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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (123837)	1/26/2001 1:09:58 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769668

"since imo their failure to hold the high ground cost them their chance to pull out a recount, which I think Al Gore did deserve" Why do you feel he did not get a recount, Nadine? This is one of the points that I try to understand, but cannot. Here is my take: 1) There was an automatic recount. Nobody argues this point. 2) He was allowed (per a quirky rule, imo) a selective re-count. He chose 4 highly democratic regions, which you have stated was a strategic error, iyo. (ie, not the repubs fault). 3) This is the sticky part for dems. The rules of the selective recounts were rather restrictive, as they should be imo because they (the rules) allowed for an unfair tactic to be used by either candidate. These rules were related to when a manual recount was appropriate (machine failure, acts of god, foul play) and the time frame (one week from the election, I believe). Al Gore would not play by these rules. Where does voter error come into play here? Why should these rules be changed because the election was close? FL law had a provision for if the election was close, and holy cow, it made it even closer. There was no adequate provision in the laws for a close race being even closer. That is the point the repubs so strongly rejected? WHY WERE THEY (repubs) WRONG TO REJECT THAT PREMISE? If my line of thinking is incorrect, please show me where it is incorrect. To me it looks like he got a recount (the automatic one), and got maximum value from his selective recount. How did he NOT get a recount iyo? He got a few and sued people who did not count the way he wanted them to. I have never seen an example where a participant was involved in setting the standards for how to win the game. Have you? IF so, is that how all close events should be decided? Regarding the FL SC giving Gore an additional 13 days (or whatever it was), how can you disagree with the US SC saying that is not fair (by 9-0)? That is EXACTLY what the US SC is for imo, yet the dems paint them as political hacks. Disgusting, imo. I don't mean to yell by capitalizing the question above, but it is one of the areas that I need a sound, logical answer to if my opinion is to change. Thanks for the lively debate, btw. Scott

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (123837)	1/26/2001 5:46:10 PM
From: cAPSLOCK	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769668

It's pretty clear that the Palm Beach ballot did cost Al Gore the election. That is like saying: "It is clear to me that the English language owes it's existence to the letter 'E'." The Palm Beach situation was one of many many many variables, and if you change ANY of them you can tip the election the other way. You could also say: It's pretty clear that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election. or It's pretty clear that Tennessee and Arkansas cost Al Gore the election. or It's pretty clear that the former president cost Al Gore the election. The fact of the matter is that the election count in Florida fell WITHIN the margin of error. For that matter the election count for THE NATION fell within the margin of error. (I think) This means that there is no way to resolve the outcome at least in Florida using traditional means. We have GWB in office now. Watch and see if he can do a good job. cAPSLOCK mp3.com