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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Steve's Channelling Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SBHX who wrote (8815)	12/11/2000 4:39:57 PM
From: richard w allgaier	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

You're looking for HONESTY??? Aren't you forgetting something....These guys are politicians. They don't presently give a damn about anything, you, me, or anything other than themselves; and if you think for one second that's going to change, even after the vote is finalizes, might I suggest you re-read the first 2 sentences in my reply....again! Rick

To: SBHX who wrote (8815)	12/11/2000 8:56:47 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

Bush had no power to stop any counts. The US Supreme court did. What are you talking about? You said: Bush stops the count not because of principles or any altruistic motives. He wants to be president. Pure and Simple.

To: SBHX who wrote (8815)	12/12/2000 8:21:27 AM
From: Shaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 30051

I held my nose and voted for Gore, my grandfahter was one of the founders of the headstart program. My wife reminded me of what my grandfather would say, if I voted for Bush. We know many people didn't want to vote for either cannidate. The close race reflects this state of affairs. Bottom line, the machine counting proccess has a certain level of error. I don't think we should alter that standard. I think the buck should stop at the machine count period. The playing field is the playing field, it worked and didn't work, basically, equally for both canidates. Where it wasn't as equall, oh well, do better next time, and get the vote out. If more people had voted, we wouldn't be in this fix. I hate to say it, but Bush is right, he won the vote, based on the existing standards. It was a close race, and I can understand how the Gore camp, kept seeing an opportunity to keep hope alive, but bottom line Bush has won the machine count, and that reality can't be changed. I don't think anyone has demonstrated aggregious or criminal tappering of a nature that should over turn that reality. The supreme courts job in here is ref. The race has a winner, for get about the condition of the field, the other sides fan helped there player up, and are team didn't get as good oranges at the half, enough already. One side put more points on the board, when the game was called. Bottom line, The Gore campaing stretagy was flawed. He should have listened to Clinton and covered his back side more. Gore pulled ads on states that were close to save money, and focused the big key states. Gore left himself no back up, he cut it too close. Why wouldn't you listen To your boss, when he won twice, against all odds. Gorer should have been able to turn out more vote, he lost because he cut it to close, with a voting system that is only so accurate, those are the brakes.