Fact-Checking the Foreign-Policy Debate

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Trump lying about the US being the only country with birth right citizenship is nit picking? Even though this is a crucial aspect of his anti-immigration policy?

This isn't nit-picking

Carly misleading the public about our relationship with egypt, jordan and the kurds is nit picking? Even though she's using these examples as a way to illustrate that Obama is an ineffective leader who is hurting our allies in the region?

THIS is nit-picking. Precisely because it seeks to evaluate the nature of relationships, not the actual events in the relationship so it can be as subjective as Carly wants to make it, and not really be wrong.

Rubio stating that Obama called the militaries efffort a pinprick, when he said the exact opposite is nitpicking? Even though Rubio is using this as an example to show that Obama does not understand his militaries capabilities and thus being able to tie this to why the war in Syria and the war with ISIS has gotten out of control?

Again, same as Florina. You're entitled to your own perspective, but not your own facts. If Rubio wanted to quote how many bombs went off, thats one thing, but to evaluate the nature of the amount of effort is a complete different question. This is nitpicking.

Rubio stating that "America is not a planet" and lying about China's climate change policies is nitpicking? Even though he spent 2 minutes lying about the ineffectiveness of our carbon emissions based on the idea that China is gonna China?

Again, this is nit-picking. They're talking about VERY debatable and easily misrepresented data. When you talk about effectiveness of policy, any side can interpret outcomes to suit their talking points. Obama does it too. Don't be blind to this.

Unless you're talking numbers, then you can't talk about effectiveness without making it a subjective argument.

It's like you can't connect the dots or you're just purposely being ignorant about the debate.

I don't give a fukk about any GOP candidates. But you're equally as blind to not point out the circle-jerk of liberal think pieces meant to make you think you're better than "The Right" on policy matters because you can say "oh well, they didn't get it ALL right, therefore they're stupid"

Its intellectually dishonest.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Nah, they were purposefully misleading the public and using scare tactics.

Where is the misleading shyt here? Look at this that @tru_m.a.c posted...its ridiculus.

Summary
The Republican presidential candidates met for their second debate on Sept. 16, this one hosted by CNN at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in California. We found they strayed from the facts on numerous issues, including:

• Donald Trump told a story linking vaccination to autism, but there’s no evidence that recommended vaccines cause autism. And Sen. Rand Paul suggested that it would be safer to spread out recommended vaccines, but there’s no evidence of that, either.
• Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Trump donated to his gubernatorial campaign to get him to change his mind on casino gambling in Florida. But Trump denied he ever wanted to bring casino gambling to the state. A former lobbyist says he did.
• Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said that Hillary Clinton was “under investigation by the FBI” because she “destroyed government records.” Not true. She had the authority to delete personal emails.
• Trump said that “illegal immigration” cost “more than $200 billion a year.” We couldn’t find any support for that. Actually, it could cost taxpayers $137 billion or more to deport the 11 million immigrants in the country illegally, as Trump proposes.
• Trump again wrongly said that Mexico doesn’t have a birthright citizenship policy like the United States. It does.
• Carly Fiorina said that the Planned Parenthood videos released by an anti-abortion group showed “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.” But that scene isn’t in any of the videos.
• Fiorina repeated familiar boasts about her time at Hewlett-Packard, saying the size of the company “doubled,” without mentioning that was due to a merger with Compaq, and she cherry-picked other statistics.
• Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said that U.S. policies to combat climate change would “do absolutely nothing.” The U.S. acting alone would have a small effect on rising temperatures and sea levels, and experts say U.S. leadership on the issue would prompt other nations to act.
• In the “happy hour” debate, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham glossed over the accompanying tax increases when he said only that Ronald Reagan and then-House Speaker Tip O’Neill “found a way to save Social Security from bankruptcy by adjusting the age of retirement from 65 to 67.”

FactChecking the CNN Republican Debate

Trump say $200 Billion...and its "wrong" because someone googled a number that said it could be $137 billion? ...WOW...BIG difference there

Trump talking about bringing casinos? Really? Really? Who gives a fukk.

Huckabee didn't lie about Hillary. ...the FBI IS looking into her emails.

Fiorina did embellish those abortion videos. But unless you've watched them, you can't say they were far off.

Fiorina bragging about HP? Really? She's the CEO. Of course she amps up the size of the company.

Rubio lied about climate regulations? Really? He's NOT lying. The US doesn't control the fukking "air" if they do it alone.

Lindsey Graham didn't mention tax increases? Word? That wasn't even his fukking point!




See this is the shyt i'm talking about.

There are flat out lies, then there are things politicians say to make points...this is a VERY lazy article.

 

[88m3]

I'm not going to even entertain this, you need to make some friends.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Carly misleading the public about our relationship with egypt, jordan and the kurds is nit picking? Even though she's using these examples as a way to illustrate that Obama is an ineffective leader who is hurting our allies in the region?

This isn't nit-picking

THIS is nit-picking. Precisely because it seeks to evaluate the nature of relationships, not the actual events in the relationship so it can be as subjective as Carly wants to make it, and not really be wrong.

what! The explanation for why it's a lie is the only statement that considers the ACTUAL events in the relationship. What are you talking about? This is not a matter of being subjective. Saying blue is the prettiest color in the world is subjective. Saying you think girl x is the prettiest in the world is subjective. Saying that we haven't armed the kurds in 3 years is a flat out fukkn lie.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

what! The explanation for why it's a lie is the only statement that considers the ACTUAL events in the relationship. What are you talking about? This is not a matter of being subjective. Saying blue is the prettiest color in the world is subjective. Saying you think girl x is the prettiest in the world is subjective. Saying that we haven't armed the kurds in 3 years is a flat out fukkn lie.

Its nitpicking because its not done officially. You can't just use nuanced points then backtrack and reinterpret them when convenient.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I'm not going to even entertain this, you need to make some friends.

Stop it man.

The GOP is on some bullshyt, but succumb to lies and misrepresentation just to score cheap points

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Its nitpicking because its not done officially. You can't just use nuanced points then backtrack and reinterpret them when convenient.

The fukk are you talking about?

1. That's not the definition of nit picking.
2. When you're discussing historical events, you should ONLY be using nuanced points if the idea you are trying to convey depends on the accuracy of the points being used.
3. Carly is the only person reinterpreting history when convenient. So how are you using this against the fact checker you is verifying the authenticity of her claims?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

The fukk are you talking about?

1. That's not the definition of nit picking.
2. When you're discussing historical events, you should ONLY be using nuanced points if the idea you are trying to convey depends on the accuracy of the points being used.
3. Carly is the only person reinterpreting history when convenient. So how are you using this against the fact checker you is verifying the authenticity of her claims?

The ONLY reason you agree with Slate is because slate agrees with you.

Slate is liberal and looks for ANY REASON to look at lazy points and call them lies. When many of them ARE NOT.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

The ONLY reason you agree with Slate is because slate agrees with you.

Slate is liberal and looks for ANY REASON to look at lazy points and call them lies. When many of them ARE NOT.

nikka whatever...you're the one acting like lying about dates is a matter of discretion

 

[88m3]

Stop it man.

The GOP is on some bullshyt, but succumb to lies and misrepresentation just to score cheap points

You think that's beneath them? You remember that Obama is a Mulsim, the birth certificate, along with I can't even remember what else. Yeah?


This is the highest office in our country and holding them to the standards of using facts and not misrepresenting what is going on in this country is too much?

This wouldn't fly with the Secretary of State of AG nomination process.

 

[brick james]

The ONLY reason you agree with Slate is because slate agrees with you.

Slate is liberal and looks for ANY REASON to look at lazy points and call them lies. When many of them ARE NOT.

Do you think it's too much to hold politicians accountable for using incorrect facts during a debate? You actually caped for donald trump saying 200 billion instead of 137 billion, or for lying about him trying to build casinos in Florida.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You think that's beneath them? You remember that Obama is a Mulsim, the birth certificate, along with I can't even remember what else. Yeah?


This is the highest office in our country and holding them to the standards of using facts and not misrepresenting what is going on in this country is too much?

This wouldn't fly with the Secretary of State of AG nomination process.

OK .So lets talk about ACUTAL transgressions they're making...this dumb shyt isn't helping

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Do you think it's too much to hold politicians accountable for using incorrect facts during a debate? You actually caped for donald trump saying 200 billion instead of 137 billion, or for lying about him trying to build casinos in Florida.

Fam, Slate said "we couldn't find where we go this number...so we googled some shyt and came up with a number thats not even half of what he said"

How dense can you be?

shyt on the GOP all you want, but all this reveals is...very little.

 

[choc_cardigan]

Unless Napoleon is the ultimate troll, then his lack of comprehension skills is scary

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

Unless Napoleon is the ultimate troll, then his lack of comprehension skills is scary

nah, it's this:

circle-jerk of liberal think pieces meant to make you think you're better than "The Right" on policy matters because you can say "oh well, they didn't get it ALL right, therefore they're stupid"