Thankfully—slowly, political candidates are learning not to be so nice, and to stick to the facts when debating a progressive, emotional candidate. We have covered this topic in great detail here at this sight, especially in regard to public schools run by progressive labor unions. But on the big stage of the Presidency, politicians have regulated themselves to nice hand shakes and careful jabs marred in politeness since Ronald Reagan was president. That is, until October 3, 2012 when Mitt Romney decimated the hapless Barack Obama in a debate that clearly showed what a businessman with a successful background looks like next to a political activist raised on communism by his parents, grandparents, college professors, and community agitators in Chicago with no experience in even running a fast-food restaurant—let alone an entire country.

I am not a fan of machine politics, and I am not particularly excited about the kind of government that Mitt Romney wishes to bring to The United States. But as far as having an understanding of how the economy works, and business in general, he is clearly the better candidate over Barack Obama, and this was displayed vividly in the first Presidential debate of the 2012 elections. Credit for the victory belongs to Romney. If anyone watching the debates still wishes to vote for Barack Obama it is because they are simply too stupid to understand what was they were hearing.

The reason that Barack Obama lost the debate is because Romney forced Obama to answer factual questions and to stay out of economic theory based on emotion. Romney never let Obama even come close to an emotional argument, and this left Obama defenseless, and alone standing on a stage in front of millions of people utterly decimated. No progressive, not even Bill Clinton can win a debate if they are forced to stick to facts. All progressives require emotional decisions in order to advance their cause, which is why women tend to support Barack Obama over Mitt Romney, because they tend to vote with emotion as they are traditionally more emotionally motivated between the two sexes. In the political game of rock-paper-scissors, facts always smash emotion—100% of the time. The key to beating all progressive causes is to use facts to dismantle the opinions of emotion.

The Romney/Obama debate will forever be the skeleton key that reveals how logic can be used to win debates, and elections. I have used the very same method to beat down the aggressive levy advances of my local school district as the teachers union typically uses emotion to capture the argument without any facts to back their statements. When I forced the topic to logic, they could not win, and they continued after many attempts to maintain their emotional position even when the facts were grossly evident, and at that point the discussion evolved into ridiculousness. When the topic of why a public school was in financial trouble it was not because the state took away funding, it was not because the kids needed the money, it was not because the school needed to hire the best teachers–it was because the school board laid down at the feet of the teachers union and ate out of their hand, which caused the financial crises. There was no other reason which was revealed by sticking to the facts.

When men and women argue typically as husband and wife, the husband usually complains that he loses because he allows the argument to devolve into an emotional one. He loses because he does not stick to the facts, but allows his heart-strings to be yanked and pulled needlessly. This is notoriously prevalent in younger couples who are still immature in their thinking. Older couples tend to learn not to play such games which is what leads to a successful marriage. Progressives have for years used the same perilous tendency to advance socialist causes by using emotion to position their statements in much the same way that women use emotion to beat men in arguments.

But as men who do not allow such emotion to govern their actions, they learn that the best way to maintain their integrity is to stick with the facts of an argument without being pulled into the emotional fray of the women they argue with. They learn that their women actually respect them more for maintaining their integrity without emotion, and such men will learn that their sex life will increase proportionally.

The same rules apply to every facet of life. No business can succeed built of pure emotion. They only succeed with the facts of the matter, the bottom-line numbers. They do not succeed based on theory, they succeed based on fact. The same holds true in an argument between husband and a wife. Yes Aunt Millie will be upset if the wife and her husband do not attend the birthday party for Millie’s second child who lives on the other side of the country. No the couple cannot afford the plane trip at that stage in their marriage. The man should not cave into the crying wife stuck between loyalty to her sister and her husband by charging the plane fair just to keep his emotional wife happy. It might be the nice thing to do, but the couple could not afford it, and no level of emotion can change the fact. No argument can change the fact either. The goal of the argument on behalf of the wife is to convince her husband to let her have things both ways, peace with her sister, and peace with her husband who doesn’t want to fly across the country for a birthday party. The man might gain anger from his wife by stating that her sister should have not moved to L.A when the rest of the family lives in New York and still expect the family to be close, but the sex will be better later, because the wife will respect his honesty.

And the politician can learn an important lesson in that metaphor. Politicians would gain more respect if they were just honest, and didn’t try to pander to the emotions of the voters. Nothing ever gets done with emotional progressives, and the conversation is pointless because they are never rooted in any facts. Politicians who try to play nice and be the good guy either way will end up being crushed by the politician who uses the emotional argument because the opponent will surrender the facts to emotion, which is equivalent to giving up the strategic high ground in favor of kindness, to avoid the conflict. Romney won the debate because he did not allow emotion to dictate the conversation leaving Obama as defenseless as a sobbing woman who is stuck between loyalty to her sister and her husband. Obama is stuck between his communist instructors and the genuine expectations of his supporters. Because he could not fight the facts, because Obama has routinely ignored the facts, he was extremely vulnerable and he was defenseless to debate Romney and this will continue because so long as Obama does not face the facts of his presidency and the economic conditions that surround it, he cannot win a single one. Obama can only win if people chose to ignore the facts. And this is true for virtually every conflict.

Politics will improve dramatically when we are no longer impressed that a politician stuck with the facts and made a compelling argument. I yearn for a day when a politician like Romney and another politician also arguing the facts have a debate that actually is productive instead of a one-sided slaughter like what happened on October 3, 2012 with the emotional Barack Obama. Debates are intended to discover the truth by looking at the facts, not distorting them through the lens of emotion. If Romney continues to debate with facts on his side, the Presidency will clearly be his. This first debate is only the tip of the iceberg of the type of misery dictator Obama is in for between now and the election.

Rich Hoffman

If you like my work at this site then check out my books shown below, along with quotes, interviews, reviews, and ways to find them.  Clicking the pictures below are your doors to even more adventure: