Lies, Damn Lies, and Scumbag Politicians
 

For those who can't be bothered to click the link, the disclaimer here is that not every statement is checked for fact. They only check statements that sound fantastic or that are controversial. And they haven't been doing it forever, so Bill Clinton was hardly ever checked and his statement sample size is so small as to make his ranking unfair to include.

I'd take ol' Slick Willie over any of the others.

The evil you know, y'know?

What a load of crap. Thats like posting a Fox poll.

Why, you don't believe PolitiFact, or you don't think it's fair because they don't check the same number of facts for each candidate, or because it doesn't jib with your opinion?

Speaking of lies, I got an email forwarded to me today. She sends them and waits for my rebuttal, usually just a snopes link, rather than checking herself.

This one was a beaut, "6 times in 70 years"

It was sent from wop308@aol.com to rickrice10@yahoo.com, on 12-17-15, so not internet flotsam from years ago.
From Richard in went to 27 other people, many of them businesses, then to her, then me.
Usually they have many more addresses, because nobody bothers to strip them.

It's a long one, laid out all theatrically to build anticipation even though I know what's coming, but the bottom line is in the last 70 years, only six times the US president didn't visit the D-Day memorial in France on D-Day.
Then it goes on how the Nigerian in the White House accounts for all six, and doesn't honor fallen Americans, outlines his schedule on each D-Day, blah, blah, blah.

Uh, let me check that.
The truth is US presidents who went to the D-Day celebration at the D-Day Memorial in France, on D-Day were;
Ronald Reagan on the 40th anniversary
Bill Clinton on the 50th anniversary
George W Bush went to the Virginia memorial on D-Day for the 60th and France for a different celebration on Memorial Day, so we'll give him a yes.
Barack Obama on the 65th anniversary
Barack Obama for the 70th anniversary

Actually the accusations are more convoluted and the links go into it, but I've given you the basics.
But none of those people check, just forward, because these lies serve to reinforce their hate a couple times a week.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/dday.asp
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-president-no/

They are extremely biased & they check the most ridiculous things for "their" candidates. My opinions don't jib with any side, party or group.

Biased? If a politician says the sky is falling, it is or it ain't. If it ain't that's a pants-on-fire. If you want to say rain qualifies as the sky falling, then it's true somewhere, but still misleading and partly false. They check what's currently in the newspaper and internet headlines, which is why the have so many for Trump and much less for Carson and the rest.

They're as bad as snopes. They'll check one person who said the sky is blue and check another on the 130,000,000 decimal of pi.

the reporting chooses to cherry-pick an entire Ben Carson speech to focus on his odd belief that the pyramids were built to store grain. results: liar. and crazy

~

because it is the aim of a "gotcha" media to repeat only statements which attract a lot of attention; and to downplay context, attitude, etc. in favor of a narrative they construct, which rarely accurately represents the candidate

~

do the results of this poll actually indicate how carefully controlled each candidate's messages are - how likely they are to speak off-the-cuff, or to offer unvetted statements?

Snopes is checking what is being said, or people are saying that was said, mostly in emails. I didn't see any blue sky today, so is it right or wrong? The 130,000,000 decimal of Pi is a known quantity, easy to verify if someone is wrong. Why would they check, unless someone uses it to make a point, like a state legislature wanting to make Pi officially 3.0

More than they were used to store grain, that the are not solid but hollow to store grain because the Bible tells him so. That's crazy.

Then the public starts Googling to see if the statement the candidate asserts are true or not. In the middle of a speech, statements are usually to lay groundwork for, or as evidence of, another point. If the statement is untrue, it affects that whole point. Trump has so many checked because he's the king of outrageous statements.

Is anyone running for president not have a bunch of speech writers to craft the message and handlers to make sure it's delivered in the most favorable way? If so then off the cuff remarks are outside the plan and likely to reflect the candidates gut feelings which might be more revealing than all the speeches.

From the department of L,D L, and S P:
Interesting spin war but Hillary found a way to keep Bernie from accessing DNC voter information.

How?
Nevermind, found it. Wasn't Hillary, it was the DNC.

Heh, praising with faint damnation.

Um... there's a difference? Not according to Jim Webb.