Skip to main content

The fact is that the Romney/Ryan ticket is far less honest than the Obama/Biden one

Courtesy of fact-checker Politifact.com and some nerds with time on their hands, a study was just released which showcases that of the two tickets in this year's presidential election, the Republican one is far less honest than the Democratic one. Unlike many I know, I won't just stand by my talking point. I will back it up with evidence. I know - there's a shocker, right?

If one isn't familiar with Politifact.com, they separate their honesty grades in the following six categories: 1) True (completely true), 2) Mostly True, 3) Half True, 4) Mostly False, 5) False and 6 ) Pants On Fire (a statement that went above and beyond even just calling it completely false).

Since President Obama has been in office for going on four years, he and Biden have a much greater number of overall grades - 505 at this point, whereas Romney and Ryan have a collected 223 such grades.

To this point, of all 505 Obama and Biden statements that have been graded by the site, 227 of them are either mostly or completely true, which is equal to 43.0%. Of all the comments they had graded, 145 were labeled as mostly false, false or pants on fire, which is equal to 28.7%. So, for the time being, the Obama/Biden ticket is at +14.3% when comparing their honest to their dishonest statements.

For the Republican ticket, one can pretty much reverse those percentages. Of their 223 graded statements, only 65 have been labeled as either true or mostly true (29.1%) and 98 have been categorized as mostly false, false or pants on fire (43.9%). So, the ticket is currently at -14.8% when comparing their honest to dishonest statements, for an overall difference of 29.1% in favor of the Democratic ticket on the honesty front. What may be the most jarring number of them all is that of the 505 graded statements made by President Obama and Vice President Biden, only 10 have been labeled as "pants on fire," which is equal to 2.0%. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have only had 223 statements graded - that's 282 fewer than Obama and Biden. Yet, the Republican ticket has made 19 statements that have been labeled as "pants on fire" (8.5%), almost twice the number of the Obama/Biden ticket and with 282 fewer statements that have been graded. At this rate, if and when Romney/Ryan amass 505 graded statements, they will have to their credit 43 that are labeled "pants on fire" - over four times that of Obama and Biden. Here's a breakdown of the numbers below:

True/Mostly True
1. Obama/Biden (227 of 505): 43.0%
2. Romney/Ryan (65 of 223): 29.1% (-13.9%)

Mostly False/False/Pants On Fire
1. Romney/Ryan (98 of 223): 43.9% (+15.2%)
2. Obama/Biden (145 of 505): 28.7%

Net Difference
1. Obama/Biden: 43.0% (honest)/28.7% (dishonest) = +14.3%
2. Romney/Ryan: 29.1% (honest)/43.9% (dishonest) = -14.8%

Difference of 29.1%

http://www.eclectablog.com/2012/10/politifact-tells-the-tale-obamabiden-lead-in-truth-department-romneyryan-tell-more-lies-chart.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"