PolitiFact: Only 22% of Obama's Listed Comments Rated as True

Yet you didn't address the fact that your posts about 'truth in politics' only are in regard to Democrats?


In my opinion, I think that the evidence shows that you are using the subject of 'honesty in politics' to attack Obama.

In May of 2013 there was this thread
Politifact Rated One Half Of GOP Claims This Year As False
“Republicans' claims are far more likely than Democrats' to be rated false by the fact-checking site PolitiFact, according to a study released Tuesday.

That thread was about 'truth in politics'- but of course targeting the GOP.

And your response? Did you demand 'truth in politics from the GOP? Of course not.

Politifact is a bad joke and pretty much everyone knows it. To bad too, because when they started back in '07 (I think), they actually did a reasonable job. But the originally group is long gone and it's basically nothing but a bunch of left wing hacks running the thing now. They claim to still be unbiased, which is obviously BS, and their credibility has steadily diminished because they aren't. The only ones who use their data anymore are other left wing hacks.

So where was the call for truth in politics? In a thread about dishonesty by the GOP- all you did was complain about Politifact. And then in this thread you turned around and cited Politifact.

And this

BS, in five minutes anyone worth their salt can research Politifact and discover the one sided leftward tilt in their research and publications. So, you claiming they are "stating the obvious" only proves my point, they're LW hacks supplying other LW hacks with red meat.

Matter of fact, you posted 5 times in that thread- and never once advocated for 'honesty in politics'- not when Politifact was talking about the GOP.

It would appear that you are exclusively concerned with 'truth in politics' when it comes to Obama or the 'left'.

You both use Politifact to demonstrate what you consider to be lies- when it applies to a Democrat- and discredit Politifact- when it applies to Republicans.
You call for truth in politics- when it comes to Democrats- but are silent about 'truth in politics' when it comes to Republicans.

I happen to think that Politifact is credible both when it reports bad things about Republicans or Democrats. I am in favor of truth in politics from both Democrats and Republicans- but I also know that all politicians lie.

All of them.

- - - Updated - - -

But what if that advocacy is neither honest or non-partisan?

 

Here's a perfect example of how many people want lies:

We now know from extensive investigations of the Benghazi incident that there was never any "stand down" order that Fox News and the RW propaganda media claimed. Not only did Fox lie in its initial story about Doherty being a mile away and being told to stand down (he was in fact 400 miles away in Tripoli) Fox and the RW propaganda media lied about over and over and over about them being told to "stand down".

And yet we still have conservative who want to believe the lies and ignore the truth. See this thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=339632&page=72&p=1063670863#post1063670863

How many conservatives believed -- and still believe -- Iraq had close relations with Al Queda and was involved in 9/11, much less had WMDs? I could go on and on.

Many people want to believe lies to reinforce their predisposed ideology. So when we have this many people who want lies, why would you expect them to demand truth?

 

LMAO...And that's still 21% better than anyone on the right.

 

Of course, how else could someone as dishonest as Obama been re-elected.

 

Or someone as dishonest as Romney nominated or as dishonesty as McCain nominated or as dishonest as Bush elected and re-elected etc. etc.

Using the OP methodology, Obama is the most honest of recent presidential hopefuls.

 

To have an "honest" discussion we must look and knowledge and intent at the time a statement is made. Was there a nefarious attempt to deceive at the time is a legitimate concern. Cases where there was no nefarious attempt to deceive at the time does not provide grounds for condemnation.

Once again we can use the example of "you can keep your insurance" as an example. At the time the statement was made it was based upon the belief that the grandfather clause of the PPACA would allow people to keep their insurance. Even PolitiFact at the time rated this statement as true. Since then we've learned that for a small percentage of Americans the law did not ensure that they could keep their existing insurance from 2009. That doesn't mean that President Obama was intentionally trying to deceive the American People for nefarious reasons.

President Bush stated the Iraq had WMD's because he believed Iraq did have WMD's. He wasn't trying to deceive the American People for nefarious purposes. It can be states that he should have known that there was no evidence that Iraq had WMD's or WMD programs because the UN Weapons Inspectors were reporting that they couldn't find any but that is a case of knowledge and not a case of intentional deception.

We can address Benghazi where "misleading" statements were made by representatives from the White House but those statements were based upon national security concerns from the CIA. While we can argue whether deceptions and false statements based upon "national security" concerns is nefarious it is something that all adminstrations engage in. Simply counting how many times they were made is a moot issue because they all fall into the same category of "false statements and deceptions" rationalized based upon a "national security" concern.

So yes, let's have the conversation but let's also be honest about it. As noted PolitiFact is applying extremely poor criteria first and foremost because they are imposing a "post facto' evaluation to statements as opposed to addressing when the statement was made, whether there was a rational (or rationalized) reason for the statement that was not "nefarious" in intent, etc.

One of the other things that shouldn't be considered as "lying" are the making of "promises" by a politican that they really won't have the authority to carry out if elected. For example a president promising tax or spending cuts is not something a president can actually do. Taxation and spending is determined by Congress and not by the president. The president is limited to veto power and even that can be over-ridden by Congress.

One place where I would claim that President Obama "lied" although it was not with nefarious intent is when, as a presidential candidate in 2008, he promised to close GITMO. He could have accomplished that on his first day in office by issuing a secret order to relocate all of the GITMO detainees to be transferred to a federal prison in the United States. He had the presidential authority to order that relocation of the GITMO detainees. Unfortunately he didn't do that and instead allowed Congress to get involved and Congress blocked him from fulfilling that campaign promise.

So technically we could call it a "lie" but it wasn't made with nefarious intent and he could have accomplished it immediately but by allowing time to pass he was blocked from fulfilling the promise by Congress. This falls into the realm of the "crystal ball" where a person doesn't have the ability to determine events of the future in making promises even when they have the initial authority to fulfill the promise when it is made.

 

you're being dishonest

 

Again, accepting less that total honesty or even out right lies from our leaders isn't exclusive to "D" or "R" and if you're honest (which I believe you are) you'd have to agree it's a rather worthless excise to approach the topic political honesty from a strictly partisan perspective. I mean, what's the point in you arguing the "R's" lie and me arguing the "D's" lie when in reality we're both right to some degree or another? Fact is, there is no point because nothing constructive can be achieved if honesty, rather than entrenched bias, hatred or partisanship, isn't the fundamental starting point and we're fools to think otherwise.

 

no, you're wrong and making excuses doesn't help

 

Yes, because Obama is the president, and, IMO, should be held to the highest standard regarding honesty.

I can understand why you might think that, but attacking Obama wasn't my objective, attacking dishonesty (his and political leaders in general) was. So, I'm not going spend key strokes defending against your opinion. Sorry.

Well, it'd be dishonest and partisan, but it isn't. It's as simple as that and my responses throughout this thread have consistently reflected that.

 

what a joke, start by holding yourself to those standards

 

It is also worthless to address it from a purely statistical basis as well. For example the fact that former President Bush and the Bush White House made hundreds of statements that Iraq had WMD when it didn't becomes moot. We can't even call it a "lie" because we assume they believed that Iraq had WMD's (although there was no actual evidence to support the belief and it turned out to be wrong). Now if we could establish that Bush and the White House knew Iraq didn't have WMD's and the purpose was to deceive the American People to secure support in going to war that would be different. Then it would be nefarious and we should rightfully condemn it.

The issue is about the attempt to deceive the public for nefarious reasons. It is a question of integrity in office and not whether a statement eventually turns out to be false or how many times that statement was made.

I can place this in a personal context with the example of a "married" couple. Often the husband or wife will use "little white lies" simply to avoid offending the person they love. These are no doubt "lies" but they are not done for nefarious reasons. The purpose is to avoid insulting or hurting the person you love. I can hardly find fault with these little white lies. Now telling a lie about having an extra-marital affair is completely different because it's being done for nefarious purposes. There is a huge difference between the two.

 

Lots of people seem to only accept but want to be told lies. We see that reflected in people gullibly accepting whatever the RW propaganda media tells them, even in the fact of indisputable evidence to the contrary.

Again, we're not going to see people demanding honesty when so many seem to want to be told lies.

 

Oh my goodness!!!!!!

A thread talking about how politicians ON BOTH SIDES are lying pieces of excremental waste....

Why do we keep voting these guys in again?

 

The alternatives are worse.

 

22% is pretty good for a president. And, of course, the magnitude of the lies makes a big difference.

 

This goes to show what I've been saying for 5 years - Obama is a pathological liar.

People should have seen this coming back in 2008 when this sociopath was dissembling about who and what he is as well as his nihilistic agenda. This neo-socialist radical has never been honest and forthright with the American people and never will be.

 

what solution would you suggest?

you're projecting your own situation

 

Most people did.

Obama - 27% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.

Mitt Romney - 41% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
John McCain - 44% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Sarah Palin - 53% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Rick Perry - 37% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Herman Cain - 68% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
John Boehner - 53% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Mitch Mcconnell - 44% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Michelle Bachmann - 75% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire (including whopping 27% "pants on fire")

Of the recent crop of presidential wannabes, the American people chose the least dishonest person, according to the OP methodology.

 

I think you're right on this. It is the only way, like the only way to force Communism and Socialism is by violence.

 

Well that's true. It could be possible that even though all the Republican wannabes and leaders are bigger liars than Obama (using the OP methodology) but would have magically straightened out if elected to the WH.

I'll pass on that bit of fantasy.

 

Or else you're projecting yours on Talon.

The solution is to forget what a candidate's issues are and vote for the most honest candidate by judging him with your best character judgement. Candidates very often don't try or don't succeed to attain the issues you vote them in to do anyway.

I could stand some undesirable issues (for me) put out by an honest man, but I won't happily accept, if at all, issues that I like if they come from a dishonest man. That is why I don't give Obama much credit when he does things that I like.---it's like taking candy from a stranger...I like candy, but what's his motive here?

- - - Updated - - -

The biggest fantasy was voting for Obama. And I'll bet you did that, am I right? I think you have no idea what you did.

 

notice how the numbers point to obama being more honest


Obama - 27% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.

Mitt Romney - 41% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
John McCain - 44% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Sarah Palin - 53% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Rick Perry - 37% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Herman Cain - 68% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
John Boehner - 53% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Mitch Mcconnell - 44% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Michelle Bachmann - 75% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire (including whopping 27% "pants on fire")

 

Obama, like many or most liberals just doesn't see anything wrong with lying if it's "for the best". Lying is immoral by nature. The motive doesn't matter.

I suppose it's possible that liberals are so deluded that their conscious mind can't connect with the realization that they DID lie. But that's highly unlikely. I doubt that Liberals are insane, I would believe that they're just frightened into thinking that lying is okay.

- - - Updated - - -

Only if you trust Politifact, correct?

I have no reason on earth to WANT to think that Obama is dishonest. I'm very liberal in many ways. I love some of his actions and most of his ideas on what should be done (not how to do it, btw).

But I have very good character judgement, and I cannot see the human being named Barack Obama as being an honest man. In fact, it is very clear to me that he borders on being a crook; a slimeball liar.

 

like the op seems to?