Honesty Ratings Obama vs. Romney

I thought now would be a good time to check in and see how Romney vs. Obama mathces up on BSing the American people.

Statements rated from Politifact.

Romney

True (23)
Mostly True (18)
Half True (32)
Mostly False (19)
False (19)
Pants on Fire (13)

Obama

True (86)
Mostly True (83)
Half True (88)
Mostly False (43)
False (54)
Pants on Fire (5)

For the sake of fairness I want to examine this a few different ways.

First...let's look at near absolutes...."True" and "Pants on Fire"...

Of a total of 36 statements for Romney, 13 were "pants on fire"...no bit of truth at all to the statement and 23 were true.

Of a total of 91 statements rated from president Obama, 5 were "pants on fire" and 86 were "true"

----------------------------------------------

That gives Romney a 63% truth rating. 37% of his statements are "Pants on fire"

That gives Obama a 95% truth rating and 5% "Pants on fire".

----------------------------------------------


If we add up "True" "Mostly True" and "Half True" for each candidate and do the same for "False"

73 Statements from Romney fall into the "mostly to entirely True category"
51 Statements from Romney fall into the "mostly to entirely False category"


257 Statements from Obama fall into the "mostly to entirely True category"
102 Statements from Obama fall into the "mostly to entirely False category"

----------------------------------------------

41% of Romneys statements fall into the "Mostly to entirely false" Category
59% of Romney's statements fall into the "Mostly to Entirely True" Category

28% of Obamas statements fall into the "mostly to entirely False" category
72% of Obamas statements fall into the "mostly to entirely True" category

----------------------------------------------

I am interested in folks thoughts on Honesty and how it effects thier political views.

Does it not matter as long as a candidate shares your idealogy?

Or does it trump idealogy?

Is anyone offended when a candidate is blatently dishonest with them?

www.politifact.com...

How does campaign rhetoric become mostly true? Why is Obama's Campaign rhetoric 95% True? I would really love to see who they asked, where, and what questions....

Politifact is left-leaning as well. Of course they would buy Obama's rhetoric.

Well Romney has a problem, namely that he is trying to appeal to
a crowd that would like Hitlers policies better than his own personal
views. He has to make his ideas stand in stark contrast with Obama's
even though his ideas are not very different, which might entail a
considerable amount of bending...

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Politifact is left-leaning as well. Of course they would buy Obama's rhetoric.

Unfortunately, reality is left leaning.

Maybe if you guys didn't gin up and confabulate EVERYTHING,
your views might be more palatable for more the mainstream.

Having to defend and promote a sea off distortions is not a good way to
promote truth because eventually you believe everything is distorted,
like you perhaps?

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
How does campaign rhetoric become mostly true? Why is Obama's Campaign rhetoric 95% True? I would really love to see who they asked, where, and what questions....

Politifact is left-leaning as well. Of course they would buy Obama's rhetoric.

No Politifact is not left leaning. It is well known that Politifact is a non biased web site. They even won a Pulitzer prize and they don't hold back regardless of party.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
How does campaign rhetoric become mostly true? Why is Obama's Campaign rhetoric 95% True? I would really love to see who they asked, where, and what questions....

Politifact is left-leaning as well. Of course they would buy Obama's rhetoric.

I don't think you fully read the post or looked at the link to politifact.

President Obama's 95% rating comes from only counting statements that can be clearly called "True" or "BS"

Counting statements that have parts of truth mixed with BS are rated on a scale.

I gave numbers for both.

reply to post by braindeadconservatives


Agreed. But I do believe even the far right has an intolerance for dishonesty. Hasn't credibility been Romney's nagging issue. Would the conservative base have forgiven him some of his positions if he chose to be strong and not consistantly pander to them?

Originally posted by Indigo5
Romney True (23)
Obama True (86)

So 23% of people fully believe Romneys statements.
So 86% of people fully believe Obama's statements.

That makes a whole lotta' dumb people that the left wing group interviewed.
Also looks like Obama is a better bamboozler than Romney.

(pretty damn sad .. that many people buy into the rhetoric... )

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
How does campaign rhetoric become mostly true? Why is Obama's Campaign rhetoric 95% True? I would really love to see who they asked, where, and what questions....

Politifact is left-leaning as well. Of course they would buy Obama's rhetoric.

No Politifact is not left leaning. It is well known that Politifact is a non biased web site. They even won a Pulitzer prize and they don't hold back regardless of party.

Pulitzer was a commie who was born in Kenya!...sorry couldn't resist.

That is another issue altogether...it is called "removing the referee". If fairness does not treat you kindly, get rid of the person that is responsible for calling a foul.

Politifact is non-partisan. If they appear to call out the far-right more often it is because in present times the far right is more driven by emotion than facts and those values are reflected in thier political media.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Indigo5
Romney True (23)
Obama True (86)

So 23% of people fully believe Romneys statements.
So 86% of people fully believe Obama's statements.

Nope. You are confused. It is not a Poll. And those are number of Statements, not percentages. Poltifact researches each statement, looks for numbers and factual evidence, compares data from non-partisan sources and also reasonable sources both on the left and right and then looks for common, indisputable truth and comes to a conclusion of the veracity of the statements...THEY DO NOT CONDUCT A POLL

The problem is:

Most of the "truths" are miniscule issues that only affect small portions of the citizens and have very little long lasting positive impact.

The "falses" affect the majority of citizens and have major negative impacts.

------------------------------------
Romney

True (23)
Mostly True (18)
Half True (32)
Mostly False (19)
False (19)
Pants on Fire (13)
------------------------------------

Obama

True (86)
Mostly True (83)
Half True (88)
Mostly False (43)
False (54)
Pants on Fire (5)
------------------------------------

LOL! Has anyone even opened up some of the "data" that Politifacts has pulled up to make it's determinations? It's hysterical!

Let me pull one for you that was considered a "Half Truth" :

"At his current rate, President Obama will have added more debt to the United States of America by the end of his first term than each of the previous 43 presidents -- combined!"

Here is how Politifacts gathered it's data and came up with it's answer:

www.politifact.com...

What are they saying here?

Using the White House numbers means the debt will have risen by about $6.5 trillion since Obama took office, which is greater than the $6.3 trillion debt estimate when he became commander-in-chief. Using the CBO numbers, the increase since Obama took office will be about $5.7 trillion, which is less than the amount it was on Jan. 20, 2009.

First of all, what does this statement have to do with anything?

The question wasn't asking if Obama's debt was going to exceed the already existing ACCUMULATIVE TOTAL debt when he came into office.

The question is whether or not $5.7 - $6.5 Trillion of Obama debt exceeds all other INCREASES incurred by other Presidents!

Am I missing something here?!

reply to post by xuenchen


You are comparing number of statements made...not what percentage of the statements made are false or true.

Obviously since Pres. Obama has been in the hot lights for a longer time than Romney...He has made many more statements for review.

Read your statement again

Originally posted by Deetermined

"At his current rate, President Obama will have added more debt to the United States of America by the end of his first term than each of the previous 43 presidents -- combined!"

Here is how Politifacts gathered it's data and came up with it's answer:

Using the White House numbers means the debt will have risen by about $6.5 trillion since Obama took office, which is greater than the $6.3 trillion debt estimate when he became commander-in-chief. Using the CBO numbers, the increase since Obama took office will be about $5.7 trillion, which is less than the amount it was on Jan. 20, 2009.

First of all, what does this statement have to do with anything?

The question wasn't asking if Obama's debt was going to exceed the already existing ACCUMULATIVE TOTAL debt when he came into office.

The question is whether or not $5.7 - $6.5 Trillion of Obama debt exceeds all other INCREASES incurred by other Presidents!

Am I missing something here?!

Yes, you are missing something. If you add all the debt that other Presidents ADDED Combined, the statement is false...because the debt has been REDUCED over that time. You are thinking in terms of the debt always going in one direction.

As for the $5.7-$6.5 disparity of estimates...Pres. Bush added $6.1 during his term..so it would seem relevant to consider the projected range, since right now the last POTUS has Pres. Obama beat for adding to the deficet.

Obama came in with something like 10 Trillion in debt...so $5.7-$6.5 being more than all other Presidents combined seems like it doesn't make sense at it's face? I'll read the politifact critique and see is I can help you out.

reply to post by Indigo5


First of all, we're talking about the public debt only, not counting the intragovernmental holdings or foreign holdings.

According to TreasuryDirect.com, where data is available and a lot of Bush's first term data isn't available until Sept. 2001, but it shows an increase of public debt through all 8 years of Bush's service to be around $3 Trillion.

Just to give Obama some breathing room, let's add $500,000 Billion to Bush's debt.

If Bush had a total increase of $3.5 Trillion dollars during 2 full terms, this would average $1.75 Trillion per term.

Now let's compare a $1.75 Trillion term (Bush) to a $5.7 Trillion term (Obama).

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Indigo5

 

First of all, we're talking about the public debt only, not counting the intragovernmental holdings or foreign holdings.

Okay I will play along with the cherry picking and pretend that is the best measure when in reality it is not.

Originally posted by Deetermined
According to TreasuryDirect.com, where data is available and a lot of Bush's first term data isn't available until Sept. 2001, but it shows an increase of public debt through all 8 years of Bush's service to be around $3 Trillion.

Just to give Obama some breathing room, let's add $500,000 Billion to Bush's debt.

If Bush had a total increase of $3.5 Trillion dollars during 2 full terms

Instead let's use actual, real numbers...

During the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[11] due in part to the Bush tax cuts and increased military spending caused by the wars in the Middle East.[12][13]

Under President Barack Obama, the debt increased from $10.7 trillion in 2008 to $15.5 trillion by February 2012,[14] caused mainly by decreased tax revenue due to the late-2000s recession and stimulus spending.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.treasurydirect.gov...
www.treasurydirect.gov...
www.nytimes.com...

$5 Trillion...under Bush, 4.8 Trillion under President Obama...

The President was handed two wars, Bush era Tax Breaks and a historic recession...dramatically less revenues and an increase in safety net costs.

reply to post by Indigo5


You do realize that you still compared Bush's TWO terms to Obama's ONE, right?

reply to post by Deetermined


As much as you realize that you are using "projected" numbers for Obama, public debt less intragovernmental holdings and foriegn holdings and not even sure where you got the innacurate lower numbers for GW.

its really difiicult to take this "poll" seriously when Obama comes in at 95% on the truth side.
Where have these people been in the last 3 years?
Are they not listening to what Obama says one day, while watching him do the complete opposite the next?
Serious KoolAid drinkers if you ask me.