Posted by: Perm Dude
- [3210201915] Tue, Nov 22, 2011, 17:49
Surprised the probable nominee doesn't already have his own thread.
The latest from Camp Mitt is that it is OK to imply that Obama's quote of someone else is Obama's own words ("He did say the words. That’s his voice." which is from Camp College Freshman Late Night Dorm Discussion, I think.)
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. [Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.]
708
Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 19:04
When I find a friendly GOP House member I'll keep that in mind.
The Washington Post's Greg Sargent adds: "There’s another nugget here worth highlighting, though. In that appearance, Romney also suggested it would be 'even better' to send any and all responsibilities of the federal government 'to the private sector,' disaster response included. So: Romney essentially favored privatizing disaster response."
Yeah, cause Sandy, Katrina, Andrew...were just opportunities to charge $75 for a $2 bottle of water. Bstrd.
Documents from a recent Romney poll watcher training obtained by ThinkProgress contain several misleading or untrue claims about the rights of Wisconsin voters. A source passed along the following packet of documents, which was distributed to volunteers at a Romney campaign training in Racine on October 25th. In total, eight such trainings were held across the state in the past two weeks and 17 since late September. ... The training also encouraged volunteers to deceive election workers and the public about who they were associated with. On page 3 of the packet, Romney poll workers were instructed to hide their affiliation with the campaign and told to sign in at the polls as a “concerned citizen” instead. As Kristina Sesek, Romney’s legal counsel who just graduated from Marquette Law School last year, explained, “We’re going to have you sign in this election cycle as a ‘concerned citizen.’ We’re just trying to alleviate some of the animosity of being a Republican observer up front.”
When individuals fund a charitable remainder unitrust, or “CRUT,” they defer capital gains taxes on any profit from the sale of the assets, and receive a small upfront charitable deduction and a stream of yearly cash payments. Like an individual retirement account, the trust allows money to grow tax deferred, while like an annuity it also pays Romney a steady income. After the funder’s death, the trust’s remaining assets go to a designated charity. Romney’s CRUT, which is only a small part of the $250 million that Romney’s campaign cites as his net worth, has been paying him 8 percent of its assets each year. As the Romneys have received these payments, the money that will potentially be left for charity has declined from at least $750,000 in 2001 to $421,203 at the end of 2011.
So, he puts money in the trust, claims that as a tax deduction/charitable contribution and THEN, he takes out 8% of the trust balance every year.
Just saw a FB update from a Romney supporter, crowing about Romney drawing 24,000 to a PA rally today while an Obama rally brought very, very few. They called it a "predictor for Tuesday."
While seems to mean that come Tuesday, Romney will be saying the wrong things to the wrong people. He's not going to win PA, that's for sure.
Meanwhile Obama was in 4 states on Sunday, drawing 23,000 to a Hollywood, FL rally the day after the largest political rally (14,000) in NH history.
I think it is called "voting for your own best interest" and for more Americans Romney didn't make the sale. Probably as a result of selling out Hispanics, blacks, and all the non-white poor.
The "gifts" I am aware of, were the GOPs desire to eliminate Capital Gains tax, and cut the taxes for the uber wealthy by 20%. Then too, there was the gift to the defense industry, of $2,000,0000,000,000 in additional defense spending that Romney intended.
Obama did bail out Chrysler, as the ad says. And as early as 2010, Fiat has been intending to build Jeeps in China, as a ChinaAutoWeb report from 2010 indicated:
BAIC-Jeep later evolved into the now-defunct Beijing Benz-Daimler Chrysler company. Ever since the Daimler-Chrysler alliance broke down in 2009, Chrysler has no productions in China. Now that Fiat, Chrysler’s new owner, has officially returned to China and began building factories, there will be Chinese-made Jeep SUVs again in as early as 2014.
In a recent interview, John Kett, vice president and CEO of Chrysler’s Asia-Pacific operations, confirmed this, echoing Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne’s words that Fiat is to have a production capacity of 300,00 units a year in China within five years through its joint venture with GAC (Guangzhou Automobile Group Co.). And Changsha, the capital of Hunan province, will be the location of the production base.
Fiat may be the only major automakers that suffered heavy losses in China in recent years. After losing tens of millions US dollars, it stopped partnership with Nanjing Auto, now part of SAIC. It temed up with GAC in late 2009 to give the Chinese market one more try.
And just this weekend, Fiat's CEO Sergio Marchionne admitted the company had intentions of building jeeps in Europe as well. According to a Bloomberg News report:
To counter the severe slump in European sales, Marchionne is considering building Chrysler models in Italy, including Jeeps, for export to North America. The Italian government is evaluating tax rebates on export goods to help Fiat. Marchionne may announce details of his plan as soon as Oct. 30, the people said.
There couldn't be a clearer proof that Polifact is a blatantly partisan and unworthy umpire of what is truthful, their picking this story as the lie of the year is all the proof you will ever need.
Even the liberal Mother Jones magazine admitted that "technically, every word" of Romney's ad was true.
taking words out of context, as you just did, is also lying. would have been nice if you'd provided the entire thought that included your above quoted words.
Technically, every word of this is true. Obama did force GM and Chrysler through a managed bankruptcy. Fiat did end up buying Chrysler. And Chrysler is thinking about building Jeeps in China. But remember my three-part test to judge how deceptive a statement is?
1. What was the speaker trying to imply? 2. What would it take to state things accurately? 3. How much would accuracy damage the speaker's point?
On this scale, Romney's ad rates about 9 out of 10 on the deceptiveness scale. He's obviously trying to imply that American jobs will be shipped overseas; stating things accurately would require wholesale revisions; and doing so would completely destroy Romney's point. But he doesn't care. He's got an election to win, and if scaring Ohio autoworkers is what it takes, then that's what it takes. It's truly nauseating.
you see Romney's lie as a non-lie, which is part of why you find your own lies acceptable.
Sounded like Romney himself in the campaign, where he took Obama speaking someone else's words in a speech and portrayed them as being Obama's. His excuse? "He said it."
It is a high school sophomore excuse. No wonder he lost.
Yeah, right. What Romney 'actually said was true', but it was still a lie because what he really implied was that Obama sucked, so it was really a lie...I see.
Their 2011 Lie of the Year was on the Democrats, for the oft-repeated claim that Republicans "voted to end Medicare".
As with the 2012 award, Politifact did not give Democrats a semantic pass for occasionally following the claim with "as we know it", even though that bit of wrangling might have made it similarly "technically true".
From the article which prompted Boldwin to call POlitifact blatantly partisan and [an] unworthy umpire of what is truthful:
It’s not that President Obama and his campaign team were above falsehoods, either. Their TV ads distorted Romney’s positions on abortion and immigration to make them seem more extreme than they actually were. A pro-Obama super PAC even created an ad suggesting Romney was responsible for a woman’s death when her husband lost his job at a Bain-controlled company. Chrysler was one of the companies that received billions in loans from the federal government. The government ended up forcing Chrysler into bankruptcy in 2009 when its debtholders couldn’t reach an agreement. Since Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy, the Italian car company Fiat has held a controlling interest. But Chrysler was thinking of reviving the Jeep brand in key foreign markets, and like other American automakers, Chrysler preferred to build cars in the countries where it intended to sell them -- a common strategy to reduce tariffs and transport costs.
Bloomberg reported on Oct. 22 that the company was planning to restart production of Jeeps in China. The entirety of the Bloomberg report made it clear that Chrysler was considering expansion in China, not shuttering American production.
But one conservative news outlet seized on the report’s opening lines. The Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard blogged on Oct. 25 about the Bloomberg story and incorrectly wrote that Jeep was "considering giving up on the United States and shifting production to China," a move that would "crash the economy in towns like Toledo, Ohio … ." The conservative Drudge Report then linked to Bedard’s post under the headline, "Jeep eyes shifting production to China."
Within hours, Chrysler spokesman Gualberto Ranieri responded on Chrysler’s company blog.
"Let’s set the record straight: Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China," Ranieri wrote, adding, "A careful and unbiased reading of the Bloomberg take would have saved unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments."
But later that night at a campaign stop in Defiance, Ohio, Romney added a new line to his stump speech:
"I saw a story today, that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China," he said, to boos from the audience. "I will fight for every good job in America. I’m going to fight to make sure trade is fair, and if it’s fair, America will win."
Reporters mentioned the mistake in their stories the next day, it lit up the Internet, and the liberal cable channel MSNBC attacked Romney for not knowing the facts. Romney’s campaign didn’t retreat, though. It doubled down with a TV ad for Ohio voters that weekend:
"Who will do more for the auto industry? Not Barack Obama," the ad began, adding, "Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China. Mitt Romney will fight for every American job." A similar radio ad soon followed. PolitiFact rated it Pants on Fire because it "strings together facts in a way that presents an wholly inaccurate picture."
Factcheck.org said Romney’s speech was "flat wrong" and the ad was misleading. The Washington Post’s Fact Checker gave the ad four Pinocchios, saying, "This ad shows that we have entered the final, desperate week of the campaign."
When pinned down with questions on the ad, the Romney team either dodged or defended the ad as literally accurate. Stuart Stevens, a senior adviser to Romney, told the New York Times, "It would be better if they expanded production in the U.S. instead of expanding in China." The automakers said that ignored common global trade practices.
Yeah, right. What Romney 'actually said was true', but it was still a lie because what he really implied was that Obama sucked, so it was really a lie...I see.
if you don't want to read the entire link - even one you provide - that's your business. sad business, but your business.
"I saw a story today, that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China"
BTW here is the actual report Romney had seen in Bloombergs that morning.
Fiat SpA (F), majority owner of Chrysler Group LLC, plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that country, according to the head of both automakers’ operations in the region.
Now anyone calling his repetition of that basically word for word as' f-you dishonest', is just lying thru their blowhole themselves.
"I saw a story today, that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China"
Which is exactly the point they were trying to make in the ad.
Trying to imply otherwise is a fat lie. Doesn't even pass the smell test: Here's the truthful ad: "Obama sold Chrysler to Fiat, who in addition to running the plants here in Michigan and Ohio will be increasing production with new plants in China for that market."
Hmmm. Suddenly the truth doesn't put Obama in the kind of light they want. In fact, the ad only works with the kind of implication that so many people (including Chrysler) called out for being false.
The Far Right, so intent on historical revisionism, would have us now believe that Romney put millions of dollars at the last minute of a close campaign into an ad which was both silent about him and had nothing bad at all to say about Obama.
740: The ad, in a vacuum, is very misleading (as are many political ads). Once you include what was going on at the time and the Romney statement that preceded it (the genesis of the ad), the whole scenario becomes the "lie of the year". That's also what I understood the Politifact article to say (although the headline does blame just the ad) IMO, if the Romney camp retracts his false statement and then runs with the ad, I could buy it as just another political ad. But as it was done, it seems clear they were okay with lying rather than just misleading.
Reread the actual announcement Romney read in that morning's paper.
Fiat SpA (F), majority owner of Chrysler Group LLC, plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that country, according to the head of both automakers’ operations in the region.
Those weren't Romney's words, those were Fiat's.
You are going to tell me if you had been Romney in the same set of conditions, in Ohio, auto manufacturing a big deal in that state, the state a big deal in the election...
...and you read that in the paper and you don't run with it?
Coooooome oooooooon. Puhleeeeze.
You aren't gonna pull that out and read it on the stump? Every single time you would do that.
In today's political arena, I have very little issue with Romney running with it. In his circumstances, I would probably do something similar. My problem is that within a few hours, Chrysler issued statements clarifying that no North American production was leaving for China. Instead of Romney back tracking a bit (or just letting it die), his team pushed ahead with a very misleading ad (IMO, at that point he lied).
They weren't interested in fact checking the very premise of their ad. These certainly aren't the kind of people we want trying to solve even more difficult problems.
Shame of that chief strategist to force himself upon a completely unwilling Romney. Imagine if Romney had used his CEO experience to actually hire a chief strategist.
Exactly. Romney's claim to fame was that he knew how to run a company. But his failures are directly tied to running a horribly disorganized campaign organization.
But much of GOP doesn't seem to see that the problem wasn't Romney, nor was it a Tea Party vs establishment Republicans feud. It was that the party is run by a bunch of hucksters, taking in millions of dollars in return for nothing, as strategists sell email lists to each other and organize "news" to keep the dollars flowing.
Coming from Romney's original claim to fame in the Republican Party, seeking to block Reagan for the Rockafeller wing what else could be expected? Just another stalking horse for the Dems' benefit.
As you will note in that Slate piece, he refused to deliver the GOP message at every opportunity, just as he would have refused to administer conservative governance if he had won.
Amazingly he couldn't find anyone who wanted to come out and vote for him. If it wasn't for the anti-Obama votes he wouldn't have had any.
He wasn't Tea Party enough, Sarge. That is their message and they are sticking to it.
Their theory is math-challenged, of course, but these kinds of revision theories aren't about the truth, but about making the Far Right feel better about their spanking loss.
I'd noticed during the race that once or twice InTrade was mentioned (by our recently departed resident conservative). But, like most tools being used by the Right for that election, it isn't clear which was the tool and which was the user...