Glen Kessler runs factcheck. It is one hundred percent true that she started out as a secretary and the worked to become ceo. There is no way to misrepresent that. And regarding my sources on the Hilary email scandal I keep it to my mainstream sources like the inked I've already listed.
Smoke, meet Gun
- Thread starter HerdFan76
- Start date
It's also true that Trump started out with a small loan from his father.
Now you get it?
And I do t think trump has ever said otherwise. They labeled a true statement and mostly false end of discussion
Yeah I believe it was a million dollars. What does that have to do with anything?
To some people sure. I know you're trying to insinuate fiorina misled people with her story but that's not the job of "fact checkers". Did she start her career as a secretary YES did she rise through the ranks to become ceo YES. She told the truth period.
Yes, it is misleading for Fiorina to imply that she was like every other American and started out with next to nothing. In the same way Trump said he hasn't had it easy, but got his business started with a small $1,000,000 loan from his father. By the way, that $1,000,000 loan, if he got it in 1968, is equivalent to nearly 7 million in today's dollars. Yeah, I guess that is a small loan to the majority of Americans.
I never said it was a small loan to majority of Americans. I said sure it would be considered a small loan to SOME. It's not misleading when it's the truth.
Yes, the truth can be misleading. While Trump's and Fiorina's statements are true, they are misleading. Neither may be intentional, but misleading nevertheless.
I never said they were or weren't. It's not the job of "fact checkers" to determine if a statement is misleading. Their job is to say whether or not it is factual.
Wrong. They determine sometimes if it's misleading. Example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...rance-dispute/2012/03/18/gIQAdDd4KS_blog.html
But that is not their job no matter who they say is misleading. They are fact checkers not misleading checkers
I find some serious irony in that a site labeled "factcheck" thinks they can call out factual stories as "mostly not true" because from their point of view it is misleading.
I wonder if they fact checked their site name as being "mostly not true"?
Yeah, it is their job, and they are doing exactly that. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.
So facts have to be interpreted for everyone now? I'm sorry their job is not to interpret facts sure it's what they" do" but they shouldn't. I have no problem calling people out that are lying but to say a fact is mostly false because you don't agree with how it's presented makes no sense
Yeah, it does make sense. I want some clarification regarding what people claim. When Obama stated that internet gun sales play by a different set of rules, do you want everyone to believe that? Or do you want them to know that actual gun sales on the internet do play by the same rules but there are websites that have found a way to work around the background checks by connecting private sellers to buyers so that felons can buy guns?
Classic Greed. Bogging threads down arguing insignificant issues.
No one except a blathering conservative believes a nearly 7 million dollar loan is a small loan, and the same goes for believing that Fiorina paid her way through Stanford and a semester of law school by working as a secretary.
It wasn't seven million it was one and NO ONE BUT YOU said she worked her way through Stanford by being a secretary
1 million in about 1968 is the equivalent of almost 7 million today. You see, that's part of the narrative that needs to be "interpreted". And Fiorina's story is intended to have people believe she struggled through her college days and shortly after. You know, working as a lowly secretary and working summers and such.
And the FBI probe may be expanding into corruption charges
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html
Yes. It certainly is their job. And that's precisely what they're doing. Context is relevant.
And I ignore links to faux news. Thanks anyway.
Of course you do. You would rather bury your head in the sand and ignore it instead of actually looking at it because it might mean your beloved Hilary won't win.
It's a fact trump got a loan from his dad. It's a fact fiorina began her career as a secretary. Context does not matter when you are fact checking. Is what they said true? yes it is end of discussion
i sold lemonade from a lemonade stand as a kid. does that mean i started my career as a small biz owner?
It's beyond irony that a person would disregard a fact checking site and defend faux news.
Context does not matter.....OK....
The 112th republican members of the House missed 26% of the vote.
If you said hey I had a lemonade stand as a kid and that was my first taste as a small business then yeah sure
No. Leave 44's statement exactly as he posted it and answer the question. It doesn't need your added context.
Fine. Then you malarkey filled conservatives agree with the following statement which is most assuredly a FACT........
"The 112th republican members of the House missed 26% of the vote."
The question was.......
"i sold lemonade from a lemonade stand as a kid. does that mean i started my career as a small biz owner?"
In that case, lets be honest, many of your careers started by supplying a no longer needed tooth and being benificently recompensed by the tooth fairy.
