suds

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.

From what I understand, construction companies are having a difficult time recruiting domestic labour. It's like Canadians all of a sudden either don't want to get their hands dirty or can get the same pay with more benefits for doing something else. If you want to attract more people to work in the trades then pay them more. Same with the family doctors.

Has anyone thought of government subsidizing the companies that hire tradesmen and apprentices in the fields of housing and infrastructure to attract more Canadians to those jobs? That way, pay increases shouldn't affect building costs, costs which would otherwise be passed on to new home buyers. Those in medicine are reluctant to be family doctors because of the high overhead costs. So do something about that also instead of removing perks such as the capital gains tax which only makes matters worse. Everything we do seems to be self defeating.

So basically you can increase a country's GDP growth by 1) increasing the productivity of the workers you already have, or 2) increasing the number of workers. But as we've found out, drastically increasing population through immigration etc, increases the GDP numbers but causes a whole host of other problems such as doctor and housing shortages. And how does inflation, debt, and rising unemployment fit into all of this? With the situation we're in now, increasing the productivity of workers we already have seems to make more sense but it's obviously something that can't be done overnight. In the 60's, one income families were the norm and then governments have gradually encouraged women to join the workforce to increase productivity (which didn't cause things such as housing and doctor shortages). So what do we do now?

What went on during the summer that preceded Jan 6 wasn't normal either but it happened. The only difference was that Jan 6 affected politicians and government buildings instead of ordinary Americans trying to protect their homes, businesses, and communities. Is that where the line should be drawn? I don't think so. Violent protest has a long history in the U.S. and they look at these things a lot differently then we do. But don't kid yourself either, a lot depends on whose doing the protesting and which political party they're affiliated to. Trump had no business doing what he did, but there were a few republicans that had legitimate grievances. The possibility of overturning the election was zero. All I can say for certain is that I would not put up with that violent rioting crap in my own country. We do see eye to eye on some things except when it comes to questioning authority. That's where you kind of surprise me.

Not a dysfunction of democracy but a dysfunction of security. And those in charge of security were forewarned. Over 1000 protesters charged and 100's imprisoned. But you figure there were no repercussions. If you want to live in a free country then this is the crap you have to accept once in a while. Next to nobody who entered the Capitol building that day was carrying a firearm. If the intent was to overthrow a government then these guys were strictly amateurs. .

Just so there's no misunderstanding...... 1) you believe it's undemocratic to question or not accept a Judge's decision, and 2) you believe one should be prosecuted for questioning or not accepting the validity of an election result. Have I got that about right?

A constitution is only a piece of paper, so I don't see how it could possibly prevent anyone from attempting to overturn an election. Although it can prevent them from succeeding (at least in countries where rule of law exists). I doubt there's anything in the U.S. Constitution that would allow (or be misconstrued to allow) a few politicians or an angry mob to decide who wins or loses.

I doubt there's a political party anywhere that puts country over party. If there was I'd vote for them. But unlike you I'm not a true believer in the sense that mainstream political parties can be seen as being black or white. The democrats claim to be the defenders of democracy while they engage in a number of things that are clearly undemocratic. Same for the republicans.