TTM

While I was quoting Marx, I'm not really interested in this devolving into a discussion about communism. I'm more interested in the democracy and capitalism angle

Near perfect isn't good enough. The U.S. is a constitutional republic with democratic elements. Near perfect is fine. Your constitutional republic is one example of a liberal (western) democracy. Replace "parliament" with "elected government bodies, including head of state" See above. I see nothing relevant.

Also, that one was related to US Politics...

No I meant thread. Marx was the second. Maybe it got lost in the submittal, but I'm positive I saw it (briefly) in the list of threads

Not clear what this thread has to do with U.S. politics specifically.....no parliament in the U.S. except for a legendary funk band. Except that it is a near perfect description of the current state of American politics. The US is a liberal democracy. The exact form is irrelevant to the point. "Money = speech" = "[an interpretation of the] U.S. Constitution [by the] Supreme Court" = institutionalizing corruption

US Politics ... "Trump is a neofascist" posted 2-3 hours ago. I was thinking about change the title and then noticed it was gone altogether.

Could I have accidentally overwritten the thread?

No it's gone. It was there before I posted my second thread (nine views no replies), but gone afterwords. It does not appear if I look under "content I started".

As far as I can tell because I used a term that can be considered pejorative. However, it is also descriptive; I would have used an alternative if one existed. Nothing in the post was factually inaccurate. The title could have been changed to protect those with delicate sensibilities.

Undue influence of the wealthy is always in issue, but can hopefully be minimized with appropriate rules and transparency. The US has been undermining those rules for decades and then completely jumped the shark with "money = speech". They have at this point basically instituted corruption.

Not that I've read any Marx, but (via Wikipedia) he apparently anticipated the modern American "democracy": ... liberal democracy, under capitalist ideology, is constitutively class-based and therefore can never be democratic or participatory ... According to Marx, representation of the interests of different classes is proportional to the influence which a particular class can purchase. Thus, the public interest, in so-called liberal democracies, is systematically corrupted by the wealth of those classes rich enough to gain representation. ... Thus, according to Marx, parliamentary elections are no more than a cynical, systemic attempt to deceive the people by permitting them, every now and again, to endorse one or other of the bourgeoisie's predetermined choices of which political party can best advocate the interests of capital. Once elected, this parliament, as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, enacts regulations that actively support the interests of its true constituency, the bourgeoisie. Marx ... not entirely wrong! Trump, (and Brexit, and various mostly "nationalist" parties across Europe) being an attempted rejection of this state of affairs. Similar to what happened after great depression in the 30s after the excesses of the 20s... (ps "bourgeoisie" via Marx is simply those who live off of capital and property, as opposed to those that live off of wages, the "proletariat")

Trump ran as a "neofascist". Was browsing Wikipedia and came across this definition of neofascism, and it sounds very familiar: Neo-fascism usually includes ultranationalism, populism, anti-immigration policies or, where relevant, nativism, anti-communism, anti-marxism, anti-anarchism and opposition to the parliamentary system and liberal democracy. I don't think anyone can argue that he did not run substantially on ultranationalism, populism, anti-immigration, and nativism: "Make America Great Again", kick out mexicans and Muslims, build a wall, cancel free trade agreements and bring back American jobs, etc. Anti-Marxism/communism/anarchism are pretty much moot in American politics so not relevant. As far as anti-liberal democracy, he did theaten to not abide by the results of the election, and to jail his political opponents. Even "draining the swamp" could be anti-liberal democracy, depending on how it was persued. **this post was originally a thread. Was moved here by Charles Anthony

Most post secondary institutions receive government funding (ex. for most universities tuition is less than half of the actual costs). As gov'ts cut back tuition increases. There is a direct relation

Sorry, 5%. Are still some loopholes, but also tightened borowing against equity, maximum gross debt service ratio, and probably some other rules. Doesn't change the basic point.

While rock bottom interest rates don't help, it was the loose rules that were the main problem. Most of the housing bubble/debt was run up under the loose rules--rules tightened up back to 25 years 10% down, and the problem largely went away (meaning it stopped getting rapidly worse, not that housing debt disappeared), despite the fact we still have rock bottom rates. I remember when the rules were loosened as I was looking for my first house, and having conversations about who would be stupid enough to do a 40 year Mortgage. Unfortunately the world is full of stupid people. The governments job is to see the forest. And four years a dribble at a time is not quick action.

LOL. You do realize the one of first thing the Conservatives did on coming to power was to loosen mortgage rules to 40 years, 0 down. They then spent the next several years after the recession (which they denied was happening, and which was caused largely by loose mortgage rules) slowly tightening the lending rules back up and hoping no one noticed. Apparently they largely succeeded. That does not make them good managers of the economywww.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jim-flaherty-vs-mortgage-amortization/

This suggestion does perhaps need some rethinking, but my thoughts at the time were (in order of importance): * It moves the power to appoint and dismiss these critical positions in gov't into the hands of elected representatives, rather than the party machinery * It shifts some of the balance of power between party leaders and regular MPs back to MPs. * It would allow MPs the power to replace less popular/competent leaders with more popular/competent ones. * It would allow things that are not possible under the current system: ex. an independant PM, or a PM who is not the party leader. In practice for the most part in majorities this would not change anything. As an example of what might change, I imagine Cretien would have got the boot from Martin a little sooner, rather than leaving on his own terms. Where a party leader is not elected (ex. Ignatieff) caucus simply elects a new one from the talent present. In a minority things would get somewhat more interesting, if only because the leader of the largest party would not necessarily get first dibs.

Read the report (or at least the overview) I posted regarding the world since WWII. Also read up on WWII. The scale of conflicts in the past is (much) greater than what is happening now on almost any conceivable comparison.

No, your wage money is going towards their wages.

Think of it as a redefinition of what "Party Leader" means. And these MPs are not "performing the business of the nation", they are naming officers of parliament. A secret ballot is the only way to get an unbiased selection.

Parties form an integral part of our political system, and the internal workings and composition of parties has a significant impact on how our political system functions. Therefore, there can and should be rules as to how parties work. The point of this specific change is because "central" party interference in "local" party selection of candidates moves our system from a "representational" democracy, towards what is effectively a "party list" democracy, especially where seats are relatively safe, regardless of candidate. As to parties being just another other "club", 4-H membership does not get placed on a ballot beside a candidates name, parliament does not give you special rights if you have "official 4-H status", you are not named Prime Minister if you are the leader of the largest 4-H contingent, etc.

How about this: the GG is elected by senators, from the body of the Senate. It obviously works better if the Senate is elected, and if the Senate is reformed for equal representation from the provinces. If equal it is then (to some approximation) appointment of the GG by the provinces. This framework could likely be adapted to work provincially for the lieutenant governors as well. If the Senate is made elected, I would strip from them the power to introduce bills, to limit them to the traditional, though more active, "second sober thought" role. Elections of senators would occur in conjunction with Provincial elections, with a constant "churn" of Senators, rather than the all-at-once turnover of MPs. To help prevent abuse of the reserve powers in the GG, upon use of these powers, the GG must step down (permanently?), and a new GG elected. On a marginally related note, suggested changes to rebalance the power away from the PM/Party Leaders and towards Parliament and their constituents: The Prime Minister is chosen/confirmed by secret ballot on the opening of each session of Parliament (all MPs being eligible for the job). Party leaders chosen/confirmed the same way though by (elected) members of party only. Significantly increase the number of MPs--smaller ridings = better representation (especially in small provinces), plus the greater number of "permanent backbenchers" = less incentive to tow the party line, more incentive to represent constituents. All party candidates must be selected by an open vote, by a riding association. The candidate must have lived in the riding for at least 2 years. The party cannot reject the candidate selected. If it really does not like the candidate, it can dissolve the entire riding association (and the candidate can sit as an independent if already elected). Elected members cannot (immediately) cross the floor to another party, until they have passed the scrutiny of the riding association (via a riding association vote).

There is a significant subset of CEOs that are overpaid. Compare the compensation of some CEOs to that of say, the Prime Minister of Canada (or even the POTUS).

See also: Human Security Report About the decline of conflict since the end of the second world war (and in particular after the cold war). Very interesting read. From the report: "The increase in battle deaths since 2003 needs to be seen in the context of the dramatic, though very uneven, decline in estimated war-death tolls since 1946. In 1950 (the first year of the Korean War) there were some 600,000 battle deaths worldwide; in 1972 (the deadliest year of the Vietnam War) the toll was more than 300,000; in 1982 (the height of the Iran-Iraq War) it was 270,000; in 1999 (when wars were being fought between Ethiopia/Eritrea and in East Africa’s Great Lakes region) it was 130,000. In 2008 the battle-death toll was 27,000." To put that into even better perspective: Year World Population (Millions) 1950 2,519 1970 3,692 1980 4,435 2000 6,070 2008 6,707 For an equivalent level of battle-deaths in 2008 compared to 1950, there would have to be ~1,500,000 battle-deaths that year. There were 27,000.

I would go so far as to say that BC is a master debater. Nearly every post demonstrates his master debating skills - clever comments designed merely to bait one into arguing against an essentially empty philosophy. He plays for his own pleasure only. For that, a tip of my hat and a wag of my finger. [Hi BC. Feel the love ... and feel the heat! ]