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 : Why is Gore Trying to Steal the Presidency? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (1180)	11/19/2000 10:17:12 AM
From: KM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

I'm here in Dallas, which of course is totally Bush country and where any other vote was a waste of time. We here in Texas have our critics of Shrub, as they call him here, such as Molly Ivins and others of the diehard Democrat species, who are particularly hapless, having long ago been trampled by the likes of Kay Hutchison and Phil Gramm. I for one find it almost impossible to believe that our next president could be that guy who was the owner of the Texas Rangers not that long ago <G> He seems to be likeable but fairly lightweight. An interesting sidebar is that Bob Bullock, who was the longtime ultra-powerful Democratic Lieutenant Governor of Texas under Ann Richards and others predicted before he died a few years ago that W would be the next President of the United States and he endorsed that. In fact, I believe that W was one of the speakers at Bullock's funeral. It was a very big thing here for Bullock to make that statement and support W in that way. However, although I have rather a Democratic bent politically and am truly repulsed by a lot of the Republican idealogues and fringe groups, I find this circus in Florida to be appalling. I can't even bear to read the headlines anymore. The disingenuousness of the Democratic rhetoric and blatant attempts to steal the election using any means possible is completely unpalatable. I did not pay that much attention to Gore during the election (I favored Nader) but the speeches and comments he's made since the election are so paternalistic and phony that I simply had to turn it off before I threw something at the TV set. I have a horrible sick feeling that these people are going to find a way to literally rip this election out of the hands of Bush and declare it the true will of the people. They have maneuvered Bush and his side into a corner such that if they manage to "find" enough votes to overturn the count, he will be helpless to fight them unless he wants to be seen as wanting to extend this national nightmare for his own benefit, yet what did they do? I was repulsed personally by Bill Clinton and Hillary - don't even get me started - yet impressed by his policy initiatives and even the reasoning in his vetoes of certain legislation. I end up with the thought that other than his personal problems, he did a pretty good job. Maybe we should just keep him <G> What the hell, they want to throw out the EC, let's change the law again and let him have another term. How about two more <G> P.S. It does make for easy money made, though. Simply short QQQ the second Warren Christopher or that Daley reptile hit the TV screen.

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (1180)	11/19/2000 10:24:59 AM
From: scott_jiminez	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3887

I understand your point. You could not have missed my point more completely. By any, ANY, statistical measure the results, both in Florida and nationally, fell WELL within the margin of statistical error. In effect, the result of the electoral collage and the popular vote is statistical noise. This does NOT preclude the fact that someone will eventually will win and it's unbelievable that you could read the opposite into my post. OF COURSE someone will win - in fact that is the ultimate and obvious foundation of my posts: we must all face the realization that one side will eventually be victorious and NOW is the time to form bridges to folks on the other side. The remainder of your response falls squarely back into the camp of the national blame-a-thon, relying on the statistical noise to dissect supposedly nefarious motives of one side or another. Thus not only did you show a complete MISunderstanding of my post, but you then proceeded on to a display of precisely the sort of adolescent name-calling that my intentions were seeking to reconcile. From the actions of the past week.... 1. 'I don't think so' as a response to 'Why is Bush Trying to Steal the Presidency?' reveals NOTHING MORE than the responder's party affiliation PRIOR TO the election. Similarly, when I read the response 'Remarkable post' etc., the opinion reflects the same mindset: a response to a statement reflecting the pre-election stance of the poster and thus garners absolutely NO credibility. 2. My level of trust for EITHER SIDE has not changed ONE IOTA. Once again, if I read that someone's level of trust in Bush or Gore has changed of late, I read this NOTHING MORE THAN a function of the poster's party affiliation prior to the election. I repeat from my original post - people on this thread continue to strive towards the self-serving and totally useless goal of proving how right they are. To better understand what is going on, and where to go from here (WITHOUT invoking additional issues...like how THE LAW is on one side or the other), I suggest we all spend 99% less time TALKING, and 100% more time LISTENING. Listening to those who disagree with us, that is.

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (1180)	11/19/2000 10:27:32 AM
From: Carolyn	Respond to of 3887

Remarkable post, TLC. Excellent.

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (1180)	11/19/2000 10:48:20 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

TLC, can't thank you enough for posting your #1180 response. You articulated my thoughts better than I ever could, and most probably, the thoughts of most of us on SI. Most of us truly love America. Most of us have a sense of "Fair Play", and realize that what we have been seeing in the last few days is totally beyond belief --a direct slap in the face to that sense of "Fair Play." But this is way beyond anything any of us dreamed could happen. You managed to put the issue in just a few words.....and then, realizing it is a true statement, we are faced ourselves with the question WHY, and WHAT IS HIS/THEIR GAIN???? Unfortunately, anyone who has studied History, comes face to face with the answer..... Gore made a tactical decision to challenge the Constitution. That's a fact. Nobody that understands what is going on here will dispute that. He made a political decision to do it, and that decision was made long before the election took place. What I think is happening is that federal law in the United States is being challenged, and the underlying motivation of that challenge is a selfish desire of a small group of men to assume control of the United States government no matter what they have to do to do it. I think they sincerely believe they are above the law. In other words, the end justifies the means. I think they have, for example, hired people to become members of SI and foster unrest and disharmony. SI appears to me to be a little microcosm of the bigger picture. It's really interesting because eight years ago, this particular microcosm didn't exist. And that is the power of the Internet...but that's another topic. <G>

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (1180)	11/19/2000 10:59:18 AM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

Very eloquent post, for a chicken. I assume from your name that your mom makes good chile rellenos, so if you have any spares, I'm interested. <G> But from Scott's reply, I think her specialty is more likely, "Chicken Quesadillas".

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (1180)	11/19/2000 12:11:19 PM
From: MasonS	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

Very nicely written...thank you.

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (1180)	11/19/2000 12:35:22 PM
From: Ellen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3887

Hi there TLC. > Further, the only reason this election in Florida is not over is because Al Gore filed a lawsuit contesting the results of the election. The subsequent Bush lawsuits were filed in response to the actions of Gore. The resultant activity is getting extremely complex, as it always does when attorneys get involved. < That isn't quite right, TLC. There was a vote - the original vote. A mandatory recount as per Florida law was done due to the small percentage of difference in the #'s. A sample manual recount in counties with large anomolies was done to determine if a full manual recount should be requested. The Democrats made the request. The full manual recount began. The Bush side filed the first legal suits, which were attempts to stop the manual recounts. Interestingly, the Bush side's position is that a manual recount is unconstitutional. Do you think they would agree that other states whose laws also provide for manual recounts are also unconstitutional? I'm sure you are aware that Texas also provides for manual recounts and that their standards for conducting them are extremely similar to those in Florida. They even include the Republican-ridiculed "light test." I'm sure you are also aware that Bush himself signed a bill in Texas providing that manual recounts are preferable. The result is that the Bush side is displaying a bit of hypocrisy and their position is disingenuous at best. And what happened to Bush's statements that he trusted the people? Apparently that trust comes and goes according to his convenience. capitol.state.tx.us capitol.state.tx.us SUBCHAPTER E. PROCESSING RESULTS AT CENTRAL COUNTING STATION § 127.130. Manual Counting (a) Electronic system ballots that are not to be counted automatically and the write-in votes not counted at the polling places shall be counted manually at the central counting station. (b) If the automatic counting of electronic system ballots becomes impracticable for any reason, the manager may direct that the ballots be counted manually at the central counting station. (c) The procedure for manual counting is the same as that for regular paper ballots to the extent practicable. The manager is responsible for the manual counting of ballots at the central counting station. (d) Subject to Subsection (e), in any manual count conducted under this code, a vote on a ballot on which a voter indicates a vote by punching a hole in the ballot may not be counted unless: (1) at least two corners of the chad are detached; (2) light is visible through the hole; (3) an indentation on the chad from the stylus or other object is present and indicates a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote; or (4) the chad reflects by other means a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote. (e) Subsection (d) does not supersede any clearly ascertainable intent of the voter. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 728, § 52, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. capitol.state.tx.us capitol.state.tx.us > Secondly, I fully agree with you on your point about getting this all behind us. Unfortunately, it is not that simple now. Once Gore filed that lawsuit, everything about this election totally changed. We could argue for the next ten years about the intentions of the parties involved in this little drama, and I agree with you that those arguments are mostly coming from a biased viewpoint. < I strongly agree that the ability to put this all behind us and move on whenever this is decided is very important. Any continuing arguments will be unfortunate for a couple reasons. It will be unfortunate simply if they occur. It will be unfortunate that many argue before they have all the facts or the correct facts or argue without objectivity about the facts. Dispassionate discussions would be preferable but I'm not holding my breath that that is what will happen. > Gore made a tactical decision to challenge the Constitution. That's a fact. Nobody that understands what is going on here will dispute that. He made a political decision to do it, and that decision was made long before the election took place. Everything that the Gore campaign has done since that first lawsuit has been a part of a calculated strategy to win a legal case in a court of law. < Leave it to me <G>, but I do disagree. Strongly. Gore is challenging how some votes were or were not counted in the machine recount. It is Bush who is challenging the constitution and that is clearly stated in his suit that states a manual recount is unconstitutional. The difference is very clear. It is the Bush side that has so far done everything they can in a court of law to stop the manual recount process. It has been the Gore side that has had to respond to the Bush suits that were filed to stop the recounts. > We also know that the media feeds on controversy and trouble. That is what the media eats. The media also creates controversy. < I strongly agree. It was totally disgusting to me to hear the media call this a "pr war." The election is not decided on the basis of a "pr war." I also found distasteful the media planting the seed of thought that whoever is determined to be the winner may or may not serve with legitimacy. There have been close elections in the past and the eventual winner served with the respect the office of President deserves. In this particular case, it will be difficult of course, but we as a country as a whole will, I believe, accept that this was a very close election but the winner has at last been chosen - and is the President. And no one was talking about this being a 'constitutional crisis' until the media made that comment. It is angering and frustrating to see them create hysteria where it does not exist. > If that is the case, then I am in total agreement with you on that as well. Bill Buckley said recently that he was sure that if the roles were reversed, the Republicans would be doing the exact same thing that the Democrats are doing. < I believe that is probably true, as evidenced by what they are doing now in the 'unreversed' position. > I don't agree with Bill. I believe that if one gets above his politics and looks at what is really going on here, he (or she) can see what is happening. I believe it is possible to observe and understand what is really happening. < That is very difficult, if not impossible, for a great many people to do. Unfortunately. Your faith in people is commendable - and I wish that you could be shown to be correct in that belief - but personal experience proves that not to be the case. I'm sure you have had conversations with those who simply cannot see both sides of the coin. > I think, in this particular specific case, what is going on with this election is really, really wrong. And I think it's really, really bad for the United States, in a whole bunch of ways. < While certainly most difficult and unpleasant, I don't agree that this is "really, really bad" because once through this situation we will see how strong our laws and processes are and how they serve us as a country. And, maybe, we will also see how or where they should or should not be changed to make them clearer or better.