Due to the next election being held in 2012 does anyone think the hoax will play a part in the election process like the war has? If so do you think it would be wise for me to start a campain today with the "promise" to keep the population safe from disaster? :P
Sounds great… except that the new president wouldn't take office until January of 2013. Hmm… Seems it is up to Obama after all, except he doesn't look all that much like Danny Glover.
Oh, by the way, I don't know if you caught this in the commercials/trailers for the movie, but they have the Governor of California speaking with a heavy german accent… obviously hinting that Schwarzenegger is somehow elected for an unconstitutional third term in 2010. Wonder how *that* prediction is going to work out?
Hello Douglas,
In my opinion, I don't believe that a presidential candidate will be able to use 2012 to their advantage. Here's my reasoning:
1). By using 2012 as an election campaign, the presidential candidate would feed the fears and panic already ensuing due to 2012.
2). I only see two functional ways for a presidential candidate to use 2012 as an campaign platform.
A). Concrete evidence would have to come to light.
B). Or, the presidential candidate uses the backdoor by improving guidelines surrounding building codes and zoning to reduce hazards by primarily earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
Were you drawing a parallel to campaign platforms aiming to fight global warming? Or in my opinion, the seeming argument of a man-made El Nino which would inevitably mean when emissions are lowered by both rain and reduction of emission's origin that we'll also have a man-made La Nina.
I dont belive they can use it to much advantage in a presidential campaign either. I was just thinking about the emotional turmoil that the hoax creates being used to decieve people to gain thier votes. I am aware that the new president wont take office until 2013 however they election is in Nov. of 2012 which takes place before the doomsayers are claiming things go crazy. I was being sarcastic when I commented on running with that as my platform. I have seen the global warming as well as the so called war on terror used for earning the votes from the frightened masses and cant help but wonder if they will use the hysteria from this as well.
I believe improving building guidelines and city zoning should be a concern from the local administration-state administration-federal administration. My attitude is simple if we have the technology and knowledge of what earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, areas prune to flooding, and such; the building codes and zoning laws should reflect that. As an example, if we have the technology to build buildings capable of withstanding a 9.0, we should; otherwise, I view any loss of life as a result of this lack of foresight or strategic planning as nothing short of premeditated murder. So, if this situation did inspire a presidential candidate to set out to minimize natural disaster hazards, I would favor them (long standing topic for me).
The biggest issue in that reguard is the increase of cost in constuction. There is only so much you can do in the field of residential constuction for the masses while keeping it affordable. However on the commercial end of things there is indeed alot of room for improvement. I think the bigger issue is the fact that greed has a stronger hold on the nation then education, health, and public safty combined.
Certainly seems that way… It shouldn't be too expensive to zone residential areas on above bedrock, not on the angle of a slope, and such. The problem with greed is that it would also be less expensive for commerical property to be built there as well. I forget the translations between the richter and intensity scales, but bedrock should limit earthquake intensity scale between a I-IV (1-4).
How could a candidate possibly use this to his benefit? The only way I see is to call full
attention to the subject and have an open debate to debunk this on national televison.
There is going to be so much hype on this the tail end of 2011 that if the subject is dealt with
head on, the candidate may have an edge in being perceived as honest. Just my thought….
Well, politicians use anything they can cling on to their benefit or to have an edge. If the "2012" route seems strong enough, i.e. have a big enough concern from the public, then i would not be surprised if every single one of them jumped on it…
Look at how the former president used, overused the "religion" card.