Thanks USA!

[Lethn]

Yes Obama is better than Mitt Romnius Wellington III ( I think that's what Jon Stewart called him ) but why they didn't just vote for a third party is beyond me the only good thing I think will come out of this Democratic victory is we now get to see how bad a Democratic president will be since we've already seen how terrible a Republican president would be for 8 years.

I find it hard to believe that the two party system has survived for so long.

Who knows, perhaps 60% of your country voted for Gary Johnson, but you will never know because the controlled media has everyone convinced that it's only a tiny minority? Keep people divided and morale low.

I'm British

Sorry for offending you and for underestimating your intelligence

I'm not easily offended, I don't mind people thinking that though, makes it easier to troll them lololololol

[1715489943]

1715489943

[1715489943]

1715489943

[1715489943]

1715489943

[Brunic]

I think I found the perfect picture that can explain the "rest of the world" situation towards USA election:

[myrkul]

I wonder how Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would rank on that chart...

[Brunic]

I wonder how Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would rank on that chart...

I don't know Gary Johnson, but Ron Paul was pretty cool. He would have been easily higher than Romney, that's for sure.

[TheButterZone]

Obama's administration
1) drone strikes the hell out of our alleged ally, Pakistan, killing/wounding numerous women and children, denies anyone but male combatants are hit. Pakistanis (at least one presidential candidate on down) discuss options which include scrambling air force jets to shoot down U.S. drones
2) trafficks rifles to violent Mexican drug cartels, which are used to kill/wound numerous women and children. Mexico not notified in advance, so they could immediately apprehend the possessors, instead forced to pick up the rifles at crime scenes and at cartel raids

These are the hallmarks of a war criminal, not a humanitarian, or a benevolent ruler of the world.

He should be in the dock at the Hague, along with GWB and all other living presidents.

[firefop]

I wonder how Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would rank on that chart...

Sad to say - probably about 1% just like they did here.

[myrkul]

I wonder how Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would rank on that chart...

Sad to say - probably about 1% just like they did here.

I somehow doubt Dr. Paul's "bring everybody back" stance would have been as unpopular as Romney's "let's bomb 'em more."

[firefop]

I somehow doubt Dr. Paul's "bring everybody back" stance would have been as unpopular as Romney's "let's bomb 'em more."

See this is why certain types of candidates aren't able to get any respect. It isn't about issues, it's about marketing. I'm willing to say with certainty that Ron Paul has an overseas marketing budget of zero dollars.
Maybe if the poll had mentioned his desire to end foreign aid/wars immediately on the poll...

[Haole]

What worries me of Iran is not that they have the nuclear bomb. It's because the rulers are religious freaks that have the nuclear bomb. ... The USA have the nuclear bomb. So, getting TWO countries ruled by religious freak that control nuclear bomb was doubling my worries. At least now, I have one country less to worry.

Actually, you have one more "country" with an impressive nuclear arsenal and some of the preeminent religious freaks on the planet to worry about, Israel.  

Nuclear enrichment is as much a distraction and propagandized justification to focus aggression on Iran as the infamous and non-existent "weapons of mass destruction" were in Iraq.  This is about protecting the petrodollar standard, as it was in Iraq, Libya, etc.  

You do know that Al Qaeda is a Western creation of the Soviet/Afghan war and is currently being heavily funded through the C.1.A with a little side of Pakistani ISI and Mossad, right?  Before you call BS do a little research because arms of .gov have come right out and admitted it now.    

Do you guys actually think that the people of the U.S. actually elected Obama?  Actually believe that this two party illusion of choice is at all relevant?  Paul or Johnson didn't have a chance of being president if they lived to be a million.  Politics truly is just show business for ugly people...

A fraction of the populace even votes.  Not to mention the fact that the "votes" were processed  by SCYTL in Spain, who recently bought Tampa-based SOE, in violation of the Voting Rights Act.  Then again, what does law really mean anymore?  None other than George Soros (one of Obama's biggest financial supporters) and Goldman Sachs have admitted to having significant interest in this corporation.  Ever heard about Diebold and numerous rigged state elections?

Obama was awarded a second term months ago, at least as far back as his discussions with Medvedev over the missile defense system in Europe.  The election was mere theatre for the muppets.  

The U.S. is heading headlong into neo-marxist, statist control.  Hell, they've been discussing confiscation... I mean nationalization of the social security/pension system for a while now.  Obamacare, corporate/financial bailouts in the tens of trillions as debt placed on the backs of your children, taxpayer funded terrorist black ops as justification to "spread democracy" (read protect petrodollar hegemony), etc., etc., etc... Most in North America have no idea of how screwed they're getting or of the matrix of lies and fraud that define their ways of life.

[lebing]

Why is everyone so surprised at legalization of weed? This has been coming for a long time. Even my mother-in-law in Washington voted for legalization. The real question is "why was it ever illegal?"

The point is that the rest of the world thinks our politics are so hilariously terrible that they find it shocking we are able to be rational about anything (I myself am shocked).

[myrkul]

Why is everyone so surprised at legalization of weed? This has been coming for a long time. Even my mother-in-law in Washington voted for legalization. The real question is "why was it ever illegal?"

The point is that the rest of the world thinks our politics are so hilariously terrible that they find it shocking we are able to be rational about anything (I myself am shocked).

Nail. Head.

Somebody get the man a cigar.

[DiCE1904]

Obama's administration
1) drone strikes the hell out of our alleged ally, Pakistan, killing/wounding numerous women and children, denies anyone but male combatants are hit. Pakistanis (at least one presidential candidate on down) discuss options which include scrambling air force jets to shoot down U.S. drones
2) trafficks rifles to violent Mexican drug cartels, which are used to kill/wound numerous women and children. Mexico not notified in advance, so they could immediately apprehend the possessors, instead forced to pick up the rifles at crime scenes and at cartel raids

These are the hallmarks of a war criminal, not a humanitarian, or a benevolent ruler of the world.

He should be in the dock at the Hague, along with GWB and all other living presidents.

+1

we are going to end up like Greece.

[sippsnapp]

I have read an interesting analysis (commercial) on obama, energy and economics (I can share this with you but its a commercial letter that was intended to make people sign up for commercial analytics).
Bottom line was, obama is in the right place at the right time which will most probably make him to the most popular president of the united states in history.

He came when the country was struggeling from war and economics, he will be still there when better times arrive, and heres why:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-12/u-s-to-overtake-saudi-arabia-s-oil-production-by-2020-iea-says.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-31/u-s-natural-gas-export-permits-delayed-until-late-summer.html

As i understood, the reason for the new oil discoveries is the technique called fracking "Hydraulic Fracturing", directly adapted from natural gas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

The united states of america are on the way to become energy resilant, this means jobs, cash and a lot of power.
Of course short sighted its all fucked up, but still, the USA and europe are the most technical advanced poulations, its just nutz to question this.

So imagine, now jobs come back, a lot people get back to work and energy costs a fraction of what it costs now, for me this is a bullish economy factor, and bullish for obama.
Its not just the energy sector that will profit, its infrastrucute, manufacturing and retail too, people can spent more when energy is less expensive, companies can invest.

Additionally, the clean energy plans http://magazine.mining.com/issues/1011/Vol03-07-LithiumbatteriesCleanEnergyPlan-34-35.pdf

Of course this is just speculation, somewhat, but kind obviously that energy plays a role.

[myrkul]

And the DOE is starting to look into LFTR technology a little more seriously, too. All in all, energy woes are most likely soon to pass.

[Haole]

The U.S. energy self sufficient?

Prediction:  When hell freezes over.

People think the Alberta Tar Sands in environmentally egregious, wait until you see the States producing over 20 million barrels a day that it currently uses.

So what if the U.S. surpasses Saudi Arabia's production by 2020, where is the other 8 or 10 million barrels a day going to come from?

The whole notion is asinine.

Then again, if they can take over enough oil producing nations like Iraq, maybe it's realistic.  My comments above are exclusive of imperialist occupations and military/corporate control of other sources outside the borders.

[MoonShadow]

I have read an interesting analysis (commercial) on obama, energy and economics (I can share this with you but its a commercial letter that was intended to make people sign up for commercial analytics).
Bottom line was, obama is in the right place at the right time which will most probably make him to the most popular president of the united states in history.

LOL!  While that goal actually shouldn't be a very hard target to hit, the mere luck of being in office when domestic oil production experiences a resurgence isn't likely to come close to that goal.  And the reports that fraking can make the US energy independent, before or after 2025, is silly cheerleading.  All the assumptions are to the unrealisticly-favorable end of the spectrum, including growth patterns in domestic demand itself.

Also, this new tech doesn't actually grant us more oil than we had, it just means that more of it is extractable.  That does not mean that all that is extractable is economicly viable, much less a net-positive energy gain.  Much like how corn based ethanol takes about as much energy to create as is extractable, there is a point at which it becomes counterproductive energy-wise to continue to extract more oil from the ground & refine it to a point that it's usable in current engine technology.  There is no doubt that more oil is extractable with fraking, but not all of that is of a quality to make that worthwhile.  The Tar sands oil is one example, it's of a particularly low quality that requires much more effort in refinement than what is commonly available from OPEC.

Furthermore, the ills that way upon the current economy have little to do with the availablity of energy, and much to do with the final stages of faulty economic theories used at national levels.  Europe will break apart again, and the cost of oil isn't going to matter a great deal on that front.  When this happens, the US will also be stressed to great levels.  The global economy is far to intergrated these days in order for the US to 'decouple' from Europe in the way that we did following WWII.  This one's going to hurt no matter what the price of oil is.

[myrkul]

Then again, if they can take over enough oil producing nations like Iraq, maybe it's realistic.  My comments above are exclusive of imperialist occupations and military/corporate control of other sources outside the borders.

Also very limited in scope. "Energy" is not always contained in barrels of crude. A good chunk of the US's energy needs is electric, and with the trend towards plug-in and hydrogen cars, that chunk will probably get larger as time goes by. LFTR is a great way to make electric.

[Haole]

How is that electricity generated though, the stuff that isn't imported?  Solyndra was sure a grand slam eh?  I don't believe there's many new nuke plants being built in the States is there, I know of two?  

I submit that electric powered vehicles, let alone hydrogen powered vehicles, will not be mainstream for decades if at all.  Chevy Volt failed so spectacularly they stopped making them.  One can buy two nice compact cars for what a Nissan Leaf costs, ditto for a Mitsubishi Miev.   Or is Obama and JP Morgan going to give them away like cell phones and food stamps?  When was the last time you saw a hydrogen fuel cell-powered car driving around?  Just the infrastructure alone to service these vehicles on a national basis will take who knows how many years to build out.  Talk about limited in scope.

Oh and I agree LFTR sounds amazing and safe too but it's still just conceptual isn't it?

Further to MoonShadows great points, here's some analysis of the issue of america's energy self-sufficiency and the IEA's projections.  Lauren Lyster isn't hard to take either.

[myrkul]

How is that electricity generated though, the stuff that isn't imported?  Solyndra was sure a grand slam eh?  I don't believe there's many new nuke plants being built in the States is there, I know of two?  

Conventional nukes, yes. They have all kinds of problems, not least of which is "NIMBY." People don't want 3 Mile Island or Chernobyl happening in their town. (I guess they ignore Centralia) LFTR fixes or bypasses most of the issues with conventional nuke power stations. Can't have a melt down if your fuel is already melted.

I submit that electric powered vehicles, let alone hydrogen powered vehicles, will not be mainstream for decades if at all.  Chevy Volt failed so spectacularly they stopped making them.  One can buy two nice compact cars for what a Nissan Leaf costs, ditto for a Mitsubishi Miev.   Or is Obama and JP Morgan going to give them away like cell phones and food stamps?  When was the last time you saw a hydrogen fuel cell-powered car driving around?  Just the infrastructure alone to service these vehicles on a national basis will take who knows how many years to build out.  Talk about limited in scope.

Electric might surprise you how fast it catches up. Within Obama's presidency, probably not. But not long after, I think. Hydrogen, I think you're right, is a decade or two off. The fuel infrastructure just isn't there. But with cheap electric, you could make fueling stations that crack water right there at the pump. It wouldn't take long at all to get those installed all over the country.

Oh and I agree LFTR sounds amazing and safe too but it's still just conceptual isn't it?

Not entirely, no. Each of the subsystems have been tested, but the government cut funding before a full reactor was ever built. You can't use it to make a bomb, you see.

[Haole]

Will Energy Returned On Energy Invested have more baring on energy policy going forward or less I wonder?  The fundamentals seem inescapable but that never stopped the net-loss-energy source called Ethanol...