• Seeking the Truth: Donald Trump's acceptance speech vs facts of reality
    35 replies, posted
[quote] Donald J. Trump’s acceptance speech here was filled with Trump-like hyperbole and the kind of vague political rhetoric that is hard to pin down. But there were also facts. In describing the problems that he would seek to fix from the Oval Office, Mr. Trump offered a series of grim facts about crime, the economy, and foreign policy. “Here at our convention, there will be no lies,” Mr. Trump said. Many of Mr. Trump’s facts appear to be true, though the Republican presidential nominee sometimes failed to offer the entire story, or provide all of the context that might help to explain his numbers. And in some cases, the facts seemed inflated or misleading, part of a broader ideological message that Mr. Trump was hoping to convey. Our fact-checks of some of his claims:[/quote] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-fact-check.html?_r=0[/url] Aaand you can click the article to actually read each statement vs facts
[Quote]“Nearly four in 10 African-American children are living in poverty, while 58 percent of African-American youth are not employed.” Fact Check: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate of African Americans ages 16-19 in June was 31.2 percent (among whites of the same age, it was 14.1 percent).[/quote] Does Trump's number include youth who are discouraged workers and therefore not included in the unemployment rate? Unemployment implies you're actively seeking work.
[QUOTE=OvB;50759450]Does Trump's number include youth who are discouraged workers and therefore not included in the unemployment rate? Unemployment implies you're actively seeking work.[/QUOTE] It reminds mo of the fact checking/correcting on the causes of black deaths. "Nuh-uh it's not 97% it's only 91%"
Bernie Math evolved to just exist to contradict Trump stats. [editline]22nd July 2016[/editline] "[B]Well actually... [/b]"
This seems more like a "point out any possible way that he could be wrong" as opposed to a fact check. The very first point they basically say that he's right, but he's still wrong because he didn't talk about the entire nuance of the issue.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50759630]This seems more like a "point out any possible way that he could be wrong" as opposed to a fact check. The very first point they basically say that he's right, but he's still wrong because he didn't talk about the entire nuance of the issue.[/QUOTE] That's called "taking something out of context"
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50759667]That's called "taking something out of context"[/QUOTE] It really isn't. The stat was 100% correct, but they didn't like the way he used it. A fact check is just supposed to check the facts, not give an opinion about whether they made the correct political conclusion from it.
I mean, whether you use a correct statistic correctly is pretty darn important.
cant wait for their teardown of HRC's acceptance speech
[QUOTE=person11;50759841]I mean, whether you use a correct statistic correctly is pretty darn important.[/QUOTE] I agree, but that's the job for a political analysis or discussion, not a fact check. Political conclusions are rarely cut and dry enough to make them out as simple truths or falsehoods.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50759751]It really isn't. The stat was 100% correct, but they didn't like the way he used it. A fact check is just supposed to check the facts, not give an opinion about whether they made the correct political conclusion from it.[/QUOTE] It's like saying unemployment dropped while conveniently omitting that all the unemployed people died. It's true, but you leave out [i]why[/i] it went down. Context is important for statistics, otherwise they're just numbers.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50760040]It's like saying unemployment dropped while conveniently omitting that all the unemployed people died. It's true, but you leave out [i]why[/i] it went down. Context is important for statistics, otherwise they're just numbers.[/QUOTE] It still doesn't make the statistic any less true.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50760078]It still doesn't make the statistic any less true.[/QUOTE] It's very misleading to say
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/uwAIRcs.png[/IMG] wow what high quality fact checking they did here They immediately follow this up by saying 61% of those deported were done for immigration and drugs. Because rape, murder, and theft probably aren't violent crimes. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/9LD3Vrp.png[/IMG] Call me a skeptic but the only people who truly know about nuclear security are the CIA and the highest members in the White House. All of those public statements and compliance to inspections do not paint a complete picture. [quote]• “The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50 percent compared to this point last year.” Fact Check: In fact, the Officer Down Memorial Page, which tracks officer deaths, reports that 68 police officers have been killed so far this year, almost exactly the same as the 69 who were killed in the same period last year.[/quote] This is the only valid criticism because I can't find a reliable source like the FBI or Bureau of Statistics to contradict it. Most of the article says Trump's statements were correct and that there are some technicalities that he didn't explain. Trump is a bottom-line person so he states the implications of the facts. [quote]• “In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent. They are up nearly 60 percent in nearby Baltimore.” Fact Check: Those statistics are based on an analysis performed by The Washington Post, which found no clear pattern in which cities saw increases in homicides.[/quote] From the [url=http://mpdc.dc.gov/node/208772]DC Police Department Website[/url] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/WjWiN11.png[/IMG] Homicides [B]HAVE[/B] been increasing in DC, thought there isn't data published yet for 2016. Seriously what is the point of this article
Unemployment is can be used to mislead by misinterpretimg the cause. High unemployment might be because of people entering the labor force and therefore mean the higher rate is an indicator of a rebound. So when a media pundit tells you X policy sucks because unemployment went up, you have to be able to figure out why. They also do it for when it goes down. Less unemployment isn't good if those people are becoming discouraged workers.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50760167] Homicides [B]HAVE[/B] been increasing in DC, thought there isn't data published yet for 2016. Seriously what is the point of this article[/QUOTE] How is a 33 percent drop in five years an increase...I don't understand this logic.
[QUOTE=BoopieDoopie2;50760187]How is a 33 percent drop in five years an increase...I don't understand this logic.[/QUOTE] Are we seeing different statistics..? The Police Department recorded 132 homicides in 2010, and there were 162 in 2015. The 50% increase is from 2014-2015 with 105 homicides going to 162.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50760167][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/uwAIRcs.png[/IMG] wow what high quality fact checking they did here They immediately follow this up by saying 61% of those deported were done for immigration and drugs. Because rape, murder, and theft probably aren't violent crimes. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/9LD3Vrp.png[/IMG] Call me a skeptic but the only people who truly know about nuclear security are the CIA and the highest members in the White House. All of those public statements and compliance to inspections do not paint a complete picture. This is the only valid criticism because I can't find a reliable source like the FBI or Bureau of Statistics to contradict it. Most of the article says Trump's statements were correct and that there are some technicalities that he didn't explain. Trump is a bottom-line person so he states the implications of the facts. From the [url=http://mpdc.dc.gov/node/208772]DC Police Department Website[/url] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/WjWiN11.png[/IMG] Homicides [B]HAVE[/B] been increasing in DC, thought there isn't data published yet for 2016. Seriously what is the point of this article[/QUOTE] Saying "killings have risen 50%" without saying [i]since when[/i] is seriously lacking in context. Since 1940? Oh, fuck yes, they have. Since 1990? Way, way, way, way down in every city across the country. Which cities? Why did he pick DC and Baltimore and not [i]almost any other city in the country[/i] where violent crimes (and especially homicide) have been on a sharp downward trend over the last decade? Saying "unemployment is 50%" without specifying which unemployment metric you're using is similarly lacking in context. Underemployment? Discouraged workers? What are we counting as unemployed, here? Because depending on the metric you're using it can be anywhere from 8% to 50% among certain groups. Omitting the metric you're citing is dishonest and serves only as rhetoric. You can make a strong speech and still cite your sources. Citing and defining what you're talking about is a better way to make a speech than throwing out baseless numbers and claiming they're truth.
Relevant image [IMG_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/Q6EL9lR.jpg[/IMG_thumb] I don't defend shitty sources or inaccurate stats but people are focusing on Trump being wrong [B]rather than the issues he is bringing up. [/B]I can call out every any source that contradicts Trump with another source of my own and at that point its an academic matter of analysis. But rather than pointing who is wrong or right, [B]is anyone focusing on the actual problems?[/B] Increased homicides? Large black youth unemployment? Cop killings? Illegal Immigration? National debt? Food Stamps? Why is no one discussing the causes of these problems, or means to resolve them? Why are you all focusing on Trump?
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50760198]Are we seeing different statistics..? The Police Department recorded 132 homicides in 2010, and there were 162 in 2015. The 50% increase is from 2014-2015 with 105 homicides going to 162.[/QUOTE] And citing a 50% increase in one year is absurd and intentionally misleading to drive Trump's narratives that the US is collapsing due to some catastrophic rise in violent crime [i]that doesn't even exist[/i]. I mean, shit, if you compare 2015 to the [URL="http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/district-crime-data-glance"]stats for 2016 so far[/URL], the homicide rate in DC [i]dropped[/i] 9%. And if you look harder at that source, you'll see that the number of homicides in 2006 was [i]higher[/i] than the number of homicides in 2015. Go back another ten years, to 1996, and it's [i]several hundred higher[/i]. The fact that it's rising now doesn't indicate much at all, since it's still been on a downward trend since the 90s as with all violent crime in nearly every city in the nation. [editline]23rd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50760203]Relevant image [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Q6EL9lR.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Not at all relevant - "whites killed by whites" is actually >81%, while "whites killed by blacks" is actually <16%. That was tweeted out by a white supremacist twitter account and Trump retweeted it (like he tends to do). It's still a blatantly false image - people of any race are more likely to kill people of the same race because [i]people of certain races congregate together[/i] for a variety of reasons. [editline]23rd July 2016[/editline] Don't give me that "academic level of analysis" bullshit when the source you're citing is a fucking meme image made by a white supremacist on fucking [i]twitter[/i]. Trump doesn't give a shit about solving any of those issues, either. If he did, he would've [i]hired black workers instead of routinely preventing them for working at his casinos[/i]. Fuck out of here with your shit.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50760218]And citing a 50% increase in one year is absurd and intentionally misleading to drive Trump's narratives that the US is collapsing due to some catastrophic rise in violent crime [i]that doesn't even exist[/i]. I mean, shit, if you compare 2015 to the [URL="http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/district-crime-data-glance"]stats for 2016 so far[/URL], the homicide rate in DC [i]dropped[/i] 9%. And if you look harder at that source, you'll see that the number of homicides in 2006 was [i]higher[/i] than the number of homicides in 2015. Go back another ten years, to 1996, and it's [i]several hundred higher[/i]. The fact that it's rising now doesn't indicate much at all, since it's still been on a downward trend since the 90s as with all violent crime in nearly every city in the nation. [editline]23rd July 2016[/editline] Not at all relevant - "whites killed by whites" is actually >81%, while "whites killed by blacks" is actually <16%. That was tweeted out by a white supremacist twitter account and Trump retweeted it (like he tends to do). It's still a blatantly false image - people of any race are more likely to kill people of the same race because [i]people of certain races congregate together[/i] for a variety of reasons.[/QUOTE] You are missing the entire point. Why are you focusing on Trump being wrong in his statistics, rather than being concerned with what those statistics actually mean? Like how do you REDUCE the same race on race violence? Why is it higher for African Americans than for any other race? These are the important issues, who gives a fuck what the candidates say when you can pull up a different source and say they're inaccurate.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50760251]You are missing the entire point. Why are you focusing on Trump being wrong in his statistics, rather than being concerned with what those statistics actually mean? Like how do you REDUCE the same race on race violence? Why is it higher for African Americans than for any other race? These are the important issues, who gives a fuck what the candidates say when you can pull up a different source and say they're inaccurate.[/QUOTE] Because Trump's pretending to give a shit about these things when it's clear as day to anyone with half a brain that he doesn't give a shit. I'm criticizing him because he's blatantly pandering with [i]outright lies[/i] to make himself look like he actually cares about black Americans or the struggles they face with unemployment and crime. Again, if he cared, he could've tried hiring them in his casinos and sold them homes instead of [i]going to court four times to protect his right to not sell houses to black people[/i]. I do give a shit and I'm doing what I can to get into a position where I can actually make a difference. That's my goal. Stop trying to say "but these are real issues he's bringing up" - we know they are. The problem is they're coming out of a man who [i]doesn't give a shit about them[/i], plus he's [i]intentionally misrepresenting them[/i] with literally false statistics.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50760294]Because Trump's pretending to give a shit about these things when it's clear as day to anyone with half a brain that he doesn't give a shit. I'm criticizing him because he's blatantly pandering with [I]outright lies[/I] to make himself look like he actually cares about black Americans or the struggles they face with unemployment and crime. Again, if he cared, he could've tried hiring them in his casinos and sold them homes instead of [I]going to court four times to protect his right to not sell houses to black people[/I]. I do give a shit and I'm doing what I can to get into a position where I can actually make a difference. That's my goal. Stop trying to say "but these are real issues he's bringing up" - we know they are. The problem is they're coming out of a man who [I]doesn't give a shit about them[/I], plus he's [I]intentionally misrepresenting them[/I] with literally false statistics.[/QUOTE] I disagree with you. You can throw the same argument for any candidate that they only bring up a topic to swindle votes. Trump brings up issues he wants to see resolved, not because he's pretending to care for the public eye. After looking into your claim on Trump's attitude towards blacks, I understand your viewpoint. Have you considered that he wants to transform and fix poor black communities because he is sick of what poor black communities produce? School to prison pipelines, career criminals, high murder rates, fatherless children, drugs and gang violence? Even if he is straight up racist and hates African Americans, don't you think he would still prefer African Americans to grow up with jobs and a future, rather than getting stuck in the welfare poverty state? At the most objective and blunt level, be productive to the American economy rather than leeching tax dollars in welfare?
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50760328]I disagree with you. You can throw the same argument for any candidate that they only bring up a topic to swindle votes. Trump brings up issues he wants to see resolved, not because he's pretending to care for the public eye. After looking into your claim on Trump's attitude towards blacks, I understand your viewpoint. Have you considered that he wants to transform and fix poor black communities because he is sick of what poor black communities produce? School to prison pipelines, career criminals, high murder rates, fatherless children, drugs and gang violence? Even if he is straight up racist and hates African Americans, don't you think he would still prefer African Americans to grow up with jobs and a future, rather than getting stuck in the welfare poverty state? At the most objective and blunt level, be productive to the American economy rather than leeching tax dollars in welfare?[/QUOTE] If he wanted African Americans to have a job and a future, he could've been proactive for [i]decades[/i] and offered them jobs at his companies. He did the exact opposite. The Justice Department sued him twice. This isn't hard to understand.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50760251]You are missing the entire point. Why are you focusing on Trump being wrong in his statistics, rather than being concerned with what those statistics actually mean? Like how do you REDUCE the same race on race violence? Why is it higher for African Americans than for any other race? These are the important issues, who gives a fuck what the candidates say when you can pull up a different source and say they're inaccurate.[/QUOTE] Imagine defending populism this way. "Who cares if Trump is making up/grossly misrepresenting statistics, you should talk about the issues instead of how he's making shit up/lying!" Have you ever heard of poisoning the well? And why have we become a society where a presidential candidate's use of blatantly incorrect or misrepresented (or simply unsourceable) statistics is something to be disregarded? For all of your "talk about the issues instead" table-pounding, I can only assume that the unstated rest of that sentiment is that it doesn't matter if Trump is actually presenting issues with a truthful basis and we should stop questioning him. If Trump really cares about the issues, shouldn't he care about accurately informing Americans about them rather than throwing up vague, slightly-representational numbers [B]provided by white supremacists[/B]? [QUOTE=.Isak.;50760355]If he wanted African Americans to have a job and a future, he could've been proactive for [i]decades[/i] and offered them jobs at his companies. He did the exact opposite. The Justice Department sued him twice. This isn't hard to understand.[/QUOTE] Also, this, holy shit, actions speak louder than words and all that.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50760355]If he wanted African Americans to have a job and a future, he could've been proactive for [i]decades[/i] and offered them jobs at his companies. He did the exact opposite. The Justice Department sued him twice. This isn't hard to understand.[/QUOTE] There's no point arguing with him. These people are like some sort of cult, somehow convinced the guy's a saint with the purest of intentions. They hide their bigotry behind a mask of patronizing concern, but the truth is, deep down, they'd love to have a president who legitimizes blaming minorities for the problems in the country brought about by trickle-down economics and the conservative ideology.
[QUOTE=archangel125;50760382]There's no point arguing with him. These people are like some sort of cult, somehow convinced the guy's a saint with the purest of intentions. They hide their bigotry behind a mask of patronizing concern, but the truth is, deep down, they'd love to have a president who legitimizes blaming minorities for the problems in the country brought about by trickle-down economics and the conservative ideology.[/QUOTE] I'm right here you know. Look I am just trying to present an argument and you guys demonize me for calling out BS and presenting additional information in anti-Trump threads. I don't care if you agree with me or not but I want people to have informed opinions rather than labeling others and writing one liners as a counter argument. [editline]22nd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50760375]Imagine defending populism this way. "Who cares if Trump is making up/grossly misrepresenting statistics, you should talk about the issues instead of how he's making shit up/lying!" Have you ever heard of poisoning the well? And why have we become a society where a presidential candidate's use of blatantly incorrect or misrepresented (or simply unsourceable) statistics is something to be disregarded? For all of your "talk about the issues instead" table-pounding, I can only assume that the unstated rest of that sentiment is that it doesn't matter if Trump is actually presenting issues with a truthful basis and we should stop questioning him. If Trump really cares about the issues, shouldn't he care about accurately informing Americans about them rather than throwing up vague, slightly-representational numbers [B]provided by white supremacists[/B]? Also, this, holy shit, actions speak louder than words and all that.[/QUOTE] You know that where information comes from does not determine its accuracy, it is how the data is collected. Call out the stats for being bull because they did something wrong in reporting or collecting the data rather than dismissing it for being from a white supremacist site. And I'm not defending Trump pulling up inaccurate shit, its like saying "oh well even though she falsely accused him of rape shes still bringing the issue of rape to the stage". I am trying to make practical sense out of the shit being spewed on both sides of the election. Trump really ought to do a better job of providing his sources but do you [I]really[/I] think he is lying for the sake of attention? He has said he uses statisticians for his data (at least for information on the different states) so its entirely possible they feed him this information and he remembers the important parts. Again he [B]really should provide his sources[/B] but I don't believe he's lying.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50760508]I'm right here you know. Look I am just trying to present an argument and you guys demonize me for calling out BS and presenting additional information in anti-Trump threads. I don't care if you agree with me or not but I want people to have informed opinions rather than labeling others and writing one liners as a counter argument. [editline]22nd July 2016[/editline] You know that where information comes from does not determine its accuracy, it is how the data is collected. Call out the stats for being bull because they did something wrong in reporting or collecting the data rather than dismissing it for being from a white supremacist site. And I'm not defending Trump pulling up inaccurate shit, its like saying "oh well even though she falsely accused him of rape shes still bringing the issue of rape to the stage". I am trying to make practical sense out of the shit being spewed on both sides of the election. Trump really ought to do a better job of providing his sources but do you [I]really[/I] think he is lying for the sake of attention? He has said he uses statisticians for his data (at least for information on the different states) so its entirely possible they feed him this information and he remembers the important parts. Again he [B]really should provide his sources[/B] but I don't believe he's lying.[/QUOTE] The point is that the data in that image you posted is [i]completely wrong[/i], as was a lot of the data that Trump "cited" as shown in the OP. I don't think he's lying for attention. I think he's lying because he's stupid enough to take twitter sources as facts. Even if he isn't lying, [i]he is wrong[/i]. If he's picking statisticians that provide data that goes against [i]every other expert measurement[/i], what does that say about his judgment? Either he has poor judgment in sources, he's lying, he's stupid, he's ignorant of his incorrectness, or all of the above.
:snip: didn't refresh
Is it just me, or do the same 4 people star the posts that are pro democrat? I mean just saying. Look at the rates. Count how many times the same 3/4 users are in there. Also: Article was bad. Some facts went from "Okay makes sense" to "We used Politifact, got this opinionated answer, and now changed the words a bit", with just enough being the latter for it to be noticeable.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.