On 04/05/2022 11:05 am, Janet wrote:
> In article <53b24360-27e5-4cc3-8456-15e74585a7f7n@googlegroups.com>,
> grammatim@verizon.net says...
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 2:59:36 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
>>> In article <dfeda865-f660-4e1c...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>> In the American system, there's no good reason for the President to be
>>>>>>> affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German system, you
>>>>>>> elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head of government should
>>>>>>> be very much aligned with the party and its platform, or it's confusing.
>>>>> Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>>>>> scribeva:
>>>
>>>> Screwing with the attributions again (or still).
>>>
>>>>>> That part of the American system is supposed to separate legislative &
>>>>>> executive powers from each other (unlike "prime minister" systems)
>>>>>
>>>>> Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
>>>>> cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime
>>>>> minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).
>>>
>>>> How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?
>>> when they are members of the House of Lords.
>>
>> The Lords doesn't count as a House of Parliament?
>
>
> You asked about MP's. Members of the HOL are not titled or referred to
> as MP's. Any who were previously MP's, lose that title when they join
> the HOL.
> Janet

Indeed. They are, of course, members of our parliament, but they
are not Members of Parliament. In the UK, case can matter a *lot*.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

On 2022-05-03, Sam Plusnet wrote:

> On 03-May-22 17:01, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 08:29:06 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:53:19 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>> On 02-May-22 23:40, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 1:54:16 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand that is how it is done, but I still find it odd that a
>>>>>>> 'government' should have reason to keep a register of party affiliation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's "the government" -- usually a county Board of Elections -- that
>>>>>> administers elections (subject to the supervision of, usually, the
>>>>>> state's Secretary of State). How could they do that if they didn't
>>>>>> know who was qualified to receive which party's ballot during the
>>>>>> voting in the primary?
>>>>
>>>> In the UK, the local branch of a party chooses who their candidate
>>>> should be.
>>>
>>> We used to do it that way. I was home sick from school one day
>>> in 1964 and the NYS Democratic Convention was on TV, and I
>>> watched them nominate Robert F. Kennedy for US Senator from
>>> New York. Eventually, the system was changed so that candidates
>>> had to demonstrate their worth to voters during a campaign.
>>>
>>>> The procedure the party uses to select that candidate is entirely up to
>>>> them. I assume they will canvass the opinions of all the local party
>>>> members, but they do whatever they think best.
>>>
>>> By which you mean the handful who have paid the fee mentioned
>>> yesterday?
>>>
>>> As opposed to the voters overall?
>>>
>>>> None of this is any concern of any government body.
>>>
>>> Who administers an election? How do they know who is qualified
>>> to vote and who isn't? How many candidates are allowed in any
>>> one contest? Who decides that the Tinfoil Hats Against Aliens
>>> Party probably shouldn't be on the ballot?
>
> The electoral register for the constituency is maintained and updated
> yearly by "electoral registration officers".
>>>
>>> Over Here, they'd have had to gather N number of signatures
>>> (N depending on the particular office).
>
>
> The Returning Officer for the constituency will receive nominations from
> anyone who wishes to stand as a candidate.
> Potential candidates need to supply a number of signatures supporting
> their candidacy, and a cash deposit (£500).
> Anyone who wishes to stand may do so - they just have to get the
> signatures and stump up the cash.
>
> The list of people qualified to stand is quite broad.
>
> "To stand as a candidate in a UK Parliamentary General Election you need
> to be at least 18 years old and:
>
> a British citizen
>
> a citizen of the Republic of Ireland
>
> a citizen of a commonwealth country who does not require leave to enter
> or remain in the UK, or has indefinite leave to remain in the UK"
>
> Is far as I know, we don't have a "Tinfoil Hats Against Aliens" Party,
> but they could be an offshoot of the Monster Raving Loony Party - who
> have routinely put up candidates since 1983.
> (Actually, the MRL party would be far too sensible to put up with idiots
> like that.)

I've heard that the "stuck in the coffin on stage" scene near the
beginning of _Slade in Flame_ is based on something that really
happened to Screaming Lord Sutch.

>
>>
>> We would never allow the Tinfoil Hats Against Aliens Party to get a
>> candidate on the slate. In the US, a candidate from that party would
>> have to run as a Republican.
>>
>> That's what the Jewish Space Lasers Party has done in Geogia.
>>
>
>

--
In walks Barbarella, set to stun

Tue, 3 May 2022 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>> >> In the American system, there's no good reason for the President to be
>> >> affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German system, you
>> >> elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head of government should
>> >> be very much aligned with the party and its platform, or it's confusing.
>> Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>> scribeva:
>
>Screwing with the attributions again (or still).

Still falsely accusing people, or again. I quoted Adam Funk directly,
and what he quoted from Quinn. So how can I possibly have done
anything wrong?

Check: Quinn:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.usage.english/c/4FzwxA0JTNw/m/t_8zWkDXAwAJ

Wouldn't it be a good idea if you found a better silly hobby than
stupidly deriding me for no reason?

>> >That part of the American system is supposed to separate legislative &
>> >executive powers from each other (unlike "prime minister" systems)
>>
>> Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
>> cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime
>> minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).
>
>How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?

Only if demissionary (sent away, but not yet replaced), otherwise
never. The Netherlands is not the UK, where I think that is possible
and usual.

>> In the Netherlands, the separation is not ideal, in that the
>> legislative powers are shared by parliament and government, because
>> the King is formally part of the government (but he doesn't have any
>> real power), and he has to sign any new laws (including laws that
>> stipulate how to amend or enhance existing laws).
>>
>> >as
>> >well as from the judicial powers. (IIRC this comes from Montesquieu's
>> >ideas in _L'Esprit des Lois_.)
>
>They were also very fond of Locke. Mattea would know.

Incomprehensible, irrelevant and uncalled for reaction. Who is Locke?
Who is Mattea?
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Tue, 03 May 2022 19:46:00 +0100: charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
scribeva:

>In article <dfeda865-f660-4e1c-af4a-83d42af1cf18n@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> > >On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>> > >> In the American system, there's no good reason for the President to be
>> > >> affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German system, you
>> > >> elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head of government should
>> > >> be very much aligned with the party and its platform, or it's confusing.
>> > Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>> > scribeva:
>
>> Screwing with the attributions again (or still).
>
>> > >That part of the American system is supposed to separate legislative &
>> > >executive powers from each other (unlike "prime minister" systems)
>> >
>> > Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
>> > cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime
>> > minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).
>
>> How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?
>
>when they are members of the House of Lords.

Not here in the Netherlands. House of Lords corresponding to First
Chamber of Parliament, or Senate. But there are no Lords in there
here, that House is elected by the provincial parliaments, which are
elected by the people.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Tue, 03 May 2022 19:46:11 +0100: Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
scribeva:

>On 2022-05-03, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
>>>On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> In the American system, there's no good reason for the President to be
>>>> affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German system, you
>>>> elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head of government should
>>>> be very much aligned with the party and its platform, or it's confusing.
>>
>> Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
>> scribeva:
>>>That part of the American system is supposed to separate legislative &
>>>executive powers from each other (unlike "prime minister" systems)
>>
>> Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
>> cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime
>> minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).
>
>In PM-type systems AFAIK, the PM & other secretaries & ministers are
>all members of the legislature

They are, during the so-called formation, the negotiations to form a
coalition government, which unfortunately can last many months to over
a year. After that, they are no longer, others on the list of
candidates take their place.

>& of the party (or coalition) that
>"won" the legislature. That isn't separation!

It is, because members of Parliament and Government each have their
own role and task, even if they are in the same parties.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On 04/05/22 21:58, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Tue, 3 May 2022 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>> In the American system, there's no good reason for the
>>>>> President to be affiliated with a party in the first place.
>>>>> In the German system, you elect a party to govern, not a
>>>>> person, so the head of government should be very much aligned
>>>>> with the party and its platform, or it's confusing.
>>> Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk
>>> <a24...@ducksburg.com> scribeva:
>>
>> Screwing with the attributions again (or still).
>
> Still falsely accusing people, or again. I quoted Adam Funk
> directly, and what he quoted from Quinn. So how can I possibly have
> done anything wrong?

I haven't checked, but it is at least possible that your quoting style
triggers a bug in Google Groups' "hide quoted text" algorithm. I rather
doubt it, though, because it's a hard thing to get wrong.

I can't think of any other grounds for the accusation, though.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

In message <avj27h5e4j9naojn4uln01miprfpvs6fht@4ax.com> Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 May 2022 16:03:56 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:

>>On 2022-05-02, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 02 May 2022 20:29:04 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> * Tony Cooper:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 09:08:03 -0400, CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Registering as a "party-supporter" in the US allows you to vote in the
>>>>>>>primaries that determine who that party's candidate will be; it does not
>>>>>>>commit you to vote for the candidate. Tony has long been a registered
>>>>>>>Republican, but has said here that he has not voted for their candidate
>>>>>>>for a long time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct. Not for a Republican candidate for state or federal office.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have voted for some Republican candidates for local (County)
>>>>>> offices. One in particular. The problem with supporting Democratic
>>>>>> candidates in any Florida election is that the state and county
>>>>>> Democratic party is so weak and ineffectual that no one with any
>>>>>> qualifications wants to run as a Democrat.
>>>>>
>>>>> An interesting aspect of politics here in Montreal is that the federal
>>>>> parties play no role at all in local elections. All seats on the council
>>>>> are held by local parties with names like "Projet Montreal". In Toronto,
>>>>> everyone seems to be (officially) Independent, but maybe others can shed
>>>>> light on how it really works.
>>>>
>>>>I like that idea. I sometimes think local government in the UK & the
>>>>USA would be better if affiliation with national parties were banned
>>>>(somehow).
>>>
>>> Oh, we have "non-partisan" elective offices at the local level.
>>
>>Doesn't that depend on the size of the local level (e.g., small town
>>vs big city)?

> I can't answer that. There are too many different situations across
> te country to attempt to come to some conclusion.

> In some counties, School Board members run as affiliated with a party,
> and in some they run non-partisan. I don't think the population count
> determines which, though.

I agree, it seems semi-random. I will say that it was the case when I
was in Jr High that Denver's school board was non-partisan and all the
surrounding suburbs were partisan (and dominated by god-botherers and
other republicans). I've no idea if the suburbs are still lie that or
not at the school board level.

--
What would be the point of cyphering messages that very clever
enemies couldn't break? You'd end up not knowing what they
thought you thought they were thinking... --The Fifth Elephant

* Ruud Harmsen:

> Tue, 3 May 2022 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>>> >That part of the American system is supposed to separate legislative &
>>> >executive powers from each other (unlike "prime minister" systems)
>>>
>>> Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
>>> cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime
>>> minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).
>>
>>How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?
>
> Only if demissionary (sent away, but not yet replaced), otherwise
> never. The Netherlands is not the UK, where I think that is possible
> and usual.

In Germany, there's no requirement for cabinet ministers to be MPs, but
by force of habit, 80% of them are. The rest come e.g. from state-level
politics or very occasionally, were experts like university professors.

One of the more famous examples of the latter is Rita Süssmuth, who
later was a candidate in my district. But she went from university
professor to cabinet minister straight to President of the Bundestag.
Rumors said she was so popular that she was seen as a threat to more
established politicians and therefore parked in this very honorable but
less influential position.

>>> In the Netherlands, the separation is not ideal, in that the
>>> legislative powers are shared by parliament and government, because
>>> the King is formally part of the government (but he doesn't have any
>>> real power), and he has to sign any new laws (including laws that
>>> stipulate how to amend or enhance existing laws).
>>>
>>> >as
>>> >well as from the judicial powers. (IIRC this comes from Montesquieu's
>>> >ideas in _L'Esprit des Lois_.)
>>
>>They were also very fond of Locke. Mattea would know.
>
> Incomprehensible, irrelevant and uncalled for reaction. Who is Locke?
> Who is Mattea?

If you don't even know who Locke is (or Berkeley or Hobbes), you won't
win in Jeopardy against Mattea Roach, who's currently on a winning
streak, one of the biggest in history, again (there were two of those
quite recently).

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

On 5/3/2022 6:08 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> CDB:
>> Quinn C wrote:
>>> bil...@shaw.ca:
>>>> Quinn C wrote:

>>>>> An interesting aspect of politics here in Montreal is that
>>>>> the federal parties play no role at all in local elections.
>>>>> All seats on the council are held by local parties with names
>>>>> like "Projet Montreal". In Toronto, everyone seems to be
>>>>> (officially) Independent, but maybe others can shed light on
>>>>> how it really works.

>>>> That's more or less standard across Canada. Local parties in
>>>> municipal elections rarely have formal ties with provincial or
>>>> federal parties, nor are there usually formal ties between
>>>> federal and provincial parties, even when they share the same
>>>> name (especially Liberal or Conservative) and political
>>>> philosophy.

>>>> Example: a member of a provincial Liberal party could not run
>>>> for the federal Liberal party without first becoming a member,
>>>> of the federal party.

>>> Ok, but nobody really believes in that fine distinction, do
>>> they? Commentary never bothers to even say. It's "the Liberals"
>>> and "the NDP" that we hear about in the provincial elections,
>>> without adding "of Quebec", like, ever.

>> I have seen comments in French that refer to the PLQ and the PLC.

> I'd expect that in discussions of their inner machinations, but
> where they really get broad exposure, like in election results, I
> don't remember seeing it.

I suppose that, in reports on elections, the level is clear without
further specification.

>> In English, the Conservatives are the CPC federally, the PCP
>> ("Progressive") in many provinces, and the UCP ("United") in
>> Alberta.

>> Those are scare-quotes.

> The Chinese have managed to have a capitalist communist party, so
> why not a progressive conservative party as well?

Why not indeed, in theory.

On 5/3/2022 6:20 PM, Mark Brader wrote:
> C.D. Bellemare:

>> In English, the Conservatives are the CPC federally, the PCP
>> ("Progressive") in many provinces, and the UCP ("United") in
>> Alberta.

> In my Canada, I have never encountered "PCP" as a political
> abbreviation. The provincial Progressive Conservative Parties are
> just "the Conservatives" or "the PCs", while the federal one (no
> longer "Progressive") is just "the Conservatives", unless the full
> names need to be spelled out.

Yes, the "P" standing for "Party" is often left off, but the different
names still distinguish one level from another. I think the context,
now snipped, was the confusion of federal with provincial parties.

> It's different in Alberta, because the name there is different, and
> I claim no expertise in French-language usage.

On 5/3/2022 5:24 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> charles wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>> Quinn C wrote:

>>>>>> In the American system, there's no good reason for the
>>>>>> President to be affiliated with a party in the first place.
>>>>>> In the German system, you elect a party to govern, not a
>>>>>> person, so the head of government should be very much
>>>>>> aligned with the party and its platform, or it's
>>>>>> confusing.
>>>> Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk
>>>> <a24...@ducksburg.com> scribeva:

>>> Screwing with the attributions again (or still).

>>>>> That part of the American system is supposed to separate
>>>>> legislative & executive powers from each other (unlike "prime
>>>>> minister" systems)

>>>> Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for
>>>> the cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by
>>>> the prime minister), legislative by parliament (usually two
>>>> chambers).

>>> How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?
>> when they are members of the House of Lords.

> The Lords doesn't count as a House of Parliament?

> The point remains. Our cabinet secretaries are (normally) chosen to
> be experts in the relevant fields -- e.g. Obama's Energy Secretary
> was a Nobel-laureate physicist -- and being constrained to just
> Members of the Government (of the ruling party, no less) constrains
> the choice unnecessarily,.

Why God made Deputy Ministers.

>>>> In the Netherlands, the separation is not ideal, in that the
>>>> legislative powers are shared by parliament and government,
>>>> because the King is formally part of the government (but he
>>>> doesn't have any real power), and he has to sign any new laws
>>>> (including laws that stipulate how to amend or enhance existing
>>>> laws).
>>>>> as well as from the judicial powers. (IIRC this comes from
>>>>> Montesquieu's ideas in _L'Esprit des Lois_.)

>>> They were also very fond of Locke. Mattea would know.

On Wed, 04 May 2022 09:41:37 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

>In article <53b24360-27e5-4cc3-8456-15e74585a7f7n@googlegroups.com>, Peter
>T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 2:59:36 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
>> > In article <dfeda865-f660-4e1c...@googlegroups.com>, Peter T. Daniels
>> > <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> > > > >On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>> > > > >> In the American system, there's no good reason for the President
>> > > > >> to be affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German
>> > > > >> system, you elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head
>> > > > >> of government should be very much aligned with the party and
>> > > > >> its platform, or it's confusing.
>> > > > Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>> > > > scribeva:
>> >
>> > > Screwing with the attributions again (or still).
>> >
>> > > > >That part of the American system is supposed to separate
>> > > > >legislative & executive powers from each other (unlike "prime
>> > > > >minister" systems)
>> > > >
>> > > > Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
>> > > > cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime
>> > > > minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).
>> >
>> > > How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?
>> > when they are members of the House of Lords.
>
>> The Lords doesn't count as a House of Parliament?
>
>The House of Lords is the second tier of Parliamant - you have congress &
>the Senate. The term "Member of Parliament" only applies to elected
>members of the House of Commons.

You are making the same mistake that PTD is making. The US "congress"
is both houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. Both a
Senator and a Representative are members of Congress.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 5:45:14 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2022 14:24:21 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 2:59:36 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> >> In article <dfeda865-f660-4e1c...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> > > >On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:

> >> > > >That part of the American system is supposed to separate legislative &
> >> > > >executive powers from each other (unlike "prime minister" systems)
> >> > > Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
> >> > > cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime
> >> > > minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).
> >> > How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?
> >> when they are members of the House of Lords.
> >The Lords doesn't count as a House of Parliament?
>
> You might find a clue in "MP".

Any individual lady or lord isn't a member of the House of Lords?
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida
> I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

Whose?

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 9:00:34 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 04/05/22 01:29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > Who administers an election? How do they know who is qualified to
> > vote and who isn't? How many candidates are allowed in any one
> > contest? Who decides that the Tinfoil Hats Against Aliens Party
> > probably shouldn't be on the ballot?
>
> Answering that last part for Australia: nobody prevents the Tinfoil Hats
> party from running. If they can't get enough votes they will lost their
> deposit, but blocking any party from running would be seen as
> anti-democratic.

But how do they get on the ballot? Do they just need to say "I want to
be on the ballot"?

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 9:16:19 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 04/05/22 01:19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > The Founders saw how badly the parliamentary system was doing in
> > Britain in their day, so they came up with something far better --
> > three separate branches, with "checks and balances." Their judgment
> > was only confirmed by the dismal performances of parliamentary
> > systems in the 20th and 21st centuries.
>
> I presume that the original concept included the idea that the judiciary
> would be independent of the two political branches. There must have been
> a time, then, when politicians were unable to influence appointments to
> the highest court in the land. When did that go wrong?

With the nomination of Robert Bork.

That fiasco paved the way for Antonin Scalia's unanimous (or nearly
so) confirmation.

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:48:39 AM UTC-4, snide...@gmail.com wrote:
> Peter Moylan presented the following explanation :
> > On 04/05/22 01:19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> >> The Founders saw how badly the parliamentary system was doing in
> >> Britain in their day, so they came up with something far better --
> >> three separate branches, with "checks and balances." Their judgment
> >> was only confirmed by the dismal performances of parliamentary
> >> systems in the 20th and 21st centuries.
> > I presume that the original concept included the idea that the judiciary
> > would be independent of the two political branches. There must have been
> > a time, then, when politicians were unable to influence appointments to
> > the highest court in the land. When did that go wrong?
> There never was such a time. The President nominates, the Senate
> confirms. But not every President manages to choose a lapdog.
> Consider Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall.
>
> What the Founding Fathers got really wrong, though, was the idea that
> there wouldn't be political parties.

They didn't think there wouldn't be any; they didn't have the concept
at all. But "factions" had turned into modern-type parties by 1800
with Adams v. Jefferson.

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 4:55:33 AM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> In article <53b24360-27e5-4cc3...@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 2:59:36 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> > > In article <dfeda865-f660-4e1c...@googlegroups.com>, Peter T. Daniels
> > > <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > > > >On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
> > > > > >> In the American system, there's no good reason for the President
> > > > > >> to be affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German
> > > > > >> system, you elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head
> > > > > >> of government should be very much aligned with the party and
> > > > > >> its platform, or it's confusing.
> > > > > Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> > > > > scribeva:

> > > > Screwing with the attributions again (or still).
> > > > > >That part of the American system is supposed to separate
> > > > > >legislative & executive powers from each other (unlike "prime
> > > > > >minister" systems)
> > > > > Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
> > > > > cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime
> > > > > minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).
> > > > How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?
> > > when they are members of the House of Lords.
> > The Lords doesn't count as a House of Parliament?
>
> The House of Lords is the second tier of Parliamant - you have congress &
> the Senate. The term "Member of Parliament" only applies to elected
> members of the House of Commons.

Good grief.

"Member of Congress" usually refers to a Representative, but if you
need something to refer to all 535 of them, you can use it that way too.

> > The point remains. Our cabinet secretaries are (normally) chosen to be
> > experts in the relevant fields -- e.g. Obama's Energy Secretary was a
> > Nobel-laureate physicist -- and being constrained to just Members of the
> > Government (of the ruling party, no less) constrains the choice
> > unnecessarily,.
>
> How sensible.

Hopefully that's not sarcastic.

> > > > > In the Netherlands, the separation is not ideal, in that the
> > > > > legislative powers are shared by parliament and government, because
> > > > > the King is formally part of the government (but he doesn't have
> > > > > any real power), and he has to sign any new laws (including laws
> > > > > that stipulate how to amend or enhance existing laws).
> > > > > >as well as from the judicial powers. (IIRC this comes from
> > > > > >Montesquieu's ideas in _L'Esprit des Lois_.)

We're unusual in not having separate Heads of State and of Government.

> > > > They were also very fond of Locke. Mattea would know.

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 6:19:31 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:

> Indeed. They are, of course, members of our parliament, but they
> are not Members of Parliament. In the UK, case can matter a *lot*.

So can caste and class.

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 7:58:48 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Tue, 3 May 2022 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
> >> >> In the American system, there's no good reason for the President to be
> >> >> affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German system, you
> >> >> elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head of government should
> >> >> be very much aligned with the party and its platform, or it's confusing.
> >> Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> >> scribeva:

> >Screwing with the attributions again (or still).
>
> Still falsely accusing people, or again. I quoted Adam Funk directly,
> and what he quoted from Quinn. So how can I possibly have done
> anything wrong?

Attributions belong at the top of the message. In order. Despite Brader.

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 8:11:23 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 04/05/22 21:58, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Tue, 3 May 2022 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
> >>>>> In the American system, there's no good reason for the
> >>>>> President to be affiliated with a party in the first place.
> >>>>> In the German system, you elect a party to govern, not a
> >>>>> person, so the head of government should be very much aligned
> >>>>> with the party and its platform, or it's confusing.
> >>> Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk
> >>> <a24...@ducksburg.com> scribeva:
> >>
> >> Screwing with the attributions again (or still).
> >
> > Still falsely accusing people, or again. I quoted Adam Funk
> > directly, and what he quoted from Quinn. So how can I possibly have
> > done anything wrong?
> I haven't checked, but it is at least possible that your quoting style
> triggers a bug in Google Groups' "hide quoted text" algorithm. I rather
> doubt it, though, because it's a hard thing to get wrong.
>
> I can't think of any other grounds for the accusation, though.

Four lines of attributions, four lines of text, then another attribution
-- which is thenceforth hidden within the mass of lines -- then text.

It's even worse than Brader's version.

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 8:24:11 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Ruud Harmsen:
> > Tue, 3 May 2022 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

> >>They were also very fond of Locke. Mattea would know.
> > Incomprehensible, irrelevant and uncalled for reaction. Who is Locke?
> > Who is Mattea?
>
> If you don't even know who Locke is (or Berkeley or Hobbes), you won't
> win in Jeopardy against Mattea Roach, who's currently on a winning
> streak, one of the biggest in history, again (there were two of those
> quite recently).

Last night Ken all but apologized for the "gimme" Final Question,
using the excuse that the questions were written months ago and
used randomly. Would that have prevented them from removing
one that consisted of nothing but recognizing the second line of
"O Canada"?

In article <db206716-7472-450d-85eb-4733bf688eden@googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 5:45:14 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 May 2022 14:24:21 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 2:59:36 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> > >> In article <dfeda865-f660-4e1c...@googlegroups.com>,
> > >> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> > On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > >> > > >On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:

> > >> > > >That part of the American system is supposed to separate legislative &
> > >> > > >executive powers from each other (unlike "prime minister" systems)
> > >> > > Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
> > >> > > cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime
> > >> > > minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).
> > >> > How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?
> > >> when they are members of the House of Lords.
> > >The Lords doesn't count as a House of Parliament?
> >
> > You might find a clue in "MP".

> Any individual lady or lord isn't a member of the House of Lords?

Yes, they are - but not a "Member of Parliament". That term is reserved for
the House of Commons.

> > --
> > Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida
> > I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

> Whose?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Wed, 04 May 2022 12:35:54 +0100
Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> On 2022-05-03, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
[]
> > Is far as I know, we don't have a "Tinfoil Hats Against Aliens" Party,
> > but they could be an offshoot of the Monster Raving Loony Party - who
> > have routinely put up candidates since 1983.
> > (Actually, the MRL party would be far too sensible to put up with idiots
> > like that.)
>
> I've heard that the "stuck in the coffin on stage" scene near the
> beginning of _Slade in Flame_ is based on something that really
> happened to Screaming Lord Sutch.
>

and a reprise (ish) in "This Is Spinal Tap"
>
> >
> >>
> >> We would never allow the Tinfoil Hats Against Aliens Party to get a
> >> candidate on the slate. In the US, a candidate from that party would
> >> have to run as a Republican.
> >>
> >> That's what the Jewish Space Lasers Party has done in Geogia.
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> In walks Barbarella, set to stun

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug. volume=11

On 04/05/2022 2:48 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 04 May 2022 09:41:37 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <53b24360-27e5-4cc3-8456-15e74585a7f7n@googlegroups.com>, Peter
>> T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 2:59:36 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
>>>> In article <dfeda865-f660-4e1c...@googlegroups.com>, Peter T. Daniels
>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>> In the American system, there's no good reason for the President
>>>>>>>> to be affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German
>>>>>>>> system, you elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head
>>>>>>>> of government should be very much aligned with the party and
>>>>>>>> its platform, or it's confusing.
>>>>>> Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>>>>>> scribeva:
>>>>
>>>>> Screwing with the attributions again (or still).
>>>>>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>> That part of the American system is supposed to separate
>>>>>>> legislative & executive powers from each other >>
>>
>>
>>
>>

(unlike "prime
>>>>>>> minister" systems)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
>>>>>> cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime >>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>>>>> minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).
>>>>
>>>>> How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?
>>>> when they are members of the House of Lords.
>>
>>> The Lords doesn't count as a House of Parliament?
>>
>> The House of Lords is the second tier of Parliamant - you have congress &
>> the Senate. The term "Member of Parliament" only applies to elected
>> members of the House of Commons.
>
> You are making the same mistake that PTD is making. The US "congress"
> is both houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. Both a
> Senator and a Representative are members of Congress.

You are mistaken. The mistake you are making is failing to
distinguish between "member of parliament", which lords are, and
"Member of Parliament", which lords are most certainly not. Case
matters.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

On Wed, 04 May 2022 15:43:49 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

>In article <db206716-7472-450d-85eb-4733bf688eden@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 5:45:14 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> > On Tue, 3 May 2022 14:24:21 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> > <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > >On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 2:59:36 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
>> > >> In article <dfeda865-f660-4e1c...@googlegroups.com>,
>> > >> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > >> > On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> > >> > > >On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>
>> > >> > > >That part of the American system is supposed to separate legislative &
>> > >> > > >executive powers from each other (unlike "prime minister" systems)
>> > >> > > Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
>> > >> > > cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime
>> > >> > > minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).
>> > >> > How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?
>> > >> when they are members of the House of Lords.
>> > >The Lords doesn't count as a House of Parliament?
>> >
>> > You might find a clue in "MP".
>
>> Any individual lady or lord isn't a member of the House of Lords?
>
>Yes, they are - but not a "Member of Parliament". That term is reserved for
>the House of Commons.

Interesting. I didn't know that.