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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JungleInvestor who wrote (80434)	11/30/2000 7:19:00 PM
From: Douglas V. Fant	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

JI, (OT) IMO Both sides are a little off base here. IMO Mssr. Bush has nothing to fear from a total recount of the County of Dade. The 20% most heavily Democratic voting precincts have already been recounted, mainly African-American precincts and Mssr Gore picked up only 157 more votes. The remaining "unrecounted" 470 Dade precincts, 270 went slightly to Gore, and the remaining 200 went for Bush, many in "Little Havana". So my guess is that Mssr. Gore would not pick up many more votes in any Dade County hand recount, and that 157+ current partial recount uptake may actually slip back toward 0. So no need to hide IMO.... Now Mssr Gore's problem is that he wants to count votes unequally depending upon whether they are Democratic or Republican votes. Dimpled chad may favor Mssr. Gore (they believe they do); however military and absentee ballots questioned over legal technicalities (i.e. post marks, registration numbers) and either excluded or subject to current lawsuits to exclude them do contain very clearly marked and ascertainable voter preferences, i.e. votes. If the Democratic Party truly wants to effectuate "the will of the people", then why are they challenging and not accepting these particular vote categories? This inconsistency in makes the Democratic challenge look like a "count only the votes that help us to win the election" type of position rather than a truly generous statesman-like view. That is why the US Supreme Court IMO will take a jaundiced view of the currently 32 lawsuits ongoing in Florida and decide that neither side's equities demand additional action than that already taken originally by the Florida Supreme Court. So my guess is the US Supreme Court will uphold the original action of the Florida Supreme Court, and based thereon will say "game, set, match" the party is over."