International rescue team looking for the world

[Carygrant]

Step into the World Politics section .
Peace and quiet . Because nobody is there .
Let's have a look at the number of Topics attracting any sort of response each day
Today 1 so far
Yesterday 2
20/1 3
19/1 2
18/1 3 and so on , probably ad nauseam , unless America has destabilised another country .( And would you believe it , Mali , is not a made-up word and look here ..... it is all covered in sand).

Let's now go over to the best presented news service in the world --- Al Jazeera .What boring rubbish have they put out today ? Here's a selection .
Israeli vote in General Elections
End of Eritrea siege
Russians air lifted out of Syria
French and Mali troops enter Diabaly
Patriot equipment moved into Turkey
Earthquake in western Indonesia
Analysis of Algeria's hostage crisis
Crisis in Iraq's northern oil fields

Now admittedly , not a great deal happened yesterday outside of America ( chortle ) , but aside from the pleasure of seeing the great man officially welcomed by his people , why would anybody who imagined that they had political presence not be absorbed in at least a couple of " the outside of America" happenings ?
Does the Russian air lift have a sub text and , if so , what does it presage .
Will the likely success of Netanyahu mean that Israel will swing even more to the right giving Obama even greater problems ?
Did the Algerians make poor decisions in the hostage crisis ? etc etc

What do the great American intellects of this Forum choose to do?
Probably get incensed that this Topic is in their play area and carry on their aimless struggle to find differences in a two party system that has to often split hairs to show a real difference of any great consequence .

Is this why Americans have become labelled , simple , --- be that fair or not ? Is it because mainly white people ( plus Patrick who proudly tells me is off white) can only broadly think
Republican ---- Democrat
Conservative --- Liberal
Good ---------- Not Good
White --- -------under attack
Black ---- ------violent enemy
Rest of world ---- unknown and therefore suspect
Europeans------ ---Elitist , Gay and Socialists

Are Americans now so scared of themselves ( get out now and get some more guns ) that they project these fears onto everyone else ?

[Adelaide]

Well, it seems like (on discussion forums) that many foreigners such as myself frequent these types of forums to mostly debate US politics, and that of our own country should a topic arise. US politics is like the UFC of politics - always interesting, and a hell of a show. I mean, the highlight of Canadian politics on any given day is a bunch of MPs heckling each other during question period (which is largely uninteresting). US politics are probably the most universally watched, as well, which translates to good debates even for non-Americans. I don't believe it is a lack of knowledge or a lack of ability to debate international politics, but perhaps a lack of interest that leads many to not discuss topics that don't fall under either US politics or their home country if not from the United States. I certainly don't expect that Americans will be watching our parliamentary sessions to catch the aforementioned heckling... not even I do.

It's also very reasonable to expect people to mostly show an interest in events that directly affect them, or that they'll already familiar with or passionate about.

[Chris]

Well, it seems like (on discussion forums) that many foreigners such as myself frequent these types of forums to mostly debate US politics, and that of our own country should a topic arise. US politics is like the UFC of politics - always interesting, and a hell of a show. I mean, the highlight of Canadian politics on any given day is a bunch of MPs heckling each other during question period (which is largely uninteresting). US politics are probably the most universally watched, as well, which translates to good debates even for non-Americans. I don't believe it is a lack of knowledge or a lack of ability to debate international politics, but perhaps a lack of interest that leads many to not discuss topics that don't fall under either US politics or their home country if not from the United States. I certainly don't expect that Americans will be watching our parliamentary sessions to catch the aforementioned heckling... not even I do.

It's also very reasonable to expect people to mostly show an interest in events that directly affect them, or that they'll already familiar with or passionate about.

I have some interest in Canadian politics. It is, not unlike Japan, a world of conflicts. Canadian healthcare is socialized, and because we're headed in that direction, its successes and failures are of interest. And despite many thereby seeing Canada as socialist, you all are far from it, in fact, in many respects you're more conservative that the US--Mulroney , Stephen Harper, Ralph Klein.

Will Parti Rhinocéros ever return?

[Adelaide]

I have some interest in Canadian politics. It is, not unlike Japan, a world of conflicts. Canadian healthcare is socialized, and because we're headed in that direction, its successes and failures are of interest. And despite many thereby seeing Canada as socialist, you all are far from it, in fact, in many respects you're more conservative that the US--Mulroney , Stephen Harper, Ralph Klein.

Will Parti Rhinocéros ever return?

God I hope so. I had that listed as my political party affiliation on Facebook until somewhat recently!

Mulroney was arguably an epic failure - hated across Canada, for the most part - even his own party felt he was too Liberal. Had some good/strong ideas, though. Klein is a bit of an idiot who tried to use the Notwithstanding Clause to prevent same-sex marriage, which makes him an idiot that wouldn't be well-respected outside of Alberta (only 2 provinces challenged same-sex marriage, memory serving correct). Harper isn't so bad, as much as I sometimes complain about him.

Harper is very obviously socially Conservative, but he doesn't try to reopen the debate on abortion or same-sex marriage (most notably). Mind you, politicians in Canada generally avoid bringing up topics like that which are really none of their business and have majority support by Canadians anyways. But it is respectable that he keeps his party in line on social issues, Woodworth's private member's motion withstanding. Stephen Woodworth (Conservative) is actually my MP - his abortion mania means he'll never get elected again in my Liberal region. We swung Conservative in response to a poor candidate by the Liberals. His career is done... this is why Canadian politicians don't touch the abortion issue.

A lot of Americans don't realise how Conservative certain parts of Canada are, such as Alberta where Klein was Premier. When the Conservative Party was formed, it was two merged parties; the Alliance/Reform Party and the Progressive Conservatives. The Reform Party and it's remnants is probably one of the most dangerous aspects of Canadian politics to anyone who is not a hardcore Conservative. Very religious, very socially and very fiscally Conservative - they're basically a Canadian Tea Party. If you speak to a Liberal or NDP supporter/member, this is the reason they would never support the Conservative party regardless of what the party line is. A lot of people feared with Harper that he would implement Reform party ideals if he became PM with a majority government, but thank God the man has some common sense and generally goes by what majority of Canadians would support on major issues. Even fiscal Conservatives are a bit weary voting for the Conservative party because of the remaining elements of the Reform party. If you're not a social Conservative, you fear them.

Harper gets a thumbs up from me even though he's ideologically the furthest from my personal views. I may dislike him, but I have respect for him.

[Chris]

God I hope so. I had that listed as my political party affiliation on Facebook until somewhat recently!

Mulroney was arguably an epic failure - hated across Canada, for the most part - even his own party felt he was too Liberal. Had some good/strong ideas, though. Klein is a bit of an idiot who tried to use the Notwithstanding Clause to prevent same-sex marriage, which makes him an idiot that wouldn't be well-respected outside of Alberta (only 2 provinces challenged same-sex marriage, memory serving correct). Harper isn't so bad, as much as I sometimes complain about him.

Harper is very obviously socially Conservative, but he doesn't try to reopen the debate on abortion or same-sex marriage (most notably). Mind you, politicians in Canada generally avoid bringing up topics like that which are really none of their business and have majority support by Canadians anyways. But it is respectable that he keeps his party in line on social issues, Woodworth's private member's motion withstanding. Stephen Woodworth (Conservative) is actually my MP - his abortion mania means he'll never get elected again in my Liberal region. We swung Conservative in response to a poor candidate by the Liberals. His career is done... this is why Canadian politicians don't touch the abortion issue.

A lot of Americans don't realise how Conservative certain parts of Canada are, such as Alberta where Klein was Premier. When the Conservative Party was formed, it was two merged parties; the Alliance/Reform Party and the Progressive Conservatives. The Reform Party and it's remnants is probably one of the most dangerous aspects of Canadian politics to anyone who is not a hardcore Conservative. Very religious, very socially and very fiscally Conservative - they're basically a Canadian Tea Party. If you speak to a Liberal or NDP supporter/member, this is the reason they would never support the Conservative party regardless of what the party line is. A lot of people feared with Harper that he would implement Reform party ideals if he became PM with a majority government, but thank God the man has some common sense and generally goes by what majority of Canadians would support on major issues. Even fiscal Conservatives are a bit weary voting for the Conservative party because of the remaining elements of the Reform party. If you're not a social Conservative, you fear them.

Harper gets a thumbs up from me even though he's ideologically the furthest from my personal views. I may dislike him, but I have respect for him.

:yo2: I won't even pretend to know enough about Canadian politics to criticize, but I will praise you all for being much more fiscally conservative than the US. You all fared well through the recession.

Regretfully fiscal conservatism gets mixed with social conservatism (in my mind, liberalism). Here the problem is the Republicans pay lip service to fiscal cons but abandon them for social and neo-cons come election time. --The tea parties are working on changing that, setting aside social issues for less taxes, smaller government and more liberty.

Here is the sort of thing we could learn:


Two decades ago Canada suffered a deep recession and teetered on the brink of a debt crisis caused by rising government spending. The Wall Street Journal said that growing debt was making Canada an "honorary member of the third world" with the "northern peso" as its currency. But Canada reversed course and cut spending, balanced its budget, and enacted various pro-market reforms. The economy boomed, unemployment plunged, and the formerly weak Canadian dollar soared to reach parity with the U.S. dollar.

@ We Can Cut Government: Canada Did (http://www.cato.org/policy-report/mayjune-2012/we-can-cut-government-canada-did)


Parti Rhinocéros is intentionally funny spoofing politics, our politics are all too ridiculously funny.

[JackRuby]

Step into the World Politics section .
Peace and quiet . Because nobody is there .
Let's have a look at the number of Topics attracting any sort of response each day
Today 1 so far
Yesterday 2
20/1 3
19/1 2
18/1 3 and so on , probably ad nauseam , unless America has destabilised another country .( And would you believe it , Mali , is not a made-up word and look here ..... it is all covered in sand).

Let's now go over to the best presented news service in the world --- Al Jazeera .What boring rubbish have they put out today ? Here's a selection .
Israeli vote in General Elections
End of Eritrea siege
Russians air lifted out of Syria
French and Mali troops enter Diabaly
Patriot equipment moved into Turkey
Earthquake in western Indonesia
Analysis of Algeria's hostage crisis
Crisis in Iraq's northern oil fields

Now admittedly , not a great deal happened yesterday outside of America ( chortle ) , but aside from the pleasure of seeing the great man officially welcomed by his people , why would anybody who imagined that they had political presence not be absorbed in at least a couple of " the outside of America" happenings ?
Does the Russian air lift have a sub text and , if so , what does it presage .
Will the likely success of Netanyahu mean that Israel will swing even more to the right giving Obama even greater problems ?
Did the Algerians make poor decisions in the hostage crisis ? etc etc

What do the great American intellects of this Forum choose to do?
Probably get incensed that this Topic is in their play area and carry on their aimless struggle to find differences in a two party system that has to often split hairs to show a real difference of any great consequence .

Is this why Americans have become labelled , simple , --- be that fair or not ? Is it because mainly white people ( plus Patrick who proudly tells me is off white) can only broadly think
Republican ---- Democrat
Conservative --- Liberal
Good ---------- Not Good
White --- -------under attack
Black ---- ------violent enemy
Rest of world ---- unknown and therefore suspect
Europeans------ ---Elitist , Gay and Socialists

Are Americans now so scared of themselves ( get out now and get some more guns ) that they project these fears onto everyone else ?

Americans, my teacher friends tell me are getting so stupid that they are easily bought and sold by the media corporate elitists, Mr. Grant and like easy answers even if they are lies or half truths. Most certainly couldn't find the countries that end in "stan" on the map and why bother when there are more pressing matters such as Obama's birth certificate.

Then again, being in the Witness Protection Program mine isn't real either so I best not comment on that.

Jack

[Carygrant]

Americans, my teacher friends tell me are getting so stupid that they are easily bought and sold by the media corporate elitists, Mr. Grant and like easy answers even if they are lies or half truths. Most certainly couldn't find the countries that end in "stan" on the map and why bother when there are more pressing matters such as Obama's birth certificate.

Then again, being in the Witness Protection Program mine isn't real either so I best not comment on that.

Jack


But it obviously does not have to be like that ---education , the right role models etc .
It is far deeper than not knowing where P, Q or R are or not having a clue about cultural differences.
The planet is now inextricably linked at all levels and in the areas of finance and economics the system is interdependent .
One of the greatest dangers a country faces is being cut off from the Zeitgeist and perceived as being insular and without any international sense of humour . These are the holes America is stuck in now .

[JackRuby]

But it obviously does not have to be like that ---education , the right role models etc .
It is far deeper than not knowing where P, Q or R are or not having a clue about cultural differences.
The planet is now inextricably linked at all levels and in the areas of finance and economics the system is interdependent .
One of the greatest dangers a country faces is being cut off from the Zeitgeist and perceived as being insular and without any international sense of humour . These are the holes America is stuck in now .

You seem to have that right because as these pages have proved to me thus far people would rather fight than laugh.

Jack

[Adelaide]

:yo2: I won't even pretend to know enough about Canadian politics to criticize, but I will praise you all for being much more fiscally conservative than the US. You all fared well through the recession.

Regretfully fiscal conservatism gets mixed with social conservatism (in my mind, liberalism). Here the problem is the Republicans pay lip service to fiscal cons but abandon them for social and neo-cons come election time. --The tea parties are working on changing that, setting aside social issues for less taxes, smaller government and more liberty.

Here is the sort of thing we could learn:



@ We Can Cut Government: Canada Did (http://www.cato.org/policy-report/mayjune-2012/we-can-cut-government-canada-did)


Parti Rhinocéros is intentionally funny spoofing politics, our politics are all too ridiculously funny.

See now, I think of the Tea Party as also socially Conservative due to the various representatives that have been in the running or elected, many of whom have advocated for very Conservative social positions. Even though that isn't the official stance of the Tea Party movement in writing, the fact that so many followers advocate those positions puts them on par with the Reform Party in my mind. I think, if anything, the Libertarians would best represent a solidly fiscally conservative position, without the drama of wanting to legislate what people should be allowed to do with their bodies/personal lives. Which, aside from the social programs available in Canada, is largely the position we take, (we don't even technically have laws governing abortion, for example).

We did do really well with the recession, partly because of existing regulations and partly because of programs put in place quickly, (such as the Canadian Economic Action Plan). While we have many social programs, including universal health care, when spending gets out of control the government (provincial and federal) is generally very good at coming up with a way to manage it and balance the budget. For example, the Ontario government is in debt very badly and after months of arguing over how to fix it, they brought it an outside expert on economics. That expert suggested many ways of cutting costs and balancing the budget, which included cuts to health care and education. The government is now implementing many of the suggestions, as well as looking at additional options for paying off the debt and balancing the budget. Federally, I believe we've already balanced the budget, (last I heard from Flaherty, our Minister of Finance, anyways). Staying afloat comes before party politics.

The problem in the US is that it's been 4 years and you're still arguing. We didn't even have a majority until very recently in parliament, but shit still got passed. The deadlock in Washington is your biggest problem; partisanship before the people is the problem. My opinion, of course.

[Chris]

See now, I think of the Tea Party as also socially Conservative due to the various representatives that have been in the running or elected, many of whom have advocated for very Conservative social positions. Even though that isn't the official stance of the Tea Party movement in writing, the fact that so many followers advocate those positions puts them on par with the Reform Party in my mind. I think, if anything, the Libertarians would best represent a solidly fiscally conservative position, without the drama of wanting to legislate what people should be allowed to do with their bodies/personal lives. Which, aside from the social programs available in Canada, is largely the position we take, (we don't even technically have laws governing abortion, for example).

We did do really well with the recession, partly because of existing regulations and partly because of programs put in place quickly, (such as the Canadian Economic Action Plan). While we have many social programs, including universal health care, when spending gets out of control the government (provincial and federal) is generally very good at coming up with a way to manage it and balance the budget. For example, the Ontario government is in debt very badly and after months of arguing over how to fix it, they brought it an outside expert on economics. That expert suggested many ways of cutting costs and balancing the budget, which included cuts to health care and education. The government is now implementing many of the suggestions, as well as looking at additional options for paying off the debt and balancing the budget. Federally, I believe we've already balanced the budget, (last I heard from Flaherty, our Minister of Finance, anyways). Staying afloat comes before party politics.

The problem in the US is that it's been 4 years and you're still arguing. We didn't even have a majority until very recently in parliament, but shit still got passed. The deadlock in Washington is your biggest problem; partisanship before the people is the problem. My opinion, of course.

We argue but get nothing done because both sides are just different sides the same lousy statist coin. Partisanship before the people is a good way to put it. Power before people.

There are those who hijack the Tea Party, but they're TPINOs (Tea Partiers In Name Only). Not to say that there are not social cons etc but the focus is on fiscal matters like less taxes, smaller government and more liberty.

I'm fairly anti-regulation, pro-free market, but if you're going to have regulations, have the rights ones. There Canada succeeded and we failed for our own ignorance (see The Political Implications of Ignoring Our Own Ignorance (http://www.american.com/archive/2011/december/the-political-implications-of-ignoring-our-own-ignorance)).

[Adelaide]

We argue but get nothing done because both sides are just different sides the same lousy statist coin. Partisanship before the people is a good way to put it. Power before people.

There are those who hijack the Tea Party, but they're TPINOs (Tea Partiers In Name Only). Not to say that there are not social cons etc but the focus is on fiscal matters like less taxes, smaller government and more liberty.

I'm fairly anti-regulation, pro-free market, but if you're going to have regulations, have the rights ones. There Canada succeeded and we failed for our own ignorance (see The Political Implications of Ignoring Our Own Ignorance (http://www.american.com/archive/2011/december/the-political-implications-of-ignoring-our-own-ignorance)).

Interesting about the Tea Party. I've never fallen down the Liberal rabbit hole in believing any of the crap about racism in the Tea Party, (let's face it; every political movement and group has some racists and that doesn't make the whole group discriminatory), but I do have a hard time seeing the group in general as anything less than both fiscally and socially Conservative. That's based on the representatives that I've heard about. But, in my defense, 95% of the news I see about the Tea Party is generally to do with who is making an inappropriate rape comment or saying Jesus walked with dinosaurs. That is what makes international news when it comes to the Tea Party.

Well, we will definitely disagree on economics, but generally speaking you need to have some regulations, but you're right in that they have to be the right kind. I was completely unaware of how vast the differences between the US and Canada were until the recession - luckily, people much smarter and educated on economics than me are making the decisions in parliament. It's terrifying that poor practices in the US could drag us down so easily.

I'm not sure why more people don't vote for parties like the Libertarian party in the US. If your representatives are screwing you over, you vote them out. You certainly don't promote them... I mean, it was amazing in Canada to see the Orange surge when Quebec, (and other areas in Canada) voted largely NDP instead of Bloc Quebecois, promoting the NDP to the official opposition and effectively crippling the Liberal party. I'm not sure I fully understand why the people in the US don't just vote for someone other than a Democrat or Republican.

[Chris]

Interesting about the Tea Party. I've never fallen down the Liberal rabbit hole in believing any of the crap about racism in the Tea Party, (let's face it; every political movement and group has some racists and that doesn't make the whole group discriminatory), but I do have a hard time seeing the group in general as anything less than both fiscally and socially Conservative. That's based on the representatives that I've heard about. But, in my defense, 95% of the news I see about the Tea Party is generally to do with who is making an inappropriate rape comment or saying Jesus walked with dinosaurs. That is what makes international news when it comes to the Tea Party.

Well, we will definitely disagree on economics, but generally speaking you need to have some regulations, but you're right in that they have to be the right kind. I was completely unaware of how vast the differences between the US and Canada were until the recession - luckily, people much smarter and educated on economics than me are making the decisions in parliament. It's terrifying that poor practices in the US could drag us down so easily.

I'm not sure why more people don't vote for parties like the Libertarian party in the US. If your representatives are screwing you over, you vote them out. You certainly don't promote them... I mean, it was amazing in Canada to see the Orange surge when Quebec, (and other areas in Canada) voted largely NDP instead of Bloc Quebecois, promoting the NDP to the official opposition and effectively crippling the Liberal party. I'm not sure I fully understand why the people in the US don't just vote for someone other than a Democrat or Republican.

Bachmann, hijacker. Rand Paul, tea partier.

In my local tea party--this is down at the voting district level--some of the tea partiers started pushing us into social issues, so it certainly happens, but others of us pushed back and said, no disrespect, but that's not what the tea party is about, focus! They did.

What's important to realize here is it's tea parties. We are leaderless, dispersed. Like a starfish, not a spider.

Yes, the media is pretty much the propaganda arm of progressive and it is their aim to demonize by locating outliers and then spinning them as the norm.


Well, we will definitely disagree on economics, but generally speaking you need to have some regulations, but you're right in that they have to be the right kind.

Even as a practical minarchist I agree--though we leave undefined what is meant by the right kind. :-)


I'm not sure why more people don't vote for parties like the Libertarian party in the US....

$$$ Those politicians who accept the greatest bribes can make the greatest promises of giving everyone from social to corporate welfare recipients what they want.

And Canada has a different representative system, parliamentary, where different political parties can participate and form alliances. Where's kathaariancode, he's knows more about I think.

[Adelaide]

Bachmann, hijacker. Rand Paul, tea partier.

In my local tea party--this is down at the voting district level--some of the tea partiers started pushing us into social issues, so it certainly happens, but others of us pushed back and said, no disrespect, but that's not what the tea party is about, focus! They did.

What's important to realize here is it's tea parties. We are leaderless, dispersed. Like a starfish, not a spider.

Yes, the media is pretty much the propaganda arm of progressive and it is their aim to demonize by locating outliers and then spinning them as the norm.



Even as a practical minarchist I agree--though we leave undefined what is meant by the right kind. :-)



$$$ Those politicians who accept the greatest bribes can make the greatest promises of giving everyone from social to corporate welfare recipients what they want.

And Canada has a different representative system, parliamentary, where different political parties can participate and form alliances. Where's @kathaariancode (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=423), he's knows more about I think.

Yes, we're a Westminster-style parliamentary version of a constitutional monarchy. Our parties can form coalitions and do other things, such as prorogue parliament and have votes of non-confidence to dissolve parliament - but that doesn't mean the US can't also decide to vote for someone who isn't in one of the two major parties. As much as I find fault with the politicians in Washington (or Ottawa), if those politicians serve more than one term with their antics, it becomes the fault of the voter, in my opinion, for continuing to reward bad behaviour.

Gotcha with the Bachmann/Paul comparison. Those hijackers are pretty noisy...

I'm not sure it's a concerted effort to deceive viewers/readers with the Tea Party; crazy makes the news. If Bachmann ate some bath salts she'd be a triple threat.

[KC]

$$$ Those politicians who accept the greatest bribes can make the greatest promises of giving everyone from social to corporate welfare recipients what they want.

And Canada has a different representative system, parliamentary, where different political parties can participate and form alliances. Where's @kathaariancode (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=423), he's knows more about I think.

Yes, Canada uses a Parliamentary system, which makes it easier to have multiple viable political parties. In Presidential systems it's impractical to have multiple people running for President since (s)he is elected by the entire country, and any person who doesn't choose the winning candidate's vote is wasted. People have the best odds of choosing a winner if they choose from only two different options.

The Canadian system is more flexible because the Prime Minister comes from whatever party is able to form a government in Parliament. In order for a party to have a shot at governing it must be able to win elections in parliament, which is easier than appealing to an entire nation.

[JackRuby]

See now, I think of the Tea Party as also socially Conservative due to the various representatives that have been in the running or elected, many of whom have advocated for very Conservative social positions. Even though that isn't the official stance of the Tea Party movement in writing, the fact that so many followers advocate those positions puts them on par with the Reform Party in my mind. I think, if anything, the Libertarians would best represent a solidly fiscally conservative position, without the drama of wanting to legislate what people should be allowed to do with their bodies/personal lives. Which, aside from the social programs available in Canada, is largely the position we take, (we don't even technically have laws governing abortion, for example).

We did do really well with the recession, partly because of existing regulations and partly because of programs put in place quickly, (such as the Canadian Economic Action Plan). While we have many social programs, including universal health care, when spending gets out of control the government (provincial and federal) is generally very good at coming up with a way to manage it and balance the budget. For example, the Ontario government is in debt very badly and after months of arguing over how to fix it, they brought it an outside expert on economics. That expert suggested many ways of cutting costs and balancing the budget, which included cuts to health care and education. The government is now implementing many of the suggestions, as well as looking at additional options for paying off the debt and balancing the budget. Federally, I believe we've already balanced the budget, (last I heard from Flaherty, our Minister of Finance, anyways). Staying afloat comes before party politics.

The problem in the US is that it's been 4 years and you're still arguing. We didn't even have a majority until very recently in parliament, but shit still got passed. The deadlock in Washington is your biggest problem; partisanship before the people is the problem. My opinion, of course.

Partisanship is exactly our problem. On the other hand there are signs this is improving because people are fed up and leaving both parties in droves. If this continues, what could happen is that maybe both parties will have 10% each what's left of partisans, a total of 20 % and gee that would make them minority fringe parties. Well earned and deserved I would say.

Jack

[Chris]

Yes, we're a Westminster-style parliamentary version of a constitutional monarchy. Our parties can form coalitions and do other things, such as prorogue parliament and have votes of non-confidence to dissolve parliament - but that doesn't mean the US can't also decide to vote for someone who isn't in one of the two major parties. As much as I find fault with the politicians in Washington (or Ottawa), if those politicians serve more than one term with their antics, it becomes the fault of the voter, in my opinion, for continuing to reward bad behaviour.

Gotcha with the Bachmann/Paul comparison. Those hijackers are pretty noisy...

I'm not sure it's a concerted effort to deceive viewers/readers with the Tea Party; crazy makes the news. If Bachmann ate some bath salts she'd be a triple threat.

Bath salts are dangerous!

Anyway, thanks for discussion, I learned some more about Canada!!

[Peter1469]

:yo2: I won't even pretend to know enough about Canadian politics to criticize, but I will praise you all for being much more fiscally conservative than the US. You all fared well through the recession.

Regretfully fiscal conservatism gets mixed with social conservatism (in my mind, liberalism). Here the problem is the Republicans pay lip service to fiscal cons but abandon them for social and neo-cons come election time. --The tea parties are working on changing that, setting aside social issues for less taxes, smaller government and more liberty.

Here is the sort of thing we could learn:



@ We Can Cut Government: Canada Did (http://www.cato.org/policy-report/mayjune-2012/we-can-cut-government-canada-did)


Parti Rhinocéros is intentionally funny spoofing politics, our politics are all too ridiculously funny.

A big reason that Canada fared well in the last recession is that they did not let their banks and financial institutions get out of control. So they didn't have the related bubbles ready to burst.