On Sun, 29 May 2022 18:27:52 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 29 May 2022 12:29:32 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>SWAT teams are not preventive, they are reactive.
>
>I would think that would be fairly obvious based on the acronym which
>for the benefit of anyone who's forgotten is "Special Weapons Assault
>Team".
>
>I presume nobody needs to review the meanings of 'assault' vs
>'defending'?
>
>>>The Capitol wasn't defended by SWAT teams. Nice diversion, though.
>>
>>No, moron, the SWAT team would have the live fire exercise after the
>>building was occupied. SWAT teams don't defend buildings, SWAT teams
>>reclaim them from criminals.
>>
>>>>>The media compared this gentle approach to the fierce tactics
>>>>>seen against BLM demonstrations.
>>>
>>>Well, /those/ guys were daring to suggest that the police might need a
>>>few minor reforms. Like actually doing the job they were hired to do,
>>>instead of whatever they feel like doing.
>>
>>Democrats should be _very_ concerned that their policies are turning
>>the police and military against them.
>
>What would you suggest as an alternative?

That they grow a _brain_? That they ask _why_ there is so much
opposition to their policies rather than just accepting the notion
that anyone who disagrees with them is some kind of monster?

>Certainly there have been
>cases where police have gone in shooting in situations where either
>they hadn't verified overwhelming firepower was needed or where they
>went in all guns blazing - at the wrong house.
>
>Mercifully these cases (especially the latter kind) are rare but they
>DO happen. I'm generally supportive of police but when you hear of
>things like the Breonna Taylor case one has to wonder if police were
>thinking at all before mounting their assault that day. A key part of
>police training in most jurisdictions is not putting bystanders at
>risk unnecessarily. (Which in plain English means when the bad guy is
>armed and has either fired or is about to) Any officer who believes in
>shooting first and asking questions later shouldn't wear the badge -
>and my dad was an ex-cop.
>
>And I have zero sympathy for the 4 officers in the Robert Dziezkanski
>case where they fatally tasered the guy (who they claimed was
>attacking them with what turned out to be a stapler - and then tasered
>him 6 times in 30 seconds causing heart failure) and then made
>perjured statements to their superior officers.
>
>All 4 were drummed out of the police but all 4 should have gone to
>jail. And they would have gotten away with it if a bystander hadn't
>had his cell phone camera in action that day. And in my book there
>AREN'T any 'mitigating circumstances' if an officer violates his or
>her oath. That's a no brainer if officers are expected to have any
>sense of duty and honor we're led to believe they have.
>
>Again I'm generally fairly pro-police but when they go outside their
>authority and lie about it or otherwise cover up they deserve to have
>the book thrown for they DO have a duty to the public and when they
>violate that they don't deserve a handslap.

On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 15:26:31 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 21:26:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:33:01 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> >
> >> If one political party having the police, the military, and most of
> >> the armed populace against it makes a country a "banana republic" then
> >> I guess we're a banana republic. So flee.
> >
> >No. That doesn't make the country a banana republic.
> >
> >What makes a country a banana republic is if it _matters_ whether or
> >not the majority of the military approves of the party in power. Whether
> >or not there's any real possibility that if they're unhappy, they'll use the
> >military equipment, entrusted to them by the nation, to do something
> >about it, to betray and overthrow the lawful and constituted government
> >of the nation.
>
> So if the military had succeeded in killing Hitler and overthrowing
> the Nazis that would make Germany a banana republic?

No. Germany was already a totalitarian fascist
state. When Adolf Hitler died, Admiral Karl Doenitz
became President of Germany and Supreme
Commander of the Armed Forces, by the Fuehrer's will.
There was no separation between the Nation, the Party,
and the military forces, and Hitler loved to dress
in a rough uniform costume and kinky leather boots
and ferl manly.

On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 05:26:09 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:33:01 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > If one political party having the police, the military, and most of
> > the armed populace against it makes a country a "banana republic" then
> > I guess we're a banana republic. So flee.
> No. That doesn't make the country a banana republic.
>
> What makes a country a banana republic is if it _matters_ whether or
> not the majority of the military approves of the party in power. Whether
> or not there's any real possibility that if they're unhappy, they'll use the
> military equipment, entrusted to them by the nation, to do something
> about it, to betray and overthrow the lawful and constituted government
> of the nation.

Yeah. The legitimate conduct of the armed forces
is to serve as required by the government in Washington.
Insurrection is a privilege reserved for civilians only.

On Sun, 29 May 2022 12:29:32 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 May 2022 08:59:44 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 May 2022 19:05:01 -0400, J. Clarke
>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:27:43 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 8:35:22 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 06:36:20 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >What's frightening is how close they came to succeeding.
>>>>
>>>>> Succeding in what, a live-fire exercise for the SWAT team?
>>>>
>>>>The police didn't seem to be interested in preventing the
>>>>Capitol from being breached, even if they had to use deadly
>>>>force to use it.
>>>
>>>SWAT teams are not preventive, they are reactive.
>>
>>The Capitol wasn't defended by SWAT teams. Nice diversion, though.
>
>No, moron, the SWAT team would have the live fire exercise after the
>building was occupied. SWAT teams don't defend buildings, SWAT teams
>reclaim them from criminals.

There were no SWAT teams involved in suppressing the insurrection.

Still a nice diversion, though.

>>>>The media compared this gentle approach to the fierce tactics
>>>>seen against BLM demonstrations.
>>
>>Well, /those/ guys were daring to suggest that the police might need a
>>few minor reforms. Like actually doing the job they were hired to do,
>>instead of whatever they feel like doing.
>
>Democrats should be _very_ concerned that their policies are turning
>the police and military against them.

If you say so.

I doubt very much that the police in steady Democratic states are
against them. And the military is working to remove the very nutters
you are relying on. There were (and perhaps still are) four graduates
of (IIRC) the Air Force Academy who were /not/ commissioned because
they decided that following the order to get vaccinated was optional.
Following orders is almost never [1] optional in the military.

And we have recently seen just how well police in a former-CSA
Republican state do when faced with having to rescue non-white
children. Although that may be a coincidence; maybe the police chief
really /is/ just too stupid to hold his position, who can say?

[1] An exception exists for plainly illegal orders that may result in
the loss of human life. All other apparently illegal orders are to be
followed and complaints registered later. Well, at least back in the
70s after My Lai that was the case.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 29 May 2022 21:26:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:33:01 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> If one political party having the police, the military, and most of
>> the armed populace against it makes a country a "banana republic" then
>> I guess we're a banana republic. So flee.
>
>No. That doesn't make the country a banana republic.
>
>What makes a country a banana republic is if it _matters_ whether or
>not the majority of the military approves of the party in power. Whether
>or not there's any real possibility that if they're unhappy, they'll use the
>military equipment, entrusted to them by the nation, to do something
>about it, to betray and overthrow the lawful and constituted government
>of the nation.

And, anyway, there is no evidence that "the police" are anti-Democrat,
nor that "the military" is anti-Democrat -- except, of course, for
those aligning with the alt-right. Whose own behavior is and will
continue to get them into trouble and possibly into prison.

As to the "armed populace" -- 30% of voters in Maricopa County who
voted an otherwise-straight-Republican ticket (that is, lifelong
dedicate Republican voters) voted for Biden. That is why Biden took
Arizona. Even the brain-dead "forensic audit" concluded that Biden
won. Is the Arizona population not an "armed populace"?

And there are hunters and hunting, AFAIK, in every State. Every State
has an "armed populace". Are you under the delusion that these are all
anti-Democratic?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 29 May 2022 18:27:52 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 29 May 2022 12:29:32 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>SWAT teams are not preventive, they are reactive.
>
>I would think that would be fairly obvious based on the acronym which
>for the benefit of anyone who's forgotten is "Special Weapons Assault
>Team".
>
>I presume nobody needs to review the meanings of 'assault' vs
>'defending'?
>
>>>The Capitol wasn't defended by SWAT teams. Nice diversion, though.
>>
>>No, moron, the SWAT team would have the live fire exercise after the
>>building was occupied. SWAT teams don't defend buildings, SWAT teams
>>reclaim them from criminals.
>>
>>>>>The media compared this gentle approach to the fierce tactics
>>>>>seen against BLM demonstrations.
>>>
>>>Well, /those/ guys were daring to suggest that the police might need a
>>>few minor reforms. Like actually doing the job they were hired to do,
>>>instead of whatever they feel like doing.
>>
>>Democrats should be _very_ concerned that their policies are turning
>>the police and military against them.
>
>What would you suggest as an alternative? Certainly there have been
>cases where police have gone in shooting in situations where either
>they hadn't verified overwhelming firepower was needed or where they
>went in all guns blazing - at the wrong house.
>
>Mercifully these cases (especially the latter kind) are rare but they
>DO happen. I'm generally supportive of police but when you hear of
>things like the Breonna Taylor case one has to wonder if police were
>thinking at all before mounting their assault that day. A key part of
>police training in most jurisdictions is not putting bystanders at
>risk unnecessarily. (Which in plain English means when the bad guy is
>armed and has either fired or is about to) Any officer who believes in
>shooting first and asking questions later shouldn't wear the badge -
>and my dad was an ex-cop.
>
>And I have zero sympathy for the 4 officers in the Robert Dziezkanski
>case where they fatally tasered the guy (who they claimed was
>attacking them with what turned out to be a stapler - and then tasered
>him 6 times in 30 seconds causing heart failure) and then made
>perjured statements to their superior officers.
>
>All 4 were drummed out of the police but all 4 should have gone to
>jail. And they would have gotten away with it if a bystander hadn't
>had his cell phone camera in action that day. And in my book there
>AREN'T any 'mitigating circumstances' if an officer violates his or
>her oath. That's a no brainer if officers are expected to have any
>sense of duty and honor we're led to believe they have.

They should be regarded as having committed /felony impersonation of a
police officer/ the moment they deviated from their proper procedures
and then charged with /felony murder/.

Proving this to a jury should be quite simple:
1) you show that what they did is not what they were supposed to do --
and that they knew, or at least were trained in, what they were
supposed to do; and
2) you show that someone died while they were committing this felony.

>Again I'm generally fairly pro-police but when they go outside their
>authority and lie about it or otherwise cover up they deserve to have
>the book thrown for they DO have a duty to the public and when they
>violate that they don't deserve a handslap.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Mon, 30 May 2022 09:23:33 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 May 2022 21:26:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:33:01 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> If one political party having the police, the military, and most of
>>> the armed populace against it makes a country a "banana republic" then
>>> I guess we're a banana republic. So flee.
>>
>>No. That doesn't make the country a banana republic.
>>
>>What makes a country a banana republic is if it _matters_ whether or
>>not the majority of the military approves of the party in power. Whether
>>or not there's any real possibility that if they're unhappy, they'll use the
>>military equipment, entrusted to them by the nation, to do something
>>about it, to betray and overthrow the lawful and constituted government
>>of the nation.
>
>And, anyway, there is no evidence that "the police" are anti-Democrat,
>nor that "the military" is anti-Democrat -- except, of course, for
>those aligning with the alt-right. Whose own behavior is and will
>continue to get them into trouble and possibly into prison.
>
>As to the "armed populace" -- 30% of voters in Maricopa County who
>voted an otherwise-straight-Republican ticket (that is, lifelong
>dedicate Republican voters) voted for Biden. That is why Biden took
>Arizona. Even the brain-dead "forensic audit" concluded that Biden
>won. Is the Arizona population not an "armed populace"?
>
>And there are hunters and hunting, AFAIK, in every State. Every State
>has an "armed populace". Are you under the delusion that these are all
>anti-Democratic?

You go on deluding yourself.

On Mon, 30 May 2022 09:12:04 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 May 2022 12:29:32 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 May 2022 08:59:44 -0700, Paul S Person
>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 May 2022 19:05:01 -0400, J. Clarke
>>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:27:43 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 8:35:22 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 06:36:20 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>>>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> >What's frightening is how close they came to succeeding.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Succeding in what, a live-fire exercise for the SWAT team?
>>>>>
>>>>>The police didn't seem to be interested in preventing the
>>>>>Capitol from being breached, even if they had to use deadly
>>>>>force to use it.
>>>>
>>>>SWAT teams are not preventive, they are reactive.
>>>
>>>The Capitol wasn't defended by SWAT teams. Nice diversion, though.
>>
>>No, moron, the SWAT team would have the live fire exercise after the
>>building was occupied. SWAT teams don't defend buildings, SWAT teams
>>reclaim them from criminals.
>
>There were no SWAT teams involved in suppressing the insurrection.
>
>Still a nice diversion, though.
>
>>>>>The media compared this gentle approach to the fierce tactics
>>>>>seen against BLM demonstrations.
>>>
>>>Well, /those/ guys were daring to suggest that the police might need a
>>>few minor reforms. Like actually doing the job they were hired to do,
>>>instead of whatever they feel like doing.
>>
>>Democrats should be _very_ concerned that their policies are turning
>>the police and military against them.
>
>If you say so.
>
>I doubt very much that the police in steady Democratic states are
>against them. And the military is working to remove the very nutters
>you are relying on. There were (and perhaps still are) four graduates
>of (IIRC) the Air Force Academy who were /not/ commissioned because
>they decided that following the order to get vaccinated was optional.
>Following orders is almost never [1] optional in the military.
>
>And we have recently seen just how well police in a former-CSA
>Republican state do when faced with having to rescue non-white
>children. Although that may be a coincidence; maybe the police chief
>really /is/ just too stupid to hold his position, who can say?
>
>[1] An exception exists for plainly illegal orders that may result in
>the loss of human life. All other apparently illegal orders are to be
>followed and complaints registered later. Well, at least back in the
>70s after My Lai that was the case.

So how many cops do you know?

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 8:26:31 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 21:26:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >What makes a country a banana republic is if it _matters_ whether or
> >not the majority of the military approves of the party in power. Whether
> >or not there's any real possibility that if they're unhappy, they'll use the
> >military equipment, entrusted to them by the nation, to do something
> >about it, to betray and overthrow the lawful and constituted government
> >of the nation.

> So if the military had succeeded in killing Hitler and overthrowing
> the Nazis that would make Germany a banana republic?

I hadn't considered an edge case that seldom happens in the real world.

Usually, military coups make the government *worse*, not better.

John Savard

On Mon, 30 May 2022 10:31:05 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>Democrats should be _very_ concerned that their policies are turning
>>>the police and military against them.
>>
>>What would you suggest as an alternative?
>
>That they grow a _brain_? That they ask _why_ there is so much
>opposition to their policies rather than just accepting the notion
>that anyone who disagrees with them is some kind of monster?
>
It's not just American Democrats.

Given the way Justin Trudeau demonizes citizens who oppose him (and
bear in mind that in the last election he only got 32% of the popular
vote - and his party DIDN'T get the most votes as he won a lot of
close races while his opposition was ringing up huge majorities in
their districts - that that means 68% of the voting population voted
for other parties...) which is insane on his part since he doesn't
even have a plurality meaning he should be extra incentivised to reach
out to prospective new supporters!

Not being one of those supporters and as someone who would like to see
him consigned to the dustbin of history I naturally think that's just
fine :)

Because I'm pretty sure I'm a decent honest person even if I wish him
a long and happy life far far far from the corridors of power...

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:

> And I have zero sympathy for the 4 officers in the Robert Dziezkanski
> case where they fatally tasered the guy (who they claimed was
> attacking them with what turned out to be a stapler - and then tasered
> him 6 times in 30 seconds causing heart failure) and then made
> perjured statements to their superior officers.

But it was established in court, thanks to the legal team of the company
that makes Tasers, that his being Tasered *could not possibly, under any
circumstances whatsoever* have caused his death, and it was absolutely
just a coincidence that he had his fatal heart attack at the time.

The coroners' jury in that case was specifically _ordered_ not to link
his death to his being Tasered by a pre-emptive judgement obtained by
that company.

So with that fact legally established, it's pretty hard to convict the officers.

If one fails to remember that particularly outstanding fact about the
legal consequences of that incident, one can't really get a good perspective
on it.

John Savard

On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 05:26:09 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:33:01 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > If one political party having the police, the military, and most of
> > the armed populace against it makes a country a "banana republic" then
> > I guess we're a banana republic. So flee.
> No. That doesn't make the country a banana republic.
>
> What makes a country a banana republic is if it _matters_ whether or
> not the majority of the military approves of the party in power. Whether
> or not there's any real possibility that if they're unhappy, they'll use the
> military equipment, entrusted to them by the nation, to do something
> about it, to betray and overthrow the lawful and constituted government
> of the nation.

Returning to this - views that in fact the U.S.
military does /not/ like President Trump; some
saying that it's mutual -

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

On Tue, 31 May 2022 07:38:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 05:26:09 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:33:01 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> > If one political party having the police, the military, and most of
>> > the armed populace against it makes a country a "banana republic" then
>> > I guess we're a banana republic. So flee.
>> No. That doesn't make the country a banana republic.
>>
>> What makes a country a banana republic is if it _matters_ whether or
>> not the majority of the military approves of the party in power. Whether
>> or not there's any real possibility that if they're unhappy, they'll use the
>> military equipment, entrusted to them by the nation, to do something
>> about it, to betray and overthrow the lawful and constituted government
>> of the nation.
>
>Returning to this - views that in fact the U.S.
>military does /not/ like President Trump; some
>saying that it's mutual -
>
>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.

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in
news:uonc9hp1f3lkals2iidu6ok776sgaro9nq@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 31 May 2022 07:38:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 05:26:09 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:33:01 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> > If one political party having the police, the military, and
>>> > most of the armed populace against it makes a country a
>>> > "banana republic" then I guess we're a banana republic. So
>>> > flee.
>>> No. That doesn't make the country a banana republic.
>>>
>>> What makes a country a banana republic is if it _matters_
>>> whether or not the majority of the military approves of the
>>> party in power. Whether or not there's any real possibility
>>> that if they're unhappy, they'll use the military equipment,
>>> entrusted to them by the nation, to do something about it, to
>>> betray and overthrow the lawful and constituted government
>>> of the nation.
>>
>>Returning to this - views that in fact the U.S.
>>military does /not/ like President Trump; some
>>saying that it's mutual -
>>
>>https://nomoretrump.quora.com/How-many-Trump-loyalists-are-in-the
>>-military-and-ready-to-overthrow-the-U-S-government-in-a-major-co
>>up-to-install-Trump
>
> One can dislike both Trump and Democrats.
>
It's actually rather easy to.

--
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 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)

On 5/27/2022 10:35 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> 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.

Aren't poll taxes illegal in the USA ?

Lynn

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.

On Tue, 31 May 2022 21:22:16 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>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.

Frankly I don't care how much my local constabulary votes as long as
they don't get carried away on woke binges or choosing on the basis of
leftist dogma which portion of their oaths to preserve and protect
they choose to enforce.

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 11:32:55 PM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:

> Frankly I don't care how much my local constabulary votes as long as
> they don't get carried away on woke binges or choosing on the basis of
> leftist dogma which portion of their oaths to preserve and protect
> they choose to enforce.

So you're not at all concerned that they might let their personal
political beliefs interfere with how they carry out their duties in
the other direction?

John Savard

On 2022-05-31 3:00 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 5/27/2022 10:35 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 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.

On Tue, 31 May 2022 16:00:25 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/27/2022 10:35 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Aren't poll taxes illegal in the USA ?

That's not a poll tax.

It's a recognition that only Party members should vote in a Party's
Primary.

As opposed to allowing the Parties to use the Primary as a recruiting
resource ("you claimed to be a <whatever>, send us the membership
fee!").
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

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

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..

John Savard

On Tue, 31 May 2022 16:00:25 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/27/2022 10:35 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> 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.
>
>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.

On Tue, 31 May 2022 22:32:50 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Tue, 31 May 2022 21:22:16 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Frankly I don't care how much my local constabulary votes as long as
>they don't get carried away on woke binges or choosing on the basis of
>leftist dogma which portion of their oaths to preserve and protect
>they choose to enforce.

In the US they are not obligate to "protect". And the binges are more
likely to be anti-wok and rightist dogma.