O Canada..

an open letter to america from the great white north and i agree

You Americans Have No Idea Just How Good You Have It With Obama
Many of us Canadians are confused by the U.S. midterm elections. Consider, right now in America, corporate profits are at record highs, the country's adding 200,000 jobs per month, unemployment is below 6%, U.S. gross national product growth is the best of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. The dollar is at its strongest levels in years, the stock market is near record highs, gasoline prices are falling, there's no inflation, interest rates are the lowest in 30 years, U.S. oil imports are declining, U.S. oil production is rapidly increasing, the deficit is rapidly declining, and the wealthy are still making astonishing amounts of money.

America is leading the world once again and respected internationally — in sharp contrast to the Bush years. Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq and killed Osama bin Laden.

So, Americans vote for the party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of? This defies reason.

When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way?

Richard Brunt

Victoria, British Columbia

It's like pouring salt into a wound.
There is a bright side to Brunt's letter. We, at least, know other countries are paying attention to President Obama's accomplishments, even if the majority of Americans don't feel they're worth defending at the polls. It's a shame. The Conservative bullhorn was so loud, it drove out the desire for many people to vote. And Democrats didn't help. While pointing our fingers at the GOP (predominately our middle fingers) we forgot to blow our own horns. We forgot to build up our own President. We forgot to remind each other about what our own country looked like before Obama.

I have to believe the public really didn't understand the GOP gerrymandering that took place the last four years. They didn't see the many important and beneficial bills shot down by Republicans, one after another, out of spite. People wanted to see results, and the results were there. But half of America was blinded by the half-truths FOX 'News' and Conservative talking heads fed them, because you know, if you tell just enough truth mixed in with a bucket of lies, it causes confusion. And that can lead to a bad case of the FuckIts. Netflix marathons are way more fun.

Blunt's letter reminds me of one of my favorite Robin Williams quotes/memes:


Thank you Richard Blunt for the reality check. Thank you Robin Williams for the memories. And special thanks to James, TheEverlastingGOPStoppers.com(Website) and The Everlasting GOP Stoppers (on Facebook) for the good work you do.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/12/16/canada-trudeau-us-election-trump-politics/
“The media do not get to determine who the president is. The people do,” tweeted Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) on Nov. 7, the day most U.S. outlets called the race for Joe Biden. There is no “office of president-elect” thundered Fox News host Mark Levin once Biden started using that title. Sean Hannity suggested state legislatures “should invalidate” elections that didn’t go Trump’s way, while the president’s lawyer lobbied legislators to appoint Trump loyalists to the electoral college.

All of these arguments contain a morsel of truth. A literal reading of the U.S. constitution outlines a presidential election process that is far more protracted — and, at times, bluntly undemocratic — than modern Americans have come to expect. The president’s defenders accordingly dismiss contrary notions of how “American democracy is supposed to work” as constitutionally illiterate folk tales.

The rebuttals come easily: norms matter too. Opportunistically reviving moribund 19th-century traditions out of self-serving partisan interest is not impartially upholding the rules of the game but frantically Calvinballing toward a desperate “technical” win. The Canadian left should take heed, given similar tactics increasingly tempt their side.

Unlike the United States, much of how Canadian democracy is “supposed to work” isn’t constitutionally codified. This forms a troubling vacuum where a close election could easily spawn a legitimacy crisis just as ferocious as post-2020 America.

At the root is an indefensible fact: Canada’s constitution, and relevant legislation, do not outline basic facts on how or when a prime minister assumes or leaves office — allowing competing theories of precedent and propriety to fill the vacuum. This invites the possibility of a prime minister whose party loses its parliamentary majority or plurality in a general election yet refuses to step down —in defiance of what’s been standard practice for most of Canadian history— and instead appeals to archaic traditions to justify prolonging his time in office. For most of Canadian history, this standard practice of defiance appeals to an archaic tradition of prolonging his time in power.

An increasingly fashionable theory states that an incumbent prime minister holds office indefinitely until parliament explicitly votes to unseat him. In turn, Parliament convenes at a time of the prime minister’s choosing (no later than “twelve months” after the last sitting, says the constitution), meaning a stubborn enough prime minister could spend a year puppeteering post-election ambiguities to maximum personal advantage.

Suppose Justin Trudeau’s Liberals were to lose their parliamentary plurality in the next election and be replaced by a Conservative one. In that case, Trudeau could cite this expansive theory of incumbent prerogative to remain in power for months, rather than concede defeat and hand the reins to a Conservative administration. This would award him ample time to hammer out a legislative agreement with one of parliament’s third or fourth place parties, then convene a parliamentary sitting at the latest possible moment to ratify the arrangement and extend his stay in power even longer. During last year’s election, Trudeau-friendly voices in the media and academia disingenuously claimed this was “literally how” Canadian democracy had always worked.

In reality, such grasping tactics have not been attempted in Canadian federal politics in 95 years. For decades, the clear Canadian norm has been for the party with the most seats to install a prime minister — and promptly after an election.

In 2006, for instance, the last time an incumbent prime minister’s parliamentary plurality was narrowly replaced by a plurality of a rival party, Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin offered a concession to Conservative leader Stephen Harper on election night. “The people of Canada have chosen him to lead a minority government,” he declared.

Martin’s concession saw Harper inaugurated two weeks later, which awarded him the ability to convene parliament and “test the confidence of the House” — which he received by unanimous consent three months after the election.

Yet 2006 was long ago, and a decade under Harper has since persuaded many on the left that Tory rule must never again be endorsed “in any way.”

Could it work? Confident “explainer” columns may instruct the public to regard breaking nearly a century of transition-of-power procedures as no big deal. Still, Conservatives would no doubt disagree, and acrimonious litigation would likely follow. Regardless of thefinal outcome, considerable damage would be done to the credibility of Canadian democracy as one governed by mutually respected norms.

Since Canada has three or four center-left parties but only one center-right one, it was perhaps inevitable that the former would eventually conclude that some manner of co-operation could permanently shut out the latter. The moment it becomes a settled progressive consensus that a Conservative minority government must never be permitted to assume power, the Tories’ only remaining strategy will be to win an uncontestable parliamentary landslide of the sort they presently seem nowhere close to achieving.

Well, those are the rules, progressives will reply. But if that’s true, perhaps they could spare the nation future headache and just pass a statute saying so.

Nice theory but it’s unlikely to lead to a situation like in the US because the head of state, Queen Mother, would never accept nazis to be or stay in power.

I like the part in O Canada where the melody goes sharp shortly before the end

Sativied said:

Nice theory but it’s unlikely to lead to a situation like in the US because the head of state, Queen Mother, would never accept nazis to be or stay in power.

Reserve power - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

It's been thought of and many articles written over the years. We have a modern constitution that avoided many of the flaws in the American one. The US constitution was a contract between liberal democratic states and fascist slave owning states. The law was used as a bludgeon against minorities and the habit spread, it did too in Canada, but it was not as bad or habit forming.

All parliamentary democracies are structured the same way, whether they have a monarch or a ceremonial president with limited power. In Canada the governor general takes the place of a ceremonial president and the senate is a mostly useless appendage with no power and is appointed, which is a good thing. In all parliamentary systems you elect a dictatorship with a majority government. In America there has to be a division of powers because of the original sin of slavery and it is baked into the constitution and political culture. Because the law is used against enemies they need a division of powers, since they were never really one nation, but two forced into a shotgun wedding. They almost had a divorce in 1861 and recently attempted suicide by moron!

A compromise between the parties keep the peace and blacks down with the racists divided between the parties. Things were ok as long as blacks were suppressed and their rights removed in the fascist south. In recent years the republicans embraced racism and fascism came along for the ride, when Obama became president every racist and bigot in America migrated into the party and kicked the RINOs out. When Donald became president the process was complete and the party went completely fascist in the blink of an eye, there are some holdovers, but not for long. Next year all the rage will be qanon and whatever other conspiracy theory some right wingnut pulls out of their asshole. The republicans are now auto selecting sociopaths for candidates, it has become a requirement.

None the less I'm optimistic about their long term prospects, but concerned about the short term ones. It's a Helluva mess right now with treason, sedition, mass murder and crimes against humanity and only a 4% majority of the voting population actually supports the constitution. I figure Biden will do ok though, much depends on Georgia and the republicans are probably gonna win with their two corrupt candidates. The more racist the state the more corrupt the politicians, their tolerance for criminals in office didn't start with Trump.

WTF are you talking about? All states were slave owning states in 1788

Yeah but, I bet I can drink down a Labatt blue faster than most Canadians

Sativied said:

Nice theory but it’s unlikely to lead to a situation like in the US because the head of state, Queen Mother, would never accept nazis to be or stay in power.

Reserve power - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

The Queen (monarchy) has no say whatsoever in how we govern our country and is merely a figurehead. She is head of state in name only, so if Canada one day is governed by Nazis, there is nothing she could do about it.

Keeping the monarchy as head of state after confederation is just another example of the Canadian propensity to be polite.

blu3bird said:

Yeah but, I bet I can drink down a Labatt blue faster than most Canadians

Click to expand...

That’s because most Canadians won’t drink that shit.

CunningCanuk said:

That’s because most Canadians won’t drink that shit.

Click to expand...

What ?

It's good beer, it even says it's a fine Canadian pilsner

I'll take yours then if you don't want it lol

blu3bird said:

What ?

It's good beer, it even says it's a fine Canadian pilsner

I'll take yours then if you don't want it lol

Click to expand...

If I had any I would gladly give it you.

smokinrav said:

WTF are you talking about? All states were slave owning states in 1788

Click to expand...

True and NY was a pain about it, but others were trending in the direction. Slavery became very unpopular in the northeast and in the British empire many years before. The constitution was more of a marriage of convenience and survival, but later became more of the shotgun variety. Even the authors of the constitution knew slavery was wrong and evil, even though Jefferson owned slaves. The Bill of rights is inconsistent with slavery and the trends of the times, it was out lawed in the British empire in the 1820s and the free states were coming to the same conclusion. It was the economic dependence of the south on slavery that made the south a cultural and political outlier.

Slaves who fought in the continental army won their freedom and it was a dividing line in America right from the beginning and in the continental congress. It did not take long to become the most important and divisive issue as the northern states abolished it, but not racism.

"The Case of Vermont. Although technically a colony at the time, Vermont was technically the first state – in this case, future state – to ban the importation and forced servitude of black slaves. The colony’s 1777 constitution prohibited slavery in its entirely, a response to the growing abolitionist movement"

CunningCanuk said:

The Queen (monarchy) has no say whatsoever in how we govern our country and is merely a figurehead. She is head of state in name only, so if Canada one day is governed by Nazis, there is nothing she could do about it.

Keeping the monarchy as head of state after confederation is just another example of the Canadian propensity to be polite.

Click to expand...

If the population of a country is driven nuts with hate and fear no piece of paper can save it from a demigod. The constitution stood up against a moron with an IQ of 78, someone with a brain would turn it into toilet paper pretty quick.

CunningCanuk said:

The Queen (monarchy) has no say whatsoever in how we govern our country and is merely a figurehead. She is head of state in name only,

Click to expand...

That’s what people in NL say too, just ceremonial, and in practice that is how it works yes, but:

“What makes the governor general’s office interesting to a lot of people, however, are his emergency reserve powers. In theory, if there was a serious enough crisis to justify it, the governor general could choose to stop being a figurehead and actually use his constitutional powers in defiance of the prime minister. He could veto a law, deny an appointment, or, most controversially of all, fire the prime minister and appoint a new one. Even though no governor general has done something like this in 80 years, it’s still an interesting thing to speculate about. Just how bad would things have to get before the GG would be justified in intervening?”

Sativied said:

That’s what people in NL say too, just ceremonial, and in practice that is how it works yes, but:

“What makes the governor general’s office interesting to a lot of people, however, are his emergency reserve powers. In theory, if there was a serious enough crisis to justify it, the governor general could choose to stop being a figurehead and actually use his constitutional powers in defiance of the prime minister. He could veto a law, deny an appointment, or, most controversially of all, fire the prime minister and appoint a new one. Even though no governor general has done something like this in 80 years, it’s still an interesting thing to speculate about. Just how bad would things have to get before the GG would be justified in intervening?”

Governor General | The Canada Guide

thecanadaguide.com

Click to expand...

Canada’s Constitution act of 1982 changed the role of the monarchy.

The Governor General Office doesn’t have the same authority it had before the new constitution. Many of the powers a pre-constitutional Governor General had are no longer there.