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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kvkkc1 who wrote (87183)	11/25/2000 11:05:05 AM
From: CJ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Thread: Question re: Military Overseas Ballots/votes: Assuming we've all heard the same things, in total, and being objective: -1. It appears there is an inconsistency betw. Florida state statute [ postmark or signed and dated] and Federally approved Federal [ and State?] ballots, which do not contain a date line, nor any request for date; -2. This is a narrow issue: If we exclude such ballots that are invalid for "agreed" reasons, we appear to be left with "500" to thousands of ballots that fall within the inconsistency. There needs to be a balancing betw. Military Overseas Votes {MOV's} that were properly requested and cast within the time limits, and MOV's that were properly requested, but not cast within the time limits [= on or before Nov. 7th], assuming that: all such ballots were received on or before Nov. 17th, and that we are dealing solely with the non-notarized, undated, non-postmarked, properly signed MOV's. {AIA to the grammar police for the structure of that sentence. :) } What is the fair and proper resolve?? One approach would be: Since there is a desire to be inclusive by not disenfranchising votes that were properly cast, and there is an "agreed" problem betw. the FL. requisites and the ballots themselves, count all ballots that were properly requested, timely received, and in all other respects proper, except for the insertion of the date cast? Fair/Unfair ? Others? Thanks, Regards, CJ PS: Reply to knc --<Unfortunately, I think you're wrong on that one........> How does your reply to MC hit the point? IMO, irrespective the the proper/improper treatment by the brass of the troops, wouldn't you agree that, unless the Dem. spokespersons make some drastic changes to their position [or the way it is being presented to signify they want to wave the flag to preserve and promote the ideals our Forces are fighting for], MC was correct that the present military, + esp'ly. the VFW's, Am. Vets, etc., will express mounting outrage?