Re: Get rid of the Electoral College, and the Russians would find it much harder to hack our Presidential elections

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 08/21/2017 12:54 PM, Steve wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 15:06:32 +0100, PIBB <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hillary's confidence alone did not lose her the election.
>
>
> Yeah, it was also her incompetence...
>
>
> By the way, when are the anti racist crowd going to protest
> the Democratic Party which is by far the most powerful racist
> element in the history of the USA?
>

Tear down any Democrat statues or leaders statues and rename anything
with (GRAND KLEEGLE) Robert Byrd's name on it....

The Democrats should get their own house in order before they start
sending their carpet-baggers into the South.



--
That's Karma

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/21/2017 6:07 PM, Yak wrote:
> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 12:16:02 AM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
>> The EC lets them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>
>> The solution is obvious - get rid of the EC.
>
> Whereas a straight majority vote let's them focus on a few states to swing the election.

Wrong. In a straight popular vote election, states have no importance.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/22/2017 4:34 AM, Yak wrote:

> Huh??? In a straight popular vote high population states like CA and NY would be electing your president

No. *Voters* would be electing the president, idiot. States don't vote.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:23:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

If you think Rudy is acting like an idiot, be warned.

It Ain't no act.

While it's pretty clear to most normal people that Yak meant the
people of California and New York, Rudy has to act like he doesn't
understand because otherwise his argument falls apart.

Stand by now for the "EC = Slavery" argument in five, four, three,
two, one....

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/22/2017 4:34 AM, Yak wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 1:33:53 AM UTC-4, ed...@post.com wrote:

>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, Yak wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 12:16:02 AM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
>>>> The EC lets them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>>>
>>>> The solution is obvious - get rid of the EC.
>>>
>>> Whereas a straight majority vote let's them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>

>> You idiot. The electoral college is what allows a few states to swing the election. The popular vote is a straight single count across the country, not fifty different counts each with their own weight. There is no swinging of a vote in a popular count, the majority simply wins and the minority loses, mo distortion of math as with the EC, period. Fuck, you're too stupid for this discussion.
>
> Wy, you're in over your head.

No, you are. She's a dumb cunt about most things, but she's right about
this.

You right-wingnut knuckle-dragger cunts keep bitching about "big states"
swinging the election. States don't vote - period. Voters vote.
However, with the electoral college, a very small number of voters in
just five or six states *always* determine the election. Why should
voters in those states get to dictate to 98% of the rest of the country?
They shouldn't.

Sometimes it takes an extreme and absurd example to illustrate just how
fucking bad and stupid and *wrong* an idea is - *YOUR* band and stupid
and wrong idea. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.
Now suppose the population of the country is distributed in such a way
that there is a set of states in which one major party 'X' always wins a
95% majority, and their electoral votes add up to 267. There is another
set of states in which the other major party 'Y' always wins a 50.0001%
majority, and their electoral votes add up to 268. Now there is one
more state, Wyoming, with 3 electoral votes, and in this state party 'Y'
always wins 40% of the votes, party 'X' always wins 35% of the votes,
and a third party 'Z' always wins the remaining 25% of the votes.

In every presidential election, the candidate of party 'Y' will always
win the presidency, despite the fact that an overwhelming majority -
well over 70% - of all voters want the candidate of party 'X' as
president; and not only that, but in the decisive state of Wyoming, a
minority, only 40%, wanted the candidate from party 'Y'.

This simply cannot be right, and it isn't right. There were several
delegates to the Federal Convention who had previously been governors of
their states. Most of them had been elected governor by popular vote.
A few had been elected by their state legislatures, but those
legislatures did not allocate seats in a manner that gave excessive
representation to "small" parts of the state. The same issues of
population distribution occur *within* states as occur *among* the
states: more heavily populated areas may consistently prefer one party
and that party's candidate more often will be elected governor. No one
proposed state-level electoral colleges to compensate for this suppose
problem, because it is *NOT* a problem.

Every argument you have been fed to justify the electoral college is a
lie. The founders may have distrusted the mass of people, but they did
*not* distrust the voters, who in every state were educated white men of
property very much like the convention delegates, and who had popularly
elected many of those delegates to offices in their states. There
*already* was a mechanism to ensure the big states couldn't steamroller
the small states: the Senate. The founders were *not* concerned with
the voters in big states having great influence in electing the president.

If the three-fifths rule had not *already* been adopted, giving the
slave states excessive - *undeserved* - representation in Congress, the
electoral college as it was originally adopted never even would have
been proposed. The electoral college that was approved was *only*
intended to ensure that slave states determined the presidency, either
electing presidents from those states or electing compliant presidents
from non-slave states. And what do you know! four of the first five
presidents were Virginians, exactly as the slaveowners intended, and
another two of the next five elected presidents also were from slave states.

The people who want to retain the electoral college do not support it
because of the excessive influence it gives to small states. They
support it because they are Republicans, and it is the *only* way a
non-incumbent Republican can be elected president, and they know it. It
has nothing to do with "fairness", and *everything* to do with their
partisanship. All the blabber about preventing "California and New
York" from determining the president is pure bullshit - all they really
care about is increasing the odds of a Republican being elected
president, by any means possible.

I'll tell you how a non-incumbent Republican can be elected president in
a popular vote system: the party stops pandering to white racists,
fundamentalist religious bigots like Hartung, and billionaires. They
nominate people like Eisenhower and Reagan rather than mediocrities like
George W. Bush and Trump, and they can win a majority of the popular vote.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/22/2017 7:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:23:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/22/2017 4:34 AM, Yak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 1:14:46 AM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 8/21/2017 6:07 PM, Yak wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 12:16:02 AM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>> The EC lets them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The solution is obvious - get rid of the EC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas a straight majority vote let's them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. In a straight popular vote election, states have no importance.
>>>
>>> Huh??? In a straight popular vote high population states like CA and NY would be electing your president
>>
>> No. *Voters* would be electing the president, idiot. States don't vote.
>

> If [snip kleine klauschen's non-responsive bullshit]

I know about the reasons for the electoral college, cunt, and you don't.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/22/2017 7:55 AM, Yak wrote:

> Okay, I see the point is going directly over your head.

No, you dumb clueless cunt, it isn't. You are simply too stupid for this.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/22/2017 10:04 AM, Yak wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:26:46 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 8/22/2017 4:34 AM, Yak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 1:33:53 AM UTC-4, ed...@post.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, Yak wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 12:16:02 AM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>> The EC lets them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The solution is obvious - get rid of the EC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas a straight majority vote let's them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>>>
>>>> You idiot. The electoral college is what allows a few states to swing the election. The popular vote is a straight single count across the country, not fifty different counts each with their own weight. There is no swinging of a vote in a popular count, the majority simply wins and the minority loses, mo distortion of math as with the EC, period. Fuck, you're too stupid for this discussion.
>>>
>>> Wy, you're in over your head.
>>
>> No, you are. She's a dumb cunt about most things, but she's right about
>> this.
>>
>> You right-wingnut knuckle-dragger cunts keep bitching about "big states"
>> swinging the election. States don't vote - period.
>

> Okay, I see

No, you stupid cunt, you don't see anything.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/22/2017 10:23 AM, Tom Smith wrote:
> In article <117ed481-698b-4083...@googlegroups.com>,
> y...@inbox.com says...

>>
>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:26:46 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:

>>> On 8/22/2017 4:34 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 1:33:53 AM UTC-4, ed...@post.com wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, Yak wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 12:16:02 AM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>>> The EC lets them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The solution is obvious - get rid of the EC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whereas a straight majority vote let's them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>>>>
>>>>> You idiot. The electoral college is what allows a few states to swing the election. The popular vote is a straight single count across the country, not fifty different counts each with their own weight. There is no swinging of a vote in a popular count, the majority simply wins and the minority loses, mo distortion of math as with the EC, period. Fuck, you're too stupid for this discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Wy, you're in over your head.
>>>
>>> No, you are. She's a dumb cunt about most things, but she's right about
>>> this.
>>>
>>> You right-wingnut knuckle-dragger cunts keep bitching about "big states"
>>> swinging the election. States don't vote - period.
>>

>> Okay, I see the point is going directly over your head...again.

> I see now.

No, you don't, you stupid mackerel-cunt.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/22/2017 11:21 AM, Yak wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 1:24:01 PM UTC-4, Tom Smith wrote:
>> In article <117ed481-698b-4083...@googlegroups.com>,
>> y...@inbox.com says...
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:26:46 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:

>>>> On 8/22/2017 4:34 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 1:33:53 AM UTC-4, ed...@post.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 12:16:02 AM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>>>> The EC lets them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The solution is obvious - get rid of the EC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whereas a straight majority vote let's them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You idiot. The electoral college is what allows a few states to swing the election. The popular vote is a straight single count across the country, not fifty different counts each with their own weight. There is no swinging of a vote in a popular count, the majority simply wins and the minority loses, mo distortion of math as with the EC, period. Fuck, you're too stupid for this discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wy, you're in over your head.
>>>>
>>>> No, you are. She's a dumb cunt about most things, but she's right about
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> You right-wingnut knuckle-dragger cunts keep bitching about "big states"
>>>> swinging the election. States don't vote - period.
>>>

>>> Okay, I see the point is going directly over your head...again.
>>>

>> I see now. Rather than have five or six states *always* determining the
>> election, we should have two or three cities - all with very unambiguous
>> Leftist agendas - do it. In the name of fairness, of course.
>
> The framers didn't want this form of direct democracy

You're too fucking stupid for this. A popular vote for president is
*not* "direct democracy", you goddamned cunt.

[Sub-Mariner]

>>>> Huh??? In a straight popular vote high population states like CA and
>>>> NY would be electing your president
>>>
>>> No.  *Voters* would be electing the president, idiot.  States don't
>>> vote.
>>
>> If [snip kleine klauschen's non-responsive bullshit]
>
> I know about the reasons for the electoral college, cunt, and you don't.

Do ya, tRudey?

Basically - FUCK YOU!

http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was
to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President.
The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra
power to the smaller states.
The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard
to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election
to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion
and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by
men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and
acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious
combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to
govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their
fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess
the information and discernment requisite to such complicated
investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little
opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least
to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so
important an agency in the administration of the government as the
President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so
happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an
effectual security against this mischief.
(See All of the Federalist 68)
Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able
to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed
that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the
citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped.
Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the
right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had
the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be
manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.
The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention
to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College
each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have
representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. The
result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast
about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes,
while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54
votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously this
creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes
actually count more then those people living in medium and large states.
One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the
constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the
state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or
by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This
can be a recipe for one individual to win some states by large
pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is
an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while
another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in
picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend
took place over the course of the 19th century.
While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are
some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a
constituitional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the
system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing. One way of
modifying the system s to eliminate the winner take all part of it. The
method that the states vote for the electoral college is not mandated by
the consitution but is decided by the states. Two states do not use the
winner take all system, Maine and Nebraska. It would be difficult but
not impossible to get other states to change their systems,
unfortunately the party that has the advantage in the state is unlikely
to agree to a unilateral change.

https://www.thoughtco.com/why-keep-the-electoral-college-3322050

What could the Founding Fathers—the framers of the Constitution—have
been thinking in 1787?

Did they not realize that the Electoral College system effectively took
the power to select the American president of out of the hands of the
American people? Yes, they did. In fact, the Founders always intended
that the states—not the people—select the president.

Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the power to elect the
president and vice president to the states through the Electoral College
system. Under the Constitution, the highest-ranking U.S. officials
elected by the direct popular vote of the people are the governors of
the states.

BEWARE THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY
To be brutally honest, the Founding Fathers gave the American public of
their day little credit for political awareness when it came to
selecting the president. Here are some of their telling statements from
the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

"A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of
the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed
through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any
appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787

"The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can
have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of
the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787

"The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men."
-- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787
The Founding Fathers had seen the dangers of placing ultimate power into
a single set of human hands. Accordingly, they feared that placing the
unlimited power to elect the president into the politically naive hands
of the people could lead to a "tyranny of the majority." In response,
they created the Electoral College system as a process to insulate the
selection of the president from the whims of the public.

PRESERVING FEDERALISM
The Founding Fathers also felt the Electoral College system would
enforce the concept of federalism—the division and sharing of powers
between the state and national governments.

Under the Constitution, the people are empowered to choose, through a
direct popular election, the men and women who represent them in their
state legislatures and in the United Sates Congress. The states, through
the Electoral College, are empowered to choose the president and vice
president.

ARE WE A DEMOCRACY OR NOT?
Critics of the Electoral College system argue that by taking the
selection of the president out of the hands of the public at large, that
Electoral College system flies in the face of democracy. America is,
after all, a democracy, is it not? Let's see.

Two of the most widely recognized forms of democracy are:

Pure or Direct Democracy -- All decisions are made directly by a
majority vote of all eligible citizens. By their vote alone, citizens
can enact laws and select or remove their leaders. The power of the
people to control their government is unlimited.
Representative Democracy -- The citizens rule through representatives
who they elect periodically in order to keep them accountable. The power
of the people to control their government is thus limited by the actions
of their elected representatives.
The United States is a representative democracy operated under a
"republican" form of government as provided for in Article IV, Section 4
of the Constitution which states, "The United States shall guarantee to
every State in the Union a Republican form of Government..." (This
should not be confused with the Republican political party which is
merely named after the form of government.)

In 1787, the Founding Fathers, based on their direct knowledge of
history showing that unlimited power tends to become a tyrannical power,
created the United States as a republic -- not a pure democracy.

A direct democracy only works when all or at least most of the people
participate in the process. The Founding Fathers knew that as the nation
grew and the time required for debating and voting on every issue
increased, the public’s desire to take part in the process would quickly
decrease.

As a result, the decisions and actions of taken would not truly reflect
the will of the majority, but small groups of people representing their
own interests.

The Founders were unanimous in their desire that no single entity, be it
the people or an agent of the government be given unlimited power.
Achieving a "separation of powers" ultimately became their highest priority.

As a part of their plan to separate powers and authority, the Founders
created the Electoral College as the method by which the people could
choose their highest government leader—the president—while avoiding at
least some of the dangers of a direct election.

But just because the Electoral College has worked just as the Founding
Fathers intended for over 200 years does not mean that it should never
be modified or even abandoned completely. What will it take for either
to happen?

WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO CHANGE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM?
Any change to the way in which America chooses its president will
require a constitutional amendment. For this to come about, the
following will have to happen:

First, the fear must become reality. That is, a presidential candidate
must lose the nationwide popular vote, but be elected through the
Electoral College vote. This has happened exactly three times in the
nation's history:

In 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, with 4,036,298 popular votes
won 185 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden,
won the popular vote with 4,300,590 votes but won only 184 electoral
votes. Hayes was elected president.
In 1888, Republican Benjamin Harrison, with 5,439,853 popular votes won
233 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland, won
the popular vote with 5,540,309 votes but won only 168 electoral votes.
Harrison was elected president.
In 2000, Republican George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Democrat Al
Gore by a margin of 50,996,582 to 50,456,062. But after the U.S. Supreme
Court halted vote recounts in Florida, George W. Bush was awarded the
state's 25 electoral votes and won the presidency through a 271 to 266
vote margin in the Electoral College.
It is sometimes reported that Richard M. Nixon received more popular
votes in the 1960 election than winner John F. Kennedy, but official
results showed Kennedy with 34,227,096 popular votes to Nixon's
34,107,646. Kennedy won 303 Electoral College votes to Nixon's 219 votes.

Next, a candidate that loses the popular vote but wins the electoral
vote must turn out to be a particularly unsuccessful and unpopular
president. Otherwise, the impetus to blame the nation's woes on the
Electoral College system will never materialize.

Finally, the constitutional amendment must get a two-thirds vote from
both houses of Congress and be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Even if all of the above were to happen, it remains highly unlikely that
the Electoral College system would be changed or repealed.

Under the above circumstances, it is probable that neither the
Republicans nor the Democrats would hold a strong majority of seats in
Congress. Requiring a two-thirds vote from both houses, a constitutional
amendment must have strong bi-partisan support -- support it will not
get from a split Congress. (The president cannot veto a constitutional
amendment.)

To be ratified and become effective, a constitutional amendment must
also be approved by the legislatures of 39 out of the 50 states. By
design, the Electoral College system grants the states the power to
elect the president of the United States. How likely is it that 39
states are going to vote to give up that power? Moreover, 12 states
control 53 percent of the votes in the Electoral College, leaving only
38 states that might even consider ratification.

Come on critics, can you really say that in 213 years of operation, the
Elector College system has produced bad results? Only twice have the
electors stumbled and been unable to choose a president, thus throwing
the decision into the House of Representatives. Who did the House decide
on in those two cases? Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams.

--
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been
rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and
building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process
is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped.
Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always
right."

George Orwell. "1984."

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:16:29 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>

wrote:

>On 8/22/2017 7:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:23:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/22/2017 4:34 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 1:14:46 AM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 8/21/2017 6:07 PM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 12:16:02 AM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>>> The EC lets them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The solution is obvious - get rid of the EC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whereas a straight majority vote let's them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. In a straight popular vote election, states have no importance.
>>>>
>>>> Huh??? In a straight popular vote high population states like CA and NY would be electing your president
>>>
>>> No. *Voters* would be electing the president, idiot. States don't vote.
>>
>> If [snip kleine klauschen's non-responsive bullshit]
>

>I kn[Snip Rudy's non-responsive bullshit]

Try doubling up on the smart pills, Rudy.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/22/2017 12:13 PM, First-Post wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:23:57 -0500, Tom Smith <tsmit...@aol.com>

> wrote:
>
>> In article <117ed481-698b-4083...@googlegroups.com>,
>> y...@inbox.com says...
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:26:46 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:

>>>> On 8/22/2017 4:34 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 1:33:53 AM UTC-4, ed...@post.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 12:16:02 AM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>>>> The EC lets them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The solution is obvious - get rid of the EC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whereas a straight majority vote let's them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You idiot. The electoral college is what allows a few states to swing the election. The popular vote is a straight single count across the country, not fifty different counts each with their own weight. There is no swinging of a vote in a popular count, the majority simply wins and the minority loses, mo distortion of math as with the EC, period. Fuck, you're too stupid for this discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wy, you're in over your head.
>>>>
>>>> No, you are. She's a dumb cunt about most things, but she's right about
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> You right-wingnut knuckle-dragger cunts keep bitching about "big states"
>>>> swinging the election. States don't vote - period.
>>>

>>> Okay, I see the point is going directly over your head...again.
>>>

>> I see now. Rather than have five or six states *always* determining the
>> election, we should have two or three cities - all with very unambiguous
>> Leftist agendas - do it. In the name of fairness, of course.
>

> The big flaw in Rudy's idiotic argument is the fact that the "5 or 6"
> states that "Always" determine the election(Those with the largest
> populations and the largest number of electoral votes) were split this
> last election with half of them casting their electoral votes for
> Clinton and half for Trump.

That's complete bullshit, you fuckwit. *ALL SIX* of them went for
Trump. FL, NC, PA, OH, MI and WI all went for Trump.

The point is that the claim that the electoral college "forces"
candidates to pay attention to the small states is a lie. It does no
such thing. Even among the swing states, the candidates focus on the
bigger ones - and in any visit to a state, they concentrate on the
population centers in those states, not the small towns or rural areas.

The electoral college does not do one thing its defenders claim. All it
does is enable an unpopular non-incumbent Republican to get
elected...and that is all you want from it.

[Rudy Canoza]

>> I know about the reasons for the electoral college, cunt, and you don't.
>

> Try

Try to have a point, you dumb cunt.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/22/2017 1:04 PM, Yak wrote:

> Yeah, it is.

No, fuckwit, it isn't. Direct democracy means where the voters pass
laws. The most famous American example is the New England town meeting.
States that have referenda and initiatives are another. Direct
democracy is when voters directly vote on laws and policy measures,
*NOT* the election of a representative.

See, I told you you are too stupid for this, and I'm right.

[Enlil]

On 8/22/2017 3:22 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> you dumb cunt.

Fuck you little man Ball - you ARE a fictional character!

Here's some data on YOU little man Ball:


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 shit 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_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <William....@usda.gov>
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.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/22/2017 5:01 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Baxter" <lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:onhkac$2dli$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
>> Klaus  Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in
>> news:ofgopchf0m3ftjvfr...@4ax.com:

>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:23:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/22/2017 4:34 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 1:14:46 AM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/21/2017 6:07 PM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 12:16:02 AM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>>>> The EC lets them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The solution is obvious - get rid of the EC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whereas a straight majority vote let's them focus on a few states
>>>>>>> to swing the election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong.  In a straight popular vote election, states have no
>>>>>> importance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh??? In a straight popular vote high population states like CA and
>>>>> NY would be electing your president
>>>>
>>>> No.  *Voters* would be electing the president, idiot.  States don't
>>>> vote.
>>>

>>> While it's pretty clear to most normal people that Yak meant the
>>> people of California and New York,

No, he didn't.

>>>
>>> Stand by now for the "EC = Slavery" argument

The electoral college exists only because of slavery at the time the
Constitution was written.

>>
>> The EC lets people in states with small populations have greater say in
>> who is elected President than states with large populations.  Everyone's
>> votes should count the same, but with the EC they do not.
>
> So we should just ignore the little states then?

The little states are ignored now, dummy. Little states that aren't
swing states, which is the majority of little states, are ignored.

States don't vote. People vote. Everyone's vote should count the same,
but they don't.

[Gary Chamberlain]

On 8/22/2017 6:17 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Baxter" <lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

> news:oniiei$3is$1...@adenine.netfront.net...

>> Klaus  Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in

>> news:dk0ppct48pc5fpsqg...@4ax.com:

>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:58:05 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>> <lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The EC lets people in states with small populations have greater say in
>>>> who is elected President than states with large populations.
>>>> Everyone's
>>>> votes should count the same, but with the EC they do not.
>>>

>>> No, everyone's vote should NOT count the same.
>>>
>>>> The issue is: should, or should not, everyone's vote count the same?
>>>
>>> Absolutely not.
>>>
>>> Next question!
>>>
>> Why not?  Why should my vote count more than yours?
>
> It doesn't.
>
> Your votes don't elect the President.

The popular vote should elect the president. We need an amendment to
adopt a system like the one France uses. In the election, if a
candidate wins more than 50% of the popular vote, that candidate is
elected. If no one wins more than 50%, then a runoff is held two weeks
later between the top two. Whoever wins the runoff is elected.

[Attaboy Luther!]

On 8/22/2017 10:51 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:51:31 -0700, "Michael Ejercito"
> <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Curt Portland" wrote in message news:onhkk1$86c$4...@gioia.aioe.org...

>>
>>> On 8/22/2017 9:58 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>>> The issue is: should, or should not, everyone's vote count the same?
>>
>>
>>

>>> The US Constitution has spoken to that, you whiny marxist earwig!
>>
>> It should be noted that only Samuel J. Tilden lost an election despite
>> receiving a majority of the popular votes cast.
>>
>> If there were no electoral college, elections in which no candidate
>> received a majority of the votes cast (which was four out of the past seven
>> elections), the House would decide the election. (This how it works if no
>> candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, so we expect it to work
>> the same way in a popular vote system where no candidate receives a majority
>> of the popular votes cast.)
>>
>> This would give third party candidates greater influence, as they would
>> be in a position to force the election to the House.
>>
>>
>> Michael
>
>
> Removal of the electoral college will create a voter fraud nightmare.

Bullshit.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:22:51 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>

explain it so simply that even YOU could understand it?

Impossible.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <0lpqpc5l7l4b39jg3...@4ax.com>,

Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:

> explain it so simply that even YOU could understand it?

The electoral college will continue as long as this government continues. The
only way to get around it is for cities to create a successor national
government with the focus on cities instead of states. Seeing how no such
political reorganisation has even started, I don't anticipate it.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/23/2017 3:40 AM, Yak wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:28:08 AM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
>> Yak wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The framers didn't want this form of direct democracy...i.e. two wolves and one sheep deciding whats for dinner.
>>>
>>
>> How many states were there when the EC was set up?
>
> Doesn't matter. It was more the fact that the framers feared a tyranny of the majority. Their very words bear that out.

Bullshit. *Some* of the drafters of the Constitution said shit like
that; not all, and not the most influential.

The electoral college was not adopted because of a fear of majority
rule. It was adopted to placate the slave states. That's the only
reason. If the 3/5 rule hadn't already been adopted, awarding the slave
states *undeserved* and excessive representation in the House, we would
not have the electoral college, at least not in the form it was adopted.

People keep bullshitting about the electoral college as if it were
sacrosanct. It is not. It was completely overhauled in the 12th
amendment less than 20 years after the ratification of the original
Constitution. Clearly the founders made big errors. They were not
infallible. The electoral college in its present form is a huge error.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/23/2017 3:41 AM, Yak wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:25:08 AM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
>> Yak wrote:

>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 1:14:46 AM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:

>>> Huh??? In a straight popular vote high population states like CA and NY would be electing your president just about every time.
>>>
>>
>> HOW?
>
> Do you realize that nearly half the US population lives in only nine states?

So what?

[Rudy Canoza]

...why you never have a point, you dumb cunt.

[Just Wondering]

On 8/23/2017 9:02 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> People keep bullshitting about the electoral college as if it were
> sacrosanct.  It is not.  It was completely overhauled in the 12th
> amendment less than 20 years after the ratification of the original
> Constitution.  Clearly the founders made big errors.  They were not
> infallible.  The electoral college in its present form is a huge error.
>

I think the founding fathers as a group were better and wiser
statesmen than YOUR sorry ass.

[Rudy Canoza]

You're just falling for the civics textbook bullshit again. They
generally did a good job, but there is an irrational and unwarranted
*reverence* for the founders, as if the lot of them were all
extraordinarily wise men. They weren't. A *few* of them were, and even
they would not have claimed to be infallible. Many of them were
corrupt, venal politicians of the day. The fact that many of them were
slave owners and sought to perpetuate slavery *permanently* is enough to
knock them off the flimsy pedestals.

The electoral college was without serious doubt one of those features
intended to perpetuate slavery. It is an abomination and should be
abolished. The *only* opposition to abolition of it comes from cynical
Republicans like you who realize it is the only way a non-incumbent
Republican can be elected, given the shitty state of your party.

[Sub-Mariner]

On 8/23/2017 6:06 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <0lpqpc5l7l4b39jg3...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>> explain it so simply that even YOU could understand it?
>
> The electoral college will continue as long as this government continues. The
> only way to get around it is for cities to create a successor national
> government with the focus on cities instead of states. Seeing how no such
> political reorganisation has even started, I don't anticipate it.
>

Off the meth for a day, Kells?

[Sub-Mariner]

On 8/23/2017 6:06 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:

> In article <0lpqpc5l7l4b39jg3...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>> explain it so simply that even YOU could understand it?
>
> The electoral college will continue as long as this government continues. The
> only way to get around it is for cities to create a successor national
> government with the focus on cities instead of states. Seeing how no such
> political reorganisation has even started, I don't anticipate it.
>

[Scout]

"Siri Cruise" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-5EE62...@news.eternal-september.org...

> In article <0lpqpc5l7l4b39jg3...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>> explain it so simply that even YOU could understand it?
>
> The electoral college will continue as long as this government continues.
> The
> only way to get around it is for cities to create a successor national
> government with the focus on cities instead of states. Seeing how no such
> political reorganisation has even started, I don't anticipate it.

Great so now we will be the United Cites of America...and people in LA will
then complain how the vote of the guy living in Lost Springs, Wyoming counts
for so much more than their vote does.

Meanwhile those who don't live in a city, won't have any vote at all..

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/23/2017 7:17 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Siri Cruise" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:chine.bleu-5EE62...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <0lpqpc5l7l4b39jg3...@4ax.com>,
>> Klaus  Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>>
>>> explain it so simply that even YOU could understand it?
>>
>> The electoral college will continue as long as this government
>> continues. The
>> only way to get around it is for cities to create a successor national
>> government with the focus on cities instead of states. Seeing how no such
>> political reorganisation has even started, I don't anticipate it.
>
> Great so now we will be the United Cites of America

Geographic entities don't vote. People vote. There is no valid
philosophical or moral reason for the president not to be determined by
popular vote. The electoral college is a vestige of slavery, and it
yields perverse results.

The founders got it wrong. They got it wrong due to slavery.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/22/2017 5:01 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Baxter" <lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

> news:onhkac$2dli$1...@adenine.netfront.net...

>> Klaus  Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in

>> news:ofgopchf0m3ftjvfr...@4ax.com:

>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:23:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/22/2017 4:34 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 1:14:46 AM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/21/2017 6:07 PM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 12:16:02 AM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>>>> The EC lets them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The solution is obvious - get rid of the EC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whereas a straight majority vote let's them focus on a few states
>>>>>>> to swing the election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong.  In a straight popular vote election, states have no
>>>>>> importance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh??? In a straight popular vote high population states like CA and
>>>>> NY would be electing your president
>>>>
>>>> No.  *Voters* would be electing the president, idiot.  States don't
>>>> vote.
>>>

>>> If you

>>>
>>
>> The EC lets people in states with small populations have greater say in
>> who is elected President than states with large populations.  Everyone's
>> votes should count the same, but with the EC they do not.
>

> So we should just ignore the little states then?

1. States don't vote, regardless of size.
2. In the current system, the small states are *completely* ignored,
unless they are swing states; and even then, they are mostly
ignored unless they abut other larger swing states.

The electoral college was *NOT* intended to force attention to be paid
to small states, and it doesn't have that effect.

> Tell me, do we live in the UNITED STATES of America, or the UNITED
> PEOPLE of America?
>
> Oh, and everyone's vote does count the same.....within their own state.

Everyone's vote should count the same across the country. They don't.
That's bad and wrong.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/22/2017 5:03 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0nropc5o5kuolk76e...@4ax.com...

> Yep,.

Nope. It's bullshit.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/22/2017 12:14 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:58:05 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
> <lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>

>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in
>> news:ofgopchf0m3ftjvfr...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:23:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/22/2017 4:34 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 1:14:46 AM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/21/2017 6:07 PM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 12:16:02 AM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>>>> The EC lets them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The solution is obvious - get rid of the EC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whereas a straight majority vote let's them focus on a few states
>>>>>>> to swing the election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong. In a straight popular vote election, states have no
>>>>>> importance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh??? In a straight popular vote high population states like CA and
>>>>> NY would be electing your president
>>>>
>>>> No. *Voters* would be electing the president, idiot. States don't
>>>> vote.
>>>

>>> If you think Rudy is acting like an idiot, be warned.
>>>
>>> It Ain't no act.

>>>
>>> While it's pretty clear to most normal people that Yak meant the

>>> people of California and New York, Rudy has to act like he doesn't
>>> understand because otherwise his argument falls apart.
>>>
>>> Stand by now for the "EC = Slavery" argument in five, four, three,
>>> two, one....

>>>
>>
>> The EC lets people in states with small populations have greater say in
>> who is elected President than states with large populations. Everyone's
>> votes should count the same, but with the EC they do not.
>

> No, everyone's vote should NOT count the same.

Yes, everyone's vote should count the same.

>> The issue is: should, or should not, everyone's vote count the same?
>

> Absolutely not.

Yes, absolutely they should. This is not in dispute. There is no
ethical, political or practical case for why everyone's vote should not
count the same. It is a fundamental principle of democratic republicanism.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/22/2017 12:40 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:34:11 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
> <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Every argument you have been fed to justify the electoral college is a
>>> lie. The founders may have distrusted the mass of people, but they did
>>> *not* distrust the voters,
>>

>> Then why weren't Senators originally elected by popular vote?
>
> Because the STATES were supposed to be represented in Congress by the
> Senate. Now, the states have NO representation in Congress.
>
> Popular vote for Senators was a terrible move and the result is the
> pile of steaming shit we have in Congress right now.
>
> Can't wait for Rudy to say how the original system favored slavery.

I never would say that. The system of two senators per state regardless
of size is the institution that gives the smaller states all the
attention they should get.

Repeal the 17th amendment. I'm all in favor of that and have written to
that effect here several times.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/22/2017 11:44 AM, Sub-Mariner wrote:
>
>>>>> Huh??? In a straight popular vote high population states like CA
>>>>> and NY would be electing your president
>>>>
>>>> No.  *Voters* would be electing the president, idiot.  States don't
>>>> vote.
>>>
>>> If [snip kleine klauschen's non-responsive bullshit]
>>
>> I know about the reasons for the electoral college, cunt, and you don't.
>
>
> Do ya, tRudey?
>
> Basically - FUCK YOU!
>
> http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html
>
> The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was
> to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President.

Bullshit. There was no requirement for that, and many delegates to the
Federal Convention didn't see any value in that.

> The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra
> power to the smaller states.

Bullshit. The Senate *already* gave the small states all the extra
power they needed.

The electoral college was only to placate the slave states.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/23/2017 7:36 PM, jane....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 9:57:28 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 8/23/2017 4:21 PM, jane....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 7:04:16 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/2017 3:36 PM, jane....@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> First, I am not a republican. Second I have stated neither support nor opposition; I have simply stated historical facts to correct your erroneous statements.
>>>>
>>>> No, you haven't.
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>> OK, if you want to play an 8 year old's game:
>>>
>>> "Have so".
>>
>> You didn't identify any errors. You only claim to have done.
>>
> .
>
> I already presented the "refinements"[1] to the electoral college process. "Refinements" are NOT a "complete overhaul".

They were.

The key point about the 12th amendment, less than 20 years after the
adoption of the Constitution, is that it demolishes the "genius" myth of
the saintly "Founding Fathers". They weren't geniuses, they weren't
saints, and they made lots of errors. The electoral college, original
and amended, was one such. It's a disaster, and it's a disaster that
*only* exists at all because of the capitulation to slave owners.

Why the fuck are you posting using Google Groups? That's for unserious
loser filth like Matt "kiddo" Telles. Get a proper Usenet client, goddamnit.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/23/2017 7:46 PM, jane....@gmail.com wrote:

> I already provided quotes to you in another thread from our Founding Fathers

"Founding Fathers" - ha ha ha ha! That's *exactly* the kind of bullshit
false reverence for *flawed* men that causes you such immense trouble.

> that proved you wrong.

No, you didn't. *Absolutely* you did not provide anything showing that
the founders - not "Founding Fathers" [sic] - did not support the core
republican principle of one-man-one-vote.

You need to stop lying, "jane". What the fuck is up with your shitty
bullshit Usenet pseudonym, anyway? Are you a homosexual? You're a
male. Use a male pseudonym, shitbag.

[Just Wondering]

On 8/23/2017 8:17 PM, Scout wrote:

> "Siri Cruise" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> The electoral college will continue as long as this
>> government continues. The only way to get around it
>> is for cities to create a successor national
>> government with the focus on cities instead of states.
>

> Great so now we will be the United Cites of America...
>

Siri demonstrates a profound ignorance of the fundamental nature of USA
government, which is that the basic unit of sovereign government power
is the states. Each state has ultimate control over its cities,
counties and political subdivisions. A city can't do squat without
authority delegated by its state. A state can even disincorporate a
city and strip it of all governmental authority, and the city would be
powerless to prevent it. State power flows the other direction, too.
Collectively the states have ultimate control over the federal
government and could by the amendment process change the federal
government however they wanted, and the federal government would (absent
a military coup) be powerless to prevent it. Meanwhile, no city or
group of cities has power to alter their state government, and the
federal government has no power to alter a state government either.
That's one reason why we have the electoral college - it's a vehicle by
which the states who created the federal government in the first place
kept the power to pick its CEO.

[Just Wondering]

It's so nice to have you around to instruct us on how best
to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote
the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity. If you were der Führer, we'd
all Sieg Heil right in your face.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 08:13:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

>>explain it so simply that even YOU could understand it?
>>
>>Impossible.

>...why you never have a point, you dumb cunt.

You're too stupid to understand any point made, Rudy. You've admitted
this.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 19:42:21 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

>On 8/22/2017 12:40 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:34:11 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>> <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Every argument you have been fed to justify the electoral college is a
>>>> lie. The founders may have distrusted the mass of people, but they did
>>>> *not* distrust the voters,
>>>
>>> Then why weren't Senators originally elected by popular vote?
>>
>> Because the STATES were supposed to be represented in Congress by the
>> Senate. Now, the states have NO representation in Congress.
>>
>> Popular vote for Senators was a terrible move and the result is the
>> pile of steaming shit we have in Congress right now.
>>
>> Can't wait for Rudy to say how the original system favored slavery.
>
>I never would say that.

|It's so stupid you just might.

> The system of two senators per state regardless
>of size is the institution that gives the smaller states all the
>attention they should get.

>Repeal the 17th amendment. I'm all in favor of that and have written to
>that effect here several times.

After I told you about it.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 19:39:57 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>

You're wrong, as you usually are, Rudy.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 12:32 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/23/2017 8:17 PM, Scout wrote:
>> "Siri Cruise" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The electoral college will continue as long as this government
>>> continues. The only way to get around it
>>> is for cities to create a successor national
>>> government with the focus on cities instead of states.
>>
>> Great so now we will be the United Cites of America...
>>
> Siri demonstrates a profound ignorance of the fundamental nature of USA
> government,

No.

[Rudy Canoza]

Someone has to provide that instruction to you, because clearly you have
no clue.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Baxter

<lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

>Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in

>news:0thtpcd41kpon55kt...@4ax.com:

>So do explain just why some people's votes should count more than others.
>On what moral authority is it right?

Read the Constitution.

[Enlil]

On 8/24/2017 8:03 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Siri demonstrates a profound ignorance of the fundamental nature of
>> USA government,
>
> No.

There is no valid reason for you to continue to suck air, little man Ball.

DIE NOW!

Here's some data on YOU little man Ball:


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 shit 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_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <William....@usda.gov>
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.

[Curt Portland]

On 8/24/2017 8:14 AM, Baxter wrote:
> So do explain just why some people's votes should count more than others.

Read the US CONSTITUTION, you nutless marxist earwig!




But first your heart is spasming again, innit?

Better take your nitroglycerin pills, bypass boy, your arteries are
clogging up again...


| \ \ | |/ /
| |\ `' ' /
| ;'aorta \ / , pulmonary
| ; _, | / / , arteries
superior | | ( `-.;_,-' '-' ,
vena cava | `, `-._ _,-'_
|,-`. `.) ,<_,-'_, pulmonary
,' `. / ,' `;-' _, veins
; `./ /`, \-'
| right / | ;\ |\
| atrium ;_,._|_, `, ' \
| \ \ ` `,
` __ ` \ left ;,
\ ,' ` \, ventricle
\_( ;, ;;
| \ `;, ;;
inferior | |`. `;;, ;'
vena cava | | `-. ;;;;,;' FL
| | |`-.._ ,;;;;;'
| | | | ``';;;'
aorta





BAXTURD's PETER METER

|=====|
| |
| 9 |
| | ,-%/%|
| 6 | _,-' \//%\
| | _,-' \%/|%
| 3 | / / ) __,-- /%\
| | \__/_,-'%(% ; %)%
| 0 | %\%, %\
|=====| '--%'
__________________________________________________________________________
"At my age, I don't need balls. I'm done with the procreation stuff."
"I've been around pimps before (as a "slumlord")..."

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/23/2017 7:17 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>

What a stupid fucking lie. Of course they'll have a vote.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 3:44 AM, jane....@gmail.com wrote:

> .
>
> Expound.

Done.

>
>> The key point about the 12th amendment, less than 20 years after the
>> adoption of the Constitution, is that it demolishes the "genius" myth of
>> the saintly "Founding Fathers". They weren't geniuses, they weren't
>> saints,

> .
>
> I never said they were saints.

You and everyone else who subscribes to it talk about the founders as if
they were not only the wisest Americans ever, but also infallible, and
so if they created the electoral college, we should be stuck with it
even though it was adopted for truly awful reasons. There is only one
reason it was adopted, as the comments of a good number of the venal
founders make clear, and that was as a bulwark to protect slavery.

>> and they made lots of errors. The electoral college, original
>> and amended, was one such. It's a disaster, and it's a disaster that
>> *only* exists at all because of the capitulation to slave owners.
>>

> .
>
> I already proved you wrong on that

You did not. I proved *you* wrong.

>
>> Why the fuck are you posting using Google Groups? That's for unserious
>> loser filth like Matt "kiddo" Telles. Get a proper Usenet client, goddamnit.

> .
>
> I am at another office and

Then don't post from there.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 3:44 AM, jane....@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 11:47:20 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 8/23/2017 7:43 PM, jane....@gmail.com wrote:

>>> .
>>>
>>> As I said in an older thread, our Founding Fathers despised a democracy
>>
>> They did not.
> .
>
> I provided a series of quotes,

Cherry-picked bullshit that doesn't support your point.

>
>> That's part of the civics textbook bullshit myth. The
>> founders had *NO PROBLEM* with a popular vote for governors of states,
>> and several of the Federal Convention delegates had been elected
>> governors of their states. They had *NO PROBLEM* with a popular vote
>> for members of the House of Representatives, and for state legislators.
>>
>> I have lectured you on this before. Voters at the time of the adoption
>> of the Constitution were almost *exclusively* educated white men of
>> property - that is, men very much like the founders themselves. The
>> founders did *not* distrust the educated white men of property who had
>> elected them to state office, or who had elected the state
>> representatives who selected the delegates to the Federal Convention.
>> You need to stop repeating this lie/myth about "despising" democracy,
>> "jane". It is bullshit. They may have been deeply suspicious about a
>> *direct* democracy with universal suffrage, but they had no problem at
>> all with a more or less democratic system of educated white men of
>> property electing officeholders. Stop repeating this bullshit myth, "jane".
>

[Enlil]

On 8/24/2017 8:36 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> What a stupid fucking lie.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 5:25 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On 8/23/2017 8:13 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 8/23/2017 4:27 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:22:51 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/22/2017 12:16 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:16:29 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/22/2017 7:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:23:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/22/2017 4:34 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 1:14:46 AM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/2017 6:07 PM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 12:16:02 AM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The EC lets them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The solution is obvious - get rid of the EC.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas a straight majority vote let's them focus on a few
>>>>>>>>>>> states to swing the election.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. In a straight popular vote election, states have no
>>>>>>>>>> importance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Huh??? In a straight popular vote high population states like CA
>>>>>>>>> and NY would be electing your president
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. *Voters* would be electing the president, idiot. States
>>>>>>>> don't vote.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> If [snip kleine klauschen's non-responsive bullshit]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know about the reasons for the electoral college, cunt, and you
>>>>>> don't.
>>>>>

>>>>> Try
>>>>
>>>> Try to
>>>
>>> explain

>>
>> ...why you never have a point, you dumb cunt.
>
> You're

....kicking your flabby doughy pimply ass. Yes.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 5:26 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> On 8/23/2017 7:42 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 8/22/2017 12:40 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:34:11 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>>> <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Every argument you have been fed to justify the electoral college is a
>>>>> lie. The founders may have distrusted the mass of people, but they did
>>>>> *not* distrust the voters,
>>>>
>>>> Then why weren't Senators originally elected by popular vote?
>>>
>>> Because the STATES were supposed to be represented in Congress by the
>>> Senate. Now, the states have NO representation in Congress.
>>>
>>> Popular vote for Senators was a terrible move and the result is the
>>> pile of steaming shit we have in Congress right now.
>>>
>>> Can't wait for Rudy to say how the original system favored slavery.
>>

>> I never would say that. The system of two senators per state regardless

>> of size is the institution that gives the smaller states all the
>> attention they should get.

I'm smarter than you, kleine klauschen. You agree.

>
>> The system of two senators per state regardless
>> of size is the institution that gives the smaller states all the
>> attention they should get.
>
>> Repeal the 17th amendment. I'm all in favor of that and have written to
>> that effect here several times.
>
> After I told you about it.

No, kid. I wrote about it *first* here. I told *you* about it. I'm
smarter than you and older than you, kleine klauschen, and I knew far
more even before you were born than you know now.

[Rudy Canoza]

I'm right, kleine klauschen. I'm right, and you know I'm right. You
can't give any reason - none at all - for why everyone's vote should not
have exactly the same weight. You say it "just because". You're
stupid, kleine klauschen. You agree.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 08:01:24 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>

wrote:

>>>>explain it so simply that even YOU could understand it?
>>>>
>>>>Impossible.
>>

>>>...why you never have a point, you dumb cunt.
>>

>>You're too stupid to understand any point made, Rudy. You've admitted
>>this.

>....kicking my flabby doughy pimply ass. Yes.

True, but it's not really worth bragging about. EVERYONE does it.

[chuckle]

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 08:03:43 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>

wrote:

>>>On 8/22/2017 12:40 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:34:11 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>>>> <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Every argument you have been fed to justify the electoral college is a
>>>>>> lie. The founders may have distrusted the mass of people, but they did
>>>>>> *not* distrust the voters,
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why weren't Senators originally elected by popular vote?
>>>>
>>>> Because the STATES were supposed to be represented in Congress by the
>>>> Senate. Now, the states have NO representation in Congress.
>>>>
>>>> Popular vote for Senators was a terrible move and the result is the
>>>> pile of steaming shit we have in Congress right now.
>>>>
>>>> Can't wait for Rudy to say how the original system favored slavery.
>>>
>>>I never would say that.

>>|It's so stupid you just might.
>>

>>> The system of two senators per state regardless
>>>of size is the institution that gives the smaller states all the
>>>attention they should get.
>>
>>>Repeal the 17th amendment. I'm all in favor of that and have written to
>>>that effect here several times.
>>
>>After I told you about it.

>No, kid.

Yes, kid.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 08:06:12 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>

No. You're wrong.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 7:14 AM, Baxter wrote:
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in

> news:0thtpcd41kpon55kt...@4ax.com:

> So do explain just why some people's votes should count more than others.

> On what moral authority is it right?

You can forget about getting a coherent answer to that. He doesn't have
anything other than "just because".

[Rudy Canoza]

No, that's not what he asked you, shitbag. He asked why some people's
votes *should* count more than others, not why they do at present.
You're committing the "is-ought" fallacy, kleine klauschen. That's
because you're irremediably stupid, kleine klauschen.

I knew you wouldn't be able to answer, kleine klauschen.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 8:06 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> On 8/24/2017 8:01 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 8/24/2017 5:25 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On 8/23/2017 8:13 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/2017 4:27 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:22:51 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/22/2017 12:16 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:16:29 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/22/2017 7:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:23:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>> <c...@philhendrie.con>

>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/22/2017 4:34 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 1:14:46 AM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/2017 6:07 PM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 12:16:02 AM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The EC lets them focus on a few states to swing the election.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The solution is obvious - get rid of the EC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas a straight majority vote let's them focus on a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>> states to swing the election.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. In a straight popular vote election, states have no
>>>>>>>>>>>> importance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Huh??? In a straight popular vote high population states like
>>>>>>>>>>> CA and NY would be electing your president
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No. *Voters* would be electing the president, idiot. States
>>>>>>>>>> don't vote.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If [snip kleine klauschen's non-responsive bullshit]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know about the reasons for the electoral college, cunt, and you
>>>>>>>> don't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to
>>>>>
>>>>> explain
>>>>

>>>> ...why you never have a point, you dumb cunt.
>>>
>>> You're
>>

>> ....kicking your flabby doughy pimply ass. Yes.
>
> True,

Yes. Very good, kleine klauschen.

<chuckle>

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 8:07 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On 8/24/2017 8:03 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

>> On 8/24/2017 5:26 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>> On 8/23/2017 7:42 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 8/22/2017 12:40 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:34:11 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>>>>> <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every argument you have been fed to justify the electoral college
>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>> lie. The founders may have distrusted the mass of people, but
>>>>>>> they did
>>>>>>> *not* distrust the voters,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why weren't Senators originally elected by popular vote?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the STATES were supposed to be represented in Congress by the
>>>>> Senate. Now, the states have NO representation in Congress.
>>>>>
>>>>> Popular vote for Senators was a terrible move and the result is the
>>>>> pile of steaming shit we have in Congress right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't wait for Rudy to say how the original system favored slavery.
>>>>

>>>> I never would say that. The system of two senators per state

>>>> regardless of size is the institution that gives the smaller states
>>>> all the attention they should get.
>>
>>

>> I'm smarter than you, kleine klauschen. You agree.

kleine klauschen's agreement is silent, but it's unmistakable.

>>
>>>
>>>> The system of two senators per state regardless
>>>> of size is the institution that gives the smaller states all the
>>>> attention they should get.
>>>
>>>> Repeal the 17th amendment. I'm all in favor of that and have written to
>>>> that effect here several times.
>>>
>>> After I told you about it.
>>

>> No, kid. I wrote about it *first* here. I told *you* about it. I'm
>> smarter than you and older than you, kleine klauschen, and I knew far
>> more even before you were born than you know now.
>

> Yes,

Yes.

<chuckle>

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 8:08 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>> I'm right, kleine klauschen. I'm right, and you know I'm right. You
>> can't give any reason - none at all - for why everyone's vote should not
>> have exactly the same weight. You say it "just because". You're
>> stupid, kleine klauschen. You agree.
>

> No.

Yes. Yes, kleine klauschen, I am right, you are stupid and wrong, and
you agree with all of that. Very good, kleine klauschen.

<chuckle>

[Enlil]

On 8/24/2017 9:01 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> flabby doughy

[Enlil]

On 8/24/2017 9:03 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> I wrote about it *first* here.

[Enlil]

On 8/24/2017 9:03 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

> I wrote about it *first* here.

[Enlil]

On 8/24/2017 9:06 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> I'm right, and you know I'm right.

[Enlil]

On 8/24/2017 9:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> No, that's not what he asked

[Enlil]

On 8/24/2017 9:34 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Yes.  Very good,

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 08:30:08 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>

wrote:

>On 8/24/2017 7:27 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in
>>> news:0thtpcd41kpon55kt...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 19:39:57 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, everyone's vote should count the same.
>>>>
>>>> You're wrong, as you usually are, Rudy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So do explain just why some people's votes should count more than others.
>>> On what moral authority is it right?
>>
>> Read the Constitution.
>
>No, that's not what he asked you, shitbag. He asked why some people's
>votes *should* count more than others, not why they do at present.

And the answer is right there, America-hater.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 08:37:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

>>>

>>>I'm right, kleine klauschen.
>>

>>No. You're wrong.

>Yes. Yes, kleine klauschen, I am right

No, Rudy. You're wrong, and stupid besides.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 08:34:18 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

>>>>You're too stupid to understand any point made, Rudy. You've admitted
>>>>this.
>>
>>>....kicking my flabby doughy pimply ass. Yes.
>>
>>True, but it's not really worth bragging about. EVERYONE does it.
>>
>>[chuckle]

>Yes. Very good, kleine klauschen.

[chuckle]

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 08:35:59 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

>>>>>Repeal the 17th amendment. I'm all in favor of that and have written to
>>>>>that effect here several times.
>>>>
>>>>After I told you about it.
>>
>>>No, kid.
>>

>>Yes, kid.

> No, kid.

Yep.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 11:57 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> On 8/24/2017 8:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 8/24/2017 7:27 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>> <lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in
>>>> news:0thtpcd41kpon55kt...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 19:39:57 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, everyone's vote should count the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're wrong, as you usually are, Rudy.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So do explain just why some people's votes should count more than
>>>> others.
>>>> On what moral authority is it right?
>>>
>>> Read the Constitution.
>>
>> No, that's not what he asked you, shitbag. He asked why some people's
>> votes *should* count more than others, not why they do at present.

>> You're committing the "is-ought" fallacy, kleine klauschen. That's
>> because you're irremediably stupid, kleine klauschen.
>>
>> I knew you wouldn't be able to answer, kleine klauschen.
>

> And the answer is right there,

It isn't, kleine klauschen. The Constitution describes what is, not
what ought to be, stupid kleine klauschen.

You sure are stupid, kleine klauschen.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 11:58 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> On 8/24/2017 8:37 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 8/24/2017 8:08 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On 8/24/2017 8:06 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 8/24/2017 5:33 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 19:39:57 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/22/2017 12:14 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:58:05 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>>>>> <lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:ofgopchf0m3ftjvfr...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:23:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>> <c...@philhendrie.con>

> No, Rudy.

Yes, kleine klauschen: I am right, and you agree.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 11:59 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> On 8/24/2017 8:34 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 8/24/2017 8:06 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On 8/24/2017 8:01 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 8/24/2017 5:25 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On 8/23/2017 8:13 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/23/2017 4:27 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:22:51 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/22/2017 12:16 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:16:29 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>> <c...@philhendrie.con>

>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/22/2017 7:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:23:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>>> <c...@philhendrie.con>

>>>> ....kicking your flabby doughy pimply ass. Yes.
>>>
>>> True,
>>

>> Yes. Very good, kleine klauschen.
>>
>> <chuckle>
>

> [chuckle]

<chuckle>

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 12:00 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>>> Repeal the 17th amendment. I'm all in favor of that and have
>>>>>> written to
>>>>>> that effect here several times.
>>>>>
>>>>> After I told you about it.
>>>>

>>>> No, kid. I wrote about it *first* here. I told *you* about it. I'm
>>>> smarter than you and older than you, kleine klauschen, and I knew far
>>>> more even before you were born than you know now.
>>>
>>> Yes,
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> <chuckle>
>

> Yep.

Yes.

<chuckle>

[Enlil]

On 8/24/2017 1:03 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> You sure are stupid,

[Enlil]

[Enlil]

On 8/24/2017 1:04 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> I am right,

[Enlil]

On 8/24/2017 1:05 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> [chuckle]
>
> <chuckle>

[Enlil]

On 8/24/2017 1:05 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

>> Yep.
>
> Yes.

There is no valid reason for you to continue to suck in any air, little
man Ball.

DIE NOW!

Here's some pertinent data on YOU little man Ball:

[Scout]

"Baxter" <lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:onmmvq$2boo$1...@adenine.netfront.net...

> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in

> news:0thtpcd41kpon55kt...@4ax.com:

>
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 19:39:57 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Yes, everyone's vote should count the same.
>>

>> You're wrong, as you usually are, Rudy.
>>
>
> So do explain just why some people's votes should count more than others.

They don't. Unless you think how you vote in your state should impact the
election in another state.

Do you?

> On what moral authority is it right?

That we weren't intended to be a democracy.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 12:03:37 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

>The Constitution describes what is, not
>what ought to be

Exactly. That's what is, and what ought to be.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 12:04:27 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:


>Yes

No, you're wrong, of course.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 12:05:01 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:


><chuckle>

It's funny when you're wrong, and it's funny all the time around here.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 12:05:38 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:


><chuckle>

It's always funny when you're wrong, and it's always funny when you
post.

Put two and two together.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 5:11 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> On 8/24/2017 12:03 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 8/24/2017 11:57 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On 8/24/2017 8:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 8/24/2017 7:27 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>>> <lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in
>>>>>> news:0thtpcd41kpon55kt...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 19:39:57 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, everyone's vote should count the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're wrong, as you usually are, Rudy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So do explain just why some people's votes should count more than
>>>>>> others.
>>>>>> On what moral authority is it right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Read the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> No, that's not what he asked you, shitbag. He asked why some
>>>> people's votes *should* count more than others, not why they do at
>>>> present. You're committing the "is-ought" fallacy, kleine klauschen.
>>>> That's because you're irremediably stupid, kleine klauschen.
>>>>
>>>> I knew you wouldn't be able to answer, kleine klauschen.
>>>
>>> And the answer is right there,
>>
>> It isn't, kleine klauschen. The Constitution describes what is, not
>> what ought to be, stupid kleine klauschen.
>>
>> You sure are stupid, kleine klauschen.
>

> Exactly.

Yes.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 5:11 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> On 8/24/2017 12:04 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 8/24/2017 11:58 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On 8/24/2017 8:37 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 8/24/2017 8:08 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On 8/24/2017 8:06 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/24/2017 5:33 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 19:39:57 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/22/2017 12:14 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:58:05 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>>>>>>> <lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:ofgopchf0m3ftjvfr...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:23:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>>> <c...@philhendrie.con>

> No,

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 5:12 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> On 8/24/2017 12:05 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 8/24/2017 11:59 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On 8/24/2017 8:34 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 8/24/2017 8:06 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On 8/24/2017 8:01 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/24/2017 5:25 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/23/2017 8:13 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/23/2017 4:27 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:22:51 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>> <c...@philhendrie.con>

>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/22/2017 12:16 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:16:29 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>>> <c...@philhendrie.con>

>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/22/2017 7:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:23:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <c...@philhendrie.con>

> It's funny

Damned right it is, kleine klauschen!

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:16:41 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

>>On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 12:03:37 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>wrote:
>>

>>>The Constitution describes what is, not

>>>what ought to be
>>
>>Exactly. That's what is, and what ought to be.

>Yes.

Right.

[chuckle]

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 5:13 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>> <chuckle>
>
> It's always funny when

I kick your ass and show you to be wrong. Yes.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:17:31 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

>>On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 12:04:27 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>wrote:
>>
>>

>>>Yes
>>
>>No, you're wrong, of course.

>Yes, kleine klauschen: you are right, and you agree.

Yes I do agree I'm right.

LOL

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:18:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

>>On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 12:05:01 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>wrote:
>>
>>

>>><chuckle>
>>
>>It's funny when you're wrong, and it's funny all the time around here.

>Damned right it is, kleine klauschen!

LOL

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:18:57 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>

wrote:

>>On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 12:05:38 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>wrote:
>>
>>

>>><chuckle>
>>

>>It's always funny when you're wrong, and it's always funny when you
>>post.
>>
>>Put two and two together.

>You kick my ass and show me to be wrong. Yes.

I should have known "2+2" was beyond your capabilities.

[chuckle]

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 10:49:48 -0600, Enlil <w...@nd.ee> wrote:

>On 8/24/2017 9:03 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> I wrote about it *first* here.
>
>
>

>There is no valid reason for you to continue to suck air, little man Ball.
>
>DIE NOW!


Well, I *did* teach him about the 17th Amendment, so under the right
conditions he is capable of learning.

But it's not really worth the effort.

[chuckle]

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 5:11 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> On 8/24/2017 12:03 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 8/24/2017 11:57 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On 8/24/2017 8:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 8/24/2017 7:27 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>>> <lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in
>>>>>> news:0thtpcd41kpon55kt...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 19:39:57 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, everyone's vote should count the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're wrong, as you usually are, Rudy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So do explain just why some people's votes should count more than
>>>>>> others.
>>>>>> On what moral authority is it right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Read the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> No, that's not what he asked you, shitbag. He asked why some
>>>> people's votes *should* count more than others, not why they do at
>>>> present. You're committing the "is-ought" fallacy, kleine klauschen.
>>>> That's because you're irremediably stupid, kleine klauschen.
>>>>
>>>> I knew you wouldn't be able to answer, kleine klauschen.
>>>
>>> And the answer is right there,
>>
>> It isn't, kleine klauschen. The Constitution describes what is, not
>> what ought to be, stupid kleine klauschen.
>>
>> You sure are stupid, kleine klauschen.
>

> Exactly. That's what is, and what ought to be.

You exactly whiffed off, kleine klauschen. You were asked on what moral
authority is it right that some people's votes count more than others.
Answering "because some people's votes are worth more than others"
doesn't answer the question, stupid cunt. To say that what is is what
ought to be is a fallacy, kleine klauschen, you stupid cunt.

What *is* is the direct election of U.S. senators. You have now said
that is what ought to be. Good job, kleine klauschen, you stupid fuck.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 5:18 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> On 8/24/2017 5:16 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 8/24/2017 5:11 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On 8/24/2017 12:03 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 8/24/2017 11:57 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On 8/24/2017 8:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/24/2017 7:27 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>>>>> <lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:0thtpcd41kpon55kt...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 19:39:57 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>> <c...@philhendrie.con>

>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, everyone's vote should count the same.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're wrong, as you usually are, Rudy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So do explain just why some people's votes should count more than
>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>> On what moral authority is it right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Read the Constitution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that's not what he asked you, shitbag. He asked why some
>>>>>> people's votes *should* count more than others, not why they do at
>>>>>> present. You're committing the "is-ought" fallacy, kleine
>>>>>> klauschen. That's because you're irremediably stupid, kleine
>>>>>> klauschen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I knew you wouldn't be able to answer, kleine klauschen.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the answer is right there,
>>>>
>>>> It isn't, kleine klauschen. The Constitution describes what is, not
>>>> what ought to be, stupid kleine klauschen.
>>>>
>>>> You sure are stupid, kleine klauschen.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>
>> Yes.
>

> Right.

Yes, right.

<chuckle>

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 5:19 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> On 8/24/2017 5:17 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 8/24/2017 5:11 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On 8/24/2017 12:04 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 8/24/2017 11:58 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On 8/24/2017 8:37 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/24/2017 8:08 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/24/2017 8:06 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/24/2017 5:33 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 19:39:57 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>> <c...@philhendrie.con>

>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/22/2017 12:14 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:58:05 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>>>>>>>>> <lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ofgopchf0m3ftjvfr...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:23:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <c...@philhendrie.con>

>> Yes, kleine klauschen: I am right, and you agree.
>
> Yes I do agree

LOL!

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 5:19 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> On 8/24/2017 5:18 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 8/24/2017 5:12 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On 8/24/2017 12:05 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 8/24/2017 11:59 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On 8/24/2017 8:34 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/24/2017 8:06 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/24/2017 8:01 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/24/2017 5:25 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/2017 8:13 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/2017 4:27 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:22:51 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>>> <c...@philhendrie.con>

>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/22/2017 12:16 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:16:29 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <c...@philhendrie.con>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/22/2017 7:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:23:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <c...@philhendrie.con>

>> Damned right it is, kleine klauschen!
>
> LOL

LOL!

[Rudy Canoza]

On 8/24/2017 5:20 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>> <chuckle>
>>>
>>> It's always funny when
>>

>> I kick your ass and show you to be wrong. Yes.
>
> I should have known

that I would kick your ass again. Yes, kleine klauschen, you should
have known it.

<chuckle>