dave sproul Loc: Tucson AZ

The following link may be of interest to some as there seems to very little of fact checking done relative to the some prior postings.

It is interesting when checking on all people and parties and finding the relative differences with respect to the truth.

http://www.politifact.com


enjoy

davefales Loc: Virginia

For balance: http://www.politifactbias.com/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414434/politifact-and-me-kevin-d-williamson

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/06/the-liberal-tilt-at-politifact

Caveat emptor.

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

you have a very funny way of pointing out bias by using...nationalreview.com & conservativereview.com,
two notoriously biased site to prove your point about bias...

..and this is great.... using politifcactbias.com for balance against the bias of politifact...bahahahahahaa


Here's a question for you, "What do you think I will find out about fox news when I go to http://foxsucks.com ?


why don't you see what the other fact-checkers say about politifact... unless you think there's a conspiracy among fact checkers.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Yes, these so-called "fact check" postings are as bad as any political uttering.

The biggest problem is that they take things out of context to further their political view. For example, Trump has very high regard for our armed forces. He uses the word "disaster" to describe the downsizing under Obama. That is a fact.

The latest one where the Demos liberal media is convoluting what Trump said to cover up what was in the hacked DNC emails is amazing. They have him encouraging hacking. When you read his statements he said nothing of the kind. He was making a joke about Hillary's vanished emails. I'm sure they aren't that stupid: it is a deliberate distortion to draw attention away from what they do not want to report. If it were the RNC they'd be deriding the lack of security and digging in and exposing all kinds of trash in the emails.

MtnMan Loc: ID

I have no doubt that there is a conspiracy among so-called "fact checkers". Each puts forth their agenda.

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

you so funny. Let me get this straight.

1) You think the "downsizing" of our military is a "disaster".
2) You blame this "downsizing" on Obama.


words obviously aren't your thing...here's a graph

http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/July2014/001_military_spending_dollars.pngyou can see that military expenditures are pretty much the same as when Obama took office... AND take a look, Obama has the frickin record for the highest expenditures in history!!!

...the second one, you know, the president cannot control the money that congress appropriates to the military... and just to alleviate your fears of attack, here's one showing we could take on pretty much the whole world with our military (even not counting our nuclear capability).

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

It's actually very easy for the "fact check" sites to hide their bias as they are able to pic and choose what they rate. For instance, take two people and give them the exact same speech to read, for one person you only publish rated statements you know may be exaggerated, questionable, or false, while the other you only publish rated statements which you know to be true. Now you can honestly say the first person statements rate mostly true, and the other persons rate mostly false, and have factual date to back up that misleading analysis. It's like in statistics, numbers can always be massaged to a desired outcome.

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

Spending does not equate to efficiency, strength, or success, just look at the US school system or health system for perfect examples.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Obama has proved that you can spend more and get little in return by spending more than all the other presidents in US history combined... yet nothing of substance has changed. He has failed. And expenditures alone do not guarantee military success, especially with a feckless , cut and run liberal attitude that serves to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We will never win another war if politicians are involved. Why we won in Gulf War 1, the military ran it, the only one we have won since WW2.

However, unintendedly, your graph illustrates exactly what Trump said about how the fellow NATO countries in the graph and those not in it who border Russia & China ( Last centuries foes according to the brilliant Obama) but who all depend on us to defend them, needing to step up. If they don't, he says we change how we would respond. That statement was a challenge to live up to their commitment ( a difficult concept for liberals), not an action. Think if every one of our "allies" ( always there when they need us) spent 10% more, how much we could reduce ours by and how much more difficult for our common foes to plan against.

davefales Loc: Virginia

I like this chart better. It pretty clearly shows the decline in "military" spending since 2009.

Factors not captured include "worn out/used up/not replaced" equipment plus all the human experience that has been lost due to force reduction.

(Download)

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I am truly surprised about the many military experts we appear to have. Do we count numbers of people,quality and quantity of pertinent weapons? What exactly are the "pertinent" weapons? It appears that many correlate dollars spent with the abilities to perform. Where do people specifically want more dollars spent? Where is our performance lacking? What are we not prepared for? What aspects are we missing in the many tests our military has been facing? These are not rhetorical questions.

davefales Loc: Virginia

You don't have to be a military expert to understand this report:

http://index.heritage.org/military/2016/assessments/us-military-power/

Click on Download Assessment to get the pdf.

For those not interested in the details, here is the bottom line:

Capacity Capability Readiness Overall

Army Weak Marginal Weak Weak

Navy Marginal Weak Marginal Marginal

Marine Corps Weak Marginal Marginal Marginal

Air Force Very Strong Marginal Marginal Marginal

davefales Loc: Virginia

That table looked fine in draft but did not publish well on UHH. Sorry...which is also the state of the US military in 2016.

davefales Loc: Virginia

Here's the table exported as a jpg.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I don't know how you arrived at the "bottom line",at least according to the source you cited. The big time so called ideal optimum levels is a dream for the military leaders,so comparing what we have and what we'd like is not realistic or necessary. No way could this ideology ever be funded and many would probably agree it is not needed,a point that could be argued. The article pretty much answers my questions and there is no way our capabilities can be construed as inadequate. The "big war" people talk about won't be fought with men and bullets....

This doom and gloom rhetoric regarding our military is not valid. Discretion in getting involved in everyone's affairs might be a thought.