Like I told my wife last night, "honey, its not a matter of them being honest, it's whether you can live with each's particular lies."
And this is why politics makes me sad.
ditto bro, there is no one to trust. You can't trust what you watch, read, hear bc ALL media is TAINTED! BUT, you can't give up either. So, we make judgements based on "half truths" and hope that it is the better of the two candidates. That's the way I look at it anyway....
I really don't know where people get off saying romney is so dishonest. i'm sure you could catch him with a more than a few errors of interpretation, and some things he said could be discredited with other data. the problem is there is too much information, and too many brains out there trying to cross reference everything. who's to say those fact checkers are correct? you take them at their word but not romney, its because you are automatically bias towards believing what you read and not believing the guy you are not rooting for. on the other side, we have obama, we dont need to fact check his claims, all we need to do is look around and see what he has accomplished in 4 years. all he focused on was health care and bailing out big business with our money, which he discredits others who do the same. I dont need to know if he is a liar or not, I already know hes not up to the job, and leaders dont pass the blame, they take responsibility and action, I have seen neither from him.
I don't think Romney is any more dishonest than any other politician. And I completely understand where you are coming from with an information glut making it hard to keep info straight. So you say something that doesn't quite track once, fine, I get it. I have said things that I found out later were incorrect based on info I hadn't seen or didn't remember. The difference between you and me VS the average politician is, if we find out facts don't bear us out, we change our views based on the facts. If a politician finds facts that don't fit their narrative, they often just ignore those facts and continue repeating their half truths. And it works, because we, as people, are swayed more by narratives than facts.
To address why we trust fact checkers. Because they deal in fact. Fact is not negotiable, it either is or isn't. There can be different interpratations of a given body of facts, but the underlying facts are the same. So, sites like politifact check the numbers, the nuts and bolts of a claim, but not the conclusion.
don't kid yourself, most of the "fact checkers" out there have their own agenda just like every one else.
They LINK to the FACTS. You can actually READ FOR YOURSELF what they are referencing. If they were only calling out one side, I could see it, but they don't. Each side, and even those without a "side" are checked and called out continuously. Not everything is a conspiracy.
they LINK to other webpages created by PEOPLE with their own AGENDAS. the only thing I accept is video of the person saying it, and MULTIPLE reliable news sources to compare to.
they LINK to other webpages created by PEOPLE with their own AGENDAS. the only thing I accept is video of the person saying it, and MULTIPLE reliable news sources to compare to.
No *** they were created by people... web pages don't just spontaneously appear no matter how hard I try to will my workload into being. So, how do you decide which sites have agendas and which don't? If the facts agree with you, they are impartial, if they don't they are biased? I don't understand how, when they link to multiple sources, you can call bias. And if so, what bias have you discovered? Both sides quote politifact and other such checkers. The burden of proof is on you to show bias. Have you found incorrect facts listed?
ive found many "fact" lists to be full of opinion, mixed in with facts that I really don't have time to research.
So, at what level do you trust a fact? How do you decide the source is good enough? Or do you just trust your gut on things? I'm sorry if I am coming across as harsh here, re-reading my comments I think I sound overly critical, and that is not my intent. I am just trying to understand how you evaluate statements of fact as your methods seem so contrary to my own.
ive found many "fact" lists to be full of opinion, mixed in with facts that I really don't have time to research.
It just makes me cringe that we've gotten to a point, where so many politicians lie/tell half-truths/etc, we have to have fact-checkers....and on top of it, we're almost to a point where the definition of a "fact" is debatable.....aye aye aye, my head hurts. Time to go drink a beer.
for the most part, I dont. a lot of the *** that has gone down like fast and furrious, solyndra, stuff romney was involved in with bain, I dont know the real inside information and never will. so how do I decide something like who to vote for? I take what they have said and compare to their personal lives and known examples of who they are. obama-his first campaign you really had no idea who he was, there was almost no evidence about his life before the campaign, thats a red flag for me right there. for some time I thought he was the manchurian candidate for sure. his campaign promises were lofty, not concrete and all bent in the direction of pleasing people. another red flag. you had almost no idea where he stands on things. now we know more about his past, look at his association with david bell, and reverend wright. now its possible that obama sat in that mans congregation for all those years he was a member, disagreeing with the racism the man was about, but appreciating the nuggets of truth he spoke. but for me, a man that considers himself a member of a congregation led by that man, is a man that believes almost everything the man preaches. and now we know what he will do with the presidency, no indication that he will try a different direction, just throw more money at it till the problem goes away, give people everything for free, its all bullshit and has no place in real life.
romney-in every way a public figure, in terms of his religion and business practices, its all out there to be seen, hes even released his private financial documents. this is a man that gives to charity, has a track record of good business skills, has a lot of experience, these things I have read about the man from multiple sources, are they true? I would say yes, because they have not been disputed by the media. they cried for his tax records, then he released them, no one said a word, the records show he pays more taxes than obama even, the math adds up, it looks like a low percentage, and it is, because its not working income, its interest of investments, they are taxed differently. if there was any hint of incorrect information, they would have run with it. but they dont.
Who fact checks the fact checkers?? Romney mopped the floor with him. Quite frankly if you have not made up your mind by now and are waiting on debates to do that for you then you may not be paying attention. We have had 4 years of Obama and it is no secret to anyone how that has worked out.
We have had 4 years of Obama and it is no secret to anyone how that has worked out.
It;s all George W Bush's fault.
I heard that somewhere and it sure makes sense to me.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
Who fact checks the fact checkers?? Romney mopped the floor with him. Quite frankly if you have not made up your mind by now and are waiting on debates to do that for you then you may not be paying attention. We have had 4 years of Obama and it is no secret to anyone how that has worked out.
While I disagree on how the 4 years have gone and on what you and I feel about Romney----I do think you are dead on with regards to "undecided voters". 4 years of Barack......2 presidential campaign seasons and all the time between to learn about Romney. If you still do not truly know which candidate best represents you.....I really dont think you need to be at the polls because you obviously have no f*cking idea whats going on.
Great SNL commercial skit a few weeks ago talking about who these "undecideds" are. I have no link but check it out, its funny as hell.
If you still do not truly know which candidate best represents you.....I really dont think you need to be at the polls because you obviously have no f*cking idea whats going on.
Great SNL commercial skit a few weeks ago talking about who these "undecideds" are. I have no link but check it out, its funny as hell.
I think it's pretty easy to be undecided. The very fact that you can disagree on how the last four years of inept fascism have gone shows that. Given the choice between a smiling liar who cuts fat checks to wall street swindlers and a wall street swindler who smiles and lies, it's not surprising some may hesitate.
But then, I don't watch SNL, so I may not have been properly instructed what to think.
I did not watch the debate because I didn't want to be misled by presentation. I did read the transcript a couple of times. The most impressive bit out of the whole transcript came from Mitt, when he proposed that a good rule of thumb when deciding what should be spent or what to cut ought to be: Is it worth borrowing money from China to pay for this? At this point, the dispositive question in my mind is who is more apt to not only cut deficit but pay down debt. We are well beyond deficit cutting. Debt is bondage. Debt bequeaths poverty and oppression to the next generation. Me, I am almost done here. But my grand-children and gret-grandchildren are just getting started. It's no longer about me. It's them. Will they have a bone to eat, a buck to enjoy, or a say in how they enjoy it? Will they live by American values or Chinese? Will fascism be complete before they have a chance to decide? I see zero chance that Democrats can cut squat. They buy votes. I see zero chance that a "community organizer" has any will to cut squat. He's all about more government. Obama has shown a very tenuous grasp of arithmetic to say it mildly. I see zero chance that the rich are going to pay for all this excess. It's cheaper for them just to buy another senator... or add it to the price of goods. Nope. Chances are between slim and none. Slim that republicans will cut squat and none that the democrats will. Then there's all that baggage.
Not hard to be undecided.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
Well Web, I guess we have to agree to disagree. Again, youve had 4 years to do reseach of Obama----that alone should be close to enough to decide if you want 4 more. Plus the info available on the other guy?? If you 30 days left, you still havent had enough time.....probably never will.
Well Web, I guess we have to agree to disagree. Again, youve had 4 years to do reseach of Obama----that alone should be close to enough to decide if you want 4 more. Plus the info available on the other guy?? If you 30 days left, you still havent had enough time.....probably never will.
From what I read Davis, you really aren't undecided. In one candidate, there is NO chance and in the other there is SLIM. I tend to feel the same, however, I will definitely back the one that I feel there is a slim chance of progress. Plus, he definitely won the debate! LOL!
Who fact checks the fact checkers?? Romney mopped the floor with him. Quite frankly if you have not made up your mind by now and are waiting on debates to do that for you then you may not be paying attention. We have had 4 years of Obama and it is no secret to anyone how that has worked out.
While I disagree on how the 4 years have gone and on what you and I feel about Romney----I do think you are dead on with regards to "undecided voters". 4 years of Barack......2 presidential campaign seasons and all the time between to learn about Romney. If you still do not truly know which candidate best represents you.....I really dont think you need to be at the polls because you obviously have no f*cking idea whats going on.
Great SNL commercial skit a few weeks ago talking about who these "undecideds" are. I have no link but check it out, its funny as hell.
What exactly do you disagree with about how the 4 years have gone ? I must have missed something.
He said...."We have had 4 years of Obama and it is no secret to anyone how that has worked out"
You said..."While I disagree on how the 4 years have gone........"
What exactly are you disagreeing with...... that 4 years really havent gone ?
Yes, Ja-----thats what Im disagreeing with, lollll. Gypsy and I know each other (at least here politically) very well so I know that his opinion and mine on Obama's first term are different. That sir, is what I am disagreeing with.
Yes, Ja-----thats what Im disagreeing with, lollll. Gypsy and I know each other (at least here politically) very well so I know that his opinion and mine on Obama's first term are different. That sir, is what I am disagreeing with.
Yes, 1,460 days. We all can't quite agree. Vulchor thinks O's time has been well spent (hush, don't tell him we're 6 Trillion in new debt), and Gypsy is counting his years to retirement. LMAO. I'm with Gypsy. LMAO. But my biggest concern with Vulchor is that he is gonna kick my ass this weekend in fantasy football. How the heck did you get those 2 running backs?
Yes, Ja-----thats what Im disagreeing with, lollll. Gypsy and I know each other (at least here politically) very well so I know that his opinion and mine on Obama's first term are different. That sir, is what I am disagreeing with.
Yes, 1,460 days. We all can't quite agree. Vulchor thinks O's time has been well spent (hush, don't tell him we're 6 Trillion in new debt), and Gypsy is counting his years to retirement. LMAO. I'm with Gypsy. LMAO. But my biggest concern with Vulchor is that he is gonna kick my ass this weekend in fantasy football. How the heck did you get those 2 running backs?
6 trillion, that's O's fault? Romney won the debate, Obama got beat. But on substance Romney fell flat, even trashed his same policies just to reach a huge audience. Just like he has done countless times. Even his campaign came out after the debate to say some things Romney said were not in line with the campaign. Obama isn't perfect but no president is, however for you that will back Romney what happened under bush will feel nice.
Oh I agree Squirrel totally. The question was who won the debate...Romney did, no doubt. Just the debate however. Who won with stats, numbers, realism, and specifics (ie the things people shoudl listen do but instead just liten to the tone and fervor of a guys voice)? Obama, hands down.
I do find it really lacking for people to actually be happy about Romney. The guy could barely get 30 percent during his primaries. The guy bragged about firing more people during the debate, he can't give any specifics, he just trashed his own plan by saying I am not for a 5 trillion cut even though videos of him saying it are swarming. The guy left his state in ruin, he changes his stance every day, he says one thing then his campaign comes out and says different. They guy says he saved the Olympics but only have the govt game him millions of dollars to do so (even though his buddies stole the money to begin with), the guy made most of his money off of killing other people's jobs. The guy hides his income from the public, and won't even release his own tax returns, keeps his money offshore, and has policies (at least his running mate) that will take down most if not all of the govt programs for citizens to give the private sector the reigns. It is just amazing to me.
So obama wasn't strong during the debate, hell he sucked during his own primary and in the last debates he had in 08. He isn't a debater, some people are not so what. But at least you didn't see obama throw everything he's been saying since the beginning just to seem likable. Lies and fact stretching happens but throwing them out left and right and not even having principles is dangerous and Romney is that. I mean for a guy to leave his own state in ruin and to have actually destroyed other businesses and jobs only to say he will create jobs. It's amazing.
I do find it really lacking for people to actually be happy about Romney. The guy could barely get 30 percent during his primaries. The guy bragged about firing more people during the debate, he can't give any specifics, he just trashed his own plan by saying I am not for a 5 trillion cut even though videos of him saying it are swarming. The guy left his state in ruin, he changes his stance every day, he says one thing then his campaign comes out and says different. They guy says he saved the Olympics but only have the govt game him millions of dollars to do so (even though his buddies stole the money to begin with), the guy made most of his money off of killing other people's jobs. The guy hides his income from the public, and won't even release his own tax returns, keeps his money offshore, and has policies (at least his running mate) that will take down most if not all of the govt programs for citizens to give the private sector the reigns. It is just amazing to me.
So obama wasn't strong during the debate, hell he sucked during his own primary and in the last debates he had in 08. He isn't a debater, some people are not so what. But at least you didn't see obama throw everything he's been saying since the beginning just to seem likable. Lies and fact stretching happens but throwing them out left and right and not even having principles is dangerous and Romney is that. I mean for a guy to leave his own state in ruin and to have actually destroyed other businesses and jobs only to say he will create jobs. It's amazing.
Yea, voting for Mitt Romney is like voting for Joey Isuzu, a grinning, slick, lying salesman who will say anything to anyone at anytime for any reason, as long as he thinks he knows what they want to hear. The guy stands for NOTHING, because he stands for EVERYTHING his party wants to hear. I wouldn't believe this guy if he told me the sky was blue. I have absolutely no idea what he really intends to do, if elected.
The ironic thing is that if he had remained the pragmatic right of center moderate that he posed himself as being, (until the Tea Party took over the GOP), there is a very good chance that I could have voted for him. I won't vote for a serial liar, though, and that's what he's shown himself to be.
I do find it really lacking for people to actually be happy about Romney. The guy could barely get 30 percent during his primaries. The guy bragged about firing more people during the debate, he can't give any specifics, he just trashed his own plan by saying I am not for a 5 trillion cut even though videos of him saying it are swarming. The guy left his state in ruin, he changes his stance every day, he says one thing then his campaign comes out and says different. They guy says he saved the Olympics but only have the govt game him millions of dollars to do so (even though his buddies stole the money to begin with), the guy made most of his money off of killing other people's jobs. The guy hides his income from the public, and won't even release his own tax returns, keeps his money offshore, and has policies (at least his running mate) that will take down most if not all of the govt programs for citizens to give the private sector the reigns. It is just amazing to me.
So obama wasn't strong during the debate, hell he sucked during his own primary and in the last debates he had in 08. He isn't a debater, some people are not so what. But at least you didn't see obama throw everything he's been saying since the beginning just to seem likable. Lies and fact stretching happens but throwing them out left and right and not even having principles is dangerous and Romney is that. I mean for a guy to leave his own state in ruin and to have actually destroyed other businesses and jobs only to say he will create jobs. It's amazing.
Phobic, many of the things you mentioned were charges thrown at him over the years by the left. And knowing that you get your "news" from the left, it is plausible that you actually believed them. Now, when you see the man unfiltered, you're perplexed. You are correct. He wasn't the man that the left has been portraying him to be. "He" must have changed.
Good point. I mean, it's undeniable that de-regulation beginning in the 80's under the Republican "Contract with America" and escalating under the two Bush regimes, a culture of "to the victor go the spoils" and "nothing matters but the bottom line" propogated by Wall St. hedge-fund managers, the pyramid schemes that took over the housing market, not taxing the people who have all the money, and starting very expensive wars on borrowed money created a huge recession.
But, thanks to the image-shapers, Barak Obama is blamed for the inevitable outcomes of all these things that took place and came to fruition well before he came into office.
Image. Powerful stuff. .
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Good point. I mean, it's undeniable that de-regulation beginning in the 80's under the Republican "Contract with America" and escalating under the two Bush regimes, a culture of "to the victor go the spoils" and "nothing matters but the bottom line" propogated by Wall St. hedge-fund managers, the pyramid schemes that took over the housing market, not taxing the people who have all the money, and starting very expensive wars on borrowed money created a huge recession.
But, thanks to the image-shapers, Barak Obama is blamed for the inevitable outcomes of all these things that took place and came to fruition well before he came into office.
Image. Powerful stuff. .
The blame game is permitted. However, now Obama is inheriting the worst economy ever, from himself. You can't suggest that he hasn't had a hand in it.
Comments
To address why we trust fact checkers. Because they deal in fact. Fact is not negotiable, it either is or isn't. There can be different interpratations of a given body of facts, but the underlying facts are the same. So, sites like politifact check the numbers, the nuts and bolts of a claim, but not the conclusion.
* I have a new address as of 3/24/18 *
I heard that somewhere and it sure makes sense to me.
Great SNL commercial skit a few weeks ago talking about who these "undecideds" are. I have no link but check it out, its funny as hell.
But then, I don't watch SNL, so I may not have been properly instructed what to think.
I did not watch the debate because I didn't want to be misled by presentation. I did read the transcript a couple of times. The most impressive bit out of the whole transcript came from Mitt, when he proposed that a good rule of thumb when deciding what should be spent or what to cut ought to be: Is it worth borrowing money from China to pay for this? At this point, the dispositive question in my mind is who is more apt to not only cut deficit but pay down debt. We are well beyond deficit cutting. Debt is bondage. Debt bequeaths poverty and oppression to the next generation. Me, I am almost done here. But my grand-children and gret-grandchildren are just getting started. It's no longer about me. It's them. Will they have a bone to eat, a buck to enjoy, or a say in how they enjoy it? Will they live by American values or Chinese? Will fascism be complete before they have a chance to decide? I see zero chance that Democrats can cut squat. They buy votes. I see zero chance that a "community organizer" has any will to cut squat. He's all about more government. Obama has shown a very tenuous grasp of arithmetic to say it mildly. I see zero chance that the rich are going to pay for all this excess. It's cheaper for them just to buy another senator... or add it to the price of goods. Nope. Chances are between slim and none. Slim that republicans will cut squat and none that the democrats will. Then there's all that baggage.
Not hard to be undecided.
He said...."We have had 4 years of Obama and it is no secret to anyone how that has worked out"
You said..."While I disagree on how the 4 years have gone........"
What exactly are you disagreeing with...... that 4 years really havent gone ?
So obama wasn't strong during the debate, hell he sucked during his own primary and in the last debates he had in 08. He isn't a debater, some people are not so what. But at least you didn't see obama throw everything he's been saying since the beginning just to seem likable. Lies and fact stretching happens but throwing them out left and right and not even having principles is dangerous and Romney is that. I mean for a guy to leave his own state in ruin and to have actually destroyed other businesses and jobs only to say he will create jobs. It's amazing.
The ironic thing is that if he had remained the pragmatic right of center moderate that he posed himself as being, (until the Tea Party took over the GOP), there is a very good chance that I could have voted for him. I won't vote for a serial liar, though, and that's what he's shown himself to be.
But, thanks to the image-shapers, Barak Obama is blamed for the inevitable outcomes of all these things that took place and came to fruition well before he came into office.
Image.
Powerful stuff.
.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain