Printable View
They seem to be running wild with things that are quite black vs white untrue, though. Saying Obama said or did things that he simply did not, for example.
Anyway, I've only used politifact, that one at least gives pretty good explanations on their verdicts.
Which rates the welfare claims in question as pants on fire. I'd say that translates to outrageously false. :o
I'm trying to figure out where the people who made that ad about the welfare changes went wrong... like did they not read?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...n-three-words/
fox news calling paul ryans speech deceiving (damn fact checkers) and distracting. ouch.
No, a left-wing contributor to Fox News calling Ryan that. Google and wikipedia are your friends.
Yeah, sorry about that, corporations aren't responsible for what they publish. my bad. All future links should be contributed to the author and author only. Not like its linked to from the front page (for the past 6+ hours) or anything.
Seriously, Clint Eastwood is the "surprise" speaker for the RNC? :bulb:
Are you seriously suggesting that opinion pieces published by newspapers/other media should be considered to be the views of those papers? :confused: Is Friedman representative of the NY Times position on trade?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
No, but I'm not at all surprised to see you jump to such a thought so quickly. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Then what exactly is your point? That Fox News doesn't censor its op-ed writers? How terrible.
As Fuzzy pointed out, in the US political parties have a pretty weak hold on the agenda of any particular candidate. Compared to a parliamentary system, candidates here are basically in it for themselves (with the party acting as a kind of loose organizational banner to work under). Individual candidates have much more leeway to do/think/pursue whatever they want versus the partyQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I agree with Loki on this, the proliferation of "fact checkers" (including politifact) has gotten out of control. They tend to "analyze" issues from one perspective, when the whole point of a controversy is that people view particular issues with different ideological values.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
More disturbingly, they've become a rear-guard way for left-leaning journalists to take a left-wing outlook on things while claiming to be "objective". It's hard not to see the Internet full of people linking to sites like politifact and saying "Derpderp, look, it's a fact? See, the URL contains the word 'fact'".
An example: When discussing tax policy, a lot of our fact checkers in the US cite the US Congressional Budget Office.
But the Congressional Budget Office uses assumptions that many on the right disagree with. Specifically, they follow "static scoring" of tax policy. For example, they assume that every tax increase will lead to more government revenue in the long-run, and every tax decrease will hurt government revenue in the long-run.
Many people don't think tax policy should be analyzed in such a strict way, because they feel tax rates influence behavior, which in turn impacts productivity and influences the income available for taxation. Many on the right prefer "dynamic scoring", because it tries to figure out how tax rates will impact behavior and productivity. It's a much more difficult calculation with potential error, but it's also potentially much more honest.
There is a serious ideological difference here. But instead of discussing it directly, the fact-checkers are simply choosing static scoring and pretending the left-wing consensus on tax policy is a "fact".
I'm sure there are other areas where they lean right, but I'm mainly using this example to emphasize how the fact checkers are trying to choose one worldview over another to present as a "fact".
terrible wouldn't be the word I use. More like refreshing. Considering they went to court to argue for the right to tell those who cash their checks what they are and aren't allowed to say. Now you may be trying to make a mountain out of a molehill considering I was simply pointing out that such an article wasn't suffering Fox's usual response. But I did get a chuckle out of the idea that Fox's best attempt at fact checking thus far has to be published as an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlixyAnyway, I've only used politifact, that one at least gives pretty good explanations on their verdicts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
----------------
guinness' should totally make a section for politicans. Romney scores 533 lies in 30 weeks.
Really? I pointed that out in this thread? I'm not going to sit here and allege that the claim about politicians in our system is out-and-out wrong because I am pretty sure I've made this point in the past albeit not so strongly but I really wish you'd stop inventing things I've said in a thread and citing them to others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Fuzzy claimed leprechauns cause global warming in this thread. :o
I'm happy when they dig up what people have actually said, to compensate for the proliferation of untrue claims about what people have actually said. Ie. simple fact checking rather than complex analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Yes, that. I.do realise that (esp long term) economic predictions are a useful tool, as long as you keep the conditions and rules it uses in mind, and not suited that well for fact checking.
Simple facts however, can be checked. Also, I do think that if you claim numbers like this you should have some source. So, fair enough that you disagree with the CBO, but a) don't claim it says things it doesn't say (lie) b) if you use different numbers, have some source, and don't pull them out of your ass (not a lie, but fantasy). Oh, and don't claim people or memos or bills say things they (specifically) don't say.
I mean, if Obama is the communist spawn of Satan they think he is, surely they don't need lies, right? Or is he actually not as bad as they say? :o
Not all "fact checkers" are analyzing numbers or math, but comparing statements made, and whether they've stretched or misrepresented the truth. What's gotten out of control is this type of language twisting, taking certain snippets and spinning them out of context, repeating them often enough to create a meme, and then a slogan. I'd say "We Built It" is a good example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
That's because it's a budget office comparing tax numbers and math. Revenue is revenue. It's long been considered a "non-partisan" office that's used by both parties, including right-leaners and Republicans. Is there something to suggest CBO is no longer "non-partisan" or reliable?Quote:
An example: When discussing tax policy, a lot of our fact checkers in the US cite the US Congressional Budget Office.
But the Congressional Budget Office uses assumptions that many on the right disagree with. Specifically, they follow "static scoring" of tax policy. For example, they assume that every tax increase will lead to more government revenue in the long-run, and every tax decrease will hurt government revenue in the long-run.
That "dynamic scoring" is based on theories, soft-science (including sociology, psychology, behavioral economics), and predicting the future. It broadly assumes "certain truths" based on historical trends, in order to push political policies that aren't always fact, let alone "more honest". <ie, tax-deductible, low interest mortgage rates will clear housing inventory overhang.> CBO numbers don't dictate policy alone, but are used by groups like NBER, academics, and politicians to suggest policy. That's where the ideological differences are -- and why there's disagreement about Trickle Down tax policy "creating jobs".Quote:
Many people don't think tax policy should be analyzed in such a strict way, because they feel tax rates influence behavior, which in turn impacts productivity and influences the income available for taxation. Many on the right prefer "dynamic scoring", because it tries to figure out how tax rates will impact behavior and productivity. It's a much more difficult calculation with potential error, but it's also potentially much more honest.
There is a serious ideological difference here. But instead of discussing it directly, the fact-checkers are simply choosing static scoring and pretending the left-wing consensus on tax policy is a "fact".
Wow, one worldview? :rolleyes: That needs to be fact checked. :haha:Quote:
I'm sure there are other areas where they lean right, but I'm mainly using this example to emphasize how the fact checkers are trying to choose one worldview over another to present as a "fact".
Shhh liberals don't believe Fox News has anyone other than die hard conservatives. You'll upset their delicate world view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
So if we double the tax rate you don't think that will influence behavior in the slightest?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloom...-8-3831524.phpQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Now 56.8...
We'll see how it goes but I'm optimistic. I don't think America has turned its back on freedom.
http://realclearpolitics.com/elections/
Look at the polls in each of the battleground states.
Most within the standard margin of error. Except for Penn which is pretty hefty towards Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Poorly structured question. N/AQuote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The margin of error doesn't mean much when virtually all polls are on one side of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
1% is toss up. Like I said I'm an optimist. :) But I am realistic - in the last few days of the election in 08 I did say that Obama probably would win. Right now I think Romney/Ryan is in striking distance. No major flubs in a debate, no random scandal and I think Obama is done. The economy is terrible. Trillion dollar deficits every year and an electorate that has given up on "hope and change." People who haven't made up their mind are those who don't yet trust Romney, they don't like Obama they are just worried about the alternative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Given the amount of partisans on each side, what makes you perhaps 20% of the wavering Obama supporters will suddenly change sides in next 2 months?
20%? What are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I've seen a few authors suggest that only 5% of the population is persuadable at the moment, which is why poll movements are so minor from poll to poll. Assuming 2.5% of that belongs to each candidate, Romney would need to get about a fifth of uncertain Obama supporters to bolt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Approaching this from a different angle, look at the map here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/eca...#?battleground
Obama is up 4% in New Hampshire and Nevada, and he's not going to lose Wisconsin. From the remaining states, if Obama wins either Ohio, Florida, or Virginia, he gets reelected. If he wins Iowa and Colorado, he gets reelected even if he loses Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. Romney would have to win virtually every contested state in order to get 270 electoral votes.
That 5% figure is pretty silly. Turnout matters more than just 5% of the population and Democrats aren't nearly as wild about Obama as they were in 08. You put too much emphasis on polls - almost every election (at least the semi-close ones) had polls showing one side winning when they ended up losing. Again the 5% figure is silly - that essentially is saying the debates, the millions of dollars in campaign adds and each parties ground game isn't important at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
A lower Democratic turnout is already included in the likely voter models.
And actually, a poll of credible polls is incredibly accurate at predicting results, especially as you come closer to the event being predicted (that's not the same as saying that any individual poll would be accurate). There are some races where there is a lot of uncertainty, and polls are less reliable there. But I think the public already knows everything they'll know about Obama and Romney.