False Equivalency Explained...

September 24, 2016

This really does explain the weirdly and incongruously close political race between Clinton and Trump. It really shouldn't be anywhere near this close a contest. The media has turned into a close race.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-danger-of-false-equivalence_us_57db909ae4b04fa361d99724?

September 24, 2016

5 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

This really does explain the weirdly and incongruously close political race between Clinton and Trump. It really shouldn't be anywhere near this close a contest. The media has turned into a close race.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-danger-of-false-equivalence_us_57db909ae4b04fa361d99724?

Now that is a unbiased objective source.

The media has jumped on every word Trump said in an attempt to discredit him. What they didn't take into account was the free press they were giving him would turn out to be a positive for him.

Hillary Clinton has come up wanting in many area's. The more she spun and and tried to explain away certain issues the more she looked incompetent or dishonest.

She has fallen in the polls because people are doing what you suggest they should do. They are paying attention,just not coming to the conclusion you and her other dwindling supporters insist they do.

September 24, 2016

Predictably you would shoot the messenger and completely ignore the substance (facts). Falls right in line with the point of the articles I have posted today, actually. And it seems that you either did not read the actual article or completely missed the point of it. I would challenge you to actually read it and try to refut actual substance of what it says. In your reading of it, also follow the linked sources and read them too.

The media hardly jumps all over everything Trump says to discredit him. The notably disappointing NBC forum that was supposed to focus on the vets and military was a great example of the soft touch he gets. Rarely are the crazy things he says seriously challenged. It has only been recently that any have shown serous investigative reporting about him. And the rest of the media seems to yawn and wait for the next crazy talk headline grabber he spews out. And that is the point. They keep repeating the same old unsubstantiated rumors and allegations about Clinton to take up the "equal" time of coverage against the stupid headline grabber nonsense from Trump.

The false equivalence problem is assuming all things are of equal value, importance, or magnitude. And that combine with its twin logical fallacy, false balance, keep the coverage incredibly lopsided and unfairly skewed away from real issues, facts, and reality of the candidates real records and qualifications.

September 24, 2016

No I didn't miss the point and yes I did read it. Failure to agree with you or accept what a media outlet as Huffington Post puts out doesn't mean a lack of understanding or not reading. I know it is really hard for some to understand that others might not be as impressed with their opinions as they are personally.

So Obama has nice warm fuzzy things to say about Hillary Clinton. Did he lie,the most transparent president we have had when he said........

Did I mention before that Hillary Clinton is one of the most qualified people ever to seek the Presidency? That is not my opinion. No less a personage than President Barack Obama said it at the DNC.

But Obama didn’t just pull that notion out of his ears either. In March, 2015, Dan Payne of WBUR penned an article in which he argued:

Despite ceaseless attacks on her that continue to this day, in 2014 she was named — for the 13th straight year and 19th time overall — by the American people as the most admired woman in the world, according to the Gallup organization.

Forbes magazine ranked her as one of most powerful people in the world nine times. She has been named eight times to Time magazine’s most influential 100 people on the planet.

He quoted former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, among several others: “She would be the most qualified person to enter the White House in modern history. She’d be the best qualified person we’ve seen — with all due respect to President Clinton when he went in, President Obama and President Bush and everybody else.”

I don't find Nancy Pelosi very credible either

September 24, 2016

Or was Obama lying when this was said......

03:40 PM ET

5 years ago

Obama camp: Clinton would be 'deeply flawed' nominee

Posted by

CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

Obama's campaign said Clinton would be a deeply flawed nominee

(CNN) - The Obama campaign launched some of its sharpest attacks to date on Hillary Clinton's candidacy Friday, telling reporters on a conference call that the New York senator is a dishonest politician who has consistently misled voters.

Referencing a new Gallup Poll suggesting 53 percent of Americans don't view Clinton as trustworthy, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said Clinton would be a "deeply flawed nominee," and suggested it would be "nearly impossible" for her to win a general election.

"She is not seen as trustworthy by the American people," Plouffe said. "She has consistently in this campaign engaged in political calculation to mislead voters....It will nearly be impossible to win a general election if more than half the electorate thinks you're untrustworthy.

"If Sen. Clinton wants to have a discussion about electability and vetting, we're happy to have it," Plouffe also said. "She would be a deeply flawed nominee. There are character issues here that will cause us real problems in the fall."

Plouffe specifically took issue with newly-released Clinton White House schedules that indicate the then-first lady may have been present in several meetings with congressional leaders to promote NAFTA - the trade legislation she now sharply criticizes on the campaign trail. She emphasized her consistency on that position in the days leading up to the March 4 primary contest in Ohio, a state whose Democratic electorate is dominated by union-workers generally opposed to the trade deal."

Sen. Clinton essentially misled the voters of Ohio, strongly suggesting she was always opposed to NAFTA privately," Plouffe said. "But now we see that she had meetings, where the sole purpose was to cheerlead for NAFTA and press for its support."

"Sen. Clinton likes to talk about do-over elections," he added. "The only do-over election we might want to consider is in Ohio, since Sen. Clinton misled the voters in Ohio about her support of NAFTA."

In a memo sent to reporters shortly after Plouffe's comments, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said, "At this point, it’s no secret that the Obama campaign is in political hot water given the news stories of the last few weeks and is desperate to change the subject."

- CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

Filed under: Candidate Barack Obama • Hillary Clinton

September 25, 2016

Now what do we call the deplorable behavior by Clinton supporters? There are many "deplorable acts" reported by Clinton supporters. Is the black pot calling the kettle black?

How is it possible, as we actually watch the “deplorable” behavior of his supporters again and again for ourselves, that anyone anywhere has any doubt that the adjective fits perfectly?

Protesters attack Trump supporters after San Jose speech ...

www.theguardian.com › US News › Donald Trump

Video embedded · Protesters attack Trump supporters after San Jose ... ‘Few arrests’ made after violence erupted but number not ... One man yelled at Trump supporters ...

Huffington Post Editorial Calls For Attacks On Trump ...

www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/06/...calls-attacks-trump-supporters-gop

Video embedded · Huffington Post Editorial Calls For Attacks On Trump SupportersAnd GOP. Posted at ... Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, and any number of other …

Top Marco Rubio supporters: Donald Trump attacks have ...

www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/marco-rubio-donald-trump/index.html

Mar 09, 2016 · Video embedded · Top Rubio supporters: Trump attacks have backfired. ... (CNN) Marco Rubio is ... A growing number of Rubio supporters told CNN …

Ugly, bloody scenes in San Jose as protesters attack Trump ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/03/ugly...

Watch video · Several Trump supporters were punched by ... bloody scenes in San Jose as protesters attack Trump supporters ... you'll be notified of the number of ...

NY Post's Dicker: Trump Supporters 'Shocked' By Attacks on ...

www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/trump-supporters-shocked-attacks/2016/03/...

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's New York supporters have been "engulfed" in a wave of ... Trump Supporters 'Shocked' By Attacks on Heidi ...

San Jose Police Chief Who Admits ALLOWING ATTACKS on Trump ...

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/san-jose-police-chief...

San Jose Police Chief Who Admits ALLOWING ATTACKS on Trump Supporters is ... over charges that they allowed Trump supporters to be attacked by violent ...

Protesters chase and attack Trump supporters in San Jose ...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/jun/02/donald-trump...

Trump supporters repeatedly attacked by protesters outside San Jose rally, where protesters were burning US flags and throwing eggs at his supporters

September 25, 2016

Can you or will you explain the following? How someone has several years as senator and then as Secretary of State does not know what designates classified? It doesnt matter if there were 3 or 300 classified emails. She claimed to not know. There isnt any inbetween, she is either ignorant and incometent or she is lying. How could she not understand the ramifications of her actions after blasting Bush over a email controversy? Why are several of her aides requiring immunity before they answer questions? As an attorney should she have know what it meant when she was ordered to perserve all pertaining to the investigation?

September 29, 2016

Do you even understand what immunity and asserting 5th Amendment rights is all about?

Here is how it works. Simply put, pleading the 5th is not to protect Hillary. That is a right of the witness that is concerned they may be at risk of being prosecuted themselves. It is not necessarily that they have anything to hide. They just don't know and often cannot know ahead of time. They have to assert their right not to testify against their own interests before they answer a question. Afterwards is too late. Erring on the side of caution is normal. Assert the 5th if their is any possibility, no matter how small. You cannot be forced to testify against yourself. The prosecution has to prove it without your helping them.

The flip side of that is the prosecutor/investigator, can agree to waive that consequence by granting immunity in order to allow full disclosure, even if it could implicate the witness otherwise. It opens an avenue to get more evidence against the real target of prosecution/investigation. It is done to get a co-conspirator or accomplice to rat out the principle bad guy. It usually means that their testimony is believed to hold key evidence to convict the real culprit.

in this case, the immunity did not help. Think about it. Even with promising immunity to everyone else around Clinton, who. Ow could speak freely without fear of prosecution themselves, the was still not enough evidence to even file charges (a much lower threshold of probability of wrong doing) much less enough to actually convict. There is nothing there. Empty evidence bag.

Yet you still want to take a make suspicion and keep repeating it as if the evidence grows by repeating the accusation.

And still with ever increasing revelation and testimony and mushrooming evidence about Trump's sleazy business practices and tax law violations, his fans just keep blindly defending him. Seems you are also defending him. If you don't like him as you claim, why do you still defend him and give him the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity? And instead doubt and put down every source that speaks or writes against him, or investigates him? As you have clearly done above.

September 29, 2016

9 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Do you even understand what immunity and asserting 5th Amendment rights is all about?

Here is how it works. Simply put, pleading the 5th is not to protect Hillary. That is a right of the witness that is concerned they may be at risk of being prosecuted themselves. It is not necessarily that they have anything to hide. They just don't know and often cannot know ahead of time. They have to assert their right not to testify against their own interests before they answer a question. Afterwards is too late. Erring on the side of caution is normal. Assert the 5th if their is any possibility, no matter how small. You cannot be forced to testify against yourself. The prosecution has to prove it without your helping them.

Yes Tom I understand what it means. I also know that if I were ever to be questioned about any practise I was involved with or that my employer may be I would not need to take the fifth in order to freely answer.

And still with ever increasing revelation and testimony and mushrooming evidence about Trump's sleazy business practices and tax law violations, his fans just keep blindly defending him. Seems you are also defending him. If you don't like him as you claim, why do you still defend him and give him the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity? And instead doubt and put down every source that speaks or writes against him, or investigates him? As you have clearly done above.

That is exactly the way those opposed to Clinton see those like yourself. No,I am not defending him. I would on a very few issues but not anything that would change my mind about the man or give me the warm fuzzies. It is more the total blindspot people claim concerning Hillary Clinton ,while at the same time condemning another for same behavior.If I were defending Trump I would not be so undecided about voting. I can't imagine what he could say or do at this point to convince me to enthusiastically vote for him.

All the hundreds that have accused Clinton of some pretty unsavory acts have to be lying or the poor dummy simply does not understand. Trump's accuser's are taken at face value every time. It is pile on time for one and protect the other at all costs to justify your support of Clinton.

Neither have been found guilty in a court of law Remember? Each have playing the victim card down to an art form. Hillary has the edge on that only because she has been in politics longer. Her whole song has been ,"The vast right wing conspiracy" I forgot, I can't remember,I did it because others before me did, Wen all else fails it is "Because I am a Woman" Trump needs a little more practise to get it down as pat as Clinton.

September 29, 2016

2 hours ago, bonnie said:

That is exactly the way those opposed to Clinton see those like yourself. .... the total blindspot people claim concerning Hillary Clinton while at the same time condemning another for same behavior.

That's what I've found to be fascinating in listening/reading the arguments from people on both sides... but more so from the Clinton supporters. I can't think of any Trump supporter who claims that Trump is an ideal, paragon of virtue, whose bid for presidency is the dream of all patriotic Americans. Trump has a TON of faults and has pulled quite a few business shenanigans. OTOH, it's like pulling teeth to find a Clinton supporter who barely acknowledges Hillary's questionable motives and deeds. Good grief. They're both liars — one's just better at it than the other.

September 29, 2016

Both candidates are flawed. Hillary, because she is so well versed in political correctness, double-speak, and only partial truthfulness. She reminds me of an aging Effie Trinket from "Hunger Games". Donald, because He is coarse, crass, sort of a bully a hypocrite, and an elitist as well as less than fully informed on many topics. While I'm in the "Never Hillary" club; I'm not a member of the "nobody but Donald" club either. At 66 years old, having voted in over 20 presidential elections, this is the most "undecided" I have ever been.

September 30, 2016

Bonnie asked, see below:

I will respond from my background of personally having a security clearance and personally having to deal with classified documents.

In regard to paper documents, there should be no misunderstanding. Such are clearly identified. There should be no excuse for misunderstanding their level of classification.

As to the digital transmission of documents. I do not believe that it is as clear and I do believe that it is subject to misunderstanding. I believe that it would be very possible for someone to send HC a message that had NOT been classified, but contained classified information. This is exactly what is known to have happened.

Some will say that HC should have known that such documents contained classified information. Such a statement reflects a lack of understanding of classified documents. Some 30 + years ago major news media was reporting on the ability of U.S. to photograph from high in the sky. While public knowledge, that information was classified. We who had access to that classified information could have been prosecuted of we made any statement as to the truth of what as being said by public media.

Yes, if HC received digital copies of classified documents, their classification level would have been known to her. But, when others sent her messages that simply contained classified information she would not likely have known that some parts of the message contained classified material.

It is also significant that some of the messages that she received were classified after she had received them.

How someone has several years as senator and then as Secretary of State does not know what designates classified? It doesnt matter if there were 3 or 300 classified emails. She claimed to not know. There isnt any inbetween, she is either ignorant and incometent or she is lying.

September 30, 2016

What he said...

September 30, 2016

15 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Both candidates are flawed. Hillary, because she is so well versed in political correctness, double-speak, and only partial truthfulness. She reminds me of an aging Effie Trinket from "Hunger Games". Donald, because He is coarse, crass, sort of a bully a hypocrite, and an elitist as well as less than fully informed on many topics. While I'm in the "Never Hillary" club; I'm not a member of the "nobody but Donald" club either. At 66 years old, having voted in over 20 presidential elections, this is the most "undecided" I have ever been.

False equivalency. The topic. To say both are flawed is a misleading statement implying both equally flawed. And indirectly implying equally qualified, apart from their flaws. On both counts they are far from equal. That anyone should be struggling in undecided land if they have fully considered all the confirmed and credible evidence of both, both good and bad, is really hard to comprehend, IMHO.

September 30, 2016

44 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

To say both are flawed is a misleading statement implying both equally flawed.

With all due respect, I implied nothing of the sort; you inferred it. They are flawed in different ways (at least as defined by my moral and experiential compass).. Suffice it to say that I have issues with both of them - different specific issues which each candidate. Some people think Obama was a wonderful president; and they'll probably vote for Clinton. Others think Obama was an abysmal president; and they will likely vote for someone else. As you likely know, it is often not the explicit fact that something illegal or unethical was done; but the perception that it was done.

As a churchy example, let's say that one of the saints sees a sister walking out of a bar on Sabbath afternoon with her arm around a very drunk man weaving their way to the car. Are they going to perceive that brazen hussie hypocrite is drinking and carousing on Sabbath? Or are they going to perceive that she just might be helping a drunk spouse, relative or friend get home because they are too drunk to drive? Ideally, they would perceive the latter; but in reality ??? Their perception will likely direct their opinion of the woman.

Being practical, none of the presidential candidates will be able to carry out their agendas without the cooperation of Congress; which none of them will likely procure.

September 30, 2016

Not so much a reflection on you personally. But it has become a meaningless point that get repeated endlessly. What candidate ever has been perfectly free of any flaws? Everyone has flaws. It would be just as meaningful to say in comparison that they are both human. A truth that goes without saying and really need not be repeated. Unless... Unless there is a qualifying statement that follows to explain the relative value and weighting of the flaws. And that is seldom done seriously. In the end the comparison still comes to a draw of indecision.

September 30, 2016

What candidate ever has been perfectly free of any flaws? Everyone has flaws.

You are posing questions as if statements have been concerning a flawless candidate. No such question or statement has been made.

September 30, 2016

3 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Not so much a reflection on you personally. But it has become a meaningless point that get repeated endlessly. What candidate ever has been perfectly free of any flaws? Everyone has flaws. It would be just as meaningful to say in comparison that they are both human. A truth that goes without saying and really need not be repeated. Unless... Unless there is a qualifying statement that follows to explain the relative value and weighting of the flaws. And that is seldom done seriously. In the end the comparison still comes to a draw of indecision.

It is seldom, if ever done objectively, either. Everyone has personal biases - conscious and unconscious - that influence their opinions and emotions. A person who once fell off of a horse may be afraid of horses for the rest of their life. People who had strict legalistic or cruel parents may have a more difficult time seeing God's love and mercy than someone with loving king parents.

Sign In

False Equivalency Explained...

Recommended Posts

Tom Wetmore

bonnie

Tom Wetmore

bonnie

bonnie

Obama camp: Clinton would be 'deeply flawed' nominee

bonnie

bonnie

Tom Wetmore

bonnie

rudywoofs (Pam)

JoeMo

Gregory Matthews

Tom Wetmore

Tom Wetmore

JoeMo

Tom Wetmore

bonnie

JoeMo

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity