Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Stommped]

Absolutely not.

I'm pointing to the actual facts that we have, which show a discrepancy. That, in and of itself, demonstrates that your premise is not "common sense". You've yet to provide a rationale for why it's impossible. Your incredulity is not an argument.

If you don't have evidence to show an actual flaw in Politifact's methodology or treatment, you don't have any grounds for disputing their results. Not liking what those results are does not mean you get to ignore them because they're "not common sense".

Ok but how this is that different from coin flip argument? I could flip a coin a thousand times and have it land Heads 600, we have actual evidence that heads is more likely than tails but does common sense not tell us that it's simply variance?

To relate it to the topic at hand, if politifact found Republicans lie 5x as much as Dems in 2015, then common sense tells us there's something flawed with the data, low sample size, cherry picked statements, etc. If it was a coin I wouldn't keep flipping until I got 50/50, I would know that's the end result.

[Thepersona]

Ok but how this is that different from coin flip argument? I could flip a coin a thousand times and have it land Heads 600, we have actual evidence that heads is more likely than tails but does common sense not tell us that it's simply variance?

To relate it to the topic at hand, if politifact found Rebpublicans lie 5x as much as Dems in 2015, then common sense tells us there's something flawed with the data, low sample size, cherry picked statements, etc. If it was a coin I wouldn't keep flipping until I got 50/50, I would know that's the end result.

that's not how statistics works. or econometrics... and not even in this case your statement holds, because we're comparing the leadership of both of the political parties, and we found that one party lies more than the other

[Stommped]

that's not how statistics works. or econometrics... and not even in this case your statement holds, because we're comparing the leadership of both of the political parties, and we found that one party lies more than the other

You may not have followed the whole thing, but I promise you the argument started as Republicans lie more than Democrats, as a blanket statement. Numerous people argued that at least, but some people seem to just be arguing Donald Trump lies more than Hillary.

[Anon56]

Politifact or not, only millenials and people with memory issues can't see or don't remember the stance switch on core issues depending on who they are talking to, the scandals, the lies and the corruption of this rotten couple known as the Clinton.

Bush Jr and Trump are maybe idiots, but the Clinton are well aware of what they're doing. Obviously she will be elected because you don't have any real choice, but if I were american I would refrain to enlist in the army for the next decade. This witch will push Iran's buttons until they snap. But don't worry you will still be the good guys, America. And like she said about Irak, it will be another "business opportunity".

[Stommped]

Are you really this dense or just don't want to admit you're wrong? How do you not understand that lying or someone being a liar isn't a coin flip? Getting heads 600 out of 1000 times is not evidence that heads is more likely if we're assuming a fair coin. If you run the experiment enough times, that will happen. So, yes, if we ASSUME the coin is fair, it is common sense to conclude it's likely variance. Just like you're assuming that lying is equally likely with everyone. If politifact had the data showing such a thing, and the arguments made within those claims and articles is legit, then why is there flawed data? Why can it not possibly be that one person just lies more than another?

Because like I said from the beginning, there's no logical reason to assume that party affiliation makes one lie more, so assuming every politician is equally likely to lie, the chart presented pages ago is highly unlikely.

[Thepersona]

You may not have followed the whole thing, but I promise you the argument started as Republicans lie more than Democrats, as a blanket statement. Numerous people argued that at least, but some people seem to just be arguing Donald Trump lies more than Hillary.

i'm arguing that, based on evidence the republican leadership lies more than the democrat leadership, including their frontrunners. we could ask some questions to the bases to see if, in general a republican lies more than a democrat. for example if climate change is real

Politifact or not, only millenials and people with memory issues can't see or don't remember the stance switch on core issues depending on who they are talking to, the scandals, the lies and the corruption of this rotten couple known as the Clinton.

Bush Jr and Trump are maybe idiots, but the Clinton are well aware of what they're doing. Obviously she will be elected because you don't have any real choice, but if I were american I would refrain to enlist in the army for the next decade. This witch will push Iran's buttons until they snap. But don't worry you will still be the good guys, America. And like she said about Irak, it will be another "business opportunity".

i know that hillary is a bit of a hawk, and a little too near of israel for my liking. but you can switch from some stances with the passing of years.
for example, i was very anti-abortion, but now i'm very pro-choice

[LaserSharkDFB]

Ok but how this is that different from coin flip argument? I could flip a coin a thousand times and have it land Heads 600, we have actual evidence that heads is more likely than tails but does common sense not tell us that it's simply variance?

To relate it to the topic at hand, if politifact found Republicans lie 5x as much as Dems in 2015, then common sense tells us there's something flawed with the data, low sample size, cherry picked statements, etc. If it was a coin I wouldn't keep flipping until I got 50/50, I would know that's the end result.

You know, what I love the most about this is that you're a prime example of truthiness. Republican candidates lie more than Democrat candidates? That can't be right, the data must be wrong.

But no. The chart provided is not a small sample size, covers a fair selection of controversial or significant statements from each candidate, and each true/false decision can be easily confirmed. The result is clear: Republican candidates lie more often than their Democrat counterparts. Not all of them, mind; Kasich scored well, and most have fairly reasonable true/false ratios, for politicians. But there are Repub candidates that are absolutely pathological. So the question becomes why, and the best answer is that because it benefits them. That's human nature.

[Orbitus]

You're asking me have evidence of something that should be straight common sense. Lying relates to a person's personality, I also can't prove to you neither political party should have a better sense of humor than the other, but common sense tells us that party affiliation should have nothing to do with their sense of humor. How exactly am I supposed to prove something to you that's basic common sense?

- - - Updated - - -



That's a serious accusation. If you think I'm perpetually lying or trolling people please report those posts immediately, moderator posts are subject to review just like normal posts.

You aren't trolling as accusing you of trolling is an infractable offense, but lying? Most definitely so. And as far as I know, you can't be infracted for it. If you can lose your moderator status for it, you should. I am not the only one has noticed this and when you are called out on it, you double down saying it is true when it isn't. Kinda like you are bickering back and forth with Endus here.

[Stommped]

If it was a blanket statement then it's not quite a valid argument. I think it would be common sense though to conclude that if they're using politifact as their source then they're likely talking about the front runners of the current election cycle. Which this data does back up that claim.

- - - Updated - - -



That's a false premise though. Why are you assuming it's equally likely? We're not even assuming it's not equally likely. No one is making that assumption. We have proof of it, we don't need to assume it. Now whether or not this disparity is because of party affiliation or simply the two candidates themselves is up for debate. But it's a different debate.

I think your misconstruing me saying something is improbable vs. impossible. Sure is it possible that those 15 republican politicians ALL have told more "lies" since 2007 than Obama and Hillary? Sure, it's possible. But it's so improbable that it makes it hard to believe. Note we haven't fact checked all people on the 2007 chart, just Hillary and Donald (whose number was off). It's like if I won the Powerball, would you believe me if I told you right away? No because of how unlikely it is.

- - - Updated - - -

You aren't trolling as accusing you of trolling is an infractable offense, but lying? Most definitely so. And as far as I know, you can't be infracted for it. If you can lose your moderator status for it, you should. I am not the only one has noticed this and when you are called out on it, you double down saying it is true when it isn't. Kinda like you are bickering back and forth with Endus here.

We aren't bickering, we are discussing.

[Stommped]

You know, what I love the most about this is that you're a prime example of truthiness. Republican candidates lie more than Democrat candidates? That can't be right, the data must be wrong.

But no. The chart provided is not a small sample size, covers a fair selection of controversial or significant statements from each candidate, and each true/false decision can be easily confirmed. The result is clear: Republican candidates lie more often than their Democrat counterparts. Not all of them, mind; Kasich scored well, and most have fairly reasonable true/false ratios, for politicians. But there are Repub candidates that are absolutely pathological. So the question becomes why, and the best answer is that because it benefits them. That's human nature.

Kasich scored well? He has over twice as many pants on fire statements has Hillary or Obama. John McCain is generally viewed as one of the most honest guys you'll ever meet, and he's way up there.

- - - Updated - - -

Why is it even improbable? Your entire argument hinges on your assumption that they should be lying equally as much. If you believe that is the case, then there is no convincing you otherwise but you would be wrong. So, if you're going to continue to make an argument based on a false premise then there's no reason to continue the discussion. What number was off? For argument sake, I'm only discussing Clinton and Trump.

I asked for the data to support the chart, and he linked the statements record for Clinton and Trump for only 2015, when the chart was looking at 2007 and after. So afaik no one has verified any of the numbers that are actually presented on the chart.

[alexw]

Ok please explain to me what about human behavior makes you lie more if you're a Republican politician.

Because republican policy positions are far more likely to conflict with reality, so they lie to justify their positions.

E.g. Fact : Net immigration from Mexico is zero but republicans want to build a wall so lie that it isn't.
Fact : Illegal immigrants are less likely to be criminals than natives, but republicans want to deport them as they are bad people so they lie about the levels of criminality they bring.
Etc
Etc

You have heard the phrase "reality has a liberal bias", right? Its because it does.

[Stommped]

Regardless of whatever the charts say. My whole point is that your argument assumes people lie equally as much in politics and that's just a bad assumption that no rational person will accept. I don't care who did or didn't lie more or about any given issue. I'm just saying you're making a bad assumption. If you deny that and continue to make an argument based on such an assumption, then you're not someone I want to have a conversation with.

Ok but I'm not assuming people lie equally as much, I'm saying if you pick out a random politician from a hat, and I tell you that person lies significantly, you shouldn't be able to say he or she is more likely to be republican or democrat.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Kasich scored well? He has over twice as many pants on fire statements has Hillary or Obama. John McCain is generally viewed as one of the most honest guys you'll ever meet, and he's way up there.

This is not a 1-1 comparison chart, just a percentage listing of how statements by that candidate. Kasich actually only has three POFs, compared to Obama's 9, but Obama has many more statements that came up for review, for obvious reasons. As far as McCain goes, he said some pretty big whoppers and some definite lies during his campaign.

[Stommped]

And no one is making that claim. We aren't picking a random politician. We're picking Trump. Trump just happens to be republican. You also have it backwards. Definitely no one is saying that lying significantly implies you're a republican but that being a republican makes you more likely to lie significantly. Do you understand the difference? Not that I'm making that claim, but I suppose some other people may be.

Yes, numerous other people have made the claim because republican policies are bullshit or not supported by science or whatever, that's why they are more prone to be liars. And it's not really a difference. Again because even if this was true, you are assuming that lying is just commonplace for everyone and everyone is willing to do it (so in your argument Republicans have to because they are always wrong), which is not true. Some people, repubs and dems, refuse to lie because they are not liars.

[Stommped]

And no one is making that claim. We aren't picking a random politician. We're picking Trump. Trump just happens to be republican. You also have it backwards. Definitely no one is saying that lying significantly implies you're a republican but that being a republican makes you more likely to lie significantly. Do you understand the difference? Not that I'm making that claim, but I suppose some other people may be.

Also, you said



So, at least stick to your argument.

Huh? Read that sentence again please.

Equally likely to lie =! lie equally as much

- - - Updated - - -

And now we have proof.

- - - Updated - - -



So you don't understand the difference. Again, no one is assuming lying implies you're a republican but that being a republican implies you lie more often.

Proof of what, please reread what I wrote.

I edited my post to respond to that part.

[alexw]

Ok but how this is that different from coin flip argument? I could flip a coin a thousand times and have it land Heads 600, we have actual evidence that heads is more likely than tails but does common sense not tell us that it's simply variance?

To relate it to the topic at hand, if politifact found Republicans lie 5x as much as Dems in 2015, then common sense tells us there's something flawed with the data, low sample size, cherry picked statements, etc. If it was a coin I wouldn't keep flipping until I got 50/50, I would know that's the end result.

No. No. No. It does not. That is not how evidence works. The evidence is correct. You may not be able to explain why its correct but just because your feels are hurt does not invalidate it.

You are in essence arguing that because we don't understand how gravity works then "common sense" means gravity doesn't exist, and that is a laughable position to take.

Face it republicans lie more and you are doing the usual republican reality denial when faced with a truth you don't like.

[Endus]

Ok but how this is that different from coin flip argument? I could flip a coin a thousand times and have it land Heads 600, we have actual evidence that heads is more likely than tails but does common sense not tell us that it's simply variance?

Scale the sample up, say it lands on heads 600,000,000 times out of 1,000,000,000. What this suggests is that the coin's unbalanced, because with a high enough sample, we can determine that its performance is exceedingly unlikely if it were truly a 50/50 chance either side would turn up.

You're doing this entirely backwards. You look at the evidence first, and you see what the reality actually is. If your assumptions do not describe that reality, then it is most likely that your assumptions are wrong. And you should adjust those assumptions to account for the evidence. In your coin flip case, you should be considering that your coin is not a fair coin, for some reason; it's turning up heads 60% of the time, and tails only 40%, rather than the 50/50 you had assumed. Your assumption as to how it performs is factually incorrect.

To relate it to the topic at hand, if politifact found Republicans lie 5x as much as Dems in 2015, then common sense tells us there's something flawed with the data, low sample size, cherry picked statements, etc. If it was a coin I wouldn't keep flipping until I got 50/50, I would know that's the end result.

Again, this is completely backwards, and completely irrational. You are literally arguing that if data contradicts your fantasies about how you think things "should be", then the data must be flawed and you should ignore it.

That's not how anything works.

[Stommped]

I was referring to proof of your lying. You claimed earlier you were making such an assumption and now claim you are not.



What do you mean it's not really a difference? Do you not understand a simply if-then statement? If you are a liar then you're a republican. This is a vastly different statement then saying, If you are a republican, then you are a liar. No one is claiming the former which is what you seem to be suggesting. If you're not suggesting that then my bad. But they are definitely different statements. Again, I'm nor anyone is assuming anything about the rate at which anyone lies. We are looking at data that seems to suggest the current republican frontrunner lies more often. Yes, it is a valid argument that if people should lie equally as much, then their data must be off but that is a poor assumption. So, let's not assume anything about the rate at which people lie and see what the data suggests. It seems to suggest republicans lie more often. Several people have given possible explanations for this mysterious phenomenon. You have given zero other than, "well based on a coin flip being 50/50 that can't be right."

How is it proof of me lying? You are misreading what I said. You said that I'm assuming politicians lie equally as much, and I said no. I've never said that at any point during this discussion. I said equally likely to lie. But how much they lie is completely different from politician to politician. Calling me a liar over nothing shows you are mentally done with the discussion I guess.

[alexw]

Scale the sample up, say it lands on heads 600,000,000 times out of 1,000,000,000. What this suggests is that the coin's unbalanced, because with a high enough sample, we can determine that its performance is exceedingly unlikely if it were truly a 50/50 chance either side would turn up.

You're doing this entirely backwards. You look at the evidence first, and you see what the reality actually is. If your assumptions do not describe that reality, then it is most likely that your assumptions are wrong. And you should adjust those assumptions to account for the evidence. In your coin flip case, you should be considering that your coin is not a fair coin, for some reason; it's turning up heads 60% of the time, and tails only 40%, rather than the 50/50 you had assumed. Your assumption as to how it performs is factually incorrect.



Again, this is completely backwards, and completely irrational. You are literally arguing that if data contradicts your fantasies about how you think things "should be", then the data must be flawed and you should ignore it.

That's not how anything works.

That's not right at all. Its 100% how the republican party works. Their feelings and beliefs always come before reality.

[Stommped]

Scale the sample up, say it lands on heads 600,000,000 times out of 1,000,000,000. What this suggests is that the coin's unbalanced, because with a high enough sample, we can determine that its performance is exceedingly unlikely if it were truly a 50/50 chance either side would turn up.

You're doing this entirely backwards. You look at the evidence first, and you see what the reality actually is. If your assumptions do not describe that reality, then it is most likely that your assumptions are wrong. And you should adjust those assumptions to account for the evidence. In your coin flip case, you should be considering that your coin is not a fair coin, for some reason; it's turning up heads 60% of the time, and tails only 40%, rather than the 50/50 you had assumed. Your assumption as to how it performs is factually incorrect.



Again, this is completely backwards, and completely irrational. You are literally arguing that if data contradicts your fantasies about how you think things "should be", then the data must be flawed and you should ignore it.

That's not how anything works.

We won't agree on this, ever. And by the way comparing 600 million coinflips worth of sample size to the 50 or so statements made in the past 10 years is not even close in terms of sample size. You are blindly accepting the "evidence" (without even verifying any of the numbers) because it fits your narrative.