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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Windsock who wrote (122203)	12/11/2000 10:32:55 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 186894

Re: "And how is the difference of California law relevant to your statement that the California governor is wrong in asserting -- if he did, you provide no citation -- that 600 K votes will not change the almost 1.3 million margin for Gore ??" Winsock you're getting hysterical. The discussion about California absentee votes had nothing whatsoever to do with the question of the legality of another rerererererecount. They were unrelated posts. Unconnected. It was a different subject. The claim that 600K absentee ballots will not be counted was what I heard on a California radio talkshow. I didn't say the Governor was wrong, in fact I said you can't blame him. Apparantly it is quite legal in California to never count some ballots (even once) if they cannot change the outcome of the California election. For some reason I don't remember the Democrats complaining that every vote should be counted. Oh well. Keep in mind the Florida ballots with undervotes were counted multiple times and there was no evidence submitted that they were legal votes for either candidate, which was the burden of proof to allow a handcount. So ruled Judge Sauls. The FSC disagreed and the matter is before the USSC as you know, I hope. EP