own opinion. For example:





Hillary Clinton's file | PolitiFact

Both of these issues are clearly matters of opinion when it comes to how she handled women who alleged Bill did something, and how to interpret her laughter during that interview about the rape defense; not fact.

Sooo...if they advance positions of "truth" in regards to opinion why should they be considered a disinterested source for either side? Just saying. :coffeepap:

No..it's not PolitiFacts opinion...its yours. The claims made by each of the candidates are checked to see if they are based on credible and verifiable evidence. But even without a factcheck you'd have to be extremely partisan not to see that Trump tells a lot more lies than Clinton.

Trump: 16% of checked claims true or mostly true; 53% of claims false or "pants on fire"
Clinton: 51% of checked claims true or mostly true; 14% of claims false or "pants on fire"
 
Why should anyone believe PolitiFact is more reliable than any other media source?

They seem to determine "Truth" based on their own opinion. For example:





Hillary Clinton's file | PolitiFact

Both of these issues are clearly matters of opinion when it comes to how she handled women who alleged Bill did something, and how to interpret her laughter during that interview about the rape defense; not fact.

Sooo...if they advance positions of "truth" in regards to opinion why should they be considered a disinterested source for either side? Just saying. :coffeepap:

Those aren't matters of opinion. Words like "vicious" and "at" have meaning. Perhaps you should refer to a dictionary.
 
Hmm, guess you missed this part of my reply:



I don't quote them against Hillary either. I prefer to form my own opinions based on personal examination of the available data. :shrug:



Facts are Facts when it comes to scientific issues...like the Sun rising in the east, or how fast it take light to travel a certain distance.

When it comes to political statements? It depends on whether or not all the information is available about that statement, and then how it is perceived.

You're free to take your personal impressions and opinions as though they are facts but nobody else is compelled to agree with you.
 
No..it's not PolitiFacts opinion...its yours. The claims made by each of the candidates are checked to see if they are based on credible and verifiable evidence. But even without a factcheck you'd have to be extremely partisan not to see that Trump tells a lot more lies than Clinton.

Trump: 16% of checked claims true or mostly true; 53% of claims false or "pants on fire"
Clinton: 51% of checked claims true or mostly true; 14% of claims false or "pants on fire"

You are a Hillary supporter so as long as the media build her up, then of course you are going to agree with whatever makes her look good and her opponent look bad.

But the FACT is, both those items I listed are opinion based.

I can think from what I've seen of Hillary's actions that she was violently aggressive. It does not make it more or less true "factually." It is just an opinion.

You, and "PolitiFact" can opt to disagree and argue why, but that does not make it FACTUALLY truer either.

Those aren't matters of opinion. Words like "vicious" and "at" have meaning. Perhaps you should refer to a dictionary.

You're free to take your personal impressions and opinions as though they are facts but nobody else is compelled to agree with you.

Your linguistic claim is meaningless. Words do have a meaning with a wide scope of usage. One person can consider having a finger poked repeatedly in their chest to emphasize a point as violent, while another might simply consider it annoying.

I am not taking my "opinions and impressions" as facts. I am stating the reverse, that opinions are being evaluated and the evaluations being presented as "facts."

Thus, from what I've seen of their "factual evaluations" I consider PolitiFact only slightly more reliable than your typical media agency, albeit more reliable than any extremist media agency.

That does not make it's "statistics on truth" an argument ender by any means.
 
Your linguistic claim is meaningless. Words do have a meaning with a wide scope of usage. One person can consider having a finger poked repeatedly in their chest to emphasize a point as violent, while another might simply consider it annoying.

I am not taking my "opinions and impressions" as facts. I am stating the reverse, that opinions are being evaluated and the evaluations being presented as "facts."

Thus, from what I've seen of their "factual evaluations" I consider PolitiFact only slightly more reliable than your typical media agency, albeit more reliable than any extremist media agency.

That does not make it's "statistics on truth" an argument ender by any means.

Your argument is, essentially, that everything is a matter of opinion and there are no facts.

This is an erroneous view. There are things that are facts.

There is no valid scope of usage of the word "vicious" that can be accurately used to describe Hillary's presentation against President Clinton's accusers. The undesirability of fact is independent of its truth.
 
You are a Hillary supporter so as long as the media build her up, then of course you are going to agree with whatever makes her look good and her opponent look bad.

But the FACT is, both those items I listed are opinion based.

I can think from what I've seen of Hillary's actions that she was violently aggressive. It does not make it more or less true "factually." It is just an opinion.

You, and "PolitiFact" can opt to disagree and argue why, but that does not make it FACTUALLY truer either.





Your linguistic claim is meaningless. Words do have a meaning with a wide scope of usage. One person can consider having a finger poked repeatedly in their chest to emphasize a point as violent, while another might simply consider it annoying.

I am not taking my "opinions and impressions" as facts. I am stating the reverse, that opinions are being evaluated and the evaluations being presented as "facts."

Thus, from what I've seen of their "factual evaluations" I consider PolitiFact only slightly more reliable than your typical media agency, albeit more reliable than any extremist media agency.

That does not make it's "statistics on truth" an argument ender by any means.

This isn't about me or the media...it's about the candidate's own claims and whether they are true or false. Their claims are checked against factual, credible and verifiable evidence and if it doesn't check out...then they get a pants on fire. It's pretty straight forward.

BTW...the right wing are not entitled to their own set of facts.
 
Your argument is, essentially, that everything is a matter of opinion and there are no facts.

This is an erroneous view. There are things that are facts.

There is no valid scope of usage of the word "vicious" that can be accurately used to describe Hillary's presentation against President Clinton's accusers. The undesirability of fact is independent of its truth.

No, no, no. no! Don't try that crap.

There are many things that are provable facts. Like how fast it takes unimpeded light to travel certain distance. What my exact age is at any moment in time. Was a bullet fired from a certain gun.

But when it comes to linguistic nuances? Things are not quite as clear. Facts are inarguable, opinions can be argued till doomsday.
 
No..it's not PolitiFacts opinion...its yours. The claims made by each of the candidates are checked to see if they are based on credible and verifiable evidence. But even without a factcheck you'd have to be extremely partisan not to see that Trump tells a lot more lies than Clinton.

Trump: 16% of checked claims true or mostly true; 53% of claims false or "pants on fire"
Clinton: 51% of checked claims true or mostly true; 14% of claims false or "pants on fire"

Deep breath, can't believe I actually having to point this out, but you can't fact check a comment like she viciously attacked Bill's accusers, why because what one says is viscous another may not agree, now if they were to repeat exactly what she said from any context and she claimed that is not correct she never said that, then obviously this could be fact checked and she would be lying. Many of the things they factcheck Trump on, are statements that he has previously made that he now claims he did not. Regardless of whether he or anyone else thinks that they were taken out of context they were still said so to deny them having been said equals a lie.
 
Deep breath, can't believe I actually having to point this out, but you can't fact check a comment like she viciously attacked Bill's accusers, why because what one says is viscous another may not agree, now if they were to repeat exactly what she said from any context and she claimed that is not correct she never said that, then obviously this could be fact checked and she would be lying. Many of the things they factcheck Trump on, are statements that he has previously made that he now claims he did not. Regardless of whether he or anyone else thinks that they were taken out of context they were still said so to deny them having been said equals a lie.

Politifact checks to see whether or not the candidates "claims of fact" are indeed really based on facts or just fabrications based on hearsay, inuendo, misinformation...or a lie. Geez, I can't believe I have to explain that to anyone let alone you.

It's not the adjective "viciousness" that is in dispute....it's whether or not Clinton did in fact attack Bill's accusers. Either she did..or she didn't. If she did, then there should be verifiable evidence..and if there isn't any then it's probably a "pants on fire" lie. Or if truth is somewhere in between...then it's a half truth on the meter. It's really not that difficult to understand if you try.
 
Back
Top Bottom