Formerly About Applied Materials Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials

AMAT 327.03

+2.5%

Jan 16 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (39516)	11/11/2000 5:55:45 PM
From: John Sikora	Read Replies (1) of 70976

BK, You said again: In addition, 15,000 ballots were spoiled in '96 in a much lower turnout and nobody complained. That number is WRONG...Other than JB III saying it on TV show me a reference. The # the demos claim is 6 to 7k and lets not forget that was a MAYORAL race... you also said: Message #39516 from Brian Kerecz at Nov 11, 2000 2:40 PM One thing the is NEVER mentioned by the Dems is that within the 19000 spoiled votes are votes which have been recast. ie. If a person goes to someone in the polling area and says they made a mistake on their ballot, they are given another ballot to use and the spoiled one becomes part of the 19000. This however, is never mention by Jesse Jackson or any Dem My research shows nothing of the kind! Give us some #'s and references. You say: All of these people had the right to vote, they simply did it wrong. Locking the doors to the polling places is disenfranchisement; this is not. You'll be old and arthritic someday as well and perhaps you might develop a little compassion between now and then... You said: Not true, as per the Secretary of State of FLA. The hole to the right of the candidates name refers to PAPER BALLOTS only according to FLA law. Electronic voting using punchcards does not have this same stipulation in the law, yet again the Dems consistently fail to mention this. This issue is completely undecided at this point. I have read that the ballot is determined by the gubenatorial winner. The winning party in the governers race is #1 on the ballot and the runner up is #2. Therfore GB #1 and AG #2 NOT buchanan #2 You said: Why is a judge necessary? Bush won the initial count, and the recount. Should he prevail when all absentee ballots come in, litigation has no place here. In a race this of this unprecedented closeness if litigation is necessary to reveal the true winner, then let it be so...until then let's try to keep the facts straight

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next