If the debate last night was enough for someone to decide to vote for Mitt Romney, they probably weren't voting for Obama anyway.
Romney played Romney last night: "What do I need to do to make them buy what I'm selling?" And people bought it. I agree with Obama, he changed his stance pretty much a 180 last night....I'm sitting here giving him the side eye. People bought it. Hook line and sinker.
During the discussion about entitlements, he said the president gets entitlements: a plane and a house. He likened the president to one of his boys, behaving as boys do. It's easier to believe he didn't mean what he meant....because that is just to unacceptable for many people to believe....and it's just all in some people's heads. It's the same nasty coding used when people say state's rights. As an example: It reminded me of when a poster here said someone didn't have maternal instincts. If you didn't know the history of the poster it was directed at or just read it superficially, the real, nasty meaning of that zinger would have been lost on you. I know it took me reading it multiple times to get it (and that's only because of the remarks of of other posters on that thread), and by the second time I was like, "oh, no she COULDN'T mean that." By the third time I had to concede that she unfortunately did mean it that way, and it kind of figuratively took the wind out of me. It's a way of telling someone "f you, I hate your fing guts," without saying anything that necessarily links you to a direct insult.**
I didn't learn anything new last night. No one won because they just repeated what they've been repeating in ads.
**This is an example I am using to try to explain why many people assert that Romney was being very subtley nasty, dare I say bigoted, last night.
"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."
4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
Last edited by curlyarca; 10-04-2012 at 05:12 PM.