What happened to that 5% stuff?

[erowe1]

Would it be too much to ask all the GJ people who kept throwing around that 5% number in the final days leading up to the election as if it had some basis in reality to say, "Sorry, we just pulled that number out of our rectums. We really had no idea what we were talking about."?

[mport1]

Would it be too much to ask all the GJ people who kept throwing around that 5% number in the final days leading up to the election as if it had some basis in reality to say, "Sorry, we just pulled that number out of our rectums. We really had no idea what we were talking about."?

That would be great. I'm surprised he even broke 1%. Maybe the Libertarian Party will learn its lesson about fielding terrible unprincipled candidates, but I doubt it.

[Elwar]

Every presidential election the LP candidate starts throwing out big numbers. And every presidential election I am left disappointed.

[jmdrake]

Would it be too much to ask all the GJ people who kept throwing around that 5% number in the final days leading up to the election as if it had some basis in reality to say, "Sorry, we just pulled that number out of our rectums. We really had no idea what we were talking about."?

I thought the number was more aspirational than anything else. And if "write in Ron Paul" folks had gone GJ he might have gotten 5%. That said....I voted Virgil Goode.

[jmdrake]

That would be great. I'm surprised he even broke 1%. Maybe the Libertarian Party will learn its lesson about fielding terrible unprincipled candidates, but I doubt it.

Name recognition, principled, libertarian, choose two. ;) Seriously though, the people that might fit all three (Ron Paul, Judge Napolitano etc) seem to be putting their chips on the GOP bet. Makes the LP recruiting a good candidate kinda tough.

[erowe1]

I thought the number was more aspirational than anything else. And if "write in Ron Paul" folks had gone GJ he might have gotten 5%. That said....I voted Virgil Goode.

It should have been just aspirational. But I had to fend off a lot of people getting mad at me because I wasn't helping him reach 5%, as if he was right on the brink or something.

[jmdrake]

It should have been just aspirational. But I had to fend off a lot of people getting mad at me because I wasn't helping him reach 5%, as if he was right on the brink or something.

Question. Do you think Ron Paul supporters who didn't vote for Romney or Obama (including those who stayed home) make up 5% of last nights electorate? Because I do. It's kind of like when we fail miserably at a moneybomb. Even when we don't come close, we know the money's out there. I think that's the way the GJ supporters were feeling. The votes were clearly out there for 5% but GJ couldn't seal the deal for whatever reason. It was not an unrealistic number in that sense.

[ninepointfive]

Would it be too much to ask all the GJ people who kept throwing around that 5% number in the final days leading up to the election as if it had some basis in reality to say, "Sorry, we just pulled that number out of our rectums. We really had no idea what we were talking about."?

yeah, we really should have heeded your ultimate wisdom.

why not pick on all the RP write-in's too?

[jmdrake]

yeah, we really should have heeded your ultimate wisdom.

why not pick on all the RP write-in's too?

Because not having your votes mentioned at all on election night is somehow superior to making 1%.

[Barrex]

I probably shouldnt but that never stopped me before:
Many of you guys are becoming deluded about a lot of things... 5% for GJ, hundred thousand dollars moneybomb for Alaska, Amash and thousand things like that.
Most of the people are there because of Ron Paul and are simply not willing to move for anyone else.

It is good to be confident but it is bad if you are not being realistic.

[Elwar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDLoT5sWOmE

[jt8025]

Would it be too much to ask all the GJ people who kept throwing around that 5% number in the final days leading up to the election as if it had some basis in reality to say, "Sorry, we just pulled that number out of our rectums. We really had no idea what we were talking about."?

The 5% number was the number any third party needed to reach in order to get Federal Campaign Matching Funds from the $3 check box on your tax return box. Supposedly this would give the any third party potentially up to $100 million. The campaign raised just over $1 million, so it would have been a big deal.

Not sure if they thought they were going to get to 5% but they knew that should be the goal.

[Badger Paul]

It was there and perhaps if Republican voters were being told the truth about where Romney really stood instead of the pundit-fueled lies of a Romney "landslide" then maybe Johnson might have gotten there. But more important for the LP as a whole is the fact their downballot candidates polled very well and it shows the party has a viable future if it plays its cards right.

[jmdrake]

I probably shouldnt but that never stopped me before:
Many of you guys are becoming deluded about a lot of things... 5% for GJ, hundred thousand dollars moneybomb for Alaska, Amash and thousand things like that.
Most of the people are there because of Ron Paul and are simply not willing to move for anyone else.

It is good to be confident but it is bad if you are not being realistic.

And that's a realistic problem that we have because if we can't rally behind someone besides just Ron Paul the movement dies with his retirement. That said, I think if this had been Judge Nap running as a libertarian he'd have gotten the 5%.

[Nirvikalpa]

That would be great. I'm surprised he even broke 1%. Maybe the Libertarian Party will learn its lesson about fielding terrible unprincipled candidates, but I doubt it.

The Libertarian Party will never be principled - for God's sake, they ran their own candidate against Amash (and another liberty candidate I believe), and at point in time Amash was losing less than the number of votes the L-party person had.

[NoPants]

Because not having your votes mentioned at all on election night is somehow superior to making 1%.

Agreed. Please post your write in numbers for comparison... Oh wait, you don't have any because they aren't counted. That's exactly why I voted for Gary Johnson. Not because I like him better than Ron Paul, but because he was actually running for president and his results are counted. To all the "Write in Ron Paul" fanatics, I really don't understand your stance on this. I know what you should do, write in Ron Paul in 2016 too. That will show them!

[ninepointfive]

I probably shouldnt but that never stopped me before:
Many of you guys are becoming deluded about a lot of things... 5% for GJ, hundred thousand dollars moneybomb for Alaska, Amash and thousand things like that.
Most of the people are there because of Ron Paul and are simply not willing to move for anyone else.

It is good to be confident but it is bad if you are not being realistic.

Which is why it's good to encourage people to do whatever hey think is best to restore liberty. politics may not be the answer, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote to get the 5% - even though it's a longshot.

Being a longshot never stopped myself and others from supporting RP full steam.

[ninepointfive]

The Libertarian Party will never be principled - for God's sake, they ran their own candidate against Amash (and another liberty candidate I believe), and at point in time Amash was losing less than the number of votes the L-party person had.

Well, I voted LP down the ticket except in the case of one race for Congress. But I do understand the frustration.

[Pericles]

Some states require a party to get 5% or more in a statewide or national ekection to have an automatic spot on the next ballot.

[gwax23]

Agreed. Please post your write in numbers for comparison... Oh wait, you don't have any because they aren't counted. That's exactly why I voted for Gary Johnson. Not because I like him better than Ron Paul, but because he was actually running for president and his results are counted. To all the "Write in Ron Paul" fanatics, I really don't understand your stance on this. I know what you should do, write in Ron Paul in 2016 too. That will show them!

This.

[Valli6]

I knew exactly what I was talking about.
It's helpful to try listening before deciding a thing has no basis in reality.


PARTY CONVENTION AND GENERAL ELECTION GRANTS
The Presidential nominee of each major party may become eligible for a public grant of $20,000,000 plus COLA (over 1974). For 2012, the grant is approximately $91,241,400 for each major party nominee. With the exception of the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, every major party nominee has accepted the general election grant since the program's inception in 1976. Candidates themselves may not raise any other funds to be used for campaigning during the general election period.

Public grants of $18,248,300 went to each of the major parties for their conventions in 2012.

Since no third party candidate received 5% of the vote in 2008, only the Republican and Democratic parties are eligible for 2012 convention grants, and only their nominees may receive grants for the general election when they are nominated. Third-party candidates could qualify for retroactive public funds if they receive 5% or more of the vote in the general election.

http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml

Reading above we see that according to the FEC, a 5% total establishes "major party" status. They state that only a "major party may become eligible for a public grant…" They then tell us that once a third party receives 5% of the vote, they are also eligible for grants - thereby establishing them as a major party in the eyes of the FEC - an entity sanctioned by even the corrupt 2-party system we are fighting against.

"Major parties" cannot easily be excluded from news coverage or debates. Televised debates and ongoing news coverage reach far more voters than any internet campaign can. When the general population recognizes more than 2 candidates, it brings competition into the picture. Candidates who must COMPETE for votes, can't suck horrendously and still get elected.

(I won't be so petty as to ask anyone to say "Sorry, I guess I'm the one that didn't know what I was talking about. I refused to listen to any information that might not agree with what I already wanted to believe.")

[erowe1]

Agreed. Please post your write in numbers for comparison... Oh wait, you don't have any because they aren't counted. That's exactly why I voted for Gary Johnson. Not because I like him better than Ron Paul, but because he was actually running for president and his results are counted. To all the "Write in Ron Paul" fanatics, I really don't understand your stance on this. I know what you should do, write in Ron Paul in 2016 too. That will show them!

The numbers aren't final yet, but it's looking something like this (out of 230 million voting age Americans):
Nobody - 111 million
Obama - 60 million
Romney - 57 million
Johnson - 1 million
Stein - .5 million
All others - .5 million

I'm glad to be part of the 111 million. There are almost as many of us as the total who voted for all of the candidates. Getting the number of voting age Americans who didn't vote for anyone for president up to 50% would have been a lot more realistic than getting the number who voted for Johnson up to 5%.

[erowe1]

The numbers aren't final yet, but it's looking something like this (out of 230 million voting age Americans):
Nobody - 111 million
Obama - 60 million
Romney - 57 million
Johnson - 1 million
Stein - .5 million
All others - .5 million

I'm glad to be part of the 111 million. There are almost as many of us as the total who voted for all of the candidates. Getting the number of voting age Americans who didn't vote for anyone for president up to 50% would have been a lot more realistic than getting the number who voted for Johnson up to 5%.

The more I think about these numbers the more encouraged I am. The president should interpret them as a clear mandate for him to do nothing.

[NoPants]

The numbers aren't final yet, but it's looking something like this (out of 230 million voting age Americans):
Nobody - 111 million
Obama - 60 million
Romney - 57 million
Johnson - 1 million
Stein - .5 million
All others - .5 million

I'm glad to be part of the 111 million. There are almost as many of us as the total who voted for all of the candidates. Getting the number of voting age Americans who didn't vote for anyone for president up to 50% would have been a lot more realistic than getting the number who voted for Johnson up to 5%.

5 gold starts to you for completely missing the point. You did clarify something else in your comment, writing in Ron Paul was the same as not voting.

[erowe1]

5 gold starts to you for completely missing the point. You did clarify something else in your comment, writing in Ron Paul was the same as not voting.

As far as I'm concerned it was, which is an argument in its favor.

But since I missed the point, what was it? Why does having your votes for GJ counted matter? Just so you can see if he broke 1.0%?

[erowe1]

Admittedly, I did a lot of rounding in those numbers. But what part was super inaccurate?

[NoPants]

As far as I'm concerned it was, which is an argument in its favor.

You just earned another 5 gold stars.

You don't get it. Someone that doesn't vote is not considered a "lost" vote to any political party. There are those that do not vote and never will. Nobody wastes resources trying to get those votes. At least someone that votes for a third party is trying to help get it more recognized, more funding, increased public attentions. That has at the very least a chance of helping our system to evolved beyond a 2 party system and bring some greater choice into the political spectrum. Sitting on the side lines isn't going to do that, but you go ahead and enjoy the view.

[NoPants]

Admittedly, I did a lot of rounding in those numbers. But what part was super inaccurate?

About the 5% being pulled out of someones rectum. It was based on something very specific actually:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?394854-What-happened-to-that-5-stuff&p=4719838&viewfull=1#post4719838

[dean.engelhardt]

The 1%that voted LP is depressing; but what is really depressing is the 98% that listen to Chris Matthews and stuck with the two parties. That is the real troubling sign for the future of this country. We got too many sheep.

Romney was the real wasted voted.

The 5% would have been nice. 5% would have got the attention of the GOP and made them think about adopting liberty platform issues. GOP is looking at the results and saying that they don't need to adopt liberty into the platform because those vote would not have made a difference in the election.

[erowe1]

You just earned another 5 gold stars.

You don't get it. Someone that doesn't vote is not considered a "lost" vote to any political party. There are those that do not vote and never will. Nobody wastes resources trying to get those votes. At least someone that votes for a third party is trying to help get it more recognized, more funding, increased public attentions. That has at the very least a chance of helping our system to evolved beyond a 2 party system and bring some greater choice into the political spectrum. Sitting on the side lines isn't going to do that, but you go ahead and enjoy the view.

A vote for Johnson isn't any more of a "lost" vote for a political party than a vote for nobody is.

And if it's about getting increased public attention, I don't see how getting 1% accomplishes that.

The time for getting attention to issues was in the Republican primaries. We didn't win them. But I'd say, for bringing attention to the cause, we did a decent job. Compared to that, whatever GJ hoped to end up accomplishing yesterday was never going to matter much. Helping him get all the way up to a whopping 2% wasn't really a cause worth the trouble it would have involved. And all the 5% talk was just pie-in-the-sky stuff.

[mport1]

The Libertarian Party will never be principled - for God's sake, they ran their own candidate against Amash (and another liberty candidate I believe), and at point in time Amash was losing less than the number of votes the L-party person had.

Possibly not, which is one of the many reasons why I think they should be ignored.

[ninepointfive]

As far as I'm concerned it was, which is an argument in its favor.

But since I missed the point, what was it? Why does having your votes for GJ counted matter? Just so you can see if he broke 1.0%?

Why are you in such a bad mood? From my vantage point, you have no moral basis to stand on and call others out for their voting decision.

[fisharmor]

Uhhhhhhhhh................

I didn't vote for Gary Johnson because he's a Republican.
I didn't vote for Mitt Rmoney because he's a Democrat.
I wrote in Dr. Paul because he's a libertarian.

When the LP stops fielding Republicans, I'll vote for the LP candidate.
Why is it so hard to find someone? And at this point, what is so bad about standing out from the other parties?
Is the LP completely bereft of good candidates?

I didn't vote for Mittens because I stopped voting for people I didn't actively support.
I presume many RP fans did likewise.
This isn't about numbers and it isn't about political maneuvering. It's about honesty.

Voting for GJ would have been dishonest for me. I don't care whether the LP got 5% or not. I only care whether the candidate supports liberty.
He didn't make the cut.
I'm not alone in this assessment.

Until they choose someone who does make the cut, then 5% remains a fantasy.

The most exasperating thing about this is that if they had stuck with traditional candidates instead of Republican wannabes, they probably would have gotten 5% in 2008.

[erowe1]

About the 5% being pulled out of someones rectum. It was based on something very specific actually:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?394854-What-happened-to-that-5-stuff&p=4719838&viewfull=1#post4719838

Right. But the choice of that particular benchmark as opposed to other potential benchmarks, such as winning the election, costing Romney the election, breaking an LP record, or whatever, was chosen arbitrarily. It wasn't based on any reason to think 5% was within the realm of possibility.

I get it as an aspiration. But telling people that they're doing something wrong when they don't help some cause they don't really care about achieve some goal it has no chance of achieving is what I had a problem with.

[ninepointfive]

Do you think the LP is fielding R candidates due to many leaving the LP for Ron Paul?

That's gotta be it

[erowe1]

Why are you in such a bad mood? From my vantage point, you have no moral basis to stand on and call others out for their voting decision.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have any problem with their voting decision. I respect voting for GJ. I almost did myself. I might have even done it if it hadn't been for all that silly 5% talk turning me off.

[Valli6]

...some goal it has no chance of achieving is what I had a problem with.
If the possibility of not achieving the goal makes a vote unacceptable to you, how did you ever support Ron Paul?

[erowe1]

If the possibility of not achieving the goal makes a vote unacceptable to you, how did you ever support Ron Paul?

I notice you didn't include the first part of the sentence you quoted. And I'm not sure where you got the part about a vote being unacceptable.

But I supported Ron Paul with a lot more than a vote. And he was a serious contender in the Republican primaries. That's where the real action was. Once those primaries were over, this presidential election was over for me. Compared to not only what we had a potential of achieving there but what we actually did achieve, the difference between 0.9% and 1.0% in a general election is not worth losing sleep over, and pretending it's more significant than that by throwing around the number 5% doesn't change it.

[ninepointfive]

the difference between 0.9% and 1.0% in a general election is not worth losing sleep over, and pretending it's more significant than that by throwing around the number 5% doesn't change it.

well, I had no idea what would or wouldn't happen - but voted for that elusive 5% anyways whether I thought it would happen or not. What if everybody just did that? maybe it would work.

[erowe1]

I'm sorry. I know that people can get sucked into a political campaign emotionally. I have been many times. And for the people who had high hopes for GJ I'm rubbing salt in the wound, which I really shouldn't do.

I'm really just letting off steam after certain specific GJ supporters told me they lost respect for me because I didn't vote for him.

[VBRonPaulFan]

I knew exactly what I was talking about.
It's helpful to try listening before deciding a thing has no basis in reality.


Reading above we see that according to the FEC, a 5% total establishes "major party" status. They state that only a "major party may become eligible for a public grant…" They then tell us that once a third party receives 5% of the vote, they are also eligible for grants - thereby establishing them as a major party in the eyes of the FEC - an entity sanctioned by even the corrupt 2-party system we are fighting against.

"Major parties" cannot easily be excluded from news coverage or debates. Televised debates and ongoing news coverage reach far more voters than any internet campaign can. When the general population recognizes more than 2 candidates, it brings competition into the picture. Candidates who must COMPETE for votes, can't suck horrendously and still get elected.

(I won't be so petty as to ask anyone to say "Sorry, I guess I'm the one that didn't know what I was talking about. I refused to listen to any information that might not agree with what I already wanted to believe.")


so yeah, that info above isn't true. ben swann already did a video on this completely explaining it. a 'major' party is a party that gets >= 25% of the popular vote in an election - they get the most funds (like $90M). if you get >= 5% of the popular vote, the party gets considered a 'minor' party... those parties get like $10M. that info you quoted above just says only the repub/dem parties get funds because they're the only minor/major parties. it doesn't tell you the distinction between parties and what they get.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0eO0jGsn4c

[Valli6]

Personally, I wasn't emotionally invested in Johnson's campaign, but felt the possibility of getting some competition into elections (by reaching 5%) was the only salvagable thing that might still be achieved in this election. Not sure why some were so certain 5% was unattainable - whatever.
Like others, it ended for me once Ron Paul stopped running. Election day was just sad.

[Valli6]

so yeah, that info above isn't true. ben swann already did a video on this completely explaining it. a 'major' party is a party that gets >= 25% of the popular vote in an election - they get the most funds (like $90M). if you get >= 5% of the popular vote, the party gets considered a 'minor' party... those parties get like $10M. that info you quoted above just says only the repub/dem parties get funds because they're the only minor/major parties. it doesn't tell you the distinction between parties and what they get.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0eO0jGsn4c&feature=player_embedded

Thanks. I hadn't seen that. You'd think they'd be more forthright with the info, but of course it's to their benefit to keep it all sketchy.

[jmdrake]

You just earned another 5 gold stars.

You don't get it. Someone that doesn't vote is not considered a "lost" vote to any political party. There are those that do not vote and never will. Nobody wastes resources trying to get those votes. At least someone that votes for a third party is trying to help get it more recognized, more funding, increased public attentions. That has at the very least a chance of helping our system to evolved beyond a 2 party system and bring some greater choice into the political spectrum. Sitting on the side lines isn't going to do that, but you go ahead and enjoy the view.

Bingo!

[VBRonPaulFan]

Thanks. I hadn't seen that. You'd think they'd be more forthright with the info, but of course it's to their benefit to keep it all sketchy.

it's all meant to be confusing so that only the large, bureaucratic and entrenched parties can comply with everything. i think it's stupid that there is any public funding towards electioneering at all - but that's another discussion entirely.

[jmdrake]

The numbers aren't final yet, but it's looking something like this (out of 230 million voting age Americans):
Nobody - 111 million
Obama - 60 million
Romney - 57 million
Johnson - 1 million
Stein - .5 million
All others - .5 million

I'm glad to be part of the 111 million. There are almost as many of us as the total who voted for all of the candidates. Getting the number of voting age Americans who didn't vote for anyone for president up to 50% would have been a lot more realistic than getting the number who voted for Johnson up to 5%.

And how many of those 230 million are felons that haven't had their voting rights restored? How many are lazy and simply didn't get out to vote? How many moved? If Ron Paul won this year on those numbers would you be saying "He doesn't have a mandate to end the wars and cut spending because a majority of Americans didn't vote"?

[NoPants]

Don't get me wrong. I don't have any problem with their voting decision. I respect voting for GJ. I almost did myself. I might have even done it if it hadn't been for all that silly 5% talk turning me off.

Wow, that's some sound reasoning. Who knew you were so temperamental...er, I mean principled.

Seriously, that is one of the lamest reasons I've ever heard for deciding how to vote. That's almost as superficial as, "I didn't like his tie in the debate." Seems pointless to discuss anything with you. What if you choose not to listen because my comment was posted between the silly hours of 2-4pm. :p

[cajuncocoa]

I thought the number was more aspirational than anything else.This. 5% was their goal, not their prediction.

[LudwigVonMisoSoup]

At least I didn't vote for Romney like some of you dolts. I support liberty-oriented candidates. Gary didn't break 5% but at least I didn't vote for a pro-war, pro-drug war, anti-civil liberties candidate.

[kenmoellman]

This. 5% was their goal, not their prediction.

In Kentucky, Johnson received 0.95% of the popular vote. Our down-ticket did better, of course. But the stupid talking heads scared everyone into thinking that getting 50%+1 isn't enough in a winner-takes-all Electoral College system, that they needed over 60% for some reason.

In Kentucky, 2% would have given the Libertarian Party of Kentucky ballot access for 4 years, which would have been huge.

5% may have given us the basis for a lawsuit to become a major party.

Write-ins won't be counted. Can't force someone to be a candidate -- Ron could have been had he filled out a form, put 8 Electors on it, and mailed it in with $50 before the last 2 weeks of the election cycle.

It's a shame, really. With 2%, I could have helped change the state in a significant way. Now, I still have to do the busywork of petitioning for at least 4 more years, which creates a drag on our ability to challenge the political establishment.

[PaulConventionWV]

Question. Do you think Ron Paul supporters who didn't vote for Romney or Obama (including those who stayed home) make up 5% of last nights electorate? Because I do. It's kind of like when we fail miserably at a moneybomb. Even when we don't come close, we know the money's out there. I think that's the way the GJ supporters were feeling. The votes were clearly out there for 5% but GJ couldn't seal the deal for whatever reason. It was not an unrealistic number in that sense.

Thanks for the perspective. That helps the understanding.

[Occam's Banana]

[Voting for a 3rd-party has] at the very least a chance of helping our system to evolved beyond a 2 party system and bring some greater choice into the political spectrum.

No, it doesn't. So long as US federal elections are conducted on the basis of plurality "winner-takes-all" voting, it WILL remain a two-party system. (The only question at the time of any particular election is "Which two parties are the major ones?")

American history is full-to-overflowing with third-parties. But there has NEVER been a time in American history when there were more than two major parties and there NEVER will be - NOT until systemic & fundamental changes are made (such as using proportional rather than plurality voting, for example). This is why the term "third-party" is coterminal with the term "also-ran." It doesn't matter if you're talking about Libertarians, Greens, Progressives, Socialists, Know Nothings, etc. etc. etc.

Cast as many third-party ballots as you please. Or don't vote at all. From the standpoint of of achieving third-party electoral success, it makes no difference whatsoever.

The ONLY way third-parties in America can achieve success is by taking over one of the two major parties (as the Progressives did with the Democrats) or by replacing one of the two major parties when it goes defunct (as the Republicans did with the Whigs).

It is deluded & contrary to the overwhelming historical evidence to imagine otherwise.

[jllundqu]

That would be great. I'm surprised he even broke 1%. Maybe the Libertarian Party will learn its lesson about fielding terrible unprincipled candidates, but I doubt it.

I would so join the free state project, but I HATE the freakin cold! Im in AZ so I'll have to donate from afar!

[Barrex]

Did I started this quarrel?.... ups

[erowe1]

And how many of those 230 million are felons that haven't had their voting rights restored? How many are lazy and simply didn't get out to vote? How many moved? If Ron Paul won this year on those numbers would you be saying "He doesn't have a mandate to end the wars and cut spending because a majority of Americans didn't vote"?

No. I would be saying he doesn't have a mandate to continue the wars and continue spending.

The mandate demanded by the plurality who voted for nobody is not the continuation of the federal government as it is, but the cessation of it.

At any rate, it would be improper for Obama to imagine that the 60 million who voted for him give him some legitimate right to do to the rest of us things that we never consented to.