JamesHackerMP

I've already looked up most of this on Wikipedia, by the way, and I flipped through the 1867 constitution (or British North America) Act. OK, some of it at least.... 1. Why is there a leader of the official opposition, but also an Opposition House Leader? (Can I assume that the governing party has the same redundancy? the PM and a "Government House Leader"?) What precisely is the difference between the two? 2. Why does the Constitution make no mention of a prime minister at all? I skimmed the thing, and it mentions the Queen, her GG, the privy council, and the Parliament, and some other stuff. Does Mr Trudeau not constitutionally exist? (like it's all convention?) 3. Which level of government is supposed to have the most power, the federal? or the provincial? I hinted at this before in a thread on MLW and they told me something I didn't understand, involving imports/exports between provinces. 4. What do you divide a province into? And what are their governments like? (how are they organized exactly?) (In the US it's usually "counties" a state is divided into---do you have those?)

Why are people opposed to Trudeau? Just curious.

It seems that no one can claim the moral high ground.

I wouldn't move to Belarus or Kazakhstan if they paid me a million a year.

The mounties are cute lol. And they get a defensive bonus for fighting adjacent to a national park. I'm going to wait on the expansion since it's $40. Question is, does Laurier speak both in English and in French? Otherwise, he can get into trouble Which "stereotypes" are embraced? Besides hockey and mounties of course.

Just looked up the Canadian "constitution" on wikipedia. What surprised me is that there really is no such single, unified document; it's in pieces. A bunch of them. Interesting how in democracies, the law is written to the advantage of lawyers.

you too, thanks!

That's hilarious... BTW, I assume what you're celebrating is the Statute of Westminster? The law that made the "dominions" actual, free nation-states? I also assume that Manitouba is a misspelling of Manitoba, lol.

Doesn't the same thing happen in Canada? or similar? (because of first past the post voting) I certainly do not want people in CA and TX controlling the country. Pure "democracy" is overrated. On the other hand, the will of the people should operate in the government--albeit NOT absolutely.

skatey-punchey? I'm assuming you mean "hockey".

I like playing Gilgamesh, personally (Sumeria). Neat how you can build a ziggurat that beefs up your scientific output.

I like how Canada can't be attacked, or attack, without causus belli or whatever the game calls it. (The Faces of Peace?) And you can build the "ice hockey rink". Too funny.' Why Laurier and not MacDonald, though, I wonder.

Yeah it does seem they hide this stuff better. Maybe that is the big "difference".

Civilization has long represented many of the world's greatest empires, and I've seen Canadians comment on the message boards (for the game) that it's a pity their country hasn't been represented. Well, now it has! https://www.civilization.com/ (scroll down a bit to see) The leader representing Canada will be Wilfred Laurier. Some of this gave me a pretty good chuckle. Check it out.

Yeah I sort of laughed when Obama won it. It was clearly an attempt by the Europeans to prop up the nouveau regime.

I agree with you; the United States is a democratic republic, but it's also a federation and has to be represented like it. Things are more "democratic" at the state level where you have referenda, directly-elected governors (no state has an electoral college to elect the governor), and more frequently-updated state constitutions. The "ridings" (we call federal ridings "congressional districts" and state ridings "legislative districts") are smaller at the state level and contain less constituents. But of course, gerrymandering can eek into state redistricting as well. Before you see any wholesale reform or replacement of the electoral college, there needs to be the same of the presidential PRIMARIES first. Otherwise, a reform of the electoral college (or its termination) will be meaningless. If the primaries were different, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton might not have been NOMINATED in the first place. But that's another topic. Gerrymandering is hurting democracy, however. I worry less about the Electoral College than I worry about state and federal gerrymandering.

Couple things Altai: 1. We don't need you to set us straight. Thanks, but no thanks. Since you live in a country with a less free press than ours, what makes you think your information is better than ours? 2. What do you know about George Washington that we don't? 3. What gives you the right to speak for minorities in the U.S.? Please comment on all three points, I'm very curious.

No offense, but that's the most ridiculous comment that has flown around so far. "Peace" was IMPOSED on Japan and Germany by military force, of the most extreme kind. Modern Japan is largely the product of the American "Shogun" Douglas MacArthur. So, you think the world should drop nuclear bombs on America, too? There was no "peace and tranquility" before or after (or during) the time America "ruled the world". Nothing has change, and after America is no more, it will be SSDD. Let me tell you why the world hasn't destroyed America. America has 10,000 nuclear warheads with competent, state of the art delivery systems. Do you want a nation with that capability degenerating into chaos? Here's a few more facts that you have missed. Three U.S. presidents were awarded Nobel Peace Prizes, and two Secretaries of State, the same. (Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Barack Obama, Hnery Kissinger, and George C. Marshall, formerly a general in WWII.) That's the country the world would want to blow off the map?

One also wonders how I would be reacted to abroad if I took an interest in foreign politics. If I commented on a German election or party in Germany, even if I proved knowledgeable about it, would anyone tell me "Mind your own damn business, Yank?" (Only using Germany as an example, any country will do.) Yet of course, when my sister and her fiance went to the UK, every time they heard the American accent it was "Oh you're Americans! You're not voting for Trump are ya?"

People in democracies have short memories.

American liberals often glorify western Europe. They say these countries are better to live in in many respects. I don't doubt that they are, in some certain ways, but what gets ridiculous is that American liberals will praise western Europe for everything---and then quietly ignore the dark side. Take Denmark. After welcoming thousands of immigrants in with open arms--and being critical of the United States for OUR treatment of immigrants--they change their mind and decide to do things like this: https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/05/europe/denmark-immigrant-island-scli-intl/index.html If America did this--which it couldn't--Amnesty International would be up our butts faster than a rat through an aqueduct. We already take flack from liberals in the U.S. for our treatment of immigrants, and for tear gassing people who tried to storm the U.S. border checkpoint south of San Diego. But it's OK to do this sort of thing, because it's western Europe. It never fails to amaze me how the Left in America conveniently ignores the dark side of the continent it puts up on a pedestal. Now I realize many of the Brussels-mandated refugees haven't turned out to be model guests. But even I, a foreign policy hawk, think something like this goes too far. But trying telling that to far left Democrats.

Right on. We're certainly not the only country, or the first, to do the imperialist colonialist materialist thingy. The Arabs boycotted Coke (the six day war fallout) but only because they could still drink Pepsi.

There can't be a federal commission in the U.S. the same as you guys did, however. It might end up backfiring and handing power to Congress, and that's the last thing you want. It seems the solution to this problem is going to be anything but easy. I think only the courts can save us now, and the results from court rulings have been mixed. Some victories against it (Maryland) but sometimes gerrymandering was upheld (Texas). It sounds to me like some Canadian politicians managed to force other Canadian politicians to do what was right. Or, maybe it somehow benefits Canadian elected leaders? Part of the reason for the statistical disparity however, is first past the post elections. Part of it is gerrymandering. Good article but it doesn't tell the whole story. Nor does it reference California's infamous "jungle primaries" which are just as bad as gerrymandering for nudging out the minority party.

Wilber, the only thing that surprises me is that this thread has actually become more jingoistic than it was when you started it. I think there's enough trolls under the bridge at this point.

Is the banana in "banana republic" somehow Freudian? What shall we call Canada: the Maple Syrup Monarchy?