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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (85671)	11/18/2000 12:47:08 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

>>Gore never requested a machine recount(it's not an electronic recount, that's part of the problem); it happened automatically under Florida election law. It dropped Bush's lead from 1700+ to 300+.<< i stand corrected. >>Each party had 72 hours to request further recounts. The Democrats did so where they thought it could help them<< the last 7 words are the key words. this is my point. none of this process is about fairness, it is all about personal gain. >>Under Florida law, you can't just request a whole state recount, there has to be some probable cause (like a high number of invalidated ballots) for each county where you request the recount.<< you may not be able to request it and have a law to back you up, however, you can request it as gore recently did. not b/c of his sense of fairness, but b/c he now knows his back is against the legal wall. >>Since the Democrats really believe (and I think Bush does too) that an accurate manual recount of the Florida vote would give Gore the election, the Republicans have no choice but to fight all manual recounts;<< nadine, i disagree. gore would have a lot more credibility if he had at least voiced his desire to manually recount the state. he didn't. if he KNEW he would win, he would have taken the moral highground from the giddy up, imho. he might THINK he'd win, but he doesn't KNOW it and he wasn't willing to risk it until he lost several KEY court battles. he FINALLY mentioned the right course of action after being FORCED. >>they cannot agree even to a statewide recount because they would very likely lose it.<< nobody knows. however, why would any winner agree to anyting that is a no win/lose situation? IF the pubs had moral fortitude and put the legitimacy of their potential office and the country first, they should agree to it. they don't. but, to berate them and protect the dems as righteous, or even pretty decent, is beyond my comprehension. btw, i do agree the manual recounts are a mess. gore doesn't like the "criteria" used by the local canvassing boards so he sues them to look for small indentations. a democrat denies possessing a voting machine just before one is found in his car. i understand there was som publican rif raf of similar magnitude. mark my words, no matter what happens, we will NEVER KNOW who REALLY one this election.