Kouran Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 The below linked article is probably the most important piece on future geopolitical issues:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20304848The moment the US becomes energy independent the Middle-East is going to be left to go bugger itself. That might just make the world a better place after all the killing is done anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Well I sure hope there are a lot of California votes still left to count, because down 25% would be shocking. And I assume Alaska - down 31%!!!! - was that way because there was no Palin to vote for. Or do they have a lot of mail-in votes to count too?ETA: Thanks Sci and Trisk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Triskele,Understood.Shryke,53% is still not much of a "mandate". Talk to me when the candidate is pushing 60%. The last time that happened was Reagan in 1984 when he got 58.77% of the popular vote. Bush got 53% in 1988. No one received a majority in 1992 or 1996 and we all know what happened in 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 The below linked article is probably the most important piece on future geopolitical issues:http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-20304848The moment the US becomes energy independent the Middle-East is going to be left to go bugger itself. That might just make the world a better place after all the killing is done anyway.Won't the Mid-East have many other customers besides the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Further, given that hia percentage of the popular vote went down by 2 percentage points in an election with fewer people voting wouldn't that suggest a decreased "mandate" for the second term as compared to the first?I think all this talk of mandates is just silly. Most voters don't focus on individual issues; therefore, no one should interpret a win as the electorate's imprimatur on this or that policy. It's pretty rare that one can read specific policy preferences from election results, 2006 being one of those rare times. Thanks to Bush and his ill-conceived little war, Democrats passed comprehensive health insurance reform.Speaking of the Affordable Care Act, there are already calls to shut down government until Obama agrees to a repeal. Leaving aside how unlikely House Republicans would get behind such a folly, I am continually amazed by the inability of conservatives to accept defeat. The ACA survived the Tea Party, four filibusters, the Supreme Court and now the Election of 2012. It's law. It's constitutional. It's reality. Deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Triskele,Understood.Shryke,53% is still not much of a "mandate". Talk to me when the candidate is pushing 60%. The last time that happened was Reagan in 1984 when he got 58.77% of the popular vote. Bush got 53% in 1988. No one received a majority in 1992 or 1996 and we all know what happened in 2000.Who cares about popular vote? Electoral college is what counts for electing the president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.