• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Right now ...

The problem with your claim is it is blatantly false. Fact Check did not post a single Tweet about the debate until this morning at 6:41AM. Then they tweeted a link to their findings, which were published on their website. Not their Tweet page, as is painfully obvious here on the page that they...............post their tweets on. https://twitter.com/factcheckdotorg I supposed you could just go on pretending otherwise and that these Tweets just went *poof* and disappeared. Though it would be rather obviously dishonest and pretty silly too. Since Fact Check did none of things you claim they did, it was obviously just wishful thinking and a lot of hyperbole on your part.

Sorry pal ...while the OP was referencing real live policies and facts known to most who follow the various issues and that Romney's attacks were based on deception there was live tweeting. I am not much a twitter fan yet it was happening.

Fact Check ‏@factcheckdotorg
We will be live tweeting during the first presidential debate in Colorado tonight

Although it was moot as they do not go into enough detail on complex issues and line by line.
 
Pretty much everybody on TV agrees Obama lost the debate which BTW is probably the only bi-partisan thing he has done since being in office. Wish, rationalize, obfuscate until you turn blue in the face, but when Chris Matthews appears on Charlies Rose talking about Obama losing the debate like he did this past evening, then you know Obama lost the debate.
 
I completely agree with you tigger. That is exactly why he won the debate ... he was wired and went on the attack with baseless claims, deceptions and hyperbole and no plan how his " plan" in which he has no details will miraculously keep all the benefits of what obama has in place, cut everyone's taxes including the elite 1%, increase spending on wars while cutting veteran benefits, and all that and lower the deficit.

Anyone who has ever researched military or self-defense tactics will tell you that ACTION beats Reaction almost every time. He who takes the initiative and goes on the attack, generally wins the battle. That's one of the things I don't like about Obama.... he doesn't seem to have an Active bone in his body. Everything is Reactive.

It really doesn't matter what either one of these guys say, because there are a massive amount of people out there who simply vote based on the letter after their name. A large percentage of the others will vote based on what the candidate looks like, their skin color, or who has the flashiest commercial on the TV the morning of the election. Which means that the SUBSTANCE of the campaign really means something to almost nobody.

I'm not voting for either of these two candidates. I will be writing in my own name. I have absolutely no use for anyone who walks into a polling place and votes simply for everyone on one side of the ledger or the other. I remember the 1990 election in Connecticut. I worked that election day for a candidate and the most common comment I heard all day was the bitching and moaning that the state had taken the "party lever" off of the voting booths. These people were now going to have to push down every lever on the Democrat side themselves rather than just pushing one lever and being done with it.
 
Anyone who has ever researched military or self-defense tactics will tell you that ACTION beats Reaction almost every time. He who takes the initiative and goes on the attack, generally wins the battle. That's one of the things I don't like about Obama.... he doesn't seem to have an Active bone in his body. Everything is Reactive.

It really doesn't matter what either one of these guys say, because there are a massive amount of people out there who simply vote based on the letter after their name. A large percentage of the others will vote based on what the candidate looks like, their skin color, or who has the flashiest commercial on the TV the morning of the election. Which means that the SUBSTANCE of the campaign really means something to almost nobody.

I'm not voting for either of these two candidates. I will be writing in my own name. I have absolutely no use for anyone who walks into a polling place and votes simply for everyone on one side of the ledger or the other
. I remember the 1990 election in Connecticut. I worked that election day for a candidate and the most common comment I heard all day was the bitching and moaning that the state had taken the "party lever" off of the voting booths. These people were now going to have to push down every lever on the Democrat side themselves rather than just pushing one lever and being done with it.

In bold ...that was funny.

Well I respect that you are sticking to your convictions. As far as who ever goes on the attack is "winning" ... I agree regarding military combat or athletic sparring. However an intellectual debate in presenting your solutions and responding in a debate and overtalking without using facts is not a "win' imho. Albeit, I agree in terms of attacking using bumpersticker attacks, baseless claims and outright deception Romney won.

While we we told Obama would not respond I was personally disappointed in Obama when Romney was yammering about the Cleveland Clinic and implying healthcare would ever be anything but private under ACA. The ACA is about cutting waste and protecting citizens from unethical profiteering from aggressive private bottom line health insurance companies who dictate care with the bottom line in mind. The ACA also increases individual responsibility that those who can afford coverage have a basic coverage so that in the event of a crisis the tax payers and facilities do not have to pick up the bill. Romney actually knows and understands this and yet attacked the ACA and even alluded to "death panels'. Romeny was completely full of BS, pandered against his own beliefs and played to a base and intentionally was deceptive on almost ever issue. that is not a winning potential POTUS imo.

I have specific issues that I am clearly voting for obama regarding and he has earned my vote on those issues.

Again, as I suggested the Obama campaign now has all of the material it needs for every ad from now until November 6. After 90 minutes of Romney prevarication, every last statement can be played in an ad followed up by a directly contradictory statement either from a GOP primary debate or from a stump speech.

New Obama ad features footage from debate, Romney ad – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

(BTW Tigger I do respect you and your decision and I agree with you that anyone that is a party loyalist to the point they simply look for the R or D to cast their vote is putting party before country and is no patriot).
 
Last edited:
Well I respect that you are sticking to your convictions. As far as who ever goes on the attack is "winning" ... I agree regarding military combat or athletic sparring. However an intellectual debate in presenting your solutions and responding in a debate and overtalking without using facts is not a "win' imho. Albeit, I agree in terms of attacking using bumpersticker attacks, baseless claims and outright deception Romney won.

You need to remember that the vast majority of voters have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what the candidate they're voting for believes in. They don't care either. They're listening to talking points and 8 second television quotes. The substance behind it means less than nothing.

(BTW Tigger I do respect you and your decision and I agree with you that anyone that is a party loyalist to the point they simply look for the R or D to cast their vote is putting party before country and is no patriot).

Definitely.
 
Sorry pal ...while the OP was referencing real live policies and facts known to most who follow the various issues and that Romney's attacks were based on deception there was live tweeting. I am not much a twitter fan yet it was happening.

Although it was moot as they do not go into enough detail on complex issues and line by line.
No I'm sorry Pal, what I should have done was screencap their Tweet page that night when I first saw you claiming they were doing what they did not do. Because after all, I and several others went to their tweet page to see these nebulous unspecified debunkings of Romney that you claimed existed. At THAT time they did not, not until 6:41AM the morning after did they publish their findings. Which I've already proven and anyone who can read can see. That night, when you first started claiming these tweet fact checks were revealing Romney and only Romney's "deceptions" I and others asked you to to produce these Tweets and "fact checking". In answer from you we got crickets, not tweets. Of course there were no Tweets to show. So I guess your story now IS that those Tweets were scrubbed or erased, I guess just to stymie you. Now, if that quote you posted from Fact Check that says they are going to be tweeting during the debate (instead of hours afterwards when they have had time to Fact Check both candidates) had a link or could be verified, we would still arrive at the essential problem with your claim. They did not tweet any fact checking in real time as the debate was going on. In the end they posted a single Tweet that linked to their website where they fact checked both candidates. I guess there really is not anything surprising about finding someone on a internet debate board trying to spin the results of a horrible debate performance from their candidate. Nor I guess is it really surprising to see someone just insist that the falsehood they keep repeating, despite the fact that the tweets don't exist and never did and the actual Fact Checking time date and place have been supplied to you, really really was the happening. Never mind you could not produce them at the time you first claimed they existed. Never mind you could not say what the "deceptions" these Tweets revealed were. Hey just for the sake of humor, also never mind that you are actually suggesting that Fact Check would even try to fact check a POTUS debate on the fly. That is not how they do it Pal, and guess what? That is not how they will do it during next week's VPOTUS debate or the next POTUS debate either.

Like Obama you are welcome to your opinion about who won the debate, more power to you. You are not however welcome to your own set of facts. Particularly when it is so painfully obvious and publicly verifiable that you are just spinning like a top. Here Pal let me ask you this simple question: Why would Fact Check post on the fly/real time Tweets that Fact Checked the debate, then pull them down or delete them and then post a single tweet with a link to where and when they did Fact Check the debate? Inquiring minds would love to know!
 
Hey sorry my thread got under your skin so much. Pull up factcheck tweets ... they are listed on October 3. Once past MN they move to October 4. I live on the west coast and yes ... while I watched the debate ... 3 hours after it happened they were tweeting.

More importantly though was they missed some of the worst deceptions until later ... the medicare lies, the ACA lies, and the direct distortion. My OP covered both what I knew to be non factual and commented on Factcheck.

You do not need a screen shot ... go look at the October 3 dates of twitter factcheck. My OP was written just before 0100 on October 4. I am detail oriented person. You are off base on more than just your date and time preoccupation.

Better yet ... start educating yourself on factual information regarding ACA, medicare and the arithmetic of his unrevealed tax "plan".
 
Hey sorry my thread got under your skin so much. Pull up factcheck tweets ... they are listed on October 3. Once past MN they move to October 4. I live on the west coast and yes ... while I watched the debate ... 3 hours after it happened they were tweeting.

More importantly though was they missed some of the worst deceptions until later ... the medicare lies, the ACA lies, and the direct distortion. My OP covered both what I knew to be non factual and commented on Factcheck.

You do not need a screen shot ... go look at the October 3 dates of twitter factcheck. My OP was written just before 0100 on October 4. I am detail oriented person. You are off base on more than just your date and time preoccupation.

Better yet ... start educating yourself on factual information regarding ACA, medicare and the arithmetic of his unrevealed tax "plan".
I don't think anything here has really gotten much under my skin as you say. Certainly not your thread, though there is the basic falsehood of your claim about Fact Check, which grows ever more convoluted as you keep spinning. What I find humorous now is that suddenly you are pretending to have command of what was in these tweets. The same ones you have been unable to detail all along. It is almost as if you don't grasp the fact that I have supplied the only link to Fact Check that appears in either of the two threads you made your claim in. More than once I have supplied the Fact Check Tweet page, now you want to point to it, the Fact Check Tweet page? YAY! Great, where are these tweets? Feel free to finally quote them and maybe even provide the links to them? You are batting zero in that regard for obvious reasons. I am familiar with all of Fact Check's findings about the debate, I don't see you referencing them at all. Not once have you done so in this thread. In fact you have not sourced anything at all in the thread, it is just you waxing exotic about your opinion. Claiming your opinion is based on figures and arithmetic but never once citing anything of the sort and even now at this late date you have not. Maybe if you stopped spinning, some of those little details you claim to be so well oriented with might start to come into focus for you. At this point I doubt it though. Highly.
 
Last edited:
I don't think anything here has really gotten much under my skin as you say. Certainly not your thread, though there is the basic falsehood of your claim about Fact Check, which grows ever more convoluted as you keep spinning. What I find humorous now is that suddenly you are pretending to have command of what was in these tweets. The same ones you have been unable to detail all along. It is almost as if you don't grasp the fact that I have supplied the only link to Fact Check that appears in either of the two threads you made your claim in. More than once I have supplied the Fact Check Tweet page, now you want to point to it, the Fact Check Tweet page? YAY! Great, where are these tweets? Feel free to finally quote them and maybe even provide the links to them? You are batting zero in that regard for obvious reasons. I am familiar with all of Fact Check's findings about the debate, I don't see you referencing them at all. In fact not once have you done so in this thread. Even now at this late date. Maybe if you stopped spinning, some of those little details you claim to be so well oriented with might start to come into focus for you. At this point I doubt it though. Highly.

dude ... I have linked the tweet page and you can go look at the date and time of my OP.

Here again is the factcheck link ... and you see tweeting on october 3 and my OP was in the wee hours of October 4.

I make mistakes and have no problem standing corrected if I was mistaken.

Yet I am detailed oriented and honest.

https://twitter.com/factcheckdotorg

In fact ... you raised such a fuss I thought maybe I had been reading politifact or the other non partisan organizations that were tweeting of Romney's many deceptions.

Yet ... it was fact check among others and here is the link and go read the date and time of my OP.
 
Last edited:
dude ... I have linked the tweet page and you can go look at the date and time of my OP.

Here again is the factcheck link ... and you see tweeting on october 3 and my OP was in the wee hours of October 4.

I make mistakes and have no problem standing corrected if I was mistaken.

Yet I am detailed oriented and honest.

https://twitter.com/factcheckdotorg

In fact ... you raised such a fuss I thought maybe I had been reading politifact or the other non partisan organizations that were tweeting of Romney's many deceptions.

Yet ... it was fact check among others and here is the link and go read the date and time of my OP.
Dudette, more than once I have supplied you the Fact Check Tweet page, now you want to point to it, the Fact Check Tweet page? YAY! Great, where are these tweets? Feel free to finally quote them! You are batting zero in that regard for obvious reasons. Which grow more convoluted and contradict what you earlier posted and claimed, the more you spin. Of course Fact Check tweeted on the 3rd and 4th. However that is not the issue. They did not tweet about the POTUS debate until 6:41AM the morning after the debate and hours after you claimed they had. And then they only placed a link to their findings which was on their webpage. They did NOT tweet fact checking on the debate, which is why none exist. Cripes why would you act so daft? If you had pointed to Politicfact then you would have a point, but your claim was not that. It has grown to include that because you are trying to spin something as happening that never did and is verifiable via the same link I first supplied to you. That you are now not to creatively citing, owing I suppose to dizziness. I am familiar with all of Fact Check's findings about the debate, I don't see you referencing them at all. Not once have you done so in this thread. In fact you have not sourced anything at all in the thread, it is just you waxing exotic about your opinion. Claiming your opinion is based on figures and arithmetic but never once citing anything of the sort is commonly called spin. Maybe if you stopped spinning, some of those little details you claim to be so well oriented with might start to come into focus for you. At this point I doubt it though. Highly.
 
Last edited:
As I said to you days ago Dion, you are actually suggesting that Fact Check would even try to fact check a POTUS debate on the fly. That is not how they do it Pal, and guess what? That is not how they will do it during next week's VPOTUS debate or the next POTUS debate either.

Guess what FactCheck did not do again?
 
This is horrendously naive.
 
Back
Top Bottom