Friday on-topic: biggest liars

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

All politicians lie. Some lie more than others. And since we're about populism and demagoguery in politics (quite a timely monthly topic indeed), let's see who are the most lying politicians, particularly presidential candidates, as per the FactCheck and other similar aggregates. What does the Truth-O-Meter have to say?

Source one.

As expected, Trump's pants are on fire big time. 60.13% of his statements have been false, 2.53% true. Throughout his entire campaign! Hillary ranks 13.33% and 13.33%, respectively.

Looking beyond the two nominees, Source two.



And Source three.

As for the question if the current two candidates are the biggest liars ever to run for president, here's an interesting read. I think the most important part is the very last paragraph:

"Telling the truth matters, even in politics. But we should remember that today, as at other points in our past, charges of lying often arise not out of sober concern for the sanctity of our public discourse, but as a way to score quick and wounding points in the partisan joust that is American democracy."

Comments

[paft.livejournal.com]

If it comes to that, all people lie.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Your first and third sources share major donors with the Clinton Foundation (which donated to the NY Times right before they endorsed her in '08).

Without looking, I'm guessing the second source probably has some sort of conflic(s) of interest(s) also.

To be clear, I'm not claiming the people on the left list aren't full of shit - but doesn't something just seem kind of biased about the chart?

[dreamville-bg.livejournal.com]

And the authors of the second source share the same food tastes like Mrs Clinton. Ergo, they're biased too.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

I think sharing food and sharing millions of dollars are a little different...

[dreamville-bg.livejournal.com]

Are they really?

[garote]

Hey yo... question... If I give you a couple grand, will you cobble together a bunch of statistics that paint me as a complete liar about a quarter of the time?

The catch is, I want you to list a bunch of other people too, and show them as even bigger liars.

Come on; money talks! [waves cash in your face] Get out that copy of Dreaweaver!

Remember: Still a major fabricator. Like, on a grand and ugly scale. Just less relatively. That'll make it look legit for my fans.

Dude this is the best idea ever.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

[oportet.livejournal.com]

To answer your question - yes! I think most would. Change 'couple grand' to 'couple million' and your chances get even better.

Do you think millions of dollars have no influence on their findings? Even if you like her and are voting for her - don't you think putting her on a MOST HONEST list is just a litttttttttle bit of a reach?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Out of reach? No, not given the people with whom she is being compared.

[garote]

A littttttttle bit of a reach? Well, I'd agree that this list has been cherry-picked to show the worst of popular Republicans and the best of popular Democrats. But no, I don't think "27% lies" is a reach at all. Why do you?

[oportet.livejournal.com]

I wasn't thinking of the subjects on the chart as being cherry-picked. It's the 'Most Honest', and she's 8th on the list - I was interpreting that as her being the 8th most honest politician.

If you click on the source, they present it that way also. Also, the second source gets its info from the first source - so let's just look at the first source - maybe some of Hillary's claims they've rated as TRUE....


Muslims have been in America since George Washington - TRUE

Paul Ryan is still endorsing Trump - TRUE


If they're giving her a score based on the statements they 'investigate' and rate, don't you think claims like that - claims that as far as I can tell no one was disputing - inflate her honesty rating?

Today is Saturday. <---After reading that claim I just made, do you trust me more?

[garote]

You are really on point with this!
I never believed that this was an exhaustive list. That they're presenting it as such is pretty ridiculous; I agree. But we were arguing about whether this organization deliberately inflated Hillary's score relative to the others in exchange for money. I don't buy that (pun intended). Quite simply because damning with faint praise is not the kind of endorsement anyone would agree to pay for.

[paft.livejournal.com]

The simple fact is that, given voter demographics, which include minorities, gays, women, the disabled, etc., the right wing practically has to fib -- being open about their agenda would lose them votes. "Yeah, you'd have to do without healthcare and spend your entire working life scrambling frantically just to survive, and your kids would only get as much education as their employers would need for diligent and obedient workers, and gays would go back in the closet, women would lose the ability to make choices about reproduction, oh, and you folks of color, you'd just have to resign yourself to being second-class citizens who can be killed with impunity by the police..."

Not exactly a good sell.

[garote]

LAW AND ORDER!!
(trumpets, gunfire, cavalry charging, etc)

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

And of course "police lives matter". Oops, did I say that aloud. Again.