posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 12:19 PM
Your question has an inadequate framework. 1 year ago the PR system in place is focused on "tearing down" anyone who is in office, by creating as
much conflict as possible surrounding everything they do - "Obama bought the wrong brand of pencil!" This will happen in every governmental
situation where there is a "selection" process disguised as popular election. The system is built on anger, finger pointing, false polarities and
fake moral outrage. So a year ago the PR process was in year three of the four year formula, which is "stir up the masses" and create hate through
intense focus on the man in office.
Now, we are in year 4 in the PR process which is all about "rally around the right guy" and so we see people in bunker mode, defending "their
guy." The fact that there are more defense posts of the current figure head only reflects the notion that he has been in office and the other has not
and those who have posted are more easily influenced by the PR system in place - they defend the known. The PR process - a nice article in the New
Yorker a few weeks ago is a nice primer, is about manipulation of the masses and not logic. The system in place has very, very specific dates and
times in which things must be released and hammered on and the reactions indicate success or failure in the effort. You are just seeing the last phase
The debates, the kabuki sham that they are, are a key part of the PR process. These are to be vague, open ended events that can be polarized by each
"side" thereby creating more discord. Those who control the system have already selected the "winner" but they want two things to happen with the
masses. One, the winner's supporters are elated and, two, the losers supporters are pitchfork made. This is the desired outcome, and the ENTIRE
election process is about accomplishing this goal.