Amigo
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 1,945
- Reaction score
- 326
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I hope so!
He could try it, but at this point, the adults would give him a 'time out'. Probably send him golfing.....in Hawaii.
There have been many excuses for the President's first performance. One excuse having been tossed around was the O2 excuse. Denver, is 5,280 ft/asl. I am certain that the crew operating VC25A, sets the ECS to maintain something near the 7,000 to 6,500 ft/asl level for the cabin, whenever it is carrying the POTUS. I am also fairly confident that the 747-2 series modifications for SAM28000 and SAM29000, do allow for higher pressure differentials which yield lower cabin altitudes. So, it would not surprise me, if the President arrived at the debate, having flown a cross-country flight at something closer to the elevation of Denver, prior to arrival. This is not a typical Boeing 747-2 series airframe.
Having said that, I believe the President, was setting this man up for a bigger failure. There were times during the first debate where Romney, was clearly deviating from his campaign trail rhetoric and the President, seemed to simply take notes while looking down. I think it was his way of not seeming like he was engaging, as a strategy. Some of the things said by Romney, during the first debate, were so inflammatory and destructive to his own candidacy, that all Obama, really had to do was simply let the man talk.
Romney, talked himself into hole during the first debate, and during the second debate, I think you saw the POTUS simply unleash a torrent of nails on virtually every single one of Romney's statements from the first debate, where it clearly made Romney, look rather small. Romney, thinking that his las strategy of running over the Moderator would work again, found himself being picked apart by his own contradictions on multiple occasions. All the POTUS had to do was bring those contradictions to light.
Romney, spent an entire week doubling-down and boasting about his accomplishments during the first debate. So, when that house of cards came crashing down in the second debate for Romney, you could see that he got a bit flustered and it made it look like Romney, was trying to hard to recover. Whether or not the President, should have used this multi-debate strategy is debatable in and of itself, but the poll numbers coming AFTER the second debate will provide a better picture.
On the Obamabot question - there is a special connection that this President has with his most staunch supporters that I have not witnessed before in Presidential politics. I hear more people shouting the words "We love you!" than I ever have when even Bill Clinton, was running for election and/or re-election. You hear this all the time wherever the POTUS goes. So, there are a LOT of people out there that feel "connected" to the President, in ways that you don't typically see in Presidential elections. So, the whole "Bot" thing just might be a bit of envy and jealousy. You have to put that into its proper context - when was the last time somebody yelled to George W. Bush: "We Love You!" It has happened - but with Obama, it is a regular and routine occurrence, virtually everywhere he goes with his core supporters.
They really do love the President, and I personally think that is what creates and drives the envy and jealousy that other politicians in opposition to Obama, often express. Most of them have been Career Politicians and probably never once had anybody tell them that they loved them from a crowd like that. It has to be demoralizing, if you are in opposition to the President, and you have been in the political sphere most of your adult life.
The other thing that you have to remember about such comments like that, is the fact that you have Career men like Newt Gingrich, who not only served in the Congress a lot longer than Obama, but also attempted to gain their party's nomination more times than Obama, and failed every single time. Up comes this "skinny kid from Chicago," who spends far less time in the Senate than his opponents seeking their party's nomination, and not only gets the Democrats to nominate him, but then goes on to actually win the White House, with core supporters screaming at the top of their lungs, "We Love You!"
Just think about how that makes all those Career Congressmen who could not even get their party to see them as being Presidential enough to nominate them for the job. It must be absolutely crushing for them to see this man sit in the White House. Added to that, is the clear fact that he's Black and you will create some VERY angry Congressmen on the other side of the aisle, who probably feel like Obama, got to the White House on an Affirmative Action "Scholarship" for Potential Black Presidential Candidates, and not on the strength of his intelligence, articulation, command of the facts, command of the situation, command and control of his campaign, and his ability to step-up his game when it is absolutely necessary and pull out a victory.
This is what Michael Jordan, used to always do. Joe Montana, did the exact same thing. And, this is the same kind of 4th quarter GOTO guy, that Obama, has become. He gets huge wins that people remember for a long time and he gets them against the odds. He's not a gambler, but he does take calculated risks when the risk/reward ratio warrants do so (Osama Bin Laden, as one example).
He's disciplined, typically remains in control and has a normal aspirated demeanor that does not get blown out of proportion in difficult situations. I remains calm when things are falling apart all around him and he thinks his way through situations to resolve the best possible solution, without allowing himself to get caught-up in the "drama" of the situation. He's stable, reliable, consistent and demonstrated himself to be trustworthy and he does not mind taking on the huge challenges when nobody else wants to. He keeps his head clear and his eyes looking forward and he maintains high situational awareness in times of crisis.
That's the kind of man, or woman I want in the White House. Steady. Solid. Stable. Consistent. Vision. Intelligent. Calm. Rational. Coherent. Committed to The People's best interest. Here's why I support the President's Re-Election:
.
How about false independents who hate liberty? :mrgreen: Seriously, change it to "very liberal".
Is that where you go to pick up your paycheck?
No, that'd be the welfare office.
What about people who don't know me or what I believe in. Change yours to ASSumptions.
Mitt Romney is perhaps the finest man to run for POTUS in 30 years. We are lucky to be able to have his talents, skill and experience to right our ship of state.
Those who focus on binders and big bird and Mitt's money or contraception are not aware of what Obama has done and plans to do with another four years in office.
Folks, we are in trouble and Obama has not given us any indication he has the smarts or the inclination to do what is necessary to avoid the disaster ahead. A disaster of HIS making.
The American people will recognize this and will vote to save our ship of state andworry about our more personal and less urgent concerns in a later election.
Romney cannot win precisely because of binders and big bird. You need to be careful not to confuse your own emotional stake in this election with the facts. The reality is that Obama cannot lose.
Obama is deliberately trying to cultivate that kind of thinking. It is a bit counterintuitive, but if the race seems like he has a sure thing for Obama, his supporters will stay home.
So, the fact that you think that is all part of his strategy. It's essentially the reason he threw the first debate.
I agree with you 100%. My wife and I were thinking the same exact thing just after the first debate. We questioned the wisdom of the plan . . . and still do . . . however, I believe it may backfire on him.
Well my thought on it is, how did Obama win the first time around? He had an impressive turnout of young voters because of the tremendous novelty of it all. He hasn't got that going for him this time around, so his biggest danger is having a complacent base. He is certainly playing a dangerous game with this strategy, but he is doing it incredibly well. I was with you until the first debate and then it dawned on me that this is a rope a dope, and the second debate solidified it.
You can say this as many times as you like, and you can call those who disagree with you "emotional" as many times as you like. But as with almost everything else you say, your declaring it as fact doesn't make it fact, and it becomes more and more comical every single time you do it.
So which is it, Guy? Do you really believe that your own declarations make things fact, or are you just trying to get a rise out of people?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?