For Quick: A discussion on fact-checking

[Patti Beadles]

I'm separating this out so as not to co-opt Larry's discussion.

As a thought experiment, imagine a completely hypothetical debate between two candidates:

Candidate H: This candidate never lies, but occasionally makes an error.

Candidate L: This candidate always lies.

There is a fact-checker during this hypothetical debate. If the fact-checkers corrected all falsehoods how often would they correct Candidate L compared to Candidate H?

-P

[Dave Horwitz]

Indeterminate (and silly).

"Here is the report"

"Wait, two of these things stated as fact are wrong"

"oh, we called out that falsehood because it was a lie and we did not call out that falsehood because it was made in 'error' "

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barge Religion and Politics" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to barge-relpol...@barge.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/barge.org/d/msgid/barge-relpol/20240922204239.0CA29C0801%40kpmb.net.

[Patti Beadles]

Quick writes:

> Indeterminate (and silly).

You're missing my point.

Let's say, hypothetically, that H makes a mistake one time during the debate and L lies ten times during the debate. If the fact-checkers call out every instance then it's going to look like they are picking on L when in reality it's just L lying a lot.

The Washington Post has a pretty decent analysis of the honesty of the debate. Here's a gift link: https://wapo.st/3MRL3hv

CNN claims that Trump "delivered a staggering quantity and variety of false claims" and that for Harris they found "just one false claim" although others were "misleading or lacking in key context." Link: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/10/politics/fact-check-debate-trump-harris/index.html

There are plenty of other analyses out there but they pretty much all come down to the same thing: Donald Trump is not tethered to reality. Even his running mate JD Vance has admitted that the story of eating pets was made up, but Trump keeps repeating it.

-P

[Ed Baker]

Good to see some rel-pol talk. I watched the entire debate, but it was a drinking game and I had to chug the entire beer when Trump mentioned the Haitians in Springfield, Ohio eating pets. I enjoyed the real time fact checking, but I do wish they had called out Harris for mentioning two hoaxes. One was the "fine people on both sides" and I forget the other one. And on the other side, they couldn't very well call out every Trump lie. They did a good job picking out the whoppers. 

Pop quiz: can everyone cite the seven swing states?

[Dave Horwitz]

As does Harris on the claims of project 2025 over and over again (debunked)

As does Harris on the claims about Charlottesville (debunked)

As does Harris on the claims that Trump will ban abortions (I guess by having the states do it for him)

etc.

But I guess those were all (1?) "mistakes" made by Harris

and who can argue with ABC when they're backed up by CNN?

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barge Religion and Politics" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to barge-relpol...@barge.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/barge.org/d/msgid/barge-relpol/20240923010524.E2783C0801%40kpmb.net.

[Patti Beadles]

Quick writes:

> As does Harris on the claims of project 2025 over and over again (debunked)

Please be specific about the claims you are referring to.

> As does Harris on the claims about Charlottesville (debunked)

Please be specific.

> As does Harris on the claims that Trump will ban abortions (I guess by having the states do it for him)

I'll save you the trouble on this one. Trump has taken completely contradictory positions on abortion in the same day. He brags about being the one who got Roe overturned and he constantly says that everybody wanted the decision to go back to the states. (Fact: Almost nobody wanted that. People who are anti-abortion want it outlawed, and people who are pro-choice want abortion to be safe and legal.)

-P

[Lennie Augustine]

"Even his running mate JD Vance has admitted that the story of eating pets was made up . . . ."

I am almost always on your side of these debates, Patti, including this one, but that particular statement is just false.  Yes, the story of eating pets was ginned up from a report that ended up being false, and Vance certainly knows that, but he has never admitted it.

In the interview where Vance used the word "created" while discussing the eating pets story, when the interviewer pointed out his use of that word would cause people to claim what you are claiming, he clarified that he meant they created the media discussion around it and not the actual story.  To pounce on the use of the word "created" to prove up that Vance admitted something that he actually did not is to engage in exactly the type of fact-divorced pablum that is the calling card of Trump and Vance.

Lennie

-P

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barge Religion and Politics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to barge-relpol...@barge.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/barge.org/d/msgid/barge-relpol/20240923010524.E2783C0801%40kpmb.net.

[Dave Horwitz]

Sorry, not playing the "please be specific" game or the endless "please supply cites".

"Trump has taken completely contradictory positions on abortion in the same day."

So you agree it should not be in the hands of the Federal government. That's exactly what will happen if the Dems win and pack the court right?

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barge Religion and Politics" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to barge-relpol...@barge.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/barge.org/d/msgid/barge-relpol/20240923031105.5ABF7C0801%40kpmb.net.

[Patti Beadles]

Quick writes:

> Sorry, not playing the "please be specific" game or the endless "please
> supply cites".

You can't back up your assertions. Got it.

> "Trump has taken completely contradictory positions on abortion in the
> same day."
> So you agree it should not be in the hands of the Federal government.
> That's exactly what will happen if the Dems win and pack the court right?

My rights to control my body should not depend on which state I'm in. This shouldn't even be a question but right-wingers decided that abortion would be a great wedge issue as a proxy for racism. Citation: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/05/abortion-opposition-focus-white-evangelical-anger

In an ideal world bodily autonomy would be a constitutional right, but probably the best we can do right now is to codify Roe.

Do you agree that medical decisions should be between doctors and patients and not decided by the government? Do you think it's OK that women are dying because they can't legally get the medical care that they need?

-P

[Ed Baker]

On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 11:12 PM Patti Beadles <pat...@pattib.org> wrote:
>
> Quick writes:
>
> > As does Harris on the claims about Charlottesville (debunked)
>
> Please be specific.

Here is the Snopes article: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

But then there's this argument: https://newrepublic.com/article/183082/nopes-trump-very-fine-people

[Dave Horwitz]

"right-wingers decided that abortion would be a great wedge issue as a proxy for racism."

Nothing rational to discuss here...

Oh, wait, what, you stated that as fact. Can we get an Amen here or maybe a fact check?

"it's OK that women are dying because they can't legally get the medical care that they need?"

Are you referring to Thurman? There is nothing in Georgia's abortion law that stood in the way of saving her life (convenient to make that claim though).That was simply medical malpractice (but I'm not a lawyer).

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barge Religion and Politics" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to barge-relpol...@barge.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/barge.org/d/msgid/barge-relpol/20240923075946.88914C230E%40kpmb.net.

[Patti Beadles]

Quick writes:

> Oh, wait, what, you stated that as fact. Can we get an Amen here or maybe a fact check?

I provided a citation in my post.

> Are you referring to Thurman? There is nothing in Georgia's abortion law that
> stood in the way of saving her life (convenient to make that claim though).
> That was simply medical malpractice (but I'm not a lawyer).

One of the issues with the abortion laws in at least some states is that they have a chilling effect on medical care because medical professionals face significant legal penalties for performing "unnecessary" abortions. The only exceptions for the Texas abortion law involve saving the life of the mother or preventing substantial impairement of major bodily functions, and women are being forced to wait until they hit that threshold rather getting the care they need before they get that bad.

Here's some light reading for you:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/13/texas-abortion-ectopic-pregnancy-investigation
https://apnews.com/article/harris-abortion-death-trump-georgia-f9c65fb7019938f0fff18e61d4f2d84a
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/07/04/1185904719/texas-abortion-bans-dobbs-fetal-anomaly

One side effect is that more women are dying in Texas as a result of pregnancy: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/texas-abortion-ban-deaths-pregnant-women-sb8-analysis-rcna171631

Do you think it makes sense for legislators to decide when someone should get medical care, or should that be left to medical professionals?

-P

[Paul Zuzelo]

Dave Horowitz wrote:

“Sorry, not playing the "please be specific" game or the endless "please supply cites".”

 

I really appreciate your honesty and candor when you use the descriptor “game” to describe the requirement of specificity and factualness for your (unsupported) assertions.  

 

Why is it that Trump supporters and MAGA cultists think that logic, facts, accuracy, and truth are just “games” to be played against your opponents?  Have they made that jump from reality to fantasy, and as such are no longer constrained by logic, facts, or truth?  Is it because a simple MAGA-supporting assertion is all that’s necessary for all the other MAGA bobble-heads to nod up-and-down and agree?

 

Should we all agree here that in future RELPOL discussions, any Dave Horowitz assertion is automatically accepted as 100% factually and logically accurate?  That will make all these discussions so much easier, since no support or proof is needed to debunk and delegitimize the arguments of non-Trump supporters – a simple assertion will suffice.  Is that the solution?

 

While we’re on the topic of truthfulness, while I agree that Trump’s statements should be constantly and thoroughly fact-checked, it’s futile to think that this will have any effect on Trump himself.  In the entirety of Trump’s career, the criteria that is used by Trump to determine what he says any time he opens his mouth is this: “Is what I’m about to say good for Donald Trump, or not good for Donald Trump?”

 

If he thinks it’s good for Donald Trump, he says it.  If he thinks it’s not good for Donald Trump, he doesn’t say it and usually babbles something else that he thinks meets the criteria “good for Donald Trump.”  At no time do, logic, accuracy, facts, and truthfulness enter the process and become criteria by which he judges what comes out of his mouth.  As a result, any resemblance of Trump’s statements to actual, factual reality is purely random.  This backfires at times, since much of Trump’s thoughtless babbling ends up working against him.  But he can’t learn from this, and thus it’s futile to believe that he’ll eventually add “factual,” “truthful,” or “accurate” to his criteria for determining what he says.

 

Finally, I’m going to imagine what I would do were the situation reversed.  Suppose I had a choice between voting for Donald Trump, or voting for Liz Cheney – a person whose policies I disagree with 95%+ of the time.  Should I just not vote, or should I vote for a person who will try to implement policies that I’ll never support?

 

While some decisions in life can be hard, this one is simple and quick.  Of course I’ll vote for Cheney.  Cheney will support the rule of law, and uphold the Constitution.  I’ll continue to have free, unfettered rights to oppose her policies, without fear of being vengefully attacked, or having thugs encouraged to threaten me and my family.  The candidates I support will have an opportunity to oppose her, run against her, and defeat her without the danger of being investigated by every bozo committee of Republicans it’s possible to create in the House.  They won’t have their taxes for the last ten years audited, or be the target of grade-school name-calling.

 

Donald Trump doesn’t believe in any of these things.  He wants to be an autocratic dictator, purely and simply.  As such, 100% of his actions primarily will benefit him.  Any policy that also benefits his cultists and supporters is, as with his statements, purely random.  Now, maybe MAGA cultists like the idea of Trump as dictator.  Certainly the closet racists and fascists like this idea.  But for those “Republicans” who think that it’s a choice between holding your nose and voting for Trump, vs. voting for a Democrat whose policies you disagree with 95%+ of the time, I encourage you to think again. That’s not the larger issue, and deep down you realize that fact.  It’s a choice between continuing American democracy vs. a candidate who has done, and will continue to do, everything he can to destroy it and replace it with himself as dictator.  You can recover from a President with whom you disagree.  You can’t recover from Trump.

[Dave Tall]

JD Vance was holding court on CNN’s State of the Union programme. “The American media totally ignored this stuff,” he complained last Sunday, “until Donald Trump and I started talking about cat memes.”

But it wasn’t just a meme, objected interviewer Dana Bash. The Republican vice-presidential nominee gave a telling response: “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do, Dana, because you guys are completely letting Kamala Harris coast.”

Dave

On Sep 23, 2024, at 2:03 AM, Patti Beadles <pat...@pattib.org> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barge Religion and Politics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to barge-relpol...@barge.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/barge.org/d/msgid/barge-relpol/20240923075946.88914C230E%40kpmb.net.