View Full Version : G and Q now believe dear leader had/has no mandate

03-24-2011, 08:01 AM
Striking news, and you just can't make material up that's this good.

Following their comments in THIS THREAD (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=344783#Post344783) they have declared that Obama has no mandate since Scott Walker has no mandate.

Eligible voters in the 2008 election were between 208,323,000 and 212,720,027.

This means that dear leader received between 32.67% and 33.36% of the eligible voters votes.

Being that Scott Miller has been declared to not have a mandate, garnering 32.3% of the eligible vote per their unlinked "SOURCE", being that he garnered less than 51% of the eligible voters ... it will take a truly Herculean effort of doublethink to believe that 32.3% isn't a mandate while 32.67% somehow is. Even though neither attained their definition of 51% being a mandate.

I have no doubt they will make the effort however.

OH DEAR! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Turnout)


03-24-2011, 12:43 PM
That thread was not about a mandate, it was about the hypocrisy.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To stay alive, <u>the unions will have to meet <span style='font-size: 14pt'>a much higher standard </span>in their vote than Walker and other state elected officials had to meet to win their offices - <span style='font-size: 14pt'>getting 51% of the vote of <span style="color: #990000">all their union members, not just the ones who actually cast ballots.</span></span></u> </div></div>

If all elections were held to this standard, nobody would ever get elected! Scott Walker would not have been elected!


03-24-2011, 12:44 PM
How can you have a mandate to do something nobody knew about when they voted for you?


03-24-2011, 03:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ..but..but..but Walker says he has a mandate.

Oh really? Truth Vs Thruthiness.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Both McLinn and Davis noted many <u>state elected officials would not meet the criteria of getting 51% of the total voters eligible to cast ballots in an election.</u>

Walker <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"wouldn't be governor under the rule that he established,"</span> McLinn said.

In November, <u>Walker received 1.13 million votes</u>, or 52.3% of the total number of 2.16 million ballots cast in the governor's race, according to the state Government Accountability Board. But many more state residents didn't vote at all.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The accountability board says there were 3.49 million voters registered to vote in that election. Of that number, <span style='font-size: 26pt'>Walker received only 32.3%</span>.</span> Winners in other statewide races such as U.S. senator and secretary of state also failed to come close to getting 51% of registered state voters, much less of state residents of voting age. </div></div>

Less than a third of all eligible voters voted for him.

Deceit.....Scott Walker, "this about the budget..blah blah blah.."

Q </div></div>

Let me guess ... your thread wasn't about Walker not having a mandate, it was about the efficacy of the designated hitter rule?