We found several false and misleading claims in the debate between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Sanders claimed Clinton called Barack Obama “naive” in 2007 because he “thought it was a good idea to talk to our enemies.” That lacks context. Clinton objected not to meeting with enemies, but to Obama’s statement that he would do so without preconditions.
Sanders claimed that NAFTA and other trade deals have cost “millions” of U.S. jobs, but independent economists have said the impact on the economy was small.
Clinton revised history in discussing her opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. She supported the trade deal as secretary of state.
Sanders mixed and matched two different sets of data to claim that “millions of Americans … are working longer hours for low wages.”
Sanders said that his campaign “did not suggest that we had the endorsement” of the Nashua Telegraph in a new TV ad running in New Hampshire. In fact, the ad leaves that false impression.
Clinton said “the Wall Street guys are trying so hard to stop me.” But Clinton and PACs that support her have raised millions from Wall Street interests.
Sanders said that his campaign could better deliver a large voter turnout, the key to a Democrat winning the White House in November. But statistics on voter turnout in presidential elections don’t show such a clear partisan trend.
Sanders wrongly claimed that “not one Republican has the guts to recognize that climate change is real.” Two of the Republican presidential candidates, not to mention more Republicans in Congress, have said climate change is real and humans contribute to it.
While discussing the Trans Pacific Partnership, Sanders ascribed a misleading figure for the minimum wage in Vietnam.
Sanders claimed that the United States has “the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth.” But the childhood poverty rate is higher in several industrialized economies.
okay both sides did it, but i noticed one thing there are more misleading statements by Bernie than Hillary.
not sure what to make of it or NH which seems to be a more permissive electorate being a though they chose both party's more misinformers some of those for both parties is just uninformed some more malignant.
if both sides intent is to serve the country via a gov't by and for the people why is there so much discerning rhetoric each one has a different approach but still he same some without this others with that but the goal is supposedly the same??????????????????????? somebody got some splainin' to do!!!