Trump explained - because you all are blind

[Synobun]

I just don't know. It feels different from the ACA mess. This feels like a real opportunity to pass legislation with 60 votes. Isn't six months enough time? If Congress liked Obama's system, they could just vote to institute it.

The only reason something like this couldn't pass under Obama was that the entire Republican party was nutbar partisan. But it's certainly popular enough to get done.

The ACA fix was doomed. The nutbar contingent got the first bite at high profile legislation. They got slapped down

Sure, and I hope Congress pulls through. DACA should be formalized in some shape or form.

But this is explicitly a scenario where Congress would be pulling through in spite of Trump. He will take credit for whatever gets done even though he played no part in it except throwing the aforementioned grenade into the room.

You cannot create a problem and then pat yourself on the back when other people fix the problem you created. You also certainly can't claim benevolence or compassion on your part while doing this. You need to contribute, and creating a problem isn't contributing.

 

[ThERat]

Being the evil person that I am, I am watching with bemusement how the USA manages to alienate more and more people. I was often bewildered what glory lots of people saw in the "Land of the free".

The only real worry I have is that this maniac needs to start a nuclear war to turn attention away from his imploding internal politics. I do hope that some sane mind will end this before he 'pushes the red button', though my hope in someone sane among the republicans is fading fast.

 

[bernie14]

800,000 people who grew up in America, who graduated from high school, who've never once been in trouble with the law, and who are willing to work hard to give back to thhe country that raised them, are due to be deported. Bwahahahaha!

Trump is a mad man! A maaaaad maaaaaaaaaaan! imho

so…"let me just explain for those who are unfamiliar with this issue"…..

pants on fire???...i mean, who doesn't enjoy a light brownish creamy/chunky paste between a couple of slices of bread?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ah, we're comparing ... lets compare. Where did I hear the term pants on fire before?

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Trump: false + pants on fire = 216
Obama: false + pants on fire = 80

And these are absolute numbers. Trump is only getting started. Obama took 8 years for 80. 10 each year.

49% of what Obama said was true of mostly true. That's below 50% and is really bad. Just 1 in 2 things Obama said. Trump achieves a whopping 17%. 1 in 6 things the man said is true.

Cue: politifact is a liberal biased partisan organisation because the numbers are detrimental to my world view.

 

[Ryika]

I think it's pretty obvious that Trump lies more than Obama, but sorry, Politifact handpicks the claims they check, that already makes those statistics entirely useless.

 

[Zkribbler]

... entirely useless.

You wish.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Fake statistics!

 

[Ryika]

You wish.

I guess "entirely useless" is an overstatement, it shows that of the things Politifact has checked, Trump and Obama have, within the framework that Politifact uses to determine if statements are true or false, been true or false this amount of time.

It is useless as a tool to objectively determine how often both politicians lie, unless you think the people at Politifact are somehow free of personal, political biases.

But again, I think it's obvious Trump clearly does more often than Obama, it just doesn't change that these statistics are not a valid measurement for that.

Fake statistics!

Ah yes, because that's totally what I said.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ah yes, because that's totally what I said.

Is "Cherry picked data that makes the statistic entirely useless" that different from "Fake statistics"? Above you admit that was an overstatement, so ... my comment is already obsolete

And it was just a minor quip.

 

[Synobun]

If there is a competing source that isn't just the rantings of a far-right YouTube personality who also features videos about frogs being turned gay and how the Clintons are really reptilians, then I am certain that most people here would be interested in seeing it.

As it stands, Politifact possesses the best reputation for aggregated stats like Ziggy provided. Is there another site that tells a different story? Please provide it if so.

 

[Ryika]

Is "Cherry picked data that makes the statistic entirely useless" that different from "Fake statistics"? Above you admit that was an overstatement, so ... my comment is already obsolete

And it was just a minor quip.

I'm not accusing them of "cherry-picking data", all I'm saying is that their data is not drawn randomly and thus their statistics cannot be used as statistical facts the way you used them in your post. I think their statistics are somewhat representative of the overall picture (imho probably with a slight bias against Trump as everything he says is being weighted, while a lot of minor lies or errors Obama made may have fallen under the rugs - but that's again just assumptions on my part), but citing their numbers as statistical truths (-> "49% of what Obama said was true of mostly true. That's below 50% and is really bad. Just 1 in 2 things Obama said. Trump achieves a whopping 17%. 1 in 6 things the man said is true.") is just completely out of the scope of what you can reasonably do with that data set.

If there is a competing source that isn't just the rantings of a far-right YouTube personality who also features videos about frogs being turned gay and how the Clintons are really reptilians, then I am certain that most people here would be interested in seeing it.

As it stands, Politifact possesses the best reputation for aggregated stats like Ziggy provided. Is there another site that tells a different story? Please provide it if so.

My above response also mostly applies to you, as this is just a really stupid argument. Data doesn't become "correct" just because its the best data we have available. The limitations of that data must still be noted.

 

[Synobun]

My above response also mostly applies to you, as this is just a really stupid argument. Data doesn't become "correct" just because its the best data we have available. The limitations of that data must still be noted.

I don't recall calling it correct. I recall asking you to provide a competing source if you are so sure that Politifact is a corrupt source. For the most part what Politifact asserts about lies between Trump/Obama can be verified with the eye test, and you can probably find links to each lie/truth if you're so inclined. You even said that you agree with the overarching claim the stats make so it doesn't really seem like you're bringing forth an actual argument to this conversation. You're just being contrarian for the fun of it.

 

[Ryika]

I recall asking you to provide a competing source if you are so sure that Politifact is a corrupt source. For the most part what Politifact asserts about lies between Trump/Obama can be verified with the eye test, and you can probably find links to each lie/truth if you're so inclined.

Am I really that bad at getting the problem across, or do you just not read what I said?

I'm not claiming Politifact is a "corrupt source", I'm not saying they do a bad job at asserting what is a lie and what isn't, I'm saying that because they select the facts that they want to check, it's not a good source for statistics on how many things Trump and Obama say or did not say are true. That's not hard to understand, it's a method that is simply not viable to give us the kind of statistical numbers that people pretend these are.

That, and of course Politifacts framework has some limitations. If a politician says: "Women are paid 77c for each dollar a man earns, and it is our job to stop this discrimination!.", then that's rated as "mostly true", on the basis that yes, statistically that's true. Of course in the article Politifact will then note that it is not clear how much of that difference is due to discrimination and how much is due to different choices, and they'll generally do a good job getting that problem with the argument across, but in the statistics, it will still just be a "mostly true", although the argument that was made by the politician was clearly built on a lie, because they made it seem that everything is discrimination. But because they refute the claim "77c for each dollar a man earns", not the intention of the politician, it's "mostly true".

 

[Synobun]

Mostly true statistics are mostly true. Gotcha.

 

[Ryika]

Yes, keep playing dumb and I might actually start believing you.

Also, great way to ignore the rest of the argument and just make a dumb comment instead, you're a good example of an A-Class moderator.

Moderator Action: This is a great way to show off how not to behave. Always address the post and not the poster. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Synobun]

Yes, keep playing dumb and I might actually start believing you.

Also, great way to ignore the rest of the argument and just make a dumb comment instead, you're a good example of an A-Class moderator.

Is it a dumb comment? You specifically stated that the statistics are mostly true and that Politifact doesn't do the best job it can because it refutes statistics instead of vague intentions. What I said doesn't disagree with what you said.

Furthermore, since we're discussing Politifact's tallying of what is a lie and what is a truth between two contested politicians, the 'intentions' are mostly irrelevant. Was it a truth or was it a lie? Their truth-o-meter is very clear on how it judges this. The politician makes a definitive claim and the truth-o-meter establishes the validity of the claim with a simple statement that everyone is welcome to verify themselves. If you don't want to research each and every single claim manually, you're welcome to read their truth-o-meter articles yourself.

They aren't just pulling these lie/truth statistics out of thin air. Each one is backed up. Have they missed anything? Let them know. Did they get something wrong? Let them know.

Intentions don't matter. What you claim is either true or false. That's the name of the game. Politifact is doing its best to provide a tally for that game. Who does it better? Where are they going wrong?

 

[Ryika]

Is it a dumb comment? You specifically stated that the statistics are mostly true and that Politifact doesn't do the best job it can because it refutes statistics instead of vague intentions. What I said doesn't disagree with what you said.

This is again you misrepresenting what I said. I have not said "Politifact doesn't do the best job", I've said that the Framework of Politifact has some limitations, and that's entirely true. You seem to have drawn the conclusion that I am claiming that there's a limitation that makes it so their statistics on what is true or false are influenced, but no, I have not made such a claim, instead, I've made it very clear that it's an appendix to how useful these statistics are, because they simply do not tell the whole story.

Let me make a more obvious example that you can understand. Let's say a politician states:

"The Jews are among the richest of our society, and the wealth they're holding could be used for infrastructure. We shall execute them all!"

If Politifact were to judge that statement, and for the sake of the argument let's say, that first part is true, then they might very well go into explaining why we shouldn't actually execute all the jews, but for the statistics of that politician, that would still be a "mostly true".

If you can't see the limitation that I'm talking about even in this extreme example... well, then I'm sorry for you.

The rest of your post just builds on this false premise of yours, so I'll ignore it.

 

[Synobun]

My 'false premise' is built on the original discussion. Your pity is appreciated but ultimately ill-placed in this situation primarily because your example doesn't seem to have any relevance to the original discussion.

When it comes to these lies or truths, Politifact is not deliberating on the second sentence in your example. It is deliberating on the first sentence. Their ignoring of the second sentence for the statistics doesn't make the statistics 'entirely useless' (your words). The second sentence isn't a true or false claim. It is a personal claim. The truth-o-meter tackles definitive claims that can be verified or disproven by empirical evidence (or the lack of evidence).

This is not a limitation. It is doing exactly what it is meant to do. The truth-o-meter is not there to judge intentions or personal feelings. It is there to judge "x because of y" claims or sometimes just "x is true/false" claims. Things that are, well, true or false regardless of posturing. And again I reiterate that if you catch Politifact in a lie or feel they've missed something, you should contact them so they can improve their statistics.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

@Valessa,

mind that I'm responding to Bernie. It's a reaction to: "Oh yeah?! Well, Obama lied too!" My point was showing the difference in volume. Even after a significant margin of error is applied those statistics still underline that point.

 

[Ryika]

When it comes to these lies or truths, Politifact is not deliberating on the second sentence in your example.

And I never claimed it does, why Politifact's data collection does not translate into proper statistics about politicians, I had already explained after all.

@Valessa,

mind that I'm responding to Bernie. It's a reaction to: "Oh yeah?! Well, Obama lied too!" My point was showing the difference in volume. Even after a significant margin of error is applied those statistics still underline that point.

Sure, and I think that's fine. I don't have a problem with doing that as rough statistics, but you cited percentages and used them as if they were verified numbers. That's all I objected to.