• 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.

Fact check: Gingrich off on his budget history

So, for those who would vote in a republican primary, who won the debate?
 
dontworrybehappy said:
FACT CHECK: Gingrich Off On His Budget History | Fox News I thought this was interesting. For the candidate who is gaining ground, any opinions?
Click to expand...
It's a republican primary, so what they took issue with, I don't see how that would have any real effect. Just about every conservative gives credit to Newt gingrich for the balanced budget of the 90's.

I was more surprised at how they fact-checked romney and Bachmann, as far as facts go, Bachmann has none, she's a pure embarressment. wrong 73% of the time according to politifact(which doesn't really say much, but means something since she is 2nd tier, and still being fact-checked so easily.)

Gingrich apparantly is wrong the next most often, 59%. does anyone else find it unusual that, anytime the republicans get a 'conservative' frontrunner, they are either not conservative, or too extreme...or gingrich's case, BOTH...or are just flip flopping liars?
 
Last edited:
I vote for flip flopping liars.
 
And gosh, he took two more breaths in the same sentence that the one before...talk about nit-picking, a candidate almost has to have a fact checker next to him before he speaks. Doesn't everyone have a gaff or two every now and then?

Don't get me wrong about newt. I think he is smart,but I don't want a fat, slovenly president. I want one that at least looks like he has seen a gym before.
 
Redress said:
So, for those who would vote in a republican primary, who won the debate?
Click to expand...

For the most part thought it was an excellent venue and questioning. Thought the only one who may have really screwed his own pooch was Ron Paul. His positions/opinions on Iran are icing any chance he ever had for the Primary (and don't think his Iranian policies would even serve him in a General election)


Bachman was feisty sparring with Gingrich on the Freddy Mac topic. But still think she is too screechy to be viable.

Huntsman almost seems like a "visitor" at these debates. Don't see any future for him.

Santorum really does have some historical street cred...but the fire ain't lighting with the voters. Distant long shot.

Perry is certainly the prettiest. And very likeable. (That seemed to work for Obama...;) )


Gingrich and Romney both did themselves well last night. Think both are intelligent and experienced and good debaters. Clearly thet are still the two to beat. Suspect either could/would give Obama a good run in a General election. Clocks a tickin'......<smile>
 
Last edited:
DarkWizard12 said:
It's a republican primary, so what they took issue with, I don't see how that would have any real effect. Just about every conservative gives credit to Newt gingrich for the balanced budget of the 90's.

I was more surprised at how they fact-checked romney and Bachmann, as far as facts go, Bachmann has none, she's a pure embarressment. wrong 73% of the time according to politifact(which doesn't really say much, but means something since she is 2nd tier, and still being fact-checked so easily.)

Gingrich apparantly is wrong the next most often, 59%. does anyone else find it unusual that, anytime the republicans get a 'conservative' frontrunner, they are either not conservative, or too extreme...or gingrich's case, BOTH...or are just flip flopping liars?
Click to expand...

I would be a bit careful in relying too much on feigned objectivity in fact checking, unfortunately.

Here's a partisan analysis of fact checking, which i don't think you can fully dismiss merely because it is a partisan piece. Lies, Damned Lies, and

The overall point is that "fact checking" is a mechanism that clearly can be used to make normative judgments appear more obejctive, and to pursue normative objectives while trying to usurp credibility from an assertion of objectivity.

I'm actually not that sure these "fact checkers" are right a majority of the time, if only because they don't seem to limit the issues they check or what factors into their analysis to "just the facts".

Just food for thought.
 
coolwalker said:
And gosh, he took two more breaths in the same sentence that the one before...talk about nit-picking, a candidate almost has to have a fact checker next to him before he speaks. Doesn't everyone have a gaff or two every now and then?

Don't get me wrong about newt. I think he is smart,but I don't want a fat, slovenly president. I want one that at least looks like he has seen a gym before.
Click to expand...

With due respect, that doesn't seem like a sound reason for chosing your ultimate elected leader. I also would suggest this line of thought, along with anciallry lines tying who you want to vote for to purely ancillary features, is part of the reason politicians treat the electorate like they ... have special needs.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
I would be a bit careful in relying too much on feigned objectivity in fact checking, unfortunately.

Here's a partisan analysis of fact checking, which i don't think you can fully dismiss merely because it is a partisan piece. Lies, Damned Lies, and

The overall point is that "fact checking" is a mechanism that clearly can be used to make normative judgments appear more obejctive, and to pursue normative objectives while trying to usurp credibility from an assertion of objectivity.

I'm actually not that sure these "fact checkers" are right a majority of the time, if only because they don't seem to limit the issues they check or what factors into their analysis to "just the facts".

Just food for thought.
Click to expand...

From the Weekly Standard???

:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:

Any outlet that allowed Stephen Hayes to play so loose with the facts as the Weekly Standard did should not be taken seriously concerning truth and lies. But I do aprreciate the humor. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
From the Weekly Standard???

:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:

Any outlet that allowed Stephen Hayes to play so loose with the facts as the Weekly Standard did should not be taken seriously concerning truth and lies. But I do aprreciate the humor. ;)
Click to expand...

Sorry. At least I explicitly said it was a partisan analysis.

But let's forget that partisan analysis. I'm pretty sure I could manipulate any sort of fact check framework to push whatever ideological objective I had, left or right, pro business or pro consumer. I also firmly appreciate that media are not unbiased in any real capacity, even when reporting hard news. As a result, I don't see any reason to ascribe more validity to assertions by media outlets just because they have made those assertions within a faux-objective framework called a "fact check".

And this would apply equally to MSNBC, Fox News, the New York Tiems, or any other emdia outlet or jouranlist that uses this mechanism.

I think my only point is that it is up to each of us to figure out whether we think a statement is true or false, relying on whatever evidence and reasoning we have available - devolving that authority to a partisan feigning objectivity doesn't seem consistent with that. And saying "factcheck.org says x" does not, in my view, at least at this point, make x any mroe likely to be true than if fact check said nothing about it.

And if factcheck is appended to a right wing organization or to a left wing organization (to which I would include probably mroe mainstream publications than the typical progressive might include), I think the only instances where it conveys real actionable information is where the leftwing org. calls a statement by a left wionger against a right winger false or a statement by a right winger against a left winger true (and vice versa for a right wiong "factcheck" organization). Otherwise, to me it's just spin masquerading as objective analysis.
 
Last edited:
It matters not whether it passes the fact check smell test or not. Keep in mind that the only people who will have to decided whether or not to vote for Newt, or Romney or whoever the GOP runs, typically have no regard for facts and they have their own version of reality which, in most cases, has nothing to do with reality at all.

So, does it really matter?
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Sorry. At least I explicitly said it was a partisan analysis.

But let's forget that partisan analysis. I'm pretty sure I could manipulate any sort of fact check framework to push whatever ideological objective I had, left or right, pro business or pro consumer. I also firmly appreciate that media are not unbiased in any real capacity, even when reporting hard news. As a result, I don't see any reason to ascribe more validity to assertions by media outlets just because they have made those assertions within a faux-objective framework called a "fact check".

And this would apply equally to MSNBC, Fox News, the New York Tiems, or any other emdia outlet or jouranlist that uses this mechanism.

I think my only point is that it is up to each of us to figure out whether we think a statement is true or false, relying on whatever evidence and reasoning we have available - devolving that authority to a partisan feigning objectivity doesn't seem consistent with that. And saying "factcheck.org says x" does not, in my view, at least at this point, make x any mroe likely to be true than if fact check said nothing about it.

And if factcheck is appended to a right wing organization or to a left wing organization (to which I would include probably mroe mainstream publications than the typical progressive might include), I think the only instances where it conveys real actionable information is where the leftwing org. calls a statement by a left wionger against a right winger false or a statement by a right winger against a left winger true (and vice versa for a right wiong "factcheck" organization). Otherwise, to me it's just spin masquerading as objective analysis.
Click to expand...

Where we might differ is what you call appended to. The WS is clearly not only biased, but often to the extent of being factually challenged. Soem see anything that doesn't say what they want to be biased, as in anything that doesn't affirm their belief system MUST be biased.

So, no, I wouldn't go to moveon.org for migh fact checking any more than I'd go to the WS. However, factcheck.org, for example, or any of the major networks, includuing the actual news division of Fox, would be largely worth looking at
 
Remember, bias is rarely the issue. Accuracy is.
 
Captain America said:
It matters not whether it passes the fact check smell test or not. Keep in mind that the only people who will have to decided whether or not to vote for Newt, or Romney or whoever the GOP runs, typically have no regard for facts and they have their own version of reality which, in most cases, has nothing to do with reality at all.

So, does it really matter?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not sure that's fair (actually, I'm pretty sure that's unfair).

Now I don't get to vote, but of all of the dogs in this show, including Obama, I would likely lean either to Romney or Gingrich. I just have no respect for Obama and think he is a terrible leader, a terrible manager, and that his vision, philosophy, economic worldview and approach on domestic and foreign policy are both wrong and often dangerous. which is not to say I think Romney or Gingrich share my vision of optimal reality 100% (I am Canadian after all, and our conservative party is probably left of the democrats on many issues), but that in making a decision based on a slate of platform options where you cannot chose on specific issues a la carte, I think either of them would be much, much better than the current democratic administration.

And I don't quite see how that is not a reality-based approach to assessing who I would vote for if I could.

And sure, I would also add in my various self-interests in terms of taxation, entitlements and the like, though admittedly Obama thinks I'm "rich" which would make me voting for him a vote against my direct interest if I had lived there. So I guess that's two direct strikes against him (one based on broader issues, the other on pure self interest).

But since both of those tacts are both firmly reality based, I really don't see how your statement is anything other than a partisan hack statement meant to prevent engagement on substantive issues.
 
Captain America said:
It matters not whether it passes the fact check smell test or not. Keep in mind that the only people who will have to decided whether or not to vote for Newt, or Romney or whoever the GOP runs, typically have no regard for facts and they have their own version of reality which, in most cases, has nothing to do with reality at all.

So, does it really matter?
Click to expand...


Partisan fluff. Don't suspect voters on the Left are any more (or less) concerned with facts than those on the Right.

The barrage of 60 second distorted TV commercials we can expect to see around election time is a testament to that reality. Both political parties will be unleashing media storms to paint/label the opposition as negatively as possible. Truth means little, perception is everything.
 
Cole said:
Partisan fluff. Don't suspect voters on the Left are any more (or less) concerned with facts than those on the Right.

The barrage of 60 second distorted TV commercials we can expect to see around election time is a testament to that reality. Both political parties will be unleashing media storms to paint/label the opposition as negatively as possible. Truth means little, perception is everything.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely, though I'm not sure whose fault that is.

Is it their fault for using these techniques, or the public's fault for allowing those techniques to work?

I guess there is plenty of fault to go around, but I think there is particular fault for those smart enough to know better but who still revel in partisan obfuscation.

So for those who understand there are multiple philosophical viewpoints on the role of govenrment but still demonize their opponents rather than engaging them on the right approach, for those who appreciate that climate change policy involves a tradeoff between environmental and economic considerations, both legitimate, but instead choose to pretend there is no problem on the other side (either by asserting climate change is an invention or by ignoring the massive economic costs and making efforts to free-ride tangential ideological objectives into "solution"), those people are sort of the real problem. Cause they are at least smart ernough to know better.

And I think that includes the politicians who engage in this conduct (though of course it's hard not to when everyone else is doing it, since it works), but more importantly includes those who are not running for office, like those of us here, who still insist on bringing down the level of debate, discussion and analysis for the purpose of scoring partisan points and reinforcing a narrow perspective on what's right.

And I have to say, perhaps this view is part of the reason I actually find Gingrich appealing (his burly physique notwithstanding). While I have no idea how genuine it is, he has certainly been speaking as if what I've just talked about is an important consideration, and he has been better than any of these presidential hopefuls on both sides going back a long time in terms of really spelling out positions and counter-positions on major and minor issues.

Obama, Clinton, McCain, Bush, Kerry, Romney and so on, and add onto them most congresspeople (wuith the exception of those like Paul Ryan who may not be right but at least seem to revel in full disclosure and discussion) do not seem to have come even close to this level of discussion and analysis.
 
Cole said:
Partisan fluff. Don't suspect voters on the Left are any more (or less) concerned with facts than those on the Right.

The barrage of 60 second distorted TV commercials we can expect to see around election time is a testament to that reality. Both political parties will be unleashing media storms to paint/label the opposition as negatively as possible. Truth means little, perception is everything.
Click to expand...

I think we'd be hard pressed to fiond any partisans concerned with facts. I think that's a given. But that doesn't change facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom