I probably shouldn’t be posting this… not because it shouldn’t be said, but because I’m exhausted and doubt I’m able to form a coherent thought. Whatever. Here goes:
I’ve been obsessed lately with fact checking the presidential candidates. Agreeing with a particular candidate’s stance has become less important to me than not being lied to with every breath. Once I can determine that, then I’ll look at platforms. Maybe this system would work for you or maybe you prefer a staunch party line and couldn’t care less whether a candidate is shooting straight with you. For the purposes of this post, I’m going to use the findings from the Washington Post.
For Trump’s speech, they rated 25 statements and, by my estimation, they break down as such:
- Lie – 5
- Cherry pick – 2
- Misleading – 13
- Partial truth – 1
- Outdated info – 1
- Unknown – 3
I’m open to others’ interpretation of the statements as presented.
- For Clinton’s speech (or should I say the Dem’s because all statements are not from Hillary), they only rated 9 statements and, by my estimation, they break down as such:
- Lie – 1
- Cherry pick – 1
- Misleading – 2
- Outdated info – 1
- Unknown – 4
To be clear, the unknown category consists of claims where the Washington Post has no idea what the candidate is talking about or the claims simply can’t be substantiated.
At this point, if you’d like to contend that the Washington Post has a Democratic bias due to the lack of checked statements, I could certainly understand that argument. I find the disparity suspicious at the least. Granted, I realize Hillary didn’t speak as long as Trump did, so are we to assume the lack of checked statements means that the candidate was speaking the truth or are we experiencing a lie of omission? I’m curious whether you readers are more concerned with honesty or with a particular party’s platform?
Okay, enough with politics, I’ll return to the regular inanities of life soon. Promise.