Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (1276)	11/9/2000 10:47:50 AM
From: TraderGreg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

Never said it was RELEVANT, I was only giving EXPLANATORY analysis. I believe that people who voted for Nader did indeed take votes from Gore(which I do believe with metaphysical certainty). For some reason, you think that the above statement means that I want the election overturned. That is ridiculous. I am an analyst Bill, I look for cause/effect, it isn't some personal mission of mine to overturn the people's choice. As I said before, McCarthy in '68 cost Humphrey the election, but Nixon still legitimately won. Teddy Roosevelt cost Taft re-election, but Woodrow Wilson still legitimately won. I'm a what if person. I ask what if questions and look for answers. Not to turn around the actual result merely to find root causes and explanations. Here is one item for the thread's consideration(while we await the results of the recount). Technically off topic, but interesting discussions. Item 1: When Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States in 1860, the South seceded from the Union. It was an interesting event for two reasons: 1. Abe was not ,repeat not, repeat not, an abolitionist. He never once said that he would free the slaves in his 1860 campaign. In fact, old Abe even said that if slavery could PRESERVE the Union, he would accept that.(As an aside, Robert E. Lee actually said that if Freeing the slaves could preserve the Union, he would free them...and in fact Robert E. Lee owned NO slaves.) 2. If the South had not Seceded in 1860, who knows how much longer the country would have kept slavery. To be sure, the nation had gone through numerous compromises re: slave state/free states dating back to the early 1800s. Had the South not have seceded, it is certainly plausible that decades might have passed before slavery would have been abolished. The secession of the South actually ACCELERATED THE DATE OF FREEDOM FOR SLAVES. Interesting?