Glenn Nall

"...where a candidate won the electoral college and lost the popular vote, that candidate has never been a Democrat." I simply didn't understand what you meant. This rephrasing explains it. Thanks. Also. I didn't in any way "cite" 1960 as an example of anything. I was trying to prompt Cliff with some suggestions. Perhaps you "misread" it. My point with the question was very simple, being that you can't complain about the process being faulty only when it doesn't go your way. Now that I understand the fact that the only two times this has happened went the R's way, it puts some of these complaints (whining) in more perspective. I have no problem admitting I was wrong. I was wrong. I didn't know these facts. Nevertheless, what I do know is that the Electoral College is the system we have always used in our Presidential elections, and the reasons for it are perfectly sound. Until you (not you, the colloquial "you") get your asses beat, at least. Then reason apparently goes out the window. If Cliff, and any others, wish to sound more credible in their arguments, I'd suggest getting the numbers somewhere close to accurate.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Possible_Discovery_of_an_Automobile_Used.html?id=_uqcGwAACAAJ Rambler Full.docx (this is not a pristine copy - there are some random notes of mine within. my apologies. I'll see if i can find a clean original...) oh hell - acorn.net where this MS was published is gone!

glennnall@gmail.com I've been working on mapping all of his "interrelationships" - and all those that follow, of course - for about a year now - creating a searchable database now, too. it's an enormously circuitous job. thanks, Dawn.

"free speech" really good, Cliff. your grasp of the constitution and human rights is "awesome."

I'd sure like to have an email address for Mr Bartholomew to express my appreciation for his work and what it has inspired me to look into - if it'd be possible for you to PM me with it or email, I'd really appreciate that. I had no idea that he was still active (or alive, actually) until I read something you said in a recent thread. His Rambler piece is 20 years old and to me contains a darn mountain of pertinent information.

yes, Dawn, I was watching it live yesterday, but I lost interest pretty quickly - i'm sure it'll be available after the fact so I can choose who i want to listen to. the most interesting thing to me was when they broke for lunch and we were able to listen in on some ambient conversation - borrowing laptops and what who brought to eat and whatnot. i felt like a real spy.

Cliff, you've still refused to answer my perfectly legitimate and simple question: when did you last complain that an election, as decided by the very same Electoral process as has always decided, was illegitimate? 2000? 1960?

a point which has escaped many - poor voter turnout; same as 2008 and 2012, only in partisan reverse. significant then, and significant now. 6 million, it's been estimated - 4 million of whom had previously voted Democrat. significant. the truth doesn't really give a damn what opinions there might be...

who was the white-haired woman whose father(?) was the Navy photographer "Freddie?" with Admiral Byrd's excursions to "the Antarctica" who referred to Admiral Byrd's uncle as "Harold T, or D, Byrd" yesterday...?

Richard Bartholomew presented?? DAMN i would have stopped to watch that... i admire all of his work i've come across so very much. Rambler and Still Smoking gun... (oslt)... brilliant, unique stuff. I'm imagining all this will be available again soon... will look out for it.

"...only one party engages in it." Cliff. really? when you find yourself in a hole, the first rule is to stop digging. And I'm waiting for your answer to my question: when was the last time you complained about the Electoral results? when was the last time you complained about the Electoral College results, Cliff?

Sandy, you're one of the few in here whom (who?) I respect as a reasonable, logical researcher. But, wrong, and wrong. I'll provide a list, but at the moment i'm busy as hell working (i can stop to drop a comment - organizing a list will take me a little bit). But please know that nothing is as it seems... surely you know that after all you've studied... ?

you've written this assuming that HFC hasn't said anything nearly as detestable. or worse. is that what you're asserting? (you really compare this to HFC's 30+ years of criminal investigations? but I'll go with the verbal comparisons, just as soon as you say that that is what you're asserting... )

Please understand - I've followed Cyril Wecht for years and, like most, consider him the preeminent Medical Examiner in the country - I've respected Baden and Henry Lee for years, too. I've never known anything about Vince until I encountered him in EF - since then i've read nothing but positive things about him (I know, in EF, right???). I asked the question simply because I read something that sounded negative overall to the Conference just because it's JVB's name attached to it, and I wondered if whoever made this comment was really referring to everyone at the conference or was just letting their antipathy toward JVB override their tact. Obviously no one would have an issue with Wecht. I was just asking for some clarification. or something like that.

Deplorable, Tom. Irredeemable. and THEN Repugnant. get it right.

Cliff, by your picture I want to guess that you're at least 40 years old. Let me ask you this. Have you complained about the Electoral College process EVERY election, or just the ones that don't go your way?

Sandy - I guess it's how someone defines "detestable," isn't it. And "gullible." Cliff - your poor credibility is only surpassed by your poor numbers and your poor ideas of "patriotism." You should quit while you're behind.

very possibly the most unsubstantiated post/claim in this thread. or in the world, take your pick.

I'm thinkin' "bust" is your option at this point. perhaps both parties will begin looking at personnel without canes and with all their teeth in the near future. seems one has started doing so a little earlier than the other.

And that Reilly is connected to some interesting characters himself - not looking at my notes right now, but I remember his name coming up in some shady relationships... I'll look it up later. not defending JVB, just sayin'...

I am amazed that some of you are still totally out of touch with why Trump won. The Media missed it, admitted they missed it and have come around to the stark realization. Yet some still refuse to listen to what the American public just said. It was beyond partisan. How do you guys not see that? wow. NBC’s Brokaw, Todd Confess Media Has ‘Totally Underestimated’ and ‘Overlooked’ ‘Rural America’

does all this (probably justifiable) disapproval of all things Baker mean that the rest of JVB's guest speakers - like Palamara, Wecht - are neither to be trusted? surely not... (I think a negative comment was made about the convention overall, and/or its participants...)

it's interesting to see how some are more able to present a reasonable objection to something or someone while others are limited to things like "what a flake!" etc. it's also interesting that some cannot see how one argument possesses so much more credibility than the other.

well said, Sandy. Amen. "...why not just use a little common sense and plausibility and accept that she's a money-grubbing flake? " um, damn, Michael - you mean just believe what we read here in EF without evaluating the material ourselves? i notice that presupposition and assumption is prevalent in some of these threads - well, in many of them. i wonder why that is... it's almost like when someone doesn't have something bad to say about someone else or presents an objective but unpopular alternative possibility, or even hasn't yet offered a, um, "comment," then their integrity is questioned. what fun.