3 ms·
The brilliance of this tactic is that if you repeat some outrageous number, the only way to defend it is to produce the real number which is bound to still be q
by Aloisius 16y ago
The brilliance of this tactic is that if you repeat some outrageous number, the only way to defend it is to produce the real number which is bound to still be quite large. You can't respond with, "It is only $5 million/day!" because that is still a lot of money.
It doesn't matter if every President does it to these people. What matters is that they get to demonize Obama.
- rewind 16y agoAgreed, but $5 million a day is a lot for you and your family to take a vacation. It is NOTHING when the POTUS is on an international trip. Anyone who thinks that is a big number relative to what it's for is completely out of touch with reality, and you'll have a hard time arguing about ANYTHING with them when they don't even have a basic understanding of the way the world works.
- tomjen3 16y agoIt may be unrealistic, but personally I can't fault them for having a problem wasting that much money -- there really isn't a reason he should need thousands of people, 10% of that should have been enough. But hey, if you don't have to pay the bill you might as well enjoy the show.
- rewind 16y agoThe "thousands" figure is part of the bullshit. Clinton did it with about 1,300 people. That is far from "thousands". They talk about this in the article. And I'm curious what your experience and understanding of how that all works is to be able to say something like "10% of that should have been enough". I'm not being antagonistic. I'm genuinely curious if you understand the role that all people on this trip play, and how 90% of them could, in your opinion, be eliminated.