Did Michelle Obama have a staff of 23 people, while Melania has a staff of 4?Did Obama have a marine demoted...

Most practical knots for hitching a line to an object while keeping the bitter end as tight as possible, without sag?

The sound of thunder's like a whip

How to persuade recruiters to send me the Job Description?

How can I support the recycling, but not the new production of aluminum?

Is a butterfly one or two animals?

How to create a summation symbol with a vertical bar?

What is the evidence on the danger of feeding whole blueberries and grapes to infants and toddlers?

Are required indicators necessary for radio buttons?

Can you be convicted for being a murderer twice?

Why does my house heat up, even when it's cool outside?

Potential new partner angry about first collaboration - how to answer email to close up this encounter in a graceful manner

(Why) May a Beit Din refuse to bury a body in order to coerce a man into giving a divorce?

A second course in the representation theory

Would combining A* with a flocking algorithm be too performance-heavy?

Why doesn't the Falcon-9 first stage use three legs to land?

Can you grapple/shove with the Hunter Ranger's Whirlwind Attack?

!I!n!s!e!r!t! !n!b!e!t!w!e!e!n!

The logic of invoking virtual functions is not clear (or it is method hiding?)

Why are delta bots so finicky?

Turn TDE off when restoring SQL databases

How to specify and fit a hybrid machine learning - linear model

Is there a known non-euclidean geometry where two concentric circles of different radii can intersect? (as in the novel "The Universe Between")

Can a group have a cyclical derived series?

Taking out number of subarrays from an array which contains all the distinct elements of that array



Did Michelle Obama have a staff of 23 people, while Melania has a staff of 4?


Did Obama have a marine demoted for correcting him?Is Donald Trump's ratio of bankruptcy to businesses consistent with the success rate of other entrepreneurs?Is Michelle Obama a transgender woman?Did Eric Trump say Melania is smarter than Michelle Obama?Are white people who believe Obama is Muslim largely Trump sympathisers?Did Obama use the Espionage act to put reporters in jail?Did Obama have a policy of “separating [migrant] families”?Did Trump reveal the identities of a SEAL team in Iraq?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







34















According to this picture (shared over 100k times)



enter image description here



Text reads,




Obama donated none of his salary, Michelle had a staff of 23



Trump donates all of his salary, Melania has a staff of 4




I'm more interested in the claims about comparative staff size.










share|improve this question






















  • 3





    I wonder if Trump donated his salary to that charity of his that funds large portraits of himself...

    – einpoklum
    2 days ago








  • 3





    Michelle Obama was constantly doing something or other of public usefulness. I have not seen reports of Melania Trump actually doing anything at all. The question assumes that they both did the same stuff, with different amounts of help.

    – RedSonja
    yesterday











  • @RedSonja I don't think the question is making the assumption you are suggesting it makes (the body of the question is 4 or 5 sentences and no claim is made about usefulness of either Melania or Michelle).

    – bin
    yesterday


















34















According to this picture (shared over 100k times)



enter image description here



Text reads,




Obama donated none of his salary, Michelle had a staff of 23



Trump donates all of his salary, Melania has a staff of 4




I'm more interested in the claims about comparative staff size.










share|improve this question






















  • 3





    I wonder if Trump donated his salary to that charity of his that funds large portraits of himself...

    – einpoklum
    2 days ago








  • 3





    Michelle Obama was constantly doing something or other of public usefulness. I have not seen reports of Melania Trump actually doing anything at all. The question assumes that they both did the same stuff, with different amounts of help.

    – RedSonja
    yesterday











  • @RedSonja I don't think the question is making the assumption you are suggesting it makes (the body of the question is 4 or 5 sentences and no claim is made about usefulness of either Melania or Michelle).

    – bin
    yesterday














34












34








34


1






According to this picture (shared over 100k times)



enter image description here



Text reads,




Obama donated none of his salary, Michelle had a staff of 23



Trump donates all of his salary, Melania has a staff of 4




I'm more interested in the claims about comparative staff size.










share|improve this question
















According to this picture (shared over 100k times)



enter image description here



Text reads,




Obama donated none of his salary, Michelle had a staff of 23



Trump donates all of his salary, Melania has a staff of 4




I'm more interested in the claims about comparative staff size.







united-states donald-trump barack-obama






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









motoDrizzt

1218 bronze badges




1218 bronze badges










asked Aug 15 at 13:57









Evan CarrollEvan Carroll

12.9k29 gold badges85 silver badges169 bronze badges




12.9k29 gold badges85 silver badges169 bronze badges











  • 3





    I wonder if Trump donated his salary to that charity of his that funds large portraits of himself...

    – einpoklum
    2 days ago








  • 3





    Michelle Obama was constantly doing something or other of public usefulness. I have not seen reports of Melania Trump actually doing anything at all. The question assumes that they both did the same stuff, with different amounts of help.

    – RedSonja
    yesterday











  • @RedSonja I don't think the question is making the assumption you are suggesting it makes (the body of the question is 4 or 5 sentences and no claim is made about usefulness of either Melania or Michelle).

    – bin
    yesterday














  • 3





    I wonder if Trump donated his salary to that charity of his that funds large portraits of himself...

    – einpoklum
    2 days ago








  • 3





    Michelle Obama was constantly doing something or other of public usefulness. I have not seen reports of Melania Trump actually doing anything at all. The question assumes that they both did the same stuff, with different amounts of help.

    – RedSonja
    yesterday











  • @RedSonja I don't think the question is making the assumption you are suggesting it makes (the body of the question is 4 or 5 sentences and no claim is made about usefulness of either Melania or Michelle).

    – bin
    yesterday








3




3





I wonder if Trump donated his salary to that charity of his that funds large portraits of himself...

– einpoklum
2 days ago







I wonder if Trump donated his salary to that charity of his that funds large portraits of himself...

– einpoklum
2 days ago






3




3





Michelle Obama was constantly doing something or other of public usefulness. I have not seen reports of Melania Trump actually doing anything at all. The question assumes that they both did the same stuff, with different amounts of help.

– RedSonja
yesterday





Michelle Obama was constantly doing something or other of public usefulness. I have not seen reports of Melania Trump actually doing anything at all. The question assumes that they both did the same stuff, with different amounts of help.

– RedSonja
yesterday













@RedSonja I don't think the question is making the assumption you are suggesting it makes (the body of the question is 4 or 5 sentences and no claim is made about usefulness of either Melania or Michelle).

– bin
yesterday





@RedSonja I don't think the question is making the assumption you are suggesting it makes (the body of the question is 4 or 5 sentences and no claim is made about usefulness of either Melania or Michelle).

– bin
yesterday










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















74














As for the challenged claim, that is a qualified yes (Michelle's staff was larger than Melania's, but not by that much, and there were reasons for it).



The Hill writes in an article dated October 2017:




Melania Trump has a smaller group of aides compared to her predecessor, Michelle Obama, according to the news outlet's analysis of White House personnel reports.




The article goes on to state that Melania Trump has a staff of four listed on the record, with her communications director Stephanie Grisham stating that there are five more people serving her since the report stating "four" came out in June that year.



This is in contrast to Michelle Obama's staff, which (in Barack Obama's first year in office) had 16 people listed, with "some Obama administration officials" putting the actual number "closer to 24".



So, listed staff would be 4 to 16. The original claim apparently compares "listed" to "unofficial", but I'll let this slide. (And see the Snopes article linked below for a different take on the numbers.)



The Hill adds this (emphasis mine):




Obama took on a busy agenda at the start of her husband's term, pushing initiatives like "Let's Move," her campaign against child obesity.



In comparison, Melania Trump remained in New York during the first few months of the Trump presidency while her son Barron Trump finished the school year.




Snopes also mentions this (emphasis mine):




Things get more complicated when it comes to Melania Trump. For one thing, she didn’t move into the White House until 11 June 2017, five months into her husband’s presidency. For another, she was far less active during her inaugural year as first lady than her immediate predecessors.




With regards to the White House personnel reports that The Hill is also referring to, Snopes continues (emphasis mine):




That report does list exactly four staff members whose titles link them directly to the first lady, but it is neither a full nor a current count, for the following reasons:



First, the report was published on 1 July 2017, only slightly more than two weeks after Melania Trump moved into the East Wing. Her staff was skeletal then, at best.



[...]



Her three new hires in January 2018 would have brought that total to 12 staffers — a total still lower than Michelle Obama’s, but triple the mere four claimed of her.






And as it's prominently featuring in the claim, and I don't like to let lies go unchallenged:



Snopes also states that Barack Obama donated all of the USD 1.4 million he received as winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, putting his donations at ~78% that of what Trump will have donated at the end of his term -- while not being a billionaire to begin with.






share|improve this answer























  • 1





    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Sklivvz
    Aug 16 at 17:42






  • 4





    Take your political opinions to chat, please.

    – Oddthinking
    2 days ago



















13














This claim dates back to July 2018, and is based on a report from 1 July 2017, less than a month after Melania became the First Lady.



Snopes fact-checked it and explains that it is misleading:




Does Melania Trump have a smaller staff than Michelle Obama? Yes, but the disparity is smaller than alleged.




They explain that, comparing like-to-like, Melania had 12 staffers, not just the four included in the early report. They explain how the discrepancy in the counting occurred.






share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    As great as Snopes is, when it comes to political fact-checks they are inconsistent and often liberally slanted. Things are “inconsistent” when it comes to cases that support conservative claims, while even more inconsistent liberal claims are declared “mostly true”. As a liberal-conservative, I don’t care one side or the other, but have to point out that analysts in these fact-checking websites apply their own biases. While they are a good first stop for research, they should not be used as a definitive objective source without taking into consideration their inconsistencies and faults.

    – vol7ron
    2 days ago






  • 3





    @vol7ron: This is an ad hominem attack against Snopes. The question should be whether this particular Snopes article is well-referenced to support their claims. Not all of them are, but for this one I think that answer is clearly yes. (FWIW: FactCheck reviewed whether Snopes exhibited liberal bias, and concluded not.)

    – Oddthinking
    yesterday






  • 1





    thanks, though this isn’t ad hominem. I don’t want to detract by expanding on this any more than what I have already stated. The point, again, is I find that using a fact-checking website alone is not enough despite conclusions that FactCheck arrives at. By all means, use arguments and resources they’ve listed, but I don’t think it’s enough to use their results, given their mislabeling - I’ve come across a handful of mislabeled conclusions over the years, which may not be statistically significant, but I think is a lot given my limited use.

    – vol7ron
    yesterday






  • 2





    @vol7ron: But that is exactly what ad hominem means -- judging a statement, or data, based on where it came from, instead on its own grounds. By all means, be skeptical (that's what we're here for). But "being skeptical" means "find data that confirms or disproves the statement made" (constructive), not merely going "I don't like your source, find another" (destructive). Snopes lists Forbes, Reuters, the White House, Politico, and Fox News as sources. Do you have any reason to doubt their statements, other than "I don't like Snopes"?

    – DevSolar
    yesterday








  • 1





    @DevSolar I could always be wrong, but that not how I see it. ad hominem is attacking the underlying or alternative characteristics of an entity other than those in scope. Often its an attack on a person instead of the position being held. In this case, the characteristics are of quality and consistency of using a source site. If I were to say you can’t trust that because the people that created it are Canadian, that would be ad hominem because it’s no longer about the consistency or quality, but that’s not what occurred. Is credibility not a criteria in using a site as definitive source?

    – vol7ron
    yesterday























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









74














As for the challenged claim, that is a qualified yes (Michelle's staff was larger than Melania's, but not by that much, and there were reasons for it).



The Hill writes in an article dated October 2017:




Melania Trump has a smaller group of aides compared to her predecessor, Michelle Obama, according to the news outlet's analysis of White House personnel reports.




The article goes on to state that Melania Trump has a staff of four listed on the record, with her communications director Stephanie Grisham stating that there are five more people serving her since the report stating "four" came out in June that year.



This is in contrast to Michelle Obama's staff, which (in Barack Obama's first year in office) had 16 people listed, with "some Obama administration officials" putting the actual number "closer to 24".



So, listed staff would be 4 to 16. The original claim apparently compares "listed" to "unofficial", but I'll let this slide. (And see the Snopes article linked below for a different take on the numbers.)



The Hill adds this (emphasis mine):




Obama took on a busy agenda at the start of her husband's term, pushing initiatives like "Let's Move," her campaign against child obesity.



In comparison, Melania Trump remained in New York during the first few months of the Trump presidency while her son Barron Trump finished the school year.




Snopes also mentions this (emphasis mine):




Things get more complicated when it comes to Melania Trump. For one thing, she didn’t move into the White House until 11 June 2017, five months into her husband’s presidency. For another, she was far less active during her inaugural year as first lady than her immediate predecessors.




With regards to the White House personnel reports that The Hill is also referring to, Snopes continues (emphasis mine):




That report does list exactly four staff members whose titles link them directly to the first lady, but it is neither a full nor a current count, for the following reasons:



First, the report was published on 1 July 2017, only slightly more than two weeks after Melania Trump moved into the East Wing. Her staff was skeletal then, at best.



[...]



Her three new hires in January 2018 would have brought that total to 12 staffers — a total still lower than Michelle Obama’s, but triple the mere four claimed of her.






And as it's prominently featuring in the claim, and I don't like to let lies go unchallenged:



Snopes also states that Barack Obama donated all of the USD 1.4 million he received as winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, putting his donations at ~78% that of what Trump will have donated at the end of his term -- while not being a billionaire to begin with.






share|improve this answer























  • 1





    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Sklivvz
    Aug 16 at 17:42






  • 4





    Take your political opinions to chat, please.

    – Oddthinking
    2 days ago
















74














As for the challenged claim, that is a qualified yes (Michelle's staff was larger than Melania's, but not by that much, and there were reasons for it).



The Hill writes in an article dated October 2017:




Melania Trump has a smaller group of aides compared to her predecessor, Michelle Obama, according to the news outlet's analysis of White House personnel reports.




The article goes on to state that Melania Trump has a staff of four listed on the record, with her communications director Stephanie Grisham stating that there are five more people serving her since the report stating "four" came out in June that year.



This is in contrast to Michelle Obama's staff, which (in Barack Obama's first year in office) had 16 people listed, with "some Obama administration officials" putting the actual number "closer to 24".



So, listed staff would be 4 to 16. The original claim apparently compares "listed" to "unofficial", but I'll let this slide. (And see the Snopes article linked below for a different take on the numbers.)



The Hill adds this (emphasis mine):




Obama took on a busy agenda at the start of her husband's term, pushing initiatives like "Let's Move," her campaign against child obesity.



In comparison, Melania Trump remained in New York during the first few months of the Trump presidency while her son Barron Trump finished the school year.




Snopes also mentions this (emphasis mine):




Things get more complicated when it comes to Melania Trump. For one thing, she didn’t move into the White House until 11 June 2017, five months into her husband’s presidency. For another, she was far less active during her inaugural year as first lady than her immediate predecessors.




With regards to the White House personnel reports that The Hill is also referring to, Snopes continues (emphasis mine):




That report does list exactly four staff members whose titles link them directly to the first lady, but it is neither a full nor a current count, for the following reasons:



First, the report was published on 1 July 2017, only slightly more than two weeks after Melania Trump moved into the East Wing. Her staff was skeletal then, at best.



[...]



Her three new hires in January 2018 would have brought that total to 12 staffers — a total still lower than Michelle Obama’s, but triple the mere four claimed of her.






And as it's prominently featuring in the claim, and I don't like to let lies go unchallenged:



Snopes also states that Barack Obama donated all of the USD 1.4 million he received as winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, putting his donations at ~78% that of what Trump will have donated at the end of his term -- while not being a billionaire to begin with.






share|improve this answer























  • 1





    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Sklivvz
    Aug 16 at 17:42






  • 4





    Take your political opinions to chat, please.

    – Oddthinking
    2 days ago














74












74








74







As for the challenged claim, that is a qualified yes (Michelle's staff was larger than Melania's, but not by that much, and there were reasons for it).



The Hill writes in an article dated October 2017:




Melania Trump has a smaller group of aides compared to her predecessor, Michelle Obama, according to the news outlet's analysis of White House personnel reports.




The article goes on to state that Melania Trump has a staff of four listed on the record, with her communications director Stephanie Grisham stating that there are five more people serving her since the report stating "four" came out in June that year.



This is in contrast to Michelle Obama's staff, which (in Barack Obama's first year in office) had 16 people listed, with "some Obama administration officials" putting the actual number "closer to 24".



So, listed staff would be 4 to 16. The original claim apparently compares "listed" to "unofficial", but I'll let this slide. (And see the Snopes article linked below for a different take on the numbers.)



The Hill adds this (emphasis mine):




Obama took on a busy agenda at the start of her husband's term, pushing initiatives like "Let's Move," her campaign against child obesity.



In comparison, Melania Trump remained in New York during the first few months of the Trump presidency while her son Barron Trump finished the school year.




Snopes also mentions this (emphasis mine):




Things get more complicated when it comes to Melania Trump. For one thing, she didn’t move into the White House until 11 June 2017, five months into her husband’s presidency. For another, she was far less active during her inaugural year as first lady than her immediate predecessors.




With regards to the White House personnel reports that The Hill is also referring to, Snopes continues (emphasis mine):




That report does list exactly four staff members whose titles link them directly to the first lady, but it is neither a full nor a current count, for the following reasons:



First, the report was published on 1 July 2017, only slightly more than two weeks after Melania Trump moved into the East Wing. Her staff was skeletal then, at best.



[...]



Her three new hires in January 2018 would have brought that total to 12 staffers — a total still lower than Michelle Obama’s, but triple the mere four claimed of her.






And as it's prominently featuring in the claim, and I don't like to let lies go unchallenged:



Snopes also states that Barack Obama donated all of the USD 1.4 million he received as winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, putting his donations at ~78% that of what Trump will have donated at the end of his term -- while not being a billionaire to begin with.






share|improve this answer















As for the challenged claim, that is a qualified yes (Michelle's staff was larger than Melania's, but not by that much, and there were reasons for it).



The Hill writes in an article dated October 2017:




Melania Trump has a smaller group of aides compared to her predecessor, Michelle Obama, according to the news outlet's analysis of White House personnel reports.




The article goes on to state that Melania Trump has a staff of four listed on the record, with her communications director Stephanie Grisham stating that there are five more people serving her since the report stating "four" came out in June that year.



This is in contrast to Michelle Obama's staff, which (in Barack Obama's first year in office) had 16 people listed, with "some Obama administration officials" putting the actual number "closer to 24".



So, listed staff would be 4 to 16. The original claim apparently compares "listed" to "unofficial", but I'll let this slide. (And see the Snopes article linked below for a different take on the numbers.)



The Hill adds this (emphasis mine):




Obama took on a busy agenda at the start of her husband's term, pushing initiatives like "Let's Move," her campaign against child obesity.



In comparison, Melania Trump remained in New York during the first few months of the Trump presidency while her son Barron Trump finished the school year.




Snopes also mentions this (emphasis mine):




Things get more complicated when it comes to Melania Trump. For one thing, she didn’t move into the White House until 11 June 2017, five months into her husband’s presidency. For another, she was far less active during her inaugural year as first lady than her immediate predecessors.




With regards to the White House personnel reports that The Hill is also referring to, Snopes continues (emphasis mine):




That report does list exactly four staff members whose titles link them directly to the first lady, but it is neither a full nor a current count, for the following reasons:



First, the report was published on 1 July 2017, only slightly more than two weeks after Melania Trump moved into the East Wing. Her staff was skeletal then, at best.



[...]



Her three new hires in January 2018 would have brought that total to 12 staffers — a total still lower than Michelle Obama’s, but triple the mere four claimed of her.






And as it's prominently featuring in the claim, and I don't like to let lies go unchallenged:



Snopes also states that Barack Obama donated all of the USD 1.4 million he received as winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, putting his donations at ~78% that of what Trump will have donated at the end of his term -- while not being a billionaire to begin with.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Aug 16 at 17:41









Sklivvz

64.6k25 gold badges304 silver badges413 bronze badges




64.6k25 gold badges304 silver badges413 bronze badges










answered Aug 15 at 14:18









DevSolarDevSolar

13.6k5 gold badges52 silver badges56 bronze badges




13.6k5 gold badges52 silver badges56 bronze badges











  • 1





    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Sklivvz
    Aug 16 at 17:42






  • 4





    Take your political opinions to chat, please.

    – Oddthinking
    2 days ago














  • 1





    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Sklivvz
    Aug 16 at 17:42






  • 4





    Take your political opinions to chat, please.

    – Oddthinking
    2 days ago








1




1





Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– Sklivvz
Aug 16 at 17:42





Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– Sklivvz
Aug 16 at 17:42




4




4





Take your political opinions to chat, please.

– Oddthinking
2 days ago





Take your political opinions to chat, please.

– Oddthinking
2 days ago













13














This claim dates back to July 2018, and is based on a report from 1 July 2017, less than a month after Melania became the First Lady.



Snopes fact-checked it and explains that it is misleading:




Does Melania Trump have a smaller staff than Michelle Obama? Yes, but the disparity is smaller than alleged.




They explain that, comparing like-to-like, Melania had 12 staffers, not just the four included in the early report. They explain how the discrepancy in the counting occurred.






share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    As great as Snopes is, when it comes to political fact-checks they are inconsistent and often liberally slanted. Things are “inconsistent” when it comes to cases that support conservative claims, while even more inconsistent liberal claims are declared “mostly true”. As a liberal-conservative, I don’t care one side or the other, but have to point out that analysts in these fact-checking websites apply their own biases. While they are a good first stop for research, they should not be used as a definitive objective source without taking into consideration their inconsistencies and faults.

    – vol7ron
    2 days ago






  • 3





    @vol7ron: This is an ad hominem attack against Snopes. The question should be whether this particular Snopes article is well-referenced to support their claims. Not all of them are, but for this one I think that answer is clearly yes. (FWIW: FactCheck reviewed whether Snopes exhibited liberal bias, and concluded not.)

    – Oddthinking
    yesterday






  • 1





    thanks, though this isn’t ad hominem. I don’t want to detract by expanding on this any more than what I have already stated. The point, again, is I find that using a fact-checking website alone is not enough despite conclusions that FactCheck arrives at. By all means, use arguments and resources they’ve listed, but I don’t think it’s enough to use their results, given their mislabeling - I’ve come across a handful of mislabeled conclusions over the years, which may not be statistically significant, but I think is a lot given my limited use.

    – vol7ron
    yesterday






  • 2





    @vol7ron: But that is exactly what ad hominem means -- judging a statement, or data, based on where it came from, instead on its own grounds. By all means, be skeptical (that's what we're here for). But "being skeptical" means "find data that confirms or disproves the statement made" (constructive), not merely going "I don't like your source, find another" (destructive). Snopes lists Forbes, Reuters, the White House, Politico, and Fox News as sources. Do you have any reason to doubt their statements, other than "I don't like Snopes"?

    – DevSolar
    yesterday








  • 1





    @DevSolar I could always be wrong, but that not how I see it. ad hominem is attacking the underlying or alternative characteristics of an entity other than those in scope. Often its an attack on a person instead of the position being held. In this case, the characteristics are of quality and consistency of using a source site. If I were to say you can’t trust that because the people that created it are Canadian, that would be ad hominem because it’s no longer about the consistency or quality, but that’s not what occurred. Is credibility not a criteria in using a site as definitive source?

    – vol7ron
    yesterday


















13














This claim dates back to July 2018, and is based on a report from 1 July 2017, less than a month after Melania became the First Lady.



Snopes fact-checked it and explains that it is misleading:




Does Melania Trump have a smaller staff than Michelle Obama? Yes, but the disparity is smaller than alleged.




They explain that, comparing like-to-like, Melania had 12 staffers, not just the four included in the early report. They explain how the discrepancy in the counting occurred.






share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    As great as Snopes is, when it comes to political fact-checks they are inconsistent and often liberally slanted. Things are “inconsistent” when it comes to cases that support conservative claims, while even more inconsistent liberal claims are declared “mostly true”. As a liberal-conservative, I don’t care one side or the other, but have to point out that analysts in these fact-checking websites apply their own biases. While they are a good first stop for research, they should not be used as a definitive objective source without taking into consideration their inconsistencies and faults.

    – vol7ron
    2 days ago






  • 3





    @vol7ron: This is an ad hominem attack against Snopes. The question should be whether this particular Snopes article is well-referenced to support their claims. Not all of them are, but for this one I think that answer is clearly yes. (FWIW: FactCheck reviewed whether Snopes exhibited liberal bias, and concluded not.)

    – Oddthinking
    yesterday






  • 1





    thanks, though this isn’t ad hominem. I don’t want to detract by expanding on this any more than what I have already stated. The point, again, is I find that using a fact-checking website alone is not enough despite conclusions that FactCheck arrives at. By all means, use arguments and resources they’ve listed, but I don’t think it’s enough to use their results, given their mislabeling - I’ve come across a handful of mislabeled conclusions over the years, which may not be statistically significant, but I think is a lot given my limited use.

    – vol7ron
    yesterday






  • 2





    @vol7ron: But that is exactly what ad hominem means -- judging a statement, or data, based on where it came from, instead on its own grounds. By all means, be skeptical (that's what we're here for). But "being skeptical" means "find data that confirms or disproves the statement made" (constructive), not merely going "I don't like your source, find another" (destructive). Snopes lists Forbes, Reuters, the White House, Politico, and Fox News as sources. Do you have any reason to doubt their statements, other than "I don't like Snopes"?

    – DevSolar
    yesterday








  • 1





    @DevSolar I could always be wrong, but that not how I see it. ad hominem is attacking the underlying or alternative characteristics of an entity other than those in scope. Often its an attack on a person instead of the position being held. In this case, the characteristics are of quality and consistency of using a source site. If I were to say you can’t trust that because the people that created it are Canadian, that would be ad hominem because it’s no longer about the consistency or quality, but that’s not what occurred. Is credibility not a criteria in using a site as definitive source?

    – vol7ron
    yesterday
















13












13








13







This claim dates back to July 2018, and is based on a report from 1 July 2017, less than a month after Melania became the First Lady.



Snopes fact-checked it and explains that it is misleading:




Does Melania Trump have a smaller staff than Michelle Obama? Yes, but the disparity is smaller than alleged.




They explain that, comparing like-to-like, Melania had 12 staffers, not just the four included in the early report. They explain how the discrepancy in the counting occurred.






share|improve this answer













This claim dates back to July 2018, and is based on a report from 1 July 2017, less than a month after Melania became the First Lady.



Snopes fact-checked it and explains that it is misleading:




Does Melania Trump have a smaller staff than Michelle Obama? Yes, but the disparity is smaller than alleged.




They explain that, comparing like-to-like, Melania had 12 staffers, not just the four included in the early report. They explain how the discrepancy in the counting occurred.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Aug 15 at 14:20









OddthinkingOddthinking

104k33 gold badges435 silver badges539 bronze badges




104k33 gold badges435 silver badges539 bronze badges











  • 3





    As great as Snopes is, when it comes to political fact-checks they are inconsistent and often liberally slanted. Things are “inconsistent” when it comes to cases that support conservative claims, while even more inconsistent liberal claims are declared “mostly true”. As a liberal-conservative, I don’t care one side or the other, but have to point out that analysts in these fact-checking websites apply their own biases. While they are a good first stop for research, they should not be used as a definitive objective source without taking into consideration their inconsistencies and faults.

    – vol7ron
    2 days ago






  • 3





    @vol7ron: This is an ad hominem attack against Snopes. The question should be whether this particular Snopes article is well-referenced to support their claims. Not all of them are, but for this one I think that answer is clearly yes. (FWIW: FactCheck reviewed whether Snopes exhibited liberal bias, and concluded not.)

    – Oddthinking
    yesterday






  • 1





    thanks, though this isn’t ad hominem. I don’t want to detract by expanding on this any more than what I have already stated. The point, again, is I find that using a fact-checking website alone is not enough despite conclusions that FactCheck arrives at. By all means, use arguments and resources they’ve listed, but I don’t think it’s enough to use their results, given their mislabeling - I’ve come across a handful of mislabeled conclusions over the years, which may not be statistically significant, but I think is a lot given my limited use.

    – vol7ron
    yesterday






  • 2





    @vol7ron: But that is exactly what ad hominem means -- judging a statement, or data, based on where it came from, instead on its own grounds. By all means, be skeptical (that's what we're here for). But "being skeptical" means "find data that confirms or disproves the statement made" (constructive), not merely going "I don't like your source, find another" (destructive). Snopes lists Forbes, Reuters, the White House, Politico, and Fox News as sources. Do you have any reason to doubt their statements, other than "I don't like Snopes"?

    – DevSolar
    yesterday








  • 1





    @DevSolar I could always be wrong, but that not how I see it. ad hominem is attacking the underlying or alternative characteristics of an entity other than those in scope. Often its an attack on a person instead of the position being held. In this case, the characteristics are of quality and consistency of using a source site. If I were to say you can’t trust that because the people that created it are Canadian, that would be ad hominem because it’s no longer about the consistency or quality, but that’s not what occurred. Is credibility not a criteria in using a site as definitive source?

    – vol7ron
    yesterday
















  • 3





    As great as Snopes is, when it comes to political fact-checks they are inconsistent and often liberally slanted. Things are “inconsistent” when it comes to cases that support conservative claims, while even more inconsistent liberal claims are declared “mostly true”. As a liberal-conservative, I don’t care one side or the other, but have to point out that analysts in these fact-checking websites apply their own biases. While they are a good first stop for research, they should not be used as a definitive objective source without taking into consideration their inconsistencies and faults.

    – vol7ron
    2 days ago






  • 3





    @vol7ron: This is an ad hominem attack against Snopes. The question should be whether this particular Snopes article is well-referenced to support their claims. Not all of them are, but for this one I think that answer is clearly yes. (FWIW: FactCheck reviewed whether Snopes exhibited liberal bias, and concluded not.)

    – Oddthinking
    yesterday






  • 1





    thanks, though this isn’t ad hominem. I don’t want to detract by expanding on this any more than what I have already stated. The point, again, is I find that using a fact-checking website alone is not enough despite conclusions that FactCheck arrives at. By all means, use arguments and resources they’ve listed, but I don’t think it’s enough to use their results, given their mislabeling - I’ve come across a handful of mislabeled conclusions over the years, which may not be statistically significant, but I think is a lot given my limited use.

    – vol7ron
    yesterday






  • 2





    @vol7ron: But that is exactly what ad hominem means -- judging a statement, or data, based on where it came from, instead on its own grounds. By all means, be skeptical (that's what we're here for). But "being skeptical" means "find data that confirms or disproves the statement made" (constructive), not merely going "I don't like your source, find another" (destructive). Snopes lists Forbes, Reuters, the White House, Politico, and Fox News as sources. Do you have any reason to doubt their statements, other than "I don't like Snopes"?

    – DevSolar
    yesterday








  • 1





    @DevSolar I could always be wrong, but that not how I see it. ad hominem is attacking the underlying or alternative characteristics of an entity other than those in scope. Often its an attack on a person instead of the position being held. In this case, the characteristics are of quality and consistency of using a source site. If I were to say you can’t trust that because the people that created it are Canadian, that would be ad hominem because it’s no longer about the consistency or quality, but that’s not what occurred. Is credibility not a criteria in using a site as definitive source?

    – vol7ron
    yesterday










3




3





As great as Snopes is, when it comes to political fact-checks they are inconsistent and often liberally slanted. Things are “inconsistent” when it comes to cases that support conservative claims, while even more inconsistent liberal claims are declared “mostly true”. As a liberal-conservative, I don’t care one side or the other, but have to point out that analysts in these fact-checking websites apply their own biases. While they are a good first stop for research, they should not be used as a definitive objective source without taking into consideration their inconsistencies and faults.

– vol7ron
2 days ago





As great as Snopes is, when it comes to political fact-checks they are inconsistent and often liberally slanted. Things are “inconsistent” when it comes to cases that support conservative claims, while even more inconsistent liberal claims are declared “mostly true”. As a liberal-conservative, I don’t care one side or the other, but have to point out that analysts in these fact-checking websites apply their own biases. While they are a good first stop for research, they should not be used as a definitive objective source without taking into consideration their inconsistencies and faults.

– vol7ron
2 days ago




3




3





@vol7ron: This is an ad hominem attack against Snopes. The question should be whether this particular Snopes article is well-referenced to support their claims. Not all of them are, but for this one I think that answer is clearly yes. (FWIW: FactCheck reviewed whether Snopes exhibited liberal bias, and concluded not.)

– Oddthinking
yesterday





@vol7ron: This is an ad hominem attack against Snopes. The question should be whether this particular Snopes article is well-referenced to support their claims. Not all of them are, but for this one I think that answer is clearly yes. (FWIW: FactCheck reviewed whether Snopes exhibited liberal bias, and concluded not.)

– Oddthinking
yesterday




1




1





thanks, though this isn’t ad hominem. I don’t want to detract by expanding on this any more than what I have already stated. The point, again, is I find that using a fact-checking website alone is not enough despite conclusions that FactCheck arrives at. By all means, use arguments and resources they’ve listed, but I don’t think it’s enough to use their results, given their mislabeling - I’ve come across a handful of mislabeled conclusions over the years, which may not be statistically significant, but I think is a lot given my limited use.

– vol7ron
yesterday





thanks, though this isn’t ad hominem. I don’t want to detract by expanding on this any more than what I have already stated. The point, again, is I find that using a fact-checking website alone is not enough despite conclusions that FactCheck arrives at. By all means, use arguments and resources they’ve listed, but I don’t think it’s enough to use their results, given their mislabeling - I’ve come across a handful of mislabeled conclusions over the years, which may not be statistically significant, but I think is a lot given my limited use.

– vol7ron
yesterday




2




2





@vol7ron: But that is exactly what ad hominem means -- judging a statement, or data, based on where it came from, instead on its own grounds. By all means, be skeptical (that's what we're here for). But "being skeptical" means "find data that confirms or disproves the statement made" (constructive), not merely going "I don't like your source, find another" (destructive). Snopes lists Forbes, Reuters, the White House, Politico, and Fox News as sources. Do you have any reason to doubt their statements, other than "I don't like Snopes"?

– DevSolar
yesterday







@vol7ron: But that is exactly what ad hominem means -- judging a statement, or data, based on where it came from, instead on its own grounds. By all means, be skeptical (that's what we're here for). But "being skeptical" means "find data that confirms or disproves the statement made" (constructive), not merely going "I don't like your source, find another" (destructive). Snopes lists Forbes, Reuters, the White House, Politico, and Fox News as sources. Do you have any reason to doubt their statements, other than "I don't like Snopes"?

– DevSolar
yesterday






1




1





@DevSolar I could always be wrong, but that not how I see it. ad hominem is attacking the underlying or alternative characteristics of an entity other than those in scope. Often its an attack on a person instead of the position being held. In this case, the characteristics are of quality and consistency of using a source site. If I were to say you can’t trust that because the people that created it are Canadian, that would be ad hominem because it’s no longer about the consistency or quality, but that’s not what occurred. Is credibility not a criteria in using a site as definitive source?

– vol7ron
yesterday







@DevSolar I could always be wrong, but that not how I see it. ad hominem is attacking the underlying or alternative characteristics of an entity other than those in scope. Often its an attack on a person instead of the position being held. In this case, the characteristics are of quality and consistency of using a source site. If I were to say you can’t trust that because the people that created it are Canadian, that would be ad hominem because it’s no longer about the consistency or quality, but that’s not what occurred. Is credibility not a criteria in using a site as definitive source?

– vol7ron
yesterday





Popular posts from this blog

Taj Mahal Inhaltsverzeichnis Aufbau | Geschichte | 350-Jahr-Feier | Heutige Bedeutung | Siehe auch |...

Baia Sprie Cuprins Etimologie | Istorie | Demografie | Politică și administrație | Arii naturale...

Nicolae Petrescu-Găină Cuprins Biografie | Opera | In memoriam | Varia | Controverse, incertitudini...