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 (125085)	2/2/2001 2:21:54 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Nadine, if you will actually read www.votescam.com, and then get the book, you will see that the vote problem has been happening for years, since at least 1970!!!!! The book is written, and published, well before Nov 2000.... It does talk about chads, machines not working, ballots being not counted, and most upsetting of all.....NOV 2000 WAS NOT THE FIRST ELECTION YEAR THAT A VERY FEW MINUTES AFTER THE POLLS SUPPOSEDLY CLOSED, THE ELECTION WAS CALLED.....and the FALLOUT of the decision to call the election .....WHat IS THE MEDIA RELATIONSHIP????? I am reading the book. It is not just a Democrat nor Republican issue. THIS IS A CITIZEN ISSUE. Since you obviously care about this issue, please read the book and let us know your thoughts. I would wish everyone would do so. There are many more questions that need to be addressed before next election!!!

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (125085)	2/2/2001 9:30:39 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Thanks for clarifying your position regarding my question to mst2000. "If Gore had won with his four county recount, it would have been legal but it would not have been accepted as legitimate. My position has been consistent: I favored an orderly court-ordered recount of the entire state" I wasn't implying what your position was, just pointing out that I had asked you. Its a good question (imo), and I like your answer. I'm not all against a fair and impartial recount if it could have helped settle the event. The problem was that there COULD NOT be a fair and impartial recount once Gore nitpicked the countryside with 75 lawyers looking for anything to gain votes. Your answer does not prove my point, but it does support it. I also think you are incorrect that it was all legal. It looks like mst2000 has a lot of info on the legalities and I will see if I am missing something in that regard. Regarding the FL irregularities, this again is where I don't have a lot of sympathy. Actually seems kind of unfair to try to fix them afterwards with the election of the U.S. president hanging in the balance. "Where is the legal basis for saying that such a recount would be unfair to either candidate?" Fairness is not always backed up by a "legal basis". What made it unfair are the attempted race riots, the inflammation of the PB ballots, etc. These types of actions effect the collective mindset of the population and impartialness goes out the window. Your argument in fact suggests that the US SC cannot separate politics from their duty, yet you feel that 100's of people with different backgrounds and ideals can count MILLIONS of votes with a greater accuracy than the margin of victory. That seems darn near impossible to me. Scott