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.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cactus Jack who wrote (13244)	11/9/2000 11:36:38 AM
From: Murrey Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

I don't understand where the confusion comes in. Am I missing something? a388.g.akamai.net

To: Cactus Jack who wrote (13244)	11/9/2000 11:38:57 AM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

I agree. And what possible excuse is there for voting for two presidential candidates, as opposed to mistakenly voting for the wrong one? It seems the Democrats are throwing everything they can at the wall, to see what sticks.

To: Cactus Jack who wrote (13244)	11/9/2000 11:41:06 AM
From: Ex-INTCfan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

jpgill, so I take it you would be comfortable having someone elected because thousands of seniors made an error. If it turns out to be Bush, then for the next four years people will be talking about the guy who was elected by accident. On another note, isn't it interesting how all the adjustments to the votes so far have been in the positive direction for both candidates. What explains this? Did people find ballots in desk drawers? Did someone take it upon themselves to mark down the number of votes when entering the data in the original count? It seems to me that if someone wants to commit voter fraud, it would be easier to do so by "losing" a ballot for the other candidate than by making one up for the one you like. It is most curious. INTCfan