USA Politics

Well, I watched Paul Ryan's speech. It was a great speech, filled with red meat.

He also lied constantly through his teeth during it, which made me very sad (if not unexpected). Though I don't expect politicians to tell the vanilla truth, I was surprised with how wrong Ryan was on almost everything that he claimed was factual. It reminded me very much of the Sarah Palin speech, and it puts me in mind of Palin in one way - the guy will kill the US economy if he was allowed to fly the country. Yikes.
 
As far as the speech, it was quite good. I think it is clear Ryan jumped the Dan Quayle hurdle easily and will jump the Palin hurdle easily too. Like his policies or not, he is an experienced politician and a smart guy.

As for facts, the majority of his speech was introductory about him and his family and all that seems to jive with the biographies that came out on him when he was nominated. Another large chunk was forward looking (cut govt to 20% of GDP for example). If Romney wins, I guess we will see if those things happen or not.

His critisism of Obama was prety spot on IMO. Did he go into every detail and cover every angle on the issues, no. Nor should he be expected to do so in this type of speech. The same will be able to be said of Obama/Biden/Romney when their turns come up. Ryan did mention the economic problems predated Obama as did overspending, the claim was he made it worse.

The key to this election for the Romney/Ryan is to show Obama has been a poor President and that they are a credible alternative. Pre-Convention, the race is close to a dead heat (The RCP poll of polls had Obama up by 1.4 pct). Obama has vastly outspent Romney to date, however Romney has pulled ahead in fund raising. Unlike 2008, the GOP/GOP supporters will not be vastly outspent this time around. From now until the election, they will have more cash than Obama.

I wish Ryan would have been more direct and go through the Obama promises (and repeat his "if unemployment is above 8%, I do not deserve a second term" quote and really push home all the money that was spent when Obama and the Dems had more power than any party and decades and there is little to show for it. He skirted around this, but should have been more direct. Perhaps Romney will be tonight.

Ryan did really well, Martinez and Rice also gave good speeches leading up to Ryan.

The keys for me are

1) Romney tonight, he needs to define himself and show himself as Presidential
2) The Bill Clinton keynote. Can he tie Obama to him and his economy or will he go off message as he has over the past 6 months
3) The Obama speech, he cannot give the same Hope and Change BS he did last time, he needs to defend his administration (I do not think Biden's sppech is all that important unless it is fantastic or horrible, he is a pretty known quantity at this point)
4) The debates, especially those that focus on the economy
5) Who wins the Obamacare/Medicare debate from now until the election
6) What happens in the economy (including gas prices) between now and November.

A Pac has started a fabulous series of ads called "Switchers"featuring 2008 Obama voters who are not voting for him this time and why. CNN had a focus group where even Obama supporters admitted they were pretty griping. Ryan, Arthur Davis, and others have hit on this well, people bought into Hope and Change and they got an ineffective leader who to a large degree is an empty suit.
 
Here's something that annoys me: German coverage of the elections. I don't know what it's like in other European countries, or outside of the US in general, but here, the coverage has an immense anti-Republican bias that I find really hard to stomach. And I say that as someone who disagrees with most of the Republican's flagship views. Fact is, coverage here revolves only around the points Republicans subscribe to that most Europeans would find objectionable. There is no way of knowing, if you do not follow American media, whether these points are really endorsed by the candidates with the same heavyweight that media here make it appear. The basic tenor is, Democrats and especially Obama are good, if not even Godsent, and Republicans are evil and want the apocalypse. Even supposedly neutral and objective media have a way of picking out testimonials of Republicans and their reporters that make them appear as having a twisted view of reality. I'm really sick of seeing how so much hate is being sown here, and I am particularly sick of this strong, increasingly racist Anti-American sentiment that is being indoctrinated to us Europeans. If it continues the way it is going now, I can see myself becoming a Romney supporter out of pure spite and hate against European media.
 
You do not need to read much past the 3 headlines on the English version of Der Spiegel to confirm this. I am guessing it will be all roses and flowers when they cover Charlotte


More Dangerous than Sarah Palin
Four years ago, Sarah Palin energized the Republicans with her convention speech. This year, it is Paul Ryan who has found a common cause with the party's grassroots. His stark brand of conservatism is bad news for the socially weak.


'Romney Message Too Closely Tailored to White Men'
Wither the Republicans? The party's national convention this week has revealed a GOP that seems unconcerned about alienating minority voters. Despite poor economic data


Republicans Have Become a Party of Naysayers
Mitt Romney has succeeded in securing the Republican nomination in Tampa this week. And while he may want to govern as a statesman, he won't be able to count on his party for support. For years, many US conservatives have given up political responsibility in favor of hardline ideology
 
I really don't mind Bain. It comes down to the fact that Romney was good at what he did - making money for people who already had money. That's part of business, whatever. I wish Romney felt he could run on his governorship.

What the fuck was wrong with Clint Eastwood tonight? Sorry. That was...weird. And wrong.
 
It will be difficult for Obama to defend himself against this quantity of lies. The amount of lies in that speech by Ryan was un-be-fucking-lie-va-ble. But so many people do believe what he says. Because he is a smart intelligent fellow. Bah. This makes me sick.

Thankfully, media also pay attention to facts. They help us seeing certain damned things. And I like that.

The following article is by Fox News(!):

Paul Ryan’s speech in 3 words

1. Dazzling
At least a quarter of Americans still don’t know who Paul Ryan is, and only about half who know and have an opinion of him view him favorably
external-link.png
.

So, Ryan’s primary job tonight was to introduce himself and make himself seem likeable, and he did that well. The personal parts of the speech were very personally delivered, especially the touching parts where Ryan talked about his father and mother and their roles in his life. And at the end of the speech, when Ryan cheered the crowd to its feet, he showed an energy and enthusiasm that’s what voters want in leaders and what Republicans have been desperately lacking in this campaign.

To anyone watching Ryan’s speech who hasn’t been paying much attention to the ins and outs and accusations of the campaign, I suspect Ryan came across as a smart, passionate and all-around nice guy — the sort of guy you can imagine having a friendly chat with while watching your kids play soccer together. And for a lot of voters, what matters isn’t what candidates have done or what they promise to do —it’s personality. On this measure, Mitt Romney has been catastrophically struggling and with his speech, Ryan humanized himself and presumably by extension, the top of the ticket.

2. Deceiving
On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.

The good news is that the Romney-Ryan campaign has likely created dozens of new jobs among the legions of additional fact checkers that media outlets are rushing to hire to sift through the mountain of cow dung that flowed from Ryan’s mouth. Said fact checkers have already condemned certain arguments that Ryan still irresponsibly repeated.

Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States’ credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling
external-link.png
.

Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush
external-link.png
. Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing.

Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period.

Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact
external-link.png
is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan
external-link.png
.

Elections should be about competing based on your record in the past and your vision for the future, not competing to see who can get away with the most lies and distortions without voters noticing or bother to care. Both parties should hold themselves to that standard. Republicans should be ashamed that there was even one misrepresentation in Ryan’s speech but sadly, there were many.

3. Distracting
And then there’s what Ryan didn’t talk about.

Ryan didn’t mention his extremist stance on banning all abortions with no exception for rape or incest, a stance that is out of touch with 75% of American voters
external-link.png
.

Ryan didn’t mention his previous plan to hand over Social Security to Wall Street.

Ryan didn’t mention his numerous votes to raise spending and balloon the deficit when George W. Bush was president
external-link.png
.

Ryan didn’t mention how his budget would eviscerate programs that help the poor and raise taxes on 95% of Americans in order to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires even further and increase — yes, increasethe deficit
external-link.png
.

These aspects of Ryan’s resume and ideology are sticky to say the least. He would have been wise to tackle them head on and try and explain them away in his first real introduction to voters. But instead of Ryan airing his own dirty laundry, Democrats will get the chance.

At the end of his speech, Ryan quoted his dad, who used to say to him, “"Son. You have a choice: You can be part of the problem, or you can be part of the solution."

Ryan may have helped solve some of the likeability problems facing Romney, but ultimately by trying to deceive voters about basic facts and trying to distract voters from his own record, Ryan’s speech caused a much larger problem for himself and his running mate.
- - - - - - -​

Check here CNN, Washington Post & Huffington Post harshly criticizing Ryan after they used their fact-checkers on his speech.
 
I'm confused... an alert said Foro quoted my post, but there's no quote in Foro's post. Should I report a malfunction of the software?
 
Quoting alert? Never heard of that option. Interesting.
Well, I first reacted to your post, but later I decided to focus on Ryan's speech instead.

My reaction was (in the vein of) me not recognizing your feelings. So I thought the term German media would be more at its place. Hate, anti-racist, immense anti-bias, indoctrination are terms that sounded a bit exaggerated in my ears. But then again, we live in different countries and we can have different experiences.
 
Quoting alert? Never heard of that option. Interesting.

I don't know about you, but in my user toolbar, I have something that says "alerts" right next to what says "inbox" and that informs me whenever somebody quoted my posts, I received a like and so on.


Well, I first reacted to your post, but later I decided to focus on Ryan's speech instead.

Right, then it's not so much confusing as rather annoying.

anti-racist, immense anti-bias,

Uh, I did not have any "anti" in there. Rather the opposite. I.e. I consider the media biased and increasingly racist towards Americans.

terms that sounded a bit exaggerated in my ears. But then again, we live in different countries and we can have different experiences.

I did use some rather extreme terms, but I do have an extreme hate towards the media these days. The links bearfan posted are quite exemplary. The Spiegel is still one of the most-quoted, non-tabloid pieces of German media, and it has long fostered a reputation of critical and serious journalism. Now they present commentaries on Paul Ryan where they openly describe him as "shuddering" and anti-social. I think that is a biased report. The sad thing is that such assessments have become the norm in German media. Keep in mind that I always explicitly only spoke of German media. I believe you if you tell me that Dutch media are fair and unbiased - German media aren't. Some reports in German can be found here or here, on news outlets that are considered progressive and serious, and one of which I pay for by force law. The thing is, no effort is being made to understand why Republicans think what they think, why Americans are different from Europeans, and so on... only that they're stupid and dangerous. This may not be said explicitly anywhere, but it is the impression I've gathered from following German reports on America from the last ten years. Not to mention conversations with politically interested people. To hate America and to think that everything that is going on in America is wrong is considered the only socially acceptable opinion.
 
Right, then it's not so much confusing as rather annoying.

I was unaware of the signal, seriously. And I hadn't seen you online when I changed my post.
No harm intended.

Uh, I did not have any "anti" in there. Rather the opposite. I.e. I consider the media biased and increasingly racist towards Americans.

Yes, I read that. "racist Anti-American sentiment"

I did use some rather extreme terms,

Yes, you indeed did. :)

but I do have an extreme hate towards the media these days. The links bearfan posted are quite exemplary. The Spiegel is still one of the most-quoted, non-tabloid pieces of German media, and it has long fostered a reputation of critical and serious journalism. Now they present commentaries on Paul Ryan where they openly describe him as "shuddering" and anti-social. I think that is a biased report. The sad thing is that such assessments have become the norm in German media. Keep in mind that I always explicitly only spoke of German media. I believe you if you tell me that Dutch media are fair and unbiased - German media aren't.

I am not entirely sure though on all cases. I will pay special attention to it now.
We have biased media (newspapers, television programs) but these are organized by right wing people.
So, not much anti-America sentiment there.

Some reports in German can be found here or here, on news outlets that are considered progressive and serious, and one of which I pay for by force law. The thing is, no effort is being made to understand why Republicans think what they think, why Americans are different from Europeans, and so on... only that they're stupid and dangerous. This may not be said explicitly anywhere, but it is the impression I've gathered from following German reports on America from the last ten years. Not to mention conversations with politically interested people. To hate America and to think that everything that is going on in America is wrong is considered the only socially acceptable opinion.

Perhaps an open discussion is needed. A debate on the subject?
 
I love Clint Eastwood (the actor), but it is clear is is a much better actor than ad-libber. His speech was awkward at best.

Rubio's was just fantastic and I think Romney (who is not that great of a speaker), did a really nice job and did what he had to do.

I think the emphasis on Bain last night was important, the Obama ads are attacking him on that, not so much his public roles governor/2002 Olympics (which should say something).

Equity and Venture Capital are both immensely important for jobs in the US and starting/propping up companies. In my career, every company that has failed has been primarily (or at least in part) due to lack of capital and those that have suceeded and created tons of jobs were all started and grown with the help of companies like Bain and are still around.

It is just stupid to keep attacking Bain (and inderctly companies like them). Certainly Bain made money (though with bad investments could have easily lost tons of money and in some cases did), but that is how our economy works. I am not sure why Obama/his supporters seem to have such a problem with this.
 
A story on the need to Fact Check the Fact Checkers

http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...fact-checks-disguise-media-liberal-agenda.htm
Journalism: If media "fact checkers" are just impartial guardians of the truth, how come they got their own facts wrong about Paul Ryan's speech, and did so in a way that helped President Obama's re-election effort?
Case in point was the rush of "fact check" stories claiming Ryan misled when he talked about a shuttered auto plant in his home state.

Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler posted a piece — "Ryan misleads on GM plant closing in hometown" — saying Ryan "appeared to suggest" that Obama was responsible for the closure of a GM plant in Janesville, Wis.

"That's not true," Kessler said. "The plant was closed in December 2008, before Obama was sworn in."
What's not true are Kessler's "facts." Ryan didn't suggest Obama was responsible for shuttering the plant. Instead, he correctly noted that Obama promised during the campaign that the troubled plant "will be here for another hundred years" if his policies were enacted.

Also, the plant didn't close in December 2008. It was still producing cars until April 2009.
An AP "fact check" also claimed that "the plant halted production in December 2008" even though the AP itself reported in April 2009 that the plant was only then "closing for good."

CNN's John King made the same claim about that plant closure. But when CNN looked more carefully at the evidence, it — to its credit — concluded that what Ryan said was "true."

Media fact-checkers also complained about Ryan's charge that Obama is cutting $716 billion from Medicare to fund ObamaCare. Not true, they said. Medicare's growth is just being slowed.

But Obama achieves that slower growth by making real cuts in provider payments. And in any case, the media always and everywhere call a reduction in the rate of federal spending growth a "cut." So why suddenly charge Ryan with being misleading for using that same term?

In any case, Obama himself admitted that he's doing what Ryan says. In a November 2009 interview with ABC News, reporter Jake Tapper said to Obama that "one-third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare," to which Obama's response was: "Right."

The rest of Ryan's alleged factual errors aren't errors at all; it's just that the media didn't like how he said it. But since when is it a fact-checker's job to decide how a politician should construct his arguments?

This isn't to say that journalists shouldn't check facts. Of course they should.

The problem is that the mainstream press is now abusing the "fact check" label, using it to more aggressively push a liberal agenda without feeling the need to provide any balance whatsoever. And, as the reaction to the Ryan speech shows, they are now blatantly using it to provide air support for Obama.

Is it any wonder that soon after Ryan's speech ended, the Obama campaign rushed out an ad using the media's "fact check" stories as its source
 
I don't know. To my outside viewpoint, that article smells like bullshit. I have no doubt that biases could show, but I have also followed Politifact for quite some time. I think the best way to do it would be to have an aggregate of fact checkers, to see if Politifact is correct or not.
 
I think most of the fact checking articles are BS when you get off of actual numbers. One mans cut is always anothers "slowing of the growth rate" ... both sides play that game all the time. You hear Obama talk of "draconian cuts" or the ever famous "mean spirited cuts" when the GOP proposes changing a growth rate of a program to something lower. In my mind, a cut is an actual reduction in spending, but in Washington, 3% gowth can be a cut if the baseline was 5%.

Most of the early reports on the Ryan speech focused on the GM plant, the claims of a "lie" have been shown to be BS.

The "fact articles" for the most part have evolved into commentary and commenting on speakers "facts" that are really mainly opinions or forward looking statements which cannot possibly be accuratly checked.
 
The rest of Ryan's alleged factual errors aren't errors at all; it's just that the media didn't like how he said it.

Now that is convincing and well argued (not at all)!

I don't know. Not enough substance to disqualify these fact checkers like total bullshit. We have to see things in proportions.

Bearfan: Are you willing to present some fact checkers on Obama and then we can judge for ourselves who is the biggest truth teller.

Or are we suddenly not caring about fact checking anymore (after Ryan did his speech)?
We do care about facts, do we?
 
I will be interested to see how closely Obama and Biden are fact checked. For example, if they get away with their "draconian cuts" BS. I think some of the original fact checking sites did a pretty decent job, but more and more these fact checkers are more like commentary and should be accepted as such.
 
I disagree. The plant closed in Dec, 2008. The auto bailout failed to re-open it. There is a huge difference between the two. Ryan could have said, "Obama promised my town he'd get that plant re-opened, and he failed." That'd have been factual. He twisted it the other way. Look, I don't really mind that particular rhetorical turn.

It was the bullshit on Simpson-Bowles that blew up my mind. Ryan was on the committee and sank it. He also worked to sink the Obama-Boehner budget deal, but then blamed Obama in his speech. Yeah. No. Untrue. Lies, lies, lies.
 
Back
Top