Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
IGNORED

Does President Obama play too much Golf?


Note: This thread is 4966 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 785
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

Oh bull bplewis. I'm not a bigot just because Im awre of the statistics.

93% of blacks voted for Obama.

I don't think anybody takes issue with that statement, but if I remember correctly, you didn't just say that 93% of black people voted for Obama, you said that they voted for Obama BECAUSE he was black, did you not?

Quote:

Republicans need to ditch the stupid religious angle that they adopt. It offends women, it offends those intelligent enough not to believe in a ghost with a grand plan, it offends gays. WHy should I care what two guys or gals who love each other do in their homes? I dont but the Republican party does. This isn't colonial times and theyre stuck back then with their religious bend to everything.

And this information isn't accurate either.  The entirety of the Republican Party isn't anti-gay.  (And before you try to explain how you didn't mean all Republicans, go back and read Dak's post #766)

When Prop 8 passed here in California a few years ago (eliminating gays right to marry with a Constitutional Amendment) people voted their religion, not their party.  Those same black people who voted 93% for Obama, also voted 70% against gay rights.  Those aren't Republicans.  Source: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Many-Obama-supporters-also-backed-Prop-8-3186289.php

Stop generalizing.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Our electorate is changing - it is about values - and Latinos and Asians don't seem to have a problem with more government, as well as Blacks, whereas old white people have more of an issue with it. The argument for smaller federal gov't worked in the '80's but it does not resonate now, and was not a reality in the 80s. What we're hearing the final roar of a white population yearning for the good old days - but that is not reality. Reality is today.

The conclusion of your final paragraph is what the chattering class wants us to believe. But I'm not sure I do. Obama garnered nearly 10M fewer votes than he did in '08. And there was nearly 13M fewer total voters than in '08. After accounting for some crossover, I'd guesstimate that there are nearly 70M voting conscious Americans who either voted against his Keynesian agenda, or withheld their vote either in opposition, ignorance, or apathy. So I'm not sure the middle class is really on board with him. But we'll eventually find out when they ultimately get the tax bill in the mail.

Furthermore, one day the electorate is going to realize that in order to pursue more aggressive Keynesian solutions, the rule of law will have to be compromised--in may ways it already has. And when the rule of law begins to look like it's being treated like an inconvenient contrivance, it won't just be old white men who are feeling a bit too queasy.


Posted
Originally Posted by westpenncyclist

Not to skirt the question, but now that he's won re-election, I expect him to double his playing time. And by looks of that swing of his, he needs to.

Piers Morgan reported that Obama played 160 rounds of golf during his term, but only one round with a Republican. This is obvious Partisam Golfing and I am offended as a Non partisan golfer.    IMO, Obama really needs to play more golf with Republicans.


Posted
Originally Posted by Joakim

Piers Morgan reported that Obama played 160 rounds of golf during his term, but only one round with a Republican. This is obvious Partisam Golfing and I am offended as a Non partisan golfer.    IMO, Obama really needs to play more golf with Republicans.

Country club Republicans? Or actual politician Republicans? :)


Posted
Originally Posted by westpenncyclist

Country club Republicans? Or actual politician Republicans? :)

Any Republican golfing partners would be a good start, but golfing with a Politician Republican (insert name) might be the answer to solving our Fiscal Cliff.


Posted
Originally Posted by westpenncyclist

The conclusion of your final paragraph is what the chattering class wants us to believe. But I'm not sure I do. Obama garnered nearly 10M fewer votes than he did in '08. And there was nearly 13M fewer total voters than in '08. After accounting for some crossover, I'd guesstimate that there are nearly 70M voting conscious Americans who either voted against his Keynesian agenda, or withheld their vote either in opposition, ignorance, or apathy. So I'm not sure the middle class is really on board with him. But we'll eventually find out when they ultimately get the tax bill in the mail.

Furthermore, one day the electorate is going to realize that in order to pursue more aggressive Keynesian solutions, the rule of law will have to be compromised--in may ways it already has. And when the rule of law begins to look like it's being treated like an inconvenient contrivance, it won't just be old white men who are feeling a bit too queasy.

I won't assume why fewer people voted this year. Maybe it's because their votes would not make any difference in the Electoral College, or maybe because, unlike 2008, we did not have  transcendent candidates. And I just did not see the enthusiasm this year - less enthusiasm = less votes.

As to any Keynesian Agenda, get real, Obama is not the sole owner. Romney would have a Keynesian Agenda, as would all Presidents since the 80's - if you define Keynesian as deficit spending in a time of economic downturn. Of course, upturn or downturn, Republicans deficit spend like Democrats. The partisan labeling doesn't work for you.

The Tea Party, Romney, and the Pubs this year were about smaller federal government and delegating to the states, or even private business. That dogma was rejected. I think the voters were telling the Parties that there are some things the Feds can do better.

Ping G400 Max 9/TPT Shaft, TEE EX10 Beta 4, 5 wd, PXG 22 HY, Mizuno JPX919F 5-GW, TItleist SM7 Raw 55-09, 59-11, Bettinardi BB39

 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
What planet are you living on that you didn't notice that Obama had the biggest deficits in history, not republicans? Since when have the majority (democrats? they don't control the house, they just won the presidency and have a teeny lead in the senate) been calling for a balanced budget? Obviously they have not.[quote name="bplewis24" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/756#post_783823"]The majority spoke, and the minority needs to heed the call for a balanced budget on the current administration's platform as decided by the people.  When they Republicans win back the Presidency and/or the Senate/House, they can explode the deficit with their agenda again.  Until then, they can be butt-hurt and complain their way to the middle. [/quote] You shouldn't be. Well within the normal range. Lots of latinos in Texas helped too. [quote name="Mr. Desmond" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/756#post_783841"]But the Prez did no campaigning here. I'm surprised he got 42%.[/quote] Right. So your point is what again. I didnt talk about the popular vote. Who cares about the popular vote? Obama won it-The winner usually does. [quote name="Mr. Desmond" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/756#post_783841"]You could say the same for Romney in California, for example. My point is - the popular vote is not the objective, and its results may be misleading. Swing states are the objective and that is where Obama spent his money - wisely.[/quote] Why is it denigrating to point out that black people are black and latinos are latino? It is simply what they are. SOME of them voted for him because he's black. Some women voted for Hillary because she was a woman. Some old white guys voted for Romney because he wasnt black But the numbers show the former (latino and blacks voting fore purely racial reasons) was a lot more common than whites voting for racial reasons. Stats show it Look them up. Latinos and blacks are way more likely to need the entitlement programs too so of course they vote for the democrat. But not at 93% levels. If race was not a motivating factor, and you simply allowed for the entitlement issues to shift the black/latino vote, theyd have voted a little more for Obama than the rest of the united states. And thats accounting for the same urban/rural percentages (urbans vote more democrat, rural more republican). So how do you explain the 30% (for blacks) rise in voting for Obama that cant be explained by ANY OTHER METRIC. Skin color. If white people had voted for Romney 93% or even 65% can you imagine? A significant number of blacks (not even MOST of them dak and bp) voted for Obama because he was black. Numbers bear it out. Blacks and latinos comprise more and more of the nation. If you have to win a larger percentage of the white vote than has been done since FDR to overcome the skin color motivated voting of a growing minority you wont win an election. [quote name="Mr. Desmond" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/756#post_783841"]But I am curious. Why seemingly denigrate Obama's electorate? Don't Latino, Black and Asian Votes count as much as White Votes?[/quote] I dont care how much golf he plays. Its a stressful job. He should play as often as he can get away. [quote name="westpenncyclist" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/774#post_783842"]Not to skirt the question, but now that he's won re-election, I expect him to double his playing time. And by looks of that swing of his, he needs to. [/quote] Not all 93%. But almost 30% of that 93% cannot be explained. And give it a rest on the ALL and MOST bull The republicans are anti-gay, by and large. Its a generalization in the truest sense and it does not mean ALL. If you have to resort to picking at something you know what i mean to try to win your point you have failed. [quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/774#post_783843"]I don't think anybody takes issue with that statement, but if I remember correctly, you didn't just say that 93% of black people voted for Obama, you said that they voted for Obama BECAUSE he was black, did you not?     Quote: And this information isn't accurate either.  The entirety of the Republican Party isn't anti-gay.  (And before you try to explain how you didn't mean all Republicans, go back and read Dak's post #766)[/quote] My golf balls miss right as often as they miss left. I prefer them down the middle though, like my politics. [quote name="Joakim" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/774#post_783852"] Piers Morgan reported that Obama played 160 rounds of golf during his term, but only one round with a Republican. This is obvious Partisam Golfing and I am offended as a Non partisan golfer.    IMO, Obama really needs to play more golf with Republicans. :tumble: [/quote]

"The expert golfer has maximum time to make minimal compensations. The poorer player has minimal time to make maximum compensations." - And no, I'm not Mac. Please do not PM me about it. I just think he is a crazy MFer and we could all use a little more crazy sometimes.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

I won't assume why fewer people voted this year. Maybe it's because their votes would not make any difference in the Electoral College, or maybe because, unlike 2008, we did not have  transcendent candidates. And I just did not see the enthusiasm this year - less enthusiasm = less votes.

As to any Keynesian Agenda, get real, Obama is not the sole owner. Romney would have a Keynesian Agenda, as would all Presidents since the 80's - if you define Keynesian as deficit spending in a time of economic downturn. Of course, upturn or downturn, Republicans deficit spend like Democrats. The partisan labeling doesn't work for you.

The Tea Party, Romney, and the Pubs this year were about smaller federal government and delegating to the states, or even private business. That dogma was rejected. I think the voters were telling the Parties that there are some things the Feds can do better.

I reject that idea that this election was a referendum on the challenger or the ideas of the minority party. In fact, when an incumbent is on the ballot, history rejects that idea.


Posted

Basic fact check. The last bush year in 2009 (look up when fiscal years starts and who passes that budget)  had a 1.4 trillion deficit. Obama hasn't come close to having a 4 trillion dollar deficit. Since Obama took over the debts have dropped but not by much. Supposedly this year will be down to 1.1 trillion which you can either look as a nice 25% drop confirming we are on the path to recover or you can view it as a heck of a lot of money still to go.

It will be hard for anyone to ever catch Reagan as far as inflating the debt. He pretty much tripled it. Bush about doubled it and Obama is just slightly off that pace. Given our economy isn't growing at 8% a year, that pace can not be maintained.

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

The republican party is seriously screwed up if they couldn't beat THIS president, with the four largest deficits (his best year being three times worse than the previous worst record), winning 63% notwithstanding.


Posted
Originally Posted by westpenncyclist

I reject that idea that this election was a referendum on the challenger or the ideas of the minority party. In fact, when an incumbent is on the ballot, history rejects that idea.

Minority Party?

The GOP controls the House.

Sorry - you can reject all you'd like, and we can learn from history, but we don't assume history repeats itself, especially in a changing demographic.

Accept reality.

Ping G400 Max 9/TPT Shaft, TEE EX10 Beta 4, 5 wd, PXG 22 HY, Mizuno JPX919F 5-GW, TItleist SM7 Raw 55-09, 59-11, Bettinardi BB39

 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted

Okay, have had enough reports now from enough people that this thread's done too.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 4966 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • They weren't necessarily short - I don't remember the exact specifics of all of it, but some of them were missing a little left or right or both. Day 1 they were landing on the edge and kicking on, where day 2 they were just missing and kicking down into the bunkers and did it a lot. I think all told I actually went into bunkers on 8 holes. Some of them were not good shots. Like a few examples, on 8, the pin was in the back. I hit it solidly, but pulled it and it went long, over the bunker into long grass. I had the ball in sandy earth with long grass around it and about a foot below my feet. That next shot I tried to do what I could but it went into the bunker in front of me. Into a footprint. That one I dug out of the footprint, but still in the bunker. Got that one out of the bunker, but into the fringe grass in front of me. Chipped that one on a bit hard and two putts later made a 7. Another was on 14. The flag was on the little finger of green front left. I tried to play a little past it and a little right. Shoved it maybe 10 yards right of where I wanted to and the carry over the bunker gets longer the further right you go and that one hit the grass between the green and the bunker and came back down into the sand, left it in there and didn't get up and down on the next one. I think carrywise it carried about as far as I was planning on it doing so. Another was on 6, leaked my drive a little right into the fairway bunker. Hit a nearly good shot from there that went a little left and a little short and kicked into the bunker front left. That was a strike thing and just a hard shot. Did similar on 18. Drive in the right bunker, slightly heavy second that hit the bank between green and bunker again and kicked back into the sand. I think the tiredness manifested more as not squaring the face up so well and less as slowing down.
    • Depends on how short you were coming up on these shots. A bit more wind? Also, maybe you were swinging at 2-3 mph slower the next day.  I think the biggest thing is not adjusting. Like making assuming your stock shot is not enough and taking 1 club up. Not sure what type of adjustments you were making in your decision making. 
    • No one should measure a joint mobility away from that joint. If you go to physical therapy, they are not measuring your knee mobility based on your midline. It is based at the joint. Shoulder mobility should be measured in reference to the shoulder joint. 
    • He's using a driver swing, while I used the iron swing. Bryson goes from about 65° B to 15° B, hence the 50°. If you bend your right elbow, you're going to pull your hands across your chest some. Conversely, if you abduct your right arm and hold onto a grip with your left arm, you can see how extending the right elbow as we do in the golf swing during the downswing will "pull" the right shoulder/humerus forward (adducting it, as going from 65° to 15° of abduction is). Even people who pull their right shoulder WAY too far around them eventually get it "back in front" when their right arm/elbow extends. So, such a motion shows up as shoulder adduction even though the movement that causes it is just widening the trail elbow. The left hand on the grip almost "pulls" the hands forward as the left arm can't stretch much (there's some shoulder protraction, but that's almost maxed out at P4). Oh, I downloaded it and watched it (and commented there) before he blocked me. It's what led to him posting the comment in the "update" above. 😄  Single shoulder range of 75°, and that's going out well into the follow-through. 50° Max range up to impact. Manavian's video is bad. He keeps saying "midline" which is just a horrible way to look at it. He also kept saying that the club was moving that amount — also wrong. Adding left and right together is really freaking dumb. Another golf instructor said "That's like saying the player has 100 degrees of knee bend (adding left knee bend to right knee bend) 🤦‍♂️" (similar to what the biomechanist said about squatting). Also, see my post above about elbow bend. That's why Plummer’s alignment stick demo is so intellectually dishonest. A golfer can't get anywhere near that position on the left with his left hand on the alignment stick (quoted below).  
    • That makes no sense at all.  so, I watched that Instagram. Here is a summary...  Bryson.... Address: Trail Shoulder 0 degrees adduction. P4: Trail Shoulder 65-deg abduction. Impact: Right shoulder 15-deg abduction. P9: 10 degrees adduction. Rory... Address: Trail Shoulder 16 degrees adduction. P4: Trail Shoulder 26 degrees abduction. Impact: Right shoulder 0 degrees abduction.  P9: 18 degrees of adduction.  DJ... Address: Trail Shoulder 4 degrees adduction. P4: Trail Shoulder 42 degrees abduction. Impact: Right shoulder 2 degrees abduction.  P9: 15 degrees of adduction.  Their point is that arm doesn't stay on the trail side. That the arms have to get across the chest from P4 to P9. I mean they do. What matters is the rate of which it happens relative to the position of the swing. The trail shoulder at P9 is not abducted a lot. The range of that total abduction movement is like 40 to 70 degrees. Bryson might be an outlier. Rory might be an outlier as well.  A couple of points.  1. None of them had any adduction at impact. So, this tells me the trail arms stays on the trail side of the body at impact. Is it moving towards lead shoulder, yes. It doesn't happen till post impact. The right side of the body is moving towards the target, so the arms don't have to as much as people think.  2. Trail shoulder adduction from Impact to P9 is 18 to 25 degrees.  3. P9 adduction of the trail shoulder is only about 2 to 12 degrees more adducted than at address. The arms/hands stay in front of the chest a long-time post impact. If Rory, from his address position just rotated his body towards the target and raised up his arms so he is at P9. He basically didn't have to move his trail arm further across his chest than where he started at address. Visualize that for a bit. I bet for people who tend to stall and drag their arms across their body to hit the ball, that would emphasize how much the arms stay in front of the body and how much you have to turn.             
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.