PDA

View Full Version : Debate fact check not too bad



eg8r
10-17-2012, 08:55 AM
It looks like Obama lied and Romney told a lot of half truths.

ABC fact check (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/debate-fact-check-presidential-debate/story?id=17496703)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


Romney and Arizona's Immigration Law


OBAMA: He called the Arizona law a model for the nation. ...

ROMNEY: I did not say that the Arizona law was a model for the nation in that aspect. I said that the E-Verify portion of the Arizona law, which is -- which is the portion of the law which says that employers could be able to determine whether someone is here illegally or not illegally, that that was a model for the nation...

Although media outlets and fact checkers have pointed out that Romney was talking about E-Verify, that hasn't stopped Democrats from repeating this talking point against him.
</div></div>Result...Obama lied.

Here is one that might startle the left, a Romney truth.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ROMNEY: Just going to make a point. Any investments I have over the last eight years have been managed by a blind trust. And I understand they do include investments outside the United States, including in -- in Chinese companies. Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension? OBAMA: I've got to say... ROMNEY: Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? OBAMA: You know, I -- I don't look at my pension. It's not as big as yours so it doesn't take as long. ROMNEY: Well, let me give you some advice. OBAMA: I don't check it that often. ROMNEY: Let me give you some advice. Look at your pension. You also have investments in Chinese companies. You also have investments outside the United States. You also have investments through a Cayman's trust....

Under Agreements or Arrangements President Obama's Dec. 2011 Public Financial Disclosure Report for the Office of Government Ethics lists the General Assembly Defined Benefit Pension Plan as the only holding under this category. It says "no further contributions by former employer," funding began in 1997.

The pension is managed by the General Assembly Retirement System, State of Illinois.

The main site for the fund's reports is HERE

The FY 2013 First Quarter Purchase and Sales Report mentions holdings in Chinese companies among the pension fund's numerous investments.

The Romney campaign says the Obama Illinois Pension fund has numerous private equity investments, including one domiciled in the Cayman Islands, the Advent International Group VI-A.

An independent search for this fund turned up this filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for an investment opportunity by this fund. It lists the Advent International GPE VI Limited Partnership as being organized in the Cayman Islands. Other filings only list this particular fund's Executive offices as being listed in Boston, Mass.
</div></div>

Romney and Obama half-truth
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OBAMA: The day after the (Benghazi) attack I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said we are going to hunt down those who committed this crime.

ROMNEY: I think it's interesting that the President just said something which is that one the day after the attack, he went in the Rose garden and said this was an act of terror. (Obama nods) OBAMA (off-mike): That's what I said. ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was "an act of terror?" It was not a spontaneous demonstration. Obama: Please proceed. ROMNEY: Is that what you're saying? I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror. OBAMA: Get the transcript. CROWLEY: He did in fact, sir
</div></div>Here is where this one gets interesting, yes there is proof that on THAT day Obama used the word terror. However what he did the following two weeks was a complete flip flop.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character,...BUT - and there's a big but.

Romney is right in that administration officials continued to say the attack was spontaneous, and came from a protest and it was White House Press Secretary Jay Carney who said the president considered it a terror attack on Sept. 26, 14 days later...

"Is there any reason why the president did not - he was asked point-blank in 'The View' interview, is this a terrorist attack, yes or no? Is there any reason he didn't say 'yes'?"
</div></div>

More half truths that could be called lies or not careful enough explanation....<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ROMNEY: In the last four years, you cut permits and licenses on federal lands and federal waters in half. OBAMA: Not true Gov. Romney....

Permits in the FY2009-2011 dropped by 37 percent compared to FY2006-2008 Leases in FY2009-2011 dropped by 42 percent compared to FY2006-2008

Romney is basing his claim on the total number of acres leased - and there are 56 percent fewer acres leased...

ROMNEY: And production on government land is down by 14 percent and production on gas is down 9 percent.

Oil production on public lands did drop by 14 percent in 2011 and natural gas production did drop by 9 percent (according to the US Energy Information Agency). BUT - overall, oil production is actually up slightly from 2009 to 2011.

</div></div>

One we already know about, the deficit.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ROMNEY: We have his own record which is we have four consecutive years where he said he was running for office he would cut the deficit in half, instead he has doubled it...
PoitiFact points out the only way to get to doubling is to use a different starting point, which is what the Romney campaign does. His campaign compares the current deficit to the final fiscal 2008 deficit of $458.6 billion. But that does not include the Wall Street bailout, first enacted under President Bush, which added more than $700 billion.

One part though that the Romney claim is true. President Obama has not kept his promise to cut the deficit in half. </div></div>

Here is another Romney half-truth
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ROMNEY: I know he keeps saying, you want to x. Well, the president took Detroit bankrupt. You took General Motors bankrupt. You took Chrysler bankrupt. So when you say that I wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you actually did. And I think it's important to know that that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet, so they could start hiring more people. That was precisely what I recommended and ultimately what happened...

There are two assertions here: 1) That President Obama "took Detroit bankrupt;" and, 2) That the president did "precisely what I recommended."

On the first, Romney is right. Chrysler and General Motors did go through a pre-packaged Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. On the second, he is wrong. The president's bailout included some $80 billion in public financing (the bailout in "auto bailout") to help Chrysler and GM to get through bankruptcy. Romney opposed direct public financing. This is a crucial distinction because most industry experts said there was no provide financing available.
</div></div>

Romney Half truth
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney said the unemployment rate now is 7.8 percent and the rate when Obama took office was 7.8 percent, but he argued the true rate is much higher today. "If you calculate if people dropped out of the work force would be 10 percent."

He is about half right. If the labor force participation rate was exactly what it was when Obama came into office the unemployment rate would be nearly 11 percent. But economists say that the labor force is shrinking not just because people are too discouraged to look for work, but also because there is a surge in baby boomers retiring and people are staying in school longer. Here are two examples of research on this:

1. According to research by Daniel Sullivan and his team at the Chicago Federal Reserve about half of the decline in the labor force since 2000 is because of an increase in the aging population. They that goes into this.

2. Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics concurs. Through his research he has established that the labor force participation rate has fallen by approximately 2.5 percentage points since the Great Recession hit. Of this, 1.5 percentage points is due to demographics, including boomers who are retiring, and 1 percentage points is due to poor economy.
</div></div>

Romney truth
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ROMNEY: With half of college kids graduating this year, without a college - excuse me - without a job and without a college level job, that's just not acceptable."

But the key to the statement is "underemployed." The figure comes from a March analysis conducted for the AP by a Northeastern University professor.

From the AP report:

"About 1.5 million, or 53.6 percent, of bachelor's degree-holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed, the highest share in at least 11 years.
</div></div>

What is important and often left out with these fact checks is how the result is explained. Many times Romney will say something and Obama and other lefties will call it a lie when in reality there is damaging truth but it is easier to just try and wash the entire statement away as a lie instead of admitting to the damaging part.

One example is Romney going too far when explaining the auto-industry bailout. Romney could have stopped when he said, "I know he keeps saying, you want to x. Well, the president took Detroit bankrupt. You took General Motors bankrupt. You took Chrysler bankrupt. So when you say that I wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you actually did. And I think it's important to know that that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet, so they could start hiring more people. " He could have left off, "That was precisely what I recommended and ultimately what happened." By leaving that last part off he would have been 100% correct.

I know it would not make strategic sense for Obama to admit anything Romney says is true. Kind of like it wouldn't make sense for him to agree his position as POTUS is the final stop and he is ultimately responsible. Instead this is an election year and he needs Hitlary to fall on his sword.

eg8r

Qtec
10-17-2012, 09:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is one that might startle the left, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>a Romney truth.</span>
Quote:
ROMNEY: Just going to make a point. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Any investments I have over the last eight years have been managed <u>by a blind trust. </u></span></div></div>

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz0QCdkYJwI)

Romney: "The Blind Trust is an Age Old Ruse" . (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DVKWhPibw)

Q

eg8r
10-17-2012, 10:10 AM
LOL, so you don't want to refer to the subject? LOL, because Romney makes you look like a fool. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-17-2012, 11:52 AM
Shorter eg8r:

When Romney tells half truths, followed by a lie, it would still be half-true, and a great point, if he hadn't followed it up with a lie. LOL!

Soflasnapper
10-17-2012, 11:55 AM
The 'blind trust' is even more a ruse when it is run by your longtime PERSONAL ATTORNEY.

Best practices for people with blind trusts is to never meet or talk to their trustee. It's part of the law concerning what constitutes a sufficient blind trust for federal employees and officials.

Does anyone think that Romney has fired his personal attorney, and never meets or talks with him, in order to make even the barest plausibility that his 'blind trust' is anything other than what he candidly said before, 'an age old ruse'?

eg8r
10-17-2012, 01:11 PM
Again, we all understand why Obama rather just sweep it all up as a lie instead of recognizing the the most damaging part of what was said was actually true. It is the embellishments that make it half-true.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-17-2012, 01:34 PM
Why can't Myth resist the temptation to embellish, to gild the lily?

Is it because he's a serial, uh.... embellisher? Some other word, perhaps? LOL!

Get Keith Ablow to comment on why a guy who could (supposedly) just tell the truth and win wants to add in some lies and thus fails?

Evil, or just incapable of curbing his impulse to self-destruct? Or just more fun to win with lies? Father complex? A silent protest through actions showing he bridles under the yoke of his religious order's social teaching?

Or, just playing to his crackpot believing base, who thinks the talking points they hear every day are true?

Why, Myth? Why?

Is it possible that just telling the truth would NOT get the job done? And that therefore Myth is just taking the only tactic that would gain him his worldly office that will make him a bigger god with bigger planets in the afterlife? Oh noes!

eg8r
10-17-2012, 01:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why can't Myth resist the temptation to embellish, to gild the lily?
</div></div>Make up whatever reason you want. However the voters know that he is not the liar you wished he was and the majority of what he is saying is being proven true.

LOL, it is funny to see you dance around when the fact checkers don't come out on your side. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-17-2012, 01:54 PM
Approximately 50% (within the margin of error of the polls) are voting against him. Do you think those who oppose him consider him wholly factual, and not a liar, or the reverse of both of those?

Did Obama quadruple the regulations (either by rate of new ones, or by reference to the prior existing total)?

A man with all the access to any fact he wants, a week to prepare, staff out the yingyang, and he comes with that lie?

I'm supposed to say he's an honest guy, with that howler, or 'my plan covers pre-existing conditions,' after his campaign had previously corrected him on multiple occasions and did so again the next day after he said it again?

Clearly he's a man who will lie to gain advantage, and he does it whenever he makes a speech. Repeatedly, even after correction from fact checkers, and even after his own campaign says he's wrong.

Qtec
10-18-2012, 01:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q Is there any reason why the President did not -- he was asked point-blank in The View interview, is this a terrorist attack, yes or no? Is there any reason why he didnít say yes?

MR. CARNEY: No, thereís -- I mean, he answered the question that he was asked, and there's no reason that he chose the words he did beyond trying to provide a full explanation of his views and his assessment that we need to await further information that the investigation will uncover. <span style='font-size: 14pt'> But it is certainly the case that it is our view as an administration, the Presidentís view, that it was a terrorist attack. </span>

Q Thanks. </div></div>

Q

Qtec
10-18-2012, 04:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 'blind trust' is even more a ruse when it is run by your longtime PERSONAL ATTORNEY.

Best practices for people with blind trusts is to never meet or talk to their trustee. It's part of the law concerning what constitutes a sufficient blind trust for federal employees and officials.

Does anyone think that Romney has fired his personal attorney, and never meets or talks with him, in order to make even the barest plausibility that his 'blind trust' is anything other than what he candidly said before, 'an age old ruse'? </div></div>

Exactly.
Obama DOES have a blind trust and he has NO IDEA what the investments are that the trust has made on his behalf.

OTOH, Mittens' long time friend and attorney sees him quite frequently I imagine. At the very least they have each others phone number and could discuss his investments at any time, so like mittens says, "A blind trust run by your personal friend 'is not blind."


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> When Mitt Romney faced questions on the campaign trail four years ago about investments in firms engaged in embryonic stem cell research, the presidential candidate had a ready explanation -- he was unaware because his vast financial portfolio was under the control of an <u>independent trustee.</u> Last week, Romney's campaign pulled out the same explanation when ABC News sought details about the candidate's holdings in the Cayman Islands, a notorious offshore tax haven.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"We remind you that Gov. Romney does not choose anything; these are BLIND TRUSTS," a campaign official wrote in an email.</span>

But government ethics experts and election lawyers told ABC News that Romney's trust might not be quite as blind as he has long maintained. That's because Romney placed his quarter-billion dollar family fortune in the hands of his personal lawyer and longtime associate Bradford Malt.

Federal officeholders are required to either fully disclose all their financial holdings and any possible conflicts of interest, or place their holdings in a blind trust. Robert Kelner, a Republican election lawyer in Washington, D.C. with no ties to a current presidential campaign, explained the federal rules governing those blind trusts. "The Office of Government Ethics requires that <span style='font-size: 23pt'>a financial institution be appointed as the trustee and that the financial institution not be controlled by or have done business with the candidate,</span>" said Kelner. <span style='font-size: 26pt'>"It would preclude you from hiring your favorite lawyer as the trustee."</span>


Romney was himself once skeptical of the notion that a politician could use a blind trust to preempt inevitable questions about his investment choices and potential conflicts. When he ran against Sen. Edward Kennedy in 1994, Romney spoke critically of Kennedy's claim that he had no control over his investments. <u>"The blind trust is an age-old ruse," Romney told the Boston Globe at the time. But in 2003, as he prepared to take office as governor of Massachusetts, Romney placed his family's funds in his own blind trust to avoid whatever accusations could surface.</u> </div></div>

The rules are clear! You can't have a personal friend running your 'Blind Trust'.

Still Mittens gets away with it.

Q

LWW
10-18-2012, 04:34 AM
What federal office does he now hold?

Qtec
10-18-2012, 04:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What federal office does he now hold? </div></div>

Look it up if you don't know.

Q

Qtec
10-18-2012, 04:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What federal office does he now hold? </div></div>

Does it make a difference to Romney's credibility?

In office or out of office, a lie is still a lie.

Q

Soflasnapper
10-18-2012, 08:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What federal office does he now hold? </div></div>

He's applying for one right now. If he's hired, he needs to comport with the federal laws for office holders. Quickly.

*Catch-22. Federal law allows grandfathering of anything allowed at a state level. We talked about this already.

So, and it will be entirely fitting, he will qualify his 'blind' trust under federal regs even though they do not fly under federal regs. That is a perfect description of the contradictions that are Myth. The Man, The Myth, The Legend-- Myth. Nothing is true.

eg8r
10-18-2012, 08:42 AM
LOL, that was 14 days later. Can you please focus on the first paragraph because that has to do with the lies from Obama.

eg8r

eg8r
10-18-2012, 08:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Approximately 50% (within the margin of error of the polls) are voting against him</div></div>Which proves my point...the voters don't believe your lies about the man.

eg8r

eg8r
10-18-2012, 08:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama DOES have a blind trust and he has NO IDEA what the investments are that the trust has made on his behalf.</div></div>LOL, you are referring to his retirement which is considered blind because he doesn't look at it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Funny that it is investing in China and storing money in the Caymans. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Hypocrite.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-18-2012, 09:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Approximately 50% (within the margin of error of the polls) are voting against him</div></div>Which proves my point...the voters don't believe your lies about the man.

eg8r </div></div>

Half DO, is the point (which doesn't much prove yours). And it's not clear the other half do not, as they may very well conceded the point and still think they want this current guy out anyway, thus supporting someone even they think is a serial liar.

(cough) Newt Gingrich has said as much, both ways. It may be the general GOP view among their smarter adherents.

And btw, WHAT lies have I spoken about him? None is the answer.

You seem to have a problem with what words mean, and trying to be the honest man I assume your religious teachings prescribe you to be. Try harder, because it just isn't working right with you for some reason.

Now cue up your coda that if you 'let me run my mouth enough' I always agree with you. Insulting language is no mark of a gentleman. If the meek shall inherit the earth, what will the aggressive people inherit? (All the lunch money of the meek, prolly, but only as a short term bonus! LOL!)

eg8r
10-18-2012, 09:59 AM
[qutoe]Half DO[/quote]No, they are like gaylio and care little about politics and just choose (D) no matter what.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-18-2012, 11:01 AM
You have now explained why Rasmussen gets it so wrong, when he pretends there are only about 34% Democrats or whatever he says.

You say there are 50%? Interesting.

Now, are you REALLY saying Gingrich has any kind of (D) behind his name, when HE said Romney was a liar? Other than (D)isgraced, I mean, of course.

eg8r
10-19-2012, 06:17 AM
Nope but only you would come to an exaggerated conclusion that all 50% were implied.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-19-2012, 10:14 AM
You said in reply to my claim that 'half do,' that they are the half that always pull the lever for the (D)s on the ballot.

In what respect would such a person who always votes (D) be something other than a Democrat? Isn't that among the core features of Democrats? One could be a Democrat and sometimes even vote for the odd Republican or 3rd party candidate. If one ALWAYS votes Democratic Party candidates straight ticket, as you claimed of the approx. 50% I mention, you simply must call them Democrats.

A sensible, not exaggerated, conclusion from what you said. Correct?

eg8r
10-19-2012, 11:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You said in reply to my claim that 'half do,' that they are the half that always pull the lever for the (D)s on the ballot.</div></div>If you aren't going to use your head when reading the responses then why bother ask the questions?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In what respect would such a person who always votes (D) be something other than a Democrat? Isn't that among the core features of Democrats?</div></div>You are arguing that they are partisan hacks who only vote along party lines. Sure then I agree. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

LWW
10-19-2012, 01:36 PM
In the mind of a dembot,someone who votes a party line ticket their entire life is a patriot ... but someone who votes R or third party once is an infidel.

Soflasnapper
10-20-2012, 12:44 PM
Your non sequitur, non-funny joke aside, please comment on the following line of thinking by eg8r:

Although nearly 50% of American by polling oppose Myth Robme, that cannot be because they buy the 'lies' about him, but because they are suckers who always vote (D) no matter what.

However, among those who are suckers who always vote (D) no matter what, and are doing so now because they really aren't buying the 'lies' about Myth, not all are DEMOCRATS.

Really? Someone who always votes the (D) candidate is not necessarily a Democrat? Then what would they be called?

(I could offer the term 'intelligent,' but eg8r or you could not, of course.)

Clearly enough, if not ALL those opposing Myth are Democrats, then the residue who are not ARE BELIEVING THE 'LIES' about him (or the truth, in my view).

It's quite the conundrum for young mr. ed, so I see why he's not talking about it anymore.