A direct popular election of the president

[Rudy Canoza]

..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.

The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.

[Polycarp]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 10:46:11 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:

>..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>
>The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.

Rudy loves to point out how ignorant he is about the Constitution and
the Electoral College. He is up to about once a week now, with his
impotent, feminine screeching about it.

It's fun to watch him lose his shit over something he can't do
anything about.

"Laugh laugh laugh laugh."
-Lee Harrison 1957-2012, RIP

[Skeeter]

In article <DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad>, r...@cap.con says...

>
> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>
> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.

So ther bigot speaks out again.

[Just Wondering]

On 9/27/2022 11:46 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
>
> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>

Your incessant whining about the EC gets you nowhere. If you
want things different, quichyerbitchin and get your precious
constitutional amendment rolling. Come back when you've
gotten what you want. We won't hold our breath.

[Scout]

> In article <DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad>, r...@cap.con says...
>>
>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>
>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.

Good.. because we were not, are not, and weren't intended to be a Democracy.

Rather we are guaranteed a REPUBLIC

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature
cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
Art IV, Section 4, The Constitution of the United States of America.

However, if Rudy wants to push the issue we could claim (by his own
standards) that it's Unconstitutional to elect Democrats to federal office
since the Constitution guarantees that the federal government be a
republican government.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/27/2022 11:54 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy
rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 9/27/2022 11:46 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>
>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>
> Your incessant whining about the EC

You agree that I am right about it, Francis. That's good, because I am.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/27/2022 12:08 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
>> In article <DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad>, r...@cap.con says...
>>>
>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>
>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>
> Good.. because we were not, are not, and weren't intended to be a Democracy.

WE are, of course, a democracy, scooter.

>
> Rather we are guaranteed a REPUBLIC

The Constitution says *nothing* about the United States of America being a
republic, scooter.

>
> "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
> Form of Government

Yes, scooter. The Constitution says the federal government shall guarantee to
every *state* a republican form of government, but it says nothing about the
government of the *United States*. It is a republic, but that's not mentioned
in the Constitution, scooter.

We are also a democracy, scooter, as *all* of the founders understood the word.

Tyranny of the minority is worse than tyranny of the majority, scooter. You
know this. But a direct popular election of the president would not be tyranny
of the majority, scooter. You know that as well.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:34:02 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:

>On 9/27/2022 12:08 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In article <DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad>, r...@cap.con says...
>>>>
>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>>
>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>
>> Good.. because we were not, are not, and weren't intended to be a Democracy.
>
>WE are, of course, a democracy, scooter.

He already told you that we're not, dwarf.

[Skeeter]

In article <KeIYK.41154$S2x7....@fx43.iad>, r...@cap.con says...

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United states of America and to
the "REPUBLIC" for which it stands.

[Richard Clayton Wieber]

On 9/27/2022 12:47 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> In article <ubIYK.342186$wLZ8....@fx18.iad>, r...@cap.con says...

> Most that you claim you're right about is right.

I know. That's why I claim it.

You are still clueless.

[Skeeter]

In article <YJIYK.187850$IRd5....@fx10.iad>,
druggy.Wi...@meth.whore says...

You have no idea how I'm leading you around.

[D. Trumpp]

On 27 Sep 2022, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> posted some
news:DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad:

> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>
> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.

Nope, the electoral college doesn't have that capability.

Try again.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/27/2022 5:18 PM, D. Trumpp wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2022, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> posted some
> news:DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad:
>
>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>
>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>
> Nope,

Yes, it has.

[John Baker]

What would you call it, then, when a candidate can lose by three
million votes, but still "win" the election?

>
>Try again.

No need, Sparky. I got it right the first time.






AA #1898
Giver of No Fucks
Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 21:33:27 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:18:27 -0000 (UTC), "D. Trumpp"
><dtr...@usa.right.wing> wrote:
>
>>On 27 Sep 2022, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> posted some
>>news:DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad:
>>
>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>
>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>
>>Nope, the electoral college doesn't have that capability.
>
>What would you call it, then, when a candidate can lose by three
>million votes, but still "win" the election?

I call it a win for state's rights and the people of smaller populated
states.

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:36k6jh1uq9bjeerq2...@4ax.com...

Just goes to show Rudy doesn't know the Constitution

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican

Form of Government, "
Art IV, Sect 4: The Constitution of the United States of America.

Of course, Rudy should count his blessings.. because if we interpreted
things in the manner he would.. then it would be illegal for anyone but a
Republican to hold federal office.

[Scout]

"Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote in message
news:fFHYK.71475$OR4c....@fx46.iad...

> On 9/27/2022 11:46 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>
>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.

And that's the way we like it. We are a Republic.. not a Democracy.

> Your incessant whining about the EC gets you nowhere. If you
> want things different, quichyerbitchin and get your precious
> constitutional amendment rolling. Come back when you've
> gotten what you want. We won't hold our breath.

Rudy wouldn't even know how to get started with that.

[Scout]

"Skeeter" <nom...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.3d9d01b9...@usnews.blocknews.net...

> In article <KeIYK.41154$S2x7....@fx43.iad>, r...@cap.con says...
>>
>> On 9/27/2022 12:08 PM, Scout wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> In article <DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad>, r...@cap.con says...
>> >>>
>> >>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is
>> >>> stupid.
>> >>>
>> >>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the
>> >>> minority.
>> >
>> > Good.. because we were not, are not, and weren't intended to be a
>> > Democracy.
>>
>> WE are, of course, a democracy, scooter.
>>
>> >
>> > Rather we are guaranteed a REPUBLIC
>>
>> The Constitution says *nothing* about the United States of America being
>> a
>> republic, scooter.

Look directly below. I even quoted it for you.

Art IV, Section 4

>> >
>> > "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
>> > Republican
>> > Form of Government

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

See Rudy.. there it is for you...

Ari IV, Section 4

What's amazing is even when he's informed he denies anything other than his
view.. then wonders why we don't buy into his assertions that he knows what
he's talking about and his claims are 'facts'.

>>
>> Yes, scooter. The Constitution says the federal government shall
>> guarantee to
>> every *state* a republican form of government, but it says nothing about
>> the
>> government of the *United States*. It is a republic, but that's not
>> mentioned
>> in the Constitution, scooter.
>>
>> We are also a democracy, scooter, as *all* of the founders understood the
>> word.

No, we aren't or we wouldn't have the Electoral College.. another aspect of
the Constitution you want to deny exists.

>> Tyranny of the minority is worse than tyranny of the majority, scooter.
>> You
>> know this. But a direct popular election of the president would not be
>> tyranny
>> of the majority, scooter. You know that as well.
>
> "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United states of America and to
> the "REPUBLIC" for which it stands.

LOL... You expect Rudy to remember anything from school?

Heck. all he probably remembers is his time in the showers with the other
boys..

[Scout]

"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:bu87jhhvm2081vl7c...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:18:27 -0000 (UTC), "D. Trumpp"
> <dtr...@usa.right.wing> wrote:
>
>>On 27 Sep 2022, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> posted some
>>news:DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad:
>>
>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>
>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>
>>Nope, the electoral college doesn't have that capability.
>
> What would you call it, then, when a candidate can lose by three
> million votes, but still "win" the election?

A Republic?

You know, the sort of government we're suppose to have.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 09:15:47 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in
>message news:36k6jh1uq9bjeerq2...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:34:02 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:
>>
>>>On 9/27/2022 12:08 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In article <DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad>, r...@cap.con says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the
>>>>>> minority.
>>>>
>>>> Good.. because we were not, are not, and weren't intended to be a
>>>> Democracy.
>>>
>>>WE are, of course, a democracy, scooter.
>>
>>
>> He already told you that we're not, dwarf.
>
>Just goes to show Rudy doesn't know the Constitution
>
>"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
>Form of Government, "
>Art IV, Sect 4: The Constitution of the United States of America.

Rudy is so stupid he thinks it says

"The United States shall guarantee that every State in this Union has
a Republican Form of Government. "

He's not very bright.

[AlleyCat]

On 9/28/2022 3:31 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 21:33:27 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:18:27 -0000 (UTC), "D. Trumpp"
>> <dtr...@usa.right.wing> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27 Sep 2022, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> posted some
>>> news:DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad:
>>>
>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>>
>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>>
>>> Nope, the electoral college doesn't have that capability.
>>
>> What would you call it, then, when a candidate can lose by three
>> million votes, but still "win" the election?
>
> I call it a win for state's rights and

States don't have "rights," and the electoral college has nothing to do with
powers of states.

[Polycarp]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:34:02 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:

>
>>

>> "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
>> Form of Government
>
>
>Yes, scooter. The Constitution says the federal government shall guarantee to
>every *state* a republican form of government, but it says nothing about the
>government of the *United States*. It is a republic, but that's not mentioned
>in the Constitution, scooter.

Holy shit you're stupid, dwarf.

You really need to get a dictionary.

Yes, it says that it guarantees TO every state that it will have a
republican form of government.

It's talking about the government of the US

Are you so fucking stupid that you think it's talking about the STATE
governments?

Well?

ARE YOU?

ROFLMAO

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/28/2022 6:09 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote in message
> news:fFHYK.71475$OR4c....@fx46.iad...
>> On 9/27/2022 11:46 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>
>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>
> And

If you're going to reply to my comment, scooter, you will do it in a direct
reply to me.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/28/2022 6:15 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Klaus  Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:36k6jh1uq9bjeerq2...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:34:02 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/27/2022 12:08 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In article <DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad>, r...@cap.con says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>>>
>>>> Good.. because we were not, are not, and weren't intended to be a Democracy.
>>>
>>> WE are, of course, a democracy, scooter.
>>
>>

>> He already told you that we're not, Prof. Canoza.

He lied, you shit-stained dwarf.

>
> Just goes to show Rudy doesn't know the Constitution

I know the Constitution.

>
> "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
> Form of Government, "

Has nothing to do with the form of the federal government, scooter.

We are a democracy as well as a republic, scooter. The electoral college has
nothing to do with the form of the federal government. We could have a direct
popular election of the president, scooter, and we *still* would be a republic.
We actually would be *more* republican if we had a direct popular election of
the president, scooter.

[Rudy Canoza]

No. That is *anti*-republican, scooter.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 07:28:26 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:
>>"Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote in message
>>news:fFHYK.71475$OR4c....@fx46.iad...
>>> On 9/27/2022 11:46 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>>
>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>

>>And that's the way we like it. We are a Republic.. not a Democracy.
>>
>>> Your incessant whining about the EC gets you nowhere. If you
>>> want things different, quichyerbitchin and get your precious
>>> constitutional amendment rolling. Come back when you've
>>> gotten what you want. We won't hold our breath.
>>
>>Rudy wouldn't even know how to get started with that.
>>

>If you're going to reply to my comment, scooter, you will do it in a direct
>reply to me.

LOL

Rudy gets up on his hind legs and impotently barks.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 07:31:13 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:

>
>I know the Constitution.

BWAH ha ha ha hah a ha ha hah a ha ha ha ha ha hah a hah ah a

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 9/28/2022 6:09 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>

> "Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote in message
> news:fFHYK.71475$OR4c....@fx46.iad...
>> On 9/27/2022 11:46 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>
>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>
> And that's the way we like it. We are a Republic.. not a Democracy.

This crap again?

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/

[Blue Lives Matter]

Most importantly, the USA is a federation.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Indeed. However, federalism plays no part in how we elect federal officials.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 08:42:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Nonsense. The states elect the President, and the people of each
individual state elect the members of Congress.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

That would be true if each state had one vote. Instead, we have a system
that is overwhelmingly the people and only a tiny bit the states (since
the number of electors equals House+Senate members).

> and the people of each
> individual state elect the members of Congress.

I stand corrected when it comes to the Senate, but not the House. I am
no fan of a system where a minority of voters from 40 states can hijack
legislation that well over 60% of the people want.

[Mattb]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 10:46:11 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:

>..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>
>The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.

Then change the Constitution idiot. Doubt the liberals would even
try they just cry like the little bitches they are.

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in

message news:sap8jhdo2a5v6eu15...@4ax.com...

No. So what are you going to do about it? Stomp your widdle feet in
frustration?

> LOL
>
> Rudy gets up on his hind legs and impotently barks.

Rudy is like a well trained, but utterly stupid pet... you can count on him
to react in the same impotent manner..

[Scout]

"Polycarp" <poly...@bishop.com> wrote in message
news:81m8jh91ktplol80k...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:34:02 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
>>> Republican
>>> Form of Government
>>
>>
>>Yes, scooter. The Constitution says the federal government shall
>>guarantee to
>>every *state* a republican form of government, but it says nothing about
>>the
>>government of the *United States*. It is a republic, but that's not
>>mentioned
>>in the Constitution, scooter.
>
> Holy shit you're stupid, dwarf.
>
> You really need to get a dictionary.
>
> Yes, it says that it guarantees TO every state that it will have a
> republican form of government.

Apparently he thinks the Constitution was to establish the government of the
states rather than the government of the United States (ie federal
government).

> It's talking about the government of the US
>
> Are you so fucking stupid that you think it's talking about the STATE
> governments?

Yes, yes he is.

> Well?

A deep subject for Rudy.

> ARE YOU?

Yes, he really is that stupid.

> ROFLMAO

Making the world a happier place by exposing the stupidity and ignorance of
Rudy.

[Mattb]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 09:15:47 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>

>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in
>message news:36k6jh1uq9bjeerq2...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:34:02 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:
>>
>>>On 9/27/2022 12:08 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In article <DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad>, r...@cap.con says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the
>>>>>> minority.
>>>>
>>>> Good.. because we were not, are not, and weren't intended to be a
>>>> Democracy.
>>>
>>>WE are, of course, a democracy, scooter.
>>
>>
>> He already told you that we're not, dwarf.
>
>Just goes to show Rudy doesn't know the Constitution

Rudy lives in California doubt they teach the Constitution in
schools there , but he might be quite knowledgeable of Trans studies.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 08:53:51 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 9/28/2022 8:47 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 08:42:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/28/2022 8:38 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 08:32:56 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/28/2022 6:09 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fFHYK.71475$OR4c....@fx46.iad...
>>>>>>> On 9/27/2022 11:46 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that's the way we like it. We are a Republic.. not a Democracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> This crap again?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/
>>>>
>>>> Most importantly, the USA is a federation.
>>>
>>> Indeed. However, federalism plays no part in how we elect federal officials.
>>
>> Nonsense. The states elect the President,
>
>That would be true if each state had one vote. Instead, we have a system
>that is overwhelmingly the people and only a tiny bit the states (since
>the number of electors equals House+Senate members).

...and yet the so called popular vote is often counter to the official
result.

>> and the people of each
>> individual state elect the members of Congress.
>
>I stand corrected when it comes to the Senate, but not the House. I am
>no fan of a system where a minority of voters from 40 states can hijack
>legislation that well over 60% of the people want.

Just like how the Canadians and Mexicans don't get any say in the
USA's government even though we are all part of North America. The USA
is a federation and that is important to me. I oppose attempts to
further limit autonomy of myself, local gvts, and states.

Remember that an example of the pure Democracy you seem to want is two
wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.

[Polycarp]

He's laughably ignorant, and never fails giving us an opportunity to
illustrate it.

Watch now as he responds by changing the text around and vandalizing
the follow ups.

[Rudy Canoza]

I've posted that, and another excellent Volokh piece on the same topic ("The
United States is both a ‘republic’ and a ‘democracy’ — because ‘democracy’ is
like ‘cash’" —
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/14/the-united-states-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy-because-democracy-is-like-cash/)
several times. Both establish beyond all dispute that the U.S. is a democracy,
as all educated persons understand the word.

The fucking bullshit about "the founders hated/feared/despised/loathed
democracy" is a red herring, and it was a red herring even when the founders
were railing against "democracy." Every time they ran their mouths against it,
they were ranting about direct democracy. The U.S. was not and never could be a
direct democracy, and no one, ever, was proposing it at a national level. Thus,
railing against it was a red herring. What was being discussed was whether to
be more or less democratic, in the context of representative democracy, and more
is better. The essential quality of republicanism is sovereignty residing in
the people, and the way for that to be implemented and realized is through the
people voting. The most important thing to realize is that the people popularly
electing the president would not in *any way* be "anti-republican," any more
than popularly elected state governors is.

That reactionary racist cunt not-jane thinks he has some kind of invincible
"gotcha" with his bullshit about appointed judges. He doesn't. The fact is,
*every* civilized country that is a democracy in the same sense that the U.S. is
has appointed judges. And they should have. Our elected state and local judges
are an abomination. The judiciary has an important effect on our lives, but
judiciary is *reactive* and has orders of magnitude *less* effect than the
massively powerful and *proactive* executive. There is no more reason for
federal judges to be elected than there is for cabinet officers and ambassadors
to be elected — that is, there is no reason at all for them to be elected.
Appointment by the president subject to confirmation by the Senate is plenty
adequate for the people's interest to be represented in the determination of who
is a judge.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/28/2022 8:38 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:

Meaningless in terms of the electoral college. If we abolished the electoral
college, *as we should*, we would still be a federation to exactly the same degree.

[Rudy Canoza]

The states do not elect the president.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/28/2022 8:58 AM, Mattb wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 09:15:47 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in
>> message news:36k6jh1uq9bjeerq2...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:34:02 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/27/2022 12:08 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad>, r...@cap.con says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the
>>>>>>> minority.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good.. because we were not, are not, and weren't intended to be a
>>>>> Democracy.
>>>>
>>>> WE are, of course, a democracy, scooter.
>>>
>>>
>>> He already told you that we're not, dwarf.
>>
>> Just goes to show Rudy doesn't know the Constitution
>
> Rudy lives in California

No. I did, but no longer. I'll probably move back some day. It's the best state.

[Rudy Canoza]

That is a bad thing.

>>> and the people of each
>>> individual state elect the members of Congress.
>>
>> I stand corrected when it comes to the Senate, but not the House. I am
>> no fan of a system where a minority of voters from 40 states can hijack
>> legislation that well over 60% of the people want.
>
> Just like how the Canadians and Mexicans don't get any say in the
> USA's government even though we are all part of North America. The USA
> is a federation and that is important to me.

Nothing to do with the electoral college.

>
> Remember that an example of the pure Democracy you seem to want

No, that's a complete lie and red herring. A direct popular election of the
president would not in any way be "pure" democracy.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

That's because of the winner-take-all system.

>>> and the people of each
>>> individual state elect the members of Congress.
>>
>> I stand corrected when it comes to the Senate, but not the House. I am
>> no fan of a system where a minority of voters from 40 states can hijack
>> legislation that well over 60% of the people want.
>
> Just like how the Canadians and Mexicans don't get any say in the
> USA's government even though we are all part of North America. The USA
> is a federation and that is important to me. I oppose attempts to
> further limit autonomy of myself, local gvts, and states.
>
> Remember that an example of the pure Democracy you seem to want is two
> wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.

I support a representative democracy constrained by an independent
judiciary upholding individual rights and equal protection of the laws.

[Mattb]

Please tell me you didn't move north. We don't need you in this
area. Though I could see you in Portland.
>

[Rudy Canoza]

I did. You'll take it and you'll like it.

> Though I could see you in Portland.

That's not a sentence.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 09:46:44 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Yeah... <shrug>

>>>> and the people of each
>>>> individual state elect the members of Congress.
>>>
>>> I stand corrected when it comes to the Senate, but not the House. I am
>>> no fan of a system where a minority of voters from 40 states can hijack
>>> legislation that well over 60% of the people want.
>>
>> Just like how the Canadians and Mexicans don't get any say in the
>> USA's government even though we are all part of North America. The USA
>> is a federation and that is important to me. I oppose attempts to
>> further limit autonomy of myself, local gvts, and states.
>>
>> Remember that an example of the pure Democracy you seem to want is two
>> wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.
>
>I support a representative democracy constrained by an independent
>judiciary upholding individual rights and equal protection of the laws.

So do I, but I also support states' and individuals' rights.

[Rudy Canoza]

States don't have "rights," and states don't elect the president.

[Scout]

"Polycarp" <poly...@bishop.com> wrote in message

news:frt8jh1q2809qpgp4...@4ax.com...

That is his standard response once he realizes how badly he's being spanking
for his stupidity and ignorance.

[Just Wondering]

On 9/27/2022 1:34 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> Yes, scooter.  The Constitution says the federal government shall
> guarantee to every *state* a republican form of government, but it says
> nothing about the government of the *United States*.  It is a republic,
> but that's not mentioned in the Constitution, scooter.
>

The U.S. Constitution establishes a republican form of the
federal government. The U.S. Constitution mentions a republican
form of government by the very words by which it creates it.
Your inability or refusal to see this is not our problem.

[Just Wondering]

On 9/28/2022 8:21 AM, AlleyCat wrote:
> On 9/28/2022 3:31 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 21:33:27 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:18:27 -0000 (UTC), "D. Trumpp"
>>> <dtr...@usa.right.wing> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 27 Sep 2022, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> posted some
>>>> news:DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad:

>>>>
>>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the
>>>>> minority.
>>>>

>>>> Nope, the electoral college doesn't have that capability.
>>>
>>> What would you call it, then, when a candidate can lose by three
>>> million votes, but still "win" the election?
>>
>> I call it a win for state's rights and
>
> States don't have "rights," and the electoral college has nothing to do
> with powers of states.
> So states have powers not rights. The Tenth Amendment acknowledges
this. Of course the EC involves powers of the states. It was the
states not the people who adopted the Constitution (its preamble
notwithstanding). In doing so, the states reserved to themselves
the power to elect the President. The EC is the means by which
the states exercise that power.

[Just Wondering]

No, Rudy is like an untrained pet, pissing whenever and wherever
he happens to be when he gets the urge.

[Just Wondering]

State legislatures elect the president, by dictating how the electors
are chosen. The electors' will is the legislatures' will. It just
happens that all of the state legislatures have deigned to have their
citizens vote for their state electors. The legislatures could just
as well bypass the citizens and choose the electors by straight
legislative vote.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/28/2022 11:00 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy
rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 9/28/2022 8:21 AM, AlleyCat wrote:
>> On 9/28/2022 3:31 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 21:33:27 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:18:27 -0000 (UTC), "D. Trumpp"
>>>> <dtr...@usa.right.wing> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 27 Sep 2022, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> posted some
>>>>> news:DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, the electoral college doesn't have that capability.
>>>>
>>>> What would you call it, then, when a candidate can lose by three
>>>> million votes, but still "win" the election?
>>>
>>> I call it a win for state's rights and
>>
>> States don't have "rights," and the electoral college has nothing to do with
>> powers of states.
>
> So states have powers not rights.  The Tenth Amendment acknowledges
> this.  Of course the EC involves powers of the states.

No, Francis, it does not.

[Rudy Canoza]

the intellectual, moral, professional, social, literary and physical superior to
the whole lot of you fuckwits.

[Blue Lives Matter]

Why can't Rudy understand that his opinions are insignificant.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/28/2022 11:16 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy

rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

No, Francis, they do not, you stupid cunt.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 11:36:57 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:

>>>>> If you're going to reply to my comment, scooter, you will do it in a
>>>>> direct
>>>>> reply to me.
>>>
>>> No. So what are you going to do about it? Stomp your widdle feet in
>>> frustration?
>>>
>>>> LOL
>>>>
>>>> Rudy gets up on his hind legs and impotently barks.
>>>
>>> Rudy is like a well trained, but utterly stupid pet... you can count on
>>> him to react in the same impotent manner..
>>

>>No, Rudy is like an untrained pet, pissing whenever and wherever
>>he happens to be when he gets the urge.

>the intellectual, moral, professional, social, literary and physical inferior to
>the whole lot of you gentlemen.

You re also a LOT shorter.

ROFLMAO

[Kevrob]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:38:38 PM UTC-4, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 12:16:56 -0600, Just Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:
>

[snip]

> Why can't Rudy understand that his opinions are insignificant.

Even a blind squirrel.....

The US has a "mixed constitution," in the Aristotelian sense:

Our Federal institutions have a monarchical element in the Executive
branch, an aristocratic one in the lifetime appointment of our judiciary,
and democratic ones in the popular election of our Senators and Representatives.
The Congress was a little more aristocratic when the state legislatures
appointed members of the Upper House. It would be even more democratic
if more populous states had larger Senate delegations. That and the Electoral
College are unlikely to change, as in order to change the Constitution the smaller
states would have to agree to reduce their power.

Article V says:

[quote]

......no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[/quote] - https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art5.asp

When do political actors voluntarily allow their power to be reduced?

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310

[Scout]

"Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote in message

news:CR%YK.203501$elEa....@fx09.iad...

> On 9/27/2022 1:34 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> Yes, scooter. The Constitution says the federal government shall
>> guarantee to every *state* a republican form of government, but it says
>> nothing about the government of the *United States*. It is a republic,
>> but that's not mentioned in the Constitution, scooter.
>>

This is a perfect example of Rudy's inability to read for knowledge and
understanding, and then he wonders why we ask him to back up his assertions
with the facts he claims they are based on.

After all.. we all 'know' the Constitution was written because none of the
states had a state government.

I would simply note again that under the Rudy Rules of Grammar.. it would be
illegal for a Democrat to hold elected office.

> The U.S. Constitution establishes a republican form of the
> federal government.

Yea, because the Constitution was established to form a federal government.

But Rudy can't seem to get that..

> The U.S. Constitution mentions a republican
> form of government by the very words by which it creates it.
> Your inability or refusal to see this is not our problem.

And then despite such a glaring and obvious inability in his comprehension
he demands we accept his claims without question.

[Scout]

"Polycarp" <poly...@bishop.com> wrote in message

news:frt8jh1q2809qpgp4...@4ax.com...

And then posts claims.. and when asked for cites he claimed he produced them
sometime in the distant past.

> Watch now as he responds by changing the text around and vandalizing
> the follow ups.

Of course, because he assumes that will make the discussion to date and his
utter failure to simply 'disappear'.

[Scout]

"Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote in message

news:sc0ZK.203504$elEa....@fx09.iad...

or they could make it a lottery where you can buy a scratcher and if you are
lucky you become one the state's electors.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/29/2022 5:09 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote in message
> news:CR%YK.203501$elEa....@fx09.iad...
>> On 9/27/2022 1:34 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, scooter.  The Constitution says the federal government shall guarantee
>>> to every *state* a republican form of government, but it says nothing about
>>> the government of the *United States*.  It is a republic, but that's not
>>> mentioned in the Constitution, scooter.
>>>
>
> This

No, scooter.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/29/2022 5:21 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

No, they do not, Francis.

>
> or they could

No, scooter.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>>This is a perfect example of Rudy's inability to read for knowledge and
>>understanding, and then he wonders why we ask him to back up his assertions
>>with the facts he claims they are based on.
>
>
>

[crickets.wav] (© 2022 All Rights Reserved)

>
>
>
>>After all.. we all 'know' the Constitution was written because none of the
>>states had a state government.
>
>
>

[crickets.wav] (© 2022 All Rights Reserved)

>
>
>
>>I would simply note again that under the Rudy Rules of Grammar.. it would be
>>illegal for a Democrat to hold elected office.
>
>
>

[crickets.wav] (© 2022 All Rights Reserved)

>
>
>
>>> The U.S. Constitution establishes a republican form of the
>>> federal government.
>>
>>Yea, because the Constitution was established to form a federal government.
>>
>>But Rudy can't seem to get that..
>
>
>

[crickets.wav] (© 2022 All Rights Reserved)

>
>
>
>>> The U.S. Constitution mentions a republican
>>> form of government by the very words by which it creates it.
>>> Your inability or refusal to see this is not our problem.
>>
>>And then despite such a glaring and obvious inability in his comprehension
>>he demands we accept his claims without question.

>No, scooter.

I love watching Scout kick the shit out of you, dwarf. LOL

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/29/2022 8:50 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip

chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 9/29/2022 8:49 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 9/29/2022 1:53 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 16:44:58 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/28/2022 4:37 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 16:15:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/28/2022 2:01 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 13:43:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/28/2022 11:12 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/28/2022 10:39 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...  states do not elect the president.   *People* in states
>>>>>>>>>> vote for electors who elect the president
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Each state's legislature decides how to choose its electors, so it's
>>>>>>>>> actually the state legislatures who choose the President.  It just so
>>>>>>>>> happens that every state legislature has decided to let its citizens
>>>>>>>>> choose those electors by popular vote.  A legislature could just as
>>>>>>>>> well choose its electors directly by vote of the legislature itself,
>>>>>>>>> or by a roll of dice, or by selling elector seats to the highest
>>>>>>>>> bidders.  But constitutionally speaking, its' the state legislators,
>>>>>>>>> not the people, who through the EC elect the President.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If a state ever went back to anything but the people electing the
>>>>>>>> electors, that state's legislators would be thrown out by the people. We
>>>>>>>> have de facto election of the president by the people - just in a weird
>>>>>>>> way that gives the people in smaller and (especially) swing states a
>>>>>>>> greater say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMHO, each state should have the same voting power, IOW, each state
>>>>>>> gets one vote. The only place where the population is a factor is the
>>>>>>> House.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is wildly anti-majoritarian. A vote in Wyoming would have 67 times
>>>>>> the weight of a vote in California.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed...  but the states have equal power..
>>>>
>>>> That's fucked up when it comes to electing the president.
>>>
>>> It's the way the USA was created. Each state votes "yes" or "no."
>>
>> WTF? States don't vote "yes" or "no" for the president.
>
> Maybe they should.  One state, one vote.

No, Francis. That's a shitty idea, Francis. The president is not the chief
magistrate for arbitrarily drawn chunks of real estate, Francis. He serves that
role to represent the interests of *people*, Francis, you stupid cunt. The
interests of Wyoming's 582,000 people should not be given the same weight as the
interests of California's 39 million people, Francis, you stupid cunt.

You're moving in the wrong direction, Francis, you stupid cunt. The electoral
college is bad enough. You're proposing something far worse. Fuck off, Francis.

[Mattb]

It is a free country. You don't have the means to live in my area
so.........
>
>> Though, I could see you in Portland.

>
>That's not a sentence.

It does convey a thought. May not fit your progressive world, but
then again, if you don't like it all you can do is bitch like the
little progressive you are. If it offended you really don't care.
>

[Skeeter]

In article <RRhZK.522884$iiS8....@fx17.iad>, r...@cap.con says...

Why did you snip the part that slapped you? Unless you can restore it
and refute it then you are no better then the liberals whose dicks you
suck daily. If you were right there would be no need to do that. You are
a troll with no life.

[John Baker]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 20:29:29 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:38:38 PM UTC-4, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 12:16:56 -0600, Just Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:
>>
>
>[snip]
>
>> Why can't Rudy understand that his opinions are insignificant.

He'll probably catch on to that around the same time you do.

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in

message news:9qabjhpi9v91g8o24...@4ax.com...

Well, it's not like I have to do more than get my foot above my knees...

I mean Rudy sets the target awfully low.

[Max Boot]

On 9/27/2022 5:18 PM, D. Trumpp wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2022, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> posted some
> news:DFGYK.459908$6Il8....@fx14.iad:
>

>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>
>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>

> Nope, the electoral college doesn't have that capability.

Absolutely it can, and it has happened. Whenever a candidate who doesn't have
the most votes out of all candidates wins, that's tyranny of the minority.

[Rudy Canoza]

Getting back to the beginning of the thread, here are some things that a direct
popular election of the president is *not* or would *not* do:

* it isn't "tyranny of the majority"

It is not that because it isn't tyranny at all. All other offices that are
filled by the candidate who wins the most votes are not "tyranny of the
majority," and electing the president in that way would not be as well.


* it doesn't affect federalism in any way

The allocation of powers between the federal government and lower levels of
government is entirely unaffected if a direct popular election of the
president were to replace the electoral college, as should be done. To put it
another way, electing the president by direct popular election would not
affect "states' rights" in any way.


* it doesn't affect separation of powers at the federal level in any way

The powers and duties of each of the three branches would not change in any
way if the president were to be directly elected (as should happen)

[Mattb]

I know it shouldn't be, but it is enjoyable.

[Kevrob]

Do you feel the same when Party A gets more votes for Congressional
representatives or MPs than Party B does, but B wins more seats and
gets to organize the House? In Westminster-style parliaments, that
can lead to a PM whose party has a majority of members, but not even
a plurality of the popular vote. The winning party just needs to win the
tight districts while not running up the score in the safe seats.

[Kevrob]

On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 11:59:59 AM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Getting back to the beginning of the thread, here are some things that a direct
> popular election of the president is *not* or would *not* do:
>
> * it isn't "tyranny of the majority"
>
> It is not that because it isn't tyranny at all. All other offices that are
> filled by the candidate who wins the most votes are not "tyranny of the
> majority," and electing the president in that way would not be as well.
>

US congressional seats that are won by a plurality, without a runoff
lead to a situation where the majority voted for "not Senator Claghorn."
It's a good case for IRV or adding a runoff.

The French have a pure popular vote for Pres, but with a runoff.
That Republic is unitary, however. If we copied that it wouldn't
map well to a Federal structure. High population states would
essentially pick the Pres.

> * it doesn't affect federalism in any way
>
> The allocation of powers between the federal government and lower levels of
> government is entirely unaffected if a direct popular election of the
> president were to replace the electoral college, as should be done. To put it
> another way, electing the president by direct popular election would not
> affect "states' rights" in any way.
>
>

States have power, not rights.

> * it doesn't affect separation of powers at the federal level in any way
>
> The powers and duties of each of the three branches would not change in any
> way if the president were to be directly elected (as should happen)

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2022 10:35:55 -0700, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>

Oh, I don't know.

Is this enjoyable?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kOTSZ00GHPk/maxresdefault.jpg

What about this?
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-830e3bf28b47641b36a9bcd4e4166475-lq

Or this?
https://hakes.com/Image/MediumRes/224780/1/image.jpg

There's no reason NOT to enjoy an enemy of the United States getting a
good swift kick in the ass.

[Mattb]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2022 11:56:53 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude

Rudy would be enjoy this. He'd be spreading.

[%]

MATTB

[Trevor Wilson]

On 28/09/2022 3:46 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
>
> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>

**Huh?

Who won the most votes in the last US presidential election?

It seems that the system works.




--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[Rudy Canoza]

On 10/1/2022 2:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 28/09/2022 3:46 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>
>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>
>
> **Huh?

Only stupid bogan cunts start their comments with '**'

>
> Who won the most votes in the last US presidential election?

Who won the most votes in 2016 and 2000? *Not* the person who was inaugurated,
you stupid drooling fuck.

>
> It seems that the system works.

It's a horrible system for reasons I've elaborated before.

1. It allows someone who doesn't win the most votes to win the election.

2. It allows a very small number of stupid deplorables in a few rust belt
states who don't know what the fuck they're doing and who flip-flop back and
forth irrationally from one election to the next to decide who becomes
president.

3. It violates the fundamental principle of political equality among voters
that is expressed as one-person-one-vote. Voters in a bunch of shithole
low-population states have excessive electoral weight, and they're not
entitled to it.

Keep your mouth shut about American politics, you stupid fucking bogan.

[Michael McLean]

On 2/10/2022 5:32 am, Kevrob wrote:
> On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 11:59:59 AM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Getting back to the beginning of the thread, here are some things that a direct
>> popular election of the president is *not* or would *not* do:
>>
>> * it isn't "tyranny of the majority"
>>
>> It is not that because it isn't tyranny at all. All other offices that are
>> filled by the candidate who wins the most votes are not "tyranny of the
>> majority," and electing the president in that way would not be as well.
>>
>
> US congressional seats that are won by a plurality, without a runoff
> lead to a situation where the majority voted for "not Senator Claghorn."
> It's a good case for IRV or adding a runoff.
>
> The French have a pure popular vote for Pres, but with a runoff.
> That Republic is unitary, however. If we copied that it wouldn't
> map well to a Federal structure. High population states would
> essentially pick the Pres.
>
>
>> * it doesn't affect federalism in any way
>>
>> The allocation of powers between the federal government and lower levels of
>> government is entirely unaffected if a direct popular election of the
>> president were to replace the electoral college, as should be done. To put it
>> another way, electing the president by direct popular election would not
>> affect "states' rights" in any way.
>>
>>
>
> States have power, not rights.

What's the diff?




Michael McLean

>
>> * it doesn't affect separation of powers at the federal level in any way
>>
>> The powers and duties of each of the three branches would not change in any
>> way if the president were to be directly elected (as should happen)
>

--

Jesus is the everlasting Father, Jesus is God, Jesus is the Lord.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

Jeremiah 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it
is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory."

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."

"Sin is not what you do, it is what you are."

"What makes the bible the truth? The resonance of God."

"All men were born sinners. Why? Because all men were born not loving
God with all their heart, soul and mind. An abomination."

"Compromise will condemn you."

"There are no sinners in Christ Jesus."

"My sons are born of Me. In them is no darkness at all."

"You can't learn righteousness. Haven't you had enough time already to
know that?"

"The way of truth is the testimony of life."

"I merely speak the truth, what is revealed to me, and the cards fall
where God intends."

"Nothing that is produced is produced without first being faith."

"You can only find proof of God through faith because that is how we all
live, by faith."

"It is not what you do that matters, it is how you treat Me."

"Keep going forward. Forget about the past. Lift up your head, look
ahead."

"You cannot be free with guilt in your heart."

"Priority is everything."

"The truth doesn't need evidence, it is evidence."

"There is no greater possession a man has than his own will, to squander
it or to place it where it truly belongs."

"An atheist is a fool who thinks truth is found in living a lie."

"Saying "prove it" [as a foundation] is merely an ignorant straw man, to
an ignorant straw man."

"Wait, rest, be still, and know."

"No man can wash his own hands!!!"

"I find this in the Christianity religions: 'Nobody's perfect' they say,
and they use that as an excuse not to do what is perfect."

The Atheist: "They don't believe and put their faith in a Creator (the
obvious). So no evidence and proof is to be found!!"

"The world is the way it is because God can't compromise who He is."

"Man is not the centre of being."

"Man is incompatible with the natural world because of his sinful nature."

"And then the Lord said, "I see everything."

"Man has no greater idol than his own will."

"Where is God hiding? He isn't."

"If you don't keep all the scriptures, you can't keep any of them."

"You can't prove anything because everything depends on a person's
willingness to believe."

[Skeeter]

In article <tL2_K.68245$SMP5...@fx05.iad>, r...@cap.con says...

>
> On 10/1/2022 2:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> > On 28/09/2022 3:46 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
> >>
> >> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
> >>
> >
> > **Huh?
>
> Only stupid bogan cunts start their comments with '**'
>
> >
> > Who won the most votes in the last US presidential election?
>
> Who won the most votes in 2016 and 2000? *Not* the person who was inaugurated,
> you stupid drooling fuck.
>
> >
> > It seems that the system works.
>
> It's a horrible system for reasons I've elaborated before.
>
> 1. It allows someone who doesn't win the most votes to win the election.
>
> 2. It allows a very small number of stupid deplorables in a few rust belt
> states who don't know what the fuck they're doing and who flip-flop back and
> forth irrationally from one election to the next to decide who becomes
> president.

What a bigot you are.

>
> 3. It violates the fundamental principle of political equality among voters
> that is expressed as one-person-one-vote. Voters in a bunch of shithole
> low-population states have excessive electoral weight, and they're not
> entitled to it.

Why not? Who are you to decide you fucking bigot.

>
> Keep your mouth shut about American politics, you stupid fucking bogan.

Says Rudy the forger, post editing, group line fuck up Rudy.

[Rudy Canoza]

Getting back to the beginning of the thread, here are some things that a direct
popular election of the president is *not* or would *not* do:

* it isn't "tyranny of the majority"

It is not that because it isn't tyranny at all. All other offices that are
filled by the candidate who wins the most votes are not "tyranny of the
majority," and electing the president in that way would not be as well.

* it doesn't affect federalism in any way

The allocation of powers between the federal government and lower levels of
government is entirely unaffected if a direct popular election of the
president were to replace the electoral college, as should be done. To put it
another way, electing the president by direct popular election would not
affect "states' rights" in any way.

[John Baker]

On Sun, 2 Oct 2022 08:53:24 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 28/09/2022 3:46 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>
>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>
>
>**Huh?
>
>Who won the most votes in the last US presidential election?

And who won the most votes in the election before that?

>
>It seems that the system works.

Not very damned well, it doesn't.







AA #1898
Giver of No Fucks
Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Sun, 02 Oct 2022 04:39:49 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 2 Oct 2022 08:53:24 +1100, Trevor Wilson
><tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On 28/09/2022 3:46 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>
>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>>
>>
>>**Huh?
>>
>>Who won the most votes in the last US presidential election?
>
>And who won the most votes in the election before that?
>
>>
>>It seems that the system works.
>
>Not very damned well, it doesn't.
>

It works for me...

[Scout]

"Mattb" <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:niugjh14mov88n3mg...@4ax.com...

I do what I can to bring a little joy to TPG.

<bows>

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in

message news:j33hjhd2sr9lgtlst...@4ax.com...

Naturally.. it's where he keeps his head....

[Scout]

"Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message
news:kepgjhpsehvqo7qeg...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 11:26:08 -0700, Polycarp
> <poly...@bishop.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <mtf6jh1i6imcpftjm...@4ax.com> wrote:

>
>>On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 10:46:11 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:
>>
>>>..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>
>>>The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>

>>Rudy loves to point out how ignorant he is about the Constitution and
>>the Electoral College. He is up to about once a week now, with his
>>impotent, feminine screeching about it.
>>
>>It's fun to watch him lose his shit over something he can't do
>>anything about.
>>
>>"Laugh laugh laugh laugh."
>> -Lee Harrison 1957-2012, RIP
>
> Under the WWRD Rule it is obvious the Electoral College is
> the most important part of the Constitution and must never
> be changed. It is perfect as it is.

I don't know.. Rudy does have a point that some states have more electoral
votes than others...

So maybe we should change it so that ALL states have 3 electoral votes. I
mean why should California have 55 while some other states only have 3?

Is that fair?

;-)

[Scout]

"Max Boot" <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in message
news:OiJZK.279846$9Yp5....@fx12.iad...

Really? The candidate that gets the minority of the votes in the Electoral
college has won?

When?

Let me guess.. you still think we're a Democracy?

[Scout]

"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:9hjijh1bpablb0u2a...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 2 Oct 2022 08:53:24 +1100, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On 28/09/2022 3:46 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>
>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>>
>>
>>**Huh?
>>
>>Who won the most votes in the last US presidential election?
>
> And who won the most votes in the election before that?

Donald Trump: 304 vs 227

>>
>>It seems that the system works.
>
> Not very damned well, it doesn't.

In what way? Are you telling us that 304 votes isn't more than 227?

[Rudy Canoza]

The candidate who gets the minority of the popular vote has won, scooter.
That's bad and wrong.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 10/3/2022 5:44 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
> news:9hjijh1bpablb0u2a...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2022 08:53:24 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/09/2022 3:46 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>>
>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>>>
>>>
>>> **Huh?
>>>
>>> Who won the most votes in the last US presidential election?
>>
>> And who won the most votes in the election before that?
>
> Donald Trump: 304 vs 227

He lost the popular vote. That means he ought to have lost the election.

The electoral college yields perverse results sometimes. It's bad and wrong.

[Scout]

"Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message

news:b6pljh9f0h3g0fc9g...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 08:38:36 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> in alt.atheism

> with message-id <thenih$27inv$2...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message
>>news:kepgjhpsehvqo7qeg...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 11:26:08 -0700, Polycarp
>>> <poly...@bishop.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <mtf6jh1i6imcpftjm...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 10:46:11 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>>>
>>>>Rudy loves to point out how ignorant he is about the Constitution and
>>>>the Electoral College. He is up to about once a week now, with his
>>>>impotent, feminine screeching about it.
>>>>
>>>>It's fun to watch him lose his shit over something he can't do
>>>>anything about.
>>>>
>>>>"Laugh laugh laugh laugh."
>>>> -Lee Harrison 1957-2012, RIP
>>>
>>> Under the WWRD Rule it is obvious the Electoral College is
>>> the most important part of the Constitution and must never
>>> be changed. It is perfect as it is.
>>
>>I don't know.. Rudy does have a point that some states have more electoral
>>votes than others...
>

> Based on more population.

Which is exactly my point. If he's claiming it's unfair because of
population differences.. then couldn't a solution to his issue be to
eliminate population from consideration?

I mean that is the flip side of the coin he's tossing.


> Why not just have a House and not
> bother with a Senate?

Different subject entirely

>>So maybe we should change it so that ALL states have 3 electoral votes. I
>>mean why should California have 55 while some other states only have 3?
>>
>>Is that fair?
>

> It is based on population.

But Rudy claims that's unfair. with some populations getting more
representation that others.

So eliminate population as a factor.. and his problem would be solved.


> Would it be fair for five or six
> states to always elect the President and the remaining 44 or
> 45 to have nothing to say about it?

Well considering it only takes 11 states out of 50 to elect the President..
doesn't that seem like a similar issue as the one you say is the problem?

[Just Wondering]

On 10/3/2022 8:09 AM, Red Crayola wrote:
> On 10/3/2022 5:44 AM, Scout wrote:

>> "John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2022 08:53:24 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>>>> On 28/09/2022 3:46 am, Red Crayola wrote:
>>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>>>
>>>> **Huh? Who won the most votes in the last US presidential election?
>>>
>>> And who won the most votes in the election before that?
>>
>> Donald Trump: 304 vs 227
>
> He lost the popular vote.  That means he ought to have lost the election.
>
> The electoral college yields perverse results sometimes.  It's bad and
> wrong.
>

Yeah, yeah, yea, we get it that you can only play one note, and
that you like to bitch but aren't willing to do anything about it.

Last election yielded a perverse result. Biden/Harris is a perverse result.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 10/3/2022 8:31 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip
chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 10/3/2022 8:09 AM, Rudy Canoza, the intellectual, moral, professional, social, literary and physical superior to Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, wrote:
>> On 10/3/2022 5:44 AM, scooter lied:
>>> "John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2022 08:53:24 +1100, stupid fucking bogan lied:

>>>>> On 28/09/2022 3:46 am, Red Crayola wrote:
>>>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority."  To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Huh?  Who won the most votes in the last US presidential election?
>>>>
>>>> And who won the most votes in the election before that?
>>>
>>> Donald Trump: 304 vs 227
>>
>> He lost the popular vote.  That means he ought to have lost the election.
>>
>> The electoral college yields perverse results sometimes.  It's bad and wrong.
>>
> Yeah, yeah, yea, we get it that

You can't defend the electoral college in an intellectually honest way, Francis,
you stupid sleazy cunt.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 10/3/2022 8:58 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 10:29:16 -0400, scooter lied:

>
>>
>>
>> "Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message
>> news:b6pljh9f0h3g0fc9g...@4ax.com...

>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 08:38:36 -0400, scooter lied:

>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message
>>>> news:kepgjhpsehvqo7qeg...@4ax.com...

>>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 11:26:08 -0700, kleine klauschen "no-foreskin" Schittenkike lied:

>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 10:46:11 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ..is not "tyranny of the majority." To suggest it would be is stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rudy loves to point out how ignorant he is about the Constitution and
>>>>>> the Electoral College. He is up to about once a week now, with his
>>>>>> impotent, feminine screeching about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's fun to watch him lose his shit over something he can't do
>>>>>> anything about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Laugh laugh laugh laugh."
>>>>>> -Lee Harrison 1957-2012, RIP
>>>>>
>>>>> Under the WWRD Rule it is obvious the Electoral College is
>>>>> the most important part of the Constitution and must never
>>>>> be changed. It is perfect as it is.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know.. Rudy does have a point that some states have more electoral
>>>> votes than others...
>>>
>>> Based on more population.
>>
>> Which is exactly my point. If he's claiming it's unfair because of
>> population differences.. then couldn't a solution to his issue be to
>> eliminate population from consideration?
>>
>> I mean that is the flip side of the coin he's tossing.
>

> Do mean one state one vote?

Eliminate any consideration of states. Hold a direct popular vote, the same as
is done for *all* other elective offices.

[Mattb]

:-)

[Just Wondering]

On 10/3/2022 10:16 AM, Red Crayola wrote:
> On 10/3/2022 8:31 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 10/3/2022 8:09 AM, Red Crayola wrote:
>>> On 10/3/2022 5:44 AM, scooter wrote:
>>>> "John Baker" wrote:

>>>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2022 08:53:24 +1100, bogan wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/09/2022 3:46 am, Red Crayola wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the
>>>>>>> minority.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Huh?  Who won the most votes in the last US presidential election?
>>>>>
>>>>> And who won the most votes in the election before that?
>>>>
>>>> Donald Trump: 304 vs 227
>>>
>>> He lost the popular vote.  That means he ought to have lost the
>>> election.
>>>
>>> The electoral college yields perverse results sometimes.  It's bad
>>> and wrong.
>>>

>> Yeah, yeah, yea, we get it that you can only play one note, and
>> >>that you like to bitch but aren't willing to do anything about it.

>> Last election yielded a perverse result. Biden/Harris is a perverse result.
>

> You can't defend the electoral college in an intellectually honest way.

I could but I see no need to bother. I have enough fun
watching you make a fool of yourself without my help.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 10/3/2022 10:41 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy

rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 10/3/2022 10:16 AM, Rudy Canoza, the intellectual, moral, professional, social, literary and physical superior to Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, wrote:
>> On 10/3/2022 8:31 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

>>> On 10/3/2022 8:09 AM, Rudy Canoza, the intellectual, moral, professional, social, literary and physical superior to Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, wrote:
>>>> On 10/3/2022 5:44 AM, scooter lied:

>>>>> "John Baker" wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2022 08:53:24 +1100, bogan wrote:

>>>>>>> On 28/09/2022 3:46 am, Rudy Canoza, the intellectual, moral, professional, social, literary and physical superior to Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The electoral college, however, *has produced* tyranny of the minority.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Huh?  Who won the most votes in the last US presidential election?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And who won the most votes in the election before that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Donald Trump: 304 vs 227
>>>>
>>>> He lost the popular vote.  That means he ought to have lost the election.
>>>>
>>>> The electoral college yields perverse results sometimes.  It's bad and wrong.
>>>>
>>> Yeah, yeah, yea, we get it that you can only play one note, and
>>> >>that you like to bitch but aren't willing to do anything about it.
>
>>> Last election yielded a perverse result.  Biden/Harris is a perverse result.

No. You just don't like them. They won the election. Biden is better than
Trump across the board.

>>
>> You can't defend the electoral college in an intellectually honest way.
>
> I could but

No, you can't. You would only attempt to regurgitate all the demolished
arguments for it. They don't hold up. Nothing that anyone has said from 1787
to now in support of the electoral college is true. Every bit of it is bullshit.

You only like the electoral college because, like Hartung, you know it's the
only way a non-incumbent Republiscum/QAnon can win a presidential election.
That's the only reason. You have no principled reasons to support it, because
there aren't any.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 10/3/2022 10:51 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 09:18:28 -0700, Rudy Canoza <r...@cap.con>
> in alt.atheism with message-id

> Those elections are all intra-state.

So?

> The EC is to insure a few large states don't end up running the country.

No, it isn't. I've demolished that argument (and all the others) too many times
to count. "States" would not run the country if we had a direct popular vote to
elect the president.

The electoral college came into being in the first place *only* to protect
slavery. All the blabber about "big states," "ensuring widespread support,"
etc. was just bullshit smoke.