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: Dave Gore who wrote (104912)	12/7/2000 10:17:07 PM
From: alan w	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

It's more like the opposite Dave. This election is a virtual tie. Since the election ended, Bush has maintained the lead. After a non partisan machine tabulation, Bush came out on top. Any "cherry picking" of certain stronghold areas could result in either candidate gaining votes to turn the election. Our fear is this: Gore will be allowed to go into a stronghold area he controls, gather up a couple thousand votes, have them counted by any standard (which by the way changes, depending on the ongoing results) and change the tide. From our side, we could also go into a Bush majority arena and do the same. Where should it end? The fairest thing is to take the non partisan results from the machine tally (unbiased) and live with the results. Anything else (hand counted)can and will be manipulated by subjective counting. Ten years from now no one will know who got the most votes. Let's live with the fairest most non partisan result. Have a good one. alan w

To: Dave Gore who wrote (104912)	12/7/2000 10:19:18 PM
From: amadeus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

there are some here. for example, thurston, and neocon are more open than most of the rest, and will consider some opposing views. but for the most part this thread is just an exercise in partisan posturing, and parroting of gop positions. so I just try to point to the moral inconsistencies I find in the positions taken, and watch the responses. overall the level of debate in this conflict has so many holes in it, its hard to believe anyone really buys into it.

To: Dave Gore who wrote (104912)	12/7/2000 10:29:27 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

Are you saying that Clinton is not a crook and a rapist? The courts in Arkansas have decreed him a crook. At least 3 women claim he's a rapist.

To: Dave Gore who wrote (104912)	12/7/2000 10:43:40 PM
From: JLIHAI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I think you're miscalculating when you say the Republicans believe Bush probably lost. On what basis? The ratio in Miami-Dade doesn't support that conclusion at all. Palm Beach had a huge ratio in favor of Gore and only produced a change in the differential of 180. I have been in favor of counting Dade so that the incessant whining can finally stop and also I think Gore needs to be convinced in his own mind that he lost so he can stop trying to win Florida like a rat in a legal maze.

To: Dave Gore who wrote (104912)	12/7/2000 10:45:38 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 769667

How lawyers figure © 2000 WorldNetDaily.com When my father told me that liars figure and figures lie, he could have been talking about lawyers. The numerical sleight-of-hand in this presidential election saga is simply staggering. On Tuesday, for example, the Miami Herald ran a front-page story about how, without confusing ballots and voting irregularities, Al Gore would have won Florida by 23,000 votes. Reading a little further, though, shows that this conclusion is "a hypothetical result derived from something that clearly doesn't exist." Like mythical budgeting based on imaginary surpluses going on in Washington, this result quickly becomes something else entirely when the assumptions are wiggled even a chad (sorry). This so-called analysis, for example, assumes that absolutely every single voter intended to vote for a presidential candidate. This simply is not true. In some Florida counties, more than 5 percent of voters said they had no intention of voting for any presidential candidate. And this analysis treats all ballots rejected by counting machines the same way, whether they contained no vote or multiple votes for president. That's why other analyses with more realistic assumptions have come to a very different conclusion. Even the liberal Slate magazine concluded that Gore would have lost by more than 700 votes if all ballots had been manually recounted. How about some other funny numbers. Republican Senate candidate Bill McCollum received 207,000 fewer votes than Mr. Bush. He ran behind Mr. Bush in 63 of 67 counties, including even his home county of Seminole. Yet he ran 1,600 votes ahead of Mr. Bush in liberal Palm Beach County. Three possible explanations exist for this head-scratcher. First, there could have been outright fraud deliberately suppressing the Bush vote. Not likely, since no one has alleged any Chicago-style antics. Second, Palm Beach voters might have split their ticket, choosing Republican Mr. McCollum for the Senate and someone else for president. I'm not seeing it. Mr. McCollum, after all, was one of those House impeachment managers trying to remove Mr. Gore's boss from office. Third, and most likely, some folks just didn't vote for a presidential candidate. Once again, reality must really annoy those number-crunchers trying to explain away Mr. Gore's loss. Or here's an interesting set of numbers. More than 180,000 ballots across Florida were not counted for various reasons, some in every single county. Mr. Gore, as you all know, says his only goal is not to be president but to have every Florida vote counted. Why, then, did he ask for a manual recount in only four of 67 counties? All heavily Democratic counties, mind you, with the three largest using that punch-card voting system. Like the Big Bad Wolf talking to Little Red Riding Hood, you can hear Mr. Gore explaining his selective recount request by saying to those ballot cards "all the better to see you with, my dear." Try figuring this lie. Last week, during the trial contesting Florida's election results, Mr. Gore said his chances of winning were "50-50." Then Circuit Judge N. Sanders Sauls rejected every single Gore argument, a result the International Herald Tribune called a "crippling setback," the Chicago Tribune labeled a "definitive rebuff," and the New York Times reported Gore lawyers called a "devastating blow." Yet on Tuesday Mr. Gore said "I'll stick with that" 50-50 prediction. That's some fuzzy math. And just a few final numbers for Mr. Gore to consider. The Portrait of America and WashingtonPost/ABC polls each say 57 percent of Americans want him to concede and NBC says it's at 59 percent (up 10 points in a week). Americans by more than 2-to-1 disapprove of how Mr. Gore is handling this election stand-off. And this just in: Gallup now says that "for the first time since Al Gore emerged in 1992 as Bill Clinton's running mate for president, the vice president is now viewed unfavorably by a majority of American adults." Go figure.