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.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thunder who wrote (53172)	11/12/2000 3:47:40 AM
From: Valley Girl	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

(OT) Bush: Believe me, I know exactly what the Dems want, which is to win. The hand count assures them of more votes, and since they're currently behind they have nothing to lose. I just don't see that Bush has anything to gain through this latest move, it's lose-lose for the Reps. If he succeeds, he's open to attacks of stealing the election by not counting legitimate ballots. If he fails, he loses the election if the hand counts result in enough additional votes for Gore. Regarding the accuracy of hand-counting, from what I've seen so far I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the process or of the Florida election officials, who under enormous external pressures are handling themselves with good grace. Remember, we're not talking about the double-punched or un-punched ballots here, some Dems are bleating about those but under the rules of the hand count they'll not be considered. Anyway, it doesn't matter what you, I, JFD, or anyone else thinks about hand-counting, it's part of Florida law and therefore must be respected. I can't imaging a judge ruling otherwise. How would Bush be damned for asking for a statewide hand count? The Dem line is "full, fair, and accurate count". Some of you Dems who sent me responses, stop and think about the word "full" before referring to Bush's "scortched earth" strategy - you're hypocrites if you're insisting that we only need a hand count for Democrat ballots, but nowhere else. To put it bluntly, you started this, so be careful what you wish for. If Bush had instead accepted the "full, fair, and accurate" line, the fact that they'll still be hand-counting votes in 2004 would be bound to come up and highlight the folly of taking Gore's course to its absurd conclusion. Anyway it's what I would have done, and too late now. If Bush loses his legal battle on Monday, he'll have a hard time switching sides on this issue without appearing to be the sore loser. Good night!