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.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bambs who wrote (44316)	12/9/2000 11:11:13 PM
From: Tom D	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

The issues are pretty thorny, Bambs. I am not confident that this is predictable. There is a compelling argument that democratic counties mostly had antiquated, crappy voting machines that undercounted their votes. (from the Miami Herald, 12.3.00) <<The overall rejection rate for the 43 counties using optical systems was 1.4 percent. The overall rejection rate for the 24 punch-card counties was 3.9 percent. That means that voters in punch-card counties, which included urban Democratic strongholds such as Broward and Palm Beach counties, were nearly three times as likely to have their ballots rejected as those in optical counties.>> The problem is that I think both Supreme courts are just spewing out verbage to justify whatever they feel like doing for whatever personal/political reasons they have. I suppose the the five conservative USSC justices would rather see Bush win and appoint more of the own. We'll have to see. As usual of late, I am happy to be in cash. Tom D

To: bambs who wrote (44316)	12/10/2000 9:56:36 AM
From: Monty Lenard	Respond to of 77400

bambs, here is abby j's track record. :-) validea.com I think they are a bit behind updating it. VBG! Notice her RECENT INVESTMENT IDEAS dated 10/1 and look at how much money she has made her clients vs how much money she has made her firm by talking her clients into buying these stocks. What a stock picker! I think I will hire her to manage my money as some others here have done. Monty

To: bambs who wrote (44316)	12/10/2000 10:33:36 AM
From: t2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

i don't think those 5 judges would have stopped a recount if they weren't going to side with Bush. Clearly, hand recounting the undervote is a "partial recount" and is not permitted under Florida law. My feeling is that they will want to avoid a constitutional crisis as the cost would be too high. That is why I believe FLA Chief Justice Wells voted against the majority opinion. His language tells one that he was concerned. If the crisis scenario was not a worry, I would have bet he would have gone along with the majority. It is basically now come down to avoiding a constitutional mess and they USSC will put in end to it. I don't think it matters what is right at this in the eyes of courts; it has more to do with avoiding a potential mess that would be bad for the country. I will say that Jeb Bush is the one that created this potential problem. Without his interference, there would no problem. My feeling is that the decision will be at least 6 to 3 for Bush. I think the 4 that did not support the halt of recounts may still be of the opinion that FLA SC was wrong but so no point in stopping the recount. 5 are basically guaranteed to rule in favor of Bush, IMHO. I think the market will not change too much from Friday. However, I do believe it will rally ahead of the final decision. It gives the market another reason to rally..possibly push it over Nasdaq 3000. I believe the election is more important that Greenspan or earnings in the short term.