Obama/Biden vs Romney/Ryan--America's Choose Your Own Adventure Moment

[All-American]

Care to explain why? Tell you what- I gave as full an explanation above as I could about my belief. Feel free to respond with something substantive explaining your thoughts.

The short version is Paul Ryan's response to Brian Williams. I don't have time now for a longer response.

[Moliere]

Wait...a politician lied when trying to get (re)elected??? OMG!!!! Stop the presses, I think that might be the first time that's ever happened in the history of the world.

Next thing you know the press will be covering stories of politicians sleeping with interns or SEC teams paying players

[calicoug]

The short version is Paul Ryan's response to Brian Williams. I don't have time now for a longer response.

You should take the time. Relying on his interview doesn't help. In fact, I think Ryan further distorts reality in the interview.

Ryan specifically cites the debt commission in his speech:

He created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing.

Republicans stepped up with good-faith reforms and solutions equal to the problems. How did the president respond? By doing nothing – nothing except to dodge and demagogue the issue.

In the interview, he notes he "didn't like the solutions" the debt commission came up with and that's why he voted against them. So why does he suggest Obama should have implemented the proposals? Why does he infer he supported the proposals? We all know the answer to that.

On the GM plant closing, Ryan in the interview says "what really got the GM plant was 4$ a gallon gas" and the lack of an energy policy that "pre-dates the Obama years." Right. It was totally clear from his speech that he thought the issues leading to the plant closing pre-dated Obama. I mean, who would infer anything to the contrary?

He then goes on to say that Obama "said the plant would be there in 100 years." In the interview, he actually omits the rest of the sentence (which contains a pretty crucial "if" qualifier) and pretends Obama guaranteed the plant would stick around. Then he says all of Obama's policies were implemented and the plant still closed. This is actually worse than what he said in his speech. Tell me- is this the part you find particularly persuasive?

He didn't even address the other falsehoods in his speech in the interview.

[Pelado]

He created a bipartisan debt commission.

True.

They came back with an urgent report.

True.

He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing.

True.

Republicans stepped up with good-faith reforms and solutions equal to the problems.

True.

How did the president respond? By doing nothing – nothing except to dodge and demagogue the issue.

True.

What, exactly, was the problem?

[All-American]

You should take the time. Relying on his interview doesn't help. In fact, I think Ryan further distorts reality in the interview.

I disagree. I'd wade further into the morass, but what others have said (and Pelado in particular) will work for now. I'm on vacation.

[oxcoug]

True.



True.



True.



True.



True.

What, exactly, was the problem?

[oxcoug]

He didn't even address the other falsehoods in his speech in the interview.

Cali has clearly taken on the recent fact-checking conceit with great earnestness.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Apparently it's incontrovertible truth that the downgrade happened because of the GOP holding Obama's feet to the fire and had nothing with the upward spiraling debt.

What exactly did Ryan lie about again?

Janesville plant? No.

S&P downgrade? No.

Bowles Simpson? No.

[oxcoug]

Apparently it's incontrovertible truth that the downgrade happened because of the GOP holding Obama's feet to the fire and had nothing with the upward spiraling debt.

What exactly did Ryan lie about again?

Janesville plant? No.

S&P downgrade? No.

Bowles Simpson? No.

Precisely - which is why Cali and his cohort have to rely on vehement indignation and the expectation that half-informed voters will think "no one cld possibly be that vehement and indignant if they weren't telling the truth!"

[LA Ute]

Precisely - which is why Cali and his cohort have to rely on vehement indignation and the expectation that half-informed voters will think "no one could possibly be that vehement and indignant if they weren't telling the truth!"

Wait...what are you telling us here? Say it isn't so, Ox!!!

[oxcoug]

Mike Rowe of Discovery's Dirty Jobs and Jack Nicklaus both campaigning for Romney in Ohio today.

If this doesn't turn the tide, nothing will.

[calicoug]

Apparently it's incontrovertible truth that the downgrade happened because of the GOP holding Obama's feet to the fire and had nothing with the upward spiraling debt.

What exactly did Ryan lie about again?

Janesville plant? No.

S&P downgrade? No.

Bowles Simpson? No.

Wait... are you the same guy who absolutely, completely, over-the-top-ly, flipped out over my omission of unfavorability polling numbers for Paul Ryan? The same guy who said, in response to that single harmless omission all of the following:

You're full of shit.

...you're a disingenuous hack

But I don't use that tactic, because I don't assume that any of you are stupid [Referring to my single omission of a data point irrelevant to my larger point].

After that stunt [Referring to my omission] why should anyone either believe or be interested in anything you say in this thread? You're obviously not interested in a truthful discussion.

Everything you say for now on has to be verified because you've shown we can't trust what you say.

Since you're incapable of cutting through the horseshit and only seem intent on adding to it, it's up to me to tell the truth. Here it is: Paul Ryan only has a 19% disapproval rating and this baggage you're talking about is a joke.

So to summarize: you made a silly argument about how crazy popular Ryan was and how easily he won reelection in a small district in Wisconsin, and suggested we should extrapolate those numbers to the rest of the country. I pointed out Ryan's favorability percent was only 27% (far below the 60+% you wanted us to think he would carry) and didn't note his unfavorability was at 19%. You then had the unbelievably hilarious response I've tried to capture above. Note, by the way, that Ryan currently sits underwater on favorable/unfavorable at 42.6% to 40.6%.

Ryan, on the other hand, intentionally omits data that is highly relevant, does so in the most publicized speech he has ever given, clearly lies in his speech, and your response is...

Let me refer you to some posts by a guy named Color Me Badd Fan for what we can conclude about you from the above.

[calicoug]

Mike Rowe of Discovery's Dirty Jobs and Jack Nicklaus both campaigning for Romney in Ohio today.

If this doesn't turn the tide, nothing will.

You may very well be correct!

[oxcoug]

Professor Ritchie represents for Paul Ryan.

[YOhio]

What an American Badass.