Remember: 53 % of Sanders statements was either half true 23 % , mostly false 18 % or false 12 %.

[factfinder_77]

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

[bettyellen]

1. And we still have people here hanging on to RT's every word, SMH...

[TeacherB87]

2. Crazy isn't it?

How people can overlook lies when the lies validate their pre-existing opinions...

Full disclosure: I voted Hillary in the Primary and General elections.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. Pretty darn good. Thanks for refreshing my memory.

I knew he was a good man.

[pangaia]

4. I was at Yankee Stadium when Mickey Mantle

hit the upper deck facade in right field.

[rtracey]

5. who

Who is RT?

[pbmus]

8. russian owned news here in the usa, many of our so called liberal reporters have joined them recentl

https://www.rt.com/news/

[rtracey]

19. ahhh

Oh ok, I thought you were talking about a person......thanks

[Gothmog]

6. Yep

[Rex]

7. What no pants on fire?

According to that chart, Trump's pants should be bursting into flames any minute now.

[NWCorona]

9. Fyi

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/10/144974110/political-fact-checking-under-fire

[NCTraveler]

10. The Weekly Standard railing about the liberal media.

[NWCorona]

11. Hey, what's up?

Did you have a good 3 day weekend?

[NCTraveler]

12. No three day weekend.

That said, I've been taking some personal days. Sometimes I need to soak in all that is good around me.

[NWCorona]

13. That there is some truth! I've taken a few myself.

[Cha]

14. We lived it

[JCanete]

15. from past experience, I have little faith in truth meters and their methodologies.

When you get into the weeds of policies, their interpretation is as good as anybody else's. What information did they leave out when they crunched the numbers? What numbers did they privilege over others? At what point did they stop digging and just go with what they had? What is their own lens?

Wouldn't it be weird if they tended to have a moderate point of reference when it comes to some of this? I know i'd be colored surprised. Yes, facts are facts. Once you dive into "mostly falses" and "half-truths" you have left the objective path, and entered the realm of personal judgement, wouldn't you say?

[LanternWaste]

20. I'd say you place faith in that which validates your biases, and reject that which doesn't

"wouldn't you say?"

I'd say you place faith in that which validates your biases, and reject that which doesn't-- illustrated by your dramatic lack of any objective evidence supporting your initial premise.

Which is fine... it's human nature.

[JCanete]

21. The same nature that governs the decisions and interpretations of these fact checkers.

From my experience it isn't a matter of me simply refusing to believe something...its that often the methodologies neglect factoring in a component or consideration that seems glaringly obvious to me, thus making the results come across to me as dubious and ideologically driven.

By the way, would you like a run-down of other places I've posted? If yes, indicate this by signing your next drive-by with a couple qq's, and I'll respond with a rundown of OP's and post numbers.

[JustinL]

16. No, it's 49%, which is nearly identical to Clinton. What's your point?

Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Sanders was just as likely to make false or half-true statements as was Clinton?

You added together the raw numbers of statements rather than the percentages.

[aikoaiko]

17. LOL - angry tears make great lemonade.