Canada's coup d'etat: Opposition parties join to overthrow gov't (Part 2)

[Kuciwalker]

Parliamentary politics are so adorably silly

[KrazyHorse]

NYE, are you now seriously suggesting that only a government based on the plurality party is legitimate?

Can you point to a SINGLE example in any commonwealth country where this is taken to be true?

[Kuciwalker]

For that matter, wouldn't it subvert the entire purpose of a multiparty parliamentary system?

[Asher]

Part of the problem here is this is all legal. It's just wrong. Most Canadians do not like what is going down, and in practice it is pretty undemocratic to have a massive change in political structure without voter input.

And don't even pretend for a second that the people who voted Liberal would all have voted Liberal if they knew they'd be tied to the Bloc and NDP...A coalition was talked about before the election, and it was rejected because people balked at the idea. Even Dion said he'd not do it.

A couple months ago Dion was trashtalking the NDP and Bloc and saying he wouldn't enter a coalition, and here are we now...

The whole thing is wrong, but legal. That, itself, is wrong.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Parliamentary politics are so adorably silly

Sillier than granting somebody who cannot reasonably be recalled a one-man veto of all legislation?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
For that matter, wouldn't it subvert the entire purpose of a multiparty parliamentary system?

Yes, of course.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Sillier than granting somebody who cannot reasonably be recalled a one-man veto of all legislation?

Yes, actually. There is much lower-hanging fruit you could have called us out on.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Yes, actually. There is much lower-hanging fruit you could have called us out on.

Bush is the lowest hanging fruit I've ever seen. Saggy old men.

[KrazyHorse]

a) No, I really don't think it is. The Presidential veto is ridiculous
b) I'm not interested in starting a discussion about the EC

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher
Part of the problem here is this is all legal. It's just wrong. Most Canadians do not like what is going down, and in practice it is pretty undemocratic to have a massive change in political structure without voter input.

And don't even pretend for a second that the people who voted Liberal would all have voted Liberal if they knew they'd be tied to the Bloc and NDP...A coalition was talked about before the election, and it was rejected because people balked at the idea. Even Dion said he'd not do it.

A couple months ago Dion was trashtalking the NDP and Bloc and saying he wouldn't enter a coalition, and here are we now...

The whole thing is wrong, but legal. That, itself, is wrong.

Well if this is the case, why aren't you thrilled? The Liberals will therefore pay dearly in the next elections, possibly handing the Conservatives an outright majority, if so many Canadian voters are outraged over this.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Well if this is the case, why aren't you thrilled? The Liberals will therefore pay dearly in the next elections, possibly handing the Conservatives an outright majority, if so many Canadian voters are outraged over this.

Because Canadians are dense. They'll be pissed now, then when the Liberals are in power everything is right with the world. They call it the "natural governing party" for a reason, it'll probably be ten years before another party takes over.

I have no faith in the populace, nor the politicians.

[snoopy369]

I'm not sure why you think the presidential veto is silly.

1. Legislation passes with 50% + 1 requirement
2. President considers it
3. If President does not like it, he asks congress if they're really sure
4. Congress now must pass it with a 2/3 requirement

All the presidential veto does in requires congress to pass legislation with a 2/3 majority instead of a 1/2 majority. It's simply a check on the tyranny of the majority (in theory).

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Asher
Part of the problem here is this is all legal. It's just wrong. Most Canadians do not like what is going down, and in practice it is pretty undemocratic to have a massive change in political structure without voter input.

And don't even pretend for a second that the people who voted Liberal would all have voted Liberal if they knew they'd be tied to the Bloc and NDP...A coalition was talked about before the election, and it was rejected because people balked at the idea. Even Dion said he'd not do it.

A couple months ago Dion was trashtalking the NDP and Bloc and saying he wouldn't enter a coalition, and here are we now...

The whole thing is wrong, but legal. That, itself, is wrong.

Again I understand your sentiments. I share some of them. I agree that it strikes a bad chord with me for 3 parties to campaign separately and then after losing the election to join together in a way the voters never contemplated before there is a defining issue.

Harper has not placed anything before the House that the othe rparties NEED to defeat and if they were willing to act accordingly Harper could seek support for his proposals on a measure by measure basis.

Instead the three parties decided they were sick of harper and they probably resented that he could play them one off the other on an issue by issue basis. So instead they decided to turf Harper and get some power themselves.

I don't really like it since it seems deceitful to suggest that events since the election have forced them to this point. Nothing has really happended to trigger them to topple the government which leads one to conclude it was a possibility/plan from before the election.

To me the consequences are just the same as breaking an election promise-- Some are incensed and others don't care.

Asher keeps indicating that he thinks getting in bed with the bloc will cost the Libs and NDP support. I don't NECESSARILY see it that way. NDP supporters will probably be deliriously happy to have any say in any manner whatsoever. Liberal supporters? It may hurt a bit in regional pockets but I think they can spin it sufficiently

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I'm not sure why you think the presidential veto is silly.

1. Legislation passes with 50% + 1 requirement
2. President considers it
3. If President does not like it, he asks congress if they're really sure
4. Congress now must pass it with a 2/3 requirement

All the presidential veto does in requires congress to pass legislation with a 2/3 majority instead of a 1/2 majority. It's simply a check on the tyranny of the majority (in theory).

Do you even know what "tyranny of the majority" means?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher
Because Canadians are dense.

You could have just stopped right there.