Having fully watched three of the four debates, certain trends seem to have come along showing a great deal about each of the presidential candidates as they tried to explain and defend their positions.
And I was surprised at the clear distinction between which candidate was an immature deceiver who may be delusional, and which candidate was with it, mature, sober and has a straight plan ready to implement those things that would help.
As you may or may not know, I've made a bit of a study of deception. During this presidential administration, my conclusions have been proved time and time again, but they were no more clear than at the debates.
During all four debates, as well as during the administration, Obama, and Biden as well, used many of the channels for deception. The first is tangenting. This is when someone is asked a question that asks about something referred to where the facts and a suspected deception are at risk. What the deceiver does is use the initial subject, then subtly change the subject, generalizing and deflecting so that, at the end, they seem to have said a lot, but really they avoided the question altogether. I know that Obama has done this on many cases, where people seem to forget what the question was, and this is the important part, if it's a question he doesn't want to answer. I invite you to check for yourself.
Another tactic that Obama uses is straight-out denial. This is where the facts directly contradict what the deceiver is saying. For me, it was pretty clear when Obama said, in relation to the Benghazi attack, that he told the rest of America it was an act of terror. He even had the moderator (and all of them were in his back pocket) state that he did say it was a terror attack. But what was the truth? Obama stated that at the time he claimed it was an act of terror, that it was a reaction to a YouTube video. I haven't seen it myself, but I don't think it'd be the right thing to lead to the death of our ambassador in Libya.
Generalizations are when someone wants to make it sound like they're doing or saying something important, but really they don't say anything at all. I could state many examples. One that, former mayor of New Orleans, did was, when he went on the attack, accusing everyone of letting them get sunk, when he was asked about why he didn't start the evacuation, he generalized, stating things that were very obvious, even though he knew, very well, that many others would've been saved if he'd mobilized the transportation at hand.
It's also obvious, if you know what you're looking for, in big meetings with "psychics." They start out fairly general, mentioning somewhere they're being told to go this way, to point at a particular row, and then asking if anyone in that row knows someone "who passed" who had a "particular letter" in their name. "Reading" a person would allow them to guess where the deceased would fit in their lives, thereby telling them what they want to hear. In this, I'm not stating I don't believe that our loved ones who are no longer with us are not with us. I believe their spirits do continue on and that they do come nearby, and that spirits can be in other places as well. I just have a problem when "psychics" use this form of deception to deceive people, and I do think there may be a rare few who really are, but I don't know of any of them.
Obama also used generalizations. In "stating" his proof, he said things about "using the proper method" to take care of the Middle East. That wasn't an answer or a statement, it was a generalization. He never stated what the "proper method" was. Also, he used this method to reply to multiple questions without answering.
Interruption is a method used by deceivers to either cut off a question that would probably hurt them, as well as having their "answer" in question. It is used to also stop someone from stating a fact that would destroy their argument entirely. I think it's pretty clear which side is more guilty of interrupting the other by sheer numbers. It's like they were afraid Mr. Romney would say something that would allow him to get ahead.
Deflection is a method used by the current president on multiple occasions. This method is where someone basically asks a question which would implicate the deceiver in something that is almost always something the deceiver did. This is when Obama used, on multiple occasions, this method to blame President Bush for something that he doesn't want to be blamed for. There have been many references to the other side being at fault for things that went wrong because of him. The interesting thing is that it doesn't lead to a real solution; it really tells what kind of person the deceiver is. What's also interesting is that there's only one stage of life that mostly reveals itself. Think about it a moment and it may come to you. After all, how many times have you seen an elementary school aged child, when someone gets hurt or something breaks, claim it was someone or something else?
Evasion is the second-to-last I'll issue for Obama. Thank you for your patience, by the way, in letting me write down what I'm thinking. Evasion is when the question is asked and the deceiver basically brushes it aside as if it were not worth their time. This is when, after the Gulf oil-spill disaster was taken care of and cleaned up, it's never mentioned again. This is when, if someone were to ask about Obama's record, the subject isn't just dropped, it's thrown. This is also the reason, I think, we have yet to see a real birth certificate for the president that would prove he's a natural-born citizen. In the debates, Obama used the slight evasion of "My record will speak for me," even though his record isn't spotless, it's a complete spot in and of itself.
The final deception I'll discuss in this is the unprovoked attack. While I do classify this is deceptive, I want to also point out, as I did earlier, who would use this. What kind of people were responsible for the 9/11 attack? If you have seen my former articles, you know what kind I believe. I think they were cowards, every last one of them, so it's not just a form of deception, it's a form of cowardice.
This happened many times over the debates, but they also started some time before. It's when Obama started to basically use unproven and untrue "facts" to blare out "facts" about Gov. Romney. He's using this method not just because he's a coward or because he's a proven liar, he's using it because Mr. Romney can kick him out of the White House and he has a record to prove it.
After all, how many ridiculous attacks were made on Mr. Romney and his family that were completely ridiculous? How many times did Ann Romney fall under attack for being a stay-at-home mom? How many utterly ridiculous ads were later disproven? And how many attacks demanded Mr. Romney release his tax returns to prove he's "out of touch"?
Here are the facts aboutthat Obama and his minions don't want to be released, the ones that show how Mr. Romney not only showed us Obama's true face, but his own as well.
One of the unprovoked attacks states, quite emphatically, that Mr. Romney doesn't know anything about the poor. While he hasn't used his religion in the campaign, Mr. Romney spent many years, in unpaid services, as a minister of not only his one congregation, but, later, over many local congregations. As a minister of the Mormons, there are many times when he sat down with people not able to meet their own needs. In that, I don't mean needs that can be met by the help of family members and friends, or that really are not needs, just some luxury that can be done without. Many times he prayed with them, as well as other folks with other problems. Remember, also, that he performed these acts of service with no monetary gain at all.
Another fact that cannot be denied is that there are many, many businesses that were struggling before he came to the table and turned them around. Right now these businesses are making profits that would've gone under without Mitt Romney.
Why is that important? Why do they not want this to become readily apparent? Here's what I think the secret is. The US government is a business. This explains why Massachusetts became so successful, because a businessman came to the "chair" of that state's government and helped to move it around.
So what happens if a businessman gets the highest office of the US government, one with a record of many successes? Imagine, gas to an exceptional price instead of emptying your bank account at every fill-up. Imagine going from jobless to having a 9-to-5 job to go to. Imagine taxes down across the board, not just for those who can pay their share and not even notice it. Imagine having every country once again respect the US, not for its military might alone (and I would want the military to be a lot stronger than they are now that Obama has cut their protection down) but also for our example of peace. Imagine (as I stated in an earlier viewpoint about gas prices) being able to afford things at the store and not having to pay a lot for those things you really cannot do without.
I believe I have shown that Obama, in particular, and the liberals, in general, are acting more like children who don't want to have their favorite toys taken away, using all kinds of deception to try and hide what they want hidden. They're attacking their perceived enemy, Mitt Romney, not because he's unqualified but because they don't want to lose their positions or their toys.
Mitt Romney, I believe, is the best choice for America. He has a proven record that not only shows he knows how to turn things around, but also make them very profitable. Perhaps he'll even get our debt taken care of and the deficit eliminated (I'm not saying it's likely, but it would be nice to make it possible). He will make a real medical reorganization that won't be anywhere near as restrictive and, potentially, socialist as Obamacare. His ideas would work. He can do it.
That's my "viewpoint" and I'm sticking to it.
If you like writing about US politics and Campaign 2012, enter "The American Pundit" competition. Allvoices is awarding four $250 prizes each month between now and November. These monthly winners earn eligibility for the $5,000 grand prize, to be awarded after the November election.