Something wrong with this picture for sure. There certainly is something to be said for a two party system where it’s perfectly clear who the majority favour . Our electoral system is in need of reform. For a number of reasons.
A Sucker Punch From Your Neighbour/Friend? (US/Canada Trade War)
- Thread starter cdnz
- Start date
If I may ask, what was the reason for playing the anthems of each team?
LMAO...WRONG! The majority of Canadians voted for "Bloc Québécois, the libs and the NDP"! You look it up.
You actually jumped to conclusions. I did NOT say the majority voted for the libs.
It started during the second world war. They even played it at movie theaters.
I don't think they do it in Europe. Only for the winning team in international events.
The Canadian system allows for 2 parties to join together to form the government if they collectively have more votes than the winning party. As you know it's called a minority government and it does have it's benefits. While they usually don't get as much done, what they do get done is usually what the majority of Canadians want because it's usually in agreement with both parties who combined represent most Canadians.
Of course the same can be said for a majority government.
In USA the the senate has a lot more power then here and are elected positions. If the President, the house and the senate are all of the same party the dictator er, I mean president, can usually do whatever he wants. As is the case now I believe. If the senate and house are divided a lot less can get done.
When you get like we have had for the past two years at least a situation where the NDP in this case get to call the shots having gotten only 17% of the popular vote one has to wonder. This has allowed the party with only 32% of votes to operate as a de facto majority which in my personal opinion is not right. Yes it’s the system in effect in Canada but it’s far from ideal. At least in the USA they have checks and balances in that funding has to be approved by Congress therefore providing some potential protection against the White House ramming through any policy they choose. Not so here . As we have witnessed.
There are numerous programs that would be lovely to implement but at the end of the day they have to be paid for and printing more money (QE ) is not the answer. Just take a look at the National debt which has increased under this government more in the last 9 years than under all governments combined right back to 1867 . Now I’m just waiting to hear once again, and again, “ but what about COVID “ .
The Libs had to agree to what the NDP wanted in return the Libs got something. So, yes, it might not be perfect. I was speaking in generalities. A majority doesn't necessarily get it right either.
Only if the 2 are different parties. If they're the same there is no checks or balance.
Reminds me of the Stomping Tom song that goes “ people saving money spending money they don’t got “ lol.
It's called keeping your money working for you. Many of the rich do exactly that. Spend more than they have.
Sorry but I must beg to differ….
The spending decisions made by the White House must generally be approved by Congress, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, Article 1, Section 9 states that no money can be drawn from the Treasury except through appropriations made by law, which means Congress holds what is known as “the power of the purse” .
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 further reinforces this by requiring the president to seek congressional approval before rescinding appropriated funds. If a president wishes to delay spending, they can only do so for a limited time (up to 45 days) while awaiting congressional response .
Recent actions by the Trump administration, including attempts to pause federal grants and loans, have sparked legal challenges and debates about the limits of presidential authority over spending . Critics argue that such unilateral actions violate established laws and undermine congressional authority .
How is that different? The congress is voted and there are only 2 parties. If they are republicans they will do what Trump wants.
True but I think that comes down to cash flow. The difference between the very wealthy and everyone else is that they have considerable net worth tied up in investments and property. Makes it easier for them to get financing at favourable rates.
This is how…
Congress has occasionally refused funding for the president even when controlled by the same party, primarily through the use of appropriations and budgetary measures. A notable instance occurred during President Richard Nixon’s administration in the 1970s, when he attempted to withhold funds for various programs authorized by Congress. This led to significant controversy and public hearings, as critics argued that Nixon was using his impoundment powers to effectively veto congressional spending decisions.
Another example is from recent events in late 2024, where House Republicans, despite being from the same party as President Trump, rejected a funding bill he backed. This situation highlighted internal divisions within the party, as many Republicans joined Democrats to vote against the proposal, demonstrating that even within a unified party, disagreements can lead to funding refusals.
Just curious as to what the Liberals got out of the deal other than an extension of their seemingly desperate tenuous grasp on power ? After all that’s the main focus of every government in power. Even if it requires the support of a far left Socialist party .
In 2011, Turdeau told his wife that he was made for the job of Prime Minister. IMO, he thinks he should be in power for many more years because he 'admires China's basic dictatorship" (his own words)
Really? Hmmm Interesting.
Oh yes . He is the leader of the “ Natural Governing Party “ don’t you know ! Staggering arrogance. But, if you don’t agree he/they will vigorously defend your right to be wrong, lol.
Ya, but that is rare when it's the same party. Did you listen the republicans that defended Trump and slandered Canada the other day? The republicans stand up for each other as do the Dem's
Ya . Pretty sad . But as individuals they are afraid of him where as the Congress when standing together on something they really don’t like will on occasion refuse to abide by his demands. Just like in Ottawa, at least for the last 9 years, their jobs and pensions depend on it. Just the way it should be…..
