|
is that the guy who tag teamed with clapper to lie about sanders's m4a mercatus report numbers being wrong?
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:59 |
|
|
Barry Foster posted:Was AOC's oh so terrible mistake in an interview? Because then the criticism is even more absurd. No-one needs to memorise numbers to make a point, it's ridiculous. Its worth nothing they also rarely if ever criticized GOP Congressman for the same errors. And they've failed to call out Trump numerous times. Its incredibly telling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:MotherFucker-1 Nah, that's the new AF1 call sign
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Lol if Gorsuch ends up being Kennedy like. Nah, when it came to criminal justice and defendents rights, Scalia often sided with the liberal wing too, so maybe Gorsuch has a bit of that. edit: oh, that is an odd lineup. 5-4 with Breyer joining the conservatives and Gorsuch voting with the liberals. Rigel fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Jan 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I'm really happy about this because I was hoping impeach the motherfucker wasn't going to become like a never talked about albatross around the neck sort of thing. I think this is so important that AOC is taking this stance not just for all the reasons already talked about in the thread but because it needs to be continually drilled into folks' heads forever what a load of bullshit the concept of decorum is on every level. I think it was Steve Bannon himself who said that the dems were going to see the best results with impeachment if they run with the sexual assault allegations, or am I mis-remembering something else?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
this was the worst part: https://twitter.com/JamilahLemieux/status/1082284479333523457 like someone else said this isn't he-said she-said. this a cut and dry fact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
I think it’s important to note that anyone who even vaguely supports AOC doesn’t give a poo poo about some semantic error she may have made that conservatives are desperately trying to make into a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:is that the guy who tag teamed with clapper to lie about sanders's m4a mercatus report numbers being wrong? Yeah he's a rat bastard. He also the guy that was backing Paul Ryan over his social security cuts lies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
hey shitlords, fact-checking is cool and good, and we need more of it, not less
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
No Democrats gave a gently caress when Obama had a brain fart and said 57 States even though that was the biggest story on Fox News for days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
it doesn't do jack poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:But no, we are totally not in a Second Gilded Age Future Historians will probably not paint the final 3 US presidencies as being any good, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:hey shitlords, fact-checking is cool and good, and we need more of it, not less  Not this one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
This guy couldn't be trying to mislead us, he has Official Fact Checker right there on his name tag People crying "but facts are good!" when you point out that the media fact checkers are lying is exactly why they use those loaded words to get credibility by default they don't deserve. The WAPO fact checker knowingly pushed bad data to hurt MFA from an industry study. He's not interested in facts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its worth nothing they also rarely if ever criticized GOP Congressman for the same errors. And they've failed to call out Trump numerous times. No one--NO ONE--called out the Tea Party Class of 2010 when they all went on TV and displayed a stunning lack of knowledge about deficits and what the national debt actually represents. gently caress anyone who dings AOC for going on 60 Minutes and not going full policy wonk. She has the vision; the vision right now is what is important.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:hey shitlords, fact-checking is cool and good, and we need more of it, not less There's "fact checking" and then there's "being a pedantic poo poo". Three guesses as to which one describes what the alt-right is doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Fact checking as a part of the journalistic process is absolutely and completely essential to journalism's integrity oh yeah, that's fair, i thought we were talking about politifact stuff which is what that guy in the tweet does
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Yeah no one is disputing that that specific take is dumb af
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:hey shitlords, fact-checking is cool and good, and we need more of it, not less It's good but what I dislike is how there will inevitably be some media outlet spinning it as a both sides make mistakes and are wrong sometimes kinda deal when obviously the GOP lies and is wrong 1000000000 times more than the Democrats are when what the media really should be doing is holding the GOP's feet to the fire for their constant bullshit. Sure, do it to the Democrats too, but don't pretend both sides offend equally, because they don't. Not remotely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:hey shitlords, fact-checking is cool and good, and we need more of it, not less Fact check: Wrong!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
Ginette Reno posted:It's good but what I dislike is how there will inevitably be some media outlet spinning it as a both sides make mistakes and are wrong sometimes kinda deal when obviously the GOP lies and is wrong 1000000000 times more than the Democrats are when what the media really should be doing is holding the GOP's feet to the fire for their constant bullshit. Sure, do it to the Democrats too, but don't pretend both sides offend equally, because they don't. Not remotely. What we need is fact-checking for the sake of accuracy, not for the sake of political balance. A good rule of thumb is "If you're whining about AOC you are part of the problem".
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:hey shitlords, fact-checking is cool and good, and we need more of it, not less https://twitter.com/GunnelsWarren/status/1030665444259184641 https://twitter.com/GunnelsWarren/status/1030815708739981313 https://twitter.com/GunnelsWarren/status/1030817573057769473 https://twitter.com/GunnelsWarren/status/1030818960726532096 https://twitter.com/GunnelsWarren/status/1030821604920578048
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
It's possible to be both factually correct and morally right. Fact checking is good and we need more of it, but obviously it would depend on how the facts are checked and who is doing it. Ideally, during debates, there should be a giant screen behind the candidates that fact checks their claims in real-time. Crows Turn Off fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jan 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
Radish posted:This guy couldn't be trying to mislead us, he has Official Fact Checker right there on his name tag Yeah "fact-checker" is such a deliciously Orwellian title, CNN did the same thing when they "fact-checked" MFA. They blatantly lied about what the study said and refused to back down even when proven wrong but if you argue with the fact-checkers then you're anti-facts!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
Radish posted:I've said it befor but the whole concept of "fact checkers" is absurd especially when they consistently can't stop their own biases from interfering with their "impartial" critisisms. Isn't this the same shithead who said Sanders was lying when he claimed the Republicans wanted to destroy Medicaid, when Sanders was in fact absolutely a thousand percent correct and the Republicans wanted to destroy Medicaid, because technically a program called "Medicaid" would have still existed after Paul Ryan eviscerated every meaningful part of it and turned it into a state block grant ? Factchecking is great and useful over nonpartisan issues -- Snopes is great -- but when it starts taking stances on matters of partisan opinion it is actively harmful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Trump doesn't have a concept of truth, so he's actually the most honest politician alive - what Maggie Haberman pretends to believe. 1 Geppetto.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
if fact checking worked there would be no republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:It's possible to be both factually correct and morally right. She IS factually correct. A 70% top marginal tax rate would not, in fact, "punish success" as conservatives claim. Millionaires and wealthy people existed in the 1950s when tax rates were even higher. The problem is that there is no way to determine if the fact-checkers themselves have an agenda of their own. Right now, fact-checking in politics works like this: "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says Trump is like Hitler. Donald Trump does not have dark hair or a toothbrush mustache, nor does he wear a swastika armband, so we rate this claim Pants on Fire." It's like if Fishmech and the Head Bureaucrat from that one episode of Futurama had a baby. Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Jan 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
we already post this? https://twitter.com/KennyGoo/status/1082129123575762951
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
B B posted:https://twitter.com/GunnelsWarren/status/1030665444259184641 so loving what? there are bad fact-checkers, therefore fact-checking is bad? is that really the argument you're pushing here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:She IS factually correct. A 70% top marginal tax rate would not, in fact, "punish success" as conservatives claim. Millionaires and wealthy people existed in the 1950s when tax rates were even higher. When a fact-checker admits, as Glenn Kessler did, that they take Mercatus Center studies at face value, you know what their agenda is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:It's possible to be both factually correct and morally right. She isn't saying no one should ever care about facts, she's talking about the trend of combing over someone's statements for any inaccuracy and then using that irrelevant nitpick to invalidate their entire argument. "Ocasio-Cortez said the military got a $700 billion increase and that's too high, but actually that's the total budget after an increase $61 billion, she should correct her numbers when making her argument that military spending is too high" -this is fine. "...but actually the budget increase was only $61 billion so she doesn't know what she's talking about therefore we're not spending too much money on the military" -this is invalid and a huge problem "AOC said the GOP holds three branches when she meant the GOP holds the presidency and both chambers of congress, therefore she is stupid and her other ideas are too" -also invalid reasoning
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:so loving what? there are bad fact-checkers, therefore fact-checking is bad? is that really the argument you're pushing here? it's that you're mostly going to run into a who watches the watchmen situation. facebook goes and hires the loving weekly standard to do fact checking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
Weird arguements going on in this thread. The solution for unethical fact checking is not to stop checking, it's to enforce ethics among those people. Same thing with every statistician in existence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
The most charitable interpretation is that they're so terrified of being accused of liberal bias that they go out of their way to check liberals more and give conservatives a free pass. This was acknowledged by Pat Buchanan as 'playing the refs' and he said he had fair coverage in his 1992 campaign, but he still complained. Whether they're doing it intentionally or not, Republicans will never stop complaining about media bias. If fact checkers do not get this, it displays a fundamental mistake in how they think and pathological attempted neutrality. This allows conservatives to go more extreme because fact checkers will never check them fairly. The parties will always be just as bad, man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:we already post this? YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSss
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
Literally no person has no biases. I'm way more suspicious of someone saying they are totally objective when fact checking than someone that admits those biases. It's how you get these racist algorithms when "well it's science and math from an unfeeling computer" that just happened to be programmed by white dudes. We need to look at what people are saying and call out lies and listen to people that understand the issues being discussed. That's a lot more complicated than just leaving it to random pundits and the CNN backroom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
I get the impression some of the people in this argument may be talking a little past each-other here, so just to clarify: fact-checking good, Fact-Checkers bad?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
It is amazing her ability to do that, in part because Republicans help give her the spotlight. I don’t know exactly how other Dems could get the same attention on their ideas but I’d love to figure it out. Yes communicating bold ideas helps, but there’s more going on in the equation that is helping her get these ideas media attention.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:59 |
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:we already post this? gently caress YES! GET IT! 2019 is lit as gently caress ahahahahahahahh
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:52
|
|
