George Bush the Worst President in 100 Years?

[VigilVirus]

People just like you... living where you live... most likely have said the same exact thing about whatever president was in office when they were alive.  Its political deja vu.  Which shows the flaws in comparisons or constant bashing.  Its choosing the lesser of two evils when selecting a president anyways.

Guns

You are exactly right, voting for a president is choosing the lesser evil. In the case of the election of 2000 and 2004, America clearly did not choose the lesser evil and we're paying for it now. And yes, some proportion of the population does not like the president, but when over 67% of the population (statistically, this would include almost half of all republicans) think that the president is doing a bad job? It shows that the president is not just not pleasing everyone, he's not pleasing anyone. And between those two, there is a big difference.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Or maybe you don't like people talking about your precious president? The majority of the world can't be wrong.  ::)

Keep in mind that those polls that say "67%"  are just polls where they poll 1000 random americans and have 670 say they dislike Bush.  I'm sorry but I'm not basing an opinion on what 670 people have to say.

     Also, I talk bad about him at times, i certainly dont think he is perfect... but i know that he is what some people want and he isnt what some people want.... and i leave it at that.  All i am saying is that these people who think that quantifying a president's shittiness means something are wrong..... To say he is the worst ever is pretty silly.  And the majority isnt always right.  I do believe that assuming something is true due to the majority believing it.... is considered a logical fallacy.  The majority of Americans voted for Bush... were they right?  If you think they were wrong, then you are admitting that the majority was wrong... but now you say that the majority dislikes him... and now you assume the majority is Correct.

So which is it?  is the majority right or wrong?  See how easily it becomes a fallacy? 

Guns

[GUNWOUNDS]

Majority Fallacy

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

Also Known as: Ad Populum

Description of Appeal to Popularity

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).

Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question.

This fallacy is closely related to the Appeal to Emotion fallacy, as discussed in the entry for that fallacy.

Examples of Appeal to Popularity

"My fellow Americans...there has been some talk that the government is overstepping its bounds by allowing police to enter peoples' homes without the warrants traditionally required by the Constitution. However, these are dangerous times and dangerous times require appropriate actions. I have in my office thousands of letters from people who let me know, in no uncertain terms, that they heartily endorse the war against crime in these United States. Because of this overwhelming approval, it is evident that the police are doing the right thing."

"I read the other day that most people really like the new gun control laws. I was sort of suspicious of them, but I guess if most people like them, then they must be okay."

Jill and Jane have some concerns that the rules their sorority has set are racist in character. Since Jill is a decent person, she brings her concerns up in the next meeting. The president of the sorority assures her that there is nothing wrong with the rules, since the majority of the sisters like them. Jane accepts this ruling but Jill decides to leave the sorority.

[VigilVirus]

Approval by majority may be a fallacy, but that is more or less the fallacy our government is based on. Electoral college aside, presidential candidates are elected if they win majority of the votes or close to the majority. Would it not make sense to judge a president's skill by similar standards as those by which they are elected? And the Bush administration is well known for appealing to the majority's patriotism/fear and other emotions. The fact that Bush currently holds such a low rating despite that fact signifies the true incompetence of his aides and the holes in his platform.

[Acriku]

Approval by majority may be a fallacy, but that is more or less the fallacy our government is based on. Electoral college aside, presidential candidates are elected if they win majority of the votes or close to the majority. Would it not make sense to judge a president's skill by similar standards as those by which they are elected? And the Bush administration is well known for appealing to the majority's patriotism/fear and other emotions. The fact that Bush currently holds such a low rating despite that fact signifies the true incompetence of his aides and the holes in his platform.

Of course, our government also depends on the majority of the people to be educated enough in order for that to work. Hence the reason why it fails the majority of the time in elections. But anyway, I think the statistics used for Bush's approval should be clarified here. Are we talking of a large sample? What's the sampling error - 3%? Less? It would give us a better idea of what is going on.

[VigilVirus]

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm

The sample taken in this report is of 1,000 people with an error margin of 3%.

[GUNWOUNDS]

yea i didnt even know where you got the poll from when i said 

"Keep in mind that those polls that say "67%"  are just polls where they poll 1000 random americans and have 670 say they dislike Bush.  I'm sorry but I'm not basing an opinion on what 670 people have to say."

But it seems that i correctly guessed that it was one of those 1000 person polls with 3% error. I personally dislike such polls.  Making a claim based off of what 670 people think is pretty flawed to me.  It just means more democrats were polled in that survey.

[nemafakei]

Eh? What part of 3% error doesn't make sense? In any case, when such surveys show correlation with each other - when you get, say 67% here, 68% there, 65% a bit later... do they have to poll all three hundred thousand of you before it's in any way representative?

[GUNWOUNDS]

3,000 people doesnt cut it for me either. The election was 51% to 49% in votes.  Thats the only poll i trust.  People dont change their minds much after they vote for a person.  So to me it will always be a 50/50 split no matter what some 1,000 person poll says.

If you could do an election style poll of the US public where much of the population could express its opinion... you would most likely find a 50/50 split decision.  Thats all that really matters.  This is especially true for Bush since he was re-elected.  If Bush's polling percentage was at 20% but he won the election with a 60% vote then regardless 60%  of voters felt he should keep his job.  So the 20% polling percentage plus 88 cents will get you a cup of coffee.

Yours Truly,

Chuck

[nemafakei]

Ah, but the election is a different question entirely. It compares the unpopularity of Bush with the raving ineptitude of Kerry. Just because Kerry was one of the worst candidates in a hundred years doesn't mean Bush wasn't the worst President.

Besides which, to be president, you've got to win an election.

[Khan]

3,000 people doesnt cut it for me either. The election was 51% to 49% in votes.  Thats the only poll i trust.  People dont change their minds much after they vote for a person.  So to me it will always be a 50/50 split no matter what some 1,000 person poll says.

If you could do an election style poll of the US public where much of the population could express its opinion... you would most likely find a 50/50 split decision.  Thats all that really matters.  This is especially true for Bush since he was re-elected.  If Bush's polling percentage was at 20% but he won the election with a 60% vote then regardless 60%  of voters felt he should keep his job.  So the 20% polling percentage plus 88 cents will get you a cup of coffee.

Yours Truly,

Chuck

But there wasn't a 100% turn out to the voting. only 60% of the population turned up of which just over half voted for Bush so you can only assume about 30% of the population likes bush as president, and about the same bu slightly less for kerry. If you think about it its almost the same number of people as who liked him in the poll... maybe all his fans voted for him.

[Anathema]

An election is just another poll, really.

Just because 51% voted for Bush in the election doesn't mean they approve of him, just that they prefer him over Kerry. People don't necessarily get to vote for a candidate they like but are forced to chose the lesser evil. But you can't really say people "approve" of the lesser evil, now?

"People dont change their minds much after they vote for a person"

I've talked to several US citizens online who were avid Bush supporters at first, but were hugely dissapointed afterwards, particulary after the way he handled the immigration controversy. So this is obviously untrue.

Midterm elections for congress will get interesting.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Besides which, to be president, you've got to win an election.

Yes i understand that... thats why i was comparing the re-election (not his first election) ... Meaning he was already president once and yet people decided to bring him back.  But your first point is noted.

Chuck

[Acriku]

Yes i understand that... thats why i was comparing the re-election (not his first election) ... Meaning he was already president once and yet people decided to bring him back.  But your first point is noted.

Chuck

Do you imagine he would've stayed president if we were not in the middle of a war?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Kerry was actually more of a military man than Bush.  Check their records.

[Acriku]

Doesn't matter, Bush was a year into the war already. With patriotism on a scary rise to accompany the war, the president takes on a near-invincible persona. Of course, that'll change after 3 years of the same war (as with any war lasting that long). But having but a year into it certainly helped Bush.

[GUNWOUNDS]

    That doesnt change the fact that a man with a more powerful military record was defeated by a man who served a few weeks in the national guard and didnt even logg but maybe 3 hours of flight time.  Kerry fought in the jungles of Vietnam and shot people.  If anything Kerry was more experienced to guide this war than Bush.  Yet Bush still won.  You know why Bush Won? 75% of people said they voted for Morals and the war on terror.  Bush won because he was running on the republican platform which is pro-life, anti-gay, etc, etc.  And Bush won because republicans are known for being hard on foreign policy.  Democrats are seen as weak in that area. 

      Bush didnt win because he was "1 year into the war and invincible"   Bush won because the general public view Democrats as being immoral.... and weak on foreign policy.  Bush won because of the ideology he represents. Not because of his persona.  Which reinforces my point that the "person" or the "man" doesnt matter in the presidency.... only the party ideology.  Its silly to say so and so was the worst president... people dont vote for individual men.... they vote for party ideologies.

I know plenty of people who go to voting booths and just vote straight republican ballot without even knowing who the candidates are.  The button is there.... its a red button that says "Republican Straight Ticket".  Press it in the voting booth and your vote gets cast for the republican president and every other republican person running for office at that time.  Its there for Democrats too.

[Acriku]

    That doesnt change the fact that a man with a more powerful military record was defeated by a man who served a few weeks in the national guard and didnt even logg but maybe 3 hours of flight time.  Kerry fought in the jungles of Vietnam and shot people.  If anything Kerry was more experienced to guide this war than Bush.  Yet Bush still won.  You know why Bush Won? 75% of people said they voted for Morals and the war on terror.  Bush won because he was running on the republican platform which is pro-life, anti-gay, etc, etc.  And Bush won because republicans are known for being hard on foreign policy.  Democrats are seen as weak in that area.

      Bush didnt win because he was "1 year into the war and invincible"  Bush won because the general public view Democrats as being immoral.... and weak on foreign policy.  Bush won because of the ideology he represents. Not because of his persona.  Which reinforces my point that the "person" or the "man" doesnt matter in the presidency.... only the party ideology.  Its silly to say so and so was the worst president... people dont vote for individual men.... they vote for party ideologies.

I know plenty of people who go to voting booths and just vote straight republican ballot without even knowing who the candidates are.  The button is there.... its a red button that says "Republican Straight Ticket".  Press it in the voting booth and your vote gets cast for the republican president and every other republican person running for office at that time.  Its there for Democrats too.

Oh please, Kerry was going to increase ground troops into Iraq and he told America he would. People didn't vote because they thought republicans were "harder" on foreign policy (hell look at Clinton). You said it yourself in your post - the war on terror. Bush got us into it, and people wanted him to finish it.

[Wolf]

A point, Napoleon today is revered for uniting the ideals of republicanism and the revolution with the fervor and stability of French nationalism. He is, without a doubt, France's greatest hero. However, during his day, he was despised as an evil genius and a diabolical mastermind. The entirety of Europe took up arms against him on six different occasions, and only once was able to defeat him. Bush has made far less enemies, though I would have to say he hasn't had as immediate an impact. Members of my family met President Bush recently, and reported that, in person, he is intensely charismatic. When Bush is speaking to you, you want to agree with him. More importantly, he makes you feel that the good ideas of the conversation came from you. Other leaders, both great and infamous, shared this ability. Though, with Bush, it has not yet reached the cult status of Napoleon or others.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Interesting info Wolf.

[Anathema]

More importantly, he makes you feel that the good ideas of the conversation came from you.

The alternative is of course not very likely  ;D

[Acriku]

Grr... Bush vetoed the bill that would allow stem cell research. I really can't stand that f*cking twit. His first veto on something so important (at least to me, since my dad has Parkinson's), while he sits back contempt that he is "protecting" our "decent" society.

Go f*ck off Bush!

[Edric O]

Bush didnt win because he was "1 year into the war and invincible"  Bush won because the general public view Democrats as being immoral.... and weak on foreign policy.  Bush won because of the ideology he represents. Not because of his persona.  Which reinforces my point that the "person" or the "man" doesnt matter in the presidency.... only the party ideology.  Its silly to say so and so was the worst president... people dont vote for individual men.... they vote for party ideologies.

Actually, that depends from election to election. Some elections are more focused on ideology, others on the candidates' pragmatic ability to "get things done".

One of the biggest problems of the Democrats right now is that they have no ideology and stubbornly refuse to get one, under the delusional impression that they can somehow make everyone happy by flip-flopping. In effect, conservatives see the Democrats as too liberal and liberals see them as too conservative.

A point, Napoleon today is revered for uniting the ideals of republicanism and the revolution with the fervor and stability of French nationalism. He is, without a doubt, France's greatest hero. However, during his day, he was despised as an evil genius and a diabolical mastermind. The entirety of Europe took up arms against him on six different occasions, and only once was able to defeat him. Bush has made far less enemies, though I would have to say he hasn't had as immediate an impact. Members of my family met President Bush recently, and reported that, in person, he is intensely charismatic. When Bush is speaking to you, you want to agree with him. More importantly, he makes you feel that the good ideas of the conversation came from you. Other leaders, both great and infamous, shared this ability. Though, with Bush, it has not yet reached the cult status of Napoleon or others.

Well, Bush is no Napoleon. I don't think he will be viewed as a particularly remarkable president in 30 years, and in 100 years I expect most Americans would ask, "Bush who?" He hasn't done anything disastrous or evil enough to be remembered as a monster, and he hasn't come close enough to saving America from annihilation to be remembered as a hero.

The worst US President in 100 years? Maybe... depends on your standards. Is a bad president one that is incompetent, or one that actively seeks to screw over the American people? How about a president that is good for the US but bad for the rest of the world, like Nixon?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Grr... Bush vetoed the bill that would allow stem cell research. I really can't stand that f*cking twit. His first veto on something so important (at least to me, since my dad has Parkinson's), while he sits back contempt that he is "protecting" our "decent" society.

Go f*ck off Bush!

before you get your undies in a twist....try to understand the whole picture.  Bush is not against ADULT stem cell research... he is against EMBRYONIC stem cell research.  There is no need to abort a fetus for research when you can get the same research material from ADULT cells.  In addition, Bush has said that he would allow all current stores of embryonic stem cells to be used...just no more can be generated.

ALso if you can remember a few months back..... Dante made a thread about this exact topic (stem cells)  .... and i clearly stated how embryonic stem cells are obsolete now that we can harvest stem cells from adults that serve the same purpose, and even gave links.

I know from the surface it seems he is stifling progress or science... but he isnt... when you see all the facts and understand his true stance.... you will see that he is merely wanting science to be ethical as it proceeds, while still allowing an alternate path.

*Tips Hat*

[Acriku]

before you get your undies in a twist....try to understand the whole picture.  Bush is not against ADULT stem cell research... he is against EMBRYONIC stem cell research.  There is no need to abort a fetus for research when you can get the same research material from ADULT cells.  In addition, Bush has said that he would allow all current stores of embryonic stem cells to be used...just no more can be generated.

You don't need to abort a fetus in order to gather embryonic stem cells. Like the article said, scientists could get them from those rejected from fertility clinics that would destroy the embryos anyway! (yet no one cries over that) Also, embryonic stem cells can become any type of cell found in the body, while adult stem cells are limited. They are more valuable and they do bring more research as opposed to adult stem cells. Also, adult stem cells thought to undergo "transdifferentiation" (in effect doing what e.stem cells can do) might be confused with another process, cell fusion. But of course, knowledge of the stem cells are limited and now are very limited thanks to Bush's veto.

Also, the article states that many of the existing stem cells are contaminated and unusable for research.

Bush is limiting scientists to adult stem cell research for an idiotic reason, and once again mingling in an area he should never touch with his dumbass hands. Obviously more than half of Congress thinks it's a good idea, I just hope it comes to 2/3 when they vote to overturn the veto.