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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave Gore who wrote (112249)	12/12/2000 5:24:42 PM
From: Srexley	Respond to of 769670

"Srexley, you have your eyes closed as well" I do not agree. I think I see both sides fairly well. Why do you think "my eyes are closed". I would like to respond to that. "Since many don't like the electoral college anyway, they think that Gore won. It would seem to me that makes a manual recount even more vital to establish legitimacy and I have not heard one partisan Republican on this thread agree with that! Amazing to me." This is a major flaw in the way many demos seem to be thinking about this. Florida law says that you should have a manual recount for a few different kinds of reasons (machine failure, acts of god, etc). I forget the third condition (fraud?), but I am positive that it is not because people don't like the electoral college. If Florida's election laws accounted for the proper way to handle a close presidential election, I would be for following them. Many dems say that since they don't, then it is ok to make up new rules if you are close in total votes. That is AMAZING to me. I would hate to play sports with any of these people because they would try to change the rules if the game was close. Also, when you think about your position in this try to factor in that we DO have an electoral college, and that IS how we elect presidents. I am sure that must make it frustrating, but you may want to think about the effects of calling the election early. The popular vote was still damn close, and it may have gone the other way (I realize this is based on emotion, but there is some logic to it). "but I don't think most of you could ever accept Gore. " You are correct in my case. I can sympathize with his supporters, but I think many are naive to think his tactics and statements are as noble as they make them seem. When it was close, he got the recount, AND he sent 75 lawyers into FL to turn up ANYTHING that would allow him to take the lead. These tactics included the butterfly ballot, hampering the overseas military vote, dis-enfranchinsing (a demo word, I think) the voters in Seminole and Martin counties ( I realize Gore was supposedly not involved, but he supported the cases on tv, lied about them on tv, and said it was not fair to him on tv), sued democratic canvassing boards that did not count votes HIS way, etc., etc. His behavior was totally disgusting imo and a sore looser (sorry about the pun) does not deserve to be our president. He should have QUIT after the 12 day extension from the FL SC if he wanted ANY support from me ever. "Plus you say, BUSH never singles out Judges? Not true. he said Scalia was his "Favorite"." I said he never has singled them out and CONDEMNED them (like Gore has). I don't think complimenting someone is politically incorrect yet, is it? I assume you are talking about the debates, but maybe he has complimented Scalia since then, but I doubt it as he has kept quiet since all of this has started (unlike Al Gore). You conclude by saying I am "wrong on that count, too". I don't see any of my points that you have shown to be wrong. Your post indicates I am wrong on a few points. I have thrown out the challenge to anyone on this thread to debate the facts in this case, but there is far too much emotion on the demo side to make a case. Nobody has taken me up. Your response is typical in that it answers my points or concerns with answers to different questions than I have brought up.