The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
The [2012 Presidential Election] Thread Needs Moar Panic, Less Stacey...Dash? Who the...?
Posts
Which is why fact checking is only sort of useful.
They continue to count promising as exactly the same as providing evidence.
It's the Dumbest Fact Check Of The Year, via bipartisan opinion. Not due to the result, but the method: X Y and Z study say this math doesn't work, but dude assures us it does. We're going with the dude's promise."
Like, how lazy can you be? By that logic every fact check is just a coin flip. "Turkey says they shelled Syria yesterday, but the State Department assures us that is not true. We're going with the State Department here because they called heads. What do you expect us to do, verify information? Christ, that's what fact checkers are for."
It's also assumed that the hypothetical resultant economic growth would help make up some of the revenue gap which partially happened under GWB's tax plan. The problem with that is GWB's tax cuts didnt' come along with massive loophole closings, so had a moderately more stimulative effect (at the cost of massive debt). So Romney's plan completely undermines itself from the outset.
Taken together, I read it as trying to avoid speculation. It is completely true that Romney isn't saying he wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion. He doesn't say how he'd go about making it revenue neutral, and FactCheck correctly states that. The only thing I'd change is that I'd combine the two separate statements into one to make it a bit more clear.
Romney is flat out making numbers up. Also he's going to create 12 million jobs by lowering taxes
Jesus someone just got fired or should have been. What kind of dipshit would post such a stupid message regardless of party.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
Except that, more or less by definition, if you can't back up a statement with facts, it is not factual.
Mitt could have said "I will have sex with Jessica Alba in 4 years", and if you press him on it and his plan for how he is going to do it is: "Well, I have a plan to get there that will work", it doesn't make what he said he'd do even partially true.
"Facts" don't come from speculation and estimation of results of plans. Those are called theories. There's a reason why we still have a bunch of economic theories and they're not regarded as facts.
Even if your tact is to say "based on the assumed results of the theories being used to determine these outcomes, we take this to be true" you still need theories to produce any type of result which Romney hasn't provided.
There's really no reasonable circumstance you can say that his 'plan' to produce revenue neutral massive tax cuts is even partially true, because there is nothing to back it up.
If, on the other hand, he actually, himself (not random groups grasping at straws trying to put two and two together) produced a list of the loopholes that would be closed and other means of closing that nearly $5 trillion in cuts (on top of increased defense spending, etc), then people could actually determine whether or not it could be factual if theory fell into place.
But as it is now, nope.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Yeah.
Shit like this makes me more angry at Obama at this point than Romney.
Crap like that should have been countered then and there. A statement like that shouldn't have been let go under any circumstance; because no there's a whole legion of people who watched the debates but too lazy to actually look up information who will take that at face value and not question it. I have no doubt shit like that will 'accidentally' be repeated many times on Fox news.
Obama should have called bullshit on the countless times Romney brought up the, already verified to be horseshit $715b statement.
Obama should have called bullshit on the energy stuff.
Obama should have called bullshit on his 'i'll be bipartisan' tripe.
Obama should have called bullshit on his waxing 'eloquent' on the Constitution.
Obama should have called bullshit on reducing corporate taxes increasing job creation.
And others I'm probably forgetting right now because I've been trying to mentally block the debate so that I'm not in a constant state of rage about it.
It'll be fine and dandy if he gets his act together for round 2, but man did he fuck up round 1.
But, as others have pointed out, as far as meaningfully effecting the election, it won't do a whole lot.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
pleasepaypreacher.net
And what election wouldn't be complete without GOP voter intimidation in Ohio. Remember black panthers BAD!!! Scaring minority voters about felonies? GOOD!
pleasepaypreacher.net
The irony of this, after the florida nonsense, is fucking astounding.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Wasn't just Florida, but yeah hypocrisy from the GOP is always prevelant. I mean this is the party with a crusade against voter fraud and to prove the problem with it, THEY COMMIT VOTER FRAUD!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Ah yes, that's the one. Thanks!
Really it was stump speech verse Obama trying to talk to details. Again that doesn't work for a large chunk of the US. Sometimes I want the angry black man Obama to come out and just start ranting at Romney for straight up lying.
But lies matter very little in this day and age when no one calls you on it. Press calls it a win, I say it is a wash leaning Romney. Just means should go out and volunteer with this weekend like last weekend.
THAT WAS THE LEAD!
pleasepaypreacher.net
And that is what factcheck's second statement is saying.
To hopefully head off a ten page discussion, I think it's pretty clear @Spool32 is trying to be funny here.
Last nights debate is more reason democrats need to wake the fuck up and vote, Romney is allowed to lie and "win" so yeah don't get complacent kick his ass back to Utah.
pleasepaypreacher.net
You'd think she knows how to cite/quote better
Obama better bring back the spirit of Osawatomie in the next debate or the party is going to go back to eating their own children.
Just heard a coworker say this exact thing, even after I told him he was lying about everything.
Our politics is so substanceless.
Don't you live in the south and work with mouth breathers? I mean come on Honky I'd be surprised if they even admitted the sun came up in the morning.
pleasepaypreacher.net
To add to this line of thought from TPM:
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's going to be a full day of these, FYI. This has turned into Romney's MO, which is sad as a nation. He says a whole lot of shit, then spends the next day correcting it all. Repeat as needed.
I really really want an honest conservative alternative. Seriously, not "haha that's not a thing" joking. I'm not that hugely liberal, I'm just not immediately swayed by lower tax arguments. But what the Romney campaign is doing right now is attempting to win an election by media manipulation. They say things that will be covered, then issue retractions on them that only policy wonks will read. The entire thing is a con. I cannot support that as a platform upon which to elect a candidate. We can have a serious conversation about what isn't worth the money in the budget. We can cut spending, and address the deficit if we want to. But it would involve being adults and saying shit like "yes, defense spending will probably need to be reduced if we want to reduce the deficit", "magically our revenues will go up and our budget problems evaporate" is not a goddamned intellectually honest discussion.
I live in Ohio...
Yeah point taken.
I haven't seen them anywhere, but if Pants is right then having only 80 people sampled under the age of 50 would give you some super high MoE for those sub groups. I could see why they left them out of the official numbers, but it still looks like a shitty sample.
One is raising your baseline, the other is making you pay what you should be paying. Operationally there really isn't, but it's all about semantics.
It's almost as if Obama is not that great a off the cuff public speaker.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes