What's Trump up to now?

GonZo_626 said:
Yes but we have much the same problem in our country of Canada where 2 provinces can decide our whole federal election. Meaning that everybody in the rest of the country pretty much has no say. I don't know exactly where you live but I think that it is a travesty that Ontario and Quebec decide the fate over people who have almost nothing in common besides the country we come from. Our own country is moving toward being as divided as the US is.

Personally I think we in Canada should move towards a system of removing power from the federal government and having more of it in the hands of the provinces, territories, and municipalities as I know I have nothing in common with most of the people in those two provinces, especially with P.M. Selfie the Clown telling people in Quebec that the only good P.M.'s come from a province that has a huge amount of people that would be happy leaving our country.

Mind you I would happily jump on a movement for western separation nowadays.
Click to expand...

I don't want to derail this thread (what little remains of it) but as I have said, I don't think the Canadian system is amazing either, with for instance the Liberals controlling 54% of the seats (which is a bona fide landslide in Canada considering all the parties we have) while having about 40% of the popular vote. However, what you say is misleading regarding the latest election; the Liberals are actually the one party that obtained seats in every single province and territory, while the Conservatives had a good majority of their seats in Alberta and Ontario alone, and the NDP had most of theirs in BC and Québec. Meanwhile, the Liberals won literally all the east, Québec, Ontario, the North AND BC in terms of both votes and seats. It's hard to claim only 2 provinces held the key to victory here (albeit, yes, Ontario is the main battleground province). And hell, last I checked based on population Ontario should have had even bigger a say than they did, given their demographics.

I'm not going to go any further regarding separation movements, given that it's not the purpose of this thread. But at least in Canada the guy who won the popular vote also won the bleeding election.
 
Ilosar said:
I don't want to derail this thread (what little remains of it) but as I have said, I don't think the Canadian system is amazing either, with for instance the Liberals controlling 54% of the seats (which is a bona fide landslide in Canada considering all the parties we have) while having about 40% of the popular vote. However, what you say is misleading regarding the latest election; the Liberals are actually the one party that obtained seats in every single province and territory, while the Conservatives had a good majority of their seats in Alberta and Ontario alone, and the NDP had most of theirs in BC and Québec. Meanwhile, the Liberals won literally all the east, Québec, Ontario, the North AND BC in terms of both votes and seats. It's hard to claim only 2 provinces held the key to victory here (albeit, yes, Ontario is the main battleground province). And hell, last I checked based on population Ontario should have had even bigger a say than they did, given their demographics.

I'm not going to go any further regarding separation movements, given that it's not the purpose of this thread. But at least in Canada the guy who won the popular vote also won the bleeding election.
Click to expand...

Last de-rail:

I am talking about any election here, those 2 provinces have enough seats to win without having any others. 338 total for Canada, Ontario and Quebec have 170 seats between the two of them. I would actually say that the Electoral college is a better system as it evens out between population and area. This makes sure that any one region does not gain an overly powerful say over everyone else because the most people live there. A person living in California has little in common with someone in North Dakota, they have little understanding of what impacts each other lives. A person living in a city has little in common with the Farmer living 150km away even. I would like to find a system that population means less than region as this would allow for a better system representing everyone, not just what over populated cities think.
 
We got rid of the EC for presidential elections in 1988. Nobody is asking for it back. Does it mean that the rural Finns don't have a much of a say in prez elections? I guess so.
 
GonZo_626 said:
Last de-rail:

I am talking about any election here, those 2 provinces have enough seats to win without having any others. 338 total for Canada, Ontario and Quebec have 170 seats between the two of them. I would actually say that the Electoral college is a better system as it evens out between population and area. This makes sure that any one region does not gain an overly powerful say over everyone else because the most people live there. A person living in California has little in common with someone in North Dakota, they have little understanding of what impacts each other lives. A person living in a city has little in common with the Farmer living 150km away even. I would like to find a system that population means less than region as this would allow for a better system representing everyone, not just what over populated cities think.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but no party's ever going to win all those seats. Ontario is always divided between Libs and Conservatives, with maybe some helpings of NDP on the side sometimes; Québec always alternates between a motley crew of party that changes every single election. We elected Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc MP. Pretty sure it's actually the most diverse province in terms of elected parties. So in the end, if you want to be elected, you actually do have to campaign all across the country. I mean, Harper focused much of his base in the West during his years, but he still managed to be elected by winning the hearts and minds of Ontario, and some seats further east as well.

And the thing is, these two provinces do average to about 50% of the total population (mostly thanks to Ontario). In whatever system exists, they're going to have a big influence, because half the population will always have a big influence in any democracy. That's not only unavoidable, it's required. And it's not like everyone in Ontario has the same mindset anyways, the wealthy socialite from Toronto isn't the same thing as the manufacturing business owner in the south or the farmer closer to the bay or the Prairies.

The solution is that your region doesn't matter; a vote's a vote. 50%+1, majority wins, two turns if required. And fringe parties are able to compete in that model, as the rise of the Front National attests in France (much as I loathe to use that party as an example).

Fair regional representation is then left to the legislative, which in most democraties is powerful enough to effectively counterbalance the executive; this is especially true in the US.
 
Ilosar said:
Yeah, but no party's ever going to win all those seats. Ontario is always divided between Libs and Conservatives, with maybe some helpings of NDP on the side sometimes; Québec always alternates between a motley crew of party that changes every single election. We elected Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc MP. Pretty sure it's actually the most diverse province in terms of elected parties. So in the end, if you want to be elected, you actually do have to campaign all across the country. I mean, Harper focused much of his base in the West during his years, but he still managed to be elected by winning the hearts and minds of Ontario, and some seats further east as well.

And the thing is, these two provinces do average to about 50% of the total population (mostly thanks to Ontario). In whatever system exists, they're going to have a big influence, because half the population will always have a big influence in any democracy. That's not only unavoidable, it's required. And it's not like everyone in Ontario has the same mindset anyways, the wealthy socialite from Toronto isn't the same thing as the manufacturing business owner in the south or the farmer closer to the bay or the Prairies.

The solution is that your region doesn't matter; a vote's a vote. 50%+1, majority wins, two turns if required. And fringe parties are able to compete in that model, as the rise of the Front National attests in France (much as I loathe to use that party as an example).

Fair regional representation is then left to the legislative, which in most democraties is powerful enough to effectively counterbalance the executive; this is especially true in the US.
Click to expand...

All true, and a reason I would happily hop on to a serious western separation movement as I am pretty unhappy with a good portion of our Eastern half. Ontario is nothing but a basket case, and don't even get me started on your province. 2 billion dollars to save 1200 jobs??????? FUCK BOMBADIER. And what about the massive deficits both of those provinces run its fucking crazy out there. Good looking women in Montreal though.
 
Well, many democracies today that allso have a monarchy, contain some of the happiest citizens. Strange enough ...
 
TXhKQMG.png

Expert diplomacy.
 
Ilosar said:
Yeah, it's not like the US are in the same situation.

What? Cuba? No, that doesn't exist. And a failed invasion most certainly did not occur in 1961.
Click to expand...

No, but they are commies so it doesn't matter we were just spreading democracy.
 
:nod:

Sure, we were just gearing up for invasion, then backed out suddenly, but it was just the rebel scum who we then tried to also overthrow with the help of the mafia via assassination. Our hands were clean though.

US government sponsored terrorism is the only right kind.
 
TorontRayne said:
:nod:

Sure, we were just gearing up for invasion, then backed out suddenly, but it was just the rebel scum who we then tried to also overthrow with the help of the mafia via assassination. Our hands were clean though.
Click to expand...
:facepalm:
I just said US-backed Rebels. The CIA trained them, armed them and US navy shipped them off to Cuba but the US military never invaded Cuba. Sure it planned to, but planning stuff is cheap (not really, but a lot cheaper then invading a country). Any good military plans to invade every nation deemed as a threat, it's a common precaution.
 
Dr Fallout said:
:facepalm:
I just said US-backed Rebels. The CIA trained them, armed them and US navy shipped them off to Cuba but the US military never invaded Cuba. Sure it planned to, but planning stuff is cheap (not really, but a lot cheaper then invading a country). Any good military plans to invade every nation deemed as a threat, it's a common precaution.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic. I know all that. The problem is the USA thinking they can invade countries just because they happen to have different beliefs, for little to no gain, in ways that make us look like the biggest hypocrites on the planet. When you set plans into motion to stage false flag attacks on drones made to look like civilian aircraft - shit has gotten fucked up. It isn't a common precaution to mislead your population into going to war for the wrong reasons.
 
TorontRayne said:
I was being sarcastic. I know all that. The problem is the USA thinking they can invade countries just because they happen to have different beliefs, for little to no gain, in ways that make us look like the biggest hypocrites on the planet. When you set plans into motion to stage false flag attacks on drones made to look like civilian aircraft - shit has gotten fucked up. It isn't a common precaution to mislead your population into going to war for the wrong reasons.
Click to expand...
I agree strongly with all this, but in Cuba's case... well, the US did have strong justification. Cuba was a military threat capable of holding nuclear weapons that could strike the entirety of America. A blockade is a much better way of stopping that kind of action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top