Left or right why should I not believe this fact check (in details) over any other you can provide?

It’s MSNBC.

and that makes it unbelievable?
Fox would make it better?

Nope, FOX is not a reliable fact checking source either.

Steve Rattner was a big commercial builder in NYC. I doubt he’s a rabid lefty. But you know you’re only going to hear all our biased positions on it so what’s the point?

^^ But you know you’re only going to hear all our biased positions on it so what’s the point?

We ought to simply take a fluther poll and post it in meta. Then we wouldn’t even need to have all the ruckus we have. We could just look up opinions/sides. hmmm…what in the world would we talk about? : D

@smudges I don’t even think we need to have a fluther poll. We all know where each of us stands.

I’m not certain on some.

Just look at the crime statistics yourself…

https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

I believe any graph as long as Trump hasn’t modified it with a sharpie.

Overall, I believe these numbers, but keep in mind statistics can be manipulated to look good. Some tricks are to use percentages rather than whole numbers or vice versa. Or, use a very specific time frame leaving out extremes.

Trump definitely lies, he will say anything people want to believe. People who are having a tough time want to believe inflation is out of control and jobs are hard to come by. People have amnesia, they really will believe almost anything if it helps them feel good about their choices.

If Trump had been president the last 3.5 years he would be bragging about the market hitting 40,000, don’t doubt it for one second! He probably would not have let the fed raise interest rates so high and housing would be even higher prices than it is now (a bad thing in my book).

Grocery prices would have been similar, because it’s based on free market pricing mostly and transportation costs. Gas prices would have been similar under Trump or Biden. I don’t believe for a second gas would have been cheaper under Trump. The country was opening back up post covid.

Although, from what I understand the US produces oil and also manufacturers from crude to usable. So, when you look at imports and exports you have to make sure they are talking about apples and apples and not apples and oranges.

Crime stats would probably be accurate. I couldn’t read if it was stated in percentages or whole numbers or what. If it is a ratio, ratio to what? The whole population or as a percentage of the population of each group when he talked about citizens vs immigrants. Those are two very different numbers.

For sure MSNBC will try to make the numbers look in Biden’s favor, but it’s not going to be fake numbers, you just need to analyze how the numbers are being derived.

Its very simple: Fact checking isn’t always truth either. Fact checkers have their biases and will pull up whatever they want to make a point and say “See? THIS is truth”. Look at all the “fact checkers” that said Trump colluded with Russia in 2016 or that Hunter’s Laptop was Russian disinformation. You could pull up any of them and they were all wrong. Yet there were dozens and dozens of them giving you that story.

You’re crazy if you assume FOX or MSNBC has not misconstrued numbers to make their horse look better or the opposition look worse. These are not reliable sources.

@SQUEEKY2 All I can say is I’m NOT familiar with the sources you linked, so I can’t verify their honesty. What I can say is that I’ve done over 46 years of research on 45 & the one truth that I’ve learned is that…if he says it’s the opposite is true!!! Hence, if he says he had the lowest crime rate, that means that he had the highest crime rate. Remember, this is the man who believes he’s better than Abe Lincoln & more important than Jesus Christ!!! Bill Barr stopping the Russian investigation does NOT mean that there was NO collusion. Even Barr said as much.

You can verify almost everything they showed by looking up the sources on all the graphs.

They were a bit dishonest with the large dip in violent crime, as they’re measuring the percentage drop from the highest point under Trump, to a projection for this year that hasn’t been confirmed yet.

They may have picked sources that were most favourable, but you can find data on GDP, employment, violent crime, and oil production pretty easily, and they more or less seems to check out to me.

Trump is a delusional narcissist who massively exaggerates his own achievements, so I’m not sure why anyone would be surprised that literally no data supports his claims, and despite MSNBC’s liberal bias, they would have absolutely no reason to make anything up, because the data to refute Trump is there and publicly available.

Anyone who works with numbers or ratings can understand base data can be spun to show almost anything you want them to.

^You can’t change numbers. One could attempt to spin perception, but that’s it.

IF, the data is all accurate, and represents the time frame in question, one can usually draw an easy conclusion.

Personally. I was mugged during Trump’s term.
I haven’t been mugged since.
Well. It was an attempted mugging/street fight. But he wanted my wallet. He demanded it, right before he hit me with a piece of wood….
He had a FAR worse night, than me.

So. Since I haven’t been mugged in Biden’s term, crime must be better now, than under Trump.

Actually. Crime WAS worse under Trump, and that’s easily provable.

Crime statistics, like the ones we’re shown, do a lot of generalizing and mostly, people are concealed about violent crime.

I honestly don’t trust most crime statistics. But. In this case, we’re comparing apples to apples. In that the “crime rate,” was likely arrived upon the same way, in both eras…

“You can’t change numbers”

In statistics you certainly can. Assumptions and data sets are easily manipulated.

@MrGrimm888 “You can’t change numbers. One could attempt to spin perception, but that’s it.”

Yes and no. You can adjust for the population size (or for inflation, or other variables), so even if there’s still the same 10 murders per 100k people, but the population doubled you could either say the number of murders doubled, or the crime rate was constant. Both are true statements. (fictional example)

Furthermore you can play with the definitions of “violent crime.” e.g. maybe you exclude statutory rape because it wasn’t forced, though still illegal. If doing so helps your numbers look better you might engage in cherry picking the demographics.

Yes thats what spinning of facts or numbers is.
Example: Numbers say crime is lower, then you break that down to specific crimes, and voila-Atlanta saw less violent crime during Trump administration. (11Alive.com)

The PBS fact check on Biden was pretty interesting on this and other subjects.
Pbs.org/newshour/politifacts/fact-checking-bidens-dnc-speech

So. Since I haven’t been mugged in Biden’s term, crime must be better now, than under Trump.

Unless you’re being sarcastic, that is not a correct conclusion. While it might be true that crime was worse under trump, you can’t draw that conclusion based on your personal experience, and surely you know that.

^It did happen, during Trump’s term. Yes. I was being sarcastic though.

Perhaps I should clarify to some.
You can’t change numbers, that have the appropriate source(s.)
In most cases, the dates, and details can certainly be huge variables.
But 2+2=4.
In other cases, the sources themselves can “change” the numbers, by incorrectly reporting them (for whatever reason,) or by things changing by classification.
For example, a jurisdiction, could attempt to manipulate crime statistics to help themselves, whilst unintentionally messing up data gathering.

But. We’re often not talking about things, that are commonly subjective. Especially, when it comes to Trump.
A LARGE portion of his lies, are apparent as soon as he says them. PLUS. If anyone has ever known a compulsive liar, unfortunately that does affect their credibility.
As Trump is a repeated offender, in the lying, slandering, defamation, and spreading of false information, unfortunately this means he draws more scrutiny than others who haven’t thrown their credibility away like him.
Nobody has remotely supported not fact checking Harris (the left.) I certainly have openly acknowledged that I don’t really know her.
I’m fully aware that there are instances where one could find a “good” source, to uphold either side of an argument.
But it’s difficult, when it’s live.
Which I presumed the thread was about; a debate or interview being fact checked.
There ARE plenty of black and white issues, in the upcoming election.
For women’s rights?
Or against them?

Global warming is real, and being accelerated by OUR behavior. That’s just a plain fact.

Trump’s renewal and modification of his old tax cuts for the wealthy are already things he himself has claimed he will do. There are no numbers, that can change the fact his tax cuts only hurt the country and help the elite.

I could go on, and on.

We aren’t being “invaded.”
People are not “vermin,” “poisoning the blood of America.”

Trump can’t stop global/complex military conflicts and wars, “in 24 hours.”

Such statements, don’t require a great amount of moderation.
And when Rachel Scott was interviewing Trump, she threw his lies right back. He often just looked down, and really didn’t even defend that he was lying.
He was constantly lying, and saying ridiculous things, and she called him on it. Trump was the one, who had no way of backing up “his” truth. They were obvious lies, and it didn’t require great scrutiny over how that was assessed. She called him on things, he was defenseless because he had ZERO facts, not “debatable data, and screwed numbers.”

AND. I remember how ot was under Trump, as far as how embarrassing he was for the country, and how he didn’t really do anything well, largely because he DIDN’T KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING.

When he can’t simply dictate, without interruptions, he flounders. When he’s not reading the prompter, he’s stumbling through all kinds of nonsense.

I get it, about some things. I do.
But we don’t require detective skills, to see when someone is pissing in our pockets and telling us “it’s raining.”

If the numbers are debatable, then neither candidate should proclaim them as fact.

Instead of throwing out fact checking, just take the “facts” with a grain of salt, and do YOU’RE OWN research to verify.