This should please Krause
 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...inton-44170556

Cheer up, Herr Krause. I'd think that you'd be delighted that there are still judiciary blackmailers pulling for Hillary.

This should please Krause
 

5:58 AMTom Nofinger
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...inton-44170556

Cheer up, Herr Krause. I'd think that you'd be delighted that there are still judiciary blackmailers pulling for Hillary.
......

I reall don't see how that's possible bit I'm no lawyer..

This should please Krause
 

On 12/15/16 9:46 AM, Tim wrote:
5:58 AMTom Nofinger
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...inton-44170556

Cheer up, Herr Krause. I'd think that you'd be delighted that there are still judiciary blackmailers pulling for Hillary.
.....

I reall don't see how that's possible bit I'm no lawyer..

I don't know why your buddy Nofingers addresses posts to me or brings me
up. It isn't as if I read his posts directly and see more than one in 50
even second hand. He's in the same category here as the other mutts,
like Herring and a couple of others...Do Not Resuscitate, Do Not Read. I
suppose there's little else to entertain them.

This should please Krause
 

9:21 AMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
I don't know why your buddy Nofingers addresses posts to me or brings me
up. It isn't as if I read his posts directly and see more than one in 50
even second hand. He's in the same category here as the other mutts,
like Herring and a couple of others...Do Not Resuscitate, Do Not Read. I
suppose there's little else to entertain them.
....

Still beside the point. I don't see how a judge can threaten a EC voter unless there is a state ruling the matter. But like I said I'm no lawyer...

This should please Krause
 

Tim wrote:
9:21 AMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
I don't know why your buddy Nofingers addresses posts to me or brings me
up. It isn't as if I read his posts directly and see more than one in 50
even second hand. He's in the same category here as the other mutts,
like Herring and a couple of others...Do Not Resuscitate, Do Not Read. I
suppose there's little else to entertain them.
...

Still beside the point. I don't see how a judge can threaten a EC voter
unless there is a state ruling the matter. But like I said I'm no lawyer...


Easy. As in California, the EC electors are bound by law on the first, I
think, two votes to vote for the candidate selected by the state. On a
third vote, they can vote for whomever they wish.

This should please Krause
 

Tom Nofinger wrote:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...inton-44170556

Cheer up, Herr Krause. I'd think that you'd be delighted that there are
still judiciary blackmailers pulling for Hillary.


I think the people of the state should sue an elector for fraud, and get
ALL their assets if they vote other than the law states, and they ran on.

This should please Krause
 

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 13:12:04 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

Tom Nofinger wrote:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...inton-44170556

Cheer up, Herr Krause. I'd think that you'd be delighted that there are
still judiciary blackmailers pulling for Hillary.


I think the people of the state should sue an elector for fraud, and get
ALL their assets if they vote other than the law states, and they ran on.

These electors are generally party apparatchiks who march to the party
drum.
I suppose if they could get 37 GOP electors to bolt and put Mitt on
the "list of 5" you might see Paul Ryan trying to flip the will of the
voters in the house but I think that might be worse than just taking
our medicine. I can see the cartoons now, Mitt driving around with
Trump on the roof of his car.

This should please Krause
 

1:12 PMCalifbill
- show quoted text -
Easy. As in California, the EC electors are bound by law on the first, I
think, two votes to vote for the candidate selected by the state. On a
third vote, they can vote for whomever they wish.

----


3 votes? Now I don't understand that. Hmmm

This should please Krause
 

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 13:29:07 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

1:12 PMCalifbill
- show quoted text -
Easy. As in California, the EC electors are bound by law on the first, I
think, two votes to vote for the candidate selected by the state. On a
third vote, they can vote for whomever they wish.

----


3 votes? Now I don't understand that. Hmmm

I believe the thinking is that after a couple of votes with no winner
somebody needs to change or they will be sending it over to the house.
I am not sure how many "do overs" the EC will have since the
Constitution is silent on it. I suppose they could just toss it over
to the house after the first vote if nobody gets a majority.

This should please Krause
 

Tim wrote:
1:12 PMCalifbill
- show quoted text -
Easy. As in California, the EC electors are bound by law on the first, I
think, two votes to vote for the candidate selected by the state. On a
third vote, they can vote for whomever they wish.

----


3 votes? Now I don't understand that. Hmmm


When the electors vote, there may not be enough to elect. So they vote
again. On the 3rd vote, at least the California electors do not have to
vote for the winner of the states vote.