A while back, a mcfarm post was “debunked” by one of the factchecker sites. I wrote a reply to this… but at that time there were more important things to talk about.. so I didn’t post it
Since this same left-leaning fact checker Politifact has since been used here several times, we might as well take a closer look at how Politifact operates.
You can read the whole MF exchange at (Ref a) at the very bottom of my post…..
Here it is in a nutshell…..
Afghanistan sits on the world’s largest deposits of Lithium. Since the US withdrawal, China is making friends with the Taliban. No doubt, the Chinese have plans to control the world’s lithium battery business
mcfarm saw a post on twitter, that claimed that the Bidens owned 10% of China’s largest lithium battery company that had risen in price 300% since Biden took office.
mcfarm’s post was immediately countered by a reply that showed Politifact “debunking” this story, making 3 points, to declare this story to be “false”.
There you have it… story rated “false”.
Here is the Politifact analysis....
Not so fast!!!
Point 1…..the story talked about the Bidens (plural)… It could easily be that 2 members of the Biden family (children, nephews, etc) own 5% each. Their holdings would then not show up in Politifact’s search. Politifact’s comment is meaningless. In other words, Politifact is using “smoke and mirror” tactics to mislead the reader.
Pont 2…… Joe and Jill Biden signed a disclosure form…so what!!! (unless I am mistaken) Hunter and other family members didn’t sign any forms.
Point 3…..Politifact is correct about the stock prices, the stock did go up 300% while Joe Biden was on the campaign trail and eventually became president-elect, but only rose 9% after he became president.
While this is technically correct, in principle, it doesn’t really make much difference. During 2020, Joe Biden was already the favored winner of the election, and Hunter Biden has for years gained financially from his father’s political clout.
My conclusion…..
Technically, Politifact is showing correct information. However, while they may have satisfied some of their followers with this shallow, misleading, factchecking analysis, IMHO, they have debunked absolutely nothing.
Coming to think about it… the truth could very well be in Hunter’s laptop….but that’ device is “off limits”
PS:
The insinuation of the original twitter post is that Biden intentionally made his disastrous withdrawal, to aid China in taking over.IMHO, this does not make sense, since Trump also had planned a withdrawal.….. China had plenty of time to prepare their plans for Afghanistan.
The sole purpose of my post was to show how ‘factcheckers” can deceive their readers.
Ref a)
Welcome back Gunter!
I was hoping your debut would not feature defending another debunked conspiracy theory(this is the 6th conspiracy theory that you have insisted on defending while I've been moderator).
There are no rules against that........ in fact, I encourage you and others that believe in conspiracy theories to bring them here to be debunked. Ideally though, when the are debunked, like this one was, with an accurate assessment by a fact checker, you will not argue until that cows come home, defending conspiracy theories or that the fact checker that was right.............is actually wrong.
Here is another reliable fact checker because your post claims that the previous fact checker-who got it right- in your mind-might be wrong because they were misleading based solely on your wild speculation about something that nobody knows...but could be, with no proof and this is why they could be wrong.
Here's the original debunking again, (from Politifact) that you just copied to show is misleading but I'm showing again......because its right still for the same reasons it was right the first time.(no Gunter, all these sources are not conspiring to hide the truth)
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/74891/
In addition, here's another source:
From USA Today:
Fact check: False claim that Biden family owns 10% of Chinese battery company
"A new conspiracy theory claims President Joe Biden and his family own part of one of China's biggest lithium battery companies, despite official paperwork refuting the claim."
I was hopeful that you were learning from having all these previous conspiracy theories debunked but I look forward to the potential for a desire to learn.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/75431/#75520
A huge part of the problem, as I still see it is with people that go to far right sites which promote convincing sounding conspiracy theories, manufactured because their readers want to believe in such things(and won't do objective fact checking because they WANT to believe it). Even when the conspiracy theory is debunked, they go back to the source of the conspiracy theory, read the stuff they want to believe again......and use that to NOT believe the fact check.
MarketForum will always present the objective truths and help those that need assistance to see it and be willing to adjust everything based on new information/facts.
These are some of the many hundreds of additional examples, though in recent times, they have become contrived with political objectives.
36 of the most popular conspiracy theories in the US
https://www.insider.com/popular-conspiracy-theories-united-states-2019-5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Body_Count
Hi metmike
I don’t quite understand why you are going into a big dissertation about conspiracy theories. I agree, the original Twitter post most certainly could be classified as a “conspiracy theory”, and I even rejected the twitter post’s insinuation.
The purpose of my post was to show how “fact checkers” can mislead a gullible audience … not to prove that the Bidens own stock in this company.
They show a fancy picture, with the needle all the way to the laft, and declare it “false”…. while in reality they have proven nothing
I repeat the last sentence of my post
The sole purpose of my post was to show how ‘factcheckers” can deceive their readers.
Thanks Gunter,
I might not have been clear.
I added something and adjusted the original verbiage, probably after you read it to try to make that more clear:
Here is another reliable fact checker because your post claims that the previous fact checker-who got it right- in your mind-might be wrong because they were misleading based solely on your wild speculation about something that nobody knows...but could be, with no proof and this is why they could be wrong.
If you want to claim this fact checker was misleading........HAVE SOME LEGIT FACTS.
Speculation of what could be is not a fact to claim they were misleading.
As I said originally in September, as soon as I read the story they debunked with their fact check, the bs meter in my head was going off loudly. They didn't have to work hard to debunk such a silly claim.
You are working hard to try to discredit their position that they didn't need much for to be true.
Does that make sense?
BTW Gunter, I completely agree that Fact Checkers are misleading at times because they too have bias.
I busted Snopes several times............USING FACTS not speculation.
For your Halloween entertainment.
Snopes refuses to correct....
14 responses |
Started by GunterK - Jan. 26, 2019, 10:27 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/22649/
the wall and the shutdown.... disgusting
35 responses |
Started by GunterK - Jan. 19, 2019, 8:07 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/22103/
Snopes on Hillary colluding with Russia
11 responses |
Started by cfdr - Nov. 30, 2018, 6:37 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/18512/
The Founders Never Imagined a Crook Like Trump
31 responses |
Started by mojo - Nov. 30, 2018, 9:18 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/18463/
Help shut down my fact-checking ...
13 responses |
Started by carlberky - Nov. 29, 2018, 8:32 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/18339/
Dr. Ford and her lie detector test
26 responses |
Started by GunterK - Oct. 3, 2018, 12:18 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/14333/
Trump supporters
6 responses |
Started by GunterK - Sept. 18, 2018, 10:41 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/13313/
By metmike - Aug. 17, 2018, 2:01 p.m.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Climate change is a hoax
I didn’t want to continue adding to this thread… however, just for kicks, I read one of your other “fact checking” links more thoroughly… the one by usatoday.com…
and what ya know…. Hunter Biden does have a connection to that battery company
Buried in that usatoday article, it says that a Chinese investment firm called BHR Partners has investments in the Lithium Battery company. And one of Hunter’s companies was a co-founder of this BHR firm. (Christopher Heinz is also involved).
Furthermore, Hunter was on the Board of Directors of BHR
The size of the investment is not disclosed.
So, now the final word now is….one of the Biden clan is indeed benefiting from the growth of this Chinese battery company.
There is indeed truth to the Twitter post presented by mcfarm, even though the 10% number could not be verified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BHR_Partners
Hey... we don't even need Hunter's laptop... it's all there, on wikipedia
Thanks Gunter!
That’s a very creative and speculative stretch to use as a confirmation.
The accusation was that Joe Biden or his family owned 10% of company A in China and this affected his decision making.
Turns out they own 0% in company A based on tax and other legal documents.
But wait, hunter had an investment in another company, B that invested some capital in the company A that they don’t have any equity in, so this counts and it’s really what was meant with the inititial blatantly false statement......you just have to use your imagination and speculation to get there.
which might be how this started in the first place.
Somebody found out that hunter had an investment in China in a different company B and looked to see what all the investments that this company was involved in and twisted it.
Regardless, the initial source lied about the Biden’s direct stake in company A because they didn’t say that what they really meant was that their son had an investment of unknown amount in company B that then had an investment in company A.
Been a fun discussion. We should probably go on to something productive if possible.