2012 Elections in the USA

[Jackson]

Facebook friends abandon Mitt Romney: It's been said that at times of adversity, you learn who your real friends are. Well, Mitt Romney doesn't have as many 'real' friends as he might have thought. On Saturday, the Daily Dot reported that GOP presidential candidate was losing Facebook friends at an incredible pace. Since he lost on election night. 86,337 people have 'un-liked' Romney's Facebook page — that's an 'un-like' rate of almost 800 an hour. Oops!

And on that "Let's kick the man while he's down" note from Member #3320, I'm closing this thread.

Thanks,

Jackson

[Member #3320]

Facebook friends abandon Mitt Romney: It's been said that at times of adversity, you learn who your real friends are. Well, Mitt Romney doesn't have as many 'real' friends as he might have thought. On Saturday, the Daily Dot reported that GOP presidential candidate was losing Facebook friends at an incredible pace. Since he lost on election night. 86, 337 people have 'un-liked' Romney's Facebook page — that's an 'un-like' rate of almost 800 an hour. Oops! .

[Silver Star]

Then your def matches exactly the Oxford definition, so your example above is right.

But with respect, the common usage of "mandate" is not just the simple definition of being given the authority to act. Obviously by constitutional powers any president has that even if they won by skin of their teeth. The common usage in both street vernacular and especially political vernacular is the implication of having the broad backing and 'will of the people'

IMO when the non-backers vs backers are so close to half, neither side has what politicos of both sides try to assume is a "mandate". Obama does not, Bush did not.

And yes. I've thought both parties, including Bush, were idiots for claiming mandate. Closest thing to a mandate as politicos define it I've seen was the very short period of time after 9/11 that Bush did indeed have a mandate to go after the 9/11 perpetrators. Which then fell apart shortly after based on differences of opinion of how we should and shouldn't act re that objective

Voting for a party doesn't mean you have to agree with their whole plank. Dems are idiots for not dropping the entitlement crutch. Republicans are idiots for mindlessly IMO refusing to allow stem cell and other regenerative research. Just two examples of many for both parties that I personally find as my swing issues. I vote with the party that pisses me off less. Currently that is repub, but has been dem before. Neither has had a mandate outside very specific one off or temporary issues.

Mpxy.

Have you looked at the Libertarian Party, they are against the failed welfare (and warfare) state, and support privately finded stem cell research. Maybe you can vote FOR something instead of against what pisses you off the least.

[Mpexy]

One single vote more than half represents a mandate, in any vote where Majority rules.

60 Million and one out of exactly 120 Million represents a mandate. Not strong, not weak, simply, a mandate.

Anyone who failed to protest George W. Bush claiming he had a mandate in 2004 has no case to make that Obama does not have a mandate here, since Obama's margin of victory is larger than Bush's was.

Then your def matches exactly the Oxford definition, so your example above is right.

But with respect, the common usage of "mandate" is not just the simple definition of being given the authority to act. Obviously by constitutional powers any president has that even if they won by skin of their teeth. The common usage in both street vernacular and especially political vernacular is the implication of having the broad backing and 'will of the people'

IMO when the non-backers vs backers are so close to half, neither side has what politicos of both sides try to assume is a "mandate". Obama does not, Bush did not.

And yes. I've thought both parties, including Bush, were idiots for claiming mandate. Closest thing to a mandate as politicos define it I've seen was the very short period of time after 9/11 that Bush did indeed have a mandate to go after the 9/11 perpetrators. Which then fell apart shortly after based on differences of opinion of how we should and shouldn't act re that objective

Voting for a party doesn't mean you have to agree with their whole plank. Dems are idiots for not dropping the entitlement crutch. Republicans are idiots for mindlessly IMO refusing to allow stem cell and other regenerative research. Just two examples of many for both parties that I personally find as my swing issues. I vote with the party that pisses me off less. Currently that is repub, but has been dem before. Neither has had a mandate outside very specific one off or temporary issues.

[Member #2041]

Define mandate.

Seems the sides here are stuck after the generic Oxford def of given authority to act and arguing over what fraction of percent over 50. 1 constitutes the street vernacular definition of a mantle of legitimacy to represent a broad majority definition vs you won, but don't have a "mandate"

Your reply above of "Answering anything other than YES, would show you to be mistaken" means you must have an exact answer. So what is it? At what quantified percent above 50. Xx do you believe a "mandate" exists? And other than the simple definition of given authority, what do you define "mandate" as?

Politically, I don't think there's much question that politicos on both sides pretend a "mandate" is broad support to represent and enact upon the wil of the overall nation. So back to what percent does this magical line exist?

IMO when it's so close to half the people not approving, neither side has a "mandate"

One single vote more than half represents a mandate, in any vote where Majority rules.

60 Million and one out of exactly 120 Million represents a mandate. Not strong, not weak, simply, a mandate.

Anyone who failed to protest George W. Bush claiming he had a mandate in 2004 has no case to make that Obama does not have a mandate here, since Obama's margin of victory is larger than Bush's was then.

[Mpexy]

So, irrespective of it's strength, Do you agree that Obama got a mandate from the electorate? Simple Question, answerable with a Yes, or a No.

Here's a hint: Answering anything other than YES, would show you to be mistaken. After you answer the simple Yes / No, THEN feel free to embellish or qualify your answer.

Define mandate.

Seems the sides here are stuck after the generic Oxford def of given authority to act and arguing over what fraction of percent over 50.1 constitutes the street vernacular definition of a mantle of legitimacy to represent a broad majority definition vs you won, but don't have a "mandate"

Your reply above of "Answering anything other than YES, would show you to be mistaken" means you must have an exact answer. So what is it? At what quantified percent above 50.xx do you believe a "mandate" exists? And other than the simple definition of given authority, what do you define "mandate" as?

Politically, I don't think there's much question that politicos on both sides pretend a "mandate" is broad support to represent and enact upon the wil of the overall nation. So back to what percent does this magical line exist?

IMO when it's so close to half the people not approving, neither side has a "mandate" as used in common political and street vernacular.

[Silver Star]

CO's governor, a Dem who did not support the law because he fears competition for his alcohol selling establishments and / or is a hypocrite who blazes up extensively, is trying to get some guidance from the feds but they have no incentive to give any. CO's attorney general, John Suthers, very far to the right, has said he will indeed abide by the mandate. The popular vote was a similar 53% to 47, so one can certainly argue about the strength Of the mandate.

Some are saying that tokers will benefit by lower prices but if they regulate the growing the way they regulate the medical marijuana, which would NOT be the mandate to 'regulate marijuana like alcohol, ' there could also be higher prices if demand exceeds currently available supply. Of course, Republicans would argue that supply mysteriously creates its own demand even absent sharing profit with labor (hint: this fails to create markets with effective demand; in general Republicans have trouble distinguishing between demand as defined by douche bags like Hayek and effective demand). My best guess is CO will restrict sales to liquor stores because that will be the most cost effective method of regulating it. That would certainly work for me as it would combine my errands and thus reduce my carbon footprint.

The feds did come in and close dispensaries in Colorado. Dispensaries were allowed to open when the nearest school was more than X feet away but then some bullshit charter schools opened up and they got shut down. There is also the problem that banks won't deal with dispensaries, and if weed remains illegal under federal law, I don't see why that would change. That might dissuade liquor stores from selling weed.

Ok, so the mandate in Colorado is the citizens there want to legalize weed, but then they also want to retain Obama / Holder so they can crack down on it then? (Scratching my head) Should be fun to see how this plays out. Hopefully Obama will have another revelation on this and change his ways, just like he figured out marriage equality right before the election. Pot prohibition is a collosal failure and a complete waste of money. Fortunately CO and WA have figured this one out.

[Dickhead]

God is on the side of the better gerrymanderer.

[Member #2041]

For the third time, every time I used the phrase "strong mandate". When something involves you or your friends or your party you have no regard for the truth. You just obscure and make stuff up. Over and out.

So, irrespective of it's strength, Do you agree that Obama got a mandate from the electorate? Simple Question, answerable with a Yes, or a No.

Here's a hint: Answering anything other than YES, would show you to be mistaken. After you answer the simple Yes/No, THEN feel free to embellish or qualify your answer.

[Dickhead]

-

Exit polling showed that 60% of voters approved of increasing taxes on those earning over $250K (with only 25% opposing this).

My reaction is.

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Works for me. I was hiking with a chica and she asked what I would do if we saw a bear. I said,"I would run." She said,"No one can outrun a bear." I said,"I don't have to outrun the bear; I just have to outrun YOU." That is why I say whatever party is in power, I will find a way to beat their system.

[Member #2041]

For the third time, every time I used the phrase "strong mandate". When something involves you or your friends or your party you have no regard for the truth. You just obscure and make stuff up. Over and out.

Mandates are not strong or weak, they are simply mandates. They exist or they don't. And Obama has one, just as he had one to pursue national healthcare during his first term, and as Ronald Reagan had one to pursue his policies that he ran on during his Presidency.

[Dickhead]

Should be interesting how the administration will be handling CO and WA, as there is a MANDNATE for legal marijuana there, will the Feds under Obama circumvent that and intervene with DEA raids? Plus Obama has smoked it himself. Obama won both of these states too, with MANDATE margins. Hopefully they will do the right thing and respect the will of the people in both states and leave them alone.

CO's governor, a Dem who did not support the law because he fears competition for his alcohol selling establishments and / or is a hypocrite who blazes up extensively, is trying to get some guidance from the feds but they have no incentive to give any. CO's attorney general, John Suthers, very far to the right, has said he will indeed abide by the mandate. The popular vote was a similar 53% to 47%, so one can certainly argue about the strength of the mandate.

Some are saying that tokers will benefit by lower prices but if they regulate the growing the way they regulate the medical marijuana, which would NOT be the mandate to 'regulate marijuana like alcohol,' there could also be higher prices if demand exceeds currently available supply. Of course, Republicans would argue that supply mysteriously creates its own demand even absent sharing profit with labor (hint: this fails to create markets with effective demand; in general Republicans have trouble distinguishing between demand as defined by douche bags like Hayek and effective demand). My best guess is CO will restrict sales to liquor stores because that will be the most cost effective method of regulating it. That would certainly work for me as it would combine my errands and thus reduce my carbon footprint.

The feds did come in and close dispensaries in Colorado. Dispensaries were allowed to open when the nearest school was more than X feet away but then some bullshit charter schools opened up and they got shut down. There is also the problem that banks won't deal with dispensaries, and if weed remains illegal under federal law, I don't see why that would change. That might dissuade liquor stores from selling weed.

[Tiny12]

I said it was a mandate. If I said you were mistaken, it was that you were mistaken if you were denying that Obama had a mandate, when he quite obviously does.

So are you now agreeing that he has a mandate? Because if you disagree, THAT is where you are mistaken. If you acknowledge that Obama has a mandate, then you wouldn't be mistaken. Which is it?

For the third time, every time I used the phrase "strong mandate". When something involves you or your friends or your party you have no regard for the truth. You just obscure and make stuff up. Over and out.

[Member #2041]

I said it was not a "strong mandate." You said I was mistaken. As to me making up bull shit, isn't that a little hypocritical? Like you making up bullshit about Toymann?

Every fiber of Toymann's being is bullshit.

I perceived he was intentionally evading David_33's attempt to finalize the specific detail of the wager that Toymann proposed and David accepted - and I still perceive that to be the case. This may be a difference of opinion, because I recognize Toymann's normal deceitfulness as a modus operandi, whereas you are naively inclined to give him the same benefit of the doubt you would give someone who has personal integrity - despite the fact that Toymann has, to me, forfeited that sort of consideration through his normal conduct. That is your error in judgment, IMHO, but I will concede that we simply differ on whether or not Toymann is entitled to the sort of consideration one would generally give someone who hasn't demonstrate that they are unworthy of it, as he has.

[Member #2041]

I said it was not a "strong mandate." You said I was mistaken.

I said it was a mandate. If I said you were mistaken, it was that you were mistaken if you were denying that Obama had a mandate, when he quite obviously does.

So are you now agreeing that he has a mandate? Because if you disagree, THAT is where you are mistaken. If you acknowledge that Obama has a mandate, then you wouldn't be mistaken. Which is it?