Replies to post #15535 on Your Economy OT - Conspiracy, Politics, Religion, (YE2OT)

[Ayock]

Oh, SNAP...

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fact-checkers-confirm-hillary-clinton-is-more-honest-than-any-of-her-2016-opponents/24196/

Fact checkers confirm Hillary Clinton is more honest than any of her 2016 opponents
By Bill Palmer |
March 20, 2016 | 6

The trendy knock on Hillary Clinton, even among those who acknowledge that she’s the most capable and knowledgeable of the 2016 candidates for President, is the accusation that she’s just not honest. Her opponents keep insisting that she can’t be trusted, that she’s not telling the truth, and that there is therefore no telling what she might do while in office. But whenever fact checkers look at what Clinton and her opponents are saying during this election cycle, she rates out as the most honest of the bunch.

It may come as a surprise considering how often her opponents have tried to ding her for honesty issues. But according to campaign-long data from respected fact checking entity PolitFact, the picture looks very different. These sites only evaluate controversial or contentious claims made by each candidate, so if for instance they rate a candidate’s statements as being “true” half the time, it doesn’t mean the candidate is lying the other half the time. It’s more accurately an indicator of what percentage of the time a candidate turns out to have been telling the truth when he or she is specifically accused of lying.

PolitiFact has rated 24% of Hillary Clinton’s contentious claims as receiving a perfect “True” score (source link), which may not sound impressive until you consider that just 15% of Bernie Sanders’ contentious claims have rated out as “True” (source link). There are two other passable categories, “Mostly True” and “Half True.” If you add up the numbers from the top three boxes, Clinton comes out at 72% and Sanders comes out at 70%, which are both robust scores. In the bottom two boxes, just 14% of Clinton’s challenged statements have rated out as “False” or “Pants on Fire” while Sanders has fallen into those bottom two boxes 15% of the time.

Again, lest you get jaded, it doesn’t mean that either candidate is lying 14% or 15% of the time they open their mouths. This is merely a percentage of the most highly contested claims they’ve each made during this election. In other words, whenever Clinton or Sanders has been accused of lying, most of the time it turns out they were actually telling the truth. Objectively speaking, these are the two most honest candidates in the race, with Clinton receiving the slight numerical edge. Now for contrast, let’s take a look at the numbers for the top 2016 republican candidates.

It turns out Donald Trump’s statements have only rated out as being fully “True” a mere 3% of the time (source link). In fact he rates out as “False” or “Pants on Fire” an astounding 61% of the time. Ted Cruz is nearly as dishonest, rated “True” just 6% of the time, and “False” or “Pants on Fire” 36% of the time (source link). So what does this tell us?

The factual bottom line is that Hillary Clinton is the most honest candidate in the 2016 election. Bernie Sanders is a close second, making them the two most comparatively “honest” politicians in the race. In contrast, Donald Trump rates out as nearly a pathological liar, and Cruz doesn’t do much better. So much for the notion that Clinton is the one who can’t be trusted. This false perception is largely a function of her longtime status as the clear frontrunner and expected winner, causing the other candidates to take the most shots at her honesty out of desperation. But as the above numbers irrefutably spell out, when the others accuse Hillary of lying, it most often turns out they’re the ones who are lying. Here’s more on Hillary Clinton.

[Ayock]

The clarity of good writing...

Stephen King & Hundreds Of Writers Pen SCATHING Open Letter To Donald Trump
MAY 25TH, 2016
CALEB R. NEWTON

Hundreds of writers have co-signed an “open letter to the American people” discussing their opposition to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. Notable signers include Stephen King and Amy Tan.

This letter represents a carrying to the extreme of the gross lack of support from the literary and artistic crowds for the avowed racist and presidential candidate. Now, not only do these people not support Trump, but they are wielding their pen against the man, and inviting others to join them.

People can add their name to the letter at IPetition.com. The letter is quickly approaching the stated goal of 10,000 names.

Below, you can read the letter.

‘Because, as writers, we are particularly aware of the many ways that language can be abused in the name of power;

Because we believe that any democracy worthy of the name rests on pluralism, welcomes principled disagreement, and achieves consensus through reasoned debate;

Because American history, despite periods of nativism and bigotry, has from the first been a grand experiment in bringing people of different backgrounds together, not pitting them against one another;

Because the history of dictatorship is the history of manipulation and division, demagoguery and lies;

Because the search for justice is predicated on a respect for the truth;

Because we believe that knowledge, experience, flexibility, and historical awareness are indispensable in a leader;

Because neither wealth nor celebrity qualifies anyone to speak for the United States, to lead its military, to maintain its alliances, or to represent its people;

Because the rise of a political candidate who deliberately appeals to the basest and most violent elements in society, who encourages aggression among his followers, shouts down opponents, intimidates dissenters, and denigrates women and minorities, demands, from each of us, an immediate and forceful response;

For all these reasons, we, the undersigned, as a matter of conscience, oppose, unequivocally, the candidacy of Donald J. Trump for the Presidency of the United States.’

As the Trump campaign goes on, the polarization it feeds grows dramatically. Just last night, a Trump campaign rally in New Mexico was overrun with violent protests, which left police officers “injured” and at least one person arrested.

Even still, all of the closeted racists are coming out and supporting Trump. Just think about it this way: if only 3 or 4 in 10 voters make their voice heard, then can it really be said to represent the whole population? No, and that is why Trump really does stand for what much of America stands for. He is galvanizing, he is loud, and he feeds people’s neuroses. So, unlike in the case of perceptibly lame establishment candidates like Mitt Romney, people actually come out in support of Trump. That’s why, this past Sunday, he pulled ahead of Hillary Clinton by 0.2 percent in the Real Clear Politics general election polling average.

Trump does have a counter force. These writers, people who tend to be liberal and/or humanist in their life outlook, help to exemplify that force, which is Trump’s most effective opposition. Democratic underdog candidate Bernie Sanders is pretty much responsible for it. He has gotten untold masses of closeted and disillusioned liberals to come out and engage. Sanders has even already amassed an impressive list of artists and musicians on his team, from rappers like Killer Mike to rockers like Neil Young.

He is much more engaging and electable than Clinton when pitted against Trump. The question is whether or not Sanders can pull off an upset clinch of the nomination, being about 8 percent shy of his needed vote totals to win.

The decisive California primary is coming on June 7, and Sanders desperately hopes that he can win. And the odds are in his favor, since unaffiliated voters, whom Sanders continuously wins by landslides, can vote in the state’s Democratic primary.

Featured Image is via Fabio Bruna on Flickr, Available Under a Creative Commons License.