User talk:72.147.187.96

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] United States Republican presidential candidates, 2008

Regarding your edits to United States Republican presidential candidates, 2008 : as the issue has been raised on the talk-page, and obviously ended with non-support for your point of view, just deleting this candidate now borders to vandalism. Please stop removing the candidate from the article. Greswik (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your posting of {{protected}} Contact the "campaign" and ask if he is running. Stop the bullshit. on a page that is transcluded to at least two articles constitutes vandalism. If you have evidence that Keyes has withdrawn, then post it at Template talk:2008 Republican presidential candidates. Otherwise, you need to comply with consensus; if you do not, you will be blocked. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There IS no consensus here on Wikipedia, only in the REAL WORLD where NO major media outlet in any country includes him as a candidate. He doesn't fit any definition for a nation-wide or major candidate. As I said, look at the website. It is "We Need Alan Keyes for President" not "Alan Keyes for President". I cannot disprove that Pat Buchanan is running, that Al Gore is running, that Dick Cheney is running. There are draft campaigns for all these people, but they ARE NOT RUNNING.

Most people on Wikipedia have written they agree he shouldn't be included. You have no consensus. I am one of MANY people who keeps removing him because he fits NO definition of either a candidate or of someone with a national campaign.

Use the most scientific definition possible - disprovability. Assume your hypothesis he is a candidate. How can one disprove it if he is ineligible to drop out since he never declared? If you use the specious criterion that he is on the ballot, he can NEVER be no longer a candidate because he cannot be removed from the ballot. Therefore, as scientific people, we must use intelligent criteria like:

- Being on the ballot in a majority of states (if not all)

- Participating in a SINGLE national candidates debate (not a forum with no major candidate)

- Having at least 1% in a single poll of ANY state

- Having at least 5,000 supporters when all the rest have hundreds of thousands (even Ron Paul who raises tens of millions of dollars)

- Having already had campaign events (he has yet not had any)

- Having a platform he promotes (and not one promoted by his draft campaign)

- Being recognized by ANY domestic or foreign news agency, big OR small, as a national candidate

- Being included by ANY major poll as a national candidate

- Being eligible to win

Notice he meets NONE of them when EVERYONE ELSE included meets ALL of them. This is not some stupid bias on my part. He has been a candidate in previous elections and was included, but he meets none of these. Not one of them.

P.S. I cannot provide evidence he has withdrawn, at any point, because he never entered.

Why is he ineligible to win? Incidentally, here's a source indicating that he has declared and filed: [1]. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

He is ineligible because he is on too few ballots. Even if he won every state he was on, he wouldn't have enough delegates. However, he has zero delegates (the only "candidate" with zero - just as he is the only "candidate" in a minority of states.)

If you call him "ineligible to win" based on the delegate possibilities, you should remove Ron Paul too. He can't win numerically. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul actually HAS delegates, and he can win at a brokered convention. Moreover, you don't respond to the other 99 reasons Alan Keyes shouldn't count. You are desperate. He still has fewer than 5000 supporters.

Paul couldn't win unless McCain gave him all of his delegates. In that scenario, Keyes could win too. I am NOT a Keyes supporter. I'm not a Paul supporter. I AM a supporter of truth and fairness. The TRUTH is, Keyes is running. The FAIR thing is to leave him there. And your "99" reasons HAVE been addressed in part. He has recieved votes, is on polls, has participated in debates, has had events (and more still scheduled), has been rocognized by a national news agency. Like I said, I don't even support the guy. I'm not sure why you are so hell-bent on removing him, but it obviously because of some personal agenda and not based on the FACT that the criteria is "filed with the FEC and multi-state", which is Keyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not addressed a majority of the arguments. He was NEVER in a debate (he was in a forum). He is on a minority of ballots (Paul is on all). He has no delegates (Paul has some). He has less than 1% support (Paul has exceeded 10% at times). He has less than 5,000 supporters, Paul has millions. He is in no definition a national candidate.

Instead of arguing fairness with me, argue with every single media source in the entire nation (and abroad) who does not recognize him as a candidate. You are clearly very biased.