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: Bosco who wrote (79)	11/16/2000 9:13:40 PM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 644

I'll have to grant you that I haven't followed Daley's career, and I don't know his reputation, only the reputation of his father. Thus I would say that you are right that I should drop that as an issue. Regarding the questions of fraud going on, what comment do you have on the supposed video tape of the person moving questionable ballots into the Gore pile? Or of her supposedly punching out chads as she examined cards? Or about the 75 chads found on the floor? I find it hard to believe that anyone can seriously contend that the point of the recount is accuracy. I can understand manually counting paper ballot like LSAT ballots, but not computer punch cards. My personal view is that neither party is interested in "accuracy", only in finding a count to their liking. Bush found one he likes, and he wants it to stick. Gore hasn't yet found one, so he wants to keep looking. Regarding the Secretary of State, a reading of the statute supports the interpretation of the judge. It says that the the counts "shall" be in by a certain date, which leaves no room for flexibility. It further says that they Secretary of State "may" accept late manual recounts, implying that she has discretion. According to another attorney in her office who came out in her defense today, the staff of attorneys in her office is split 50-50 between Democrats and Republican, and they spent many hours developing standards for when it would be acceptable to accept late manual recounts, and based on the applications from the various counties, none of them met this requirement. Under normal (i.e. non-politicized) conditions, when an officer of the state exercises discretion granted to her by a statute, it is very, very rare that the exercise of discretion is found to be in error. Thus it would be highly unusual for her ruling to be overturned in this circumstances. Nevertheless that is exactly what I expect to happen. As for who is trying to "steal" the election, whoever wins will be deemed to have "stolen" it by the other side. Is there any doubt about that? LOL Carl