suds

It's the independents (or the common sense folks) who generally decide who wins or loses U.S. elections. So how about we let democracy do its thing and go from there? Republican or Democrat, which ever party loses is going to have to sit back and start asking themselves some serious questions.

Generally I'm not a big fan of elitism either. We vote for federal MP's, city councilors, mayors, school board trustees, provincial MPP's, and it's fairly egalitarian as far as I can see. But when it comes to our justice system, our Courts, and especially the Supreme Court, I think I'd start being a little picky and prefer those who were skilled in matters of the law and constitution. But that's me. You on the other hand want 'the people' to have the final say. And maybe to reduce the backlog, we can get Freddie the bootlegger to fill in and do some brain surgery in his spare time

Look bud, I'm not about to start playing silly little word games. If you can't understand what I'm trying to convey in response to Myata's posts then I'm finished with you.

It should be obvious to anyone by now that the term 'democracy' can be seen in a number of different ways. Is there a direct (majority rule) democracy in effect anywhere in the world today? And what exactly is 'my purpose'?

I don't think you do. I like liberal democracies, constitutional democracies, representative democracies, but not a big fan of direct democracies.

I've no problem with referendums in general, sometimes it's a good idea and sometimes it's not. Referendums are the perfect example of direct democracy and happen at the state level all the time. But they're not exactly 'final' because the U.S. Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. What you clearly want is the ability to hold referendums on U.S Supreme Court decisions and making it 'final'. Well good luck with that.... you'd better get rid of Article 3. The U.S. was created as a representative democracy and not a 'direct democracy' for good reason. For one thing, too much democracy may come at the expense of rights and freedoms as the founders feared. To put it more simply, one of government's most important roles is protecting the rights and freedoms of all citizens, while democracy suggests government should function strictly by the will of the majority. Btw.... how did brexit turn out?

There really is no such thing as a final say. Supreme Court rulings are often changed or overruled by subsequent Supreme Courts. There is an amendment process as others have pointed out. Allowing the people to have the final say brings us back to ancient Greece and majority (or mob rule). And what does the average American know about the law or unintended consequences by their decision making? If activist judges are what you're worried about a notwithstanding clause makes far more sense than what you're proposing.

If I was part of one of the bereaved families in attendance I think it would mean something that at least somebody showed up. In this particular case nobody has anything to apologize for. Yeah rules are rules but there are always exceptions.

From The Hill....... "According to Arlington National Cemetery’s media policy, filming and photographing is not authorized “for partisan, political or fundraising purposes, in accordance with the Hatch Act.” So how does this work now? The Hatch Act applies to all executive branch civil servants, but does not include the President or Vice President. Trump is neither President, Vice President, or a civil servant. So the problem is the photographer? But if that's the case, I can post a dozen photos of Presidents, Vice Presidents,and Past Presidents, laying wreaths at Arlington. So who took all these photos? Or is it a case of when Trump does it, it's political, but not when anyone else does it?

As long as one is a natural born U.S. citizen over 35, been a U.S. resident for the last 14 years, and not done anything too naughty or been thrown out of office..... just about anybody can run. Ross Perot ran for President in 1992 as an independent and at one point was leading Bill Clinton and Bush (the elder) in the polls. Some believed he was an authoritarian (oh my gawd!!!) because of the way he ran his successful businesses. What are you so afraid of? Someone running for President who you don't approve of?

The mob boss can decide whatever he wants, but it doesn't make it so. It's not undemocratic or unconstitutional to contest election results and leave it up to the courts to decide if need be. It happens all the time. I will admit that Trump went way too far with this. It proved to be an embarrassment to the Party and the country, and provided the democrats with all kinds of ammunition. Anyone who believes that Trump has the power to overturn election results is delusional. Can't happen in a country that has a solid constitution, a solid justice system, and abides by rule of law.

We supposedly live in a 'liberal democracy'. All democracy does is decide who makes the laws. It's liberalism that decides what the laws ought to be.

You're always yapping about democracy democracy democracy. So in your opinion, what's the difference between democracy and mob rule?

The thing about Trump is that he's really really good at firing up his base and getting them to show up and vote on election day. The polls mean nothing unless those you expect to vote for you, make the effort to do so. Harris doesn't have that charisma and it's likely in a close race why she stands to lose. Sure, the MSM can play her up real big but it's not the same thing. Democracy is for the people. How the 2 Parties select their nominees is up to them to decide. Then, democracy comes into effect when the people are handed their choices and they 'the people' make the final decision. There's nothing undemocratic about selecting Trump or Harris as nominees

If this is in response to my post, my intent wasn't to assign blame to any one side or the other. To my understanding being designated an essential service would prevent any type of work stoppage from occurring whether strike or lockout. The thing is that for a service to be designated an essential service there must be a serious threat to public health or safety if the service was interrupted. Which may or may not be the case with the rail strike/lockout depending on how long the work stoppage lasts. Usually lockouts by companies occur when their employees while not actually on strike are in strike mode or work to rule, or in other words doing the smallest amount of work possible.

Something like that happened to me once also. I was driving along wearing a big clumsy pair of boots and my boot on the accelerator got caught behind the back of the brake peddle when I wanted to apply the brakes. Now I'm very particular on the footwear I'm wearing while driving especially in the winter time.

Considering all the harm this rail strike can do to our economy, perhaps it should be considered an essential service. It also impacts the U.S. as well. Maybe Trudeau's waiting for a call from patient Joe.

Crash data that was downloaded from the vehicle (taken in the 5 second interval before the air bags deployed) shows the gas pedal 99% depressed and the brake pedal untouched. It certainly sounds like a mental issue.

So is ours. That's why we're in this catch-22 situation involving immigration, housing, and doctor shortages.

You would have been a lot better off if you had bought U.S. bank shares when the CAD was at par with the USD (or really any U.S. index for that matter). For the simple reason you would have made a double killing when U.S. shares and CAD/USD exchange rates went back to normal. Even gold which is priced in USD would have been a great investment at the time if bought with Canadian dollars at par with the USD. Of course, this is all in hindsight.

My understanding is that it would require a proposed constitutional amendment that would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

To my knowledge most governments do not or have never recognized the sanctity of life. Governments kill people all the time. They create weapons of mass destruction, and send young men and women off to war. We have a monopolistic healthcare system that decides who lives and who dies. Depending on circumstances, sometimes there are no honourable or righteous ways of doing things. As for politics, try and get elected by claiming you want to outlaw abortion. That's a pretty tough nut to crack in most cases.

Since there's really nothing I can see how government gains from abortion, I would have to imagine they're doing what the majority of Canadians have decided they want. Not to mention the Supreme court had a say in this.

You might be right. The laws and policies enabling abortion are nothing to be proud of. On the other hand, one would be a fool to believe that making abortion illegal would end it either. It would just take us back to a place and time where we don't really want to be.

The main component of an EV battery is lithium. Lithium as a commodity has been hammered, as well as the stocks of lithium producers. This is largely due to a combination of oversupply and lack of demand. They claim this imbalance won't correct itself until at least 2025.