Canada I electing a new leader...How many of you even knew?

Appleseed wrote: I'm waiting for the Canadian version of this guy:

Terry Crews is awesome!!!!

KyAllroad wrote:

TRoglodyte wrote: What is this canada you speak of?

Also known as "America's Hat". Sometimes thought of as the attic, usually cold full of neat stuff you'd forgotten about but makes you feel good about just having it there.

In the same theme: USA, also known as Canada's underpants (as seen on a T shirt)

Funny as all this is...politics are a no no.

Friendly reminder.

Canadian politics aren't politics, they're hockey.

bearmtnmartin wrote:

G_Body_Man wrote: In reply to bearmtnmartin: Lemme guess. Prairies/Interior BC. I know your type

What's my type then? Hard working blue collar self employed middle class college educated believer in low taxes, fiscal responsibility and minimal government intrusion. That was the Harper Conservatives and I never understood the viscous anti Harper venom that has been spewed over the last few weeks. It was a special kind of hatred for a guy who's major fault seemed to be that he wasn't warm and fuzzy like Trudeau projects to be.

Yup, just as I thought. You're deluded.

Keith Tanner wrote: I think the length of the campaign period makes a huge difference in the politicking relative to the US. Also, the PM isn't elected directly like the US President is, the PM is just the leader of the party with the most seats. You can hot-swap a PM without an election if you want and they don't have any special veto powers, so that does take a little bit away from the individual. In theory, anyhow. The leader still makes a big difference, ask the NDP who just lost more than half the seats they won when they had the highly respected Jack Layton at the helm in 2011. The thing I love about Canadian elections is the big swings. In the US, picking up 51% of the popular vote is a "clear mandate" over the other party with 49%. In Canada, if the population gets pissed off at you, something big happens. In 1993, the ruling party went from 169 seats (out of 295) to...2. Now THAT is a message.

I just wish that would happen here. I hate the fact that we never get a break from the "election cycle"

Biden's not running.

oops, wrong country.

G_Body_Man wrote:

bearmtnmartin wrote:

G_Body_Man wrote: In reply to bearmtnmartin: Lemme guess. Prairies/Interior BC. I know your type

What's my type then? Hard working blue collar self employed middle class college educated believer in low taxes, fiscal responsibility and minimal government intrusion. That was the Harper Conservatives and I never understood the viscous anti Harper venom that has been spewed over the last few weeks. It was a special kind of hatred for a guy who's major fault seemed to be that he wasn't warm and fuzzy like Trudeau projects to be.

Yup, just as I thought. You're deluded.

This is why these threads go sideways. Lots of people disagree with one another, but it gets personal. Tell me your point of view without calling me names.

bearmtnmartin wrote:

G_Body_Man wrote:

bearmtnmartin wrote:

G_Body_Man wrote: In reply to bearmtnmartin: Lemme guess. Prairies/Interior BC. I know your type

What's my type then? Hard working blue collar self employed middle class college educated believer in low taxes, fiscal responsibility and minimal government intrusion. That was the Harper Conservatives and I never understood the viscous anti Harper venom that has been spewed over the last few weeks. It was a special kind of hatred for a guy who's major fault seemed to be that he wasn't warm and fuzzy like Trudeau projects to be.

Yup, just as I thought. You're deluded.

This is why these threads go sideways. Lots of people disagree with one another, but it gets personal. Tell me your point of view without calling me names.

In terms of fiscal responsibility, Harper threw it out the window. He took a balanced budget and made his own deficit. In terms of minimal intrusion, I would hardly categorize Bill C-51 under unobtrusive. Not to mention some of the stuff he snuck in his omnibus bill. In terms of lower taxes, Trudeau is actually lowering the tax rate for the "hard-working blue-collar worker." I could state specifics, but I like to put others in pursuit of knowledge. And sorry if the "deluded" comment came off as personal, but you did ask me to name your type * ducks *

I wish we could limit our campaigns to a couple months. There is no reason any of these windbags need a year and a half to make us hate them, they should wait until they get elected like the good old days.

Wall-e wrote: I wish we could limit our campaigns to a couple months. There is no reason any of these windbags need a year and a half to make us hate them, they should wait until they get elected like the good old days.

Exactly! Having the spotlight on them for so long leads us to the inevitable conclusion that every last one of them is a corrupt, self-serving arsehole that isn't fit to chair a HOA, and we need to elect one of them to lead this country.

1988RedT2 wrote:

Wall-e wrote: I wish we could limit our campaigns to a couple months. There is no reason any of these windbags need a year and a half to make us hate them, they should wait until they get elected like the good old days.

Exactly! Having the spotlight on them for so long leads us to the inevitable conclusion that every last one of them is a corrupt, self-serving arsehole that isn't fit to chair a HOA, and we need to elect one of them to lead this country.

So you're saying it points out the truth?

Just think about all the money it'd save by limiting campaign length. That money that could go to WAY better causes than political attack ads and the like. Plus, when it's such a long campaign, there's hardly time to do anything truly useful, as most of the time they're doing stuff just to try and get re-elected, rather than govern.

The 2 year congressional election cycle can't help either, it must force some incredibly short term thinking.

In reply to RX8driver:

I would have them spend the same money but on much better ads. They would be HUGE!

G_Body_Man wrote:

bearmtnmartin wrote:

G_Body_Man wrote:

bearmtnmartin wrote:

G_Body_Man wrote: In reply to bearmtnmartin: Lemme guess. Prairies/Interior BC. I know your type

What's my type then? Hard working blue collar self employed middle class college educated believer in low taxes, fiscal responsibility and minimal government intrusion. That was the Harper Conservatives and I never understood the viscous anti Harper venom that has been spewed over the last few weeks. It was a special kind of hatred for a guy who's major fault seemed to be that he wasn't warm and fuzzy like Trudeau projects to be.

Yup, just as I thought. You're deluded.

This is why these threads go sideways. Lots of people disagree with one another, but it gets personal. Tell me your point of view without calling me names.

In terms of fiscal responsibility, Harper threw it out the window. He took a balanced budget and made his own deficit. In terms of minimal intrusion, I would hardly categorize Bill C-51 under unobtrusive. Not to mention some of the stuff he snuck in his omnibus bill. In terms of lower taxes, Trudeau is actually lowering the tax rate for the "hard-working blue-collar worker." I could state specifics, but I like to put others in pursuit of knowledge. And sorry if the "deluded" comment came off as personal, but you did ask me to name your type * ducks *

You guys realize you are having an east/west conversation, right? You are not going to solve it here, since we haven't been able to solve it in the last 150 years.

It looks like the flounder fishery in Canadian waters is quite lively.

Well, since the flounder proceisng plant is running...

What I want to advocate for is a system of governance where the person at the top is conscripted for the job and forced to stay there until they can prove they have met standards and nominated replacements.

The bottom line is that people who seek power should be disqualified from having it. More often than not, that is the end game.

Edit: Douglas Adams seems to have beat me to this thought.

Douglas Adams said: “The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

NOHOME wrote: Well, since the flounder proceisng plant is running... What I want to advocate for is a system of governance where the person at the top is conscripted for the job and forced to stay there until they can prove they have met standards and nominated replacements. The bottom line is that people who seek power should be disqualified from having it. More often than not, that is the end game. Edit: Douglas Adams seems to have beat me to this thought.

Douglas Adams said: “The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Your proposed system sounds almost identical to a monarchy (except that monarchies started with the descendant of the luckiest prehistoric farmer instead of some random person). The people who evaluate the fitness of the leader and his apprentices would be nearly as powerful as the person at the top (similar to royal advisors but even more powerful), would they be elected?

I don't agree completely with Douglas Adams' quote. I think electing a leader has similar problems to hiring someone to work in a daycare: Some of the people who apply will be good with kids, and some will be pedophiles.

Vulnerability to psychopathic power-seekers is a problem with modern democracies, but a pretty small one in the grander scheme of things.

GameboyRMH wrote:

NOHOME wrote: Well, since the flounder proceisng plant is running... What I want to advocate for is a system of governance where the person at the top is conscripted for the job and forced to stay there until they can prove they have met standards and nominated replacements. The bottom line is that people who seek power should be disqualified from having it. More often than not, that is the end game. Edit: Douglas Adams seems to have beat me to this thought.

Douglas Adams said: “The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Your proposed system sounds almost identical to a monarchy (except that monarchies started with the descendant of the luckiest prehistoric farmer instead of some random person). The people who evaluate the fitness of the leader and his apprentices would be nearly as powerful as the person at the top (similar to royal advisors but even more powerful), would they be elected? I don't agree completely with Douglas Adams' quote. I think electing a leader has similar problems to hiring someone to work in a daycare: Some of the people who apply will be good with kids, and some will be pedophiles. Vulnerability to psychopathic power-seekers is a problem with modern democracies, but a pretty small one in the grander scheme of things.

I agree with you up to the last sentence. Sadly, I believe that both the religious organizations and the western governments have crossed the line from symbiotic to parasitic.

I was picturing it more like jury duty. A letter comes and you are stuck in the senate or house. One poor bastard gets a special notice and is president. Like jury duty you go, take it seriously and do the best you can but only cranky retirees look forward to it, mostly for the free sandwiches.

No matter what, it seems that after a couple terms in office, the ruling party changes, as people forget what it was like last time and believe the new guy when he says it'll be different and better with puppies and rainbows for everyone.

So here is the pitch:

Could a computer program do a better job of running the country? I mean, its not too far reduced from a game of chess, and they seem to manage that OK.

Harper might have been close to this, but I was thinking more of a closed loop system that actually had input from the real world.

I was going to suggest the jury duty system as well but Wall-E beat me to it.

"I got selected for House Speaker? Dammit!"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/photos/sophie-gr%C3%A9goire-wife-of-justin-trudeau-shares-the-spotlight-1.3282159

Apparently Justin has a 1959 Mercedes 300SL ...