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

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

10 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

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. 

If you want real news

 

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

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. 

I felt like you misunderstood it because of the sentence you used it in:

 

"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. "

 

Clicking on the links and judging for yourself for each fact has nothing to do with reporting bias. You attached that to the same sentence about reporting bias, hence why I assumed you misunderstood. Apologies.

 

The best available place to get that information is a website like politifact, but if you use a website like that absolutely generalizability comes into play. Regardless of whether your answer is accepted or not, generalizablity is important if you are going to use politifact. It still may be the best source to use, but even the best sources have limitations. A limitation isn't just thrown out because it's the "best you can do". 

 

I agree with you about Brietbart/daily Caller compared to Politifact. Politifact isn't perfect, but it's in a different league. That still doesn't mean I'm not going to talk about its limitations. I choose not to "dumb down" conversations, regardless of whether I assume other people will try to or not.

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

If you want real news

 

Absolutely not...

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

If you want real news

 

look at that face. such intelligence and poise..

 

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

21 minutes ago, bcking said:

I felt like you misunderstood it because of the sentence you used it in:

 

"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. "

 

Clicking on the links and judging for yourself for each fact has nothing to do with reporting bias. You attached that to the same sentence about reporting bias, hence why I assumed you misunderstood. Apologies.

 

The best available place to get that information is a website like politifact, but if you use a website like that absolutely generalizability comes into play. Regardless of whether your answer is accepted or not, generalizablity is important if you are going to use politifact. It still may be the best source to use, but even the best sources have limitations. A limitation isn't just thrown out because it's the "best you can do". 

 

I agree with you about Brietbart/daily Caller compared to Politifact. Politifact isn't perfect, but it's in a different league. That still doesn't mean I'm not going to talk about its limitations. I choose not to "dumb down" conversations, regardless of whether I assume other people will try to or not.

 

i think doing your own homework is our only defense to reporting bias - which is unavoidable. everyone has personal opinions. but i don't think there is a publication out there that couldn't be accused of media bias, simply by tracing back to whomever owns that particular media establishment. you see that here all the time.

 

if you're going to take the question that far 'who lies more, trump - or pelosi and schumer' than no one can ever give a proper answer - and we certainly won't find it on the internet. has anyone been recording every statement the three of them have ever made since becoming a public persona? no. there's just no point to take it that far. the only answer we'd ever see is 'all politicians lie' and we'd just have to leave it at that.

 

for me personally, i'm absolutely not applying the scientific method to every ridiculous question that gets posed here. cause really, no matter how well thought out and researched your answer may be - it all comes down to what set you're reppin.  mdl or mdr. or the elusive mor. seriously.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by smilesammich

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

51 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

look at that face. such intelligence and poise..

 

 

That's your secret crush 😂

[bcking 3,157]

38 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i think doing your own homework is our only defense to reporting bias - which is unavoidable. everyone has personal opinions. but i don't think there is a publication out there that couldn't be accused of media bias, simply by tracing back to whomever owns that particular media establishment. you see that here all the time.

 

if you're going to take the question that far 'who lies more, trump - or pelosi and schumer' than no one can ever give a proper answer - and we certainly won't find it on the internet. has anyone been recording every statement the three of them have ever made since becoming a public persona? no. there's just no point to take it that far. the only answer we'd ever see is 'all politicians lie' and we'd just have to leave it at that.

 

for me personally, i'm absolutely not applying the scientific method to every ridiculous question that gets posed here. cause really, no matter how well thought out and researched your answer may be - it all comes down to what set you're reppin.  mdl or mdr. or the elusive mor. seriously.

 

 

You can always give an answer, you just qualify it.

 

For example my answer would be:

 

Based on available evidence, Trump lies more. The evidence is at risk of reporting bias, and has questionable generalizability. The strength of the available evidence is poor.

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by bcking

[TBoneTX 45,273]

12 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Podiatry, by all indications?  

Well, shucks... this was opportunistically clever and hilarious (footsteps... podiatry...), and it goes largely un-reputation-pointed because everyone went back on-topic.  Hmmmph.

[bcking 3,157]

7 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Well, shucks... this was opportunistically clever and hilarious (footsteps... podiatry...), and it goes largely un-reputation-pointed because everyone went back on-topic.  Hmmmph.

It's times like these you must wish you could rep yourself, eh?

 

(Pediatric Cardiology, btw. My dad has a heart, unlike those Podiatrists...)

Edited February 3, 2018 by bcking

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

17 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

If you want real news

 

Hes just a extremely conservative more serious and less funny/satirical Colbert/Stewart.
Tryna make dem cashmoneys.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Keith & Arileidi

[bcking 3,157]

25 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Hes just a extremely conservative more serious and less funny/satirical Colbert/Stewart.
Tryna make dem cashmoneys.

Most of what he says is a joke, just like Colbert/Stewart.

 

The problem is he doesn't seem to realize that.

Edited February 3, 2018 by bcking

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

47 minutes ago, bcking said:

Most of what he says is a joke, just like Colbert/Stewart.

 

The problem is he doesn't seem to realize that.

I dont think hes that dumb.. I think his goal is to prey on the lowest common denominator.
kind of like Anne Coulter
And...
Kind of like Trump.
 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

7 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Hes just a extremely conservative more serious and less funny/satirical Colbert/Stewart.
Tryna make dem cashmoneys.

Gosh please don't think that he is conservative because he ain't. He is nothing but a wacko and I can't stand him. 

7 hours ago, bcking said:

Most of what he says is a joke, just like Colbert/Stewart.

 

The problem is he doesn't seem to realize that.

I really think he knows it but he wants that money.

[Dashinka 24,492]

6 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Gosh please don't think that he is conservative because he ain't. He is nothing but a wacko and I can't stand him. 

I really think he knows it but he wants that money.

Kind of in the same league as Art Bell.

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Gosh please don't think that he is conservative because he ain't. He is nothing but a wacko and I can't stand him. 

I really think he knows it but he wants that money.

I'm glad we can find common ground here.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

24 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'm glad we can find common ground here.

I have said that before on here on MANY occasions both to sammich and Jacque. I can't stand him at all and I think he just peddles stuff that he knows will get him attention either good or bad. He takes small kernels of truth and blows it up to epic proportions. 

 

According to him we are fighting aliens on Mars because they have a human sex ring on that planet. All at the same time that FEMA is building death camps for people.