Some bold claims were made in both, and they contradicted each other.
I’d like to know what the truth is.
Politifact did some of Obama’s speech.
Well, according to Rachel Maddow, Politifact took Obama’s numbers on jobs created and rated it a half-truth. When they were informed that the numbers were factually correct, they changed the rating to mostly-true. They also commonly call rounded numbers untrue, even where exact numbers can’t be found. So as usual, Politifact couldn’t tell a fact from a hole in their ass. They only survive because one side or the other will agree with their useless ratings individually, so they get cited a lot. And then in the next breath they are scorned for a different rating. Which makes it quite comical since they receive their raves and pans for incorrect evaluations so often.
The first thing fact checkers should do is acknowledge that politicians avoid the kind of explicit unambiguous statements that are demonstrably true or false, and not bother rating these at all, or placing them all in the false category since they can’t be disproved.
Right, but surely someone somewhere can add politically neutral context to these claims. Forget future predictions, the presidents says we’re good, the opposition says it’s awful.
How can the true state of the union not be a fact?
Because it’s totally subjective.
We’re better than Angola and worse than Luxembourg, but with context there is no reason a point can’t be plotted on our national trajectory without further comment.
Suppose we added 2 million jobs in the last year. What does that tell us about the state of the country? Sounds good, but it’s less than the number of jobs lost in recent years, unemployment is still high. So is the glass half full or half empty? It’s all in the eye of the beholder. There are a few facts that can be determined, but the context you speak of is more subjective framework that can place the facts where it best suits the speaker.
Quis nerdiet ipsos nerdes?
Not in the long run…
Politifact has some egg on its face.
And then later…
What did Obama say? “businesses have created more than 3 million jobs … they created the most jobs since 2005.” Somehow Politifact construed this as Obama taking credit for this. I suppose if Obama said “hey, nice weather isn’t it?” then Politifact would chastise him for taking credit for it.
Not only are Obama’s promises rehashed from the last speech and written at an 8th grade level (for the 3rd consecutive time, ranking at the very bottom of the past 70 years of SOTU speeches), but his rhetoric in no way matches reality.
So yes, fact checks have been done.
Talk about 8th grade level, the oil industries propaganda that stopping their subsidies is equivalent to a tax increase isn’t aimed at high school graduates. The rest of your “fact check” glurge isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, if someone was stupid enough to print it.
That’s not a legitimate argument or defense. Your oil company remark isnt part of the topic or remotely relevant.
If anyone cares to take apart the fact check I linked, I would be interested and open minded. I dont want to see Obama get unfairly picked on.
When you post a cite that includes this garbage
it then surprises you that someone doesn’t swallow it?
You still havent supplied contradictory information debunking their list of claims.
So in other words, Obama was correct. That’s telling 'em, Mr. Woodward!
Did or did not Obama preside over the bailout, and is or is not GM back on top? Woodward is getting might picky on this one. As for Ford, who’s talking about Ford? What claim did Obama make about Ford that is untrue?
Yea, that fact check just seems to be offering background information, IntelliQ. I usually think of a “fact-check” as something that says whether a claim is factually true or not. The fact that Obama has sought to pass tax increases on oil companies before and couldn’t get it through congress doesn’t somehow make his desire to do so now “untrue”.
Obama is talking about Ford. It was in your quote.
Come on. You don’t think it’s sloppy, at best, to include Ford in a statement about the Auto Bailout program since Ford received no bailout monies? Anyone reading that, who did not know otherwise, would think Ford was doing well because of the Bailout.
I think what they’re saying is that he couldnt get many things through the congress when he had a super-majority, so making the same ole promises now with a divided house is logically unsound. Instinct tells me he’s just setting up republicans to take more blame when he doesnt achieve the same goals he failed on before. That’s just my opinion not a fact. Time will tell.