All Things Canada Eh

[Sean Hayden]

It’s great to have real allies. Maybe if the world succeeds against the right we can get back together.

[Joe]

Here's hoping!

[Svartalf]

hopefully the administrations following trump's can mend the damage he's done... but that's not before 2029 and he still has time to wreak plenty damage

[Brian Peacock]

Don't worry America, Britain will have a quiet word with Canada and see if we can't get you guys back together - for the sake of the kids.

[Svartalf]

So long as frump and carnie are at their respective posts, that seems unlikely

[Tero]

hopefully the administrations following trump's can mend the damage he's done... but that's not before 2029 and he still has time to wreak plenty damage

In some things it will be difficult. And the supreme court has given presidents great powers, but this has been used mostly to dismantle things. The next president would still need congress to put things like USAID back together and fund it.

The lessons learned are that most of "government" as far as jobs are under the president. They do not have any constitutuional basis other than department of "war" and the treasury. So they can come and go freely, just with a simple majority in congress.

Even the justice system is largely invented by congress.

[Cunt]

This could be great if Canadians had elected him.

At the moment, the Libs blew it, to the point where their own people were quitting (sort of...Freeland, Trudeau and their fellow 'quitters' likely never missed a paycheque) then put in a new liberal guy, and pretended he's fixing the problems they created over the last decade of their rule.

At least he has Trump's support. That's weird, but very 'Zelenskyy' of Carney.

[macdoc]

There is a substantive history of unelected hired guns in a war.
The dumpf started the war.
Libs ELECTED Carney leader to replace Justin.
Canadians think he will go a good job according to a wide variety of polls so the Libs lead.
Getting a seat is an afterthought easily accomplished.

[Cunt]

Yes, good thing there isn't any question about him winning a seat. It's almost like it's fixed.

[JimC]

Yes, good thing there isn't any question about him winning a seat. It's almost like it's fixed.

Although I find it weird that you can have in Canada a PM without a seat in parliament (could not happen here), the process of him obtaining a seat will not be corrupt in any real sense. The party will simply find a seat with a safe Liberal majority whose member is close to retiring, and voila!

[Brian Peacock]

At least one presumes that Canadian elected representatives don't benefit from egregious manipulation of their constituency boundaries to ensure the dominance of a party with consistently few votes than their rivals, as their cousins across the Southern border are want to do.

[macdoc]

It's easy enough in Canada to lose the national vote ( we don't vote that way anyways ) and get a majority of the seats in Parliament with mid 30s percentage of popular vote thanks to FPTP.
Alberta will always vote Con so they could get all the Alberta vote and lose all the rest of the seats by one vote..
It's no where near as rational as Australias system.

Canada, unlike the US, has an independent Voting Commission not subject to any party or gov.
So does Australia.
When ridings need to be added as population grows the commission decides where and the new map.

[Cunt]

At least one presumes that Canadian elected representatives don't benefit from egregious manipulation of their constituency boundaries to ensure the dominance of a party with consistently few votes than their rivals, as their cousins across the Southern border are want to do.

Gerrymandering isn't limited to the actions of one side down there.

[Brian Peacock]

At least one presumes that Canadian elected representatives don't benefit from egregious manipulation of their constituency boundaries to ensure the dominance of a party with consistently few votes than their rivals, as their cousins across the Southern border are want to do.

Gerrymandering isn't limited to the actions of one side down there.

Did I say it was? Read it again.

[Cunt]

Maybe they ARE 'want to do' it (whatever that means)

If you meant 'wont to do', then it makes a bit more sense, but both sides of the border will play all the dirty games they can.