Posted on Sep 27, 2016
Live Fact Check: Trump And Clinton Debate For The First Time
4.02K
18
24
5
5
0
Transcript from the debate.
Reading the fact checking is optional.
Reading the fact checking is optional.
Live Fact Check: Trump And Clinton Debate For The First Time
Posted from npr.org
Election 2016
Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton
Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
Fact checking from ... NPR? Really? Might as well have had the DNC do the fact checking. My biggest point of contention with this is "the media" kept on asking who's going to "fact check" Trump despite the fact that Sec Clinton is the biggest proven liar and crook on the political scene since Nixon.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
We all have access to the full transcript. Are you an unbiased constituent? I'd be interested in reading your fact-checking on the debate.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski - The actions and words of the two candidates have precluded my ability to remain unbiased. I find them both loathsome choices and the best i can hope for is a quick impeachment so their more amiable VPs can take the top slot.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I was reading it and the npr fact checker is wrong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
Stop and frisk itself is not unconstitutional. The federal judge said it was being applied in NYC in an unconstitutional manner but was not itself unconstitutional. In order for it to be deemed unconstitutional they would have to have supreme court overturn this decision or have a new decision at the supreme court level ruling opposed to terry v ohio i think. Then again I am not a lawyer. I just think if you are going to fact check you should present all relevant facts even the ones you disagree with. BTW in my personal opinion I think stop and frisk is bull shit and has a huge chance of being abused by bad cops. I still think that Trump is a complete idiot bt Hillary is a criminal. I sure wish Gary Johnson wasn't a dope smoker. I might end up writing in Chuck Norris.
Stop and frisk itself is not unconstitutional. The federal judge said it was being applied in NYC in an unconstitutional manner but was not itself unconstitutional. In order for it to be deemed unconstitutional they would have to have supreme court overturn this decision or have a new decision at the supreme court level ruling opposed to terry v ohio i think. Then again I am not a lawyer. I just think if you are going to fact check you should present all relevant facts even the ones you disagree with. BTW in my personal opinion I think stop and frisk is bull shit and has a huge chance of being abused by bad cops. I still think that Trump is a complete idiot bt Hillary is a criminal. I sure wish Gary Johnson wasn't a dope smoker. I might end up writing in Chuck Norris.
Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief...
(1)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
MSgt (Join to see) - I went back and read the transcript. Donald was saying do stop and frisk everywhere, particularly Chicago, and cited NYC as where it was successful. The NYC program was ruled unconstitutional in the second district and remains so today. Outside the second district other districts could try implementing the same program without running straight into stare decisis.
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
SPC Kevin Ford - although Chicago has to do something about its high rate of murders, I am not a fan of the stop and frisk for privacy reasons. (I tend to lean libertarian on a lot of issues like that) so, then some place like chicago COULD try and implement a stop and frisk policy and if it was well documented and non discriminitory in its execution it should be fine?
What the fact checker should have focused on instead was the success or not of NYC's policy. If there was information available on the number of illegal weapons found during these searches as a total percentage of searches that would be interesting to know. Like I said before not being a lawyer I am not up on that stuff but what I do understand, being an engineer, is data. I also understand that correlation does not imply causation which many people don't seem to at this point.
What the fact checker should have focused on instead was the success or not of NYC's policy. If there was information available on the number of illegal weapons found during these searches as a total percentage of searches that would be interesting to know. Like I said before not being a lawyer I am not up on that stuff but what I do understand, being an engineer, is data. I also understand that correlation does not imply causation which many people don't seem to at this point.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
MSgt (Join to see) - In principle I agree with you. If you look aground you will find plenty of analysises that use data in attempts to either support or discredit the program. As I'm sure you know in a suffiently complex system it becomes very difficult, if not impossible to isolate causal factors. This is why economists still can't agree on effects of policy in the real world. Too much comtamnation of the data by influences that have nothing directly to do with the policy in question.
As to a direct answer to your question I believe CNN did have some numbers on the amount of stops that found guns (I think it was 0.2%) and the amount of stops where the person had done nothing wrong and nothing was found and the % of stops for minorities. I don't recall the last two numbers but they didn't look good.
As to a direct answer to your question I believe CNN did have some numbers on the amount of stops that found guns (I think it was 0.2%) and the amount of stops where the person had done nothing wrong and nothing was found and the % of stops for minorities. I don't recall the last two numbers but they didn't look good.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
MSgt (Join to see) - It looks like it was 0.02% of the stops found weapons, that's why memory stinks.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/21/12-years-of-data-from-new-york-city-suggest-stop-and-frisk-wasnt-that-effective/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/21/12-years-of-data-from-new-york-city-suggest-stop-and-frisk-wasnt-that-effective/
12 years of data from New York City suggest stop-and-frisk wasn’t that effective
The rise and fall of a controversial policing tactic.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
As of 1:24 AM:
...CNBC: Trump 61% hillary 39%
...TIME: Trump 58% hillary 42%
...DRUDGE: Trump 80% hillary 20%
Even the liberal media is giving it to the trumps. It's interesting that the most biased of all of the liberal media, msnbc, hasn't posted their own poll yet.
...CNBC: Trump 61% hillary 39%
...TIME: Trump 58% hillary 42%
...DRUDGE: Trump 80% hillary 20%
Even the liberal media is giving it to the trumps. It's interesting that the most biased of all of the liberal media, msnbc, hasn't posted their own poll yet.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SPC Kevin Ford - Are you saying that online polls can be manipulated by a relatively small group of people!? Could they do things like send Pitbull to Anchorage? Or name a boat Boaty McBoatface? Say it ain't so!
(1)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
kevin are you stating that some polsters can't be corrupt? You can be that naive. Polsters are also people and have become master manipulators in that they can phrase questions to get specific answers (delphi method). They can poll specific demographics. They can even manipulate their own data. PEOPLE are susceptible to all sorts of corruption.
(1)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
I never stated that, only to the relative ease a third party has in manipulation of an online poll.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google