Discussion: AP: Fact-Checking MSNBC's New Hampshire Democratic Debate

Discussion for article #245588

what a paltry list. Compare that to the fact-check list after a Republican debate…you see a stark contrast and it’s proof that…ya know what? I’ll just take the high road and end it here.

Repubs are so full of shit. I couldn’t help myself…sorry. :relaxed:


The problem with fact-checking Republican debates is it’s just too much work: the falsities far outnumber the truths. It’s a tea party, all right–with the Mad Hatter, the White Rabbit, the narcoleptic mouse, all of them.

Anyway, tonight’s debate was rad. Glad I tuned in.


Leon Panetta is a fully owned serf for the big money guys. So, relying on him in a fact checking article is like relying on a wolf to protect your sheep.


That’s it?

1 Like

No need to apologize. The distinction between the two parties, where facts are concerned, is miles wide and high.


The GOP debates don’t use facts - it’s all about what they will do based upon nothing but their inner id: I will bomb, I will build walls, I will destroy Obamacare, I will shred regulation, I will not tolerate Muslims - they don’t discuss the reasons why they think these are good ideas since it’s taken as a gospel truth by their supporters.


It’s getting more confusing by the day. Yes, politicians of both parties distort the facts. I am sorry that politics has gotten this way…perhaps for a long time already. I honor both Sanders and Clinton and could vote for either one. As long as Republican candidates suppress the minimum wage, do nothing about gun safety, avoid voting rights, and deny equal pay for equal work I cannot vote for a single one of them.

CLINTON on Wall Street: “They are trying to beat me in this primary.”

This whole thing on Clinton and wall street has a lot of interesting angles. Are they giving money to the person they really want to win or to the person they want to lose so they will look guilty? Are they giving money to the person they think they might be able to buy and not to the guy that are pretty sure they can’t? Are they giving money to the D they think win and hope will get something from when they win and not to the guy that they think won’t win and so any money will be a waste?

Sure would be nice if we could get shorter, public funded elections.

1 Like

And you can prove this how?

It’s true, he read it somewhere…he wrote it down and read it…(that’s one of my favorite Steven Wright lines)

Pretty fair fact-check overall, I thought (with the possible exception of the health care numbers, though that’s pretty hard for any of us to judge).

As to the “virtually all the new income going to the top 1%” line, it’s a fair point that 58% is not “virtually all.” But it’s still a horrendous number.

1 Like