HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Remember: 53 % of Sanders...

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 04:02 PM

 

Remember: 53 % of Sanders statements was either half true 23 % , mostly false 18 % or false 12 %.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

21 replies, 5163 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Remember: 53 % of Sanders statements was either half true 23 % , mostly false 18 % or false 12 %. (Original post)
factfinder_77 Jan 2017 OP
bettyellen Jan 2017 #1
TeacherB87 Jan 2017 #2
TheCowsCameHome Jan 2017 #3
pangaia Jan 2017 #4
rtracey Jan 2017 #5
pbmus Jan 2017 #8
rtracey Jan 2017 #19
Gothmog Jan 2017 #6
Rex Jan 2017 #7
NWCorona Jan 2017 #9
NCTraveler Jan 2017 #10
NWCorona Jan 2017 #11
NCTraveler Jan 2017 #12
NWCorona Jan 2017 #13
Cha Jan 2017 #14
JCanete Jan 2017 #15
LanternWaste Jan 2017 #20
JCanete Jan 2017 #21
JustinL Jan 2017 #16
aikoaiko Jan 2017 #17
JTFrog Jan 2017 #18

Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 04:06 PM

1. And we still have people here hanging on to RT's every word, SMH...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 04:07 PM

2. Crazy isn't it?

 

How people can overlook lies when the lies validate their pre-existing opinions...

Full disclosure: I voted Hillary in the Primary and General elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 04:11 PM

3. Pretty darn good. Thanks for refreshing my memory.

I knew he was a good man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 04:13 PM

4. I was at Yankee Stadium when Mickey Mantle

hit the upper deck facade in right field.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 04:13 PM

5. who

 

Who is RT?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rtracey (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 05:09 PM

8. russian owned news here in the usa, many of our so called liberal reporters have joined them recentl

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pbmus (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 08:17 AM

19. ahhh

 

Oh ok, I thought you were talking about a person......thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 04:35 PM

6. Yep

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 04:49 PM

7. What no pants on fire?

 

According to that chart, Trump's pants should be bursting into flames any minute now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to NWCorona (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 07:57 PM

10. The Weekly Standard railing about the liberal media.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 08:00 PM

11. Hey, what's up?

Did you have a good 3 day weekend?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 08:04 PM

12. No three day weekend.

 

That said, I've been taking some personal days. Sometimes I need to soak in all that is good around me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 08:07 PM

13. That there is some truth! I've taken a few myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 03:25 AM

14. We lived it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 03:37 AM

15. from past experience, I have little faith in truth meters and their methodologies.

 


When you get into the weeds of policies, their interpretation is as good as anybody else's. What information did they leave out when they crunched the numbers? What numbers did they privilege over others? At what point did they stop digging and just go with what they had? What is their own lens?

Wouldn't it be weird if they tended to have a moderate point of reference when it comes to some of this? I know i'd be colored surprised. Yes, facts are facts. Once you dive into "mostly falses" and "half-truths" you have left the objective path, and entered the realm of personal judgement, wouldn't you say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 04:00 PM

20. I'd say you place faith in that which validates your biases, and reject that which doesn't

"wouldn't you say?"

I'd say you place faith in that which validates your biases, and reject that which doesn't-- illustrated by your dramatic lack of any objective evidence supporting your initial premise.

Which is fine... it's human nature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 04:22 PM

21. The same nature that governs the decisions and interpretations of these fact checkers.

 

From my experience it isn't a matter of me simply refusing to believe something...its that often the methodologies neglect factoring in a component or consideration that seems glaringly obvious to me, thus making the results come across to me as dubious and ideologically driven.

By the way, would you like a run-down of other places I've posted? If yes, indicate this by signing your next drive-by with a couple qq's, and I'll respond with a rundown of OP's and post numbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 03:40 AM

16. No, it's 49%, which is nearly identical to Clinton. What's your point?

Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Sanders was just as likely to make false or half-true statements as was Clinton?

You added together the raw numbers of statements rather than the percentages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 06:05 AM

17. LOL - angry tears make great lemonade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #17)

Reply to this thread