Re: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ylojceq

Discussion in 'rec.bicycles.soc' started by Tom Sherman, Nov 7, 2004.

  1. Jim Smith

    Jim Smith Guest

    "psycholist" <[email protected]> writes:

    > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > Tom Kunich wrote:
    > >
    > >> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> news:[email protected]
    > >>
    > >>>[email protected] wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>Less than one-third of the eligible voters chose Bush II. The real
    > >>>winner, chosen by 40% of the eligible voters was "none of the above".
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Good, then you DO have a citation to back up that preposterous claim?

    > >
    > > Bush II received approximately one-half of the vote of the approximately
    > > 60% [1] of the eligible voters who voted. That is approximately 30% of the
    > > eligible voters choosing Bush II, or less than one-third.
    > >
    > > 40% did not choose either Kerry or Bush II, thereby indicating their
    > > preference for "none of the above".
    > >
    > > [1] <http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/voter.turnout.ap/>.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Tom Sherman - Greater QCA
    > >

    >
    > Your math is sound. Your conclusion, in my opinion, is not. You give those
    > folks who didn't vote too much credit. I don't believe they were making the
    > statement, "none of the above" at all. I believe they were making the
    > statement, "whatever you think is OK with me" or, "I don't care, pass the
    > (beer, drugs)" or "I'm just too plain lazy."


    You forgot: "I live in Texas and that messianic, Harvard Elite,
    anti-rational nitwit is going to win this state anyways."


    --
    ....and then I would take the other hand with the falafal thing, and I
    would put it on your [bush] but you'd have to do it really light, just
    kind of a tease business...
     


  2. gwhite

    gwhite Guest

    Tom Sherman wrote:
    >


    > Or maybe both the candidates with a chance of winning did nothing to
    > inspire people to vote.


    What is wrong with your brain?

    Sure they did things to inspire people to vote. That's why percentages were
    up. The fact that some insipration was more 'against' the other guy more than
    'for' another is irrelevent.
     
  3. gwhite

    gwhite Guest

    Tom Sherman wrote:
    >


    > Or maybe both the candidates with a chance of winning did nothing to
    > inspire people to vote.


    What is wrong with your brain?

    Sure they did things to inspire people to vote. That's why percentages were
    up. The fact that some insipration was more 'against' the other guy more than
    'for' another is irrelevent.
     
  4. > >
    > > You got that right. In 2002, 100% of eligible voters went to the polls in
    > > Iraq and re-elected Saddam Hussein.

    >
    > Don't be stupid.
    >
    > Here is voter turnout data for representative democracies in Europe.
    > Except for Switzerland, all are well ahead of the US in voter turnout.
    > <http://www.idea.int/publications/voter_turnout_weurope/part%20II%20(78-93).pdf>.


    Thanks a lot for this info. It helps explain why the average American
    working slob takes in in the shorts in the Corporate States of
    America- we're too dumb to vote the plutocrats out!. (No health care,
    no gubmint paid college, one week a year vacation to start-
    DISHWASHERS in Norway get 4 weeks)

    Notice how the Euro's gone from about .90 cents to $1.29 in the last
    few years? Think that could have anything to do with deficit spending,
    maybe?

    The disenfranchised here must not even be voting, or else there's a
    lot of people that just _love_ global warming and massive, endless
    deficit spending while the top 2% just gather more and more and
    more..... it's sad it's the Bush voters' kids that will pay that
    deficit back, unless they're really rich like Daddy.
     
  5. > >
    > > You got that right. In 2002, 100% of eligible voters went to the polls in
    > > Iraq and re-elected Saddam Hussein.

    >
    > Don't be stupid.
    >
    > Here is voter turnout data for representative democracies in Europe.
    > Except for Switzerland, all are well ahead of the US in voter turnout.
    > <http://www.idea.int/publications/voter_turnout_weurope/part%20II%20(78-93).pdf>.


    Thanks a lot for this info. It helps explain why the average American
    working slob takes in in the shorts in the Corporate States of
    America- we're too dumb to vote the plutocrats out!. (No health care,
    no gubmint paid college, one week a year vacation to start-
    DISHWASHERS in Norway get 4 weeks)

    Notice how the Euro's gone from about .90 cents to $1.29 in the last
    few years? Think that could have anything to do with deficit spending,
    maybe?

    The disenfranchised here must not even be voting, or else there's a
    lot of people that just _love_ global warming and massive, endless
    deficit spending while the top 2% just gather more and more and
    more..... it's sad it's the Bush voters' kids that will pay that
    deficit back, unless they're really rich like Daddy.
     
  6. remove the polite word to reply wrote:

    > The disenfranchised here must not even be voting,


    I'd suggest that this thread does contain one true statement, at least.
     
  7. Chuck Davis

    Chuck Davis Guest

    "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > ...
    > Don't be stupid.
    >
    > Here is voter turnout data for representative democracies in Europe.
    > Except for Switzerland, all are well ahead of the US in voter turnout.
    > <http://www.idea.int/publications/voter_turnout_weurope/part%20II%20(78-93).pdf>.
    >
    > --
    > Tom Sherman


    Wow! That's a new record! I usually have to say a lot more before I'm
    called "stupid". Your comment "Many recent elections in other countries
    have had voter turnouts of better than 90%, which puts the ~59% of the 2004
    US election to shame." implies a direct relationship between "betterness"
    and voter turnout. That's how I read it.

    You certainly know more than I do in that area (no sarcasm intended). I see
    from your document that Austria, for example, is way up there. I have no
    idea what the issues and candidates are and have been. Maybe most people
    see major shifts in government policy that will affect them directly and
    that motivates them to vote. Conversely, maybe U.S. voters saw it as six of
    one, a half dozen of the other. Maybe Austria's history is a motivator.
    Why is Switzerland lower than the U.S.? I just don't have enough
    information to judge the shamefulness of a ~59% turnout.

    I also noticed that the document you refer to shows the percentage of
    "registered" voters who actually voted. According to

    http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf

    the percentage of "registered" voters in the U.S. who actually voted in the
    2000 election is about 85%. I couldn't find a figure for this election. In
    order to make a more valid comparison, we need the number of eligible voters
    from those European countries who actually vote. I saw that was referred to
    as VAP in your document, but I couldn't find any figures.

    Regardless, I appreciate each and every person who didn't vote who could
    have - it makes my vote worth that much more.

    Chuck Davis
     
  8. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Tom Kunich wrote:
    >
    > > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > >>Or maybe both the candidates with a chance of winning did nothing to
    > >>inspire people to vote.

    > >
    > >
    > > I guess that's why this was the biggest turnout in election history.

    >
    > In US election history for total numbers of voters, yes.
    >
    > Many recent elections in other countries have had voter turnouts of
    > better than 90%, which puts the ~59% of the 2004 US election to shame.


    So, Tom, how many of these countries had populations exceeding 100 million?
     
  9. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Chuck Davis wrote:
    >
    > > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > >>.....
    > >>Many recent elections in other countries have had voter turnouts of better
    > >>than 90%, which puts the ~59% of the 2004 US election to shame.

    > >
    > >
    > > You got that right. In 2002, 100% of eligible voters went to the polls in
    > > Iraq and re-elected Saddam Hussein.

    >
    > Don't be stupid.
    >
    > Here is voter turnout data for representative democracies in Europe.
    > Except for Switzerland, all are well ahead of the US in voter turnout.
    > <http://www.idea.int/publications/voter_turnout_weurope/part%20II%20(78-93).pdf>.



    Maybe we should pursue this but did you notice that the last listed
    parlimentary elections in Great Britain drew only 24% of the vote?

    Explain to me why the USA is so bad.

    Large countries make the connection between an individuals vote and
    government actions seem devious at best. Many people feel that things
    are working the way they want them and there's no need to vote. That
    was the probable reason that most of those who didn't vote in this
    election abstained.
     
  10. Chuck Davis

    Chuck Davis Guest

    "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > ....
    > Explain to me why the USA is so bad.
    > ....


    I realize that your reply is to Tom Sherman, but since I'm quoted I have to
    ask: Who says that the USA is so bad? If you look at the link that I
    provided, you'll see that the USA in 2000 topped every country in the
    Presidential Elections category except Austria when comparing percentages of
    registered voters who voted. This is according to your reference of

    http://www.idea.int/publications/voter_turnout_weurope/part%20II%20(78-93).pdf

    and my reference of

    http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf

    I don't see how that equates to "bad".

    Chuck Davis
     
  11. "Chuck Davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    | "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    | news:[email protected]
    | > ...
    | > Don't be stupid.
    | >
    | > Here is voter turnout data for representative democracies in Europe.
    | > Except for Switzerland, all are well ahead of the US in voter turnout.
    | >
    <http://www.idea.int/publications/voter_turnout_weurope/part%20II%20(78-93).
    pdf>.
    | >
    | > --
    | > Tom Sherman
    |
    | Wow! That's a new record! I usually have to say a lot more before I'm
    | called "stupid". Your comment "Many recent elections in other countries
    | have had voter turnouts of better than 90%, which puts the ~59% of the
    2004
    | US election to shame." implies a direct relationship between "betterness"
    | and voter turnout. That's how I read it.
    |
    | You certainly know more than I do in that area (no sarcasm intended). I
    see
    | from your document that Austria, for example, is way up there. I have no
    | idea what the issues and candidates are and have been. Maybe most people
    | see major shifts in government policy that will affect them directly and
    | that motivates them to vote. Conversely, maybe U.S. voters saw it as six
    of
    | one, a half dozen of the other. Maybe Austria's history is a motivator.
    | Why is Switzerland lower than the U.S.? I just don't have enough
    | information to judge the shamefulness of a ~59% turnout.
    |
    | I also noticed that the document you refer to shows the percentage of
    | "registered" voters who actually voted. According to
    |
    | http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf
    |
    | the percentage of "registered" voters in the U.S. who actually voted in
    the
    | 2000 election is about 85%. I couldn't find a figure for this election.
    In
    | order to make a more valid comparison, we need the number of eligible
    voters
    | from those European countries who actually vote. I saw that was referred
    to
    | as VAP in your document, but I couldn't find any figures.
    |
    | Regardless, I appreciate each and every person who didn't vote who could
    | have - it makes my vote worth that much more.
    |
    | Chuck Davis
    |
    ....Regardless, I appreciate each and every person who didn't vote who could
    have - it makes my vote worth that much more....

    Chuck Davis

    That's always been my feeling as well.
    The perfect election results will only occur when everyone other than myself
    stays home.

    Further, the 'get-out-the-vote' nonsense is what brings out the newly
    registered voter who had to ask: "What does incumbent mean next to this
    guy's name?"

    ED3
     
  12. Rick Warner

    Rick Warner Guest

    Rick Warner <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 11:27:04 -0600, Tom Sherman
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >incorrectly counted optically scanned votes in Florida and serious
    > >disagreements with exit polls in Florida, Ohio, and other states).

    >
    > My favorite at the moment is the precint in Ohio where less than 700
    > folks voted but W got something like 3600 votes. It was an outsider
    > scanning the results who noticed the inconsistency, which election
    > officials are calling an isolated malfunction of a single voting
    > machine. Hmmmmmm. Brings to mind the old saying 'vote early and
    > vote often'. Apparently so.
    >
    > - rick


    There have been questions to the veracity of the insinuation of the
    'glitch'.

    It was in the news last week, all the major carriers were reporting
    it. For example, see:
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/ or
    http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/st...100&story=200411051608_WRD_65609_200411051108

    - rick
     
  13. Tom Sherman

    Tom Sherman Guest

    Chuck Davis wrote:

    > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>...
    >>Don't be stupid.
    >>
    >>Here is voter turnout data for representative democracies in Europe.
    >>Except for Switzerland, all are well ahead of the US in voter turnout.
    >><http://www.idea.int/publications/voter_turnout_weurope/part%20II%20(78-93).pdf>.
    >>
    >>--
    >>Tom Sherman

    >
    >
    > Wow! That's a new record! I usually have to say a lot more before I'm
    > called "stupid". Your comment "Many recent elections in other countries
    > have had voter turnouts of better than 90%, which puts the ~59% of the 2004
    > US election to shame." implies a direct relationship between "betterness"
    > and voter turnout. That's how I read it....


    The mention of 100% voter turnout in Iraq was a blatant red herring,
    since it is well known that elections under the Ba'athists were shams.
    It also failed to score any points in the argument.

    --
    Tom Sherman
     
  14. Chuck Davis

    Chuck Davis Guest

    "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Chuck Davis wrote:
    >
    >> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>>...
    >>>Don't be stupid.
    >>>
    >>>Here is voter turnout data for representative democracies in Europe.
    >>>Except for Switzerland, all are well ahead of the US in voter turnout.
    >>><http://www.idea.int/publications/voter_turnout_weurope/part%20II%20(78-93).pdf>.
    >>>
    >>>--
    >>>Tom Sherman

    >>
    >>
    >> Wow! That's a new record! I usually have to say a lot more before I'm
    >> called "stupid". Your comment "Many recent elections in other countries
    >> have had voter turnouts of better than 90%, which puts the ~59% of the
    >> 2004 US election to shame." implies a direct relationship between
    >> "betterness" and voter turnout. That's how I read it....

    >
    > The mention of 100% voter turnout in Iraq was a blatant red herring, since
    > it is well known that elections under the Ba'athists were shams. It also
    > failed to score any points in the argument.
    >
    > --
    > Tom Sherman
    >


    What about the rest of what I said?

    Chuck Davis
     
  15. Tom Sherman

    Tom Sherman Guest

    Tom Kunich wrote:

    > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    >>Tom Kunich wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>news:[email protected]
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Or maybe both the candidates with a chance of winning did nothing to
    >>>>inspire people to vote.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>I guess that's why this was the biggest turnout in election history.

    >>
    >>In US election history for total numbers of voters, yes.
    >>
    >>Many recent elections in other countries have had voter turnouts of
    >>better than 90%, which puts the ~59% of the 2004 US election to shame.

    >
    >
    > So, Tom, how many of these countries had populations exceeding 100 million?


    What difference does that make? About as much as what percentage wore
    bicycle helmets to the polls.

    --
    Tom Sherman
     
  16. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    "Edward Dike, III" <edd(2+1)[email protected]> writes:

    > | I also noticed that the document you refer to shows the percentage
    > | of "registered" voters who actually voted. According to
    > |
    > | http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf
    > |
    > | the percentage of "registered" voters in the U.S. who actually
    > | voted in the 2000 election is about 85%. I couldn't find a figure
    > | for this election.


    If only 85% had voted... There are several pieces of relevant math-
    what percentage of the population was registered to vote, and what
    percentage of registered voters went to the polls on Election Day.

    In 2000, 70% of citizens were registered and 60% of those turned out
    to vote. So, 42% of the population plus one Supreme Court judge
    detemined who was President. This is at odds with the figures you
    cite. See:

    http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features/001643.html

    114,000,000 Americans voted in 1992, a record high at that time (per
    the Cesus Bureau link above). Only 111,000,000 voted in 2000. For
    2004, the total voting age population was 217,800,000 although some of
    those were not elegible voters. The total population estimate for the
    US in mid-2004 was 293,633,000, meaning that 74% of the total
    population was registered. 115,979,503 voters- a new record high-
    cast ballots in the Presidential race in 2004, according to the New
    York Times- 53% of voting age people in America. This means that only
    39% of the population decided the Presidency.

    That looks like a decline in participation as a percentage of the
    population from 2000 to 2004, but I don't know if apples are being
    compared to apples- whether the Census Bureau data from 2000 indicates
    70% of the total population was registered to vote or 70% of the
    voting age population. That would make a difference. In Minnesota
    the 2004 percentage was reported at 77.3% of registered voters, and I
    think that was the highest in the nation.

    Other interesting information about the US:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/demography.html showing a 3.3%
    decrease in median income 1999 -> 2003 and an almost flat increase in
    median household net worth 1993 -> 2003. This is despite a home
    ownership rate of 69% (which seems pretty decent to me, but I don't
    know how that stacks up to other parts of the world).

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/education.html especially reading
    achievement

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/health.html

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/26/census.poverty.ap/
     
  17. Dave Rusin

    Dave Rusin Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> So, Tom, how many of these countries had populations exceeding 100 million?

    >
    >What difference does that make? About as much as what percentage wore
    >bicycle helmets to the polls.


    Hey, I like that! A new bicycle-safety campaign:

    "Always Wear A Helmet. These people didn't wear a helmet when they
    went to the polls, and look who they voted for!"
     
Loading...
Loading...