Truthiness

21 comments on “Truthiness ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Magisterium 1

   14 December 2015 at 1:20 pm

   The person who has told the truth the most consistently: Bill Clinton

   #lol
   • Atiawa 1.1

     14 December 2015 at 2:19 pm

     Makes sense. Nobody believed his greatest lie, “I never had ……. “.
     He’s being in damage control ever since.
2. Draco T Bastard 2

   14 December 2015 at 1:31 pm

   Not surprising then to find that those on the right are the ones that tell the most lies.
3. McFlock 3

   14 December 2015 at 1:53 pm

   It really shows the different strategies. A certain amount of “point of view” or leeway for simplifying points for sake of general accuracy and communication is in order, but the real tell is in the “mostly” and farther extremes.

   Carson flails about, but Trump really just throws dead cats all over the place. Meanwhile the democrats largely still base their positions somewhere in fact.
4. sweetd 4

   14 December 2015 at 2:00 pm

   yes, Hillary is very truthy.

   http://freebeacon.com/blog/7-years-ago-today-hillary-said-she-came-under-sniper-fire-in-bosnia-was-called-out-by-sinbad/

   “I remember landing under sniper fire,” Clinton said during a George Washington University campaign event on March 17, 2008. “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

   Clinton added that the feeling in the White House at the time of her visit was “if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the First Lady.”

   Clinton’s claim was found to be false. The Washington Post noted that “a review of more than 100 news stories from the time documented no security threats to the First Lady.”
   • McFlock 4.1

     14 December 2015 at 2:10 pm

     You misunderstand the graphic. Both Clintons have told lies. The point of the Graphic is that, on balance, there’s a narrow but positive probability that whatever Clinton or Sanders say has some measure of fact behind it.

     If a leading republican says it, it’s probably a lie.
     • You_Fool 4.1.1

       14 December 2015 at 2:25 pm

       Don’t ruin his nice worldview by bringing reality into it, I mean look Left wingers lie, it is a known fact (1) and right wingers just want you to realise that as their fav’s are just mistaken (2)

       (1) and by known fact I mean it happens now and then because, well, they are human and stuff so everyone lies occasionally right?

       (2) Lying would imply they know what they are talking about and have made a conscious decision to deceive. Those above Jeb Bush are just innocent bystanders in the war against PC’ness gone mad godless children hating terrorists.
     • sweetd 4.1.2

       14 December 2015 at 2:34 pm

       McFlock

       I understand the graphic. I am very surprised with the rating that Hillary apparently has. She is currently under going an FBI investigation into deleted emails.
       • Sacha 4.1.2.1

         14 December 2015 at 2:47 pm

         It’s based on public statements, not on actions. Imagine where Cheney and co might rate if that was included.
       • McFlock 4.1.2.2

         14 December 2015 at 5:08 pm

         The fact that you responded to the graphic (that summarizes a collection of statements by clinton) by bringing up one statement she made suggests that you did not understand the graphic.
         • sweetd 4.1.2.2.1

           14 December 2015 at 5:58 pm

           Understand yes, believe no. HumPrac below expands on the cherry picking of facts to be checked.

           The fact that you responded to me when I said I understood the graphic suggests you have difficulty with comprehension.
           • McFlock 4.1.2.2.1.1

             14 December 2015 at 6:32 pm

             Oh, I comprehended what you wrote.
             I just didn’t believe it.

             My reason was that your previous comment was completely irrelevant to the content of the post. I did credit you with merely being stupid, rather than trying to derail a thread with irrelevancies simply because you didn’t like the facts in the post.
       • miravox 4.1.2.3

         14 December 2015 at 9:06 pm

         “Understand the graphic”

         The you understand that the one about landing under fire is in that icky browny-coloured bar on the left and included in the “28” percent figure next to it.

         So I’m not sure of the point you’re trying to make (hmm… I might be a bit untruthy here).
     • Magisterium 4.1.3

       14 December 2015 at 2:50 pm

       It’s there in “grey and white”: the politician most likely to have said something that is 100% true is Bill Clinton.
       • Colonial Viper 4.1.3.1

         14 December 2015 at 2:59 pm

         Clinton who screwed the American working class with NAFTA, and who gutted the US welfare system.
       • McFlock 4.1.3.2

         14 December 2015 at 5:13 pm

         And yet any statement by him is 50% likely to be half true or even completely false.

         Sanders and Hillary are the only ones able to say that, on the balance of probabilities, any statement they make can be regarded as reasonably reliable.
5. HumPrac 5

   14 December 2015 at 2:47 pm

   In the source link it says “We don’t check absolutely everything a candidate says, but focus on WHAT CATCHES OUR EYE”
   Cherry picking information equates to truthfulness does it. That methodology is absurd.
   Also, the article is clearly focused on bias against Trump. It states that trump was lying about a particular thing simply because “he would have said it before, if it was true”. What a narrow-minded way of thinking.

   (This is not directed at “NOTICED AND FEATURES” staff writer)
   • Bob 5.1

     14 December 2015 at 3:13 pm

     “What a narrow-minded way of thinking”
     Haha, that is the first time I have heard that said in defense of Trump rather than about him!
6. Once was Tim 6

   14 December 2015 at 4:59 pm

   Except that all of it should be considered in the context of a left-right pendulum swing (and realising that the A-R axis is becoming more and more meaningless (unless of course you measure the right’s propensity towards authoritarian/totalitarianism, and the left’s lost generally wondering where the fuck they should represent themselves)
   We should never forget that the pendulum has swung so far right that once-were-moderate are now considered ‘hard left’, and the centre right border on the fascist – all legitimised by the masses having swallowed the religion of neo-liberalism.

   These labels: conservative, liberal, right, left, are actually quite meaningless in recent times.

   What now convinces me of that is because the likes of a Kitteridge, or one or two others who were once ‘moderate, semi-liberal, but at least half-decent people’ have succumbed to the fascist, and have now found ways in which they legitimise their various position(s).
   (Unfortunately – most times it comes down to personal ambition, sometimes fear, often ego. Una Jagose FFS! Now there goes a scarecrow in a zook suit that requires very little explanation, but I suppose we should try our best to do so).
   I mean once there was a Rosemary McLeod – the babyboomers hippiesters mate – look at her now (in sympathy)
   …… actually, I think I shouldn’t say more except that I just look on at many of my contemporaries and wonder HOW ….. and WHY ?????
   Then I consider their debt, their ambition, their career paths, how they define themselves by their various ‘titles’ – and often it becomes clear.
   I guess mum and dad never did explain to them the meaning of ‘principle’
7. In Vino 7

   14 December 2015 at 6:28 pm

   Once was Tim I agree – all very sad.
8. Incognito 8

   14 December 2015 at 10:59 pm

   How ironic that an article by a ‘political fact-checker’ is laden with imprecise language and ambiguous statements. For example, a lie is a deliberately inaccurate statement but an inaccurate statement is not necessarily a lie. Perhaps the author relied too much on her ‘authority’ and her own ‘stipulative’ assertions? I’d highly recommend to her reading the excellent piece by Rowan Williams in the Guardian that was mentioned in today’s OM.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS