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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeff Leader who wrote (86494)	12/9/2000 3:15:54 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

<<And let's not forget the 5000 felons who allegedly cast ballots in FL. Who do you suppose most of them voted for?>> BUT of course we should forget the Republican theft of thousands of votes that would never have been sent in except for the corruption of the Republican absentee ballot officials. Give me a break. The Republican theft was not accidental. The Republican attempt to stop the recounts, to produce an Illegitamate Bush victory will go down is history as absolutely disgusting. Bush as blown it again, he might have won a recount. M

To: Jeff Leader who wrote (86494)	12/9/2000 4:22:49 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

jeff, al gore wanted to rig the election in his favor by requesting selective recounts. any reasonable person understands that is not fair. most would much rather take a machine count result with a high error rate than let candidates cherry pick in this manner. the lack of standards is just icing on the cake. totally unfair. now, bush has been anything but a saint here. he doesn't want to work out a way to find the most accurate intent of the voters. he wants to win. displaying honesty, integrity, principle and courage by initially requesting a full and fair statewide recount with consistent standards would have given al gore a VERY GOOD shot at contesting this election. he displayed none and that will be his down fall, imho. no way he wins in 2004. people see through him (which is why he didn't win in a landslide like any decent vp would have under current conditions).

To: Jeff Leader who wrote (86494)	12/9/2000 6:42:43 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 132070

jeff, i read the supreme court stay at msnbc.com it addresses whether the under votes are legal ballots. imho, the under votes are legal. no doubt. it also addresses the lack of standards and this is a valid issue. however, it does not address the fairness of a full manual count in cherry picked counties. this issue andand the lack-a-standards issue, imho, are the central issues.