Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board
BobcatAttack.com Message Board
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events
Topic:  RE: Housing-gate continues

Topic:  RE: Housing-gate continues
Author
Message
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,503

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 1:11:17 PM 
cc-cat wrote:
And I can throw in Rush, and Bow-tie boy, etc.

But again, we are discussing who is the tallest midget (certainly from an intellectual perspective).

Give me Smirconish and Jon Stewart. One gives a fair take and one calls out the hypocrisy of everyone else. Anderson Cooper does give it a try and Brett Bair and Chris Wallace try to breath above the sewage at Fox.

I tap into 4 sites on a constant bases - CNN, Politico, FoxNews (news not pundits), Economist. Anyone that drinks from one place, or one side and dismisses those on the "other" because they are "fake" - will remain ignorant - And anyone that follows Fox and Friends defines themselves.


But again,Rush and Tucker Carlson (no more bow ties as far as I know)make it clear that they are opinionated commentators.
They don't pretend to be journalists.

I listen to Smirconish and Brett Bair.
Never was a fan of Jon Stewart,as an actor or T.V. host.

Did like how he hosted the 2013 Music Cares,honoring Bruce.

To me Anderson Cooper and Chris Wallace run hot and cold.
Sometimes they are pretty objective,sometimes not.
Back to Top
  
cc-cat
General User

Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 3,820

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 1:33:20 PM 
Rush, Tucker, Hannity, Maddow, Matthews, et all ALL try to present themselves on air as delivering the "honest news" to their audience. They do "pretend:" to be journalist - until called on having to be honest then fall back on the "I'm not a journalist", Hannity has especially jumped the shark. Fox and MSNBC have also gotten heavily into the role of censor - for example the next time a Mueller indictment comes down (and there will be more), check out the reporting on Fox - often times non existent - and I can pull multiple/endless examples from both Fox and MSNBC, and many others. What his sad is when someone says, "I get my news from Rush, Hannity, Maddow, etc. They tell me what is real" - I immediately know I'm dealing with a dolt.

Of course the biggest damage is by folks like Nunes, Hannity, et all - on both sides who, as Ted Koppel pointed out, are determined that ideology is more important than facts. They are simply bad for the country and our republic.

I get your angst with Stewart - Most right leaning voters tend to not like Stewart - but he was honest.

Last Edited: 5/15/2018 1:39:16 PM by cc-cat
Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,135

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 2:03:26 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
Del,

Some of us don't exactly trust Politifact as an independent arbiter of truth and falsity.

See: https://tinyurl.com/ol9wtak

And please note, I don't always trust Human Events, either. But, this article has merit. Look at the examples at the bottom of the article especially.


As BLSS pointed out, you're avoiding the point. And it's funny that in the opinion piece you link to the very first example is from Ohio. The Mandel campaign had $10.5 million from outside groups being spent. The Brown campaign said so. In response, the Mandel campaign said well yea, but Sherrod and his allies are spending $13 million so it doesn't matter.

Now, as a response to the $10.5 million in outside money claim, a reasonable person would think that the Mandel campaign was also referring to outside money. However, they were actually referring to money being spent by Sherrod's campaign and the Democratic Party. This was not from outside groups, as we all understand them. So Politifact pointed out the distinction and rated the claim as "half true." Now, to me, that is very generous. The statement from the Mandel campaign was definitely a purposeful deflection, and close to an outright lie. The opinion piece you cite bases their argument on the notion that what the Mandel campaign said was literally true: that Sherrod and his allies are spending $13 million. Everyone knows that's not the point. You'd have to be willfully obtuse to say that Politifact was being biased in that instance by pointing this out.

BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012
Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,016

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 2:40:27 PM 
DelBobcat wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
Del,

Some of us don't exactly trust Politifact as an independent arbiter of truth and falsity.

See: https://tinyurl.com/ol9wtak

And please note, I don't always trust Human Events, either. But, this article has merit. Look at the examples at the bottom of the article especially.


As BLSS pointed out, you're avoiding the point. And it's funny that in the opinion piece you link to the very first example is from Ohio. The Mandel campaign had $10.5 million from outside groups being spent. The Brown campaign said so. In response, the Mandel campaign said well yea, but Sherrod and his allies are spending $13 million so it doesn't matter.

Now, as a response to the $10.5 million in outside money claim, a reasonable person would think that the Mandel campaign was also referring to outside money. However, they were actually referring to money being spent by Sherrod's campaign and the Democratic Party. This was not from outside groups, as we all understand them. So Politifact pointed out the distinction and rated the claim as "half true." Now, to me, that is very generous. The statement from the Mandel campaign was definitely a purposeful deflection, and close to an outright lie. The opinion piece you cite bases their argument on the notion that what the Mandel campaign said was literally true: that Sherrod and his allies are spending $13 million. Everyone knows that's not the point. You'd have to be willfully obtuse to say that Politifact was being biased in that instance by pointing this out.


So a literally true statement is now only half true? I think your logic is very tortured. One could make the argument that Democratic Party money is outside money, just as RNC money would be outside money to a Republican candidate. Any money not directly raised by the candidate is technically outside money. Now, there is some outside money that would be more outside than other outside money. Money from George Soros or the "Evil Koch Brothers" would be "more outside," I would say. Sherrod Brown was free to make that kind of a statement, and I suppose he probably did. But, that doesn't make Mandel's statement only "half true."

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,280

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 3:11:14 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
DelBobcat wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
Del,

Some of us don't exactly trust Politifact as an independent arbiter of truth and falsity.

See: https://tinyurl.com/ol9wtak

And please note, I don't always trust Human Events, either. But, this article has merit. Look at the examples at the bottom of the article especially.


As BLSS pointed out, you're avoiding the point. And it's funny that in the opinion piece you link to the very first example is from Ohio. The Mandel campaign had $10.5 million from outside groups being spent. The Brown campaign said so. In response, the Mandel campaign said well yea, but Sherrod and his allies are spending $13 million so it doesn't matter.

Now, as a response to the $10.5 million in outside money claim, a reasonable person would think that the Mandel campaign was also referring to outside money. However, they were actually referring to money being spent by Sherrod's campaign and the Democratic Party. This was not from outside groups, as we all understand them. So Politifact pointed out the distinction and rated the claim as "half true." Now, to me, that is very generous. The statement from the Mandel campaign was definitely a purposeful deflection, and close to an outright lie. The opinion piece you cite bases their argument on the notion that what the Mandel campaign said was literally true: that Sherrod and his allies are spending $13 million. Everyone knows that's not the point. You'd have to be willfully obtuse to say that Politifact was being biased in that instance by pointing this out.


So a literally true statement is now only half true? I think your logic is very tortured. One could make the argument that Democratic Party money is outside money, just as RNC money would be outside money to a Republican candidate. Any money not directly raised by the candidate is technically outside money. Now, there is some outside money that would be more outside than other outside money. Money from George Soros or the "Evil Koch Brothers" would be "more outside," I would say. Sherrod Brown was free to make that kind of a statement, and I suppose he probably did. But, that doesn't make Mandel's statement only "half true."



C'mon, man. Context matters. If you want to make the argument that statements that are literally true are always true, regardless of context, knock yourself out. But I suspect that once you start to think through that stance, you won't try.

Politifact's logic isn't tortured at all and while it's totally fine if you disagree with the conclusion, at least acknowledge that it's a reasonable one to reach. Here's their approach: http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/jul/19/ohi... /

They lay out clearly their rationale, explain their thought process and make an attempt to define what's meant by 'outside spending.' Disagree all you want, but at least acknowledge it's an honest effort to get to the bottom of an an issue with ambiguous definitions. They identify a source with expertise -- a professor who specialized in campaign finance at Columbia, and attempt to clearly define what would be considered "outside money" in order to help contextualize the disagreement between the Brown/Mandel camps. It's not tortured, even if you disagree. Politifact even acknowledges that there are differing opinions on what constitutes outside money, and as a result comes down with a neutral opinion of "half true."

You understand the bias it requires to read through that and decide a) that you know better what constitutes outside spending and therefore b) Politifact's a bunch of liberal hacks? I mean, you're finding bias in a neutral opinion and using that as example number one why it's okay to ignore what Politifact says. Whatever happened to plain ol' disagreement? Is there really something so egregious about that example that it warrants writing off Politifact altogether?



Last Edited: 5/15/2018 3:31:59 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,135

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 3:36:15 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
DelBobcat wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
Del,

Some of us don't exactly trust Politifact as an independent arbiter of truth and falsity.

See: https://tinyurl.com/ol9wtak

And please note, I don't always trust Human Events, either. But, this article has merit. Look at the examples at the bottom of the article especially.


As BLSS pointed out, you're avoiding the point. And it's funny that in the opinion piece you link to the very first example is from Ohio. The Mandel campaign had $10.5 million from outside groups being spent. The Brown campaign said so. In response, the Mandel campaign said well yea, but Sherrod and his allies are spending $13 million so it doesn't matter.

Now, as a response to the $10.5 million in outside money claim, a reasonable person would think that the Mandel campaign was also referring to outside money. However, they were actually referring to money being spent by Sherrod's campaign and the Democratic Party. This was not from outside groups, as we all understand them. So Politifact pointed out the distinction and rated the claim as "half true." Now, to me, that is very generous. The statement from the Mandel campaign was definitely a purposeful deflection, and close to an outright lie. The opinion piece you cite bases their argument on the notion that what the Mandel campaign said was literally true: that Sherrod and his allies are spending $13 million. Everyone knows that's not the point. You'd have to be willfully obtuse to say that Politifact was being biased in that instance by pointing this out.


So a literally true statement is now only half true? I think your logic is very tortured. One could make the argument that Democratic Party money is outside money, just as RNC money would be outside money to a Republican candidate. Any money not directly raised by the candidate is technically outside money. Now, there is some outside money that would be more outside than other outside money. Money from George Soros or the "Evil Koch Brothers" would be "more outside," I would say. Sherrod Brown was free to make that kind of a statement, and I suppose he probably did. But, that doesn't make Mandel's statement only "half true."



Ummm... Yes, one could "make the argument that Democratic Party money is outside money" but you'd have to completely ignore that the Mandel campaign was responding to a claim that the Brown campaign made using a completely different definition of the term. Mandel's spokesperson knew they were spinning the truth, that much is obvious. And that's fine, that's what campaigns do. But Politifact provided context to the disagreement, because that's what their mission is. I don't understand how you could see their rating of "half true" and say that it is deliberately being unfair to the Mandel campaign. They use the same methodology for statements from both sides. There are multiple instances where Obama said something that was technically true but they rated it "half true" because they felt that he was leaving out context.

Like I said, I feel like you're being willfully obtuse here.

BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012
Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,503

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 3:49:35 PM 
DelBobcat wrote:


Like I said, I feel like you're being willfully obtuse here.


Better be careful calling OCF "willfully obtuse".

Look what happened to Andy when he said that about Shawshank's warden. ;-)
Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,016

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 5:43:33 PM 
I’m too out of touch with pop culture to even know what rpbobcat is taking about, but I assume he’s made a telling point.

Here’s an insightful analysis from another willfully ignorant writer from an evil organization:


http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifa... /

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,280

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 6:38:18 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
I’m too out of touch with pop culture to even know what rpbobcat is taking about, but I assume he’s made a telling point.

Here’s an insightful analysis from another willfully ignorant writer from an evil organization:


http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifa... /


Again, you're welcome to disagree with Politifact's methodology and disagree with the some of the conclusions they draw.

You were asked specific questions about a specific example you cited. It's super telling that you keep ducking conversations about specifics.

So here's another example of a "Half True' from Politifact that you feel is unfair: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/jan/31/ro... /

What, specifically, is unfair about it? They provide support for both sides and reach a neutral conclusion. Genuinely confused on this one. That dude at the Federalist doesn't want folks to accept Politifact's honesty as a baseline fact, which I'm fine with. So let's not. What about their assessment of Ron Paul's statement as Half True is dishonest and unfair?

Also, since we're making a habit of not assuming intellectually honesty as a baseline fact, when the article you cited says:

Quote:

When a Democrat said the exact same thing, they called it “Mostly True.”
B: Yeah, but those statements aren’t the exact same thing, they are slightly different.
S: What? How?
B: Because the wording is slightly different.
S: Are you on drugs?
B: It’s just one example. Give me another one.


It's not even accurate. They called it 'Half True' when Jim Webb said it, too. Here's the link: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/aug/24... /

The real irony of course is that you have the opportunity to have an actual conversation about Politifact with liberals here, and you're avoiding it in favor of posting an article which re-creates a fake conversation with liberals about Politifact.

Last Edited: 5/15/2018 7:00:47 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,016

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 7:07:54 PM 
The Webb vs Paul case is illustrative of the bias. They initially ruled Webb’s statement as “mostly true” then when the inconsistency with their earlier ruling on Paul was pointed out, they switched their ruling. Here’s their own statement on the matter:

“Correction (Dec. 20, 2016): This fact-check initially published on Aug. 24, 2015, and was rated Mostly True. Upon reconsideration, we are changing our ruling to Half True. The text of the fact-check is unchanged.”

If not caught in an inconsistency I suspect they would not have changed their ruling on Webb. In other words, if Webb made the statement and Paul had not previously it would have stood as “Mostly True.” This precisely the kind of thing that The Fedralist piece alleged.

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,280

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 7:22:28 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
The Webb vs Paul case is illustrative of the bias. They initially ruled Webb’s statement as “mostly true” then when the inconsistency with their earlier ruling on Paul was pointed out, they switched their ruling. Here’s their own statement on the matter:

“Correction (Dec. 20, 2016): This fact-check initially published on Aug. 24, 2015, and was rated Mostly True. Upon reconsideration, we are changing our ruling to Half True. The text of the fact-check is unchanged.”

If not caught in an inconsistency I suspect they would not have changed their ruling on Webb. In other words, if Webb made the statement and Paul had not previously it would have stood as “Mostly True.” This precisely the kind of thing that The Fedralist piece alleged.


Gotcha. I didn't realize they changed it; I just clicked through the link of the Federalist piece. That makes more sense, obviously.

That said, I'm still curious to know why you think a 'Half True' is so egregious here. Or in the other example you cited.

I know nothing about Politifact and don't read it, so I'm brand new to this debate, but I do find it pretty striking that these are the two top examples cited in the 'anti-Politifact' pieces you've posted. Neither seems particularly egregious to me and the logic seems sound enough even if one can reasonably disagree with the conclusion. In other words: of course Politifact is biased. They're human. But nothing cited strikes me as completely illogical gibberish designed to push an agenda. And frankly, I'd have expected much more blatant examples. And again, you're still not arguing with the actual points raised, just Politifact as a whole.

I mean, in both of these cases, you've taken issue with a rating of 'Half True.' Presumably you believe both are fully true and there's simple no reasonable argument to be made otherwise, right? So then why aren't you making that point?

Last Edited: 5/15/2018 7:23:35 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
gedunkman
General User



Member Since: 5/2/2018
Location: South Carolina
Post Count: 71

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 11:00:46 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
The Webb vs Paul case is illustrative of the bias. They initially ruled Webb’s statement as “mostly true” then when the inconsistency with their earlier ruling on Paul was pointed out, they switched their ruling. Here’s their own statement on the matter:

“Correction (Dec. 20, 2016): This fact-check initially published on Aug. 24, 2015, and was rated Mostly True. Upon reconsideration, we are changing our ruling to Half True. The text of the fact-check is unchanged.”

If not caught in an inconsistency I suspect they would not have changed their ruling on Webb. In other words, if Webb made the statement and Paul had not previously it would have stood as “Mostly True.” This precisely the kind of thing that The Fedralist piece alleged.


Gotcha. I didn't realize they changed it; I just clicked through the link of the Federalist piece. That makes more sense, obviously.

That said, I'm still curious to know why you think a 'Half True' is so egregious here. Or in the other example you cited.

I know nothing about Politifact and don't read it, so I'm brand new to this debate, but I do find it pretty striking that these are the two top examples cited in the 'anti-Politifact' pieces you've posted. Neither seems particularly egregious to me and the logic seems sound enough even if one can reasonably disagree with the conclusion. In other words: of course Politifact is biased. They're human. But nothing cited strikes me as completely illogical gibberish designed to push an agenda. And frankly, I'd have expected much more blatant examples. And again, you're still not arguing with the actual points raised, just Politifact as a whole.

I mean, in both of these cases, you've taken issue with a rating of 'Half True.' Presumably you believe both are fully true and there's simple no reasonable argument to be made otherwise, right? So then why aren't you making that point?


You asked for a specific example and OhioCatFan gave you a specific example. But you apparently still think he's not arguing "actual points." Not sure I follow that.

OK, let me change subjects. Did you see The Hill report yesterday?

The Headline:
Mueller may have a conflict — and it leads directly to a Russian oligarch

The story:
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/387625-mueller-may...

Some lawyers are saying this may put some of Mueller's indictments in jeopardy. Your reaction?
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,280

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/16/2018 6:46:42 AM 
gedunkman wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
The Webb vs Paul case is illustrative of the bias. They initially ruled Webb’s statement as “mostly true” then when the inconsistency with their earlier ruling on Paul was pointed out, they switched their ruling. Here’s their own statement on the matter:

“Correction (Dec. 20, 2016): This fact-check initially published on Aug. 24, 2015, and was rated Mostly True. Upon reconsideration, we are changing our ruling to Half True. The text of the fact-check is unchanged.”

If not caught in an inconsistency I suspect they would not have changed their ruling on Webb. In other words, if Webb made the statement and Paul had not previously it would have stood as “Mostly True.” This precisely the kind of thing that The Fedralist piece alleged.


Gotcha. I didn't realize they changed it; I just clicked through the link of the Federalist piece. That makes more sense, obviously.

That said, I'm still curious to know why you think a 'Half True' is so egregious here. Or in the other example you cited.

I know nothing about Politifact and don't read it, so I'm brand new to this debate, but I do find it pretty striking that these are the two top examples cited in the 'anti-Politifact' pieces you've posted. Neither seems particularly egregious to me and the logic seems sound enough even if one can reasonably disagree with the conclusion. In other words: of course Politifact is biased. They're human. But nothing cited strikes me as completely illogical gibberish designed to push an agenda. And frankly, I'd have expected much more blatant examples. And again, you're still not arguing with the actual points raised, just Politifact as a whole.

I mean, in both of these cases, you've taken issue with a rating of 'Half True.' Presumably you believe both are fully true and there's simple no reasonable argument to be made otherwise, right? So then why aren't you making that point?


You asked for a specific example and OhioCatFan gave you a specific example. But you apparently still think he's not arguing "actual points." Not sure I follow that.

OK, let me change subjects. Did you see The Hill report yesterday?

The Headline:
Mueller may have a conflict — and it leads directly to a Russian oligarch

The story:
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/387625-mueller-may...

Some lawyers are saying this may put some of Mueller's indictments in jeopardy. Your reaction?


I asked him to explain his example. Is that somehow an unreasonable thing to ask? Both he and the sources he cited seemed to think the Sherrod Brown thing was somehow damning, and ditto the Rand Paul thing. I'm curious what in Politifact's assessment is so biased. I've been very clear that reasonable people can disagree with the conclusions they reach, but that it feels like a stretch to me to call their assessments "tortured logic." They seem relatively well-balanced, present both perspectives, and in both cases reach conclusions that lend credence to both sides.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of specific examples, I've asked you to provide specific examples and you haven't. Twice. I guess that's why you're changing the subject now?

As for the the Mueller article, I saw that. I'm curious if anybody knows FBI protocol for dealing with potential conflicts of interest? Couldn't turn up much specific on Google.

Beyond that, I'm having trouble parsing out the claims being made there. It seems that the teeth of the issue is that the FBI worked with a Russian oligarch who could become a witness in this case. Hard to understand how the potential conflict would pay out without understanding what this guy's connection to the Trump investigation is. Presumably it's his ties to Manafort, but the Manafort indictment had nothing to do with this guy, right? So I'm sort of stumped. Not clear to me what that article claims, beyond the fact that there's a connection between the FBI and Deripaska and that that has the potential to come into play.

Last Edited: 5/16/2018 8:18:39 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,135

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/16/2018 10:01:03 AM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
I’m too out of touch with pop culture to even know what rpbobcat is taking about, but I assume he’s made a telling point.

Here’s an insightful analysis from another willfully ignorant writer from an evil organization:


http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifa... /


So the author bases his claim of bias on "if you're explaining, you're losing" and then takes 2,000 words to explain why he thinks Politifact is biased? That makes total sense.

Seriously, I see so many flaws with the argument. The first of which is that if Politifact is really trying to push a liberal agenda then they're really doing a crappy job of it by being biased for Jim Webb (a self-described conservative who refused to vote for Hillary but wouldn't say whether he voted for Trump). The second flaw is that they clearly show that Politifact rated Nancy Pelosi as the third most dishonest politician behind Trump and Cruz. Again, if they're so biased, why is Politifact trying to take down Pelosi? She's one of the most liberal members of Congress and a leader in the Democratic Party. They also rated Jeb Bush as one of the most honest politicians in the group, ahead of Joe Biden and Harry Reid. Also, why isn't John Kasich included in the analysis? Seems like a glaring omission to me.

The entire crux of the Federalist piece's argument relies on the fact that the average analysis of a Republican statement has more words than the average analysis of a Democrat's statement. That's a pretty thin thread on which to lay claim that Politifact is some left-wing propaganda machine. From the Federalist piece:

"When fact-checked by PolitiFact, Democrats had an average rating of 1.8, which is between “Mostly True” and “Half True.” The average Republican rating was 2.6, which is between “Half-True” and “Mostly False.” We also checked Republicans without President-elect Donald Trump in the mix and found that 0.8 truth gap narrowed to 0.5... All by himself, Trump has almost half of all the “Pants on Fire” ratings from the articles we scraped."

So by their own admission, Trump is responsible for a large part of the observed gap. It seems to me that the most likely explanation is that Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Nancy Pelosi are lying liars and that Kaine, Clinton, Obama, Sanders, and Jeb Bush lie too but not nearly as much.

But all of this is moot, because you've given two examples of so-called bias that were really just fuzzy areas of interpretation, and then you have refused to actually explain what it is you take issue with in those examples. I thought you were going to give me some glaring examples of where Politifact said that a liberal told the truth when it was clearly a lie or when a conservative was called a liar when they were clearly telling the truth. But it seems that your entire argument is based on the idea that they are slightly more generous to liberals, which again doesn't jibe with the data for Pelosi and Reid and it doesn't jibe with your example of Jim Webb.

BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012
Back to Top
  
The Optimist
General User



Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,552

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/17/2018 9:59:47 AM 
What's funny is that outside of the fake news media bubble most of the topics discussed on this page of the thread aren't registering at all with voters.

It starts and ends with the economy. J-O-B-S. Many of the other topics are fake "news" (with an emphasis on what constitutes "newsworthy" rather than the validity of facts)

I've seen crazier things happen.

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,280

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/17/2018 11:39:18 AM 
The Optimist wrote:
What's funny is that outside of the fake news media bubble most of the topics discussed on this page of the thread aren't registering at all with voters.

It starts and ends with the economy. J-O-B-S. Many of the other topics are fake "news" (with an emphasis on what constitutes "newsworthy" rather than the validity of facts)


I'm not really sure what you're trying to say in the parens, but to your larger point it sort of depends who you ask and when you ask them.

J-O-B-S were clearly an important issue in this previous election, but Obama's approval rating amongst Republicans didn't correlate in any way with job growth. During his Presidency, the unemployment rate dropped from 9.6% when he took office to 4.8% when he left it. Despite that, 64% of Republicans believed the unemployment rate rose during the Obama presidency. Trump himself called the unemployment rate a lie on 17 different occasions on the campaign trail, and clearly his supporters largely agreed. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-pollin... )

But they don't anymore. Trump brags about that same unemployment rate constantly. Now it's real and though job growth since Trump took office is actually slower than it was in 5 of the last 7 years, Republican voters believe otherwise.

Which is all just to say that it's not so much the actual economy or jobs that matters, but rather how the 'fake news media' talks about the economy and jobs. And beyond the media, there's a ton of confirmation bias built into those numbers. People believe what they need to believe to justify their voting decisions.

Last Edited: 5/17/2018 11:47:41 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,503

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/17/2018 12:04:02 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


Which is all just to say that it's not so much the actual economy or jobs that matters, but rather how the 'fake news media' talks about the economy and jobs. And beyond the media, there's a ton of confirmation bias built into those numbers. People believe what they need to believe to justify their voting decisions.


I disagree.
I think,when it comes to the economy,people base their voting decision primarily on how they're doing.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,280

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/17/2018 12:12:20 PM 
rpbobcat wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


Which is all just to say that it's not so much the actual economy or jobs that matters, but rather how the 'fake news media' talks about the economy and jobs. And beyond the media, there's a ton of confirmation bias built into those numbers. People believe what they need to believe to justify their voting decisions.


I disagree.
I think,when it comes to the economy,people base their voting decision primarily on how they're doing.


How does that square with the actual data though? 64% of Republicans think the unemployment rate increased during the Obama presidency, despite the unemployment rate being below 5%. The math doesn't really work out there, does it?

Last Edited: 5/17/2018 12:19:56 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,503

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/17/2018 12:29:47 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
rpbobcat wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


Which is all just to say that it's not so much the actual economy or jobs that matters, but rather how the 'fake news media' talks about the economy and jobs. And beyond the media, there's a ton of confirmation bias built into those numbers. People believe what they need to believe to justify their voting decisions.


I disagree.
I think,when it comes to the economy,people base their voting decision primarily on how they're doing.


How does that square with the actual data though?


I think you have to go into more detail then just overall job numbers.

I hated economics,but I did learn that you can look at economic numbers a bunch of different ways.

For example,if the industry you work in gets better, then the economy is improving.
If someone else's industry is getting better,its not.

Goes back to the old saying,if my neighbor loses his job,we're in a recession.
If I lose my job, we're in a depression.

There are also so many different ways to calculate things like job growth,unemployment, etc.,one of which I think is a Ouija Board,that you can pretty much make the numbers say whatever you want.


Last Edited: 5/17/2018 12:31:48 PM by rpbobcat
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,280

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/17/2018 12:36:31 PM 
rpbobcat wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
rpbobcat wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


Which is all just to say that it's not so much the actual economy or jobs that matters, but rather how the 'fake news media' talks about the economy and jobs. And beyond the media, there's a ton of confirmation bias built into those numbers. People believe what they need to believe to justify their voting decisions.


I disagree.
I think,when it comes to the economy,people base their voting decision primarily on how they're doing.


How does that square with the actual data though?


I think you have to go into more detail then just overall job numbers.

I hated economics,but I did learn that you can look at economic numbers a bunch of different ways.

For example,if the industry you work in gets better, then the economy is improving.
If someone else's industry is getting better,its not.

Goes back to the old saying,if my neighbor loses his job,we're in a recession.
If I lose my job, we're in a depression.

There are also so many different ways to calculate things like job growth,unemployment, etc.,one of which I think is a Ouija Board,that you can pretty much make the numbers say whatever you want.




Yeah, I agree with all of that. What I'm asking is what magically changed from December to January in the election year to so drastically alter people's impression of how they, personally, are doing.

Republican voters have a much different impression of the economy now than they did a year ago. I'm open to the theory that one's opinion of the economy is based entirely on your own circumstance, I'm just having trouble reconciling how so many people's circumstances changed so drastically in such a short period of time.

Last Edited: 5/17/2018 12:56:39 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 611

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/17/2018 6:02:39 PM 
The economy is complex and so are the job numbers. You can’t just look at the unemployment rate and because it went down say the economy got better. The job numbers only are based on the amount of people looking for work. So you could have a high % of of the people looking for work employed, yet at the same time have a high % of your population not looking for work. If this is the case the jobs numbers will not reflect the state of employment in your country. Also even if you have a majority of your population looking for work, there could still be problems in the economy, which I think there are now. I think the cost of living has gone up significantly in this country, as well as the cost of doing business, and our country is in serious debt. Yet you don’t hear this on the news.

This goes right back to my point about the debates being trash and why it’s fake news. Too many times on the news and on our national presidential debates they bring up trash arguments about how, for example, the job numbers went down so our economy is doing great, therefor Obama is doing a great job with the economy. Vote for Democrats instead of republicans. That’s such a surface level analysis of the economy and is not reflective of the experience Americans our having. We have to go more in debth with the debates we have on these issues. You can’t just keep shoving these terrible arguments to the American people and expect them to be happy with how the news is.
Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 611

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/17/2018 6:24:30 PM 
Also, in these debates, is there any talk about morality or who the person really is. The canidates are so fake in the debates you really get no idea of who they really are. Again this is a big problem. There are a number of different situations where I could see morality being such a important part of the decisions of the president. Yet never discussed.

Ironically I think that is what is so appealing about trump. He’s doesn’t come off as fake, and people are dying for that. Even though he is so clearly a terrible guy, in a lot of ways. It doesn’t matter. At least he’s not afraid to broadcast himself. Especially when on the other side you have someone is so clearly fake, you don’t know what you’re going to get. If you had a sit down, more in depth discussion with people, maybe you could get a canidate who is not fake, and is a good person, and can go in depth on the issues. Instead of two choices we got where one of the canidates is fake, maybe a good person/maybe a bad person, and can’t go in depth. And the another canidate who isn’t fake, is a bad person, and who can’t go in depth.

Edit:I’d also like to point out, I wonder how this lake of moral communication effects our society.

Last Edited: 5/17/2018 6:31:14 PM by TheBobcatBandit
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,280

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/17/2018 6:51:08 PM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
The economy is complex and so are the job numbers. You can’t just look at the unemployment rate and because it went down say the economy got better. The job numbers only are based on the amount of people looking for work. So you could have a high % of of the people looking for work employed, yet at the same time have a high % of your population not looking for work. If this is the case the jobs numbers will not reflect the state of employment in your country. Also even if you have a majority of your population looking for work, there could still be problems in the economy, which I think there are now. I think the cost of living has gone up significantly in this country, as well as the cost of doing business, and our country is in serious debt. Yet you don’t hear this on the news.

This goes right back to my point about the debates being trash and why it’s fake news. Too many times on the news and on our national presidential debates they bring up trash arguments about how, for example, the job numbers went down so our economy is doing great, therefor Obama is doing a great job with the economy. Vote for Democrats instead of republicans. That’s such a surface level analysis of the economy and is not reflective of the experience Americans our having. We have to go more in debth with the debates we have on these issues. You can’t just keep shoving these terrible arguments to the American people and expect them to be happy with how the news is.


Yes, I'm aware the unemployment rate is not the only metric that matters. And so is the media, whether you give them credit for that or not. I can link you to two dozen resources that provide detailed economic analysis.

But you're missing my point, which is not that the economy is great, or was under Obama. My point is that it's basically unchanged. I'm asking which economic indicators have changed year over year that justify the about face Trump supporters have done on the economy? My point isn't that because the unemployment rate is/was low, the economy is all roses. My point is that the economy isn't demonstrably different now than it was under Obama, so it's hard to understand why people who vote based on J-O-B-S (to quote The Optimist) are so pro-Trump and were so anti-Obama/Clinton. Hence my theory that it's a combination of rhetoric and confirmation bias.

Job growth's actually slowed a bit. Wages are growing, but most of that growth's concentrated at the top of the wage scale. The U6 rate has improved, but no faster than it was year over year during the Obama years. And if more of those folks who previously dropped out of the workforce come back, that's not going to be good news for wage growth.

So what's caused the sea change?

Last Edited: 5/17/2018 7:18:57 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 611

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/17/2018 8:33:13 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
The economy is complex and so are the job numbers. You can’t just look at the unemployment rate and because it went down say the economy got better. The job numbers only are based on the amount of people looking for work. So you could have a high % of of the people looking for work employed, yet at the same time have a high % of your population not looking for work. If this is the case the jobs numbers will not reflect the state of employment in your country. Also even if you have a majority of your population looking for work, there could still be problems in the economy, which I think there are now. I think the cost of living has gone up significantly in this country, as well as the cost of doing business, and our country is in serious debt. Yet you don’t hear this on the news.

This goes right back to my point about the debates being trash and why it’s fake news. Too many times on the news and on our national presidential debates they bring up trash arguments about how, for example, the job numbers went down so our economy is doing great, therefor Obama is doing a great job with the economy. Vote for Democrats instead of republicans. That’s such a surface level analysis of the economy and is not reflective of the experience Americans our having. We have to go more in debth with the debates we have on these issues. You can’t just keep shoving these terrible arguments to the American people and expect them to be happy with how the news is.


Yes, I'm aware the unemployment rate is not the only metric that matters. And so is the media, whether you give them credit for that or not. I can link you to two dozen resources that provide detailed economic analysis.

But you're missing my point, which is not that the economy is great, or was under Obama. My point is that it's basically unchanged. I'm asking which economic indicators have changed year over year that justify the about face Trump supporters have done on the economy? My point isn't that because the unemployment rate is/was low, the economy is all roses. My point is that the economy isn't demonstrably different now than it was under Obama, so it's hard to understand why people who vote based on J-O-B-S (to quote The Optimist) are so pro-Trump and were so anti-Obama/Clinton. Hence my theory that it's a combination of rhetoric and confirmation bias.

Job growth's actually slowed a bit. Wages are growing, but most of that growth's concentrated at the top of the wage scale. The U6 rate has improved, but no faster than it was year over year during the Obama years. And if more of those folks who previously dropped out of the workforce come back, that's not going to be good news for wage growth.

So what's caused the sea change?


Yes you’re correct. I’m not saying you don’t know that, I’m saying the people in the debates act like we both don’t know that. Which is where the frustration on my part and others are with the news.

That’s a debatable point you make about the pro trump anti-Obama/Clinton supporters. You’re saying that the economy isn’t demonstrably different now than it was under obama. Yes that may be true. Yet maybe that has nothing to do with why they voted for trump. You’re assuming that is. Again the economy is complex and the reasons you mention about wages growing, the U6 rate improving, ect are just a few factors in a hyper complex economy. You can’t just boil it down to those things. You ask why the seas have changed. I mentioned a few about the cost of business going up as well as the cost of living. Not to mention the ever increasing role technology is playing. There are a lot of ways the economy is changing and with all these changes people are struggling to adjust. Jobs that would have meant a solid living in the past don’t anymore. For example In places like West Virginia where coal was the dominate industry, people are left without a way to make a living. Those people have to be retrained and the communities economy has to completely transform. With the cost of education that’s not a cheap thing to do and for many people they have to take out loans to afford all of this. Which puts stresses on households and family income on the long term. these complex issues aren’t getting dealt with by the government because the debates are terrible and it leaves us with incompetent people getting voted in to run our country.

Last Edited: 5/17/2018 8:47:51 PM by TheBobcatBandit
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,280

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/17/2018 8:59:35 PM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
The economy is complex and so are the job numbers. You can’t just look at the unemployment rate and because it went down say the economy got better. The job numbers only are based on the amount of people looking for work. So you could have a high % of of the people looking for work employed, yet at the same time have a high % of your population not looking for work. If this is the case the jobs numbers will not reflect the state of employment in your country. Also even if you have a majority of your population looking for work, there could still be problems in the economy, which I think there are now. I think the cost of living has gone up significantly in this country, as well as the cost of doing business, and our country is in serious debt. Yet you don’t hear this on the news.

This goes right back to my point about the debates being trash and why it’s fake news. Too many times on the news and on our national presidential debates they bring up trash arguments about how, for example, the job numbers went down so our economy is doing great, therefor Obama is doing a great job with the economy. Vote for Democrats instead of republicans. That’s such a surface level analysis of the economy and is not reflective of the experience Americans our having. We have to go more in debth with the debates we have on these issues. You can’t just keep shoving these terrible arguments to the American people and expect them to be happy with how the news is.


Yes, I'm aware the unemployment rate is not the only metric that matters. And so is the media, whether you give them credit for that or not. I can link you to two dozen resources that provide detailed economic analysis.

But you're missing my point, which is not that the economy is great, or was under Obama. My point is that it's basically unchanged. I'm asking which economic indicators have changed year over year that justify the about face Trump supporters have done on the economy? My point isn't that because the unemployment rate is/was low, the economy is all roses. My point is that the economy isn't demonstrably different now than it was under Obama, so it's hard to understand why people who vote based on J-O-B-S (to quote The Optimist) are so pro-Trump and were so anti-Obama/Clinton. Hence my theory that it's a combination of rhetoric and confirmation bias.

Job growth's actually slowed a bit. Wages are growing, but most of that growth's concentrated at the top of the wage scale. The U6 rate has improved, but no faster than it was year over year during the Obama years. And if more of those folks who previously dropped out of the workforce come back, that's not going to be good news for wage growth.

So what's caused the sea change?


Yes you’re correct. I’m not saying you don’t know that, I’m saying the people in the debates act like we both don’t know that. Which is where the frustration on my part and others are with the news.

That’s a debatable point you make about the pro trump anti-Obama/Clinton supporters. You’re saying that the economy isn’t demonstrably different now than it was under obama. Yes that may be true. Yet maybe that has nothing to do with why they voted for trump. You’re assuming that is. Again the economy is complex and the reasons you mention about wages growing, the U6 rate improving, ect are just a few factors in a hyper complex economy. You can’t just boil it down to those things. You ask why the seas have changed. I mentioned a few about the cost of business going up as well as the cost of living. Not to mention the ever increasing role technology is playing. There are a lot of ways the economy is changing and with all these changes people are struggling to adjust. Jobs that would have meant a solid living in the past don’t anymore. For example In places like West Virginia where coal was the dominate industry, people are left without a way to make a living. Those people have to be retrained and the communities economy has to completely transform. With the cost of education that’s not a cheap thing to do and for many people they have to take out loans to afford all of this. Which puts stresses on households and family income on the long term. these complex issues aren’t getting dealt with by the government because the debates are terrible and it leaves us with incompetent people getting voted in to run our country.



Just to be super clear, I'm not the one making the point that Trump voters exclusively voted for Trump because of the economy.

In fact, I'm making basically the opposite point. The Optimist noted that voters are motivated by the economy, almost exclusively, which historically is pretty accurate. The entire reason I brought any of this up was to point out that there doesn't seem to be much correlation between economic figures and Trump voters' opinion of the economy.

Last Edited: 5/17/2018 9:04:53 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  151 - 175  of 354 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15    Next >
View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



WHO'S ONLINE
There are 162 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com
156 Guests
6 Registered Users:
 shabamon, GraffZ06, OUcat, cody36, colobobcat66, colobobcat66
There are no other users looking at this page.




Copyright ©2024 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties