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: PartyTime who wrote (114269)	12/13/2000 11:42:15 AM
From: DOUG H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

How would Klock's argument about voters following instructions fly in the Semionle and Martin County cases? The voters in Martin and Seminole followed instructions and you know it.

To: PartyTime who wrote (114269)	12/13/2000 11:50:17 AM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Worse, the GOPer altering the documents provided inaccurate Voter ID numbers to the ballots they were attempting to correct. Proof?

To: PartyTime who wrote (114269)	12/13/2000 11:59:45 AM
From: BG Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Party Time, it is difficult to respond to your argument, because it is a hypothetical and in one case you are discussing the actual ballot and in another you are discussing the application for an absentee ballot. Both sides stipulated that the id # was not placed on the form by the individual requesting the ballot. BUT, the ballots were issued and the votes were cast in the proper manner. Now, the question is, what to do with the VOTES that were cast? The courts said to count them. How about the situation where the polls were kept open longer than scheduled (even after being ordered to close by the courts) and people continued to vote. Do you throw out all the votes from that polling place, do you throw out some portion of them? Do you contest a close election on this event? No, once a vote is cast, it is usually considered as part of the universe of legal votes and is counted along with all the others. What about the felons that voted? What about those precincts that had over 100% voter turnout. What about the irregularities in the INS system? What about the thousands (yes, thousands) of military that never received their absentee ballots. As I see it, there are just too many "what ifs". This election was too close and resulted in an unprecedented court fight. The laws are pretty clear in some areas and the 7-2 SC decision that the hand recounts in FL were unconstitutional is pretty decisive to me. Bill Clinton took office after winning only 43% of the popular vote in 92. I think Bush will be ok (he got 48%).

To: PartyTime who wrote (114269)	12/13/2000 12:16:19 PM
From: Srexley	Respond to of 769670

PT, why do you think that an argument in one case must be automatically plugged into another one. Klock was Harris's attorney, and his job was to protect his client. You ranting about how his argument would not work in a case that he was not party to is just plain silly. You undermine all of your arguments by putting up non-sensicle gibberish like this. Both cases were started by dems, and the dems lost both. I guess you can take some comfort in the assertion that if Klock used the argument he used in case 1, he would have lost the unrelated case 2, which he was not involved in. It is going to take you a while to get over this it appears.