It was actually more shocking that Texas DPS called her account both false and racist.You’ll be shocked to learn this was a lie. https://t.co/5fdraFCgMa
— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) August 20, 2024
"Fact checking" is just really fucking worthless. Even the stuff done against Trump. Trump likes. End of story. Further affiant sayeth nought. EOD. There, I just fact-checked Trump as lucidly and succinctly as anyone ever did. Move along. Beyond that, nobody cares.Are you all on crack? https://t.co/qBfXz1CooX
— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) August 20, 2024
He also "walked back" his birtherism. But he's still a racist white supremacist. Leopards can tell you they won't eat your face...Next up from @PolitiFact
— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) August 20, 2024
A DNC video shows audio of Trump stating he grabs women by their genitals, kisses them without asking permission, and that he can get away with it because he’s a star. He walked back that comment, saying it was just locker room talk, and denied ever… https://t.co/L6TVmDnGu3
Like I said, "fact-checking" is mostly bullshit. It's an outgrowth of early internet "chat rooms" where most of the discussion, er, argument, revolved around whose facts were "right." What they were right about didn't matter. If you subscribed to the old Chicago School of Economics theories, inflation was caused by government spending. If you refused to notice the Fed squeezed double digit inflation out of the economy in the '80's (the heyday of Milton Friedman) with high interest rates, not massive cuts in government spending, are you ignoring the 'facts'? Or just constitutionally and ideologically incapable of seeing the causal chain?"he walked back the comment the same day"
— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) August 20, 2024
Are you fricking kidding me? He said it. You can note that he walked it back but that doesn't make what he said any less accurate. He absolutely said it. It's true, that's what he said he wanted. https://t.co/OD5zwvZSTP
Most fact-checking fails on the horns of the dilemma postulated by Hume: the statement is either unprovable, or if can be falsified/verified, but it's of no real importance then. Only under very particular circumstances is "this stone is heavy" or "this stone weighs 'x'," a valuable statement. Mostly, it's just description. Policy and politics, on the other hand, is the land of the ambiguous and the power of opinion. Is Kamala Harris's proposal for curbing price gouging by corporations across multiple states "communism," or is it a rational response to predatory late-stage capitalism? And if she says the plan she announced was misrepresented in the press, is she "walking it back"? Or "flip-flopping"?
So much depends on the red wheelbarrow and the white chickens, and who spilled the rain water.
No comments:
Post a Comment