GOP Debate Threads
- Thread starter sirkickyass
- Start date
Jamezz
Well-Known Member
Don't rule out Ron Paul's son. As the list of candidates trims down he will have more time to bring out his more constitutional approach.
He's done. He is not the icon his father was. Not yet at least. Maybe in 2-3 more elections if he is still around.
I don't think you have an accurate read on this one. Outside of breitbart and similarly rabid right-wing materials, I do not believe that this has been discredited as "made up." It will almost certainly come up tonight and it's bad enough.
That said, the story has been graded "mostly true" by politifact, which pointed out that Carson is mischaracterizing the offer and making it sound unique to him but that it's plausible someone could have told him it was a scholarship. Certainly saying, "I, like all West Point candidates, would have paid nothing" sounds a hell of a lot less impressive than "full scholarship." That makes it embarrassing (and deliciously fun) but not a real lie.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-.../carson-defends-west-point-scholarship-story/
That said, apparently that is the best grade he's ever gotten on politifact, which is a bit disconcerting.
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-carson/
He's been ruled out. Just like his family has every other cycle for 20 years.
Jamezz
Well-Known Member
In that case which is the most ****ed up candidate we can vote for. Things obviously still need to get worse...
The main thing Politifact is debating is the context of "scholarship". I t even says that West point has used "full scholarship" before in its literature.
https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/politico-carson-cnn-key/2015/11/07/id/701045/
Politico also went back and changed parts of their article. Such as the title. It was clearly a hit piece.
At best, and what I believe, is that it points to Carson's inexperience (something I hit Obama on originally, applies even more to Carson) and poor choice of wording.
I see this as a two fold problem. Certain news agencies, not all, are clearly biased and have a vested interest in attacking Carson as a black conservative who is successful (exactly like Fox News does to leading liberals). Part of it is simply dumb words, quotes and theories on Carson's part. Like his theory about the pyramids being grain silos.
If these sources wanted credibility they would go at Carson on his lack of policy on important issue and his lack of experience. There is plenty of fodder there.
Instead they go after the wording of a 30 year old west point claim.
https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/politico-carson-cnn-key/2015/11/07/id/701045/
Politico also went back and changed parts of their article. Such as the title. It was clearly a hit piece.
At best, and what I believe, is that it points to Carson's inexperience (something I hit Obama on originally, applies even more to Carson) and poor choice of wording.
I see this as a two fold problem. Certain news agencies, not all, are clearly biased and have a vested interest in attacking Carson as a black conservative who is successful (exactly like Fox News does to leading liberals). Part of it is simply dumb words, quotes and theories on Carson's part. Like his theory about the pyramids being grain silos.
If these sources wanted credibility they would go at Carson on his lack of policy on important issue and his lack of experience. There is plenty of fodder there.
Instead they go after the wording of a 30 year old west point claim.
DutchJazzer
Banned
inst it disturbing and sad that the media has an agenda and has a clear bias? or does it not bother you?
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to kill off my brain cells reading left wing hack jobs. I've got you to do that for me. If any of these stories are real they will gain traction and I'll learn about them.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Why are you disconcerted? Do you think the highest grade he has ever gotten from them is "mostly true" means that almost everything he says is a lie? It's probably because they rarely check his statements. I'll bet he says a lot of true things. Do you honestly doubt that?
Well, so far they've graded 21 claims (which is a fair amount) and the breakdown is:
0 True (0%)
1 Mostly true (5%)
3 Half True (16%)
4 Mostly False (21%)
8 False (42%)
3 Pants on Fire (16%)
By comparison, you could look at Hillary, whom you have gone on and on about distrusting. Politifact has fact checked (over a much longer period of time) 133 statements by Clinton.
The breakdown on those is:
39 True (29%)
29 Mostly True (22%)
26 Half True (20%)
22 Mostly False (17%)
15 False (11%)
2 Pants on Fire (2%)
I suspect that's not the comparison you want to see, as a party, if you're planning on running on the trustworthiness issue. Of course, I'm sure the fact checkers are just biased.
EDIT: Hillary's "pants on fire" includes the hilarious "I landed under sniper fire" claim. Still embarrassing 7-8 years later.
Her statements re: Benghazi, which you have brought up multiple times, were given the same grade as Carson's claims about West Point: "Mostly True"
DutchJazzer
Banned
jazz better finish the game early within the first 2 hours so i can focus on gop debate
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
How many Hillary statements on Bengahzi have they checked? Zero? How odd. It's been a huge story that's gone on and on. How about questions about her email server? What about deleting emails before turning the server over to the CIA? They haven't asked questions about any of those yet they find time to question a claim in a 25 year old book by a Republican candidate? Weird. Could that be because they don't want to have to find out Hillary's pantsuit is engulfed in flames? The fact that you think these graphs have any political meaningfulness, or that you believe they represent the relative truthfulness of these two candidates is Hillaryous!
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
FOX Business Channel
DutchJazzer
Banned
sorry but that stats are made up by the left. so please take it and put it in a diaper, cus there is where it belongs.
DutchJazzer
Banned
b_line
Well-Known Member
Politifact is pretty Un biased. It's not politico. They are two different entities
DutchJazzer
Banned
ooh really?
i could have sworn i saw that they are biased. but ok whatever bro.
studies proved politifact is biased!
sad really
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I realize they aren't the same. Can you explain why Politifact has not fact checked the Hillary statements I mentioned? Don't you think it's strange? Seems like these are obvious political facts in need of checking. The fact that they haven't leads me to believe they might not be as unbiased as you presume.