TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Fact-Checking Is Dead, Killed by Snopes over Biden’s Promise of $2000 Checks

11 点作者 clarifier123大约 4 年前

3 条评论

kenjackson大约 4 年前
This is a really odd article. Snopes said "most false" and they seem to take issue with this. Snopes assessment seems right on and completely accurate with not much bias.
评论 #26754110 未加载
cthalupa大约 4 年前
The campaigning was based on the existing debate of whether the stimulus check should be $600 or $2000. Biden and the Democrats were pushing for $2000.<p>There was never a camp that was pushing for BOTH a $600 check and a $2000 check.<p>They did not secure power in the White House and Senate in time to change the $600 check to a $2000 check. So instead they sent an additional $1400 check.<p>Would it have been ideal from their perspective to have gotten things done in time so that people only got one check? Sure. Do I view their inability to do so, especially in light of them making good on the total amount, as an indication of lying and misleading people? No.<p>Situations change. They made good on the total amount. You can claim that they technically lied because it took two checks instead of one, but I&#x27;d say at that point you&#x27;re more worried about scoring points on technicalities than caring about the actual end result.<p>Calling fact checking dead because they chose to look at the whole picture, while still taking the time to note the technicalities, is incredibly short sighted or incredibly partisan.
Grustaf大约 4 年前
It&#x27;s very hard to follow this article, but I&#x27;m mostly upset that it&#x27;s apparently legal to directly promise voters money if they vote for you. Talk about moral hazard.
评论 #26752896 未加载