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 : Zeev's Turnips -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (54)	11/11/2000 7:00:54 PM
From: Timelord	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 644

Hi Zeev, haven't talked for a long time. I still follow your manic "turnip dance", but I swore off trading techs and concentrate on six or seven drilling stocks now. I managed to get drawn into this political debate like you have on the Strictly Drilling thread, as I got tired of the one-sided Clinton/Gore bashing that's been going on there for months. The weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth rose to an overwhelming crescendo after the election - and I had hoped it would all go away! Your reference to Nixons' actions intrigued me as someone had used him as an example of exhibiting "statesmanship" for not contesting the 1960 election in response to something I said. I did some extensive searches on the web, and its hard to find detailed information. What I have been able to verify is that he "conditionally" conceded the election at 12:17 AM on November 9th (he was behind by 500,000 votes). He did send an official concession at a later date, but I don't know what date that was. There is quite a bit of difference in the circumstances from today, as he lost both the popular vote (about 100,000 votes) and the electoral vote (303-219). We all know about the alleged voter fraud in a number of states, and his decision not to press the issue. Some of his biographers (and of course, those around him during the election) claim altruism, but I suspect that trying to get enough states overturned to pick up 51 electoral votes was the source of that "altruism". Alex

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (54)	11/12/2000 5:13:55 AM
From: Carl R.	Respond to of 644

Zeev, like you I don't have time to follow all the details. The first court action filed was apparently assigned to a Republican judge, and the plaintiffs (whoever they were) then had it dismissed. Another lawsuit, again I don't know the plaintiffs, but I thought it was the Gore campaign, asked for and received either a TRO or an injunction (again, I don't know the full details) preventing Palm Beach County from certifying the results. I have heard that the judge who issued that ruling was a Gore campaign worker and her husband was a Clinton appointee. I'm sure there was no conflict of interest or anything. LOL Next came the application for an injunction to prevent the manual recount. How this will go is anyone's guess. As for just exactly who the parties are, or what the legal principles are, I have no clue. I don't practice, and if I did, I certainly wouldn't practice election law. Sadly I expect that the country is so deeply divided that I fear that rulings will be issued based as much on the party of the judge as on the merits. Thus I expect both sides to engage actively in forum and judge shopping. I could not begin to predict who will win these cases. I do have a prediction for the outcome of the election, though. My prediction is that Daley learned well at home how to handle these kinds of matters. He doesn't have the Chicago machine, but he doesn't need it; all he needs are a few people in key positions who believe that the ends justify the means and he is home free. Meanwhile Baker is in over his head. He has already boxed himself in by allowing the Republican counties to certify honest counts, not that he would do anything different. Thus the only battleground left will be the Democratic ones, and that is a battleground where he can't win because he can't guard every vote 24 hours a day. The one county where Gore requested a manual recount that isn't heavily Democratic is Volusia, which is neutral. Volusia was no doubt requested because of some very odd happenings where huge vote counts were initially credited to Harris, Browne, and Phillips. After the recount, Harris' vote count was reduced from 9888 to 8, Philips' votes were reduced from 2927 to 20, and Browne's votes were reduced from 3211 to 442. The Gore campaign wonders if those 15,000 votes might belong to them. Interestingly the recount did not change the votes for either Gore or Bush by even a single vote but it did change the votes for every single one of the other candidates. I predict that either they decline to do a manual recount or the recount shows nothing interesting in that county, but you never know. One candidate or the other could hit the jackpot here, but they probably won't. The action will be in Palm Beach because that is where plenty of people have worked themselves into such a frenzy over nothing that I have no doubt that some have lost their sense of ethics and are willing to break the law if necessary to achieve what they perceive to be a "fair" result. Anyway, my prediction is that magically enough ballots will appear for Gore in Palm Beach to swing Florida to Gore. On the other hand I predict that when the absentee ballots in all states have been counted, Bush will win the popular vote. I'm looking forward to the humorous situation of hearing what both candidates have to say when their roles are reversed. LOL Carl