Difference between revisions of "Talk:Al Gore"
(alleged voting irregularities) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
This entire entry needs to have citations or references or anything. This violates the 2nd commandment...always cite!--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 01:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT) | This entire entry needs to have citations or references or anything. This violates the 2nd commandment...always cite!--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 01:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==alleged voting irregularities== | ||
| + | I don't think that it is best to say that Gore challenged the 2000 election because of "alleged voting irregularities". Gore's main argument was that the election was very close, and another recount might have favored him. Yes, there were some irregularities in the way that hanging chads were counted, and maybe some other matters, but Gore was really taking a stand on how those should be counted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 13:25, March 21, 2007
3/20/07 - Intended to do considerable work to correct spelling and grammatical errors, but time flies. Will return when I have more time. In the interim, I have updated some info and worked to maintain the encyclopedic nature of the entry (attempting to resolve some "opinion" matter which had existed).
This entire entry needs to have citations or references or anything. This violates the 2nd commandment...always cite!--Eljoe2 01:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
alleged voting irregularities
I don't think that it is best to say that Gore challenged the 2000 election because of "alleged voting irregularities". Gore's main argument was that the election was very close, and another recount might have favored him. Yes, there were some irregularities in the way that hanging chads were counted, and maybe some other matters, but Gore was really taking a stand on how those should be counted. RSchlafly 09:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)