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: Scumbria who wrote (122610)	12/13/2000 2:10:50 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Nice try, Scumbria. At least for Seminole County, the votes on the ballots were clear. For the "black" counties (whatever that means), the votes were unclear. But I'm sure all those unclear, dimpled ballots were for Gore anyway. Analysis with electon microscopes will prove clear voter intent in these cases. Tenchusatsu

To: Scumbria who wrote (122610)	12/13/2000 5:06:51 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Scumbria, RE:"Seminole County provided improper instructions for absentee ballots. Those votes were counted anyway for Bush. In black counties, the voters were provided improper voting instructions. Those votes did not count. Think about it, and you will understand why there is going to be very big trouble for the USSC and President Bush. Equal protection has not been provided under the law." This worries me. If you can be duped over these things, can you be duped over the potential of a CPU design? Jim

To: Scumbria who wrote (122610)	12/13/2000 5:20:29 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dear Scumbria: Remeber the tried and true method of getting finality. When you see the other side going up the wrong route and they ask you for more rope, warn them not to wrap it around their necks but, keep playing out more rope. When they do wrap it around their necks and begin to run to an apparent victory, you stop playing out the rope, which causes the ropes to snap taut, breaking any chance of victory to be achieved. It works with criminals, the dog in Foghorn LegHorn Cartoons, and so it worked with the FSC and Al Gore Presidential Campaign. They were warned early about 14th amendment issues, but they did not pay enough attention. Do not blame the USSC for stopping the rope playing out, blame the FSC and ultimately Gore for taking the rope and wrapping themselves with it. The FSC should have known better at least. Perhaps it is these judges that were referred to by Stephans. It is only the rulings by the FSC overruling various trial judges that got vacated. In those black counties, it was Democrats doing the instructing. Democrats authored the "Butterfly" ballot. Democrats bought and kept using PCBs when they were well known for the problems. Almost all of the damage to equal protection was done by Democrats to themselves. Had these populous counties followed Volusia's lead into buying an OSB system, many of the equal protection problems you cite could have been positively avoided. Point the finger at your party, your candidate, and yourself, when it comes time for the blame game. The USSC enforced the rules. It even gave out a stern warning that was papered over in the rush to recount. Gore made a legal blunder when he decided to extend the protest phase and only go after 4 counties for recounts. Had he played by the rules, he could have had, at most, a 10% chance to win after the second machine count by recounting all the votes by the 1990 Palm Beach decision during the contest phase. He could use Volusia County as the basis to justify the need to manually recount the whole state by the 1990 standard by arguing that a reasonable doubt existed. To get rid of any partisan taint, a well respected, by both sides, circuit court judge could have been the final arbiter of any disputed ballots. The counting teams, could be made out of both state and federal judges both current and retired plus observers from both sides. Now Gore would have some small chance to win with such an arrangement and it would satisfy all the legal arguments and most of the political ones (hard liners like yourself are hard to get acceptance). But, the best chance would be for a Bush win outright. Most previous candidates play the odds and simply conceed the election. But this method yields an unassailiable victory for the winner and gracious but firm loss for the loser. Sadly, this course was never followed. It must be suggested by the loser of the machine counts, the winner would have his judgement questioned for him to suggest it and the loser should give major concessions that would be major face saving terms for the winner should he lose and whole hearted support, if the winner wins again (this part is debatable as to what concessions are needed but they cannot be small (you need a good incentive from the winner's perspective)). Besides, when the election is this close, reaching out to the other side is good politics. Pete