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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (107309)	12/9/2000 2:43:14 AM
From: Kurthend	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

>>Being a registered Republican or Democrat is a very different level of commitment than being chairperson of the campaign.>> Does that mean 6 of the 7 FL SC Justices should excuse themselves from making any decisions in this case (them being Democrats and all)? At what level of a political party should an individual (s) excuse themselves? >>Katherine Harris' behavior was not illegal, though the FSC found it improper, but it was highly partisan.>> Did not the U.S. Supreme Court vacate the FL SC's original decision? >>Manual recounts are a reasonable request when the margin of victory is less than 0.01% of the vote.>> I thought that only occurred when fraud, machine malfunction, or an act of God occurred. Is a manual recount acceptable when a democrat asks only for democratic county (s) and democratic districts within those counties? >>When the FSC told her to accept the recounts, she picked the earliest deadline and refused the Palm Beach count because they missed it. Then she certified Bush>> She abided by the law. What would you have done?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (107309)	12/9/2000 2:48:40 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Nadine, before I go to bed, I must say that there is no way in hell, had the positions been reversed, with Bush seeking territorial counting advantages, and Gore crying "unfair," that ANY Secretary of state would have accepted returns beyond the deadline, from counties that would further unfairly skew the fair counting of votes for one candidate alone. It would just be too big of a risk, from her perspective. I swear, if Harris were a staunch Democrat, she'd have been compelled to do just what she did here. I know you won't even consider believing this, or try to understand why I believe it. Just try to be tolerant of the other side, OK? The other side is the other half of the country, ya know? The other half just might have an acorn now and then. OH well. Dan B

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (107309)	12/9/2000 3:00:15 AM
From: Scrapps	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

In regard to Katherine Harris' behavior if you were to place a drone in her position and programmed it to follow the letter of the law...you'd have the exact same result. That is the perspective one must view it from to understand her decisions. It's easy for us reps to say 'Yeah she's doing it the way we want" OR the dems to say "She is doing it for the reps". One must step back and study the parameters the SoS must work within to determine if she did her job. Don't confuse things with your natural bias.