AP FACT CHECK: Trump's speech doesn't skimp on exaggerations

[smilesammich 10,727]

4 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Have you ever considered that some people dislike Trump for completely other reasons? Perhaps they dislike him because they believe he's a despicable human being. Perhaps they dislike him because they believe he is and always was a criminal. Perhaps they dislike him because they believe he is attempting to damage something very valuable in the fabric of America.

 

Namely all the things that many said about other Presidents depending on the particular side you stand on.

pretty much sums it up for me. but it does leave out that he's a sexist/racist pig who actively used his wealth and power to shaft working people, back when he wasn't a politician..guess you could file that under despicable human.

[Dashinka 24,697]

15 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

your bias 

I believe I am on record as saying everyone has biases.  What else is new?

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

I believe I am on record as saying everyone has biases.  What else is new?

asking questions you don't actually want the answers to certainly isn't new.

[Dashinka 24,697]

12 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Have you ever considered that some people dislike Trump for completely other reasons? Perhaps they dislike him because they believe he's a despicable human being. Perhaps they dislike him because they believe he is and always was a criminal. Perhaps they dislike him because they believe he is attempting to damage something very valuable in the fabric of America.

 

Namely all the things that many said about other Presidents depending on the particular side you stand on.

I am sure that is what they tell themselves, but considering not a lot of people here on this board know Trump personally, how can that determination be made?  Sure there are a lot media reports out there, but there are also reports from truly Left Wing politicians that actually like him (Justin Trudeau).  Trump does things differently, that is certain, but who cares, there is no template for being President, that is why we elect a new one every four years.

[Dashinka 24,697]

4 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

asking questions you don't actually want the answers to certainly isn't new.

I think it is more like asking a question that cannot be answered.  We all know that the mainstream media is much more friendly to the likes of Pelosi, and if I was to provide of source like Breitbart, or Dailycaller, you would cite their bias.  The point is sifting through all the bias of the media that exists.  Trump lies, sure, but so does every other politician, the degree is the same regardless of anyone's bias.

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I think it is more like asking a question that cannot be answered.  We all know that the mainstream media is much more friendly to the likes of Pelosi, and if I was to provide of source like Breitbart, or Dailycaller, you would cite their bias.  The point is sifting through all the bias of the media that exists.  Trump lies, sure, but so does every other politician, the degree is the same regardless of anyone's bias.

sorry but, breitbart and daily caller certainly do not post citations and sources to their claims- they usually link back to their own articles.  you can say 'all politicians lie' and i'd agree with you completely, but the claim that the degree that trump lies is the same as everyone else is not based in fact. this is why fact checkers exist, and fact checkers can be easily checked by media consumers if the fact checkers are any good. 

there's a reason trump calls any criticism of him 'fake' and refuses to own up to even the perception of a mistake..

[yuna628 9,690]

11 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I am sure that is what they tell themselves, but considering not a lot of people here on this board know Trump personally, how can that determination be made?  Sure there are a lot media reports out there, but there are also reports from truly Left Wing politicians that actually like him (Justin Trudeau).  Trump does things differently, that is certain, but who cares, there is no template for being President, that is why we elect a new one every four years.

You've made many determinations about Hillary without knowing her personally (and you've made assumptive determinations about the reasons some don't like Trump.. you do it again by patronizingly saying ''that's what they tell themselves''). See? It goes both ways.

 

Name me people you don't like. I'm sure you can come up with a list. Tell me if you know those people personally. We don't know a lot of people throughout history - but yet we seemingly figure out with study if we don't like them, or if we do like them.

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by yuna628

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

I still do not understand this complete hatred for Trump.  Was it because he beat Hillary and derailed the leftist Obama train, is it because he actually asks Congress to do their jobs rather than make laws of his own (i.e. tax reform, immigration, etc.), is it because he is making the Dems look like fools and everybody doesn't expect that, is it because unlike most other career GOP politicians he actually fights back against negative press coverage?  

Why are you quoting me here? What in my post was about extreme hatred?

 

We were talking about lying. You provided a link to a google search on Pelosi's lies, and the first link happened to have an estimate of the frequency. When I saw that I thought "Hm, maybe Politifact does this for everyone" (I Had never seen these "summary" pages before), so then I searched for Trump.

 

I felt it was relevant to the topic ("Who lies more?") so I provided the data. I admitted problems with the data (They have a much smaller dataset for Pelosi compared to Trump, in part because she makes far fewer public statements and also possibly in part because of how Politifact chooses to evaluate statements). However it is reasonable to state that, despite the potential for bias, the data as it is presented is statistically significant (I did a quick chi-squared).

 

I am trying to be as fair and balanced as possible. I have biases I admit, and if you ask me personally if I like Trump my answer will be generally no. However, in situations like this I try my best to keep those biases separate.

 

If you find a source another source that quantifies the lies of the two people similar to Politifact I can look at that one as well. If we can enough sources perhaps we could do a "meta-analysis", which helps when individual sources have individual biases.

[Boiler 45,856]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

I am trying to be as fair and balanced as possible.

[bcking 3,157]

20 minutes ago, Boiler said:

On this topic. I'm not always that way, I admit. But I see no reason to intentionally inject bias into something that we can try to be objective about.

 

He provided a link that gave us a source that had OBJECTIVE information about the frequency on lying from both people. The source may be biased, but it is so far the only way we have that has some kind of clear methodology, and has evaluated both of them. It provided us with a total number of statements, and then a breakdown of how many were lies.

 

If you'd like to provide another source that does that for both of them, I'll happily use it as well.

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

I am sure that is what they tell themselves, but considering not a lot of people here on this board know Trump personally, how can that determination be made?  Sure there are a lot media reports out there, but there are also reports from truly Left Wing politicians that actually like him (Justin Trudeau).  Trump does things differently, that is certain, but who cares, there is no template for being President, that is why we elect a new one every four years.

People make determinations about other people they have never met all the time. They are called opinions. They have always happened, and will continue to happen. No one 100% reserves judgment until they meet a person. I have an opinion about Bush, Clinton (XY), Clinton (XX), Obama, Trump, pretty much every other past President (except for the ones I always forget in the list of Presidents...I have no opinion of President Arthur). I have opinions about celebrities, about CEO's etc... I think we all have a pretty strong opinion of that Dr. Nassar guy, despite probably none of us ever having met him. 

 

So if we assume that any opinion about a public figure is based on public information only (and not personal interaction), I think it is reasonable to keep those opinions separate from opinions of people you know. They are just very different types of opinions, constructed of very differences sources of information. When you ask someone "What do you think of the President"

 

When I say I don't like Trump I'm not claiming to have intimate personal knowledge of him. I'm just stating that based on the information available to me (Secondary sources, as well as watching speeches, listening to interviews etc...) he is a person I don't admire, and I find far too frequently disrespectful. He shows several qualities that I strongly dislike in people. Now he may not be like that in private, but again I would say when I give my opinion of a public figure the assumption is I'm giving my opinion of their public persona.

[bcking 3,157]

2 hours ago, smilesammich said:

it's really a lot easier than you think. 

It's not actually.

 

The biggest problem (of many) with a website like Politifact is reporting bias. As far as I can find on their website they don't have an a priori protocol for how they decide which statements to rate or not. They may rate some statements, but don't publicize them. Or they may intentionally go after certain statements more than others (or certain people more than others).

 

Pelosi's page has like 40 statements rated. Trump has over 500. Now as I've said a lot of that has to do with how much more Trump speaks. Comes with his job, and comes with his twitter.

 

It would be very difficult for a website to capture everything a politician has ever said in public and rate every statement. Even the 500 for Trump is only a fraction. Analyzing a fraction of a total number of something is fine if the selection process is randomized. It's clearly not in this case though. So along with reporting bias (or they picking and choosing their statements), you also have to question whether the statements rated are a true reflection of the "greater population" of statements the politician makes. That would be an issue with generalizability.

[smilesammich 10,727]

32 minutes ago, bcking said:

It's not actually.

 

The biggest problem (of many) with a website like Politifact is reporting bias. As far as I can find on their website they don't have an a priori protocol for how they decide which statements to rate or not. They may rate some statements, but don't publicize them. Or they may intentionally go after certain statements more than others (or certain people more than others).

 

Pelosi's page has like 40 statements rated. Trump has over 500. Now as I've said a lot of that has to do with how much more Trump speaks. Comes with his job, and comes with his twitter.

 

It would be very difficult for a website to capture everything a politician has ever said in public and rate every statement. Even the 500 for Trump is only a fraction. Analyzing a fraction of a total number of something is fine if the selection process is randomized. It's clearly not in this case though. So along with reporting bias (or they picking and choosing their statements), you also have to question whether the statements rated are a true reflection of the "greater population" of statements the politician makes. That would be an issue with generalizability.

it really is that easy. read "our process" http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/nov/01/principles-politifact-punditfact-and-truth-o-meter/. they also take suggestions on what the folks want to see checked. i'm not concerned about reporting bias when i go to politifact cause i'm clicking on all their links to judge for myself if they're coming with facts or not. i don't really understand this, unless they report all the statements ever - they're displaying bias. besides, if you think a particular rating is biased, they show their work. click through..make a judgement yourself.

 

"comes with the job and comes with his twitter" yup, this is why. it also has to do with the sheer number of false and misleading statements he makes, and how loudly. 

 

no one claimed that politifact or any other website was rating every comment a politician ever made. the question posed 'how do you know trump lies more than pelosi and schumer' was a nonstarter to begin with. it was an attempt to turn the conversation from fact checking trump (and how that turns out, as a pattern). the question wasn't asked because anyone genuinely wanted to know who lies more. and i knew this. that's why i initially said, look it up yourself. to which the reply was 'you've got nothing', so i post links to all three people in question, the most consolidated answer i can find (which, has quite a few lies for both pelosi and schumer - in addition to trump's truthful statements)at politifact cause they had a breakdown for all three players. then reply is 'politifact is biased'. and you can change up 'politifact' here with just about anything other than clearly biased trump lap dog media. generalizability doesn't really come into play with 'truth o meters', because politifact isn't asking who lies more or gauging the truth of a statement by the number of additional truthful statements a politician has made.

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by smilesammich

[bcking 3,157]

7 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

it really is that easy. read "our process" http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/nov/01/principles-politifact-punditfact-and-truth-o-meter/. they also take suggestions on what the folks want to see checked. i'm not concerned about reporting bias when i go to politifact cause i'm clicking on all their links to judge for myself if they're coming with facts or not. i don't really understand this, unless they report all the the statements ever - they're displaying bias. besides, if you think a particular rating is biased, they show their work. click through..make a judgement yourself.

 

"comes with the job and comes with his twitter" yup, this is why. it also has to do with the sheer number of false and misleading statements he makes, and how loudly. 

 

no one claimed that politifact or any other website was rating every comment a politician ever made. the question posed 'how do you know trump lies more than pelosi and schumer' was a nonstarter to begin with. it was an attempt to turn the conversation from fact checking trump (and how that turns out, as a pattern). the question wasn't asked because anyone genuinely wanted to know who lies more. and i knew this. that's why i initially said, look it up yourself. to which the reply was 'you've got nothing', so i post links to all three people in question, the most consolidated answer i can find (which, has quite a few lies for both pelosi and schumer - in addition to trump's truthful statements) is at politifact cause they had a breakdown for all three players. then reply is 'politifact is biased'. and you can change up 'politifact' here with just about anything other than clearly biased trump lap dog media. generalizability doesn't really come into play with 'truth o meters', because politifact isn't asking who lies more or gauging the truth of a statement by the number of additional truthful statements a politician has made.

 

I think you misunderstand the use of the term reporting bias here. Here is the methodology on choosing statements:

 

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 absolutely fraught with potential bias. Reporting bias in this instance would be to question why certain statements are analyzed, but others are not. They have a methodology, but it isn't a strict one. It's full of "opinions" and "feelings" from their staff. Reporting bias has nothing to do with each individual confirmation for a fact. As you said - You can confirm that yourself (which is one of the things I LIKE about the website). Reporting bias is about whether the 50 statements they choose to rate are chosen in part because they constitute more lies than truths. Do they "lean" towards rating false statements for some politicians, and "lean" towards more truth statements for another one (based on their selection of statements). Reporting bias is absolutely an important consideration for websites like this.

 

Generalizability would come up here only if you wanted to use Politifact as a way to answer the question "Who lies more?". If that wasn't your intention, then yes it doesn't apply. Since we were talking about that question, I assume we were trying to use Politifact to answer it. They don't examine a randomized sample of statements, so therefore you can't generalize the numbers they have to a wider "population" of statements by each person.

 

I really like Politifact and I think it is a great source. But even great sources have limitations and whenever you use a source you should acknowledge those limitations. Politifact doesn't have a concrete structured way of selecting statements to judge, and they don't judge every statement. That makes it a good source to look at individual statements to see if they are a truth/lie, but not a great source for actually looking at the frequency of lying/truth-telling (truthing?)

Edited February 2, 2018 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

13 minutes ago, bcking said:

I think you misunderstand the use of the term reporting bias here. Here is the methodology on choosing statements:

 

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 absolutely fraught with potential bias. Reporting bias in this instance would be to question why certain statements are analyzed, but others are not. They have a methodology, but it isn't a strict one. It's full of "opinions" and "feelings" from their staff. Reporting bias has nothing to do with each individual confirmation for a fact. As you said - You can confirm that yourself (which is one of the things I LIKE about the website). Reporting bias is about whether the 50 statements they choose to rate are chosen in part because they constitute more lies than truths. Do they "lean" towards rating false statements for some politicians, and "lean" towards more truth statements for another one (based on their selection of statements). Reporting bias is absolutely an important consideration for websites like this.

 

Generalizability would come up here only if you wanted to use Politifact as a way to answer the question "Who lies more?". If that wasn't your intention, then yes it doesn't apply. Since we were talking about that question, I assume we were trying to use Politifact to answer it. They don't examine a randomized sample of statements, so therefore you can't generalize the numbers they have to a wider "population" of statements by each person.

 

I really like Politifact and I think it is a great source. But even great sources have limitations and whenever you use a source you should acknowledge those limitations. Politifact doesn't have a concrete structured way of selecting statements to judge, and they don't judge every statement. That makes it a good source to look at individual statements to see if they are a truth/lie, but not a great source for actually looking at the frequency of lying/truth-telling (truthing?)

how do i misunderstand reporting bias when i linked you their explanation on how they pick their questions. which you turn around and quote back to me. and i think the reason they detail their methodology in the 'about us' is to show their consideration.

 

i was answering a question on cehst, not writing an academic study. obviously, to answer the question who lies more, the best place to get that information on the internet is a website that keeps track of the truthfulness of political statements. so, yes i was answering that question but no, generalizability doesn't come into play - my answer wasn't going to be accepted no matter what.

 

seriously, i'm well aware of the limitations of sources - we're on an internet forum discussing politics with partisan players who really are not that interested in how politifact comes to their conclusions. they're not going to accept anything that doesn't fit their narrative. the same people that question politifact at face value - no reading involved (which gave obama the lie of the year award for his 'you can keep your doctor' statement' a few years back) think that brietbart/daily caller are comparable sources. that's a joke. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by smilesammich