It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Truth-O-Meter Romney vs. Obama

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I see errors in what they have labelled true and false, therefore the rest is nonsense.


The errors you purport to see are based on falsehoods...errors...misconceptions...propaganda...

No politics here...facts..see below

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

"President Obama’s lawsuit claims it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges during the state’s early voting period. " FALSE


That is exactly what is claimed. It is unconstitutional to grant voting rights to members of the military. Their intent may not be to restrict military personel voting further, their intent is to add more days for other people.


Here is where you are confused...

Early voting for ALL already exists in Ohio...has for a long time.

The GOP in Ohio looked to eliminate and restrict it...with the exception of active duty military.



Republicans who control Ohio’s state government passed a law last year that would have reduced the time frame for early voting from five weeks to three, eliminated most weekend voting hours and dropped a requirement that poll workers redirect voters to the correct precinct if they show up at the wrong one in a location that hosts multiple precincts. Ohio legislators repealed that law when it became clear it would face a referendum this year, though its ban on early voting on the weekend before elections remained in place because it was part of a separate law




Last month, President Obama’s re-election campaign filed a lawsuit against Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted to demand that in-person voting be allowed during the three-day weekend before elections. It noted that approximately 93,000 Ohioans voted in the three days before the 2008 presidential election. The lawsuit argues that all Ohio voters should be permitted to cast ballots that weekend, as members of the U.S. military are permitted to do. The complaint alleged that Ohio’s legislature failed to justify the disparate treatment between military and nonmilitary voters, and contended the "unequal burden on the fundamental right to vote violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution."


President Obama never claimed it was unconstitutional "for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges "

It claimed " that all Ohio voters should be permitted to cast ballots that weekend, as members of the U.S. military are permitted to do. "


How about only African-Americans being able to vote early?...Only Unions?...Those without cars?....would a GOP argument that EVERYONE should have equal voting rights be the same as ..."The GOP lawsuit claims it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow African-Americans extended early voting privileges during the state’s early voting period."???

FALSE logic...BS...Asking that everyone have the same priveledge to vote early (equal protection clause) is not the same as discrimanting against one group.

It is also how the law was prior to the GOP looking to restrict those rights.


edit on 9-8-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by macman
 


Indigo5 and Politifact are drinking too much Obama Cool-Aid.


Go to the Pinocchio System at the Washington Post.


The Washington Post? While most would agree they are not as thorough or non-partisan as Politifact...I'll play


The Washington Post gave Mitt Romney's most recent Statement 3 out 4 on the "Pinicchios Scale"

Is Obama challenging voting privileges of Ohio military members?
www.washingtonpost.com... c5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html

AND despite being the most favorable "fact-checker" that conservatives can find...it STILL shows Mitt Romney as lying more often than Pres. Obama..What does that tell you?

www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
I did visit the site.
Again, statements were cherry picked to show a favorable outcome for 0bama.
Plus, normally one shows the evidence behind what they are stating as incorrect or correct.

They use black and white statements for 0bama, and basically him asserting "The sky is blue", and claim as fact beyond all fact.

For Romney, they use grey area statements.


AGAIN, politifact fail. Indigo5 fail.



Did you visit and read this page?

One statement found there is this one:


PolitiFact relies on on-the-record interviews and publishes a list of sources with every Truth-O-Meter item. When possible, the list includes links to sources that are freely available, although some sources rely on paid subscriptions. The goal is to help readers judge for themselves whether they agree with the ruling.


The link to EVERY 'fact check' is found directly under the 'truth-o-meter' in the right hand of the column...in which the left side has the statement in question.
This would be the evidence you are looking for.

Here is an example of a grey area statement not made by any Presidential Candidate:

"Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican." by Charlotte Bergmann, a Republican candidate in the 9th Congressional District in Tennessee. Found on this page: Bipartisanship

And here is the evidence behind the finding of FALSE:
Another Republican claims that Martin Luther King Jr. was part of the GOP

Pretty touchy grey area, I think...they did a good job on this one, imo. All statements are cited by name or source and links given.

The site isn't just about Obama and Romney, either.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Here's an interesting one!



Michele Bachmann says Barack Obama 'has the lowest public approval ratings of any president in modern times'

The link to the fact check page, under the truth-o-meter says "Obama's lows are higher than most presidents' lows."

I was like HUH?

No way, I thought.

But they used the Gallup poll data...what better source for public opinion.


We looked at presidential approval data from Gallup, which goes back to Harry Truman. It’s the longest continuous data set for presidential approval ratings. We looked at two different measurements: Each president’s lowest approval rating for their entire term, and each president’s lowest point for their first 968 days, which is how long Obama has served in office.

First, the lows for the presidents' entire terms, listed in descending order from the "highest" low to the "lowest" low:

John F. Kennedy: 56 percent
Dwight Eisenhower: 48 percent
Barack Obama: 40 percent
Bill Clinton: 37 percent
Gerald Ford: 37 percent
Ronald Reagan: 35 percent
Lyndon B. Johnson: 35 percent
George H.W. Bush: 29 percent
Jimmy Carter: 28 percent
George W. Bush: 25 percent
Richard Nixon: 24 percent
Harry Truman: 22 percent

By this measure, nine presidents hit lower lows than Obama has.

What about comparing only the first 968 days for each president? Bachmann’s closer with this one, but still wrong. Here is a list of each president’s low point during that time frame:

John F. Kennedy: 61 percent
Dwight Eisenhower: 57 percent
George H.W. Bush: 53 percent
George W. Bush: 50 percent
Richard Nixon: 48 percent
Lyndon B. Johnson: 46 percent
Barack Obama: 40 percent
Bill Clinton: 37 percent
Gerald Ford: 37 percent
Ronald Reagan: 35 percent
Harry Truman: 33 percent
Jimmy Carter: 28 percent

By this measure, five presidents had lows that were worse than Obama at this point in their presidencies.



Now. for those who might seize on the idea of this site being based on public opinion...NOTE: this is a fact check on someone's statement about the results of public opinion polls. The polls show the public opinion which the quoted individual misrepresented.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by macman
 


Indigo5 and Politifact are drinking too much Obama Cool-Aid.


Go to the Pinocchio System at the Washington Post.


The Washington Post? While most would agree they are not as thorough or non-partisan as Politifact...I'll play


The Washington Post gave Mitt Romney's most recent Statement 3 out 4 on the "Pinicchios Scale"

Is Obama challenging voting privileges of Ohio military members?
www.washingtonpost.com... c5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html

AND despite being the most favorable "fact-checker" that conservatives can find...it STILL shows Mitt Romney as lying more often than Pres. Obama..What does that tell you?

www.washingtonpost.com...



Let the chips fall where they may.

I'll take the Pinocchios at the Washington Post over the worthless site over at

Politifact.

Obama has been getting a lot of Pinocchios.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5


The complaint alleged that Ohio’s legislature failed to justify the disparate treatment between military and nonmilitary voters, and contended the "unequal burden on the fundamental right to vote violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution."


President Obama never claimed it was unconstitutional "for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges "

The complaint alleged they failed to justify why servicemen should get extra days to vote and that violated the Constitution. That is what you just posted. Then you post they dont claim it is unconstitutional. I don't see how you can post a source saying their complaint alleged the constitution was violated then post the crap that followed.

How about only African-Americans being able to vote early?...Only Unions?...Those without cars?....would a GOP argument that EVERYONE should have equal voting rights be the same as ..."The GOP lawsuit claims it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow African-Americans extended early voting privileges during the state’s early voting period."???

How about if we only allow those 18+ to vote!!!! Oh wait we DO since there are things that make sense. What does race have to do with whether someone serves in the military? Here's a newsflash for you, the armed forces have extra voting rights throughout the country, and the Supreme Court has recognized that the military is not "similarly situated as others" as Obama has claimed. What does someone being Black have to do with someone who at a moments notice could be shipped out anywhere in the world, or are you saying that is something Black people and union members face. Can our Government call up any Black person orunion member and say you're leaving in 3 days.

FALSE logic...BS...Asking that everyone have the same priveledge to vote early (equal protection clause) is not the same as discrimanting against one group.

Where did I say they were discriminating against the military? I said they were trying to restrict their voting rights, which you agree is happening and you believe should happen. In order for the equal protection clause to be invoked the parties must be similarly situated. You clearly have no clue how the equal protection clause works. My question to you is this, are members of the military currently serving "similarly situated" as others? If you say yes you are either purposefully lying or so ignorant you are beyond help. If you say no then it has no bearing in this instance.

Regardless, right or wrong, Obama IS trying to limit voting rights of the military and take away their voting priviledge. They may be completely right in doing so, I do not think they are. It doesn't change the fact that if they win their lawsuit the end result could very well be taking these extra voting days away from those serving our country, and Obama's lawsuit would be satisfied.
edit on 10-8-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Don't know what to say...You remain confused...

THIS is MITT ROMNEY's CLAIM

"President Obama’s lawsuit claims it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges during the state’s early voting period. "

Politifact rated it FALSE...

The GOP DID NOT pass a bill giving servicemen "extended early voting priveleges"..

Servicemen already had that...along with ALL Ohions.

The GOP passed a bill eliminating early voting for everyone BUT active duty servicemen.

The Obama Administration ...and a whole lot of other voting rights organizations...correctly argued that was a violation of the "equal protection clause"...

Don't know how else to explain this????

It is not unconstitutional to allow active duty serviceman extended early voting...That is FALSE to claim that is what the administration said.....It is unconstitutional to eliminate the early votings rights of everyone, but a single group chosen by a political party.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Does it matter? Romney is an evil Psychopathic Progressive, and Obama is a slightly less evil Socialist.

Seriously, what is the difference besides race and religion?

If Romney is nominated for the Presidency at the Republican Convention, then anyone who stays in the Republican Party is basically giving silent consent to everything they supposedly stand against.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by Indigo5
 


If Romney is nominated for the Presidency at the Republican Convention, then anyone who stays in the Republican Party is basically giving silent consent to everything they supposedly stand against.


The Republican Party of old...Fiscal Conservatism, government only where it absolutely needs to be.

TP/Current GOP....We don't care...just get that man out of the Whitehouse.

Genuine Conservatives could have gotten a great deal done with the current President...but that would have infuriated the TP...and the Liberal base..

Obama is a moderate...slightly left of center...Romney is slightly right of center and pretending to be far-right to appeal to new/TP conservatives. Obama is only cast as far-left in the context the extreme right that has hijacked the conservative party.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
Genuine Conservatives could have gotten a great deal done with the current President...but that would have infuriated the TP...and the Liberal base..

Yeah, Conservatives don't follow behind Progressive Marxists. Does not compute.




Originally posted by Indigo5
Obama is a moderate...slightly left of center...

Still does not compute. Nope, not by a long shot.




Originally posted by Indigo5
Romney is slightly right of center and pretending to be far-right to appeal to new/TP conservatives.

Your first correct statement.



Originally posted by Indigo5
Obama is only cast as far-left in the context the extreme right that has hijacked the conservative party.

Nope, his actions do not need any further push from anyone to show who he really is.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join