On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 3:29:23 PM UTC-5, Dechucka wrote:
The popular vote whiners are a bunch of sore loser pussies.

That's false. There is something legitimately wrong with the person
winning the presidency not having won a majority of the popular vote.

Sorry, but that is why we have the EC. Example. Hillary won the popular
vote by 2.4 million. She won California by 4.3 million. Without
California, she would have lost that popular vote by 2.1 million. Do you
wish to have the winner in California consistantly define our President?

That is illogical. California has about 10% of the US population which I
assume means 10% of votors

It's also wrong. The official vote totals were 7,362,490 for Clinton and 3,916,209 for Trump. That's a difference of 3.4 million, not 4.3.

As for having California "define" our president, what is he suggesting? That California's citizens not be allowed to vote?

One person, one vote. "The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people..." -- James Madison, Federalist #39. The Founders did not say "the states." They said "the people."

--
Ed Huntress





I doubt you can name another elective office in the country at any
level of government that isn't determined by popular vote.

There was a purpose in the EC. When this country was set up, it was to
be run by both the states and the people. Hence the Senate, whose
members were selected by the state makes up 100 of the electoral vote.
The House of Representatives (referred to as the People's House) had its
members selected by the people. 435 of them. Add 100 Sentorial votes
and 3 votes for the District of Columbia, you have 538 votes. To win a
majority, the magic number is 270. Works great.. Particularly when one
knows how it works. Each of those state votes are a popular vote win.
Ergo, Hillary won 20 of those popular vote contests, Trump won 31.

but wait the people from most states can vote how they want in the EC

snip

On 12/22/2016 2:09 PM, wrote:
As for having California "define" our president, what is he suggesting? That California's citizens not be allowed to vote?

YOU IDIOT!!!!!

CaliPHONYA is constrained from being the plurality coastal co-ruler of
the USA by the Electoral College.

GROW A ****ING BRAIN!

On 12/22/2016 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 3:29:23 PM UTC-5, Dechucka wrote:
The popular vote whiners are a bunch of sore loser pussies.

That's false. There is something legitimately wrong with the person
winning the presidency not having won a majority of the popular vote.

Sorry, but that is why we have the EC. Example. Hillary won the popular
vote by 2.4 million. She won California by 4.3 million. Without
California, she would have lost that popular vote by 2.1 million. Do you
wish to have the winner in California consistantly define our President?

That is illogical. California has about 10% of the US population which I
assume means 10% of votors

It's also wrong. The official vote totals were 7,362,490 for Clinton and 3,916,209 for Trump.

That's wrong. The official certified vote count by the California
Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, is:

Clinton 8,753,788 61.7%
Trump 4,483,810 31.6%
Johnson 478,500 3.4%
Stein 278,657 2.0%
Sanders 79,341 0.6%
La Riva 66,101 0.5%
McMullin 39,596 0.3%
Maturen 1,316 0.0%
Kotlikoff 402 0.0%
White 84 0.0%
http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/...mplete-sov.pdf

The total number of votes case was about 14.2 million. Nationwide,
about 137 million votes were cast, so California's votes were about
10.4% of the total.

As for having California "define" our president, what is he suggesting? That California's citizens not be allowed to vote?

One person, one vote. "The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people..." -- James Madison, Federalist #39. The Founders did not say "the states." They said "the people."

This bull**** about "California" determining the election result is
completely specious. Suppose 75% of the population of the entire
country were in California. Why *shouldn't* the vote in California
determine who is president?

What people are really complaining about is that California voters tilt
heavily to the Democrats, which to *EVERY ONE* of these whiners about
the popular vote is the "wrong" party. I live in California, and I
don't much like the Democratic tilt, either - in fact, I hate it - but
that doesn't mean that the electoral college serves any legitimate
purpose. I think that, at present, a popular vote system for electing
the president would routinely elect Democrats, despite the fact that
Congress and most states are more Republican, but that's the fault of
the Republicans. If we abolished the electoral college and elected the
president by popular vote, the Republicans would have to start producing
better candidates and ignoring their lunatic fringe. That would be a
good thing.

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 5:52:42 PM UTC-5, Penn Senator wrote:
On 12/22/2016 2:09 PM, wrote:
As for having California "define" our president, what is he suggesting? That California's citizens not be allowed to vote?

YOU IDIOT!!!!!

CaliPHONYA is constrained from being the plurality coastal co-ruler of
the USA by the Electoral College.

GROW A ****ING BRAIN!

It looks like you left your reel on freespool, Denator, and you've got a bird's nest between your ears.

--
Fin-Nor

On 12/22/2016 3:49 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 5:52:42 PM UTC-5, Penn Senator wrote:
On 12/22/2016 2:09 PM, wrote:
As for having California "define" our president, what is he suggesting? That California's citizens not be allowed to vote?

YOU IDIOT!!!!!

CaliPHONYA is constrained from being the plurality coastal co-ruler of
the USA by the Electoral College.

GROW A ****ING BRAIN!

It looks like you left your reel on freespool, Denator, and you've got a bird's nest between your ears.

He's another lunatic who thinks that "California" acts. It doesn't.
The people of the state vote.

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 6:51:34 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 12/22/2016 3:49 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 5:52:42 PM UTC-5, Penn Senator wrote:
On 12/22/2016 2:09 PM, wrote:
As for having California "define" our president, what is he suggesting? That California's citizens not be allowed to vote?

YOU IDIOT!!!!!

CaliPHONYA is constrained from being the plurality coastal co-ruler of
the USA by the Electoral College.

GROW A ****ING BRAIN!

It looks like you left your reel on freespool, Denator, and you've got a bird's nest between your ears.

He's another lunatic who thinks that "California" acts. It doesn't.
The people of the state vote.

I think this new bunch has been released from their institutions on a Christmas pass.

--
Ed Huntress

On 12/22/2016 4:28 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
This bull****
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat **** and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_i...p?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William"
To: jonball@[...]
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
__________________________________________________ _
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8

and I won't die soon.

Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.

You certainly have no means to hasten my death.

Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.

On 12/22/2016 4:51 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
another lunatic
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat **** and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_i...p?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William"
To: jonball@[...]
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
__________________________________________________ _
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8

and I won't die soon.

Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.

You certainly have no means to hasten my death.

Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.

On 12/22/2016 4:49 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 5:52:42 PM UTC-5, Penn Senator wrote:
On 12/22/2016 2:09 PM, wrote:
As for having California "define" our president, what is he suggesting? That California's citizens not be allowed to vote?

YOU IDIOT!!!!!

CaliPHONYA is constrained from being the plurality coastal co-ruler of
the USA by the Electoral College.

GROW A ****ING BRAIN!

It looks like you left your reel on freespool

It looks like you are a mob rule fascist.

On 12/22/2016 5:25 PM, wrote:
I think this new bunch has been released from their institutions on a Christmas pass.

--

How long have you been loose?

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 7:31:28 PM UTC-5, Penn Senator wrote:
On 12/22/2016 4:49 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 5:52:42 PM UTC-5, Penn Senator wrote:
On 12/22/2016 2:09 PM, wrote:
As for having California "define" our president, what is he suggesting? That California's citizens not be allowed to vote?

YOU IDIOT!!!!!

CaliPHONYA is constrained from being the plurality coastal co-ruler of
the USA by the Electoral College.

GROW A ****ING BRAIN!

It looks like you left your reel on freespool

It looks like you are a mob rule fascist.

Spoken like a true elitist anti-republican.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 7:32:22 PM UTC-5, alimentary.edu wrote:
On 12/22/2016 5:25 PM, wrote:
I think this new bunch has been released from their institutions on a Christmas pass.

--

How long have you been loose?

68 years. How about you? Did they give you a whole week?

--
Ed Huntress

On 12/22/2016 4:52 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 7:31:28 PM UTC-5, Penn Senator wrote:
On 12/22/2016 4:49 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 5:52:42 PM UTC-5, Penn Senator wrote:
On 12/22/2016 2:09 PM, wrote:
As for having California "define" our president, what is he suggesting? That California's citizens not be allowed to vote?

YOU IDIOT!!!!!

CaliPHONYA is constrained from being the plurality coastal co-ruler of
the USA by the Electoral College.

GROW A ****ING BRAIN!

It looks like you left your reel on freespool

It looks like you are a mob rule fascist.

Spoken like a true elitist anti-republican.

As I keep pointing out, every state in the union elects its statewide
officeholders using a direct popular vote. So does the overwhelming
majority of cities. These idiots aren't complaining about "mob rule"
for that.

The electors are elected by state by the voting public.
NOT just people who live there, want to or has a voting card.

The constitution allows only the electors to elect a president.

The popular vote by state is to elect electors.

The total popular vote is just for fun. It means NOTHING. Never
intended for anything. It was well known that population movement and
the expanding west required a leveling of the vote.

Consider the land rush. Unknown response. Consider the Homestead of
1000 acres. Unknown response. If a flood of people went west - it
did, both by 'go west my son...' and later Gold. The Northeast lost
hundreds of Ships/crew/men/property/wealth as everyone jumped to the
West Coast. After WW II, the Pacific Army / Marines stayed west.
Dust bowl - moved further west after the government caused the dust bowl.

Moto-voter gave voting cards to green card and temp visa owners.
A lot of people in Ca are voting illegal if they vote.

I had a good friend that was Japanese and he was here for 6 months.
Had to get a license as AAA wasn't enough. He showed me his voting
card and laughed, he was slated to be back in Japan to vote there.

Martin

On 12/22/2016 3:09 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 3:29:23 PM UTC-5, Dechucka wrote:
The popular vote whiners are a bunch of sore loser pussies.

That's false. There is something legitimately wrong with the person
winning the presidency not having won a majority of the popular vote.

Sorry, but that is why we have the EC. Example. Hillary won the popular
vote by 2.4 million. She won California by 4.3 million. Without
California, she would have lost that popular vote by 2.1 million. Do you
wish to have the winner in California consistantly define our President?

That is illogical. California has about 10% of the US population which I
assume means 10% of votors

It's also wrong. The official vote totals were 7,362,490 for Clinton and 3,916,209 for Trump. That's a difference of 3.4 million, not 4.3.

As for having California "define" our president, what is he suggesting? That California's citizens not be allowed to vote?

One person, one vote. "The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people..." -- James Madison, Federalist #39. The Founders did not say "the states." They said "the people."

On 12/22/2016 5:23 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
The electors are elected by state by the voting public.
NOT just people who live there, want to or has a voting card.

The constitution allows only the electors to elect a president.

The popular vote by state is to elect electors.

Everyone knows that this is the current system. That doesn't mean it's
good. It's *not* good. It violates the just principle of one man / one
vote. The justice and equity in that principle is unassailable.

There is no valid reason to retain the electoral college. Its origin is
unequivocally based in slavery, and justice and equity dictate that it
should be abolished.

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 8:23:29 PM UTC-5, Martin Eastburn wrote:
The electors are elected by state by the voting public.
NOT just people who live there, want to or has a voting card.

The constitution allows only the electors to elect a president.

The popular vote by state is to elect electors.

The total popular vote is just for fun. It means NOTHING. Never
intended for anything. It was well known that population movement and
the expanding west required a leveling of the vote.

Consider the land rush. Unknown response. Consider the Homestead of
1000 acres. Unknown response. If a flood of people went west - it
did, both by 'go west my son...' and later Gold. The Northeast lost
hundreds of Ships/crew/men/property/wealth as everyone jumped to the
West Coast. After WW II, the Pacific Army / Marines stayed west.
Dust bowl - moved further west after the government caused the dust bowl.

There was no land rush, nor gold rush, nor any western "flood" of people when the Electoral College was established (1787) nor when it was modified when the 12th Amendment was ratified. (1804).

The plan was worked out by a committee from among several alternatives, including direct election, in 1787. As Rudy said, the 3/5 rule for slaves was part of it -- possibly the determining part.

--
Ed Huntress


Moto-voter gave voting cards to green card and temp visa owners.
A lot of people in Ca are voting illegal if they vote.

I had a good friend that was Japanese and he was here for 6 months.
Had to get a license as AAA wasn't enough. He showed me his voting
card and laughed, he was slated to be back in Japan to vote there.

Martin

On 12/22/2016 3:09 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 3:29:23 PM UTC-5, Dechucka wrote:
The popular vote whiners are a bunch of sore loser pussies.

That's false. There is something legitimately wrong with the person
winning the presidency not having won a majority of the popular vote.

Sorry, but that is why we have the EC. Example. Hillary won the popular
vote by 2.4 million. She won California by 4.3 million. Without
California, she would have lost that popular vote by 2.1 million. Do you
wish to have the winner in California consistantly define our President?

That is illogical. California has about 10% of the US population which I
assume means 10% of votors

It's also wrong. The official vote totals were 7,362,490 for Clinton and 3,916,209 for Trump. That's a difference of 3.4 million, not 4.3.

As for having California "define" our president, what is he suggesting? That California's citizens not be allowed to vote?

One person, one vote. "The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people..." -- James Madison, Federalist #39. The Founders did not say "the states." They said "the people."

One man gets a vote. I vote for a number of electors.

Each state has a different set of rules/laws that the party and
state sets up - winner takes all or elector by count of each party.

Different states vote differently. Some by meetings and some by direct
ballot.

It is a state right to elect the President by the rules of the
constitution and the state laws.

Everyone gets a say.

However if the popular vote is used, only the far North East and
California will elect a president. That violates millions of votes.

When there were slaves in the south, the north still ruled and forced
a percentage onto each slave not a full head count - The North supplied
the slaves - they were the slavers - the south were slaves to the north
and provided labor. After slavery, the north started running more (note
more) rum and spices.

Martin

On 12/22/2016 7:26 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 12/22/2016 5:23 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
The electors are elected by state by the voting public.
NOT just people who live there, want to or has a voting card.

The constitution allows only the electors to elect a president.

The popular vote by state is to elect electors.

Everyone knows that this is the current system. That doesn't mean it's
good. It's *not* good. It violates the just principle of one man / one
vote. The justice and equity in that principle is unassailable.

There is no valid reason to retain the electoral college. Its origin is
unequivocally based in slavery, and justice and equity dictate that it
should be abolished.

Not yet - It was known that moving west was though. And the lands west
were wider than the south was deep.

Some people think ahead.

Martin

On 12/22/2016 8:35 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 8:23:29 PM UTC-5, Martin Eastburn wrote:
The electors are elected by state by the voting public.
NOT just people who live there, want to or has a voting card.

The constitution allows only the electors to elect a president.

The popular vote by state is to elect electors.

The total popular vote is just for fun. It means NOTHING. Never
intended for anything. It was well known that population movement and
the expanding west required a leveling of the vote.

Consider the land rush. Unknown response. Consider the Homestead of
1000 acres. Unknown response. If a flood of people went west - it
did, both by 'go west my son...' and later Gold. The Northeast lost
hundreds of Ships/crew/men/property/wealth as everyone jumped to the
West Coast. After WW II, the Pacific Army / Marines stayed west.
Dust bowl - moved further west after the government caused the dust bowl.

There was no land rush, nor gold rush, nor any western "flood" of people when the Electoral College was established (1787) nor when it was modified when the 12th Amendment was ratified. (1804).

The plan was worked out by a committee from among several alternatives, including direct election, in 1787. As Rudy said, the 3/5 rule for slaves was part of it -- possibly the determining part.