Having A Pushover President Has Now Become Extremely Dangerous.

Now that Debate #1 is on the books, it should now be apparent that Obama has got to go!
Hear me out.

Sure his supporters will come to his defense by blaming Lehrer, the Denver air and now they are blaming the debate commission for not letting Obama use his teleprompter.
Can you believe this?

The fact remains, the only one to blame is Obama himself because he took it too lightly.
As Dennis Miller put it, "Obama got owned, refinanced, and owned again."

Certainly the worst debate performance by any incumbent President, ever!

But this should not be a joking matter because effectively, HE LET HIS GUARD DOWN AND THE ENTIRE WORLD WAS WATCHING.

I'm sure many will refuse to see it, but we are beginning to see a dangerous pattern here.
Ex. Obama is light on security, he failed to protect our military in Benghazi just as he was ill prepared for the Romney assault.

Now take a look at what the rest of the world is saying about Obama now.



I'll be honest, I watched this and I was pissed because Obama is now a laughing stock.
Do we really need this now?
Our enemies are salivating at the mouth, just waiting for him to get re-elected.

How can he be taken seriously by any world leader after that disastrous performance?

And thank God that we've got the worlds strongest military, a three tier government with checks and balances, and a country full of proud gun owners to stave off the invasion that whoever is planning predicated upon the debate.

~Phew~ almost had me worried for a minute.

~Heff

ATS Deny Histrionics

Do you really believe what you've posted, OP? I mean, seriously. Do you really believe it?

While Obama is certainly less aggressive in the foreign policy realm than is the norm in America, I take this OP as as an overreaction to ONE debate.

And honestly, I favor Obama's shift in tone. This is no longer America's world, we have to realize that our relationship with emerging countries like China and India has to be defined by cooperation and not dictation by the US.

We are exiting the age of unilateral world power and hegemony. Fighting this shift based on a lingering attitude of absolute American exceptionalism may prove to be dangerous.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Hefficide

Dear Hefficide,

Glad to see you mixing it up with us grunts again. It's a pleasure to see your work.

I'm not entirely sure the threat that the OP is talking about is an invasion of mainland US. At least I'm more worried about the situation in the rest of the world.

If, as has been planned, the military will be taking more and more cuts, it will become very difficult for people to believe that we will intervene in regional struggles. If Obama is shown as weak and hesitant, a conclusion some might draw from the debate, that diminishes even further the credibility of any threat to use our military.

Seeing the US as weak and unable to support it's allies, the other nations of the world will look for other protectors and sponsors, futher weakening our influence in the world. That might be acceptable if all other nations gave up violence, aggression, etc. But will China? What happens if we pull our ships from there and say we won't interfere? Does Russia have dreams beyond it's borders? I think so, and by saying we'll be more flexible after the elections, Russia's dreams come closer to reality. And who slows the spread of Militant Islam? Will Obama debate Ahmadinejad?

If I thought the UN could do it, that might be a path to take, but they don't have a very good record.

And what kind of diplomatic power to we have when backed up by the man damaged in the debates? I'm afraid the signal going out is "We are cutting our strength, and what remains will be led by someone who might not be up to the job."

I don't know, Hefficide, I'm not convinced that the OP is that far wrong, if I understood him correctly.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


I don't think any Country can hold a candle to the United States, Military Might. For now, I don't think the US has a rival.

We as Americans are not really sure which President showed up for the debate,
Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, or just another empty chair.

reply to post by Hefficide


Do you think Putin, or Netanyahu respect Obama?

I don't.

I love the OPs logic.

Obama lost a debate, thus we are going to be attacked.

Thanks for the late night laugh.

What bothered me most is Obama just doesn't undrstand that all this money he has wasted is not just paper...yet.

When Obama talked about how we need to hire more teachers and Romney was going to prevent that...Romney just said that with the money he wasted on fringe green companies alone he could have hired 2 million teachers..

The problem was that Obama had no comeback to defend it...just a smirk... This is a tell tell sign he just doesn't get it, or is lost in party talking points...

reply to post by sonnny1


That's true, but the gap is closing and wars are being fought more by ideological group than conventional nation states. Also, if all goes well and we're out of Afghanistan in a few years and the Iran situation doesn't explode, what good is our military if there's no enemy?

I think the world is realizing more and more that any large scale war will be a major setback for all. So, power is being defined economically in high proportion with each passing year.

That is what I mean by fighting the change in world power structure could be dangerous. The US may see our military as our only major competitive advantage and choose to use it in less than ethical ways. Which according to some has already been happening, and if it has then it is bound to increase. As I see it, this can only lead to bad things.

The point is that in terms of economic power China should be neck and neck with the US within 20 years.

Regardless if this happens or not, I still favor our president approaching other world leaders as equals. No need to push others around, America can do fine without bullying or asserting superiority.

reply to post by sonnny1


I don't think their respect is relevant - on a personal level. They don't have to respect any sitting POTUS. I doubt that Khrushchev respected JFK as a person, or that Hitler had much respect for FDR.

In the end did it matter? Of course not because a POTUS is simply a POTUS. He holds an office on behalf of a nation and the nation is respected under it's own merits. I seriously doubt that any world leader bases their concept of America upon any sitting POTUS.

~Heff

Originally posted by HostileApostle
I love the OPs logic.

Obama lost a debate, thus we are going to be attacked.

Thanks for the late night laugh.

Two questions

If Obama wins what are the chances that Iran attacks Israel?

If Romney wins what are the chances that Iran attacks Israel?

I think we all know that answer....

Originally posted by Alxandro
Now that Debate #1 is on the books, it should now be apparent that Obama has got to go!

George W. Bush was the worst president in my lifetime, and probably the worst president to ever hold office in this country. With Romney incorporating roughly 70% of Bush's previous administration, you can't even fathom the destruction that will befall this country if Romney were to become president. Not to mention the further decline of the reputation of the U.S. in the eyes of the world since Romney has already made it clear he's going to be a war president, having threatened Russia and Iran at the RNC.

May whatever deity you believe in have mercy on all of us if Romney becomes president. We don't need, nor can we afford another Bush presidency.


Having said that, yes, Obama has broken nearly every promise he made when he first ran for president, but at least he's the one we "know".

We just have to stick it out another four years, and pray that Jesse Ventura decides to run for office.

I know the op wants to have a serious conversation here, but I could not stop laughing



Better hope Romney wins!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by Xtrozero


While I disagree with your premise, even if it's true a similar spin can be put on the odds of Israel attacking Iran with Romney as president with a preventative justification.

I think the odds are lower that war is avoided completely with Obama.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by sonnny1

 

That's true, but the gap is closing and wars are being fought more by ideological group than conventional nation states. Also, if all goes well and we're out of Afghanistan in a few years and the Iran situation doesn't explode, what good is our military if there's no enemy?

I think the world is realizing more and more that any large scale war will be a major setback for all. So, power is being defined economically in high proportion with each passing year.

That is what I mean by fighting the change in world power structure could be dangerous. The US may see our military as our only major competitive advantage and choose to use it in less than ethical ways. Which according to some has already been happening, and if it has then it is bound to increase. As I see it, this can only lead to bad things.

The point is that in terms of economic power China should be neck and neck with the US within 20 years.

Regardless if this happens or not, I still favor our president approaching other world leaders as equals. No need to push others around, America can do fine without bullying or asserting superiority.

I wouldn't mind equals also. But we need a President, that can take care of his domestic problems first, and shall I dare say, he hasn't. If he cant take care of problems at home, how is he going to take care of problems abroad?

I don't want to have to show anyone the failures here, and abroad, as his track record, speaks for itself.

Also, Another Country's freedom, is another Countries draconian ways. No Country is Perfect though. I would say some Countries, have dictators, in place, and will never change, regardless of the tone our President makes.

reply to post by charles1952


Charles my friend I agree with everything you said. I just fail to see how a single POTUS's performance in a single debate might embolden any foreign leader into presuming America a weak nation.

It would be like you or I seeing a professional fighter sneeze and thinking "He's WEAK! I can take him!" and attacking. It is an irrational reaction.

Now if some leader wants to mock Obama personally? Sure that's going to happen. But that doesn't effect the nation or the power balance in the world. Nobody is going to base a military campaign based upon a single poor performance at a podium.

~Heff

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


Look up operation Olympic Games the current fearless leader has already attack Iran.

And newsglash Bush was not the worst the guy who is presiding over a 16 trillion dollar debt is.

You know that guy who spent more in 4 years that Bush did in 8

You know that guy who put drones over American skies

You know that guy who has attacked more countries than Bush did.

You know that guy who did not end the patriot act but expanded its powers and then signed the NDAA in to existence.

You know that guy who expanded the powers of the TSA.

The list goes on.

Obama makes Bush look like an amateur.