The Official 2012 Presidential Election Obama v. Romney Thread

[Morgan]

The Biden-Ryan debate was marked by some spirited claims that didn’t always match the facts.

    Ryan said Obama’s proposal to let tax rates rise for high-income individuals would “tax about 53 percent of small-business income.” Wrong. Ryan is counting giant hedge funds and thousands of other multimillion-dollar enterprises as “small” businesses.
    Biden exaggerated when he said House Republicans cut funding for embassy security by $300 million. The amount approved for fiscal year 2012 was $264 million less than requested, and covers construction and maintenance, not just security.
    Ryan was wrong when he said a rise in the jobless rate in Biden’s hometown was “how it’s going all around America.” The rate nationally has sunk back to where it was when Obama took office. And in Ryan’s hometown, it’s more than 4 percentage points lower that it was at the start of Obama’s term.
    Biden seemed to question Ryan’s assertion that administration officials called Syrian President Bashar Assad “a reformer” even when he was killing his own civilian countrymen. Ryan was right. Early in the bloody Syrian uprising Hillary Clinton called Assad a “different leader” who many in Congress believe is “a reformer.”
    Ryan claimed the Obama administration spent stimulus money on “electric cars in Finland.” Not true. Although the cars have been assembled in Finland, the money went for work in the United States.
    Biden quoted Romney as saying that he would not “move heaven and earth” to get Osama bin Laden. What Romney said was that he’d go after other terrorists as well.
    Ryan misquoted a Medicare official as saying “one out of six hospitals and nursing homes are going to go out of business” as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Not quite. The official said that many could become “unprofitable,” and the the situation could be monitored to head off bad outcomes.
    Ryan claimed that the ACA contains “taxpayer funding” of abortion. In fact the law provides no direct funding of abortion except in cases of rape or incest or to save the mother’s life. And it’s a matter of interpretation whether subsidized private insurance would amount to indirect federal support for abortion.
    Ryan was off base when he said of a cost-saving panel created by the Affordable Care Act, “not one of them even has to have medical training.” Actually, the board must include physicians and other health care professionals among its members.

Ryan at one point ground out a collection of shopworn misstatements about the health care law that we’ve had to rebut time and again, claiming “20 million people … are projected to lose their health insurance” (not true), that premiums have gone up $3,000 (no, they haven’t) and that 7.4 million seniors “are going to lose” Medicare Advantage plans (maybe, but they’d still be covered by traditional Medicare).

And both Biden and Ryan continued to twist the facts about Romney’s tax plan. Biden again misrepresented the findings of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, and Ryan repeated a misleading claim that “six studies have verified” that the plan is mathematically possible.http://factcheck.org/2012/10/veep-debate-violations/

[Bayfisher]

Ernst and Young is hardly a right wing think tank which is where the 54% figure comes from. It is also universally accepted that over 50% of all Americans are employed by small businesses. 

The  claim that 3% of all small businesses employ hlaf of all those employed by small businesses is certainly unsubstantiated. I will grant you that. I have heard it used frequently over the last few years, the first time I believe was on the Neil Boortz show. I do not know what he referenced when he first said that but I believe it was from some report/study. However, with that said, unsubstantiated is a world of difference to lying.

One down 26 to go!

Don't jump the gun there, spartan. For starters, the Ernst & Young Study was comprised by Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante. Carroll worked in the Treasury department under G.W. Bush, and Prante is the founder of a right-wing think tank. Also, no one is disputing that half of Americans work for small businesses, and for the sake of argument, I didn't even really dispute the 54% number. The question is if that 3% of businesses Romney claimed would be affected by the tax increase are the same ones that allegedly employ 54% of all those employed by small businesses. I've posted two separate articles that say that this is not true. That by and large, the type of businesses that would be affected aren't ones that employ a large workforce. These are mostly hedge funds, or people who earn large sums of money from speaking fees, book royalties, consulting, etc. as the article states.

You can say he didn't lie. Fair enough. That was my word, not the article's. The article used the word "myth", and I'd say that his statement qualifies. He made an assertion that he presented as fact that is anything but an irrefutable fact. I'd say you still got 27 to go.

If you aren't going to acknowledge the infinite lies Obama has made you are the biggest joke on this board.  You already chase your tail around all day trying to defend nonsense and needlessly diverting attentions.  You are a partisan hack. LMAO! Like the smug elitist with the drive-by poll data.

[CBWx2]

You are a partisan hack. LMAO!

What's cute is that you think you aren't.

[Bayfisher]

I'm not. I'm an equal-opportunity azz. 

[dbucfan]

The Biden-Ryan debate was marked by some spirited claims that didn’t always match the facts.
    Ryan was wrong when he said a rise in the jobless rate in Biden’s hometown was “how it’s going all around America.” The rate nationally has sunk back to where it was when Obama took office. And in Ryan’s hometown, it’s more than 4 percentage points lower that it was at the start of Obama’s term.
    http://factcheck.org/2012/10/veep-debate-violations/

If the folks at factcheck can't smell the aroma wafting from the unemployment numbers they should simply shut down their site.  There is no doubt they have missed either the growth of the economy by over a million jobs this summer - or they have added 1 million or so folks to the employed list who don't have jobs.  And it is one or the other - since there were only 140,000 or so jobs in the month of the last report.  And as I have personally provided links for you and others to the more representative U6 unemployment report just about anyone should be able to track the outcomes... including factcheck if they wished to. 

[deadzone]

I'm votin' for the first homeless drunk I see pushing a shopping cart.

[CBWx2]

I'm not. I'm an equal-opportunity azz.

I see. I must have missed all those anti-Romney videos you posted in this thread. 

[Bayfisher]

I'm not. I'm an equal-opportunity azz.

I see. I must have missed all those anti-Romney videos you posted in this thread. 

You mean like when I started the Secret Romney tapes thread?

Even though it looks as if I am going to vote for them I can admit that Romney and Ryan's stance on abortion is ridiculous.  It is archaic and should not sit well with people.  You see how hard that is?  It can be done. 

[spartan]

Ernst and Young is hardly a right wing think tank which is where the 54% figure comes from. It is also universally accepted that over 50% of all Americans are employed by small businesses. 

The  claim that 3% of all small businesses employ hlaf of all those employed by small businesses is certainly unsubstantiated. I will grant you that. I have heard it used frequently over the last few years, the first time I believe was on the Neil Boortz show. I do not know what he referenced when he first said that but I believe it was from some report/study. However, with that said, unsubstantiated is a world of difference to lying.

One down 26 to go!

Don't jump the gun there, spartan. For starters, the Ernst & Young Study was comprised by Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante. Carroll worked in the Treasury department under G.W. Bush, and Prante is the founder of a right-wing think tank. Also, no one is disputing that half of Americans work for small businesses, and for the sake of argument, I didn't even really dispute the 54% number. The question is if that 3% of businesses Romney claimed would be affected by the tax increase are the same ones that allegedly employ 54% of all those employed by small businesses. I've posted two separate articles that say that this is not true. That by and large, the type of businesses that would be affected aren't ones that employ a large workforce. These are mostly hedge funds, or people who earn large sums of money from speaking fees, book royalties, consulting, etc. as the article states.

You can say he didn't lie. Fair enough. That was my word, not the article's. The article used the word "myth", and I'd say that his statement qualifies. He made an assertion that he presented as fact that is anything but an irrefutable fact. I'd say you still got 27 to go.

Oh come on, Ernst and Young is one of the biggest global accountancy firms on the planet. I am pretty confident there are some "left wingers" in there as well. It was ranked by Forbes magazine as the eighth-largest private company in the United States in 2011 so let's be realistic about this please.

[dbucfan]

is, what an amazing word - how would one define is... a political conundrum I would offer... 

[Dolorous Jason]

Ernst and Young is hardly a right wing think tank which is where the 54% figure comes from. It is also universally accepted that over 50% of all Americans are employed by small businesses. 

The  claim that 3% of all small businesses employ hlaf of all those employed by small businesses is certainly unsubstantiated. I will grant you that. I have heard it used frequently over the last few years, the first time I believe was on the Neil Boortz show. I do not know what he referenced when he first said that but I believe it was from some report/study. However, with that said, unsubstantiated is a world of difference to lying.

One down 26 to go!

Don't jump the gun there, spartan. For starters, the Ernst & Young Study was comprised by Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante. Carroll worked in the Treasury department under G.W. Bush, and Prante is the founder of a right-wing think tank. Also, no one is disputing that half of Americans work for small businesses, and for the sake of argument, I didn't even really dispute the 54% number. The question is if that 3% of businesses Romney claimed would be affected by the tax increase are the same ones that allegedly employ 54% of all those employed by small businesses. I've posted two separate articles that say that this is not true. That by and large, the type of businesses that would be affected aren't ones that employ a large workforce. These are mostly hedge funds, or people who earn large sums of money from speaking fees, book royalties, consulting, etc. as the article states.

You can say he didn't lie. Fair enough. That was my word, not the article's. The article used the word "myth", and I'd say that his statement qualifies. He made an assertion that he presented as fact that is anything but an irrefutable fact. I'd say you still got 27 to go.

Oh come on, Ernst and Young is one of the biggest global accountancy firms on the planet. I am pretty confident there are some "left wingers" in there as well. It was ranked by Forbes magazine as the eighth-largest private company in the United States in 2011 so let's be realistic about this please.

Ernst and Young supports right wing agendas , but they are not a fan.

[CBWx2]

Oh come on, Ernst and Young is one of the biggest global accountancy firms on the planet. I am pretty confident there are some "left wingers" in there as well. It was ranked by Forbes magazine as the eighth-largest private company in the United States in 2011 so let's be realistic about this please.

I agree. Let's be realistic about it. How many of those "left-wingers" were cited as authors of the study Romney quoted? I know Carroll and Prante were, and Carroll and Prante are both right-wing partisans that have promoted supply side economic policies for years. Carroll was a former Bush Administration cabinet member and Prante is the founder of a DC-based, right-wing think tank.

[spartan]

Oh come on, Ernst and Young is one of the biggest global accountancy firms on the planet. I am pretty confident there are some "left wingers" in there as well. It was ranked by Forbes magazine as the eighth-largest private company in the United States in 2011 so let's be realistic about this please.

I agree. Let's be realistic about it. How many of those "left-wingers" were cited as authors of the study Romney quoted? I know Carroll and Prante were, and Carroll and Prante are both right-wing partisans that have promoted supply side economic policies for years. Carroll was a former Bush Administration cabinet member and Prante is the founder of a DC-based, right-wing think tank.

The study was conducted by Ernst and Young for a specific client. Regardless of their personal political leanings, their work has to be professional. Otherwise how long do you think E&Y would remain the 8th largest company in the USA if all they did was spew out partisan bullcrap? And, how long do you think these 2 would keep their jobs? And FWIW Caroll wasn't a member of Bush's cabinet, he worked for the Treasury Dept. He was a  Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Analysis in the Office of Tax Policy at the Department of the Treasury. A political appointee probably, but not a member of the cabinet by a long chalk judging by that title.

[VinBucFan]

Ernst and Young is hardly a right wing think tank which is where the 54% figure comes from. It is also universally accepted that over 50% of all Americans are employed by small businesses. 

The  claim that 3% of all small businesses employ hlaf of all those employed by small businesses is certainly unsubstantiated. I will grant you that. I have heard it used frequently over the last few years, the first time I believe was on the Neil Boortz show. I do not know what he referenced when he first said that but I believe it was from some report/study. However, with that said, unsubstantiated is a world of difference to lying.

One down 26 to go!

Don't jump the gun there, spartan. For starters, the Ernst & Young Study was comprised by Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante. Carroll worked in the Treasury department under G.W. Bush, and Prante is the founder of a right-wing think tank. Also, no one is disputing that half of Americans work for small businesses, and for the sake of argument, I didn't even really dispute the 54% number. The question is if that 3% of businesses Romney claimed would be affected by the tax increase are the same ones that allegedly employ 54% of all those employed by small businesses. I've posted two separate articles that say that this is not true. That by and large, the type of businesses that would be affected aren't ones that employ a large workforce. These are mostly hedge funds, or people who earn large sums of money from speaking fees, book royalties, consulting, etc. as the article states.

You can say he didn't lie. Fair enough. That was my word, not the article's. The article used the word "myth", and I'd say that his statement qualifies. He made an assertion that he presented as fact that is anything but an irrefutable fact. I'd say you still got 27 to go.

Oh come on, Ernst and Young is one of the biggest global accountancy firms on the planet. I am pretty confident there are some "left wingers" in there as well. It was ranked by Forbes magazine as the eighth-largest private company in the United States in 2011 so let's be realistic about this please.

Ernst and Young supports right wing agendas , but they are not a fan.

I see what you did there  . . .  well played

[Morgan]

I don't know what's more interesting. Watching the politicians or watching the network analysts.  After last night's debate there definitely was a divergence in what Fox and the rest of the networks reported concerning the winner/loser of the debate.  My question today was does FAUX News actually believe the stuff it reports?


Fox News pushes conspiracy theory that Joe Biden was drunk during the debate

Following Joe Biden's strong debate performance against Paul Ryan, the right-wing media are scrambling to put the pieces together.

The general consensus is that Joe Biden defeated Paul Ryan in the VP debate and that he was able to fire up the base and bring independents over to his side. Calling out Paul Ryan's voucher plan for Medicare and the Republican plan to privatize Social Security, Biden was able to point out the stark differences between the two political parties. After a back and forth on the attacks in Libya, Biden got into his groove, chuckling with each Ryan falsehood. Liberals were thrilled, moderates curious and conservatives furious.

In their attempt to turn attention away from the debate, Fox News has decided to create their own conspiracy theory. On a special edition of the Sean Hannity Show, Sean Hanntiy questioned whether the vice-president was drinking bourbon before the debate.

    Hannity: I noticed that you guys were giving away bourbon to people over here.

    Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): It's the home of bourbon.

    Hannity: I wonder if Joe had some before the debate.

Taking to their Twitter accounts, multiple Fox News hosts continued the "Biden is drunk" theme.

    @ericbolling - MrVO is interrupting and laughing.. Is he drinking? #AA

    @greggutfeld - Biden is the drunk at the bar, Martha is the unhappy bartender, and Ryan is the unfortunate salesman caught in the middle.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee furthered the conspiracy during a morning show on Fox News.

    “(Biden) came across like a guy you meet at a **CENSORED**tail party or some political event, an obnoxious drunk who’s loud and boisterous and interrupts every conversation… He just is the kind of guy you want to get away from as quickly as you can and go find someone else to talk to. It was just boorish behavior for the first half”

After the first presidential debate, liberals and Democrats conceded that President Obama had lost and that Mitt Romney started to turn the election around. The difference between liberals and conservatives couldn't be more clear in how Fox News and the right-wing media covered the aftermath of the debate. While the left handled their defeat with honesty, the right showed that they can't take it as well as they can dish it out.

http://www.examiner.com/article/fox-news-pushes-conspiracy-theory-that-joe-biden-was-drunk-during-the-de
bate