Republicans are betting on the truism that the public has a remarkably short memory. Hopefully they're wrong, but it wouldn't be the first time. The world is a safer place when Republicans are out of power, and maybe the middle class can start to struggle back to its feet.
US Government is Closed!
- Thread starter PoliticalNick
- Start date
Republicans are betting on the truism that the public has a remarkably short memory. Hopefully they're wrong, but it wouldn't be the first time. The world is a safer place when Republicans are out of power, and maybe the middle class can start to struggle back to its feet.
Obama does not want cuts. He knows the Repubs are wearing the blame courtesy of Cruz and the failure of the Repub leadership to take control from a vocal minority.
Cruz, Rubio and the other idiot had no plan if rejected. Boehner also had no plan in the event Obama had not caved- which he would not on his Health care Bill.
Battle to end U.S. shutdown, prevent default shifts to the Senate as talks stall between Obama and Boehner | National Post
Word of the negotiations between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the top Republican, Sen. Mitch McConnell, emerged as the Senate, as expected, rejected a Democratic effort to raise the government’s borrowing limit through next year.
“This bill would have taken the threat of default off the table and given our nation’s businesses and the economy the certainty we need,” the White House said in a statement.
Republicans objected because they want the extension to be accompanied by spending cuts.
No doubt Democrats are pulling a lot of sly tricks, but the GOP has left itself wide open by its extremism. It has spent the last six years, calling n!gger n!gger and refusing to accept anything proposed by Dems - to the point of refusing to pass GOP programs when the Democrats didn't disagree with them.
the American system was set up under the understanding that a consultative process would come to logical compromises.
Great when it works, but when it fails, wow, - thank Jehovah for parliamentary democracy.
Yup. Flat out acknowledging that the system is adversarial then designing it to work under conditions of extreme conflict seems to work. I forget who coined the phrase, but it is said our system doesn't work very well but it works better than whatever is second best.
One factor that passes entirely never their heads in the US is the nature and quality of our political leadership. Once somebody is in down there he is irremovable. He can be (and has been) a semi-functioning Alzheimer's patient and he is allowed to just drool along while committees and special interest groups rape the treasury. In Canada our leader must be strong, and able to function unprotected in a competitive intellectual environment, on a daily basis as long as Parliament is sitting. Can anybody imagine Ronald Reagan as PM facing Pierre Trudeau in parliamentary debate? For instance in Question Period? He would be humiliated. He'd leave the chamber muttering, "Fuddle duddle? What does that mean, Nancy?"
Funny your the only one I have Heard calling N gger N gger Why are you so hung up on race ? I mean he is 1/2 white after all .
Parliamentary debate do we have that in Canadu ? I thought question period meant throw mud not debate.
Intellectual environment? That embarrassing school yard display of taunting and jeering? What flipping Question Period are you watching?
Looks to me like the Dems are simply refusing to accept anything that is one ounce less than what they have already tried to push; that is a pig-headed move in and of itself.
In the end, the Dems knew that the GOP controlled the Senate and any hopes of moving legislation through the system absolutely depends on the buy-in from all levels.
Then you enjoy majority mob rule and a Prime Minister with near dictatorial powers.
Your narcissism and ignorance truly amazes me.
You're right of course, but where's the proof? No, a proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.
That was cretin no way young Justin could come up with such brilliant logic himself.
But he cannot mobilize the military and make war without the consent of Parliament. Oh, he could get the ball rolling. If we were under attack nobody has to wait for the PM to defend ourselves. But he is not Commander in Chief and could not act like the POTUS. The US actually has quite a cumbersome government. It has often happened that America has made treaties that later got bogged down in partisan nonsense and never passed.
Quote: Originally Posted by tober
He can be (and has been) a semi-functioning Alzheimer's patient and he is allowed to just drool along while committees and special interest groups rape the treasury. In Canada our leader must be strong, and able to function unprotected in a competitive intellectual environment, on a daily basis as long as Parliament is sitting. Can anybody imagine Ronald Reagan as PM facing Pierre Trudeau in parliamentary debate? For instance in Question Period? He would be humiliated. He'd leave the chamber muttering, "Fuddle duddle? What does that mean, Nancy?"
You being so erudite, your word is good enough for me.
There's that wonderful Canadian education I have often heard, especially from your mouth, you should really look up something before you post it.
Declaration of war by Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
Good for you. I hadn't seen that. But you should become more familiar with Canadian constitutional law and conventions. We are not America. Everything is not 100% governed by regulations and written procedures. Any PM who went to war without the consent of Parliament could be out of office very quickly. We are not the United States, Our structure of government is different. We can and have ousted PM’s part way through their terms. The last one to go that way was Joe Clark in the 1980’s, for being exactly that kind of arrogant leader. When we went to Gulf War 1 the issue was commented on. Mulrooney took the position that he “could” send troops into combat without Parliament’s say-so, but he didn’t dare try. Nor should you rely too heavily on Wicki. It talked about declaring war. Because of the UN Charter it is legally probable that Canada will never again make a “Declaration of War”. It is not done any more. No Canadian PM has ever tried to go to war without parliamentary approval, and to do so might well result in a constitutional challenge. In Canada there are things called constitutional conventions that are a constitutional version of the common law. It is quite possible, maybe even probable, that any PM who tried to send Canadian Forces into indefinite combat without the approval of Parliament would be out on his ear mid-term. That possibility was talked about when Mulrooney was contemplating his options in 1990. Unlike the US, we can do that.
I have assisted in drafting orders in council.
Except it isn't a mojority. Harper was elected with 38% of the vote. Due to our 3 party system it is common for people to get a seat with less than 50% and most of the time less than 45%. In my opinion it sucks and needs to change. I am tired of listening to idiots claim they have a mandate for their platform when 60% of the country is against it.
Nobody is going to declare war nowadays. The US has shown if you avoid a formal declaration you avoid the Geneva conventions.