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.

Pastimes : Trading the markets..... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chip McVickar who wrote (1614)	12/8/2000 9:16:13 PM
From: Peace	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4583

He was ahead in the count and he knew the military ballots would add to his lead, so he didnt want any hand counts and risk losing. I dont think either deserves to be the next President, but who is going to listen to me. <g>

To: Chip McVickar who wrote (1614)	12/9/2000 2:46:37 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4583

"If I were a county ballot counter, any where in the USA, charged with the duty of rendering a competent vote on demand to my legislature.., I would have had "IN PLACE" a system for counting, by hand any and all votes that were discharged by the machines as unknown...! And I would have had "IN PLACE" a workable understanding from both parties as to what should be included as understood by the legislature of my respective state." Would you know if other States have a system in place for votes that were rejected by machine? I agree that both parties should be represented at every process in the election so that is why I was so upset over the way the Seminole absentee process was handled. I believe the Judge said there were "irregularities." The fact that were irregularities undermines the entire process for me. I am one of the naive Americans who believed that the voting process would be fair and square. If The Supreme Court votes along the lines of partisan politics, people's cynicism about the US government will only intensify. At this point, the vote is essentially a tie. Gore has popular vote. Bush has Florida, for the time being, anyway. But Gore is in a better position to put together a government since he has the experience and he is already in Washington. I believe he would pursue Clinton's position on "free trade." I like that. And I don't believe Gore would be an "isolationist." Evidently, Bush has said that he is. I believe that it is important for the US to support NATO, maintain good relationships with our allies, and explore better relations with our political enemies. I hope Mr. Clinton will visit North Korea, for instance. I also believe that it is imperative that we deal with environmental issues such as global warning and recognize that our oceans are polluted and may die. Bush would never deal adequately with these issues. Also, I am very unhappy that Bush relies on his father's old advisors for his cabinet, and I am not particularly fond of those "old advisors" since they didn't do a very good job when Bush's father was President. If they had done a good job, Bush's father would have been elected to a second term as President. It seems that we learn more about the men who would be President after the November 7 Election. Bush acted as I expected. He hid at his ranch and let others fight for him. Gore fought for his position in the public arena. I thought the choice of lawyers for the first-time around in The Supreme Court said a great deal about Bush and Gore. Bush chose an "old Reagan lawyer." Gore chose an "intellectual, a specialist on Constitutional law. Well, we learn a little each day, don't we? Mephisto