SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ru2 who wrote (64108)12/11/2000 3:21:11 AM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu  Respond to of 99985
 
ru2, I do not think that this is a reliable source even that I believe that many would like that to happen.

There are plenty of extremist groups acting in hte US under the freedom of speech and expression, but that is far cry from tainting election votes by intimidation as it happened in Florida and now under investigation in Washington.

Wonder if this Civil rights group has any teeth and can impeach Bush if and wen inaugurated.

Haim



To: ru2 who wrote (64108)12/11/2000 10:42:10 AM
From: KymarFye  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 99985
 
OT: The idea of sealing or destroying the ballots is hilarious. Doing so would be unimaginably stupid - strongly reinforcing the impression that the Rs (all of 'em, including the Supremes) were afraid of THE TERRIBLE TRUTH. In fact, it would be so unimaginably stupid, I could almost see it happening. I did hear one Republican Congressperson, Jennifer Dunn of WA, suggesting on CNN Capital Gang that, indeed, getting at the ballots may not be as easy as is widely assumed, but she's the only remotely credible individual I've heard suggesting it. The more typical R line is that, even if the ballots are eventually counted and re-counted, no one will be able to agree on what a "fair" assessment amounts to. In this regard David Boies made a thoughtful observation yesterday, suggesting that, as far as perceived legitimacy goes, it might be better for the legal victor (i.e., Bush) to remove the uncertainty, rather than having the great unknown hanging over him, regardless of what the numbers actually revealed (i.e., even if they showed him 5 or 50 or 500 chads down). You might disagree with Boies in the end on this one, but, whatever you think about the justice of the case, you have to admit that the Rs do look a bit like they're calling the game early because they're afraid to play it out. I found it interesting also that, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the supposed crisis and end of public patience, Republican pollster Frank Luntz observed that certain poll responses suggest that, regardless of what people say, a lot of them will be disappointed to see the show come to an end.



To: ru2 who wrote (64108)12/11/2000 10:54:54 AM
From: ru2  Respond to of 99985
 
It seemed rather extreme to me, but then again everything about this situation has been extreme. Just wanted to know if anyone else had heard similar non-sense. Glad no one has. I didn't support Bush or Gore and last week I really didn't have an opinion on who won. Now I strongly suspect that Gore will win if all the votes are counted. If Bush wins and they count all the votes only to find that Gore really won, then we will be in a bigger mess than we are in now. If they don't count all the votes we no longer live in a Democracy.

Ru2