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.

John Savard

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".

On 2022-05-25 6:36 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".

And "handful" sunshine?

5 people can be an insurrection in the right circumstances.

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.

Pt

On 2022-05-25 8:40 p.m., pete...@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.

And anyone who thinks it was just the unhappy mob that was used as a
weapon in the plan hasn't been paying attention.

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_.

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?

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:21:23 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> 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_.

There's a reason that "revolution" comes after "insurrection" in the
dictionary, instead of them both being the same word.

John Savard

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.

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 1:21:23 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 20:40:03 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <pete...@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_.

[Nitpick: If you're going to spout checkable numbers, get them right.
About 2000 people entered the building. That almost 6 times as many
as you claim.]

So, unless millions of Trump supporters manages to get inside the
Capitol at once, it wasn't an insurrection?

A coup d'etat doesn't take many people. Tiny groups can and do
overthrow governments.

If the insurrectionists had succeeded in preventing the election certification,
Trump and many GOP representatives would have seized the opportunity
created to insist on throwing the election to the house.

Trumpists and many traditional Republicans would have gone along with it.

pt

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.

--
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

"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.

You're a delusional as Quaddie. Which is saying something.

--
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

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:ae1f0de0-031f-4d9e-8130-3c2a8fc39d9cn@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:21:23 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke
> wrote:
>
>> 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_.
>
> There's a reason that "revolution" comes after "insurrection" in
> the dictionary, instead of them both being the same word.
>
Indeed, there is. Are you so fucking *stupid* that you believe that
reason is anything other than "r comes after i" in the alphabet?

Yes. Yes, you are.

--
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

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.

You are, literally, hallucinating a world that does not exist.

You're at least as crazy as the rioters from Jan 6. Quite possibly
more so.

--
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

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

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?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 25 May 2022 13:24:48 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 May 2022 09:22:05 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> 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?
>
>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.

I would say "appallingly high". But they are not insurrectionists --
at least, not today. Tomorrow who can say what they may do?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

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".

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."

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."
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

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.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 08:12:37 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 1:21:23 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 20:40:03 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> <pete...@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_.
>
>[Nitpick: If you're going to spout checkable numbers, get them right.
>About 2000 people entered the building. That almost 6 times as many
>as you claim.]

Ok, so it's 0.0006%. Still a lunatic fringe.

>So, unless millions of Trump supporters manages to get inside the
>Capitol at once, it wasn't an insurrection?

Well, I would at least like to see a percentage participating that is
an order of magnitude higher than the percentage that have
schizophrenia. And I would also expect to see action more wide spread
than entering a single building.

>A coup d'etat doesn't take many people. Tiny groups can and do
>overthrow governments.

So when has a tiny group done this? Generally successful coups are
brought about by military officers, who have a good deal more than a
"tiny group" obeying their orders.

>If the insurrectionists had succeeded in preventing the election certification,
>Trump and many GOP representatives would have seized the opportunity
>created to insist on throwing the election to the house.
>
>Trumpists and many traditional Republicans would have gone along with it.

Perhaps. You are speculating now.

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"?

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

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.

Lynn

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.

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.