Vote 2024

[Mr._Clark]

I find Pollieve shoots from the hip without offering any real solutions to what he's opposing. I really getting a strong hatred for our parlimentary system and the political system in US. There is very little spirit of cooperation between the parties. No wonder nothing ever gets done. I'm also disillusioned with the people entering politics as a whole. Most end up getting selfish corrupt and no longer care for the betterment of our countries. Maybe its time to cut way back on their salaries and benefits. I dunno. I just hate the whole f?ckin mess.

If you don't mind, what are the main problems with your parliamentary system? I realize wiki and plenty of other websites have some information but there's nothing like insight from someone who's actually lived with it for years.

Quite a few years ago I was told that in Canada once one political party starts to dominate, the other parties join forces to oppose the dominant party, which means that it's difficult to get changes implemented. I have no idea if that's true.

To the extent you can make your situation sound horrible it would be appreciated. I'm basically fishing for some misery to keep me company at the moment.

 

[Mr._Clark]

and to further show how pathetic our country has become, both parties combined spent a half billion dollars on this BS in my state of Pa alone !

According to Open Secrets the total cost for the 2024 election cycle is likely to top $20 billion:

>>>OpenSecrets projects that the combined total for state and federal election spending in the 2023-2024 cycle will exceed $20 billion.

About $16 billion of that went to influence federal elections and another $4.6 billion was raised by state candidates, party committees and ballot measure committees for 2023 and 2024 elections.<<<

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2024/11/big-money-big-stakes-5-things-everyone-should-know-about-money-in-2024-election/

Overall, Harris raised more than Trump, but it obviously wasn't the deciding factor:

>>>OpenSecrets’ analysis of the most recent Federal Election Commission filings found that Harris’ campaign raised over $1 billion through mid-October, nearly three times the roughly $382 million the president-elect’s campaign raised during the same period.

Outside spending is much closer with groups supporting Trump or opposing his opponents reporting about $1 billion in spending through Election Day while groups boosting Harris or attacking Trump reported spending $1.05 billion on the race.<<<

Some of the contributions by individual donors are mind-boggling:

There are more donors listed on the chart, I arbitrarily cut off those below $10 million.

And, of course, the dark money was flowing:

Devoting this much time and money on elections seems crazy to me, but of course I have yet to be appointed the master of all such things.

 

[GO-NAD!]

If you don't mind, what are the main problems with your parliamentary system? I realize wiki and plenty of other websites have some information but there's nothing like insight from someone who's actually lived with it for years.

Quite a few years ago I was told that in Canada once one political party starts to dominate, the other parties join forces to oppose the dominant party, which means that it's difficult to get changes implemented. I have no idea if that's true.

To the extent you can make your situation sound horrible it would be appreciated. I'm basically fishing for some misery to keep me company at the moment.

Right now, there are 5 different parties represented in the House of Commons - Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, the Bloq Quebecois and the Greens (Listed in order of seats held, most to least). The Liberals hold a plurality, but not a majority of seats. This is called a minority government. To get legislation passed, they generally have to get cooperation from one of the opposition parties to get enough votes on legislation. Right now, the Conservatives don't cooperate on anything, so the government has been depending on votes from the NDP to get legislation passed. That gives the NDP leverage to get legislation passed that they want. For example, they wanted a public dental care plan for seniors, as well as initiating a pharmacare plan to publicly fund those programs. They have supported government bills in exchange.

Should no opposition party support a "money bill", such as the annual budget, and the government is in a minority position (insufficient votes to pass the legislation) that would be considered a vote of "no confidence", triggering an election.

If a government has more than half the seats in the HoC, they can pass pretty much any legislation they table, if it doesn't violate the constitution. The PM may allow a "free vote" on certain legislation, meaning MP's from the governing party are free to vote their conscience. If it's an important bill - such as the budget - the vote may be whipped, meaning governing party MP's are expected to vote in support.

The Conservatives have been trying to get a vote of no confidence on multiple occasions lately, because they are high in the polls. The NDP sees no advantage in triggering an election, so have propped up the government.

To summarize, bills do get passed, especially if the government has a majority. In a minority situation, they have to get enough votes from an opposing party or parties to pass bills, which can be more difficult. So, I don't see the same level of knee-jerk obstruction here that seems to happen in Congress and Senate.

I hope that helps.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

Devoting this much time and money on elections seems crazy to me, but of course I have yet to be appointed the master of all such things.

Nor were you asked for your opinion, right?
I wasn't either so don't feel bad. And some of it is free.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Right now, there are 5 different parties represented in the House of Commons - Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, the Bloq Quebecois and the Greens (Listed in order of seats held, most to least). The Liberals hold a plurality, but not a majority of seats. This is called a minority government. To get legislation passed, they generally have to get cooperation from one of the opposition parties to get enough votes on legislation. Right now, the Conservatives don't cooperate on anything, so the government has been depending on votes from the NDP to get legislation passed. That gives the NDP leverage to get legislation passed that they want. For example, they wanted a public dental care plan for seniors, as well as initiating a pharmacare plan to publicly fund those programs. They have supported government bills in exchange.

Should no opposition party support a "money bill", such as the annual budget, and the government is in a minority position (insufficient votes to pass the legislation) that would be considered a vote of "no confidence", triggering an election.

If a government has more than half the seats in the HoC, they can pass pretty much any legislation they table, if it doesn't violate the constitution. The PM may allow a "free vote" on certain legislation, meaning MP's from the governing party are free to vote their conscience. If it's an important bill - such as the budget - the vote may be whipped, meaning governing party MP's are expected to vote in support.

The Conservatives have been trying to get a vote of no confidence on multiple occasions lately, because they are high in the polls. The NDP sees no advantage in triggering an election, so have propped up the government.

To summarize, bills do get passed, especially if the government has a majority. In a minority situation, they have to get enough votes from an opposing party or parties to pass bills, which can be more difficult. So, I don't see the same level of knee-jerk obstruction here that seems to happen in Congress and Senate.

I hope that helps.

Interesting. That does help.

Not quite as miserable as I'd hoped, but it was informative.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Interesting. That does help.

Not quite as miserable as I'd hoped, but it was informative.

To be clear, it ain't all sunshine and lollipops. Politics have certainly taken a darker turn in recent years. The previous two Conservative leaders tried to follow a centre-right agenda, only to lose elections against Trudeau's Liberals. The present Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, has dispensed with any semblance of moderation. He is firmly right-wing and the gloves are off when criticizing the government.* While most/all politicians' rhetoric can sometimes have only a casual relationship with the truth, Poilievre seems to believe that keeping a foot in the land of reality is just an encumbrance. Since assuming the leadership, it has been a non-stop poo-flinging campaign. While there is a plethora of legitimate issues on which the PM and his government can be criticized, Poilievre insists on making the most ludicrous accusations possible.

One of the most egregious examples is from last summer (2023), when the whole country was suffering from massive wildfires. A government minister was speaking on the issue in the HoC, when Poilievre could be clearly heard saying "That your government started!". This was a blatant dog whistle, aimed at hard-right conspiracy theorists, who were insisting that the government was committing widespread arson in an effort to justify enacting measures to fight climate change.

So, while he spouts a great deal of nonsense, the non-stop barrage is having an effect. More and more people are being sucked into believing it and it does not bode well for the health of our democracy.

There you go. Is that miserable enough for you?


*Not that Pee Pee, as many of his critics call him, has ever worn gloves in the political arena. He was PM Harper's designated attack dog during the last Conservative government's term in office.

 

[highfigh]

I find Pollieve shoots from the hip without offering any real solutions to what he's opposing. I really getting a strong hatred for our parlimentary system and the political system in US. There is very little spirit of cooperation between the parties. No wonder nothing ever gets done. I'm also disillusioned with the people entering politics as a whole. Most end up getting selfish corrupt and no longer care for the betterment of our countries. Maybe its time to cut way back on their salaries and benefits. I dunno. I just hate the whole f?ckin mess.

Cooperation happens, but only occasionally and it takes a back seat to the bickering and BS.

Public service? yeah, let's call it that.........

If we get who we get with the current pay system, who do you think will show up if it's reduced?

As I have posted and said before- the ones we need aren't the ones we get. The system is so complex that one or two terms of two years in the House of Representatives doesn't give them time to learn it- Senate terms are six years. I know the term lengths and timing are staggered to prevent complete turnover in an election year, but we really need term limits and an end to lobbying- far too many politicians have made a career out of this.

 

[highfigh]

I can't speak for those other countries, but we can't just have a perennial standoff on the issue.

If we were truly making fuel unaffordable, there wouldn't be so many pickups - in both of our countries - on the road with one occupant. And, nobody expects use to stop instantly.

I mean un-affordable for people who don't make a lot of money, regardless of what they drive. You probably heard about the Cash For Clunkers program while Obama was in office- that was a complete debacle, mainly because they didn't think about the reasons so many cars on the road spewed so much pollution- the owners couldn't afford to have them repaired. This is common and they thought new cars would be a good way to eliminate the pollution but another thing that would be eliminated was money from the pockets of people who didn't have much- it's illegal to drive without insurance and poor people can't pay cash for a new car, specially with the insane prices for them. Then, there's the payment that they hadn't planned for and can't afford- if they tended to buy $500 cars to drive until it drops, how would they be able to pay hundreds of dollars every month? With a bad driving record and in certain Zip Codes, insurance is very expensive. Then, there's the problem of needing insurance and not having a valid driver's license- this is also common, illegal and if they have stacked up a bunch of traffic offenses, they can't get their license until these have been paid off.

WRT pickups- they're not great, but big SUVs are worse. The small and mid-size can be pretty efficient- I know a couple who have two Toyota hybrid SUVs and when driven sensibly, they sip gas but I also see people driving dually pickups and big SUVs like they're racing.

I'm not impressed by the average fuel economy from the auto manufacturers, or the intelligence of people who think they need a big engine to drive to the grocery store, drop the kids off at school and worse, go on a road trip.

As far as thinking we can stop instantly, let's hope the Just Stop Oil idiots don't start protesting in either country.

 

[highfigh]

My Pixel has paid for itself blocking spam calls and texts from my view. I just have to delete the spam messages that are hidden and I'm done. Same with the calls. I never see them unless I look at my call log.

Technology can be awesome.

How many mailers did you get? If I guess that I got 50, that would be a low number.

 

[highfigh]

and to further show how pathetic our country has become, both parties combined spent a half billion dollars on this BS in my state of Pa alone !

other news, I see Pat Summerall's daughter has been named Trump's Chief-of-Staff. She helped her father overcome alcoholism, maybe she can temper Trump ? Not holding my breath..........

I want to see a limit on campaign spending- I have commented on that before and the money could have been spent on someone or something more important. Last time Trump ran, he got the news to provide most of his exposure, so his campaign cost a bit more than half of Hillary's total- when Obama ran against McCain, his campaign was mainly privately funded and he waited until just before the deadline to declare that he wouldn't take public funding, as McCain did. McCain would have seemed like a hypocrite if he hadn't used public funds, since he was one of the authors of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act but even with Obama spending three times as much as McCain, the margin of victory was only about 5%. The 2012 campaign against Romney had more than $2 billion spent by just those two candidates.

 

[Mr._Clark]

To be clear, it ain't all sunshine and lollipops. Politics have certainly taken a darker turn in recent years. The previous two Conservative leaders tried to follow a centre-right agenda, only to lose elections against Trudeau's Liberals. The present Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, has dispensed with any semblance of moderation. He is firmly right-wing and the gloves are off when criticizing the government.* While most/all politicians' rhetoric can sometimes have only a casual relationship with the truth, Poilievre seems to believe that keeping a foot in the land of reality is just an encumbrance. Since assuming the leadership, it has been a non-stop poo-flinging campaign. While there is a plethora of legitimate issues on which the PM and his government can be criticized, Poilievre insists on making the most ludicrous accusations possible.

One of the most egregious examples is from last summer (2023), when the whole country was suffering from massive wildfires. A government minister was speaking on the issue in the HoC, when Poilievre could be clearly heard saying "That your government started!". This was a blatant dog whistle, aimed at hard-right conspiracy theorists, who were insisting that the government was committing widespread arson in an effort to justify enacting measures to fight climate change.

So, while he spouts a great deal of nonsense, the non-stop barrage is having an effect. More and more people are being sucked into believing it and it does not bode well for the health of our democracy.

There you go. Is that miserable enough for you?

Yes, thanks!

The proliferation of conspiracy theories (seemingly everywhere) is a curious phenomenon.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Yes, thanks!

The proliferation of conspiracy theories (seemingly everywhere) is a curious phenomenon.

What makes it worse is that I'm quite certain Poilievre knows better. He's not stupid by any stretch of the imagination. But, it's a non-stop barrage of fecal matter at the government and the PM. Sometimes, there is some substance to the criticism. But, that gets drowned out by the nonsense that has more traction amongst the more credulous voters .

Like many other western countries, allegations of "foreign interference" in our political system has been a prominent news item.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/foreign-interference-parliamentarians-conspired-now-what-1.7228005

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/foreign-interference-intelligence-comparison-us-1.7240299

Poilievre keeps insisting that the names of those who have been implicated be released to the public, knowing full well that it would be illegal to do so.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-release-names-poilievre-security-clearance-1.7355350

It's unfortunate that, during testimony, Trudeau alluded - specifically - to Conservative MP's being implicated, as that is not the venue for such partisan gestures. However, it had the desired effect, as Poilievre had a fit in response. It was like waving a red cape in front of a poor dumb bull.

Regardless, Poilievre could be fully briefed on the matter, if he submitted to the prerequisite background check for a top-secret security clearance. A couple of reasons as to why he refuses:

(1) He can use his own ignorance as a cudgel constructed of BS with which to batter the government.

(2) There may be skeletons in his closet that he wishes to keep hidden.

a. His wife immigrated from Venezuela as a child and there have been allegations that her family may have a criminal background. I have very strong doubts about this, as I haven't come across anything to support it.

b. Poilievre himself may be the beneficiary of foreign interference.

Pierre Poilievre doesn’t want to talk about foreign interference

When it comes to the question of foreign interference in Canadian democracy, the Conservative Party of Canada leader has been uncharacteristically quiet.

www.nationalobserver.com

The report redacted information about “two specific instances where PRC officials allegedly interfered in the leadership races of the Conservative Party of Canada.” One of those races, of course, elected Pierre Poilievre.

Also regarding the Tory leadership race, there is compelling evidence that Poilievre's team sabotaged his main rival's campaign.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/patrick-brown-ouster-vassy-kapelos-1.6512385

Brown was ejected from the leadership race Tuesday evening by the party's Leadership Election Organizing Committee (LEOC). The committee said Brown, the mayor of Brampton, Ont., was being dropped in response to "serious allegations of wrongdoing" related to financing rules.

After Brown was dropped, Poilievre went on to win the leadership. In the meantime, an investigation into the allegations against Brown revealed that there was no substance to the accusation. And, the "whistle-blower", source of the supposedly compromising information? Her legal representation was paid for by... ta-da!...Poilievre's leadership campaign.

So...yeah...it isn't just in the US where politics have become a sh!t-show. It's just that, like most things American, you like to do it on a vastly larger scale.

Make no mistake, I'm not a Trudeau fan. But, when the alternative is a Poilievre-lead Tory government, I'm stuck with having to support him.

I don't consider myself to be very partisan - I supported the Tories during the Mulroney era (mid-80's - early 90's). But, they have been drifting ever further to the right since then.

 

[highfigh]

What makes it worse is that I'm quite certain Poilievre knows better. He's not stupid by any stretch of the imagination. But, it's a non-stop barrage of fecal matter at the government and the PM. Sometimes, there is some substance to the criticism. But, that gets drowned out by the nonsense that has more traction amongst the more credulous voters .

Like many other western countries, allegations of "foreign interference" in our political system has been a prominent news item.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/foreign-interference-parliamentarians-conspired-now-what-1.7228005

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/foreign-interference-intelligence-comparison-us-1.7240299

Poilievre keeps insisting that the names of those who have been implicated be released to the public, knowing full well that it would be illegal to do so.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-release-names-poilievre-security-clearance-1.7355350

It's unfortunate that, during testimony, Trudeau alluded - specifically - to Conservative MP's being implicated, as that is not the venue for such partisan gestures. However, it had the desired effect, as Poilievre had a fit in response. It was like waving a red cape in front of a poor dumb bull.

Regardless, Poilievre could be fully briefed on the matter, if he submitted to the prerequisite background check for a top-secret security clearance. A couple of reasons as to why he refuses:

(1) He can use his own ignorance as a cudgel constructed of BS with which to batter the government.

(2) There may be skeletons in his closet that he wishes to keep hidden.

a. His wife immigrated from Venezuela as a child and there have been allegations that her family may have a criminal background. I have very strong doubts about this, as I haven't come across anything to support it.

b. Poilievre himself may be the beneficiary of foreign interference.

Pierre Poilievre doesn’t want to talk about foreign interference

When it comes to the question of foreign interference in Canadian democracy, the Conservative Party of Canada leader has been uncharacteristically quiet.

www.nationalobserver.com

Also regarding the Tory leadership race, there is compelling evidence that Poilievre's team sabotaged his main rival's campaign.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/patrick-brown-ouster-vassy-kapelos-1.6512385

After Brown was dropped, Poilievre went on to win the leadership. In the meantime, an investigation into the allegations against Brown revealed that there was no substance to the accusation. And, the "whistle-blower", source of the supposedly compromising information? Her legal representation was paid for by... ta-da!...Poilievre's leadership campaign.

So...yeah...it isn't just in the US where politics have become a sh!t-show. It's just that, like most things American, you like to do it on a vastly larger scale.

Make no mistake, I'm not a Trudeau fan. But, when the alternative is a Poilievre-lead Tory government, I'm stuck with having to support him.

I don't consider myself to be very partisan - I supported the Tories during the Mulroney era (mid-80's - early 90's). But, they have been drifting ever further to the right since then.

What do you mean by "you like to do it on a vastly larger scale"? Do we actually have a choice and do you think we actually like this shyte?

BTW- you mentioned 'no confidence' in your government- if you haven't checked the approval rating for Congress, it has been around 15% for decades, but because some candidates run unopposed and the voter apathy is so high and they don't have term limits, nothing changes much, if at all. Check out the term lengths for them-

List of members of the United States Congress by longevity of service - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[GO-NAD!]

What do you mean by "you like to do it on a vastly larger scale"? Do we actually have a choice and do you think we actually like this shyte?

It's just an observation, not a criticism. It's like the size of your amusement parks, restaurant meals, military, displays of patriotism. No half measures will do.

BTW- you mentioned 'no confidence' in your government- if you haven't checked the approval rating for Congress, it has been around 15% for decades, but because some candidates run unopposed and the voter apathy is so high and they don't have term limits, nothing changes much, if at all. Check out the term lengths for them-

List of members of the United States Congress by longevity of service - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A "vote of confidence" in the House of Commons is an official parliamentary term for a procedure conducted by sitting Members of Parliament when "His Majesty's Loyal Opposition" attempts to topple the government and trigger an election. It is not related to public opinion.

 

[panteragstk]

How many mailers did you get? If I guess that I got 50, that would be a low number.

I don't check my mail unless I expect something, but I did get a few. Nowhere near 50, but I got at least 10.

They all went directly into the recycle bin, so I may have missed a few.

 

[highfigh]

It's just an observation, not a criticism. It's like the size of your amusement parks, restaurant meals, military, displays of patriotism. No half measures will do.



A "vote of confidence" in the House of Commons is an official parliamentary term for a procedure conducted by sitting Members of Parliament when "His Majesty's Loyal Opposition" attempts to topple the government and trigger an election. It is not related to public opinion.

I was only asking how you meant it, not reacting to criticism- I know the US does a lot of stupid things, on a ridiculous scale that's unnecessary. You know, American Exceptionalism......DOH!

Restaurant meal portions are a big part of the problem here- the US has incredibly overweight people who can't seem to understand that more calories in than effort expended will make them gain weight.

I know the difference, but here, Congress would never do the same because, as the link shows, they really, really want to stay in office. Has anyone in Parliament been in office for 52 years?

I'm not sure the US public would survive that practice.

 

[Mikado463]

I don't check my mail unless I expect something,

so the unsolicited $100 bill I sent you must have been forgotten about ..........

 

[GO-NAD!]

I was only asking how you meant it, not reacting to criticism- I know the US does a lot of stupid things, on a ridiculous scale that's unnecessary. You know, American Exceptionalism......DOH!

Restaurant meal portions are a big part of the problem here- the US has incredibly overweight people who can't seem to understand that more calories in than effort expended will make them gain weight.

I know the difference, but here, Congress would never do the same because, as the link shows, they really, really want to stay in office. Has anyone in Parliament been in office for 52 years?

I'm not sure the US public would survive that practice.

The current longest serving MP is Louis Plamondon, from Quebec, at 40 years. He would be an outlier though, as the average time in office is two terms - eight to ten years.