This is a classic case of responding to a true statement by refuting a statement never said. Which is itself quite dishonest.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
How much integrity did it take for Romney to repeatedly insist that Obama was taking $716 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare?
[/QUOTE]
Very little.
Or from the Washington Post:
Cite.
Regards,
Shodan
In fairness, there is dispute about the nature of the cuts. But to just call Romney’s argument in both the Chrysler and Medicare disputes “lies” is to engage in a kind of dishonesty that Democrats have been doing a lot of lately. They regard their analysis of the facts as the only true analysis, and any disagreement is a lie. It’s a very special kind of arrogance.
Romney lied about Chrysler, pure and simple. They had no plans to offshore all of the US Jeep production, just those built for the Chinese market. When called on on the lie, he continued to lie, because liars lie.
Romney lied about the Medicare “cuts”, reduction in payments to providers is quite different than reduction in coverage for individuals. Not to mention that his own running mate was pushing for an identical reduction, by turning Medicare into a voucher system.
When you’re really are factually correct, you’re entitled to argue from a superior point of view.
When you cut payments to providers, that causes providers to drop out of the market, reducing beneficiaries’ choices.
Saying that Medicare benefits aren’t cut is a bigtime lie, because Medicare pays no benefits directly to beneficiaries. It pays them to providers, who then provide the service. And if you cut payments to providers, you cut benefits.
Plus the Democrats for decades argued that cuts to providers were cuts to seniors’ benefits. Until they needed the money to pay for ACA.
Bill Clinton summed it up pretty nicely at the 2012 convention:
Here are some choice tidbits of falsehoods told by adaher’s model of integrity, Mittens Romney:
Romney and other right wingers often chastise Obama for his “apology tour”. Only trouble is, they never cite an exact quote- because there isn’t one.
Clinton makes a reasonable argument. It does not follow that Romney’s was also not reasonable. Politifact consistently rated the allegation that Medicare was cut “Half True”. And given that the administration has consistently delayed or reduced the cuts, evidently even they realize the cuts mean benefit cuts.
Politifact says Romney is considerably less honest than Obama. A higher percentage of Romney’s statements are “mostly false” and “false”, and a WAY higher percentage of Romney’s statements are “pants on fire false”. One example for Romney – his Jeep lie was “pants on fire”.
I’ll note that Romney is, according to Politifact, on par (or even a bit higher) in honesty with Pelosi and Reid, and significantly higher than that nadir of truthfulness, Ted Cruz, but he still lags considerably behind our President.
Thank you, adaher, for consisting referencing sources like Politifact that prove your assertions wrong.
Politifact actually says nothing of the sort, as many posters here pointed out when I argued that nothing the President says should be taken seriously because he’s wrong so often. If he was a poster here he’d be laughed off the board.
You are factually incorrect. Politifact rates which statements are “true”, “mostly true”, “half true”, “mostly false”, “false”, and “pants on fire false” by public figures. When we compare Obama and Romney on Politifact, we find that a significantly higher percentage of Obama’s statements are rated “true” and “mostly true”, while a significantly higher percentage of Romney’s statements are “mostly false”, “false”, and “pants on fire false”.
So you are wrong here. Factually wrong.
Do you need it explained again, or in a different way? It’s quite easy to see on Politifact’s website. They have a pretty easy-to-read layout, with percentages and everything.
I dunno, some people are impervious to being laughed off the board.
So it’s true that if the President was on this board, he’d have no credibility.
Another prime “Full adaher” post. This might be new to some readers, but the “Full adaher” is when a poster makes an assertion, is immediately challenged on this assertion, and then completely backs away with no defense and changes to a totally different (and often equally ridiculous) assertion.
Sometimes we have a “double full adaher”, in which this chain continues with the next assertion, and a “triple full adaher”, and so on.
Legends have spoken of a “quintuple full adaher”, but this Doper historian has yet to see it in the wild.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
I look forward to wailing and gnashing of teeth on the SDMB in a few months
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I think the lack of wailing, gnashing, and sackcloth and ashes* will be for the exact opposite reason: The board’s Obama supporters are aware of reality and thus are unlikely to be surprised** by November’s results, unlike certain Romney supporters in 2012.
We’re aware that, barring something upsetting the apple cart in the next couple of months, the Republicans picking up seats is basically a lock and their odds of winning a majority in the Senate are considerably better than even.
That’s because we understand the basic facts of the situation:
a) The opposition party normally picks up seats in mid-term elections
b) The Democrats started with more open and vulnerable seats to defend
c) The Republican establishment was successful in squashing the loopiest Tea Party candidates, so there aren’t a bunch of Christine O’Donnell’s and Sharon Angle’s throwing away seats the GOP should win
d) Obama’s lagging popularity means he doesn’t much to offer in way of coattails
e) The Republicans in Congress have so far this year avoided doing things so insanely stupid that they’d turn off large blocks of independents (such as actually impeaching the president, or playing with the debt ceiling to screw up the country’s credit rating again)
*How could you omit that? I’m disappointed
**Annoyed, but not surprised
Part of the trouble (for most of the SDMB) is that Obama’s lies are larger and less ambiguous. Romney’s statement that Obamacare involved $716 in Medicare cuts is literally true. Obama’s statements that Obamacare would cut premiums by $2500, that if you like your coverage you could keep it, that the penalty was not a tax, etc. are unambiguously false.
The SDMB spins pretty compulsively, but it doesn’t always work.
Regards,
Shodan
This post is also (opinion-based, not fact-based, since we’re talking about far more than 1 or 2 lies) spin on the fact that (according to Politifact) Obama is significantly less dishonest than Romney.
Mark Begich’s latest campaign ad: “See, I’m just like Murkowski! Not like that Obama fella at all!”
Murkowski is beclowning herself by demanding that he take the ad down, which I really wish politicians would stop doing.
That’s a pretty gross mischaracterization of that ad as it doesn’t mention Obama at all nor does it mention opposing any of his policies. It’s just a run of the mill ad by a Democrat appealing to conservatives in a state that’s 66% Republican.
Trying to say you’re just like the GOP Senator is about as clear a way of backing away from the President as you can get.
No, backing away from the President is about as clear a way of backing away from the President as you can get. This ad doesn’t mention Obama or refer to him or his policies in any way at all.
This ad is simply showing that people who typically vote for Republicans (66% of Alaska) can and do vote for Begich.