On 2022-06-01, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 9:14:39 AM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> Primaries aren't elections. Political parties are free to select their
>> candidates by any means they desire.
>
> In the United States, party primaries are part of the electoral system.
>
> Due to political scandals which led to a widespread condemnation of
> "machine politics", the United States enacted laws which required
> "open primaries"; one of the consequences of that is that, as the candidates
> presented by parties are now chosen by everyone inclined to vote for the
> given party, as opposed to party "insiders" who might be concerned with
> choosing a more electable candidate who could get votes away from the
> opposing party, parties have been tending to drift away from middle-of-the-road
> positions.
>
> So you're describing the situation which exists in most other democratic
> nations, but not the U.S..

Once again you're describing the situation which exists in your mind,
but not in reality.

Some states have open primaries, some have closed primaries, some have
caucuses, some have ...

By the US constitution, it is up to the individual states to decide
voting rules; some defer to the parties more than others.

Chris

On 2022-06-01, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2022 13:34:17 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 May 2022 14:32:24 -0400, J. Clarke
>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>https://nomoretrump.quora.com/How-many-Trump-loyalists-are-in-the-military-and-ready-to-overthrow-the-U-S-government-in-a-major-coup-to-install-Trump
>>>
>>>One can dislike both Trump and Democrats.
>>
>>Of course they can. I'm sure millions do.
>>
>>As for the military, every soldier or officer I've talked to takes
>>their oath pretty seriously and know what they've sworn to. Doesn't
>>mean there aren't the occasional bad apple but the overwhelming
>>majority are loyal to the country as a whole and don't see that as
>>depending on whether they themselves voted for the winning candidate
>>or not. And that most of them very much DO vote.
>>
>>(One of the things that makes the July 1945 British general election
>>such a favorite subject of grad students writing political science
>>theses is that the election was a squeaker based ONLY on civilian
>>votes but that it was 85%/15% Labour over the Conservatives on the
>>military vote and since the election was after the surrender of
>>Germany and before the surrender of Japan, postwar demobilization
>>hadn't really started yet and there were something like 800000 troops
>>and sailors voting outside their home districts. My point is that
>>service men and women DO vote and have done so in western democratic
>>states for a long time)
>
> Well, except for absentee military voters in Florida in 2000.
>
> Validity depended on the postmark, and there were no postmarks.
>
> But that's just the State of Florida showing the level of its ...
> appreciation ... of those of its citizens serving in the military.

Yes, the Democrats tried their best (especially early on) to have all
those no-postmark ballots thrown out, and most were not counted (it depended
on county.)

Chris

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>On Tue, 31 May 2022 14:32:24 -0400, J. Clarke
>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>https://nomoretrump.quora.com/How-many-Trump-loyalists-are-in-the-military-and-ready-to-overthrow-the-U-S-government-in-a-major-coup-to-install-Trump
>>>
>>>One can dislike both Trump and Democrats.
>>
>>Of course they can. I'm sure millions do.
>>
>>As for the military, every soldier or officer I've talked to takes
>>their oath pretty seriously and know what they've sworn to.
>
> And the idea that any substantial fraction of either the
> police or military hate democrats are unsupported
> ravings from the fascist wing of the GOP.

Alternatively, they are having jokes around the USS William D. Porter
incident:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-destroyer-almost-sank-navy-battleship-president-roosevelt-board-106786

--
Stephen Harker sjharker@netspace.net.au
was: http://sjharker.customer.netspace.net.au/
now: http://members.iinet.net.au/~sjharker@netspace.net.au/
or: http://members.iinet.net.au/~sjharker_nbn/

J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> schrieb:

> Membership in a political party is not a tax. However if the parties
> charged a membership fee I suspect they would cease to exist right
> quick.

In Germany, you pay for being a member of a political party.
Membership dues are one major source of income, the other is
money payed out by the government based on electoral results.
Plus, at least in some parties, representatives are "voluntarily"
donating part of their salaries to their parties.

It's a system which has kept many people who would be otherwise
unemployable, but who are loyal party members, in quite lucrative
jobs.

On 2022-05-27 8:28 a.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> 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.

So by that standard, you must now withdraw all the claims you've made
about Hilary Clinton's alleged crimes.

On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:35:22 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2022-05-27 8:28 a.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> 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.
>
>So by that standard, you must now withdraw all the claims you've made
>about Hilary Clinton's alleged crimes.

Well, the first attempt to criminalize behavior related to her
campaign has ended with an acquittal.

And that is the /only/ attempt so far. And the investigation is
getting ... a bit long in the tooth.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:35:22 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-05-27 8:28 a.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>>So by that standard, you must now withdraw all the claims you've made
>>about Hilary Clinton's alleged crimes.
>
>Well, the first attempt to criminalize behavior related to her
>campaign has ended with an acquittal.

Yeah, and fox news trotted out whitaker (Trump AG for 4 months[*]) who claimed jury
nullification. Whitaker is quite a piece of work, soaking up 1.2 million from
anonymous donors to FACT (which focused on the Clinton email controversy).

(about FACT (Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust):

"..."GOP Operative" characterized the organization as a "chop shop
of fake ethics complaints".

[*] unconstitutionally appointed without senate approval according to many legal experts.

On 2022-06-02 8:43 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:35:22 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-05-27 8:28 a.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> So by that standard, you must now withdraw all the claims you've made
>> about Hilary Clinton's alleged crimes.
>
> Well, the first attempt to criminalize behavior related to her
> campaign has ended with an acquittal.
>
> And that is the /only/ attempt so far. And the investigation is
> getting ... a bit long in the tooth.

I was actually referring to his insistence that Clinton was guilty of
violating the laws regarding classified information.

On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 10:36:36 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2022-06-02 8:43 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:35:22 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-05-27 8:28 a.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> So by that standard, you must now withdraw all the claims you've made
>>> about Hilary Clinton's alleged crimes.
>>
>> Well, the first attempt to criminalize behavior related to her
>> campaign has ended with an acquittal.
>>
>> And that is the /only/ attempt so far. And the investigation is
>> getting ... a bit long in the tooth.
>
>I was actually referring to his insistence that Clinton was guilty of
>violating the laws regarding classified information.

I missed the reference.

Perhaps The Donald's taking classified info from the White House to
Mar-a-Lago after his term expired has shown us what this sort of thing
/really/ looks like.

No legal fallout, so far, though.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 9:42:24 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 10:36:36 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

> >I was actually referring to his insistence that Clinton was guilty of
> >violating the laws regarding classified information.

> I missed the reference.
>
> Perhaps The Donald's taking classified info from the White House to
> Mar-a-Lago after his term expired has shown us what this sort of thing
> /really/ looks like.
>
> No legal fallout, so far, though.

I think that Hillary Clinton's private E-mail server... was blameworthy
conduct. However, similar careless conduct apparently is engaged
in by a lot of U. S. government officials, such as generals in the U. S.
military - and they get away with it too.

The emphasis on it by the Republicans was just a political ploy, but
it shouldn't obscure the fact that it is a bad thing when only the
ordinary low-ranked people have to abide by the rules. Reform, not
scapegoating, is what is needed.

Trump just used his personal cell phone without any issue - but then,
Obama wasn't using his NSA-issued phone either, as he tried, but it
was unusable.

The NSA, I am certain, has the technical capability available to it to
do for the U.S. government what Blackberry used to do in the private
sector. Maybe with the help of qualified contractors. Proper funding and
direction is all that's needed to provide usable and secure telephony
for the U.S. government. Why it's just not being done right is an incomprehensible
scandal from my point of view.

John Savard

On Wed, 01 Jun 2022 08:29:47 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 31 May 2022 13:34:17 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 May 2022 14:32:24 -0400, J. Clarke
>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>https://nomoretrump.quora.com/How-many-Trump-loyalists-are-in-the-military-and-ready-to-overthrow-the-U-S-government-in-a-major-coup-to-install-Trump
>>>
>>>One can dislike both Trump and Democrats.
>>
>>Of course they can. I'm sure millions do.
>>
>>As for the military, every soldier or officer I've talked to takes
>>their oath pretty seriously and know what they've sworn to. Doesn't
>>mean there aren't the occasional bad apple but the overwhelming
>>majority are loyal to the country as a whole and don't see that as
>>depending on whether they themselves voted for the winning candidate
>>or not. And that most of them very much DO vote.
>>
>>(One of the things that makes the July 1945 British general election
>>such a favorite subject of grad students writing political science
>>theses is that the election was a squeaker based ONLY on civilian
>>votes but that it was 85%/15% Labour over the Conservatives on the
>>military vote and since the election was after the surrender of
>>Germany and before the surrender of Japan, postwar demobilization
>>hadn't really started yet and there were something like 800000 troops
>>and sailors voting outside their home districts. My point is that
>>service men and women DO vote and have done so in western democratic
>>states for a long time)
>
>Well, except for absentee military voters in Florida in 2000.
>
>Validity depended on the postmark, and there were no postmarks.
>
>But that's just the State of Florida showing the level of its ...
>appreciation ... of those of its citizens serving in the military.

In fairness in percentage terms the number of British soldiers outside
the UK in July 1945 before demobilization had started was far higher
than the percentage of Floridians serving in the military any time in
the last 50 years.

Given the UK election was in July 1945 I would expect you to know that
that was after VE Day and before VJ Day.

(The UK election date was part of the agreement between Churchill and
Attlee that brought Labour into the wartime coalition government - the
agreement was "within 3 months of the defeat of Germany" - no one in
May 1940 expecting either that Britain would go to war against Japan
and that that theatre would still be active 3 months after the defeat
of Germany. But no question both parties took steps to ensure that
troops stationed abroad COULD vote whether they were in western Europe
or elsewhere in the world. We're talking just under a million Brits
serving overseas at the time of the election in question)

On Wed, 01 Jun 2022 12:13:58 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> 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.
>>
>>Aren't poll taxes illegal in the USA ?
>
>Membership in a political party is not a tax. However if the parties
>charged a membership fee I suspect they would cease to exist right
>quick.

Interesting - within the past month I have paid $15 to renew my
membership in my chosen Canadian federal party.

On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:35:22 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2022-05-27 8:28 a.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> 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:
>>>
>>> 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.

Which to me is very interesting since under the Canadian criminal code

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-5.html#h-115892

Section 46 ("Treason") specifically says both that no declaration of
war is required to be in effect (which is good since the last time
Canada was in a declared war was VJ Day) and that an attack by a
Canadian citizen on troops belonging to an ally are treated as an
attack on Canadian troops (which is a good thing since when did Canada
ever go to war ALONE? Certainly not since 1986 when the present code
was adopted) and that under Canadian law al Qaeda (which Khadr
belonged to) was definitely an organization Canadian troops were "at
war with" as part of an international effort in Afghanistan even
though there was no declaration of war.

Which REALLY makes me wonder about the Omar Khadr case where the
Canadian born Khadr chose to become a jihadi fighter and while abroad
crippled a US medic with a grenade - yet the federal government chose
not to prosecute under section 46, allowed him to re-enter the country
when released from Guantanamo, and in the end gave him just under $10
million for unjust prosecution due to his experiences in Gitmo which
included waterboarding.

My personal view is that section 46 would have been entirely warranted
given what he did and that the payment to him and the sort of judge
who would make such a decision was a national disgrace that should
have seen the 'notwithstanding clause' used.

After all
(1) did he leave Canadian soil to take up arms against Canadian troops
and allies? YES
(2) did he owe Canada allegiance? YES (as a natural born citizen
emphatically yes)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote in
news:oirk9h127if2l5s7um2ldv72j0v5idtpud@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:35:22 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-05-27 8:28 a.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>wrote:
>>> 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:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> Which to me is very interesting since under the Canadian
> criminal code

Who gives a shit what Canadian laws says? Canadian law doesn't apply
in Washington DC.

--
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 Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 11:14:39 AM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-05-31 3:00 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:

[snip]

> > Aren't poll taxes illegal in the USA ?
> Primaries aren't elections. Political parties are free to select their
> candidates by any means they desire.

Not so. Prior to the institution of primaries, party nominations were
an entirely private matter in the US.

[quote]

The formal, legally regulated primary system is peculiar to the United States. The earliest method for
nominating candidates was the caucus, which was adopted in colonial times for local offices and
continued into the 19th century for state and national offices. Although the use of caucuses later
declined, in the early 21st century a few states continued to use caucuses to choose presidential
candidates. Party conventions were instituted as a means of checking the abuses of the caucus
system but also became subject to abuses, which led first to their regulation and ultimately to their
elimination for most offices except president and vice president. After 1890, mandatory regulations
transformed the primary into an election that is conducted by public officers at public expense.

[/quote]

Please note: _mandatory regulations_ .

[/continuing quote]

Although direct primaries were used as early as the 1840s, the primary system came into general
use only in the early 20th century. The movement spread so rapidly that by 1917 all but four states
had adopted the direct primary for some or all statewide nominations. For the presidential contest,
however, primaries fell into disfavour and were generally used in fewer than 20 states until the
1970s, after which most states adopted primaries. Attention from the news media has increased
the importance of presidential primaries to the point where success - especially in New Hampshire
(which usually has held the first presidential primary) and in other early primaries - gives a candidate
a great advantage in publicity and private campaign funding, whereas failure can end a campaign.

[/quote] - https://www.britannica.com/topic/primary-election#ref140177

In my state, for example, parties recently held party conventions at which candidates vied for
an endorsement, but any candidate who received 15% of the delegate vote could challenge in
the primary. Frex, one Republican Senate candidate received 56% of the delegate count, but
two others hit 15% and will face her in the primary, unless one, the other or both drop out between
now and August.

A strict reading of the First Amendment 's Freedom of Assembly guarantee ought to prevent the
state, through 14th Amendment "incorporation," from overriding the choices of private groups such
as political parties, but it's all part of the duopoly's strategy to buttress the "two-party system."

European countries with a prime minister and cabinet often make coalitions of various parties
after the election. Sometimes they have a coalition agreement before the election, with one
party not running candidates in districts where the other party's candidate is stronger. The US
uses conventions and primaries to settle differences (moderates vs ideologues, regional rivalries,
etc) before the final ballot is printed. States even have "sore loser laws" that are used to keep
those unsuccessful at the primary level from running as an independent or accepting the nomination
of another party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sore-loser_law

These are not always held up in the courts.

https://www.governing.com/archive/tns-north-carolina-election-law-struck-down-second-time.htm

Late 19th century reformers had a reason to want to get the state to meddle
in the political parties' nomination processes - the corrupt political machines
that ran various cities and states. One form of corruption was replaced with
another, IMNSHO.

Kevin R
(B.A., History and Political Science)
(Ex-minor functionary in Libertarian Party politics.
Quite minor.)

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 12:45:31 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 9:42:24 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

<snippo, "it" is, of course, Hillary!!!!!!!, since it is by the
Republicans>

>The emphasis on it by the Republicans was just a political ploy, but
>it shouldn't obscure the fact that it is a bad thing when only the
>ordinary low-ranked people have to abide by the rules. Reform, not
>scapegoating, is what is needed.

At one point while I was in the IRS, we were present with the Ethics
Rules.

They were printed on light-brown [1] paper in even lighter-brown type.
This made them as hard to read as you might imagine.

I read them, however. I found out that:

-- a lower-grade employee who gives, say, a lecture on
stamp-collecting /cannot/ receive any payment, not even a "gratuity"

-- a lord-high-muckamuck, however, for doing the same thing, can
accept a "gratuity"

so I am afraid that the two-tier system has been in effect for quite
some time. And explcitly documented about two decades ago.

[1] this is from memory; it could have been light blue and even
lighter blue instead
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 03 Jun 2022 13:39:26 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:35:22 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-05-27 8:28 a.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> 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:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>Which to me is very interesting since under the Canadian criminal code
>
>https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-5.html#h-115892
>
>Section 46 ("Treason") specifically says both that no declaration of
>war is required to be in effect (which is good since the last time
>Canada was in a declared war was VJ Day) and that an attack by a
>Canadian citizen on troops belonging to an ally are treated as an
>attack on Canadian troops (which is a good thing since when did Canada
>ever go to war ALONE? Certainly not since 1986 when the present code
>was adopted) and that under Canadian law al Qaeda (which Khadr
>belonged to) was definitely an organization Canadian troops were "at
>war with" as part of an international effort in Afghanistan even
>though there was no declaration of war.
>
>Which REALLY makes me wonder about the Omar Khadr case where the
>Canadian born Khadr chose to become a jihadi fighter and while abroad
>crippled a US medic with a grenade - yet the federal government chose
>not to prosecute under section 46, allowed him to re-enter the country
>when released from Guantanamo, and in the end gave him just under $10
>million for unjust prosecution due to his experiences in Gitmo which
>included waterboarding.

This only makes sense if by "federal government" you mean "Canada".

>My personal view is that section 46 would have been entirely warranted
>given what he did and that the payment to him and the sort of judge
>who would make such a decision was a national disgrace that should
>have seen the 'notwithstanding clause' used.
>
>After all
>(1) did he leave Canadian soil to take up arms against Canadian troops
>and allies? YES
>(2) did he owe Canada allegiance? YES (as a natural born citizen
>emphatically yes)
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 08:51:18 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>>Which REALLY makes me wonder about the Omar Khadr case where the
>>Canadian born Khadr chose to become a jihadi fighter and while abroad
>>crippled a US medic with a grenade - yet the federal government chose
>>not to prosecute under section 46, allowed him to re-enter the country
>>when released from Guantanamo, and in the end gave him just under $10
>>million for unjust prosecution due to his experiences in Gitmo which
>>included waterboarding.
>
>This only makes sense if by "federal government" you mean "Canada".
>
Since I specifically referenced the Criminal Code of Canada I would
have thought that was obvious.

No question it was a celebrated case.

On 6/4/2022 10:46 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 12:45:31 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 9:42:24 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
> <snippo, "it" is, of course, Hillary!!!!!!!, since it is by the
> Republicans>
>
>> The emphasis on it by the Republicans was just a political ploy, but
>> it shouldn't obscure the fact that it is a bad thing when only the
>> ordinary low-ranked people have to abide by the rules. Reform, not
>> scapegoating, is what is needed.
>
> At one point while I was in the IRS, we were present with the Ethics
> Rules.
>
> They were printed on light-brown [1] paper in even lighter-brown type.
> This made them as hard to read as you might imagine.
>
> I read them, however. I found out that:
>
> -- a lower-grade employee who gives, say, a lecture on
> stamp-collecting /cannot/ receive any payment, not even a "gratuity"
>
> -- a lord-high-muckamuck, however, for doing the same thing, can
> accept a "gratuity"
>
> so I am afraid that the two-tier system has been in effect for quite
> some time. And explcitly documented about two decades ago.
>
> [1] this is from memory; it could have been light blue and even
> lighter blue instead

A friend of mine is an IRS field agent and part of the employee union.
Since Obama hired a guy to be Secretary of the Treasury who had
"forgotten" to pay his USA employment taxes while working for IMF, the
IRS employee union negotiated that to mean that all IRS employees get
ONE free uh-oh. So, all benefits to the upper level employees of the
IRS now go to the lower level employees.
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6704526&page=1

Lynn