Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Threat to world peace

Yes, this will cause trouble, but should the fact that many around the world see him as a threat to world peace not be incorporated into the popularity section. Certainly in Ireland he is regarded as such, polls have been carried out on the topic. I believe that even in the UK, only Saddam Hussain was at the same level. (Not that that makes any sense, as he had nothing like the influence on the world that Bush does!). These attitudes towards Bush can certainly be verified, and do belong in the article. zoney ███ talk 09:23, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If we are going to include every world-wide complaint about USA and Bush, let's also include the reciprocal. Many in USA cannot understand why Ireland stayed neutral in WWII and refused to oppose the NAZIs... [1]. Perhaps that's why they don't like Bush - they have bad judgement? Rex071404 09:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re the Nazi/Neutrality thing, of course there are many valid criticisms of Irish policy (past and present), and I'm sure the Eamon De Valera article mentions his giving condolences to Germany after the death of their Fuhrer! (I kid you not!) If it doesn't, I suggest it warrants addition! Certainly I'm sure Ireland's "neutrality" in the war is discussed in the history pages of the country. Unlike you, I don't consider the discussion of actual real facts a slur to my country - and it's an incentive to do something about the issues! (Cause hey, there's a lot wrong with this nation of drunkards we have here) zoney ███ talk 14:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

perhaps.... you should give people (and yourself) a break. W is the single most hated US President in Europe ever, to such an extent that the popularity of the USA has massively deteriorated, and 'over here', that's beginning to seem like the principal characteristic of this president Dbachmann 12:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You suggest that this has come into play, but you are in error. No comparison is being invoked by me. Rather, I merely pointed out that Ireland remained as Neutral country during WWII and as such did nothing to oppose NAZIs. This is an irrefutable historical fact and is not a comparison. Using this fact, I pointed out the absurdity of the other editor's aim of inserting a reference to the so-called Ireland-wide anger against Bush. If we insist on stating what Ireland (or any other country) thinks, we should also look at the track record of that country and see if we should even care what they say. When Ireland sends substantial troops to help stop the genocide in the Sudan, then I will care more what they say. Until they prove themselves in that or a similar way, I will continue to credit their views with a ranking of zero Rex071404 16:33, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Last time I checked it's not a requirement for the US to pick a President that Europe likes. The President is there to protect American interests not to buddy up with Europe. If our interests coincide great, if they don't it's not our problem. PPGMD

Wikipedia is not a debate forum. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:58, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

Regarding "If our interests coincide great, if they don't it's not our problem.": I beg to differ. If they don't coincide, it is our problem. Foreign affairs is imperative to the domestic well being. Also, as Zoney points out below (and meelar points out above), your opinion on the value of international relations, or anyone's opinion for that matter, is not relevant - the question is not one of "value", but rather of relevance and significance. The matter is clearly both relevant and significant. Kevin Baas | talk 20:24, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

Our relationship with Europe has always been friend because of need. And it has been the same way returned to the United States, sure when terrible events happened it's human nature to attempt to help each other but over all foreign policy has been that way. France best demonstrated it when CDG pulled France for the most part out of NATO, revoking our base rights, after Marshall plan money helped rebuild his nation. Sure you can put that he is not as liked in Europe, but the very idea that he is a threat to world peace makes about as much sense as when it was said about President Reagan. Conflicts with NK, and Iraq would have happened even if Al Gore was in office (though I think the conflict wouldn't have happened until the death of Saddam, with a civil war involving outside parties). Iran would have also have been a problem, along with the possibility with Libya, all these would have happened no matter the outcome of the 2000 election. PPGMD

Europe's grievances are specifically with the president and the policies of his administration. This would have been different if the outcome of the 2000 election was different, in that there would be a different president with a different administration and different policies. Regardless, as I said before, that is not the issue. Kevin Baas | talk 21:54, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

Fine - but if someone is widely (yes, this needs qualification) regarded as the single biggest threat to world peace, then yes, I think it warrants a mention in the article about them!!!!! zoney ███ talk 14:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

it will all cool down in a couple of months ;) take it easy, the elections will not be decided on wikipedia. Sure, a country's leader needs to think of his country's interests first. Not to the point of predatory imperialism, though (not implying that such a point has been reached yet). And going out of your way to piss off other nations certainly is not among such interests either (And certainly you're not implying every single president of the past has been guilty of sycophantic "buddying up"?) on-topic though, major impacts on international relations certainly deserve to be mentioned. 130.60.142.69 15:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to put the fact that Bush is widely considered by most of the world to be the biggest threat to world peace the human race has ever seen in this article. I think even his most rabid fans can see that that is true. As long as it's true, it has a place as far as I'm concerned. Pedant 10:04, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

I think, more importantly than its being right/wrong (in fairness, that is a matter for debate - despite my belief in it), large swathes of people having such opinions of him does warrant a mention. zoney ███ talk 10:41, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not a objective fact it's someone's opinion. My personal belief is that you can't judge a President's actions, for the most part, until 8-10 years after they leave office. I also believe that you won't be able to put through the partisan BS until after they are dead for some time.

PPGMD

Firstly, the fact that people have this opinion is an objective fact. (See the npov policy page.) And the fact that something is believed doesn't have any immediate effect on whether it is objective truth or not. For instance, something can be simultaneously fact and opinion. In any case, all we have access to is our beliefs and those of others. These beliefs are bound to differ, but if we are to at all infer something from the combination of them, we must start with the assumption that each person's beliefs are equally valid. They have access to different information than we do, they stand in a different place. One blind person feels a tree, and another a snake, but if they would communicate and accept each-other's information as equally valid, they might discover that it is an elephant (leg->tree, trunk->snake).

Secondly, about judging a president's actions: Historical knowledge, active research, reliance on empiricism, critical thinking, etc. I think a strong and self-educated mind can cut clear through the rhetoric like butter and see things for what they really are today.

Thirdly, about judging a president's actions: regardless of the extent to which we may accurately judge a person in a position of political power, it is imperative that we do. It is imperative for the well being of everyone for us to be very critically-minded in concern to those in or seeking power. Kevin Baas | talk 20:24, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Unemployment Rate

In response to Rex's addition about the average unemployment rate during Clinton's term in office... "The unemployment rate was 5.6% in June, 2004, compared to 4.2% when Bush came into office, though it did average 5.6% across the full length of Clinton's terms in office. The unemployment rate at the start of Clinton's term was 7.3% and 4.2% at the end of his term. Just saying that it averaged 5.6% across his term does not give a clear picture. AlistairMcMillan 14:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Meant to say, I got these figures from http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/ru Not sure if this is a good source, but the figure seem accurate. AlistairMcMillan 14:47, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is referencing the unemployment rate during Clinton's term nessecary? Lyellin 16:39, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

IMHO I don't think so. I only put the above comments here to explain why I removed Rex's qualifier/spin/whatever. AlistairMcMillan 17:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Texans category

This is very minor, but should Bush really be listed in the Texans category when he was born in Connecticut? I've been under the impression that you're listed by the state you were born in, not the state you grew up in. Beginning 22:30, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

You are what you say you are. I'm not a Texan, but I was born there and spent the next 3 weeks there.

But is that how we do it on Wikipedia, or just your personal opinion? I know that he's culturally Texan -- my question is whether or not it's appropriate to list him in that category when it seems to be for people born there. Beginning 23:23, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

The category isn't "people born in Texas". Bush was governor of the state, I think that's more than enough of a qualification for the category. Gamaliel 23:25, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was simply asking if that's how we do it on Wikipedia. My impression was that those categories were for natives, but apparently not. It's resolved now. Beginning 05:31, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Unfavorable ratings

Do we really need to characterize these strongly? Wouldn't it be more NPOV to just say his approval ratings are unfavorable abroad and then list some representative poll numbers? Wolfman 23:47, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to just get rid of that para (although it was much worse back then), but people wanted it, so I've had to settle for insisting it be written neutrally. VV 23:50, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[2] Kevin Baas | talk 01:31, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

Well, if the evidence is strong enough, you don't have to sell people on the truth. If Bush has got a (making this up) 10% appoval rating in France, it's actually more shocking to read if you haven't been warned. In my view, 'mild' backed up with evidence can be more hard-hitting. But, I'm not taking a stand here, i'm just sort of thinking aloud.Wolfman 02:18, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Most of the world, and not just the Islamic world, but the Western world hates his guts. There. Now, we can't say that. But it's important to remain truthful, that he's one of the most hated and villified people ever to come from the US! Now you may find those views abhorrant, but as they say here, sin a bhfuil, that's the way it is. So I consider a mildly put statement, but emphasising the strong nature of these sentiments, the best solution really. Much as was agreed upon earlier. zoney ███ talk 10:49, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agree Pedant 07:55, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

"They" don't even know Bush well enough to hate him. It's a strong America which "they" hate. Rex071404 03:59, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Now that's a generalization and characterization if I've ever heard one. And just for the record, the people of Luxembourg (at least the many that I've talked to), do not fit into that generalization or characterization at all. Lyellin 04:11, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

while of course all the US hinterland rednecks are mature, educated citizens, monitoring current events and basing their opinion on sound NPOV analysis rather than hearsay and primeval chauvinism. (apologies. using one stereotype to expose another) Dbachmann 08:47, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Protection

Additionally, when protection is due to a revert war, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the version favoured by those more closely complying with the guideline on repeated reverts. See wikipedia talk:revert#The protection option for the discussion on this.

VV has consistently ignored revert policy and consensus decisions. Why is his version being preferred by Guanaco? -- style 07:28, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

See m:The WRong Version. RickK 07:31, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

I guess you didn't check the page history. My point is that the page was protected by Blankfaze on Kevin's version and then Guanaco reverted it to VV's version. -- style 07:39, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

Then I suggest you bring it up at WP:RFC#Use of administrator privileges. RickK 07:43, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Blankfaze should not have protected the page, as he had been involved in this particular edit war against me [3]. I told him he should have recused himself on his talk page, and he is unrepentant. I may file an RFC. I believe Guanaco is acting based on Wikipedia:Three revert rule#Enforcement, a policy which may not be solid, but is not out of left field either. VV 08:13, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A suggestion

I for one am tired of arguing this. I'm going to request 2 more editors come take my place on this discussion. Maybe if all of us would do the same thing, some progress might be made. See you around.Pedant 08:00, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

George W. Bush

Why is this page still protected? Rex071404 07:57, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See the page history, WP:RFC , and/or WP:RFAr for the answer to that question. Kevin Baas | talk 17:37, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

"Validity"

I have a problem with and strongly object to this; "The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed" being included in the article. Here are my reasons:

1. It is false to say that - not all aspects of the the FL 2000 election were "heavily disputed".
2. A "dispute" requires opposing parties, most people who voted in FL 2000 did not have any complaints. Less than 1% of all votes cast were in "dispute". This is not "heavy".
3. Bush v. Gore and the other court cases were specifically about post-election re-counts (tally methods). This is a limited aspect of the total election.
4. It would be more accurate to say "Some aspects of the Florida vote's validity were heavily disputed".

Plese be advised that I object to those who contend we have reached consensus on this. We have not yet done that. Therefore, those who revert claiming a "consensus" on this point are mistating the facts. Rex071404 23:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1. It doesn't say "all aspects".
2. There clearly were opposing parties.
3. How about "intensely disputed", that's true beyond doubt.
4. The final outcome is not a limited aspect; plus there were plenty of other aspects such as the false disenfranchisement and the butterfly ballot fiasco.
5. How about "Several aspects, including the final outcome, of the Florida vote's validity were intensely disputed".Wolfman 23:50, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you are sincere about dialoging on this, you need to un-revert your revert against me while we discuss it. FYI: Since you aggresively reverted me just now, I added that to my evidence against you on the Arb page. Rex071404 00:01, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why Rex, I'd be happy to. I assume that you will then display the same good faith by reverting your own revert of G. :) Wolfman 00:07, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your condition is inappropriate as G set a false premise with his Edit Summary of "restore consensus version". That edit summary falsely contends there is consensus when there is not. G's revert without dialog was not founded in collegial inter-editor dialog and is therefore invalid and ought to be reverted for that reason. Rex071404 00:11, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A "Poll" (please state your rationale below)

I support the current sentence

"The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed"

1. Pedant:the alternative is awkwardly worded and invites future editing and dispute. Prefer we make edits that might stand a chance of lasting. Pedant 00:41, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
2. Wolfman: simple, correct, direct Wolfman 00:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Kevin Baas | talk 14:37, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
4. Gzornenplatz 14:41, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
5. Just to keep things organized, see Cecropia's discussion below: "I prefer the current wording ..." (or 'hotly contested') - Wolfman
6. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
7. Fuzheado | Talk 22:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
8. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 01:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
9. Sean Curtin 02:47, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I support this sentence

"Some aspects of the Florida vote's validity were heavily disputed"

Rex071404 00:05, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) PPGMD 16:45, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I support this sentence

"Several aspects, including the final outcome, of the Florida vote's validity were intensely disputed".

Pedant 00:41, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

Other

1. VV 17:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) Validity at the very least adds nothing, and may be misleading. The vote was disputed, that's all we need. Brevity rules! Also, polls are no way to resolve content issues.

Some Citizens have lost faith in the election process as a whole because of irregularities in the Florida vote.

Pedant 00:43, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

should be "election process and US Supreme Court" Wolfman 01:21, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Others feel that the outcome was just, correct and appropriate. Rex071404 01:16, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The outcome is not what's in dispute. What people feel "the appropriate outcome" to be is expressed by their vote (point in case, here). The problem is that elgible voters were prevented from voting, and that is unjust. Kevin Baas | talk 15:07, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

"Becasuse the Florida vote was marred by elgible voters being prevented from voting, its validity was heavily disputed." (suggested by Kevin Baas | talk 15:07, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC) )

I disagree. I think there was dispute because ALGORE tried to steal the election. Rex071404 15:15, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Using "because" begs the question--it requires us to assume that the dispute in Florida was about eligible voters being prevented from voting, and that this is why the election was "hotly disputed." The dispute arose because the vote was close, and the election was hotly disputed for the same reason. Every election has irregularities, lost votes and some measure of outright fraud--this is one of the reasons the electoral college is retained. No one cares too much unless the election is close. I prefer the current wording or the term "hotly contested" instead of "heavily disputed." -- Cecropia | Talk 15:21, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The election college is retained for purely traditional reasons. Any "reasons" beyond this are after-the-fact reasons and are ad hoc. In fact, mathematically, using voting theory (a branch of mathematics), or noisy channel coding theory (information theory), or even just probability, however you want to approach the problem, the lack of an electoral college would decrease the effect of fraud on the outcome of the vote.

If elgible voters were not prevented from voting to a disproportionate extent, a slim margin would not be sufficient reason to dispute the validity, as a recount wound not change the numbers significantly. Therefore, if it was due to a slim margin, it was also due to elgible voters being prevented from voting.

Cecropia, we have already discussed your characterization of the florida dispute as "irregularity". An example here, the felon list: not within a "standard margin of error". The problems with the election in Florida were well beyond the norm of the United States, and well beyond acceptable limits. Hence, the state of Florida was sued for election law violations, not "irregularities", and lost.

If no elgible voters were prevented from voting, then the validity could not be legitimately disputed. If the number of elgible voters prevented from voting were within a standard margin of error, such that it would be impractical to lower the number - then the validity could not be legitimately disputed. However, the number of elgible voters that were prevented from voting is well beyond the standard margin of error, and it would have taken no greater of an effort than that which most other states make on a regular basis to dramatically lower the number of elgible voters being prevented from voting, and the validity of the vote is legitimately disputed. Dispute implies marred by disenfranchisement. Whether or not this requires, as well, that the election is close, does not affect this logical dependancy. Kevin Baas | talk 16:19, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

Kevin, if you call the Constitution of the United States "purely traditional reasons," OK. How many countries (including those critical of the US) choose their chief executives by direct popular vote? Also, you err in just looking at Florida. There were disputes in other states potentially favorable to Republicans, including old fashioned urban fraud (mostly ineligible voters voting), the extended polling hours in Missouri, charges of vote buying, and so on. Thirdly, I'll point out an issue in Florida that noone has much bothered with and that has a much greater impact on the future of US elections: the lawyering of vote counting. We had people looking at hanging chads, and eventually at dimples on chads. In the meantime, Democrats had no problem disenfranching thousands of American troops overseas on claims of errors. This is called politics. The United States Constitution says what happens if a clear electoral college victory can't be determined. It doesn't go to the lawyer brigade, it doesn't go to the Florida Supreme Court, it doesn't go to the US Supreme Court (except as a very last resort); it does to the US House of Representatives, but noone wanted to go that route, it seems. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:49, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are multiple arguments on multiple issues here, I'll address them independantly....

• Constitution & tradition. -Because that is written in the constitution does not make it not tradition, and because i was refering to tradition does not mean that i was refering to the fact that it's in the constitution, or am in any way against the constitution. What I meant was that the reason for having an electoral college was that it was infeasible at the time to do a direct popular vote. That's why it was written into the constitution, not for any reason of justice, but for reasons of practicality. That reason no longer applies: it is now feasible to do a popular vote. You said that the reason was to protect against voter fraud. This is historically inaccurate. That is what I meant to say, and I thought I was pretty clear. I'm sorry, perhaps I'm a bit too laconic, I'll spell it out more carefully next time.
• "How many countries..." How many lemmings jump off cliffs? what's your point?
• You did not address or concede my point that direct popular vote is numerically more residulant to fraud than an electoral college. - and you responded with rhetoric that gives the impression that you stand by your claim that an electoral college is more residulant to fraud than a direct popular vote and that that is why it was written into the constitution.
• I just looked at Florida, yes, but I did not "err" in so doing. The existence of disputes in other states does not effect the logic of my argument.
• Your "thirdly" - your fear of people putting more pressure on the election process to lose less votes - Well that sounds like a win for both republicans and democrats - i win for the american people! Voter enfranchisement is nothing to be afraid of. Kevin Baas | talk 19:29, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

Uh Consensus means we are supposed to try to understand and agree

It seems that each "vote" or discussion falls into camps divided along the pro-Bush and anti-Bush lines. Is this honest dialog? Is there a real attempt to reach consensus? I feel that Kevin Baas in particular is convinced that Bush (and associates) pro-actively schemed in 2000 to wrongly block African-American voters so as to steal the election. I feel this because KB seems to have an extreme desire to push the "disenfranchised" angle. I also feel that this view of his adds a POV which makes gaining consensus impossible. Question for group: Why are we not allowing both premises to be in the sentences? Why must ONLY the "there was 'disenfranchisment' therefore Bush cheated" angle be emphasized? To me, reaching consensus means respecting each others views and attempting to combine them. I have explained my views to Kevin about this, his response was:

"Alright rex, it doesn't look like this conversation is going anywhere. I have said nothing that can be construed to be the least bit controversial, and I stand by it unperturbed. I have done my best to communicate with you. There is nothing more that can be said. The facts are as they are. So be it. Kevin Baas | talk 06:31, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)" [4].

That does not sound to me like he is actually trying to appreciate and incoporate into the article all view points. The purpose of a poll (not a "vote" - like someone changed the title to) is to find out where we stand, not shout-down dissent. We are supposed to homogonize our views into an acceptable text, not "vote" on who to weed out. I have posted detailed thoughts as to why I feel the term "disenfranchised" ought not to be included (or at the least, not made to be too greatly emphasized). This logic carries over to my concerns about "Validity". Also, I have asked other questions and raised other points above. Collaborative editing requires much dialog. I am talking here, what about the rest of you?

Also please take note of this Edit Smmary [5] by Kevin Bass "Business and political career - put para on consensus, pending resolution of changes via vote on talk page.)". It's clear from this that Kevin's aim is to silence dissenters via a "voting" process rather than try to reach a meeting of the minds. That is not collaboration and any so-called "consensus" reached that way is fraudulent.

Rex071404 16:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

minor point, no one changed the title -- you didn't post a title (I did). - Wolfman

Consensus does not necessarily mean unanimous agreement, sometimes that can't be achieved. You logically can't both include the word 'disenfranchised' and not include it. Looking up, I see that people have dialogued with you quite a bit about it. It's disingenous and unfair to suggest that the other editors have been unwilling to talk. Wolfman 17:15, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here is the text of the edit I made just now

The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed and contested. Due to problems with voting equipment on Election Day, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 5-4 and 7-2 decisions that the recounts must be stopped. After this, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed by some, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000).

It is I feel more accurate than the Kevin Bass version, but still incoporates his preferred verbiage, including "The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed". I would be satisified to accept this.

And frankly, this is a big concession from me because it would be more truthful to say:

The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed and contested. At the request of the Gore campaign, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 5-4 and 7-2 decisions that the recounts must be stopped. After this, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed by some, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000).

Rex071404 17:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The only difference I see between these is the second sentence. Why not combine them? Gore requested the recount because of the problems with voting equipment. Wolfman 17:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Gore requested the limited recount that he did, because he hoped to steal the election in those heavily democratic counties. Even so, either of these two "Validity" choices which you and I are now discussing are far better than what's in there now, don't you agree? Rex071404

So change 'because' to 'on the basis of'. I was just giving a simple example of how they could be combined, not suggesting exact wording. Also, I haven't formed an opinion just yet on the best overall paragraph.Wolfman 19:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would like to point out a minor correction: The version that Rex calls "the Kevin Bass version" (and btw, it's Baas, rather than Bass. people misspell my last name a lot, so it doesn't bother me) was actually written by Neutrality, and got the most votes. The version that I (Kevin Baas) suggested didn't get as many votes, so I don't think that it should be put into the article. Kevin Baas | talk 18:52, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

On the topic of why Gore requested a recount, why don't you ask Gore why he did? He would know better than anyone else. Kevin Baas | talk 18:56, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

That presumes that even if we did, he would tell us the truth. Personally, I think that Gore is a liar and a cheat, so I would not put stock in what he says. However, I am willing to deduce his motives from what he did, which was try to get recounts and recounts so as to end up the winner. Rex071404 22:45, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bush TANG News

Former Texas Lt. Gov. and House Speaker Ben Barnes: "I got a young man named George W. Bush into the National Guard ... and I'm not necessarily proud of that" [6]

I'm not much involved in this page, so I'm not going to touch this one. But, it might be of interest to other editors. Wolfman 02:27, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't forget this part, also from the same article: "Bush and his family said they never requested any such help from Barnes, and Barnes has never said the Bushes contacted him about the matter." Rex071404 02:34, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Validity"

Let's make the reasoning for the use of this word clear and explicit:

A "valid" election is an election where the outcome neccessarily reflects the majority view of the populace. In other words, an election is "valid" only if the outcome is gauranteed to reflect the view of the majority, beyond a reasonable doubt. This is exactly what is in dispute, not the particular outcome, but that the outcome has a decent amount of statistical correlation with the views of the populace of elgible voters in Florida who attempted to vote; i.e. the validtity of he outcome, not the outcome itself. This needs to be made clear. The ommission of the word "validity" would change the meaning of the sentence, such that it would be both misleading and false. Kevin Baas | talk 22:29, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

Using your logic, any race where the outcome is a tie, is invalid. However, under US Constitution, there are provisions for ties. Likewise, in a very close election, simply because some persons contend that a small percent of ballots were miscounted, does not erase the validity of the remaining votes. Look at it this way: Over 99% of all Gore votes were counted accurately and over 99% of all Bush votes were counted accurately. Ths means that 98% of all votes were counted accurately (at minimum). To suggest that those votes are somehow "invalid" because a very small remining few are disputed, is illogical. Rex071404 22:42, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No. If there is a decent amount of correlation between the outcome of the vote, be it a tie or not, and the views of the populace, than it is not invalid. Your numbers are wrong, more than 1% of the population of elgible voters in Florida were wrongly disenfranchised, and, demographically, more than 3% of the population of Gore supporters were. But these numbers are irrelevant and it is misleading to use them, because the real issue, as I have said before, is the validity of the election, which means the statistical correlation between the outcome and the views of the populace; the "signal-to-noise ratio", if you will. On a side note, the stated provision in the Constitution is for the possibility that two candidates get the same number of electoral votes, which did not happen, nor would it have happened regardless of the outcome of the Florida election. Therefore, the stated provision is legally irrelevant. Kevin Baas | talk 22:53, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

Your logic, though intricate, is not backed up by the facts. By your own concession, more than 90% of all persons who claim they wanted to vote in FL 2000, did in fact have their votes tallied correctly. Quite simply, the "majority view of the populace" was that they would vote for their candidate and that their vote would be recorded for their candidate. For the vast majority, this did indeed happen.

On another note, yes or no, do you conceded that it is possible that there could be an extremely close election in this country - so close even, that the votes cannot be tallied accurately beyond the margin of error - and there be no malfeasance involved?

In other words, you are combining two issues here: On one hand, you say that people were "disenfranchised" and yet, on the other, you do not seem to want to concede that with imperfect tally methods, even an honest election can fall within the margin of error and an actual true count never be known. Are you understanding me when I refer to a "margin of error" in a tally method? Please advise. Rex071404 01:30, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have used the term "margin of error" more than you have in my correspondences. Please read. Kevin Baas | talk 17:22, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)