or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney is Going to Win
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mitt Romney is Going to Win - Page 9

post #321 of 1062

What great plan does Obama have?Promises that do not ever materialize.
 

post #322 of 1062

Well here's what someone who's been in the business for years thinks about what's going on with Mr. Romney these days..........

 

 

Quote:

Madeleine Albright: 'There's just nothing going on' with Romney

 

 

 

Quote:

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said her impression after attending a recent Mitt Romney speech is that "there's just nothing going on" with the Republican presidential nominee. She said his understanding of foreign policy not only lacks depth but diminishes U.S. standing abroad.

 

 

Quote:

It's the sense that I've had throughout the campaign that it's unclear what [Romney] really believes in," Albright told reporters after the event. "I think when you contrast him with President Obama, who also gave a speech later there, and President Clinton, who spoke several times there, there is not, kind of, a sense of depth."

Not really surprising. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/30/14161885-madeleine-albright-theres-just-nothing-going-on-with-romney?lite#__utma=238145375.73683042.1348072029.1348929626.1349136266.16&__utmb=238145375.1.10.1349136266&__utmc=238145375&__utmx=-&__utmz=238145375.1349136266.16.15.utmcsr=nbcnews.com|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/&__utmv=238145375.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Cpolitics%7Cpolitics=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.msnbc.msn.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Internal%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=22808568

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #323 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's like I said the only ones who like him are the Republicans.

 

You act like this is a fact yet have not proven it. Care to?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And even not all of them like him.

 

This is certainly true. It's also quite likely true for Democrats and Obama. There's nothing new here.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Part of it is he has no plan or more over the same old tired plan the GOP has been pedaling for years now.

 

Hmmm. Interesting. I think Romney is more like a slightly more "conservative" Democrat. I mean he's a Republican "conservative" from Massachusetts for goodness sakes. This may explain why some Republicans don't like him. For example, he has no real plans to lower taxes. He created the prototype for Obamacare that is now driving the state of Massachusetts toward bankruptcy. He may have attempted to pander to conservatives (the so-called "conservative base") to win the nomination.

 

The real problem is the we have two candidates that are a blend of socialism and corporatism (economic fascism) with a bit of market capitalism thrown in for rhetorical purposes. Ultimately they are both members of the ruling elite party that gives the appearance of two vastly different parties in order to gin up strident partisanship and "my team vs. your team" rivalry that keeps the American people strongly divided.

 

 

 

Quote:

You act like this is a fact yet have not proven it. Care to?

Maybe I should have said Republicans and other conservatives. As for proof just watch election night as I'm pretty sure anything else I might submit you'd question. ( wink if I could )

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #324 of 1062

Ahh, the debate will soon be upon us.  Both sides are prepping, zingers and all.

 

The media is prepping for the make or break moments that they will spend the next week blabbing about.

 

Fox is prepping their twist on things.

 

And then there are the questions that should be asked of Mittens:

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/tax-questions-debate-mitt-romney-obama

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #325 of 1062

I wish we had instant fact-checking at these debates and that the moderators would not let a lie go unchallenged.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #326 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I wish we had instant fact-checking at these debates and that the moderators would not let a lie go unchallenged.

 

That would be great. Of course neither candidate would ever agree to that. That said, such a thing will likely be available on one or more websites in this day and age.

 

The real problem is that Presidential "debates" are only debates in the most superficial sense. They are highly scripted and planned and constrained events that have a fairly narrow tonal range.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #327 of 1062

It actually would be rather beneficial for Obama to agree to such terms given Romney's track record of doubling down on lie after lie after lie.  I at least would like to see Jill Stein and Gary Johnson in the debates to provide some more balance on the left with regard to social programs, green energy, and individual freedoms.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #328 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

It actually would be rather beneficial for Obama to agree to such terms given Romney's track record of doubling down on lie after lie after lie.

 

Your partisan blindness is showing. Such an "instant fact-checking" and "let no lie pass" rule would almost certainly hurt both candidates. Obama has trouble with facts and the truth also.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I at least would like to see Jill Stein and Gary Johnson in the debates to provide some more balance on the left with regard to social programs, green energy, and individual freedoms.

 

It would be nifty to see more viewpoints represented to be sure. Again, this has a snowball's chance in hell of being agreed to by any "mainstream" candidate. This because these other views, often standing much more strongly on principle and having much less to lose, would expose the two "mainstream" candidates in too many negative ways.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #329 of 1062

Your favorite two words...****, if you would stop making them, I'd stop calling you on them.  False equivalence.  Obama and Romney are on completely different levels when it comes to not telling the truth.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #330 of 1062

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Obama and Romney are on completely different levels when it comes to not telling the truth.

 

Of course they are. :rolleyes: Whatever helps you to rationalize your continued support of Obama.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #331 of 1062

Go to any impartial fact-checking website and the evidence is plain as day.  Romney blows Obama out of the water when it comes to lying.  I'm sure you don't give a shit, though.  You have a very religious belief that both major parties are identical.  Whenever evidence is presented to the contrary, you repeat the same bullshit mantra and don't waver from your faulty conclusion.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #332 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Go to any impartial fact-checking website and the evidence is plain as day.

 

I'll let you do your own homework to support your claims.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You have a very religious belief that both major parties are identical.

 

Not identical, but close enough the that the differences don't amount to anything of real significance. Identical? No. Close enough to not matter? Yes.

 

I understand that you (and many others) genuinely believe that these guys (and their parties) are as far apart as the ends of the Grand Canyon. But the evidence of history suggests this is not as true as you'd like to believe. In the particular case of these two candidates, your claims are especially amusing.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Whenever evidence is presented to the contrary, you repeat the same bullshit mantra and don't waver from your faulty conclusion.

 

But no credible evidence of this claim has been presented.

 

Your faith in Obama, the government and the nobility of the Democratic party as opposed to the wickedness of the Republican is amusing and cute but not a little naive.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #333 of 1062

Close enough?  Again, you have a serious problem of perspective.  When you live on the planet Kolob (yeah, yeah, it's not your brand of fiction but *cough* close enough), the Grand Canyon won't resolve in your eyes.

 

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

 

True & Mostly True:  Obama - 46%, Romney - 29%.  Mostly false - Pants on Fire:  Obama - 27%, Romney - 42%.  Close enough?  When Obama tells the truth, he tells you something that is true or mostly true 2 times out of 3.  When Romney tells the truth, he tells you something that is true or mostly true only 1 time out of 2.  Close?  I don't think so.  

 

This even takes into account some very strange rulings against Obama by Politifact that seemed somewhat partisan in nature.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #334 of 1062

How amusing that you would use Politifact as your source to "prove" your claim that Mitt Romney is less honest than Barack Obama. lol.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #335 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

How amusing that you would use Politifact as your source to "prove" your claim that Mitt Romney is less honest than Barack Obama. lol.gif

Why is that amusing?
post #336 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Why is that amusing?

 

Because Politifact has a fairly well-known liberal bias.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #337 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Why is that amusing?

 

Because Politifact has a fairly well-known liberal bias.

 

A bit like the polls?

post #338 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

A bit like the polls?

 

Huh?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #339 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

A bit like the polls?

 

Huh?

 

Really? The polls turn against Romney so the polls are biased - the fact checks go against Romney so the fact checkers are biased? Just hypothesizing a common causality. Do you have a better fact checker suggestion?

post #340 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Really? The polls turn against Romney so the polls are biased - the fact checks go against Romney so the fact checkers are biased? Just hypothesizing a common causality.

 

Interesting. I didn't make such claims.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Do you have a better fact checker suggestion?

 

I don't have any fact checkers on my speed dial. I'm just pointing out the one that BR is using to prove his claim of more dishonesty on Mitt Romney's part has had some problems with liberal bias in the past. This suggests the possibility that this bias flavors their current analysis.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #341 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Really? The polls turn against Romney so the polls are biased - the fact checks go against Romney so the fact checkers are biased? Just hypothesizing a common causality.

 

Interesting. I didn't make such claims.

 

I never suggested that you did.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Do you have a better fact checker suggestion?

 

I don't have any fact checkers on my speed dial. I'm just pointing out the one that BR is using to prove his claim of more dishonesty on Mitt Romney's part has had some problems with liberal bias in the past. This suggests the possibility that this bias flavors their current analysis.

 

It was popular enough with Republicans when it was calling Obama on his statements. It has had some problems with accusations of liberal bias. But my more fundamental point is that it is hard to distinguish between the two cases: is it out of favor with Republicans because it is biased and unfairly rating their claims, or because it is unbiased and fairly rating their claims?

 

Some "unbiased" fact checking organizations to compare with would help, but maybe there are none. Or maybe it's just that the facts are inconvenient.

post #342 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I never suggested that you did.

 

OK. Then I guess I don't know why you asked me that.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It was popular enough with Republicans when it was calling Obama on his statements. It has had some problems with accusations of liberal bias. But my more fundamental point is that it is hard to distinguish between the two cases: is it out of favor with Republicans because it is biased and unfairly rating their claims, or because it is unbiased and fairly rating their claims?

 

I can't speak for "republicans." I can only say that I've read of examples of reporting on facts in one way when it is a Republican and ignoring similar things when they come from a Democrat or using apparently different standards of evaluation (more lenient for Democrats and more strict for Republicans) all of which strongly suggests a bias.

 

I have no doubt that when any organization reports something in a way that a particular candidate wants it is viewed favorably (and vice versa). The bigger question is whether there is an aggregate bias in their overall reporting that would make charts like the one presented above suspect in what is purports to say.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Some "unbiased" fact checking organizations to compare with would help, but maybe there are none. Or maybe it's just that the facts are inconvenient.

 

I suspect it may be a bit of both.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #343 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I never suggested that you did.

 

OK. Then I guess I don't know why you asked me that.

 

Because others had suggested that, and it seemed there might be a connection to your comment / observation. And because this is a discussion forum, and it was a potential subject for discussion.

post #344 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

False equivalence.  Obama and Romney are on completely different levels when it comes to not telling the truth.

 

Are you sure? Because it's fairly clear that Obama, anxious to keep his National Security file intact for the election, lied to the entire nation about whether the Libyan attack was a pre-planned, terrorist event.

 

And he's actually being called on it, unbelievably, by CNN's Erin Burnett.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #345 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I never suggested that you did.

 

 

It was popular enough with Republicans when it was calling Obama on his statements. It has had some problems with accusations of liberal bias. But my more fundamental point is that it is hard to distinguish between the two cases: is it out of favor with Republicans because it is biased and unfairly rating their claims, or because it is unbiased and fairly rating their claims?

 

Some "unbiased" fact checking organizations to compare with would help, but maybe there are none. Or maybe it's just that the facts are inconvenient.

 

 

But, but that big guy (physically, as opposed to small as he likes to call Jon Stewart, who agrees)  at Fox who was educated at a liberal elite university in the East, yeah, O'Reilly of Harvard, said emphatically that the Romney campaign was going to run on facts.  

 

 

I think I'll go with O on this one, because he works at a company that is fair and balanced.

 

Heh heh.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #346 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

A bit like the polls?

 

Huh?

 

Really? The polls turn against Romney so the polls are biased - the fact checks go against Romney so the fact checkers are biased? Just hypothesizing a common causality. Do you have a better fact checker suggestion?

 

Does he really need a better fact checker since it is BR arguing and asserting that Obama lies but some how his lies are magically not the same or are better than Romney claimed lies?

 

Did you go over and read any of the Politifact claims?

 

An example, it declared Romney lied....LIED... because he said President Obama promised 8% max unemployment with his stimulus plan. The site calls it a lie because it says he projected 8%, not promised. They have a continuum from truth to false and call it a full lie on Romney.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #347 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

A bit like the polls?

Huh?

Really? The polls turn against Romney so the polls are biased - the fact checks go against Romney so the fact checkers are biased? Just hypothesizing a common causality. Do you have a better fact checker suggestion?

Does he really need a better fact checker since it is BR arguing and asserting that Obama lies but some how his lies are magically not the same or are better than Romney claimed lies?

Did you go over and read any of the Politifact claims?

An example, it declared Romney lied....LIED... because he said President Obama promised 8% max unemployment with his stimulus plan. The site calls it a lie because it says he projected 8%, not promised. They have a continuum from truth to false and call it a full lie on Romney.

That's a good example. However, I think they called it correctly. Projections and promises are very different.

And no, he's not claiming that Obama's lies are better, he's citing PolitiFact, who claim to have determined that they are fewer, and less egregious.
post #348 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Because others had suggested that, and it seemed there might be a connection to your comment / observation. And because this is a discussion forum, and it was a potential subject for discussion.

 

Ummm...OK. I guess.

 

I wasn't claiming that Politifact is biased because it was saying bad things about Romney. And, while I haven't read all of the stuff on the polls, I don't believe people were claiming the polls were biased because they were showing Romney down but, rather, because there may have been some built in biases within the pooling methodologies that produced an outcome that was biased as well. In this sense, yes the issues may be connected. If something in Politifact's fact-checking (and reporting) methodology contains a bias, then its output is likely to contain or reveal this bias. For example, one instance I was reading about was how they, as a matter of policy, did (or do) not report hyperbole or exaggerations as lies. Except that they were found to be applying this rule/policy inconsistently...along party lines (or at least coincidentally so) in that some hyperbolic or exaggerated statements and claims by some Republican politicians were being held against those candidates in Politifact's "truth-o-meter" as lies or at least partial lies, while similar exaggerations from Democratic politicians were simply ignored and not reported on.

 

But there are other problems also. Here's one recent example with two takes: “Taxes are lower on families than they've been probably in the last 50 years. So I haven't raised taxes.”

 

Politifact

 

Reason

 

Now, when you get to an issue this specific (as opposed to the aggregate measure of who lies more and worse) you can actually tackle the issue and try to get to some truth. Is Politifact right here? Is Reason? It certainly can be debated. It at least shows there are other reasonable interpretations of the claim about taxes. But if Politifact is unchallenged in their assertion that Obama's statement is "mostly true" and other reasonable analysis and interpretation can be shown to suggest it is "mostly false" then we may have a problem with the aggregate claims (from Politifact...or anyone else for that matter) of who's lying more (or worse) because the aggregate is made up of lots of these little, specific things, each of which may have a bias embedded within it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #349 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And no, he's not claiming that Obama's lies are better, he's citing PolitiFact, who claim to have determined that they are fewer, and less egregious.

 

Isn't a claim that something is "less egregious" the same as claiming something is "better"?!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #350 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And no, he's not claiming that Obama's lies are better, he's citing PolitiFact, who claim to have determined that they are fewer, and less egregious.

 

Isn't a claim that something is "less egregious" the same as claiming something is "better"?!

 

It could mean a subjective judgement of that kind, but in this case I took it to be an observation of the distribution of judgements in PolitiFact's truth spectrum (towards the untrue end being progressively more egregious), and noting that Romney's untrue results are more skewed towards the untrue end. Either way - it's PolitiFact's claim, not BR's.

post #351 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It could mean a subjective judgement of that kind, but in this case I took it to be an observation of the distribution of judgements in PolitiFact's truth spectrum (towards the untrue end being progressively more egregious), and noting that Romney's untrue results are more skewed towards the untrue end. Either way - it's PolitiFact's claim, not BR's.

 

OK. I understand what you meant now. That's a reasonable interpretation.

 

As to Politifact claims vs. BRs claims, I'd say the two are married at this point because BR is clearly saying basically the same things and appears to be basing his claims (at least in part) on Politifact's claims.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #352 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Because others had suggested that, and it seemed there might be a connection to your comment / observation. And because this is a discussion forum, and it was a potential subject for discussion.

 

Ummm...OK. I guess.

 

I wasn't claiming that Politifact is biased because it was saying bad things about Romney. And, while I haven't read all of the stuff on the polls, I don't believe people were claiming the polls were biased because they were showing Romney down but, rather, because there may have been some built in biases within the pooling methodologies that produced an outcome that was biased as well. In this sense, yes the issues may be connected. If something in Politifact's fact-checking (and reporting) methodology contains a bias, then its output is likely to contain or reveal this bias. For example, one instance I was reading about was how they, as a matter of policy, did (or do) not report hyperbole or exaggerations as lies. Except that they were found to be applying this rule/policy inconsistently...along party lines (or at least coincidentally so) in that some hyperbolic or exaggerated statements and claims by some Republican politicians were being held against those candidates in Politifact's "truth-o-meter" as lies or at least partial lies, while similar exaggerations from Democratic politicians were simply ignored and not reported on.

 

But there are other problems also. Here's one recent example with two takes: “Taxes are lower on families than they've been probably in the last 50 years. So I haven't raised taxes.”

 

Politifact

 

Reason

 

Now, when you get to an issue this specific (as opposed to the aggregate measure of who lies more and worse) you can actually tackle the issue and try to get to some truth. Is Politifact right here? Is Reason? It certainly can be debated. It at least shows there are other reasonable interpretations of the claim about taxes. But if Politifact is unchallenged in their assertion that Obama's statement is "mostly true" and other reasonable analysis and interpretation can be shown to suggest it is "mostly false" then we may have a problem with the aggregate claims (from Politifact...or anyone else for that matter) of who's lying more (or worse) because the aggregate is made up of lots of these little, specific things, each of which may have a bias embedded within it.

 

Thanks for the counter-example, but did you actually read it? That is about as poor an attempt to make a point, that they never even manage to make in the end, as I have seen in a long time. They set the stage with uncorrected tax revenue (WTF?), and then reluctantly factor in population, then inflation, but not wage increases. Then they move on to tax rates, where they should have started, and only manage to make an argument of any kind by considering the top marginal tax rate, which not remotely applicable to the average American family. Then they finish by saying that he has raised taxes - and cite tobacco tax of all things - and claim that he would have raised more taxes if the Republicans had not blocked him. And finally call his claim "slippery", not mostly false.

 

That's pathetic. Even I could make a better tax argument against Obama than that.

post #353 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It could mean a subjective judgement of that kind, but in this case I took it to be an observation of the distribution of judgements in PolitiFact's truth spectrum (towards the untrue end being progressively more egregious), and noting that Romney's untrue results are more skewed towards the untrue end. Either way - it's PolitiFact's claim, not BR's.

 

OK. I understand what you meant now. That's a reasonable interpretation.

 

As to Politifact claims vs. BRs claims, I'd say the two are married at this point because BR is clearly saying basically the same things and appears to be basing his claims (at least in part) on Politifact's claims.

 

Yes, of course - he cited PolitiFact as evidence to support his view of Romney's and Obama's relative honesty.

post #354 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Thanks for the counter-example, but did you actually read it?

 

Yes.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That is about as poor an attempt to make a point, that they never even manage to make in the end, as I have seen in a long time.

 

Okay.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

They set the stage with uncorrected tax revenue (WTF?), and then reluctantly factor in population, then inflation, but not wage increases.

 

What do you mean by "uncorrected revenue?"

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Then they move on to tax rates, where they should have started, and only manage to make an argument of any kind by considering the top marginal tax rate, which not remotely applicable to the average American family.

 

Fair point.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Then they finish by saying that he has raised taxes - and cite tobacco tax of all things

 

Yes, and? They addressed this part of the statement that Politifact ignored: "So I haven't raised taxes." They also mentioned tanning salon taxes, and should have mentioned the tax for not having health insurance which, hasn't started yet but is in law.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And finally call his claim "slippery", not mostly false.

 

Okay. They did not use the phrase "mostly false." Probably a little nit-picky.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #355 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Thanks for the counter-example, but did you actually read it?

 

Yes.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That is about as poor an attempt to make a point, that they never even manage to make in the end, as I have seen in a long time.

 

Okay.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

They set the stage with uncorrected tax revenue (WTF?), and then reluctantly factor in population, then inflation, but not wage increases.

 

What do you mean by "uncorrected revenue?"

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Then they move on to tax rates, where they should have started, and only manage to make an argument of any kind by considering the top marginal tax rate, which not remotely applicable to the average American family.

 

Fair point.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Then they finish by saying that he has raised taxes - and cite tobacco tax of all things

 

Yes, and? They addressed this part of the statement that Politifact ignored: "So I haven't raised taxes." They also mentioned tanning salon taxes, and should have mentioned the tax for not having health insurance which, hasn't started yet but is in law.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And finally call his claim "slippery", not mostly false.

 

Okay. They did not use the phrase "mostly false." Probably a little nit-picky.

 

By uncorrected, I mean actual tax revenue, with no adjustment for inflation - a pointless comparison done, presumably, so they could start with the irrelevant factor of 23 claim. In the context of this discussion, which was about the tax burden on families, one might reasonably take the statement "so I haven't raised taxes", to refer to that overall tax burden, not to individual rates on items like tobacco or tanning salons, don't you think?

 

If you regard the distinction between "slippery", which is a weasely remark with no real meaning in this context, and "mostly false", which, given the intent of the article, I'm sure they would have liked to have concluded, is nit-picky, then I disagree.

post #356 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

By uncorrected, I mean actual tax revenue, with no adjustment for inflation - a pointless comparison done, presumably, so they could start with the irrelevant factor of 23 claim.

 

But he does make that correction, so your complaint amounts to complaining that he took 2-3 steps to get there. He built up one step at a time, which I see no problem with.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

In the context of this discussion, which was about the tax burden on families, one might reasonably take the statement "so I haven't raised taxes", to refer to that overall tax burden, not to individual rates on items like tobacco or tanning salons, don't you think?

 

No I don't think, because families are made up of individuals and it is the individuals within families that pay those taxes. If we want to discuss families as the key unit here it is fine, but then it is fair to include all taxes that get paid out of that family unit because, ultimately, all taxes are individual taxes. There aren't really any "family taxes." All taxes are paid by individuals.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

If you regard the distinction between "slippery", which is a weasely remark with no real meaning in this context, and "mostly false", which, given the intent of the article, I'm sure they would have liked to have concluded, is nit-picky, then I disagree.

 

Okay.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #357 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

A bit like the polls?

Huh?

Really? The polls turn against Romney so the polls are biased - the fact checks go against Romney so the fact checkers are biased? Just hypothesizing a common causality. Do you have a better fact checker suggestion?

Does he really need a better fact checker since it is BR arguing and asserting that Obama lies but some how his lies are magically not the same or are better than Romney claimed lies?

Did you go over and read any of the Politifact claims?

An example, it declared Romney lied....LIED... because he said President Obama promised 8% max unemployment with his stimulus plan. The site calls it a lie because it says he projected 8%, not promised. They have a continuum from truth to false and call it a full lie on Romney.

That's a good example. However, I think they called it correctly. Projections and promises are very different.

And no, he's not claiming that Obama's lies are better, he's citing PolitiFact, who claim to have determined that they are fewer, and less egregious.

 

I would not argue it is an outright lie at all. Certainly when corporations make financial projections, they are expected to meet them and if they fail to warn on them, there are serious consequences because it is considered to be misleading investors.

 

Promise of performance is implicit in a projection. No one is saying Obama has committed a crime. He did however make commitments with those estimates and told us to trust his judgement. Pointing out that the judgement was not sound and did not work out as he claimed isn't a lie. At best the cite parses and declares the parsing to be a lie.

 

As for lies being better, all you did was cite the criteria by which someone would declare they are better or more justified.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #358 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/152333/mitt-romney-is-going-to-win#post_2184769"]Nobody deserves anything for free, not minorities, not anybody. People should be put to work if they're receiving public assistance. I can think of plenty of jobs that welfare peeps and other lazy people can do. 

Agreed. Welfare is supposed to be for help, not handouts. If I had to work at some job to keep my unemployment, they should have to work as well

I know it's not 'christian charity' but I don't give change to the kids sitting on the corner either. But I will put my bottles and cans out for the guy that digs in the trash for them to cash in. He's doing something other than sitting on his ass, smoking a cigarette and cussing at folks that walk by (and no they aren't crazy just punks)

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #359 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You don't need to be a doctor to see that Romney's struggling with something. I hope he picks himself up because Obama needs to win this election on his merits, not because his opponent couldn't take the strain of it all.]

If he can't take the strain, or take care of himself, what does that say about his ability to take the strain of running the country.
I wouldn't vote against him just on this but if my decision was resting on a thread, this might be what broke it

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #360 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

A bit like the polls?

Huh?

Really? The polls turn against Romney so the polls are biased - the fact checks go against Romney so the fact checkers are biased? Just hypothesizing a common causality. Do you have a better fact checker suggestion?

Does he really need a better fact checker since it is BR arguing and asserting that Obama lies but some how his lies are magically not the same or are better than Romney claimed lies?

Did you go over and read any of the Politifact claims?

An example, it declared Romney lied....LIED... because he said President Obama promised 8% max unemployment with his stimulus plan. The site calls it a lie because it says he projected 8%, not promised. They have a continuum from truth to false and call it a full lie on Romney.

That's a good example. However, I think they called it correctly. Projections and promises are very different.

And no, he's not claiming that Obama's lies are better, he's citing PolitiFact, who claim to have determined that they are fewer, and less egregious.

 

I would not argue it is an outright lie at all. Certainly when corporations make financial projections, they are expected to meet them and if they fail to warn on them, there are serious consequences because it is considered to be misleading investors.

 

Promise of performance is implicit in a projection. No one is saying Obama has committed a crime. He did however make commitments with those estimates and told us to trust his judgement. Pointing out that the judgement was not sound and did not work out as he claimed isn't a lie. At best the cite parses and declares the parsing to be a lie.

 

As for lies being better, all you did was cite the criteria by which someone would declare they are better or more justified.

 

Agreed - outright lie may be a bit strong.  I disagree with your view that a projection contains an implicit promise. I would argue that it is not true even if you might be expected to have some control over the outcome - such as a company financial projection. When you have less control then it becomes even less reasonable to treat as a promise.

 

As for labeling  lies, I don't think the judgement is whether they are better or more justified, simply whether they are more or less untrue.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney is Going to Win