Well, will wonders never cease...(PO)

[Mike]

So this morning, trump told Dr.Oz to “declare victory”. The race is deadlocked, and the votes are being counted still. Both candidates have publicly stated that they will wait for the counting to be completed, and abide the result.

But not trump. Nope, he told Oz to disrespect the voting process. To LIE. To undermine even the primary process within their own party.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

she’s intelligent

Is she though? Her fact check record isn't that dissimilar the Trump's. Either she's intelligent and lying all the time, or she's not as intelligent as she gets credit for. In fact her lack of intelligence (when compared to someone like Warren) is what makes her such an easy target.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

But not trump. Nope, he told Oz to disrespect the voting process. To LIE. To undermine even the primary process within their own party.

In other news water is wet...

[Mike]

she’s intelligent

Is she though? Her fact check record isn't that dissimilar the Trump's. Either she's intelligent and lying all the time, or she's not as intelligent as she gets credit for. In fact her lack of intelligence (when compared to someone like Warren) is what makes her such an easy target.

Hmmm. Are you referring, perchance, to the thrashing she got about her claims to have encountered bloody mobs in the Capitol building on Jan.6? Let’s start with that, and go from there.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

to the thrashing she got about her claims to have encountered bloody mobs in the Capitol building on Jan.6?

No, I didn't have any particular claim in mind. There has been consistent miss information from her. She even complained about it and tried to claim she was only getting fact checked so much because she was a woman. And she also gave us the gem below.

“If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they’re missing the forest for the trees. I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually and semantically correct than about being morally right.”

She is openly admitted she isn't even concerned with truth only what she feels is her moral agenda.

For instance Politifact rates over 60% of her reviewed statements as either False or Pants on Fire and 0% True. (they keep the easiest list of overall percentage, but if someone took the time to pull it together from other outlets it would be similar.)

https://www.politifact.com/personalitie ... io-cortez/

[Tarmaque]

She doesn't scare me, but she does worry me.

I didn't mean she scares me, but she scares republicans. I didn't want her as president though, because I think she's more valuable in the Senate.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

I didn't mean she scares me, but she scares republicans.

I get that. I was just speaking for myself.

I didn't want her as president though, because I think she's more valuable in the Senate.

Why do you think she's more valuable in the Senate? Just because she's a guaranteed liberal vote? or something else?

[Mike]

You are comparing fewer than fifteen fact checks on AOC to thousands for trump. That would be like taking a guy who just got called up from the minors, and somehow in his first 20 MLB at bats managed to get six base hits and bunt his way on once, and saying “look, he’s as great as Ted Williams!”

But here’s a fun one, which Politifact describes as false:

Note that, if the rapist has not yet been convicted, he remains not guilty in the eyes of the law…. and within the parameters of that Texas law, which permits literally anybody to sue if they know of or witness abortion activity as described in the law, YES HE COULD SUE.

So Politifact is not on the mark here. Does the bill specify that a rapist can sue his victim? No it does not. But within the parameters of the law, could a rapist sue his victim? Yes, it could occur. See section 171.208 of the Texas code for clarification: Any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may bring a civil action… and in fact on reading it, the statute does not even prohibit convicted criminals from bringing suit. Bottom line: Ocasio, despite Politifact’ s finding here, is completely accurate. It does not specify rapists, but yes it would allow them to sue.

So we’ve now, with a single instance, made a significant change in the AOC dishonesty ratio you cited. It really pays to do your research.

The law, in its entirety, is linked here:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/b ... navpanes=0

[Mike]

Next up from your Politifact link, the one that claims as False AOC’s claim that she represents as many or more as Manchin.

Official population reports, 2019:
WV District 2 (Manchin): 623K
NY District 14 (AOC): 696K

So your Politifact link says that she has seven False fact checks. Out of a total of twelve.
We’ve now whittled that down to five, in just a few minutes. 5 of 12? Hardly Trumpian numbers, where he told untruths more than 20 times DAILY. In other words, he lied more every single day on average than AOC has been fact-checked by Politifact period.
Shall I continue?
Or would you rather I question your motivation in equating her lying to that of trump?

[Mike]

You know what? Let’s go to the claim that Sanders has never taken corporate money in his entire political career. Here’s how far ABC News had to go to look into the claim:

In a review of Sanders' publicly available campaign donation information, ABC News identified at least three contributions of more than $200 from two individual donors who could be considered executives at companies included on the list.
One of the individuals who gave to the Sanders campaign is Lynn McRoy, who identifies herself on her LinkedIn page as vice president and global medical lead, breast cancer at Pfizer. She's additionally identified as the breast cancer lead with U.S. Medical Affairs at Pfizer Oncology in an October 2018 press release. Pfizer is among numerous pharmaceutical companies on Sanders' list.
ABC News found at least four contributions from McRoy to Sanders thus far in 2019, including one of $500 and another of $250, which would be in violation of the pledge if McRoy is considered an "executive."

I don’t know, there might be other items that technically could qualify as corporate donations for him. But in spirit, ya gotta acknowledge that this is NOT, say, AT&T and Lockheed circa 1999-2000, each of which contributed @ $15K to the Bush campaign.

On this item, I welcome corrections. If you have verifiable examples of actual corporations giving significant sums to the Sanders campaign, cite them. But until then I have to say that again, Politifact’ s assessment of ‘false’ should be modified to “not exactly true, but true in spirit” if they had such a category.

[Mike]

Next up, the Handel McBath spending claim. Was it a 5:1 ratio? Not quite.

What was the ratio?
https://www.opensecrets.org/races/summa ... 18&id=GA06

Ratio was 3.5 : 1.

Again, was Ocasio’s number perfect? No. But was her point, that the loser vastly outspent the winner, accurate? Yes it was.
Dunno that I would change the Politifact ranking on this, as numerical accuracy when citing specific numbers does count for something. But we certainly are putting a huge dent in your contention that AOC is a Trump-level liar.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

You are comparing fewer than fifteen fact checks on AOC to thousands for trump.

No, I gave you one example from one of many fact check sites. I can link all of them if you would like, but I don't really see the point.

Note that, if the rapist has not yet been convicted, he remains not guilty in the eyes of the law…. and within the parameters of that Texas law, which permits literally anybody to sue if they know of or witness abortion activity as described in the law, YES HE COULD SUE.

You might want to read the fact check, but okay.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... -patients/

She seems to be referring to Senate Bill 8, which took effect in September. The law prohibits abortion after six weeks of pregnancy and leaves enforcement up to the public, allowing any person to sue abortion providers or people who aid or abet illegal abortions. There are no exceptions for pregnancies from rape or incest.

But the law specifically prohibits a rapist from suing: "Notwithstanding any other law, a civil action under this section may not be brought by a person who impregnated the abortion patient through an act of rape, sexual assault, incest, or any other act prohibited by Sections 22.011, 22.021, or 25.02. Penal Code."

You are both making assumptions about a bill you obviously haven't read. I get it from you, but you aren't part of our legislature.

So Politifact is not on the mark here. Does the bill specify that a rapist can sue his victim? No it does not.

Nope it specifically says he can not...

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

I don’t know, there might be other items that technically could qualify as corporate donations for him. But in spirit, ya gotta acknowledge that this is NOT, say, AT&T and Lockheed circa 1999-2000, each of which contributed @ $15K to the Bush campaign.

How is Pfizer any less corporate then AT&T or Lockheed martin. I'm not really seeing your point.

[Mike]

He would have to have been convicted of that particular rape/incest in order to prevent him from suing.

As to the Pfizer thing; it’s clear that an individual made that particular contribution, not a corporation. It’s also clear that the Sanders campaign seeks to return such donations when it finds them.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

He would have to have been convicted of that particular rape/incest in order to prevent him from suing

Even then, He can't sue the victim, he can sue the clinic. She was demonstratively wrong on simple facts. Period. You can try to play all the word games you want, she was wrong.

PS I guess in a situation where the victim works for the clinic and performs an abortion on herself, she could theoretically be sued. If you want to get way out there I guess it's technically possible. I'd hope we can agree that is pretty far fetched.

[Tarmaque]

Why do you think she's more valuable in the Senate? Just because she's a guaranteed liberal vote? or something else?

No, she is very much a leader in the Senate who builds consensus within her own party while also writing excellent bills. She does not work well with the other party, but this is not her fault. This is because the Republicans have long cast her as the enemy of their party. If they listen to what she says instead of automatically pointing their fingers like she was a pod person then they jointly could get a lot done. The reality is she's a smart and skilled legislator and putting her into an executive position I think would be a waste of her skills. Beyond that, I would also suggest that her experience as an executive is a bit limited. She would probably do fine because she knows how to surround herself with competent people and knows how to listen to their advice. If there's one thing that Republicans fear it's competence.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

She does not work well with the other party, but this is not her fault. This is because the Republicans have long cast her as the enemy of their party.

She has cast her self as an enemy of the GOP. My personal favorite rediculous attack of hers...

It’s starting to get old ignoring the very obvious, strange, and deranged sexual frustrations that underpin the Republican fixation on me, women,& LGBT+ people in general,” the New York congresswoman added. “These people clearly need therapy, won’t do it, and use politics as their outlet instead. It’s really weird.

You are right, most of the GOP has been far from kind to her. I'd consider this a shared fault, with our "leaders" acting like children.

If they listen to what she says instead of automatically pointing their fingers like she was a pod person then they jointly could get a lot done.

That goes back to the conversation I'm having with Mike. They listen to what she says, they just don't accept it. And why should they when her rhetoric is so often removed from fact? Like I said when I want to listen to someone about the progressive agenda it's Warren 9 times out of 10 with the occasional Chomsky thrown in.

If there's one thing that Republicans fear it's competence.

It's completely logical to fear competence from those who oppose you. That's like saying the Ukraine fears competence from the Russian military, well of course they do. I don't see AOC as competent at all. It's been a couple years since I've sought out anything from her. I wrote her off long ago.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

So your Politifact link says that she has seven False fact checks. Out of a total of twelve.
We’ve now whittled that down to five, in just a few minutes. 5 of 12? Hardly Trumpian numbers, where he told untruths more than 20 times DAILY. In other words, he lied more every single day on average than AOC has been fact-checked by Politifact period.
Shall I continue?

You refusing to accept the truth is not the same thing as you disproving it. SMH

Machin doesn't represent the 2nd district. He represents the entire state. Senators represent their entire state not a given district. It's a little silly for a Representative compare their constitutes to that of Senator they really are very different things



So, again from the article you didn't read...

Ocasio-Cortez represents the 14th congressional district of New York, which includes parts of two boroughs in New York City. The district’s population was 696,664 in the most recent Census estimate available, from 2019

By contrast, Manchin, who as a senator represents the whole state of West Virginia, has 1,793,716 constituents, according to the 2020 Census.

Even if you were to argue that Manchin only represents half the state she'd be wrong.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Again, was Ocasio’s number perfect? No. But was her point, that the loser vastly outspent the winner, accurate? Yes it was.

Are agreeing that being on the right side is more important then being factual? Intelligent people don't talk about things they don't know. The intelligent thing to do would have been to say exactly what you did, ie "that the loser vastly outspent the winner."

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Out of boredom I fact checked myself. and I wasn't even that far off. Trump has many more fact checks, but the president inevitably gets fact checked more often then a representative. So I'm focusing on percentages. Trump has been rated as False or pants on fire 54% of the time, but he was rated as Mostly false another 20%. I didn't include that category for AOC because it was 0. That puts Trump at 64%. I'd call 64% and 66% pretty damn close. One difference I will point out that AOC only has 8% pants on fire rating while Trump's is 17%. I think this is because Trump has no interest in the truth where AOC just uses far too much rhetoric in her speech which inevitably leads to speaking false hoods. I'm also pretty sure Trump knowingly lies at least at times while I have no reason to believe that for AOC.

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

For a comparison I decided to check out the fact check on Biden for the same site.

40% of his checks have been graded Mostly False, False or Pants on fire. Basically flipping the numbers from the other two. I also checked out my favorite politician, Mike Lee, but he only has two fact checks, probably due to his national profile, so the sample size is too small to even try and compare. I went on to check out Joe Manchin just because his name came up in AOC's fact checks. Only 22% of his fact checks are Mostly False, False, or Pants on fire. Finally I checked out Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell if either of them told me that the sky was blue I'd go check. McConnell has been rated false 43% of the time and Pelosi 47%.