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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (148964)	8/2/2002 10:47:30 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574260

This is, frankly, a horribly weak argument. Aside from the fact that there existed no legal precedent for a "revote", it was a practical impossibility. There is no way any conceivable "revote" could have withstood the legal challenges. No way. No rational person, and surely not you either, would argue that a "revote" would be a more sensible approach than allowing the Supreme Court to decide the legal issues surrounding the illegal recounts Gore was trying to have. Sir, you forget this is a democracy. The democratic process was severely compromised in FLA. A revote would have been the only way to satisfactorily resolve the issue. Your party was so fearful of that possibility it ran to the Sup. Ct and whined its way into getting the Ct to act on its behalf. This after dubya had run on a states' rights platform. Yours is the party of hypocrisy.