What's new
By:

GOP Debate Threads

The main thing Politifact is debating is the context of "scholarship". I t even says that West point has used "full scholarship" before in its literature.

https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/politico-carson-cnn-key/2015/11/07/id/701045/

Politico also went back and changed parts of their article. Such as the title. It was clearly a hit piece.

At best, and what I believe, is that it points to Carson's inexperience (something I hit Obama on originally, applies even more to Carson) and poor choice of wording.

I see this as a two fold problem. Certain news agencies, not all, are clearly biased and have a vested interest in attacking Carson as a black conservative who is successful (exactly like Fox News does to leading liberals). Part of it is simply dumb words, quotes and theories on Carson's part. Like his theory about the pyramids being grain silos.

If these sources wanted credibility they would go at Carson on his lack of policy on important issue and his lack of experience. There is plenty of fodder there.

Instead they go after the wording of a 30 year old west point claim.
 
Stoked said:
The main thing Politifact is debating is the context of "scholarship". I t even says that West point has used "full scholarship" before in its literature.

https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/politico-carson-cnn-key/2015/11/07/id/701045/

Politico also went back and changed parts of their article. Such as the title. It was clearly a hit piece.

At best, and what I believe, is that it points to Carson's inexperience (something I hit Obama on originally, applies even more to Carson) and poor choice of wording.

I see this as a two fold problem. Certain news agencies, not all, are clearly biased and have a vested interest in attacking Carson as a black conservative who is successful (exactly like Fox News does to leading liberals). Part of it is simply dumb words, quotes and theories on Carson's part. Like his theory about the pyramids being grain silos.

If these sources wanted credibility they would go at Carson on his lack of policy on important issue and his lack of experience. There is plenty of fodder there.

Instead they go after the wording of a 30 year old west point claim.
Click to expand...


inst it disturbing and sad that the media has an agenda and has a clear bias? or does it not bother you?
 
Sirkickyass said:
I don't think you have an accurate read on this one. Outside of breitbart and similarly rabid right-wing materials, I do not believe that this has been discredited as "made up." It will almost certainly come up tonight and it's bad enough.

That said, the story has been graded "mostly true" by politifact, which pointed out that Carson is mischaracterizing the offer and making it sound unique to him but that it's plausible someone could have told him it was a scholarship. Certainly saying, "I, like all West Point candidates, would have paid nothing" sounds a hell of a lot less impressive than "full scholarship." That makes it embarrassing (and deliciously fun) but not a real lie.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-.../carson-defends-west-point-scholarship-story/

That said, apparently that is the best grade he's ever gotten on politifact, which is a bit disconcerting.

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-carson/





He's been ruled out. Just like his family has every other cycle for 20 years.
Click to expand...
Why are you disconcerted? Do you think the highest grade he has ever gotten from them is "mostly true" means that almost everything he says is a lie? It's probably because they rarely check his statements. I'll bet he says a lot of true things. Do you honestly doubt that?
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Why are you disconcerted? Do you think the highest grade he has ever gotten from them is "mostly true" means that almost everything he says is a lie? It's probably because they rarely check his statements. I'll bet he says a lot of true things. Do you honestly doubt that?
Click to expand...

Well, so far they've graded 21 claims (which is a fair amount) and the breakdown is:

0 True (0%)
1 Mostly true (5%)
3 Half True (16%)
4 Mostly False (21%)
8 False (42%)
3 Pants on Fire (16%)

By comparison, you could look at Hillary, whom you have gone on and on about distrusting. Politifact has fact checked (over a much longer period of time) 133 statements by Clinton.

The breakdown on those is:

39 True (29%)
29 Mostly True (22%)
26 Half True (20%)
22 Mostly False (17%)
15 False (11%)
2 Pants on Fire (2%)

I suspect that's not the comparison you want to see, as a party, if you're planning on running on the trustworthiness issue. Of course, I'm sure the fact checkers are just biased.

EDIT: Hillary's "pants on fire" includes the hilarious "I landed under sniper fire" claim. Still embarrassing 7-8 years later.

Her statements re: Benghazi, which you have brought up multiple times, were given the same grade as Carson's claims about West Point: "Mostly True"
 
If Bush doesn't have a dramatic win in this debate he might be done.

I expect par for the course from Trump and Carson.

Rubio and Cruz come out to make statements. Now is the time to move.

Everyone else is just filler.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Well, so far they've graded 21 claims (which is a fair amount) and the breakdown is:

0 True (0%)
1 Mostly true (5%)
3 Half True (16%)
4 Mostly False (21%)
8 False (42%)
3 Pants on Fire (16%)

By comparison, you could look at Hillary, whom you have gone on and on about distrusting. Politifact has fact checked (over a much longer period of time) 133 statements by Clinton.

The breakdown on those is:

39 True (29%)
29 Mostly True (22%)
26 Half True (20%)
22 Mostly False (17%)
15 False (11%)
2 Pants on Fire (2%)

I suspect that's not the comparison you want to see, as a party, if you're planning on running on the trustworthiness issue. Of course, I'm sure the fact checkers are just biased.

EDIT: Hillary's "pants on fire" includes the hilarious "I landed under sniper fire" claim. Still embarrassing 7-8 years later.

Her statements re: Benghazi, which you have brought up multiple times, were given the same grade as Carson's claims about West Point: "Mostly True"
Click to expand...

How many Hillary statements on Bengahzi have they checked? Zero? How odd. It's been a huge story that's gone on and on. How about questions about her email server? What about deleting emails before turning the server over to the CIA? They haven't asked questions about any of those yet they find time to question a claim in a 25 year old book by a Republican candidate? Weird. Could that be because they don't want to have to find out Hillary's pantsuit is engulfed in flames? The fact that you think these graphs have any political meaningfulness, or that you believe they represent the relative truthfulness of these two candidates is Hillaryous!
 
Sirkickyass said:
Well, so far they've graded 21 claims (which is a fair amount) and the breakdown is:

0 True (0%)
1 Mostly true (5%)
3 Half True (16%)
4 Mostly False (21%)
8 False (42%)
3 Pants on Fire (16%)

By comparison, you could look at Hillary, whom you have gone on and on about distrusting. Politifact has fact checked (over a much longer period of time) 133 statements by Clinton.

The breakdown on those is:

39 True (29%)
29 Mostly True (22%)
26 Half True (20%)
22 Mostly False (17%)
15 False (11%)
2 Pants on Fire (2%)

I suspect that's not the comparison you want to see, as a party, if you're planning on running on the trustworthiness issue. Of course, I'm sure the fact checkers are just biased.

EDIT: Hillary's "pants on fire" includes the hilarious "I landed under sniper fire" claim. Still embarrassing 7-8 years later.

Her statements re: Benghazi, which you have brought up multiple times, were given the same grade as Carson's claims about West Point: "Mostly True"
Click to expand...



sorry but that stats are made up by the left. so please take it and put it in a diaper, cus there is where it belongs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top