"He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Most see it as part of the war on terror." In other words, he won because some hillbilly was afraid that the guy at the local 7-11 was going to blow up his chicked farm. Those of us living close enough to "Ground Zero" to smell it back in those days are apprarently less than convinced. So: A 'moral values' question for Cypherpunks. Does this election indict the American people as being complicit in the crime known as "Operation Freedom"? (I notice everyone forgot about that name.) -TD _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 08:46:17AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
So: A 'moral values' question for Cypherpunks. Does this election indict the American people as being complicit in the crime known as "Operation
Of course. What kind of question is that? Regardless of voting fraud, about half of US has voted for four more years of the same. Guilty.
Freedom"? (I notice everyone forgot about that name.)
Huh? What was the question, again? -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
On 2004-11-06T16:39:41+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 08:46:17AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
So: A 'moral values' question for Cypherpunks. Does this election indict the American people as being complicit in the crime known as "Operation
Of course. What kind of question is that? Regardless of voting fraud, about half of US has voted for four more years of the same. Guilty.
Not true. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/voter.turnout.ap/ "[Curtis] Gans puts the total turnout at nearly 120 million people. That represents just under 60% of eligible voters..." 120m * 100%/60% = 200 million eligible voters (The U.S. population according to census.gov was 290,809,777 as of 2003-07-01 http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/ "Bush Vote: 59,459,765" Let's generously round that up to 65 million. 65m/200m = 32.5% of eligible voters voted for Bush 65m/290.8m = 22.4% of the U.S. population voted for Bush I can't find an accurate number of registered voters, but one article suggests 15% of registered voters don't vote. That means there are probably around 141m registered voters. Bush didn't even win majority support from /those/. 65m/141m = 46% of registered voters voted for Bush -- The old must give way to the new, falsehood must become exposed by truth, and truth, though fought, always in the end prevails. -- L. Ron Hubbard
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 18:25:19 +0000, Justin <justin-cypherpunks@soze.net> wrote:
Not true.
<much busywork math deleted> Saddam had 100% turnout, and won 100% of the vote. Does that make his election more legitimate to you? -- Pete Capelli pcapelli@ieee.org http://www.capelli.org PGP Key ID:0x829263B6 "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 06:25:19PM +0000, Justin wrote:
Not true.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/voter.turnout.ap/
"[Curtis] Gans puts the total turnout at nearly 120 million people. That represents just under 60% of eligible voters..."
You didn't vote against a candidate, you tacitly accept whatever other voters decide. For you. There isn't "none of the above" option, unfortunately.
120m * 100%/60% = 200 million eligible voters (The U.S. population according to census.gov was 290,809,777 as of 2003-07-01
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/ "Bush Vote: 59,459,765" Let's generously round that up to 65 million.
65m/200m = 32.5% of eligible voters voted for Bush 65m/290.8m = 22.4% of the U.S. population voted for Bush
I can't find an accurate number of registered voters, but one article suggests 15% of registered voters don't vote. That means there are probably around 141m registered voters. Bush didn't even win majority support from /those/.
65m/141m = 46% of registered voters voted for Bush
Don't mince numbers. About half of those who could and could be bothered to vote voted for more of the same. At least that's how the rest of the world is going to see it. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Justin wrote:
On 2004-11-06T16:39:41+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 08:46:17AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
So: A 'moral values' question for Cypherpunks. Does this election indict the American people as being complicit in the crime known as "Operation
Of course. What kind of question is that? Regardless of voting fraud, about half of US has voted for four more years of the same. Guilty.
Not true.
The fact is that those who did not vote effectively voted for Shrub. You are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem. Inaction is not good enough. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF "An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core" S. Plath, Temper of Time
J.A. Terranson wrote:
The fact is that those who did not vote effectively voted for Shrub. You are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem. Inaction is not good enough.
This would only be true if the President were elected by popular vote. In states where one candidate had a huge majority, the results would not have been changed. Also, voting is in some sense political manipulation to blame the population for the actions of their government. Everyone who votes is a co-conspirator, and the argument is made that those who don't vote have no right to dissent. Any government that requires that I vote, or the torture and war crimes are "my fault", is broken to start with. The fundamental definition of Democracy is still "Your neighbors tell you what to do." I don't tolerate my neighbors telling me what to do, particularly my neighbors in the Confederacy, which we should have let keep their Negro guest-workers and drop out of the union when the opportunity presented itself. Now they outnumber us, and we are paying for it. The only government I need is "Leave me alone, or face serious consequences." Similarly, I leave others alone. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
-- J.A. Terranson wrote:
The fact is that those who did not vote effectively voted for Shrub. You are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem. Inaction is not good enough.
Voting is not a solution. Voting only encourages them. If you vote for a candidate, and he wins, he will then proceed to commit various crimes, and you, by voting, have given him a "mandate" for those crimes. Further, suppose you think, as I think, that candidate A is a lesser evil than candidate B, but the difference is not much. If you vote for the lesser evil, you will start to rationalize and excuse all the crimes he commits, identifying with him, and his actions. Nor is Kerry a solution. I cannot understand why you Bush haters are so excited about this election when on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, Kerry promised to continue all Bush's policies only more effectually. You vote for Kerry because you think he is a liar? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG EDbRclDc5acD10EGJi0ScHZfE2IslIbsawTQvj54 4jjneZ53XniQe2NYlNlFO5PGLTN5vTyDLI5okTjKv
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
J.A. Terranson wrote:
The fact is that those who did not vote effectively voted for Shrub. You are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem. Inaction is not good enough.
Voting is not a solution.
Voting only encourages them. If you vote for a candidate, and he wins, he will then proceed to commit various crimes, and you, by voting, have given him a "mandate" for those crimes.
This is the position I maintained, word for word, since Carter. However, where as you may have "mandated" the crimes you voted for, you have also "mandated" the crimes you failed to prevent, since you KNEW those crimes would be committed.
Further, suppose you think, as I think, that candidate A is a lesser evil than candidate B, but the difference is not much. If you vote for the lesser evil, you will start to rationalize and excuse all the crimes he commits, identifying with him, and his actions.
Bullshit. That may be *you*, but that does not cover all of us.
Nor is Kerry a solution.
Agreed.
I cannot understand why you Bush haters are so excited about this election when on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, Kerry promised to continue all Bush's policies only more effectually.
This was the reason the vote was (a) so close amongst voters, and (b) likely decided for Shrub.
You vote for Kerry because you think he is a liar?
No. I voted for Kerry because unlike George, he has at least two brain cells - so there's a *chance* (remote, I grant you), that he can be made to see reason. Bush however, (a) has no brain whatsoever, (b) *enjoys* fucking things up and praying that his good buddy Jesus will fix his fuckups, and (c) seeing people needlessly suffer. This is why people are so upset that he was finally elected: nobody wants a sadist in a position where he can deliberately and with impunity hurt whoever he turns his sick little gaze to.
--digsig James A. Donald
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF "An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core" S. Plath, Temper of Time
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 6:25 PM +0000 11/6/04, Justin wrote:
65m/141m = 46% of registered voters voted for Bush
Of course, you can invert the math and say the same about Kerry, plus Bush's 3-something million margin, I'm afraid. Hell, Rush said exactly the same thing on Friday. :-). Numerology doesn't win elections, I'm afraid. Remember, boys and girls, government itself is the not-so-polite fiction that the highwayman is acting in our best interest at all times if we pay him enough to leave us, individually, alone. So, as Brooks indirectly proves, rather than blathering here, or elsewhere, about "values", or "equality", or "fairness", or "justice", or other lofty nonsense, electoral or otherwise, look at how well a given *culture* and its implicit force-control mechanism, does *economically* for its citizenry (a parasite doesn't kill its own host, and all that...), besides just being able to kill more and better soldiers on the other side of the battlefield is actually putting the cart before the horse. The fact that increasing personal liberty results in such higher per-capita income, and thus the ability to project force than reducing liberty does isn't necessarily the same level of metaphysical mystery as the fact that some kinds of mathematics predict reality, but it's close enough for, heh, government work. Someday, hopefully, financial cryptography will reduce transaction costs by actually *increasing* privacy (see math and reality, liberty and income, above), the *economic* rationale for force-monopoly will go away, and *then* we can all exhume Lysander Spooner, prop him up, and talk about constitutions of no authority, or whatever. Cheers, RAH -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQY1vN8PxH8jf3ohaEQKyGACbB6XlMBht53x48ugBvJQqOUJ/4P8AnRlX 4M/JvqrHdU9LvnTlrEilGzoK =D4M9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:46:17 -0500, Tyler Durden <camera_lumina@hotmail.com> wrote:
In other words, he won because some hillbilly was afraid that the guy at the local 7-11 was going to blow up his chicked farm. Those of us living close enough to "Ground Zero" to smell it back in those days are apprarently less than convinced.
As the article notes, GWB *improved* his showing in NY over the 2000 election. Are you implying that the US won't be attacked again? I could follow your ad-hominem attack with one about mincing homosexuals, but we both know that singlularity of voters on either side is incorrect, and does nothing to forward the discussion.
So: A 'moral values' question for Cypherpunks. Does this election indict the American people as being complicit in the crime known as "Operation Freedom"? (I notice everyone forgot about that name.)
Of course it does. That's what a republic is. But who's going to 'indict' us? The UN? Maybe after we finish the trials for their self-dealing on the 'Oil for Food' program (as Orwellian a title as the Patriot Act had). -- Pete Capelli pcapelli@ieee.org http://www.capelli.org PGP Key ID:0x829263B6 "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Tyler Durden wrote:
In other words, he won because some hillbilly was afraid that the guy at the local 7-11 was going to blow up his chicked farm.
Precisely.
So: A 'moral values' question for Cypherpunks. Does this election indict the American people as being complicit in the crime known as "Operation Freedom"? (I notice everyone forgot about that name.)
Complicit? Thats *technically* correct, but not nearly strong enough.
-TD
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF "An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core" S. Plath, Temper of Time
participants (8)
-
Eric Cordian -
Eugen Leitl -
J.A. Terranson -
James A. Donald -
Justin -
Pete Capelli -
R.A. Hettinga -
Tyler Durden