scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:pnNjK.45480$wIO9.22022@fx12.iad:

> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>news:8tLjK.7$YpK3.4@fx05.iad:
>>
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>On Wed, 25 May 2022 20:40:03 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:36:05 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke
>>>>>> >wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans
>>>>>> >> who don't recignize the legitimacy of the current
>>>>>> >> government to be surprisingly high. But that's not
>>>>>> >> "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen they have
>>>>>> >> to try to do something unlawful about it.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6,
>>>>>> >2021, demonstrators trespassed in the Senate building,
>>>>>> >committing acts of vandalism, and acts of violence against
>>>>>> >persons, as well as making death threats against some of
>>>>>> >those assembled.
>>>>>> >So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point
>>>>>> >here.
>>>>>> A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>>>>>
>>>>>In what way were they 'crazy'? Are you claiming they were all
>>>>>mentally ill, and not responsible for their actions? They had
>>>>>a plan: prevent the certification of the election, throwing
>>>>>the election to the House, were they would get Trump elected.
>>>>>It was rational as it was unAmerican, and could conceivably
>>>>>have worked. We're lucky it did not.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, it was an insurrection.
>>>>
>>>>They were approximately 0.0001% of the population or 0.0004%
>>>>of Republicans. That's a lunatic-fringe. You may not like
>>>>it, you may not want to accept it, you may think that there is
>>>>some serious effort afoot to overthrow the government, but
>>>>_that_ was not _it_.
>>>
>>> Throw in Trump's ravings and it _was_ a serious effort to
>>> overthrow the government.
>>>
>>And yet, not a single person has been prosecuted for
>>insurrection. And no reason to believe anybody ever will be.
>
> Which is completely irrelevent

Accusing people of being insurgents when no one has been charged
with being an insurgent is irrelevant? Only in fascist lefty
fantasy land.

> as it was easier to convict on
> other charges.

Which is to say, the prosecutors agree with me that it wasn't an
insurgency, and know full well they can't get convictions on that
charge.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> wrote in
news:t6oeup$f8m$1@dont-email.me:

> On Thu, 26 May 2022 15:52:53 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>news:8tLjK.7$YpK3.4@fx05.iad:
>>>
>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>On Wed, 25 May 2022 20:40:03 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:36:05 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J.
>>>>>>> >Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> I suspect that you will find the percentage of
>>>>>>> >> Americans who don't recignize the legitimacy of the
>>>>>>> >> current government to be surprisingly high. But that's
>>>>>>> >> not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen they
>>>>>>> >> have to try to do something unlawful about it.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6,
>>>>>>> >2021, demonstrators trespassed in the Senate building,
>>>>>>> >committing acts of vandalism, and acts of violence
>>>>>>> >against persons, as well as making death threats against
>>>>>>> >some of those assembled. So I am having a bit of trouble
>>>>>>> >understanding your point here.
>>>>>>> A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In what way were they 'crazy'? Are you claiming they were
>>>>>>all mentally ill, and not responsible for their actions?
>>>>>>They had a plan: prevent the certification of the election,
>>>>>>throwing the election to the House, were they would get
>>>>>>Trump elected. It was rational as it was unAmerican, and
>>>>>>could conceivably have worked. We're lucky it did not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, it was an insurrection.
>>>>>
>>>>>They were approximately 0.0001% of the population or 0.0004%
>>>>>of Republicans. That's a lunatic-fringe. You may not like
>>>>>it, you may not want to accept it, you may think that there
>>>>>is some serious effort afoot to overthrow the government, but
>>>>>_that_ was not _it_.
>>>>
>>>> Throw in Trump's ravings and it _was_ a serious effort to
>>>> overthrow the government.
>>>>
>>>And yet, not a single person has been prosecuted for
>>>insurrection. And no reason to believe anybody ever will be.
>>
>> Which is completely irrelevent as it was easier to convict on
>> other charges.
>>
>> https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
>
> It was "easier to convict on other charges" because it was not
> an insurrection. And not even the prosecutors involved were
> stupid enough to try to make a case it was.
>
And that in a climate that would be as friendly so such a
politically motivated prosecution as anything we've seen in our
lifetimes.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On 2022-05-26 8:23 a.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> news:42937331-70c0-4dae-80a1-276e0d7a3039n@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who
>>> don't recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be
>>> surprisingly high. But that's not "insurrection". For
>>> "insurrection" to happen they have to try to do something
>>> unlawful about it.
>>
>> Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021,
>> demonstrators trespassed in the Senate building, committing acts
>> of vandalism, and acts of violence against persons, as well as
>> making death threats against some of those assembled.
>> So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
>>
> While it was, indeed, a riot, not a single person has been charged
> with insurrection, which is a specific crime. Not one. Calling it an
> insurrection is libelous, and anyone who insists on using that word
> should be sued for it.
>

"libelous"?

Libelous against whom?

On 2022-05-26 8:24 a.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:91bfdd49-97bc-4929-91b6-d3717c4839bfn@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:36:05 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who
>>>>> don't recignize the legitimacy of the current government to
>>>>> be surprisingly high. But that's not "insurrection". For
>>>>> "insurrection" to happen they have to try to do something
>>>>> unlawful about it.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021,
>>>> demonstrators trespassed in the Senate building, committing
>>>> acts of vandalism, and acts of violence against persons, as
>>>> well as making death threats against some of those assembled.
>>>> So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
>>> A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>>
>> In what way were they 'crazy'? Are you claiming they were all
>> mentally ill, and not responsible for their actions? They had a
>> plan: prevent the certification of the election, throwing the
>> election to the House, were they would get Trump elected. It was
>> rational as it was unAmerican, and could conceivably have
>> worked. We're lucky it did not.
>>
>> Yes, it was an insurrection.
>>
> And yet, even with the current outright fascist liberal
> administration, not a single person has been prosecuted for
> insurrection. Not one.

So Hilary Clinton wasn't guilty of anything...

....right?

The rioters were the weapon.

On 2022-05-26 11:27 a.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
> news:pnNjK.45480$wIO9.22022@fx12.iad:
>
>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>> news:8tLjK.7$YpK3.4@fx05.iad:
>>>
>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 20:40:03 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>>> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:36:05 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans
>>>>>>>>> who don't recignize the legitimacy of the current
>>>>>>>>> government to be surprisingly high. But that's not
>>>>>>>>> "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen they have
>>>>>>>>> to try to do something unlawful about it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6,
>>>>>>>> 2021, demonstrators trespassed in the Senate building,
>>>>>>>> committing acts of vandalism, and acts of violence against
>>>>>>>> persons, as well as making death threats against some of
>>>>>>>> those assembled.
>>>>>>>> So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point
>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>> A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In what way were they 'crazy'? Are you claiming they were all
>>>>>> mentally ill, and not responsible for their actions? They had
>>>>>> a plan: prevent the certification of the election, throwing
>>>>>> the election to the House, were they would get Trump elected.
>>>>>> It was rational as it was unAmerican, and could conceivably
>>>>>> have worked. We're lucky it did not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it was an insurrection.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were approximately 0.0001% of the population or 0.0004%
>>>>> of Republicans. That's a lunatic-fringe. You may not like
>>>>> it, you may not want to accept it, you may think that there is
>>>>> some serious effort afoot to overthrow the government, but
>>>>> _that_ was not _it_.
>>>>
>>>> Throw in Trump's ravings and it _was_ a serious effort to
>>>> overthrow the government.
>>>>
>>> And yet, not a single person has been prosecuted for
>>> insurrection. And no reason to believe anybody ever will be.
>>
>> Which is completely irrelevent
>
> Accusing people of being insurgents when no one has been charged
> with being an insurgent is irrelevant? Only in fascist lefty
> fantasy land.

Accusing people of violate classified information security laws when no
one has been charged...

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 9:25:58 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

> Indeed, there is. Are you so fucking *stupid* that you believe that
> reason is anything other than "r comes after i" in the alphabet?

That, and the fact that they're two different words.

John Savard

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 12:17:18 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 10:42:35 -0600, David Johnston
> <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2022-05-25 10:22 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 May 2022 02:25:15 -0600, David Johnston
> >> <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2022-05-24 10:00 a.m., Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >>>> Chris Buckley <al...@sabir.com> writes:
> >>>>> On 2022-05-23, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Isn't that the primary element of an insurrection?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I wouldn't say so. In an insurrection, folks consciously and
> >>>>> deliberately (not just caught up in a riot) no longer
> >>>>> recognize the legitimacy of the current government, as opposed to acts
> >>>>> of the government.
> >>>>
> >>>> That definition makes 59% of registered republicans guilty of
> >>>> insurrection, as they don't recognize the legitimacy of hte
> >>>> current government.
> >>>
> >>> Nah, you have to act violently on that position for it to be
> >>> insurrection. Of course the January 6th guys were doing that.
> >>
> >> Well, either that or there are so few "Registered Republicans" that
> >> the, what, maybe 1000 or so involved are 59% of them.
> >>
> >> Oh, wait, you're only counting those who "consciously and
> >> deliberately" did it. So maybe the number of "Registered Republicans"
> >> is about 100 at best?
> >
> >What are you babbling about?
> I am pointing out that it /is/ possible for those who are being tried,
> and will be tried in the future, for an organized and deliberate
> effort to prevent Congress from perfoming its duty /could/ be 59% of
> "registered Republicans" if the number of "registered Republicans" is
> small enough.
>
> After all, with whom are they registered? How many Republicans bother
> to register?
>

[quote]

In those states that prompt voters to indicate partisan affiliation on registration forms, affiliation
with a political party may be a condition of participation in that party's primaries.

[/quote] - https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_affiliations_of_registered_voters

Of the states where I have lived in, WI has no registration by party. NY, FL and
CT do. One can register as an independent., but one can't vote in any primary.

CT uses "unaffiliated voter" rather than "independent," allowing those folks to change
their registration prior to and including Primary Day. Also:

[quote]

A party can elect to permit unaffiliated voters to participate in its primary.

[/quote] - https://ballotpedia.org/Primary_elections_in_Connecticut

Unlike some other countries, which automatically register people to vote,
the individual has to take some action to be so included in most of the US.
Making those steps easier has been an issue for some time. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Voter_Registration_Act_of_1993

In states like WI without registration by party, one would have to be quite
committed to join a political party officially. I joined the Libertarian Party
there, probably during or right after the 1982 Congressional election. I
had to pay dues and everything. I also held offices on our county committee
and state Executive Committee. Competition for such offices was often of
the "beg some other guy to agree to take it, so you didn't have to," type.

# of registered voters declaring a party connection also comes into play
for ballot status purposes in some states. If your # is too low, it may mean
getting out the clipboards an having a petition drive. I've had to do that, too.

[quote ]

As of July 2021, 49.3 million registered voters identified themselves as Democrats.
At 39.6%, Democrats represented the single largest share of registered voters in
those states that allow voters to indicate partisan affiliation on their registration forms.
A total of 36.4 million registered voters identified themselves as Republicans, representing
29.2% of registered voters in these states.

[/quote]

2000/36.4 million ~= 1/18200

Not a representative number.

--
Kevin R

On 2022-05-26 10:17 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 10:42:35 -0600, David Johnston
> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-05-25 10:22 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 02:25:15 -0600, David Johnston
>>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-05-24 10:00 a.m., Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-23, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Isn't that the primary element of an insurrection?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't say so. In an insurrection, folks consciously and
>>>>>> deliberately (not just caught up in a riot) no longer
>>>>>> recognize the legitimacy of the current government, as opposed to acts
>>>>>> of the government.
>>>>>
>>>>> That definition makes 59% of registered republicans guilty of
>>>>> insurrection, as they don't recognize the legitimacy of hte
>>>>> current government.
>>>>
>>>> Nah, you have to act violently on that position for it to be
>>>> insurrection. Of course the January 6th guys were doing that.
>>>
>>> Well, either that or there are so few "Registered Republicans" that
>>> the, what, maybe 1000 or so involved are 59% of them.
>>>
>>> Oh, wait, you're only counting those who "consciously and
>>> deliberately" did it. So maybe the number of "Registered Republicans"
>>> is about 100 at best?
>>
>> What are you babbling about?
>
> I am pointing out that it /is/ possible for those who are being tried,
> and will be tried in the future, for an organized and deliberate
> effort to prevent Congress from perfoming its duty /could/ be 59% of
> "registered Republicans" if the number of "registered Republicans" is
> small enough.

...uh-hunh. Why are you pointing that out?

>
> After all, with whom are they registered?

With their state governments.

How many Republicans bother
> to register?

Quite a few since it's frequently required for participation in the
state primaries.

On 2022-05-25 7:36 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
>>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
>>> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
>>> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
>>
>> Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021, demonstrators
>> trespassed in the Senate building, committing acts of vandalism, and acts of
>> violence against persons, as well as making death threats against some of
>> those assembled.
>> So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
>
> A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".

Ah. Where's the official cut off point at which a group of people
trying to overthrown the government and install a dictator becomes an
insurrection?

On Thursday, 26 May 2022 at 22:55:04 UTC+1, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-05-25 7:36 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> > <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
> >>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
> >>> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
> >>> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
> >>
> >> Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021, demonstrators
> >> trespassed in the Senate building, committing acts of vandalism, and acts of
> >> violence against persons, as well as making death threats against some of
> >> those assembled.
> >> So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
> >
> > A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
> Ah. Where's the official cut off point at which a group of people
> trying to overthrown the government and install a dictator becomes an
> insurrection?

"Treason doth never prosper..."

On 5/26/2022 1:12 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 5/26/2022 11:29 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 09:17:13 -0700, Paul S Person
>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 10:42:35 -0600, David Johnston
>>>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2022-05-25 10:22 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 02:25:15 -0600, David Johnston
>>>>>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-24 10:00 a.m., Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-23, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Isn't that the primary element of an insurrection?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't say so. In an insurrection, folks consciously and
>>>>>>>>> deliberately (not just caught up in a riot) no longer
>>>>>>>>> recognize the legitimacy of the current government, as opposed to acts
>>>>>>>>> of the government.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That definition makes 59% of registered republicans guilty of
>>>>>>>> insurrection, as they don't recognize the legitimacy of hte
>>>>>>>> current government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nah, you have to act violently on that position for it to be
>>>>>>> insurrection. Of course the January 6th guys were doing that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, either that or there are so few "Registered Republicans" that
>>>>>> the, what, maybe 1000 or so involved are 59% of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, wait, you're only counting those who "consciously and
>>>>>> deliberately" did it. So maybe the number of "Registered Republicans"
>>>>>> is about 100 at best?
>>>>>
>>>>> What are you babbling about?
>>>>
>>>> I am pointing out that it /is/ possible for those who are being tried,
>>>> and will be tried in the future, for an organized and deliberate
>>>> effort to prevent Congress from perfoming its duty /could/ be 59% of
>>>> "registered Republicans" if the number of "registered Republicans" is
>>>> small enough.
>>>>
>>>> After all, with whom are they registered? How many Republicans bother
>>>> to register?
>>>
>>> Generally speaking they are registered with their state governments in
>>> order to vote in primary elections.
>>
>> Not here in Texas. We have open primaries.
>
> So? They're still must be registered in order to vote.

Yes, but not registered with a given party.

Lynn

On Thu, 26 May 2022 09:23:04 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 May 2022 22:50:12 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-05-25 10:21 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 20:40:03 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:36:05 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
>>>>>>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
>>>>>>> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
>>>>>>> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021, demonstrators
>>>>>> trespassed in the Senate building, committing acts of vandalism, and acts of
>>>>>> violence against persons, as well as making death threats against some of
>>>>>> those assembled.
>>>>>> So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
>>>>> A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>>>>
>>>> In what way were they 'crazy'? Are you claiming they were all mentally ill,
>>>> and not responsible for their actions? They had a plan: prevent the certification
>>>> of the election, throwing the election to the House, were they would get Trump
>>>> elected. It was rational as it was unAmerican, and could conceivably have
>>>> worked. We're lucky it did not.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it was an insurrection.
>>>
>>> They were approximately 0.0001% of the population or 0.0004% of
>>> Republicans. That's a lunatic-fringe. You may not like it, you may
>>> not want to accept it, you may think that there is some serious effort
>>> afoot to overthrow the government, but _that_ was not _it_.
>>>
>>
>>So unless it's a large number of people it can't be an insurrection?
>
>More likely, unless it is being done by someone he doesn't like it
>can't be an insurrection.
>
>"/They/ do insurrection. /We/ merely get over-excited."

Numbers matter. It doesn't have to be a huge number, but it has to be
more than the percentage of nutcakes known to exist in the population.
For openers.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 09:21:13 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 May 2022 21:36:01 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
>>>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
>>>> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
>>>> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
>>>
>>>Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021, demonstrators
>>>trespassed in the Senate building, committing acts of vandalism, and acts of
>>>violence against persons, as well as making death threats against some of
>>>those assembled.
>>>So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
>>
>>A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>
>Ah, but this was neither a "handful" nor were they (all) "crazies".

You can assert that less than 0.001% of the population is "many" until
you are blue in the face. It doesn't make it so. And if you think
that a handful of people who try to storm the capitol aren't crazy,
you're crazy.
>
>They were mostly Trump supporters, all riled up by their Supreme
>Leader.
>
>But some were rather more organized, and are being tried as such.
>
>(They are in the preliminaries of the procedure, but that is where
>they are heading.)

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 4:09:41 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 May 2022 at 22:55:04 UTC+1, David Johnston wrote:

> > Ah. Where's the official cut off point at which a group of people
> > trying to overthrown the government and install a dictator becomes an
> > insurrection?

> "Treason doth never prosper..."

What's the reason?

For if it prosper, none dare call it treason. - John Harrington

John Savard

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 9:23:38 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

> While it was, indeed, a riot, not a single person has been charged
> with insurrection, which is a specific crime. Not one. Calling it an
> insurrection is libelous, and anyone who insists on using that word
> should be sued for it.

Title 18 of the U.S. code, section 2383, makes it a crime to incite, set on foot,
assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the
United States or the laws thereof. But it does _not_ define the term insurrection.

So we have to rely on the *dictionary* for the definition of insurrection.

This is unlike the case of treason - which, while it is generally understood
to mean betrayal of one's country, is a charge that can only be laid under
current law if there is a declaration of war in effect.

What next, will it be possible to sue the people who say that abortion is
murder?

John Savard

On 2022-05-26 8:15 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2022 09:21:13 -0700, Paul S Person
> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 21:36:01 -0400, J. Clarke
>> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
>>>>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
>>>>> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
>>>>> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021, demonstrators
>>>> trespassed in the Senate building, committing acts of vandalism, and acts of
>>>> violence against persons, as well as making death threats against some of
>>>> those assembled.
>>>> So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
>>>
>>> A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>>
>> Ah, but this was neither a "handful" nor were they (all) "crazies".
>
> You can assert that less than 0.001% of the population is "many" until
> you are blue in the face. It doesn't make it so. And if you think
> that a handful of people who try to storm the capitol aren't crazy,
> you're crazy.

But they DID try to storm the capitol.

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 10:15:44 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2022 09:21:13 -0700, Paul S Person
> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 25 May 2022 21:36:01 -0400, J. Clarke
> ><jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> >><jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
> >>>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
> >>>> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
> >>>> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
> >>>
> >>>Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021, demonstrators
> >>>trespassed in the Senate building, committing acts of vandalism, and acts of
> >>>violence against persons, as well as making death threats against some of
> >>>those assembled.
> >>>So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
> >>
> >>A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
> >
> >Ah, but this was neither a "handful" nor were they (all) "crazies".
> You can assert that less than 0.001% of the population is "many" until
> you are blue in the face. It doesn't make it so. And if you think
> that a handful of people who try to storm the capitol aren't crazy,
> you're crazy.

They were ambitious, and had just been whipped into a frenzy by a
demogogue's lies. Most, I think, hadn't arrived at the rally with any
particular plan to enter the Capitol, but were swept along by the
excitement of the moment.

Its clear though, that some *did* intend to disrupt the electoral
vote count (the 'Promise Keepers' group). They dressed in tactical
gear, had radios, and acted in a coordinated fashion within the
more chaotic mob. There's strong evidence of pre-planning,
reconnaissance, and more recently, pre-coordination with
Trump cronies.

What's frightening is how close they came to succeeding.

pt

On Fri, 27 May 2022 06:36:20 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 10:15:44 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 09:21:13 -0700, Paul S Person
>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 25 May 2022 21:36:01 -0400, J. Clarke
>> ><jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> >><jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
>> >>>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
>> >>>> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
>> >>>> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
>> >>>
>> >>>Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021, demonstrators
>> >>>trespassed in the Senate building, committing acts of vandalism, and acts of
>> >>>violence against persons, as well as making death threats against some of
>> >>>those assembled.
>> >>>So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
>> >>
>> >>A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>> >
>> >Ah, but this was neither a "handful" nor were they (all) "crazies".
>> You can assert that less than 0.001% of the population is "many" until
>> you are blue in the face. It doesn't make it so. And if you think
>> that a handful of people who try to storm the capitol aren't crazy,
>> you're crazy.
>
>They were ambitious, and had just been whipped into a frenzy by a
>demogogue's lies. Most, I think, hadn't arrived at the rally with any
>particular plan to enter the Capitol, but were swept along by the
>excitement of the moment.
>
>Its clear though, that some *did* intend to disrupt the electoral
>vote count (the 'Promise Keepers' group). They dressed in tactical
>gear, had radios, and acted in a coordinated fashion within the
>more chaotic mob. There's strong evidence of pre-planning,
>reconnaissance, and more recently, pre-coordination with
>Trump cronies.
>
>What's frightening is how close they came to succeeding.

Succeding in what, a live-fire exercise for the SWAT team?

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:ea18c550-2db9-4091-84df-a9d2da31ec8dn@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 9:23:38 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
>> While it was, indeed, a riot, not a single person has been
>> charged with insurrection, which is a specific crime. Not one.
>> Calling it an insurrection is libelous, and anyone who insists
>> on using that word should be sued for it.
>
> Title 18 of the U.S. code, section 2383, makes it a crime to
> incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or
> insurrection against the authority of the United States or the
> laws thereof. But it does _not_ define the term insurrection.
>
> So we have to rely on the *dictionary* for the definition of
> insurrection.
>
> This is unlike the case of treason - which, while it is
> generally understood to mean betrayal of one's country, is a
> charge that can only be laid under current law if there is a
> declaration of war in effect.

And despite that, and an administration that would be very
favorable to charging people under that exact law, not a single
person has been charged with insurrection, because they prosecutors
know they couldn't make the case.
>
> What next, will it be possible to sue the people who say that
> abortion is murder?
>
The crime isn't murder, it's homicide.

Words matter. Which is why lefties like you try to twist the
meanings.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Thu, 26 May 2022 12:49:48 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/26/2022 11:29 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 09:17:13 -0700, Paul S Person
>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 10:42:35 -0600, David Johnston
>>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-05-25 10:22 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 02:25:15 -0600, David Johnston
>>>>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-05-24 10:00 a.m., Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-23, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Isn't that the primary element of an insurrection?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wouldn't say so. In an insurrection, folks consciously and
>>>>>>>> deliberately (not just caught up in a riot) no longer
>>>>>>>> recognize the legitimacy of the current government, as opposed to acts
>>>>>>>> of the government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That definition makes 59% of registered republicans guilty of
>>>>>>> insurrection, as they don't recognize the legitimacy of hte
>>>>>>> current government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nah, you have to act violently on that position for it to be
>>>>>> insurrection. Of course the January 6th guys were doing that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, either that or there are so few "Registered Republicans" that
>>>>> the, what, maybe 1000 or so involved are 59% of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, wait, you're only counting those who "consciously and
>>>>> deliberately" did it. So maybe the number of "Registered Republicans"
>>>>> is about 100 at best?
>>>>
>>>> What are you babbling about?
>>>
>>> I am pointing out that it /is/ possible for those who are being tried,
>>> and will be tried in the future, for an organized and deliberate
>>> effort to prevent Congress from perfoming its duty /could/ be 59% of
>>> "registered Republicans" if the number of "registered Republicans" is
>>> small enough.
>>>
>>> After all, with whom are they registered? How many Republicans bother
>>> to register?
>>
>> Generally speaking they are registered with their state governments in
>> order to vote in primary elections.
>
>Not here in Texas. We have open primaries.
>
>Just don't get caught voting in both primaries. The authorities tend to
>prosecute people for that.

I've always felt that, if a person is a paid-up member of more than
one Party, that person should be able to vote in each of their
primaries.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thu, 26 May 2022 15:53:32 -0600, David Johnston
<davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2022-05-26 10:17 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 10:42:35 -0600, David Johnston
>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-05-25 10:22 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 02:25:15 -0600, David Johnston
>>>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2022-05-24 10:00 a.m., Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-23, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Isn't that the primary element of an insurrection?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wouldn't say so. In an insurrection, folks consciously and
>>>>>>> deliberately (not just caught up in a riot) no longer
>>>>>>> recognize the legitimacy of the current government, as opposed to acts
>>>>>>> of the government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That definition makes 59% of registered republicans guilty of
>>>>>> insurrection, as they don't recognize the legitimacy of hte
>>>>>> current government.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nah, you have to act violently on that position for it to be
>>>>> insurrection. Of course the January 6th guys were doing that.
>>>>
>>>> Well, either that or there are so few "Registered Republicans" that
>>>> the, what, maybe 1000 or so involved are 59% of them.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, wait, you're only counting those who "consciously and
>>>> deliberately" did it. So maybe the number of "Registered Republicans"
>>>> is about 100 at best?
>>>
>>> What are you babbling about?
>>
>> I am pointing out that it /is/ possible for those who are being tried,
>> and will be tried in the future, for an organized and deliberate
>> effort to prevent Congress from perfoming its duty /could/ be 59% of
>> "registered Republicans" if the number of "registered Republicans" is
>> small enough.
>
>..uh-hunh. Why are you pointing that out?

Because it was claimed that their were so few insurrectionists that
they could not be 59% of "registered Republicans".

>>
>> After all, with whom are they registered?
>
>With their state governments.

They register /as Republicans/ with their State governments? Where are
these States? Russia?

>How many Republicans bother
> to register?
>
>Quite a few since it's frequently required for participation in the
>state primaries.

So, the claim now is that 59% of those who have registered with their
State government (but not necessarily with the Republican Party) hold
this opinion?

I was thinking more of their registering with the Bugaloo Boys or
similar group.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thu, 26 May 2022 10:16:29 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>In article <f9av8hpsa4vd4tpfjp2e9titmdu4f7hhkh@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 22:50:12 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 2022-05-25 10:21 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 25 May 2022 20:40:03 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> >> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:36:05 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> >>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
>> >>>>>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
>> >>>>>> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
>> >>>>>> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021,
>> >>>>> demonstrators
>> >>>>> trespassed in the Senate building, committing acts of vandalism, and
>> >>>>> acts of
>> >>>>> violence against persons, as well as making death threats against some
>> >>>>> of
>> >>>>> those assembled.
>> >>>>> So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
>> >>>> A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>> >>>
>> >>> In what way were they 'crazy'? Are you claiming they were all mentally
>> >>> ill,
>> >>> and not responsible for their actions? They had a plan: prevent the
>> >>> certification
>> >>> of the election, throwing the election to the House, were they would get
>> >>> Trump
>> >>> elected. It was rational as it was unAmerican, and could conceivably have
>> >>> worked. We're lucky it did not.
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes, it was an insurrection.
>> >>
>> >> They were approximately 0.0001% of the population or 0.0004% of
>> >> Republicans. That's a lunatic-fringe. You may not like it, you may
>> >> not want to accept it, you may think that there is some serious effort
>> >> afoot to overthrow the government, but _that_ was not _it_.
>> >>
>> >
>> >So unless it's a large number of people it can't be an insurrection?
>>
>> More likely, unless it is being done by someone he doesn't like it
>> can't be an insurrection.
>>
>> "/They/ do insurrection. /We/ merely get over-excited."
>
>Shouldn't that be "We present grievances; you get over-excited; they do
>insurrections"?

Why, yes, that irregular declension would work much better.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thu, 26 May 2022 08:27:04 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>news:8tLjK.7$YpK3.4@fx05.iad:
>
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>On Wed, 25 May 2022 20:40:03 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:36:05 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke
>>>>> >wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans
>>>>> >> who don't recignize the legitimacy of the current
>>>>> >> government to be surprisingly high. But that's not
>>>>> >> "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen they have to
>>>>> >> try to do something unlawful about it.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6,
>>>>> >2021, demonstrators trespassed in the Senate building,
>>>>> >committing acts of vandalism, and acts of violence against
>>>>> >persons, as well as making death threats against some of
>>>>> >those assembled.
>>>>> >So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point
>>>>> >here.
>>>>> A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>>>>
>>>>In what way were they 'crazy'? Are you claiming they were all
>>>>mentally ill, and not responsible for their actions? They had a
>>>>plan: prevent the certification of the election, throwing the
>>>>election to the House, were they would get Trump elected. It
>>>>was rational as it was unAmerican, and could conceivably have
>>>>worked. We're lucky it did not.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it was an insurrection.
>>>
>>>They were approximately 0.0001% of the population or 0.0004% of
>>>Republicans. That's a lunatic-fringe. You may not like it, you
>>>may not want to accept it, you may think that there is some
>>>serious effort afoot to overthrow the government, but _that_ was
>>>not _it_.
>>
>> Throw in Trump's ravings and it _was_ a serious effort to
>> overthrow the government.
>>
>And yet, not a single person has been prosecuted for insurrection.

So far.

>And no reason to believe anybody ever will be.

That remains to be seen.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thu, 26 May 2022 23:14:13 -0600, David Johnston
<davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2022-05-26 8:15 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 09:21:13 -0700, Paul S Person
>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 21:36:01 -0400, J. Clarke
>>> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
>>>>>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
>>>>>> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
>>>>>> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021, demonstrators
>>>>> trespassed in the Senate building, committing acts of vandalism, and acts of
>>>>> violence against persons, as well as making death threats against some of
>>>>> those assembled.
>>>>> So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
>>>>
>>>> A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>>>
>>> Ah, but this was neither a "handful" nor were they (all) "crazies".
>>
>> You can assert that less than 0.001% of the population is "many" until
>> you are blue in the face. It doesn't make it so. And if you think
>> that a handful of people who try to storm the capitol aren't crazy,
>> you're crazy.
>
>But they DID try to storm the capitol.

Actually, they /succeeded/ in storming the Capitol.

They just didn't succeed in stopping Congress from doing its duty.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thu, 26 May 2022 22:15:40 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 May 2022 09:21:13 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 May 2022 21:36:01 -0400, J. Clarke
>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
>>>>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
>>>>> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
>>>>> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021, demonstrators
>>>>trespassed in the Senate building, committing acts of vandalism, and acts of
>>>>violence against persons, as well as making death threats against some of
>>>>those assembled.
>>>>So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
>>>
>>>A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>>
>>Ah, but this was neither a "handful" nor were they (all) "crazies".
>
>You can assert that less than 0.001% of the population is "many" until
>you are blue in the face. It doesn't make it so. And if you think
>that a handful of people who try to storm the capitol aren't crazy,
>you're crazy.

0.001% is not a "handful". I never said it was "many".

And, since they actually /succeeded/ in storming the Capitol, they
weren't all that crazy, were they?

Twisting and turning -- are you so terrified that an Unindicted
Co-conspirator will appear in the conspiracy trial? That a certain
ex-President/foreign agent will turn out to have participated in the
planning? Is that why you are so frantic?

>>
>>They were mostly Trump supporters, all riled up by their Supreme
>>Leader.
>>
>>But some were rather more organized, and are being tried as such.
>>
>>(They are in the preliminaries of the procedure, but that is where
>>they are heading.)
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."