You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I suspect there's a lot to learn from looking at features of lies which seem to help vs. hinder candidates, e.g. - whether the claim seems "directionally" true - whether evaluating the claim seems accessible to the general public - whether the claim seems directly self-serving
Elizabeth Warren's claim to Native American ancestry hit all three in the worst way — it seemed directionally false (she's white, guys), it seemed *exceptionally* self-serving, and stuff like DNA test results just confused most people (reasonably, in the context of this purpose)
Meanwhile, a bunch of Trump's false claims seem directionally true (and sometimes are, albeit for complex reasons). They don't seem self-serving (e.g. a Mexican national isn't going to take *his job*) & they tend not to appeal to authorities no typical person knows how to contest
what do you mean by "directionally" in this sense?
The claim itself may be false, but it would cause people to pay more attention to or be more concerned with something real (and generally underappreciated)
subtitle: Where Warren Went Wrong
It’s also important to consider whether the lie is coming from somebody that’s considered to be generally honest, where the contrast to the rest of what they’re saying is very jarring, as opposed to a person who’s always dishonest, to the point it’s normalized behavior.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
